Interim Report on Risk Assessment of Offshore Instillation
Interim Report on Risk Assessment of Offshore Instillation
The oil and gas industry has some of the most devastating and costly accidents. An example is the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill incident where BP was held responsible for the massive oil spill. According to the District Court Judge, the company was involved in reckless conduct and gross negligence that led to the accident. In total, it cost the company more than $66 billion as penalties, clean-up costs, and other charges. According to Aeran et al. (2017) conducting prognosis and risk assessments is one sure way of reducing such risks. The authors insists that it is much better to be proactive and prevent a failure than letting it happen and risking the high costs and the resultant damage to the reputation of a firm. Zhang, Beer and Quek (2015) define prognosis as the estimation of the remaining useful life of a system. ISO 13381-1:2015 associates the term with the estimation of time remaining for a system to fail or become a hazard. As evident in the case of BP, it is vital for firms in the oil and gas industry to constantly schedule prognosis programs especially on their offshore structures. In spite of the worst case scenario reported by as the BP oil spill accident, nearly 70% and 50% of offshore installations in Persian Gulf and Gulf of Mexico, respectively, exceed their life span (Animah, & Shafiee, 2018). It is important that a prognosis is performed on these installations to forecast their chances of failure, and predict their useful life. The findings will help in making decisions on life extension of these projects thus reduce risks, manage costs, and lengthen their lifespan.
There are three important factors that influence the remaining useful life of an offshore installation. Vaidya and Rausand (2011) identify these factors as technical health, future environmental conditions, and future operating conditions. Guided by this understanding, this interim report intends to evaluate how to predict the remaining useful life in offshore installations. To achieve this goal, the first part of this paper presents aims and objectives. The second part analyzes relevant references, while the third, fourth and fifth sections are planned progress, health and safety assessment, and ethics statement respectively.
Aims and Objectives
- This interim report aims to create understanding on how to predict the remaining useful life of offshore installations
- To provide a detailed introduction on condition assessment, life extension practices, remaining useful life, and how these concepts are applied in the offshore oil and gas industry (Vaidya & Rausand, 2011).
- The report analyzes the process involved in condition assessment, engineering regulation, and laws, and their impact on the prediction of the remaining useful life of an offshore project (Sarhan & Raslan, 2017).
- It introduces the fixed jacket structure which is the chosen offshore installation for this project.
- The report selects and provides an introduction on the preferred framework for predicting the remaining useful life of the selected installation.
Aeran, A., Siriwardane, S. C., Mikkelsen, O., & Langen, I. (2017). A framework to assess structural integrity of ageing offshore jacket structures for life extension. Marine Structures, 56, 237-259.
Animah, I., & Shafiee, M. (2018). Condition assessment, remaining useful life prediction and life extension decision making for offshore oil and gas assets. Journal of loss prevention in the process industries, 53, 17-28.
El-reedy, M. (2012). Offshore structures: Gulf professional. Retrieved from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780123854759000018
Ezanizam, M. S., Khairi, M., Irza, N., & Nurul Uyun, A. (2019). Structural reliability analysis for fixed offshore platforms.
Guédé, F. (2019). Risk-based structural integrity management for offshore jacket platforms. Marine Structures, 63, 444-461.
Hse.gov.uk. (2019). HSE Guidance for risk assessment for offshore installation. Retrieved from: http://www.hse.gov.uk/offshore/sheet32006.pdf
Mendes, P., Correia, J. A., Mourão, A., Pereira, R., Fantuzzi, N., De Jesus, A., & Calçada, R. (2020). Fatigue Assessments of a Jacket-Type Offshore Structure Based on Static and Dynamic Analyses. Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction, 26(1), 04020054.
Moan, T. (2018). Life cycle structural integrity management of offshore structures. Structure and Infrastructure Engineering, 14(7), 911-927.
Okoh, C., Roy, R., Mehnen, J., & Redding, L. E. (2014). Overview of remaining useful life prediction techniques in through-life engineering services. Procedia CIRP, [online] 16, pp.158-163.
Sarhan, O., & Raslan, M (2017). Offshore petroleum rigs/platforms: An overview of analysis, design, construction and installation. Retrieved from: https://www.londontechpress.co.uk/public/OnlineFirst/10095_OnlineFirst.pdf
Soom, E. M., Abu Husain, M. K., Mohd Zaki, N. I., & Azman, N. U. (2020). A Reliable Approach for Fixed Offshore Structures Probability of Failure Determination. International Journal of Advanced Research in Engineering and Technology (IJARET), 11(5).
Soom, E. M., Husain, M. K. A., Zaki, N. I. M., Nor, M. N. K. M., & Najafian, G. (2018). Lifetime extension of ageing offshore structures by global ultimate strength assessment (GUSA). Malaysian Journal of Civil Engineering, 30(1).
Vaidya, P., & Rausand, M. (2011). Remaining useful life, technical health, and life extension. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part O: Journal of Risk and Reliability, 225(2), 219-231.
Zhang, Y., Beer, M., & Quek, S. T. (2015). Long-term performance assessment and design of offshore structures. Computers & Structures, 154, 101-115.
Gholizad, A., Golafshani, A. and Akrami, V. (2019). Structural reliability of offshore platforms considering fatigue damage and different failure scenarios. Retrieved from: https://reader.elsevier.com/reader/sd/pii/S0029801812000662?token=95D171ADC7AA49F820931462DAE843D60767F449ECE353B2B2B1C8769D2F8EF5F14125D1F1C1420F9AEC096E3B62E954
Iso.org. (2019). ISO 13381-1:2015. Retrieved from: https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#!iso:std:51436:en
Nopsema.gov.au. (2019). What is a safety case. NOPSEMA. Retrieved from: https://www.nopsema.gov.au/safety/safety-case/what-is-a-safety-case/
A representation of the milestones for the risk assessment is summarized using the Gantt chart below.
Table 1: Gantt chart
Project Risks and Remedial Mitigation Measures
The remedial/ mitigation measures against these risks include:
Health and Safety Assessment
The risk assessment form is represented as appendix 1.
An ethics statement is summarized as appendix 2. The primary ethical concerns for this project are summarized as follows.
It is important that the stakeholders in the installation project, especially the engineers adhere to high ethical standards such as being honest, open, fair, and conducting themselves with integrity (Moan, 2018). The success of the project is dependent on the trustworthiness and reliability of the primary stakeholders in the project.
It is quintessential that the primary stakeholders especially the engineers adhere to regulations and laws to prevent lawsuits against the firm. In addition, they have to respect life, environmental, and societal concerns (Aeran, Siriwardane, Mikkelsen & Langen, 2017). This way, they will avoid conflicts with the different interest groups. Additional laws that could compromise the credibility of the project include safeguarding personal information against espionage and avoiding breach of intellectual property.
It is important that the engineers and other stakeholders directly involved in the projects promote open, transparent, and honest communications (Guédé, 2019). Clear communication will help foster understanding and greater levels of engagement, as well as motivation, required for the successful completion of the project.