Abstract The evaluation of the safety status of an asset/production plant in the Oil & Gas industry is mainly performed conducting a Quantitative Risk Assessment (QRA). One of the most important factors that affects QRA results is related to the quality of the input data, such as release frequency and ignition probability especially for the cases where flammable substances are involved. For this reason, it is important to have a catalogue of information readily available, reliable and updated. An effort in this sense has been done by the International Association of Oil & Gas Producers. Since 1996, they collect data and issue Risk Assessment Data Directory (RADD). The latest version of these reports (434 series) has been issued in September 2019. In particular, RADD 434-01 focuses on the updated frequencies of releases from process equipment on offshore and onshore installations. Report 434-06 presents instead a reviewed estimation of ignition probabilities based on the UKOOA correlations and suggests the use of alternative ignition models able to reflect the new shift towards sounder and more reliable risk evaluation approaches. One interesting proposed ignition model is called MISOF. This paper aims to present an application of the new updated values of release frequency and MISOF ignition probability model into a QRA study of a typical floating, production, storage and offloading (FPSO) topside. The goal was to capture the main differences in terms of likelihood of final consequences with respect to the results obtained using data from previous methodologies and datasets. The results showed an important reduction in final frequencies for the Jet Fire and unignited dispersion scenarios with a moderate increase for the Flash Fire. The observed reduction in leak frequencies from the new RADD issues outweighed the increase in the ignition probability results coming from the MISOF model. Introduction Industrial activities related to the research, development and production of hydrocarbons are exposed to operational hazards with potentially damaging consequences for human health, environment, and asset. Hydrocarbons are the main process hazards and process leaks are the main initiating events of the escalation to major risk scenarios such as explosions, fires, crude oil and gas spillages from wells, release of contaminants and hazardous emissions. Quantitative risk analyses shall be carried out to have the most comprehensive possible picture of the risk to people associated with the activities. For this purpose, the formal and structured methodology Quantitative Risk Assessment (QRA) is the commonly adopted procedure.

Abstract One of the main hazards related to the exploitation of hydrocarbons is their high flammability and potential to generate fire and explosion scenarios. The calculation of the risks connected to such activities requires an accurate estimation of the ignition probability which is however an area of analysis still affected by a high degree of uncertainty. The most common approach makes use of UKOOA correlations which provide general curves of ignition probability as a function of release mass flowrate for different types of release environment. In November 2018, a new ignition probability model called MISOF was developed by Lloyd's Register specifically for offshore oil and gas installations located in the North Sea. Derived from a wide analysis of recent accidents, the MISOF model allows to capture and reflect the real time dependent evolution of the flammable cloud and its interaction with the ignition sources and ignition control measures in place (e.g. gas detection, isolation of ignition sources and depressurization of the process discharging equipment). The MISOF approach was applied considering four failure cases with different release rate of flammable material and hole sizes on a floating production unit (FPU). Ignition probabilities were estimated for the analyzed cases and compared with the figures obtained with the broadly used UKOOA correlations. The results showed that the ignition probability evaluation conducted with the MISOF model provides higher values than those obtained with the UKOOA correlations. By applying the MISOF, a significant increase in the frequency of final accident scenarios was found for Jet Fire and Flash Fire. Overall, the study demonstrated that the MISOF is a novel approach able to reflect in the analysis of fire scenarios the in-situ layout-specific knowledge of density and distribution of the ignition sources surrounding the release. Introduction The evaluation of the safety status of an asset/production plant is mainly performed by the application of a Quantitative Risk Assessment (QRA) that, as a formal and structured methodology, aims at quantifying individual and societal risk related to all the potential hazards that could pose severe consequences to people. The framework of this analysis is carried out in a series of steps. First, all major hazards that are present at the specific site under investigation are identified; secondly the frequency and consequences that can arise from these hazards are separately evaluated; lastly, since risk is a combination of the frequency of the accidental scenario and the potential final consequences, these two elements are combined together into a risk index. Such a value shall be then compared to the risk tolerability criteria that are internally exemplified by the risk matrix in order to evaluate if the risk is acceptable or not. In case it is not, significant measures must be proposed in order to reduce it as low as reasonably practicable (ALARP). When performing the QRA analysis, there are many areas where the degree of uncertainty related to the quality of data and the way they are retrieved and further implemented may affect the overall calculated risk figures. In particular, the estimation of the ignition probability is a key point in evaluating the frequency of major scenarios involving flammable substances (i.e. Pool Fire, Jet Fire, Flash Fire, etc.).

Abstract Eni has developed an innovative methodology for assessing major accident risks relating to offshore oil and gas operations in order to demonstrate that the risk level for people and the environment is tolerable, in compliance with the European Directive 2013/30/UE and the corresponding Italian Decree 145/2015. The risk assessment process is based on the bow-tie methodology that is applied in a "quantitative" way to determine the frequency of the most significant risk scenarios, identified in a preliminary HAZard Identification session. The frequency calculation takes into account the efficacy of all safeguards in place for preventing the top event occurrence or mitigating the incident effects considering a set of human and operational control and equipment reliability factors, derived from SPAR-H methodology, that characterise the effectiveness and integrity of each barrier. The risk methodology has been extensively applied to the Eni upstream offshore installations in Italy although it is standardisable for a possible extension worldwide. Since the risk methodology is operations-oriented, it has been proven suitable for the identification of SECEs and for defining their performance standards and therefore driving safety improvements and ensuring legislation compliance at the same time. The methodology has been benchmarked with the approaches used by other Member States, particularly in the North Sea and constitutes a valid approach for the entire Mediterranean Basin, as recognized by the Authorities after numerous meetings and workshops hosted by the interested parties. In Italy, the methodology has been included into the Guidelines expressely issued by the Competent Authority. Introduction The Italian Decree Law N° 145/2015 "Attuazione della direttiva 2013/30/UE sulla sicurezza delle operazioni in mare nel settore degli idrocarburi e che modifica la direttiva 2004/35/CE' [Ref.1], establishes the minimum requirements for preventing major accidents in offshore oil and gas operations and limiting the consequences of such accidents. For this purpose, the decree requires an operator (or the owner) to submit to the competent authority a Report on Major Hazards (RMH) for any production installation, existent or new.

Abstract Following Macondo Accident, the European Community established the Offshore Safety Directive No. 2013/30/EU, transposed into the Italian Decree 145/2015, aimed at preventing the risk of Major Accidents in the offshore installations. To comply with regulator requirements a Major Hazard Report (MHR) for each offshore installation has to be issued by Operators to demonstrate that risk level for people and the environment deriving from Major Accidents is tolerable. Developing a strategy to meet legislation requirements for several MHRs in a relatively short time has represented a challenge for O&G Companies. This paper illustrates the strategy adopted by our Company to meet this challenging target. 1. Introduction Eni approach started with the benchmarking of "goal setting" regimes already implemented in O&G producing countries, in particular UK and Norway. It was then followed by the engagement of all stakeholders in the very early stage of the activities in order to finalize an agreed methodology for MHR. Early involvement of Trade Associations, Oil & Gas Associations (Assomineraria) and Approving Authorities represented in the peripheral and central Competent Committee (namely: Mining Authority - UNMIG –, Civil Defense, Harbour Authority and Ministry of Environment) and University Research Institutes has been fundamental to get final Authorities approval within due dates for existing installations (July 2018). The methodology, based on a preliminary HAZard IDentification followed by a bow-tie analysis for risk quantification, is sufficiently rigorous and standardized to ensure a worldwide applicability. MHR methodology was tuned with a ‘pilot’ program implemented in 2016 to few representative installations and then was applied to all Italian Eni offshore assets in 2017 and 2018. A clusterization approach capable to rationalise the number of MHRs to be analysed, ensuring at the same time a proper risk management, was adopted taking advantage of the repeatability of risk analysis to several installations having similar risks identified. Clusterization approach consists in an effective grouping of installations afferent to a geographical area which has been considered homogenous on the basis of two main criteria: same gas collecting facilities onshore; comparable environmental sensitivity. For each group the "representative installations" have been identified via a risk-based approach and assessed according to MHR methodology. Risk assessment for non representative installations in the same group has been presented in a single Cluster Report, which includes a demonstration that all risks have been properly managed.

ABSTRACT Saipem has developed and is implementing for its fleet a Spill Risk Assessment and Oil and Chemical Mapping methodology aimed at creating for each vessel a comprehensive reference document containing the spill risk for the equipment on board and the conditions that may result in a spill to the environment. In this way appropriate mitigation measures can be chosen, prioritized and implemented more effectively. INTRODUCTION Saipem is ISO 14001 certified and it is rated in a number of environmental and sustainability indexes. Furthermore, the interest of Saipem's stakeholders in spill prevention and response continues to increase. For the last two years the Materiality Assessment conducted among both internal and external stakeholders showed that spill prevention and response is a very important topic on their agenda. To this end, Saipem is strongly committed to improve both ‘Prevention’ and ‘Preparedness’. To this end, Saipem introduced two activities for its vessels: the Spill Risk Assessment (SRA) and the associated Oil and Chemical Mapping (OCM). The process started already in 2016 when all vessels were required to produce a list and a mapping of the equipment and storage areas on board and continued in 2017 with the development of a detailed SRA methodology that is currently being deployed on all Saipem fleet. METHODOLOGY The SRA aims to evaluate the spill risk for the equipment on board Saipem vessels and the conditions that may result in a spill to the sea. This evaluation, which combines the experience of personnel on board with a rigorous and consistent methodical process assigns a risk level for every equipment on board in order to understand whether the risk is unacceptable, if any risk mitigation measures could be implemented and to choose / prioritize them appropriately. The process consists of three different steps: Identifying and listing all the equipment capable of generating spills of oil or of other substances hazardous to the environment: for each equipment several details were required, such as: name of equipment, location, name and quantity of oil / chemicals contained, existing barriers, etc. At a later stage, an additional set of parameters were required to be provided for each equipment, thus enabling the risk to be assessed by evaluating the: Probability of release , considering details such as: Wear and tear of the equipment (if equipment is subject to weather or possible impacts, the type of usage - e.g. often dragged across hard surfaces, the frequency of usage Frequency of the maintenance; Spill history of the equipment, and of other similar equipment in Saipem and in the Oil & Gas sector (if any); Condition of the equipment during the spill risk assessment inspection., etc.) Magnitude of the consequences for the environment, calculated based on: Evaluation of the maximum amount of substance that could be spilled from the equipment: quantity of substance contained, pressure of the equipment, response time before a spill could be stopped; Evaluation of how much of the substance spilled could affect the environment: spill barriers in place; Evaluation of the damage to the environment: toxicity for the environment of the substance spilled. Considering the risk level for each equipment, choosing the best prevention and mitigation measures.

Abstract Significant risks faced by the oil and gas industry lead to the need of methodologies able to evaluate project and measure risk. Risk-mitigation strategies are most effective when the assessment of the risk includes an in-depth study of several uncertainties involved, with the aim of optimizing investment return. In this basket, petrophysical uncertainty acts a significant role in the risk assessment phase, especially in the computation of volumetrics. The scope of this work is the presentation of a methodology coming up from a real case study, where the limited information available makes challenging, yet critical, the creation of a robust input dataset for petrophysical interpretation and the assessment of the relevant uncertainties. The well log database is heterogeneous due to the complex data acquisition history of the field, and no information are available about tools and hole conditions. Thus, the use of neural networks allowed the prediction of missing log sections, and core data poor representativeness leaded to the need of integration from analogue wells from a regional database, making the uncertainty assessment quite complex. The work proposes the use of Monte Carlo Simulations to assess and propagate petrophysical uncertainty information, and different solutions to integrate the results in the static geological model, ranging from building discrete petrophysical scenarios (conservative, expected and optimistic), to the use of full petrophysical output distribution. The petrophysical uncertainty shows a significant impact on the in-place volume distribution and therefore provide an important element for the subsequent risk analysis phase. Introduction Many people faced the issue of quantifying the petrophysical uncertainty through years, resulting in the production of several approaches, but unfortunately not so many available "on the shelf" and, thus, rarely facing the problem of having poor database, with scarce information about the environment at the moment of the measure. One of the first issues to approach is the following: a direct measure of the main petrophysical parameters does not exist, since there are not tools provided for their measure. We use so to call them indirect measures.

Abstract In the latest years O&G industry has generally recognized that Process Safety and Asset Integrity Management are key drivers for correctly managing assets and ensuring their ability to perform their functions efficiently and as intended whilst protecting people and environment for all the life-cycle. In 2009 an innovative risk screening methodology was developed for evaluating hazards and establishing priorities for risk reduction supported by a dedicated software called BART (Baseline Risk Assessment Tool). BART combines a simplified QRA for the calculation of frequency and consequences of the accidental event and the Bow-Tie methodology for the identification of the safety barriers in place. Dedicated checklists allow to evaluate the efficiency of the barriers and their contribution in reducing frequency and/or consequences of the accident. The result of the analysis is the evaluation of risks related to plant process units (e.g. separators, compressors, etc.) and the identification of recommendations for the further improvement of safety barriers in place. During the years the tool has been continuously updated with new features and additional modules with the aim of creating a comprehensive tool capable of performing quick but complete risk assessments on Oil&Gas Upstream industry assets. The latest of these update is a brand new module dedicated to Floating Production Storing and Offloading (FPSO) Units and Floating Production Units (FPU), and, in the paper, its methodology and new features are described also through the outcomes of the first real case application. Introduction As described by Petrone and others [1], BART is a risk screening tool that combines a simplified Quantitative Risk Assessment (QRA) methodology with a bow-tie model approach to identify and assess any potential hazards and associated risks, that may arise from a process activity carried in both onshore and offshore Oil & Gas installations. BART (BAseline Risk Assessment Tool) methodology is based on a simplified quantitative risk assessment methodology developed to determine the initial risk level within each functional unit of the installation, according to the process flow, the operative conditions and the plant layout. Consistent with the unit input data, the tool calculates on the basis of specific assumptions the release frequency and estimates the consequences for each foreseeable top event that could happen within each functional unit as if no preventive and recovery barriers are in place. Starting from these initial risks, the bow-tie approach is then adopted to evaluate the current risk levels decreasing the likelihood of occurrence and severity of consequences of each top event on the basis of the number and effectiveness of all preventive and recovery barriers in place within each functional unit.

ABSTRACT In general, and above all in a period of economic crisis, the oil and gas industry is called to embrace new technologies, which result in cost-effective approaches. In fact, if in the good times of a price boom it is better to be fast and cheap in the preliminary design phases, in times of falling prices it is of crucial importance to reduce any inefficiency to save money in the future. In the risk assessment of offshore structures, it is a common practice to use integral or phenomenological consequence models for design. Such models, which consider simplifications and empirical assumptions, generally ignore the interaction between the complex geometry of the structures and the analysed phenomenon. In particular, when dealing with ventilation and flow patterns, generation of toxic/flammable gas clouds and explosions, such simplifications can lead to a wrong estimation of the potential consequences. Thus, in order to overcome these limitations, the use of simplified models foresees a very conservative approach. On the other hand, Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) allows to model in detail the 3D geometry of the facilities and its interaction with the processes under investigation, which can therefore be described with high accuracy. Thanks to a proper description of both complex geometry and physics involved, this approach results in a significant reduction of the conservative assumptions, leading to a reduction of volumes, weights and thus costs, with a safer design. Moreover, CFDbased consequence models provide a guidance on optimal mitigation strategies. This paper will present the benefits of a CFD approach with some examples comparing the design of offshore structures obtained adopting integral or CFD-based consequence models. INTRODUCTION Months of low oil prices have turned into years and now, as never before, the oil industry, and in particular the upstream one, has the necessity to transform the way it works in order to survive and reflourish. In fact, while the high crude price in recent years allowed the industry to overlook inefficiencies and obtain however success in the short term, now that we live in a period of low prices, it is mandatory to reduce any inefficiency in order to save money in the long term. Such focus has to be kept in consideration already in the preliminary design phase of any project.

ABSTRACT Simultaneous Operations (SIMOPS) represent a strategic solution for oil companies as, in case of new installations, they allow to speed up the start-up of the production process while, in case of existing installations, they allow not to stop the production process. However, this solution, that is advantageous both for production and economic reasons, tends to increase the possibility for negative interferences among the different rig production phases, when hydrocarbons are extracted, and consequently increases the risk for catastrophic events impacting on humans and the environment. Due to the potential hazard posed by SIMOPS, a dedicated chapter has been inserted in the D.lgs. 145/2015 (Italian adoption of the EU Directive 2013/30). Until today, the evaluation of the risk induced by SIMOPS has been mainly based onto the experience of operators and on the field decisions taken during operations. The present paper instead, by means of the development of an innovative methodology, proposes an adequate approach, that is systematic and pro-active, to deal with the risk analysis of SIMOPS, as requested by oil companies that will extract hydrocarbons in Italian waters after the introduction of the EU Directive. The final result of the analysis will be a Risk Matrix of SIMOPS, easy and intuitive to use, able to synthesise the outcomes of the risk assessment based on the requirements of the user, taking into account both the operating phases to analyse and the layout of the entire plant. The methodology has been defined by the Working Group of the SEADOG laboratory at Politecnico di Torino in co-operation with the engineering company RAMS&E s.r.l. based in Torino. INTRODUCTION The EU Directive 2013/30 introduced the most innovative regulations for an advanced risk analysis and it has been adopted in Italy with a proper Decree (D.Lgs. 145/2015). Stimulated by this adoption, a new laboratory has been founded at Politecnico di Torino, named SEADOG (Safety & Environmental Analysis Division for Oil & Gas), supported via the funding of the Italian Economic Development Ministry.

ABSTRACT AMRA, Research Centre in the field of the Analysis and Monitoring of Environmental Risk, is a permanent structure for the development of innovative methodologies applied to environmental issues. In the last years, AMRA has devoted significant efforts to develop a quantitative framework for multi-risk assessment to support the identification of effective strategies, economically viable, for the mitigation of impacts due to a wide range of risk sources and their possible interactions, considering scenarios of cascading effects. AMRA has participated and led several initiatives to promote theoretical developments of multi-risk approach and to apply this approach to cases of industrial accidents triggered by natural events (Natech). In particular, various research activities have been carried out by AMRA under projects funded by the European Commission (FP6-Na.Ra.S, FP7-CRISMA, FP7-STREST). Among the recent experiences of AMRA there is also the collaboration with the Italian Ministry of Economic Development DGS-UNMIG through the ARGO project (Analysis of natural and anthropoGenic Risks of Offshore platforms). The general objective of the project is twofold: to develop methodologies to analyse natural and human-induced risks of offshore platforms; to provide technical support for the development of recommendations arising from the foregoing analysis. In particular, ARGO aims at developing and applying a multi-risk approach to the analysis of Natech events on offshore installations for hydrocarbon extraction. This paper discusses the principles of the AMRA multi-risk methodology and its applications to industrial sites. After a brief overview of the major natural phenomena that can trigger Natech events, this work focuses on the conceptual framework underpinning the multi-risk analysis applied by AMRA to the probabilistic assessment of Natech events.

Abstract Environmental Risk Analysis (ERA) is a powerful means to ensure that all prevention and protection measures required to lower the environmental risk of oil and gas installations to an acceptable level have been identified. The Company is so convinced of its usefulness that conducting ERAs is now mandatory for all its installations. An Environmental Risk Analysis was recently conducted by the Company UK affiliate on Dunbar offshore installation located in the northern North Sea at about 140 km of Shetland Islands (West) and 150 km to Norway (East) and at about 140 m water depth. The applied methodology takes into account the hydrocarbon spill trajectory and the probabilities that hydrocarbon reaches any environmental resources. The damage is estimated on the basis of fraction of habitat or species degraded and recovery time of the ecosystem, based on simple exposure-effect relationship constructed from observed effects of historical spills. The accidental scenarios are displayed on a risk matrix and environmental risk is assessed. 4 oil spill scenarios have been selected as representing most of oil spill cases on the basis of the technological risk assessment. Oil drift simulations were conducted in stochastic mode with OSCAR tool, on the basis of 7 years of historical wind and current data covering the studied area. Quantities of oil and associated probabilities of presence were calculated for each grid cell of the model. Shoreline habitats, seabirds and marine mammals have been identified as Valued Ecosystem Component for the study and geographically positioned. On the basis of severity assessment and frequency of damage calculations, scenarios could be plotted on the Company risk matrix. It is found out that the remote location of Dunbar platform together with oil characteristics and current flow pattern in the area of the study tend to limit the environmental risk.

Abstract Production optimization is one of the most complex and multi-disciplinary task in the oil & gas industry. The high number of variables involved make the optimization process more challenging, since a global sight of the production asset is required. The optimization process is driven by input data subjected to uncertainties due to physical properties variability, instrument errors, and lack of up-to-date measurements. Neglecting the presence of these uncertainties may lead to an hazardous and unsafe optimized field configuration. For these reasons, the optimization process should be performed through a tool able to manage an integrated production system and its inner uncertainties. A workflow for hydrocarbon production optimization under uncertainties is presented in this article. The workflow is basically structured in three phases. In the first phase, the integrated optimization process with a powerful genetic algorithm takes place. The result is an optimized field configuration characterised by a deterministic production increase in respect to the initial production. In the second phase, after having identified the uncertain input variables, a Monte Carlo simulation for the optimized field configuration is performed. The result is a probabilistic distribution of the production increase. The third step is a detailed analysis of system constraints to evaluate the behaviour of the optimized configuration. The integrated workflow has been applied on a case study. The results obtained has shown the importance to identify and quantify uncertainties in an oil & gas production system in order to obtain a solution characterised by a production increase with a high reliability. The proposed workflow is an important tool to evaluate the field potential under uncertainties, optimize production, improve operations and system reliability, and support the decision-making process.

Abstract Oil platforms are complex systems where different processes occur and energy production is required to sustain all the activities. The number of risks for human health related to processes is therefore significant. The evaluation and quantification of risks is the fundamental step for the final design of the platform. Exergy analysis and Thermoeconomics are tools for optimizing thermodynamic and economic efficiency of the system. Authors propose a model to possibly reduce risks starting from the design phase of an energy system. The model, named Combined Risk and Exergy Analysis, uses the approach of Thermoeconomics to perform simultaneously the risk assessment and exergy analysis of the system and identify major sources of risk related to inefficiency and eventually reduce them. This work presents the analysis of a crude oil separation unit using commercial Aspen Plus. the combined application of the Risk analysis and the Thermoeconomic analysis of the system can be useful to find the best trade-off between thermodynamic inefficiencies and risk on human health.

Abstract In order to support the industry and provide a basis for decision making, DNV GL has undertaken a comprehensive study to assess feasibility and risk accompanying industrial activities like shipping and oil and gas exploitation in the Arctic region. Although the study targets particular challenges associated with the high north, the approach and methodology applies globally. Building on risk expertise from both maritime and oil and gas operations, we conceived the Arctic risk picture in the format of a geographic information system (GIS) based interactive map ( http://gis.dnv.com/arcticriskmap ). The map unfolds some of the complexity and draws an intuitive line between hazards at stake and their governing risk factors. The map is a first attempt to visualize and explore how intermittent environmental factors contribute to the overall picture. Through use of readily available global scientific data obtained from climate- and oceanographic models, data of known and predicted natural resources, and data of known and predicted industrial activity, the map delineates and reveals the super positioning of phenomena leading to risks. In this paper, we wish to share our findings, experience, and methodology, inviting a greater discussion towards safety, security, and environmental performance in the industry. The paper discusses the premises of the study, data needs, methodology, weaknesses and strengths, analytical approach, risk benchmarking, and possible threats to the Arctic environment and how to manage these.

ABSTRACT The cost of producing a barrel of oil depends on a variety of factors related to the inherent costs (direct and indirect) associated with extracting oil from the subsoil and bringing it to surface (lifting costs), as well as the significant costs spent to explore and develop oil fields (finding costs). Yet there are also other variables that enter the already complex equation and provide the final oil price. Like any other industry, in the oil and gas business accidents always cost money and can adversely affect the production cost. Whenever people are injured, assets damaged, the environment polluted and business interrupted, money is unavoidably lost and company image and reputation is compromised. It is not easy to estimate nature and extent of such losses and translate this estimate in a defined algorithm. This paper presents a methodology to estimate the so called "Cost of the risk" of a Barrel of oil that takes into account the following elements: Process Safety Risk Costs: to manage the impact on people due to process Major accidents Occupational Risk Costs: to manage occupational safety hazardous events Environmental Risk Costs: to address the impact on the environment due to a Blow out event or pipeline ruptures with consequent contamination of water and soil Asset Risk Costs: to manage the financial impact on the Asset due to process Major accidents All these costs are qualitatively correlated to the reputational impact. The methodology and the rationale behind the proposed approach are described through a practical example.

ABSTRACT Assessment of environmental quality and environmental risk is becoming a requirement associated to any industrial development and in impact analyses of industrial sites. The Ecological Risk Analysis is a hierarchical, multi-level methodology, starting with the identification of the problem and the definition of the related risk hypothesis, in support to the adoption of the best management options. The multidisciplinary approach of the Weight of Evidence (WOE) is an essential component in the ERA procedures, to assess and classify the ecological status of the environment by integrating various elements of quality. Offshore industry has to deal mainly with quality assessment in marine sediments contaminated by hydrocarbons and metals released by the exploration and production activities, and WOE approach has been developed to overcame the limits of sediment characterization based only on chemical analyses. WOE is aimed at weighting and integrating heterogeneous data from different types of chemical and biological investigations. Choosing the most appropriate lines of inquiry depends on the conceptual model that has been adopted, and on the local environmental conditions. ERA analysis is a site-specific procedure and analytical steps and risk characterization may require different levels of detail and quantification of different environmental/contamination variables. The integration of data obtained by a multidisciplinary approach provides an added value compared to support complex decisional.

ABSTRACT: In the Norwegian Sector of the Barents Sea and Lofoten areas a precautionary principle has been applied since 2006 for regulating discharges of produced water and drilling mud from O&G activities. This precautionary approach was adopted, in absence of scientific knowledge about ecosystem impacts, to avoid possible significant damage to the main resources of these areas. The lack of empirical knowledge on potential impacts, and thus of tolerance limits in relation to E&P activities, prevents the application of effective mitigation and riskbased management measures. Eni E&P, its subsidiary Eni Norge, TOTAL E&P and its subsidiary TOTAL E&P NORGE, have joined forces to establish a research project, called BioSea, designed to build a scientific platform for a Risk based Environmental Management of Arctic E&P offshore activities. The project objectives were to develop a suitable set of tools for environmental monitoring in North Sea and Arctic offshore areas, and to improve scientific knowledge on the sensitivity of Arctic species to dispersed crude oil and produced water compared to the North Sea species. The BioSea demonstrated, through laboratory experiments with living organisms and field surveys, the relevance of typical oil exposure parameters (biomarkers) as a valuable tool for oil exposure monitoring in different Arctic species. This new approach was first developed and then refined based on the measured sensitivity of selected Arctic organisms towards specific biomarkers. Biomarker field reference levels were also established for the same species, carrying out field surveys in Svalbard and Barents Sea areas, during different seasons and at different environmental conditions. The establishment of biomarker threshold levels, obtained from a combination of laboratory experiments and field surveys, will contribute to the definition of Assessment Criteria to be used in future monitoring programmes for the evaluation of environmental quality, as required by the Integrated Management Plan for the Barents Sea and Lofoten areas. This paper provides a description of the main achievements obtained during the project

ABSTRACT: Quantitative Risk Assessment (QRA) is a powerful tool to identify the hazards and to assess the risks, in order to provide guidance (since the design phase) on prevention and recovery measures to be adopted. The PHERA (Process Hazardous Equipment Risk Assessment) software is a noncommercial tool developed to allow the implementation of a straightforward procedure for the calculation of individual and societal risk, in the framework of quantitative risk analysis for upstream installations in E&P industry. The tool, starting from a representation of the installation layout and from data on the expected accidental scenarios, is able to calculate the risk indexes in and around the installation. The code was up to now focused on the evaluation of human exposure to risk but a modified version of the PHERA tool has been developed and used to evaluate the assets exposure to risk (EtR) for insurance purposes. The EtR can be quantified with the potential economic losses due to major damages to operating assets that can be represented by the Estimated Maximum Loss (EML) defined as "the largest, low probability loss which could be caused by a single occurrence of the peril in question". Assigning a monetary value (replacement cost) to each equipment of the asset and defining a specific "vulnerability" to the physical effects (thermal radiation, overpressure) which they are exposed to, it is possible to calculate the monetary loss and to select the maximum monetary loss (EML). The exposure values can be used to determine the insurance coverage for Company assets

ABSTRACT: Subsequent to the laws protecting workers from exposure to electro-magnetic fields coming into force, the eni S.p.A. Radiation Safety unit provided all Group companies with methods to verify levels of exposure. To that end, methods were designed that could be used at all production sites while still maintaining enough flexibility to take into account the vast array of possible exposure scenarios. This article offers a summary of the working methods used and the main results obtained

ABSTRACT: Risk Management (RM) is a well recognised approach to address projects uncertainties, to provide accurate CAPEX estimates and to have proactive responses to unplanned events. However, RM is often presented as a standard and repetitive process, disregard to projects diverse challenges. This acceptance is a main obstacle to its successful implementation, because this can lead to over complex risk studies for simple matter or, on the contrary, scarce results for intricate issues. Drilling& Completion projects present a high versatility of situations (from a standard onshore workover to a very challenging deep offshore exploratory campaign). Project challenges can be very different: technical (HP/HT, new technologies, etc), environmental (sensitive areas, deep offshore conditions, etc), economic (market conditions, etc), or strategic (partnership, etc). The natural consequence is that each project requires an adequate response in terms of RM. Actually, RM toolbox encompasses a number of different studies, such as risk registers, risk mapping, probabilistic CAPEX/schedule, fault trees, etc. Not all studies should be systematically performed. Thus, the RM approach must be tailored to each project challenges, in order to bring the highest added value to the decision makers. eni Drilling, Completion& Production optimization department has built an integrated RM system that provides a properly designed workflow for treating each project with a suitable approach according to its maturity and other technical, environmental, economic or strategic criteria. This paper takes advantage of eni an experience on a well campaign offshore China and describes how RM approach supported strategic decisions on the implementation of technologies (RSS, continuous circulating system, aluminium drill pipe, ceramic protectors and centralisers) to reduce well operations uncertainties. This case study encompasses the complete decision loop, from the cost/benefit analysis of each technology to the measured benefits from the rig operations in terms of performance enhancement. Finally, it substantiates the values of RM in investment decision by addressing RM in a practical way. This case study will definitely help to spread a RM culture within project management organizations