No abstract

No abstract

This paper describes a method and tool, EPRA (Early Phase Risk Assessment) developed by StatoilHydro, to identify and evaluate key Health, Safety, Security, Environmental (HSE) Risks, together with Business Integrity and Social Responsibility (ISR) Risks relevant to prospective Business Opportunities. The main objective is to identify the major risks, understand these and control them through Management involvement. The tool enables risks to be assessed by a multi-disciplinary team in a consistent and auditable way and the results communicated in a clear and consistent format to Management as part of the normal business decision making process. The development of EPRA involved a multidisciplinary team from StatoilHydro together with international consultants, ERM. Through several workshops, a common terminology and methodology for risk assessment was agreed across the disciplines. Based on these specifications, a prototype tool was developed and successfully tested on a series of fictitious and real project opportunities. As the tool has been developed with extensive involvement of all disciplines within the company, the organization is taking ownership to the tool and the process has thus strengthened the relations between the disciplines. Following the initial testing the prototype tool was modified and is now being rolled out for use within StatoilHydro. It has been implemented as a web based solution, but with a portable version of the tool provided for use in locations where internet access may not be available. Besides the multi-disciplinary approach, some of the main features of EPRA are that:both risks and opportunities are included;it can be used to address both planned and accidental events;it is very flexible and can be tailormade to support a variety of decisions; andit is developed as a communicative tool to inform management. The EPRA methodology constitutes a multidisciplinary working process supported by a tool and includes a 'light' version for rapid screening of risks and opportunities. A specialized module for 'brownfield' assessments (for existing facilities) is currently being developed. This paper describes the main steps in the EPRA methodology and the process followed in performing an assessment using EPRA in a workshop environment. It is the authors' understanding that tools which consider such a broad range of project risks, are at an early stage of development and few have been presented in public before. A key benefit of the EPRA tool is that it 'integrates' a wide range of disciplines (HSE and ISR) into a holistic risk assessment process and ensures that technical risk information is communicated as soon as possible in a clear, efficient and consistent way.

Emission of nitrogen oxides and other air pollutants from the petroleum industry causes concerns regarding impacts on sensitive aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. In order to optimize strategies for emission reductions according to environmental benefits, an integrated modelling tool has been developed (Environmental Impact Factor for Emissions to Air, EIF-Air). The approach takes into account different emissions to air (nitrogen, sulphur, and organic compounds) and different related environmental impacts based on the concept of critical loads and levels. The model currently takes into account four environmental impacts (acidification of surface waters and soils, nutrient effects on terrestrial ecosystems and vegetation damage from elevated ozone concentrations), but is general in it's formulation and can easily be extended to included other relevant impacts. The approach includes atmospheric dispersion modelling of the emissions, a database for current total deposition and models for the different environmental impacts. Results from three case studies are presented. The first shows that nitrogen emission reductions at an offshore installation in the North Sea have larger environmental benefit than a similar reduction in the Norwegian Sea. In the second case the tool is ised to rank different technology options at a Norwegian onshore petroleum facility. The third case compare the environmental benefits of reducing nitrogen emissions at supply ships compared to offshore installations, showing that measures at ships gives larger benefit per unit nitrogen reduced. Introduction The petroleum industry has emissions to the atmosphere of gaseous pollutants, including nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulphur dioxide (SO2) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Atmospheric transport of gaseous pollutants may contribute to environmental impacts long distance (up to several hundred kilometres) from the emission sources, even though the highest concentrations and deposition fluxes are found relatively close to the emission source. Emissions to air from a single source will contribute to the air concentration and deposition flux in a large area, but typically with quite low concentration or flux compared to the total air concentration and deposition flux. With exception of the immediate vicinity of the emission source, the contribution to the total air pollution level from a given single source is usually small, commonly between less than one and a few percent. This can be challenging when having to prioritize between measures to reduce emissions, as the environmental impacts from a single emission source can be virtually impossible to measure. A main principle in the development and application of the modelling tool is to combine emissions, deposition as well as environmental impacts in the assessment of a given emission. As a part of the assessment of potential measures, environmental benefits of the reductions are considered in order to implement the best measures from an environmental and socio-economic point of view. Important questions the modelling tool can help answer are: Does an investment for an emission reduction give any environmental improvement, or is it only fulfilling a political goal? Where is the best location to reduce emissions and which measure should be preferred at the actual facility? What is the best solution/measure from a cost benefit point of view? Should the authorities allow for third party measures in order to comply with the best environmentally and socio economic best solution? In order to be able to answer such questions, we developed a method for assessing the environmental benefits of possible emission reduction measures. The method summarizes the environmental improvements in a single factor, called Environmental Impact Factor for Emissions to Air, EIF-Air.

No abstract