Abstract
Quantitative risk assessments for offshore oil and gas installations have been developed and used to support decision making about major hazards risk for more than 30 years. Initially, these studies were used to support the design process, aiming to develop installations that could be operated safely throughout their lifetime. As installations were put into operation, the studies were updated with as-built and operational information to provide a basis for making decisions also in the operational phase. This was however only partially successful, and the general impression has been that the studies have not been very actively used in operations. Many explanations have been given, the most common being that the reports were too complicated and written for risk analysis experts, not operations personnel on offshore installations and that the results could not be updated sufficiently often to reflect changes in risk on a day-by-day basis. This may be a part of the explanation, but in this paper, we have looked into the decision context and the types of decisions made in operation, compared to those in the design phase. Based on this, it is concluded that the focus of existing models need to be extended to cover activity risk in a more detailed way, as well as the risk associated with the technical systems. Instead, a revised methodology for developing quantitative risk assessments is proposed, focusing on the parameters and activities that change during operation. The methodology has also been tested on an offshore installation, to investigate the feasibility in practice.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bell DE, Raiffa H, Tversky A (1988) Descriptive, normative, and prescriptive interactions in decision making. Decis Mak Descr Norm Prescr Interact 1:9–32
Cyert RM, March JG et al (1963) A behavioral theory of the firm. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NI
de Almeida AT, Cavalcante CAV, Alencar MH, Ferreira RJP, de Almeida-Filho AT, Garcez TV (2015) Multicriteria and multiobjective models for risk, reliability and maintenance decision analysis. Springer, Berlin
Endsley MR (2016) Designing for situation awareness: an approach to user-centered design. CRC Press, Boca Raton
Gibson JJ (1961) The contribution of experimental psychology to the formulation of the problem of safety. In: Behavioral approaches to accident research. Association for the aid of crippled children, New York
Haddon W (1980) Advances in the epidemiology of injuries as a basis for public policy. Landmark Am Epidemiol 95(5):411–421
Hayes J (2013) Operational decision-making in high hazard: organizations drawing a line in the sand. Ashgate Publishing Ltd, Farnham
ISO (2009) Risk management—principles and guidelines. ISO 31000 First edition
Kalantarnia M, Khan F, Hawboldt K (2009) Dynamic risk assessment using failure assessment and Bayesian theory. J Loss Prev Process Ind 22(5):600–606
Khakzad N, Khan F, Paltrinieri N (2014) On the application of near accident data to risk analysis of major accidents. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 126:116–125
Klein G (2008) Naturalistic decision making. Hum Factors J Hum Factors Ergon Soc 50:456–460
Kongsvik T, Almklov P, Haavik T, Haugen S, Vinnem JE, Schiefloe PM (2015) Decisions and decision support for major accident prevention in the process industries. J Loss Prev Process Ind 35:85–94. doi:10.1016/j.jlp.2015.03.018
Majdara A, Nematollahi MR (2008) Development and application of a risk assessment tool. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 93(2008):1130–1137
March JG (1994) Primer on decision making: how decisions happen. Simon and Schuster, New York
Meel A, Seider WD (2006) Plant specific dynamic failure assessment using Bayesian theory. Chem Eng Sci 61:7036–7056
Meel A, O’Neill LM, Levin JH, Seider WD, Oktem U, Keren O (2007) Operational risk assessment of chemical industries by exploiting accident databases. J Loss Prev Process Ind 20(2):113–127
NEA (2005) CSNI technical opinion papers: #7—living PSA and its use in the nuclear safety decision-making process; #8—development and use of risk monitors at nuclear power plants, NEA No. 4411, Nuclear Energy Agency, OECD
NORSOK (2010) Risk and emergency preparedness analysis. NOROSK Standard Z-013 Rev 3, pp 16–18
Paltrinieri N, Khan F, Amyotte P, Cozzani V (2014) Dynamic approach to risk management: application to the Hoeganaes metal dust accidents. Process Saf Environ Prot 92(6):669–679
Paltrinieri N, Khan F, Cozzani V (2015) Coupling of advanced techniques for dynamic risk management. J Risk Res 18(7):910–930
Paltrinieri N, Khan F (2016) Dynamic risk analysis in the chemical and petroleum industry, 1st edn. Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford
PSAN (2013) Principles for barrier management in the petroleum industry. 29.01.2013. http://www.ptil.no/getfile.php/PDF/Prinsipper%20for%20barrierestyring%20i%20petroleumsvirksomheten.pdf (in Norwegian)
Puglia WJ, Atefi B (1995) Examination of issues related to the development and implementation of real-time operational safety monitoring tools in the nuclear power industry. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 49(1995):189–199
Rathnayaka S, Khan F, Amyotte P (2011) SHIPP methodology: predictive accident modeling approach. Part I: methodology and model description. Process Saf Environ Protect 89(3):151–164
Risk Spectrum (2017) http://www.riskspectrum.com/en/risk/Meny_2/RiskSpectrum_RiskWatcher/. Accessed 3 Jan 2017
RNNP (2017) Risikonivå i norsk petroleumsvirksomhet (norwegian), Trends in risk level in petroleum activity. http://www.ptil.no/rapporter-2016/category1257.html. Accessed 3 May 2017
Røed W, Mosleh A, Vinnem JE, Aven T (2009) On the use of the hybrid causal logic method in offshore risk analysis. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 94:445–455
Sarshar S, Haugen S, Skjerve AB (2015) Factors in offshore planning that affect the risk for major accidents. J Loss Prev Process Ind 33:188–199. doi:10.1016/j.jlp.2014.12.005
Schraagen JM (2008) Naturalistic decision making and macrocognition. Ashgate Publishing Ltd, Farnham
SINTEF (2013) Reliability data for safety instrumented systems (PDS Data Handbook). SINTEF Technology and Society: Department of Safety Research
SINTEF (2015) OREDA handbook, 6th edn. SINTEF Technology and Society: Department of Safety Research. ISBN 978-82-14-05948-9
Sklet S (2006) Safety barriers: definition, classification, and performance. J Loss Prev Process Ind 19:494–506
Vinnem JE, Bye R, Gran BA, Kongsvik T, Nyheim OM, Okstad EH, Seljelid J, Vatn J (2012) Risk modelling of maintenance work on major process equipment on offshore petroleum installations. J Loss Prev Process Ind 25:274–292
Yang X, Mannan MS (2010a) The development and application of dynamic operational risk assessment in oil/gas and chemical process industry. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 95:806–815
Yang X, Mannan MS (2010b) An uncertainty and sensitivity analysis of dynamicoperational risk assessment model: a case study. J Loss Prev Process Ind 23:300–307
Yang M, Khan F, Lye L (2013) Precursor-based hierarchical Bayesian approach for rare event frequency estimation: a case of oil spill accidents. Process Saf Environ Prot 91:333–342
Yang J, Ming Y, Yoshikawa H, Fangqing Y (2014) Development of a risk monitoring system for nuclear power plants based on GO-FLOW methodology. Nucl Eng Design 278:255–267
Yang X, Haugen S (2015) Classification of risk to support decision-making in hazardous processes. Saf Sci 80:115–126
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to acknowledge the Norwegian Research Council for their financial support to the MIRMAP project, No. 228237/E30, funded by PETROMAKS2. We also acknowledge the contribution of our colleagues, O. Brautaset, T. Zhu, O. M. Nyheim, J. E. Vinnem and K. Gloppestad.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Haugen, S., Edwin, N.J. Dynamic risk analysis for operational decision support. EURO J Decis Process 5, 41–63 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40070-017-0067-y
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40070-017-0067-y