Chemical Engineer Skills: 2 Field Practices

What Skills Does a Chemical Engineer Need in Plant Environments?

Many engineers associate chemical engineer skills with theoretical knowledge: thermodynamics, mass balances, reaction engineering.

While these foundations are essential, industrial performance depends on two practical competencies that are rarely taught explicitly:

• Direct field presence
• Structured technical verification

These two field practices define whether a chemical engineer truly understands a plant — or only understands its documentation.

This article focuses on these competencies and explains how they influence technical authority, credibility, and long-term professional growth.

Field Practice 1: Direct Plant Presence

A chemical engineer who understands only trends and alarms does not fully understand the process.

Industrial systems are physical realities. Pumps vibrate. Valves stick. Bypasses remain open. Manual interventions modify system behavior.

Field presence allows engineers to connect data with equipment.

Walking the plant with the latest P&IDs, tracing lines physically, locating instruments and safeguards — this is where analytical knowledge becomes operational understanding.

The P&ID as a Field Reference

For a chemical engineer working in industrial plants, the P&ID is the primary technical reference.

It defines equipment configuration, instrumentation, control loops, and safeguards.
It represents how the plant is intended to function.

However, documentation alone is not enough.

True understanding comes from verifying the P&ID against physical reality — tracing lines, locating valves, checking bypasses, and confirming that safeguards are installed as designed.

Field Practice 2: Structured Technical Verification

Field presence alone is not sufficient.

A chemical engineer must verify, not assume.

Industrial plants evolve over time. Modifications are implemented, temporary solutions become permanent, drawings are revised — or not revised. As a result, discrepancies between documentation and physical reality are common.

When something does not match the P&ID, the reaction should not be dismissal or speculation. It should be structured verification.

A professional approach follows a logical sequence.

First, confirm the drawing revision. Ensure you are working with the latest approved document.

Second, verify whether a formal Management of Change (MoC) process has documented the modification. Many discrepancies are the result of past interventions that were approved but not clearly reflected in the field copy.

Third, if the component involved is related to safety — for example a vent, a relief device, an interlock, or a block valve — review the relevant HAZOP node. Determine whether that element was identified as a safeguard and whether its absence alters the risk profile.

Fourth, document the observation precisely. Include equipment tag, line number, drawing number, revision, location, and, if applicable, reference to the safety study. Technical credibility depends on precision.

Finally, communicate the finding professionally. Avoid accusatory language. Focus on system integrity and operational risk. Whenever possible, suggest options or next steps rather than merely highlighting a problem.

Structured verification transforms curiosity into engineering discipline.

It is this discipline — the habit of confirming, cross-checking, and documenting — that differentiates a technically reliable engineer from someone who relies on assumptions.

Professional Communication

Technical findings have value only if they are communicated clearly and constructively.

In industrial environments, credibility depends not only on technical competence, but on how observations are presented and discussed.

When reporting a discrepancy or proposing a corrective action, precision is essential. Use equipment tags, drawing numbers, revision codes, and references to safety studies. Avoid vague statements such as “something is wrong.” Instead, describe the situation factually:

During field verification in Unit 200, valve XV-203 indicated in P&ID 200-PE-013 (Rev. 6) was not installed. This valve is referenced as a safeguard in HAZOP Node 4 (Deviation: Overpressure).

This approach demonstrates that the observation is based on documented evidence, not personal opinion.

Language should remain neutral. The objective is not to assign responsibility, but to protect system integrity. Avoid accusatory expressions such as “this was a mistake” or “someone forgot.” A more appropriate formulation is:

This configuration may differ from the documented design and could require review to confirm alignment with the approved risk assessment.

Whenever possible, accompany the observation with a proposed next step — for example, reviewing the MoC history, reassessing the safeguard in a focused HAZOP session, or verifying whether alternative protection exists.

Professional communication reinforces technical authority.
It shows that the engineer understands both the system and the responsibility associated with it.

In industrial plants, how you communicate is part of how you engineer.

Conclusion

Chemical engineer skills in industrial plants are built through direct field presence and structured technical verification.

Walking the plant develops real system understanding.
Verifying discrepancies preserves system integrity.

In industrial environments, credibility comes from engineers who confirm, document, and act with precision.

Ing. Ivet Miranda

Follow me on LinkedIn

⬆️ Back to Top

Other Articles You May Find Useful

• Chemical Engineering Principles Explained
• Unit Operations for Chemical Engineers
• First Law of Thermodynamics
• What is the Process of Distilling Water?
• VSD Pump Level Control for Decarbonization
• Engineering Problem-Solving in 7 Steps

FAQ