Thirty years of work have taken me through Engineering, Major Capital Projects, Military Service, and Specialised Operations. I built my foundation as a chartered Mechanical Engineer and Project Leader, delivering complex Oil & Gas Assets, Infrastructure, Petro-Chemical Complexes, Water Systems, and Asset Management Programs across Australia, Middle East, and Asia. Along the way, I worked with some of the world's largest oil and gas operators, including Shell, Chevron, Woodside, OilSearch, ENI, and IGC Petrochem, leading teams through Commissioning, Reliability Improvements, Shutdowns, and long-term Integrity planning and management.

In parallel to my engineering career, I served in Tier-1 Special Operations, providing discreet support to government entities through Special Services Global and Beta Epsilon. That work demanded precision, judgement, and the ability to operate in environments where there was no margin for error.

Today, I bring both paths together as Global Operations Director at Covert Kinetics. The company extends years of experience in sensitive missions and high-stakes project environments, now focused on Investigative Intelligence, OSINT, HUMINT, and Specialised Operational Support for organisations and leadership teams across borders.My skill set is a blend of Technical Depth and Operational Awareness. Asset Integrity, Cyber Exposure, Project Delivery, Data analytics, Risk Identification, Behavioural Assessment, and Strategic Decision Spport all sit at the centre of the work I do. 

The goal is always the same, whether for a national project or a confidential investigation: uncover risks before they surface and strengthen the systems that protect people, assets, and investments.I connect with those who value insight, clarity, and confidentiality, especially in environments where informed decisions matter most.

⏩ Ever wonder why Ryanair's 737s have built-in airstairs but you never see them on A320s?
Ground clearance.
737 sits lower - roughly 1.4m fuselage height versus the A320's 2.5m. That difference matters. Built-in stairs on a 737 are compact and light enough to justify the structural weight penalty. On an A320, you'd need substantially longer stairs, more reinforcement, heavier mechanisms.
Boeing offers integrated airstairs as a factory option. Ryanair spec'd them across their fleet because it eliminates dependency on ground equipment - faster turnarounds at secondary airports without jet bridges or mobile stairs.
Airbus could engineer the same solution. They chose not to, because most A320 operators prioritize fuel efficiency over operational independence. Every kilogram you carry permanently costs fuel over the aircraft's 20+ year lifespan.
Ryanair's business model makes the trade-off worth it: minimize ground handling costs, accept slight fuel penalty. Legacy carriers operating from major hubs don't have that calculation.
Same mission, different constraints, different engineering choices.
I've always appreciated how aircraft design reflects operator economics more than pure capability. The best technical solution depends entirely on who's paying for it and how they make money.
What works for Ryanair would be a poor choice for Lufthansa. That's not better or worse - just optimized for different models.
———
👋 Hi, I’m Waseem Rehman
📌 Follow for daily dose of diversified knowledge, fact checked claims, reports…and in between anything!
♻️ If you get any value, please Like & Share!

undefined undefined

Leader, Learner, Mentor & Friend | Hardcore Problems Solver | Builder of Systems, Solver of Crises | Asset Integrity & Project Management | OSINT, HUMINT & Business Crime Investigations | High Risk Special OPS Management

⏩ Whoever invented this way of building tunnels is a genius!
———
👋 Hi, I’m Waseem Rehman
📌 Follow for daily dose of diversified knowledge, fact checked claims, reports…and in between anything!
♻️ If you get any value, please Like & Share!

⏩ Why the legendary SR-71 Blackbird was retired
SR-71 Blackbird was not retired because it became irrelevant. It was retired because strategy, cost, and priorities changed.

Key reasons behind retirement:
▪️Operating cost was brutal
• Extremely small fleet with bespoke logistics
• JP-7 fuel, titanium airframe, unique tooling
• Highly specialised crews and disappearing supply chain
Keeping it flying meant funding an entire ecosystem for a handful of missions.

▪️Satellites and UAVs reshaped intelligence
• Space assets provided continuous global coverage
• Drones offered long loiter times without pilot risk
• Political cost of manned overflight became harder to justify
Flexibility dropped, but persistence and affordability won.

▪️Cold War mission no longer drove decisions
SR-71 was designed to outrun Soviet air defences.
Post-1991, demand for rapid deep-penetration reconnaissance declined.
Focus shifted toward regional conflicts and ISR persistence.

▪️Aging airframes and lost expertise
• Repeated Mach 3 thermal cycling stressed structures
• Engineers who understood the aircraft were retiring
• Restarting production was financially unrealistic

Politics played a role
The aircraft was retired, reactivated, and retired again.
Not due to performance issues, but budget pressure and lack of institutional backing.

Bottom line
SR-71 did not fail. It was a victim of changing strategy.
Even today, no platform fully replaces what it delivered best: speed, global reach, time-critical intelligence, and survivability through velocity alone.

Still unmatched. Still misunderstood.
———
👋 Hi, I’m Waseem Rehman
📌 Follow for daily dose of diversified knowledge, fact checked claims, reports…and in between anything!
♻️ If you get any value, please Like & Share!

⏩ Russia's building the world's first commercial Gen IV nuclear reactor at Seversk - the BREST-OD-300 lead-cooled fast neutron reactor. The reactor vessel is 70% complete.
What makes this significant isn't just the reactor. It's the integrated fuel cycle on a single site: power generation, fuel fabrication, reprocessing, and refabrication. Closed-loop nuclear fuel management at commercial scale.
Fast neutron reactors can burn actinides that conventional reactors can't, reducing long-lived waste from thousands of years to hundreds. Lead cooling instead of water eliminates certain accident scenarios - lead doesn't boil at atmospheric pressure until 1,749°C, far above reactor operating temperatures.
The engineering challenges are substantial. Lead is corrosive at high temperatures. Fast neutron flux damages materials faster than thermal neutrons. Fuel handling in a closed cycle requires remote operations and shielding conventional plants don't need.
Russia's been developing fast reactor technology since the 1950s. The BN-600 and BN-800 at Beloyarsk have been operating for decades. This isn't laboratory theory - it's iterative refinement of proven concepts.
Whether BREST-OD-300 achieves commercial viability depends on operational reliability and economics we won't know for years. But the technical approach is sound: reduce waste, improve safety margins, close the fuel cycle.
The West mostly abandoned fast reactors after Superphénix failures. Russia kept iterating. Now they're ahead on deployment timelines.
Sometimes persistence through setbacks beats starting over with new designs.
——-
👋 Hi, I’m Waseem Rehman
📌 Follow for daily dose of diversified knowledge, fact checked claims, reports…and in between anything!
♻️ If you get any value, please Like & Share!

⏩ Watching the Agusta A129 Mangusta maneuver in Mali reminds you why attack helicopters remain relevant despite advancing air defense systems.
Low-level nap-of-the-earth flight, rapid direction changes, terrain masking - the Mangusta demonstrates what rotorcraft bring to asymmetric operations. In environments without sophisticated MANPADS or radar-guided systems, a well-flown attack helicopter is a dominant platform.

A129 was designed in the 1980s as Europe's first dedicated attack helicopter. Lightweight composite airframe, twin engines for survivability, tandem seating for pilot and gunner. Not revolutionary - just competent execution of established design principles.
What makes it effective in places like Mali isn't cutting-edge technology. It's operational flexibility. Fast response to ground contact, precision weapons delivery in close terrain, ability to operate from austere forward bases without extensive support infrastructure.
The footage shows aggressive maneuvering because the threat environment allows it. Against peer adversaries with layered air defense, these same tactics get helicopters killed. But in counterinsurgency operations where the enemy has small arms and maybe some RPGs, helicopter agility is a decisive advantage.
We often focus on next-generation platforms while legacy systems continue doing the actual work in real deployments.
Mangusta is 40 years old. It's still flying missions because the mission set hasn't changed as much as the technology evangelists claim.
Sometimes proven capability beats emerging technology.
———
👋 Hi, I’m Waseem Rehman
📌 Follow for daily dose of diversified knowledge, fact checked claims, reports…and in between anything!
♻️ If you get any value, please Like & Share!

⏩ In 1930s, Brooks Walker built a car with a fifth wheel that deployed for parallel parking. Lift the rear, spin sideways into the spot, retract the wheel. It worked perfectly.
Nobody bought it.
The engineering was sound: hydraulic or mechanical deployment of a center-mounted wheel, lift rear axle off the ground, steer laterally into tight spaces conventional cars couldn't access. Urban parking solved with moving parts.
The problem wasn't technical - it was economic. Adding a fifth wheel system meant weight, complexity, cost, and maintenance for a feature you'd use maybe twice a week. Depression-era consumers weren't paying extra for parking convenience when basic transportation was the priority.
Same reason we don't have most "brilliant inventions" from that era. They solved real problems with functional solutions that nobody could justify buying.
Modern parking assist systems solve the same problem with sensors and software - no additional wheels, just better control of existing ones. Cheaper to implement, easier to maintain, good enough for the use case.
Walker's fifth wheel is a perfect example of a solution waiting for a problem wealthy enough to afford it. The problem existed. The market willing to pay for it didn't.
Engineering success and commercial success are completely different equations.
I've always found failed innovations more instructive than successful ones. They show you where capability exceeds economic justification.
———-
👋 Hi, I’m Waseem Rehman
📌 Follow for daily dose of diversified knowledge, fact checked claims, reports…and in between anything!
♻️ If you get any value, please Like & Share!

⏩ January 20, 1974. Phil Oestricher was conducting high-speed taxi tests on the F-16 prototype. The aircraft became uncontrollable on the ground. He lifted off to avoid crashing and landed safely six minutes later.
That "accidental" first flight wasn't accident - it was a test pilot making the only decision that didn't end with a destroyed prototype.
During high-speed taxi runs, aircraft approach flight speeds without intending to leave the ground. At those velocities, control surfaces generate significant lift and aerodynamic forces. If something goes wrong - lateral oscillation, loss of directional control, unexpected pitch input - you're suddenly committed to flight whether you planned it or not.
Oestricher recognized he'd lost ground control authority and that staying on the runway meant an inevitable crash. Taking off, even unprepared, gave him options. Six minutes later he had the aircraft back on the ground intact.

F-16 went on to become one of the most successful fighters ever built - over 4,600 produced, operated by 25+ countries, still in production 50 years later.
But that entire program could have ended on a taxiway in January 1974 if the test pilot had hesitated or made the wrong call under pressure.
Good test pilots don't just fly aircraft. They recognize when the plan is failing and improvise solutions in seconds that preserve both the machine and the mission.
Sometimes the best decision is the one you didn't plan to make.
———-
👋 Hi, I’m Waseem Rehman
📌 Follow for daily dose of diversified knowledge, fact checked claims, reports…and in between anything!
♻️ If you get any value, please Like & Share!

⏩ US Navy's Advanced Arresting Gear (AAG) costs $140 million per carrier installation. It stops a 30 ton fighter moving at 150 mph in under 300 feet in two seconds.
Here's how it works: tailhook catches an arresting cable stretched across the deck. Cable connects to energy-absorbing systems below deck that convert kinetic energy into controlled deceleration. The aircraft goes from flight speed to zero without exceeding G-load limits or damaging the airframe.
AAG replaced the older hydraulic system with rotary engines and water turbine brakes that adjust braking force dynamically based on aircraft weight and approach speed. Lighter UAVs to heavy F-35Cs - same system, different deceleration profiles.
The engineering problem is brutal: absorb massive kinetic energy in minimal distance without killing the pilot or breaking the aircraft. Do it reliably thousands of times under salt spray, temperature extremes, and constant motion.
Development had problems. Cost overruns, technical delays, reliability issues during testing. The Ford-class carriers integrated AAG anyway because hydraulic systems couldn't handle the weight and speed range of modern naval aircraft.
$140 million sounds expensive until you consider the alternative: lose aircraft and pilots because your arresting gear can't handle the loads.
Carrier aviation is unforgiving. Every system either works perfectly or people die. AAG works now, after years of refinement.
Sometimes critical infrastructure is expensive because the consequences of failure are unacceptable.
———
👋 Hi, I’m Waseem Rehman
📌 Follow for daily dose of diversified knowledge, fact checked claims, reports…and in between anything!
♻️ If you get any value, please Like & Share!

⏩ 2001 - A South Korean military Chinook was lowering an Olympic torch sculpture onto a bridge in Seoul. Released the load, descended slightly, rotor blades hit the structure. The helicopter broke apart and crashed into the river. Three crew killed.
This is what happens when clearance margins disappear during precision hovering with external loads.
Chinooks have tandem rotors with about 12 meters between them. When you're holding a heavy suspended load and maneuvering near obstacles, your effective control authority shrinks. Release the load suddenly, and the aircraft rises - but not instantly. There's lag between load release and altitude recovery while the rotors adjust to the changed weight.
If you're already operating with minimal vertical clearance when you release, that lag can put you into the obstacle before you recover altitude.
The investigation likely found inadequate height margin, possibly combined with wind drift, load swing dynamics, or misjudged clearance distances. Precision lifting near structures demands buffer zones that account for aircraft response delays and environmental variables.
We train for this exact scenario in heavy-lift operations: never position yourself where losing the load puts you in contact with obstacles during the transient recovery period.
Someone either misjudged the margin or accepted risk that shouldn't have been accepted. Three people paid for that decision.
Every precision lift operation carries this same physics. The only variable is whether we respect the margins or assume we can cheat them.
——-
👋 Hi, I’m Waseem Rehman
📌 Follow for daily dose of diversified knowledge, fact checked claims, reports…and in between anything!
♻️ If you get any value, please Like & Share!

⏩ F-22 uses a jet fuel starter to spin up its APU, which then drives the main F119 engines through gearboxes. It's a bootstrap starting sequence most people never think about.
You can't just hit an ignition switch on a turbofan. The compressor needs rotational speed before combustion is viable - otherwise you're just pumping fuel into a stationary engine. The starter provides that initial rotation.
Jet Fuel Starter (JFS) → spins the Auxiliary Power Unit (APU) turbine → APU powers hydraulics and generators → gearbox mechanically couples APU to main engine spool → main engine reaches self-sustaining speed → ignition → APU disengages.

Simple mechanical problem with an elegant solution: use a small turbine to start a bigger turbine.
What's interesting is the design choice. F-22 uses an onboard JFS instead of external ground carts because operational requirements demand autonomous engine start in forward locations without support infrastructure. You can't always guarantee a ground power unit will be available.
Trade-off: added weight and complexity in the aircraft versus reduced dependence on ground equipment. For a fifth-gen air superiority fighter designed to operate from austere bases, that trade makes sense.
Most complex systems have mundane dependencies that determine operational capability. Starting the engines is one of them.
Sometimes the unglamorous engineering matters more than the flashy specifications.
——-
👋 Hi, I’m Waseem Rehman
📌 Follow for daily dose of diversified knowledge, fact checked claims, reports…and in between anything!
♻️ If you get any value, please Like & Share!

⏩ Close Up - Air to Air Refueling
——-
👋 Hi, I’m Waseem Rehman
📌 Follow for daily dose of diversified knowledge, fact checked claims, reports…and in between anything!
♻️ If you get any value, please Like & Share!

⏩ Someone told me ships can't produce 60 MW of power. Wärtsilä RT-flex96C outputs 80 MW. Discussion over.
This is the largest reciprocating engine ever built: 14 cylinders, 25,480 liters displacement, 2,300 tons, four stories tall. It powers the largest container ships at continuous output levels that would run a small city.
108,920 horsepower at 102 RPM. Low-speed two-stroke diesel burning heavy fuel oil. Thermal efficiency around 50% - meaning half the fuel energy converts to shaft power, which is remarkably good for any heat engine.

Why do container ships need 80 MW? Because moving 200,000+ tons of ship and cargo at 25 knots through water requires massive continuous power. Propeller shaft torque at those scales is enormous.
RT-flex96C is designed for one thing: reliable baseload power over 25+ year operational lifespans with minimal maintenance intervals. It runs continuously for months between port calls.
For comparison, a modern combined-cycle gas turbine power plant produces 500-800 MW. This single marine engine outputs 10% of that - inside a ship hull, operating on bunker fuel, with no external cooling infrastructure.
Marine propulsion engineering doesn't get headlines, but the scale is staggering when you actually examine it.
Next time someone questions whether ships produce serious power, remind them we're moving floating power plants carrying 20,000 containers across oceans.
The numbers aren't theoretical. They're operational reality.
———
👋 Hi, I’m Waseem Rehman
📌 Follow for daily dose of diversified knowledge, fact checked claims, reports…and in between anything!
♻️ If you get any value, please Like & Share!

⏩ Magnetically coupled gearboxes transfer torque without mechanical contact - until they overload, then they make contact anyway.
The concept uses permanent magnets on input and output shafts. Rotating magnetic fields induce torque transfer across an air gap. No teeth meshing, no friction losses from gear contact, theoretically longer lifespan without wear.
Sounds ideal until you examine the limitations.
Magnetic coupling has a maximum torque threshold. Exceed it, and the magnetic fields slip - you lose synchronization between input and output. That's why there's mechanical backup contact for overload conditions. So you haven't eliminated contact, just moved it to edge cases.
The efficiency claims need context. Yes, you eliminate gear mesh friction. But you add eddy current losses in the magnetic materials and air gap losses that conventional gears don't have. Net efficiency depends on operating speed and load profile.

Where magnetic gearing makes sense: applications requiring hermetic sealing (pumps, compressors where shaft penetration is problematic), or very high-speed low-torque scenarios where mechanical gear limitations dominate.
Where it doesn't: high-torque industrial applications where mechanical gears are cheaper, more compact, and more reliable under variable loading.
We've had magnetic coupling technology for decades in applications like pump drives. It works well in specific niches. It hasn't replaced mechanical gears broadly because the trade-offs favor conventional designs in most use cases.
Sometimes contact is a feature, not a bug.
———-
👋 Hi, I’m Waseem Rehman
📌 Follow for daily dose of diversified knowledge, fact checked claims, reports…and in between anything!
♻️ If you get any value, please Like & Share!

⏩ 1930’s Mutoscope – early roots of motion pictures
Mutoscope was one of the earliest forms of motion picture technology, developed in the 1890s and still popular well into the 1930s.

What made it unique
	•	Coin-operated, single-viewer device
	•	Used a rotating drum of thousands of individual image cards
	•	Motion illusion created by rapid flipping, not film projection
	•	Entirely mechanical, no electricity required in early versions

Why it mattered
	•	Offered private viewing decades before TV or personal screens
	•	Extremely durable compared to early film projectors
	•	Low operating cost made it ideal for arcades, fairs, and boardwalks

Engineering perspective
This was analog motion capture at its simplest and most reliable form.
No lenses burning film, no fragile reels, no complex synchronization.
Pure mechanical sequencing doing what digital pixels do today… frame by frame.

Bigger picture
Before cinemas, before streaming, before smartphones, people paid coins for personal visual experiences.
In many ways, mutoscope was the ancestor of today’s single-user content consumption model.

Old tech, simple mechanics… but surprisingly modern thinking.
———-
👋 Hi, I’m Waseem Rehman
📌 Follow for daily dose of diversified knowledge, fact checked claims, reports…and in between anything!
♻️ If you get any value, please Like & Share!

⏩ This is how computer chips are made
———-
👋 Hi, I’m Waseem Rehman
📌 Follow for daily dose of diversified knowledge, fact checked claims, reports…and in between anything!
♻️ If you get any value, please Like & Share!

I need to push back on this framing - it oversimplifies team dynamics by treating coordination as purely overhead rather than recognizing when it creates value.
The n(n-1)/2 communication paths formula is mathematically correct but managerially misleading. Not all communication paths are active, necessary, or equal in cost. A 10 person embedded software team working on a tightly coupled real-time system has fundamentally different coordination needs than 10 mechanical engineers each designing separate subsystems with defined interfaces.

The two-pizza rule works well for Amazon's service oriented architecture where teams own independent services with API contracts. It breaks down for integrated engineering work: you can't build a turbine, design a chemical plant, or develop aircraft systems with 5-person teams. Complex technical systems require specialists whose coordination creates value through integration, not just cost through communication overhead.
What actually matters: task interdependence and decision coupling. When work requires constant synchronization - shared state, tight integration, rapid iteration on interfaces - small teams win because coordination cost dominates. When work can be decomposed with clear boundaries and stable interfaces, larger teams deliver faster through parallel execution.

Pivotal Labs example is revealing: facilitated workshops optimize for inclusive participation and consensus, which inherently favors small groups. But engineering projects often need specialist depth over broad consensus. A controls engineer doesn't need to be in every mechanical design discussion.
Before splitting teams or capping headcount, ask: Is coordination cost genuine overhead, or is it the actual work of integration? Are we confusing "meetings multiply" with "this project has inherent complexity that requires coordinated problem-solving"?
Sometimes the answer is genuinely "team too big." Often it's "unclear interfaces and poor role definition." Those require different solutions.

Alignment is the hidden reason most leaders fail. I help them fix it for good.

Small teams win.

Why:

Because team growth creates hidden coordination cost.

At first, adding people feels like progress.
Then meetings multiply.
Decisions slow down.
Handoffs creep in.

This is why Jeff Bezos pushed the two-pizza rule at Amazon:
if two pizzas can’t feed the team, it’s probably too big.

You can see the pattern clearly:

→ 3 people = 3 lines
→ 5 people = 10 lines
→ 7 people = 21 lines
→ 10 people = 45 lines

Each new hire adds more coordination than the last.

I first learned this at Pivotal Labs while facilitating large groups.

To make sure everyone was heard, we capped breakout groups at 3–5.
Each group shared back.
That share-out mattered.
It also added cost.

The lesson stuck.

Before you ask for more headcount, calculate the communication load.

Two focused teams of five usually outperform one team of ten.

Not because they’re smarter.
Because alignment stays cheap.

♻ Repost to help someone rethink team size.
➕ Follow Liam Darmody for more.

If this was useful, I keep related tools in The Alignment Reserve: liamdarmody.com/reserve

Lebanese manufacturer Frem is advancing development of the Venom tactical vehicle platform, with CEO David Frem recently sharing progress on a Special Operations Vehicle prototype. The design emphasizes mobility and rapid deployment capabilities through a modular architecture intended to support both manned and unmanned variants.
This development reflects Lebanon's expanding domestic capacity in specialized tactical vehicle design. The modular approach is particularly noteworthy - if executed well, it allows a single base platform to serve multiple mission profiles without complete redesigns, reducing development costs and logistics complexity.

What I'd be watching: the gap between prototype and production-ready vehicle. Tactical vehicles face brutal operational requirements: desert heat, mountain terrain, sustained vibration, parts availability under field conditions. Lebanon has skilled engineering talent, but transitioning from functional prototype to a platform that can handle sustained military operations requires extensive testing, supply chain maturity, and manufacturing consistency.
Unmanned variant capability is interesting from a technical standpoint - it suggests they're designing with drive-by-wire systems and sensor integration from the ground up rather than retrofitting later. That's the right approach if the goal is true modularity rather than marketing theater.
I'm curious about the powertrain choices and whether they're targeting export markets or primarily domestic/regional defense needs. Those requirements drive very different engineering decisions.

Defense Journalist | Editor-in-Chief at Defence Blog

Lebanon-based manufacturer Frem has revealed development progress of its Venom next-generation tactical vehicle, as shared by CEO David Frem, showing a Special Operations Vehicle prototype focused on mobility and rapid deployment.

The modular Venom platform is designed to support multiple manned and unmanned variants, highlighting Lebanon’s growing domestic capability in developing specialized tactical vehicles.

Read more https://lnkd.in/dAAzSXbC

Hydraulic tank jacking has become standard practice for large oil storage tank construction, and for good engineering reasons beyond just convenience.
The method works by continuously lifting the completed upper shell sections with synchronized hydraulic jacks while new courses are welded at ground level. This inverts the traditional approach of building upward and provides several measurable advantages: welders work at a consistent ergonomic height rather than scaffolding at increasing elevations, shell verticality and roundness are easier to control during lifting than stacking, and the lifting system itself acts as temporary support during construction.
The safety case is straightforward - eliminating extensive scaffolding and high-elevation welding removes major fall hazards and improves weld quality since welders aren't working in awkward positions 20+ meters up. Ground-level welding also means better access for NDE and easier rework if needed.
Hydraulic synchronization is the critical technical element. Jacks must lift uniformly around the circumference to prevent shell distortion, which requires real-time monitoring and automated control systems on large diameter tanks. When done properly, you maintain tighter tolerances than traditional methods.
What's often understated: this method requires significant upfront planning and specialized equipment. Temporary lifting lugs, jacking points, and structural analysis to ensure shell stability during lifting aren't trivial. For smaller tanks or projects with limited budgets, conventional construction may still be more practical. But for large diameter tanks - particularly above 60-80mtr, the economics and safety benefits strongly favor jacking systems.
The technique has matured from specialized to routine, which reflects well-proven engineering rather than innovation theater.

+54K+ |Terminal Manager at Milangaz | Oil and Gas Industry Expert

🛢️ Hydraulic Tank Jacking Systems in Oil Tank Construction

Modern oil tank construction is no longer just about steel and welding, it’s about precision, safety, and smart methods.

One of the most effective techniques today is the Hydraulic Tank Jacking System, where the tank shell is lifted step-by-step using synchronized hydraulic jacks while new shell courses are installed underneath.

This method allows construction teams to:
✔ Work safely at ground level
✔ Maintain perfect shell alignment
✔ Reduce crane dependency
✔ Improve quality of welding and inspection
✔ Shorten construction time

For large-diameter oil storage tanks, jacking systems are not just a convenience they are a best practice that enhances both structural integrity and site safety.

As tank sizes grow and safety expectations rise, smarter construction methods like hydraulic jacking are shaping the future of tank engineering.

#OilStorageTanks #TankConstruction #HydraulicJacking #API650 #IndustrialSafety #EngineeringExcellence #EnergyInfrastructure

LUKOIL Usinsk tank explosion during maintenance demonstrates a hazard that's invisible until it's catastrophic: pyrophoric iron sulfide ignition.
Iron sulfides form naturally inside tanks and piping that handle sour crude or H₂S-containing streams. In oxygen-free environment during normal operation, these compounds remain stable. The danger emerges when equipment is opened for maintenance - oxygen contact triggers spontaneous exothermic oxidation that can ignite residual hydrocarbons or generate enough heat to cause structural failure.

The video shows what happens when this reaction occurs at scale in a confined space. The roof displacement indicates significant overpressure, likely from rapid combustion of hydrocarbon vapors ignited by the pyrophoric reaction.
Three control measures are standard for managing this risk:
▪️Inerting before opening: Nitrogen purging displaces oxygen and prevents the oxidation reaction. This isn't optional - it's the primary barrier. Atmospheric testing must confirm oxygen levels are safe before any manway is opened.
▪️Maintaining wetted surfaces: Water prevents pyrophoric ignition by eliminating the oxygen interface. Iron sulfide deposits that remain wet won't auto-ignite. This is why some facilities use steam or water washing before draining tanks.
▪️Continuous monitoring: Oxygen and temperature sensors provide real-time confirmation that conditions remain outside flammable limits during the entire maintenance window.

What's concerning about incidents like this: pyrophoric ignition during tank maintenance isn't a new or unknown hazard. Industry guidance exists across API, NFPA, and HSE standards. When it still happens, it typically points to procedural failures - inadequate permit-to-work systems, skipped steps under schedule pressure, or insufficient hazard recognition during job planning.

QHSE Specialist ✔️ | Civil Engineering 📏

A few months ago, at the LUKOIL Usinsk facility, a violent explosion occurred during scheduled maintenance on an empty tank.

As you can see in the video, the blast was powerful enough to displace the roof, sending a plume of smoke into the sky.

What was the root cause? 
Pyrophoric materials. In the Oil & Gas industry, pyrophoric substances (normally iron sulfides) often form inside tanks, pipelines, and equipment. This happens in anaerobic (oxygen-free) environments where sulfur compounds, such as H2S, react with the iron surfaces.
The danger arises during maintenance: as soon as the equipment is opened, Oxygen Ingress triggers a rapid exothermic reaction. This creates an immediate ignition source, leading to flashes or, as seen in this case, full-scale explosions.

What is the lesson learned?
In high-risk industries (especially those under Seveso III regulations), Risk Analysis is not negotiable. 
To mitigate the risk of pyrophoric ignition, we must strictly follow safety protocols:
- Inertization (Purging): Use Nitrogen (N2) or other inert gases before opening manholes to displace oxygen and prevent the reaction.
- Hydration & Wetting: Keeping internal surfaces constantly wet is vital. Pyrophoric materials lose their ignition potential when saturated with water.
- Continuous Monitoring: Utilizing temperature and oxygen sensors ensures the internal atmosphere remains outside the combustion range.

Safety is about understanding the risks we cannot see.

#ProcessSafety #OilAndGas #IndustrialSafety #RiskManagement #PyrophoricMaterials  #MaintenanceSafety #HSE #SafetyFirst

Corn-drying example highlights a fundamental gap in training data diversity - edge cases that are statistically rare globally but routine regionally don't get adequate representation in most AV datasets. This isn't just a China issue; we see similar problems with livestock on rural roads, temporary market stalls, or informal traffic patterns in developing regions.
What's concerning is the divider recognition failure. Lane markings and physical barriers are supposed to be among the more reliable perception targets because they're high-contrast, static features. If the system is misinterpreting standard road infrastructure, it suggests either sensor fusion issues (camera vs lidar disagreement) or map data that doesn't reflect actual conditions.
The real engineering challenge: you can't simply "add more training data" for every regional variation. The combinatorial explosion of edge cases means you need better generalization, not just bigger datasets. But current ML architectures struggle with novel scenarios that violate learned priors.
This is why geofencing exists - it's an admission that these systems aren't truly autonomous in the adaptive sense. They're highly capable within well-mapped, predictable environments, but brittle outside those bounds.
Curious whether these failures triggered safe stops or if the vehicle attempted to navigate through uncertainty - that tells you a lot about the decision architecture.

A critical-thinking catalyst, enabling people and organizations to move faster and smarter

There are still some improvements to be made with autonomous vehicles, especially in China where it's custom to dry/air produce (for instance corn) on the side of the road. Or when obvious the software isn't trained on (relatively common) Chinese road situations and dividers. 
Happy weekend!

taplio

Waseem Rehman's Linkedin Analytics

Waseem Rehman

Performance ScoreWaseem Rehman's LinkedIn Performance

What is Waseem talking about?

Who is engaging with Waseem

Waseem Rehman's Best Posts (last 30 days)

Ready to grow your LinkedIn presence?