By Alfred Donovan
The following comments have been received. The author has consented to publication and supplied their name, but not for publication.
His comments on the article: ShellNews.net: Are these astonishing allegations about the Sakhalin-2 project true or false?
“The division and separation of the work between Globalstroi and Saipem SA is now providing evidence that Globalstroi are outperforming Saipem and will finish their work sections first”
The sections given to Globalstroy were far more advanced than the sections given to Saipem, so it is hardly surprising that they will finish first. I will find the necessary backup soon.
“However, the Personnel seconded from Globalstroi Engineering and Saipem SA into those departments had now been repatriated to their respective Employers.”
That is simply not true. Firstly, there has hardly ever been anyone on Sakhalin-II project who was seconded from Globalstroy. The employees are employees of Starstroi proper, and most of them, if not all, have never worked for Globalstroy, but always for Startroi on the previous projects in the Krasnodar region. Secondly, Saipem employees have not been repatriated. Not that many of them would not want to, but they are still on Sakhalin, working for Saipem on Sakhalin-II project (and not through an human resources agency).
“Plan to clean and gauge the pipeline without drying”
There could be a lack of understanding of the author on the way a pipeline is built. What does the author want to “dry” before cleaning the pipeline? Cleaning and gauging is done before hydraulic pressure testing which involve, as the name indicates, filling the pipeline with water. Drying is done only after. Even if the intention was to “cut corners”, there is no way hydrocarbons are going to be introduced in the pipeline before these steps are effected, and in that order.
There may be some truth to some of the statements in this letter, and everyone is entitled to their own opinion regarding the competence of a department or another. However, the very fact that some statements are at the best misleading or plainly wrong discredit the article as a whole.