Pipeline Industry Education Session: Encana’s Spill … · Pipeline Industry Education Session: Encana’s Spill Prevention, Mitigation and Response Program ... –BC Inland Oil

Pipeline Industry Education

Session: Encana’s Spill

Prevention, Mitigation and

Response Program

Andrea Bullinger, M.Sc., P.Ag

Manager Environmental Compliance

Encana Corporation

Key Messages

• Spill regulations are evolving and industry must evolve

with them

• Overview

– Key regulatory changes

– Encana’s 2013 Spill Practice Review

–Next Steps

Key Regulatory Changes

• BC

– Land Based Spill Preparedness

and Response Policy Intentions

Paper for Consultation (2013)

– BC Inland Oil Spill Response

Plan (2013)

• Alberta

– Bulletin 2012-12

– Alberta Pipeline Safety Review

(2012)

– AER Response to APSR (2013)

– Report 2013-B: Pipeline

Performance in Alberta

Encana’s 2013 Spill Practice Review

• Context

– Transition to liquid plays increases potential impact of spills

– Increasing regulatory focus on spills

– Increasing public concern around spills

– Focus on prevention/mitigation and refine response

• Work with GIS and Facility Integrity (FI)

– Developed risk based training and awareness

– Identify high risk sites and control points

– Develop area specific training/awareness

– Work with BUs to develop mitigations

– Refinement of local spill response resources

Prevention – Facility Integrity

• An annual risk assessment on

all operating pipelines

– Internal Corrosion

– External Corrosion

– Construction Practices

– Cracking

– Weather and Outside Forces

• Integrity Management Program

• Damage Prevention Program

• Aerial RoW surveys and

geotechnical evaluations of

water crossings (2012)

– Approx 50 sites identified for

assessment

GIS Desktop Review

• Developed High Impact Spill Index

• Algorithm based on the following

primary indices:

– Waterbodies

– Stakeholders

– Access

• Significant data challenges:

– AB and BC have different data

classifications/quality

– Data age, may not be relevant

– Verification essential to ensure correct

interpretation

• Total review included 17,507 unique

surface locations

– 11,509 wellsites/facilities

– 5,998 pipeline crossings

Waterbody Index

• Two parameters:

– Classification (waterbody type)

– Distance (euclidean)

Severe High Medium Low

Classification Permanent/

named/ 8th to

10th order

lakes/

creeks/rivers,

icefields, etc.

Aqueducts,

canals,

spillways,

unnamed

permanent/

6th to 7th

order

streams/

wetlands,

reservoirs,

etc.

Dugouts,

lagoons,

quarries,

ephemeral/

4th to 5th

order

lakes/stream/

wetlands,

etc.

Ditch,

ephemeral/

unknown/1st

to 3rd order

lakes/stream/

wetlands,

arbitrary flow,

etc.

Distance <50m 50m - 100m 100m - 200m >200m

Field Verification – Waterbodies

• Total of 447 locations where water type and water

distance identified for field verification

– 15 wellsites and facilities

– 432 pipeline crossings

Stakeholder Index

• Stakeholders include:

– Individual residences

– Cities, towns, hamlets, etc.

– Parks and protected areas

• Parameter is distance:

– Severe = <200m

– High = 200m to 500m

– Medium = 500m to 1000m

– Low = >1000m

Field Verifications – Stakeholder Index

– 309 wellsites/

facilities

– 211 pipeline

crossings

– 4 recreational

areas

– Rest individual

dwellings, towns,

cities, etc.

• Total of 520 locations where proximity to a stakeholder

identified for field verification

Access Index

• Three parameters:

– Distance

– Seasonality

– Type

Severe High Medium Low

Distance na >200m 100m-200m <100m

Seasonality Seasonal/

Unknown

na na All Season

Type Variable/

Unknown

Other Gravel

(Loose/Low

Grade)

Paved

(1◦, 2◦, 3◦)

Field Verification – Access Index

• Total of 567

locations where

distance to and

seasonality/type of

access identified

for field verification

– 243 wellsites and

facilities

– 324 pipeline

crossings

Field Verification

• Too many to field verify

– Eliminated overlapping

rankings

– Added secondary index

(liquid production)

– Aerial survey reviews

– Interviewed Operators

– 40 Flagged for verification

• Field verification standardized

– Trimble Juno

– Standard form in Juno

– Photos of high potential

impact areas

– Photos of potential control

points

Area Specific Training and Awareness

• In development

• Focus:

– Spill response (general)

– Area specific high risk sites

– Area specific spill response

– Spill prevention action items

Area Specific Training

and Awareness

• Goals:

– Engage field staff in SPMR

– Build awareness

• Discuss/plan mitigations

– High potential for impact

sites (site specific plans)

– Control points

– Spill equipment caches

– Staging areas

Next Steps

– Fill data gaps

– Meaningful metrics

– Root cause analysis/ trending

– Spill spot checks

– Spill reduction targets

– Spill prevention/mitigation in

tailgate meetings

– Rewards for execution

excellence

– Site specific SPMR plans

• Finalize/Deliver Site Specific Training

and Awareness (Q2)

• Support mitigations

• Further enhancing awareness and

commitment to spill response:

Questions?