Industries · Gas transmission & distribution
Gas transmission & distribution
A gas network has an integrity management programme built on ILI runs and a distribution network of cast iron and early polyethylene mains whose replacement rate has been set by a formula nobody can now justify.
Who this is for
Three people, one budget argument
Integrity engineer
Owns the plan and answers for it. Everything on screen is built to make that week easier.
Network planner
Holds the budget line and carries the valuation. Cares about defensibility before features.
Head of asset management
Signs, and is the one asked the awkward question in public. Needs one page, not a tour.
Asset classes
What AIPP scores in this industry
Configured for this industry out of the box: condition on the IIMM_1_5 scale, the GAS weighting profile, budget shown as Mains replacement programme, and the instruments it answers to (ASME_B31_8S, AS2885, CFR192, OIML_R137) named on every score. All of it is yours to change — the weights are sliders, not our opinion.
The honest bit
4 of 24 assets will not score
That is the demo register for this industry, and the gaps are deliberate. AIPP refuses to rank an asset the evidence does not support — it will not apply a curve, a zero or a middle grade to a thing nobody has inspected. 17% of this register comes back unranked, with the reason named.
4 of 24 assets carry NO condition evidence and NO age. That is deliberate. A demo register where everything scores teaches a prospect nothing about what happens to the two-thirds of their own register that will not — and it is exactly where most tools quietly invent a zero. Open the demo on these.
How it runs
From export to defensible programme
Transmission loads with its integrity assessment history; distribution loads by material, vintage and leak rate.
High-consequence-area designation drives consequence directly — it is a regulatory fact, not an estimate.
Cast iron ranks by leak history and proximity, not by age alone.
The replacement envelope constrains; the plan reports the leak reduction each tranche buys.
The pack states which mains were deferred and what that leaves exposed.
What you will see
The screens that matter here
Fair questions
What this industry actually asks us
B31.8S is our framework. Does AIPP follow it?
It references it — threat categories and assessment vocabulary are carried. It does not compute assessment intervals, and does not claim to.
We already prioritise mains.
Most operators do, in a spreadsheet nobody can reproduce two years later. The difference here is the audit trail and the constrained multi-year view.
What about the meters fleet — thousands of identical assets?
They roll up by class rather than being ranked individually. Ranking 400,000 identical meters is not a decision anybody needs.
Run it on your own worst class
Bring one export — the class with the missing condition data and the costs from 2019. If AIPP tells you the truth about it in twenty minutes, that is worth a conversation. If it scores everything and looks clean, tell us so.