 US permits Arctic drilling, but questions about

safety remain

Earlier this month, the Obama administration gave conditional approval to

a renewed plan for Royal Dutch Shell to drill for oil offshore of Alaska’s Arctic
Ocean coast in the Chukchi Sea.

“As we move forward, any offshore exploratory activities will continue to be

subject to rigorous safety standards,” the director of the Department of Interior’s
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management said in announcing the approval. In
response, Shell has moved quickly to mobilize equipment and personnel to
conduct drilling operations in this area as early as this summer.

The key question addressed here concerns the “safety” of the proposed
exploratory drilling operations.

Both Shell and the Department of Interior contend the proposed operations can
be performed “safely.” Both organizations understand nothing beneficial will
come if there is a major accident, such as an uncontrolled blowout during the
proposed drilling operations.

However, the available evidence indicates the Department of Interior and Shell
have not applied the best available risk assessment and management technology
to configure the proposed drilling system and its operations to assure they are
safe enough.

Risk 101
Safety is defined as “freedom from undue exposure to injury or harm.”

Safety means the likelihoods and consequences of major accidents are

“tolerable” (acceptable, safe enough). Accidents with potentially high
consequences should have a low likelihood of occurring. What is deemed to be
safe is a function of what is determined to be a tolerable risk.

To be valid and realistic, quantitative estimates of the likelihoods and

consequences of major accidents must be assessed using the best available
knowledge. One must make diligent efforts to eliminate a wide variety of human
and organizational biases that can distort risk analyses. Effective internal and
external validation processes are the key to neutralize these biases.

Risk estimates are based on the proposed configuration of the integrated

“system” of hardware as well as the human, organizational and environmental
components. Special attention is devoted to understanding potential
interdependencies and interactions among the interconnected system
components and how the system might fail.

To prevent and mitigate major accidents, experts have processes and strategies
to assess and manage the risk of a system configuration at different stages during
the life of a system. These analyses assess the risk before an activity is
performed, during activities, and after the activities are done. Personal safety is
a subset of system safety.

These three integrated, coordinated approaches are meant to reduce the

likelihoods and consequences of major system accidents and to increase proper
detection, analysis and correction of expected and unexpected deviations in
system performance.

Special attention is given to the different categories of uncertainties that pervade

the life cycle performance of complex hardware and human organizational
systems in different hazardous environments. These include natural variabilities,
analysis model uncertainties, and variations in human and organizational
performance. Other factors include information access, analysis and
other uncertainties (unknown knowables and unknown unknowables).

‘Goal-based’ risk assessment and management

Tolerable risks are defined from structured collaborative processes involving the
affected societies, industry and commerce, governments (local, state, federal)
and representatives of the potentially affected environments.

Tolerable risks can also be determined from analyses of historic precedents,

current standards of practice, and monetary cost–benefit analyses.

The system regulator – in this case, the Department of Interior – is responsible

for definition of the tolerable risks. The system owner–operator, Royal Dutch
Shell, is responsible for development of the risk assessments. The objective is to
demonstrate to the satisfaction of the regulatory agencies that the risks are
tolerable – a term called As Low As Reasonably Practicable by risk management
professionals – during the life of the entire system.

Such goal-based risk assessment and management regulatory processes

currently are being applied for drilling operations in the UK and Norwegian
Sectors of the North Sea and offshore Canada and Australia. In several of these
areas, the processes are identified as a Safety Case Regime.
  Are we ready for more offshore drilling?

The ocean waters offshore host vast fossil-fuel resources. In 2013, federal
offshore oil production made up 18% of total US production, a figure that is likely
to increase in the future as onshore sources dwindle and we demonstrate the
potential of new offshore reserves.

The Obama administration earlier this year unveiled a plan to open up limited
areas in the Gulf of Mexico, Arctic and Atlantic to oil and gas leasing. At the same
time, the administration is looking to impose stricter regulations on offshore
drilling operations, which were developed in the wake of the Deepwater Horizon
disaster. But is the industry ready to meet these higher expectations of safety?

Putting a number on risk

In order to rationally discuss the components of safety, let’s talk about offshore
drilling in terms of risk. From a quantitative standpoint, one can calculate risk as
the product of the hazard and vulnerability. The first factor is the hazard, which is
the likelihood of a disaster occurring, and the other factor is the vulnerability, or
the expected loss from a disaster.

To look at overall risk, one would multiply hazard by vulnerability for all possible
accidents and then sum these products. The resulting risk would be the total
expected loss for the proposed drilling operation.

There are a variety of factors that contribute to a higher hazard level in the
offshore environment compared with the onshore environment. Offshore wells
can be more than a mile down in water, where very high-pressure/high-
temperature (HP/HT) conditions beneath the seafloor raise the chance of well
blowout and put more physical stress on equipment.

Offshore rigs are exposed to more severe storms and, at higher latitudes, sea
ice. Just having a column of water between the rig and the wellhead introduces
a slew of technical challenges: what movements between the rig and wellhead
can the riser – the pipe that connects the wellhead to the rig – tolerate? How will
mechanical and electrical equipment maintain reliability in the pressures and
temperatures at the bottom of the ocean?

Tech to address hazards

The International Association of Drilling Contractors Incidents Statistics Program
reports that the rate of recorded accidents – a measure that includes injuries,
fatalities and lost time – in US waters has fallen from 0.86 in 2010 to 0.62 in 2014.
Note also that the recordable incident rate offshore is consistently and
significantly less than that for onshore drilling operations.

Advances in safety technology, largely driven by industry, has played a major role
in reducing this rate. For instance, one critical piece in maintaining safe control
over wells is the subsea blowout preventer (BOP), which cuts and seals the well
when an imminent blowout is recognized.

Much focus, including tougher proposed rules, has been placed on this particular
type of device because in the Deepwater Horizon incident, the BOP failed. New
BOPs have improved safety features, such as increased redundancy on critical
components and remote triggering mechanisms. They have also been
specifically designed for high-pressure/high-temperature wells.

Another improvement comes in the form of autonomous underwater vehicles

(AUVs). These robots can scan the wellhead and riser for flaws, recognizing
areas of potential leakage with an array of sensors. Historically, such monitoring
has been performed with a remotely controlled vehicle, necessitating man time
and surface ship support. But automating this task with an autonomous vehicle
reduces the hazards associated with fatigue, corrosion and excessive stress by
allowing for more frequent and faster surveying.

Other advances include: advanced sensors for real-time monitoring of subsea

components, specially forged metals for the subsea environment and piping with
embedded heating coils to prevent the formation of underwater ice-like structures
known as hydrates, which impaired containment attempts at Deepwater Horizon.
In addition, some operators have access to so-called measurement-while-
drillingtechnologies to steer the drill bit away from hazardous conditions.

Another improvement comes in the form of autonomous underwater vehicles

(AUVs). These robots can scan the wellhead and riser for flaws, recognizing
areas of potential leakage with an array of sensors. Historically, such monitoring
has been performed with a remotely controlled vehicle, necessitating man time
and surface ship support. But automating this task with an autonomous vehicle
reduces the hazards associated with fatigue, corrosion and excessive stress by
allowing for more frequent and faster surveying.

Other advances include: advanced sensors for real-time monitoring of subsea

components, specially forged metals for the subsea environment and piping with
embedded heating coils to prevent the formation of underwater ice-like structures
known as hydrates, which impaired containment attempts at Deepwater Horizon.
In addition, some operators have access to so-called measurement-while-
drillingtechnologies to steer the drill bit away from hazardous conditions.
  New Hebron offshore oil platform a Canadian
engineering marvel.
Incredible feats of engineering and construction have been accomplished by
Canadians throughout our history — the Confederation Bridge, the CN Tower,
the transcontinental railway, Rideau Canal, the CANDU nuclear
reactor and Canadarm, to name just a few.

Recently another impressive achievement was completed off the coast of

Newfoundland, called Hebron. Based on my career experience as a mechanical
engineer, I consider this massive offshore oil structure one of the most
remarkable offshore wonders of the world and among the most impressive
engineering accomplishments in Canada.

As the dean of engineering and applied science at Memorial University of

Newfoundland, I am heartened that Memorial has contributed a significant role in
ensuring the success of the Hebron offshore project.

Hebron’s 600,000-tonne concrete gravity-based structure (GBS) was a $14-

billion project that involved more than 132,000 cubic metres of concrete produced
and poured in its construction.

The base along the sea floor is 130 metres in diameter and has 52 well slots for
offshore drilling.

Slip-forming of interior and exterior walls of the concrete pedestal to build up the
huge structure, and progressively move it to deeper water in Bull Arm, NL, was
an extraordinary challenge.

It involved a vast network of internal piping systems with a huge base slab. The
topside structure, above the water line, is approximately 110 metres high. A sub-
sea fibre optic cable, meantime, transmits information to an onshore support
centre in St. John’s.

The unique design aspects of the Hebron include structural features that can
withstand the harsh ocean conditions of the North Atlantic, extreme ocean waves
often exceeding 20 to 25 metres in height, sea ice and icebergs.

The topsides are perched far beyond the central structure over the ocean that
routinely produces freezing waves that continually slam into its underside.

In various ways, the designs of these undersides and central GBS were the first
of their kind in the world. They required creative solutions to structural vibrations,
stability, corrosion and ice impact.

The platform (GBS and topsides) reaches extremely high standards in terms of
safety, durability and reliability of operations. The accomplishments are on par
with the most complex offshore engineering structures ever conceived in the
world.
Work moves below the ocean’s surface
As ocean surface conditions become increasingly harsh and restrictive as
operations move further into new frontier regions of the North Atlantic, more
development is moving below the surface and along the sea floor, where sub-sea
engineering will have an ever-growing importance in terms of safety and
reliability.

Moving a “factory” to the sea floor in a safe and environmentally responsible

manner will be one of the 21st century’s most challenging and important
technologies.

New sub-sea technologies are enabling longer distance pipelines along the sea
floor to provide access to more remote locations. Sub-sea pipeline distances
have increased from less than five kilometres to more than 10 in the past decade.

Researchers have developed new electrically heated pipe-in-pipe technology that

enables tieback distances up to 40 kilometres from existing sub-sea facilities.

Role of engineering at Memorial

The Hebron structure positions Newfoundland and Labrador as a leader on the
world stage in offshore technology development.

Memorial has had an active role. Through strategic initiatives like COASTS (Cold
Ocean and Arctic Science, Technology and Society) and the OFI (Ocean Frontier
Institute), Memorial is training a new generation of students working to ensure an
environmentally responsible and economically vibrant offshore sector in the
future.

The massive new Core Science Facility on Memorial’s campus boasts world-
class science and engineering facilities. The Faculty of Engineering and Applied
Science is also partnering with the offshore industry through its co-operative
education model and innovative research. Hebron partners have supported
Memorial’s engineering programs in various ways such as through student
scholarships, research grants and co-op work terms.

With North America’s only co-op engineering program in ocean and naval
architectural engineering, Memorial’s engineers have two years of co-op industry
experience prior to graduation in order to tackle the complex challenges of future
engineering mega-projects.

The school’s engineering researchers are also developing a range of

technologies in support of safe and environmentally responsible development of
offshore fields.

For example, new virtual environment simulation tools are being developed for
training of offshore personnel to practise their skills in difficult emergency
scenarios and improve offshore safety.
A research network called STePS2 developed more accurate predictive models
for the operation of large ships and offshore structures in Arctic and ice-covered
water.

With the help of Memorial’s contributions to the development and

commercialization of these technologies, Newfoundland and Labrador is
becoming a global leader in safely harnessing the vast potential of our cold ocean
resources.

Environmental concerns
Responsible development of offshore resources presents important economic
opportunities for Canada and elsewhere, but also environmental concerns.
Memorial’s researchers are also tackling these concerns, such as advanced
microbial biotechnologies to respond and mitigate against the risks of an
accidental offshore oil spill.

A significant future prospect of offshore development in Newfoundland is called

the Flemish Pass, where one of the world’s largest oil discoveries was made in
2013.

Nalcor Energy, the province’s Crown energy corporation, discovered four

potential massive oil basins in the Labrador Sea. But depths of more than 1,000
metres in remote and harsh ocean conditions require the development of
advanced subsea and digitalization technologies to ensure safer and more
integrated operations.

Given that approximately a quarter of the world’s hydrocarbon resources are

known to be located in the Arctic, the offshore and subsea technologies
developed for Hebron will have an important role in future offshore developments
in Canada and worldwide.