Pull or no pull - Risk based decision support for subsea blowout preventers

668 views

Published on

Pieter van Asten presented this at Offshore Europe 2013. Lloyd's Register Energy - Drilling (formerly ModuSpec and WEST Engineering) have, together with Lloyd's Register Consulting (formerly Scandpower) developed a BOP Risk Model based on the popular RiskSpecturm, which is used on 50% of the world's nuclear power stations.

In this presentation, Pieter discusses how the BOP Model was developed and how, in the case of a failure, the Model can reduce days of non productive time (NPT) into hours.

For more informtation about the BOP RIsk Model, please visit www.lr.org/bopmodel

Published in: Technology, Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
668
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
24
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Pull or no pull - Risk based decision support for subsea blowout preventers

  1. 1. SPE 166581-MS Pull or No-pull: Risk-based Decision Support for Subsea Blowout Preventers (BOPs) Pieter van Asten, Lloyd’s Register Energy – Drilling
  2. 2. SPE 166581-MS • Pull or No-pull: Risk-based Decision Support for Subsea Blowout Preventers (BOPs)• Pieter van Asten Innovation comes after denial and before success Pieter van Asten 2013
  3. 3. SPE 166581-MS • Pull or No-pull: Risk-based Decision Support for Subsea Blowout Preventers (BOPs)• Pieter van Asten • The BOP risk model background • why was it made and for what purpose? • The project • how was it done and by whom? • The solution • what is the result and how is it used? • The conclusion
  4. 4. SPE 166581-MS • Pull or No-pull: Risk-based Decision Support for Subsea Blowout Preventers (BOPs)• Pieter van Asten Background Project Solution Conclusion The tragic Gulf of Mexico accident in April 2010 can be marked as the moment that confirmed the idea for making a subsea BOP (Blow Out Preventer) risk model. It showed that society, enabled by (social-)media, is our biggest stakeholder with its own risk acceptance perception.
  5. 5. SPE 166581-MS • Pull or No-pull: Risk-based Decision Support for Subsea Blowout Preventers (BOPs)• Pieter van Asten Background Project Solution Conclusion What does the majority of society remember about this tragedy? Societal risk awareness and its (non-) acceptance created the need to manage these risks and became the foundation for the demand for a solution to enable this. •The industry was faced with a very conservative approach to BOP component failure •This conservatism was fed by the fear that something could go wrong as we all saw happening which was very costly
  6. 6. SPE 166581-MS • Pull or No-pull: Risk-based Decision Support for Subsea Blowout Preventers (BOPs)• Pieter van Asten Background Project Solution Conclusion A focal point of attention and contribution to what happened in April 2010 became the subsea BOP With our stakeholder’s biggest concerns in focus, the objective of the requested solution became: “Enable assistance in decision making if a BOP needs to be pulled or not by means of risk based consistent failure investigation and effect modelling and due communication”
  7. 7. SPE 166581-MS • Pull or No-pull: Risk-based Decision Support for Subsea Blowout Preventers (BOPs)• Pieter van Asten Background Project Solution Conclusion A subsea BOP is a special system and among few systems combining multiple functions: •Drilling operations control •Risk prevention tool (preventer) •Emergency response tool It is also •Highly regulated •Not visible when operational These combinations mean simple component failures can cause severe risk exposure and non-compliance. But what to do when a component may have or has failed?
  8. 8. SPE 166581-MS • Pull or No-pull: Risk-based Decision Support for Subsea Blowout Preventers (BOPs)• Pieter van Asten Background Project Solution Conclusion Delivery of objective assessment and consistent communication about the risk of a BOP component failure leading to a decision to continue or suspend operations has proven to be a challenge. Some symptoms: •BOP pulling is costly and time consuming: major NPT •BOP pulling is a risk in itself: Leaving it down with known failure may mean taking safety risks or being out of regulatory compliance •Non consistent decision-motivation to senior management, regulatory bodies and other stakeholders in the industry •Different solutions for similar problems on different rigs or crews •Lack of risk based information to enable management of compliance aspects against cost of NPT
  9. 9. SPE 166581-MS • Pull or No-pull: Risk-based Decision Support for Subsea Blowout Preventers (BOPs)• Pieter van Asten Background Project Solution Conclusion Our solution and its approach to this has a true innovative character in every aspect: •High (society and industry) stakes •A joined effort with five involved parties •No route-map but the main objectives •An industry looking at us Today, drilling operations are always balancing between conflicting factors: NPT (Costs) – Risk (Safety) - Compliance
  10. 10. SPE 166581-MS • Pull or No-pull: Risk-based Decision Support for Subsea Blowout Preventers (BOPs)• Pieter van Asten Background Project Solution Conclusion What made it succeed? I worked with people that were involved in the extreme circumstances after the accident and who lost colleagues. That made me very humble and realized that we just could not fail: there was too much at stake: safety and lives. I worked with a wonderful team and this team effort, including our client, was one of the most contributing factors for our success. I am proud of •what we did; •how we did it and •what we achieved.
  11. 11. SPE 166581-MS • Pull or No-pull: Risk-based Decision Support for Subsea Blowout Preventers (BOPs)• Pieter van Asten Background Project Solution Conclusion The total risk model is like a three dimensional cube with six sides that input and affect the outcome and each other. The cube’s three dimensions represent the complexity and interaction of all aspects of a complete BOP risk model. How is all this information combined to become a risk model?
  12. 12. SPE 166581-MS • Pull or No-pull: Risk-based Decision Support for Subsea Blowout Preventers (BOPs)• Pieter van Asten Background Project Solution Conclusion
  13. 13. SPE 166581-MS • Pull or No-pull: Risk-based Decision Support for Subsea Blowout Preventers (BOPs)• Pieter van Asten Background Project Solution Conclusion The risk model assesses the effect of component failure by calculations and expresses this in a risk level taking regulations, specifications and operational procedures into account. A color-coding traffic light is used as visual indication to express the risk level of the whole BOP, a subsystem or component. •Red •Orange •Yellow •Green
  14. 14. SPE 166581-MS • Pull or No-pull: Risk-based Decision Support for Subsea Blowout Preventers (BOPs)• Pieter van Asten Background Project Solution Conclusion Example of the user screen showing the effect of a failure of the 5k to 3k regulator to the blue POD.
  15. 15. SPE 166581-MS • Pull or No-pull: Risk-based Decision Support for Subsea Blowout Preventers (BOPs)• Pieter van Asten Background Project Solution Conclusion BOP risk model solution: • Risk-based approach in balancing the conflicting factors • Consistent, transparent pull or no pull decision assistance and motivated decision reporting to all stakeholders • Better prioritization of maintenance • Industry credit: done with a major drilling contractor • Regulator agreement on methodology (BSEE)
  16. 16. SPE 166581-MS • Pull or No-pull: Risk-based Decision Support for Subsea Blowout Preventers (BOPs)• Pieter van Asten Background Project Solution Conclusion • Pre-considered equipment failure: • No need to go through all information and • assessments upon component failure • Reduction of rig downtime: • Faster pull or not-pull decision • Records history of failed and restored components to assist pull, no-pull decisions • The model cannot be changed by operating crew. • Is unique for every BOP and regulatory environment • Does not take away or replace thinking, competence or responsibility • Enables training and can create what-ifs: play with different failure scenarios
  17. 17. SPE 166581-MS • Pull or No-pull: Risk-based Decision Support for Subsea Blowout Preventers (BOPs)• Pieter van Asten Background Project Solution Conclusion Preventing one unnecessary BOP pull proves the value of a BOP risk model. Saving one life with the BOP risk model makes it truly invaluable This allows for the next steps towards failure prevention: • BOP reliability and integrity management optimization • Maintenance and spare parts management optimization • Enhanced graphical representation • Web-based application • Other operational or safety critical equipment
  18. 18. For more information, go to: www.lr.org/BOPmodel Slide 18

×