The interaction between non-technical and technical risks in upstream natural gas project schedule overruns: Evidence from Australia

TransCanada was faced with a significant challenge to inspect a 941 km NPS 48 pipeline. The options for the inline inspection (ILI) were multiple segments which would cause an increased cost with new pigging facilities required and a delay to the ILI schedule or attempt to pig the longest natural gas pipeline section in North America. The extraordinary proposal would require a massive 48″ combination Magnetic Flux Leakage (MFL) tool to traverse a high-speed gas pipeline 941km from Burstall, Saskatchewan to Ile des Chenes, Manitoba, Canada. Given the alternative of the installation of 3 additional launcher and receiver stations and the risk to overall project schedule from extended inspection operations, TransCanada took the bold decision to perform an MFL inspection in a single pass. However, as expected, this option created a new set of challenges to guarantee first run success in one of the harshest environments for an ILI tool and in a line where the cleanliness condition was unknown. This last factor, was a critical concern as the volumes of debris that could be collected with the highly aggressive MFL tool brushes, could easily and very quickly have led to very significant debris build up during inspection that at best would likely cause degraded data leading to an unwanted re-run and at worst the possibility of a stuck pig and subsequent retrieval program. From a project perspective either occurance was considered to be mission critical — if either occurred there was no easy solution to collecting the much needed condition data of the pipeline. In July 2017, a successful VECTRA HD GEMINI inspection was completed. This paper discusses the main program risks, mitigation steps taken over and above a standard ILI run. Key considerations and actions taken relating to additional engineering and tool modifications to various components of the inspection vehicle itself will be discussed. Lastly, insight will be given into an extensive smart cleaning program developed with the ILI vendor, using a combination of mechanical cleaning associated and debris level assessment, specifically designed and tailored for the project to ensure that the pipeline was both ready for ILI and that cleaning had reached optimum for ILI so that full, high quality MFL data would be collected the first time.

Download Full-text

Forms of time in Alaska natural gas development

Polar Record ◽

10.1017/s0032247411000702 ◽

2011 ◽

Vol 49 (1) ◽

pp. 42-49 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Arthur Mason

Keyword(s):

Natural Gas ◽

Development Time ◽

Energy System ◽

Energy Markets ◽

Problem Of Time ◽

Natural Gas Development ◽

Commercial Enterprise ◽

Technical Risks ◽

Energy Companies ◽

Energy Transportation

ABSTRACTEnergy companies and builders of energy transportation infrastructure find it difficult to evaluate Arctic natural gas development. Their business critical decisions require the assessment of not just technical risks but intangible issues regarding the future and past interactions of an energy system. These concerns call attention to the problem of time. In this article, I examine three types of time from which efforts to commercialise Alaska natural gas are drawn into the temporality of global energy markets: (1) volatility time, in which price spikes determine outcome; (2) government time, in which law and regulation assist in commercial enterprise, and; (3) entrepreneurial time, in which individuals of industry take initiative. These types of expectation in Alaska natural gas development correspond consequently to three methods for fixing time and space. In short, they are three development time-spaces or chronotopes. By offering these forms of time, taking place between 2000–2005, this article draws attention to concrete visualisations of constructing a pipeline to deliver natural gas from Alaska to continental United States. I argue that these efforts represent precise and well-marked steps and reflect a specific course of development, passing from self-confident ignorance, to self-reflective consultation and finally to genuine understanding.

Download Full-text

Influence of Non-Technical Risks on Project Schedule Overrun: The Perspective of Upstream Gas Projects in Australia

10.4043/29238-ms ◽

2019 ◽

Author(s):

Munmun Basak ◽

Vaughan Coffey ◽

Robert K. Perrons

Keyword(s):

Project Schedule ◽

Technical Risks

Download Full-text

Liquefied Natural Gas Pipeline Suspension Bridge Design

Volume 1: Project Management; Design and Construction; Environmental Issues; GIS/Database Development; Innovative Projects and Emerging Issues; Operations and Maintenance; Pipelining in Northern Environments; Standards and Regulations ◽

10.1115/ipc2006-10461 ◽

2006 ◽

Author(s):

David J. Queen ◽

Andreas Felber ◽

Clark Scarborough ◽

Peter Taylor

Keyword(s):

Natural Gas ◽

Suspension Bridge ◽

Liquefied Natural Gas ◽

Processing Plant ◽

Project Schedule ◽

Minimal Impact ◽

Design Changes ◽

Final Design ◽

Unstable Slope ◽

Construction Schedule

A new Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) plant, in Equatorial Guinea, Africa required a pipeline corridor with supplementary utilities from the processing plant at about 55 m (180’) above sea level, down to the marine loading facility. The use of conventional structures and foundations on the unstable slope had substantial associated costs and risk. Various options were considered and the suspension bridge solution, avoiding the geotechnically unstable slope by providing tower foundations above the slope on stable ground and in the ocean, was selected. Buckland & Taylor Ltd. developed the final design of a 350 m (1148’) main span inclined deck, suspension bridge to carry the pipeline corridor across the unstable geotechnical slope. The configuration of the bridge was dictated by the site conditions and the allowable movements of the pipelines. The superstructure consists of steel towers approximately 60 m (197’) tall with two main cables, each composed of three 89 mm (3 1/2”) strands, supporting a 12 m (39.4’) wide truss deck system. The deck of the bridge is fully grated for safety and ease of installation of the pipes and utilities once the main bridge structure was complete. With the pipes in position, the walkway provides continuous access to the pipelines and utilities for future maintenance, as well as provides a fixed pedestrian route from the plant to the loading facility. The details of all of the components were developed to address the demanding schedule, available fabrication facilities, shipping restrictions to the remote location, flexibility in the erection sequence and ease of construction. Repetitive structural components were detailed to simplify fabrication, facilitate transportation to the site and improve the schedule during construction. The aggressive project schedule dictated that field investigations were still being undertaken while final design was being completed. Buckland & Taylor Ltd. made design changes to suit field conditions or methods of construction with minimal impact on fabrication and construction. The design process considered various methods of erecting the bridge to simplify details and improve the construction schedule. The design of the suspension bridge was initiated in August 2004, with the conceptual design complete in a month and the detailed design issued for construction in January 2005. The main foundation construction and structural steel fabrication proceeded immediately with priorities set to meet the construction schedule. With the progress of design, fabrication and construction, Buckland & Taylor Ltd. anticipates that pipes will be installed on the bridge 20 months after the start of design.

Download Full-text