An integrated FMEA and MCDA based risk management approach to support life extension of subsea facilities in high-pressure–high-temperature (HPHT) conditions

References

• Animah I, Shafiee M. 2018. Condition assessment, remaining useful life prediction and life extension decision making for offshore oil and gas assets. J Loss Prev Process Ind. 53:17–28. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jlp.2017.04.030
   Google Scholar
• Animah I, Shafiee M. 2019. Maintenance strategy selection for critical shipboard machinery systems using a hybrid AHP-PROMETHEE and cost benefit analysis: a case study. Journal of Marine Engineering & Technology. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/20464177.2019.1572705.
   Google Scholar
• Animah I, Shafiee M. 2020. Application of risk analysis in the liquefied natural gas (LNG) sector: An overview. J Loss Prev Process Ind. 63, 103980. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jlp.2019.103980
   Google Scholar
• Animah I, Shafiee M, Simms N, Erkoyuncu JA, Maiti J. 2018. Selection of the most suitable life extension strategy for ageing offshore assets using a life-cycle cost-benefit analysis approach. J Qual Maint Eng. 24(3):311–330. doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/JQME-09-2016-0041
   Google Scholar
• API 17TR8. 2018. High-pressure high-temperature design guidelines. 2nd ed. Washington, D.C: American Petroleum Institute (API). 110 pages. Available at: https://global.ihs.com.
   Google Scholar
• API TR 1PER15K-1. 2013. Protocol for verification and validation of high-pressure high-temperature equipment. American Petroleum Institute (API). 98 pages.
   Google Scholar
• Azouz AM. 2010. Innovative subsea cooling reduces numerous failure risks in subsea pipelines. In: International Petroleum Exhibition and Conference, Abu Dhabi, UAE, pp. 1–5.
   Google Scholar
• Badri MA. 2001. A combined AHP-GP model for quality control systems. Int J Prod Econ. 72(1):27–40. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0925-5273(00)00077-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bai Q, Qi X, Brunner MS. 2009. Global buckle control with dual sleepers in HP/HT pipelines. In: Offshore Technology Conference, 4–7 May, Houston, Texas, pp. 1–12.
   Google Scholar
• Barrilleaux M, Deegan J, Waligura J, Walker G. 2001. Dynamically positioned completion operations risk analysis. In: Offshore Technology Conference, 30 April–3 May, Houston, Texas, pp. 1–10.
   Google Scholar
• Behzadian M, Kazemzadeh RB, Albadvi A, Aghdasi M. 2010. PROMETHEE: A comprehensive literature review on methodologies and applications. Eur J Oper Res. 200(1):198–215. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2009.01.021
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brans J-P, Vincke P. 1985. Note–A preference ranking organisation method: (The PROMETHEE method for multiple criteria decision-making). Manage Sci. 31(6):647–656. doi: https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.31.6.647
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bucelli M, Paltrinieri N, Landucci G. 2018. Integrated risk assessment for oil and gas installations in sensitive areas. Ocean Eng. 150:377–390. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2017.12.035
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cai B, Liu Y, Liu Z, Tian X, Zhang Y, Ji R. 2013. Application of Bayesian networks in quantitative risk assessment of subsea blowout preventer operations. Risk Anal. 33(7):1293–1311. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2012.01918.x
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Fenton C, Jayson D, Gillies M, Parkin A. 2002. Integrated geohazards evaluation and risk assessment for subsea facilities. In: Offshore Technology Conference, 6–9 May, Houston, Texas. pp. 1–7.
   Google Scholar
• Graham GM, Collins IR, Johnson TL. 2005. Technical and economic analysis of the scale risks and uncertainties for subsea deepwater field developments. In: SPE International Symposium on Oilfield Scale, 11–12 May, Aberdeen, United Kingdom, pp. 1–16.
   Google Scholar
• Hasle JR, Urban K, Ole H. 2009. Decision on oil and gas exploration in an Arctic area: case study from the Norwegian Barents Sea. Saf Sci. 47(6):832–842. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2008.10.019
   Google Scholar
• Health and Safety Executive (HSE). 2005. High pressure, high temperature developments in the United Kingdom Continental Shelf. Research Report 409, Prepared by Highoose Limited, Available at: http://www.hse.gov.uk/research/rrpdf/rr409.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Helmer CM, Churcher AC, Mclvor GR, Shields RG. 1994. Arctic offshore development: managing the risk. In: Offshore Technology Conference, 2–5 May, Houston, Texas. pp. 1–12.
   Google Scholar
• Henriksson A, Wilhelmsen A, Karlsen T. 2004. Pipelines in harsh environment. In: Offshore Technology Conference, 3–6 May, Houston, Texas. pp. 1–11.
   Google Scholar
• Hoiset S, Fossan I, Kaasa O. 2008. Managing explosion risk in arctic areas. In: SPE International Conference on Health, Safety, and Environment in Oil and Gas Exploration and Production, 15–17 April, Nice, France. pp. 1–14.
   Google Scholar
• Kabir G, Sadiq R, Tesfamariam S. 2014. A review of multi-criteria decision-making methods for infrastructure management. Struct Infrastruct Eng. 10(9):1176–1210. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/15732479.2013.795978
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kabir G, Sumi RS. 2014. Power substation location selection using fuzzy analytic hierarchy process and PROMETHEE: a case study from Bangladesh. Energy. 72:717–730. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2014.05.098
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaculi J. 2015. Next generation HPHT subsea wellhead systems design challenges and opportunities. In: Offshore Technology Conference, 4–7 May, Houston, Texas, USA. pp. 1–13.
   Google Scholar
• Kornishin K, Efimov YO. 2011. Risks management in Russian offshore geotechnical prospecting (Russian). In: SPE Arctic and Extreme Environments Conference and Exhibition, 18–20 October, Moscow, Russia. pp. 1–5.
   Google Scholar
• Lage A, Jacinto C, Martins F, Vanni G, Santos O, Moreiras J. 2006. Blowout contingency and risk-reduction measures for high-rate subsea gas wells in Mexilhao. In: IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, 21–23 February, Miami, Florida, USA. pp. 1–13.
   Google Scholar
• Li, C. and Liu, Z.W. (2014). The practice of Shenzhen-Hong Kong subsea gas pipeline risk analysis. In: The Eleventh ISOPE Pacific/Asia Offshore Mechanics Symposium, 12–14 October, Shanghai, China, pp. 90–95.
   Google Scholar
• Marhavilas PK, Koulouriotis D, Gemeni V. 2011. Risk analysis and assessment methodologies in the work sites: on a review, classification and comparative study of the scientific literature of the period 2000-2009. J Loss Prev Process Ind. 24:477–523. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jlp.2011.03.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Markeset T, Moreno-Trejo J, Kumar R. 2009. Maintenance of subsea petroleum production systems: a case study. J Qual Maint Eng. 19(2):128–143. doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/13552511311315940
   Google Scholar
• Masi S, Molaschi C, Zausa F, Michelez J. 2011. Managing circulation losses in a harsh drilling environment: conventional solution vs. CHCD through a risk assessment. SPE Drilling & Completion. 26(2):1–10. doi: https://doi.org/10.2118/128225-PA
   Google Scholar
• Morgan V, Phillips RD, Randell C, Freeman R. 2008. Mitigation of ice risk to subsea infrastructure. In: Offshore Technology Conference, 5–8 May, Houston, Texas, USA. pp. 1–9.
   Google Scholar
• Nikouei MA, Oroujzadeh M, Mehdipour-Ataei S. 2017. The PROMETHEE multiple criteria decision making analysis for selecting the best membrane prepared from sulfonated poly(ether ketone)s and poly(ether sulfone)s for proton exchange membrane fuel cell. Energy. 119:77–85. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2016.12.052
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• NORSOK. 2010. Standard Z-013, Risk and Emergency Preparedness Analysis, Edition 3, Lysaker, Norway. Available at: https://standards.globalspec.com/std/9966208/z-013.
   Google Scholar
• Payne M. 2016. High-pressure/high-temperature challenges. Journal of Petroleum Technology. 64:1.
   Google Scholar
• Pires TS, Morais CPM, Freitas RDA, Monteiro ALTO. 2016. Discussion on the life extension of offshore production facilities. In: Rio Oil & Gas Expo and Conference, 24–27 October, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. pp. 1–10.
   Google Scholar
• Rowe G, Wright G. 2001. Expert opinions in forecasting: the role of the Delphi technique. In: Armstrong J.S., editor. Principles of forecasting. New York: Springer; p. 125–144.
   Google Scholar
• Saaty TL. 1980. The analytical hierarchy process. New York: McGraw Hill.
   Google Scholar
• Saaty TL. 1990. How to make a decision: The analytic hierarchy process. Eur J Oper Res. 48:9–26. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-2217(90)90057-I
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saaty TL. 1996. Decision making with dependence and feedback. Pittsburgh: RWS publications.
   Google Scholar
• Sarwar A, Khan F, Abimbola M, James L. 2018. Resilience analysis of a remote offshore oil and gas facility for a potential hydrocarbon release. Risk Anal. 38(8):1601–1617. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12974
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shadravan A, Amani M. 2012. HPHT 101 - what petroleum engineers and geoscientists should know about high pressure high temperature wells environment. Energy Science and Technology. 4(2):36–60.
   Google Scholar
• Shafiee M. 2015. A fuzzy analytic network process model to mitigate the risks associated with offshore wind farms. Expert Syst Appl. 42:2143–2152. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2014.10.019
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shafiee M, Animah I. 2017. Life extension decision making of safety critical systems: an overview. J Loss Prev Process Ind. 47:174–188. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jlp.2017.03.008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shafiee M, Animah I, Alkali B, Baglee D. 2019a. Decision support methods and applications in the upstream oil and gas sector. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering. 173:1173–1186. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2018.10.050
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shafiee M, Animah I, Simms N. 2016. Development of a techno-economic framework for life extension decision making of safety critical installations. J Loss Prev Process Ind. 44:299–310. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jlp.2016.09.013
   Google Scholar
• Shafiee M, Dinmohammadi F. 2014. An FMEA-based risk assessment approach for wind turbine systems: A comparative study of onshore and offshore. Energies. 7(2):619–642. doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/en7020619
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shafiee M, Enjema E, Kolios A. 2019b. An integrated FTA-FMEA model for risk analysis of engineering systems: a case study of subsea blowout preventers. Applied Sciences. 9(6):1192. doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/app9061192
   Google Scholar
• Shafiee M, Labib A, Maiti J, Starr A. 2019c. Maintenance strategy selection for multi-component systems using a combined analytic network process and cost-risk criticality model. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part O: Journal of Risk and Reliability. 233(2):89–104.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Silva VBS, Morais DC, Almeida AT. 2010. A multicriteria group decision model to support watershed committees in Brazil. Water Resour Manage. 24:4075–4091. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-010-9648-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smithson T. 2016. HPHT wells. Schlumberger, Available at: http://oilproduction.net/files/HP-HT-Schlumberger.pdf Accessed on 17 July 2019.
   Google Scholar
• Toldo B, Shuttleworth A, Zabelina P. 2016. Sub-surface safety valve (SSSV) erosion assessment in HPHT gas field - a case study. In: Offshore Technology Conference Asia, 22–25 March, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. pp. 1–11.
   Google Scholar
• Tom J, Draper S, White D, O’Neill M. 2016. Risk-based assessment of scour around subsea infrastructure. In: Offshore Technology Conference, 2–5 May, Houston, Texas, USA. pp. 1–20.
   Google Scholar
• Turcksin L, Bernardini A, Macharis C. 2011. A combined AHP-PROMETHEE approach for selecting the most appropriate policy scenario to stimulate a clean vehicle fleet. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences. 20:954–965. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.08.104
   Google Scholar
• Villa V, Paltrinieri N, Khan F, Cozzani V. 2016. Towards dynamic risk analysis: a review of the risk assessment approach and its limitations in the chemical process industry. Saf Sci. 89:77–93. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2016.06.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vinodh S, Girubha RJ. 2011. PROMETHEE based sustainable concept selection. Appl Math Model. 36(11):5301–5308. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apm.2011.12.030
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ward EG, Gilbert RB, Jaber J, Wolford AJ. 2001. Deepwater production system risks. In: The Eleventh International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference, 17–22 June, Stavanger, Norway. pp. 654–659.
   Google Scholar
• Weber BJ, Mudan KS. 1992. Arctic pipeline risk assessments. In: The Second International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference, 14–19 June, San Francisco, California, USA, pp. 15–20.
   Google Scholar
• Wray BL, Bedford DR, Leotaud L, Hunter WJ. 2009. The application of high-density elastic cements to solve HP/HT challenges in South Texas: The success story. In: SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, 4–7 October, New Orleans, Louisiana. pp. 1–17.
   Google Scholar
• Yusoff NH, Yusof MR. 2009. Managing HSE risk in harsh environment. In: Asia Pacific Health, Safety, Security and Environment Conference, 4–6 August, Jakarta, Indonesia. pp. 1–6.
   Google Scholar
• Zio E. 1996. On the use of the analytic hierarchy process in the aggregation of expert judgments. Reliability Engineering and System Safety. 53:127–138. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0951-8320(96)00060-9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar