Among the various drainages in oil and gas plant, oily water drainage system is critical with high risk considering its hydro carbon content and accumulation of explosive vapours due to improper functioning of any components in the system. This paper presents some of the shortcomings in the design/arrangement/maintenance of the different elements, learnings from an explosion incident and the improvements to avoid accidents.
The drainage systems in ADNOC Gas Processing plants are Clean Water Sewer, Sanitary Sewer, Oily Water Sewer (Accidentally Oil Contaminated / Continuously Oil Contaminated) and Chemical Drains. One of the unforeseen hazards has caused an explosion in an existing oily water sump inside the process area. The sump was of concrete construction and the cover slab was blown up resulting in considerable damages to the surrounding pipes/support. There was no injuries to personal. The root cause analysis of the incident was done and a study carried out for a safety review of oily water drainage system at all plants.
A study was carried out to identify possible hazards/design deficiencies of the oily water drainage facilities and recommend rectification measures. The study identified that the lines are placed in slope & mainly "run dry" after use, liquid seal not available in some manholes causing HC vapour upstream movement, the manholes/sumps are closed, vent pipes size is small and some are blocked. These lead to accumulation/formation of hydrocarbon mixture inside closed sump, ignition by overheating of the pump installed over the pit and subsequent explosion. Recommendations for existing system include regular flushing of the lines with water to ensure transport of oily effluent & maintain liquid seal, regular removal of the floating hydrocarbon liquid from pits using vacuum truck, open up the manholes and use grating covers, provide self-skimming bucket where feasible, etc. Additionally, for new facilities it is recommended to lay the pipes horizontally to ensure liquid seal, provide turn-up elbows to reduce hydrocarbons accumulation in manholes, provide oil skimming/baffle wall in oil/water sumps, use classified equipment, carryout proper maintenance, etc.
The sump was reconstructed with the new design, which is now functioning well and the recommendations are being implemented in existing facilities and in all new projects.
The proposed improvements for the existing system as well as adopting the recommendations in future new drainage system can ensure the prevention of possible explosions and thereby reducing the related hazards to plant facilities/operations. Sharing of the related information among others having similar facilities increases the awareness about such unseen sources of incidents in a drainage system and related pro-active mitigating measures.
Energy management is increasingly a focus for organisations, driven by fluctuating prices and the need to meet climate change targets. Technology and management systems alone will not lead to the desired energy performance - a good "energy culture" is required to ensure that technology is used correctly and management systems flourish. This research project adapted a HSE culture assessment tool to create a tool to help organisations understand and improve their energy management culture.
The researchers engaged with 40+ people with knowledge and experience in the field of energy management to create the assessment tool. 14 dimensions of energy management culture were identified in a workshop, and further defined in ten follow-up interviews. Four criteria for the dimensions were considered: relevance across a wide range of organisations provides differentiation of how well organisations are performing covers an "intangible" aspect of energy management readily recognisable to people working in such organisations
relevance across a wide range of organisations
provides differentiation of how well organisations are performing
covers an "intangible" aspect of energy management
readily recognisable to people working in such organisations
The new assessment tool was subsequently tested in five pilot workshops to understand the potential effectiveness of the tool and gather suggestions for improvement.
The tool comprised of 14 different aspects of energy management culture identified during the workshops and interviews. These included, for example: What priority do managers give to energy management? How engaged is the workforce in energy management? How is competency and training for energy management delivered? How open to change is the organisation in energy management?
What priority do managers give to energy management?
How engaged is the workforce in energy management?
How is competency and training for energy management delivered?
How open to change is the organisation in energy management?
The tool was found to work well in the pilot workshops that tested how effective it was at enabling people understand and identify improvements to their energy management culture. The assessment framework was accessible, easy to understand and covered a comprehensive range of energy management issues.
Some improvement points about the tool surfaced, e.g.: Re-phrasing for small organisations Some dimensions may not be recognised in some organisations Define the scope of Energy Management for workshop participants
Re-phrasing for small organisations
Some dimensions may not be recognised in some organisations
Define the scope of Energy Management for workshop participants
The workshop process worked well, including a range of people from the organisation from the same level in the organisational hierarchy.
Issues about energy management culture raised included: There are resources in place e.g. training courses, but these are under-utilised Previous attempts to improve energy management have been made, but the organisation's culture is not open to change. There is a willingness to talk, but actions are not followed through
There are resources in place e.g. training courses, but these are under-utilised
Previous attempts to improve energy management have been made, but the organisation's culture is not open to change. There is a willingness to talk, but actions are not followed through
The focus on improving safety culture in the oil and gas industry for the last 20 years has led to great improvement in safety performance. The way that culture has an impact on safety can inform how culture has a similar impact on energy management performance. The drive for transferring good practice in the area of safety culture to energy management is based on sharing knowledge and skills across the whole of the energy sector.
Al Johi, Hesham Mohamed (ADNOC Onshore) | Shamashergy, Mohamed Ali (ADNOC Onshore) | Awadh, Mohamed | Alsuwaidi, Mohamed | Reddy, Vijaya Bhaskar | Thyagarajan, Santhanam | Albreiki, Najat | Abdullah, Dalia Salim | Mohammed, Tariq Hasan
Water is crucial for oil and gas production and typically used for crude washing, drilling mud preparation and accommodation facilities. Water resources in UAE are scarce due to low average rainfall and high evaporation rates. Ground Water is over exploited and consequently the productivity of the aquifer was adversely affected
ADNOC Onshore investigated number of technologies and opportunities to recycle wastewater. Upon conducting compatibility and modelling studies, it was established that ADNOC gas processing plant treated wastewater can be safely utilized for crude washing purposes and drilling mud preparation. The paper presents the methods adopted by ADNOC Onshore to evaluate the scaling effects, laboratory tests conducted to assess the suitability for crude washing, mud preparation and potential benefits by utilizinggas plant effluents.
This paper describes a seven-year program in an oilfield services company that has been incorporating sustainability into internal business processes and improving environmental performance through the application of continuous improvement (CI) techniques.
The description of the global program is illustrated with examples that exhibit substantial performance improvements in energy, water and waste. In each year throughout the life of the program several facilities were given specific, quantified objectives to implement a CI project that would deliver enhanced environmental quality and efficiency. The projects use an incremental, data-driven process called define, measure, analyze, improve and control (DMAIC). Projects are reported and reviewed via a centralized repository, and supervisory management implements a standard validation process designed to ensure consistency and accuracy in the quantification of improvements.
The control phase of the DMAIC process facilitates the sustainability of each project, beyond the calendar year in which it is launched, as models for preserving short- and long-term improvements are required. Since the start of the program in 2010, more than 280 projects have been completed in over 25 sites in 13 different countries. Environmental impact improvements have included reductions of 383,66 MWH of electricity, 102466 Klitres of water and 2,615 Tonnes of waste eliminated, reused or recycled across an average of 25 sites participating each year.
The program results have been shared in the company's sustainability reporting, and used to support submissions to external sustainability benchmarking and disclosure indexes. The results have also been used to engage employees and to share innovations and environmental best practices at the facility level. The initiative has stimulated forward-thinking management decisions on sustainability within the organization. Each of these aspects is discussed in the paper.
This program demonstrates that the quality management based concept of systematic elimination of waste can be successfully applied to environmental management in a diverse, multi-site global organization. Process checkpoints ensure that the project remains on track and provide data that can be used to measure continuous improvement actions towards sustainability.
Highly pressurized hydrocarbon systems, heavy equipment, constantly changing environments, sweltering temperatures and rough terrain, remote locations with complex logistics – this isn't a scene from your favorite space flick, just your typical oil and gas operations. These characteristics underscore the industry's inherent safety risks, and with the recent uptick in U.S. onshore drilling, more operators are re-evaluating their safety capabilities. While organizations use safety KPIs to grade their safety performance, these numbers are usually influenced by a myriad of factors - location, job type, formation, hydrocarbon type (oil, gas, condensate), equipment, service provider, and procedures - but they don't tell the whole story.
In her 2011 testimony to the U.S. Senate Committee on Energy & Natural Resources on risk management in offshore oil and gas, MIT professor Nancy Leveson stated that "flaws in safety culture" is the leading cause of major incidents in the oil and gas industry
At the core, organizational culture is enhanced by the way its key assets (people) are engaged, led, communicated with, and incentivized – in other words, by affecting the human experience. An organization's safety culture is a microcosm of the overall culture, with a more heightened and critical lens because of the direct impact on people's health, well-being and lives. Statoil's Development & Production USA Business Area (DPUSA) came to this realization during a review of their safety program in early 2017. The organization had grown through acquisitions over the past several years and had the challenge of ensuring safety excellence while integrating the employee and contractor workforce into the broader organization.
Bryden, Robin (Shell Global Solutions International B. V.) | Chandler, Eamon (Shell Global Solutions International B. V.) | Kulawski, Grzegorz (Shell Global Solutions International B. V.) | LeBlanc, Chris (Shell Global Solutions US Inc.)
Process safety management aims to ensure that all physical assets are well designed, safely operated and properly maintained. Process safety management is central to achieving Shell's Goal Zero ambition of no harm and no leaks across our operations. Shell's approach to achieving this combines our asset integrity principles with our risk management approach, which is based on the "bow-tie" model.
Asset integrity principles define the way we manage our facilities during their complete lifecycle. The principles combine design standards with technical and operational standards, underpinned by leadership expectations at all levels. In risk management, we identify hazards and evaluate risks and then define the barriers we need to help mitigate the possibility of process safety events occurring. These barriers are both hardware and human, accompanied by critical business processes that allow us to manage risks across our businesses.
Continuous improvement in the management of hardware barriers and the robustness of human barriers is important to our overall risk management approach. Within the overall improvement trend, the number of technical integrity related events has significantly reduced. This suggests that operating integrity incidents make up an increasing fraction of process safety incidents, and, deeper process safety leadership and a different approach to behavioural change at the front line may be required to maintain improvement.
Analysis of operational integrity events in Shell identified that a small set of human barriers contribute to half of the releases and it is likely that the potential for these occurrences could have been reduced by people adhering to known good operating practices. From this analysis, a set of "Process Safety Fundamentals" were derived. TheProcess Safety Fundamentals were first rolled out across our Downstream Manufacturing Business, where they have been associated with a reduction of approximately 30% in process safety events related to operational integrity. Building on the Manufacturing experience, and further incident analysis, an updated set of ten Process Safety Fundamentals are being rolled out across our businesses.
Aspects of the Process Safety Fundamentals aimed at setting them up for successful application are: They provide evidence-based, clear, simple dos and don'ts, based on good operating practice. They are owned by site leadership (not the safety department) with a clear front-line focus, fully supported by line supervisors. Roll-out is through line-led, face-to-face engagement to explore what they mean at each site and its ways of working. The front line is engaged to take ownership for their part in process safety and surface potential blockers. Recognition that roll-out takes time. Quality conversations to identify dilemmas and define plans to resolve them is essential to successful implementation. Site and senior leaders continue engaging on site around the Process Safety Fundamentals. Recognising that people may normalise risk in their daily activities, the Process Safety Fundamentals are used to drive an increased focus on safety critical tasks.
They provide evidence-based, clear, simple dos and don'ts, based on good operating practice.
They are owned by site leadership (not the safety department) with a clear front-line focus, fully supported by line supervisors.
Roll-out is through line-led, face-to-face engagement to explore what they mean at each site and its ways of working.
The front line is engaged to take ownership for their part in process safety and surface potential blockers.
Recognition that roll-out takes time. Quality conversations to identify dilemmas and define plans to resolve them is essential to successful implementation.
Site and senior leaders continue engaging on site around the Process Safety Fundamentals. Recognising that people may normalise risk in their daily activities, the Process Safety Fundamentals are used to drive an increased focus on safety critical tasks.
This paper describes the ten Process Safety Fundamentals and the roll-out, which uses Hearts and Mindsprinciples (
Emissions from energy use are the oil and gas industry's largest direct GHG source. Simple, top-down metrics (eg energy per barrel) do not account for the inherent differences between asset types (eg LNG, pipelines) and are insufficient to identify specific improvement opportunities. Drawing on our downstream experience, BP has developed a modular, bottom-up energy benchmarking approach for upstream. This focuses on energy performance, distinguishing it from underlying, inherent energy use.
The energy benchmark for each facility is the sum of individual processing ‘modules’ appropriate to that facility - eg gas compression, liquids pumping, etc. Each module's benchmark is based on its fluid throughput, together with key factors that determine energy demand - eg inlet and outlet pressures, equipment efficiencies, etc. The total benchmark energy for the facility is compared to the energy it actually uses to determine its Energy Performance Index (EPI), so a facility that uses no more energy than its benchmark has an EPI of 100, whilst one using twice the benchmark has an EPI of 200, etc.
All BP's operated upstream facilities have been energy benchmarked using this methodology and there was a range of outcomes. The reasons for this are multiple: age, design, complexity, current throughput, as well as other operational factors, and further analysis is required to understand individual facility results better. Facilities also differ considerably in energy use: from 15 MWth for a pipeline, to more than 1,000 MWth for a Gas Liquefaction (LNG) plant. Facility size and EPI together establish the facility's ‘energy opportunity gap’; that is, the gap between actual and benchmark energy. This energy performance opportunity data has been used to prioritize where to focus supplementary, deep-dive energy reviews with the aim of identifying economic energy performance improvement opportunities. Additionally, full energy gap analysis should help identify and quantify common opportunity themes and potential technology gaps across our upstream portfolio (eg waste heat).
Given the challenges to implementing the more fundamental opportunities to existing operating facilities, especially offshore, the most significant findings are more applicable to future operations (ie major projects currently in development). Hence, as part of our forward GHG plans, energy benchmarking is to be applied to future major upstream projects.
The approach applies maximum energy supply efficiency curves based on facility heat-to-power energy demand ratios. Minimal data input required is collected via simple spreadsheet (only for modules applicable to that facility). This modular benchmarking approach can be readily expanded to include other GHG emission sources: eg flaring (based on flaring categorization: eg routine, non-routine, safety-related), and methane (based on methane sources: eg flaring, pneumatics, fugitives, vents, etc.), and thus in combination achieve overall facility GHG benchmarking.
Presentation of a project combining Monitoring and Evaluation with Digitalisation to SPE.
New investments in conflict or fragile settings require impact evaluation methods that are particularly apt at understanding the context. Digital technologies, when combined with good design, create new opportunities.
Assessing and managing impact is about making the link between very local actions and broader change. Our goal is to track and communicate the implication of project impact goals, in real time, through digital technologies. We see the growth of digital technologies and infrastructures of communication as an opportunity to produce and communicate socially useful information, and to ensure stakeholder participation in new ways.
This paper describes the approach and intervention measures adopted to manage land transport safety, a "Top Risk" identified at Garraf operations with exposure of 309,000 kilometers driven per month in which PETRONAS Carigali Iraq B.V. (PCIHBV) operates. This land transportation management system aim to prevent recurrence of incidents related to road safety, ultimately improving HSE Performance.
A structured approach in managing land transport safety based on five (5) key elements, namely 1) HSE Management System, 2) Driver Management, 3) Vehicle Management, 4) Journey Management and 5) Emergency Management, has enabled Garraf Operations to successfully reduce number of road transport incidents by more than 50% over the past 5 years, with zero fatal accidents since 2015.
Through the establishment of the Land Transport Safety Workgroup, a site specific Road Transportation Safety Procedure which was based on risk assessments, root cause analysis and industry best practices was developed. This procedure which defines the minimum road safety requirements also enabled fortification of contract requirements, i.e. implementation of in-vehicle monitoring system (IVMS) for all vehicles used for Intercity and Infield mission at Garraf operations covering both armoured and non-armoured. As a result, effective tracking as well as monitoring of driver behavior and vehicle management to provide feedback on improvements was also achieved.
Additionally, robust series of training and assessments related to road safety has also been provided to appointed drivers and identified employees to enhance driving skills, whilst inculcating safe driving habits.
The abovementioned holistic and self –regulated approach may be adopted and/or referenced when operating in similar work environments, predominantly where insufficient enforcement of road legislation and inadequate awareness on road safety is experienced.
In proposing a modern approach to process industry operational integrity management, a question that often surfaces is "What is the most complex activity within operational integrity management that affects performance, productivity and efficiency?". There are variety of answers to this question, one answer being "Human limitations in conceiving data to make informed decisions". The objective of this presentation is to outlines the key benefits of mixed reality platforms in presenting data to managers, operators and maintenance personnel working in an Oil & Gas facility.
Process industry in the past did not generate as much data as it does today. With the amount of data generated every day, it is necessary to innovate so as to analyze data and visually represent them thereby providing a "total immersive knowledge". In light of the recent developments in mixed reality platforms, it is now possible to use this technology to visually present data focused around the needs of humans. Using mixed reality, one can merge the view of real equipment of a plant with a virtual world of data, simulation and instructions, such that both the physical and digital world co-exist.
Few of the applications of this technology in the Oil & Gas industry are 1) providing safe operations, maintenance and repair instructions real time 2) monitor, record and analyze data real time during inspections 3) visualize data outside the control room 4) effectively train personnel during visits 5) analyze trends and predict outcomes 6) share data with managers, vendors for efficient decisions.
The presentation outlines the key benefits of mixed reality platforms such as Microsoft Hololens in presenting data to managers, operators and maintenance personnel working in an Oil & Gas facility. The presentation will also discuss findings of a sponsored pilot project where mixed reality was implemented. At the end, the presentation will also raise the current challenges and possible solutions in successfully implementing such technologies.