Pipeline Pigging & Integrity Management Conference
plus Training Courses and Exhibition
George R. Brown Convention Center and the Marriott Marquis Hotel

February 18-19 February 20-22 February 19-21


Conference Program

Program Advisory Committee

  • Dr Tom Bubenik – DNV GL
  • Dr Andrew Cosham – Ninth Planet Engineering Limited
  • Matt Hastings – Williams
  • Everett Johnson – Marathon
  • Dr Keith Leewis – L & A, Inc.
  • BJ Lowe – Clarion Technical Conferences
  • Jim Marr – Marr Associates Pipeline Integrity Ltd.
  • Garry Matocha – Enbridge
  • John O’Brien – Chevron Corporation
  • Steve Rapp – Spectra
  • Jerry Rau – RCP
  • Terry Shamblin – EQT Midstream
  • John Tiratsoo – Tiratsoo Technical
  • Nelson Tonui – Trans Mountain Corp.
  • George Williamson – BP


Wednesday 20 February


1.0 Plenary opening session


Opening remarks


[1] Managing complexity through collaboration will need the industry to move from a proactive to a predictive mindset, by Chris Yoxall, Rosen USA, Houston, TX, USA


[2] Achieving and demonstrating pipeline engineering capability – the role of competency standards, and their use for qualifications and registration, by Chris Harvey, Chris Harvey Consulting, Australia


[3] Assessing the competence of staff, by Michelle Unger, Rosen Group, Stans, Switzerland, and Dr Phil Hopkins, Phil Hopkins Ltd, Whitley Bay, UK




[4] A regulator’s perspective on pipeline integrity concerns, by Iain Colquhoun, National Energy Board, Calgary, AB, Canada


[5] Achieving a N American record for longest intelligent inspection of a natural gas pipeline, by Sheshi Epur and Aaron Schartner, TransCanada Pipelines, Calgary, AB, Canada, and Frank Sander, BHGE, Calgary, AlB, Canada


[6] Are you safer than you were 15 years ago?, by Joel Anderson, Enable Midstream, Oklahoma City, OK, USA


YPP Awards




2.1 ILI applications

3.1 Risk assessment & management

4.1 Evaluating dents reported by ILI for response and remediation


[7] MFL high-temperature solution, by Guenter Sundag, Thomas Stubbe, and Corey Richards, Rosen USA, Houston, TX, USA



[28] Dissecting new PHMSA risk assessment guidelines, by Sevinc Yeliz Cevik and William Kent Muhlbauer, WKM Consultancy LLC, Austin, TX, USA



Chair: Sergio Limon

     Elevara Partners, Salt Lake

     City, UT, USA


Engineering methods for evaluating and ranking dents reported by ILI tools

       Rhett Dotson, Rosen USA,

       Houston, TX, USA



2.1 ILI applications (cont’d)

3.1 Risk assessment & management (cont’d)

4.1 Evaluating dents (cont’d)


[8] Transitioning from hydrostatic testing to in-line inspection for pipelines with challenging seam welds, by J Bruce Nestleroth, Kiefner & Associates, Columbus, OH, USA, Matthew S Krieg, Marathon Pipe Line LLC, USA, Thomas Hennig, NDT Global, USA, and Harvey Haines, Applus RTD Technology Center, USA

[29] Quantitative risk assessment following an ILI survey (ILI-based risk assessment), by Jane Dawson, Ian Murray, Inessa Yablonskikh, and Thomas Hoffmann, BHGE, Cramlington, UK

Repair systems for dents

     Dr Chris Alexander

     ADV Integrity, Inc., Magnolia, TX,




What we have learned from decades of experimental research on dent behavior

     Aaron Dinovitzer

     BMT Fleet Technology, Ottawa, ON,





[9] The role of ILI for MAOP verification, by Simon Slater, Rosen USA, Huston, TX, USA

[30] Knowledge risk management, by John Godfree and Tara McMahan, DNV GL, Dublin, OH, USA






5.1 ILI analysis

3.2 Risk assessment & management (cont’d)

4.2 Evaluating dents (cont’d)


[10] The art of looking: an in-line inspection perspective, by Dr Mike Kirkwood, Dane Burden, and Miguel Maldonado, T.D. Williamson, Tulsa, OK, USA

[31] Pipeline risk modeling: a comparative analysis of modeling techniques, by Andrew Kendrick and Robin Echols, Kendrick Consulting, Aurora, CO, USA

A gas operator perspective on managing dents

     Rick Wang

     TransCanada, Calgary, AB, Canada


A liquids operator perspective on managing dents

     Justin Hardraker

     Colonial Pipeline Co., Alpharetta,

     GA, USA



5.1 ILI analysis (cont’d)

3.2 Risk assessment & management (cont’d)

4.2 Evaluating dents (cont’d)


[11] Challenges associated with pit-to-pit matching (or how to know when corrosion is taking place), by Dr Thomas Bubenik, Steven Polasik, and Zach Booth, DNV GL, Dublin, OH, USA

[32] Risk-based evaluation of asset integrity projects, by David Mangold, TRC Companies, Columbus, OH, USA

API 1183 Upcoming dent assessment and management recommended practice

     Mark Piazza

     Colonial Pipeline Co, Alpharetta,

     GA, USA




End of day, Exhibition reception

Thursday 21 February


5.2 ILI analysis (cont’d)

6.1 Engineering assessment

7.1 Materials


[12] Analysis of factors which reduce MFL sizing accuracy of pinholes, by Joel Falk, Desjardins Integrity Ltd, Calgary, AB, Canada

[33] Realistic burst pressure predictions in pipelines with non-ideal crack profiles, by Dr Ted Anderson, TL Anderson Consulting, Longmont, CO, USA 



[50] Nondestructive testing of pipeline materials: analysis of chemical composition from metal filings, by Mary Louie and Dr Monty Liong Exponent, Menlo Park, CA, USA, Dr Peter Veloo, Exponent, Los Angeles, CA, USA, Bill Amend and Melissa Gould, DNV GL USA (Inc.), Dublin, OH, USA and Troy Rovella and Peter Martin, PG&E, Walnut Creek, CA, USA


[13] Advancing ILI technology and pipeline risk management through advanced analytics of big data, by Geoff Hurd, Stuart Clouston, Jeff Sutherland, and John Elliott, BHGE, Calgary, AB, Canada

[34] Evaluation of limitations and applicability of stress and strain concentration factors for use in engineering critical assessments of dents, by Shanshan Wu, Dr Thomas Bubenik, Joseph Bratton, and David Kemp, DNV GL USA (Inc.), Dublin, OH, USA

[51] Nondestructive classification of LF, HF, and HF-normalized electric-resistance-welded (ERW) longitudinal seams, by Steven Palkovic, Parth Patel, Soheil Safari Loaliyan, Mohammad Islam, and Dr Simon Bellemare, MMT, Cambridge, MA, USA


[14] Enhanced utilization of ILI inertial measurement data, by Dane Burden, T.D. Williamson, Salt Lake City, UT, USA

[35] Nondestructive examination protocols for MAOP verification of station pipe, by Simon Lockyer-Bratton, Dr Peter Veloo Exponent, Los Angeles, CA, Mary Louie, Exponent, Menlo Park, CA, USA, Mark Ryan, Michael Rosenfeld, Kiefner & Associates, Columbus, OH, USA, and Troy Rovella, PG&E, Walnut Creek, CA, USA

[52] Bayesian inference approach to establish sample size for material verification, by Troy Rovella, Peter Martin, Masoud Moghtaderi-Zadeh PG&E, Walnut Creek, CA, USA, Joel Anderson, Enable Midstream, Oklahoma City, OK, USA, Kofi Inkabi, Exponent, Oakland, CA, USA, Vyaas Gururajan, USC, Los Angeles, CA, USA and Dr Peter Veloo, Exponent, Los Angeles, CA, USA




5.3 ILI verification

6.2 Engineering assessment (cont’d)

8.1 Cracks & seam welds


[15] Validation of computed tomography technology for pipeline inspection, by Mark Piazza, Colonial Pipeline Co,

Alpharetta, GA, USA, Timothy Burns, Shell Pipeline Co, Houston, TX, USA, James Medford, Inspection Associates, Inc., Cypress, TX, USA, and

Taylor Shie, Shell Pipeline Co,

Houston, TX, USA

[36] Leveraging ILI data to support ancillary asset integrity tasks, by Lisa Barkdull and LeeAnn Escobar, Quest Integrity, Boulder, CO, USA

[53] Improved system for the detection, sizing and prioritization of seam weld corrosion, byMatthew Romney, T.D. Williamson, Salt Lake City, UT, USA and J. Bruce Nestleroth, Kiefner and Associates, Columbus, OH, USA


[16] Interaction rule guidance for corrosion features reported by ILI, by Lucinda Smart, Kiefner &Associates, Inc., Ames, IO, USA, Yanping Li, Enbridge, Edmonton, AB, Canada

J. Bruce Nestleroth, Kiefner & Associates, Inc. Columbus, OH, USA, and Suzanne Ward, Enbridge, Edmonton, AB, Canada

[37] Reliability-based criteria for corrosion assessment, by

Riski Adianto, Maher Nessim, Dongliang Lu, Shahani Kariyawasam, and Terry Huang, C-FER Technologies, Edmonton, AB, Canada

[54] High-resolution inspections for crack detection: the next level of accuracy, by Rogelio Jesus Guajardo Rodriguez and Thomas Hennig, NDT Global GmbH & Co KG, Stutensee, Germany


[17] [INVITED] Development of an industry test facility and qualification process for ILI technology evaluation and enhancements – performance evaluation phase, by

Pablo Cazenave and Ming Gao, Blade Energy Partners, Houston, TX, USA and Hans Deeb and   Sean Black, PRCI, Houston, TX, USA

[38] Equivalent load fatigue – An efficient modification to the familiar Paris equation, by Stephen Wood and Alfonso Garcia, Enbridge, Edmonton, AB, Canada

[55] Gap analysis of crack integrity management for pipelines, by Dr Jing Ma, Kiefner and Associates, Columbus, OH, USA


[18] Location and validation of metal loss defects identified by ILI, by Dr Michael Beller, Rosen, Lingen, Germany, G.Reid,  Sonomatic, and Dr Roger King, International Corrosion Services, Manchester, UK

[39] Technical background of a simplified process for conducting ECA of indicated pipeline indentations with metal loss, by Fan Zhang, Michael J Rosenfield, Kiefner and Associates, Columbus, OH, USA

[56] Common pitfalls to avoid when managing seam-weld integrity, by Michael Turnquist, Quest Integrity, Boulder, CO, USA




5.4 ILI verification (cont’d)

9.1 Risk-based inspection

8.2 Cracks & seam welds (cont’d)


[19] Total quality API 1163 approach to ILI verification, by Chad Haegelin and Joel Lindstrom, Integrity Solutions Ltd, San Antonio, TX, USA

[40] Risk-based approach to inspection interval optimization, by David Joyal, Jana Corporation, Aurora, ON, Canada

[57] Investigation of crack assessment parameters for a hypothetical pipeline, by Tara McMahan, Eric Graft, and Dr Thomas Bubenik, DNV GL, Dublin, OH, USA


[20] Run comparison as a solution to incomplete ILI data and as an alternative to re-inspection of a challenging pipeline, by Kai Xin Toh, Quest Integrity, Cheras, Malaysia


10.1 Hydrostatic testing

[58] Screening for long seam anomalies in ERW pipe using ultrasonic crack ILI data: a method for pipeline operators to unlock the value of their data, by Bernardo Cuervo and Mark McQueen, G2 Integrated Solutions, Houston, TX, USA

[41] A practicum on pressure testing – compilation of best practices, by Sheri Baucom and Jerry Rau, RCP, Houston, TX, USA




Coffee (Marriott)


11.1 Repair

12.1 Leak Detection I

13.1 Mechanical damage


[21] Composite repairs – what does “permanent” mean?, by Casey Whalen, Milliken Pipe Wrap, Houston, TX, USA

[42] The challenge of implementing and maintaining CPM leak detection on gathering networks, by Peter Han, Atmos International, San Antonio, TX, USA

[59] Assessment of mechanical damage within dented pipe using multi-data ILI technology, by Luis Torres, Kaitlyn Korol, and Neil Hodson, Enbridge Pipelines, Edmonton, AB, Canada


[22] Full-scale finite element analysis and field success prove composite reinforcement is a viable repair for girth weld joint defects on vintage pipelines, by Buddy Powers, Tim Mally, and Mahdi Kiani, ClockSpring, Houston, TX, USA

[43] Pipeline leak detection using tracer compounds and sledding techniques, by Ian Harris, Praxair Services, Inc., Tucson, AZ, YSA

[60] An evaluation of instrumented indentation testing to estimate yield and tensile strength, by Dr Nicoli M Ames, Exponent, Denver, CO, USA, Mary Louie, Exponent, Menlo Park, CA, USA Dr Jeffrey A Kornuta, Exponent, Houston, TX, USA, Dr Peter Veloo, Exponent, Los Angeles, CA, USA, Troy Rovella, and Peter Martin PG&E, Walnut Creek, CA, USA


End of day

Friday 22 February


11.2 Repair (cont’d)

14.1 Data management

13.2 Mechanical damage (cont’d)


[23] Evaluating the performance of composite systems for reinforcing non-leaking crack-like defects in transmission pipelines, by Colton Sheets and Chantz Denowh, Stress Engineering Services, Houston, TX, USA

[44] Industrial revolution 4.0: disruptive to pipeline integrity management?, by Mohd Nazmi bin Mohd Ali Napiah, Petronas, Kula Lumpur, Malaysia

[61] Compositing multi-technology ILI surveys for the integrity management of mechanical damage, by Luis Torres, Catherine Rieck, and Collin Taylor, Enbridge Pipelines, Edmonton, AB, Canada 


[24] Predictive modeling for shrink sleeve failure using machine learning, by Matthew Brown, Lake Superior Consulting, Duluth, MN, USA

[45] The good the bad and the ugly: categorizing pipelines using big data techniques, by Roland Palmer-Jones and Michael Smith, Rosen UK, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK


[62] Gouge detection on dents below 1% depth with multiple data set technologies on an ILI tool, by Timothy Goller and Adrian Belanger, T.D. Williamson, Salt Lake City, UT, USA


[25] Steel sleeves: a new look at a widely-used repair method, by Dr Chris Alexander, ADV Integrity, Inc., Magnolia, TX, USA, Tommy Precht, Allan Edwards, Lake Charles, LA, USA, and Chip Edwards, Allan Edwards, Tulsa, OK, USA

[46] Enabling the digital pipeline, by Steve Banks, i2i Pipelines, Manchester, UK

[63] Detailed dent assessment: avoiding the pitfalls, by Aaron Lockey, Tim Turner, and Susannah Turner, Highgrade Associates, UK




12.2 Leak detection II

14.2 Data management (cont’d)

15.1 SCC


[26] Leak detection and prevention using free-floating in-line sensors, by John van Pol, INGU Solutions, Calgary, AB, USA

[47] The challenges of keeping integrity management systems relevant, by Sonny Llave, Pradeep Dhoorjaty, and Danny Golczynski, Wood Group, Houston, TX, USA

[64] The detection and sizing of circumferentially oriented stress corrosion cracking using axially oriented magnetic flux leakage inspection, by Ron Thompson, Ray Gardner, Katrina Dwyer, and James Hare, Novitech, Inc., Vaughan, ON, Canada


12.2 Leak detection II (cont’d)

14.2 Data management (cont’d)

15.1 SCC (cont’d)


[27] Development of a framework for evaluating and verifying external leak detection systems for pipelines, by Mathew Bussiere, C-FER Technologies (1999) Inc., Edmonton, AB, Canada

[48] Swimming in the data lake — efforts towards efficient management and processing of pipeline data for integrity management, by Michael Smith, Johnathan Martin, and Marcillo Torres, Rosen USA, Houston, TX, USA

[65] An approach for evaluating the susceptibility of a pipeline to circumferential SCC, by Jane Dawson and Ian Murray, BHGE, Cramlington, UK



[49] Leveraging machine learning techniques to improve corrosion risk prediction in pipelines, by Ramnath Easwar, Abhinav Priyadarshi, Andreas Gaarder, Jay Karen William, and Vijaytha Balaji, Wood Group, Houston, TX, USA

[66] Full-scale testing of SCC in high frequency-ERW pipe with comparisons of inspection techniques to actual flaw measurements, by Colton Sheets, Stress Engineering Services, Houston, TX, USA


End of conference





 Organized by:

Clarion Technical Conferences     Tiratsoo Technical

 Platinum Elite Sponsor


 Platinum Sponsors

Intero Integrity Services     Enduro

Gold Sponsor


 Silver Sponsors

   N-Spec    Q-Inline  TD Williamson       Circor Energy - Pipeline Engineering.png

Supported by:

Pipelines International     Journal of Pipeline Engineering     Pipeline & Gas Journal     the In Line Inspection Association     Oil & Gas Journal     PRCI     PPSA     North American Pipelines Inspectioneering Latincorr