In this episode of the Pipeliners Podcast, Matt Hite, Senior Vice President of Government Affairs at GPA Midstream, discusses GPA’s position on the leak detection and repair (LDAR) rule.
Hite provides background on GPA Midstream and its membership, emphasizing the association’s role in advocating for pipeline safety and environmental issues.
Listen to the episode to gain insights into GPA’s concerns regarding the inclusion of Class C lines, the necessity for adhering to proper regulatory procedures and conducting thorough cost-benefit analyses. Additionally, learn about upcoming regulatory challenges, such as the possible incorporation of gathering lines into the National Pipeline Mapping System.
GPA Position on the LDAR Rule Show Notes, Links and Insider Terms:
- Matt Hite is the Senior Vice President of Government Affairs at GPA Midstream. Connect with Matt on LinkedIn.
- GPA or GPA Midstream Association is a voluntary industry organization composed of member companies that operate in the midstream sector of our industry. GPA Midstream sets standards for natural gas liquids; develops simple and reproducible test methods to define the industry’s raw materials and products; manages a worldwide cooperative research program; provides a voice for our industry on Capitol Hill; and is the go-to resource for technical reports and publications.
- EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) is an independent organization within the federal U.S. government designed to take measures to protect people and the environment.
- 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.
- Renewable Natural Gas (RNG) is a pipeline-quality gas that is fully interchangeable with conventional natural gas. The quality of RNG is similar to fossil natural gas and has a methane concentration of 90% or greater.
- LPAC (Liquid Pipeline Advisory Committee) and GPAC (Gas Pipeline Advisory Committee) are statutorily mandated advisory committees that advise PHMSA on proposed gas pipeline and hazardous liquid pipeline safety standards, respectively, and their associated risk assessments. The committees consist of 15 members with membership evenly divided among Federal and State governments, the regulated industry, and the general public. The committees advise PHMSA on the technical feasibility, reasonableness, cost-effectiveness, and practicability of each proposed pipeline safety standard.
- Leak Detection and Repair (LDAR) is the process by which oil and gas, chemical, and/or petrochemical equipment is monitored for the location and volume of unintended leaks
- Gathering Lines are pipelines that transport natural gas from production facilities to a transmission line or distribution main lines.
- Type A: Pipelines that operate at relatively higher stress levels and are located in locations that have more than 10 buildings intended for human occupancy or locations where buildings with four or more stories above ground are prevalent.
- Type B: second risk category of regulated onshore gathering lines. Type B lines would include metallic lines whose MAOP produces a hoop stress of less than 20 percent of SMYS as well as non-metallic lines whose MAOP is 125 psig or less that are located in populated areas
- Type C: gathering lines in Class 1 locations that have an outer diameter of 8.625 inches or greater and operate at an MAOP producing a hoop stress of 20% or more of SMYS, or if the pipeline is non-metallic or the stress level is unknown, operates above 125 pounds per square inch gauge.
- Class 2: any class location unit that has between 11 and 45 buildings intended for human occupancy.,
- Class 3: any location within 220 yards of the pipeline that contains 46 or more dwellings, or an area where the pipeline lies within 100 yards of a building or a small, welldefined outside area (such as playgrounds, recreational areas, outdoor theater, or places of assembly) that is occupied for a specified number of days per year.
- Class 4: any class location unit where buildings with four or more stories above ground are prevalent.
- Gas Mega Rule – The rule, initiated over 10 years ago, expands the definition of a “regulated” gas gathering pipeline that is more than 50 years old. It will—for the first time—apply federal pipeline safety regulations to tens of thousands of miles of unregulated gas gathering pipelines.
- 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.
- 49 CFR 192 & 195 is minimum safety requirements for pipeline facilities and the transportation of hazardous liquids by PHMSA-regulated pipeline
- NPMS: National Pipeline Mapping System, a system used to collect and maintain information about pipelines in the United States.
GPA Position on the LDAR Rule Full Episode Transcript
Russel Treat: Welcome to the “Pipeliners Podcast”, episode 323, sponsored by EnerSys Corporation, providers of POEMS, the Pipeline Operations Excellence Management System. Operations and compliance software for the pipeline control center to address control room management, SCADA, and audit readiness. Find out more about POEMS at EnerSysCorp.com.
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. To show that appreciation, we give away a customized YETI tumbler to one listener every episode. This week, our winner is Maria Lamagna with Chevron Pipe Line. Congratulations, Maria, your YETI is on its way. To learn how you can win this signature prize, stick around till the end of the episode.
This week, we spoke with Matt Hite about GPA’s position on the leak detection and repair rule. Matt, welcome to the Pipeliners Podcast. So glad to have you on this, your very first podcast experience.
Matt Hite: Yes, Russel, thank you for inviting me. I’m honored and flattered to be here. This is the first time you’ve had GPA Midstream on here. We’re thrilled to be here, so thank you.
Russel: I apologize for having it take so long to get GPA Midstream onto the podcast. Should have done it a long time ago, but we’re glad you’re here.
Matt: We’re thrilled to be here, glad to make it.
Russel: If I might ask you to do this, could you give us a little bit about your background, what you do at GPA Midstream, and how you got into that role?
Matt: Sure. Right now, I am the vice president of government affairs, GPA Midstream. Actually, I got promoted. I should say I’m the senior vice president of government affairs, GPA Midstream.
What my job entails is, basically, I run all the advocacy operations for our trade association. That entails pipeline safety, which we’re going to talk about some of the issues we cover. I also cover environmental issues, and natural resource issues.
I deal with Congress as the voice of our members up on Capitol Hill. I also deal with federal agencies as our members’ voice in DC, dealing with the federal agencies. We do a lot of business in front of EPA, US Fish and Wildlife Service, and PHMSA over at Department of Transportation.
Russel: I’m sorry. I was going to ask you, tell me a little bit about GPA Midstream. What’s the nature of your membership, and how many members do you have?
Matt: Sure. We have close to 60 members. Our members, some of them are large publicly traded corporations that I’m sure you’re well aware of, like Williams, Targa, Phillips 66.
Then, we also have a number of entities that qualify as small businesses that you probably have never heard of that meet the US Small Business Association’s actual definition of what a small business is.
We are based in Tulsa, Oklahoma. We have close to 11 employees. We represent what we call in the midstream industry, the gathering and processing folks. I am currently based in DC. I run our DC operations. Like I said, our members are scattered throughout the United States. Together, our members represent close to 55,000 employees.
They’re engaged in the gathering, transportation, processing, treating, storage, and marketing of natural gas, natural gas liquids, crude oil, and refined products. I should have said at the beginning, we were founded in 1921, so we’ve been around for quite some time.
Russel: I would be shocked if people weren’t aware of GPA, but we have a pretty broad listenership. There’s a lot of utility folks, and such. You represent the guys that are getting products from the wellhead to the transportation hubs.
Matt: Yes, sir. Usually, our customers are on both ends. It’s the producers and the transmission folks on the backend.
Russel: How did you find yourself working in DC for GPA?
Matt: That’s an interesting question. I definitely have an interesting response. I’m kind of a swamp animal. I guess I’ve come out in full disclosure.
I’ve worked on Capitol Hill for probably close to a decade. I worked for, most recently, ranking member, Jim Inhofe, from the great state of Oklahoma. I was his senior council on the US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works where I helped cover energy issues, among other issues, for him.
I’m sure we’ll get into it, but one of the things is that our members, they flew under the radar for a long time. About a decade ago, the federal government decided to pull them into more regulation. Our membership realized they needed a voice in DC. That’s, basically, primarily what I do.
Russel: You’re a staffer that’s moved to the industry side?
Matt: Yes. I probably skipped over some steps. I probably should have said I graduated from college, went to law school, realized I didn’t want to practice law. Then I had a buddy working for Treasury and was looking for a roommate down here in DC. I was in Cleveland, Ohio. I moved out here and then got into politics. You kind of get addicted once you get into it.
Loved it. Worked for five members. Like I said, I told you about Inhofe. I worked for a couple members from Ohio, from Idaho, and the late Dean of the House, the great Don Young from Alaska, and just fell in love with it.
Then left the Hill to work for the largest trade association in the United States, the US Chamber of Commerce, where I ran their Environment and Agriculture Committee and was their policy expert on those issues. At the time, GPA was, like I said, looking for someone. I got recruited and have been there since, for probably the past 10 years.
Russel: A guy who knows how the wheels of our government actually turn.
Matt: Scary, isn’t it?
Russel: Yeah, I think so. I asked you to come on and talk about GPA’s position on the leak detection repair rulemaking that’s currently making its way through the rulemaking process.
When we were getting introduced and preparing for this podcast, you were giving me the history of how that rule came out and how what’s happening in the rulemaking is a little different than what you see as the congressional mandate. Could you unpack that for us a bit?
Matt: Sure. Let me just start off by saying that PHMSA is unique, where they have a regulatory process when they propose a rule. They have to submit public comments on the proposed rule. Then they digest those comments.
They have this thing called the Gas Pipeline Advisory Committee that will be a committee meeting that will go through those comments and make recommendations to the administrator of PHMSA what they should do on that. The committee is comprised of 15 members, 5 public members, 5 industry members, and then 5 state/federal members.
On this particular rule, Russel, this rule was basically a mandate that Congress passed. Congress passed this in the last pipeline safety reauthorization bill, in which they directed PHMSA to come up with LDAR requirements and the direction for gathering line. It included transmission distribution as well. For gathering lines, it was really for Class 2, 3, and 4 lines, namely Type A and B.
There’s some great people at PHMSA. They definitely do a great job. I want to make sure I say it at the beginning, but I feel like they went astray from what Congress mandated on this.
Class 1, which are the rural lines, those are in the middle of nowhere, the agreement was that they would not include that. That was specifically in the mandate. PHMSA ended up including Class 1 lines, but they did it in a way that was fairly clever.
They created a new type of line from the Gas Mega Rule that’s called Type C lines. Type C lines are comprised of 93,000 miles of gathering lines in Class 1 locations. I’m oversimplifying this, for sure. Basically, what PHMSA did in their LDAR rule is they are proposing to require Class C lines to have LDAR requirements.
It got a heated debate at a GPAC meeting. Usually, those are fairly calm and not too heated. The arguments that we were putting forth for our members, that our members strongly believe, is that PHMSA can regulate whatever they want to regulate. They have every right to regulate whatever they want to regulate, but they have to go through the right process.
They did not go through the right process on this. They airdropped this in the rule without doing a proper cost benefit analysis. Their cost benefit numbers are horrible.
In fact, on that note, I would say that one of the unique things about GPA Midstream is us and my colleagues over at the American Petroleum Institute, API, we challenged PHMSA on a valve rule previously, and are the only two trade associations that actually successfully defeated PHMSA in court on a cost benefit analysis. They’re doing the exact same thing again with Type C lines.
Like I said, our members have to follow the law. We follow the law. PHMSA should have to follow the law. If they want to go after Type C, they can go after Type C, but they have to go through the right process to do it. They did not in this case. We’ve been calling them out on the rug on that.
Russel: To me, that’s really interesting. These things get subtle. They get complex, at least if you’re not really familiar with the details. It’s very unusual for rulemakings to be contentious.
Generally, when something gets to GPAC, there’s been a fair amount of public comment. There’s been a lot of conversation and adjustment. By the time they get there, they’re really just tweaking the details to get through the process.
In this case, it just seems like there’s a couple things going on. There’s a whole lot being forced through the process in a short period of time. People are kicking back a bit, I’ll say it that way. It’s probably the best way to say it.
Would you say the GPA’s position…I don’t want to put you on the spot. I think I heard you say this. I’m just trying to clarify. The GPA is not going to support including Class C in the leak detection and repair, or LDAR, rulemaking.
Matt: Correct. We believe and we agree that Type A and B lines should be included. PHMSA did a great job on that. We do not agree that Type C should be included in that. If they want to include Type C, there’s a process for them to go through. If they do that, then that would be the right way to do it. We would support them going through the right process.
For them to airdrop it in here, not have the accurate cost benefit analysis in there…If you think about it, Russel, our members, we’re the stakeholder. Our members are going to have to pay for this. They’re going to have to dedicate the resources, the time.
The other thing that I should have mentioned is I know that you have some great guests on your podcast representing various segments of the natural gas pipeline segments. The unique thing about our segment for gathering and processing is we are not a pass through.
You hit the nail on the head at the beginning. Our customers are the producers and the transmission folks. Both are great folks, but they don’t like reopening contracts because we’re losing money and that they are willing to lose money. That’s just something that’s not in place.
To us, that’s why the cost benefit analysis is so important. They need to factor in what the cost is. As we said before, PHMSA operates on a risk based system. A lot of these lines are in the middle of nowhere, in Bugs Bunny territory, and blowing cactuses and tumbleweeds going through. PHMSA has us put our resources where there’s the highest risk.
Russel: The other thing, too, Matt, that you said is that you’re not saying that the GPA is opposed to Class C ever being part of leak detection and repair. You’re opposed to not properly following process.
Matt: Russel, you said it a lot better than I did.
Russel: I’m learning as I’m listening. That’s one of the things I love about doing this podcast, is I learn a ton as I talk to guys like yourself. The real issue is that the economics for the operators and the way it directly affects their business model and their relationship with their customers is a lot of these gatherers, they work on cost recovery models.
They work on pretty thin margins. If I add a cost in that I have no ability to recover, given my current contracts, I find myself in quite a pickle.
Matt: Yes. You’re exactly right. Another wrinkle I was going to throw at you Russel, if that’s OK, on this is I’m a big believer in you’ve got to be able to crawl before you can walk, and walk before you can run, and run before you can sprint here.
One of the arguments that came up during the meeting that people, I felt like, especially the public side, didn’t really fully understand is we’re complying with first generation technology here, where they’re trying to apply fifth generation technology. It’s just not going to work. We’re not there yet.
Some of my brethren in distribution and transmission, they’ve been dealing with this for five generations. This is our first generation of it. PHMSA, I don’t understand why they don’t see that, but they need to see that.
It’s not that we wouldn’t comply. It’s like you have to be able to walk before you can…I don’t need to go through the whole thing again. You know what I’m saying.
Russel: One of the things that happens at PHMSA – I’ve never worked there. I’m maybe making a false assumption. I’ll just state that. It’s pretty easy to just say, “If the utilities are doing this, then the gatherers can do it, too.” It’s easy to make that leap, if you’re not intimate in the details of the differences.
Matt: Yes. I completely agree with you. It’s sad, because they should be able to see it. We have, really, a lengthy history of working collaboratively with PHMSA. It’s like, “Where’s the disconnect?” You hit on that at the beginning, where they’re just involved, for lack of a better term, in a rush job to try and get this proposal out the door.
Instead of doing it right, they’re just stepping all over the gathering sector, we feel. I’m sure if you talk to my brethren in distribution and transmission, I would think they would probably say the same thing, that they have a great working relationship with PHMSA, but PHMSA is just rushing this through.
Russel: I think also, too, that the way that the 49 CFR 192 and 195 are written currently, they contemplate gas utilities, gas transmission, gas distribution, and they define those things, and they contemplate liquid pipelines, but they don’t define gathering.
There’s a different regulatory framework for gas transmission versus gas utility. There’s not a different regulatory framework for liquid gathering versus liquid transmission. That’s one of the things I think is problematic.
When I write a rule and I say it applies to these kind of lines, I’m not really looking at “Is that thing operated as a transmission line, or is it operated as a gathering line?” That context is missing, I think. I’d be curious, do you think I’m right about that?
Matt: No, I think you’re onto something. I also feel like, too, looking at it from, like I was talking about, with the history of it, where they’re still gathering data on type C. In fact, I think May of 2022 was the first data that they actually had come in.
All of a sudden, you want fifth generation advanced leak detector technology. I’m sorry, I can’t talk today. You’ve got to be able to evaluate the data first to see, PHMSA does operate in risk based process. They got to look at the data and make an accurate decision. I don’t see that with this. I think it’s being rushed.
Russel: There’s reasons why they haven’t got as much data about gathering as they do about the other things.
I want to pivot a little bit, and ask a little different question. If GPA is not supporting Class C being, using your word, airdropped into the current leak detection and repair rule, what is the mechanics? What does an organization like GPA have to do to walk out on your position? I guess is the way I’d say that.
Matt: The first step was filing comments, which we did when they came out with the proposed rule. Then, the second step would be, during the GPAC process, to voice your concerns even though it’s a little bit hard to do that.
One, as you pointed out, it’s a complicated issue. When you’re at the GPAC, you only get two minutes to raise your issue before the actual discussion happens. You have to anticipate where the debate’s going to go to make your points.
Then, you have the debate there. Then, probably, the next opportunity when they come out with the final rule, there’ll be an opportunity to submit comments to PHMSA, again, reiterating your position.
Then, they come out with the final rule. Then, you have to figure out what you’re going to do once they come out with the final rule within 60 days of them publishing that in the Federal Register.
Russel: Then, if it ends up in the final rule and you don’t think it should, then, I guess, there’s a, “Well, we’re going to litigate this.”
Matt: That’s when you have to make that tough decision where we would bring it to our members. Our members would make that decision if we would challenge that or not, and how you challenge it. Sometimes, you can challenge it through the petition process with PHMSA, or you can just outright go to court and go that way.
Russel: All those things have consequences because…One of the things that concerns me about all of this is that I think PHMSA, it does a great job of working collaboratively across multiple competing stakeholders. When I say competing, I mean the competing interests.
They work well, they get people who have very different viewpoints about pipelining between operators, state regulators, welding unions, the universities, the pipeline safety trust, the environmental defense fund. All these people have an interest and represent people who have interests in the outcome of these rule makings.
PHMSA has historically done a great job through the GPAC and the LPAC of really making that process highly deliberative and highly collaborative. When things like this occur, the risk is we lose that collaborate ness and we start to drift to adversarial ness. Making up words here.
I’m hopeful that this can get resolved in the comment and petition process, and not through some other type of more onerous process.
Matt: No, I share your hope, Russell, and I completely agree with you on the collaboration and the collaborative process at PHMSA. There’s some great career staff at PHMSA who go the extra mile to try and make this a collaborative process.
They have an open door policy to anyone and everyone. They do a great job. This definitely is an anomaly. For us to see this kind of adversarial position where the agency seems to be completely entrenched in this, and we’re unfortunately entrenched, as well, as stakeholders in our position.
Usually it is a very collaborative process. You know what? I will say this, too. Just because I cover a number of different agencies. I’ve said this to multiple people at PHMSA. Not all other agencies operate like this.
I have a number of friends who worked at EPA. Over a couple beers, they would joke to me that they know they did a good job with a rule if they get sued by both sides, both industry and the public sues them on a rule.
I feel like PHMSA just is the opposite. They work collaboratively. They have their own sausage making process. They really go the extra mile to try and bring everyone together. It’s funny. Usually, when they produce a rule, not everyone’s happy, but not everyone’s upset either.
Russel: I wish I could remember the gentleman’s name. The gentleman on LPAC from Williams, he said it really well. It’s like, “We do a really good job when we’re all equally unhappy.”
Matt: That was a very good point he made. That made that made me laugh. That was Chad Zamarin.
Russel: What an on point comment. That’s a collaborative process versus “I know I did a good job when everybody sues me.”
Russel: Although, I guess everybody’s equally unhappy at that point. Anyways. What should GPA members be doing right now if they’re interested in the outcome of this process?
Matt: Really, the big important thing is there’s going to be another GPAC meeting coming up at the end of March. This previous GPAC meeting was at the end of December. Oh my God, Russel. It was a week-long meeting. They’re going to do another week-long meeting at the end of March. Gathering is going to be probably the first day or two of discussion.
Then they’re going to probably finish on wrapping up the LDAR rule. Then they’ll move, hopefully, to the class location rule. GPA members, they should be following this. This definitely will be a huge cost item for them. Hopefully, they’ll be coming out to DC to attend this meeting and helping us make sure that PHMSA is aware of the unique situation and position that we are in.
Russel: I was there with you at the last GPAC. I’ll be with you at the one that’s upcoming. I’m girding my loins for the experience.
Matt: [laughs] It’s just a week long meeting. It’s just extra special torture.
Russel: For somebody who’s never been to one of these meetings, it’s hard to describe what’s going on. It just is. It’s a very important process. I’m thankful that we, as an industry, have this process that gives good, solid, sharp feedback to the agency as rulemakings are being made. Boy, it does get pedantic sometimes, and repetitive.
Matt: It is tough. This next one will be extra tough, Russel, just because, as we were talking about, we’ll be going back and talking about Type C lines in their proposed LDAR program. Then, at some point, we’re going to turn the page to the National Pipeline Mapping System, which will be a very contentious issue.
You’ve got PHMSA that’s proposing to add gathering lines to the National Pipeline Mapping System. They are not included in there now. They’re not included in there because they have a statutory exemption from Congress. It’s public law. Unfortunately, in the proposed rule, PHMSA decided to basically airdrop gathering lines and remove that statutory exemption.
Right now, both gathering and distribution are exempt from that, but PHMSA is just going after gathering. We feel really strongly that this is completely unnecessary. It just serves no safety purposes. In fact, we could probably argue that they’re taking a really bad route where it would be anti safety.
One of the things that everyone in industry does is we push for 811, call before you dig. It’s free. Go there before you do anything in your yard, any excavation. They’ll come out. They’ll mark all the utilities.
What PHMSA is doing, by putting gathering lines in the National Pipeline Mapping System, you could be directing people who…”Hey, I didn’t have time to call 811. I’m going to go to United Rentals, rent a backhoe. I’ll just look at the National Pipeline Mapping System on my property and just start digging.”
Unfortunately, as you know, that’s where we have a lot of accidents. That’s something that’s definitely preventable if you go to 811. We want to drive people there. Putting gathering lines on, taking away that statutory exemption, I think is definitely anti-safety. We’re going to push back pretty hard on that.
Russel: I do not feel qualified to make any remarks or even ask any questions on that. I haven’t educated myself on that topic. I’ll just leave it there. Otherwise, I’m going to get way over my skis and probably ask a question that makes no sense.
One of the challenges PHMSA has is for them to make rulemaking decisions and get it through the process, they have to gather data, and do analysis and cost justification. They can’t do analysis and cost justification without the data.
For pipelines, they need to collect data about the pipelines, how many miles do we have, where are those pipelines located, what fluids are they carrying, those kinds of things, to do their analysis.
I don’t know, man. Don’t know enough about the issue. I’m muddled. I believe you when you say that’s the next contentious issue that’s coming up. Is there a rulemaking going on around that, how’s that…
Matt: I’m so sorry, Russel. I should have been clearer. That is actually in the proposed LDAR rule. That was way outside…Congress never touched that in this mandate. That was just something extra that PHMSA shoved in there.
Russel: What was PHMSA’s justification for including that in LDAR?
Matt: I’ll have to go back and look. I don’t think there was much of a justification. I think they just put it in there. It really didn’t make much sense. If they want to revoke the statutory exemption, there’s a whole process to go through with that. You need a public law from Congress. They need to go through that process. This is another process argument.
We feel pretty strongly about that, like I said, mostly from a safety standpoint, but also, too, from what you were talking about. You’re selling yourself short. You do know a lot about this.
Where a lot of these gathering line operators don’t have the geospatial data that they would be required to put in the National Pipeline Mapping System. Them revoking that…They can’t even get what they’re trying to propose to get.
Russel: What they would do is they would, in effect, require all these gathering companies to build GIS capability. That ain’t cheap.
Matt: No, sir.
Russel: If we get that far in the next GPAC, I guess I’ll get educated. I’ll carve you out in the back room, and we can talk about it.
Matt: The key word that you said is if. Who knows? It was getting contentious. It went a lot longer than we thought it would.
Russel: They’ve got a lot on their agenda. They’ve got a lot they’re trying to get done. They don’t have a lot of time to get there. It should be entertaining, if you’re into that sort of thing.
Listen, Matt. This has been great. Again, I apologize for taking so long to get GPA involved with the Pipeliners Podcast, but I’m very glad you’re here. This has been really helpful information. I look forward to conversations in the future.
Matt: Same here, Russel. Thank you so much for having GPA. We really appreciate it.
Russel: I hope you enjoyed this week’s episode of the Pipeliners Podcast and our conversation with Matt. Just a reminder before you go. You should register to win our customized Pipeliners Podcast YETI tumbler. Simply visit PipelinePodcastNetwork.com/Win and enter yourself in the drawing.
If you’d like to support the podcast, please leave us a review. You can find instructions at PipelinePodcastNetwork.com.
If you have ideas, questions, or topics you’d be interested in, please let me know, either by leaving a note on the Contact Us page at PipelinePodcastNetwork.com, or reach out to me directly on LinkedIn. Thanks for listening. I’ll talk to you next week.
Transcription by CastingWords