Oil Company and Pipeline - Case Study Example

The case fall under the Alberta’s Pipeline Act, Pipeline Regulation, and applicable Canadian Standards Association (CSA) standards. Lance was hired by Bikal within the contract period to inspect the pipeline. Bikal’s contract was under the following condition “to maintain Akel’s refinery with the agreement of payment only during the uptime of the refinery”. This shows that Baikal was in the line of duty and sought to hire an outside company to work on the inspection. It is professionally ethical to consult with other companies to provide services.

Baikal therefore, was to enforce a contract with Lance by having a written agreement so that the contract between the two was enforceable by law. Lance duty was to ensure proper inspection was done. Engineering allows for non-destructive testing of the materials in this case the refinery has the pipelines. What lance did was to work on the minor aspects of the pumping system as well as keep time as required by Baikal. This case is based on the pressure in the system where they were right to check the source of the pressure that is the pump.

Engineering formulates guidelines on how to undertake such measures to prevent leakages in the drainage and unnecessary pressure build up, the material under testing. This provides necessary actions and safety measures for pressure testing. Akel the contracting company who owns the refinery plays a role in the case as the paying party. Failure of the system to operate means the termination of the Baikal contract. This case has incurred Akel several expenditures from the replacement of the pump as well as the broken pipeline.

Akel is obliged to ask what went wrong as he enquired and found out that the first report submitted by Lance engineers was inadequate, missing standard tests. The problem was primarily due to erosion in the pipe and could have possibly led to a disaster. Lance engineers cited that “Baikal had given them