Integrating upstream spill preparedness withmaritime response systems: it's time toformalize the process
Presentation to PAJ Oil Spill Symposium
Rob CoxMarch 2012

Point of departure for industry efforts
1. Oil spills present evergreen environmental,
financial, and reputational risks
2. Sustainable long-term industry and government
commitment are necessary to tackle this ongoing
issue

2

Evidence points to success ofindustry efforts on shipping

ITOPF 2010

… but then came Montara

… and then, Macondo

The GIRG response

GIRG’s task:
To improve the industry’s wellincident prevention,intervention and response
capabilities.
And by doing so, reduce thelikelihood and impact of future
well incidents.

6

Global Industry Response Group (GIRG)
recommendations

7

Wells Expert Committee

8

Subsea Well Response Project9

Oil Spill Response Joint
Industry Project10

JIP membership

The OSR-JIP Mandate• OSR-JIP has two key focus areas:• Looking at issues identified in the GIRG OSR process
following Deepwater Horizon and Montara incidents andthe implications for all aspects of spill response• Improve current “good practice” guidance particularly ondispersants• Nineteen different focus areas• Developing risk/hazard based strategies for response
preparedness for the upstream• This is not just an extension of tactical response forshipping spills

Shipping versus upstream• Surface spills are different to subsea releases:• Mobile threat of known and finite size – weathering properties
known• Fixed threat of unknown size - constantly replenished by fresh oil• We need to propose and agree a global system of E&P
spill response capability based on risk and hazard that is:• Compatible with the accepted Tiered Response Concept
developed for surface spills/maritime protection• Scalable to take account of the actual need: worst credible case
• Acceptable to regulators• Capable of being integrated into E&P risk management systems,
safety cases, and operations

JIP 6• Many definitions of risk and hazard but arguably:• In shipping, probability is to some extent more
important in maritime response planning due to theuncertainty as to where a spill might occur andbecause volumes are limited• In upstream response planning, hazard and thereceiving environment is often more importantbecause of the fixed nature of the facilities, and thepotential for extended timescales (and thereforevolumes) in an incident

Tiered response concept• Used by industry for over thirty years
and is still valid as a response model• Recognised by governments ininternational arena• Introduced in recognition of probability,frequency and impact of spills• Shipping / terminal / pipeline spills havefinite volume• Tier definitions not always understood• Historically, risk of well blowout mitigatedagainst by use of statistical analysis oflow probability/high impact event on theprobability/impact matrix

Traditional risk/response model
LOSS OF CONTAINMENT EXAMPLES
TierExploration

1

Utility oil spill
Fuel transfer spill
Drilling mud spills
Drain tank overflows

2

3

National Tier 2
Response Resources· Relevant· Robust· Reliable

Loss of supply boat fuelinventory
Total Loss of platform
fuel inventory
Well test spillages
Loss of well containment

Production(Including pipelines FSO / FPSO)

Utility oil spill
Fuel transfer spill
Drilling mud spill
Drain tank overflow
Hose connection spillages
Tank overflows
Loss of supply boat fuelinventory
STS transfer spillages
Export pipeline spillage
Collision off-take tanker
Platform loss
Loss of well containment

Transportation

Downstream(Product distribution)

Utility oil spill
Fuel transfer spill
Drain tank overflow
Hose connection spillages
Tank overflows

Utility oil spills
Transfer spills
Fuel transfer spills
Hose connection spillages
Road tanker spillages
Tank overflows

Collision with Tug / jetty
Loss of cargo containment in
one two tanks

Pipeline total failure
Storage tank failure
Collision product tanker / tug

Hull structural failure
Ship loss ( Collision/Grounding/ Fire/ Explosion)

Facility loss
Hull structural failure
Ship loss ( Collision /Grounding
Fire/ Explosion)

Credible Tier 3 response

Tiered Response Concept• Upstream spills introduce concepts of indefinite spill
volumes and “resident risk”• Nature and location of some upstream operations
can make response difficult• Reaction could be to define as an automatic Tier 3risk• Need for framework to apply internationally• Introduce a Well Risk model in response• Should lead to source control plan in addition toresponse if deemed necessary

Revised risk response model
LOSS OF CONTAINMENT EXAMPLES
Production

Tier

Exploration

1

Utility oil spill
Fuel transfer spill
Drilling mud spills
Drain tank overflows

Utility oil spill
Fuel transfer spill
Drilling mud spill
Drain tank overflow
Hose connection spillages
Tank overflows

Loss of supply boat fuelinventory
Total Loss of platform fuelinventory
Well test spillages

Loss of supply boat fuel inventory
STS transfer spillages
Export pipeline spillage
Collision off-take tanker

Loss of well containment

Platform loss
Loss of well containment

23(Including pipelines FSO / FPSO)

Transportation

Downstream(Product distribution)

Utility oil spill
Fuel transfer spill
Drain tank overflow
Hose connection spillages
Tank overflows

Utility oil spills
Transfer spills
Fuel transfer spills
Hose connection spillages
Road tanker spillages
Tank overflows

Collision with Tug / jetty
Loss of cargo containment in
one two tanks

Pipeline total failure
Storage tank failure
Collision product tanker / tug

Hull structural failure
Ship loss ( Collision /Grounding/Fire/ Explosion)

Facility loss
Hull structural failure
Ship loss ( Collision /Grounding Fire/Explosion)

Credible Tier 3 response
PlanWell RiskAssessmentAdditional Containment
Requirement

SourcecontrolplanRisk Framework
Oil Spill Response
Risk Matrix
Containment RiskMatrix

High Level
Risk Matrix

Frequency ofOccurrence

334555223451123451123445

Consequence
SafetyPEAR

Environment
Reputation
Finance

Increasing
Risk Assessment
DetailAs Low As Reasonably Practicable(ALARP) Concept
Limit of Tolerability
Risk
ALARP Principle
to be applied in thisregion

Note: A Risk Tolerability Criterion is needed to define the limit of Tolerable Risk

Loss of Containment Risk Factors• Well Potential Productivity• Water Depth• Sea Conditions• Management SystemCompliance• Marine Rig Integrity andStability• Design/ Maintenance andReliability of Rig Utilities• Rig Mooring System Integrity• Ship Collision Potential• Drilling and Marine Crew
Competence and Training• Well Drilling in compliance withWell Design• Managed Pressure Systems
Effectiveness (BOP,Cement/Mud, HPHT )• Subsea Completion Treeintegrity• Availability of Drilling materials
and key well components• Safety Critical System
Compliance with API, ISO,NACE, ASME etc.

Response Preparedness Risk Factors
•••••
•
••
•
•
•

Potential Well Productivity
Oil Type
Well Drilling Difficulty
Well Head/BOP Containment
Intervention Containment Unit
Water Depth
Geographical Location anddistance from response baseDistance from re-supply baseSeasonal/Weather effects on
sea conditions
Distance to National &International boundaries
Proximity to Navigation Hazards• Proximity to vulnerable marine
habitat and spawning area
• Proximity to mammal and bird
habitat and feeding ground• Proximity to other Offshore
Assets• Distance/time to Shoreline• Shoreline Contamination
Length• Proximity to Coastal UtilityPlant• Proximity to Private Coastal
Property• Proximity to Tourist Activity• Proximity to Fishing Grounds

Oil Spill Risk Matrix
Risk Values represented on matrix as (n)Frequency ofOccurrence

(3)

(2)

(3)
(2)

(4)

(3)

Tier 2(1)(1)

Tier 1 (1)
(1)

(2)

(4)

(5)

(5)

Tier 3

(5)

(5)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(4)

(5)

(4)

(3)

Consequence (Pollution Severity)
For each Risk Factor, assess the likely frequencyof occurrence with corresponding case specific
Factors must be
pollution severity. These together will give a
considered according risk position on the matrix. The concentration ofto their relevancerisk positions will be illustrative of the collectivein the scenario forrisk impact. Alternatively, the individual risk
which risk is to bevalues can be calculated & aggregated to give aassessed
single overall value of risk to be represented onthe matrix

Risk Factor List

Revised risk response model
LOSS OF CONTAINMENT EXAMPLES
Production

Tier

Exploration

1

Utility oil spill
Fuel transfer spill
Drilling mud spills
Drain tank overflows

Utility oil spillFuel transfer spill
Drilling mud spill
Drain tank overflow
Hose connection spillages
Tank overflows

Loss of supply boat fuelinventory
Total Loss of platform fuelinventory
Well test spillages

Loss of supply boat fuel inventory
STS transfer spillages
Export pipeline spillage
Collision off-take tanker

Loss of well containment

Platform loss
Loss of well containment

23Transportation(Including pipelines FSO / FPSO)

Downstream(Product distribution)

Utility oil spill
Fuel transfer spill
Drain tank overflow
Hose connection spillages
Tank overflows

Utility oil spills
Transfer spills
Fuel transfer spills
Hose connection spillages
Road tanker spillages
Tank overflows

Collision with Tug / jetty
Loss of cargo containment in
one two tanks

Pipeline total failure
Storage tank failure
Collision product tanker / tug

Hull structural failure
Ship loss ( Collision/Grounding/ Fire/ Explosion)

Facility loss
Hull structural failure
Ship loss ( Collision /Grounding Fire/Explosion)

Credible Tier 3 response
PlanWell Risk
Assessment

Additional Containment
Requirement

Sourcecontrolplan

Containment / Source control plan
• Well risk Containment plan establishes
extent of response requirement• Is integral to response arrangements• Identifies level of potential risk
• Source control plan seeks to mitigate:• Range of possible options• Does not have to always be at extreme end ofspectrum

JIP 6
We continue to look at standards worldwide, including:•US Code of Federal regulations (CFR – EDRC approach)•Brazilian and Russian regulated response approach•IMO risk assessment approach•NORSOK standard Z-013 Appendix G•ISO 15544•ISO 14001/14004•ISO 17766•OLF / DNV / NOFO oil spill response analysis guidance…. and many othersJIP 6• Literature and standards review• Basis of Risk Assessment model•
•••

•
•••
•
••

Definition of Activities
Hazard Identification and Events
Evaluation Loss Potential (Risk Assessment)
Controls

Inventory
Risk Profiling/Identification/Classification
Vulnerability analysis
Risk perception
Evaluation & Ranking
ReportingCommunication

The goal
A standardized system of Risk andHazard analysis for the upstream
leading to:•A Strategic Environmental Spill Response

Plan (how you do it)•A Tactical Spill Response Inventory (whatyou do it with)

Thank you