Royal Dutch Shell Plc  .com Rotating Header Image

Pipelines and welding risks for Shell: Kashagan and Prelude

Screen Shot 2014-02-12 at 13.18.45…customers of certain Far Eastern shipyards have found that in spite of vessels being delivered with all of the necessary certification, unsurveyed welds have not always been up to the standards of the specific “randomly selected” welds on which the certification had been based. This may have interesting implications for the Prelude vessel…. Since Shell does not seem to be able to ensure that the welds on their pipelines in Kashagan were properly executed, all of which should have been inspected, are they any more likely to be sure of the welds on Prelude?

From an oil industry expert

Mitsui paid $1.1 bn, and Anardarko perhaps $2.66bn to settle their liabilities in respect of Macondo.
 
Mitsui and Anadarko shared responsibility with BP because they were fully appraised of what was going on, and gave their approval to the Macondo operations. Shell is in the same position in Kashagan. It is rather naïve to compare Shell’s role as a partner in Kashagan with that of a shareholder in a public company.
 
In order for partners to give approval they require adequate information, to which they have ready access.
 
See this Wall Street Journal article for more information.
 
On another related subject, customers of certain Far Eastern shipyards have found that in spite of vessels being delivered with all of the necessary certification, unsurveyed welds have not always been up to the standards of the specific “randomly selected” welds on which the certification had been based. This may have interesting implications for the Prelude vessel…. Since Shell does not seem to be able to ensure that the welds on their pipelines in Kashagan were properly executed, all of which should have been inspected, are they any more likely to be sure of the welds on Prelude?

2 Comments on “Pipelines and welding risks for Shell: Kashagan and Prelude”

  1. #1 Ilyas
    on Mar 18th, 2014 at 06:08

    Just a really, really shallow article.
    1. “Since Shell does not seem to be able to ensure that the welds on their pipelines in Kashagan were properly executed”…
    Do you know who the the operating partner has been in Kashagan until 2008 (when absolute majority of work was carried out and absolutely all of the procurement was complete)? Eni… How do I know? Very quick research
    2. You are comparing Prelude and Kashagan… Great logic… “Both deal with water, hence I can compare those two”.

    Wow, just wow. Gotta love the approach. Compare two completely different items, a bit fear mongering, throw in “expert opinion” and an article from WSJ that has nothing to do with the issues. Boom, done!

  2. #2 lookout
    on Mar 17th, 2014 at 20:51

    The problem of assessment not meeting the standards expected by certification schemes is a quality assurance problem, which affects almost every organisation, in any industry on the planet. Any company which buys a ship, container, vessel or rig could be exposed to the same problem. This non-article does nothing to enhance your “Attack-Shell-for-anything-and-everything” crusade. And no, I’m not a Shell employee, affiliate, crony or anything else. Just an interested (and puzzled) observer.

%d bloggers like this: