You can’t put pipelines in jail….
In this episode of Pipeline Things, Rhett and Christopher are joined by the esteemed Dr. Phil Hopkins to discuss the origins and evolution of the Pipeline Defects Assessment Manual (PDAM).
Together, they discuss the original intention and international use of the document, and one-liners like “buying research is ridiculous”. Tune in to hear more.
Highlights:
- What was the original intention of the manual
- What’s included in the manual
- How has its usage evolved in the decades since the manual’s original development?
- What is the difference in how it is used in the US and internationally?
Connect:
Phil Hopkins
Be sure to subscribe and leave a comment or rating!
Pipeline Things is presented by D2 Integrity and produced by FORME Marketing.
D2 Integrity (D2I) is providing this podcast as an educational resource, but it is neither a legal interpretation nor a statement of D2I policy. Reference to any specific product or entity does not constitute an endorsement or recommendation by D2 Integrity. The views expressed by guests are their own and their appearance on the program does not imply an endorsement of them or any entity they represent. Views and opinions expressed by D2I employees are those of the employees and do not necessarily reflect the view of D2I or any of its officials. If you have any questions about this disclaimer, please contact Kara Turner at kara.turner@forme-mktg.com .
Copyright 2026 © D2 Integrity
{Intro}
Rhett
On this episode of Pipeline things, we go back to an esteemed guest who I think might be famous for their one-liners, You got to listen to the whole thing. Some of my favorite one, buying research is stupid. Is that how I said it
Chris
I think he said ridiculous
Rhett
ridiculous some other really good ones, always put the pipeline first
Chris
yeah or i like this one, he said you can’t put pipelines in jail, Attorneys put people in jail.
Rhett
Boom! It is a great episode. I think you’re really going to enjoy it as we dive into a guest and talk about the Pipeline Defect Assessment Manual. Thanks for joining us on Pipeline Things.
Rhett
All right. Welcome to this edition of Pipeline Things. It’s so good to be back. And I am really
excited about this series that we’re going to be doing with you guys. And I don’t want to spoil it yet because I think I need to set the stage with a brief conversation with my co-host before we introduce the guest.
Chris
Oh, we totally have to talk about the theme of the series
Rhett
though. Oh, do you want to give it away? Deliver the baby?
Chris
No, I don’t want to deliver the baby.
Rhett
You sure?
Chris
But you and I both have, if y’all have listened to this podcast, at least a couple of seasons, you’ll know that Rhett absolutely is fond of failure files. Like he loves failure files, right? He digs in and he tells a story. I call it story time with Rhett, right? It’s so good. Mine waswhat I call the OG series because I love bringing on super cool people to the podcast and you guys getting to learn about them, meet them, and then potentially bump into them somewhere. And so for me, this is one of those where it’s kind of like Sage Series 2.0 or like Original Gangsters 2.0. So I’m really excited about this series.
Rhett
That is, you did deliver the baby. That’s the baby, which is totally okay. Part of the reason that I like this, right, is this concept. So for the audience, yes, this is a big part of our Sage, our OG Part 2 series, is I like connecting industry people with people that they might not have an opportunity to meet with. And part of the reason is that it’s amazing to me how quickly things are forgotten, right? And so this is what I mean. Like, you know, Chris, I mean, we’ve been growing. We hired a couple of younger people, right?
Chris
Yeah.
Rhett
Right? We were on the call the other day. I was actually spending time with one of them. And one of them, I told him, my wife is going to Waco, right? Now, Ms. Producer, when I say Waco, what’s the first thing that comes to mind to you? This is a test. Oh, see?
Chris
That is not what I was going to go with.
Rhett
When I say Waco. Everybody, including our international audience in most cases, will say, oh, Magnolia Market, Chip and Joanna Gaines. And they tell me that.
Chris
Farmer house, baby, it’s coming back.
Rhett
Yep, Close second is I usually will get Baylor University. And I’m like, fair. Right. Growing up, if you just said Waco to me, that had a whole different meaning; I would have answered exactly what Sarah answered,which is David Koresh Waco. Right. And it’s funny cause I was talking to one of the younger guys and I was like, well, yeah, you know what happened to Waco? And he’s like, you mean like the Magnolia Market? I was like, wait, what? Do you not know the history? And I started probing. I was like, what else do you not know? I was like, Oklahoma City. And he’s like, oh, I think I remember something happened there.
Chris
James Harden, Kevin Durant, and Westbrook were all on the same team. No one will remember that. That was like 10 years ago.
Rhett
I was like, what about Ruby Ridge? I started asking all this stuff. And finally, I was like, please, God, tell me. I know you were born after 9/11, but you did cover 9/11 in school, right? And he was like, yes, I did cover 9/11 But It’s amazing to me. Like, you can have these events that are significant, these stories that are significant. If they’re not told, they get lost. And I was like, when we talk to these people that we’re bringing on to Pipeline Things, what I think what I think about is that ability to tell the story, to keep that story, because we have those stories in the pipeline industry.
Chris
Do you realize that we are now
Rhett
Old
Chis
Beginning to fill that role, where when we started, we would go to people for stories,
and now we’re the storytellers?
Rhett
But do you feel like, I don’t feel like our stories are as good. Like I didn’t like Mine aren’t as good yet. That’s for darn sure.
Chris
Yeah, I think it depends. Maybe we don’t story tell enough. Maybe that’s it. Well, see.
Rhett
But anyway miss producer congratulations on being aware of what I would, Waco probably is not happy about it, but what I would still associate as the most important part of Waco. So without further ado, I think that that brings us in. I want to introduce our guest today. So I want to welcome Mr. Phil Hopkins. For those of you who have not had a chance to meet Phil, if you get a chance to hear Phil speak somewhere. You should take the opportunity.
Chris
Yes Register. Get on a plane. Go hang out with Phil. Buy him a drink or two.
Rhett
for sure. Clever, filled with wit. The first presentation that I saw him do, he talked about black swans and you never, ever consider the integrity threat. And then he closed his presentation with his picture of a slothturning the wheel of a bow. And I was like, it was so fabulous, like just all put together. And it left a mark on me for sure. So the chance to. circle again. And I must say, Phil, before I let you speak, to our audience out there, several of you have asked me to bring on Phil, and I always tell you to give us feedback. Sometimes it takes six months to a year before I can actually, you might see the results, but Phil is definitely one of the results of that feedback that we got. So welcome, Phil. How are you today?
Phil
I’m feeling very well. I’m looking forward to the afternoon. There’s no swans. There’s no monkeys. I’m on my own, except my cat.
Chris
Well, and depending how long this runs, maybe a cuckoo coming out of that clock.
Phil
I’ve got, yeah. You like my clock, don’t you? It’s Italian design. It is special. But it’s only cuckoos on the hour. So we’ll save it for the next 55 minutes.
Rhett
Man, 55 would be a long time on the podcast. It’s tempting to try and do that.I don’t think I can push it that long, though. Well, Phil, I’d like you to take a moment. I think it’s safe to say that certainly on the U.S. side, I think many people have probably never had the chance to meet you or the benefit of hearing some of your background. Would you tell us a little bit about who you are, where you came from, and how you found your way into the pipeline industry?
Phil
Well, my name is Phil Hopkins. I’m an independent consultant for pipelines based in the UK. I worked for the pipeline company British Gas, then the consultants Andrew Palmer Resources, then the consultantsPennsylvania. For the past 11 years, I’ve had my own consultancy. So that’s my very brief background. And I’ve spent a lifetime working with old pipelines mainly North American and South American pipelines. Somost of my work has been in the Americas. So if you have corrosion, dents, gouges, buckles, whatever in your pipeline, which you have, I’m the person to contact.
Rhett
So how did you find your way? When did you start in the pipeline industry? And how did you find your way into the pipeline industry?
Phil
Oh, I started in the very late 70s. And that was the time, you say about forgetting memory, that was the time when we didn’t have any tools, no computers. The best thing that happened was a slide rule, a flexor curve, and we were assessing defects in pipelines. And there was a lot of judgment, There was no publications, there was some very good research, certainly from Battalion America, very good, but it wasn’tcollated. So we were very much on our own and setting the apex and it was a lucrative position to be in because you were one of the few. and there’s many documents, but in those days there were no real documents and we had to make judgments on many things including pipelines pressure pedals, pick traps filters, you name it they had problems. The only good thing was they were relatively modern and the inspection wasn’t that great so they couldn’t find cracks for example so we avoided assessing cracks because they couldn’t find them They were there, but they couldn’t find them. So it was exciting.
Rhett
It sounds like a whole different time. A whole different time. You know, one thing you said that I realized people might not appreciate. British gas. That is an entity, Like there’s a few, I call them mafias that exist in various places where lots of people.
Chris
It’s like an era
Rhett
Yes. Like you alluded to one, Battelle. Battelle was a birthplace of a tremendous number of names in the pipeline industry. But British Gas is no slouch. They introduced a lot of technology and formulations into the pipeline industry, probably more than most Americans even realize when we hear that name.
Phil
The strange thing then was that all organizations had the same research organizations, so exxon, chevron, total they all had big research groups and I was in a research group and there was 3,000 of us 3000 people in research. so it was a great time to be a young engineer and now there’s not.
Rhett
because we don’t need it anymore we don’t need to advance, we’ve moved past. Why do we need 3,000 researchers anymore
Phil
Well the thing is Yeah, the thing is we’ve advanced in many areas like inspection, but we haven’t advanced in assessment. We’re still using methods based on the 1960s and 1970s on inspection methods around 2026. Before it was assessment was above inspection. Now it’s the other way around. So we followed it backwards.
Chris
Question on personal preference, right? So you started back in the 70s and you see, it sounds like, you know, information was golden back then, right? That’s what made you special. It’s like, hey, call that guy. He’sawesome. But now we have a bunch of AI tools like co-pilots where all this information is at a type on the keyboard. Which era, if you had to do it all over again, would you be in if you had to do it all over again?
Phil
You know, surprisingly, I think now is very good. I like AI. um it’s a great help and it would make my job much easier um so i think now is good but in the past, to learn quickly certainly in the 70s 80s you had to learn very quickly and also then people shared things, information so the guys at Battell would send us all their reports no argument here’s all data and we would send all our reports Oh, gas to France, send all the reports. Today, we people are very protective. You have to buy them, first of all, which is ridiculous. Having to buy research, that’s crazy. Why research?
Chris
I’m going to write that. Buying research is ridiculous by Phil Hopkins.
Rhett
Buying research, We’ll have some organizations in the U.S. that’ll get a little bent out
of shape about that
Phil
Just give it away. Just give it to people.
Chris
What happens when you give stuff away, Phil? I’m very curious about this. What do you think would happen if you just gave stuff away?
Phil
You get work. I think it’s called Metcalfe’s Law. The more users who are aware of your work,
the more work you get.
Rhett
That’s valid.
Phil
Based on electronics. So the more you give, the more you take. That’s a big lesson. We’ve given away so many things on training courses, free spreadsheets, free software, and the work comes back because people use it. And there’s so many pipelines out there, there’s so many thousands of humans. It’s very useful to give. And that’s why I’ve always published. Everything I’ve had, I’ve published. Everything I know, I’vepublished. And the work comes back.
Rhett
So I’d bring it around. Speaking about publishing and research, the reason we wanted to talk to you today, I think, is a document that’s not well-known enough in the United States. I will vouch, the first time I heard about it was probably 2012, 2013, it was at an operator and he referenced the document and said, why don’t we bring this up and use it more often? And that is, for our audience, the Pipeline Defect Assessment Manual, often abbreviated PDAM. If you’ve not heard of it, you’re not alone. If you have heard of it, then you’ve probably utilized it. And the reason that we brought Phil on is Phil was instrumental in the development of that document. And so, Phil, if you don’t mind, can you tell us a little bit about the origins of PDAM. And just so the audience knows, that document is very much still alive and well and accessible today. We’regoing to talk about that throughout the episode. But Phil, where did PDAM come from? And can you give us a little bit about the genesis of that?
Phil
Well, let me take it back 30 years to 1997. And I would run in a small office looking at old pipelines. full of dents and corrosion and ganges and cracks and buckles
Chris
For the record i was in middle school just so we’re clear I wouldn’t have even known what a pipeline is I like this
Phil
they’re all safe but they’re full of defects, i would emphasize that. and I didn’t what was curious was all the clients had the same problem, they were all clean at the door with corrosion, with gouges we’ve got buckles, we’ve got dents. And great, we took the work on and more clients came with the same problems. And one of the problems you have with that sort of repeat work is that it’s lateral development for staff. It’snot vertical. It’s been done. So what staff want is vertical or new work. The old work is old work. So what the staff said was, well, let’s produce a manual with all the methods in, spreadsheets are sorted with the manual, and the client can do the work. It’s very easy. It’s all published. So three of our really goodclients, which was National Grid in the UK, Total and BP, all put together $25,000 each. And we produced a manual called the Pipeline Assessment Manual, which contained a chapter on each defect. Could be eliminations, could be swelling, could be corrosion. And all you did was open the chapter, and that gave you theequations, the methods to assess a defect. It was backed up by a thorough review. And it was backed up by a spreadsheet that could be used to do the calculation. It was backed up by a database. of any full-scale test that was proven in that equation. And they loved it. They thought it was great. And they said, what we do now, that’s the method used.
Rhett
They being the three? Okay. I didn’t know if it was the younger engineers or it was because I want to get to this in a moment because it’s, just to recap, it’s the three clients that were the original, participated in the development, but it was driven to some extent by your younger engineers who were like, we’ve already done this. Let’s formulate it, if you will, proceduralize it, and put it all together.
Phil
Yeah, we’ve got various rules for consultants there. I’m sure you guys have. One of the rules is we get interesting work for clever people. That’s the first thing. And we’ve got some very clever people and repeat work is not interesting. it’s quite boring so when we came back as an element of the corrosion assessment they dive into their desks but if we came with something different they jumped on the desk and the second thing, the second rule we had was we put the pipeline first, the client second and the consultant third. So we felt we were being unfair to the client by just taking money it was too easy, and then All thoseorganizations had their own research organization, so they were interested as well. So the manual we produce, which is now, to call it a manual, is quite a version. I think it’s about 450 pages long.
Rhett
Yeah, it’s big.
Phil
Yeah. The manual was very, very popular in those companies, and it was setting their procedures and methods. The question was, have you used PDAM to assess corrosion? so the likes of bp could go to consultant and say you will use this document to assess my corrosion you use this document to assess my flat nation so in effect it was a standard it was a consensus document. so it was so popular that people startedasking can we have it? well it wasn’t that ours, it was a joint industry project then and i think it was In the space of a couple of years, 16 companies, South America, Europe, America, joined. And they paid $25,000, and we produced a huge document called the Pipeline Defector Cellular Manual, PDAM. And that was first produced, I think, in 2003. And it had many chapters on corrosion cracks and loads of spreadsheets, loads of scientific reviews and all those companies included in their procedures, now wouldn’t you question, now why wasn’t this used in America? Well first of all it was the JIP it was financial. the second thing was, I don’t think it was fully appreciated that if Exxon mobile join in Europe their international membership they can use it anywhere, But instead,they used it in Europe. So Shell were used in Europe, Total, ExxonMobil, BP, but not much in America. And then, at about that time, documents in America started to be produced that answered the question. But PETA was the first manual that had all the information in.
Rhett
So I’m curious. So just to recap some of what you said. And revisit it. You said originally the notion was your engineers were like, this is bored. They can do it themselves. And so you developed the set of procedures and the tools. How successful were you at getting, where the clients are adopting it and using it themselves? Or did they tend to use it more like a procedure, which you described it also as going to a client and saying, hey, client X, follow this procedure, do the work for me?
Phil
They were confident with the review. And they were confident with the manual and confident with the spreadsheets. So they were happy. But remember, then, they still had their own research organizations. They had some very clever people doing their work anyway. But what they wouldn’t do is our work. They immediately came back to our door and said, you use it. We don’t like it. And the office grew and grew and grew. Sowhat we tried to achieve, we failed. The more we gave them, the more they came to it.
Chris
So you stopped hiring clever people, is what you said. Because the first rule was to get interesting work for clever people.
Phil
Yeah, we used it two ways. That’s a good question.
Chris
We just stopped hiring clever people?
Phil
We’ve always recruited clever people. What we said was early was starters, early career people, it’s very good for lateral development. For later people, the clever people. it was more vertical so they went from indirect creative problem solving to logical step-by-step thinking and that really challenged the staff and we had a very low turnover because of that. so it was a good tactical move and very lucrative it’s reallyinteresting my CEO at the time my boss, said to me phil let me explain this you’re giving away all our equations in spreadsheet form and you’re giving training courses on how to do our work i said yes what’s wrong with that he said it’ll kill us all the time we grew and grew and grew so it goes against, we may not agree with what we did, but it ended is that we grew and grew
Rhett
There’s a problem with this episode now, which is it’s exposing the secrets of consultants. Phil I get this same problem with my business partner because people ask me to do training, and I do it for like next to nothing, sometimes nearly free just because I enjoy it. And he’s like, what are you doing? Chris is my business partner.
Chris
Oh, get out of here. No
Rhett
You know, my co-host. And he’s like, why didn’t you charge him more?
Chris
No, get out of here. He’s such a liar.
Rhett
Chris, everybody that’s listening to this episode knows it’s true.
Chris
He’s such a liar.
Rhett
Everybody knows it’s true.
Chris
We know. Oh, that’s so much BS.
Rhett
Even Miss Producer is back there laughing. She’s like, it’s 100% true.
Phil
Because if you do a training course and there’s 20 people there, there are 20 users. You never lose. Training is better described as marketing. It’s marketing. It’s not training. It’s marketing.
Rhett
Phils calling me out. I can’t argue. He’s actually 100% correct. Training is marketing.
Chris
This podcast is moving away from PDAM and its history into business consulting 101.
Rhett
Consultants. They’re really just..
Phil
I’m trying to show you guys how to do business. How to succeed
Rhett
So what’s funny about that, right, is I still get, I feel like the sentiments haven’t changed, Phil, in 30 years. The problems definitely haven’t changed, right?
Phil
Yeah.
Rhett
The same challenges exist. Tents, buckles, wrinkles, cracks, corrosion. It’s all the same. And I still get the same. Dents are a big one. Again, dents have come full circle with 192.712. And the number of people that have said, look, we want you to train us to do it internally. Bending strain’s another really good one. People have asked me, I want to train you to do this internally. I’m like, I can show you everything. I will sit down with you for hours. I will give you our software if you would like to purchase it so that you can do it. And I said, the problem is you won’t want to invest the resources to sit and do bending strain on your own for hours on end. I was like, you won’t.
Chris
It’s time consuming
Rhett
Or you won’t get comfortable with wanting to take on the whatever I guess perceived risk or real risk of owning the assessment
Chris
well that and having a dedicated resource on something people say that they want to do it until they start doing it, and then you find they don’t want to do it
Rhett
it’s true yeah
Chris
Because it’s the monotony of what you said right
Phil
There’s fewer and fewer workers in the clients so I appreciate that but it’s always best for the client to do the work
Rhett
I agree
Phil
I know your consultants
Chris
Oh, that’s okay.
Phil
They’ve got all the information and they’ve got all the responsibility. So all we can do is offer.
Chris
We normally see it kind of two ways and not necessarily split down the middle. But, you know, as a consultancy, you know, they’ll reach out to us and say, hey, we have this problem. Can you help us solve it? And sowe’ll solve it. We’ll help them stand up a procedure. And then many times they do go away and they own that, right? So we help them tackle a new approach. But then there’s the component of where I call it peak shaving or risk management, right? Where they may just have a workload that just comes in and overwhelms their resources and they need to delegate some of that out. Or two, it is more cost effective for them to sub it out because we’re more efficient at it. But if we can, Phil, I want to bring us back just a wee bit to PDEM. I got a question for you. Here in the States, we often find that incidents are the catalyst for us to see change in how we do things. And when you said, you know, 1997 to, you know, early 2000s, one of the big things that came to my mind was Bellingham here in the States, which then led to a one-year sprint for ASME to make B31-8S. So within one year, they drafted and published the first version of ASME B31-8S, which was in 2001. Was there a similar drive? I mean, I don’t think there was, but I wanted to ask, right? So, I mean, you said it was a JIP by proactive operators, but was there anything happening in that era that really drove it to go from three operators to call it 16 operators in that 97 to that 2000 I think you said three version? Or was it all people being proactive?
Phil
It was the latter. Well, first of all, I was an expert on Bellium, so I know it very well. And we were aware of the problem. And it was, I’m saying a good example. It was an example of where PDAM could have been used. And I think one of the people involved in Bellium, he came on my course. So he had the tools to assess the defects.
Chris
Before the incident?
Phil
Yeah.
Rhett
He was on your course before the incident?
Phil
Yeah.
Chris
Wow.
Phil
He applied correctly most of the information. But I think it’s a fair question. At that time, the big change occurred in really the 70s and the 80s. In the 70s, the intelligent vehicle, the inspection tools started to be made. In the 80s, ASVV31G was brought out. So all of a sudden, inspection and corrosion became very famous. They couldn’t find it. We couldn’t find it. We didn’t know about it. We had to dig a hole. It’s a long hole for a pipeline. And so by the time the 90s came, all of a sudden, what happened was They were finding the defects and they wanted to sort them out. And at the time, all the big operators and all the big companies like Shell, like Exxon, were losing staff. They were losing the research organization. So more and more work was coming out of these big companies and coming to the consultants. And it still does. So there was a change. There was a change in the market and consultants became very powerful then. And to have a document that told consultants what to do throughout the company was a very useful thing to have. The reason it didn’t take content in America was because things were changing. Documents were being made, good documents. We’d already got very good documents in Europe. We had BS 7910, which was a crack assessment document. And you had then the API by 2005 same thing. But we had it. So in terms of the David assessment, we were very well set up to do the work. And also our friends at Batel and Southwest Research, they published everything. We had all their information. It was brilliant. And then they came across the visit. They brought loads of manuals and research and reports and said, here you are, Phil, do youmore reports? Well, that was great. It’s like $2 million of research we’ll bring across. So very quick. So it was a different market then.
Rhett
Yep. Phil, I got to take a break real quick. Audience, when we come back, we’re going to pick up the conversation around maybe why we don’t see PDM as much in the U.S. and also talk a little bit about the structure of the document, what’s actually in there. And today, if you wanted to get access to it, how would you go about it? So hang on. We’ll be right back on Pipeline Things.
Chris
From YPP Symposium 2026, one of the questions that we got asked was, what things can pipeline companies do to help the energy/ oil and gas industries image? That’s a great question.
Phil
Well, the first thing we can do is admit that oil and gas is with us till 2050 at least
Rhett
That is true.
Chris
Just accept this.
Phil
It’s true.
Rhett
There’s that cuckoo clock.
Chris
Cuckoo
Rhett
Oh, I hear it. That’s fantastic.
Chris
Oh, perfect. We’ve achieved it.
Rhett
So do you remember, like, I’m going to make this full circle because I like you saying and admitting it. Do you remember BP’s slogan about 15 years ago?
Phil
Yeah.
Rhett
Beyond petroleum.
Phil
Beyond, yeah
Rhett
We are definitely not beyond petroleum.
Phil
But the other side of the coin is that if they spend more money on… CO2 pipelines and H2 pipelines to offset oil and gas It works. Because a CO2 capture, will capture all the oil and gas fuels from the big polluters.It’ll cost all of the money, but that would improve the image. They’d spend money, their profits, which are not great, by the way. In terms of potential oil and gas companies’ profits are not brilliant. part of it could be spent on a greener future because as engineers we’re happy to work on anything with those nuclear oil and gas we just want to make them safe so we back up and support green energy. it’s just the oil and gas companies that spend a bit more.
Chris
Yeah, i’ll say two things. I guess my comment on this would be, number one is I love how the person said energy. So that’s the first thing, right, pipeline companies support our energy infrastructure. And I think that’s how you get people to buy in a little bit and understand that we’re not just doing this because we want to move hydrocarbons, were doing it for energy. And the second thing is we’re pretty blessed in North America to have a lot of natural gas and natural gas is 100% a decarbonization tool. Right. And so it reduces our carbon footprint. So I would just say, I think overall understanding those two things on how we communicate, I think will begin to help people.
Rhett
All right. Welcome back to Pipeline Things. Well, we continue our conversation with our guest, Dr. Phil Hopkins. Is it doctor? Did I say that or no? Is it just Phil Hopkins?
Phil
It’s Dr. Of Whatever you want to call it.
Rhett
Oh, okay. With Dr. Phil Hopkins and our discussion on the Pipeline Defect Assessment Manual. So just going back, you know, right before the break, Chris asked a question that I still think is interesting today. And that is, I get the sense that PDAM is, look, from my time working at Rosen and working with the lovely folks at Newcastle, there was a lot of familiarity within Penn’s Pen and the Remnants for sure of the Pipeline Defect Assessment Manual. But across the pond, there does not feel like there’s the same level of awareness. And even so much, I mean, I asked Chris, I wish I had it at my fingertips. Like whenever we… We talked to people about 318S and the development, which was happening around the same time. It’s almost like 318S could have grabbed large portions of PDAM. It didn’t.Why do you think that’s the case, Phil? Why do you feel like we have this, we reinvented the wheel in the United States?
Phil
Well, I think it’s different in the States. I mean, I’ve worked in the States for many years. It’s the regulatory framework. in Europe, we’re very much goal setting you know build a safe pipeline and do not let it fail that’sthe regulation, whereas in America it’s very prescriptive. You shall you shall you shall you shall and the regulations often quote standards for example ASME or API standards
Rhett
yeah
Phil
once you call standard you’ve got to use it there’s no choice. in Europe it’s a very cool setting there’s nothing quoted so in France in Germany in Netherlands or in the UK you can use what you want as long as it’ssafe. The good thing is that if you set goal setting regulations it’s on you, it’s as simple as that it’s on you, so you must be right so the p-dam in Europe was really well set up. in America it wasn’t quoted so Plus, I’vegot to say that some of the documents you quoted are very good. API 1160, 1183, they’re all good. So you would drip feed it into the regulations, the guidelines that PDAM was already quoted in Europe. So it was slow because of a different market. Not so many different people, but just a different market.
Rhett
So you mentioned, I think when I look at PDAM, You said earlier like 400 pages. I can’t remember. I think it has like –
Chris
It’s more than 450 I think
Rhett
20 or something sections. It’s a lot. It’s got a lot of sections. What I’m curious about there is probably the closest equivalent I would say is 579. But this is like – whereas 579 is broadly fitness for service on anything and everything including pipes and other equipment, PDAM is 450 pages focused on pipelines. Where do you think today, where do you think some of the best sections of PDM are, or maybe some of the hidden gems for our audience?
Phil
Well, PDAM is a pipeline-specific document, pipeline. API 5009 is chemical industry, and BSF 910 is welding. But PDAM is the only one. as it says is pipelines so everything to do with it is pipelines nothing but pipelines and you know yourself that pipelines are quite special because they’re thin pressurized shells so you’ve got to put down exactly what it is and also it’s very much empirical based so you need to test data so PDAM presents all the test data so if you want to do review for example dense you get PDAM, it’s got all the full-scale tests to run it again and produce a better model. Because PDAM is always developing. I think there’s 49 sponsors now. So 49 times $25,000 is a lot to make. And all that money is put back into the manual to increase the numbers. I think a good example of the benefit of PDAM is, for example, The revision two of PDAM, which was in 2016, contained guidance on fatigue. So the specific guidance on fatigue, which is becoming very topical. Also, PDAM covers offshore pipelines. Offshore pipelines are not very well covered by anybody in America.
Rhett
Nope
Phile
Now, DMV in Norway, great company. So all you need to do is start up with a couple of pages, rough guidance, even quoting standards and regulations. And so PDAM really is looking at a pipeline only as a pipeline, whereas other documents necessarily have to be broader in perspective, like API to sell as a result of other industries. But PDAM is not being sold. It’s a sponsor saying we want moral critique in pipelines. Please give this chapter. So we research it, publish, and do it.
Rhett
Which is really funny. Two things I’m thinking of, like the cracking standard 1176. I don’t remember when the first edition of 1176 was published. Do you remember when that was? But I feel like it had to be generally around that time frame that the first edition of 1176 was. And now API. is, again, they’re discussing doing a specific pressure cycling standard. And I’m like, we could go and grab from PDAM and what’s already there for sure. So it’s just making me laugh because I feel like we –
Chris
It was circa 2016.
Rhett
That’s what I feel like.
Chis
I can’t put my finger on it. It was like 14 to 16-ish. And, again, everybody on the podcast, ah, you guys don’t remember. But, yeah, it’s around there
Rhett
Leave a comment.
Chris
Yeah.
Rhett
Yeah, subscribe and leave a comment. You guys got the date of 1160 wrong.
Chris
So, Phil, I actually – This is more of a comment, but I’m curious about your reaction. You know, Rhett and I are often participating in the development of consensus standards here in the US, right? Whether it beASME based or API based. And there’s always such a significant component of the consequence of choosing certain words. or the consequence of putting a certain formula or approach or not putting an approach in these because of the regulatory environment that U.S.-based operations are subject to. And you said something earlier around, you know, European is usually more goal-oriented, whereas U.S. is more prescriptive-based. So kind of in that theme, I wonder… And I’m going to ask a question.So do you think that PDAM is a better technical document than American-based technical documents because of the spirit of it and because of the fact that you guys are less controlled by regulation?
Phil
Well, I wouldn’t say better. It’s certainly a compliment. I think 1183 is far bigger than the dent section in PDAM. You have to remember that, to be fair to the American operators, You’ve got 600 operators. Well, in Europe, you can fit them all in one room. It’s pretty simple. This is the same thing Andy Drake said. Andy’s on how they had to go across the whole spectrum of operators. So in many ways, it’s just different. And I also like the American approach. The documents are very well written. Okay, you can’t use it. They haven’t got spreadsheets. They haven’t got software free. But they’re very well written. And because the standards,of course, they give you a choice. Say it’s five methods to choose one. Well, operators don’t like that. They like a specification. You will use number one. Don’t think. Whereas PDAM says use number one. Simple as that. But they…It’s just a different market. I think it’s a shame that PDAM has to be used as well.
Rhett
Yeah, I agree
Phil
Because there’s now 49 sponsors, which means it’s been agreed by Shell, BP, Total, you know, all these big companies have sat on the committee and agreed to it.
So we’re wasting that. I would like to see it free.
Chris
Would you consider PDAM peer-reviewed?
Phil
Yeah.
Rhett
All right, Phil, I’m going to go non-PDAM as we wrap up. I created a time machine, and you have the option to go back to late 1970s Phil Hopkins in the industry, maybe early 80s Phil Hopkins. What advice do you give the early version of your pipeline self? I might do this with all of our guest.
Phil
Well, a couple of things. First of all, I always say never stop learning, whether you’re 21 or 81 or 91. Never stop learning. And there’s so much out there. And the second thing I would say is always put the pipeline first. I know you shouldn’t say that, but if you protect the pipeline, you protect the people.
Chris
Yeah, I love how you’re going to say that.
Phil
And so I always think about the pipeline. I know it’s a little bit. against the grain. But I always think, what does the pipeline want? Because I think pipelines have got a bad name. And aren’t dependable. They’ll say, pipeline, oh, it fell due to corrosion. it fell due to dents. Well, it didn’t. Somebody did something wrong. The person did something wrong. So you can’t put a pipeline in prison. You know, lawyers are worried, right? They pick on the people. He did it. He’s a bad connoisseur. He’s a bad connoisseur. And same as Bellingham. Bellingham failure back in the 90s was people-based. It’s down cause of a dent. It’s not. It’s people. So I think in many ways, learn to protect your pipeline, look after the pipeline, and you’ll look after the people. It can’t be the other way around.
Chris
In the early days, I remember Jerry, he told me once, he goes, the pipeline doesn’t care where you put it. And his approach there was it’s, yeah, it’s part of risk. We have to understand the consequence of a failure happening. But at the end of the day, you’re an engineer, and if you do your job and you keep it from failing, it doesn’t matter if it’s in an HCA or non-HCA.
Rhett
Yeah, for sure. So Phil, I just want to say, yeah, you know, I don’t want to go too deep on that. And the reason I don’t is I was like, wow, I could say something.
Chris
It’s just a comment. All right.
Rhett
Phil. I want to say thank you for taking the time to join us. I sincerely hope that this is probably not the last time that we hear from you to our audience. What I would really encourage you to do again is if you get the chance at a JTM or a conference to run into Phil Hopkins and see him or hear him speak,
Chris
take the opportunity.
Rhett
Take the opportunity, Go up and introduce yourself to him. It’s like you know, talking to one of the true OGs in the industry. And you’ll probably get a really good witty comment out of it at the same time.
Chris
And Phil, I would say thank you for accepting and coming onto the podcast. Again, this podcast only exists because we continue to have guests. And we really, really appreciate you taking the time out of today to do this. And one message to the audience. Y’all heard it first here. Phil loves doing research for free. So y’all make sure you reach out to him and give him your best research idea.
Phil
Well, if you do things for free, you’ll never do it.
Rhett
All right. Well, to our guests, our audience, thanks for joining us. We will be back in a couple of weeks with our next episode. And this is Rhett and Chris signing off with our guest, Phil Hopkins. Thank you.
This episode of Pipeline Things was executively produced by Sarah Etier. And I want to say thanks to my special co-host, Christopher DeLeon, and our guest, Dr. Phil Hopkins. Thanks for allowing us to shoot at FORME Marketing’s offices.
Rhett
On this episode of Pipeline things, we go back to an esteemed guest who I think might be famous for their one-liners, You got to listen to the whole thing. Some of my favorite one, buying research is stupid. Is that how I said it
Chris
I think he said ridiculous
Rhett
ridiculous some other really good ones, always put the pipeline first
Chris
yeah or i like this one, he said you can’t put pipelines in jail, Attorneys put people in jail.
Rhett
Boom! It is a great episode. I think you’re really going to enjoy it as we dive into a guest and talk about the Pipeline Defect Assessment Manual. Thanks for joining us on Pipeline Things.
Rhett
All right. Welcome to this edition of Pipeline Things. It’s so good to be back. And I am really
excited about this series that we’re going to be doing with you guys. And I don’t want to spoil it yet because I think I need to set the stage with a brief conversation with my co-host before we introduce the guest.
Chris
Oh, we totally have to talk about the theme of the series
Rhett
though. Oh, do you want to give it away? Deliver the baby?
Chris
No, I don’t want to deliver the baby.
Rhett
You sure?
Chris
But you and I both have, if y’all have listened to this podcast, at least a couple of seasons, you’ll know that Rhett absolutely is fond of failure files. Like he loves failure files, right? He digs in and he tells a story. I call it story time with Rhett, right? It’s so good. Mine waswhat I call the OG series because I love bringing on super cool people to the podcast and you guys getting to learn about them, meet them, and then potentially bump into them somewhere. And so for me, this is one of those where it’s kind of like Sage Series 2.0 or like Original Gangsters 2.0. So I’m really excited about this series.
Rhett
That is, you did deliver the baby. That’s the baby, which is totally okay. Part of the reason that I like this, right, is this concept. So for the audience, yes, this is a big part of our Sage, our OG Part 2 series, is I like connecting industry people with people that they might not have an opportunity to meet with. And part of the reason is that it’s amazing to me how quickly things are forgotten, right? And so this is what I mean. Like, you know, Chris, I mean, we’ve been growing. We hired a couple of younger people, right?
Chris
Yeah.
Rhett
Right? We were on the call the other day. I was actually spending time with one of them. And one of them, I told him, my wife is going to Waco, right? Now, Ms. Producer, when I say Waco, what’s the first thing that comes to mind to you? This is a test. Oh, see?
Chris
That is not what I was going to go with.
Rhett
When I say Waco. Everybody, including our international audience in most cases, will say, oh, Magnolia Market, Chip and Joanna Gaines. And they tell me that.
Chris
Farmer house, baby, it’s coming back.
Rhett
Yep, Close second is I usually will get Baylor University. And I’m like, fair. Right. Growing up, if you just said Waco to me, that had a whole different meaning; I would have answered exactly what Sarah answered,which is David Koresh Waco. Right. And it’s funny cause I was talking to one of the younger guys and I was like, well, yeah, you know what happened to Waco? And he’s like, you mean like the Magnolia Market? I was like, wait, what? Do you not know the history? And I started probing. I was like, what else do you not know? I was like, Oklahoma City. And he’s like, oh, I think I remember something happened there.
Chris
James Harden, Kevin Durant, and Westbrook were all on the same team. No one will remember that. That was like 10 years ago.
Rhett
I was like, what about Ruby Ridge? I started asking all this stuff. And finally, I was like, please, God, tell me. I know you were born after 9/11, but you did cover 9/11 in school, right? And he was like, yes, I did cover 9/11 But It’s amazing to me. Like, you can have these events that are significant, these stories that are significant. If they’re not told, they get lost. And I was like, when we talk to these people that we’re bringing on to Pipeline Things, what I think what I think about is that ability to tell the story, to keep that story, because we have those stories in the pipeline industry.
Chris
Do you realize that we are now
Rhett
Old
Chis
Beginning to fill that role, where when we started, we would go to people for stories,
and now we’re the storytellers?
Rhett
But do you feel like, I don’t feel like our stories are as good. Like I didn’t like Mine aren’t as good yet. That’s for darn sure.
Chris
Yeah, I think it depends. Maybe we don’t story tell enough. Maybe that’s it. Well, see.
Rhett
But anyway miss producer congratulations on being aware of what I would, Waco probably is not happy about it, but what I would still associate as the most important part of Waco. So without further ado, I think that that brings us in. I want to introduce our guest today. So I want to welcome Mr. Phil Hopkins. For those of you who have not had a chance to meet Phil, if you get a chance to hear Phil speak somewhere. You should take the opportunity.
Chris
Yes Register. Get on a plane. Go hang out with Phil. Buy him a drink or two.
Rhett
for sure. Clever, filled with wit. The first presentation that I saw him do, he talked about black swans and you never, ever consider the integrity threat. And then he closed his presentation with his picture of a slothturning the wheel of a bow. And I was like, it was so fabulous, like just all put together. And it left a mark on me for sure. So the chance to. circle again. And I must say, Phil, before I let you speak, to our audience out there, several of you have asked me to bring on Phil, and I always tell you to give us feedback. Sometimes it takes six months to a year before I can actually, you might see the results, but Phil is definitely one of the results of that feedback that we got. So welcome, Phil. How are you today?
Phil
I’m feeling very well. I’m looking forward to the afternoon. There’s no swans. There’s no monkeys. I’m on my own, except my cat.
Chris
Well, and depending how long this runs, maybe a cuckoo coming out of that clock.
Phil
I’ve got, yeah. You like my clock, don’t you? It’s Italian design. It is special. But it’s only cuckoos on the hour. So we’ll save it for the next 55 minutes.
Rhett
Man, 55 would be a long time on the podcast. It’s tempting to try and do that.I don’t think I can push it that long, though. Well, Phil, I’d like you to take a moment. I think it’s safe to say that certainly on the U.S. side, I think many people have probably never had the chance to meet you or the benefit of hearing some of your background. Would you tell us a little bit about who you are, where you came from, and how you found your way into the pipeline industry?
Phil
Well, my name is Phil Hopkins. I’m an independent consultant for pipelines based in the UK. I worked for the pipeline company British Gas, then the consultants Andrew Palmer Resources, then the consultantsPennsylvania. For the past 11 years, I’ve had my own consultancy. So that’s my very brief background. And I’ve spent a lifetime working with old pipelines mainly North American and South American pipelines. Somost of my work has been in the Americas. So if you have corrosion, dents, gouges, buckles, whatever in your pipeline, which you have, I’m the person to contact.
Rhett
So how did you find your way? When did you start in the pipeline industry? And how did you find your way into the pipeline industry?
Phil
Oh, I started in the very late 70s. And that was the time, you say about forgetting memory, that was the time when we didn’t have any tools, no computers. The best thing that happened was a slide rule, a flexor curve, and we were assessing defects in pipelines. And there was a lot of judgment, There was no publications, there was some very good research, certainly from Battalion America, very good, but it wasn’tcollated. So we were very much on our own and setting the apex and it was a lucrative position to be in because you were one of the few. and there’s many documents, but in those days there were no real documents and we had to make judgments on many things including pipelines pressure pedals, pick traps filters, you name it they had problems. The only good thing was they were relatively modern and the inspection wasn’t that great so they couldn’t find cracks for example so we avoided assessing cracks because they couldn’t find them They were there, but they couldn’t find them. So it was exciting.
Rhett
It sounds like a whole different time. A whole different time. You know, one thing you said that I realized people might not appreciate. British gas. That is an entity, Like there’s a few, I call them mafias that exist in various places where lots of people.
Chris
It’s like an era
Rhett
Yes. Like you alluded to one, Battelle. Battelle was a birthplace of a tremendous number of names in the pipeline industry. But British Gas is no slouch. They introduced a lot of technology and formulations into the pipeline industry, probably more than most Americans even realize when we hear that name.
Phil
The strange thing then was that all organizations had the same research organizations, so exxon, chevron, total they all had big research groups and I was in a research group and there was 3,000 of us 3000 people in research. so it was a great time to be a young engineer and now there’s not.
Rhett
because we don’t need it anymore we don’t need to advance, we’ve moved past. Why do we need 3,000 researchers anymore
Phil
Well the thing is Yeah, the thing is we’ve advanced in many areas like inspection, but we haven’t advanced in assessment. We’re still using methods based on the 1960s and 1970s on inspection methods around 2026. Before it was assessment was above inspection. Now it’s the other way around. So we followed it backwards.
Chris
Question on personal preference, right? So you started back in the 70s and you see, it sounds like, you know, information was golden back then, right? That’s what made you special. It’s like, hey, call that guy. He’sawesome. But now we have a bunch of AI tools like co-pilots where all this information is at a type on the keyboard. Which era, if you had to do it all over again, would you be in if you had to do it all over again?
Phil
You know, surprisingly, I think now is very good. I like AI. um it’s a great help and it would make my job much easier um so i think now is good but in the past, to learn quickly certainly in the 70s 80s you had to learn very quickly and also then people shared things, information so the guys at Battell would send us all their reports no argument here’s all data and we would send all our reports Oh, gas to France, send all the reports. Today, we people are very protective. You have to buy them, first of all, which is ridiculous. Having to buy research, that’s crazy. Why research?
Chris
I’m going to write that. Buying research is ridiculous by Phil Hopkins.
Rhett
Buying research, We’ll have some organizations in the U.S. that’ll get a little bent out
of shape about that
Phil
Just give it away. Just give it to people.
Chris
What happens when you give stuff away, Phil? I’m very curious about this. What do you think would happen if you just gave stuff away?
Phil
You get work. I think it’s called Metcalfe’s Law. The more users who are aware of your work,
the more work you get.
Rhett
That’s valid.
Phil
Based on electronics. So the more you give, the more you take. That’s a big lesson. We’ve given away so many things on training courses, free spreadsheets, free software, and the work comes back because people use it. And there’s so many pipelines out there, there’s so many thousands of humans. It’s very useful to give. And that’s why I’ve always published. Everything I’ve had, I’ve published. Everything I know, I’vepublished. And the work comes back.
Rhett
So I’d bring it around. Speaking about publishing and research, the reason we wanted to talk to you today, I think, is a document that’s not well-known enough in the United States. I will vouch, the first time I heard about it was probably 2012, 2013, it was at an operator and he referenced the document and said, why don’t we bring this up and use it more often? And that is, for our audience, the Pipeline Defect Assessment Manual, often abbreviated PDAM. If you’ve not heard of it, you’re not alone. If you have heard of it, then you’ve probably utilized it. And the reason that we brought Phil on is Phil was instrumental in the development of that document. And so, Phil, if you don’t mind, can you tell us a little bit about the origins of PDAM. And just so the audience knows, that document is very much still alive and well and accessible today. We’regoing to talk about that throughout the episode. But Phil, where did PDAM come from? And can you give us a little bit about the genesis of that?
Phil
Well, let me take it back 30 years to 1997. And I would run in a small office looking at old pipelines. full of dents and corrosion and ganges and cracks and buckles
Chris
For the record i was in middle school just so we’re clear I wouldn’t have even known what a pipeline is I like this
Phil
they’re all safe but they’re full of defects, i would emphasize that. and I didn’t what was curious was all the clients had the same problem, they were all clean at the door with corrosion, with gouges we’ve got buckles, we’ve got dents. And great, we took the work on and more clients came with the same problems. And one of the problems you have with that sort of repeat work is that it’s lateral development for staff. It’snot vertical. It’s been done. So what staff want is vertical or new work. The old work is old work. So what the staff said was, well, let’s produce a manual with all the methods in, spreadsheets are sorted with the manual, and the client can do the work. It’s very easy. It’s all published. So three of our really goodclients, which was National Grid in the UK, Total and BP, all put together $25,000 each. And we produced a manual called the Pipeline Assessment Manual, which contained a chapter on each defect. Could be eliminations, could be swelling, could be corrosion. And all you did was open the chapter, and that gave you theequations, the methods to assess a defect. It was backed up by a thorough review. And it was backed up by a spreadsheet that could be used to do the calculation. It was backed up by a database. of any full-scale test that was proven in that equation. And they loved it. They thought it was great. And they said, what we do now, that’s the method used.
Rhett
They being the three? Okay. I didn’t know if it was the younger engineers or it was because I want to get to this in a moment because it’s, just to recap, it’s the three clients that were the original, participated in the development, but it was driven to some extent by your younger engineers who were like, we’ve already done this. Let’s formulate it, if you will, proceduralize it, and put it all together.
Phil
Yeah, we’ve got various rules for consultants there. I’m sure you guys have. One of the rules is we get interesting work for clever people. That’s the first thing. And we’ve got some very clever people and repeat work is not interesting. it’s quite boring so when we came back as an element of the corrosion assessment they dive into their desks but if we came with something different they jumped on the desk and the second thing, the second rule we had was we put the pipeline first, the client second and the consultant third. So we felt we were being unfair to the client by just taking money it was too easy, and then All thoseorganizations had their own research organization, so they were interested as well. So the manual we produce, which is now, to call it a manual, is quite a version. I think it’s about 450 pages long.
Rhett
Yeah, it’s big.
Phil
Yeah. The manual was very, very popular in those companies, and it was setting their procedures and methods. The question was, have you used PDAM to assess corrosion? so the likes of bp could go to consultant and say you will use this document to assess my corrosion you use this document to assess my flat nation so in effect it was a standard it was a consensus document. so it was so popular that people startedasking can we have it? well it wasn’t that ours, it was a joint industry project then and i think it was In the space of a couple of years, 16 companies, South America, Europe, America, joined. And they paid $25,000, and we produced a huge document called the Pipeline Defector Cellular Manual, PDAM. And that was first produced, I think, in 2003. And it had many chapters on corrosion cracks and loads of spreadsheets, loads of scientific reviews and all those companies included in their procedures, now wouldn’t you question, now why wasn’t this used in America? Well first of all it was the JIP it was financial. the second thing was, I don’t think it was fully appreciated that if Exxon mobile join in Europe their international membership they can use it anywhere, But instead,they used it in Europe. So Shell were used in Europe, Total, ExxonMobil, BP, but not much in America. And then, at about that time, documents in America started to be produced that answered the question. But PETA was the first manual that had all the information in.
Rhett
So I’m curious. So just to recap some of what you said. And revisit it. You said originally the notion was your engineers were like, this is bored. They can do it themselves. And so you developed the set of procedures and the tools. How successful were you at getting, where the clients are adopting it and using it themselves? Or did they tend to use it more like a procedure, which you described it also as going to a client and saying, hey, client X, follow this procedure, do the work for me?
Phil
They were confident with the review. And they were confident with the manual and confident with the spreadsheets. So they were happy. But remember, then, they still had their own research organizations. They had some very clever people doing their work anyway. But what they wouldn’t do is our work. They immediately came back to our door and said, you use it. We don’t like it. And the office grew and grew and grew. Sowhat we tried to achieve, we failed. The more we gave them, the more they came to it.
Chris
So you stopped hiring clever people, is what you said. Because the first rule was to get interesting work for clever people.
Phil
Yeah, we used it two ways. That’s a good question.
Chris
We just stopped hiring clever people?
Phil
We’ve always recruited clever people. What we said was early was starters, early career people, it’s very good for lateral development. For later people, the clever people. it was more vertical so they went from indirect creative problem solving to logical step-by-step thinking and that really challenged the staff and we had a very low turnover because of that. so it was a good tactical move and very lucrative it’s reallyinteresting my CEO at the time my boss, said to me phil let me explain this you’re giving away all our equations in spreadsheet form and you’re giving training courses on how to do our work i said yes what’s wrong with that he said it’ll kill us all the time we grew and grew and grew so it goes against, we may not agree with what we did, but it ended is that we grew and grew
Rhett
There’s a problem with this episode now, which is it’s exposing the secrets of consultants. Phil I get this same problem with my business partner because people ask me to do training, and I do it for like next to nothing, sometimes nearly free just because I enjoy it. And he’s like, what are you doing? Chris is my business partner.
Chris
Oh, get out of here. No
Rhett
You know, my co-host. And he’s like, why didn’t you charge him more?
Chris
No, get out of here. He’s such a liar.
Rhett
Chris, everybody that’s listening to this episode knows it’s true.
Chris
He’s such a liar.
Rhett
Everybody knows it’s true.
Chris
We know. Oh, that’s so much BS.
Rhett
Even Miss Producer is back there laughing. She’s like, it’s 100% true.
Phil
Because if you do a training course and there’s 20 people there, there are 20 users. You never lose. Training is better described as marketing. It’s marketing. It’s not training. It’s marketing.
Rhett
Phils calling me out. I can’t argue. He’s actually 100% correct. Training is marketing.
Chris
This podcast is moving away from PDAM and its history into business consulting 101.
Rhett
Consultants. They’re really just..
Phil
I’m trying to show you guys how to do business. How to succeed
Rhett
So what’s funny about that, right, is I still get, I feel like the sentiments haven’t changed, Phil, in 30 years. The problems definitely haven’t changed, right?
Phil
Yeah.
Rhett
The same challenges exist. Tents, buckles, wrinkles, cracks, corrosion. It’s all the same. And I still get the same. Dents are a big one. Again, dents have come full circle with 192.712. And the number of people that have said, look, we want you to train us to do it internally. Bending strain’s another really good one. People have asked me, I want to train you to do this internally. I’m like, I can show you everything. I will sit down with you for hours. I will give you our software if you would like to purchase it so that you can do it. And I said, the problem is you won’t want to invest the resources to sit and do bending strain on your own for hours on end. I was like, you won’t.
Chris
It’s time consuming
Rhett
Or you won’t get comfortable with wanting to take on the whatever I guess perceived risk or real risk of owning the assessment
Chris
well that and having a dedicated resource on something people say that they want to do it until they start doing it, and then you find they don’t want to do it
Rhett
it’s true yeah
Chris
Because it’s the monotony of what you said right
Phil
There’s fewer and fewer workers in the clients so I appreciate that but it’s always best for the client to do the work
Rhett
I agree
Phil
I know your consultants
Chris
Oh, that’s okay.
Phil
They’ve got all the information and they’ve got all the responsibility. So all we can do is offer.
Chris
We normally see it kind of two ways and not necessarily split down the middle. But, you know, as a consultancy, you know, they’ll reach out to us and say, hey, we have this problem. Can you help us solve it? And sowe’ll solve it. We’ll help them stand up a procedure. And then many times they do go away and they own that, right? So we help them tackle a new approach. But then there’s the component of where I call it peak shaving or risk management, right? Where they may just have a workload that just comes in and overwhelms their resources and they need to delegate some of that out. Or two, it is more cost effective for them to sub it out because we’re more efficient at it. But if we can, Phil, I want to bring us back just a wee bit to PDEM. I got a question for you. Here in the States, we often find that incidents are the catalyst for us to see change in how we do things. And when you said, you know, 1997 to, you know, early 2000s, one of the big things that came to my mind was Bellingham here in the States, which then led to a one-year sprint for ASME to make B31-8S. So within one year, they drafted and published the first version of ASME B31-8S, which was in 2001. Was there a similar drive? I mean, I don’t think there was, but I wanted to ask, right? So, I mean, you said it was a JIP by proactive operators, but was there anything happening in that era that really drove it to go from three operators to call it 16 operators in that 97 to that 2000 I think you said three version? Or was it all people being proactive?
Phil
It was the latter. Well, first of all, I was an expert on Bellium, so I know it very well. And we were aware of the problem. And it was, I’m saying a good example. It was an example of where PDAM could have been used. And I think one of the people involved in Bellium, he came on my course. So he had the tools to assess the defects.
Chris
Before the incident?
Phil
Yeah.
Rhett
He was on your course before the incident?
Phil
Yeah.
Chris
Wow.
Phil
He applied correctly most of the information. But I think it’s a fair question. At that time, the big change occurred in really the 70s and the 80s. In the 70s, the intelligent vehicle, the inspection tools started to be made. In the 80s, ASVV31G was brought out. So all of a sudden, inspection and corrosion became very famous. They couldn’t find it. We couldn’t find it. We didn’t know about it. We had to dig a hole. It’s a long hole for a pipeline. And so by the time the 90s came, all of a sudden, what happened was They were finding the defects and they wanted to sort them out. And at the time, all the big operators and all the big companies like Shell, like Exxon, were losing staff. They were losing the research organization. So more and more work was coming out of these big companies and coming to the consultants. And it still does. So there was a change. There was a change in the market and consultants became very powerful then. And to have a document that told consultants what to do throughout the company was a very useful thing to have. The reason it didn’t take content in America was because things were changing. Documents were being made, good documents. We’d already got very good documents in Europe. We had BS 7910, which was a crack assessment document. And you had then the API by 2005 same thing. But we had it. So in terms of the David assessment, we were very well set up to do the work. And also our friends at Batel and Southwest Research, they published everything. We had all their information. It was brilliant. And then they came across the visit. They brought loads of manuals and research and reports and said, here you are, Phil, do youmore reports? Well, that was great. It’s like $2 million of research we’ll bring across. So very quick. So it was a different market then.
Rhett
Yep. Phil, I got to take a break real quick. Audience, when we come back, we’re going to pick up the conversation around maybe why we don’t see PDM as much in the U.S. and also talk a little bit about the structure of the document, what’s actually in there. And today, if you wanted to get access to it, how would you go about it? So hang on. We’ll be right back on Pipeline Things.
Chris
From YPP Symposium 2026, one of the questions that we got asked was, what things can pipeline companies do to help the energy/ oil and gas industries image? That’s a great question.
Phil
Well, the first thing we can do is admit that oil and gas is with us till 2050 at least
Rhett
That is true.
Chris
Just accept this.
Phil
It’s true.
Rhett
There’s that cuckoo clock.
Chris
Cuckoo
Rhett
Oh, I hear it. That’s fantastic.
Chris
Oh, perfect. We’ve achieved it.
Rhett
So do you remember, like, I’m going to make this full circle because I like you saying and admitting it. Do you remember BP’s slogan about 15 years ago?
Phil
Yeah.
Rhett
Beyond petroleum.
Phil
Beyond, yeah
Rhett
We are definitely not beyond petroleum.
Phil
But the other side of the coin is that if they spend more money on… CO2 pipelines and H2 pipelines to offset oil and gas It works. Because a CO2 capture, will capture all the oil and gas fuels from the big polluters.It’ll cost all of the money, but that would improve the image. They’d spend money, their profits, which are not great, by the way. In terms of potential oil and gas companies’ profits are not brilliant. part of it could be spent on a greener future because as engineers we’re happy to work on anything with those nuclear oil and gas we just want to make them safe so we back up and support green energy. it’s just the oil and gas companies that spend a bit more.
Chris
Yeah, i’ll say two things. I guess my comment on this would be, number one is I love how the person said energy. So that’s the first thing, right, pipeline companies support our energy infrastructure. And I think that’s how you get people to buy in a little bit and understand that we’re not just doing this because we want to move hydrocarbons, were doing it for energy. And the second thing is we’re pretty blessed in North America to have a lot of natural gas and natural gas is 100% a decarbonization tool. Right. And so it reduces our carbon footprint. So I would just say, I think overall understanding those two things on how we communicate, I think will begin to help people.
Rhett
All right. Welcome back to Pipeline Things. Well, we continue our conversation with our guest, Dr. Phil Hopkins. Is it doctor? Did I say that or no? Is it just Phil Hopkins?
Phil
It’s Dr. Of Whatever you want to call it.
Rhett
Oh, okay. With Dr. Phil Hopkins and our discussion on the Pipeline Defect Assessment Manual. So just going back, you know, right before the break, Chris asked a question that I still think is interesting today. And that is, I get the sense that PDAM is, look, from my time working at Rosen and working with the lovely folks at Newcastle, there was a lot of familiarity within Penn’s Pen and the Remnants for sure of the Pipeline Defect Assessment Manual. But across the pond, there does not feel like there’s the same level of awareness. And even so much, I mean, I asked Chris, I wish I had it at my fingertips. Like whenever we… We talked to people about 318S and the development, which was happening around the same time. It’s almost like 318S could have grabbed large portions of PDAM. It didn’t.Why do you think that’s the case, Phil? Why do you feel like we have this, we reinvented the wheel in the United States?
Phil
Well, I think it’s different in the States. I mean, I’ve worked in the States for many years. It’s the regulatory framework. in Europe, we’re very much goal setting you know build a safe pipeline and do not let it fail that’sthe regulation, whereas in America it’s very prescriptive. You shall you shall you shall you shall and the regulations often quote standards for example ASME or API standards
Rhett
yeah
Phil
once you call standard you’ve got to use it there’s no choice. in Europe it’s a very cool setting there’s nothing quoted so in France in Germany in Netherlands or in the UK you can use what you want as long as it’ssafe. The good thing is that if you set goal setting regulations it’s on you, it’s as simple as that it’s on you, so you must be right so the p-dam in Europe was really well set up. in America it wasn’t quoted so Plus, I’vegot to say that some of the documents you quoted are very good. API 1160, 1183, they’re all good. So you would drip feed it into the regulations, the guidelines that PDAM was already quoted in Europe. So it was slow because of a different market. Not so many different people, but just a different market.
Rhett
So you mentioned, I think when I look at PDAM, You said earlier like 400 pages. I can’t remember. I think it has like –
Chris
It’s more than 450 I think
Rhett
20 or something sections. It’s a lot. It’s got a lot of sections. What I’m curious about there is probably the closest equivalent I would say is 579. But this is like – whereas 579 is broadly fitness for service on anything and everything including pipes and other equipment, PDAM is 450 pages focused on pipelines. Where do you think today, where do you think some of the best sections of PDM are, or maybe some of the hidden gems for our audience?
Phil
Well, PDAM is a pipeline-specific document, pipeline. API 5009 is chemical industry, and BSF 910 is welding. But PDAM is the only one. as it says is pipelines so everything to do with it is pipelines nothing but pipelines and you know yourself that pipelines are quite special because they’re thin pressurized shells so you’ve got to put down exactly what it is and also it’s very much empirical based so you need to test data so PDAM presents all the test data so if you want to do review for example dense you get PDAM, it’s got all the full-scale tests to run it again and produce a better model. Because PDAM is always developing. I think there’s 49 sponsors now. So 49 times $25,000 is a lot to make. And all that money is put back into the manual to increase the numbers. I think a good example of the benefit of PDAM is, for example, The revision two of PDAM, which was in 2016, contained guidance on fatigue. So the specific guidance on fatigue, which is becoming very topical. Also, PDAM covers offshore pipelines. Offshore pipelines are not very well covered by anybody in America.
Rhett
Nope
Phile
Now, DMV in Norway, great company. So all you need to do is start up with a couple of pages, rough guidance, even quoting standards and regulations. And so PDAM really is looking at a pipeline only as a pipeline, whereas other documents necessarily have to be broader in perspective, like API to sell as a result of other industries. But PDAM is not being sold. It’s a sponsor saying we want moral critique in pipelines. Please give this chapter. So we research it, publish, and do it.
Rhett
Which is really funny. Two things I’m thinking of, like the cracking standard 1176. I don’t remember when the first edition of 1176 was published. Do you remember when that was? But I feel like it had to be generally around that time frame that the first edition of 1176 was. And now API. is, again, they’re discussing doing a specific pressure cycling standard. And I’m like, we could go and grab from PDAM and what’s already there for sure. So it’s just making me laugh because I feel like we –
Chris
It was circa 2016.
Rhett
That’s what I feel like.
Chis
I can’t put my finger on it. It was like 14 to 16-ish. And, again, everybody on the podcast, ah, you guys don’t remember. But, yeah, it’s around there
Rhett
Leave a comment.
Chris
Yeah.
Rhett
Yeah, subscribe and leave a comment. You guys got the date of 1160 wrong.
Chris
So, Phil, I actually – This is more of a comment, but I’m curious about your reaction. You know, Rhett and I are often participating in the development of consensus standards here in the US, right? Whether it beASME based or API based. And there’s always such a significant component of the consequence of choosing certain words. or the consequence of putting a certain formula or approach or not putting an approach in these because of the regulatory environment that U.S.-based operations are subject to. And you said something earlier around, you know, European is usually more goal-oriented, whereas U.S. is more prescriptive-based. So kind of in that theme, I wonder… And I’m going to ask a question.So do you think that PDAM is a better technical document than American-based technical documents because of the spirit of it and because of the fact that you guys are less controlled by regulation?
Phil
Well, I wouldn’t say better. It’s certainly a compliment. I think 1183 is far bigger than the dent section in PDAM. You have to remember that, to be fair to the American operators, You’ve got 600 operators. Well, in Europe, you can fit them all in one room. It’s pretty simple. This is the same thing Andy Drake said. Andy’s on how they had to go across the whole spectrum of operators. So in many ways, it’s just different. And I also like the American approach. The documents are very well written. Okay, you can’t use it. They haven’t got spreadsheets. They haven’t got software free. But they’re very well written. And because the standards,of course, they give you a choice. Say it’s five methods to choose one. Well, operators don’t like that. They like a specification. You will use number one. Don’t think. Whereas PDAM says use number one. Simple as that. But they…It’s just a different market. I think it’s a shame that PDAM has to be used as well.
Rhett
Yeah, I agree
Phil
Because there’s now 49 sponsors, which means it’s been agreed by Shell, BP, Total, you know, all these big companies have sat on the committee and agreed to it.
So we’re wasting that. I would like to see it free.
Chris
Would you consider PDAM peer-reviewed?
Phil
Yeah.
Rhett
All right, Phil, I’m going to go non-PDAM as we wrap up. I created a time machine, and you have the option to go back to late 1970s Phil Hopkins in the industry, maybe early 80s Phil Hopkins. What advice do you give the early version of your pipeline self? I might do this with all of our guest.
Phil
Well, a couple of things. First of all, I always say never stop learning, whether you’re 21 or 81 or 91. Never stop learning. And there’s so much out there. And the second thing I would say is always put the pipeline first. I know you shouldn’t say that, but if you protect the pipeline, you protect the people.
Chris
Yeah, I love how you’re going to say that.
Phil
And so I always think about the pipeline. I know it’s a little bit. against the grain. But I always think, what does the pipeline want? Because I think pipelines have got a bad name. And aren’t dependable. They’ll say, pipeline, oh, it fell due to corrosion. it fell due to dents. Well, it didn’t. Somebody did something wrong. The person did something wrong. So you can’t put a pipeline in prison. You know, lawyers are worried, right? They pick on the people. He did it. He’s a bad connoisseur. He’s a bad connoisseur. And same as Bellingham. Bellingham failure back in the 90s was people-based. It’s down cause of a dent. It’s not. It’s people. So I think in many ways, learn to protect your pipeline, look after the pipeline, and you’ll look after the people. It can’t be the other way around.
Chris
In the early days, I remember Jerry, he told me once, he goes, the pipeline doesn’t care where you put it. And his approach there was it’s, yeah, it’s part of risk. We have to understand the consequence of a failure happening. But at the end of the day, you’re an engineer, and if you do your job and you keep it from failing, it doesn’t matter if it’s in an HCA or non-HCA.
Rhett
Yeah, for sure. So Phil, I just want to say, yeah, you know, I don’t want to go too deep on that. And the reason I don’t is I was like, wow, I could say something.
Chris
It’s just a comment. All right.
Rhett
Phil. I want to say thank you for taking the time to join us. I sincerely hope that this is probably not the last time that we hear from you to our audience. What I would really encourage you to do again is if you get the chance at a JTM or a conference to run into Phil Hopkins and see him or hear him speak,
Chris
take the opportunity.
Rhett
Take the opportunity, Go up and introduce yourself to him. It’s like you know, talking to one of the true OGs in the industry. And you’ll probably get a really good witty comment out of it at the same time.
Chris
And Phil, I would say thank you for accepting and coming onto the podcast. Again, this podcast only exists because we continue to have guests. And we really, really appreciate you taking the time out of today to do this. And one message to the audience. Y’all heard it first here. Phil loves doing research for free. So y’all make sure you reach out to him and give him your best research idea.
Phil
Well, if you do things for free, you’ll never do it.
Rhett
All right. Well, to our guests, our audience, thanks for joining us. We will be back in a couple of weeks with our next episode. And this is Rhett and Chris signing off with our guest, Phil Hopkins. Thank you.
This episode of Pipeline Things was executively produced by Sarah Etier. And I want to say thanks to my special co-host, Christopher DeLeon, and our guest, Dr. Phil Hopkins. Thanks for allowing us to shoot at FORME Marketing’s offices.
