What you seem to be saying there is that you don't know what you would do exactly beyond applying some management techniques to that are useful tools for considering and implementing process improvement. We could all say that after a management course. I was being specific. What would you do [iprecisely[/i to improve the process of transporting fuel?

As a layman I don't know.

You really think that such an obvious idea hasn't been considered before and rejected? Off the top of my head I'd suggest that the up-front cost of installing a dedicated pipeline network that reaches to remote locations, coupled with the inherent risks involved with pumping an extremely volatile liquid and exposure to risk of theft makes it a non-starter.


I speak as someone who actually has real-life experience of engineering issues rather than a few days of theoretical training. And someone with some basic common sense and understand of the underlying principles.

I'm loving the idea of a network of underground fuel pipelines. For comparison, water pipelines cost around 1M per 100m and that's not in particularly urban areas. Now think of how frequently they leak and of the costs involved in putting in a suitable specification pipe to supply petrol to a dozen or so outlets in every town and city across the UK. Based on that I think tanker drivers are safe in their jobs for now.

Coming soon to a town near you, courtesy of Sal Paradise Civil & Pipeline Engineering

We had a burst water pipe up our street two weeks ago and it ran for hours before Yorkshire Water turned up.

I'd have been straight down to B&Q for their entire stock of buckets if it had been petrol that was leaking out - problem is, would it have been diesel, unleaded or premium unleaded that I was scooping up out of the gutter ?

Just my luck it would have been bloody diesel and no use to me at all.

Simple way of finding out: take a match to it. If it burns your eyebrows off - petrol (flammable, you see). If the match fizzles out - diesel (not flammable).

You might be suprised by the extent that pipelines are already used in the UK to transport fuel. OK, it's predominantly primary distribution (refinery to storage site) rather than secondary distribution (storage to retail), however it is a huge volume.

Look at the UK Petroleum Industry Association website for detailshttp://www.ukpia.com/industry_information/distribution.aspxrl

Here's the map of the main existing pipelineshttp://www.ukpia.com/Libraries/Download/UK_map_of_refineries_and_terminals.sflb.ashxrl

I'm pretty close to this dispute - my department manages the secondary distibution of approx. 150 million litres of fuel each week to our forecourts. Whilst I'm not involved on a day to day basis with fuel (I manage our rail network), I have been more involved in the last couple of weeks: trust me when I say that H&S is NOT the main reason for this potential industrial action.

H&S doesn't get your average man to strike. It is just a PR exercise in trumpeting up minor concerns because they make better soundbites than the real reasons behind the strikes.

You've caught me out. I'm not "pretty close". I lied. I don't work for a retailer who sells >150 million litres of fuel each week. I wasn't involved in the decision making and re-tendering process of the largest secondary fuel distribution contract for 25 years after TDG were bought by ND last year. I haven't met with Justine Greening a couple of times this year, most recently last week in London, to discuss mode shift and fuel distribution.

Sounds like its all your fault then.

Burn him - has anyone got any petrol ?

I might have, not sure, i was collecting it out of a burst pipe in a bucket from B&Q, it could be diesel though.

I bet that was fun. Did you tell her that Desparate Dan wants his chin back and Oliver Cromwell wants to know when she'll be finished with his warts?