Abstract
The North Sea has a rich history of oil and gas exploration and production. Associated with tales of glory from men and women supplying the UK with energy, sadly there are also stories of when things did not go to plan, where the risks taken were too high and people paid the ultimate price.
Nowadays assessing risks is part of our daily activities. We review a risk if specific parts of the facility fail to perform their function and we review the total risk of the individual risks combined (to verify risks are still ALARP).
This paper describes the revised method employed by Shell UK of assessing risk when a number of barriers preventing accidents occurring are weakened simultaneously.
The risk assessment method that is now at the implementation phase is an approach where we assess risk associated with degraded equipment. This is not only based on generic historical failure data but is combined with predicted future failure likelihood and consequences to determine the risk associated with breakdown or malfunctioning equipment. This information is used to determined priorities for remedial work. Risks are assessed in terms of impact on safety, environment, asset or reputation. This is done on an individual basis and also looks at any cumulative effect (does one deviation from normal operation amplify another risk or multiple risks).
We have seen multiple indicators come and go which were set up to highlight the level of total risk in our company. TRCF, high potential incidents, breaches of performance standard, leaks, non-compliances finding in audits. However individual key performance indicators (KPIs), no matter how well defined, can still display an incorrect overall picture of performance. It requires a more in-depth analysis of the individual risks to determine the total exposure on a single asset or on multiple assets combined. In depth risk assessments with technical authorities of different disciplines sitting in a single room gives the best results but such resources are scarce. Technical Authorities are in demand for verification work, priority setting, design, troubleshooting and direct support. This approach helps to provide clarity on where such resources should be focused to reduce risks.
Currently in the UK production deferment is increasing. The increase of focus on the risks on the assets and the mitigation against that risk will improve not just the risk exposure level but will also increase production availability. Last year the overall availability average in the UK of the offshore assets was around 60% (information provided by DECC). Safety comes first but where there is also a business case of reduced deferment there is a win-win situation for removing as many risks as possible.
The total risk approach looks at the impact on all angles of risk and ranks the different risks. The process is streamlined to make the most effective use of the resources that we have available. It tries to minimize the time required for the Technical Authorities to address and assess the risk by using appropriate processes and the help of other resources to pre-work and scan the risks. It reduces the number of databases and lists held by different departments (with the risk of missing a key risk) and defines an overview of priorities. This for each individual risk and cumulative risk.
