We permit the publication of our auditors’ report, provided the report is published in full only and is accompanied by the full financial statements to which our auditors’ report relates, and is only published on an access-controlled page on your website, to enable users to verify that an auditors’ report by independent accountants has been commissioned by the directors and issued. Such permission to publish is given by us without accepting or assuming any responsibility or liability to any third party users save where we have agreed terms with them in writing.

Our consent is given on condition that before any third party accesses our auditors’ report via the webpage they first document their agreement to the following terms of access to our report via a click-through webpage with an 'I accept' button. The terms to be included on your website are as follows:

I accept and agree for and on behalf of myself and the Trust I represent (each a "recipient") that:

  1. PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (“PwC”) accepts no liability (including liability for negligence) to each recipient in relation to PwC’s report. The report is provided to each recipient for information purposes only. If a recipient relies on PwC’s report, it does so entirely at its own risk;
  2. No recipient will bring a claim against PwC which relates to the access to the report by a recipient;
  3. Neither PwC’s report, nor information obtained from it, may be made available to anyone else without PwC’s prior written consent, except where required by law or regulation; and
  4. PwC’s report was prepared with Hermes Property Unit Trust's interests in mind. It was not prepared with any recipient's interests in mind or for its use. PwC’s report is not a substitute for any enquiries that a recipient should make. The financial statements are as at 25 March 2016, and thus PwC’s auditors’ report is based on historical information. Any projection of such information or PwC’s opinion thereon to future periods is subject to the risk that changes may occur after the reports are issued and the description of controls may no longer accurately portray the system of internal control. For these reasons, such projection of information to future periods would be inappropriate.
  5. PwC will be entitled to the benefit of and to enforce these terms.
I accept

1. Select your country

  • United Kingdom
  • Austria
  • Australia
  • Belgium
  • Denmark
  • Finland
  • France
  • Germany
  • Iceland
  • Ireland
  • Italy
  • Luxembourg
  • Netherlands
  • Norway
  • Singapore
  • Spain
  • Sweden
  • Switzerland
  • USA
  • Other

2. Select your investor type

  • Financial Advisor
  • Discretionary Investment Manager
  • Wealth Manager
  • Family Office
  • Institutional Investor
  • Investment Consultant
  • Charity, Foundation & Endowment Investor
  • Retail Investor
  • Press
  • None of the above

3. Accept our terms and conditions

By clicking Proceed I confirm I have read the important information and agree to the terms of use.


The Hermes Investment Management website uses cookies to remember your preferences and help us improve the site.
By proceeding, you agree to cookies being placed on your computer.
Read our privacy and cookie policy.

Porous pipelines

A disaster waiting to happen

Home / Hermes EOS Blog / Porous pipelines – A disaster waiting to happen

Naheeda Rashid,
27 November 2014

Four years ago, the oil and gas industry was shaken by one of the worst industrial disasters when the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig exploded in the Gulf of Mexico, causing the largest accidental oil spill in history. The disaster put the spotlight on companies’ exposure to environmental, social and governance risks, in particular on the safety of oil operations, spill prevention and response plans.

Four years on, many oil majors appear to have worked hard to improve their risk management in this area. However, a drive towards cost efficiencies may have left stakeholders exposed to another safety and environmental risk – that of an ageing pipeline infrastructure. Pipelines can be kept running through the deployment of temporary measures instead of companies replacing them or repairing them for the long term.

Risk chain
Pipeline corrosion accounts for an estimated 70% of all oil spills, according to a Bank of America Merrill Lynch broker report. If this risk is mismanaged by companies, it could  increase the downtime of a plant, cause loss of production and increase maintenance costs, also by requiring more personnel on site. Furthermore, unscheduled plant shutdowns could lead to a rise in insurance premiums. This comes at a time when oil and gas companies across the world already face stricter regulations and higher production costs. Managing the integrity of ageing pipelines should therefore become a priority, in particular in the UK, the US, Nigeria, Brazil, Columbia, China, the Middle East, Russia and Australia, which all have ageing pipelines. In the US, for example, 60% of onshore pipelines are reportedly over 40 years old.

Emerging markets
In emerging markets, meanwhile, increasingly stricter regulation in the extractives sector is leading to more fines and punitive measures in line with what is happening in developed countries. This is likely to extend to poor pipeline maintenance. Often the economic development of a country is tied to the supply of oil products and oil exploration is a major tax revenue for governments. Transparency in emerging markets is often limited, which means investors are likely to struggle to obtain the full picture on pipeline management and accidents.

Ripple effect
Some reports suggest that companies do not invest enough in modernising and updating their plants. Corrosion can wear out pipe walls until they burst and a failure by operators to inspect them frequently and monitor them on an ongoing basis could have severe consequences. Fortunately, corrosion can be controlled by anti-corrosion technologies. However, infrastructure maintenance must be carried out in accordance with all joint venture partners to ensure uniformity in the maintenance procedures and to overcome any reluctance to temporarily shutting down a profitable plant.

For sure, it costs companies time and money to carry out routine pipeline checks. However, companies and investors face an even greater loss of revenue if maintenance is neglected and/or substituted with substandard repairs and a fragmented approach. Therefore, investors could seek third party independent verification on the pipeline monitoring and repair audits undertaken by the company.

The oil and gas industry’s track record indicates that a major accident is likely to occur if there is a history of numerous low impact events. By placing adequate attention on safety – including that of their pipelines – companies are better placed to manage their reputational, operational and financial risks. However, this can only be achieved with a strong tone from the top of the organisation promoting safety through shifts in behaviour as well as meeting compliance needs.

Share this post:

Find posts by author

  • Bill Mackenzie
  • Bruce Duguid
  • Christine Chow
  • Colin Melvin
  • Darren Brady
  • Dominic Burke
  • Emma Hunt
  • Freddie Woolfe
  • Hans-Christoph Hirt
  • Jaime Gornsztejn
  • Jennifer Walmsley
  • Jon Brager
  • Justine Lutterodt
  • Karin Ri
  • Leon Kamhi
  • Louise Dudley
  • Lui Goldie
  • Mais Hayek
  • Manuel Isaza
  • Mark Sherlock, CFA
  • Martina Macpherson
  • Matthew Doyle
  • Maxine Wille
  • Michael Russell, CFA
  • Michael Viehs
  • Naheeda Rashid
  • Natacha Dimitrijevic
  • Nina Rehrbein
  • Nina Röhrbein
  • Philip Nell
  • Rochelle Giugni
  • Roland Bosch
  • Sachi Suzuki
  • Saker Nusseibeh
  • Tatiana Bosteels
  • Tim Goodman
  • Tommaso Mancuso
  • Victoria Barron

Find posts by category

  • Select category
  • environment
  • eos