🇺🇸United States

Slow, Fragmented SCADA Data for Over‑Short Analysis Delays Revenue Reconciliation

2 verified sources

Definition

Operators rely on SCADA and CPM data to reconcile receipts versus deliveries (‘over‑short’ analysis) and confirm that measured volumes are billable and not lost to leaks or measurement error. Integrity guidance highlights the need for automated data collection and over‑short analysis; without it, manual reconciliation of SCADA, tank gauges, and field measurements delays accurate confirmation of shipper balances and invoicing.

Key Findings

  • Financial Impact: Where over‑short detection depends on manual compilation of SCADA and tank‑level data, disputes over imbalances can delay settlement by weeks, effectively increasing DSO (days sales outstanding) and tying up millions in working capital on high‑throughput crude and product systems; CPM best‑practice documents explicitly promote automation of over‑short analysis to reduce these delays.[3]
  • Frequency: Monthly and at each batch/nomination cycle, as imbalances and reconciliation are a routine part of pipeline revenue operations.[3]
  • Root Cause: SCADA and leak detection data not fully integrated with commercial and accounting systems; lack of automated over‑short analytics from SCADA streams; reliance on periodic manual tank level readings and conversions to volumes, as documented in NTSB investigations, which slow confirmation of actual transported volumes.[1][3]

Why This Matters

This pain point represents a significant opportunity for B2B solutions targeting Pipeline Transportation.

Affected Stakeholders

Revenue accounting and measurement teams, Scheduling and nominations coordinators, Pipeline controllers, Commercial managers, IT/SCADA integration teams

Deep Analysis (Premium)

Financial Impact

Delayed acceptance of invoices by large industrial customers can extend DSO by 1–2 weeks on $10M–$40M/year of throughput per customer, tying up $1M–$5M in working capital and occasionally forcing credits or discounts in the $50k–$250k/year range to resolve disputed imbalances. • Delayed clarity on shipper balances and verifiable volumes can postpone recognition of trading P&L on multi‑million‑barrel positions, tying up $2M–$15M in capital per major pipeline route and occasionally leading to conservative valuation or hedging decisions that can swing results by $100k–$1M per month. • Delays settlement by weeks, increasing DSO and tying up millions in working capital

Unlock to reveal

Current Workarounds

Commercial and risk teams at commodity trading firms download pipeline operator statements, SCADA-based volume data, and tank inventory reports, then rebuild over‑short and loss/gain calculations in Excel. They cross-check with their own nominations and ETRM data, using manual pivot tables and email chains with the operator to explain any unexplained over‑shorts. • Control room staff or SCADA technicians run manual historian queries, export time‑series data to CSV/Excel, and email or upload files for engineers and accounting to merge with tank and meter data, often re‑running queries when time windows or tags were wrong. • Controllers, corrosion/integrity staff, and commercial accounting teams export SCADA and CPM data into spreadsheets, manually key in tank gauge readings and field tickets, email versions back and forth, and track imbalance investigations with ad‑hoc notes and calls.

Unlock to reveal

Get Solutions for This Problem

Full report with actionable solutions

$99$39
  • Solutions for this specific pain
  • Solutions for all 15 industry pains
  • Where to find first clients
  • Pricing & launch costs
Get Solutions Report

Methodology & Sources

Data collected via OSINT from regulatory filings, industry audits, and verified case studies.

Evidence Sources:

Related Business Risks

Undetected or Late‑Detected Leaks Cause Lost Product Revenue Beyond Incident Damage

Example case: ~564,000 gallons of gasoline released in one SCADA‑monitored rupture; at a conservative $2/gal wholesale that is ~$1.1M in lost product in a single event, with NTSB noting similar SCADA‑related issues across multiple accidents, implying multi‑million‑dollar annualized exposure for large operators.[1]

High False‑Alarm Rates in SCADA/CPM Drive Unnecessary Field Callouts and Operational Waste

For a mid‑size operator with dozens of mainlines, a CPM false‑alarm rate that triggers just one unnecessary field investigation per week at ~$10,000–$20,000 (crew mobilization, line balance checks, temporary rate reductions) implies ~$0.5–$1M per year in avoidable operating cost; this is consistent with CPM guidance that emphasizes minimizing false alarms precisely due to their operational and cost impacts.[3]

SCADA Misinterpretation Causes Larger Spills, Claims, and Environmental Remediation Costs

In one documented case, the controller’s failure to determine from SCADA that a leak had occurred contributed to a release of about 564,000 gallons of gasoline, escalating remediation, property damage, and environmental costs well beyond the cost of the failed component itself.[1] Similar SCADA‑related deficiencies across other accidents in the NTSB study indicate multi‑million‑dollar incremental quality‑failure costs industry‑wide.

Conservative Leak Detection Settings and SCADA Limitations Force Throughput Derates

A 5–10% derate on a large crude line moving 500,000 bpd at a $3–$5/bbl tariff equates to $27M–$91M in annual lost tariff revenue; CPM best‑practice documents caution that sensitivity to flow conditions and configuration must be evaluated per line, which in practice leads operators to accept lower capacity to maintain leak detection reliability.[3]

Regulatory Findings on SCADA, Alarm Management, and Control Rooms Drive Costly Remediation and Potential Fines

While individual fine amounts vary by case, PHMSA has authority to levy significant civil penalties per violation per day; in addition, mandated SCADA upgrades, training programs, and leak detection improvements (e.g., implementing API RP 1165‑compliant displays and enhanced CPM) typically run into the hundreds of thousands to millions per operator over multi‑year compliance programs.[1][6][7]

Limited Direct Evidence of Fraud via SCADA in Leak Detection, But Weak Monitoring Increases Abuse Risk

Not quantifiable from current evidence for SCADA‑specific fraud in leak detection workflows.

Request Deep Analysis

🇺🇸 Be first to access this market's intelligence