GCPS 2018

__________________________________________________________________________

Risk-Based Decision-Making in Offshore Production Facilities

Design Using Enhanced Application of QRA
Daniel P Cheung
Technical Safety Engineer, Chevron USA, Inc. Houston, USA
dcheung@chevron.com

SreeRaj R Nair
Senior Technical Safety Engineer, Chevron USA, Inc. Houston, USA
snair@chevron.com

Jim Salter
Consulting Engineer, Chevron USA, Inc. San Ramon, USA
jsalter@chevron.com

Clive Robinson
Sr. Principal Consultant, Risk Advisory Services DNV GL, Loughborough, UK
clive.robinson@dnvgl.com

Zoë Wattis
Principal Consultant, Risk Advisory Services DNV GL, Loughborough, UK
zoe.wattis@dnvgl.com

Prepared for Presentation at

American Institute of Chemical Engineers
2018 Spring Meeting and 14th Global Congress on Process Safety
Orlando, Florida
April 22 – 25, 2018

AIChE shall not be responsible for statements or opinions contained

in papers or printed in its publications
GCPS 2018
__________________________________________________________________________

Risk-Based Decision-Making in Offshore Production Facilities

Design Using Enhanced Application of QRA

Daniel P Cheung
Technical Safety Engineer, Chevron USA, Inc.
Houston, USA
dcheung@chevron.com

SreeRaj R Nair
Senior Technical Safety Engineer, Chevron USA, Inc.
Houston, USA
snair@chevron.com

Jim Salter
Consulting Engineer, Chevron USA, Inc.
San Ramon, USA
jsalter@chevron.com

Clive Robinson
Sr. Principal Consultant, Risk Advisory Services DNV GL, Oil and Gas
Loughborough, UK
clive.robinson@dnvgl.com

Zoë Wattis
Principal Consultant, Risk Advisory Services DNV GL, Oil and Gas
Loughborough, UK
zoe.wattis@dnvgl.com

Keywords: Quantitative Risk Studies, Offshore Production Platforms, Data Analysis, Consequence
Modelling, Facility Siting, Risk-Based Decision Making.

Abstract
Quantitative Risk Assessment (QRA) and related studies have been used for more than fifty
years to assess risks from major accident hazard facilities. Historically, QRA has primarily been
applied as a tool for demonstrating risk to the public and workforce to meet regulatory
compliance. Over the years, QRA and its application have evolved and now play a significant
role earlier in project design to compare concepts, optimize design and enable cost-effective risk
management.

During the early design and engineering phases of offshore production platform projects, a
number of critical design decisions are made including concept selection, capacity/throughput,
GCPS 2018
__________________________________________________________________________

technology and equipment selection, layout finalization, subsurface design, and type of facility
(fixed or floating). All these have significant impact on the inherent risk of a facility. The use of
QRA in early design decision-making enables the benefits of an inherently safer facility to be
realized and can support effective risk management to achieve an optimal risk-based solution.

Developing the QRA early in the project design phase poses challenges due to the limited details
of engineering design data available. The challenges have been overcome by a screening-based
version of the QRA, which utilizes data and information gathered from previous production
design projects to supplement the design data so that the QRA can be applied early in the project
to support project decisions.

Traditional methods for gathering and collating input data for the QRA are labor intensive and
time consuming. Recent developments have enabled electronic data extraction directly from
native engineering documentation, for example from piping and instrumentation diagrams
(P&IDs) and 3D Models. These enhancements in information processing allow greater flexibility
of the application of QRA and enables the study to respond to design changes throughout the
project design phase and give feedback to the design teams more rapidly than before.

This paper identifies the lessons learned and best practices in designing safer production
facilities that can be realized from the key advancements in the process and application of QRA.
This paper discusses the following advancements that have been developed and tested to
improve the efficiency and quality of the risk studies:

• Enhancements in QRA tools through automated data extraction and processing of native
engineering documentation.
• QRA screening techniques that utilize data from previous project designs to supplement
sparse engineering data early in project lifecycles.
• The application of QRA results in early project phases to provide project teams with
sufficient data to support decisions that are key to providing an optimal risk-based design
that recognizes the inherent risk implications of concept selection and early layout
decisions.
GCPS 2018
__________________________________________________________________________

1 Introduction
Application of quantitative risk assessment (QRA) and related studies on offshore oil and gas
major capital projects have traditionally been used to demonstrate facility compliance with
regulatory requirements and corporate risk tolerances. In more recent years, Oil and gas
companies have recently improved the effective utilization of QRA to aid in engineering design
and proactively address key risk drivers in project decisions [1].

Realization in capturing risk reduction design opportunities earlier in the project has
demonstrated substantial cost benefits though minimized late-project design changes and less
dependence of add-on barriers during later phases of the lifecycle. Some key examples of early
concept selection benefitting from QRA studies include facility processing capacity/throughput,
technology and equipment selection, layout optimization, and subsurface design.

Another growing challenge for the industry is in the rapid improvements of production
technology in the past twenty years, which have unlocked deeper and more complex oil and gas
reservoirs. Those reservoirs contain oil and gas with higher operating pressures and temperatures
along with complex enhanced oil recovery opportunities [2]. Along with the advancements
comes added complexity of the facilities. There is recognition that we must proactively employ
the best risk management technologies to be able to assure ourselves that we do not expose
operators, contractors and the public to excessive levels of risk and that sufficient protection is in
place to prevent major loss of life or containment [3]. Consequently, the focus for these complex
offshore facilities has been placed on the QRA and improving our abilities to quantify and
manage risk.

The following sections details the recent improvements in the QRA process to better integrate
and apply risk conceptualization and management within early project design decisions and
front-end engineering and design (FEED). Challenges in early QRA application and further
discussion on how to overcome those challenges are identified through the structured approach
of the QRA-lite. It is followed by discussion and examples of different offshore major capital
projects on the additional benefits in early QRA-lite application such as leveraging inherently
safer design concepts, improved execution strategies and economic benefits.

2 QRA Method Concepts

QRA techniques were first given wide application in offshore oil and gas in the early 1980’s,
prompted by a series of serious accidents including the Alexander Kielland capsizing in 1980
resulting in 123 fatalities and later, the Piper Alpha incident in 1988 resulting in 167 fatalities.
Pursuant to regional regulations, these risk assessments were primarily carried out as regulatory
assurance for a quantified cut-off criteria related to the risk impairment frequencies. Detailed risk
analysis requirements were first defined in the UK HSE Case and eventually applied in other
offshore regional locations. Since then, applicability grew for the QRA and provisions were laid
down for a more integrated and dynamic use of risk analyses, with suitable quality controls on
the process, covering the whole life cycle of the oil and gas production activities [4].

QRA is a means of estimating the total risk presented by a facility or operation. By identifying
the potential major hazard scenarios and applying a frequency of occurrence, the QRA can
GCPS 2018
__________________________________________________________________________

provide a risk summation and estimated exposure to the workforce personnel and surrounding
environment [5].

The intent of employing risk mitigation is to ensure that there are sufficient controls in place that
realization of the scenario is appropriately unlikely. When projects are at the early stages of
concept selection, the project team has the highest level of control of addressing risk and
positively influencing the facility’s societal and individual estimates.

Oil and gas operating companies strive to achieve the lowest risk exposure reasonably possible,
and establish acceptable societal and individual risk criteria as thresholds for the project to
follow to properly ensure protection of the people and surrounding communities. Should risk
levels from QRA studies exceed the risk threshold, the project exercises hazard elimination or
risk mitigation to reduce the risk to an acceptable level. Through adjustments in the installation
of safeguards or mitigations, the operating company can determine the sensitivity of that change
to the overall risk profile, and in a relative sense, quantify and justify the installation of that
safeguard or mitigation to maximize risk reduction.

For offshore production platforms, high risk contributors differ from design to design, but
generally are identified by the QRA to include well blowouts, riser/pipeline failures, export
compressor or other process system leaks, collisions (helicopter and ship), and structural or
marine related failures [6]. Focused spending to reduce these risks and efforts to develop
technology for mitigation have been the focus for offshore process safety management.

3 QRA Application in Concept Selection and Early Design

Most of the facility lifecycle decisions required for design and engineering is taken during early
project phases. Several factors are evaluated for decision making during design and engineering;
for manned offshore installation projects, risk to personnel is a key factor. Early project decisions
and design engineering are at times made without a right level of assessment of risk to personnel.
This could lead to discovery of significant risk related concerns during detailed engineering or
construction. Typically, the elevated cost from late project decisions are on the magnitude of
millions of dollars for substantial changes in offshore scope; some examples for cost escalation
include delays in schedule and addition of barriers (e.g. blast rated walls, high-integrity
protection system, fire & gas detection system, and automated fire extinguishing systems).

Determining facility processing capacity, structure type (e.g. fixed, semi-submersible, spar, and
tension leg), equipment selection, layout optimization, and subsea infrastructure and wellhead
design are some of the key concept selections where QRA can help with risk based decision
making early in the project design. However, the nature of early project design did not align well
with the traditional QRA process, which requires detailed project documentation and is generally
time consuming and unable to respond to the rapid evolution of alternative concepts. A number
of improvements to the traditional QRA technique has allowed for further application in the
design of offshore production facilities.

This section considers the advantages and challenges in conducting QRA in early phases of
design, how to overcome the challenges and some examples of success and some missed
opportunities signifying the relevance.
GCPS 2018
__________________________________________________________________________

3.1 Key Advantages:

Early QRA application contribute to an overall improvement in a safer facility design to mitigate
high consequence events, and substantial cost savings in design and project implementation.
Early risk evaluation explores the ability to evaluate options and support risk based decision
making, where use of consequence assessment as an input to engineering allows for inherently
safer design. By identifying inherently safer options, the project can inadvertently eliminate the
risk and reduces the need for relying on safeguards, which typically relates to realized overall
cost savings.

Proper application of risk assessment in concept design and FEED avoids or minimizes late
phase design changes to address safety concerns, which is a common driver of cost additions to
large capital projects. By identifying concerns early, the project minimizes the need for add-on
safety barriers (e.g. reduce likelihood and impact from explosion through ventilation, less
confinement, less congestion whereby not to rely on a blast wall)

3.2 Challenges:
Although the advantages of early QRA utilization are well recognized, successful
implementation is difficult to achieve due to a variety of obstacles. The ability to quantify and
compare the relative risk contributions between alternatives continues to be a challenge in these
early design decisions due to a lack of project data availability. Details are needed to reduce
uncertainty of the QRA study results due to rigorous parts counts, hydrocarbon inventory and
layout.

Additionally, the standard QRA approach could be intensive and time-consuming whereby
failing to meet project milestones. A method is needed to provide more rapid, real-time risk
quantification to be able to keep pace with the rapid changes in the early part of front-end
engineering and design (FEED). Major process changes may take several weeks to analyze in a
full QRA and these changes can occur several times in the first months of FEED. Many times,
the design will have been updated with several critical changes before the QRA assessments
have been completed and reported.

With a vast set of options to be analyzed that may not be fully defined, a need for specific
boundaries and scope is essential to early QRA application success. Earlier application of QRA
entails an earlier request for funding for risk studies, whose cost will need to be reasonably
justified with the potential benefits of early application strategy. A quantification of costs for
some of the examples provided is included for support.

3.3 How to Overcome the Challenges:

To address the lack of project data availability for the need of a detailed risk assessment, a fit-
for-purpose QRA-lite technique is developed. By exercising the QRA-lite technique of
organizing the primary components of processing units and high-risk contributors into a
simplified model of building blocks, the complex makeup of offshore platforms can be well
estimated for the purposes of early quantified risk-based decision making [3]. Behind each of
these building blocks in the QRA-lite lies a foundation of predetermined parts counts for major
GCPS 2018
__________________________________________________________________________

assemblies (e.g.: compressors, production pumps, riser columns, separator units, etc.) that have
been derived from a database of similar offshore processing units.

In addition, the building blocks contain pre-populated consequence models. These cover a range
of operating pressures, temperatures and inventories, allowing the analyst to quickly develop
estimates of release consequences without having to resort to the intensive effort required to
develop these consequence models from scratch for each release location of interest.

Logistics and project management are keys to success for early application of QRA. Many of the
studies involved with QRA impact design criteria and critical decisions, such as determining
blast load criteria and the impact of alternate layouts, or determining the need for relocation for
high pressure critical equipment such as boarding valves, export compressors or gas processing
equipment. A critical review of the early phase project schedule and key project milestones is
necessary to align the accelerated QRA schedule to support crucial design decisions. Early
identification of key design decisions where risk could be a major factor (e.g. weight estimates,
platform orientation, equipment layout, personnel exposure) is critical to ensure proper focus and
dedication of the QRA on those aspects.

Practices of integrating the QRA consultant or the technical safety engineer overseeing the QRA
process is suggested and has positive lessons learned from recent projects. This practice
alleviates communication gaps and allows for quick processing of minor decision requests from
the design team.

The remainder of this section will discuss how the QRA-lite has been implemented on a variety
of offshore major capital projects to influence the decision-making process, allowing us to ensure
the safety of the public and our workforce. These examples will explore the cost benefits of
QRA-lite application for justification of an early application strategy. In each example, we will
also see how decisions to exploit inherently safer design opportunities have realized cost
benefits.

3.4 Examples Early QRA Application Opportunities

Use of consequence modeling and QRA in optimizing design and enabling risk based decision
making can be carried out for both greenfield development projects as well as brownfield
projects. This section identifies a few examples where the tool was successfully utilized in
identifying key risk factors to design, and cases used for evaluating different engineering design
options.

3.4.1 Example 1 – Enhanced Recovery

Technology for enhanced oil recovery has been identified as one of five priority areas for
technological development in the offshore oil and gas industry [5]. Enhanced oil recovery
methods such as water flooding, gas injection or polymer processes has been recognized as a
cornerstone of offshore reservoir engineering due to its degree of impact to crude recoverability.
However, the concept selection for enhanced recovery can introduce high risk contribution of
various degrees depending on personnel exposure, platform layout, limited disposal options and
reservoir impacts. These HSE risks are challenging to quantify without conducting detailed
consequence modelling and the rigorous techniques of QRA.
GCPS 2018
__________________________________________________________________________

The QRA-lite technique was readily applied to an offshore enhanced recovery project to provide
preliminary risk quantification to determine which enhanced recovery technique was the lowest
risk option and their respective impact to the operating risk levels. The enhanced recovery
project identified evaluated two options: gas injection and seawater injection. For gas injection, it
was understood that introducing reservoir gas of pressures upward of 12,500 psi at the injection
compressor discharge could significantly increase the risk exposure to the workforce personnel;
but to what degree was an uncertainty. In addition, risks were identified in flare management,
potential hydrate formation within flowlines, depressurization temperature concerns at the
injection headers, upsizing various production equipment and potential hull modifications that
was challenging to quantify.

The alternative option for secondary recovery, seawater injection, would inherently eliminate the
realized fire and explosion risks, but could introduce a variety of other hazards including hazards
to the reservoir and subsea equipment. Injection of off-spec water with high concentrations of
sulfates can sour the reservoir through sulphate-reducing bacteria (SRB), inadvertently
introducing trace levels of H2S to the flowline and topsides processing equipment. Introduction
of trace concentrations of oxygen in the injected seawater can also cause flowline corrosion and
impact the integrity of the subsea manifolds and risers [7]. With the variation of risk parameters
present, it was impossible for the project to qualitatively assess the risk contribution among the
alternatives and would require turning to quantitative risk assessment means.

A quantitative model was run with the QRA-lite technique for each case with the respective
layouts for the gas and seawater injection modules and a baseline operating arrangement with
representative processing modules and personnel exposure. It was determined that the individual
risk per annum for the operations personnel had increased the overall facility risk levels by
approximately 33% for the gas injection case, whereas only by 8% in the water injection case
with all failure scenarios incorporated.

Although the gains in reserve additions that could be realized using developed gas injection
techniques were greater, it was out of the company’s practices to operate in risk levels above the
company established criteria for safe operations, where risk mitigation measures would be
difficult to achieve. The enhanced recovery project moved forward with the seawater injection
case, where risk reduction measures could be established to control the identified risks of
reservoir souring and flowline corrosion. This is a successful display of how early quantitative
risk management supports a management decision to eliminate a high pressure natural gas hazard
and enables the inherently safer design of an offshore facility.

3.4.2 Example 2 – Blast Protection

In the above project, further risk reduction opportunities were explored to reduce the explosion
exposure through various shielding safeguards. A common challenge of offshore production
platform design is addressing blast protection, as congestion of equipment and buildings are
inherent risks contribution to high potential gas cloud formation. A QRA assessment was
leveraged during the early FEED process to determine what level of blast protection for egress
routes was optimal. Variations were run with blast walls from high risk process equipment,
additional stairways, and installed solid floors. Additional cases were run with installed
smokehoods to reduce smoke hazards and improved egress. Results are shown below in Figure 1
GCPS 2018
__________________________________________________________________________

for the original platform configuration (case 1), inclusion of stairways on the outside of the
platform (case 2), inclusion of shielding effects of equipment from jet/spray fires (case 3), solid
floors to withstand blast overpressures of 5000 mbar (case 4), combination of above (case 5) and
additional benefits of smoke hoods (case 6).

Figure 1: Individual QRA results for various sensitivity cases from QRA-Lite Application
for Example 2 Project

The project proceeded to begin their engineering design with a base case of solid floors and
proper shielding safeguards to ensure they remain under the tolerable risk threshold. Smoke
hoods were considered on the frame on an as-needed basis. Application of early QRA has proven
to drastically help address the inherent risks of blast and explosion protection, which have
historically caused heavy project cost additions due to late installations of blast walls or
relocation of buildings/equipment.

3.4.3 Example 3 – Gas Ventilation Dispersion with QRA-Lite Models

Identification of platform orientation and building siting with respect to the locations of
hazardous sources is an early design criteria where the application of QRA-lite can greatly assist.
Advertent effects of this design decision include ventilation and exhaust dispersions of operating
equipment, where with the proper platform orientation, inherently safer options can be leveraged.
Early application of ventilation modeling on a QRA-lite model can be used to determine the
adequacy of the wind speed to natural dispersion of any potential gas releases. The goal for
design is to minimize vapor accumulation through natural air movement through the facility by
wind movement. This will inadvertently reduce dead zones where flammable gas clouds may
result in a vapor cloud explosion. The impact of main obstructions including buildings,
equipment cabinets, and structures were evaluated to determine suitable locations and
orientation.

By using wind speed and wind direction specific to the location of the facility for modeling helps
in evaluating and optimizing the layout. Specific considerations should be focused on benefits
GCPS 2018
__________________________________________________________________________

from locating Living Quarters and occupied buildings upwind of the facility to minimize the
impact from potential gas clouds.

3.4.4 Example 4 – Equipment Layout with QRA-Lite Models

By using QRA-lite models that allow for detailed analysis of parts count, oil and gas inventory
and release scenarios, one can provide detailed risk inputs for analyzing layout alternatives.

During the equipment layout studies in pre-FEED, an offshore project identified an elevated risk
from high pressure gas release sources from export gas compressors that had been relocated to
well ventilated areas with minimal confinement and congestion. Also, boarding shutdown valves
(BSDV), which isolate oil and gas flow from high pressure reservoirs were located away from
production areas to easily achieve adequate protection. The quantification was able to be
represented through results from QRA-lite, where difficult layouts were analyzed and compared.

Various layout options will have an impact on the amount of pipe routing required by placement
of vessels. This will inadvertently affect the oil and gas inventory on the topsides platform,
effecting the overall release scenarios. Through the use of predetermined blocks in the QRA-lite
tool, the amount of parts and inventory for each layout option were identified and applied as
decision criteria in the form of risk quantification for the project team.

3.4.5 Example 5 – Equipment Selection with QRA-Lite Models

Equipment sizing and determining the number of trains and equipment sparing is a critical
process decision in the early project phase. However, selections have a significant impact on the
risk exposure through inventory and potential leak points. Through QRA-lite leak frequency
assessments combined with consequence estimation, these various options can be modeled and
the resulting risk contribution can be assessed. Evaluations between lesser number of equipment
but higher inventory is pitched against higher number of equipment but with lesser inventory.
Risk estimations along with the life cycle reliability requirements is a critical safety
consideration in early design decisions.

For an example offshore platform production module, the project was analyzing between a
2x100% train or 3x50% trains to meet reliability criteria and risk criteria. Through leak
frequency analysis and consequence estimation through preset processing units in QRA-lite, the
team was able to identify the lower risk of 2x100% trains due to a lower potential leak source
count although a slight increase in oil and gas inventory that was manageable through proper
isolations, detection and emergency shutdown and blowdown systems.

3.5 Examples of Missed Opportunities Captured in Late Project Phases

Most of the changes or deviations for achieving additional risk reduction identified from risk
assessments during later phases of the project could result in significant schedule delays and
changes to the design whereby resulting in additional cost for construction and delay in getting
returns. Below are examples of cases when projects were unable to capitalize on early QRA
opportunities.
GCPS 2018
__________________________________________________________________________

For offshore platform design, layout and orientation was mentioned in Section 3.4.4 as a critical
early phase decision. A project case identified a scenario where the helideck location with
respect to the turbine generator was inadequately placed. Due to close proximity, the generator
exhaust limited the operational zone due to high turbidity and temperature changes in the
helideck region. Additional layers of protection were added later for exhaust plume detection,
and operational restrictions implemented for helicopter landing and takeoff as a procedural
safeguard, limiting operations planning capability.

Late acknowledgement of hazard identifications generally leads to further layers of protection

needed in late phase projects. In an example of a platform arrangement project where process
equipment was present in areas with limited natural ventilation, additional gas detection
equipment was required to meet regulatory compliance due to hazard recognition in a later
project phase. Additional valves and equipment were included in the area during late phase
design changes that were not accounted for in the initial QRA model, creating significant scope
change and cost additions.

4 Enhancements to QRA
QRA was primarily used for design acceptance and carried out on a mature design after most of
the design decisions and engineering were carried out. However, the shift to earlier usage of
QRA requires the technique to process information more rapidly, such that real-time risk
quantification is able to keep pace with the rapid changes in the early part of front-end
engineering and design (FEED). Major process changes may take several weeks to analyze in a
full QRA and these changes can occur several times in the first months of FEED. As a result, the
design may have been updated with several critical changes before the QRA assessments have
been completed and reported. Recent developments have enabled electronic data extraction
directly from native engineering documentation, for example from piping and instrumentation
diagrams (P&IDs) and 3D Models. These enhancements in information processing allow greater
flexibility of the application of QRA with minor error margins giving feedback to the design
teams more rapidly than before.

4.1 Automated Use of Engineering Data

In the development of a QRA a large amount of input data is required so that the details of the
facility can be represented as accurately as possible. This comes from a number of sources
including engineering design packages, environmental data, and onsite and offsite population
distributions. The majority of the data comes from engineering information that is produced
during the design and is then updated throughout the operation of the facility. Typically, there is
a large amount of engineering information and this has to be interpreted by the QRA analysts in
order to produce the necessary inputs for the QRA. If this part of the analysis could be
automated then this would make the QRA process more efficient and reduce the time lags
between design changes and producing QRA results, and allow the QRA analyst to focus on the
value-added activities of analyzing the results and identifying potential mitigations. The
reduction in time can avoid costs and delays associated with facility redesigns due to the lag time
GCPS 2018
__________________________________________________________________________

between designs and risk assessments and provide real-time perspectives of the risks associated
with facility design parameters.

An automated methodology has been developed which makes use of design data from 2D
drawings and 3D models. Several pilot studies have been carried out using different engineering
design packages. The work described here makes use of Autodesk AutoCAD 2D drawings and
Autodesk Navisworks 3D models. The methodology is based around a data processing tool and
several supporting plugins written for AutoCAD and Navisworks (to assist with data entry,
manipulation and extraction). Figure 2 shows the flow of data using the methodology.

Isolatable Sections
Release Scenarios

2D
equipment QRA input
P&IDs AutoCAD Data processing
and piping data
data

2D
equipment
3D Model Navisworks Input
and piping Data
(Analyst)
data Analyst Input

Data Intermediate

3D Output
equipment Software
Software
and piping
data

Figure 2 Automated QRA Methodology – Simplified data flow

The first stage in the process is to markup the P&IDs to show the isolatable scenarios and release
scenarios. This is usually carried out either on paper copies or perhaps electronically on a pdf
version of the P&ID. In the automated methodology this is done using the native file in
AutoCAD. A typical marked up P&ID is shown in Figure 3 in which the different release
scenarios are indicated by different colors.
GCPS 2018
__________________________________________________________________________

Figure 3 Marked up P&ID in AutoCAD

The data from the marked-up P&ID can be exported from AutoCAD to produce a data table in
which the items shown on the drawing are grouped together by release scenario, thus enabling a
parts count for each scenario to be carried out. This can then be combined in the usual way with
historical leak frequency data to predict the release frequencies for each scenario.

If a 3D model is also available then the data extracted from the P&ID can be used in a number of
ways to give further input data for the QRA. Any items that are identified with tags can be found
in the 3D model and their locations identified. This information can then be used to produce
release locations. Additionally, line numbers for pipes can also be found in the 3D model and
pipe locations found. This can then be used to calculate pipe lengths and inventories. As the
tags and line numbers have previously been associated with release scenarios this information
can be calculated for each release scenario in the QRA. A final use of the data is to visualize the
release scenarios within the 3D model. An example of this is shown in Figure 4. This
visualization has been found to be extremely useful in verifying the marked-up P&ID data and in
checking the release locations used in the QRA model are correct.
GCPS 2018
__________________________________________________________________________

Figure 4 Highlighted release scenarios within 3D model

The above approach has now been used on actual projects and has proven to give time
efficiencies and to assist in the verification of the input data for the QRA as a full audit trail
exists. It has also been shown to be very efficient if changes are required either due to design
modifications or changes to how the analysis is carried out, i.e. the representation of release
scenarios and process isolation locations.

4.2 Analyzing Risk Contributors

Due to the complexities of QRAs large volumes of output data are often produced. There are
often tens if not hundreds of release scenarios, each of which are analyzed for different release
sizes, combinations of environmental conditions and operation of safety systems. Traditionally
the results of the analysis are shown in a figures and tables within a report but due to the volume
of data only a subset can sensibly be provided. Often when examining the results readers of the
report will want to understand the contributions to the risk from different scenarios which
requires access to the underlying data which is not in the report. They may also want to examine
intermediate data such as consequence results.

To enable the efficient reporting and examination of the data, results from QRAs are now being
made available via a web interface. An example of this is shown in Figure 5. This shows an
example screen which gives the main QRA results.
GCPS 2018
__________________________________________________________________________

Figure 5 QRA main results

The data displayed is linked to a database so that the user can drill down to examine risk
contribution in different ways. This can be done in many different ways as shown in Figure 6.
The only limitation on how far the drill down of data can be carried out is the granularity within
the database.

Figure 6 QRA detailed results

GCPS 2018
__________________________________________________________________________

Other data such as consequence data can also easily be plotted on views of the facility as shown
in Figure 7. As the location of release scenarios are all available within the database the views
automatically show the correct location on the site. This makes assessments using this approach
much more efficient than a traditional approach which can often involve reading distances from
tables and comparing them against plot plans. As all the consequence data can be stored in the
database it also means that the user can examine any of the data as shown in Figure 7 rather than
just a subset of data provided in a report. Often this information is used separately from the
QRA, for example by operational personnel and the easy access to the data assists in timely
decision making.

Figure 7 QRA consequence data

This approach has already shown itself to give added value to recipients of QRAs compared with
a traditional report. Some other features have been implemented such as comparisons between
revisions of the QRA due to design changes. The ability to drill down into the data enables the
user to understand why risks have changed and thus make informed risk based decisions about
facility modifications. Current work is also taking place to allow users the ability to run
sensitivity studies on some parts of a QRA themselves.

5 Conclusions
Although QRA is a technique that has been used for many years, its ability to provide an
objective measure of relative contributors to risk has not been fully recognized by oil and gas
companies. Over the past decades, these companies have better recognized the inherent hazards
in offshore production and have each shifted their focus on QRA utilization and improvements.
It is now acknowledged that a company’s overall goals of incorporating inherently safer concepts
and designing safe facilities are supported by a more integrated QRA process. These goals align
GCPS 2018
__________________________________________________________________________

with the corporate safety integrity toward becoming the leading experts in fatality prevention and
process safety management in the industry [8].

This paper has demonstrated how QRA can be used by projects to support decisions that will
lead to inherently safer designs. However, for the method to be effective, it is critical that the
studies be performed early in project design, ideally before a preferred option is selected. It is by
early application that QRA can provide the greatest benefits, highlighting the potential pitfalls of
some design options before significant effort is expended to develop a design during FEED.
Early application will also avoid much of the cost associated with rework that may be required
due to late application of the technique. Furthermore, it is critical that the QRA model continue
to reflect the current design throughout its development such that decisions affecting safety can
be fully understood.

In order to achieve this state, it is clear that the process of performing QRA needs to be further
optimized. Approaches in automated parts count and improvements in transparency of risk curve
results have significantly improved this process to provide data on the order of days to weeks
rather than months; however, a real-time ideology is still not achieved. Further efforts are still
needed to fully incorporate the QRA process behind every process flow diagram, process and
instrumentation diagram and 3D model to provide a risk model that enables design teams to see
the impact of design changes truly in real time.

Approaches to streamlining the QRA process are critical for developing risk-optimal designs
which, in the long term, will protect the public, the workforce, and the reputations of the
companies that continue to build ever larger and more complex plants, as well as the reputation
of the oil and gas industry as a whole.

6 References
[1] Aven, Terje, “Risk Assessment and Risk Management: Review of Recent Advances on
their Foundation”, Elsevier European Journal of Operational Research, 2016.
[2] J. Erik Vinnem, “Risk Assessments for Offshore Installations in the Operations Phase,”
ESREL 2003.
[3] J. Salter, “Using Quantitative Risk Assessment to Make Billion Dollar Decisions,”
American Institute of Chemical Engineers, CCPS, 2014
[4] Risktec, “Quantitative Risk Assessment Across Major Hazard Industries,” RISKworld
Issue 13, 2008.
[5] P. Kang, “Screening Criteria and Considerations of Offshore Enhanced Oil Recovery,”
Energies, MDPI, 2016
[6] L.W. Lake, “Defining Enhanced Oil Recovery, Enhanced Oil Recovery,” 1st ed. Prentice-
Hall: Eagulewood Cliffs, NJ, 1989; pp 1-16.
[7] API, “Recommended Practices for Oil and Gas Producing and Gas Processing Plant
Operations Involving Hydrogen Sulfide”, American Petroleum Institute Recommended
Practice 55, 2nd Edition, 1995
GCPS 2018
__________________________________________________________________________

[8] M Sam. Mannan, “Stretch in Technology and Keeping the Focus on Process Safety for
Exploration and Production in the 21st Century, Institute of Chemical Engineers
Symposium Series No 156. 2011
[9] C. G. Ramsay, “Quantitative Risk Assessment Applied to Offshore Process Installations.
Challenges after the Piper Alpha Disaster,” J. Loss Prevention Process Ind., Volume 7,
Number 4, 1994
[10] T. Kletz, “What You Don’t Have, Can’t Leak,” Chemistry and Industry, pp. 287-292
[11] Trevor Kletz and Paul Amyotte, “Process Plants: A Handbook for Inherently Safer Design,”
Second Edition, 2010
[12] F. I. Khan, P.R. Amyotte, “How to Make Inherent Safety Practice a Reality,” Canadian
Journal of Chemical Engineering, 81, pp 2-16, 2003
[13] T. Aven, “Risk Assessment and Risk Management: Review of Recent Advances on their
Foundation”, Elsevier European Journal of Operational Research, 2016