This week’s Pipeliners Podcast episode features Charlie McConnell and Anders Johnson discussing the new revisions to API RP 1170 and RP 1171, as well as the similarities and differences between the two and the history behind the regulations.
In this episode, you will learn about what has been added into the revised editions, why the updates were necessary, and how to properly incorporate the changes into ongoing operations.
Revised API 1170 and 1171 for Gas Storage Show Notes, Links, and Insider Terms:
- Charlie McConnell is the Storage Services Manager at Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline. Connect with Charlie on LinkedIn.
- Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline is a leading transporter of natural gas to America’s heartland, with about 5,800 miles of natural gas transmission pipeline in the Midwest and Mid-Continent regions of the U.S.
- Anders Johnson is the Vice President of Underground Natural Gas Storage for Kinder Morgan. Connect with Anders on LinkedIn.
- Kinder Morgan Provides Energy Transportation and Storage Services in a Safe, Efficient and Environmentally Responsible Manner for the Benefit of People, Communities and Businesses.
- API (American Petroleum Institute) represents all segments of America’s natural gas and oil industry. API has developed more than 700 standards to enhance operational and environmental safety, efficiency, and sustainability.
- API Standard 1170 (Design and Operation of Solution-mined Salt Caverns Used for Natural Gas Storage) is a recommended practice for salt cavern facilities used for natural gas storage service. The RP, issued in July 2015, covers facility geomechanical assessments, cavern well design and drilling, solution mining techniques, and operations, including monitoring and maintenance practices.
- API Standard 1171 (Functional Integrity of Natural Gas Storage in Depleted Hydrocarbon Reservoirs and Aquifer Reservoirs) is a recommended practice that applies to natural gas storage in depleted oil and gas reservoirs and aquifer reservoirs. The RP, issued in September 2015, focuses on storage well, reservoir, and fluid management for functional integrity in design, construction, operation, monitoring, maintenance, and documentation practices.
- The Underground Natural Gas Storage Facility Rule published by PHMSA incorporates by reference API 1170 and 1171.
- Natural Gas Storage is a facility that can store natural gas for an indefinite period of time. Natural gas storages are typically located underground and are therefore called as well underground gas storages, or UGS.
- PHMSA (Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration) is responsible for providing pipeline safety oversight through regulatory rulemaking, NTSB recommendations, and other important functions to protect people and the environment through the safe transportation of energy and other hazardous materials.
- DOT (Department of Transportation) is a cabinet-level agency of the federal government responsible for helping maintain and develop the nation’s transportation systems and infrastructure.
- Risk Assessment is defined by PHMSA as the systematic process in which hazards from pipeline operation are identified and the probability and consequences of potential adverse events are analyzed and estimated.
- EDF (Environmental Defense Fund) mission is to preserve the natural systems on which all life depends.
- INGA (Interstate Natural Gas Association) describes itself as “a trade organization that advocates regulatory and legislative positions of importance to the natural gas pipeline industry in North America.
- Fault tree analysis (FTA) is a type of failure analysis in which an undesired state of a system is examined.
- AGA (American Gas Association) represents companies delivering natural gas safely, reliably, and in an environmentally responsible way to help improve the quality of life for their customers every day. AGA’s mission is to provide clear value to its membership and serve as the indispensable, leading voice and facilitator on its behalf in promoting the safe, reliable, and efficient delivery of natural gas to homes and businesses across
- SGA (Southern Gas Association) is a community of natural gas professionals across the U.S. and Canada. SGA’s membership comprises 200 businesses across the distribution, pipeline, and gas supply marketing sectors as well as more than 300 industry partners serving the industry as vendors, suppliers and consultants.
- The PRCI (Pipeline Research Council International) is the preeminent global collaborative research development organization of, by, and for the energy pipeline industry. [Read more about the PRCI collaborative research projects, papers, and presentations.]
Revised API 1170 and 1171 for Gas Storage Full Episode Transcript:
Russel Treat: Welcome to the “Pipeliners Podcast,” episode 279 sponsored by the American Petroleum Institute, driving safety, environmental protection, and sustainability across the natural gas and oil industry through world class standards and safety programs.
Since its formation as a standard setting organization in 1919, API has developed more than 800 standards to enhance industry operations worldwide. Find out more about API at API.org.
Announcer: The Pipeliners Podcast, where professionals, Bubba geeks, and industry insiders share their knowledge and experience about technology, projects, and pipeline operations. Now, your host, Russel Treat.
Russel: Thanks for listening to the Pipeliners Podcast. I appreciate you taking the time, and to show that appreciation, we give away a customized YETI tumbler to one listener every week.
This week, our winner is Brennan Macklemore with Oklahoma State University. Congratulations, Brennan. Your YETI is on its way. To learn how you can win this signature prize, stick around until the end of the episode.
This week, Charlie McConnell with Southern Star and Anders Johnson with Kinder Morgan join us to talk about the newly revised API 1170 and API 1171 Recommended Practices for Gas Storage. Anders, Charlie, welcome to the Pipeliners Podcast.
Anders Johnson: Happy to be here. Thanks for having us on.
Charlie McConnell: Thank you for having us. Welcome to our conversation.
Russel: Before we dive in, it’s probably a good idea to ask you guys to introduce yourself. Anders, if you don’t mind, can you tell us a little bit about yourself, your background, what you do, and how you got on an API committee to write a standard?
Anders: I’m a mechanical engineer by degree, but I’ve been in the natural gas industry for more than 35 years. I am currently the vice president of Underground Natural Gas Storage for Kinder Morgan. We operate over 700 billion cubic feet of working gas capacity.
We’re very interested in making sure energy is available to improve people’s lives. We do that with our natural gas storage which is serving winter peak loads and summer peak loads for the air conditioning in the South. We’re located across the United States. We touch roughly 40 percent of the natural gas in the US.
Russel: That’s awesome. How many different storage facilities are you guys operating?
Anders: We have 27 different reservoirs across the US. We have aquifers, depleted reservoirs, and salt caverns.
Russel: That’s awesome. You have the whole gamut. That makes you extremely well qualified for this conversation.
Charlie, same question. Tell us a little bit about your background, what you do, and how you ended up on the committee.
Charlie: I’m Charlie McConnell, a manager of storage services for Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline. I started in gas storage back in 1991, so I’m a little bit behind Anders. I’ve only got 32 years, getting ready to start 33 years in the storage industry. Petroleum engineer by degree. Again, brought up originally at Texas Gas with 10 fields there, and then transitioned over to Southern Star.
We currently have eight storage fields, about 46.7 BCF of working gas across our system, which is the heart of the country. Oklahoma, Kansas, Wyoming, Colorado, Missouri, that footprint, serving all our customers there.
Our gas storage, on any given peak demand day, half of our gas delivered comes from storage on any of those days.
Russel: That’s really interesting. As we were talking before we got on the podcast here, I was sharing that I’ve done a fair amount of automation, measurement, that type of thing around gas storage facilities.
I know a fair amount about how they’re operated, but I also know enough to know I know very little, if anything, about the geology and risk of actually running a gas storage facility from an integrity standpoint. I expect to learn a lot from this conversation.
I asked you guys to come on and talk about the recent API 1170 and 1171 updates. Maybe a good place to start is to talk a little bit about the history of storage, who regulates it, and how the standards came to be.
Anders: I’ll give a quick overview. Right now in the United States, we have about 4.3 trillion cubic feet of working gas capacity. That’s how much gas you could store underground to support customer and market needs.
There’s about 18,000 wells. There’s roughly 400 facilities where that gas is stored. Again, it’s depleted reservoirs where old oil and gas fields were repurposed to store gas in, aquifers where we displace water deep underground and store the gas there to support markets in the central US.
Salt caverns tend to be along the Gulf Coast. We have a couple on the east and west. There, we’ve mined out huge caverns deep underground, thousands of feet underground. Those caverns can store anywhere from 1 to 10 billion cubic feet in each cavern of working gas.
Most of the facilities are regulated by PHMSA. States have, at times, had some level of regulation, too. What was great about having API come and help us coordinate all of our efforts is now we have a single source of best practices.
When you look at the RPs, the recommended practices, they really help serve as a guideline of what you want to do in terms of developing a reservoir, operating it, maintaining it, ensuring people are doing the same thing. The RPs gave us a consistent language to use across the nation that can be used by both state and federal regulators.
Russel: Do either of you guys happen to know how long people have been doing underground storage for natural gas?
Anders: Over a hundred years. The Zohr field up in New York was one of the first.
Russel: Interesting. That would have been what I would have speculated, that it’s a science that’s been around for a long time. How long has the regulatory framework been around at the national level?
Anders: 2015, Charlie?
Charlie: Yeah. Again, going back to a little bit of that history. The industry as a whole was realizing there was a gap there of the regulation, not being regulated, not having federal regulations. The industry as a whole came together in the 2011-ish time frame…Forgive me if that’s not the right time frame, whoever started it.
The initial task group from 1170 and 1171 were formulated, developed the API recommended practices. Those were first published in September of 2015, the first edition.
Russel: That’s what I was driving at. 1170 and 1171, in the overall scheme of things, are relatively new standards, even though it’s a business that’s been around for a long time. I believe, at least in my experience, historically most of the regulatory oversight has been at the state level.
Charlie: That’s correct. Then, in that 2015-ish time frame is when PHMSA and DOT stepped in and said, “No, on a federal level PHMSA is in charge of these regulations,” once 1171 was in place, and then incorporated that by reference with their first final rule and first regulations of natural gas storage.
Russel: I’m sure both of you gentlemen could tell some great stories about the challenges of operating storage facilities under different regulatory frameworks. That, particularly for a large operator that’s covering multiple states and multiple different kinds of storage, that’s got to be a real challenge.
Anders: I am a huge fan of having PHMSA involved with us and PHMSA working with the states at the same time to bring consistency and uniformity across the industry. It was the right thing to do.
Russel: Yeah, that’s very well said, Anders. I agree. Consistency and uniformity done well leads to improved performance and improved safety, right?
Charlie: Yes. One of the challenges we had in this industry developing the first edition, and even in the revisions here to the second edition…As you know, with your little bit of geology background and Anders is well aware, no two storage facilities are identical. They don’t act the same. They don’t have the same characteristics.
Being able to incorporate recommended practice that lets you cover all those bases, but still drive safety, commonality, that was a challenge for our teams.
Russel: Yeah, I’m sure. I’m sure that was a big challenge. Any time you’re doing something like that, you’re trying to create a common best practice, having a common best practice with enough room to deal with the reasonable differences and realities is…That’s why you need a lot of really strong minded engineers to get in a room and argue a lot.
Charlie: We had those!
Russel: Or anybody who’s worked on the API committee, where we’re doing a rewrite. I’ve done some of that myself in a different domain and it gets a little passionate sometimes and quite geeky. Tell us, what was in the original 1170, 1171? We’ll start there, and then we’ll talk about what’s new in this newer release.
Anders: In the beginning, I think they did a great job of defining a lot of the terms, going through the acronyms, abbreviations, just outlines so you had a consistent language, number one.
Going through the principles, some high level geotechnical aspects of the different storage facilities, some of the functional integrity tests you could do, and then references to training, EHS, the environmental, health and safety considerations, and some high level record keeping.
What we tried to do was fill in some of the gaps, and when you try to cover something that great. 1171 covered that full gamut. 1170, for the salt caverns, was focused on the salt caverns. They didn’t have the risk section in it. That was really the big addition.
Believe it or not, sometimes you got a couple of things added in that, in hindsight, didn’t make sense. We not only added things, we pared out a couple of things, too.
Russel: Interesting. I guess there’s a couple of questions that come up for me.You’ve got 1170, 1171, and they’re dealing with very different geologies. I would think because of that, there’s got to be some rather important distinctions between those two standards. How much is common between the two standards, and what are the important common elements?
Charlie: I would say the most common elements are the risk management sections now. Again, we added that in 1170 in the second edition. PHMSA was requiring the salt cavern operators, or is requiring, I should say, the salt cavern operators to have a risk assessment. That was not in the original 1170, so we’ve added that section so that it is covered.
That’s also tailored to salt caverns from the depleted reservoir, which is just some minor changes, but it is suited more to the salt caverns at that point. Then again, as Anders has mentioned before, the site security, safety training procedures in the original 1171. There were not any sections on that. To try to make those common and make the requirements similar, we added that to 1170.
Those are the things that are common between them. Cavern development compared to a depleted reservoir development, those are two different concepts altogether.
Russel: The programmatic issues around people training, safety risk, very consistent. Then the geologic, the technical issues are quite distinct.
Anders: Correct. You got it.
Russel: That makes a ton of sense. For those that are doing storage, but maybe haven’t had a chance to look at 1170 and 1171 yet, what would you advise them to do in terms of reviewing this new release and incorporating change into their operations?
Anders: Reading through the whole document quickly. It may be just starting with, we’ve got a good introduction upfront. If you look at the concepts, the scopes, they’re broken down into various sections. You can look at those sections that apply at a high level to you.
Just scanning that – that’s two pages, when you look at the contents – to see what’s applicable to you and ask yourself, “Am I doing each of these major sections? There are 11 major sections? Am I covered there?” Then when you think about criticality of operations, or, “Am I doing the type of maintenance work?” then delve into that section.
Charlie: Looking individually at the RPs in 1171, there was an increase of about 30 percent on the mandatory “shall statements” that PHMSA really hones in on. Those are spread all across the RPs, so there’s not one section you can hone in on. As Anders said, you’d have to read the whole thing.
1170, as we’ve mentioned several times before, there’s a new section eight, which is the risk management, then the training procedures. Those are whole new sections. That’s probably areas, if you were in the salt cavern world, where you need to focus most of your attention on the changes.
Anders: One of the things I like, being a PDF, you can search. We asked PHMSA, we were lucky we had EDF participate with us. PHMSA, one of the state regulators, several outside consultants, as well as a number of operators. You really got a breadth of perspectives that went into this.
I like using search. If you’re wondering about a topic, search and go look at it. It’s a quick read. It’s 72 pages for 1172, and a lot of that’s diagrams and references. The actual text is, it gives you a good high level overview.
Russel: It’s interesting advice. What I find in the standards I’m familiar with, they’re a lot easier to read if I’ve had a conversation about them first. If I have a little bit of context about, “What am I reading, and what part of this is important?” versus just trying to sit down and read it.
Sometimes it’s a little hard to pull out the intent and get your head around that just from reading the text – at least that’s been my experience – where if you have that background, the text makes a whole lot more sense.
Anders: It’s a good thing you’re doing this podcast and giving everybody the background.
Russel: It’s a good thing that API sponsors the podcast and helps me find guys like you to do that because I actually think this is really important. A lot of these standards that I’m not familiar with, once I have these conversations, I feel like I could read it and I can at least understand what’s in the standard.
Anders: I agree with you. It’s incredibly important. There’s 18,000 wells across the United States. As I mentioned, some are pushing 100 years old in three very different geological settings.
There’s a lot of issues to think through, and there’s such an incredible wealth of knowledge that went into creating this. Getting to see that thought process of – without the debate that went into putting some of the language in the documents – it’s worth millions of dollars. It really is.
Russel: Oftentimes, if you participate in these committees, you learn more from what doesn’t go in than you learn from what actually goes in.
Charlie: Actually, you beat me to the punch there. I was going to say, even with Anders and I’s experience in the industry, the things we learned in this process of the revision, having our task groups working on certain sections.
Then having the conversations within those groups of how to word something, what needs to be in, what maybe needs to be taken out, I’ve learned things, I’m sure Anders learns things along the way in this. Again, at that point we’d both been in the industry well over 30 years, but we’re still learning from experiences and things other people have learned and shared with us during those conversations.
Russel: Yeah, absolutely. How well are these two standards aligned? Being separate standards, they would have had separate working groups. What happened? We talked about a fair amount of commonality. How were those two standards looked at to try and make sure that that commonality was well done?
Anders: Charlie, we had these different sections. We had a subject matter expert champion each section. Someone did the geology, and so we’d go out and find the experts if it was a salt cavern or a depleted reservoir.
Charlie or I tried to sit in on every single section meeting, and then we would talk with each other weekly, monthly, sometimes daily to follow up on what we learned through that discussion.
Andy Theodos also, with INGA. He’s retired, has an incredible amount of expertise. We would read through both documents and compare and say, “Does this make sense between the two?”
Russel: I bet that was fascinating.
Charlie: It definitely was. Again, with the three of us, Anders, and Andy, and I, we tried to use that as the way to focus and keep the theme consistent across both documents.
Anders: The other nice thing was PHMSA us on a lot of the calls across. Occasionally, PHMSA would opine and ask us, “How is that going to be enforceable? If you put a ‘shall statement’ there and I’m a regulator, how do I enforce that?” It helped gel our thinking as we wrote it between the groups.
Russel: I’ve certainly been on some standards where PHMSA has been in the room. I find them to add a huge amount of value to the process. They understand their role in the process, and they do a good job of living in it.
Anders: Yeah, they do a really good job.
Russel: Let’s maybe shift a little bit and talk about, for those folks that are actually operating storage, one of the things that comes up for me in this is, I think, anybody operating storage is quite intimate with the nature of the storage they’re operating. They understand the systems they’re using, the automation, the piping, the wellheads, the wells themselves. They’re really intimate with all of that.
What do you think are the things that tend to get missed, from an overall program standpoint, trying to get to the level of safety performance that we all should be aspiring to around these storage facilities?
Anders: To me, it’s a regional issue. You can’t know everything. By bringing all of us together from across the United States, and some of the consultants had international experience, we got exposure to things we wouldn’t have thought of.
It’s missing the unknown. You just couldn’t have known it because you hadn’t seen it before. Bringing everybody together and trying to document all the types of issues that could come up and thinking through what those might be, the risk analysis really helped.
Charlie: That’s where I was going to go, Anders, is the risk analysis. With the original 1171, the first edition, and then with some minor revisions that we made in the second edition, the risk section has a table in there that lists all the threats and consequences that an operator needs to consider for their facilities.
When we were developing the RPs, we looked at what those threats could be across the whole gamut of different kinds of storage facilities. The operator needs to take that list, then start paring that down to just those threats that apply to their facilities. Then that helps them build that risk analysis and gives them that window of things to look at, to be concentrating on to maintain their facilities.
In our case, sometimes it brought up some things that maybe we weren’t focusing on prior to the RPs and has helped us be better at maintaining our facilities.
Russel: I think that’s great advice. That would be a great place to start because that is a very hard thing to develop. You can’t do it in a vacuum. It really requires a lot of minds participating. It actually brings up an interesting question. Is there any kind of ongoing working group or collaboration around these standards, particularly around the risk management side of this?
The reason I’m asking the question – I’m going to get us off in the weeds a little bit, and I apologize – I’ve recently done a couple of podcasts on probabilistic risk assessment.
It talks about the need for a fault tree and what it takes to build a comprehensive fault tree. To me, that’s a pretty important part of any type of critical system infrastructure operation, is to know which fault tree is. What would somebody do if they came up with something that wasn’t in the standard they thought ought to be in the standard as part of the fault tree?
Anders: We would call each other. Charlie’s aware that I saw an opportunity, maybe, to make an improvement. I called John Buflod with API.
We reached out to Charlie and said, “Hey, can we get together in a couple weeks and talk about this? Do we want to put together an errata where we make a change and then reach back out to the group that reviewed that section and have them vote on it and see if we want to make an errata, a quick change to the RP?”
Charlie: A separate answer to that, Anders, as an industry as whole, we do work together very well through a couple of the different industry groups. I’ll get a shout out from them. Through AGA, the American Gas Association, SGA, Southern Gas Association, and INGA.
Anders: Interstate Natural Gas Association.
Charlie: Thank you.
There are storage committees within each of those industry groups. We have meetings throughout the year. There’s a lot of communication, a lot of sharing of information. If somebody were to come up with a different kind of risk model going down the probabilistic or fault trees, things like that, they were either looking for help with that or suggesting, “Hey, we’re doing this. We think it’s a great idea.”
Those usually get shared in those industry groups. We pick up on that. As an industry, if we think that was a positive thing, we’d be headed down that road. Again, the next revision, that would be something that would be considered to be added to the RPs.
Russel: I think Anders’ answer was informative. It’s been a long time since I’ve thought about putting an errata on a standard. It’s not uncommon. It’s not super common, but it happens from time to time as new information comes out.
Particularly in the area of the risk models, which I really think that’s an area where we, as an industry, are learning a lot. That’s probably changing quicker than the speed at which the regulatory cycle moves.
Certainly, sharing that information in the industry groups, that’s critical. The idea of if there were something and it needed to go into the standard, getting an errata out. That’s a fairly simple process.
Anders: It’s quick. We could do it in weeks if it were serious.
Russel: If it needed to be, right.
Anders: There’s some other things we’re doing. Charlie mentioned several of the groups we do. We also work closely with the Pipeline Research Council. They’re sponsoring a near miss database for us.
As things come up in that, examination of near misses, because you want to catch things before they are an issue. That information would then be relayed back through AGA, INGA, and back into our API RPs. It’s circular. We have a small group, but we are vocal. We communicate well with each other.
Russel: That’s the nature of pipelining. We have a lot of little micro-communities within our community.
Charlie: Even PHMSA has funded some studies on risk analysis and some other areas within the industry. Even PHMSA’s working with us and the industry to push things forward.
Anders: PHMSA’s been a great partner through the whole process.
Russel: Tell me a little bit more about the information sharing program with PRCI. That’s interesting to me. How many people are participating with that? Is it just the PRCI members or is it bigger than that?
Anders: It’s, right now, just the PRCI members. We’re just kicking it off. We’ve got a couple major operators that have committed to it.
The Pipeline Research Council’s committed $60,000 to fund it so we’re not having to come up with money to do it. We’re in the early stages of it. I’m hoping it will be open to everybody to submit to.
Russel: I think that’s fantastic. That’s one of those things we need to do a lot more of if we’re going to get better as an industry. You really need those learnings.
There are not enough near misses, which is a good thing, to inform a single operator. You need to get those near misses across the entirety of the industry to even have a chance of getting anything meaningful to learn from and to drive change.
Anders: Absolutely. We’ve got a great safety record. You’re right. Things go amiss so infrequently, which is good, but everyone doesn’t get a chance to learn from those. This way, we hope to capture those and share them.
Russel: That’s a whole other conversation about how do you learn from near misses so that you don’t have to learn from mistakes.
Anders: Experience is an expensive teacher.
Russel: That’s why I say, “Experience is what you get when you get what you didn’t want, and wisdom is learning the correct lesson.”
Anders: That’s right. We tried to put it in text so people can avoid that.
Russel: Exactly right. That’s what we’re trying to do with these standards. That’s why we need a lot of engineers with lots of experience. That’s what needs to get…Ultimately, that’s what these standards represent. We don’t realize that a lot of times.
Anders: Yeah, absolutely.
Russel: We get wound up in the words and what it’s telling us to do, but there’s a whole lot of why behind everything that’s in there.
Anders: Yeah, and we were fortunate. We had the regulators giving us guidance to improve, API helping us with the language and structure, and an organized process. EDF participated a great deal across both standards.
Russel: Who is EDF? I’m not familiar with that organization.
Anders: That’s the Environmental Defense Fund.
Russel: Oh, right.
Anders: They pushed us hard on the “shall statements” and made us think about, “Is that an absolute, rock hard requirement, or is this just a best practice?”
Russel: Interesting. Listen, guys, this is great. I’ve learned a ton. I actually want to go read the standard now. I particularly want to go back and read the risk matrix. I want to read all of that. I think that’d be fascinating.
Anders: So many intelligent engineers put a lot of thought into it. It really is, it’s a good read.
Russel: Anything you want to wrap up with in terms of parting comments, or anything you’d like people to take away from our conversation?
Anders: No, I just appreciate you doing this podcast with us so we can help share the knowledge. If this interests a few more people to go and read the standards, we’ve made the industry that much better. There’s hundreds of millions of people that depend on natural gas on the coldest winter day and the hottest summer to keep the power plants running.
It’s incredibly vital to our industry, and we’re blessed to have had the opportunity to work together and put standards out there to take a great industry and make it even better. Thanks a lot for helping spread the word.
Charlie: Similar to Anders, encourage anybody interested to read it, a lot of good information there. As an industry, we’re proud of them. We continue to improve them as we go along, to make improvements on standards for construction, safety, documentation, all those things that are important to keeping our industry safe and the public safe.
We want to keep moving forward as an industry to improve on all those metrics. Again, thank you for having us on here today.
Russel: Guys, thanks for taking your time to come on the podcast, and thank you for the work you do with the committees. It’s so very important to our industry. It’s sometimes a bit of a thankless job, but it’s really important stuff. Good on you for doing it. Thanks, and we’ll look forward to having you back.
Anders: Great. Thank you.
Charlie: Thank you. Have a good day.
Russel: I hope you enjoyed this week’s episode of the Pipeliners Podcast and our conversation with Charlie and Anders. A reminder before you go, you should register to win our customized Pipeliners Podcast YETI tumbler. Just visit pipelinepodcastnetwork.com/win, and enter yourself in the drawing.
If you’d like to support us, please leave us a review. You can do that on Apple Podcast, Google Play, Stitcher, SoundCloud, wherever you happen to listen. You can find instructions at PipelinePodcastNetwork.com.
If you have ideas, questions, or topics you’d be interested in learning about, please let me know either on the Contact Us page at PipelinePodcastNetwork.com, or reach out to me on LinkedIn. Thanks for listening. I’ll talk to you next week.
Transcription by CastingWords