I actually agree with that sane and non hyperbole opinion.And the anti inviornment bs in the "budget" bill,it's only going to get worse
I actually agree with that sane and non hyperbole opinion.And the anti inviornment bs in the "budget" bill,it's only going to get worse
Been 3 derailments within a few miles of me the last few years,I have the trans Canada pipeline also 100 meters from my home,no problems yet.With rail, you know there's a spill pretty much the moment it happens and how much was spilled. Nothing is goofproof
Been 3 derailments within a few miles of me the last few years,I have the trans Canada pipeline also 100 meters from my home,no problems yet.
Lots of leaking lines are very old,they cut a lot of corners 30 years ago on some jobs.
Expect a lot more.
The sad fact of the matter is that while technology has progressed in many respects, the overwhelming mindset in the energy industry is the same as in the rest of the market driven economy: do it faster and as cheap as you can get away with. Randy Eresman (CEO of Encana) was on record for telling his employees that he wanted them to challenge the regulators on many of the regulations they had to obey (i.e. put the onus on the regulatory bodies such as ABSA and the ERCB as to "prove" why they were applicable and should be followed): unfortunately on asset integrity side of the business, those regulations are there because of environmental catastrophe or loss of life, so challenging them doesn't help avoid failures. In many cases (like Encana's numerous failures on shallow sweet gas gathering lines in SE Alberta) the consequences are minor, so the motivation to avoid them is minor as well.
Been 3 derailments and they knew the moment it happened, how much was aboard and how much, if anything, spilled. Can you claim the same for pipelines built by the lowest bidder and maintained as cheaply as possible in the name of profit?Been 3 derailments within a few miles of me the last few years,I have the trans Canada pipeline also 100 meters from my home,no problems yet.
Lots of leaking lines are very old,they cut a lot of corners 30 years ago on some jobs.
Expect a lot more.
Sorry, but as a corrosion engineering and inspection professional in the energy industry, I can tell you quite honestly that in many cases, all that is done is enough to make some execs in some towers in Calgary feel like they can tie things up in court long enough to act as a disincentive to prosecute them, or break a small company/individual in a civil suit. It is CYA, but only to a point where it you're unassailable, not necessarily in the right. There is a lot more than can, and in many cases SHOULD be done, but these things take time and shave a percentage point or 2 off the profit margin, thus are ignored. Changes have come to the industry, especially on things like the construction end, but usually its driven by a sudden catastrophic event.Nope,theres an inspector for allmost every 2 guys on the pipeline now,pictures and video are taken through every step of the job,due diligence,this stuff can come back to bite you in the ass 30 years later so better do it right and to engineer specs.
Cover your ass,name of the game now a days.
It's good to hear some honest talk from someone actually in the industry.Sorry, but as a corrosion engineering and inspection professional in the energy industry, I can tell you quite honestly that in many cases, all that is done is enough to make some execs in some towers in Calgary feel like they can tie things up in court long enough to act as a disincentive to prosecute them, or break a small company/individual in a civil suit.
Not sure where your getting your perspective on Oil exec in the Calgary Towers, but to imply that they would support an oil spill is just pure silly.Sorry, but as a corrosion engineering and inspection professional in the energy industry, I can tell you quite honestly that in many cases, all that is done is enough to make some execs in some towers in Calgary feel like they can tie things up in court long enough to act as a disincentive to prosecute them, or break a small company/individual in a civil suit. It is CYA, but only to a point where it you're unassailable, not necessarily in the right. There is a lot more than can, and in many cases SHOULD be done, but these things take time and shave a percentage point or 2 off the profit margin, thus are ignored. Changes have come to the industry, especially on things like the construction end, but usually its driven by a sudden catastrophic event.
Not sure where your getting your perspective on Oil exec in the Calgary Towers, but to imply that they would support an oil spill is just pure silly.
Nobody wants an oil spill, nobody wins with an oil spill, least of all the CEO's of any company.
Like anything there is always more that can be done but it always comes down to reaching the appropriate levels of risk.
Even cars can be made more safer, but even here it comes down to a number of professionals making a judgement decision.
So I think your comments are based on a lack of knowledge and a baise to only your trade.
+200ok. Since you're displaying a lack of reading comprehension and trying to invent statements for/by me, no, no one wants a spill or leak, but there is a very real limit to what most execs in calgary will do to prevent one, when it means a project gets delayed or even in some cases, if the budget increases.
Risk assessment is a phrase they like to throw around when really most people don't have a true appreciation for the consequences. Its all well and fine until its your property and loved ones that become at risk because someone decided that $150 000 needed to be trimmed off a $5 million project. In many cases the decisions aren't made by engineers, but by mbas and accountants, who have no technical knowledge to base their decisions on, just an understanding of profit margins and how larger ones translate into bigger bonuses for them.
And i don't what language you're butchering with "a baise to only your trade" but my comments are made as a professional with over 25 years in the oil & gas industry, 15 of it dealing with asset integrity, and someone who grew up in and lived all his life in and around the industry. I also realize internet credential claims are worth exactly what you pay to read them, but i am telling to read and think, not skim and pass judgement. I don't have a hate on for it: I work in it and respect the majority of hard working, honest people who earn their livings through it, but by the same token, i am also well versed in the downsides and clusterf***s that can result from idiots in high office making poor decisions.
Been 3 derailments and they knew the moment it happened, how much was aboard and how much, if anything, spilled. Can you claim the same for pipelines built by the lowest bidder and maintained as cheaply as possible in the name of profit?
Sorry, but as a corrosion engineering and inspection professional in the energy industry, I can tell you quite honestly that in many cases, all that is done is enough to make some execs in some towers in Calgary feel like they can tie things up in court long enough to act as a disincentive to prosecute them, or break a small company/individual in a civil suit. It is CYA, but only to a point where it you're unassailable, not necessarily in the right. There is a lot more than can, and in many cases SHOULD be done, but these things take time and shave a percentage point or 2 off the profit margin, thus are ignored. Changes have come to the industry, especially on things like the construction end, but usually its driven by a sudden catastrophic event.
That's much different than your claims the other day, about how great and safe it is in Alberta.Theres good companies and bad ones,the bad ones wont be around in a couple years when the fines start rolling in.
That's much different than your claims the other day, about how great and safe it is in Alberta.
That's an excellent idea!!!Instead of executive bonuses being a given or based on profits they should be based on safety and regulatory compliance. In the long run it would be much more profitable for shareholders.
Probably the oil industry much like the forest industry needs to take control away from bean counters and MBAs and put it back in the hands of professionals.
Theres good companies and bad ones,the bad ones wont be around in a couple years when the fines start rolling in.
I worked for Resdin inspections,I know how it works.
You probably know my old boss Deano
That explains a lot.But there is a significant level of removal from construction inspectors and the actual operations of a facility...
I acknowledged the problems with liners. But all I got from the usual chest thumpers was, there's no problem, Alberta is just awesome.p.s. for the record I think the fraccing thing is unjustified hysteria (see the one post Capt Morgan made about it): the sources of any contamination are from poor cement jobs/poor bonds with casing/water producing zones, which has been an issue for years (water zones are usually where you get "lost circulation" zones while drilling and are notoriously hard to seal off from a wellbore), and poor management of fluids on surface, which again has been an issue for years with people who want to take short cuts.