Numerical Investigation into the Two-Phase Convective Heat Transfer within the Hold of an Oil Tanker Subjected to a Rolling Motion

Stajić

2021

JMSE

Offshore oil and gas operations carry a high risk of explosions, which can be efficiently prevented in many cases. The two most used approaches for prevention are: (1) the “International Electrotechnical Commission System for Certification to Standards Relating to Equipment for Use in Explosive Atmospheres” (IECEx) and (2) European “Atmosphere Explosible” (ATEX) schemes. The main shortcoming for the IECEx scheme is in the fact that it does not cover nonelectrical equipment, while for the ATEX scheme, it is due to the allowed self-certification for a certain category of equipment in areas with a low probability of explosions, as well as the fact that it explicitly excludes mobile offshore drilling units from its scope. An advantage of the IECEx scheme is that it is prescribed by the US Coast Guard for protection against explosions on foreign mobile offshore drilling units, which intend to work on the US continental shelf but have never operated there before, with an additional requirement that the certificates should be obtained through a US-based Certified Body (ExCB). Therefore, to avoid bureaucratic obstacles and to be allowed to operate with minimized additional costs both in the US and the EU/EEA’s offshore jurisdictions (and very possibly worldwide), all mobile offshore drilling units should be certified preferably as required by the US Coast Guard.

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Offshore Oil and Gas Safety: Protection against Explosions

Stajić

2021

JMSE

“…Instead, through the product safety directives, drilling ships and oil and gas equipment onboard has been covered through the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) and more specifically through the Code for the construction and equipment of Mobile Offshore Drilling Units of the International Maritime Organization (the MODU code). The MODU code has been developed to protect any ship as a vessel, and its integrity and stability in the first place in terms of navigation [32][33][34][35], emphasizing the additional requirements caused by drilling activities [36], but does not include requirements for the drilling of subsea wells or the procedures for their control (such drilling operations are subject to control by the coastal state). The MODU code is used in relation to the EU/EEA product safety directives as follows: (1) Protection against explosions; (2) Protection of pressure equipment; (3) Protection of personnel who works with machinery:…”

Section: Explicit Exclusions From Eu/eea Product Safety Directivesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Proper Use of Technical Standards in Offshore Petroleum Industry

Praks

2020

JMSE

Ships for drilling need to operate in the territorial waters of many different countries which can have different technical standards and procedures. For example, the European Union and European Economic Area EU/EEA product safety directives exclude from their scope drilling ships and related equipment onboard. On the other hand, the EU/EEA offshore safety directive requires the application of all the best technical standards that are used worldwide in the oil and gas industry. Consequently, it is not easy to select the most appropriate technical standards that increase the overall level of safety and environmental protection whilst avoiding the costs of additional certifications. We will show how some technical standards and procedures, which are recognized worldwide by the petroleum industry, can be accepted by various standardization bodies, and how they can fulfil the essential health and safety requirements of certain directives. Emphasis will be placed on the prevention of fire and explosion, on the safe use of equipment under pressure, and on the protection of personnel who work with machinery. Additionally considered is how the proper use of adequate procedures available at the time would have prevented three large scale offshore petroleum accidents: the Macondo Deepwater Horizon in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010; the Montara in the Timor Sea in 2009; the Piper Alpha in the North Sea in 1988.

“…Aside from the problems caused by wells with inadequate blowout prevention measures, further problems that can result in an accident can be caused by the stability of the platform [20][21][22][23] or the leakage of flammable fluids.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Probability Analysis and Prevention of Offshore Oil and Gas Accidents: Fire as a Cause and a Consequence

Praks

2021

Fire

Failures during the drilling and exploitation of hydrocarbons that result in catastrophic offshore oil and gas accidents are relatively rare but if they occur the consequences can be catastrophic in terms of loss of life and environmental damage. Therefore, to gain insight into their prevention, the largest major offshore oil and gas accidents, those with more than 10 fatalities or with a large environmental impact, are analyzed in this article. Special attention is placed on fire as a cause and a consequence. Relevant technological and legislative changes and updates regarding safety that have followed such accidents and that can prevent potential future similar misfortunes are evaluated. Two main approaches to safety are compared: (1) the American prescriptive vs. (2) the European goal-oriented approach. The main causes of accidents are tested statistically in respect of failure probability, where the exact confidence limits for the estimated probabilities are computed. The results of the statistical test based on exact confidence intervals show that there is no significant difference between the analysed factors, which describe the main causes of offshore oil and gas accidents. Based on the small but carefully chosen group of 24 of the largest accidents, it can be concluded that there is no evidence of a difference between the categories of the main causes of accidents.