Risk Analysis of Oilfield Gathering Station
Kun Chen
School of Safety Engineering, Chongqing University of Science and Technology, Chongqing, People's Republic of China
Centre for Risk, Integrity and Safety Engineering (C-RISE), Faculty of Engineering and Applied Science, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John's, Canada
Search for more papers by this authorDehuan Liu
School of Safety Engineering, Chongqing University of Science and Technology, Chongqing, People's Republic of China
Search for more papers by this authorZhiwen Fan
School of Safety Engineering, Chongqing University of Science and Technology, Chongqing, People's Republic of China
Search for more papers by this authorXu Chen
School of Safety Engineering, Chongqing University of Science and Technology, Chongqing, People's Republic of China
Search for more papers by this authorCorresponding Author
Faisal Khan
Centre for Risk, Integrity and Safety Engineering (C-RISE), Faculty of Engineering and Applied Science, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John's, Canada
[email protected] (for correspondence)Search for more papers by this authorKun Chen
School of Safety Engineering, Chongqing University of Science and Technology, Chongqing, People's Republic of China
Centre for Risk, Integrity and Safety Engineering (C-RISE), Faculty of Engineering and Applied Science, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John's, Canada
Search for more papers by this authorDehuan Liu
School of Safety Engineering, Chongqing University of Science and Technology, Chongqing, People's Republic of China
Search for more papers by this authorZhiwen Fan
School of Safety Engineering, Chongqing University of Science and Technology, Chongqing, People's Republic of China
Search for more papers by this authorXu Chen
School of Safety Engineering, Chongqing University of Science and Technology, Chongqing, People's Republic of China
Search for more papers by this authorCorresponding Author
Faisal Khan
Centre for Risk, Integrity and Safety Engineering (C-RISE), Faculty of Engineering and Applied Science, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John's, Canada
[email protected] (for correspondence)Search for more papers by this authorAbstract
Risk analysis and evaluation of oilfield gathering station (OGS) is a challenging task, given that much of the available data are highly uncertain and vague, and many of the mechanisms are complex and difficult to understand. A combinational method of analytic hierarchy process (AHP) and fuzzy comprehensive evaluation (FCE) is proposed in this study to assess hazards in OGS associated with multiple subsystems’ failures. The evaluation index system of safety performance in OGS was established, which included tank unit index, pipe unit index, digital monitoring unit index, and other systems. The weight of each index was confirmed through AHP method. Then the AHP and FCE methods were combined to validate the risk levels of representative enterprise S (S-OGS). The evaluation results show that the evaluation grade of S-OGS was low risk. This study provides a basis to improve the risk levels of OGS. It is expected that this work may serve as an assistance tool for managers of enterprise in improving the risk levels of oilfield operations. © 2018 American Institute of Chemical Engineers Process Process Saf Prog 38: 71–77, 2019
LITERATURE CITED
- 1R.M. Chandima Ratnayake, Challenges in inspection planning for maintenance of static mechanical equipment on ageing oil and gas production plants: The state of the art, Proc Int Conf Offshore Mech Arctic Eng OMAE 6 (2012), 91–103. https://doi.org/10.1115/OMAE2012-83248.
- 2A. Sarwar, F. Khan, M. Abimbola, and L. James, Resilience analysis of a remote offshore oil and gas facility for a potential hydrocarbon release, Risk Anal Offic Publ Soc Risk Anal 38 (2018), 1601–17. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12974.
- 3L.B. Zhang, J. Kang, J.X. Zhang, and J.C. Gao, An integrated framework of safety performance evaluation for oil and gas production plants: Application to a petroleum transportation station, J Loss Prev Process Ind 43 (2016), 292–301. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jlp.2016.05.029.
- 4M. Abimbola and F. Khan, Development of an integrated tool for risk analysis of drilling operations, Process Saf Environ Prot 102 (2016), 421–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2016.04.012.
- 5S.M. Deyab, M. Taleb-Berrouane, F. Khan, and M. Yang, Failure analysis of the offshore process component considering causation dependence, Process Saf Environ Prot 113 (2018), 220–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2017.10.010.
- 6R. Ferdous, F. Khan, R. Sadiq, P. Amyotte, and B. Veitch, Handling and updating uncertain information in bow-tie analysis, J Loss Prev Process Ind 25(1) (2012), 8–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jlp.2011.06.018.
- 7R. Ferdous, F. Khan, R. Sadiq, P. Amyotte, and B. Veitch, Analyzing system safety and risks under uncertainty using a bow-tie diagram: an innovative approach, Process Saf Environ Prot 91(1) (2013), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2011.08.010.
- 8F.I. Khan, T. Husain, and S.A. Abbasi, Safety weighted hazard index (SWEHI) : A new, user-friendly tool for swift yet comprehensive hazard identification and safety evaluation in chemical process industries, Process Saf Environ Prot 79(2) (2001a), 65–80. https://doi.org/10.1205/09575820151095157.
- 9M. Abimbola, F. Khan, and N. Khakzad, Risk-based safety analysis of well integrity operations, Saf Sci 84 (2016), 149–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2015.12.009.
- 10U.C. Ehlers, E.O. Ryeng, E. Mccormack, F. Khan, and S. Ehlers, Assessing the safety effects of cooperative intelligent transport systems: a bowtie analysis approach, Accid Anal Prev 99(Pt. A) (2017), 125–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2016.11.014.
- 11W.J. Li, W. Liang, L.B. Zhang, and Q. Tang, Performance assessment system of health, safety and environment based on experts' weights and fuzzy comprehensive evaluation, J Loss Prev Process Ind 35 (2015), 95–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jlp.2015.04.007.
- 12A.S. Cheliyan and S.K. Bhattacharyya, Fuzzy fault tree analysis of oil and gas leakage in subsea production systems, J Ocean Eng Sci 3(1) (2017), 38–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joes.2017.11.005.
- 13R. Ferdous, F. Khan, B. Veitch, and P.R. Amyotte, Methodology for computer aided fuzzy fault tree analysis, Process Saf Environ Prot 87(4) (2009), 217–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2009.04.004.
- 14F.I. Khan, A. Iqbal, N. Ramesh, and S.A. Abbasi, Scap: A new methodology for safety management based on feedback from credible accident-probabilistic fault tree analysis system, J Hazard Mater 87(1) (2001b), 23–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3894(01)00276-X.
- 15L. Shi, J. Shuai, and K. Xu, Fuzzy fault tree assessment based on improved AHP for fire and explosion accidents for steel oil storage tanks, J Hazard Mater 278 (2014), 529–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2014.06.034.
- 16Ö. Uğurlu, E. Köse, U. Yıldırım, and E. Yüksekyıldız, Marine accident analysis for collision and grounding in oil tanker using FTA method, Marit Policy Manag 42(2) (2013), 163–85. https://doi.org/10.1080/03088839.2013.856524.
- 17S.C. Abou, Fuzzy-logic-based network for complex systems risk assessment: Application to ship performance analysis, Accid Anal Prev 45(3) (2012), 305–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2011.07.017.
- 18X.G. Wu, Q. Liu, L.M. Zhang, M.J. Skibniewski, and Y.H. Wang, Prospective safety performance evaluation of construction sites, Accid Anal Prev 78 (2015), 58–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2015.02.003.
- 19D. Smith, B. Veitch, F. Khan, and R. Taylor, Understanding industrial safety: comparing fault tree, bayesian network, and fram approaches, J Loss Prev Process Ind 45 (2017), 88–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jlp.2016.11.016.
- 20J.Q. Hu, L.B. Zhang, and W. Liang, Opportunistic predictive maintenance for complex multi-component systems based on DBN-HAZOP model, Process Saf Environ Prot 90(5) (2012), 376–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2012.06.004.
- 21J. Janošovský, M. Danko, J. Labovský, and L.’. Jelemenský, The role of a commercial process simulator in computer-aided HAZOP approach, Process Saf Environ Prot 107 (2017), 12–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2017.01.018.
- 22F.I. Khan and S.A. Abbasi, OptHAZOP—an effective and optimum approach for HAZOP study, J Loss Prev Process Ind 10(3) (1997a), 191–204. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0950-4230(97)00002-8.
- 23F.I. Khan and S.A. Abbasi, Mathematical model for hazop study time estimation, J Loss Prev Process Ind 10(4) (1997b), 249–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0950-4230(97)00010-7.
- 24M. Abimbola, F. Khan, N. Khakzad, and S. Butt, Safety and risk analysis of managed pressure drilling operation using Bayesian network, Saf Sci 76 (2015), 133–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2015.01.010.
- 25A. Badreddine and N.B. Amor, A Bayesian approach to construct bow-tie diagrams for risk evaluation, Process Saf Environ Prot 91(3) (2013), 159–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2012.03.005.
- 26R. Islam, F. Khan, R. Abbassi, and V. Garaniya, Human error probability assessment during maintenance activities of marine systems, Saf Health Work 9 (2018), 42–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shaw.2017.06.008.
- 27B. Khan, F. Khan, B. Veitch, and M. Yang, An operational risk analysis tool to analyze marine transportation in arctic waters, Reliab Eng Syst Saf 169 (2018), 485–502. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2017.09.014.
- 28Z. Yuan, N. Khakzad, F. Khan, and P. Amyotte, Domino effect analysis of dust explosions using Bayesian networks, Process Saf Environ Prot 100 (2016), 108–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2016.01.005.
- 29R.R. Tan, K.B. Aviso, A.P. Huelgas, and M.A.B. Promentilla, Fuzzy AHP approach to selection problems in process engineering involving quantitative and qualitative aspects, Process Saf Environ Prot 92(5) (2014), 467–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2013.11.005.
- 30L.A. Zadeh, Fuzzy sets, Inf Control 8(3) (1965), 338–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0019-9958(65)90241-X.
10.1016/S0019-9958(65)90241-X Google Scholar
- 31T.L. Saaty, A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures, J Math Psych 15(3) (1977), 234–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-2496(77)90033-5.
- 32K. Chen, F. Khan, and X. Jing, Safety assessment of natural gas purification plant, Process Saf Environ Prot 113 (2018), 459–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2017.11.012.
- 33B. Sahin, Consistency control and expert consistency prioritization for FFTA by using extent analysis method of trapezoidal fahp, Appl Soft Comput 56 (2017), 46–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2017.02.027.
- 34Z.M. Xue, Research on FTA of fire and explosion in the crude oil gathering and transport station, Procedia Eng 11 (2011), 575–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2011.04.698.
10.1016/j.proeng.2011.04.698 Google Scholar
- 35L.S. Cheng, Y.Y. Luo, and Z.P. Ding, Fuzzy comprehensive evaluation model for estimating casing damage in heavy oil reservoir, Pet Sci Technol 31(10) (2013), 1092–8. https://doi.org/10.1080/10916466.2010.536802.
- 36H. Li, K. Dong, H.D. Jiang, R.J. Sun, X.Y. Guo, and Y.Q. Fan, Risk assessment of China's overseas oil refining investment using a fuzzy-grey comprehensive evaluation method, Sustainability 9(5) (2017), 696–713. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9050696.
- 37W. Yang, K. Xu, J. Lian, L. Bin, and C. Ma, Multiple flood vulnerability assessment approach based on fuzzy comprehensive evaluation method and coordinated development degree model, J Environ Manag 213 (2018), 440–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.02.085.
- 38J. Kang, J. Zhang, and Y. Bai, Modelling and evaluation of the oil-spill emergency response capability based on linguistic variables, Mar Pollut Bull 113(1–2) (2016), 293–301. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2016.09.056.
- 39 AQ 8001-2007, The General Principle of Safety Assessment, State Administration of Work Safety, Beijing (2007).
