Jupiter Processing Facility · Kalgoorlie WA · 14 May 2026
D. HARTLEY: Okay, commencing site walkthrough recording. This is AFS Site Rep transcript, Jupiter Processing Facility, Pump Station 4, Kalgoorlie Western Australia. Date is fourteenth of May 2026, time is zero nine fourteen AWST. I’m D. Hartley, AFS Site Rep, conducting a scope walkthrough for a proposed bypass line modification on the pump discharge. Client representative on site is T. Nguyen, Mechanical Lead, Pinnacle Industrial Services. T. Nguyen, can you just confirm you’re aware this walkthrough is being recorded for document generation purposes?
T. NGUYEN: Yeah, yep that’s fine, I’ve been briefed on that. Let’s get it done.
D. HARTLEY: Appreciated. Alright, before we proceed — safety check. I’ve reviewed the site JSA for this area, reference number JSA-JP4-2204, dated the twelfth. T. Nguyen, has anything changed on site since that JSA was issued that we need to be aware of? Any new hazards, permit status changes, anything like that?
T. NGUYEN: No, nothing major. There’s — hang on — there was a confined space permit active over at Tank Farm B yesterday but that’s closed out now. This area here, Pump Station 4, no active hot work, no confined space, the pumps are — Pump 4A is in service, 4B is on standby. So we’re walking around live equipment. Standard stuff.
D. HARTLEY: Noted. Pump 4A in service, Pump 4B on standby. Both pumps energised, so we’re treating this as a live plant walkthrough. No hands-on contact with any equipment, observation only. PPE — I’m confirming I’ve got steel cap boots, hard hat, safety glasses, hi-vis. T. Nguyen, you’re similarly kitted out.
T. NGUYEN: Yeah, all good. Got my gloves too if we need to move anything but I don’t think we will.
D. HARTLEY: Good. No physical intervention today, this is observation and measurement only. Alright, noting for the record that the JSA requirement for a two-person team has been met. Let’s proceed into the station. T. Nguyen, lead the way.
T. NGUYEN: Yeah, so through this door here — past the switchroom, you don’t need to go in there — and then it opens up into the main pump bay. Watch the step.
D. HARTLEY: Noted, there’s a raised threshold, approximately — looks like 150mm. Trip hazard, I’ll flag that separately. Alright, entering the pump bay now. Initial observations: the space is — let’s see — enclosed steel frame building, corrugated colorbond, appears to be good natural ventilation via the louvers on the north wall. Lighting is fluorescent, couple of the tubes are out on the south side. Floor is concrete bund, looks like it’s in reasonable condition. There’s some staining — process staining — around the pump bases, I’ll note that but it’s not the subject of today’s scope.
● Photo captured — P-001 — Pump skid overview, discharge side [09:16:47]D. HARTLEY: Photo P-001 captured, pump skid overview looking from the discharge side toward the north wall. You can see both pump sets in frame, the associated discharge manifold, and the pipe rack entry to the right of shot. Okay. So T. Nguyen, this is Pump 4A, the one in service?
T. NGUYEN: Yeah, that’s 4A. 4B is the one to the left there, on standby. They’re identical units, same model, same configuration.
D. HARTLEY: Good. Alright, I want to get the nameplate details for the record. Moving toward Pump 4A. The nameplate is — it’s on the drive end of the casing, looks like cast into the metal, partially obscured by — there’s a bit of paint and dust build-up but it’s legible. Reading for the record: manufacturer is Grundfos. Model designation — I’m going to spell this out — Golf, November, space, one zero zero, dash, two five zero. G-R-U-N-D-F-O-S, model N-K, one-zero-zero, dash, two-five-zero. So that’s Grundfos NK 100-250.
T. NGUYEN: Yeah, that’s right. NK 100-250, they’ve been on this site — I want to say since 2019? Maybe 2018. CMMS would have the exact commissioning date.
D. HARTLEY: Noted, I’ll note CMMS as source for commissioning date, we’ll need to pull that for the modification package. Continuing with nameplate. Serial number — it’s partially obstructed, I can make out the first section — looks like it starts with 9-6-4, then a dash, and then I can see what looks like 7-7, and then it’s obscured behind a cable conduit bracket. I’ll photograph the nameplate separately. Power rating, I can see 22 kilowatts, motor voltage is showing 415 volt three-phase. Operating speed appears to be 1450 RPM. I’ll get a photo of this as well.
● Photo captured — P-004 — Pump 4A nameplate, Grundfos NK 100-250 [09:18:39]D. HARTLEY: Photo P-004 captured, nameplate detail. Some of the data I’ve called out verbally may be more legible in the photo — will confirm when we’re in the office. Alright, T. Nguyen, let’s move to the discharge side. That’s where I want to focus for the bypass scope.
T. NGUYEN: Yeah, sure. So you come around this side — watch the anchor bolts there, they stick up a bit — and you’re looking at the discharge manifold. Both 4A and 4B discharge into this common header.
D. HARTLEY: Alright, so I’m looking at the discharge side of the pump skid. The outlet from Pump 4A — let me just have a look at the flange size. That’s a — that looks like a four inch flanged outlet. Four inch nominal bore, flanged connection, raised face, looks like it’s a 150 pound rating from the bolt pattern. Let me count the bolts — one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight. Eight-bolt pattern, yeah that’s 150 pound ANSI. T. Nguyen, can you confirm the discharge is four inch?
T. NGUYEN: Yeah, four inch, that’s right. Both discharges are four inch and they tee into the common six inch header up above there, see it?
D. HARTLEY: I can see that, yes. There’s a six inch common discharge header running above at — looks like it’s at about three metres elevation, running east along the pipe rack. Okay. Now the isolation arrangement on the discharge. I can see a gate valve, manual gate valve, handwheel operated. That looks like — is that cast iron? What’s the body material on that valve?
T. NGUYEN: It’s — honestly I’m not a hundred percent on that. Should be cast iron, that’s what the original spec called for. Could check the valve tag.
D. HARTLEY: Yeah, there’s a tag on it. Tag number reads — it’s a bit faded — V-4A-DV-001. I’ll note that valve ID for the register. Body material to be confirmed against valve register, I’ll flag that as an action item. Now, I’m looking at the discharge isolation arrangement. Gate valve is present, I can see that. I’m looking for a spectacle blind in this configuration. T. Nguyen, is there a spectacle blind fitted anywhere in this discharge run?
T. NGUYEN: No. No spectacle blind. Never has been, as far as I know. It’s just the gate valve for isolation.
D. HARTLEY: Okay, for the record — no spectacle blind observed in the Pump 4A discharge isolation arrangement. T. Nguyen has confirmed there is no spectacle blind in the discharge line, isolation is by gate valve only, valve ID V-4A-DV-001. That’s a significant note from a positive isolation perspective but it’s existing arrangement, not something we’re changing today. I’ll flag it in the document as an observation. Moving on. T. Nguyen, can you walk me through the reason for the bypass? What’s the process driver here?
T. NGUYEN: Yeah, so the issue is — right, so during certain periods of the process, you get low-flow demand. And these pumps, the NK 100-250, they’ve got a minimum continuous stable flow requirement. I think it’s around, roughly, 20 cubic metres per hour thereabouts — but don’t quote me on that, that’s off the top of my head.
D. HARTLEY: Understood, minimum continuous stable flow, approximately 20 cubic metres per hour, to be confirmed against manufacturer datasheet. Continue.
T. NGUYEN: Right, so when process demand drops below that — and it does, it happens probably two, three times a shift during certain production modes — you’re running the pump at below its minimum flow. And what happens is you get cavitation. We’ve been getting cavitation events, the vibration monitoring is picking it up, and it’s hammering the impellers. We’ve already had to pull one impeller for inspection last quarter. So the proposal is to fit a bypass — a recirculation bypass — that allows a controlled amount of flow to recirculate back to the suction side when the downstream demand is below the pump’s minimum flow.
D. HARTLEY: Good. So the bypass serves a pump protection function — recirculation during low-flow periods to prevent cavitation. Returning flow from discharge back to suction, maintaining minimum stable flow through the pump. That’s the process purpose. Is there any consideration around — is this a modulated bypass or are we talking a fixed-orifice recirculation? Or is the configuration still being decided?
T. NGUYEN: We’re thinking just a fixed orifice, keep it simple. A ball valve — manual, not automated, we don’t want the complexity — and then either a fixed orifice plate or maybe just a sized line that creates enough restriction naturally. Your engineers can figure out the sizing. But the client — my client, Pinnacle’s client, Jupiter — they want it simple. Maintainable. Don’t want another PLC loop to babysit.
D. HARTLEY: Understood. Bypass configuration: manual ball valve, fixed restriction — either orifice plate or line sizing to be determined by engineering. Preference for simplicity, no automated control. Noted. Alright, let’s have a look at the discharge line run because I want to understand where physically this bypass is going to tie in.
T. NGUYEN: Yeah, so the proposal is — and we’ve talked about this a bit internally — the tie-in on the discharge side would be downstream of that isolation valve. So downstream of V-4A-DV-001. Then it runs across — we’re thinking along this bench here — and then back around and into the suction header. Suction side tie-in we haven’t firmed up yet.
D. HARTLEY: Okay. Tie-in on discharge side: downstream of isolation valve V-4A-DV-001. Suction side tie-in not yet determined. I want to call out, for the record, that the discharge side tie-in location has been described verbally by T. Nguyen. D. Hartley to client: I’ll need that confirmed in writing before we put it on a drawing. We can’t commit a tie-in location to an IFC drawing from a verbal description alone. Can Pinnacle provide a written scope document or at minimum an email confirming the tie-in intent?
T. NGUYEN: Yeah, yeah, I’ll get something to you. I’ll drop you an email this week.
D. HARTLEY: Appreciated. Noting: written tie-in confirmation to be provided by T. Nguyen, Pinnacle Industrial Services, via email. Outstanding action. Alright, let me walk the discharge line. Moving from the pump outlet downstream along the four inch discharge, and I’m about — let me pace this out — I’m about 300 millimetres from the discharge flange face and I’m noticing something on the insulation. T. Nguyen, have a look at this with me.
T. NGUYEN: What, the lagging? Yeah, I’ve seen that. It’s been like that a while.
D. HARTLEY: Right, so — for the record — at approximately 300 millimetres from the discharge flange face, there is visible damage to the pipe insulation. The insulation cladding, which appears to be aluminium, is — it’s buckled and there’s a section where the cladding has separated from the substrate. I can see what looks like degraded mineral wool insulation beneath. The separation is — it’s at the underside of the pipe. I’d estimate the exposed section is roughly 80 millimetres longitudinally, circumferentially maybe 90 degrees of the pipe circumference.
T. NGUYEN: Yeah. It got knocked, I think. Someone’s been through here with something, a trolley or forklift, clipped it. Happened months ago.
D. HARTLEY: Understood. And moving further along — at approximately 550 millimetres from the flange face — there’s a second area of insulation damage. This one is — this is different, this doesn’t look like mechanical impact. The cladding here is corroded, there’s white staining around the edge of the cladding lap joint. That’s a moisture ingress indicator. T. Nguyen, this one looks like corrosion under insulation risk to me. CUI risk.
T. NGUYEN: Yeah, look, I’d agree with you on that. That one’s been flagged internally, it’s in the maintenance backlog. It hasn’t been actioned yet.
D. HARTLEY: Okay, I’m noting both insulation damage locations for the scope document. The first, at 300mm from flange, appears mechanical impact origin — damaged cladding, exposed mineral wool. The second, at 550mm from flange, appears potential CUI risk — corroded cladding, white staining at lap joint. Both are out of scope for the current bypass modification work, however they are within the work area and if we’re bringing a crew in for the bypass installation there may be an opportunity to address the insulation as a concurrent task. I’ll note that in the document as a recommendation and leave it to the client to decide.
T. NGUYEN: Yeah, noted. I’ll raise it with the maintenance super. Could probably get it bundled in if the budget allows.
● Photo captured — P-003 — Discharge line insulation damage, 300mm and 550mm from flange face [09:27:49]D. HARTLEY: Photo P-003 captured. I’ve framed both insulation damage areas in a single shot, discharge line looking from the pump toward the manifold header. The two damage locations should both be visible. I’ve also got my hand in frame at the 300mm mark for scale reference. Good. Alright, T. Nguyen, you’ve got the P&ID on the tablet — can we have a look at the drawing?
T. NGUYEN: Yeah, I’ve got it here. Hang on, let me pull it up. It’s Rev C. This is the latest issued revision, issued — it says here — March 2025. So it’s roughly 14 months old.
D. HARTLEY: Alright. P&ID under review is Rev C, dated March 2025, approximately 14 months old relative to today’s walkthrough date. I’ll need a copy of this for the project file. T. Nguyen, can you forward me that PDF?
T. NGUYEN: Yeah I’ll send it through. Here, have a look — this is the discharge manifold arrangement.
D. HARTLEY: Okay, so I’m looking at the P&ID on T. Nguyen’s tablet. The discharge manifold is shown on the drawing. I can see the four inch discharge from 4A, it runs — yes — through the isolation valve, into the manifold tee. Now, the manifold tee on the drawing — T. Nguyen, what’s the connection type shown there?
T. NGUYEN: On the drawing? It’s — yeah, it’s showing socket-weld. The symbol there is socket-weld.
D. HARTLEY: That’s what I’m reading as well. The manifold tee on the P&ID Rev C is shown as socket-weld connection. However, looking at what’s installed in front of me — the manifold tee on the actual installed pipework is flanged. That’s clearly flanged — I can count the bolt holes, those are flange faces on both branch connections of the tee. That’s not socket-weld. T. Nguyen, can you confirm — is the as-installed manifold tee flanged?
T. NGUYEN: Yeah, it’s flanged. I mean, you can see it. I — look, I’m not sure when that changed from the original design. It might have been during construction. Could have been a field change that didn’t get captured on the drawing.
D. HARTLEY: Right. So we have a drawing discrepancy. The P&ID Rev C shows the manifold tee as socket-weld, but the as-installed configuration is flanged. This is a genuine as-built versus drawing discrepancy. This matters for the bypass design because the connection type at the tee affects how we detail the bypass tie-in. I’m flagging this now as an outstanding item. We cannot proceed with detailed design until we have a confirmed as-built for this connection. T. Nguyen, is there an as-built drawing set or a construction redline that would capture this change?
T. NGUYEN: There should be. Whether it’s actually been updated on the drawing — I genuinely don’t know. I’d have to go back to the Jupiter engineering team, they hold the master drawing register.
D. HARTLEY: Understood. Action item: confirm as-built connection type at manifold tee, Pump Station 4 discharge header. Contact: Jupiter Processing Facility engineering, drawing register holder. This is a hold point — detailed design should not proceed until drawing discrepancy is resolved. I’ll flag this clearly in the scope document.
● Photo captured — P-002 — Manifold tee, as-installed flanged connection versus socket-weld shown on P&ID Rev C [09:31:22]D. HARTLEY: Photo P-002 captured. I’ve got the manifold tee in frame, and I’ve also captured T. Nguyen holding the tablet showing the P&ID Rev C so the discrepancy is visually documented — you can see the flanged as-installed condition in the foreground and the socket-weld symbol on the tablet screen in the background. That’s good documentation.
T. NGUYEN: That’s actually a clever way to do it.
D. HARTLEY: Yeah, it helps when the document reviewer is trying to understand what they’re looking at without being on site. Alright, let’s walk the pipe rack because I want to understand what space we’ve got for the bypass line and what the routing constraints look like.
T. NGUYEN: Yeah, the rack runs east from here, along the north wall, and then out through that penetration in the wall, and it connects to the external rack that goes toward the tank farm. The bypass, if we’re routing it along the rack, it’d only go — look, maybe six or eight metres of rack, then you’d drop back down to the suction header near the inlet manifold.
D. HARTLEY: Okay. Let’s walk it. Moving east along the pipe rack, adjacent to the north wall. The rack is — looks like it’s hot dipped galvanised structural steel. Channel sections for the cross members, I section for the main stringers. Looks like it’s in reasonable condition, minor surface corrosion on some of the weld zones but structurally it looks okay. I’d want a structural engineer to confirm fitness for additional loading though.
T. NGUYEN: Yeah, that’s — that’s the question, isn’t it. What load can the rack actually handle? I don’t know if we’ve got the original design load data.
D. HARTLEY: Right. I can see the existing services on this rack. Looking at what’s here, from left to right: there’s the six inch discharge header we identified earlier. Next to it there’s what looks like a two inch or three inch service — instrumentation air maybe? And then there’s a cable tray, looks like instrumentation cables, and there’s a larger cable tray above it with power cables. And then there’s a bit of a gap. Between the last pipe service and the east support bracket — I’m going to step it out — that looks like approximately 900 millimetres clear between the last pipe service and the rack steelwork. If we’re running a two or three inch bypass line, 900mm is workable for a standard run, but it depends on the clamp spacing and whether there are any other services I’m not seeing.
T. NGUYEN: Yeah. There might be — there’s a glycol line they’re talking about adding on the other end, I think. From a future project. I’m not sure if that’s been allocated rack space.
D. HARTLEY: Okay, that’s relevant. Future glycol line may be proposed on this rack — allocation status unknown. I’ll flag that we should check with Jupiter’s project team whether there are any other future services nominated for this rack. We don’t want to design a bypass line that conflicts with another project’s reserved corridor. T. Nguyen, do you have a contact for that?
T. NGUYEN: I’d go to Karen — Karen Toth, she’s Jupiter’s project engineer. She’d know what’s in the pipeline, pun intended.
D. HARTLEY: Karen Toth, Jupiter project engineer, for rack allocation and future services query. Noted. Now, the bigger question — rack loading capacity. T. Nguyen, is there any information available on the rack design load?
T. NGUYEN: Look, I genuinely don’t know. The rack’s been here since the original construction. I’d assume there’s a structural design package somewhere but I’ve never seen it. That would be in Jupiter’s engineering documentation, same as the drawings.
D. HARTLEY: Understood. Rack structural design load — unknown. This is a hold item. Before we can commit to routing the bypass line on this rack — and particularly before we spec up a three inch line versus a two inch, because that’s a meaningful weight difference when you add the fluid, the insulation, supports — we need the rack loading data. Or we need to commission a structural assessment of the rack. I’ll note that in the scope document as a hold.
● Photo captured — P-006 — Pipe rack, looking east, showing existing services and available space [09:35:38]D. HARTLEY: Photo P-006 captured. Looking east along the rack, I’ve captured the cross-section of existing services, the available 900mm-ish clear space, and the HDG structural steelwork. Good reference. Alright, T. Nguyen, I want to make sure I’ve captured the client requirements correctly before we finish up, so I’m going to run through them verbatim for the record.
T. NGUYEN: Yeah sure. So, bypass line size — Jupiter’s preference is two inch minimum, three if the rack can take it. Ball valve for isolation on the bypass — manual, not automated. They specifically said ball valve, they want faster isolation than a gate valve.
D. HARTLEY: Can you restate the bypass line sizing preference verbatim — I want the exact words.
T. NGUYEN: Right. What they said — and I’m quoting my notes here from the last meeting — was “two inch minimum, three if the rack can take it.” That was Jupiter’s facilities manager, Wayne Beaumont.
D. HARTLEY: Noted. Client requirement, verbatim: bypass line, “two inch minimum, three if the rack can take it.” Attribution: Wayne Beaumont, Jupiter Processing Facility facilities manager. Valve requirement: ball valve, manual, for faster isolation. Continue.
T. NGUYEN: Tie-in point — as I said, downstream of the isolation valve on the discharge. That’s the preference. We haven’t formally drawn that up but that’s the intent.
D. HARTLEY: And I’ve noted that I need written confirmation of the tie-in intent. Continuing.
T. NGUYEN: Shutdown window — they’ve nominated Week 3 of next month. That’s June. That’s — what’s the date? The eighth? Eighth of June thereabouts.
D. HARTLEY: Noting for the record: proposed shutdown window for bypass installation is Week 3 of June 2026. I’ll note that the exact shutdown date needs to be confirmed — “thereabouts” is not a schedule-able date. We’ll need the confirmed shutdown date and duration from Jupiter’s maintenance planner before we can confirm the delivery schedule.
T. NGUYEN: Yeah, fair enough. I’ll chase that down.
D. HARTLEY: Deliverables. T. Nguyen, what’s been requested in terms of the engineering deliverables package?
T. NGUYEN: So they want an updated P&ID reflecting the bypass — that obviously needs to capture the discrepancy we found today as well. An isometric of the bypass line. Material take-off. And they want a full IFC package ready ten days before the shutdown. So if it’s the eighth, that’s — end of May, around the twenty-ninth of May or so for IFC issue.
D. HARTLEY: Right. Deliverables as stated: one, updated P&ID incorporating bypass modification and resolving existing as-built discrepancy. Two, isometric drawing of bypass line. Three, material take-off. Four, full IFC package — required ten days prior to shutdown. If shutdown is confirmed as eighth of June, IFC issue date would be twenty-ninth of May 2026. That’s a tight window. I’ll flag that to our engineering team when I’m back in the office.
T. NGUYEN: Yeah I know it’s tight. That’s just what they’ve asked for.
D. HARTLEY: Understood, I’ll note the requirement as stated and flag the dependency. Can’t commit to the schedule until we have the hold items resolved. That’s just reality. Alright, is there anything else on the scope while we’re here?
T. NGUYEN: Not on the bypass. Although, while I’ve got you — look, this is probably out of scope for what you’re doing today — but I wanted to mention the gland packing on 4B. See there, on the stuffing box?
D. HARTLEY: I can see it. There’s moisture — looks like a slow weep from the gland area on Pump 4B.
T. NGUYEN: Yeah, it’s been weeping for a couple of weeks. We’ve tightened the gland nut but it’s not getting better. It’s going to need repacking. I just — I didn’t know if you could maybe include that while you’re scoping things up.
D. HARTLEY: Okay, I appreciate you raising it, T. Nguyen, and I want to be transparent about how I’ll handle that. The gland packing issue on Pump 4B — I’m noting it here in the transcript for completeness. However, gland repacking is outside the scope of today’s walkthrough. I’ll include a brief notation in the scope document under “observations out of scope” so it’s on the record. If Pinnacle or Jupiter want to bundle it into the same shutdown, that’s a conversation for another day. I’d recommend not leaving it — a weeping gland that’s not responding to gland nut adjustment is heading toward a packing change at minimum, possibly a shaft sleeve inspection.
T. NGUYEN: Yeah, I know. I’ll log it in the CMMS this afternoon. Just wanted it on your radar.
● Photo captured — P-005 — Suction side, showing eight inch header and individual pump suction branches [09:43:05] ● Photo captured — P-007 — Wall penetration, showing existing pipe penetration seals and available space [09:45:02] ● Photo captured — P-008 — Discharge isolation valve V-4A-DV-001 with valve tag visible [09:46:42]T. NGUYEN: Yeah, go ahead.
D. HARTLEY: Outstanding item one: pipe rack structural loading capacity. This is a hold point for engineering. Source document or assessment to be obtained from Jupiter or commissioned separately.
T. NGUYEN: Agreed. I’ll see what I can dig up from Jupiter’s files first.
D. HARTLEY: Outstanding item two: P&ID as-built reconciliation. P&ID Rev C shows the manifold tee as socket-weld. As-installed condition is flanged. Must be resolved before design drawings can be issued. Action with Jupiter engineering team. This is a hold point.
T. NGUYEN: Yeah, I’ll follow that up with the Jupiter engineering team — I’ll probably go to their document controller first.
D. HARTLEY: Good. Outstanding item three: fluid service data. Full fluid service specification for the recirculation flow — composition, temperature, pressure, specific gravity, viscosity. Required for hydraulic design and materials selection.
T. NGUYEN: That would come from Jupiter’s process team. I’ll coordinate with them.
D. HARTLEY: Outstanding item four: written confirmation of tie-in location. Discharge side tie-in described verbally as downstream of isolation valve V-4A-DV-001. Suction side tie-in to be determined. Written confirmation required before going on a drawing.
T. NGUYEN: Yeah, this week, I’ll get that to you.
D. HARTLEY: Outstanding item five: confirmed shutdown date and duration. Described as “Week 3 of next month, the eighth or thereabouts.” We need a confirmed date before we can confirm the IFC delivery date.
T. NGUYEN: Yeah, that’ll come from Jupiter’s maintenance planning. I’ll get the confirmed date to you as soon as it’s locked in.
D. HARTLEY: Outstanding item six: area classification drawing confirmation. Zone 1 inside pump station, Zone 2 external — stated verbally. Need formal area classification drawing as reference.
T. NGUYEN: Area class drawing — I think I’ve got that in the project folder. I’ll send it with the P&ID.
D. HARTLEY: Alright, T. Nguyen, that’s my full outstanding items list. Is there anything on your end that you wanted to raise, capture, or add to the record before I close out the walkthrough?
T. NGUYEN: No, I think you’ve got everything. That was pretty thorough actually. I wasn’t expecting you to pick up all that stuff — the insulation damage, the drawing discrepancy. That’s the kind of thing that bites you later if you miss it.
D. HARTLEY: That’s what the walkthrough is for. Better to find it now than after IFC issue. Alright, closing out the AFS Site Rep walkthrough recording. Jupiter Processing Facility, Pump Station 4, Kalgoorlie WA. Date fourteenth of May 2026. AFS Site Rep D. Hartley. Client representative T. Nguyen, Pinnacle Industrial Services. Recording close time is approximately zero nine fifty-seven AWST. End of transcript.
Recording ends.