In this month’s edition of the Pipeline Technology Podcast sponsored by Pipeline & Gas Journal, Harald Wathne and Olivier Royet of DNV discuss their recent P&GJ article, “Reassessing Value Placed on System Pressure Tests.”

In this episode, you will learn about the current use of system pressure tests in Integrity Management of pipelines, how to manage the costs of pressure tests when performed in an offshore environment, the emergence of new alternatives to system pressure testing through the analysis of potential failures, the importance of having complete information about each asset to support decision-making about potential failures, and more key aspects of this IM topic.

System Pressure Tests: Show Notes, Links, and Insider Terms

• Harald Wathne is Head of Section, Pipeline Technology, at DNV. Connect with Harald on LinkedIn.
• Olivier Royet is Head of Section of Offshore Technology and Infrastructure Downstream, Hydrogen and CCS, at DNV. Connect with Olivier on LinkedIn.
  • DNV provides risk management and assurance to global organizations across more than 100 countries. One of their sectors is oil and gas. Through broad experience and deep expertise, DNV advances safety and sustainable performance, sets industry benchmarks, and inspires and invents solutions.
• Pipeline & Gas Journal is the essential resource for technology, industry information, and analytical trends in the midstream oil and gas industry.  For more information on how to become a subscriber, visit pgjonline.com/subscribe.
  • Read the referenced DNV article, “Reassessing Value Placed on System Pressure Tests,” in the July 2021 edition of Pipeline & Gas Journal.
    • Learn more about the annual Pipeline & Gas Journal Awards, set for November 18, 2021, in Houston, Texas.
• Integrity Management (Pipeline Integrity Management) is a systematic approach to operate and manage pipelines in a safe manner that complies with PHMSA regulations.
• System Pressure Tests (SPTs) are used by pipeline operators to determine the integrity of new pipe immediately after construction and before placing the pipeline in service, as well as during the pipe’s operating life. A post-construction pressure test verifies the adequacy of the pipeline materials and construction methods.
• JIP (Joint Industry Project) is a collaborative project between stakeholders having common interest in development using joint funding and technology.
  • DNV spearheaded the Replace Joint Industry Project, which started in 2019. The JIP brought together 21 participants throughout the pipeline value chain to help develop and issue guidelines for participants to replace SPT for selected pipelines.
• DNV-ST-F101 (Submarine Pipeline Systems) is a standard that provides requirements and recommendations for the concept development, design, construction, operation, and abandonment of pipeline systems, with emphasis on structural integrity.
• Failure Mode, Effects & Criticality Analysis (FMECA) is a tool that is used to identify potential failure modes, assess the risks associated with each failure mode, rank each issue in terms of importance, identify corrective actions, and then carry out the corrective actions to address the most serious concerns.

System Pressure Tests: Full Episode Transcript

Announcer:  The Pipeline Technology Podcast, brought to you by Pipeline & Gas Journal, the decision-making resource for pipeline and midstream professionals. Now your host, Russel Treat.

Russel Treat:  Welcome to the Pipeline Technology Podcast, episode 14. In this episode, our guests are Olivier Royet, Senior Technical Specialist, and Harald Wathne, Head of Section for Pipeline Technology, at DNV. We’re going to talk to Olivier and Harald about the article published in the July 2021 Pipeline & Gas Journal entitled “Reassessing Value Placed on System Pressure Tests.”

Harald, Olivier, welcome to the Pipeline Technology Podcast.

Harald Wathne:  Thank you.

Olivier Royet:  Hello.

Russel:  Well, so, let me ask you guys to do this before we dive in. I want to ask each of you to do a little bit of an introduction, tell us a little bit about your background and how you got into pipelining, if you don’t mind. Harald, why don’t you go first?

Harald:  My background is structural engineering. I thought I was going into civil engineering and construction, but I got caught up by the more fascinating side of the offshore oil and gas industry, and started in DNV back in 2006, 2007. I have been here ever since, working with pipelines. That’s it.

Russel:  Structural engineering, that’s where I got my start, so good on you, man.

Olivier, same question. Tell us a little bit about your background and how you got into what you’re doing.

Olivier:  I started as a civil engineer, with having the wild dream of being able to build bridges, because bridgeway are very interesting. As it turned out, I decided to move to structure, floating, fixed structure, and finally, to end up doing pipeline. I did several different fields of technology.

Russel:  We have three civil engineers on the podcast here. This is going to get good. I’m the same thing. I started in civil engineering, because I thought I was going to build bridges and skyscrapers. I ended up doing pavement structures in the Air Force, and then got more interested in the software side of things. That’s where I ended up going.

It’s interesting. You find civil engineers in many, many, many disciplines. I asked you guys to come on and talk about your article that was in the July 2021 edition of Pipeline & Gas Journal. It was titled “Reassessing Value Placed on System Pressure Tests.” I know that this article came out as the result of a joint industry project, a JIP.

Maybe you could tell us a little bit about what was the background? What caused this JIP to occur, and what was involved?

Harald:  The originating idea for a JIP, I’m not actually sure, but it goes way back. Probably started when we included the — or opened up — the pipeline standard for waiving or replacing the system pressure test. When I got into this, I think it was back in 2016 when we started to look into what’s the next for pre-commissioning, and what’s going on in the market at the moment?

We were into projects looking into replacing the system pressure test and discovered that we really need to dig into a systematic method, a systematic approach, to how to deal with this. If you are not going to do the system pressure test, how will you replace it, and how can you ensure that you reach the same level of quality that the code intends?

From there, we started with a launch meeting, and it was a bit of a slow start getting the JIP off the feet. Once we got the critical mass, it just kept on running. We ended up with 21 participants at the end of it, so it’s quite a large JIP, actually.

Russel:  Tell us a little bit about what the JIP covered. What was the technical scope of this particular JIP?

Olivier:  The JIP was driven mainly by a small sentence in the code that was allowing you, for an offshore pipeline, to replace the system pressure test. It was just a line. At the time, I think two or three projects did that, but they were not that much work done to really record how to do it and how to carry out this work.

It was really looking at learning from the people that did it before and try to analyze and see if, building from this line, we could do a guideline and work further on that. Not really a new way, but see further if we can just make more work and more leeway in this direction.

Russel:  Pressure testing’s been around for a long time. Pressure testing is probably the original Integrity Management science, if you want to go back that far. It probably dates back to very, very early pipelines. I guess we’ve probably learned a whole lot over the years. What did you guys do in the JIP to analyze and capture what’s been learned over the years?

Olivier:  One first part that was quite fascinating and really interesting for an engineer was looking at every time we failed as an industry. I just mean every time that we did a system pressure test and something went wrong.

We looked at all the records around the world — from 1976 is the oldest one we managed to find — from organizations that were recording that, so a governmental organization and safety organization, and also, all the participants of the JIP to come forward and give us their oral story. Well, not oral, learning story.

They provided a breadth of knowledge of the industry from the past 30 years of each time they had a failure. We looked at all these failures, curated them, and tried to discover some trend, technical commonality, that we could say, “Well, this type of pipeline and this kind of installation was the key factor for this type of failure mode developing.”

That was one of the first reviews, was to identify that one, and find key patterns. The key learning that we draw from that, through this pattern, we were also able to map our codes, or the DNV-ST-F101, and look, “Was our code still relevant nowadays? Was this code developed and learned from all these almost accidents or errors?”

Russel:  Incident.

Olivier:  This incident, yes. From these errors, did we learn properly? A key learning was really yes, yes, if you designed the pipeline with the code right now, all these past failures would have been detected. It was a quite good one.

The interesting one for me personally was to see which kind of competence and which evolution came along from the year 1976…We found even earlier tests, dating after the Second World War, and where they wanted to re-test and re-pressurize some of the post-World War to pipeline control.

From the early industry, where the pipeline quality was really the key driver for failure, to really moving forward, and now that we see that welding material becoming an earlier problem, and now, being totally fine with it, and pushing the boundary of the technology, so we were able to read that.

All the industry learning, and now, coming on pipeline data, where system pressure tests, finding something going wrong, being more remote, it’s not happening very often, but we still find some.

Russel:  Interesting. I think that’s fascinating. Looking at all those cases over, what is that, about a 40-year period, and looking at every specific failure, were you surprised that the code addressed all those failures? Was that like you expected to find something you weren’t addressing, and the discovery was different than what you anticipated?

Olivier:  Yeah. You try to convince yourself that you could have detected everything. At first, you try to look at it, and say, “Well, okay, there is maybe something that we forgot and something that was not there.” We found some cases where the code had, at the time, was applied properly, and you had the human error. You had also the perfect Swiss cheese, like the wrong defect at the wrong location at the wrong time. That just made the perfect failure.

Russel:  Installed the wrong way, and yeah…

Harald:  Freak of nature type.

Olivier:  Yes.

Russel:  Right.

Olivier:  We could also read a bit of the suffering on a certain project. I read some story where they fail the first time, and then they repair. Then, it fails the second time, and then they repair the third time, and it fails again. You could read that. We had a case that was interesting, where a jack-up landed a spudcan on the pipeline and punctured through the pipeline. In that case, it’s a difficult one to say, “Well, this…”

Russel:  What are the chances of that happening, even if you’re trying to, right?

Olivier:  Yes. [laughs] Remote, but it still happened. It happened by luck before the system pressure test. If it would have happened after, it would have been another issue. There was that aspect that was quite interesting.

The other aspect was reporting, the size of reporting that we found. We had really to dig all around and search all around and ask everyone to really scratch their head and try to remember because, strangely, the industry is not really keen to really report all this or learn too much on this.

We had really to look at and ask people to come and say, “Look.” That was part of the JIP. We anonymize your contribution and just learn together on that one, and see what is really there, and we can learn from it.

Russel:  That’s a really interesting point. Being someone who primarily has worked in the U.S.,    I’ve done a little bit of international work, but I’ve primarily worked in the U.S., and because of our regulatory structure and the requirement for reporting pipeline incidents, finding reports of incidents is relatively straightforward here.

I would think, when you look at this on an international basis, and you look at international standards, it’s a much different level of challenge to collect that kind of information.

Olivier:  Yes.

Harald:  Also, the quality of the records that are being made, and digging into finding out what actually went wrong and what was the root cause of this. That’s also difficult to figure out.

Russel:  Yeah, it’s human nature. People don’t like — that’s not a pleasant process — when you have a problem, and somebody’s coming through with a microscope and looking at every excruciating detail. Yet looking at every excruciating detail is what’s required to get better. It’s a really interesting challenge.

Harald:  It is, and it’s much of the nature of the work we do in the DNV as well. We are quite used to it, and going into details, looking for, “How could this happen? What could we have done differently?” and being into incidents in that way, into the final microstructure of the steels, into the more larger viewpoints from higher-level assessments. It’s interesting work.

Russel:  Yes, no doubt, no doubt. I wanted to talk a little bit about the fact that there was a lot of focus on underwater SPT versus onshore. As we were off-mic, you guys were talking a little bit about some of the unique challenges of doing underwater-type operations of this type.

Could you elaborate a bit, so the audience can hear the conversation we were having earlier about what are some of the challenges unique to doing this underwater?

Olivier:  When you start your operation, and you’re already installing a pipeline underwater, it’s a challenge by itself. You need to weld your pipeline on the side of a vessel on the back, and lay it by 100 meter water depth.

Then, this pipeline on the seabed, you need to connect it. Then, there comes the time that you need to pressure test. We call it system pressure test, because you need to keep in mind, when you’re pressure testing, it’s not only the pipeline. It’s everything. It’s the spool, it’s the connectors, it’s the valve. It’s really the endgame for you.

You install this pipeline, and that’s involved filling up with water a pipeline that doesn’t like water. That is made of steel for the last trunk line. Putting water in it is putting the risk of introducing bacterial corrosion, introducing oxygen, introducing plenty of nasty, nasty things that can really reduce the life of your pipeline. You start by introducing water with a lot of chemicals in it to ensure that you don’t reduce the life of your pipeline.

Then, you are going to pressure test, so maintain a pressure for a set amount of time, so 24 hours. Should you be successful, then you need to dispose of this water. It’s offshore. You can be in a really remote area, and quite often, this water will be disposed back in the environment. That’s where the environmental cost of these tests really becomes heavy.

Behind the environment cost is also the energy cost. You need to pump. For a dry gas pipeline, you need to dry this pipeline. It could take weeks. There’s a lot of expenditure in terms of having the machinery, the system onshore to do all this work. That’s a big and large undertaking.

Harald:  Also, the area requirement, the de-watering spread, the dry spread, could take up several football fields, requiring huge land areas and preparation of land areas for this as well.

Russel:  The other thing we were talking about, too, is just the nature of offshore construction and the stresses you place on a pipeline as you’re placing that pipeline is very, very different than the type of stresses you’re placing on a pipeline when you’re just laying it in a ditch.

You have to have a very good understanding of what is the nature of the pipe once it’s on the seabed after installation, and after it’s been subjected to those additional kinds of stresses and strains related to dropping something off a ship and 100 feet down in the water, or 300 feet, or 1,000 feet down in the water, yeah.

Harald:  The offshore installation, it can be quite harsh for the pipeline. It’s massive amounts of stress in the tension, and it’s been slammed around with waves, wind, and currents all the way down to the seabed.

You install pipelines in several thousand meters of water depth, and the external pressure also experienced during that, it’s massive. Having control of the catenary all the way down to the seabed is of high importance for maintaining the integrity of the pipeline during installation. This is also part of what the JIP has covered, and we write about it in the article.

Russel:  Yeah. I would also think that, when you’re actually doing the system pressure test, and if you have a situation where you’re not holding the pressure, and you’ve got to go locate and repair that leak, it’s one level of problem on an onshore pipeline. It’s quite a different level of problem on an offshore pipeline.

Harald:  It’s difficult to send two guys to just repair a weld at that location, when you’re 2,000 meters below the sea level. It’s an expensive operation, and it requires lots of planning. You usually need a repair strategy in this. Also, you need a vessel with 100 people plus onboard and the equipment to go down to this site and do the repairs.

Some pipelines can even — it is not even possible to repair. How do you repair a submarine pipe in pipe, like for instance? It’s very difficult.

Russel:  Right.

Harald:  The costs of repairing an offshore pipeline, it’s magnitudes from repairing onshore pipelines.

Russel:  Yeah, right. Add a couple of zeros to the cost, at least, depending on the pipeline.

Maybe the next thing we should talk about, given this, is what is the process of planning for and executing an SPT? What are some of the key things that you need to be aware of as you’re walking that process out?

Olivier:  Knowing what you do during the typical system pressure test is quite straightforward. It is around volume of water and ensuring that you have the correct preservation of your pipeline. This area is quite well known and understood in the industry.

We have a recommended practice in pre-commissioning, so it’s something that’s been done, and there is enough experience that we are able to do this kind of work. The challenge beyond is it’s time impact on the projects, and again, the environmental on it.

By itself, once you laid the pipeline successfully, it’s operation of flooding this pipeline, gauging it. So, check that it has not being damaged, and oxidation has not occurred in area you don’t want. From that on, carry out the pressure test, and then once your pressure test has been successful, you need to de-water. Depending on the type of pipeline you’ve got, it can be a real big undertaking.

Let’s say you’ve got to dry a gas pipeline. You need to run some pigs and then dry this pipeline. Drying a pipeline, if you’ve got, let’s say, a 300 or 400 kilometer — or we had a recent one, 900 kilometer — it takes some, we are not talking about days of drying. You’re talking about weeks, towards a month, of having blown hot air on one end of the pipeline, and ensuring that humidity is absorbed through the process. It’s a large undertaking, and very difficult also to control to ensure that everything has been properly dried up. It’s always a bit of a concern, yeah.

Russel:  All of that conversation about a system pressure test tees up the costs and the consequences, and in particular, the costs and consequences of trying to do this offshore. Part of what you guys looked at in this JIP was failure mode effects and criticality analysis, which is an alternative to the pressure test.

Why don’t you tell us a little bit about what that is and how you approach it?

Olivier:  From the earlier work, the geostatic work, we found out that some components had a different way of failing, which was more or less well understood from the codes. The idea of the failure mode review was you get a systematic review of your system.

You take every component you have got on your system, and then you look at it, and holistically, you say, “Well, how can this fail?” You look at how can it fail from the day you decide to design to the day it arrive on the seabed, the minute before, in theory, you should have done your system pressure test. You’re covering everything.

It’s not only all the pressure of having a very good design, but analyze all the failure modes that could have happened during the transportation. Let’s say someone did a lifting somewhere and dropped a pipeline on its side. This pipeline has been damaged, and it’s not been fixed at any point in time. It’s been installed on the seabed, and this pipeline is damaged already, but you don’t know.

The idea of the failure mode approach is to look at a failure that can happen, but also looking at each scenario that will lead to this failure. If you had, for example, failure mode, typical fatigue, could I have my pipeline that’s loaded on a truck, and this truck is not very well supported, and the pipeline starts to vibrate? When the pipeline arrives on site, it’s already damaged. The fatigue was there. It’s one by one, each component, understanding how the entire chain of production has been done — design, production, manufacturing, transportation, and really installation, down to the fine line.

How do you ensure that, in the fine line, there is nothing that’s really happening at the last minute, and that will just jeopardize your installation?

That was the beauty of the tool. The beauty of the tool — and FMECAs use it around the industry extensively — why it’s a beautiful tool is because it’s systematic. If you look at the system — system pressures test is always the system. Systematically, you look at each component one by one, and look at the one that are the most critical for your project.

The one that you see, “Okay, during installation these are the one that will be the most loaded. Will it be my pipeline in this area? Will there be a buckle arrestor in another area? Will be a tee or a valve or such and such?”

That’s these views, is you don’t look at that systematically, and you say, “That’s the code. It’s applicable for that.” You look at that for a project or a system. You look at this system and say, “Yes, my pipeline will be installed from 100 meter water depth to 300 meter water depth, so the critical area is this area, and that’s the area I need to look.” It allows you to tailor and see where are your risks on all your chain and all your quality chain?

Russel:  When I’m listening to this, Olivier, I think that the thing that comes up for me is, when I think about a pressure test, particularly when I’m talking about offshore, and the complexities of doing that, and the costs, there are also complexities and costs to this systematic approach.

I could see where onshore that an economic analysis between the alternatives might be different. When you start looking at the economic analysis of this approach for offshore, it has a much stronger justification economically. It’s a very different approach from, in terms of what I’m doing, the resources I need, and the processes, right?

Do you think that’s a fair observation from a guy that’s not really an IM guy?

Olivier:  It’s a good observation. There is also, there is a holistic view on that, which I’d like to discuss a bit is when you follow the code, you follow the code. You do your best. You need to understand this code has been designed for a pipeline from a very small diameter to a very large diameter.

When you do this approach, you understand intimately your design, your system pressure test. You understand what is important for your project. You put the quality where it’s important for you. It’s not that much, the cost is there.

Also an understanding that this activity is important. The person that is designing the pipeline is important. Also, the person that will check that this pipeline is clean, or it’s not corroded, is equally important.

It’s just you identify each key personnel that will play a key role for your project, and you tell them, “You are important for these pressure tests, because there is no fallback. From your work, we will put a hydrocarbon behind you, so we trust that you will do your job.”

That’s the key message, is you put the responsibility on each of the key players, and then it won’t be just good enough. You won’t have someone say, “Well, okay, I welded all my pipeline,” or, “Maybe I forgot one,” just casually.

No, you really need to ensure that everybody does their job to the full extent, 100 percent. There is no fallback of saying, “Look, if I forget something, we’ll fill up the pipeline with water if a leak.” It doesn’t exist. It’s really putting the challenge on people and trusting that they will do the proper job.

Harald:  If you are looking into replacing the system pressure tests and following the replace methodology, I do recommend to start early. Look at this early. Do your technical evaluations. Do your economic evaluations.

What do I save? What do I need to spend? How do I work this into my commercial strategy, and the contracting strategies? How will this affect my contracts with vendors or other key players that you have in your project?

Also, how does it affect your design? Do I need to alter something in my system? Do I need to change from here to there, with pig traps and other mechanical components or inline components in the pipeline? How can we do this in the way that we get an optimized system that works well and meet the requirements?

Russel:  Yeah, for me, being a software guy, when I hear this conversation, I’m thinking about two things. Olivier already brought up one, which is the people part of this. Everybody needs to understand that their part is critical to safe operations of the pipe after these operations.

The other thing I hear is the focus is more on systems and process management, versus it is on mechanical testing, right? Those two things infer very different organizational structures and very different system structures to support that kind of activity.

Harald:  I think you cover both, actually. The quality assurance and quality surveillance part of it is more on the people side, and also bringing the system into the people actually doing the work.

Olivier:  One of the things that we found that was quite interesting is we did another exercise that was looking at add value. You know the Swiss cheese? Who has got the Swiss cheese, and who wants…All of that. We found out that, when you start early, you’ve got an understanding of this Swiss cheese. You see who they are. Who are the guardians of this cheese, and who is going to be a key player, and where do you see them?

You say, “These specifications.” The typical one, a specification where people say, “Well, you’re ordering the pipeline. How important is it? Well, order it properly.” It’s really start that, and you say, “These specifications are important. These documents are important. These, these.” You highlight them. You highlight, and you protect them. I always go on, you can engineer to the Nth degree. You’re never protected from someone doing a change at the last minute, for what he thinks is a good idea, for what is perceived as a management of change.

We ensure — this system is ensuring that — if you do a change, you understand the full impact of that change, and you don’t really end up with something that seems a good idea, and that end up to be a bad one. We found some of these cases in the review.

Russel:  Incidents always come down to a human failure at some level. They always come down to that, because even if it’s a problem with corrosion, or it’s a problem with some kind of mechanical failure, you can always take it back to someplace in the process, a human being didn’t do what was required.

I’m not saying that’s necessarily even with intent, but it’s always, the human factor is always key to any of these kinds of things.

Olivier:  Yes, it’s key, but I won’t say that it was the case for all of them. It’s a difficult discussion there, but there were a few cases that were a real learning, real alignment of events.

Russel:  Yeah, Olivier, I’m understanding what you’re saying. What I’m getting at, there’s the domains in the world of, “There’s the things I know. There’s the things I know that I don’t know, and then there’s this whole universe of the things I don’t know that I don’t know.”

That ultimately is, problems come from there. Learning comes from there. Real opportunity comes from those things I don’t know that I don’t know. It’s those discoveries that move us forward.

Look, this has been a great conversation, and frankly, I could continue to have it for an hour or two more, because I just find this topic fascinating. I’d like to try to wrap it up and take it down to what are my key takeaways from this conversation. I’ll run that by you guys, can you guys can give me a letter grade as to how I’m doing.

Harald:  Sure.

Russel:  Let me say this, so a couple things. Number one, we’re probably going to continue to use system pressure tests. It’s been around a long time. It’s going to continue to be around for a long time, but there are a lot of costs associated with doing these kinds of tests, and those costs increase exponentially when we go offshore.

There’s now a viable alternative to the system pressure test, which is this analysis of potential failures and planning for their mitigation. That approach, even if you’re going to do a system pressure test as a quality assurance step, that approach can provide some real value to ensure that test goes well.

I think there’s a third point, which is, if you do this detailed process, and you capture this information, you’re much better positioned to maintain and operate through the life cycle of the pipe, even post-construction. Those would be my three key takeaways. What do you think? Do you think I summarized it to a simplistic enough level?

Olivier:  It’s really good. I think, as we explain it very well. [laughs]

Russel:  It’s only because I try to listen well, right?

Harald:  You’re a good listener.

Olivier:  Yeah, I don’t have anything else to add. [laughs]

Russel:  Wow, okay, great.

Harald:  The only thing I could add is we’ll start early, and do the work. Do the review. Look into, “How will this affect my project in both positive and negative ways?”

Russel:  Yeah, absolutely, absolutely. Start early. That’s always a good plan.

Olivier:  The plan is we are going to share all the learning to the industry. This JIP didn’t end. If you know, quite often, we end a JIP, and then the people that know about the JIP are the people that were enrolled in the JIP. That’s not the case.

It’s been, we finished, I think, a year ago, and we are going to meet next month — all the committee — and discuss what we learned, add people that came forward with new failure cases, and we might discuss around it. The idea is we will update our recommended practice at one point, and then we will ensure our current practice to share these guidelines around. It’s not over, and I would hope that this JIP will continue for longer.

Russel:  I’m a big of JIPs. They are really critical to how we advance our capabilities. One of the things I often say is that pipeliners, by their nature, are very risk-averse. We’re very slow to accept change. What these JIPs do is they create a basis of knowledge that allows us to implement change in a methodical, careful, safe way. That’s really critical for what we do.

Harald:  I really agree to that, and also getting the buy-in from all the players in the industry. In this JIP, we even have four regulators with us. That’s ensuring also the success of the JIP when it’s being implemented in the industry.

Russel:  Yeah, absolutely. I couldn’t agree more.

[background music]

Russel:  Well, guys, this has been fun for me. I’ve learned a lot, and thank you for getting together. For the listeners, we have one person in Australia. That’d be Olivier. We have Harald in Norway and myself in Texas, so we’ve covered the globe with this podcast.

Harald:  Yes, we have.

Russel:  All right. Thank you, guys.

Harald:  All right. Thank you for the time, Russel.

Olivier:  Thank you.

Russel:  I hope you enjoyed this week’s episode of the Pipeline Technology Podcast and our conversation with Olivier and Harald.  If you would like to support this podcast, the best thing to do is to leave us a review on Apple Podcast, Google Play, or on your smart device podcast app. You could find instructions at pipelinerspodcast.com.

If there is a Pipeline & Gas Journal article where you’d like to hear from the author, please let me know either on the Contact Us page of pipelinerspodcast.com or reach out to me on LinkedIn. 

One last thing. Mark your calendar for November 18, 2021, in Houston, Texas, where the Pipeline and Gas Journal is going to present its first annual Pipeline and Gas Journal Awards, honoring midstream energy’s leading innovations and outstanding personal contributions to the pipeline industry. Thanks for listening. I’ll talk to you next month.

[music]

Transcription by CastingWords