Performance Reporting Presentation at the Pipeline Safety Trust’s “Restoring Trust in Pipeline Safety” Conference November 3, 2006 Lois N. Epstein, P.E. Senior Engineer

Cook Inlet Watershed Background Includes Anchorage 39,000 sq. miles land (92% public); 8,000 sq. miles marine; size of Pennsylvania 16 offshore platforms, numerous wells; onshore oil/gas fields; > 1000 miles of oil and gas pipelines; approximately 300 miles are oil pipelines; tankers, LNG export plant, refinery, tank farms, fertilizer plant 7 national parks and wildlife refuges; 4 state parks Subsistence users Beluga whales (“depleted species”), salmon, bears

Performance Reporting: Why is it Valuable? Ensures accountability What gets measured, gets done Provides an incentive for continuous improvement (trends are important) and allows for comparative analyses among operators Increases public confidence The lack of pipeline operating permits means there are few opportunities for public dialogue

Examples of Performance Measures Number of releases per 1,000 pipeline miles Amount released per 1,000 pipeline miles Average or median release size Injuries or fatalities per 1,000 pipeline miles % of releases from a particular cause, e.g., corrosion (external or internal)

Cook Inlet Oil Pipeline Release Causes Release Frequency66/60 months 1.1 x/ month 9/12 months 0.75 x/ month 12/24 months 0.5 x/ month Onshore / Offshore 88% / 12% 100% / 0% 83% / 17% Cause: Corrosion Unknown/unreported Human error/maintenance-related Pipeline infrastructure failure Abandoned pipeline release Frozen pipeline Third-party damage 27% 26% 20% 14% 8% 5% 2% 0% 33% 22% 11% 22% 0% 8% 0% 8% 42% 25% 17% 0%

BP’s March Spill in Alaska: What Can We Learn from BP’s Performance Report to PHMSA? Over 200,000 gallons spilled; biggest spill ever on Alaska’s North Slope (March 2006)

BP’s March Spill in Alaska: What Can We Learn from BP’s Performance Report to PHMSA? POSITIVES Annual report provides basic pipeline information: aggregate mileage, decade(s) installed, operating pressure(s), volume transported Provides general integrity inspection information, e.g., mileage tested, # of “anomalies,” # of repairs NEGATIVES Annual report does not distinguish information by state or by regulated and unregulated pipeline mileage Does not identify inspection, repair, etc. data by pipeline segment No information on mileage that “could affect” High Consequence Areas Operators’ criteria for performing repairs are not stated

Recommendations for Improved Performance Reporting Need release and mileage data – at a minimum – for currently unregulated lines Operators should report pipeline data by state and segment The public needs High Consequence Area maps and data on pipeline mileage that could affect HCAs Need public reporting of operators’ criteria for repairs – these decisions need to be consistent