Operator-owned integrity and CP data are aligned spatially and temporally to support location-based prioritization with auditable rationale. Cross-check surveys, inspections, and findings converge at the segment and site level, producing evidence that integrates directly into existing integrity workflows.
ILI runs, CP surveys, ECDA assessments, and repair records continue to accumulate faster than they can be systematically reviewed. Each new dataset adds volume and complexity without automatically adding clarity.
Integrity teams must expand inspection and mitigation programs while operating with flat or declining staff counts. Every prioritization decision must withstand technical review and audit, competing directly for limited capital and personnel time.
Regulators expect documented rationale for integrity decisions. Operators must demonstrate how risk assessments incorporate all available data and account for location-specific threats and exposure.
Rank excavation sites by correlating ILI findings with CP performance, repair history, and consequence exposure. Focus limited dig budgets on locations with convergent evidence of risk.
Identify segments with marginal protection that also exhibit corrosion features or coating damage. Prioritize rectifier upgrades or anode bed additions based on spatial correlation with integrity findings.
Target ILI or ECDA resources to segments where prior surveys identified active threats, CP protection has degraded, or consequence has increased due to land use changes.
Assemble evidence packages that document how prioritization decisions incorporate all available data. Demonstrate a systematic, location-based approach to integrity management that meets regulatory expectations.
These hazards become meaningful only when evaluated at precise geographic locations in the context of the assets, coatings, CP performance, inspection history, and prior repairs present at that location. Without spatial alignment, geohazard information remains descriptive rather than actionable.
Actionable, auditable outputs that support prioritization, GIS analysis, data quality review, and system integration.
Priority-ordered lists of pipeline segments or CP test points, with scores and evidence summaries. Exportable to Excel or CSV for planning and capital allocation.
Shapefiles or geodatabase feature classes that integrate directly into operator GIS environments. Visualize risk concentrations and support spatial analysis.
Location-specific reports explaining why each segment was prioritized, which datasets contributed, and what findings support the ranking. Defensible under regulatory audit.
Identification of survey coverage gaps, positional mismatches, and missing data elements. Helps integrity teams target future data collection and improve assessment quality.
Structured data exports for integration into work management systems, integrity management platforms, or reporting tools. Supports automated workflows and documentation.