Tek-Tips is the largest IT community on the Internet today!

Members share and learn making Tek-Tips Forums the best source of peer-reviewed technical information on the Internet!

Register Log in
  • Congratulations TugboatEng on being selected by the Eng-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!

IOGP S-616 Line Pipe Spec - Out For Comment 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
I guess this establishment is working for gas pipeline operators, and asking their involvement for the thing that they complain or improvement in the standards.

Perhaps, they should directly send them to the members to involve. We, as eng-tips members cannot give them advise since we do not know their problems that they face every day.

I guess Steve is a member, and involving with this action. Therefore he kindly shared them for our information.
 
Yes. Much thanks for making us personally aware of the plight of slave labours.
I've red flagged the post as an advertisement for slave labour.

 
IOGP is a bit odd and has come out of nowhere, but seems to be an oil industry attempt to produce some standard specifications that are common between operators and not the individual docs we all love from each different party.

Remember - More details = better answers
Also: If you get a response it's polite to respond to it.
 
Yes, IOGP is a bit odd at that. There is more than a little that I don't believe at this time. Are these oil and gas companies actually sponsoring this, which IMO would be actually worse news, or is IOGP "just another parasitic internet company" trying to make a buck on free engineering labor, just as we have come to expect as internet SOP business model. They only seem to have a handful of specs at present, highly disorganised at that. It appears to me that there may be no official involvement by the companies that they claim are sponsoring them that I have determined so far, but I am now writing directly to some of their engineering managers to ask them to confirm or deny it.

 
Have a look at this
Seems to have been kicked off after the last downturn and is an attempt to not have a BP, Shell, Exxon, Total etc different spec for every last thing.

I cam across this earlier in the year when on a BP project and they wanted to use these specs.

Even the big boys seem to have realised that it costs an awful of of money to create and update their standard specs to little effect other than inflating the price of things to meet their requirements. I remember a Shell person saying that they reckoned that it cost them 1/3 more to buy to the Shell spec as it did if you just used a standard "industry" spec or no spec at all and just used API or ASTM xxx.

LI

Remember - More details = better answers
Also: If you get a response it's polite to respond to it.
 
@LI - it could be that way. Of course, it could also be that once a supplier sees a Shell or BP logo etc, then the price automatically goes up irrespective of the content. IOGP are also running a great deal of ISO TC67 standards development owing to the need to get around sanctions against certain countries whilst remaining "international". They have been going for years and have some very good free reports that would probably be enough for a quid pro quo in a civilised, free market society (see below)[flip]

@1503-44 - you don't have to participate if it offends your capitalist sensibilities. You also don't have to write the spec, Aker Solutions have done that, it's just that you may notice something that could help others, and possibly yourself, on future projects. At the end of it, you'll get a free spec either way, and as LI points out, plenty of operators will be going down this route, maybe not in the Permian, but they will, so why not take a look anyway. PS are you sure that you are not sending these replies from the White House?[bow]

@saplanti - no I'm not a member, but I am a user of the standards, and I like to get in and correct them before they get let loose on projects that I work on.

Steve Jones
Corrosion Management Consultant


All answers are personal opinions only and are in no way connected with any employer.
 
Where's the members and sponsors list showing all these supposed corporate sponsors?

Funded by members? What's funded? Apparently funding does not include review of their specs.

This is supposed to be of value under CFRs? I don't see any references there to IOGP.

I don't see where individuals are even allowed to become members, even if I wanted to.

Obviously anything that you ask for over what normally comes off the press costs money and I have always advocated not attaching supplements to basic specs asking for things that you don't need, realising that every additional item can have great cost implications. But some are necessary. I've been burned by not requiring 24hr valve hydros, etc. but, when the stuff fails offshore, SHTF and you sorely realise you should have used that spec. Writing a needed specification pays off. Using them when you don't need to does not and winds up costing way more. That's why we write them.

So tell me how something written for North Sea ops is supposed to blanket the entire world. Most of that I couldn't even think of using in an unregulated environment, even if I wanted to, or in places where hi tech repair parts aren't available for 3 months after ordering. So we'll have a version for unregulated South Texas gathering systems and another for ... That's what we have now already. I'd be surprised if anything better or more inclusive than the most basic existing international specs ever result from this, but someone (apparently not me or you) will be making a few bucks finding that out. In the meantime maybe IOGP just makes that situation worse. Another set of specs I don't need?

Fine, as I always say, its better to go broke drinking beer, but I guess you can write specs in the process. Be my guest, but count me out.

Steve, what's the deal? Why is this organisation asking us to do this (apparently for free), or is it? Let them work within the existing model. They can pay their own staff to work and to serve on the committees, just like ASME code committees are funded.

[highlight #CC0000]I simply think it is disrespectful to every engineer that has worked hard at great cost to obtain an engineering education.
[/highlight]
I promise that this ain't coming from the current White House. Besides, it is far too socialist idealism pie in sky for that.
 
These are the members - basically any upstream oil company are eligible to apply, not individuals or engineering companies
They fund it.

I will admit I had never heard of them until about 6 months ago when the pipe spec was put forward on a Shell project. So basically instead of the individual companies all producing different extra specs to the standard international specs ( API 5L, API 610 , API 650 etc) the idea seems to be that they will all use the same one to allow vendors to standardise their offering. At least I think that's the theory.

Now I am made to believe that they introduced some specs by circulating within themselves and agreeing it, but didn't include vendors and other engineering consultants and users.

So now they are including others by the look of it as it apparently hit some "resistance" by those the specification was aimed at (suppliers).

In USA regulated or unregulated land this is scrap paper unless you're working for one of the IOGP members.

It is a supplemental spec so shouldn't affect any relaxation of the specs called for under CFR. Now how much this adds on top of the bare minimum spec I couldn't say - that's for the likes of Steve and the other materials gurus.

Remember - More details = better answers
Also: If you get a response it's polite to respond to it.
 
It's getting a little bit fraught given that the OP is a news article and not a question or request, and I'm not getting drawn into the perennial "it's them damned Europeans and their fancy specs not invented here" discussions. Personally, I'm happy to help out because I know that, somewhere down the line, a client of mine will be using the end product document and I want to get in early to know what I am dealing with. It's not something to get irate about, one either participates, or one doesn't - simple choice. I'm already on projects that are calling up the other available finalised standards (free downloads by the way), and I have every expectation that the one I'm on now will use the final version of this one by the time a tender for construction is issued (in the Mediterranean, not the North Sea). So, I have a vested interest in getting ahead of the game. I'm not asking anyone to join me.

Steve Jones
Corrosion Management Consultant


All answers are personal opinions only and are in no way connected with any employer.
 
Got it. Good luck.

Where's my beer.

 
@LI - regarding engineering companies, IOGP administer the documents through JIP33 which has pulled in a number of the big houses like KBR to sign up: EPC partners. The specs themselves are drafted by Aker Solutions.

Steve Jones
Corrosion Management Consultant


All answers are personal opinions only and are in no way connected with any employer.
 
SJ - Ok, the big EPC boys for sure, but the smaller design consultancies aren't part of this other than by this public comment.

Remember - More details = better answers
Also: If you get a response it's polite to respond to it.
 
But they will be part of the standards lifecycle if their clients start pushing them to use the documents on jobs.


Steve Jones
Corrosion Management Consultant


All answers are personal opinions only and are in no way connected with any employer.
 
My company contracts with Process Industry Practices (PIP) for Engineering Practices, like pipe specs, equipment specs, control system specs, etc. PIP has been at it since 1993. JIP33/IOGP started in 2016. We are happy with PIP's service. I see the major O&G operators in JIP33/IOGP are also in PIP. Does this mean JIP33/IOGP leans to the upstream processes and PIP leans to the downstream processes? Or, will JIP33/IOGP compete with PIP? Anyone have a feel?

Good Luck,
Latexman
 
If the extra requirements of the IOPG are worth doing them why not work with API etc to get the standards updated?
 
The IOGP JIP leader (Shell) tried to get API and ISO to see things there way. But API and ISO committees tend to have a balance of interest. A mix of members representing several functions, end users, manufacturers, contractors. No one function can override another and the resulting standard is accepted by industry. Also, ISO would not restrict embargo countries such as Iran from participating, so the IOGP members in EU dropped out of ISO since they did not want to risk violating the technology transfer restrictions by having technical discussions in standards committee meetings. So they opened up shop in IOGP, where they can control who participates. IOGP is essentially the EU equivalent of API, except that they did not write standards until JIP was formed.

Until now, API and ISO committees have looked at what was being produced in IOGP and laughed at how over the top the requirements are. When IOGP releases a 100 page document making changes to a 40 page standard, clearly there are excessive requirements that in no way will make the product less expensive. Manufacturers are not laughing now that the have to deal with IOGP requirements on customer orders. Only time will reveal the result on market prices.

IOGP is beginning to influence some API and ISO committees to start to incorporate their requirements into the base standards. The approach is to convince the heads of the organizations to push the committees to cooperate with IOGP.

Back to balance of interest. In the past, some favored manufacturers were asked to review and give feedback on IOGP drafts. General consensus was that IOGP ignored their comments. So review and give comments in the public review if you wish, but don't be surprised if the comments are ignored since IOGP is not required to consider or in anyway react to outside feedback.
 
So, Petrobras, Chevron, Exxon Mobil, Woodside are EU companies? Come on, do a little research before heading down the path of urban myth on flights of if it's not API it's no good fancy. The JIP33 work, backed by the World Economic Forum, is distinct from the assistance that IOGP is rendering to ISO to process TC67 standards under the "Standards Solution" . From my own experience of developing the original suite of ISO 15590 standards, the oil company standards are mostly attempts to put back what got taken out in the horse trading that goes on to get a draft through to publication. The JIP33 drafts are a synthesis of a number of oil company specifications that are then put out for scrutiny. It's a fair point that the feedback process for comments could be much more transparent, but I have won some, and I have lost some.

Steve Jones
Corrosion Management Consultant


All answers are personal opinions only and are in no way connected with any employer.
 
I used to see papers from OGP, new became IOGP. So they have long background from the knowledge part of view.

Some companies such as BP, Shell, Conocophilips, AKER always had their own requirements in addition to API. So these are not new. Please note that their rquirements were always tougher than API or ASME with additional requirements.

In this way, perhaps, they came together use a common one. Perhaps, these companies will still use their own requirements in addition to these and API, who knows?

Perhaps we will see these requirements more often if we involve with jobs from these producers.
As said above we may not have influence on these requirements as engineers. This might be a trade and/or safety issue. They demand if they can find compliant and adequate price without comprimising on the safety.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

pperlich
  • Question Question
seasonal above ground water line for farm use
2
Replies
34
Views
22K
GD2
GD2
W
  • Question Question
Orifice for dump line to liquid tank
Replies
10
Views
9K
Whatsanolet
W
mariolucas75
  • Locked
  • Question Question
off spec piping
Replies
9
Views
4K
GD2
GD2
S
  • Question Question
Pipe wall thickness calculation method for t≥D/6 or for P/SE>0.385
Replies
5
Views
13K
goutam_freelance
goutam_freelance
jafary64
  • Locked
  • Question Question
Minimum pipe length for Process Vent
Replies
5
Views
5K
pierreick
pierreick

Part and Inventory Search

Sponsor

Back
Top