Remote operation in environmentally sensitive areas: development of early warning indicators

Øien, Knut

doi:10.1080/13669877.2012.729523

Cited by 21 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The development team could cooperate with the system safety analysts to establish a relationship between risk assessments and the safety indicators. This would in return overcome some deficiencies of the two methods, as mentioned by Øien [68], for example, the missing link to risk models. Comparison of outcome indicators and early warning indicators helps to evaluate and validate safety performance and to reveal deficiencies in the safety indicator system.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…Delatour et al [9] and Øien [68] review and discuss methods for safety performance indicator development. Leveson [28] sets requirements for a good leading indicator development process.…”

Section: Safety Indicator Development Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Safety is a condition where the remaining risk is accepted as sufficiently low [39], and safety indicators measure to which extent safety is present. Safety indicators include event indicators, barrier indicators, activity indicators, and programmatic indicators [68]. Øien [61] defines an indicator generally as "a measurable or operational variable that can be used to describe the condition of a broader phenomenon or aspect of reality".…”

Section: Safety Indicatorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Safety performance monitoring of autonomous marine systems

Thieme

Utne

2017

Reliability Engineering & System Safety

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The marine environment is vast, harsh, and challenging. Unanticipated faults and events might lead to loss of vessels, transported goods, collected scientific data, and business reputation. Hence, systems have to be in place that monitor the safety performance of operation and indicate if it drifts into an intolerable safety level. This article proposes a process for developing safety indicators for the operation of autonomous marine systems (AMS). The condition of safety barriers and resilience engineering form the basis for the development of safety indicators, synthesizing and further adjusting the dual assurance and the resilience based early warning indicator (REWI) approaches. The article locates the process for developing safety indicators in the system life cycle emphasizing a timely implementation of the safety indicators. The resulting safety indicators reflect safety in AMS operation and can assist in planning of operations, in daily operational decision-making, and identification of improvements. Operation of an autonomous underwater vehicle (AUV) exemplifies the process for developing safety indicators and their implementation. The case study shows that the proposed process leads to a comprehensive set of safety indicators. It is expected that application of the resulting safety indicators consequently will contribute to safer operation of current and future AMS.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…Delatour et al [9] and Øien [68] review and discuss methods for safety performance indicator development. Leveson [28] sets requirements for a good leading indicator development process.…”

Section: Safety Indicator Development Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Safety Indicatorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Safety performance monitoring of autonomous marine systems

Thieme

Utne

2017

Reliability Engineering & System Safety

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Sensitivity analysis: In this case study, for computational convenience, a partial sensitivity analysis has been applied. The sensitivity of the total cost for three different drilling time scenarios (17,22, and 27 days/well) has been considered. The result of the partial sensitivity analysis for different waste handling practices for Arctic offshore operation is depicted in Table 12.…”

Section: Discharge To Oceanmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Furthermore, to provide a basis for comparing alternative ways of achieving a certain benefit, aid safety design and offer a fair basis for evaluating alternative drilling waste handling practices, a number of quantitative risk assessment models have been developed; see, e.g., Refs. [17][18][19][20][21][22]. For instance, Khakzad et al.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Risk-Based Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Waste Handling Practices in the Arctic Drilling Operation

Ayele

Barabadi

Droguett

2016

Journal of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As oil and gas companies in the Arctic attempt to maximize the value of each project and optimize their portfolio of investment opportunities, it has become vital to evaluate drilling waste handling practices for their cost-effectiveness in order to support strategic decisions. Identifying cost-effective waste handling practices, which have a minimal environmental footprint, however, is one of the biggest challenges for Arctic offshore industries. The cost and potential risks of drilling waste handling practices in the Arctic offshore operation will differ vastly, depending on the operating environment such as the ice conditions and negative sea temperature. However, in the majority of the available cost-effectiveness and risk analysis literature, the influence of the operating environment on the cost and risk profile has received less attention. Hence, the aim of this paper is to propose a methodology for risk-based cost-effectiveness analysis (RB-CEA) of drilling waste handling practices by considering the complex and fast-changing nature of the Arctic. The central thrust of this paper is to highlight the fact that comparing different alternatives based on the cost elements alone is misleading. The proposed methodology uses risk assessment as a key component for the cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA). The application of the proposed methodology is demonstrated by a case study of the drilling waste handling practices of an oil field in the Barents Sea. The case study results demonstrate that the operating environment causes costs to be between 1.18 and 1.52 times greater, depending on the type of practices and operating season, in the Arctic offshore compared with the North Sea. Further, the risk of undesirable events is between 1.48 and 2.60 times greater during waste handling activities under Arctic operational conditions.Research Council of Norway ENI Norge AS through the EWMA (Environmental Waste Management) projec

show abstract