The document summarizes the development of a Blow Out Preventer (BOP) risk model. It was created in response to the 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil spill to help assess risks of continuing operations if a BOP component fails. A team developed a three-dimensional risk model cube that considers component failures, regulations, and operational risks to provide a risk level. The model assists pull/no pull decisions in a consistent, transparent manner for stakeholders. It is a major step towards risk-based BOP management but does not replace human judgment. The goal is to prevent unnecessary BOP pulls and reduce risks of component failures.

1. Risk and Reliability response:
Blow Out Preventer Pull or No-pull decision support
• Pieter van Asten
• Decem ber 3rd
2014; Aberdeen
• IADC Well Control Europe Conference
Lloyd’s Register Energy - Drilling

2. Innovation comes after denial and before success
Pieter van Asten 2013

3. • The BOP risk m odel background
• why was it m ade 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
• The Future
• continuous innovation: the way forward in
progress
Background
project
Solution
Conclusion
Future

4. Background
project
Solution
Conclusion
Society ….is all of us,
and our biggest stake is the safety of life and
environm ent for ourselves and our dear-ones.
ISO –IEC guide 51:
Safety is the freedom
of unacceptable risk
The tragic accident in April 2010 in the Gulf of Mexico can be
m arked as the m om ent that confirm ed the idea for m aking a
subsea BOP (Blow Out Preventer) risk m odel.
It showed that society, enabled by
(social-)m edia, is our biggest stakeholder
with its own risk acceptance perception.
Future

5. Background
project
Solution
Conclusion
Societal risk awareness and its (non-) acceptance created the need to
m anage these risks and becam e the foundation for the dem and 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 as wrong as we all saw
happening but was also very costly.
A focal point of attention and contribution to what
happened in April 2010 becam e the subsea BOP.
Future

6. Background
project
Solution
Conclusion
With our stakeholder’s biggest concerns in focus, the objective of the
requested solution to us becam e:
“enable assistance in decision making if a
BOP needs to be pulled or not by means of
risk based consistent component failure
investigation and effect modelling and due
communication”
A subsea BOP is a special system and am ong few
system s com bining m ultiple functions:
•(drilling) operations control
•risk prevention tool (preventer)
•em ergency response tool
Future

7. A subsea BOP is also
•highly regulated
•not visible or well accessible when operational
These com binations m ean sim ple com ponent failures
can cause severe risk exposure and non-com pliance.
Background
project
Solution
Conclusion
But what to do when a com ponent m ay have or has failed?
Objective assessm ent and consistent com m unication about the
risk of a BOP com ponent to decide to continue or suspend
operations has proven to be challenging.
Future

8. Nowadays drilling operations are always balancing between
conflicting factors:
NPT (Costs) – Risk (Safety) - Com pliance
The challenge we faced only allowed for a truly
innovative approach.
Background
project
Solution
Conclusion
Future
•high (society and industry) stakes
•a joined effort with five involved parties
•no route-m ap but the m ain objectives
•an industry looking at us

9. Background
project
Solution
Conclusion
I worked with people that were involved in the extrem e
circum stances after the accident and who lost
colleagues
That m ade m e very hum ble and realizing we just could
not fail: there was too m uch at stake: safety and lives.
I worked with a wonderful team and this team effort,
including our client, was the one of the m ost
contributing factors for our success.
I am proud on what we did,
how we did it and what we achieved.
What made it succeed?
Future

10. Background
project
Solution
Conclusion
How is all this inform ation com bined
to becom e a Risk Model?
The total risk m odel is like a three dim ensional cube with six
sides that input and affect the outcom e and each other.
The cube’s three dim ensions represent
the com plexity and interaction of all aspects
of a com plete BOP risk m odel.
Future

11. Background
project
Solution
Conclusion
A BOP risk m odel assesses the effect of com ponent
failure taking regulations, specifications and
operational procedures into account.
Risk levels of the whole BOP, a subsystem or
com ponent are expressed in a color-coding traffic-
light alike.
•Red
•Orange
•Yellow
•Green
Future

12. Background
project
Solution
Conclusion
BOP risk m odel solution:
• Risk-based approach in balancing
the conflicting factors
• Consistent, transparent pull or no pull
decision assistance and m otivated
decision reporting all stakeholders
• Better prioritization of m aintenance
• Industry credit: done with a m ajor
drilling contractor
• Regulator agreem ent on
m ethodology (BSEE)
• Does not take away or replace thinking, com petence
or responsibility
• Enables training and can m ake what-ifs: play with
different failure scenarios
Future

13. Background
project
Solution
Conclusion The BOP risk m odel is a m ajor and
innovative first step towards a risk based
and transparent pull or no-pull decision
and com m unication to all stakeholders in
case of a subsea BOP com ponent failure.
Preventing one unnecessary BOPpull proves the value of a
BOPriskmodel.
Saving one life with a BOPriskmodel makes it invaluable
Being able to asses the risk of component failure is one
thing…..what about preventing that component from failing and
exposure to the risk of failure?
Future

14. Background
project
Solution
Conclusion
Future

15. Thankyoufor your attention.