International Regulations for Hazardous Area Classifications

A

Thread Starter

Alan 1950

I think there is a need for International mandatory regulations for Hazardous Area Classification (HAC) on ALL International Oil/Gas Pipelines as HAC is the fundamental safey and environmental precaution for all oil and gas pipelines. But it is amazing just how many pipelines are being built WITHOUT HAC.
 
ALL facets of any pipeline, be it gas, oil or water PIPELINES are totaly reliant on the success of the HAC design and implementation.

Pipeline automations and process controll are dependant on HAC. IF the HAC goes out of the window as seen on the Chad/Cameroon EVERTHING then is placed in Jeopardy and I MEAN EVERYTHING, EQUIPMENT, ASSESTS, PERSONNEL SAFETY, PUBLIC SAFETY AND ENVIRONMENT, SECURITY AND INTEGRITY, the whole damn shooting match.
 
J
EXTREME DISAGREEMENT!!!

Should we put the UN in charge? The US? Do WE want an outside body (not in the US) telling US how to build stuff so it won't blow up or pollute? I don't think so.

The country where a facility/pipeline/etc. is built should rightfully have 100% say in HOW they keep things from blowing up, folks getting killed, and the environment getting polluted. IF they want to "allow" companies to "take shortcuts" and endanger their own citizens/environment... that is THEIR problem.

The company(ies) involved in this sort of "willfull negligence" are putting their morals/values/goals on public display for all to see and take note.
 
Johnny

The only problem with your resolution in allowing the HOST country full control of their oil/gas pipelines is you would be handing blank cheques of public funds to corrupt governments. The adverse affects from such pipeline as the Chad/Cameroon Pipeline ALSO affects millions of other people in the region from the pollution of drinking water resources.

I think you would make a very good excutive director of Exxonmobil with your attitude.

Oil companies and Governments MUST be held accountable and the only way of doing that is for technical specifications and safeguards such as HAC to be Internationlly Regulated. Do you agree with me Johnny, that Pipeline Automation is POINTLESS in the abence of HAC?
 
J
Alan,

I agree with your concept but have a HUGE problem with letting "international committees" DICTATE things. We've seen what a splendid job the UN does. IF the nearby nations are in danger, THEY should get together and "fix" the problem. If a corrupt government is in charge, hopefully the citizens have a 2nd amendment.

I have no desire to be a director or other bean counter. My valedictorian lab partner heard me mutter at 2 a.m. one night "When I get out of here I want a job playing with the tech toys"(i.e. hands-on). So far, I've been blessed with that outcome.

White collar criminals deserve the worst. If they are also "government" shafting lots of citizens... they deserve (worst)^3.
 
The Chad/Cameroon pipeline situation is componded by the FACT international public funds are being used and the World Bank/IFC/USAID/DFID/IMF etc are "SUPPOSED" to be policing the project but what they know about hydrocarbon technology, can be written on the back of a postage stamp and the fact they are sleeping in the same bed as Exxonmobil doesn't help the situation. International governments will act on the CCPP but no until a catastrophe occurs. The floating offshore tanker (FSO) on the CCPP is an obsolete 30 years rust bucket single hull tanker with a capacity of 100million gallons. The FSO SHOULD also be subject to HAC which is the mainstream of this forum and guess what, the FSO does NOT meet HAC regulatons either. When the FSO goes BANG, not IF, it will make the Exxonvaldeez look like a lawn mower oil leak in comparrison.
The CCPP is purported to have cost 3.5 billion dollars but the end figure will be 3 or 4 times that amount thru SCAMS, neglect,dishonesty etc.
Some 12 months POST first oil the Oil Spill Plans are STILL not in place, CRUCIAL SAFETY valves have been omitted and furthmore the 40 years operational lifespan of the pipeline will be in the ABSENCE of CRUCIAL safety and environmental safeguards but it's only taxpayers money and it is only Africa , hence, the US/UK/EU don't give a damn. They will when the CCPP goes BANG.
These countires don't give a damn for Africa's plight and as long as the oil flows thru the pipeline the quality, safety, environmental etc have all been compromised for DOLLAR PROFITS.


> Alan,
>
> I agree with your concept but have a HUGE problem with letting "international committees" DICTATE things. We've seen what a splendid job the UN does. IF the nearby nations are in danger, THEY should get together and "fix" the problem. If a corrupt government is in charge, hopefully the citizens have a 2nd amendment.
>
> I have no desire to be a director or other bean counter. My valedictorian lab partner heard me mutter at 2 a.m. one night "When I get out of here I want a job playing with the tech toys"(i.e. hands-on). So far, I've been blessed with that outcome.
>
> White collar criminals deserve the worst. If they are also "government" shafting lots of citizens... they deserve (worst)^3.

( Complete thread: http://www.control.com/1026198856/index_html )
 
Johnny, there is a need for an organization similar to the US Chemical Safety & Hazard Investigation Board (CSB)whom, would/should control international hydrocarbon projects, not the "old school tie brigade" of the World Bank/IMF etc.
Competent and professional design is paramount prerequsite for the hydrocarbon industry.The Chad/Cameroon Pipeline has been built on pocket,ad/hoc,day to day and panic decision basis and WILL result in a CATASTROPHE
 
P

Paul Spresser

The adherenece to the requirements of whatever National standards exist at a site - which are often enacted in local legislation - is most probably mandatory. There tends to be little margin for personal preference.

However, where the local standards do not cover a given situation, simple duty of care would dictate that you would take on board the requirements of a suitable, international standard (something from the IEC suite or CENELEC). This is surely a reasonable approach. So is erring on the side of safety.

At this point in time, many countries - including the USA - are heading with various degrees of enthusiasm, towards IEC standards (or rebadged local versions thereof) for this and other allied areas.

This argument will therefore eventually become moot. The US has a high profile on IEC and has representatives on many of the committees and working groups. These persons are ensuring that they get their two cents worth when these things are rewritten and adopted globally.

It is for bodies in countries like the US to adopt/change/not adopt internationally agreed standards and to get involved in their development. This way, we all get something that fits the job, by taking on the experience of all players in the field.
 
P

Paul Spresser

I agree.

However, I would advise the use of whatever standard is enacted by whatever local legislation or by their industry regulator and then use international best practice to fill in the holes (and ALL standards have holes - none cover all contingencies).

If there are NO standards, one would be vicariously liable in not using ones own knowledge and acting in accordance with what ever set of standards should be used for such work - be they IEC or whatever.
 
Top