A “good” failure

Of course no pipeline failure is good, but some are less bad than others.  TransCanada have apparently had a major failure in northern Ontario on a pipeline that supplies the northeast USA.  Cause is unknown but it evidently wasn’t external interference (so perhaps corrosion, or maybe even frost heave – this is winter in Canada).  No-one was injured and supply was more-or-less maintained through other pipelines.  “TransCanada remotely closed the valves from its Calgary gas control centre a few minutes later, cutting off the gas supply”  (although it still took several hours for the linepack to be fully vented).  Calgary is about 2000 km away.

If you’re going to have a major pipeline failure than something like this is what you’d prefer.  Of course luck or lack of it may dominate exactly where, when and how a failure will occur and what the consequences are, but good design and management (such as effective SCADA and remote controlled valves) can help minimise the consequences.

(As an aside, the news article is also interesting because of insights into access problems in the Canadian winter that are completely foreign to Australian pipeliners, apart from one or two I can think of who came here perhaps to escape such conditions!)

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Incidents. Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to A “good” failure

  1. Kristy says:

    Does anyone know how much particular coating types increase the SMYS? And the physics behind it?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s