Tuesday, July 27, 2010

A Look at Deepwater Horizon: Were the Risks For Those On Board Reasonable? (Oil and Gas iQ)


Bill Cambell
Author: Bill Cambell 
Posted: 07/23/2010  12:00:00 AM EDT 
Rate this Rate this Article: (5.0 Stars | 3 Votes) 


Many commentators around the world talk about the cause of the explosion on Deepwater Horizon when they actually mean the cause of the blowout and subsequent pollution. Blowouts are thankfully rare events; some blowouts in the past have not led to explosions, making recovery efforts more likely to succeed. The fatalities and the total destruction of the installation may have been prevented if an explosion had not occurred.

Occupational Safety vs. Risk Awareness
On Deepwater Horizon at the time of the explosion there was a ceremony in the accommodation module celebrating seven years without a Lost Time Incident. The installation owned and operated by Transocean had an outstanding record of preventing lost time incidents.

Post Piper Alpha, it was recognized that having a low number of lost time incidents, or as was the case on Deepwater Horizon, zero incidents, was no assurance whatsoever that the risks to the health and safety of persons from major accident events on offshore installations were within acceptable limits.

Within the United States the oil industry in recent years was reminded of this. The technical investigation into the Texas City refinery explosion was critical in that whilst BP concentrated on occupational risks, e.g. slips, trips and falls, it paid inadequate regard to the risks of catastrophic events.

The reality was that Deepwater Horizon was a dangerous place for the persons on board regardless of its world class performance in protecting them from occupational injuries.

If the probability of an undesirable event is high, and the consequences of that undesirable event are potentially catastrophic, then the risks are dangerously high. Risk are the product of the probability and the consequence of the event happening. Whether assessed numerically, by Quantitative Risk Analysis, or by Qualitative Risk Analysis, Deepwater Horizon as it operated in the period leading up to the incident had risk levels likely to be in the intolerable range, at levels unacceptable to society, in the weeks prior to the explosion.

Foreseeable and Inevitable?
Due to well control problems a number of significant gas releases into the atmosphere occurred in the weeks prior to the disaster. Allied to this, and from examination of witness testimony, insufficient measures appear to have been in place to prevent gas being ingested into an enclosed non-hazardous area where sources of ignition are constantly present during normal operations.

So the probability that a flammable atmosphere could exist on Deepwater Horizon was high and the probability of subsequent ignition causing an explosion was high. The two combined on the 20th May with catastrophic effect.
Bill Cambell joined Shell in Aberdeen in 1979 after 17 years working in the UK Coal Mining Industry (installation, commissioning, and maintenance of elect equipment in Hazardous Atmospheres).

His first activities related to the onshore commissioning of AC generation and Gas Compression facilities prior to those going offshore. In 1982, as a Chartered Engineer Cambell was employed as a Topside Facilities Design Engineer supervising numerous design changes required after the installations had gone offshore. In 1984 he was made Offshore Installation Manager for the installation Brent Alpha and thereafter moved to London to provide Operations input into the design of 2nd generation installations. By 1990 Cambell was an onshore Asset Manager for the Cormorant Oil Field in the East Shetlands Basin. During this period he assisted in the development and acceptance of the first Safety Case approved by the UK regulator for the large and complex Condeep installation Cormorant Alpha.

In 1993 I became the Head of Operations and Maintenance Strategy for Shell’s North Sea operations d gas onshore plants. I this role I was charged with the development and training of over 2000 Offshore operations staff and was the custodian or technical authority for Operation and Maintenance Codes of Practice. At that time we produced the first standard adopted in the North Sea for the Management Of Major Emergencies as a result of the post Piper Alpha recommendations. I was also at the time one of a small number of Company Emergency Co-ordinators.

In 1996 Cambell moved to the central offices of Shell Intentional EP in The Hague in a similar role.

In the Hague as its principal technical expert for maintenance and production Cambell had several roles, namely Global Consultant, Part of a team sponsoring and financing revolutionary research carried out at our Research and Technical Services Laboratory being involved in projects such as expanded tubular, floating LNG, Geothermal etc.

At that time Cambell also acted as a Group Auditor carrying out HSE and Business Control audits and reviews around the world, some 42 in 17 different countries.

Cambell retired from Shell in 2002 due to ill health but provided part time constancy to them till 2006. He has also provided advice to the UK oil Regulator the HSE during this period.

No comments: