Quote:
Originally Posted by GGG
I disagree with saying we needed more lines. We just handled a significant loss with an acceptable level of consequence. From a investment vs risk standpoint this was a reasonable outcome.
We will see what the integrity program looked like in the follow up investigation so I will withhold judgement there.
The big change would have been probably doing all of the work done now as (the first 5 and latest 10?) all as one down time period.
|
It was only acceptable because of luck. The reason they did it now was because going into the winter, Glenmore would not have been able to provide for the city. So if the timing of the break had been different, the consequences would have been a lot more serious.
Having one line that can stop the whole system with a backup that isn't always available is not acceptable, IMO.