|Theme||Visible||Selectable||Appearance||Zoom Range (now: 0)|
Abstract Subsea blowout preventer (SBOP) reliability is a major challenge in Deepwater Drilling & Completion operations, accounting for one of the major equipment failures and Non-Productive Time (NPT) costs yearly. This paper focuses on SBOP technological advancement since the Deepwater Horizon/Macondo incident in 2010, with additional emphasis on reliability, equipment condition monitoring and statistical root cause analysis. After finishing a deepwater well, the SBOP must undergo maintenance, repair if needed and pressure testing before being deployed on the next well. The rig owner is under great pressure to complete this turn-around to avoid waiting time. On an average, in-between wells, rig contractor took approximately 2.6 days extra time (NPT) waiting after completing top hole to get ready to deploy SBOP during 2019-20 exploration and appraisal campaigns. This can be critical during development campaigns where number of rig moves are involved quickly or in cases where top holes are batch drilled the waiting time for SBOP readiness can be as high as 7-8 days per well. Some operators are collaborating with drilling contractors in number of ways to arrange for a second fully assembled and (offline) pressure tested SBOP to be available on the rig (Dual SBOP); deployment of additional trained subsea engineers for performing maintenance/repair. SBOP pressure-testing time can also be drastically reduced by using comparative pressure-testing software to eliminate human error and accelerate pressure testing. Furthermore, leak detection time can be eliminated by installing sensors, and real-time test monitoring providing increased reliability with the additional advantages that conditional monitoring can be enhanced with the same digital sensors. SBOP dashboard that simplifies existing diagnosis and allow remote monitoring of the subsea SBOP control system will improve communication of SBOP health also serve common platform across rig fleets that allow standardization of SBOP diagnostic data and aids in operational decision making Ensuring additional SBOP redundancy especially while operating Emergency Disconnect System (EDS) available through Remotely Operated Vehicle (ROV) control panel or acoustic system. In addition, it is mandatory for the SBOP to have Autoshear and Deadman systems to be able to shut in the well in case of an emergency. Furthermore, technological workshop with several major service vendors have being held to ascertain current advances like Multifunctional profile, Accumulator recharged by ROV, ROV DP system, An Auxiliary Accumulator System and upgraded Acoustic System. In the end, the development of new technologies applied for the SBOP targets the overall cost optimization of the well lifecycle but also assure SBOP functionality. This paper is intended to provide considerations for operators in developing their future campaigns to frame scope of work for SBOP and rig contracting strategy.
Abstract bp's Wells Organization manages its operational risks through what is known as the ‘Three Lines of Defense’ model. This is a three-tiered approach that starts with self-verification as the first line of defense which Wells assets apply to prevent or mitigate operational risks. The second line is conducted by its Safety and Operational Risk function using deep technical expertise. The third line of defense is provided by Group Audit. This paper will discuss the Wells self-verification programme evolution from its first implementation; results, lessons learned, and further steps planned as part of the continuous improvement cycle will be also shared. The company's Wells organization identified nine major accident risks which have the potential to result in significant HSE impacts. Examples include loss of well control, offshore vessel collision and dropped objects. The central Risk team developed bowties for these risks, with prevention barriers on cause legs and mitigation barriers on consequence legs. Detailed risk bowties are fundamental to Wells self-verification, adding technical depth to allow more focused verification to be performed when compared with the original bowties, as verification is now conducted using checklists targeting barriers at their component level – defined as critical tasks and equipment. Barriers are underpinned by barrier enablers – underlying supporting systems and processes such as control of work, safe operating limits, inspection and maintenance and others. Checklists are standardized and are available through a single, global digital application. This permits the verifiers, typically wellsite leaders, to conduct meaningful verification conversations, record the resulting actions, track them to closure within the application and gain a better understanding of any cumulative impacts, ineffective barriers and areas to focus on. Self-verification (SV) results are reviewed at rig, region, Wells and Upstream levels. Rigs and regions analyze barrier effectiveness and gaps and implement corrective actions with contractors at the rig or region level. Global insights are collated monthly and presented centrally to Wells leadership. Common themes and valuable learnings are then addressed at functional level, shared across the organization or escalated by the leadership. The self-verification programme at the barrier component level proved to be an effective risk management tool for the company's Wells organization. It helps to continuously identify risks, address gaps and learn from them. Recorded assessments not only provide the Wells organization with barrier performance data, but also highlight opportunities to improve. Leadership uses the results from barrier verification to gain a holistic view of how major accident risks are managed. Programme evolution has also eliminated duplicate reviews, improved clarity of barrier components, and improved sustainability through applying systematic approach, standardization, digitization and procedural discipline.
Key Takeaways Hiring companies routinely require prospective and established contractors to submit information to demonstrate their ability and likelihood of completing incident-free work. Challenges that undermine the contractor safety prequalification process are observable, however, including criteria selection, efficacy, variability and ignored criteria. This article discusses examples of nontraditional criteria that may have significant benefit for improved contractor safety prequalification. Great benefits can be realized by utilizing contractors rather than solely relying on internal resources to affect needed projects or tasks. Outsourcing allows an organization to reduce costs by maintaining a minimum workforce while allowing it to focus on its core business, promoting specialization within both the hiring and contracted company (Kozlovská & Struková, 2013; Yemenu & McCartin, 2010). Manu et al. (2013) specifically describe the benefits of contracting as including labor flexibility, transference of high-risk activities or financial risk, bargaining ability, and avoiding workers’ compensation costs. Contracting projects and services involves significant hazard and operational risk as well as benefit, however (Elliott, 2017).
Summary bp’s (“the company’s”) wells organization manages its operational risks through what is known as the “three lines of defense” model. This is a three-tiered approach; the first line of defense is self-verification, which wells assets apply to prevent or mitigate operational risks. The second line of defense is conducted by the safety and operational risk function using deep technical expertise. The third line of defense is provided by group audit. In this paper, we discuss the wells self-verification program evolution from its first implementation and share case studies, results, impact, lessons learned, and further steps planned as part of the continuous improvement cycle. The company’s wells organization identified nine major accident risks that have the potential to result in significant health, safety, and environment (HSE) impacts. Examples include loss of well control (LoWC), offshore vessel collision, and dropped objects. The central risk team developed bowties for these risks, with prevention barriers on cause legs and mitigation barriers on consequence legs. Detailed risk bowties are fundamental to wells self-verification, adding technical depth to allow more focused verification to be performed when compared with the original bowties, because verification is now conducted using checklists targeting barriers at their component level, defined as critical tasks and equipment. Barriers are underpinned by barrier enablers (underlying supporting systems and processes) such as control of work, safe operating limits, inspection and maintenance, etc. Checklists are standardized and are available through a single, global digital application. This permits the verifiers, typically wellsite leaders, to conduct meaningful verification conversations, record the resulting actions, track them to closure within the application, and gain a better understanding of any cumulative impacts, ineffective barriers, and areas to focus on. Self-verification results are reviewed at rig, region, wells, and upstream levels. Rigs and regions analyze barrier effectiveness and gaps and implement corrective actions with contractors at the rig or region level. Global insights are collated monthly and presented centrally to wells leadership. Common themes and valuable learnings are then addressed at the functional level, shared across the organization, or escalated by the leadership. The self-verification program at the barrier component level proved to be an effective risk management tool for the company’s wells organization. It helps to continuously identify risks, address gaps, and learn from them. Recorded assessments not only provide the wells organization with barrier performance data but also highlight opportunities to improve. Leadership uses the results from barrier verification to gain a holistic view of how major accident risks are managed. Program evolution has also eliminated duplicate reviews, improved clarity of barrier components, and improved sustainability through applying a systematic approach, standardization, digitization, and procedural discipline.
Abstract Incidents that have occurred in worldwide waters and in the Gulf of Mexico (GOM) have provided lessons for an enhanced approach and better content of Emergency Response and Control Plans (ERCP). The focus is to timely incorporate response aspects that must be taken into account from the early project stages. A complete, current ERCP is an effective mitigation control to limit consequences arising from uncontrolled loss of containment events. A sequence to develop an ERCP compliant with Mexican guidelines and regulations is presented. It involves the collection of information from the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and Hazard Identification Analysis (HAZID) for the project. Credible major hazardous events, such as loss of containment scenarios, are extracted and analyzed to constitute the basis for ERCP development based on maximum credible estimated risk. Besides sound event planning content, the paper also discusses other key elements required to produce a complete and effective ERCP. The strategy includes the identification of ERCP requirements from different entities such as; financial institutions, oil and gas operators, local and regional legislation requirements applicable to GOM, and best-recognized emergency planning and response practices. Available project information sources include design bases, EIA, HAZID and Process Hazard Analysis (PHA) studies. The collected requirements are used to unfold the content of the ERP, including required elements such as Introduction, Incident Command System (ICS), Unified Command System (UCS), Emergency Scenarios, Action Plans per Accident Type, Available Sources, Training and Competencies, and Drills and Supporting Information. In addition, a flow chart for the ERCP is included describing the sequence of steps from the accident initiation, notifications, response, and recovery until the emergency transient has been adequately controlled. An ERCP implementation and content access is proposed as well in this paper.
As the OSH profession continues to evolve, a major concern remains: the number of workplace fatalities and serious injury events each year. As incident rates have declined over the years, fatality rates have not significantly changed; they have plateaued and risen slightly. Recent data from Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS, 2017) indicate 5,190 workers died from an occupational injury in 2016. This number increased by 7% over 2015 and is the highest count since 2008.
In the authors’ view, the persistence of serious injuries and fatalities suggests that many organizations have flaws within their management systems in the way they plan, organize, implement, execute, monitor, communicate and improve. One way that OSH professionals can help organizations improve their management systems is through more effective analyses of incidents.
An incident is an unplanned, unwanted event that results in injury or damage (an accident) or an event that could have resulted in harm or loss (a near-hit). All incidents should be investigated, regardless of the extent of injury or property damage. In the authors’ experience, most organizations perform some degree of investigation and analyses for incidents resulting in injury, damage or those with significant severity potential. However, the driving forces for conducting incident investigations and analyses can vary for organizations ranging from the need to file insurance claims; complete regulatory compliance records; track lagging indicators; or meet contract requirements from customers. All of these are important, but they do not represent the real purpose of incident causal analysis.
Santamaria, Carla (Exxon Mobil Corporation) | Flood, Jim K. (ExxonMobil Development Company) | Schuberth, Paul C. (Exxon Mobil Corporation) | Morell, Jorge J. (Exxon Mobil Corporation) | Hinojosa, Jaime R. (Exxon Mobil Corporation) | Haddock, Justin (ExxonMobil Development Company) | O'Donnell, Hugh (Ingenium Training & Consulting Ltd.) | Sandelands, Eric (Ingenium Training & Consulting Ltd.) | Cowan, Mel (Ingenium Training & Consulting Ltd.) | Higgins, Alan (Ingenium Training & Consulting Ltd.)
Abstract An approach for enhancing safety performance in Energy Industry field applications by integrating decision-making science will be presented. Results – both qualitative and quantitative – will demonstrate step change potential in safety performance in pursuit of plateau breakthrough to zero high severity incidents. Safe Choice empowers and enables safe decision-making at all levels of an organization by providing new knowledge and techniques, and linking these to current behavioral based safety practices. Emerging understanding about brain and social science, as it relates to Energy Industry safety, is provided in practical discussion centered around decision-making. Workforce members are entrusted and empowered with new knowledge, personal decision-making style survey results, and an appreciative inquiry discussion that integrates brain science concepts in a simple effective way to their existing, familiar work processes and tools for managing safety and risk in their operating, drilling, and construction field sites. Following Safe Choice, individuals have a greater understanding of their own human performance and decision-making. Focusing on individual learning and awareness is the differentiator. The program was first developed for the ExxonMobil Hebron Project integration, hook-up and commissioning construction site in Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada during 2015-2016. Together, with other transformational safety leadership initiatives, Safe Choice contributed to best-in-class safety performance. Safe Choice was then further developed and adapted for application within operating field sites during 2017. With further success, the program is now being implemented globally with an agile, user-centered design philosophy and approach. The small group approach to training includes each worker receiving an individual decision-making style report and creates an atmosphere of appreciative inquiry, trust and openness. Developing leadership supporting strategies that foster a continuation of this atmosphere once back in the field (and outside of the classroom) has proven effective, with use of the new language and concepts evident in regular daily meetings such as toolbox talks, shift handover and safety meetings, as well as being used between workers during conversations in the field. Many locations where Safe Choice has been implemented have excellent safety performance, and will show both qualitative and quantitative measures of success achieved. Energy Industry Leaders, Operations, Drilling, Construction and Safety Professionals will gain new knowledge on successful next-step integration of decision-making science into safety programs for protecting their workforce. This will expand and extend earlier insights from panel discussions at SPE HSSE Meetings in New Orleans (April 2017) and Abu Dhabi (April 2018). This paper includes results of the program so far.
Boothe, M.. (Southwestern Energy Company) | Videlock, S.. (Southwestern Energy Company) | Lincicome, D.. (Southwestern Energy Company) | Greaves, R.. (Southwestern Energy Company) | Hyden, R.. (Southwestern Energy Company) | Olson, K. E. (Southwestern Energy Company)
Abstract The Right Products Program is designed to drive the assessment of all chemical products used in hydraulic fracturing through an effective decision-making process aimed at minimizing the toxicity of fracture fluids. This program increases the accountability of our chemical suppliers, improves HS&E stewardship, and reduces our overall impact potential from a human health and environmental standpoint. The Right Products Program provides an internal workflow through which all chemicals are reviewed to ensure that the safest and most appropriate products are used. In addition, the Right Products Program provides standards that chemical suppliers must meet prior to the product's use in operations. This program demonstrates the commitment of Southwestern Energy (SWN) to do the right thing in order to responsibly develop our resources. The Right Products Program provides the ability to evaluate products company-wide through a consistent review process made possible by corporate, interdisciplinary, and operational collaboration. This paper provides details behind the methodology of the Right Products Program. We will discuss the hazard assessment and product scoring, workflow, lessons learned, and provide examples of assessed products.
Yu, M. (Mary Kay O'Connor Process Safety Center, Texas AandM University) | Venkidasalapathy, J. A. (Mary Kay O'Connor Process Safety Center, Texas AandM University) | Shen, Y. (Mary Kay O'Connor Process Safety Center, Texas AandM University) | Quddus, N. (Mary Kay O'Connor Process Safety Center, Texas AandM University) | Mannan, S. M. (Mary Kay O'Connor Process Safety Center, Texas AandM University)
Deepwater drilling exploration takes place in cold, distant, and extremely high-pressure environments. It poses a great threat to human life and environment, and incurs higher cost of production than conventional drilling operations. To improve efficiency with increased production, offshore oil and gas industry introduced robotics technology in many underwater drilling and production operations. Implementation of robots also introduced complexity and added risks to the processes. The present study aims at identifying hazards and assessing risks associated with using underwater robots in offshore oil and gas production. Once potential scenarios caused by robotic failures are identified, consequences could be developed, and risk assessment could be done by traditional methods. The specific objectives of the current research are: to study robotics technologies used in offshore platforms primarily, autonomous underwater vehicles (AUV); to understand their roles and limitations in oil and gas production; to study potential threats leading to underwater robot-robot collision or robot-structure collision; to evaluate all possible consequences due to collision; to recommend necessary safety barriers for identified threats.
Awareness of the psychological realities of different styles of thinking can provide deep understanding of the choices people make and the actions they take when they are faced with assessing risk and making decisions in real time under operational conditions. At a time when the industry is striving to achieve more with fewer staff and resources, there is a compelling need to understand better how these psychological processes actually influence real-world operations, and to develop practical approaches to mitigating the associated risks.