Date(s) - Feb 06, 2023 - Feb 10, 2023
All Day MST
Sponsoring & Exhibiting
Dynamic Risk will be participating in Clarion’s Pipeline Pigging and Integrity Management (PPIM) Conference taking place in Houston, Texas from February 6th – 10th, 2023.
In parallel with the demands for greater pipeline safety, reliability, and efficiency – and the explosive growth in the market for technologies to help meet those demands – PPIM has evolved to become the industry’s primary forum for reporting new developments and field experience, and for showcasing the relevant tools and systems for pipeline inspection, assessment, and repair, as well as regulatory compliance and Integrity Management Programs. It is the place where the needs of pipeline operators and the capabilities of service and equipment suppliers intersect.
Eduardo Munoz – Senior Pipeline Risk Engineer
Wednesday, Feb 8th – 12:00pm CST | Three Emerging Threats: Climate Change, Cyberattack, and Vandalism
Regulation changes have prompted pipeline operators in the US and Canada to request assistance with the assessment of threats not deemed a concern or priority in the past. The operators’ renewed interest on these threats coincides with PHMSA requests to incorporate Climate Change and Cyberattack into the existing pipeline risk models. This work presents a tentative framework for hazard identification, data gathering, risk modeling, and integrity management of Climate Change, Cyberattack and Vandalism.
Eduardo Munoz is a technical authority with nearly 20 years of experience in in risk management and integrity assurance for onshore/offshore assets. As Principal Consultant for Dynamic Risk, Mr. Munoz is responsible for the continuous improvement of the risk models and works closely with Technical Services and the clients’ counterparts to provide sound technical solutions.
Cassandra Moody – Industry Consultant
Thursday, Feb 9th – 1:30pm CST | Leveraging Engineering Assessments and Engineering Critical Assessments for an enhanced and practical approach to evaluating pipeline conditions
Presenter: Cassandra Moody, Industry Consultant
Cassandra K. Moody, M.S., P.E. is a passionate Professional Engineer with 14 years of pipeline experience encompassing Integrity Management Program (IMP) responsibilities in addition to serving in regional operations engineering capacities. Mrs. Moody leads technical teams and provides Subject Matter Expertise in program management, operations, safety management systems, threat assessment, and change management principles.
Author: Parth Iyer, Product Manager, Dynamic Risk
Parth Iyer is a Sr. Pipeline Integrity Engineer with 10 years’ experience in pipeline integrity engineering. The Senior Engineer’s primary responsibilities fall into three main areas: facilitating and supporting the development of documentation for engineering processes; facilitating the implementation of engineering projects and leading and mentoring junior engineering staff. His field experience includes conducting the full ECDA process from pre to post-assessment, performing CIS, DCVG and direct exams. In his role at Inter Pipeline, Parth acted as a Subject Matter Expert, completing technical reviews of ECDA and ILI reports. At Dynamic Risk he has a client-facing role requiring proven working knowledge and experience in pipeline integrity and risk and/or reliability methods. Parth also has experience with fitness-for-service assessments and fracture mechanics analysis.
Engineering Critical Assessments (ECA) have been incorporated into United States pipeline safety regulations (§192.632) as a means for reconfirming the Maximum Allowable Operating Pressure (MAOP) for onshore steel gas transmission pipelines while Engineering Assessments (EA) have been a longstanding method for proving consistent conclusions and recommendations across a variety of situations in accordance with the Canadian standards and guidance in CSA Z662:19. The purpose of this paper is to discuss the similarities and differences in the approach of ECAs and EAs while offering practical considerations to improve the resulting assessments conducted. The findings of a recently conducted EA with a semi-quantitative risk assessment will be discussed as an example of how engineering principles and a threat perspective supplement the algorithm generated results. The primarily fracture-mechanics basis of ECAs, similarly, can be enhanced when a broader, threat perspective is applied. Practical considerations will be discussed with applications geared to responding to new regulations and utilizing sound engineering consideration to a variety of pipeline engineering assessments.
Topics of Discussion
- Correlation to PDCA
- Regulatory compliance with both CAD and US Regulations
- Flowchart/cheat sheet for US/CAD ECA vs. EA comparison chart
- ECA can be used for MAOP validation
- EA used primarily as “get out of jail free” card.
- FFS/RTS Eas cover all applicable threats. But EAs in general can be only about one threat or multiple.
- Case study for sample EA (anonymized)
- Theme: identify strengths in both EA and ECA methodologies and present an approach where their combined strengths are used to assess integrity of a pipeline asset.
Dynamic Risk is pleased to jointly exhibit with our sister company; NDT Global, located at booth #601. Our solutions and software applications enable pipeline operators to make trusted, data-driven decisions to ensure safe and reliable operations, adherence to regulatory mandates, and protection of their capital investment. Stop by to meet with our team and learn more about how our technology-enabled solutions and advanced analytics best support pipeline safety and performance across the full asset lifecycle.
If you would like to be connected with one of our participating team members, please contact Tracey Murray at: firstname.lastname@example.org