Drilling and completing wells for hydrocarbon production comprise the major cost of well operations. Slim-hole drilling can significantly reduce drilling costs, making low producing reservoirs economically viable. However, a number of challenges are associated with slim-hole wells. A major challenge encountered while deploying lower completions in long horizontal slim-hole wells is stuck pipe, as the wellbore diameter is less than six inches, allowing restricted clearance between the wellbore and completion equipment. Stuck pipe incidents can cause significant non-productive time (NPT), additional high costs, and the possibility of compromising the well objective. Stuck pipe incidents may require sidetrack operations in the worst cases, which may considerably change the planned well design and delay the overall project, along with increasing costs. Drilling in the minimum stress direction with heavy mud weight and high overbalance pressure adds to the challenge in deploying completions in HPHT slim-hole wells. While deploying the lower completions in slim-hole wells, many factors come into play and each factor has a critical role in the success of the operation. After conducting a detailed study on several HPHT slim-hole gas wells in Middle-East region, a risk matrix was developed for a specific well-bore diameter, by identifying some common variables. Based on potential chance of occurrence, a certain value was assigned to each variable. The risk mitigation plans are driven by the risk matrix variables. Using this risk matrix, the occurrences of stuck pipe incidents in critical HPHT slim-hole wells that initially tend to have high chances of stuck pipe were significantly reduced. The risk matrix presented in this paper successfully mitigated stuck pipe incidents from occurring and has saved millions of dollars in associated costs. The matrix played a key role in operator's drilling operations and was adapted in operations as an important tool to evaluate final wellbore conditions prior to selection of the optimum completion type. This paper presents a highly effective risk matrix that significantly minimizes stuck pipe incidents during drilling/completion operations of slim-hole gas wells.

Global economy faces various challenges, ranging from pandemics to economical instabilities, from rapidly growing regional economies to the nations aggressively competing to be cost competitive for capturing the global markets. Ripple effect of these factors directly impact the global energy demand and hence make the Oil & Gas commodity as one of the volatile business sector. To embrace the uncertain market conditions from increased energy demand to abrupt global Lockdowns as the world faced in 2020 due to COVID-19, companies face challenges to survive by re organizing, managing, aligning and integration of multi discipline, multi-functional and multiple-location activities and strive to achieve organization goals and business objectives. An integrated approach for managing various critical activities and accordingly the business impact analysis are the main pillars of a successful business continuity plan. In offshore upstream business one of the main challenge usually faced by Management & stakeholders is to have one consolidated long term look ahead plan comprising of Brownfield / Green field major activities related to Production enhancement (Drilling and hook ups), Projects, Asset Integrity, major Maintenance, Planned Shutdowns/turnaround, Reservoir Management & Monitoring etc. in order to provide precise input while preparing the 5 Years Business plan, Yearly Budget of Business Unit & frequent Inputs while finalizing the 3 monthly FSOPR. A rigorous road map is essential with effective interaction among the stakeholders to optimize the multiple planned outages, in field movement of Barges & Rigs, clashing of different construction activities, effective follow ups & progress monitoring for proactive look ahead with effective resource planning, OPEX & CAPEX Budget optimization. Master Integrated activity planning (MIAP) is a proven approach for dealing with complexity and uncertainty when operating complex production systems. MIAP is driven by the need to deliver on production forecasts, optimize the decision making for the planning, scheduling and execution of activities impacting production, mitigate the risk associated with major shutdowns or bringing projects online and optimize interfaces to allow engineering, drilling, projects, maintenance and operations etc. to work together seamlessly. MIAP provides opportunity to Maintenance support team to view the upcoming major maintenance activities with an opportunity to align with corrective maintenance, Plant modification, projects tie-ins while avoiding required plant shutdown. This allows activities to be scheduled effectively and optimized the multiple shutdowns. Major Maintenance / Major Overhaul execution planning can start well in advance of the actual start of the activities. In addition to that, MIAP provides the opportunity for site and maintenance support teams for closely track spare parts availability of critical equipment. MIAP provides opportunity to identify and assess if any SIMOPS operation is required by looking at the plan where Drilling Rig is available with producing tower and take necessary preparations considering all HSE and facility integrity standards requirements.

ABSTRACT The paper elaborates the utilization of a novel 6 × 6 Occupational Health Hazard Risk Rating matrix developed for oil and gas operations,enhancing the determination of occupational health hazards as comparedto a5 × 5 matrix in terms of clarity on severity and likelihood criteria. This paper describes how severity ratings were redefined, and how likelihood ratings were divided into qualitative and quantitative approaches. To establish the severity rating definitions, health effect ratings were benchmarked from international industrial hygiene association guidelines, peer-reviewed literature, and hazard rating categories from oil and gas operations. The qualitative likelihood scheme was developed considering evaluation methodologies for various physical and ergonomic hazards, as well as formulation of control bands for biological and chemical hazards. The quantitative likelihood scheme was based on the concept of the 95% upper UCL of hazard exposure data and evaluating it against its OEL. From the previous five (5) Severity of Harm categories (i.e., Minimal, Minor, Moderate, Major, Extreme), six (6) classifications were developed (i.e., Notable, Minor, Serious, Major, Catastrophic, Disastrous) specifying documented health effects posed by a workplace health hazard. From the previous five (5) Likelihood of Harm categories (i.e., Rare, Unlikely, Possible, Likely, Almost Certain), six (6) qualitative likelihood classifications were formulated (i.e., Very Low, Low, Medium/Moderate, Moderately High, High, Very High) considering current evaluation schemes for physical and ergonomic hazards and control banding for biological and chemical hazards. In addition, six (6) exposure bands were created by defining specific exposure rating categories based on an estimate of the 95% UCL relative to a health hazard’s OEL. Finally, the previous five (5) risk ratings (i.e., Extreme, High, Medium, Low, Negligible) were consolidated into four (4) risk levels (i.e., High, High-Medium, Medium and Low), with each level differentiated according to the control measures required and the exposure monitoring frequency requirement for the workplace health hazard. The health hazard risk rating matrix is envisioned to make health hazard risk assessment process simple, more accurate, user-friendly, and consistent with international best practices for the following reasons: use of 95% UCL is the most appropriate metric to evaluate exposures on the upper tail of an exposure distribution as it acts as a reference point in assessing the exposure profile’s arithmetic mean with a health hazard’s OEL; new severity rating definitions mirror the actual health effects posed by a health hazard; and qualitative likelihood rating is reflective of globally accepted exposure assessment methodologies and control banding schemes.

The paper elaborates the utilization of a novel 6 × 6 Occupational Health Hazard Risk Rating matrix developed for oil and gas operations,enhancing the determination of occupational health hazards as comparedto a5 × 5 matrix in terms of clarity on severity and likelihood criteria. This paper describes how severity ratings were redefined, and how likelihood ratings were divided into qualitative and quantitative approaches. To establish the severity rating definitions, health effect ratings were benchmarked from international industrial hygiene association guidelines, peer-reviewed literature, and hazard rating categories from oil and gas operations. The qualitative likelihood scheme was developed considering evaluation methodologies for various physical and ergonomic hazards, as well as formulation of control bands for biological and chemical hazards. The quantitative likelihood scheme was based on the concept of the 95% upper UCL of hazard exposure data and evaluating it against its OEL. From the previous five (5) Severity of Harm categories (i.e., Minimal, Minor, Moderate, Major, Extreme), six (6) classifications were developed (i.e., Notable, Minor, Serious, Major, Catastrophic, Disastrous) specifying documented health effects posed by a workplace health hazard. From the previous five (5) Likelihood of Harm categories (i.e., Rare, Unlikely, Possible, Likely, Almost Certain), six (6) qualitative likelihood classifications were formulated (i.e., Very Low, Low, Medium/Moderate, Moderately High, High, Very High) considering current evaluation schemes for physical and ergonomic hazards and control banding for biological and chemical hazards. In addition, six (6) exposure bands were created by defining specific exposure rating categories based on an estimate of the 95% UCL relative to a health hazard’s OEL. Finally, the previous five (5) risk ratings (i.e., Extreme, High, Medium, Low, Negligible) were consolidated into four (4) risk levels (i.e., High, High-Medium, Medium and Low), with each level differentiated according to the control measures required and the exposure monitoring frequency requirement for the workplace health hazard. The health hazard risk rating matrix is envisioned to make health hazard risk assessment process simple, more accurate, user-friendly, and consistent with international best practices for the following reasons: use of 95% UCL is the most appropriate metric to evaluate exposures on the upper tail of an exposure distribution as it acts as a reference point in assessing the exposure profile’s arithmetic mean with a health hazard’s OEL; new severity rating definitions mirror the actual health effects posed by a health hazard; and qualitative likelihood rating is reflective of globally accepted exposure assessment methodologies and control banding schemes.

A number of major process industry accidents have involved SIMOPS. Company conducted construction (modifications) activities inside its own plant during the period from November 2017 to May 2018. The Group Risk Acceptability Criteria Guidelines have been defined by Company for the purpose of providing Senior Management with quantitative information about the risk profile during SIMOPS activities and to help them in taking informed decision about the execution strategy to ensure safe operations. A DNV-GL Phast based model of the plant has been used to assess the risk level. Using Group Risk guidelines for On-site personnel based on the FN (Frequency – Number of Fatalities) Curve, Company evaluated and compared several SIMOPS options prior to the actual works to identify the optimal manning level and schedule to ensure the overall Group Risk laid in the ALARP region. The quantitative risk assessment served as a tool to derive the optimal manning levels and shutdown schedule during the SIMOPS activities. The manning levels were controlled through additional administrative measures to ensure its implementation. Moreover, the overall SIMOPS Risk (FN Curve) for the current activity was compared with the risk undertaken during similar previous activities conducted in 2015 and 2016. After the successful completion of the activities, the Risk Assessment was updated to take into consideration the actual manning and schedule inputs for the Pre-Shutdown and Partial Shutdown phases. The actual overall Group Risk (including Pre and Partial Shutdown) was within the Company Group Risk Acceptability Criteria. Additionally, valuable Lessons Learned were identified such as purging (with inert gas), rather than just the depressurization of the equipment in the units during Shutdown, can contribute to a significant risk reduction. This paper presents a novel approach to evaluate SIMOPS risk on personnel using a Group Risk criteria based on FN Curve. This provides an additional re-assurance to stakeholders involved in the activity to take informed decisions based on a quantitative risk analysis rather than a qualitative assessment.

Company conducted a Fatigue Risk Assessment Study to estimate the fatigue levels of approximately 9000 shifts and the risk of incidents occurring due to operator fatigue. The findings provided an insight into the likelihood of fatigue and risk of errors / incidents occurring for approximately 9000 shifts of control panel operators working on a 4×4, 12-hour, day and night shift pattern. The results presented in this paper are limited to the assessment conducted for day shifts in order to demonstrate the methodology. The study compared different shift patterns in order to identify shifts with higher fatigue levels and identify control measures to reduce operators’ fatigue levels and risk of incidents occurring to As Low As Reasonably Practicable (ALARP). Lowest fatigue and risk levels were identified for the current 4×4 shifts in comparison to 7×7 and 28×28 shift cycles followed by other Companies. In order, to lower the risk to as low as reasonably practicable (ALARP), additional control measures such as training, campaigns, ergonomic assessments, KPIs such as tracking incidents by fatigue levels, etc. are being rolled-out for implementation. This is a novel approach on the combination of a qualitative (IOGP) and quantitative (UK HSE) fatigue risk assessment methodology that has widespread applicability, prospectively in terms of shift design and prevention of incidents caused by fatigue induced impairments and retrospectively for incident investigations. This Fatigue Risk Assessment Study fosters proactive occupational health management by promoting health of employees and preventing / reducing fatigue and thus plays a vital role in the prevention of sickness absenteeism and illnesses associated with chronic fatigue.

Production of Oil, Gas and Petrochemical from production units is becoming very competitive every day. As products are sold in open market, production cost drives an organization's profitability. To keep a plant available for production as much as possible, Asset Performance Management (APM) or Asset Integrity Management (AIM)is the key. Risk based inspection (RBI) is a decision making tool that deals with integrity management of static equipment and piping through focus on prioritizing inspection based on the risk. Review of published guidelines for RBI such as API RP 580/581, ASME PCC3, DNV-RP-G101, EN 16991 etc., suggests that they provide either oversimplified or complex explanations which makes it difficult for beginners to grasp all the aspects that are critical for a successful RBI project. Therefore, this paper is aimed to provide and discuss the essential elements for effective RBI implementation project in a simplified way. RBI project can be divided into four major phases i.e project initiation and pre-requisites, workshops & trainings, RBI analysis phase and post RBI actions. Each of these stages is discussed with details in this paper. An overview of successful RBI program used within the industry and from the ADNOC LNG RBI implementation experience, is provided with details. Project management approach for RBI program implementation is conveyed by dividing project into different phases and highlighting the inputs/outputs and activities for each phase. Objectives, time and resources such as data and personnel required, software features that are essential, project planning and monitoring are provided. RBI program implemented efficiently in accordance with suggested plan, results in an overall optimization of inspection for static equipment/piping while maintaining their integrity as part of a broader APM or AIM strategy.

Middle East offshore platforms installations started in the early 60's and continue today. Managing asset integrity and demonstrating compliance is increasingly challenging due to frequent brownfield modifications, increased safety factors with the introduction of international standards, changes in metocean data and age deterioration. From work with North Sea, Gulf Region and Asia Pacific operators, an approach was developed to manage ageing assets using real-time structural risk assessments and operational procedures that ensures consistent risk levels of life safety and environmental for all assets and is applicable to all regions. Utilising the improved accuracy of modern weather forecasts, in combination with structural reliability, a methodology has been developed to determine the forecasted risk level for any critical element. This is updated live, with each new weather forecast, to provide proactive notifications and alerts so operators have more up to date knowledge to make decisions on their assets. A live web-based system can be utilised to display this information. The approach splits the three risks of life safety, environmental and structural damage into separate requirements and calculates the probability of failure, which will lead to each of the three consequences, for the critical component or the overall structure. The risk is evaluated and compared with the industry standard and the operators own acceptance criteria to determine if operational procedures need to be enacted to reduce the consequence. It has been found that the acceptable risk levels for the ‘in a forecasted storm’ risk are governing over the traditional design ‘annual’ risk levels. If at any point in time the probability of a wave height approaching the field exceeds the maximum allowable for a structure, the system issues timely alerts and warnings to the relevant stakeholder for their actions. The operator then has the option of de-manning or shutting down operations to maintain the risk levels for life safety and environmental at ALARP (as low as reasonably practicable) levels. The system also provides information for post-storm structural damage likelihood. A combination of online monitoring, inspection and/or asset loading history, which can be incorporated using Bayesian updating methods, and advanced assessment have been used to reduce the occurrence of enacting operational procedures for structures that are non-code compliant to greater than every 10 years while also reducing the annual risks. An additional advanced feature can be utilised by connecting installed accelerometers to the structure for continuous live streaming of the structural response which can issue alerts if any damage is suspected.

Objectives/Scope The drive to Goal Zero (or no harm to people, damage to asset and impact to environment) has been the cornerstone of the company as a highly reliable and caring organization. It is the " Northern Lights " of Iceland, considered as the majestic natural phenomenon known on earth. Simply put, it is the auroras or bright lights across the darkened night sky in vivid colors. There is never a guarantee that they will lit up the sky the moment we decided to look up. Anyone who wishes to see the "Northern Lights" requires an enormous amount of patience, collaboration, strategic planning, and flawless execution. Similar to Goal Zero, we all have a common goal of no harm people and through collaboration, strategic planning, execution and patience- we will strive to reach Goal Zero. In THE COMPANY, one of the ways to achieve Goal Zero is to promote safe behaviour at the workplace amongst frontline staff by equipping the Frontline Supervisors with the right tools and techniques through FLS Academy. The FLS Academy or "Safety Leadership for Front Line Supervisors Academy" was introduced in Well Engineering Directorate to address the growing number of incidents; including high potential incidents due to lack of or ineffective supervision at the worksite. The top 3 common causational factors from 2015 are: ▪ People (ACTS): Inattention/Lack of Awareness: Improper decision making or lack of judgment ▪ Process (CONDITIONS): Organisational: Inadequate hazard identification or risk assessment ▪ Process (CONDITIONS): Organisational: Inadequate work standards/procedures. In a number of Level 2 audits, it has been identified as one of the major gaps when it comes to frontline supervisory skills, certification and qualification. The objectives of FLS Academy in supporting and achieving Goal Zero are divided into two parts: For Frontline Supervisors: To improve the Frontline Supervisor’s knowledge of the Safety Leadership responsibilities with emphasis on Behavioral Safety issues and develop a mindset of Chronic Unease amongst staff. To energize and recognize ones role in achieving Goal Zero. To up-skill the Frontline Supervisors to become highly effective in crew engagement at the worksite. To experience a unique opportunity to engage with Senior Leaders (e.g. Managers and Team Leads), breaking down organization barriers and introduce a new approach of safety conversations. For the Senior Leaders: To transform our Managers and Team Leads into Safety Leaders and be advocate of FLS through engagement and facilitation of FLS modules with their Frontline Supervisors (e.g. Drilling Supervisors, Hoist Supervisors, Rig Managers, Night Toolpushers). To bring Senior Leaders closer to the Line/worksite and create a new approach of safety conversation.

Human performance principles, which are well developed in aviation and healthcare, still represent an emerging science within the oil and gas industry. The industry managed to significantly reduce injuries over the last decade with multiple programs ranging from HSE Leadership to Behavior-Based Safety to the point when the incidents plateaued according to IOGP and IADC incident statistics. This triggered a deeper look into human performance best practices and their applicability within the oil and gas sector. This paper aims to provide an alternative approach to adopt Human Performance science to the dynamic operations risk assessment process within an Oilfield Services Company. After the analysis of the existing human reliability assessment tools, a decision was made to adopt a human performance tool known as Human Error Assessment & Reduction Technique (HEART) into a service provider’s risk assessment process with a primary focus on Error Producing Conditions (EPC). An internal survey was undertaken to define Error Producint Condition, which are most relevant to the dynamic nature of oil and gas services operations and couple them with the Reasons’s performance modes and their effect on error appearance. This approach allowed to significantly simplify the risk assessment process and adequately focus on key factors known to produce conditions for human error. This naturally integrated into our existing qualitative risk assessment to recalculate the overall risk of a certain task and enhanced workers’ ability to recognize potentially dangerous external and internal factors. The field tests of the improved human performance risk assessments reshaped the standard risk assessment practices, moving the focus to and targeting the inherent unreliability of the task as a result of error producing conditions caused by unavoidable human interactions within the complex systems. This approach proved effective in improving the overall understanding of dynamic human reliability related risks among the front line employees by around 30%. The hypothesis is that by introducing key human performance factors to the day-to-day risk assessment will help build awareness of human factors and their relationship to the probability of an existing risk. At the same time, utilizing an already effective system – risk assessment – to introduce human factors methods will help avoid the complexity associated with its implementation of an additional human reliability tool and still get the benefit of key elements of a well-established method. This approach has undertaken to combine two existing effective systems: a standard risk assessment with integrated human factors under a customized umbrella fully suitable for Oilfield Service Company’s work specifics. This paper provides insights on how human factors can impact the level of risk and outlines the control measures targeted at such factors that can be missed if a standard risk assessment is applied.

Buildings that are manned and/or housing critical equipment are ideally conceived to be sited at safe distance away from potential explosion sources of the gas processing facilities. However it is not always possible to maintain the required stand-off distance due to several layout/operational constraints in brownfield projects and hence plant buildings are invariably subjected to the blast effects. The paper discusses challenges confronted and best practices followed in GASCO for blast protection of plant buildings. Quantitative Risk Assessment study forms the basis for blast considerations on the building, wherein potential Vapor Cloud Explosion scenarios are identified and blast overpressure are quantified in the form of contours on the plot. Buildings located within the blast contours and are manned/housing critical equipments are classified as blast-resistant to ensure safety to occupants and facilitate safe shutdown of process units during explosion. Building performance requirement defining acceptable level of damage is determined based on criticality of the facility/expected occupancy (control room, FAR, etc.). Structural system/material appropriate to blast intensity is chosen and a dynamic or equivalent static analysis is performed. Blast resistant design followed for buildings in GASCO plants incorporates a practical approach blending past experiences with best known practices in the industry. Building Blast Design Requirements (BDR) data sheet is introduced at early stages of the project and specific requirements such as blast load parameters, building configuration, structural system & foundation type, building response range and other special requirements are developed and firmed up before the commencement of detailed design. Single-storied regular shaped buildings with no windows or minimum windows with special features are preferred. Elevated ground floor is permitted in certain cases such as Substation to create cable vault. However this presents unique challenges in establishing blast pressure distribution due to lack of guidelines for such set-up, which is overcome by own novel solutions. For low blast loads, simplified static approach is adopted for structural analysis, while dynamic analysis with SDOF approach yields economical design for medium to high blast loads. In specific cases where SDOF idealization is inappropriate (as in multi storied building), a MDOF non-linear FE analysis is carried out. RC framed structure with reinforced masonry walls, or steel structure is adequate for low blast, while RC shear wall structure is found most effective to sustain moderate to high blast. The paper presents best practices and unique approach followed in GASCO for such design amid growing challenges of achieving high performance at low cost. These requirements are common for similar expansion projects and hence can be adopted across the industry.

In a typical Oil & Gas Project, almost 50% to 60% of project budget goes to materials and equipments Procurement. To ensure procured materials are meeting Quality and technical requirements, effective quality management system must be established and sufficient resources must be devoted to quality and inspection. Quality system is divided into two main aspects, Quality Assurance "QA" which are the established systems and processes intended to ensure quality. Examples of such quality assurance activities are material identification & traceability system, Nonconformity process, vendors / sub-contractor assessment, selection and control procedures and document & records control procedures. In addition the above, quality audits (internal on company PMT and external on contractors and key vendors / sub-contractors) is a main Quality assurance process with main objective of verifying level of compliance, identify system gaps and areas for improvement. On the other hand, Quality Control QC is the physical inspections and tests carried out on the product / assembly to ensure it’s free from defects and to confirm it’s meeting certain design / operation criteria. Normally, when a procurement PO is paced on a vendor to design / construct / test an equipment or package, the vendor along with sub-vendors are responsible to perform all QC requirements by competent QC / inspection personnel. Contractor and company representatives are deployed to attend / witness the critical inspection stages as additional layer of assurance. Company disciplines sometimes attend final performance / factory acceptance tests. ADMA-OPCO projects are executed by EPC Contractors on lump sum basis where contractor has the entire responsibility for project execution including deployment of inspection representatives / third party inspectors to attend and witness certain procurement inspections in accordance with pre-defined and approved inspection and test plan. In addition, company TPA also involved in some critical procurement inspections. ADMA-OPCO code of Practice CP-102 identifies minimum TPA intervention for majority of materials commonly procured in company projects. The problem with this document is that it has fixed level of inspection for each procurement item regardless of its criticality, i.e. pressure vessels have certain inspection interventions whether they are operating in utility or lethal gas application. Moreover, it has been noticed in many company projects that TPA resources were extensively deployed in inspection visits barely having any value and resulting in projects running out of inspection budget at the early procurement stage. To optimize inspection resources across the whole procurement stage and to ensure that these resources are used efficiently by focusing on the most critical procurement items, Risk Ranking process has been newly introduced to effectively and systematically manage procurement inspections. The same criticality ranking process is utilized to efficiently prioritize procurement engineering activities, control of supply chain, and many other procurement related activities. The same concept (Risk Approach) is used successfully in other company business sectors such as HSE, integrity and maintenance and it’s generally considered as industry best practice. In this Risk Ranking process, project procurement scope (project procurement list) are assessed systematically based on pre-defined criteria and ranked into four criticality categories (one is the least criticality and 4 is the highest). To carry out risk ranking of one procurement item, the two factors; COF (consequences of failure) and POF (probability of failure) shall be calculated, both are in the scale from 0 to 1 and by multiplying the two factors, we will have a figure represents the risk rank of the item. COF factor takes into consideration HSE, production and business consequences in case the procurement item failed in operation or became unavailable due to inherent reasons. On the other hand, all areas of uncertainties with regard to manufacturer’s capabilities and product characteristics are taken into consideration when Probability of failure POF factor is calculated such as complexity of the item, maturity of the design, confidence in vendor performance, and reliability of similar items already in operation. Once calculated, the criticality ranking process can be used to effectively manage many technical aspects such as identify material certification level (2.1, 3.1 or 3.2 as per EN 10204), decide vendor’s prequalification requirements (stringent assessment for critical supply scope and vice versa), determine list of vendor documents to be provided by vendors for review and to decide the level of involvement of various stakeholders (e.g. EPC, Company & TPA) in review of these documents. Risk based QC approach in project procurement is an enhanced way of managing / reducing quality risks in projects which will certainly have positive impact on item’s quality and reliability.

Many but not all Oil & Gas operators develop company rulesets for Quantitative Risk Assessments (QRAs). For those that do, it is to ensure a consistent and high standard approach across all company assets, aiming to achieve a balance between modelling simplification and complexity. A QRA ruleset has been developed for the Kashagan field in Kazakhstan by the North Caspian Operating Company NV (NCOC), with the purpose of addressing the specific challenges associated with quantifying the risk of toxic releases from high-pressure, high-H 2 S content pipelines. This paper summarises the analytical approach given in the ruleset, and explains how it was developed, by bringing together the most up-to-date guidance available in the industry. The main themes presented in this paper are: methodologies used to assess H 2 S risks to the general public, including the effect of concentration fluctuations and the choice of averaging time; the choice of dispersion model for far-field dispersion; and defining appropriate 'source terms’ for the dispersion modelling in order to account for the effect of ground cover on buried pipelines and to allow the full-bore ‘crater’ releases to be characterised more realistically. Calculating the probability of releases, especially those for the largest full-bore releases, is another important consideration.

Structural Integrity management (SIM) system is considered one of the main pillars of Asset Integrity Management (AIM) as SIM system role is to ensure and maintain asset structural integrity and fitness for purpose allowing assets owners to flexibly accomplish their business objectives and achieve sustainable operation of their assets. For Offshore and subsea Assets; the importance of SIM gets even more due to the high costs of Inspection, Maintenance and Repair (IMR) activities. The objective of this paper is to introduce to the Oil & Gas stake holders in the offshore market a deep understanding of SIM methodology and the procedures of establishing SIM system for their assets according to the API RP 2SIM practices which is considered one of the state-of-art practices to manage fixed offshore platforms integrity. The paper objective is achieved by representing a true project case applying practices and procedures of API RP 2SIM for a 120 Platform fleet using Qualitative (Risk Based) approach describing the basis of platforms data gathering, categorization, ranking and selection for assessment, setting inspection strategy & planning. It is concluded from this paper that SIM system is an enabler of the success of AIM system, and qualitative approach is considered a reliable and economic method for dealing with SIM projects, wall thickness measurements has a key role in the integrity of offshore platforms, software has a key role in SIM system sustainability and finally acceptance criteria is one of key issues that needs to be addressed in SIM projects. Added to that a set of recommendations is proposed to API RP 2SIM that might be useful to be considered next version. This paper shares with our stake holders in the oil & gas market a valuable experience of constructing a SIM system for operators using a real life project case, introduce comprehensive application of recommended practices and finally deepen the awareness of importance of SIM systems for sustainable development of offshore oil & gas assets.

The spherical shaped tanks/separators represent a common type of equipment in the Oil & Gas industry. The spherical shape is preferred due to the robustness that the geometry offers, in addition to the large fluid surface area that maximizes the gravity separation process. However, these convoluted shapes introduce difficulties in routine inspection and integrity assurance. This paper studies a fitness for service (FFS) assessment of complex damage mechanisms which include localized bottom bulge formation, local shell buckling and underside soil corrosion. This research analyzes a case study of atmospheric Horton Spheroid separation tank with 20,000 barrel capacity, 20 m diameter and 15 m height. The analysis includes a design calculation review of the spheroid via Finite Element Analysis (FEA), API 620 ( API 620 1962-2014 ) standard review from 1962 to 2014 and simulation of the steam desludging maintenance procedure. 3D nonlinear Finite Element model (FEM) was introduced to analyze the spheroid fitness for service under several bulgings and localized buckling. The FEA results were compared to inspection results to validate and confirm the bulging locations, bulging sizing and spheroid integrity. The FEA model results showed that the vacuumed spheroid is subjected to inward bulge formation at the crown upper shell and lower bottom plates. Due to the non-uniform curvature of the spheroid, the bulge locations are difficult to be predicted, however, the FEA results were able to detect precisely the location and geometry of bulges. The plastic strain failure criterion was used to assess the fitness for service of the spheroid for continuous operation with the presence of those deformations. The FEA model results showed excellent agreement with internal inspection results and findings. The FEA model results were used to conduct semi-qualitative risk assessment on other identical spheroids; an endorsement extension was granted based on the semi-qualitative assessment.

This paper applies Peak Over Threshold (POT) model of extreme value theory, using Generalized Pareto Distribution (GPD) which can give more accurate description on long-heavy-tailed distribution of crude oil prices dynamics. The baseline data are long-run series of historical daily spot prices (WTI and Brent) and basket prices (OPEC). Since the focus is risk perspective of oil producers, this study exercises the loss value of crude oil prices, negative difference of a particular day with previous one. Value at Risk (VaR) is empirically quantified based on on historical trends, volatility and correlation to estimate the likelihood that given losses will exceed a certain amount. The threshold are determined by sample mean excess function , while General Pareto Distribution (GPD) estimators are obtained using Probability Weighted Moments (PWM) method. Econometric statistics software is used for auto-correlation and heteroscedasticity test of pre-treated raw data, while backtesting of VaR result used Kupiec Proportion of Failure Test and Loglikehood Ratio approach. The focus is to apply modern method of risk assessment, providing an alternative tool / methodology of quantitative risk analysis for company E&P projects, especially during dynamic-oil-price environment.

How can mega-projects reduce performance failures? This question has added significance in the current market environment which became a financial pitfall for many ventures that have fallen short of initial projections. Projects owners seek to manage risk exposures across all organizational levels and incur the right kinds of risks to prevent erosion of business value. This paper introduces the iRisk – a new integrated approach developed to address challenges at Operations, Project and Enterprise levels within a common framework. The case study provides contingency recommendations, flowcharts, correlation matrices and diagrams based on results of the practical application in the onshore oil and gas Mega-project. The overall methodology is summarized in the following key milestones. 1st Process walkthroughs to snapshot internal system and identify areas of gaps and overlaps. 2nd Value and interaction mapping for visual alignment of operational, project, business challenges and the first level insight of potential interfaces. 3rd A trial assessment of interrelated challenges, their criticality to the project and potential manageability. 4th Development of a macro picture and re-design of risk management framework, process, and governance model; identification of optimal strategy and connection of interfaces through risk intelligence philosophy. The iRisk methodology was applied to the Mega-project situated near the Caspian Sea. During walkthroughs, it was observed that the Operations team was mainly challenged by field activities, the Project team by design and planning, and the Enterprise team by business performance and cost recovery issues. Difficulties in determining correlations included differences in functional targets, risk criteria and matrices set up, assessment time frames (short and long-term), and a large number of components required for a portfolio-wide view. Samples taken from each team for trial quantification of the monetary impact of equally ranked risks were simulated. Results measured in value change had varied within 10% deviation range which caused bias in criticality and treatment priorities within teams. Probabilistic techniques were further used to establish a baseline for the integrated criteria. Full-scale implementation of the proposed approach reduced the judgment bias, improved transparency of interfaces and set the basis for coordinated assessments moving up the overall maturity curve in a management of cross-functional challenges. The novelty of iRisk is in its robust and coherent approach that represents a critical change from the traditional qualitative views adopted in the petroleum business. It guides project teams with tools to numerically aggregate and map risk interactions and correlations applying greater precision on uncertainties. Would this help reduce performance failures? The answer is definitely "yes", but it requires from leaders at every level execute the process in a structured and disciplined fashion, and willingness to think outside the proverbial box.

Hydrocarbon pipelines are high value assets which have to be kept operating at risks as low as reasonably practicable. An integrated Pipeline Integrity Management System (PIMS) environment enables practices that result in more efficient data maintenance and information reliability while providing consistent application of integrity procedures including risk assessment and risk management. Risk assessment can be done by adopting qualitative, semi-quantitative or quantitative methodologies. As pipeline operators progressively adopt operating strategies of continual risk management and risk reduction with a view to minimizing total expenditures within safety, environmental, and reliability constraints, the need for quantitative assessments of risk levels and setting of risk tolerability criteria is becoming evident. The advantages of quantitative risk assessment are that it is measurable and helps to identify specific segments in a pipeline where the mitigation measures should be applied. Hence a quantitative risk based approach is adopted by the operator for maintaining the pipeline system. The two components of risk are probability of failure and consequences of failure. The probability of failure is primarily driven by the nature of threats. The pipeline characteristics and operating conditions that increase the probability of failure change based on the threats and it is essential to identify and quantify those threats that increase the risk of a pipeline failure to effectively address the issue. The consequences of failure are primarily driven by loss of product and downtime of the asset which are subsequently dependent on three factors – (1) detection time, (2) isolation time and (3) repair time. This paper is a case study relating to a major producer in the Middle East on how they manage their pipelines and the role of risk assessment within their multiple pipeline integrity management system. It describes how software-assisted, data driven, quantitative risk assessment is utilized to identify and prioritize specific segments of the pipelines for risk mitigation. The paper explains the importance of gathering accurate data to conduct the quantitative risk assessment and how the risk model was developed in such a way that any anecdotal understanding of pipeline risks is avoided so that the risk results are essentially driven by facts and figures. The paper explains the organizational challenges faced by the operator when such a process is implemented, including the importance, in a large organization, of stakeholder engagement in the data gathering, risk assessment and decision making process and the methods adopted by the operator to overcome those challenges and obtain that engagement. The importance of implementing various company pipeline integrity management procedures and its role in ensuring collection of all the vital information in a timely manner, which can eventually be used for the pipeline risk assessments, are also explained. An overview of the risk model used is described including the various threat and consequence models. The criteria established for pipeline segmentation are also described in detail. Scenarios are provided, as examples, where the quantified risk of just one short segment increases the entire pipeline risk and how a small change in attribute and/or operating procedure can reduce the risk to an acceptable level. A discussion will also be included on how the risk engine supplies ‘what if' scenarios to demonstrate to what level the agreed mitigation activities reduce the risks prior to asset integrity expenditure. Thereby ensuring that mitigation actions are correctly directed and actually achieve their goal of maintaining pipeline risks at an acceptable level.

Uncertainty analysis is usually conducted during field development, in order to quantify the uncertainty within the field, its impact on the recovery and the development strategy used in developing the field. However, uncertainty analysis usually focuses on field level, with little or no analysis done on the direct impact of well placement within uncertain region and it's impact on the field recovery i.e. well level uncertainty analysis. In order to investigate this and as a part the field phase development strategy, a thorough uncertainty analysis was conducted both on the field and well level. The field level uncertainty was done in order to quantify the reservoir uncertainty, and its effect on the production plateau length. The well level uncertainty was done, in order to optimize well placement and its effect of future recovery. In order quantify the uncertainty in the field, the main uncertain parameters and their respective ranges were first identified using the data available. Once defined their respective impact on stock tank oil initially in place (STOIIP) and cumulative production was calculated by sensitivity analysis. Monte Carlo simulation was then used to combine the different parameters, in order to obtain a pessimistic, base and optimistic case. Well level uncertainty analysis was conducted using FSCAT analysis, to ensure that based on the current well location, future well location and cumulative production to date, each well was capable of delivering the predicted rate forecasted. Wells within high uncertain regions or with lower potential in meet production plateau were highlighted for relocation in the field development strategy. The main uncertainty parameters identified in the field based on existing data were, oil water contact (OWC), Pressure Volume Temperature (PVT) oil formation volume factor (Bo), saturation height (rock type), structure and reservoir connectivity (poro/perm). Sensitivity analysis showed that structure has the highest impact on the STOIIP, while reservoir connectivity showed the smallest impact. The well level uncertainty analysis used a combination of conventional and streamline simulator, in order to produce a more robust form of decline curve analysis (DCA) using FSCAT analysis. This analysis allowed the calculation of the remaining oil per well that can be produced. This paper describes how the uncertainty analysis was conducted on a field and well level, by combining the conventional simulator (compositional) and streamline simulator. As a result of this uncertainty analysis, the P10, P50 and P90 cases were created. The base case (P50) showed it is possible to maintain plateau to 2043. The well level analysis showed that, each well could produce the forecasted production based on its current location in the base case (P50). Wells potential map could be used in optimizing well placement. Novel/Additive Information: Combined conventional and streamline simulation, in order to conduct a more robust uncertainty analysis and improved well placement strategy in field development.

The procedure of rationalization of Risk Ranking of Offshore Structures (Fixed and Floating structures) by applying Numerical Finite Element Analysis (FEA) in Qualitative and quantitative Structural Risk Assessments in SIMS (Structural Integrity of management systems) is evaluated in this paper. It is demonstrated by providing examples of how in philosophy based Risk Assessments, Advanced techniques like FEA can benefit traditional analysis. Subsequent impact of the outcome of Risk assessments can then be assessed. Traditional structural risk assessment techniques (philosophy based) exclude the consideration of detailed and accurate FEA output such as component/principle stresses, crack growth rate, damage assessment, numericalstress concentration factors (SCF's), non-linear deformation characterization, complex geometries, etc. FEA inPhilosophy-based risk assessment provides realistic predictions of structural performance, strengtheningthe traditional techniques for cost effective and time consuming construction activities,which are used for life extension of brownfield structures. The failure mechanisms modelled in FEA are fracture, cracking, fatigue, deformation and plastic collapse. The process involves data collection extracted from existing drawings, history, calculations, inspections, etc., followed by structural performance evaluation by developing 3D modeling and meshing structural elementsto perform FEA. The FEA outputis then used to produce a highly sophisticated and accurate analysiswhich is used to inform the strategy and program for improvement. The Paper provides the background, procedure and benefits of using FEA outputs in risk assessment for Asset replacement plan, assurance and strategy. Structural parts of Assets integrity are discussed in this paper and so called SIMS. Asset replacement plan is followed by remnant life assessment (RLA) study includes the principal that seeking to fully make use of the existing offshore structures, latest methods for inspection, maintenance and remedial works, Identify the impacts of remedial projects in Capital and operating expenditure and link all existing Development, Engineering, Maintenance and Integrity studies and identify where additional studies are required.