Industry Performance

Updated June 2026

Metrics

The most common metric for reporting pipeline performance is the number of incidents per 1000 kilometres of pipeline per year. This metric is useful when comparing companies but does not tell the whole story. A lot goes into determining how a pipeline company performs, and the results might differ depending on the metric used.

For a meaningful comparison of pipeline performance between companies, we must compare companies with similar operations, including the number, size, and type (pipeline materials and substances transported) of pipelines they operate.

We use the following performance metrics:

• the number of incidents per 1000 kilometres per year of pipeline
• the total number of incidents
• the number of incidents by consequence rating (low, medium, high)
• the volume and type of product released

Some companies are examined more closely than others because of their compliance history or the location of their pipelines and the products those pipelines carry. For example, a pipeline near a water body that transports a hazardous substance (e.g., sour gas, produced water, or oil-well effluent) may pose a greater risk to the public, the environment, wildlife, and livestock.

The following table summarizes the high consequence incidents for 2025 in chronological order.

* Incident numbers can be used to look up additional information on the Compliance Dashboard.

Figure 5 shows data by company for each performance metric.

Products Released

In 2025, the total volume of hydrocarbon liquid and produced water released from pipelines was 49% lower than in 2024. 

The following table lists the top five incidents by volume. The top five incidents account for 38% of the total volume of hydrocarbon liquid and produced water released.

* Incident numbers can be used to look up additional information on the Compliance Dashboard.

As a result of any given incident, the AER requires the licensee to identify the causes and gaps in their integrity management programs and to implement improvements to the program.

Pipeline Failure

Leaks and ruptures are categorized as pipeline failures. Of the 277 pipeline incidents in 2025, 229 were pipeline failures.

If a failure occurs, companies must investigate the cause, implement a plan to prevent it from happening again, and provide us with the details of the investigation and remedial actions.

Leading Causes of Failure

Incidents are categorized by their leading cause of failure. However, it is sometimes difficult to identify the root cause as it could include poor design or poor operations and maintenance. For companies to select a suitable pipeline material, an assessment is required on a project-by-project basis that is based on a thorough understanding of the intended service conditions, potential upset conditions, future development or changes in services, temperature and pressure variations, production rates, and other factors. In addition, companies must continually monitor and assess their pipelines for these conditions throughout the life of the pipeline.

In 2025, the following were the most common types of pipeline failure:

• internal corrosion (38%)
• external corrosion (13%)
• pipe body failure (9%)
• construction deficiency (8%)
• valve or fitting failure (8%)

85% of the pipelines we license are steel pipelines and highly susceptible to corrosion. Effective programs must be in place to monitor and prevent these pipelines from corroding to an unacceptable level – and confirming that companies have such programs is the focus of our pipeline inspections and assessments.

Figure 7 shows the percentage of failure types and a ranking of causes.

Internal Corrosion

In 2025, internal corrosion remained the leading type of pipeline failure, representing 38% of all pipeline leaks and ruptures. This is down 5% from 2024. Seventy-seven per cent of internal corrosion failures were on uncoated steel pipelines, with the remainder occurring on the metallic risers and piping of otherwise nonmetallic pipelines.

In 2025, 39% of pipeline failures from internal corrosion were caused by a combination of corrosion mechanisms (called multimechanism corrosion). Other causes of internal corrosion include the following:

• under-deposit corrosion (19%)
• microbiologically influenced corrosion (7%)
• interference corrosion (6%)
• CO₂ corrosion (6%)
• corrosion under internal coating (5%)

Forty-three per cent of internal corrosion failures were on pipelines transporting oil-well effluent, which is attributable to the corrosive nature of these fluids and operating conditions. For pipelines transporting corrosive fluids, companies must develop programs to monitor for corrosion and, where corrosion occurs, minimize its progression, or replace the pipe if needed.

Typically, internal corrosion can be mitigated by the following:

• doing effective cleaning (called "pigging") of pipeline segments to remove solids, water, bacteria, and debris
• using biocide chemical treatments to kill microbial organisms in the pipeline
• periodically applying or batching large quantities of a corrosion inhibitor as a protective barrier on the inside of the pipe
• continuously injecting an inhibitor chemical to reduce the corrosiveness of the transported fluid or to function as a protective barrier on the inside of the pipe
• removing water from the pipeline or preventing it from entering
• installing pipe with a permanent protective inner coating or a corrosion-resistant liner inside an uncoated steel pipe
• installing polymeric, fibreglass, or spoolable composite pipe as a freestanding liner

The risk of internal corrosion increases when a pipeline is inactive and not purged. Water and solids left inside a pipeline accelerate the rate of corrosion. Companies must properly clean inactive pipelines and apply corrosion inhibitors to prevent corrosion from happening whenever a pipeline is inactive for extended periods to preserve it for future use. When companies bring an inactive pipeline back into operation, an appropriate engineering assessment and any necessary inspections, testing, and requalification must be done before resumption to ensure that the pipeline still has suitable integrity.

External Corrosion

The exterior surface of a steel pipe is susceptible to corrosion if the pipeline does not have an effective protective coating. In 2025, external corrosion accounted for 13% of pipeline failure types.

Buried pipelines must have an external coating that must be inspected before the pipeline is buried to look for any coating damage. Cathodic protection is required for all underground steel pipelines to counteract corrosion in areas where the external coating may be compromised. Cathodic protection must be periodically measured and maintained to ensure the entire pipeline is protected.

In 2025, 45% of the external corrosion pipeline failures were caused by missing or damaged coating, and 28% was caused by the field-applied coating disbonding from the pipe surface. Coatings can disbond or degrade due to improper installation, aging, or excessive operating temperature. Field-applied coatings at welds and repairs and on risers and bends are frequent failure locations for coatings. Disbonded coatings can cause “shielding,” preventing effective cathodic protection at the area where the disbonding occurs, even through overall cathodic protection levels on the pipeline are acceptable.

Older pipelines were often constructed with tape-wrapped coatings, which have a tendency to degrade and disbond over time, as compared to the factory-applied extruded or fusion-bonded coatings that are typically used now.

Pipe Body Failure

In 2025, pipe body failure (see the glossary) accounted for 9% of pipeline failure types.

In steel pipe, a failure of the pipe body can occur due to cracking; this can occur on older pipe in specific soils. For non-metallic pipelines, a failure of the pipe body can result from a gradual degradation of the pipe material or due to an overpressure situation.

As composite pipelines age, service conditions can cause or propagate degradation within the pipe material. Newer composite technologies and installation techniques have greatly reduced the risk for many of these degradation mechanisms, but older composite inventory can still be susceptible to failure. Operators should be aware of this and manage it as part of their safety and loss management system and integrity management programs.

Construction deficiency

In 2025, construction deficiency accounted for 8% of pipeline failure types. The leading cause of these incidents (37%) was improper support or restraint at tie-in points, or where the pipeline transitioned from underground to aboveground through a riser.

Construction-related failures can occur not only while a pipeline is being constructed, but later in a pipeline’s life as well. When damage or an oversight occurs during construction, a defect may not be initially detected and often does not result in an immediate failure. It may take many years for a defect to degrade to a point where it ultimately fails.

About 70% of construction deficiency failures occurred on non-metallic pipelines, of which 43% carry oil-well effluent.

Non-metallic pipelines are corrosion resistant but require careful handling and specific installation practices to avoid physical damage and stresses when they are installed. A maturing understanding of non-metallics has resulted in improvements to design, installation, and operation practices for non-metallic pipelines, which has resulted in better performance of newer non-metallic installs.

Valve or fitting failure

In 2025, the fifth leading type of pipeline failure was valve or fitting related (8 per cent). The leading cause of these failures were related to gasket, seal, or packing issues (47 per cent) and threaded fittings (nipples & plugs; 16 per cent). Releases from Gasket, seal, or packing failures are indicative of poor maintenance of pipeline components. Although these failures typically involve small release volumes and are rated as low-consequence incidents, improper maintenance can lead to higher-consequence incidents if not addressed. Routine inspection and maintenance of valves and fittings at scheduled intervals are essential for ensuring optimal functionality. Proper upkeep enhances the valves' ability to effectively isolate pipelines during emergencies, minimizing risks and ensuring operational reliability.

Temporary surface pipelines for water conveyance

In November 2023, temporary surface pipelines for water conveyance (TSPWs) were enabled under the updated Pipeline Rules and Directive 077: Pipelines – Requirements and Reference Tools to support more efficient and environmentally responsible water management in upstream energy operations. These temporary systems are used to convey water over short timeframes as an alternative to trucking, facilitating water reuse and recycling while reducing traffic, emissions, and surface disturbance. TSPWs support provincial fresh water conservation objectives by making it easier to convey alternatives to fresh water, facilitating a shift to such alternatives while maintaining regulatory oversight. 

Most TSPW activity across all water groups and years was associated with hydraulic fracturing. Reported deployment durations varied by water group and year, ranging from just over one month to around four months. All incidents reported were classified as low consequence incidents. Proactive inspections and audits are completed on TSPWs to ensure regulatory compliance.

Due to the AER identifying data quality issues such as incorrect measurement units in some notification submissions, pipeline TSPW length is not reported at this time; licensees are reminded that they are required  to provide accurate reporting when submitting TSPW-related deployment notifications and documentation.

Although certain provisions of the Pipeline Rules apply to TSPWs, they are not licensed under the Pipeline Rules As a result TSPW’s are not included in the licensed pipeline inventory or performance statistics presented in the Pipeline Performance Report.
 

* For definitions of the TSPW conveyance groups, refer to table 1 of Directive 077: Pipelines – Requirements and Reference Tools.

Additional Information

Additional data about pipeline performance in Alberta is available in the full workbook.

The following resources provide information on pipeline safety practices:

• “Safe Excavation Near Pipelines” brochure
• Working Around Oil and Gas Pipelines
• Improving Pipeline Safety