A Proven Strategy for Managing Hill

Slope Stability Risk within a

Compliant SLMS Pipeline Integrity
Management Program (IMP)
 November 2019
AER Publishes Bulletin 2019-28
Pipeline Integrity Management Programs
Must Consider Slope Movement
Requirements – 1 of 2
• Assess how integrity management programs
address the risk as it relates to natural hazards,
including slope movement
• suitable management may require the
involvement of specialized skilled expertise
• Areas of high concern should be identified, and
suitable mitigation measures implemented
• suitable measures could include increased
surveillance of rights-of-way, patrols, and
inspections of areas subject to slope
movement
Requirements – 2 of 2
• Adopt emerging best practices for real-time
monitoring of precipitation levels, slope movement,
and pipe strains of the locations that are most
susceptible to failure from slope movement
• Improve leak detection strategies and operational
monitoring in potentially affected areas to enable
rapid detection and response to a leak
• Conduct engineering assessments of pipelines
where slope movement has occurred
• may require specialized inspection techniques to
determine if pipeline has suffered damage
 Response
Risk Assessment for Hill Slope Stability
Objectives
1. Provide an affordable service to assist operating
companies characterize corporate exposure to hill
slope stability
2. To narrow-the-focus for ongoing slope stability
monitoring programs to the locations representing
the highest exposure to costly failure events
3. To engage advanced geotechnical hazard expertise
and advanced hill slope monitoring for the most
active, high-risk locations
 Details of Risk Assessment Method
Step 1 – Application of Spatial Data Queries & Digital
Elevation Profiling Tally by Water Body Class
• Major River – Perennial /
GIS Spatial
Pipeline SHP Geospatial Data File

Cumulative Tally of Water Body Primary Flow

Query • Major River – Perennial /
Water Crossing Interaction Distance by
Secondary Flow
Crossings Water Body Classification • Stream / Perennial
• Stream / Recurring
GIS Spatial (Intermittent)
Query Cumulative Tally of Water Body • Lake / Primary
Water Interaction Distance According to • Flow / Arbitrary
Distance Buffers by Water Body Class • Oxbow / Perennial
Proximity
(< 50 m / 50 – 100 m / 100 – 150 m) • Oxbow / Recurring
Buffer (Intermittent)
• Ditch

Inclination Angle -
Digital Digital Representation
Elevation - m

Elevation of the Land Surface

degrees
Profile / Elevation and
Inclination Inclination Angle Profile
Angle Profile of the Pipeline Route
 Details of Risk Assessment Method
Step 2 – Failure Consequence Classification
Impact to Water Bodies
GIS Spatial Query
Water Crossings Spill Volume
(Substance)
Cumulative Tally of
NG / SNG / OE / CO /
Water Body Crossing
SW / FW
Interaction Distance by
Water Body Class Spill Size
GIS Spatial Query (Time-to-Detect)
Water Proximity
Buffer Exposure
Cumulative Tally of Water (Pipeline Length)
Body Interaction Distance
According to Defined Operating
Distance Buffers by Water Conditions
Body Class (Flow Rate /
(< 50 m / 50 – 100 m / 100 – 150 m) Pressure)
 Details of Risk Assessment Method
Step 3 –Likelihood of a Failure Event / Consideration of
Topographical Profile

Digital
Representation of Digital Complexity
the Land Surface Elevation Range of / Intensity
Total
Elevation and Profile / Inclination of
Elevation
Inclination Angle Inclination Angle Inclination
Change
Profile of the Angle Changes Angle
Pipeline Route Profile Changes
 Details of Risk Assessment Method
Step 4 – Pin-Point High-Risk Hill Slope Monitoring Sites
Step 4b – Step 4c –
Step 4a – Evaluate Detailed Establish Detailed Site
Identify High-Risk Pipelines Exposure Profile for Monitoring Plan for
High-Risk Pipelines High-Risk Pipelines
 Risk Assessment Method - Results
Step 5 – Apply Risk Assessment Algorithms to Prioritize
Potential High-Risk Monitoring Sites
 Risk Assessment Method - Results

Highest-Risk Pipeline Experienced a Failure

Event Attributed to Hill Slope Movement
 Risk Management Strategy
Step 6 – Recurring Monitoring of Highest-Risk Sites
with Application of Differential Photogrammetric Imaging

847.93 848.28 848.63 848.98 848.96 848.93 847.93 848.28 848.63 848.98 848.96 848.93 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

839.45 848.28 848.63 848.98 848.96 839.78 839.45 848.28 848.63 848.98 848.96 839.78 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

831.06 831.41 848.63 848.98 848.96 839.78 831.06 831.41 848.63 848.98 848.96 839.78 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Values = elevation 831.89 831.41 831.89 848.98 839.78 839.75 831.89 831.41 831.86 848.96 839.77 839.74 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.01

(m) 832.72 833.07 839.45 839.80 839.78 839.75 832.70 833.02 839.39 839.76 839.76 839.74 0.02 0.05 0.06 0.04 0.02 0.01

824.40 824.75 832.72 832.72 832.72 832.69 824.39 824.73 832.67 832.68 832.70 832.67 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.04 0.02 0.02

UAV Flight 1 – UAV Flight 2 – Photogrammetric

Photogrammetric Photogrammetric Analysis
Analysis Analysis Identifies Surface
Movement
 Risk Management Strategy
Step 6 – Recurring Monitoring of Highest-Risk Sites
with Application of Differential Photogrammetric Imaging

• Engage advanced geotechnical hazard expertise

and advanced hill slope monitoring for the most
active, high-risk locations
• Conduct engineering assessments of pipelines
where slope movement has occurred
• may require specialized inspection techniques
to determine if pipeline has suffered damage
A Story
We s hof a rAuthentic
e a u n i q uPipeline
e and
e n jIntegrity
o y a b l e SManagement
L M S E x p e r i e -n c e
w i t h o u r
External CorrosionC l i e n t s

David Richardson, P.Eng.

Sr. Pipel ine Integrity Engineer
1982 - Present

david@trustedpipelineadvisor.com
403 880-2835
https://www.trustedpipelineadvisor.com