0

Full Content is available to subscribers

Subscribe/Learn More  >

How Risky Were My Old Platforms?

[+] Author Affiliations
Peter W. Marshall

National University of Singapore, Kent Ridge, Singapore

Paper No. OMAE2007-29689, pp. 511-520; 10 pages
doi:10.1115/OMAE2007-29689
From:
  • ASME 2007 26th International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering
  • Volume 2: Structures, Safety and Reliability; Petroleum Technology Symposium
  • San Diego, California, USA, June 10–15, 2007
  • Conference Sponsors: Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering Division
  • ISBN: 0-7918-4268-1 | eISBN: 0-7918-3799-8
  • Copyright © 2007 by ASME

abstract

API RP2A, 21st edition recognizes several consequence-based levels of platform design or assessment. L-1 gives critical new platforms a level of reliability almost comparable to continuously manned platforms in the North Sea, and the economic impact of their failure risk essentially vanishes. L-2 is used for manned-evacuated platform, gives a finite but still low level of risk based on economic trade-offs; it has served the Gulf of Mexico industry well for three decades. Re-assessment criteria are lower in terms of metocean loading, and accept more risk, because upgrading platforms in place is an order of magnitude more expensive than adding a little beef to a new-build. Assessment level A-1 is for well-maintained platforms built to “100-year” metocean criteria of the 1960s, but still serving vital functions, e.g. pipeline hubs, where the business interruption risk they pose to upstream producers can be considerable. A-2 simply provides for personnel safety in case a sudden (but weak) hurricane precludes evacuation; economic consequences are left for the operator to evaluate. Levels L-3 and A-3 are reserved for unmanned structures whose collapse does not even have significant economic consequence. It is presumed that high-reliability SCSSVs will prevent pollution in any case. The existing A-2 level is substantially weaker than L-2. It is suitable for production platforms on stripper-well status under the philosophy of “Produce until it falls down,” which makes more sense than arbitrarily abandoning the production prematurely. However, the risk of an old A-2 platform (or a cluster of them in the same field) failing before another decade is out has been estimated to be as high as 25% to 45%. This puts structural risk right up there with reservoir and price uncertainties, deserving consideration in the venture evaluation stage. Mitigation strategies, e.g. plugging depleted wells while they are still upright, also deserve consideration. This paper will examine these structural risks in light of existing standards, based on earlier criteria studies. The API-2INT series of Interim standards, currently under development based on HEAT (Hurricane Evaluation and Assessment Team) work, will be the subject of future presentations.

Copyright © 2007 by ASME

Figures

Tables

Interactive Graphics

Video

Country-Specific Mortality and Growth Failure in Infancy and Yound Children and Association With Material Stature

Use interactive graphics and maps to view and sort country-specific infant and early dhildhood mortality and growth failure data and their association with maternal

NOTE:
Citing articles are presented as examples only. In non-demo SCM6 implementation, integration with CrossRef’s "Cited By" API will populate this tab (http://www.crossref.org/citedby.html).

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In