Will You Autograph This Framework, Dr. Leewis?

0:00 Rhett: On this edition of Pipeline Things, we bring back Dr. Keith Leewis, right? It's Doctor? Keith: Doctor, yeah. Rhett: Who joins us to talk about the basic rupture framework and joining the United States as the 51st State. Welcome, Keith. Keith: Thank you very much. But I thought it was going to be 13 States. Rhett: The first time we've had a guest participate on the intro. Join us for Pipeline Things. (upbeat music) 0:37 Rhett: Welcome to the PPIM edition of Pipeline Things. This is our third time shooting at PPIM and the first time that we have miss producer here and everyone's healthy. So I'm really excited. So, If you're joining us on this episode, we have a return guest, which means two things. I assume that he really enjoyed the last time and that he likes us. And that is Mr. Keith Leewis, and who's soon going to be a member of the 51st state for the United States. So, Keith, how do you feel about that as a Canadian citizen? 1:08 Keith: Well, it's not for sale, but if it is, it's 13 states. And you know, we're Kind of like communists, so they'll all be social democratic. You know what that's gonna do to the Senate? Anyway, Rhett: But you just get two senators. That's all you get right? No. Keith: No, we're gonna get 13 states. Rhett: Eh… Keith: You know what the better ideas? Rhett: What's that? Keith: Why don't you get rid of the east and north, wait, the west coast and the northeast. Rhett: Just partition them off? Keith: No, they'll become part of Canada. And then… Rhett: There are People here will might take you up on that offer, but we have, we have, we have, our some of our employees work on that side, so I don't know if we just cut them off. 1;46 Keith: Yeah, no, you wouldn't cut them off. It's just like Rhett: International company. Keith: You're all in North America, right? And you know what? I think we could also then have a pass, so you go between both countries, and you wouldn't have to worry about immigration from Canada anymore. Rhett: Man, they don't like me. It's true. Did they let your in easily? Do they give you a hard time? Keith: Oh, shit, I had to do a lot of paperwork to get into the states. Rhett: Really? Are you serious? Keith: Yeah, I had like six inches worth. And you know, Melania, I don't know how much paperwork she did. Rhett: Did you tell them you knew us? Keith: Because I got an H1B. Yeah, that was before I think you guys were still in Rhett: Diapers. Keith: High school. 2:24 Rhett: Well, welcome. Thanks for playing along with that joke. You did So the audience is like, wow. Keith: Rhett: What was that? What just happened at PPIM? That's the state of things here. We're feeding off the energy and the vibe. So, Keith, we brought you back because in this series, we're covering papers that were done at PPIM. And you wrote a paper called “Basic Rupture, A framework to Improve the Likelihood of Failure Consequences”. Now, in full disclosure to the audience, I was familiar with this because you've been trying to incorporate this into B318 for quite some time. And it's a massive addition and we've struggled with where do we put it? Do we put it in the body? And so, when I saw this opportunity, I was like, I think this is a cool topic to bring you back on again. Keith: Well, B -31A, it's been simplified. We just referenced it now. So, we didn't put it in the appendix. Rhett: Oh, really? Keith: So that, and having a good reference important. Um, so yeah, it makes it simpler for the language. Rhett: Well, that's good. Make it easy to do the homework. Keith: Yeah. Rhett: Yeah. So, tell us a little bit about this. If you don't mind. So last time we bought you on in the Sage series, you talked about the evolution of PIR, which is still one of my favorite episodes when you talked about where that came from. And you talked a lot about the fact that we have little to no granularity on the consequence of failure. Keith: That's correct, yeah. Rhett: And so, is this work the evolution of that moving forward, or is that how you pursued this work here? Keith: Well, that's what I think. So, right now, you're either in HCA or you're not. Black and white, right? Rhett: Yes. Keith: So, if we can take that and put it into if you're in an HCA and it leaks, that's less of a consequence. And if you rupture, It's what's in the PIR equation already, right? Because we assume that everything ruptures, and we know it doesn't. Rhett: Interesting. So, this gives us the ability to further break down HCA's and even really non-HCA’s - it's not just limited HCA's But it does give you enhanced granularity in your HCA locations. Keith: So if you remember HCA's are not in B318. Rhett: Correct. Keith: And that's because you're supposed to do it from start to finish. But back in 2001, we couldn't do the entire pipeline for a variety of reasons. 4:48 Keith: And so, we worked with the PHMSA to start an HCA. The PHMSA's always wanted to do more. So now we have MCA’s— Rhett: What was the original promise, didn't you tell us that was an original promise? 5:03 Keith: The original idea was to keep it reasonable, so we do the 20 houses, righ? And identified sites and now we're down to five houses for MCAs Christopher: I was gonna say now we have HCAs and MCAs, at least state-side, right? Keith: Yeah. 5:21 Keith: So and if you but - Maybe the promise you were talking about was the Inga. So, we were trying to get 10 years ago to try and get anywhere there's a house done by this year. Rhett: I must say there was a promise I remembered. It was to have like a hundred percent done by 2025. Keith: No, 2030. Rhett: 2030. Keith: 'Cause that would count the parts we don't have houses in, right, or identified sites. Christopher: And it's not maybe from a house perspective, like a consequence perspective, but from a probability of failure perspective, we do see some of the new regulation generally addressing that. So, for example, if we look at assessments outside of HCAs, that's where they kind of target MCAs. So, you have to assess MCAs. However, if there is a feature that's reported that meets criteria, even if not in an HCA or an MCA, you still have to respond to it, right? Keith: Yeah, so you still, that's why ILI is so good 'cause it goes from launcher to receiver, and we get everything in between. Christopher: And now regulation, I guess what I was getting to, now regulation kind of covers that full scope now, right? Whether it's HCAs, MCAs, or if a feature is reported, even if it's not in an MCA, it still has a scheduled response to it. Keith: Yeah, so the response Scheduling in HCA's and MCA's is different than what's left over, right? Christopher: Correct. Keith: And so the, the reason that we had the response in there was to try to make sure people were protected. Christopher: Yeah. Keith: Okay, and we couldn't do the whole thing, so we had to limit the amount of response Rhett: Because of the 486s, you told us that last time, the darned 486s. Keith: Yeah. Rhett: So it's like-to Keith- I want to bring it back around to the the- the leak first rupture. Tell us a little about how is this currently done and really what's different in this framework that you've given. Keith: Well, most of us will actually use fitness or service to determine if it's going to leak a rupture. But not all of us know how to do that, especially the smaller companies where they may have only one person that does integrity. So, this is a tool to help you understand where you're most likely going to fall. So, we did in the order of what, 30,000 calculations with different toughness and in diameters and wall thickness. And also different depth and length of corrosion and cracks. And we plotted all up and in clouds. Okay. And so then what we tried to do, and so this is in the report. Christopher: Sure. Keith: And then what we tried to do is let's put some sense on that and use some of the things we've been doing over the years. Now one of the problems we've used as a rule of thumb is 30%. Anything below 30 % won't rupture. Rhett: 30 % of SMICE? So, if the pipeline's operating below 30% of SMICE, I want the audience to hear that, the rule of thumb is that you shouldn't get a rupture. Christopher: You're less concerned of rupture. 8:28 Keith: Yeah, well there are outliers. And so that's why we wanted to try and get rid of the outliers as well. Christopher: Yeah. Keith: So, you'll see on the diagram, it's divided up into three areas. Christopher: Okay. Keith: So, in the lower area, so BR1, everything leaks. Okay? In the middle area, BR2, cracks, leak, and wall thickness like corrosion will rupture. Christopher: Got it. Keith: Okay? Christopher: Yep. Keith: And in the other BR3, everything ruptures. Christopher: So, help us see what you're saying. So, we're looking at a two -dimensional plot. Are we doing like lower left, middle, upper right, like a traditional wrist matrix? Keith: It's a two-dimensional plot. And so, the origin has everything leak. Christopher: Sure. Keith: And the farther you go from the origin. 9:27 Christopher: Crack and metal loss rupture. Keith: It goes to rupture. Christopher: Perfect. Keith: And so the y-axis is actually the failure prediction, Christopher: Okay. Keith: Over the actual pressure you're operating at. So, the closer you come to the origin, the safer you are, Christopher: Yeah. Keith: Right? And the other, the Y-axis is actually the PIR. So, the higher up you go, the bigger the damage area. Christopher: So X -axis is PIR? Keith: No, Y is PIR. Christopher: Okay. Keith: And X. Christopher: X is failure pressure over MOP. Keith: MOP, yeah. Christopher: Got it. Or M -A -O -P. Christopher: Or M -A -O -P, sure. Keith: Now, if you don't, because you need to do a calculation to get failure pressure. Christopher: Yeah. Keith: And if you can't do that, you can substitute SMYS. So, it makes it more conservative. And if you look on the paper, you'll see a couple of vertical lines, which are 72% Christopher: Yeah. Keith: 60 % Christopher: Yeah. Keith: 50 % and 40 %. Christopher: I thought you were going to get to 30%, I thought you were going to get to 30% okay yeah so again it makes it easy, right? You have two components. Keith: Yeah so if you if you start, I don't know if they can see it, but at the origin, the length of your vector is not only the chance of failure, but the consequence. So, it's a kind of risk. Rhett: Gotchu. Keith: But we don't, we don't have any receptors in there. Okay. So, you still have to have the receptor part. Christopher: Yeah, and I think our first observation, right? For the audience is it's, this is a means to understand risk without necessarily needing Rhett: A detailed response. Christopher: Feature dimensions, right? Keith:That's right, you don't need the feature dimensions. Christopher: Yeah. Keith: And you don't have to do RP 579 or ASM. Christopher: All you're doing is you're looking at PIR on your Y -axis, Keith: Yeah. Christopher: Which often we have, 'cause we're already doing things like HCA class. And then on the X -axis, you said you'd get default if you wanted to SMICE. Keith: So, you need the pressure that you're operating at. Christopher: Yeah, Keith: And that's on both axes, right? Christopher: Yeah, Keith: You need the diameter. So that's on the y-axis, right? Christopher: Yeah, Keith: And you need to know your MAOP. Rhett: Which is on the bottom. Keith: If you don't know that, you have a problem. 11:58 Keith: So, it gives you a start. Christopher: Yeah. Rhett: So again, I want to break it down. So, you said there's three boundaries. There's BR1, which is, everything's gonna leak right? And I assume that's your lowest chance of failure and your lowest PIR. Keith: Yeah, Rhett: So it's down. I would guess it's down here. Then you have- Keith: Actually, It looks sort of like this. Rhett: Oh, that's right. I remember. Yes, Keith: And then the other one looks like this, right? Rhett: Got you, and then that rupture boundary or that second- sorry BR2 was cracks leak, Keith: Yes. Rhett: But corrosion ruptures. Keith: Yeah, that surprised us too. Rhett: It did surprise me a little bit. When you said it, and I'm like, I remember going through this on the pre-show, then you said it again, and I had to, I wrote it down, and I was like, let me repeat it. And then RP3, BR3 is everything. Keith: Yeah, so when you think about it, the crack has support around it as well, at the ends and stuff. And when you're looking at general wall-loss, it's really thinning and then plastic, right? So, yeah, some sort of as an aside, when we were building P squared, Christopher: Oh! Ok. Keith: We took pipe with real defects in it that Shahani found, and we put a grid system on it. So, we had strain gauges every centimeter, right? And when we pressurized it up, you could see the floor of the corrosion lift. And so, there was tension. And the perimeter of the corrosion went into compression. It rotated. 13:30 Keith: And then as you put more pressure, everything's in tension. Rhett: Yeah. Keith: So, I hadn't seen that before. That was really neat. I don't have that information because, Christopher: Yeah, Keith: TransCanada, we did it for TransCanada, they own it all. But that was a sort of a nifty thing that sort of fits into what I'd always thought, and we had that, but- So the thin area is the one that bursts and that cracks are supported like they have the C clamp on each end. Christopher: Got it. Keith: Kind of thing Rhett: So I want to restate it for the audience before we move towards a break. Very clearly. This framework- what it does for you is if you're not doing advanced fitness for service calculations on a database of hypothetical features- corrosions and cracks- you have managed for operators to define the likelihood of a rupture, based on their operating conditions and the geometry of the pipe. Keith: Yeah, so because we did a whole range of geometries. Now- when we talked the last time, somebody, Chris, asked, "What was the lowest sharpie?" The lowest that we used was 2.5. But the new regulation that came out in 2019 after we wrote this is 1. Rhett: That's a great point to take a break on. So, we're going to come back, and we're going to pick up this conversation with Keith, where I also want to get into how do operators use this? I want to pause for a moment on that thought of we started with 2.5, now PHSMA has given us 1, and what does this mean for you? How do you put this to practical use? We'll be right back. [BREAK] 15:27 Rhett: Welcome back to Pipeline Things where we are in the midst of our discussion on the basic rupture framework with Keith Leewis. So, I want to recap it for the audience, because Miss. Producer said I was unclear. So let me be quite clear. We have worked to date which y'all have developed is a framework that based on the operating conditions of the pipeline and the geometric properties of the pipeline, where you exist with regards to the risk of rupture or leak. And there are three categories. What they found is there is class BR1, which is you should only get leaks, no ruptures. Then there's category BR2, which would either be you're operating at a higher pressure, or a, I'll say maybe higher likelihood of failure. And in that category, you have corrosion that will rupture and cracks that will leak. Keith: Correct. Rhett: And that was a surprise. We talked about it. And then the third category BR3 is everything ruptures whether it's a corrosion or a leak. Keith: Yeah, the PIR is then the default Rhett: Gotcha. Yeah, so where I want to go with this for our audience and for you is two questions I really want to tackle. Who is this for? So, you've already alluded to the fact that if you're running a bunch of fitness for service calculations, you would already get the information you need. So, this is obviously for operators that maybe either don't have access, don't have time, or don't have resources. Keith: Or don't have the data. Rhett: Or don't. Christopher: Yeah. Rhett: So that's a good one. Don't have the data. Christopher: And I think the who is also not just like the person, but rather the circumstance. Right? Keith: That too. So, you may have to use an outside firm to help you do your fitness for service. Christopher: Yeah. Keith: You may not have time for them to do all of that. So, this gives you the opportunity to take a stab at it in the beginning and then get better information later on. Christopher: Yeah. Keith: So, as we talked about, the origin is the safe spot, right? Christopher: Yeah. Keith: And as you move up the X-axis, your probability of failure increases. And as you move up the y-axis, the damage increases 'cause your diameter goes up too. Christopher: Which is why you call it risk, right? Keith: Yeah. Christopher: You have consequence on one side and probability failure on the other. Keith: Yep. Christopher: So pretty basic terms. Keith: Well, think of it as basic rupture, it's another way. Christopher: Yeah. 'Cause sometimes risk gets confused 'cause people use it for a lot of things like the probability of failure. Christopher: Yeah. Keith: Sometimes they use risk. So, if you take a vector from the origin, Christopher: Yeah. Keith: And you run it out, the longer the vector, the more chance of damage and probability of failure. So, it's the type of risk, right? Christopher: Yeah. Keith: So if you're gonna decide where to do pigging first and you haven't done it, you should do it where the vector is the largest. Christopher: Yeah. Keith: Right, Christopher: And that's the- and that's the how am I using this, right? Keith: Yeah. Christopher: So let's get a little bit practical right? What, what is the practical consumer for this? It would maybe somebody who's an LDC who has some unpiggable assets. 18:34 Keith: Yeah. Christopher: And they're trying to understand where they want to start investing resources to, to begin to mitigate some of the risk they have. Well where do I get my risk in the first place. This is an opportunity. Keith: This is an opportunity. Christopher: This is a great way to start trying to figure out where risk is, to try to identify where I want to start investing resources for all these unknowns and uncertainties. Keith: So, for the more sophisticated one, they don't do anything other than the default. So, at all ruptures. So, this gives them a chance to take the HCA and the MCA and split it into two, Christopher: Yeah. Keith: Um, types of, of consequence, right? Christopher: Yeah. Keith: And then, but for the less sophisticated one, it gives you a chance, well, do I actually spend money on this line to make it piggable or not? Christopher: So, the question that comes to mind is, why should we trust this? 19:27 Christopher: It seems pretty simple, right? And you kind of alluded that a little bit, right? You said, well, we ran a lot of, you know, scenarios and we created clouds. Talk to us a little bit about what that looked like again. So, I could have faith in that, you know, if I'm in LDC and I've got 200 assets and I'm trying to use this, how do I know that the conditions, the inputs that you all used, I should feel some kind of comfort in that, that reaches my scenario, that reaches my scenario for my asset. Keith: Yeah, so if you go back to the report, you can see the clouds. Christopher: Yeah. Keith: And so, there are separate ones for cracks and separate ones for corrosion. Christopher: Yeah. Keith: Right. And so we used the clouds to try and put the lines in a reasonable spot. Christopher: Yeah. And what are the clouds? Keith: Oh, the clouds are the failure points for the different diameters to different SMYS and- Christopher: different hypothetical flaws. Keith: Yeah. And so, we did the whole gamut, and we used the type of pipe that's out there. Christopher: Yeah. Keith: So if there's not pipe in the PHMSA database, then we didn't use that diameter and that wall thickness, but we used all the other possibilities in there in order to cover it. And then we did a variety of different lengths and depths. So we only did the two parameter type, right? So, we didn't do R-string or anything of that nature. So, we kept it simple, the two parameter and we used a wide range of lengths and depths for those things as well and so that makes up the clouds, Christopher: Sure. Keith: The darks and then the whole idea was, well how do we make sense out of this? And how can we use things that we've been working at so that was one of the reasons we put, if you use SMYS then these lines would give you an idea of what class you're in. Right? 21:13 Christopher: Got it. Keith: And then for the horizontal ones, which have to do with the damage, we used one foot radius and a hundred foot and three hundred and that seemed to fit. Three hundred is like half of the furlong, right? The six hundred feet. Christopher: Yeah. Keith: Okay. So- Rhett: Furlong. Keith: Yeah. Yeah. Nobody uses furlong anymore, but it goes back to the original. And we can talk about why we picked 660 feet another time, okay? Christopher: Yeah. Keith: But anyway, so we chose half of that and anything over 300 is a problem. Plus, we're at intersected with the clouds as well. Christopher: So, last question related to source data. I heard you say the PHMSA of database? Which one? 'Cause there's a lot of PHMSA databases potentially. Keith: Oh, we used the incident one. Christopher: Perfect. Keith: Okay. Rhett: Gotcha. Keith: And so whatever's in the incident one, we used as a basis for choosing diameter, well-thickness, and defect sizes. Christopher: Perfect. Keith: Okay. Rhett: So, one of the things that's a little sticky in me is if an operator has regulated pipe, and they already have HCA's, Keith: Yes. Rhett: How does this help an operator who already has an HCA and has to find response criteria per 192 or 195? 22:34 Keith: Well, one of the things they do is many of the operators I see just say, if it's in an HCA, then that's it. But now, maybe what you want to do is, is it going to rupture or is it gonna leak? Christopher: Yeah. Keith: Right? So, if it's leak, don't give it the same priority in response that you would for a rupture. Rhett: Gotcha. Keith: Now, to make it even simpler an idea, what you could do when you run the circles down, 'cause the circle for the PIR is 1 % lethality. Rhett: Right. Keith: You could have a target circle, and so you could have a smaller radius for 25%, and a smaller one for 50%, and then you could separate out the houses that fall in those circles and now you have another way of getting granularity into your risk. So now you have the 22 threats, right? And they have a variety of things in it, which are done really well and now you could have four or five in consequence. So, you can go and work on the ones with the highest risk, the product of the two. Christopher: Yeah, it also, it almost makes me think, depending on how they can bring this into their analysis, like the results of your BR, it almost makes me think about how they can start dynamically segmenting an asset. Keith: Yeah, that's what I mean. Christopher: Based on lethality rates, for example, right? Where independent, if we call it by GPS location or stationing, it doesn't matter. Again, you're saying, this is a tool that can use to compliment assessments, i.e., let's say I have an SCCDA program, and I'm trying to integrate data for me to understand where I might want to go and pinpoint a dig to see if I have SCC. You're saying, well, how would you begin to use consequence in that assessment? This is an example of how you could dynamically segment the line, and then I do my data integration for threat susceptibility and say, you know what, this overlaps with the 50 % lethality rate, and I have all of the contributing factors. Where is it a good spot for me to go dig? And if I don't find it, then I know from a consequence perspective, Keith: Yeah. Christopher: We've probably done a good job of covering our risk portfolio. Keith Well, you can then get the high priority ones. Christopher: Yeah. Keith: Right? And you know, when you do the dig, you use that as verification too, Christopher: Yep. Keith: To help refine what you're doing as well, so yeah, the whole idea of the granularity is to do your segmentation, but in better spots so that you can do digs in one area, right? And not dig up the whole freaking countryside. 25:16 Rhett: So, I wanna bring it home. Thanks for sharing all this with us. Where do you guys go from here? Is there a future for this work or do you see it? I mean, I know you're passionate about increasing granularity on the consequence side. Do you see this work continuing? Keith: Well, the work was originally done for PHMSA for the 30%, right? And so, these are the ideas that we've talked about, Dan Irsai and myself, and going farther, I think depends on people using it and the feedback. Rhett: Yeah, Keith: I think that's the important part because we can think of things, but they may not be as useful as other people have. Rhett: Gotcha, Christopher: You know one of the things that comes to mind I guess I'll maybe we'll try to bring it home with this. You know one of the things we try to use this podcast for is awareness, right? The idea is like now hopefully all of our podcast listeners here and say, “Hey, there's this body of work out there. So, I'm dealing with upstream gathering lines and I'm trying to risk rank. If I'm dealing with LDC and I'm trying to risk rank, this is a tool.” It's a PPIM paper. Where else can they, where would you say you guys are sharing and creating awareness about this work? Keith: Well, we put it, we're trying to get it into the standard for B318, right? That's one. And doing these things and talking at PPIM are others to make people aware of things. And then as they begin to use it, then we'll find out better ways to refine the idea. But this is an aid. Actually, I would suggest people should do the work and do the calculations for fitness, Christopher: Yeah. Keith: For service first, and then they would have a better idea 'cause their son's certainty was— Christopher: So if you said feedback and start using it, so they should email you directly, is that right? Is that what we're hearing? Keith: Yes, they can do that. And the other thing is I need to put, 'cause it's a huge report, we need to put on this podcast where you can get it and download the whole report. Rhett: We can put the links in the show notes for sure. So, I wanna thank you again for joining us, Keith. I'm gonna wrap it up to our audience. Wanna thank you. Take a look at the basic rupture framework or read Keith's paper. And again, welcome as a 51st state. It's great to have you on board. Thank you for joining this episode of Pipeline Things. BLOOPERS Rhett: BR1, for the audience, is there is no rupture. Christopher: Yeah, it's all leak. Rhett: Right, right, right. BR2 is where you have-- it leaks and corrosion. Girl: Hi, sorry to interrupt, can I have your autograph? Rhett: Oh, yeah, sure, absolutely. So we got-- we had our first opportunity for an autograph! Girl: Oh, sorry, not you. Keith: Oh, thank you. Rhett: Are you ser-? Christopher: What is- Keith: Give me your pen. Thank you. Christopher: What is happening? Girl: Thank you so much. I’m such a fan. Keith: You're welcome. Rhett: Chris, I'm not sure what just happened. We have had people as for our autograph, but now I feel like— Christopher: Yeah, we did have a first and we were kind of on a high yesterday. We got our first autograph Rhett: Humility is so much to eat. Christopher: I was like, dude, we're on a roll. That was great. Rhett: We might as well, can we just get your autograph, too? I don't want you to stop there. I mean, I want one, too, for remembrance. Keith: What should I say for you? Oh, yeah. I know. Rhett: To my favorite podcasters, no. Well audience, you might have to come back later on for me to hear what- Keith: You notice I use the Canadian spelling? Rhett: I can't read your handwriting. Christopher: Well, he is a doctor, so…