IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jeners/v11y2018i5p1306-d148051.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Risk Assessment and Reduction for an Innovative Subsurface Well Completion System

Author

Listed:
  • Xingwei Zhen

    (School of Naval Architecture and Ocean Engineering, Dalian University of Technology (DUT), Dalian 116024, China
    Department of Marine Technology, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), 7491 Trondheim, Norway)

  • Torgeir Moan

    (Department of Marine Technology, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), 7491 Trondheim, Norway
    Centre for Autonomous Marine Operations and Systems (SFF AMOS), Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), 7491 Trondheim, Norway)

  • Zhen Gao

    (Department of Marine Technology, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), 7491 Trondheim, Norway
    Centre for Autonomous Marine Operations and Systems (SFF AMOS), Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), 7491 Trondheim, Norway
    Center for Research-Based Innovation of Marine Operations (SFI MOVE), Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), 7491 Trondheim, Norway)

  • Yi Huang

    (School of Naval Architecture and Ocean Engineering, Dalian University of Technology (DUT), Dalian 116024, China
    State Key Laboratory of Structural Analysis of Industrial Equipment, Dalian University of Technology (DUT), Dalian 116024, China)

Abstract

In recent years, many oil and gas fields have been discovered in ultra-deep sea (UDS). Some of these fields are evaluated to have no commercial value if existing oil field development approaches are used, especially while the oil prices remain low. A new alternative field development solution, termed as Subsurface Well Completion (SWC) system, is proposed with the aim to produce oil and gas in a cost-effective manner in UDS. This system primarily consists of four parts: a tethered subsurface platform, the rigid riser, SWC equipment and flexible jumper. Obviously, central to the evaluation and application of the new SWC technology is the inherent risk relative to acceptance level. In particular, an uncontrolled release of hydrocarbons to sea, which may lead to catastrophical consequences involving personnel risk, environmental damage and economic losses, is a main contributor to the total risk and of great concern to the offshore petroleum industry. As for the new SWC system, any failure will not be a direct source of risk for the personnel on the surface installation due to its offset feature. In this context, this paper proposes a quantitative risk assessment (QRA) framework to assess such uncontrolled releases to sea with regard to the SWC system for an oil field in the production phase based on the new Subsurface Tension Leg Production (STLP) facility. According to the QRA results presented in this paper, the identified scenarios representing uncontrolled releases to sea are subsea wellhead leaks, rigid riser leaks, subsurface wellhead leaks, releases from X-mas tree and flexible jumper leaks. Among these scenarios, subsea wellhead is found to be the high-risk area. Compared with the established risk acceptance criteria (RAC), the environmental risk levels for the subsea wellhead’s leak lie within the As Low As Reasonably Practicable (ALARP) region while other risks are all below ALARP limits, which means that there is a need for improved consideration of the existing design with regard to the subsea wellhead area, and the corresponding risk reduction measures are proposed. Furthermore, the sources and effects of uncertainties are reviewed and sensitivity studies are carried out to illustrate the effect of some of the important assumptions in the risk model. It can be found that some assumptions made are conservative or optimistic while others are unknown. However, the final QRA results can be regarded as somewhat conservative. This paper concludes that the new SWC technology has a distinct advantage with respect to the leakage duration time in UDS, and thus mitigates the environmental and commercial impacts to a large extent. Besides, relaxed design requirements for the X-mas tree and flexible jumper can be accepted. It is also concluded that there are no serious and major commercial losses for all the identified accidental release scenarios, which is of great importance and attractiveness to oil producers.

Suggested Citation

  • Xingwei Zhen & Torgeir Moan & Zhen Gao & Yi Huang, 2018. "Risk Assessment and Reduction for an Innovative Subsurface Well Completion System," Energies, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-19, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:11:y:2018:i:5:p:1306-:d:148051
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/11/5/1306/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/11/5/1306/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Vanem, Erik & Endresen, Øyvind & Skjong, Rolf, 2008. "Cost-effectiveness criteria for marine oil spill preventive measures," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 93(9), pages 1354-1368.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Josip Ivšinović & Vjekoslav Pleteš, 2021. "Risk and Financial Cost Management of Injection Wells in Mature Oil Fields," JRFM, MDPI, vol. 14(4), pages 1-7, April.
    2. Qiao Deng & Hui Zhang & Jun Li & Xuejun Hou & Hao Wang, 2019. "Study of Downhole Shock Loads for Ultra-Deep Well Perforation and Optimization Measures," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(14), pages 1-23, July.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Martins, Marcelo Ramos & Maturana, Marcos Coelho, 2013. "Application of Bayesian Belief networks to the human reliability analysis of an oil tanker operation focusing on collision accidents," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 89-109.
    2. HÃ¥vold, Jon Ivar, 2010. "Safety culture and safety management aboard tankers," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 95(5), pages 511-519.
    3. Krata, Przemyslaw & Jachowski, Jacek, 2021. "Towards a modification of a regulatory framework aiming at bunker oil spill prevention from ships – A design aspect of bunker tanks vents location guided by CFD simulations," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 208(C).
    4. Lei Wang & Qing Liu & Tongle Yin, 2018. "Decision-making of investment in navigation safety improving schemes with application of cumulative prospect theory," Journal of Risk and Reliability, , vol. 232(6), pages 710-724, December.
    5. Iliopoulou, Christina & Kepaptsoglou, Konstantinos & Schinas, Orestis, 2018. "Energy supply security for the Aegean islands: A routing model with risk and environmental considerations," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 608-620.
    6. Xi Du & Zhijiao Zhang & Lei Dong & Jing Liu & Alistair G. L. Borthwick & Renzhi Liu, 2017. "Acceptable Risk Analysis for Abrupt Environmental Pollution Accidents in Zhangjiakou City, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 14(4), pages 1-13, April.
    7. Verma, Manish & Gendreau, Michel & Laporte, Gilbert, 2013. "Optimal location and capability of oil-spill response facilities for the south coast of Newfoundland," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 41(5), pages 856-867.
    8. Hristos Karahalios & Z.L. Yang & J. Wang, 2015. "A risk appraisal system regarding the implementation of maritime regulations by a ship operator," Maritime Policy & Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 42(4), pages 389-413, May.
    9. Atiq W. Siddiqui & Manish Verma, 2018. "Assessing risk in the intercontinental transportation of crude oil," Maritime Economics & Logistics, Palgrave Macmillan;International Association of Maritime Economists (IAME), vol. 20(2), pages 280-299, June.
    10. Ayouqi, Hossein & Knowler, Duncan & Reid, Gregor & Cox, Sean, 2021. "Marginal damage cost functions for particulate organic carbon loading from open-net pen salmon farms in British Columbia, Canada," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 179(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:11:y:2018:i:5:p:1306-:d:148051. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.