In this episode of the Pipeliners Podcast, host Russel Treat talks to Bill Caram from the Pipeline Safety Trust. They discuss various aspects of pipeline safety, including the gas leak detection and repair rule, the new distribution rulemaking, the valve rule, and the importance of safety management systems.

Bill shares insights into how individual incidents can lead to significant rulemakings and emphasizes the need for balancing safety, environmental protection, and other industry priorities. They also discuss the role of the Pipeline Safety Trust in promoting pipeline safety and transparency. The conversation underscores the importance of continuous improvement in pipeline safety and the role of organizations like the Pipeline Safety Trust in advancing safety practices in the industry.

Pipeline Safety Trust Show Notes, Links, and Insider Terms:

• Bill Caram is the Executive Director at Pipeline Safety Trust. Connect with Bill Caram on LinkedIn.
  • Bill has served as the Pipeline Safety Trust’s Executive Director since 2020 and serves with a passion for fierce independence, public safety advocacy, and environmental protections.
  • PST (Pipeline Safety Trust) is a nonprofit public charity promoting pipeline safety through education and advocacy by increasing access to information, and by building partnerships with residents, safety advocates, government, and industry, that result in safer communities and a healthier environment.
    • Visit pstrust.org to find information on how to sign up for the newsletter or listserv, as well as information about the conference and how to sign up.
• Right-of-way Roundup
• PHSMA (Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration) ensures the safe transportation of energy and hazardous materials.
• LDAR (Leak Detection and Repair) regulations require operators to craft a program that specifies the regulatory requirements and facility-specific procedures for recordkeeping certifications, monitoring, and repairs to prevent damage to people and the environment.
• NTSB (National Transportation Safety Board) is a U.S. government agency responsible for the safety of the nation’s major transportation systems: Aviation, Highway, Marine, Railroad, and Pipeline. The entity investigates incidents and accidents involving transportation and also makes recommendations for safety improvements.
• Congressional Mandate is a directive or requirement established by the U.S. Congress.
• Protecting Our Infrastructure of Pipelines and Enhancing Safety (PIPES) Act of 2020 addresses pipeline safety and infrastructure with respect to natural gas and hazardous liquid pipelines. It authorizes appropriations through FY2023 for specified pipeline safety programs under the Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of 2002 and related enactments.
• Geohazards, or geological hazards, are the result of natural, active geologic processes which may include landslides, soil erosion, karst phenomena, and river migration.
• 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.
• Methane Emissions is the release of methane, a potent greenhouse gas, into the atmosphere.
• The Marshall Incident, also known as the Enbridge Incorporated Hazardous Liquid Rupture and Release incident, occurred on July 25, 2010, in Marshall, Michigan. [Read the full NTSB Accident Report.]
• 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.
• APGA (American Public Gas Association) is a not-for-profit trade organization representing America’s publicly owned natural gas local distribution companies (LDCs). They develop regulatory and legislative policies and organize meetings, seminars, and workshops with a specific goal to improve the safety, reliability, operational efficiency, and regulatory environment in which public gas systems operate. Through APGA, public gas systems work together to stay reliably informed about new developments in safety, public policy, operations, technology, and the marketplace.
• Shale Gas refers to natural gas extracted from the tiny pores in shale sedimentary rock formations. The composition of the gas extracted from different shale formations varies, but is generally high in NGL content. 
• Fracking is the process of injecting liquid and materials at high pressure to create small fractures within tight shale formations to stimulate the production and safely extract energy from an underground well after the drilling has ended and the rig and derrick are removed from the site.
• Quality Management is a systematic approach to managing and improving the quality of processes and operations in the pipeline industry.
• The Bellingham Pipeline Incident (Olympic Pipeline explosion) occurred on June 10, 1999, when a gas pipeline ruptured near Whatcom Creek in Bellingham, Wash., causing deaths and injuries. Three deaths included 18-year-old Liam Wood and 10-year-olds Stephen Tsiorvas and Wade King.
• The San Bruno or PG&E Incident in September 2010 refers to a ruptured pipeline operated by the Pacific Gas & Electric Company. The rupture created a crater near San Bruno, California, caused an explosion after natural gas was released and ignited, and resulted in fires causing loss to life and property.
• 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 RP 1173 established the framework for operators to implement pipeline safety management systems. The PSMS standard includes 10 core elements.
  • Pipeline SMS (Pipeline Safety Management Systems) or PSMS is an industry-wide focus to improve pipeline safety, driving toward zero incidents.
• Listen to Episode 300 here.

Pipeline Safety Trust Full Episode Transcript:

Russel Treat: Welcome to the “Pipeliners Podcast,” episode 307, sponsored by EnerSys Corporation, providers of POEMS, the Pipeline Operations Excellence Management System, compliance and operations 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 Laura Ade with South Jersey Gas. To learn how you can win this signature prize, stick around until the end of the episode.

This week, we speak to Bill Caram with the Pipeline Safety Trust. We get the Pipeline Safety Trust’s viewpoint on some of the current rulemakings making their way through the PHMSA process.

Bill, welcome back to The Pipeliners Podcast.

Bill Caram: Thanks so much for having me back, Russel. It’s a pleasure to be here.

Russel: I always enjoy having you. I like hearing the perspective of the Pipeline Safety Trust and the stuff that’s going on in our business. It’s always good to have you.

Bill: I really appreciate this podcast and what you bring to it. I learn so much from it. I’m a regular listener.

Russel: Awesome.

Let’s just dive in, because there’s a lot going on in the world. I know that you guys have your annual conference coming up here in a little bit. As we’re recording this, it’s the 29th of September. You guys have your annual conference coming up.

When is your annual conference?

Bill: It’s November 16th and 17th. It’s in New Orleans again. You can find details on our website.

We just released a draft agenda yesterday, so you can see some of the sessions we’re planning on holding. We’re really excited about it this year and encourage as many listeners as possible to sign up and come to New Orleans.

Russel: I think you guys do a great job with that conference. Unfortunately, I’m not able to get to it this year. I wasn’t able to go last year. It’s just, for some reason, I haven’t figured out how to be two places at once yet.

Bill: Yeah, I run into the same problem.

Russel: Yes, exactly.

Look, let’s dive in. The first thing I wanted to visit with you about is the gas leak detection and repair rule. I want to hear the Safety Trust’s perspective on this.

This rulemaking doesn’t really come out of an NTSB recommendation, at least not to my knowledge, so it’s a little bit unique in that way, in terms of what’s driving…

I know it’s coming out of a Congressional mandate. What’s the Safety Trust’s perspective on the gas leak detection and repair rule?

Bill: That’s a great question. NTSB has had some long standing recommendations about leak detection on the gas side, but yes. This does come at it in a slightly different way.

There continue to be gas failures. There continue to be leaks and emissions, and so Congress has had protection of the environment as part of PHMSA’s safety mandate for quite some time. Then, they give this very direct mandate that led to this rulemaking in the PIPES Act of 2020.

PHMSA’s responding to that.

I think this comes from a few different places. One is the public’s expectations of pipeline safety, it’s not frozen in time. They change over time. There was a time when liquid releases were considered an acceptable risk. There’s been a culture change and difference of expectations. That’s no longer viewed as acceptable.

There was a time when geohazards were considered an act of God and something an operator wasn’t expected to mitigate against. That’s changing. This is all great progress.

We’ve learned a lot more about methane emissions. What was once thought to be a harmless, safe practice to let some methane leak or blow it down, we now know a lot more about it. It’s damaged the environment.

Congress sees that as a safety issue. The Pipeline Safety Trust also sees that as a safety issue. We think a safe pipeline is one that keeps its product in the pipeline and that this proposed rule is moving towards that view of safety.

Russel: Yeah, I think we’re going to see a very different kind of GPAC meeting coming up in November or so. The GPAC is going to be a week after Thanksgiving. They’ve set up five days specifically to talk about this rule. I expect that to be an uncommonly energetic Gas Pipeline Advisory Council.

I could be wrong about that, but just given the level of comment that PHMSA has said that they’ve gotten on this rule, it’s very much unprecedented.

Bill: I agree with you. I do think it will be energetic and lively. They are doing two rulemakings in those five days. It’s this rule and the class location rule. It does seem like an unprecedented level of interest in the rule, certainly from the public’s perspective. It will be an interesting week.

Russel: Being somebody who’s a pipeliner and somewhat familiar with utility operations, there are some utility operators, in particular, that are going to have a real challenge with this. Just the level of effort required to repair every single leak in these older gas utility systems is substantial.

I wonder if we needn’t be careful about dedicating resources to this activity if they’re coming away from other activities that might have more safety impact. For example, if I’m spending my resources finding leaks in an old system, I wouldn’t want that to take away from the project to replace the old system.

Bill: I totally agree that, in a lot of cases on these older systems, that pipe replacement…We don’t want to interfere with pipe replacement. We think that the rule strikes a good balance by having an exception on if a pipe is expected to be replaced in a certain number of years.

We think it strikes a good balance there, and I know PHMSA put a lot of effort into that. We’re supportive of the programs PHMSA has in place from Congress on pipe replacement for the publicly owned systems. That billion dollar grant program, I think it’s great. We’d like to see more of that.

I don’t expect this rule to interfere with those replacement programs.

Russel: I know that, at least on the industry side, that’s one of the conversations that’s up and one of the concerns that I’ve heard expressed.

With all of these things, there’s a process in place. It’s deliberate. There’s lots of opportunity for input. I think all of that’s really important. I think it’s important to get a variety of perspectives on what we’re doing because, fundamentally, we serve the public. We’ve got to be responsive to what the public’s asking us to do.

Anyways, I think this is an interesting rule. I have an opinion that this is more of an environmental rule than a safety rule. Again, I’d be interested to hear the Safety Trust’s perspective on that mindset, if you will.

Bill: I don’t see it as an either/or. I think a safe pipeline is protecting both people and the environment. I think PHMSA’s mandate reflects that. The Pipeline Safety Trust’s mission certainly reflects that. It’s been that way from the beginning. A safe pipeline keeps its product in the pipe.

The example I like to use is, going back to the Enbridge failure in Marshall, Michigan in 2010. No immediate injuries. No fatalities, but I don’t think anyone would consider that a safe pipeline that leaked, that ruptured and spilled so much into a river system there and destroyed an ecosystem for so long. That’s not a safe pipeline.

I think a safe pipeline protects people and the environment, and so this rule maybe leans a little more towards the environment, but we also think it’s going to protect people, too. There are still leaks that are injuring and killing people from these pipelines. We think that’s going to make progress there, as well.

Russel: I can appreciate that perspective.

I agree. The purpose of a pipeline is to safely and effectively move product from A to B. That means none of it gets out of the pipe. I do wonder sometimes, where do you draw the line because zero is a really hard number.

We talk about that on the safety side. Zero incidents, zero injuries. We can all agree and get behind that. I don’t know that we’re ready to agree and get behind that zero emissions is the target. Should it be, conceptually? Yes. Is that economically feasible? I don’t know. Is that reasonable? I don’t know.

That’s me. I’m a guy who loves the environment, the outdoors, and all that, but I wonder about these questions. I think, as we get to the conversations and start working through it, I’m very interested to see where that lands.

Bill: I hear you, but one thing to add to that is natural gas was seen as this bridge fuel and a big improvement over burning coal for power and energy. Since that transition, we’ve learned a lot more about methane and how potent it is of a greenhouse gas, 80 plus times more potent a greenhouse gas in the first 20 years than CO2.

What studies are showing now is that with relatively small leakage rates in a pipeline system, it’s no better from a global warming perspective, from a climate change perspective, than coal. If we can make some improvements on those leakage rates, and I think this proposed rule would go a long way towards that, then we can start thinking about natural gas being more of a part of the energy solution going forward.

Russel: I’ve got it. Like I said, I’ll be interested to see where the conversation goes.

I do want to talk about some of the NTSB recommendations and the progress that’s being made on that. There’s a new distribution rulemaking that’s making its way through the process. That’s a direct outcome of the Merrimack incident in Massachusetts.

Likewise, I think there’s a lot of conversation about that one, as well, although I did have an interesting conversation recently with the American Public Gas Association.

One of the things I didn’t realize is that a lot of this rulemaking is about older distribution systems where modern distribution systems have regulators at the house, near the point of use. These older distribution systems do not. They have neighborhood level regulators and everything in the neighborhood is near atmospheric pressure, where overpressure is a much different kind of problem.

What is the Safety Trust’s perspective on the new distribution rule? What do you guys think is important in that rule?

Bill: We are a small staff. We’re still working our way through that rule, but the Merrimack Valley tragedy and failure wasn’t the first of its kind. There have been several of these overpressurization events that have taken over a whole system. It was time for some sort of regulatory fix for that problem to prevent that from happening again.

So far, as we’ve gone through the rule, we’ve found that our priorities, to make sure that that doesn’t happen again, have been met, but I’m certainly open to hearing the industry’s perspective on where they think it is helpful and where they think it might not be helpful on preventing those incidents from happening again.

We’ve had a number of priorities that we’ve shared on that rule and feel like it’s been met, but I don’t have a good sense of…I haven’t had a conversation with industry yet about where they think, maybe, it isn’t helpful and is going beyond that targeted, prescriptive approach that I think a lot of folks worked hard on making sure it was targeted and prescriptive to prevent those kind of incidents from happening again.

Russel: I am not familiar with this one, either, and haven’t developed a perspective, but I do think that your observation is right. A lot of what’s in this rule is very, very targeted on a particular kind of system and a particular kind of pressure regulation that you don’t tend to find in newer gas systems.

Bill: Yeah. There’s, what we hope, in newer systems is that there’s this redundancy where if you are doing work on a system and one of the regulators is taken out, like what happened in Merrimack Valley, that there’s this redundancy and there’s other checks in place that prevent that pressure from traveling through the whole system.

That may be the older systems don’t have that kind of redundancy, and so we hope that the rule is where it’s targeting that and going to prevent something like that from happening again.

Russel: I think we’re on the same page about that one.

There’s also been some interesting developments on the recent gas gathering rule. There were – I don’t know if litigation is the right word, but some adjudication. Adjudication is probably the better word – some adjudication related to the rule and its impact on gathering.

Some of the things in the rule have been rendered invalid because they failed to do the cost analysis that’s required by law. What is the Safety Trust’s perspective on that whole situation?

Bill: I think, Russel, you’re talking about the valve rule…

Russel: Yeah.

Bill: …and not the gas gathering rule.

The valve rule, there was some litigation or adjudication on that rule specifically around how it applied to gas gathering lines. A lot of gas gathering lines, since the shale boom and fracking boom, have become almost indistinguishable from transmission lines in diameter and pressure.

We would certainly hope that the valve rule would apply to those, as well. It does seem that the court agreed with the industry in that PHMSA didn’t go about it properly procedurally to look at that cost/benefit requirement.

The industry has multiple priorities that they’re balancing. I completely understand that. Safety is certainly a top priority for operators, but they also need to make a profit for their owners. They need to provide reliable and affordable energy to their customers.

They’re balancing these three priorities. The Pipeline Safety Trust is only focused on one. We just care about safety. We’re not always going to see eye to eye because we’re not balancing multiple priorities, the same priorities that the industry is.

We’re just focused on safety. We’re just going to push for safety, so of course we think that we should have rupture mitigation valves near high consequence areas, all pipelines.

Existing, new. We want to protect the public.

Russel: I get that perspective, Bill. I really do. You make a really good point around balancing the multiple priorities. Ultimately, these pipelines are commercial entities. They’re trying to operate and make a profit. They all agree that safety is paramount.

Lack of safety will destroy profits in a hurry, as some operators have found out the hard way, but it is a matter of competing priorities. That, to me, is really the biggest challenge. That’s the thing that if I were CEO of a pipeline company or VP of Operations of a pipeline company, that’s the thing that would keep me up at night.

Given the resources and budget we have for safety, are we spending it the best way? Are we addressing all the things we need to address? That would keep me up at night.

Bill: Me as well. Historically, when the engineers have run the pipeline companies, they’ve done a reasonable job at balancing priorities and keeping safety at an appropriate level.

As private equity firms and some of these finance companies are taking over specific pipelines or pipeline companies, I get nervous that they’re not going to bring the engineer’s perspective of safety to that pipeline company.

Again, the operators are balancing these interests. It’s not the Pipeline Safety Trust’s job to try to balance those interests. We are just pushing for safety.

Russel: It’s interesting. The conversation sometimes feels a bit adversarial, and it’s not, really. I don’t know if that makes sense. I get your perspective. I get the perspective that I have. I can see the dissonance, if you will, in that conversation, but I actually believe that being honest about that and having that dissonance helps us to get to a better answer.

I see it as a good thing.

Bill: I think it’s a good thing too. I know exactly what you’re talking about. Remember, we were born out of an awful tragedy. I really appreciated the replay of that recent episode, for your 300th episode, about the Bellingham tragedy.

We still have family members and friends of boys who died that day on our board. It continues to serve as our moral bedrock. That dedication to safety comes out of that, and safety at all costs.

The background I came from, in river conservation and environmental protection, there would be 10 different nonprofit organizations working on the same issue, but they all played their different role.

Some of them were really adversarial, ready to litigate. Some were really around getting public support and around those conservation efforts. Some were collaborative and consensus based and meeting the industry where they were, trying to move them just incrementally, step by step.

In pipeline safety, for the most part, we have to play all those roles. We’re really the only organization doing that. At times, we do feel the need to have that watchdog role and be a little more adversarial.

There’s other times where we’re really a partner and are collaborative and just trying to make that incremental progress, meeting the industry where they are. It’s a hard role, to be all of those things, but it’s a challenge that I think is worthwhile.

Russel: I think you guys play a very important role in the overall industry. You need a committed, passionate, reasonable adversary, if you will. Adversary is probably the wrong word, but an alternative voice, a different viewpoint. Iron sharpens iron.

It helps us all get better. It’s all great. I do want to talk to you about your Right-of-way Roundup. Maybe you could give us a little overview on what you got going on there.

Bill: Sure. Thanks for asking about that. In the early days of the Pipeline Safety Trust, our founding Executive Director, Carl Weimer, started a listserv on pipeline safety. There would be discussions on there and things like that.

As time went on and we’ve grown and the listserv has grown, it’s turned into a bit more of a daily newsletter. We call it the Right-of-way Roundup now. Our communications director, Kenneth Clarkson, coined that term. He runs that for us.

He goes through all the news stories around each day and rounds them up into one email that goes out to folks. A lot of it is based around incidents that happen, pipeline failures that happen. It’s a good reminder that these failures are still happening on a pretty regular basis.

I know individual operators, when they’re looking at the line they’re in charge of, that line doesn’t fail very often. It’s good to be reminded that these failures are still happening. The stories that go into the impact that they have.

More than just failures. There are stories about regulations that are passing or new projects and things like that. I hope it’s a resource for everyone, industry, public, and government. It seems to be. Occasionally, we’ll get into some good discussions on there as well.

Russel: I receive the newsletter. I read it daily. It helps me keep a finger on the heartbeat of how we’re doing from a safety performance perspective as an industry. It’s very easy for us to be quite myopic and see the world that we’re working in and not see the entirety of it. Really, safety incidents are quite rare in pipelining, but they’re not rare enough. 

When you read the Right-of-way Roundup, you get a sense of that. You see the kinds of things that are occurring. It’s helpful. Anybody who’s interested in operations excellence for pipelining, it’s a real resource. I would highly encourage any pipeliner to subscribe. The conversations are often quite interesting and engaging. I’ll say that too.

I haven’t ever actually dived into one of the conversations. I figure people hear from me enough because of this podcast. They don’t need to hear from me anymore. It’s good. I certainly recommend it as a resource.

Bill: I appreciate that, Russel. Anyone who’s interested in signing up, you can go to our website. It’s pstrust.org. Under the “Get Involved” tab and maybe some others, you can find how to sign up for that newsletter or that listserv. You can also find information about the conference and how to register there as well.

Russel: We’ll put all that information on the website, on the Pipeliners Podcast Network website, on the episode page, so people can find all that. I’ve covered what I had in mind to talk about. Is there anything else you’d like to visit about or communicate to the pipeline folks that listen to this?

Bill: Just back to this question of individual incidents leading to rulemakings, just taking a step back from that and looking at a bit of history is helpful. We have a history of certain failures, pipeline failures, being this watershed moment that really exposed some regulatory weaknesses and have led to significant rulemakings.

Certainly, Bellingham, the tragedy that we were formed out of, leading to the integrity management regulations was pretty big. San Bruno leading to a couple gas transmission regulations being big ones as well.

Of course, like we talked, about the Merrimack Valley tragedy leading to this most recent one. It’s interesting how some, like Merrimack Valley, lead to a prescriptive and narrow, really fixing one particular weakness.

Whereas there’s other failures, like Bellingham and PG&E’s in San Bruno, that lead to this broader rethinking about the regulations in general, not just trying to fix that particular failure but trying to think about how do we fix failures that may happen in the future, that we can’t even predict. That’s what integrity management was intended to try to fix.

Russel: That’s actually a really interesting conversation. I was at the AGA Fall Committee Meetings, in Pittsburgh, here, just a few weeks ago, a couple weeks ago. It’s all running together. 

Recently. I’ll just say it that way. Recently, as we record this. I went to the Field Operations Committee for a bit. I attended the PSMS workshop. I went to the Quality Management Committee for a bit. I’m starting to see some things in the space that are thematic around quality management, not only as it applies to safety, but also as it applies to other operations.

My premise is that quality management is the underlying science of both Safety Management and performance. In one case, you’re managing to the absence of an outcome. In the other case, you’re managing to the occurrence of an outcome. There’s differences in that, but it’s basically just different dimensions trying to run the same processes.

I really think we’re just getting started, but we’re beginning to press into safety management and quality management at a detailed level. That’s a good thing, for the industry, for safety, for all kinds of reasons.

I know that Pipeline Safety Trust is a big advocate of PSMS. I’m wondering if you guys are tracking that implementation or have a perspective on where you think the industry is and such around pipeline safety management. I’d be curious to hear that.

Bill: Yes. I do think a lot of safety improvements can come out of a good development and implementation of pipeline safety management systems. This is an example where the industry leads on safety and certain operators that are really head and shoulders above some other operators.

A lot of lessons can be learned from how they approach safety and maybe, specifically, safety management systems that can be lessons for the rest of the industry, that maybe, because of capacity issues or things like that, aren’t as far along. We certainly hope to see those lessons learned. RP 1173 has been out a little while. It’s due for an update, which I think we’re taking up soon.

Russel: Almost 10 years now. That’s kind of crazy.

Bill: It is crazy. I still think we have a long way to go in developing that.

Russel: I do too.

Bill: In some cases, there’s no other way around time and experience to learn those lessons. so I look forward to that update on 1173 and really hearing about the lessons from operators that they’ve learned over the last decade in this move towards safety management systems. We hope those lessons can be shared with the other operators that are maybe not as far along.

Russel: I’m certainly hopeful. It’s certainly one of the things that we’re committed to as a company, is to try and build the software to support the management systems to help operators operate more effectively. We’ll see. We’ll see how all that plays out.

Look, Bill, as always, I appreciate the conversation and the perspective. I always learn a little bit, or a lot, often, when we talk. Thank you for the work you’re doing at the Pipeline Safety Trust. We’ll look forward to bumping into you as we go around and follow what’s going on with all these rulemaking and changes.

Bill: That sounds great, Russel. Thanks so much for having me. Thanks for having this podcast where we can have these great conversations. Really appreciate it. It’s a great resource.

Russel: Final comment. Sign up for the Right-of-way Roundup.

Bill: Sign up for the Right-of-way Roundup. We’d love to see as many of you in New Orleans at our conference as possible. Looking forward to some great discussions there.

Russel: Thank you, Bill.

Bill: Thanks, Russel.

Russel: Hope you enjoyed this week’s episode of the “Pipeliners Podcast” and our conversation with Bill. 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 us, please leave us a review. You can do that on Apple Podcast, Google Play, Spotify, wherever you happen to listen. You can find instructions at PipelinePodcastNetwork.com.

If you have ideas, questions, or topics you’d be interested in, please let me know 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