1 - My Organization is a NumberofSurveyResponsesReceived 0 5 10 - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1 - My Organization is a…


0
 5
 10
 15
 20
 25
 30
 35
 Pipeline
Operator
 Service
Provider
 Government
Agency
 17
 32
 0
 Number
of
Survey
Responses
Received


2 - We run (or support) PODS on these platforms…


0%
 10%
 20%
 30%
 40%
 50%
 Oracle
8
 Oracle
10
 Oracle
11
 SQL
Server
2008
 SQL
Server
2010
 ESRI
Geodatabase
 Other


%
of
Operators


2 - We run (or support) PODS on these platforms…


0%
 10%
 20%
 30%
 40%
 50%
 Oracle
8
 Oracle
10
 Oracle
11
 SQL
Server
2008
 SQL
Server
2010
 ESRI
Geodatabase
 Other


%
of
Service
Providers


2
–
Other
and
Comment
Responses


Operator
 SQL
2005
 Operator
 ArcSDE9.x,
plans
to
upgrade
to
11g
 Operator
 SQL
Server
2000
 Operator
 SQL
Server
2005
 Service
Provider
 Oracle
9
 Service
Provider
 SQL
2003
 Service
Provider
 Used
Share
point
for
an
arte‐fact
based
on
PODS
data
models
 Service
Provider
 sybase


3 - We utilize PODS to support assets in these industry sectors…


0%
 20%
 40%
 60%
 80%
 100%
 Transmission
 Gathering
 DistribuTon
 Other


%
of
Operators


3 - We utilize PODS to support assets in these industry sectors…


0%
 20%
 40%
 60%
 80%
 100%
 Transmission
 Gathering
 DistribuTon
 Other


%
of
Service
Providers


Operator
 working
to
establish
the
use
of
PODS
in
transmission
and
distribuTon
 Operator
 Supply
 Service
Provider
 IT
Capability
presentaTons
to
Oil
and
Gas
prospects,
Provide
IT
consultancy
 Service
Provider
 Engineering/Design


3
–
Other
and
Comment
Responses


4 - We currently utilize these GIS programs to visualize PODS data…


0%
 20%
 40%
 60%
 80%
 100%
 ESRI
 Autodesk
 Intergraph
 Smallworld
 CADMap
 Other


%
of
Operators


4 - We currently utilize these GIS programs to visualize PODS data…


0%
 20%
 40%
 60%
 80%
 100%
 ESRI
 Autodesk
 Intergraph
 Smallworld
 CADMap
 Other


%
of
Service
Providers


Operator
 MapInfo
 Operator
 Delorme
Xmap
 Operator
 MicrostaTon
 Operator
 C‐Map
(customized),
PDAT
(Eagle
InformaTon
Mapping),
Google
Earth
 Service
Provider
 Bentley
Systems,
Inc.
 Service
Provider
 In
House
So_ware
 Service
Provider
 self‐developed
so_ware
 Service
Provider
 Oracle
APEX


4
–
Other
and
Comment
Responses


5 and 6 - Our company currently utilizes these PODS tables…


0%
 10%
 20%
 30%
 40%
 50%
 60%
 70%
 80%
 90%
 100%
 Loca:on
 Sta:oned
Centerline
 US
Regulatory
Compliance
 Risk
 Work
 Inline
Inspec:ons
 Geographic
Features
 Event
Reports
 Pipeline
Facili:es
 Physical
Inspec:ons
 Boundary
Tables
 Opera:ng
Measures
 Alignment
Sheet
 SCC
Poten:al
 Close
Interval
Survey
 Cathodic
Protec:on
 Cathodic
Protec:on
Facili:es
 Leak
 Damage
Preven:on
 Offshore
Pipeline
Tables
 Offline
Events
 Site
Facili:es
 Compression
 One
Call
Boundaries
 One
Call
Tickets


%
of
Operators


5 and 6 - Our company currently utilizes these PODS tables…


0%
 10%
 20%
 30%
 40%
 50%
 60%
 70%
 80%
 90%
 100%
 Loca:on
 Sta:oned
Centerline
 US
Regulatory
Compliance
 Risk
 Work
 Inline
Inspec:ons
 Geographic
Features
 Event
Reports
 Pipeline
Facili:es
 Physical
Inspec:ons
 Boundary
Tables
 Opera:ng
Measures
 Alignment
Sheet
 SCC
Poten:al
 Close
Interval
Survey
 Cathodic
Protec:on
Inspec:ons
 Cathodic
Protec:on
Facili:es
 Leak
 Damage
Preven:on
 Offshore
Pipeline
Tables
 Offline
Events
 Site
Facili:es
 Compression
 One
Call
Boundaries
 One
Call
Tickets


%
of
Service
Providers


5
&
6
‐
Other
and
Comment
Responses


Operator
 Use
of
PODS
currently
limited
in
applicaTon
to
single
business
unit,
but
is
a
 requirement
for
future
development
projects
in
2012
 Operator
 We
are
on
PODS
3.2
 Service
Provider
 Nothing
checked
due
to
our
company
being
new
to
PODS
 Service
Provider
 We
uTlize
non
of
the
tables
but
have
to
export
data
from
Smallworld
systems
into
 PODS.
Any
PODS
table
can
be
of
concern.
 Service
Provider
 We
use
PODS
data
models
to
create
POC
around
it.
This
helps
us
in
showcasing
our
 deep
domain
understanding
of
Pipeline
domain,
along
with
technology
capabiliTes.
 Service
Provider
 Only
used
in
engineering
services
support
and
is
conTngent
on
the
client's
needs
 Service
Provider
 We
are
looking
into
useing
PODS.
Currently
we
are
using
APDM
and
are
espically
 interested
in
PODS
SpaTal.
 Service
Provider
 We
uTlize
non
of
the
tables
but
have
to
export
data
from
Smallworld
systems
into
 PODS.
Any
PODS
table
can
be
of
concern.
 Service
Provider
 Only
used
in
engineering
services
support
and
is
conTngent
on
the
client's
needs


7 and 8 - Our company does not currently utilize, but plans to utilize these PODS tables in the future…


0%
 10%
 20%
 30%
 40%
 50%
 60%
 70%
 80%
 90%
 100%
 Loca:on
 Sta:oned
Centerline
 US
Regulatory
Compliance
 Risk
 Work
 Inline
Inspec:ons
 Geographic
Features
 Event
Reports
 Pipeline
Facili:es
 Physical
Inspec:ons
 Boundary
Tables
 Opera:ng
Measures
 Alignment
Sheet
 SCC
Poten:al
 Close
Interval
Survey
 Cathodic
Protec:on
Inspec:ons
 Cathodic
Protec:on
Facili:es
 Leak
 Damage
Preven:on
 Offshore
Pipeline
Tables
 Offline
Events
 Site
Facili:es
 Compression
 One
Call
Boundaries
 One
Call
Tickets


%
of
Operators


7 and 8 - Our company does not currently utilize, but plans to utilize these PODS tables in the future…


0%
 10%
 20%
 30%
 40%
 50%
 60%
 70%
 80%
 90%
 100%
 Loca:on
 Sta:oned
Centerline
 US
Regulatory
Compliance
 Risk
 Work
 Inline
Inspec:ons
 Geographic
Features
 Event
Reports
 Pipeline
Facili:es
 Physical
Inspec:ons
 Boundary
Tables
 Opera:ng
Measures
 Alignment
Sheet
 SCC
Poten:al
 Close
Interval
Survey
 Cathodic
Protec:on
Inspec:ons
 Cathodic
Protec:on
Facili:es
 Leak
 Damage
Preven:on
 Offshore
Pipeline
Tables
 Offline
Events
 Site
Facili:es
 Compression
 One
Call
Boundaries
 One
Call
Tickets


%
of
Service
Providers


Operator
 Working
with
business
partners
to
incorporate
the
use
of
PODS
into
their
 business
processes
and
uTlize
the
informaTon
indicated
above
 Service
Provider
 We
uTlize
non
of
the
tables
but
have
to
export
data
from
Smallworld
systems
into
 PODS.
Any
PODS
table
can
be
of
concern.
 Service
Provider
 Only
used
in
engineering
services
support
and
is
conTngent
on
the
client's
needs
 Service
Provider
 We
would
like
a
module
of
PODS
for
engineering
&
design.
 Service
Provider
 Modified
Risk
based
inspecTon
based
on
API581
a_er
Muhlbauer
 Service
Provider
 We
uTlize
non
of
the
tables
but
have
to
export
data
from
Smallworld
systems
into
 PODS.
Any
PODS
table
can
be
of
concern.
 Service
Provider
 Only
used
in
engineering
services
support
and
is
conTngent
on
the
client's
needs


7
&
8
‐
Other
and
Comment
Responses


9 and 10 - Our company has elected to maintain data in these categories primarily outside of PODS…


0%
 10%
 20%
 30%
 40%
 50%
 60%
 70%
 80%
 90%
 100%
 Loca:on
 Sta:oned
Centerline
 US
Regulatory
Compliance
 Risk
 Work
 Inline
Inspec:ons
 Geographic
Features
 Event
Reports
 Pipeline
Facili:es
 Physical
Inspec:ons
 Boundary
Tables
 Opera:ng
Measures
 Alignment
Sheet
 SCC
Poten:al
 Close
Interval
Survey
 Cathodic
Protec:on
Inspec:ons
 Cathodic
Protec:on
Facili:es
 Leak
 Damage
Preven:on
 Offshore
Pipeline
Tables
 Offline
Events
 Site
Facili:es
 Compression
 One
Call
Boundaries
 One
Call
Tickets


%
of
Operators


9 and 10 - Our company has elected to maintain data in these categories primarily outside of PODS…


0%
 10%
 20%
 30%
 40%
 50%
 60%
 70%
 80%
 90%
 100%
 Loca:on
 Sta:oned
Centerline
 US
Regulatory
Compliance
 Risk
 Work
 Inline
Inspec:ons
 Geographic
Features
 Event
Reports
 Pipeline
Facili:es
 Physical
Inspec:ons
 Boundary
Tables
 Opera:ng
Measures
 Alignment
Sheet
 SCC
Poten:al
 Close
Interval
Survey
 Cathodic
Protec:on
Inspec:ons
 Cathodic
Protec:on
Facili:es
 Leak
 Damage
Preven:on
 Offshore
Pipeline
Tables
 Offline
Events
 Site
Facili:es
 Compression
 One
Call
Boundaries
 One
Call
Tickets


%
of
Service
Providers


Operator
 While
this
is
the
current
pracTce
of
the
ExxonMobil
Pipeline
Co.,
we
conTnue
to
work
with
them
 relaTve
to
the
benefits
of
PODS


9
&
10
‐
Other
and
Comment
Responses


Service
Provider
 Engineering
inspecTon
records
and
Component
design
parameters.
We
are
using
these
variables


• utside
the
PODS
tables.


Service
Provider
 Difficult
to
answer.
Presently
we
maintain
data
enTrely
outside
of
PODS.
But
I
suspect
this
will
 parTally
change
in
the
near
future.
Definitely
are
area
we'd
like
further
educaTon
on.
 Service
Provider
 The
Smallworld
system
allows
us
to
use
much
less
complex
data
models
like
PODS
‐
drawback
is
 that
not
all
the
data
model
aspects
of
PODS
are
ever
modeled
in
any
Smallworld
environment
 we
see.
PODS
is
more
modeled
for
systems
such
as
ESRi,
Intergraph
and
so
on.E.g.
all
the
 staToning,
events,
event
range
and
locaTon
tables
are
managed
in
simple
fields
in
Smallworld
 and
need
many
complex
tables
in
PODS.
 Service
Provider
 The
spaTal
pipeline
and
Control
Points
are
managed
in
the
spaTal
db
as
well.
 Service
Provider
 The
quesTon
is
not
relevant,
since
we
subscribe
to
PODS
primarily
for
thought
leadership
and
 not
for
business
or
operaTonal
requirements.
 Service
Provider
 Imagery
and
Imagery
Analysis
 Service
Provider
 All
data
in
our
structure,
PODS
using
to
exchange
data
 Service
Provider
 There
is
a
magnitude
of
data
that
we
store
outside
of
PODS
that
we
feel
should
be
important
to


• ur
clients.


Service
Provider
 Structures
&
faciliTes,
government
units,
uTliTes,
transportaTon,
parcel
mapping,
hydrography,
 enviromental,
survey


11
and
12
‐
Our
company
has
elected
to
significantly
extend
 these
PODS
tables
to
meet
our
business
needs
or
the
business
 needs
of
our
clients...


0%
 10%
 20%
 30%
 40%
 50%
 60%
 70%
 80%
 90%
 100%
 Loca:on
 Sta:oned
Centerline
 US
Regulatory
Compliance
 Risk
 Work
 Inline
Inspec:ons
 Geographic
Features
 Event
Reports
 Pipeline
Facili:es
 Physical
Inspec:ons
 Boundary
Tables
 Opera:ng
Measures
 Alignment
Sheet
 SCC
Poten:al
 Close
Interval
Survey
 Cathodic
Protec:on
Inspec:ons
 Cathodic
Protec:on
Facili:es
 Leak
 Damage
Preven:on
 Offshore
Pipeline
Tables
 Offline
Events
 Site
Facili:es
 Compression
 One
Call
Boundaries
 One
Call
Tickets


%
of
Operators


11
and
12
‐
Our
company
has
elected
to
significantly
extend
 these
PODS
tables
to
meet
our
business
needs
or
the
business
 needs
of
our
clients...


0%
 10%
 20%
 30%
 40%
 50%
 60%
 70%
 80%
 90%
 100%
 Loca:on
 Sta:oned
Centerline
 US
Regulatory
Compliance
 Risk
 Work
 Inline
Inspec:ons
 Geographic
Features
 Event
Reports
 Pipeline
Facili:es
 Physical
Inspec:ons
 Boundary
Tables
 Opera:ng
Measures
 Alignment
Sheet
 SCC
Poten:al
 Close
Interval
Survey
 Cathodic
Protec:on
Inspec:ons
 Cathodic
Protec:on
Facili:es
 Leak
 Damage
Preven:on
 Offshore
Pipeline
Tables
 Offline
Events
 Site
Facili:es
 Compression
 One
Call
Boundaries
 One
Call
Tickets


%
of
Service
Providers


Operator
 Others
‐
Wellhead
Assembly
Table,
Pipe
Join
 Operator
 Other
(Cont.)Sub‐model
have
been
constructed
to
address
areas
such
as:
 geotechnical,
basis
environmental,etc.)
 Operator
 Extended
tables
to
address
design
/
construcTon
constraints/informaTon


11
&
12
‐
Other
and
Comment
Responses


Service
Provider
 some
tables
have
been
extended
to
carry
risk
calculaTon
results
for
some
pipeline
 integrity
tools.
 Service
Provider
 Above
Ground
Support
 Service
Provider
 soils
data
 Service
Provider
 HCA


13 - Describe any performance concerns you have regarding the PODS Data Model.


Operator
 Can't
migrate
to
5.X
due
with
Oracle
due
to
GUIDS....stuck
 Operator
 Most
of
the
performance
issues
we
see
are
related
to
our
internal
network.
 SQL
server
is
working
fine
for
now,
and
the
tables
seem
to
be
structured
as
 needed
in
most
cases.
 Operator
 Not
enough
run
Tme
to
determine
 Operator
 We
are
in
theprocess
of
migraTng
from
out
currint
GIS
(XEROX
ProSCAN/IMS)
 to
ESRI/TEVLENT.

We
will
uTlize
the
ARCFM
data
model.

We
plan
to
uTlize
 PODS
as
a
data
interchange
format
at
this
point
in
Tme.
 Operator
 Our
PODS
implementaTon
is
not
complete,

Our
go
live
date
is
in
March
of
 this
year,
the
performance
during
tesTng
was
good.
 Operator
 Cannot
support
business
requirements
with
live
queries
to
the
database.
 Operator
 We
are
currently
using
PODS
3.2.1,
and
are
using
a
customized
publishing
 environment.

All
mapping
and
data
access
requests
do
not
directly
access
 PODS
tables.
 Operator
 Large
data
sets
such
as
ILI,
CIS
and
Integrity
data
 Operator
 Oracle
GUID
as
char(38)
has
serious
perfomance
issues.


13 - Describe any performance concerns you have regarding the PODS Data Model.


Service
Provider
 CHAR(38)
GUID
Datatypes
 Service
Provider
 History
conTnues
to
be
an
issue.

Also,
lack
of
support
in
ArcTc
CondiTons.
 Service
Provider
 The
PODS
ESRI
spaTal
model
was
poorly
assembled
and
should
have
been
 created
with
a
more
GIS
friendly
approach.
The
model
is
too
big
and
 cumbersome
for
most
users.
There
should
be
some
mechanisim
to
 incorporate
only
tables
needed.
 Service
Provider
 We
haven't
experienced
any
performance
issues.
 Service
Provider
 Joining
on
event
ids
for
large
data
sets.
Event
layers
perform
very
badly
in
 ESRI
so_ware
and
are
not
supported
in
MSDs."
 Service
Provider
 Our
single
biggest
performance
concern
is
associated
with
ILI
data.
Most
 pipeline
event
data
is
relaTvely
small
in
the
number
of
records
stored.
A
 single
ILI
run
can
contain
more
records
than
all
of
the
other
data
combined.
 While
the
shear
number
of
records
is
manageable
any
type
of
a
line
 maintenance
operaTon
on
a
route
with
ILI
data
is
painfully
slow.
We
are
 seriously
considering
a
totally
different
data
model
for
ILI
data
outside
of
the
 PODS
model.
By
the
way
it
doesn't
maner
whether
it
is
PODS
RelaTonal
or
 PODS
SpaTal.


14 - Describe any modeling concerns you have regarding the PODS Data Model.


Operator
 Guids...
 Operator
 SLX
would
like
to
see
the
PODS
model
more
module
based.
Meaning
we
could
 drop
the
modules
we
don't
want,
and
add
the
once
we
do.
 Operator
 Would
be
most
interested
in
extending
model
to
address
design/construcTon
 informaTon.

See
No.
11
above.

Eagle
InformaTon
Mapping
developed
sub‐ models
on
behalf
of
ExxonMobil
Development
Co.
to
begin
to
address
these
 'gaps'.
 Operator
 MulTple
joins
on
very
large
tables.

Too
many
variables/switches/flags
to
 implement
easily."
 Operator
 We
use
inline
history
capability
and
when
performing
re‐routes
it
can
hours
to
 adjust
the
pipeline
centerlines
for
a
single
route.

We
beleive
this
is
due
to
all


• f
pipeline
features

with
the
largest
data
amount
coming
from
the
profile



which
slows
down
the
update."
 Operator
 Is
not
scalable
to
very
large
data
volumes,
Tracking/ReporTng
on
history
data
 is
very
poor.



14 - Describe any modeling concerns you have regarding the PODS Data Model.


Service
Provider
 historic
data
control
needs
support
 Service
Provider
 Char(38)
GUID
datatypes
should
not
be
supported
for
PODS
6.

Suggest
only
 supporTng
the
naTve
datatypes
(UNIQUEIDENTIFIER
for
SQL
Server
and
RAW
 for
Oracle)
 Service
Provider
 ArcTc
Environment
 Service
Provider
 Cahodic
ProtecTon
modeling
does
not
include
some
basic
CP
elements
‐
need
 to
add/revise
test
staTons,
reference
electrode
locaTons,
isolaton
joints
 Service
Provider
 We
primarily
uTlize
PODS
ESRI
spaTal.
We
feel
this
model
was
poorly
put
 together
and
should
have
been
designed
to
be
closely
idenTcal
to
the
PODS
 relaTonal
model.
All
of
the
documentaTon,
diagrams,
and
training
material
is
 based
on
the
relaTonal
model.
We
feel
that
basings
PODS
ESRI
SpaTal
on
 APDM
model
was
a
poor
choice.
We
are
evaluaTng
how
to
create
a
 geodatabase
version
of
PODS
based
on
the
RelaTonal
model
diagram.
The
 PODS
model
is
overly
complicated
and
contains
many
useless
tables,
columns,
 and
domains.

The
model
needs
to
be
modularized
and
simplified.
 Service
Provider
 Too
many
domain
fields.

We
want
to
use
a
standardized
version
of
the
 model,
and
if
we
need
to
add
a
new
domain
value
we
are
using
a
non‐ standard
version.

This
affects
upgrades
to
new
versions.

In
my
opinion
 dimension
fields
with
>100
domain
values
are
NOT
good
candidates
for
 domains."


14 - Describe any modeling concerns you have regarding the PODS Data Model.


Service
Provider
 We
feel
that
querying
a
PODS
model
is
very
expensive.
The
data
model
is
 extremely
hard
to
understand
and
to
maintain.

It
is
good
to
have
a
logical
 standard
model
and
we
export
data
into
PODS
when
necessary
(e.g.
to
 exchange
it)
but
keeping
data
consistent
in
PODS
is
not
easy.

We
have
not
yet
 tried
PODS
spaTal
and
cannot
comment
on
it.
The
non‐spaTal
PODS
models
 made
no
anempt
to
keep
staToning
in
sync
with
locaTons
and
in
the
GIS
 systems
we
work
geometry
rules
and
staTon
values
are
only
derived
from
 geometric
informaTon.
In
PODS
staToning
rules
and
many
of
our
customers
 do
not
use
staToning
at
all,
because
they
have
all
assets
on
the
map
in
very
 much
detail
(o_en
less
than
1m/3feet
off).
 Service
Provider
 1.
PODS
is
not
a
prescribed
standard
but
a
recommendaTon
with
linle
further
 guidance
as
to
how
to
work
with
it.

2.
There
is
not
defined
implementaTon
 standard
for
the
core
tables
(really,
no
definiTon
of
core
tables
at
all).
 Therefore,
each
company,
vendor
or
operator,
is
le_
to
their
own
devises
to
 figure
out
how
to
implement
it.
The
net
result
is
that
no
two
companies
can
 edit
the
same
PODS
implementaTon.

3.
No
defined
"Offline
History"
 standard.
Some
vendors
claim
to
have
and
support
PODS
"Offline
History"
but
 there
is
no
where
on
the
PODS
website
that
this
can
be
found
and
it
has
never
 existed.
How
can
this
be
a
PODS
standard?

4.
Lack
of
standardizaTon
in
how
 PODS
handles
similar
feature
types,
i.e.,
Leak
History,
Maintenance,
and
 Groups

5.
The
Offline
data
model
need
serious
work.
It
is
almost
unusable.


15
‐
Describe
any
other
concerns
you
have
regarding
the
 PODS
Data
Model,
or
the
PODS
AssociaTon.


Operator
 Schema
is
single
product
focused.

We
need
a
"clean"
way
to
support
mulTple
 products.
 Operator
 Lack
of
geospaTal
data
storage.

Slow
to
address
even
minor
correcTons
to
 the
DM"
 Operator
 Current
PODS
model
does
not
include
capability
for
retaining
original
event
 locaTon
basis,
e.g.
coordinate
based
valve
site.

This
locaTon
can
be
 converted
to
staTon
locaTon,
but
loses
its
original
cooridante
data.

We
need
 the
capability
to
retain
the
original
locaTon
basis,
either
coordinate
or
staTon
 basis,
and
have
it
maintained
with
the
life
cycle
of
the
feature.
PODS
needs
 ability
to
store
coordinates
of
centerline
points
of
inflexion
(PI)
that
do
not
 have
assocaited
staTon
values."
 Operator
 unable
to
address
industry
needs
in
a
Tmely
manor


15
‐
Describe
any
other
concerns
you
have
regarding
the
 PODS
Data
Model,
or
the
PODS
AssociaTon.


Service
Provider
 Expert
Advice
‐
How
to
beyond
basics.
 Service
Provider
 IT
companies
like
us
need
primary
data
to
populate
the
PODS
data
model
for
 creaTng
POC.
In
the
public
domain
very
limited
data
is
available.
If
PODS
can
 make
available
some
data
base,
that
can
used
by
IT
companies,
it
would
be
 helpful
to
them.
 Service
Provider
 more
gas
compressor
staTons
objects
in
PODS
 Service
Provider
 The
older
class
of
pipeliners
dont
like
this
model
because
it
does
not
use
 industry
standard
terms
used
in
the
field.
There
would
be
greater
industry
 parTcipaTon
if
terminology
made
sense
to
the
people
that
design,
construct,
 and
maintain
these
pipeline
systems.
The
PODS
organizaTon
moves
too
 slowly
to
make
simple
and
necessary
updates.
 Service
Provider
 It
would
be
helpful
to
have
standard
Core
codes
that
are
required
for
PODS
 implementaTon.

By
""Core""
we
mean
tables/columns
that
are
directly
 related
to
linear
referencing
management.

For
example:
staTon
point,
 locaTon,
route,
line
types.


15
‐
Describe
any
other
concerns
you
have
regarding
the
 PODS
Data
Model,
or
the
PODS
AssociaTon.


Service
Provider
 pipelines
are
the
same
around
the
globe
but
the
regulaTons
are
not
and
so
is
 the
PODS
model.
It
is
similar
than
ISAT
and
other
relaTonal
models
and
 focuses
on
the
US
regulaTons
(e.g.
DOT
rules
for
class
locaTon
and
high
 consequence
areas,
one
call
etc.).
 Modelling
the
assets
and
inspecTons
works
well
for
us
in
central
Europe
but
 the
things
around
that
may
differ
even
within
one
country
depending
of
the
 type
of
lines
(transmission,
gathering
etc.).
 Service
Provider
 1.
ModularizaTon
is
a
waste
of
Tme.
If
we
simply
prescribed
the
required
core
 tables
and
how
to
implement
them
and
standardized
a
few
similar
constructs,
 we
could
allow
members
to
add
any
feature
tables
they
wanted
and
leave
out
 any
they
didn't
want
and
they
would
sTll
be
compliant
the
database
would
 probably
work
with
any
companies
so_ware.

2.
PODS
took
over
GDM
but
 appears
to
be
doing
nothing
with
it.
PODS
needs
to
put
a
team
in
place
to
 advance
this
data
model.

3.
There
have
been
few
significant
enhancements
 to
the
data
model
since
version
3.2,
over
5
years.

4.
The
Technical
Comminee
 seems
to
be
conTnually
bogged
down
in
legacy
issues
and
conTnually
 rehashes
previous
decisions,
i.
e.
GUID.
The
TC
OperaTng
Guidelines
need
to
 be
improved
to
include
a
process
to
make
decisions
and
move
on.
It
appears
 that
unanimous
approval
must
be
achieved
to
move
forward.
This
allows
a
 single
member
to
prevent
the
enTre
organizaTon
from
making
important
 decisions
and
advancing.


16, 17, and 18 - Statistics submitted by the Operators Responding


Mileage
in
PODS
 Event_Range
Records
 Sta:on_Point
Records


250
 0
 
 
 2,000
 
 
 
 
 2,350
 ?
 ?
 3,150
 1,200,000
 7,000,000
 4,500
 
 
 
 
 5,000
 2,000,000
 Note
1
 5,800
 150,000
 
 
 8,500
 in
the
millions
 in
the
millions
 8,750
 Note
2
 35,000
 10,000
 2,300,000
 2,800,000
 12,000
 
524,387
and
180,272
 389,188
and
96,892
 14,000
 5,200,000
 2,800,000
 15,000
 6,000,000
 3,500,000
 50,000
 10,000,000
 14,000,000
 64,000
 2,284,002
 1,572,071


Note
1:

We
do
not
use
the
StaTon_Point
table:
the
Event_Range
and
StaTon_Point
tables
have
been
de‐normalized
ino
a
single
table.

 Note
2:

We
have
just
started
migraTng
table,
so
the
table
is
preny
much
empty.



19 - Pipeline Operators Only - Select other systems which currently link into your PODS database.


0%
 10%
 20%
 30%
 40%
 50%
 60%
 70%
 80%
 90%
 100%


Financial
/
Tax
/
Accoun:ng
 Work
Order
Management
 Enterprise
Asset
Mgmt
 Corrosion
 Risk
Assessment
 Inline
Inspec:on
 SCADA
/
real‐:me
monitoring
 Land
Systems
 Measurement
&
Alloca:ons
 Other
Data
Models
PPDM


%
of
Operators


Other:

Environmental
/
Air
Emissions
listed
by
One
Operator


20 - Describe any enhancements your company has added to PODS that you think should be considered for incorporation into future PODS releases.


Operator
 SXL
is
currenlty
planning
on
enhancing
the
model
to
support
more
robust
HCA
 reporTng
and
data
storage.
SXL
will
also
be
looking
at
maintaining
ILI
data
as
 well,
but
we
have
not
gonen
to
the
planning
stage
on
that
yet.
 Operator
 Other
(Cont.)Sub‐model
have
been
constructed
to
address
areas
such
as:
 geotechnical,
basis
environmental,etc.)

ExxonMobil
is
willing
to
supply
sub‐ models.
 Operator
 A
"Geometry
schema"
wich
allow
to
access
and
visualize
data
stored
in
PODS
 very
quickly
with
GIS.
This
schema
has
been
explained
by
TIGF
at
the
2010
 and
2011
PODS
UC
to
different
technical
comminee.
 Operator
 Pipe
TransiTon
Table
 Operator
 Facility
Data
(Terminals,
Tanks,
etc.)
 Operator
 We
are
replacing
the
"MAOP
RaTng"
table
with
three
new
tables
‐
"Pipeline
 Pressure
Segment",
"Pipeline
Pressure
Segment
Part",
and
"MAOP",
in
order
 to
capture
all
data
to
support
our
companies
MAOP
process.


20 - Describe any enhancements your company has added to PODS that you think should be considered for incorporation into future PODS releases.


Service
Provider
 significant
expansion
in
the
PI
table
group
 Service
Provider
 Considering
imagery
management
opTons
 Service
Provider
 Above
Ground
Support
tables.
All
our
pipelines
are
above
ground,
and
we
 have
designed
tables
to
manage
the
support
system.
 Service
Provider


• bjects
of
Gas
Compressor
StaTons,
of
Gas
DistribuTon
StaTons,
of


Underground
Gas
Storage
 Service
Provider
 There
are
many
feature
classes
in
PODS
ESRI
spaTal
that
could
be
mulTple
 geometry
types.
There
should
be
a
standard
way
for
creaTng
a
point,
line,
and
 polygon
version
of
the
same
feature
class.
Example:
Valve
(Point),
Valve_Line,
 Valve_Site.


21 - Describe any business needs your company has that have not been addressed by PODS, and you would like to see addressed.


Service
Provider
 Imagery
Management
 Service
Provider
 Again,
Above
Ground
Support.
 Service
Provider
 Gas
Compressor
StaTons,
Gas
DistribuTon
StaTons,
Underground
Gas
Storage
 Service
Provider
 PODS
needs
to
have
a
module
for
engineering,
desine,
future
development,
 and
construcTon.
All
companies
need
this
from
operators
to
consultants.
We
 spend
too
much
Tme
trying
to
cram
data
into
tables
that
were
not
desiged
for
 that
type
of
data.
Such
as
putng
mile
posts
into
Marker
feature
class.
 Service
Provider
 Direct
Assessment.
 Operator
 UnstaToned
pipe,
e.g.
gathering
systems,
flow
lines,
other
piping
including
 steam
lines,
staTon
piping,
etc.
 Operator
 A
good
modeled
structure
to
for
history
data,
bener
offline
event
modeling"


22 - Please prioritize these initiatives in terms of value to your organization.
 Improve documentation of the PODS Data Model


Not
Important
 0%
 Moderately
 Important
 12%
 Important
 65%
 CriTcal
 23%


Pipeline
Operators


Not
 Important
 10%
 Moderatel y
 Important
 10%
 Important
 60%
 CriTcal
 20%


Service
Providers


22 - Please prioritize these initiatives in terms of value to your organization.


Improve
or
Expands
the
PODS
Data
Model


Not
 Important
 6%
 Moderately
 Important
 29%
 Important
 41%
 CriTcal
 24%


Pipeline
Operators


Not
 Important
 20%
 Moderately
 Important
 37%
 Important
 30%
 CriTcal
 13%


Service
Providers


22 - Please prioritize these initiatives in terms of value to your organization.
 Provide educational content such as training videos or seminars


Not
 Important
 0%
 Moderately
 Important
 35%
 Important
 59%
 CriTcal
 6%


Pipeline
Operators


Not
 Important
 6%
 Moderate ly
 Important
 37%
 Important
 47%
 CriTcal
 10%


Service
Providers


22 - Please prioritize these initiatives in terms of value to your organization.
 Provide an environment for Operator-only interactions


Not
Important
 19%
 Moderately
 Important
 19%
 Important
 56%
 CriTcal
 6%


Operators


Not
Important
 31%
 Moderately
 Important
 38%
 Important
 27%
 CriTcal
 4%


Service
Providers


22 - Please prioritize these initiatives in terms of value to your organization.
 Expand PODS' international presence


Not
Important
 18%
 Moderately
 Important
 41%
 Important
 29%
 CriTcal
 12%


Operators


Not
 Important
 14%
 Moderately
 Important
 36%
 Important
 43%
 CriTcal
 7%


Service
Providers


22 - Please prioritize these initiatives in terms of value to your organization.


Provide additional opportunities for member face-to-face interactions


Not
Important
 6%
 Moderately
 Important
 56%
 Important
 38%
 CriTcal
 0%


Pipeline
Operators


Not
 Important
 17%
 Moderately
 Important
 47%
 Important
 33%
 CriTcal
 3%


Service
Providers


22 - Please prioritize these initiatives in terms of value to your organization.
 Provide an environment for vendors to showcase solutions


Not
Important
 0%
 Moderately
 Important
 76%
 Important
 24%
 CriTcal
 0%


Operators


Not
Important
 7%
 Moderately
 Important
 31%
 Important
 48%
 CriTcal
 14%


Service
Providers


22 - Please prioritize these initiatives in terms of value to your organization.
 Improve collaboration with other international oil & gas standards organizations


Not
 Important
 12%
 Moderately
 Important
 59%
 Important
 29%
 CriTcal
 0%


Pipeline
Operators


Not
 Importan t
 10%
 Moderat ely
 Importan t
 44%
 Importan t
 43%
 CriTcal
 3%


Service
Providers


22 - Please prioritize these initiatives in terms of value to your organization.
 Provide additional methods for member collaboration


Not
Important
 6%
 Moderately
 Important
 69%
 Important
 25%
 CriTcal
 0%


Pipeline
Operators


Not
 Important
 14%
 Moderatel y
 Important
 55%
 Important
 28%
 CriTcal
 3%


Service
Providers


22 - Please prioritize these initiatives in terms of value to your organization.
 Expand the PODS User Conference


Not
 Important
 27%
 Moderately
 Important
 45%
 Important
 21%
 CriTcal
 7%


Service
Providers


Not
Important
 6%
 Moderately
 Important
 69%
 Important
 25%
 CriTcal
 0%


Operators


22 - Please prioritize these initiatives in terms of value to your organization.
 Additional Comments


Operator
 The
quesTons
above
reflect
a
US
based
operator
perspecTve.
In
my
personal
opinion,
 PODS
should
persue
the
global
market
to
streghten
the
foothold
on
the
pipeline
data
 model
world.
 Operator
 Expansion
of
PODS
into
InternaTonal
presence
will
be
fundamental
to
our
corporaTon.

 AddiTonally,
tables
associated
with
construcTon
would
greatly
assist
in
ongoing
uptake


• f
the
model.


Operator
 We
recognize
that
vendors
are
necessary
for
technical
implementaTon
of
the
PODS
 requirements,
but
PODS
needs
to
ensure
their
limited
influence
into
structure
and
the


• perators
design
needs.
The
2011
User
Conference
provided
about
the
right
Tme
and


size
given
the
current
PODS
industry
deployment.

As
PODS
uTlizaTon
conTnues
to
 grow
it
may
some
growth."
 Service
Provider
 Pipeline
business
is
expanding
in
APAC
region.
A
chapter
of
PODS
be
opened
in
India.
 Service
Provider
 I
already
idenTfied
what
I
think
is
criTcal
above.
The
PODS
UC
should
not
include
 Vendor
Demos
or
Sales
Pitches.
This
not
the
role
of
a
standards
organizaTon
and
the


• ne
demo
that
did
occurred
at
the
last
PODS
UC
was
an
embarrassment.
We
need


strict
guidelines
so
that
if
this
happens
again
we
can
ask
them
to
leave.


23 - Please rate the value of PODS membership.
 PODS plays an important role in the pipeline industry.


Never
 0%
 Occasionally
 6%
 Most
of
the
Time
 50%
 Always
 44%
 N/A
 0%


Operators


Never
 0%
 Occasionally
 19%
 Most
of
the
 Time
 36%
 Always
 45%
 N/A
 0%


Service
Providers


23 - Please rate the value of PODS membership.
 PODS' initiatives are inline with my company's priorities.


Never
 0%
 Occasionally
 25%
 Most
of
the
Time
 69%
 Always
 6%
 N/A
 0%


Operators


Never
 3%
 Occasionally
 26%
 Most
of
the
 Time
 39%
 Always
 22%
 N/A
 10%


Service
Providers


23 - Please rate the value of PODS membership.
 The value we receive from PODS outweighs the cost.


Never
 0%
 Occasionally
 25%
 Most
of
the
Time
 50%
 Always
 19%
 N/A
 6%


Operators


Never
 0%
 Occasionally
 22%
 Most
of
the
 Time
 42%
 Always
 26%
 N/A
 10%


Service
Providers


23 - Please rate the value of PODS membership.
 The PODS Association is responsive to my company's requests.


Never
 6%
 Occasionally
 14%
 Most
of
the
Time
 39%
 Always
 13%
 N/A
 31%


Operators


Never
 0%
 Occasionally
 6%
 Most
of
the
 Time
 26%
 Always
 39%
 N/A
 29%


Service
Providers


23 - Please rate the value of PODS membership.
 Our company is an active pariticpant in PODS work groups and committees.


Never
 31%
 Occasionally
 31%
 Most
of
the
Time
 19%
 Always
 19%
 N/A
 0%


Operators


Never
 16%
 Occasionally
 36%
 Most
of
 the
Time
 13%
 Always
 32%
 N/A
 3%


Service
Providers


Additional Comments


Operator
 Once
SaskEnergy
has
a
funcToning
PODS
operaTng
system,
we
will
be
looking
for
 more
acTve
parTcipaTon
in
PODS
 Operator
 Needs
to
be
bener
at
gathering
pipelines.
 


23 - Please rate the value of PODS membership.


Service
Provider
 I've
become
really
discouraged
with
the
organizaTon
and
have
considered
dropping


• ut.
I
believe
that
the
organizaTon
is
losing
relevancy.
I
feel
that
the
views
of


vendors
are
overlooked
and
the
direcTon
is
based
upon
a
few
major
operators.
On
 the
other
hand,
this
organizaTon
should
really
be
directed
by
the
member


• perators.
The
rub
comes
in
when
they
really
don't
understand
the
technical


ramificaTon
of
some
of
the
decisions.


24 - Please rate the PODS website, including Wiki- PODS and the PODS Technical Forum.
 I can always find what I am looking for.


Never
 0%
 Occasionally
 31%
 Most
of
the
Time
 44%
 Always
 6%
 N/A
 19%


Operators


Never
 0%
 Occasionally
 13%
 Most
of
the
 Time
 61%
 Always
 16%
 N/A
 10%


Service
Providers


24 - Please rate the PODS website, including Wiki- PODS and the PODS Technical Forum.
 The content published is useful to me.


Never
 0%
 Occasionally
 25%
 Most
of
the
Time
 44%
 Always
 13%
 N/A
 19%


Operators


Never
 0%
 Occasionally
 6%
 Most
of
the
 Time
 61%
 Always
 23%
 N/A
 10%


Service
Providers


24 - Please rate the PODS website, including Wiki- PODS and the PODS Technical Forum.
 I receive timely help when I have an issue.


Never
 0%
 Occasionally
 14%
 Most
of
the
 Time
 31%
 Always
 13%
 N/A
 44%


Operators


Never
 0%
 Occasionally
 3%
 Most
of
the
 Time
 32%
 Always
 20%
 N/A
 45%


Service
Providers


24 - Please rate the PODS website, including Wiki- PODS and the PODS Technical Forum.
 I check back often.


Never
 0%
 Occasionally
 62%
 Most
of
the
 Time
 19%
 Always
 0%
 N/A
 19%


Operators


Never
 0%
 Occasionally
 45%
 Most
of
the
 Time
 29%
 Always
 13%
 N/A
 13%


Service
Providers


24 - Please rate the PODS website, including Wiki- PODS and the PODS Technical Forum.
 I refer others to it.


Never
 0%
 Occasionally
 38%
 Most
of
the
 Time
 44%
 Always
 0%
 N/A
 19%


Operators


Never
 10%
 Occasionally
 22%
 Most
of
the
 Time
 45%
 Always
 13%
 N/A
 10%


Service
Providers


24 - Please rate the PODS website, including Wiki- PODS and the PODS Technical Forum.
 Additional Comments


Operator
 To
difficult
to
navigate
and
locate
informaTon.
 Operator
 I'm
sorry
to
say
SXL
has
not
taken
advantage
of
these
sites
yet.
 Service
Provider
 We
have
too
linle
exposure
to
PODS
to
have
many
quesTons
or
criTcal
need
of
 informaTon.


25 - Please rate the communication of the PODS Association with its members.


Never
 0%
 Occasionally
 0%
 Most
of
the
 Time
 63%
 Always
 38%
 N/A
 0%


Operators


Never
 0%
 Occasionally
 13%
 Most
of
the
 Time
 35%
 Always
 42%
 N/A
 10%


Service
Providers


I feel well informed regarding Association meetings.


25 - Please rate the communication of the PODS Association with its members.
 I feel well informed regarding Data Model Releases.


Never
 0%
 Occasionally
 6%
 Most
of
the
 Time
 69%
 Always
 25%
 N/A
 0%


Operators


Never
 0%
 Occasionally
 13%
 Most
of
the
 Time
 32%
 Always
 45%
 N/A
 10%


Service
Providers


25 - Please rate the communication of the PODS Association with its members.
 I feel well informed regarding the plans and priorities

• f the Association.


Never
 0%
 Occasionally
 19%
 Most
of
the
Time
 56%
 Always
 25%
 N/A
 0%


Operators


Never
 0%
 Occasionally
 32%
 Most
of
the
 Time
 32%
 Always
 29%
 N/A
 7%


Service
Providers


25 - Please rate the communication of the PODS Association with its members.
 I receive prompt replies to my questions.


Never
 0%
 Occasionally
 6%
 Most
of
the
 Time
 25%
 Always
 31%
 N/A
 39%


Operators


Never
 0%
 Occasionally
 7%
 Most
of
the
 Time
 29%
 Always
 32%
 N/A
 32%


Service
Providers


25 - Please rate the communication of the PODS Association with its members.
 I feel the level and format of communication is appropriate.


Never
 0%
 Occasionally
 0%
 Most
of
the
Time
 75%
 Always
 25%
 N/A
 0%


Operators


Never
 0%
 Occasionally
 16%
 Most
of
the
 Time
 42%
 Always
 32%
 N/A
 10%


Service
Providers


25 - Please rate the communication of the PODS Association with its members.
 Additional Comments


Service
Provider
 I
am
someTmes
confused
as
to
why
some
 informaTon/decisions
are
not
communicated
 to
the
members
at
large.


27 - Our organization already uses EVENT_GUIDS (Global Unique Identifiers) within our PODS Relational deployment.


Yes
 38%
 No
 56%
 I
Don't
Know
 6%


Operators


Yes
 40%
 No
 37%
 I
Don't
Know
 23%


Service
Providers


27 - Our organization already uses EVENT_GUIDS (Global Unique Identifiers) within our PODS Relational deployment.
 Additional Comments


Operator
 The
viability
of
GUID
as
a
data
type
is
well‐established
by
database
experts
(Oracle,
 Microso_).
This
should
be
a
dead
issue.
 Service
Provider
 We
can
use
both
as
a
customer
demands
but
we
would
surely
recommend
the
GUIDs.
 Service
Provider
 We
provide
services
for
a
number
of
customers
using
PODS.
If
the
customer
uses
the
 GUIDS
it
does
not
affect
or
hinder
what
we
do.
 Service
Provider
 At
client
request
 Service
Provider
 PODS
has
only
been
implemented
in
development
last
year
‐
so
version
5.1.
 Service
Provider
 Supported
by
few
implementaTons
but
not
all,
not
required
by
so_ware
 Service
Provider
 Most
people
dont
like
GUID
because
it
is
a
meaningless
code.
 Service
Provider
 Or
at
least
we
will.


28 - If your organization already uses EVENT_GUIDS in PODS Relational, have you implemented the CHAR(38) GUID Data Type for these?


Yes
 6%
 No
‐
we
 implemented
a
 different
data
type
 for
EVENT_GUIDS
 17%
 We
don't
use
 EVENT_GUIDS
 47%
 I
don't
know
 18%
 No
Response
 12%


Operators


Yes
 25%
 No
‐
we
 implement ed
a
 different
 data
type
 for
 EVENT_GUI DS
 6%
 We
don't
 use
 EVENT_GUI DS
 25%
 I
don't
 know
 28%
 No
 Response
 16%


Service
Providers


Additional Comments


Operator
 We
implemented
VARCHAR(38)GUID
data
type.
It
has
been
explained
by
TIGF
at
the
 2010
and
2011
PODS
UC
to
different
technical
comminee.
VARCHAR(38)
is
bener
than
 CHAR(38)
because
there
is
no
space
added
when
there
is
less
than
38
character.
So,
it's
 not
necessary
to
complete
to
38
character
and
it's
more
easy
to
link
with
other
 database.
 Operator
 This
is
directly
in
opposiTon
to
best
pracTce
for
implemenTng
GUID's.
 Service
Provider
 We
use
the
naTve
db
types
for
GUID
storage.
This
was
done
for
performance
 consideraTons.
 Service
Provider
 Not
very
sure
of
this.
 Service
Provider
 At
client
request
 Service
Provider
 Oracle
Raw
16
 Service
Provider
 We
populate
them
if
required
by
customer,
but
not
required
by
so_ware


28 - If your organization already uses EVENT_GUIDS in PODS Relational, have you implemented the CHAR(38) GUID Data Type for these?


29 - Does your organization support PODS future releases standardizing on just the native Data Types on each platform (Oracle, SQL Server, ESRI Geodatabase) for EVENT_GUIDS?
 These
na:ve
EVENT_GUID
Data
Types
are:

 ‐ RAW(16)
for
Oracle

 ‐ UNIQUEIDENTIFIER
for
SQL
Server

 ‐ CHAR(38)
for
the
PODS
ESRI
Geodatabase



Yes
 53%
 No
 18%
 No
Opinion
 23%
 No
Response
 6%


Operators


Yes
 50%
 No
 10%
 No
Opinion
 31%
 No
Response
 9%


Service
Providers


Additional Comments


Operator
 We
implemented
VARCHAR(38)GUID
data
type.
It
has
been
explained
by
TIGF
at
the
 2010
and
2011
PODS
UC
to
different
technical
comminee.
VARCHAR(38)
is
bener
than
 CHAR(38)
because
there
is
no
space
added
when
there
is
less
than
38
character.
So,
it's
 not
necessary
to
complete
to
38
character
and
it's
more
easy
to
link
with
other
 database.
 Operator
 This
is
directly
in
opposiTon
to
best
pracTce
for
implemenTng
GUID's.
 Service
Provider
 We
use
the
naTve
db
types
for
GUID
storage.
This
was
done
for
performance
 consideraTons.
 Service
Provider
 Not
very
sure
of
this.
 Service
Provider
 At
client
request
 Service
Provider
 Oracle
Raw
16
 Service
Provider
 We
populate
them
if
required
by
customer,
but
not
required
by
so_ware
 29 - Does your organization support PODS future releases standardizing on just the native Data Types on each platform (Oracle, SQL Server, ESRI Geodatabase) for EVENT_GUIDS?