Request to OPP Fraud Squad to Re-open Forgery Investigation

Summary: This request is for the Information Privacy Commissioner to re-open my request for an external consultant’s report to Ontario Hydro (now OPG), based on faulty decisions and new evidence. The previous request was rejected as it the report was judged as employment-based, and insufficient evidence for forgery.

The evidence is summarized in this document. There is no evidence that the report from Arthur Anderson was employment-based; all the evidence indicates that the report was to investigate allegations of fraud. There is strong circumstantial evidence of fraud.

In addition, the evidence strongly indicates that the Arthur Anderson report is a forgery, used to cover up fraud. For example, it has been established that the report has no signatures, names or report number – in marked contradiction to established practices.

Consequently, we are requesting a re-opening of the case.

Case Summary

As this case shows, my dismissal is based on evidence in an (allegedly forged) report from Arthur Anderson. (See Appendix A).

My web site, www.hydro-gate.com, gives an update until ~1999, but has only been updated recently for a variety of reasons. Besides the web site, there is the case made to the Fraud Squad and Information Privacy Commissioner, which is ~5 cm of documents, and is largely inserted here.

1. I first realized that my Manager at Ontario Hydro Research Division was scamming the corporation back in 1992.

2. I asked the VP to investigate. Ontario Hydro’s Internal Audit did so, and whitewashed the case. (They didn’t even interview three of my four witnesses).

3. I hired a top quality Private Investigator to make a case “one step short of criminal fraud”. They did a great job. (See Appendix B)

4. Ontario Hydro called in Arthur Anderson to investigate, and then apparently forged their report.

5. During this period, I asked Susan Eng, then Police Services Board head, for help. She passed this on to the Fraud Squad, who investigated without consulting me first, and found nothing. (See Appendix C)

6. Eventually I was fired in November 1996. My first union rep was eventually convinced and supportive – then she left the union. Wanda’s evidence is attached. (See Appendix E)

7. My second union rep was a sleazebag and went to lengths to cover up the forgery. I did see the (forged) Arthur Anderson report, and was stunned – no signatures, no names, no report number. Obviously, the report never went through the Arthur Anderson system. (See Appendix E)

8. I asked my (then) criminal lawyer to get the Police to investigate. He asked a police buddy, who turned out to be elsewhere in the system, who then refused to investigate.

9. I asked the LRBO to re-open the case; they refused. (See Appendix F)

10. My new lawyer, a litigation lawyer, also asked the Labour Relations Board of Ontario and eventually on the Information Privacy Commissioner under FOI. The LRBO told him the case needed new information. (See text later.)

11. The IPC was better, but finally made a very narrow ruling that this was a labour issue, not FOI, as we hadn’t proved that lack of signatures was significant. My litigation lawyer and I missed the timing on this, and he essentially stopped working on the case. We stopped pursuing the IPC request. However, we effectively established that the Arthur Anderson report has no signatures. (See Appendix G)

12. Since then, I went back to the Fraud Squad, who reviewed the case again, and were adamant that they would not investigate without a full criminal case. In my opinion, this is a cop-out; the Fraud Squad investigated in the 90’s with extremely flimsy evidence – doubtless because Susan Eng requested it. (See Appendix H) Apparently the incrimination evidence in the CARIAD fax, which talks about laundering money, is not sufficient. (See Appendix I)

13. We asked the Ontario Labour Relations Board to re-open the case, which is the official route. We have already asked the OLRB three times (myself, my criminal lawyer, my litigation lawyer). Each time, OLRB said that they would only open it if we have “evidence of incorrect procedures, or new evidence”. (Presumably, some documentation on my lawyers’ efforts is in their files). All the Society communications are attached. (See Appendix J)

14. Subsequent to my rejection by the union, my then lawyer attempted to get access to this report through the FOI. For the first few years, the law governing FOI was not cooperative, but was changed with the arrival of the McGuinty administration. My lawyer attempted to get the report.

15. The FOI lawyer at the time essentially concluded:

1. That the report was primarily for employment issues, and

2. That lack of signatures had not been proven to show a forgery.

At this stage, my lawyer essentially lost interest in the project, so I was left rudderless.

16. It was clear that more information was needed.

1. I asked the original Arthur Anderson investigator about signatures; these are definitely needed, but Howard Rosen was tied by contractual obligations to AA, and unable to comment.

2. My previous union rep (Wanda Sanginesi) gave me a description of the report, which corroborated my views: no signatures (or names), flaky content etc.

3. The Fraud Squad called (about my web site). After a lengthy pre-investigation on their part, they commented that this was the first official request to the FS, but they would not investigate (for their own reasons – basically, overload).

17. The case was taken back to the OLRB, who flatly refused to have anything to do with it.

18. At this stage, it appears to be time to re-visit the IPC.

Other Developments

Ontario Hydro dismissed me in November 1996. The case went to my union (“The Society”); my first union rep was just appreciating that something was seriously wrong when she changed jobs to work for York University (and is still there). Wanda Sanginesi had studied the Arthur Anderson report, and had “questions” about it.

The most obvious single piece of evidence is a fax from the target external company (CARIAD), which talks about laundering a cheque. (See Appendix I)

My second rep spent many months before deciding to cover up this case. The second union rep and a union lawyer showed me the Arthur Anderson report in 1999; it was clearly a blatant forgery. There were:

· No names on the report

· No signatures on the report,

· No report number, and

· Much of the content was disputable.

For someone who regularly reads and writes reports, it was quite clear that this report never went through any company approval system. A subsequent call to Arthur Anderson confirmed this. Later, Arthur Anderson and Ontario Hydro seemed to come to an agreement, and Arthur Anderson’s interest in the report vanished.

The Ontario Hydro Internal Audit report was also defective: not only was only one of my three witnesses interviewed, but the actual report listed three PO’s to CARIAD. In practice, the one PO to CARIAD possessed (legally) by this team was not listed. This makes the whole Internal Audit report suspect.

For a variety of reasons – mainly financial and legal – the case went on hold for a few years. In recent years, my litigation lawyer has attempted to obtain the Arthur Anderson report though Freedom of Information requests. However, OPG lawyers argued (successfully this round) that the Arthur Anderson report relates to employment, and is not criminal (see Appendix G). The Information Privacy Commissioner concluded that lack of signatures is not enough to establish a forgery.

Where we stand today

1. PII (Private Investigators International)

The PII report strongly indicates fraud (prior to the forgery). PII showed that:

· The suspect manager was in poor shape financially,

· The target company (called CARIAD) was only known to practice fraud,

· The CARIAD fax actually mentions laundering money (see Appendix I), and

· Essentially the whole R&D program was suspect.

The case provided was “one step short of criminal fraud” to allow Ontario Management room to maneuver. Unfortunately, they chose to forge the Arthur Anderson report instead.

2. Personally Viewing the Arthur Anderson Report

This report (which I have seen) is obviously a forgery, as indicated by the evidence listed in Appendix D and E, but we have not managed to obtain it by legal means yet. The Arthur Anderson report has many discrepancies in it. Many have been already mentioned, including:

· No signatures.

· No author’s names.

· No report number.

· It is impossible to reference this report, so it cannot have gone through any major corporate documentation system

· Unusual format and style.

· Internal contradictions within the report.

More objective comments are available from Wanda Sanginesi. (See Appendix D)

3. Arthur Anderson and Lack of Signatures

Before its demise, Arthur Anderson had verbally stated that all reports have signatures and names, though this was not accepted by the Information Privacy Commissioner. Arthur Anderson the company is effectively defunct and unavailable for comment. (See Appendix K for legal requirements for signatures).

However, the original Arthur Anderson investigator (Howard Rosen) is still available in Toronto, and has repeated his statement that all Arthur Anderson reports must have signatures. Unfortunately, Howard Rosen was required to sign a “non conflict of interest” agreement with Arthur Anderson, which precludes any comments about the contents of the original (un-forged) report. However, Howard is potentially able to make a statement that all Arthur Anderson reports have signatures.

4. Ontario Hydro Internal Audit Report

As mentioned earlier, the Internal Audit report was also seen by the plaintiff. This report does have suitable names etc., but is a whitewash. Specifically, only one of my four witnesses was interviewed (the accounting clerk). Perhaps more important, the sums of money sent to CARIAD were downplayed. One CARIAD PO obtained for address purposes was not listed in the three mentioned by the IA report. Since this PO had an approved payment and came from the standard OHRD files, this shows a major oversight. (See Appendix L for plaintiff’s comments on the Ontario Hydro Internal Audit report.)

5. Information Privacy Commissioner

This drawn out request showed a number of interesting details, all of which loosely support the forgery allegations:

Lack of denial: Surprisingly, the OPG lawyers have never denied that this report is a forgery. This should be a very simple – and expected - move on their part.
Availability: According to the latest feedback from OPG lawyers, this Arthur Anderson report is available.
Lack of Signatures: OPG lawyers have never denied that the Arthur Anderson report has no signatures.

6. Web Site

· A large web site containing the whole case (except for the PII report) up to 1999 was launched (www.hydro-gate.com) and is still active.

· This is a highly litigious web site, and clearly accuses OH/OPG of fraud and forgery (see Appendix M and accompanying CD).

· After a couple of letters threatening to sue, OPG has been quiet about this site.

· Meanwhile, the site has had well over 100,000 hits, and is well known in OH/OPG.

· Using this site, over fifty letters have been sent alleging fraud and forgery at Ontario Hydro/OPG.

· These letters have been sent to provincial politicians, the Prime Minister, federal politicians, newspapers, TV stations, the police, selected journalists, banks, US politicians and OPG Management/Board of Directors.

· It is hard to believe that OPG would not take serious legal action unless the facts were substantially correct. Given the relative sizes and financial strengths of OPG and me, legal action would be trivial IF the Arthur Anderson report were genuine.

· A CD copy of the web site is attached.

(See Appendix M for the www.hydrogate.com Home Page).

Request to the IPC

· Review and re-open this request for the Arthur Anderson report.

The original submission to the IPC (Appendix D) produced two comments:

1. The case was not allowed as the IPC had concluded that the application was employment-related. (I would beg to differ here; this was clearly started and pursued as a criminal fraud investigation).

2. The documentation did not show that lack of signatures indicated a forged document.

Appendix N contains most of the relevant Ontario Hydro documentation on the subject.

Michael Moles

28 Espana Lane

Toronto, Ontario, Canada M2N 7K8

Cell phone: (416) 831 4428

E-mail: michaelmoles@hotmail.com

Proposed Strategy

Re-run with IPC (unless better alternative)

Ask IPC for arguments and documents used to determine previous decision by OPG lawyers
Check on availability of Arthur Anderson report
Prepare new submission, including any additional info on “need for signatures”
Specifically, show that “lack of signatures is established”
Determine why request to investigate criminal fraud turned into an employment issue
Send case to IPC

u Decision Point

If results are negative, but show some promise, consider legal challenge.

u Decision Point

Appendix A: Dismissal Documentation

Appendix B: Report from Private Investigators International

Appendix C: Letters to Susan Eng and Maureen Prinsloo and Letter from Detective Stephen Harris

Appendix D: Comments from Information Privacy Commissioner

Appendix E: Comments on Arthur Anderson Report

Appendix F: Plaintiff’s Request to OLRB and Reply

Appendix G: Response from Information Privacy Commissioner

Appendix H: Feedback from OPP on Criminal Investigations

Appendix I: CARIAD fax discussing laundering money.

Appendix J: Communications with “The Society”

Appendix K: Signatures and Authentication

The attached report summarizes the requirement for signatures and authentication. It is very simple to determine whether or not this specific Arthur Anderson report should have a signature or not – ask the author.

The author is:

Howard Rosen

Managing Director

LECG

55 University Avenue, Suite 1000

Toronto, Ontario M5J 2H7

Main office tel: 416 364 6400

Direct line: 416 682 7171

E-mail: hrosen@lecg.com

Signatures

Introduction:

The historical legal concept of "signature" is broad. Over three hundred years ago, the Statute of Frauds was introduced in England to introduce formal requirements into contractual relations. The Statute required certain classes of contracts to be signed and in writing to be legally enforceable. Throughout the years, these formal requirements have found their way into a wide variety of legislation. In Ontario statutes alone, there are more than 4,000 occurrences of the terms "writing" and "written" and more than 1,200 occurrences of the terms "signature" and "signed". (Ref 1)

The legal concept of signatures recognizes any mark made with the intention of authenticating the marked document. (Here we ignore the current discussion on electronic vs. manual signatures as not-relevant). A signature is not part of the substance of a transaction, but rather of its representation or form. Signing writings serve the following general purposes:

Evidence: A signature authenticates a writing by identifying the signer with the signed document. When the signer makes a mark in a distinctive manner, the writing becomes attributable to the signer.
Ceremony: The act of signing a document calls to the signer's attention the legal significance of the signer's act, and thereby helps prevent "inconsiderate engagements.
Approval: In certain contexts defined by law or custom, a signature expresses the signer's approval or authorization of the writing, or the signer's intention that it has legal effect.
Efficiency and logistics: A signature on a written document often imparts a sense of clarity and finality to the transaction and may lessen the subsequent need to inquire beyond the face of a document. Negotiable instruments, for example, rely upon formal requirements, including a signature, for their ability to change hands with ease, rapidity, and minimal interruption.

The formal requirements for legal transactions, including the need for signatures, vary in different legal systems, and also vary with the passage of time. There is also variance in the legal consequences of failure to cast the transaction in a required form. The statute of frauds of the common law tradition, for example, does not render a transaction invalid for lack of a "writing signed by the party to be charged," but rather makes it unenforceable in court, a distinction which has caused the practical application of the statute to be greatly limited in case law. (Ref 2)

Sample Requirements:

To achieve the basic purposes of signatures outlined above, a signature must have the following attributes:

Signer authentication: A signature should indicate who signed a document, message or record, and should be difficult for another person to produce without authorization.
Document authentication: A signature should identify what is signed, making it impracticable to falsify or alter either the signed matter or the signature without detection.

In contrast to `writing', there is no definition of `signature' in the Interpretation Act. A common source for debate is whether a plaintext name appearing at the end of an electronic message is a legally binding signature. (Again, this distinction is not relevant here since the Arthur Anderson report has no names either). While the courts have never dealt with this specific issue, there have been many cases on the meaning of `signature'.

Case law has been clear that `signature' does not always require a handwritten name. Instead, courts generally look for the intent to authenticate the document as being that of, or as legally binding on, the signer. The signature should also establish an evidentiary connection to the signatory. Without intent or evidentiary connection, a contract dispute could regress to a credibility battle. A party may try to avoid legal obligation by claiming either not to have intended the document to be legally binding or not to be the source of the document. (Ref 1)

Though examples of required report formats are few and difficult to obtain, here are some examples of public requirements.

A. The FBI has specific requirements for one style of their reports (Ref 3).

(I) A signature and title, or equivalent identification, of the person

B. Similarly, the SEC also has specific requirements (Ref 4):

“… once registered in their legal name, the firms should sign audit reports filed with the Commission using that name.”

C. More specifically, the SEC has made specific requirements on Arthur Anderson’s clients for signatures (Ref 5).

In practice, there is a variety of different approaches to “authenticating” documents, but some form of name or signature is required in all of them. Note that both signature and name – in any form – is missing for the alleged forged Arthur Anderson report currently with OPG.

Specific Arthur Anderson Procedures

Specific to this report, we are not able to obtain the Arthur Anderson procedures for report writing since AA has gone bankrupt over the Enron issue.

However, the original author of this Arthur Anderson report is in Toronto and available. Howard Rosen has repeatedly stated that “All Arthur Anderson reports have signatures … of some form”. However, due to confidentiality agreements with the defunct Arthur Anderson company, Howard is unable to put much in writing.

We suggest you call him at:

Howard Rosen

Managing Director

LECG

55 University Avenue, Suite 1000

Toronto, Ontario M5J 2H7

Main office tel: 416 364 6400

Direct line: 416 682 7171

E-mail: hrosen@lecg.com

Summary:

Signatures have been the accepted method of authenticating documents for centuries. Signatures have been used to counteract fraud from the beginning. They are used in both business and everyday life as a standard requirement. For a report not to be properly “authenticated”, as in this instance, indicates that this report did not go through the normal approval procedures, i.e. it is a forgery.

References:

2. American Bar Association, Section of Science and Technology, Information Security Committee, “Digital Signature Guidelines Tutorial”.

3. Federal Bureau of Investigation, “Standards for Forensic DNA Testing Laboratories”.

4. U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, “International Reporting and Disclosure Issues in the Division of Corporation Finance”, November 1, 2004.

5. U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, “Application of Requirements for Arthur Andersen Auditing Clients - Frequently Asked Questions”, Prepared by Staff Members in the Division of Corporation Finance and the Division of Investment Management,

Michael Moles

Affidavit of Janne Chung

1. I am an associate professor in accounting at the Schulich School of Business at York University in Toronto.

2. I have a Bachelor of Science degree in accounting, a master of accountancy and a PhD. My curriculum vitae appear as Exhibit 1 of this my affidavit.

3. I teach undergraduate, graduate and PhD courses in accounting including courses in auditing standards and application.

4. I am also the author of approximately 20 refereed journal articles and have presented papers and research at academic conferences in Canada and internationally. Some of my research has related to the accounting firm Arthur Andersen LLP (“Arthur Andersen)”, now defunct

5. I swear this affidavit in support of an application before the Ontario Labour Relations Board from Michael Moles (“the Applicant”), a former employee of Ontario Hydro (“the Employer”) who is challenging his termination and the conduct of his union.

6. I have been advised by counsel for the Applicant and believe to be true that one of the issues in the application is the legitimacy of a certain document that was presented as an accountant’s report conducted by Arthur Andersen LLP.

7. I have been advised by counsel for the Applicant and believe to be true that the Applicant was not provided with a copy of the report at issue.

8. I have not reviewed the report myself.

9. I have been advised by counsel for the Applicant and believe to be true that the purpose of the accountant report in question was to review the results of an internal investigation into certain alleged financial irregularities and/or misspending.

10. Based on my professional expertise, it is my opinion that such a report would be considered a “review engagement report” and should be carried out according to the standards and recommendations of the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants (“CICA”), the professional body to which all chartered accountants in Canada must belong.

11. CICA’s Section 8100 - General Review Standards covers review engagements and appears as Exhibit 2 to this my affidavit.

12. Section .23 of the standards state that the accountant “should document matters that in his or her professional judgment are important to support the content of the report.”

13. Therefore, the review engagement report would set out the information relied on by the accountant in arriving at his or her conclusion.

14. The review engagement report would be addressed to the person engaging the public accountant.

15. The review engagement report would include the name and the signature of the accountant who conducted the review.

SWORN before me in the of )

this day of , 2009 )

)

A Commissioner for Oath, etc. ) ________________________

Janne Oi Yin Chung

Appendix L: Comments on Ontario Hydro Internal Audit report from www.hydro-gate.com

Appendix M: Various documents on Michael Moles and Activities

Michael Moles – “Wrongful Dismissal” Timeline

Date	Event	Comment
Nov 1992	Case effectively starts with complaint that looks like Manager is scamming public	Sent to VP; sent to Internal Audit. Whitewashed; only one of four witnesses interviewed
Oct-Nov 1993	Hired Private Investigators International to make a “one step short of criminal fraud” case	PII succeed brilliantly and quickly. Top evidence is fax freely admitting laundering money by target company.
Oct 1994	Spouse dies of leukemia.	On-going dancing with Ontario Hydro Management.
Nov 1996	Dismissed	Started union (“The Society”) activities
Nov 96-?Mar 98	First Society rep	Wanda finally accepted fraud and forgery as problems
Mar 98-early 99	Second Society rep – Matthew Kellway	Danced well and covered up case. Only Society member to see documents (ex. Wanda)
Jan-March 1999	First of three appeals to OLRB, by Michael Moles	No success. OLRB says that we “need more information”
1999	Criminal lawyer (Mr. Darrah) takes case to OLRB	(See Mr. Darrah’s files for details)
May 1999	Upload web site: www.hydro-gate.com	Still up. Well over 100,000 hits, and over 50 letters about OH to media, government, OH Management
2001	Switch to Litigation lawyer	Targets FOI as best approach
2001	Litigation lawyer takes case to OLRB informally: OLRB says we “need more evidence”	(See Mr. Di Vincenzo’s files for details). OLRB says that we “need more information”
2001 Harris gov. changes FOI laws	No FOI action until law is changed back	Appeals delayed accordingly. (See Mr. Di Vincenzo’s files)
2003 Liberals elected	Change FOI laws again	Re-start activities
~2003-June 2005	Attempt to get AA report through FOI. IPC accepts that Arthur Anderson report has no signatures	OPG lawyers “fight” back, and win. IPC recommends going to Fraud Squad
2005- May 2008	MM attempts to get OPP Fraud Squad interested in case	No interest. Need full case for OPP
200-May 2008	MM working on getting more information	Damning evidence from Wanda. Some limited evidence on signatures.
December 2008	Switch to labour lawyer	Re-open appeal to OLRB
Summer 2009	Application to OLRB rejected
Fall 2009	Re-start with new lawyer	Incompatible philosophies
January 2010	Re-start with another lawyer

Sample Travel Activities for 2006-February 2009

Michael Moles

2006

Jan 3-6: Toronto

Jan 9-13: Quebec

Jan 16-20: North Dakota

Jan 23-27: Toronto

Jan 30-Feb 3: Alberta

Feb 6-10: Mostly Toronto, also USA

Feb 13-17; Las Vegas

Feb 20-24: Toronto

Feb 27-Mar 3: Mostly Toronto

Mar 6-10: ¿

Mar 13-17: Rayleigh, NC

Mar 20-24: Minneapolis, MN

Mar 27-31: Toronto

Apr 3-7: Argentina

Apr 10-14: Japan

Apr 17-21: Toronto

Apr 24-28: NAVAIR, Florida

May 1-5: Houston, TX

May 8-12: Toronto

May 15-19: Phoenix, AZ

May 22-26: Toronto

May 29-Jun 2: Toronto

Jun 5-9: Birmingham, AL

Jun 12-16: Calgary, AB

Jun 19-23: Aberdeen, UK

Jun 26-30: Toronto

Jul 3-7: Toronto

July 10-14: Edmonton, AB

July 17-21: Toronto

July 24-28: ASME, Vancouver

Jul 31-Aug 4: Toronto

Aug 7-11: ASME, Nevada, UT

Aug 14-18: Tour of Ontario re. Automobiles

Aug 21-25: Toronto (vacation)

Aug 28-Sep 1: Quebec City, PQ

Sept 4-8: Toronto

Sept 11-15: Vancouver, BC

Sept 18-22: Atlanta, GA

Sept 25-29: Berlin, Germany

Oct 2-6: Toronto

Oct 9-13: Charleston, SC

Oct 16-20: Toronto

Oct 23-27: Columbus, OH

Oct 30-Nov 3: Louisville, KY

Nov 6-10: Quebec, PQ

Nov 13-17: Toronto

Nov 20-24: Oxford, UK

Nov 27-Dec 1: Quebec, PQ

Dec 4-8: Singapore

Dec 11-15: Toronto

Dec 18-22: Toronto

Dec 25-29: Christmas

2007

Jan 2-5: Toronto

Jan 8-12: Toronto

Jan 15-19: Aberdeen, UK

Jan 22-26: Rotterdam and Idaho Falls, ID

Jan 29-Feb 2: Atlanta, GA

Feb 5-9: Costa Rica (vacation)

Feb 12-16; Anchorage, AK

Feb 19-23: Nashville, TN

Feb 26-Mar 2: Toronto

Mar 5-9: Sydney, Australia

Mar 12-16: Houston, TX

Mar 19-23: Aberdeen, UK

Mar 26-30: Oxford, UK

Apr 2-6: Toronto

April 9-13: Toronto

April 16-20: Cuzco, Peru (conference)

April 23-27: Toronto (conference)

Apr 30-May 4: Houston, TX

May 7-11: Toronto

May 14-18; Grapevine, TX

May 21-25: Toronto

May 28-Jun 1: Toronto

Jun 4-8: Baku, Azerbaijan

Jun 11-15: Oxford, UK

Jun 18-22: Houston, TX

Jun 25-29: State College, PA

Jul 2-6: Toronto

Jul 9-13: Toronto

Jul 16-20: Paris, France

Jul 23-27: San Antonio, TX

Jul 30-Aug 3: Toronto

Aug 6-10: Toronto

Aug 13-17: New Orleans, LA

Aug 20-24: San Antonio, TX

Aug 27-31: Mexico City

Sep 3-7: Quebec City, PQ

Sep 10-14: Arequipa, Peru

Sep 17-21: Salt Lake City, UT

Sept 24-28: Berlin, Germany

Oct 1-5: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

Oct 8-12: Budapest, Hungary

Oct 15-19: Edmonton, AB

Oct 22-26: Waltham, MA

Oct 29-Nov 2: Toronto

Nov 5-9: Houston, TX

Nov 12-16: Dallas, TX

Nov 19-23: Toronto

Nov 26-30: Singapore

Dec 3-7: Bahrain

Dec 10-14: Toronto

Dec 17-21: Toronto

Dec 24-28: Christmas

2008

Dec 31-Jan 4: Toronto

Jan 7-11: Toronto

Jan 14-18: Washington, DC

Jan 21-25: Toronto

Jan 28-Feb 1: Aberdeen, UK

Feb 4-8: Boston, MA

Feb 11-15: Toronto

Feb 18-22: Calgary, AB

Feb 25-29: Toronto

Mar 3-7: Charlotte, NC

Mar 10-14: Toronto

Mar 17-21: Vacation (Cuba)

Mar 24-28: Vacation (Cuba) and Toronto

Mar 31-Apr 4: Los Angeles, CA

Apr 7-11: Toronto

Apr 14-18: State College, PA

Apr 21-25: Vancouver, BC

Apr 28-May 2: Baton Rouge, LA

May 5-9: Houston, TX

May 12-16: Quebec City, PQ

May 19-23: Toronto

May 26-30: Singapore

Jun 2-6: Stavanger, Norway

Jun 9-13: Calgary, AB

Jun 16-20: Toronto

Jun 23-27: Toronto

Jun 30-Jul 4: Krakow, Poland

Jul 7-11: Graz, Austria

Jul 14-18: Toronto

Jul 21-25: Chicago, IL

Jul 28-Aug 1: Chicago, IL

Aug 4-8: San Francisco, CA

Aug 11-15: Toronto

Aug 18-22: Quebec, PQ

Aug 25-29: Los Angeles, CA

Sep 1-5: Toronto

Sept 8-12: Oakland, CA

Sept 15-19: Minneapolis, MN

Sept 22-26: Toronto

Sep 29-Oct 3: Calgary, AB

Oct 6-10: FabTech, NV

Oct 13-17: Toronto

Oct 20-24: Toronto

Oct 27-31: Toronto and conference

Nov 3-7: Toronto

Nov 10-14: Los Angeles, CA

Nov 17-21: Oxford, UK

Nov 24-28: Toronto *

Dec 1-5: Toronto *

Dec 8-12: Toronto *

Dec 15-19: Toronto *

Dec 22-26: Christmas *

Dec 29-Jan 2: Christmas *

2009

Jan 5-9: Toronto *

Jan 12-16: Vacation (DR) *

Jan 19-23: Ft. Lauderdale, FL

Jan 26-30: Toronto *

Feb 2-6: Montreal, PQ

Feb 9-13: IPIEA, Banff, AB

Feb 16-20: Toronto

Feb 23-27: Houston, TX

Note:

* Travel discouraged due to economic fallout.

Vacations often not included: these are three weeks per year (now four) and are usually listed as “Toronto”
Many of the Toronto stays are around national holidays, e.g. Christmas and July weekend.

Papers Presented and Published from May 2003 to present

Michael Moles

November 15, 2009

Pamela Herzog, John Selman and Michael Moles, “Phased Arrays FastFOCUS System”, International Conference on Aircraft Fatigue, May 2003, Switzerland.
F. Honarvar, T. Dusatko, Y. Fan, F. Farzbod, M. Moles and A.N. Sinclair, “A novel signal processing technique for enhancement of time-of-flight diffraction (TOFD) signals”, International Chemical and Petroleum Industry Inspection Technology ICPIIT VIII, Houston, 18-21 June 2003.
Michael Moles and Frédéric Jacques, “Orbital Scanner for Tube-to-Tube Weld Inspections”, International Chemical and Petroleum Industry Inspection Technology ICPIIT VIII, Houston, 18-21 June 2003.
Michael Moles and André Lamarre, “Phased Array Ultrasonic Inspection of Friction Stir Welds”, 4^th Friction Stir Weld Conference, Park City, Utah, June 2003.
Michael Moles, Noël Dubé and Frédéric Jacques, “Pressure Vessel Inspections Using Ultrasonic Phased Arrays”, ASME 2003 Pressure Vessel and Piping Conference, Cleveland, 20-24 July 2003.
Michael Moles, Noël Dubé and Ed Ginzel, “PipeWIZARD – Pipeline Girth Weld Inspections using Ultrasonic Phased Arrays”, ASME 2003 Pressure Vessel and Piping Conference, Cleveland, 20-24 July 2003.
Michael Moles, Noël Dubé and Ed Ginzel, “Pipeline Girth Weld Inspections using Ultrasonic Phased Arrays”, 2^nd International Conf on NDT, Istanbul, Turkey, 9-11 October, 2003.
Michael Moles, Noël Dubé and Frédéric Jacques, “Pressure Vessel Inspections Using Ultrasonic Phased Arrays”, 2^nd International Conf on NDT, Istanbul, Turkey, 9-11 October, 2003.
John Selman, Ted Miller, Olivier Dupuis, André Cyr, Michael Moles and Pamela Herzog, “FastFOCUS™ Ultrasonic Phased Array System for Airplane Fastener Hole Inspections”, 2^nd International Conf on NDT, Istanbul, Turkey, 9-11 October, 2003.
Michael Moles, Noël Dubé and Ed Ginzel, “Pipeline Girth Weld Inspections using Ultrasonic Phased Arrays”, 7^th Int Pipeline Congress and Exhibition, Puebla, Mexico, 12-14 Nov 2003, ref # CIN-039.
André Lamarre, Olivier Dupuis and Michael Moles, “Comprehensive Inspection of Friction Stir Welds using Arrays”, ASM-ASNT Joint Conference, Fall 2003, Pittsburgh, 13-15 October 2003.
Michael Moles, Noël Dubé and Frédéric Jacques, “Ultrasonic Phased Arrays for Thick Section Weld Inspections”, ASM-ASNT Joint Conference, Fall 2003, Pittsburgh, 13-15 October 2003.
Michael Moles, “Applications of Industrial Phased Arrays”, 2^nd American Welding Society Conference on NDT, Dec 2-3, 2003, Orlando, Florida.
Michael Moles, Dave Stewart, Malcolm Gray, Henri Godinot and Henri Romazzotti, “Inspecting Seamless Pipe Welds of Variable Wall Thickness using Ultrasonic Phased Arrays”, American Society for Nondestructive Testing, 8-12 March 2004, Austin, Texas.
Michael Moles and Simon Labbé, “Developments in Ultrasonic Phased Array Inspections of Pipeline Welds”, Inspection Trends, AWS, Spring 2004, vol 7, no 2.
Michael Moles and Ed Ginzel, “Ultrasonic Weld Inspection for the 21^st Century-Phased Arrays”, Inspection Trends, AWS, Spring 2004, vol 7, no 2.
Michael Moles and Simon Labbé, “Automated Ultrasonic Inspection of Pressure Vessel Welds”, XXII CONAEND National Conference for Non-Destructive Testing, 12-14 July 2004, organized by ABENDE.
Michael Moles and Fabio Fraga Moreira, “Small Pipe Weld Inspections using Phased Arrays”, XXII CONAEND National Conference for Non-Destructive Testing, 12-14 July 2004, organized by ABENDE.
André Lamarre, Olivier Dupuis and Michael Moles, “Complete Inspection of Friction Stir Welds in Aluminum using Ultrasonic and Eddy Current Arrays”, XXII CONAEND National Conference for Non-Destructive Testing, 12-14 July 2004, organized by ABENDE.

20. Honarvar, F., Sheikhzadeh, H., Moles, M., and Sinclair, A.N. (2004), “Improving the Time-Resolution and Signal-to-Noise ratio of Ultrasonic NDE Signals”, Ultrasonics, 41, 755-763.

Michael Moles, Olivier Dupuis, André Lamarre, Pamela Herzog, Mike Ashbaugh and John Selman, “FastFOCUS™ Phased Array System for Air Plane Fastener Inspections”, XXII CONAEND National Conference for Non-Destructive Testing, 12-14 July 2004, organized by ABENDE.
Fabio Moreira, Michael Moles, Noël Dubé, Simon Labbé and Ed Ginzel, “Pipeline girth weld inspections of pipes from 60 mm diameter and 5 mm wall and above using ultrasonic phased arrays”, XXII CONAEND National Conference for Non-Destructive Testing, 12-14 July 2004, organized by ABENDE.
Michael Moles, Noël Dubé, Simon Labbé and Ed Ginzel, “Pipeline Girth Weld Inspections using Ultrasonic Phased Arrays”, XXII CONAEND National Conference for Non-Destructive Testing, 12-14 July 2004, organized by ABENDE.
Michael Moles, “Defect Sizing in Pipeline Welds – What Can We Really Achieve?”, Proceedings of ASME PVP Conference, July 2004, San Diego, California, Conference Paper No. PVP2004-281
Michael Moles and Jinchi Zhang, “Construction weld inspection procedures using ultrasonic phased arrays”, ASNT Fall Conference, Las Vegas, NV, 15-19 November, 2004
Michael Moles, Noël Dubé and Simon Labbé, “Special Phased Array Applications for Pipeline Girth Weld Inspections”, IPC04-0417, International Pipeline Conference 2004, Calgary, Alberta, 4-8 October 2004.
Michael Moles, Dave Stewart, Malcolm Gray, Henri Godinot, Henri Romazzotti, “Inspecting Seamless Pipe Welds of Variable Wall Thickness using Ultrasonic Phased Arrays”, 4^th Pipeline Technology Conference, Ostend, Belgium, 9-13 May 2004.
Michael Moles and Simon Labbé, “Automated Ultrasonic Inspection of Pressure Vessel Welds”, ASME pressure Vessel and Piping Conference, La Jolla, CA, July 26-28, 2004.
Michael Moles, “Defect Sizing in Pipeline Welds – What Can We Really Achieve?”, PVP2004-2811, ASME pressure Vessel and Piping Conference, La Jolla, CA, July 26-28, 2004.
Michael Moles, Olivier Dupuis, André Lamarre, Pamela Herzog, Mike Ashbaugh and John Selman, “FastFOCUS™ Phased Array System for Air Plane Fastener Inspections”, 16^th WCNDT (World Conference on NonDestructive Testing), Montreal, August 30-Sept 3, 2004.

31. Jastrzebski, M., Dusatko, T., Fortin, J., Farzbod, F., Sinclair, A.N., and Moles, M.D.C., “Enhancement of Synthetic Aperture Focusing Technique by Advanced Signal Processing”, 16th World Conference on Nondestructive Testing, Montreal, (August 2004).

Michael Moles and Simon Labbé, “Automated Ultrasonic Inspection of Pressure Vessel Welds”, 16^th WCNDT, Montreal, August 30-Sept 3, 2004.
André Lamarre, Olivier Dupuis and Michael Moles, “Complete Inspection of Friction Stir Welds in Aluminum using Ultrasonic and Eddy Current Arrays”, 16^th WCNDT, Montreal, August 30-Sept 3, 2004.
Michael Moles, Noël Dubé and Ed Ginzel, “Pipeline Girth Weld Inspections using Ultrasonic Phased Arrays”, 16th WCNDT, Montreal, August 30-Sept 3, 2004.
Michael Moles, Olivier Dupuis, André Lamarre, Pamela Herzog , Mike Bode and John Selman, “FastFOCUS™ Phased Array System for Air Plane Fastener Inspections”, ASIP (Aircraft Structural Integrity Program) Nov 29-Dec 2, 2004.
Moles and Jinchi Zhang, “Construction weld inspection procedures using ultrasonic phased arrays”, Materials Evaluation, January 2005, p. 27.
Michael Moles, “A New Solution for Ultrasonic Weld Inspection”, Inspection Trends, January 2005, Vol 8, No. 1, p. 27.
Michael Moles and Simon Labbé, “Ultrasonic inspection of pressure vessel construction welds using phased arrays”, National Pressure Equipment Conference, Banff, AB, Feb 9-11.
Michael Moles, “Application of Time-Of-Flight Diffraction for Weld Inspections”, NonDestructive Testing Managers’ Association, 14-16 February 2005, Las Vegas, NV.
Jesse Granillo and Michael Moles, “Portable Phased Array Applications”, ASNT Spring Conference, Albuquerque, NM, March 14-18
Fabio Fraga Moreira and Michael Moles, “Small diameter pipe girth weld inspections using ultrasonic phased arrays”, ASNT Spring Conference, Albuquerque, NM, March 14-18.
Andre Lamarre and Michael Moles, “Nondestructive Testing of Airplane Components”, CASI (Canadian Aeronautics Symposium), Toronto, April 25-27, 2005
Jesse Granillo and Michael Moles, “Portable Phased Array Applications”, Materials Evaluation, April 2005, p. 394.
Michael Moles and Simon Labbé, “Linear Inspection of Welds Using Ultrasonic Phased Arrays”, ASM Trends in Welding Conference, Callaway Gardens, Georgia, May 16-20. (Not published).
André Lamarre, Olivier Dupuis and Michael Moles, “Complete Inspection of Friction Stir Welds in Aluminum using Ultrasonic and Eddy Current Arrays”, ASM Trends in Welding Conference, Callaway Gardens, Georgia, May 16-20.
Michael Moles, Simon Labbé and Jinchi Zhang, “Improved Focusing for Pipeline Girth Weld Inspections using Phased Arrays”, IICPIT Houston, June 1-4, 2005.
Fabio Fraga Moreira and Michael Moles, “Small diameter pipe girth weld inspections using ultrasonic phased arrays”, IICPIT Houston, June 1-4, 2005.
Michael Moles, “Applications of Portable Phased Arrays”, VIth NDT Conference, Mexico City, August 25-26.
Michael Moles, Noël Dubé, Simon Labbé and Ed Ginzel, “Review of Ultrasonic Phased Arrays for Pressure Vessel and Pipeline Weld Inspections”, ASME Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology, August 2005, vol. 127, p. 351.
Jinchi Zhang, Simon Labbé and Michael Moles, “Improved Lateral Focusing for Thin-walled Gas Pipelines Girth Welds using Phased Arrays”, ASNT Fall Conference, Oct 17-21, 2005, Columbus, Ohio.
Robert K. Ginzel , Edward A. Ginzel, Mark Davis, Simon Labbé, & Michael Moles “Qualification of Portable Phased Arrays to ASME Section V”, ASNT Fall Conference, Oct 17-21, 2005, Columbus, Ohio.
Michael Moles, “TOFD and Phased Arrays: Where they score, where they don’t”, ASNT Fall Conference, Oct 17-21, 2005, Columbus, Ohio.
Michael Moles, Fabio Fraga Moreira and Simon Labbé, “Special Phased Array Applications For Pipeline Girth Weld Inspections”, Rio Pipeline Conference & Exposition 2005, Paper IBP1052_05, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, October 17-21, 2005.
Michael Moles, Noël Dubé and Simon Labbé, “Special Phased Array Applications for Pipeline Girth Weld Inspections”, 8^th International Pipeline Symposium, Mérida, Mexico, Nov 9-11, 2005.
Chris Magruder (written and presented by Michael Moles), “Mechanized Inspection of Gas Pipeline SCC using Phased Arrays”, Electric Power Research Institute Phased Array and Bolting Seminar, Miami Beach, Dec 6-8, 2005.
Jinchi Zhang, Simon Labbé and Michael Moles, “Improved focusing for thick-walled pipeline weld inspections using phased arrays”, Insight, Vol 47, no 12, December 2005, p. 1.

57. Sinclair, A.N., Fortin, J., Honarvar, F., Jastrzebski, M., and Moles, M.D.C., “Enhancement of Ultrasonic B-Scan Images for Sizing of Defects by Time-of-Flight Diffraction”, TICME 2005, Tehran (2005).

Michael Moles, “Qualification of Phased Arrays to ASME Section V and Other Codes”, International Pressure Equipment Integrity Association, Banff, Alberta, 1-3 February 2006.
Michael Moles, “Portable Phased Array Applications”, NDTMA, Las Vegas, February 14-16, 2006
Michael Moles and Simon Labbé, “Portable Phased Array Girth Weld Scanner”, ASNT Spring Conference, Orlando, FL, March 13-17, 2006
J. Mark Davis and Michael Moles, “Resolving Capabilities of Phased Array Sectorial Scans (S-Scans) on Diffracted Tip Signals”, Insight, Vol 48, no. 4 April 2006, p. 1.
R.K. Ginzel and M.D.C. Moles, “Potential of Phased Arrays in the Automotive Industry”, ASNT Topical Conference on “Automotive Advances in NDT”, Birmingham, AL, June 7-9, 2006
Alan Still, Jim McNab and Michael Moles, “Optimizing Weld Quality on the World’s Longest Subsea Pipeline”, World Pipelines, June 2006.
Michael Moles, and Simon Labbé, “Special Phased Array Applications for Pipeline Girth Weld Inspections”, ASME PV&P Conference, Vancouver, July 23-27, 2006, Paper no. PVP2006-ICPVT11-93565.
R. Ginzel, E. Ginzel. J.M. Davis. S. Labbé and M. Moles, “Qualification of Portable Phased Arrays to ASME Section V”, ASME PV&P Conference, Vancouver, July 23-27, 2006, Paper no. PVP2006-ICPVT11-93566
André Lamarre, Olivier Dupuis and Michael Moles, “Complete Inspection of Friction Stir Welds in Aluminium using Ultrasonic and Eddy Current Arrays”, CINDE Journal, vol. 27, no. 4, July/August 2006, p. 14.
Michael Molesand Simon Labbé, “Special Phased Array Applications for Pipeline Girth Weld Inspections”, ECNDT, Berlin, Germany, September 23-27, 2006.
Michael Moles, “Qualification of Phased Arrays to ASME Section V and Other Codes”, ECNDT, Berlin, Germany, September 23-27, 2006.
D.A. Hutchins, G. Diamond and M. Moles, “A new capacitive imaging technique for NDT”, ECNDT, Berlin, Germany, September 23-27, 2006.
Jinchi Zhang, Simon Labbé and Michael Moles, “Improved Lateral Focusing for Thin-walled Gas Pipelines Girth Welds using Phased Arrays”, Proceedings of IPC 2006 International Pipeline Conference, September 25-29, 2006, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Paper no. IPC2006-10238
J. Mark Davis and Michael Moles, “Resolving Capabilities of Phased Array Sectorial Scans (S-Scans) on Diffracted Tip Signals”, ASNT Fall Conference, October 23-27, 2006.
Michael Moles, “Entering a new phase in weld inspection - An introduction to phased arrays”, Practical Welding Today, the Fabricator, October 3, 2006.
Michael Moles, “Phased Array Girth Weld Scanners“, Oil and Gas Pipe 3th Andina de Ductos Conference, Bogotá, Columbia, October 26-27, 2006.
Michael Moles and Simon Labbé, “Portable Phased Array Pipeline Girth Weld Scanner”, PECOM 2006, Villahermosa, Mexico, Nov 7-9, 2006.
Michael Moles and Steven Lim, “Phased Array Applications for Pipeline Girth Weld Inspections“, NDT Corrosion Management and Exhibition, Singapore, Dec 7-8, 2006
Michael Moles and Steven Lim, “Portable Phased Array Girth Weld Scanner”, NDT Corrosion Management and Exhibition, Singapore, Dec 7-8, 2006
Michael Moles, “Combating corrosion cracking”, World Pipelines, vol. 7 number 1, January 2007, p. 47.
Michael Moles, “Application of Time-Of-Flight Diffraction for Weld Inspections”, CINDE Journal, November/December 2006, Vol. 27, No. 6, P. 6-13.
Michael Moles, “NDE – now, five and twenty years ahead”, Advanced Materials and Processes, March 2007, vol. 65, no. 3, page 37.
Michael Moles, “Portable Phased Array Applications”, 5^th IIW Asia Pacific Welding Congress and 21st AINDT National Conference, Sydney, Australia, March 7-9, 2007.
M. Moles and E Ginzel, “Comparing Weld Inspection Codes: Radiography vs. Ultrasonics” CINDE Journal, May/June 2007, Vol. 28. No. 3, page 16.
Michael Moles, “Phased Array Ultrasonic Inspection of Pipe Welds”, Welding Insights Program, Edmonton, Alberta, June 18-19, 2007.
J. Mark Davis and Michael Moles, “Phased Arrays vs. Phased Arrays - Beam Sweeping vs. Encoded Data Collection”, Materials Evaluation Back to Basics, June 2007, page 539.
Michael Moles and Robert Ginzel, "Phased Array Inspection of Corroded Bolts", International Chemical and Petroleum Industry Inspection Technology Conference, Sponsored by ASNT, Houston, Texas, June 20-23, 2007
Michael Moles and Simon Labbé, “A Complete Solution for Weld Inspections –

Phased Arrays and Diffraction Sizing”, Paper # PVP2007-2657, ASME Pressure Vessel & Piping Conference 2007, July 22-26, 2007, San Antonio, Texas USA

Michael Moles, “The Evolution of Phased Array Ultrasonics in Welding”, Fabricating and Metalworking Magazine, August, 2007.
Michael Moles and Simon Labbé, “Ultrasonic Phased Array Inspection of Offshore Pipelines”, 7th Mexican Conference on NDT, Aug 2007.
Michael Moles, “Olympus NDT Training Academy”, 5th International Conference on Certification and Standardization in NDT Sept 26-27, 2007, Berlin
Michael Moles, “Portable Phased Array Girth Weld Scanner”, Rio Pipeline Conference, October 2-4, 2007.
Michael Moles, Simon Labbé and Jinchi Zhang, “Improved Focusing for Pipeline Girth Weld Inspections using Phased Arrays”, Rio Pipeline Conference, October 2-4, 2007.
Michael Moles and Gaetan Fortier, “Phased Arrays for Pipeline Girth Weld Inspections”, 4^th Pan-American Conference on NDT, Buenos Aires, October 2007.
Michael Moles and Robert Ginzel, “Phased Arrays For Detecting Cracking In Bolts”, 6^th International Conference on NDE for Structural Integrity for Nuclear and Pressurized Components, Budapest, Hungary, October 8-10, 2007.
Michael Moles and Pierre Langlois, “A Complete Solution for Weld Inspections –

Phased Arrays and Diffraction Sizing”, ASNT Fall Conference, Nov 12-16, 2007, Las Vegas, USA.

Tim Armitt and Michael Moles, “Oscillating the Probe: Code Requirements and TOFD”, Materials Evaluation, November 2007, Vol 65, no. 11, page 1091.
Michael Moles and Steven Lim, “Energy Efficiency in NDT of Pressure Vessels and Welded Components”, Energex, Singapore Nov 27-30, 2007.
Keith J. Chizen and Michael Moles, “Phased Array for Piping Inspections Using ASME B31.3”, 4^th Middle East Conference on NDR, Bahrain, Dec 1-5, 2007.
Michael Moles and Robert Ginzel, “Phased Array Inspection of Corroded Bolts”, 4^th Middle East Conference on NDR, Bahrain, Dec 1-5, 2007.
Michael D. Moles, “Qualification of Phased Arrays To ASME Section V”, 4^th Middle East Conference on NDR, Bahrain, Dec 1-5, 2007.
J. Mark Davis and Michael Moles, “Resolving Capabilities of Phased Array Sectorial Scans (S-Scans) on Diffracted Tip Signals”, 4^th Middle East Conference on NDT, Bahrain, Dec 1-5, 2007.
Michael Moles and Simon Labbé, “PipeWIZARD Version 4 – A New, Improved Pipeline AUT Girth Weld Inspection System”, ASNT Spring Conference, Anaheim, CA, March 31-April 4, 2008.
Michael Moles and Jinchi Zhang, “Curved Arrays for Improved Inspection of Small Pipes”, ASNT Spring Conference, Anaheim, CA, March 31-April 4, 2008.
Michael Moles and Dan Kass, “Improved Inspections with Ultrasonic Phased Arrays”, Quality Measurement Conference 2008, April 28-May 1, 2008, Clearwater, Florida.
Michael Moles, “Phased Arrays: The New Kid on the Block”, NDT Marketplace, Materials Evaluation, Vol. 66, No. 5, May 2008, P. 26.
Michael Moles, “Olympus NDT Training Academy”, NDT.net, http://www.ndt.net/article/CertNDT2007/Inhalt/v13.pdf.
Michael Moles and Simon Labbé, “PipeWIZARD Version 4 – A New, Improved Pipeline AUT Girth Weld Inspection System”, ASME Pressure Vessel & Piping Conference, Chicago, July 28-31, 2008, Paper No. PVP2008-61277.
J. Halley and Michael Moles, “Advances in the Inspection of Dissimilar Metal Welds", idem, Paper No. PVP2008-61737.
E. Ginzel and M. Moles, “S-scan Coverage with Phased Arrays”, Materials Evaluation, Vol. 66, Number 8, August 2008, P. 810.
M. Moles and S. Labbe, “PipeWIZARD Version 4 – A New, Improved Pipeline AUT Girth Weld Inspection System”, Proceedings of the 7^th International Pipeline Conference, IPC2008, September 29 – October 3, 2008, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. IPC2008-64047.
Michael Moles and André Lamarre, “Nondestructive Testing of Friction Stir Welds”, AWS Friction Stir Welding Seminar, October 8th, 2008, Las Vegas, NV.
Michael Moles and Krishnan Perumal, “ASME Phased Array Inspection Techniques for Pressure Vessel Welds”, Pressure Vessels Conference, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, October 23-24, 2008.
M. Moles, “Pressure Vessel Inspection Codes for Phased Arrays”, idem.
M. Moles and K. Perumal, “The Advantages of Automated Ultrasonic Testing over Radiography”, idem.
M. Moles and S. Labbe, “A Complete Solution for Weld Inspections – Phased Arrays and Diffraction Sizing”, 17^th World Conference on NDT, Shanghai, Oct 25-28, 2008.
M. Moles and J. Zhang, “Curved Arrays for Improved Inspection of Small Pipe Welds”, 17 WCNDT.
M. Moles, “Getting Phased Array Approvals and Certifications”, 17 WCNDT.
M. Moles, “Manual phased arrays for weld inspections using North American codes”, 17 WCNDT
M. Moles, “Olympus NDT Training Academy”, 17 WCNDT.
M. Moles and S. Labbe, “PipeWIZARD Version 4 – A New, Improved Pipeline AUT Girth Weld Inspection System”, 17 WCNDT
E. Sjerve and M. Moles, “IIW Commission VC – Handbook for Phased Arrays”, ASNT Fall Conference and Quality Testing Show, Nov 10-14, 2008, Charleston, SC.
Jim Halley and Michael Moles, “Advances in the NDT of Dissimilar Metal Welds”, Materials Evaluation, December 2008, P. 1241.
E. Sjerve and Michael Moles, “International Institute of Welding Commission VC Update”, Materials Evaluation Feature, Materials Evaluation April 2009, P. 401.
Michael Moles, Luke Wesley and Tony Sinclair, “Accurate Defect Sizing using Phased Arrays and Signal Processing”, 7th International Conference on NDE for Structural Integrity in the Nuclear Industry, Yokohama, Japan12-14 May 2009
Michael Moles, “Pressure Vessel Inspection Codes for Phased Arrays”, idem.
M. Moles, “Code Inspection of Welds using Phased Arrays”, EPRI International Conference WELDS 2009, Ft. Myers, FL, USA June 24-26, 2009
L.J.G. Wesley, A.N. Sinclair, M. Moles, “Enhanced Ultrasonic Defect Sizing Techniques using Weiner Filtering and Autoregressive Spectral Extrapolation”, International Conference on Fracture, Ottawa, ON, July 13-17, 2009
M. Moles, “The Evolution of Defect Sizing: Where We Stand Today”, ICF 12, Ottawa, ON, July 13-17, 2009
C. Flanagan and M. Moles, “Advancements in Ultrasonic Phased Arrays”, Welding Journal, August 2009, Vol. 88, P. 46.
M. Moles, “Phased Arrays – Where Do We Stand?”, Operating Pressure Equipment 2009 (Materials Australia, AINDT), Surfer’s Paradise, QLD, Australia, August 26-28, 2009.
C. Flanagan and M. Moles, “A New Method of Inspecting – the EPOCH 1000i”, idem.
M. Moles, “PipeWIZARD Version 4 – A New, Improved Pipeline AUT Girth Weld Inspection System”, idem
C. Magruder and M. Moles, “Upgrade to AUT”, World Pipelines, Vol. 09, No. 09, September 2009, P. 93.
M. Moles, “L’inspection de soudure par Phased Arrays », 1^e journée sur la vision et l’inspection industrielles, Université de Laval, Quebec, 28 octobre 2009.

Books Edited:

Japanese Tip Echo Handbook, First Edition, by Prof. Harumi, 1989.
Introduction to Phased Array Technology Applications, by R/D Tech, 2004.
Automated Ultrasonic Testing for Pipeline Girth Welds, by Ed Ginzel, February 2006.
Advances in Phased Array Ultrasonic Technology Applications, Olympus NDT –published Q1, 2007.
IIW handbook on “Phased Arrays for Weld Inspections”, to be published.