- Providers of training and standard operating procedures for custody transfer measurement professionals.
This week’s Pipeliners Podcast episode features Russel Treat and Ross Adams of EnerSys Corporation discussing this year’s SGA Natural Gas Connect conference.
Ross provides his insight on the critical topics affecting the pipeline control room in 2019. Specifically, how the concept of Change Management is impacting today’s control room, the biggest concerns that are keeping control room managers up at night, and how to really be prepared for a control room audit.
Listen for first-hand perspective on the conversations that took place during the SGA conference to gain insight on how to apply this information to control room management or control room support.
SGA 2019 Recap: Show Notes, Links, and Insider Terms
- Ross Adams is the Regulatory and Software Support lead for EnerSys. Connect with Ross on LinkedIn.
- SGA Natural Gas Connect was a new conference held July 15-17, 2019, in San Antonio, Texas, that combined SGA’s ESHT, MCEC, and Operating Conference.
- SGA (Southern Gas Association) is a community of natural gas professionals across the U.S. and Canada. SGA’s membership comprises 200 businesses across the distribution, pipeline, and gas supply marketing sectors as well as more than 300 industry partners serving the industry as vendors, suppliers and consultants.
- Management of Change (MOC) focuses on planning the processes in a system, the type and quality of changes required, the risks associated with the plan for change, and the people that will be impacted by the change so that it is clearly communicated to stakeholders.
- PHMSA (Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration) ensures the safe transportation of energy and hazardous materials.
- The CRM Rule (Control Room Management Rule as defined by 49 CFR Parts 192 and 195) introduced by PHMSA provides regulations and guidelines for control room managers to safely operate a pipeline. PHMSA’s pipeline safety regulations prescribe safety requirements for controllers, control rooms, and SCADA systems used to remotely monitor and control pipeline operations.
- DOCUMENTS: CRM Workshops and Inspection Guidance
- DOCUMENTS: Integrated Inspections Information
- SCADA (Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition) is a system of software and technology that allows pipeliners to control processes locally or at remote location. SCADA breaks down into two key functions: supervisory control and data acquisition. Included is managing the field, communication, and control room technology components that send and receive valuable data, allowing users to respond to the data.
- HMI (Human Machine Interface) is the user interface that connects an operator to the controller in pipeline operations. High-performance HMI is the next level of taking available data and presenting it as information that is helpful to the controller to understand the present and future activity in the pipeline.
- Alarm Management is the process of managing the alarming system in a pipeline operation by documenting the alarm rationalization process, assisting controller alarm response, and generating alarm reports that comply with the CRM Rule for control room management.
- RACI Matrix is a type of workflow chart that defines roles and responsibilities for specific assignments. This establishes who is responsible for performing critical tasks within a system.
- Point to Point Verification is the communication between a field device and the SCADA system and displayed on the HMI for a pipeline controller.
- The PHMSA CRM Rule defines point to point verification as confirming that the input or output of each field instrument is accurately and reliably reflected in the SCADA information presented to the controller.
- API 1165 RP defines the use of universally-understood graphics, objects and data points, tags, labels, and colors to communicate data from the field to the controller to support pipeline safety.
- RTUs (Remote Telemetry Units) are electronic devices placed in the field. RTUs enable remote automation by communicating data back to the facility and taking specific action after receiving input from the facility.
- PLCs (Programmable Logic Controllers) are programmable devices placed in the field that take action when certain conditions are met in a pipeline program.
- Fatigue mitigation, as outlined by PHMSA, requires operators to implement fatigue mitigation methods to reduce the risk associated with controller fatigue that could inhibit a controller’s ability to carry out the roles and responsibilities the operator has defined.
- The Gas Gathering Rule (Safety of Gas Transmission and Gathering Pipelines) was initiated in 2016 when PHMSA issued a notice seeking comments on changes to the pipeline safety regulations for gas transmission and gathering pipelines. The proposed rule has advanced through various stages to expected issuance in the second half of 2019 or 2020 to bring more pipe under federal jurisdiction to monitor adherence to the CRM Rule.
SGA 2019 Recap: Full Episode Transcript
Russel Treat: Welcome to the Pipeliners Podcast, episode 86, sponsored by Gas Certification Institute, providing training and standard operating procedures for custody transfer and measurement professionals. To find out more about GCI, go to gascertification.com.
Announcer: The Pipeliners Podcast, where professionals, Bubba geeks, and industry insiders share their knowledge and experience about technology, projects, and pipeline operations.
And now your host, Russel Treat.
Russel: Thanks for listening to the Pipeliners Podcast. We appreciate you taking the time, and to show that appreciation, we are giving away a customized YETI tumbler to one listener each episode. This week, our winner is Steve Allen with Energy WorldNet, and by the way, I want to make a shout‑out to Steve.
He’s been a fan of the show for a while, and I’ve run into him a number of times at GPAC, and I believe at the AGA and some other places. Steve, you’ve earned your YETI, and I’m glad to be able to say it’s on its way. To learn how you can win the signature prize pack, Pipeliners Podcast YETI tumbler, stick around till the end of the episode.
Morning, Ross. Welcome back to the Pipeliners Podcast.
Ross Adams: Thanks so much for having me. It’s good to be back. I thought I knew what busy was, and this season happened, but it’s good to take a break and be able to talk, be on the podcast and discuss what I’ve been hearing lately in industry and some of the things we learned last week at the SGA Conference.
Russel: That’s exactly the reason I asked you to come on. I was not able to go to SGA. I had other commitments related to the American School of Gas Measurement Technology.
I’m very curious what was talked about and what you learned. Maybe a good way to start is, what would you say was the major topic as you were participating in the control room conversations at SGA Operations?
Ross: There were several sessions, and the first one, the big one that stood out to me was all around change management and how it relates to and impacts the control room. Last year, we talked about how to attract personnel, and this year, we talked about how to retain personnel.
There was a good session on what keeps you up at night for controller managers. We closed with a session on audits and what to be prepared for, and what to expect.
Russel: Let’s start by talking about change management. We’ve talked about this before on the podcast, in some previous episodes, but that was more theoretical.
I think, when you’re participating in a forum like you were, it’s a little bit more boots on the dirt in terms of what needs to happen. What would you say was the conversation, in general terms, around change management?
Ross: I think at a higher level, there’s two big areas of change management that have to be accounted for. There’s the process that occurs, as the decisions are being made to do a particular work item.
The other half of it is getting that information into the control room, all the way down to the controller level, so that controllers are prepared and comfortable with whatever the operating condition is going to be.
Russel: I know this is a difficult thing to answer, the one I’m getting ready to ask, but I’m curious what your take was. Of the people that were there, the operators that were there, how good are they at actually getting the information about change to the control room and to the controllers themselves?
Ross: I think it varies. On the good end of things…I say good. That was a relative term and for lack of a better one. They’re able to really structure their change management process, that they’ve actually got a change management plan that they’ve established, that they stick to, where they’re having meetings on Fridays to discuss the work for the week in advance, to make sure everybody understands it.
They take the weekend to sit on it, and on Monday, they meet again, and approve for the work, and make any final adjustments. The control room itself holds the field, in IT and SCADA to the work that’s been agreed upon. If there’s ad hoc work that’s trying to be done outside of the formal change of management process, that outfit will deny that work from being able to happen.
That’s a really, I think, helpful model, and I think it’s to a certain degree what PHMSA has in mind when they think about the position of the control room as being one that is responsible for the safety and security of the pipeline assets.
Russel: Well yeah, so I think that’s probably one end of the spectrum, and I certainly have experience with control rooms where there’s really no change management. A change gets requested and a change gets made, and there’s really not formality around the process. That’s problematic not just from an audit and compliance standpoint, it’s problematic just from an operating standpoint.
It’s very important that the controllers know what they have, so they need to know what’s being changed. What kinds of changes are these guys, were the operators addressing in their MOC? I think one of the challenges about the term management of change is that it tends to be thought of engineering context and in a process safety management context, where these changes in the control room are, I’m just going to say, smaller.
What kinds of changes are they running through, were they talking about in terms of running through their management change process?
Ross: It’s interesting, because we didn’t dive into that so much, I think because everybody in the room, there’s kind of an understood language internally, but the reality is that there’s two areas that have to be accounted for. There’s the field changes that are occurring, then there’s also the IT and the SCADA changes that are occurring, either to your servers or to your HMI.
Frankly, on both ends of that it’s changes that affect the controllers or could potentially affect the controllers’ ability to understand, and monitor, and control, in terms of their situational awareness.
Russel: I think people tend to be, there’s probably a hierarchy of change, right? At the highest level, alarm limits generally have some pretty good structure around them in terms of changing alarm limits.
As you work through the kinds of changes, when you screen some levels, SCADA communications some level, then field work some level, and it’s each of those different kinds of work has different requirements in terms of how it’s planned and executed, and how it’s communicated to the control room. Particularly those things that are changes that the controllers won’t necessarily see.
Ross: Right. One of the operators, and I didn’t catch all the tiers unfortunately, but they have four different tiers for the levels of intensity and rigor that go around the work that they’re going to be doing, and kind of what’s required for each of those tiers.
Tier one, I caught, was templated work. Then tier four, was permitted work. In the middle, of course, they had two others, but that helped them to manage the level of effort and level of rigor for each of those different kinds of work that are going to be going through the control room.
Russel: What were some of the mechanisms that got talked about, about how they actually document, and process, and communicate to the control room around MOCs?
Ross: What I’ve seen, and I’ve heard it some at SGA, and I’ve heard it some with the folks that I work with on a regular basis, there’s two parties. One group, they use the MOC work order tool that the rest of their company uses, the field uses. But there’s also a pretty significant portion of industry control rooms that find that those tools don’t work very well for them.
I think mostly because they’re seeing MOCs and work orders that never really need to go past the control room, or the control room and their immediate support structure. There’s a challenge to meet that need, the second one. I think at the end of the day what’s really important is whatever method or means are being used, that it facilitates the conversation.
That through each of those steps all the way from the origin of the idea for the work, to the planning, to the execution, that the work itself and the risks associated with the work are being communicated to each of the different parties, and that that risk is understood and mitigated.
Russel: I think the other thing that would be interesting is, was there anybody who talked about how many MOCs that they actually process within the control room?
Ross: One of the, I would say, more active operators, we’re halfway through the year, they had hit almost 500 work orders. When you talk about 1,000 work orders, that’s a lot of work. [laughs]
Russel: If you break that down, you’re going the other way, right? That’s about 100 work orders a month. It’s about 25 work orders a week. I would say, even in a small control room, one of the challenges is there’s a lot of work that’s occurring, particularly if you talk about a midstream operator that’s adding sites, and removing sites, and adding pipe and all those things. It’s a lot.
Ross: It’s no surprise that that same operator that had 500 work orders by July, is the same one that had the level of rigor that I mentioned earlier, where they’re meeting twice a week to discuss the changes that are going to be occurring, and approving those changes, and going through that whole exercise. It appears that’s by necessity.
Russel: I think probably, as you get more formality and more structure, what you’re actually going to see is you have a higher number of changes that are occurring. You’re going to capture things that might not get captured formally, as you begin to put some structure and process in place.
Things that would be, I’m just adding a meter to a screen. It’s not a big deal, which is, if all that works, templated, and it’s all based on a standard device in the field, and a standard configuration for that device, that’s a relatively straightforward thing to add it into SCADA, in terms of the time required.
I guess the point just being, there’s probably a lot more activity going on, related to change in the SCADA system than what a lot of people realize.
Ross: I think that’s right. One of the things I want to make sure we talked about, and that I’m able to communicate, is starting at the control room manager level, the ways that folks were talking about being able to communicate the change to the controllers. Ideally, your control room manager is going to be in the meetings.
The rule requires a representative, who has adequate knowledge of the control room to be in those meetings. I think in most cases, that’s a control room manager, at least a lead controller. If we pick up the conversation there and think about, “How does the control room manager best communicate that change, and best to make sure that their controllers are prepared for the change?”
There are some things that I took away, that folks are doing that can be helpful. Depending on the size and level of operations that you have, different solutions work better for different people. One of the outfits talked about, they use sign off sheets. They’ll set up a list of the work that’s going to be done, and they’ll actually review that with the controllers at the start of the week.
I think that’s a pretty typical way of doing things. Some folks talked about wanting the controllers added to the email chains, relating to the change management decisions, just so that they’re informed, in the context of an RACI matrix. They get an I.
As the work’s being done, there’s a conversation around, “Well, how does the controller know where the field or the SCADA team is, and the status of the work?” Giving the controllers visibility to that is important. Of course, the last thing we want is for the work to begin, and for the controllers not to know about it.
I hear of it happening, where something will happen on the SCADA screen, and the controller calls out to the field. They say, “Oh, yeah. We’re testing that transmitter,” or something, and the controller didn’t have knowledge of that. We would definitely want to avoid that.
We want to be more proactive. Having to call out saying, “Hey, I’m at the facility. I’m going to be doing this work,” should probably be part of the work orders. Folks talked about, step one on a work order is notify the control room. This is the information that needs to be communicated.
That allows the control room and the controller to be able to log that information. “Hey, this work is happening.” They’re able to pass that information off to the next shift, especially if that work’s going on for multiple days.
Russel: I think the other thing I want to talk about around all this…because I don’t think you can talk about management change without talking about point-to-point verification. Those two things are intimately related. Was there any conversation around point-to-point?
Ross: There was. A fair amount of it is, we worked our way into our Q&A session around what keeps people up at night. It was interesting to hear what folks are doing, in terms of points. I think everybody’s pretty much aligned. There’s a few outfits that are doing a little bit more, I would say.
Russel, I’m sure you can speak to this. One of the groups was talking about how they’re not looking at just field and SCADA, but they’re looking at SCADA instrument and RTU. From your point, what’s the advantage? What’s the difference?
Russel: Actually, it’s a really good point. The way the rule is written, it talks about, verify that the number that the instrument is getting is the number that’s presented on the screen. If you were doing a startup, the way you would do that is you would get some device and apply raw signal to the transmitter.
In simplistic terms, that’s like putting pressure on a pressure transmitter and pumping the pressure up. Having a calibration device that says, “Well, I just applied 1500 psi pressure,” and looking and seeing that the pressure transmitter’s reading 1499. Doing that from the pressure transmitter to the SCADA system, that’s what’s required in the rule.
In practice, generally, what you have is an instrument going to a local device, oftentimes you have a local device go into a PLC, and then a PLC going to the SCADA system. In some cases, you’ll have a local HMI and the SCADA system that the operators are using.
One of the challenges in doing point-to-point and doing it efficiently, and doing it in conformance to the requirements of the rule, is you actually have to check all the intermediate places where a number is being read to one register, and scaled, or provided someplace else.
At a minimum, it’s probably instrument field device and SCADA, and in some cases you may have more places than that you need to check on one. I think that’s interesting, because in terms of how you write your processes and how you do your documentation, that provides complexity.
Ross: It speaks to some folks kind of getting their readings where they’re at for their point to point, and then some folks working the instruments up through the range of alarms, and seeing where those alarms are activating and making sure that between the field and the control room they’re at least making the same readings. Of course the alarms could be registered at different levels, but they’re going through that exercise and confirming that as well.
Russel: Oh yeah, this is one of those places where everything is easy ’til you know enough about it.
Ross: That’s kind of the rabbit hole. I think that the important part though, and taking the point‑to‑point verification into the context of change management is being clear about when the point to points need to happen, and whether it’s on the work order form, or part of the MOC, making a note of based on this work, a point‑to‑point verification needs to happen.
An alarm rationalization needs to happen, and the controllers need to be educated on this change, and working those steps into the MOC or into the work orders, I think, helps to provide some structure as well and makes sure that those activities are getting done.
Ross: One of the things we saw as it relates to change management and communicating the status of changes was that the outage or the change was reflected in the HMI. They provided, in however they signify that change or that outage, a link to the work order itself. You’re the HMI expert, is that a good best practice? Or…?
Russel: I think it’s kind of a two‑part answer. First off, there’s nothing in the rule and there’s nothing the API 1165 recommended practices, either the current version or what’s currently under revision, that talks about tracking changes in the HMI and providing information about change through the HMI. I would say that that’s an interesting approach, and it’s certainly an advanced approach.
From a matter of practice, knowing that there’s work going on at a site, I think that’s a very valuable thing in the control room. Because you’re not necessarily keeping that kind of information top of mind.
If I go to a screen and I look, and I go, “Oh, hey, there’s work going on there,” that could certainly impact work load, and it could certainly impact operator effectiveness. Having the MOC there so that I know what the nature of the work is, is also helpful.
I always want to ask the question, when are we giving the information to an operator in a way that it’s too much? When is it nice to have, and is it nice to have, is there a better place to put it than right in front of their face? Kind of an interesting question, I think.
Certainly it addresses the need to communicate change and it does that effectively. The only real question you’ve got to ask is, is the mechanism getting the way of being able to do the critical work flow, which is meet the business goals and do so without incident?
Ross: It’s one more thing that has to be managed, too. I think if you’re structured and in a place where that makes sense, it’s a great idea. If you’re kind of at a point where you’re trying to figure this change management thing out, I wouldn’t try to conquer that level of detail or rigor in a day.
Russel: You really have to have a pretty mature change management process in place, and you’re now saying OK, what’s the most effective way to communicate this to the control room? You wouldn’t want to start there, that’s for sure. You mentioned some of the conversation about gas control personnel, what was the nature of that conversation?
Ross: [laughs] As in any area of business there’s this conversation around the Millennial workforce and what have you. Being a member of it, maybe I’m a resident expert, I don’t know.
Last year they talked about how to attract quality personnel, and this year they talked about how to retain quality personnel. Of course, there’s a lot of carryover in‑between those, and the simple answer is pay more, but for control room managers who have set budgets and those budgets fluctuate, they’re kind of tied to those.
That’s not always the easy answer. There’s other things that can be done around adding to the comfort of your controllers, and providing different fatigue mitigation strategies that are helpful. The common theme was everybody understood that feeding your controllers may not be beneficial for their waistline, but it’s certainly beneficial for their morale.
What we got to that was a really interesting conversation about the age disparity within the controller workforce, where you’ve got some control rooms that are made up of 50 and 60‑year‑olds who are starting to look towards retirement, and then some control rooms that have guys in their 20s and 30s.
Of course, the culture of those rooms is different, and to a certain degree the way that you would want to work about retaining that talent is different. Not many 20 and 30-year-olds are talking about pensions or have those available to them.
The other part of this conversation is if you’ve got a room of 20 and 30‑year‑olds, how are you taking the knowledge of the 50 and 60‑year‑olds and passing that along. How are you creating an element of mentorship in your control room? You always hear about ball teams that bring in a guy to really mentor the young guys, and I think that’s important in control rooms as well.
Russel: I think that that conversation, just in our business overall, is a big conversation. You’re in the Millennial group, I’m at the tail end of the Baby Boomer group, and if you walk around the industry there’s not a lot of folks that are kind of between our two age groups.
There’s kind of a missing generation in the oil and gas business. The need to transfer that knowledge and experience from the folks that are at the apex of their career to the people who are starting their careers is big. It would be interesting to maybe next year they’ll be talking a little bit more about how they’re working to accomplish that information transfer.
Ross: Yeah, the more I think about it, I may have to suggest that. I think that’s really important. I know I’ve benefited from having folks that are willing to get in and coach me, so I’d want the same for my peers. There’s all that operating experience, is really important in helping make sure controllers understand and are aware, and can recognize and respond to different operating conditions.
Russel: This whole conversation right here is really one of the reasons I started the podcast. I learned the business by going to conferences and meeting people that knew a lot more than I did, and then following up and asking questions. I was pretty unabashed about answering stuff that might even be considered a pretty basic, pretty stupid question.
If I didn’t know the answer, I wanted to know the answer. Maybe we can, maybe somebody out there that’s trying to capture some of this information from their older controllers will reach out to the podcast and we can help them do that by capturing some of these kind of conversations.
Ross: I think that’s a great idea.
Russel: If you’re out there, audience, and you think that’d be a great idea, drop us a note.
Ross: There you go, yeah.
Russel: We’re kind of getting short on time here, Ross. Let’s jump to the end and the conversation about the segment on what keeps you up at night. That to me is a really interesting conversation in a control room group.
Ross: This turned into a real quick Q&A session back and forth, and there was kind of a scattered conversation, if you will, but all really, really interesting and really helpful conversation. We touched on team training, and where all that’s at. I expect we’ll be talking about team training for another five years. If we learned anything from AGA, it’s that folks are all over the place as they’re learning about what’s expected.
I do want to point out that PHMSA is not — we heard at AGA and API — they’re not looking to update their control room management inspection protocol, but the integrated inspection questions are online. Those do have some team training questions. They also have a few questions as it relates to roles and responsibilities of others, so your listeners may want to look into that, and I’m sure we can provide a link.
Russel: We’ll link that up in the show notes, for sure.
Ross: Again, I’m sure we’ll be talking about team training for some time as we go through. Everybody goes through the audit process and gets those questions for the first time. What it sounded like is that the questions that are in the integrated inspection are mostly what they’re using, and it’s a very notional approach at the moment, that they haven’t really dug down into enforcing all of the FAQs yet, not to say that it won’t happen.
From there, we really did open up into a question or a conversation around audits. It’s one of the big pain points for control room managers, is when PHMSA or the state knocks on the door. We heard a lot about it at the AGA and API conferences from PHMSA what their plans are for that in terms of slowing down the control room management inspections, and ramping up the integrated inspections.
What we heard at SGA and Trish Thomason over at Integrity Solutions had a lot of helpful information for us in this regard, was what it sounds like is that they’re going to start specializing the auditors and sending teams. Each of the areas as it relates to the integrated inspection will have an expert. They’re going to be diving a little bit deeper into the questions that they are asking.
For control room managers and those working around control room management, we have to keep our foot on the gas and keep refining our plans, and then focusing on that continuous improvement.
Russel: To that point, kind of elaborate on that a little bit around the audit. I had a conversation yesterday evening with one of our customers who recently had an audit, well, they’re going through the process. One of the comments they made is that the interview, the inspector wanted to interview one of the people who was on the console.
They interviewed them about some subjects where they had in their manuals, and their plans, and their procedures, everything put together, but the person who was interviewed was not able to effectively answer the questions that were being asked.
That to me was interesting, and the other comment they made is they felt like that this audit was kind of a different kind of audit than what they’ve been seeing because there was a greater level of detail and a higher level of rigor where before, the audits were more about do you have the plan, does it say the right things.
This audit was more about do the people that are supposed to be operating under the plan understand what they’re supposed to be doing. I think what you’re saying in terms of what you heard at SGA is supported by what I heard in terms of conversations. I think there’s going to be an increasing level of rigor in the audits upcoming, for sure.
Ross: The other thing I heard, and I don’t know them personally, do you know Dan Scarberry?
Russel: I know him, but I don’t know him well.
Ross: Of course, long time in the industry, consultant, I believe, or the word at SGA is that he’s been hired to help train the PHMSA inspectors around control room management.
Ross: That will speak to what we’re both saying as well.
Russel: Ultimately, I think that’s a good thing. It is going to cause us to get better as an industry. I do understand that audits don’t necessarily, they’re not necessarily the same thing as operating effectively, but they are related.
Ross: Sure. A lot of what’s in control room management will help improve operational effectiveness, which is its own podcast, [laughs] this episode.
Russel: Exactly. I think the last thing we should talk about, and we’ll wrap up, is the conversation about documentation. I know you didn’t go to that conversation, but did you have kind of a talk to somebody who did that conversation? What was the conversation around documentation?
Ross: I think what was discussed in that session is very similar to the conversation we’re hearing as we work and interact with our clients and other folks, is that these organizations have three, or four, or five different means of documenting and storing documentation, and the need to consolidate that in one place is felt.
In terms of being able to access that information, make sure it’s readily available, and in the event of an audit you’re not having to dig through a bunch of areas and find lost documents, that you’re able to procure that.
Russel: I think we could probably do a podcast on that whole subject as well, just about the difference between having document control within a company to control the published versions of documents, versus having a library available to a group of controllers that allows them to quickly and effectively do their job. It’s not necessarily the same thing. That’s one of the challenges.
Ross: I think the other part of the conversation is, the same way as change management, but having a sense of rigor around document management, making sure that you’ve got a steward of the documents, especially as it relates to the control room. Only your most recent revisions are the ones published, and you’re able to track those documents accordingly.
Russel: Being able to make small changes quickly and effectively to improve your effectiveness, versus having to go through some kind of needlessly rigorous process.
Ross: Yeah, I think that’s right. If your MOCs are often caught up in bureaucracy and you need an immediate change pushed to your controllers, you need something that’s a little more agile. The one thing, and kind of last topic, just a point that I thought was interesting was almost what was not talked about with a great degree of detail or time spent is the gas gathering rule.
I know you did a podcast recently on that, and in part I think it’s because most of the operators at SGA, they’re already working a CRM program so it’s just a matter of bringing those lines under the program.
I expect we’ll see quite a few new faces at SGA and some of these other conferences over the years, as folks new, regulated control rooms are going to be looking to understand and learn from their peers as it relates to control room management.
We didn’t discuss it all that much other than to say yeah, the GPAC meeting happened, and this is where we’re at. I’m sure that that will be a topic of conversation, much like team training, that we’ll be focusing on for more than a few years here in the future.
Russel: No doubt about that, there’s absolutely no doubt about that. Ross, look, thank you so much for coming on. I know you had to kind of move some things around in your schedule to do this, and I really appreciate it. You’re now kind of a semi‑regular on the podcast, and you always bring a lot of value, so thanks for continuing to be a part of the conversation.
Ross: It’s my pleasure, I really, really enjoy it.
Russel: I hope you enjoyed this week’s episode of the Pipeliners Podcast and our conversation with Ross Adams. Just a reminder before you go, you should register to win our customized Pipeliners Podcast YETI tumbler. Simply visit pipelinerspodcast.com/win to enter yourself in the drawing.
If you have ideas, questions, or topics you’d be interested in, please let me know on the Contact Us page at pipelinerspodcast.com or reach out to me on LinkedIn. Thanks for listening, I’ll talk to you next week.
Transcription by CastingWords