This time around we asked you, “What is the top item from the Crack Management Framework you would consider the best cost benefit ratio for your operation?”
In the answers choices we asked you to review the value of the different elements of an integrity management program. We intentionally allowed for combined answers. In the end, it is often the combination of different disciplines that brings real value. This is also reflected in the results of this poll. 47% of you chose one of the answers that combines the elements from the crack management framework as being of best value. We would have to agree; our philosophy is that the close combination of the different areas of expertise increases the benefit beyond the pure sum of the individual members.
A second important takeaway is the rating of the in-line inspection element. 33% of participants see the highest value in integrity management solely in this element. This is a surprising result, since similar polls – which do not reference a management framework, i.e. a holistic view – rate the importance of ILI lower. Thus, the result indicates that ILI is perceived as more valuable in the direct context of a crack management framework. On the other hand, this is only logical, because the closed loop of a framework allows you to effectively do more with the ILI data. The more transparent and improved exchange of information between the elements of the framework streamlines and optimizes the performance of every individual step, including ILI. For example, simply combining data reporting of different ILI data sets falls short in comparison to an integrity-triggered combined analysis of two data sets.
Another amazing indication is the rating of 0% for in-the-ditch-verification and pipeline repair. This probably reflects the notion that, first, repair comes after integrity assessment, and, second, that digging is a very expensive activity in its own right. Thus, considering that the main purpose and value of framework elements is to reduce costs while simultaneously keeping safety standards high, this voting outcome makes perfect sense. The appreciation of in-the-ditch-verification work is at least somewhat honored by those 13% who voted for an all-encompassing application of the framework to maximize the cost benefit.
Numbers don’t lie, and interpretation is always a challenge, so we would encourage everyone to form their own opinion from the results presented here. Thanks to all who participated in this interesting activity.