Int J Performability Eng ›› 2020, Vol. 16 ›› Issue (1): 1-9.doi: 10.23940/ijpe.20.01.p1.19
• Orginal Article • Next Articles
Eirik Bjorheim Abrahamsenab*(), Jon Tømmerås Selvikab, Hans Petter Lohneb, and Øystein Arildab
Submitted on
;
Revised on
;
Accepted on
Contact:
Eirik Bjorheim Abrahamsen
E-mail:eirik.b.abrahamsen@uis.no
Eirik Bjorheim Abrahamsenab, Jon Tømmerås Selvik, Hans Petter Lohne, and Øystein Arild. Plug and Abandonment Decision-Making: Quality at the Right Price [J]. Int J Performability Eng, 2020, 16(1): 1-9.
Add to citation manager EndNote|Reference Manager|ProCite|BibTeX|RefWorks
Table 1
Relevant characteristics describing well and site for use in Step 1"
Subdivision | Characteristics |
---|---|
Well | Pressure |
Temperature | |
Fluid properties | |
Geological stability | |
Well architecture | |
Condition of existing well elements | |
Shape of the well | |
Site (surroundings) | Marine activity |
Distance to coastal areas | |
No. of wells in the area | |
Ship traffic |
Table 2
Guideline for categorization of uncertainty based on [31-33]"
Uncertainty score | Criteria |
---|---|
Low | All of the following conditions whenever relevant are met: ?The assumptions made are seen as very reasonable. ?A large amount of reliable and relevant data/information is available. ?Relevant experts are involved in the assessments. ?There is broad agreement among the experts. ?The phenomena involved are well understood; the models used are known to give predictions with the required accuracy. |
High | One or more of the following conditions is true: ?The assumptions made represent strong simplifications. ?Data/information are/is non-existent or highly unreliable/irrelevant. ?There is a lack of relevant expertise within the assessment team. ?There is strong disagreement among the experts (or within the assessment team). ?The phenomena involved are poorly understood; models are non-existent or known/believed to give poor predictions. |
Medium | Cases in between are classified as having a medium uncertainty score. |
Table 3
Guideline for categorization of sensitivity based on [31]"
Sensitivity score | Criteria |
---|---|
Low | Very large changes in the input parameters are needed to change the conclusion achieved in the cost-benefit analysis; that is, there is low sensitivity. |
High | Relatively small changes in the input parameters are needed to change the conclusion achieved in the cost-benefit analysis; that is, there is high sensitivity. |
Medium | Conditions between high and weak sensitivity score. |
1. | NORSOK Standard D-010 Rev.4, “Well Integrity in Drilling and Well Operations,” Standards Norway, Lysaker, Norway, 2013 |
2. | Ø. Arild, H. P. Lohne, M. M. Majoumerd, E. P. Ford,F. Moeinikia.“Establishment of a Quantitative Risk-based Approach for Evaluating of Containment Performance in the Context of Permanently Plugged and Abandoned Petroleum Wells,” in Proceedings of Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, Texas, USA, May 2017 |
3. | J. O.Spieler and T. M Øia, “P&A - Well Statistics,”(Available from: https://www.norskoljeoggass.no/Activities/HSE-and-operation/Arrangemener/PLUG--ABANDONMENT-SEMINAR-2015/, 2015) |
4. | M. Straume, “Need for New and Cost Effective P&A Technology,”(Available from: https://www.norskoljeoggass.no/Activities/HSE-and-operation/Arrangemener/Plug-and-Abandonment-seminar-2014/, 2014) |
5. | DNV GL, “Risk-based Abandonment of Offshore Wells,” Report No.:2015-1021, Rev 0. Document No.: 1xx2LJN-1, 2015 |
6. | HSE, “Reducing Risk, Protecting People: HSE's Decision-Making,” HSE Books, London, 2001 |
7. | J. E. Vinnem, V. Kristiansen,E. S. Witsø, “Use of ALARP Evaluations and Risk Acceptance Criteria for Risk Informed Decision-Making in the Norwegian Offshore Petroleum Industry,” in Proceedings of ESREL 2006, Vol. 3, pp. 2567-2574, Taylor and Francis, London, 2006 |
8. | E. B. Abrahamsen, F. Asche,T. Aven, “To What Extent Should All the Attributes be Transformed to One Comparable Unit When Evaluating Safety Measures?” The Business Review, Cambridge, Vol. 19, No. 1, pp. 70-76, 2011 |
9. | H. B.Abrahamsen and E. B. Abrahamsen, “On the Appropriateness of using the ALARP Principle in Safety Management,” in Proceedings of ESREL 2015, pp. 773-777, Zürich, Switzerland, 7-10 September 2015 |
10. | E. B. Abrahamsen, H. B Abrahamsen, M. F. Milazzo,J. T. Selvik, “Using the ALARP Principle for Safety Management in the Energy Production Sector of Chemical Industry,” Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Vol. 169, pp. 160-165, January 2018 |
11. | J. E. Vinnem, “Offshore Risk Assessment. Principles, Modelling and Applications of QRA Studies,” Springer, 2007 |
12. | IRPCG - the Industry Radiological Protection Co-ordination Group, “The Application of ALARP to Radiological Risk - A Nuclear Industry Good Practice Guide,” ( |
13. | A. Hopkins, “Risk-Management and Rule-Compliance: Decision-Making in Hazardous Industries,”Safety Science, Vol. 49, pp. 110-120, 2011 |
14. | S. Baesi, B. Abdolhamidzadeh, C. R. C.Hassan, M. D. Hamid, and G. Reniers, “Application of a Multi-Plant QRA: A Case Study Investigating the Risk Impact of the Construction of a New Plant on an Existing Chemical Plant's Risk Levels,” Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, Vol. 26, No. 5, pp. 895-903, 2013 |
15. | N. J. Duijm, C. Fiévez, M. Gerbec, U. Hauptmanns,M. Konstandinidou, “Management of Health, Safety and Environment in Process Industry,”Safety Science, Vol. 46, pp. 908-920, 2008 |
16. | Petroleum Safety Authorities Norway (PSA), “Framework Regulations,” ( |
17. | R. T.Clemen and T. Reilly, “Making Hard Decisions,” Pacific Grove, CA, USA, Duxbury, 2001 |
18. | H. Levy and M. Sarnat, “Capital Investment and Financial Decisions. Fourth Edition,” Prentice Hall, New York, 1990 |
19. | H. R. Varian, “Intermediate Microeconomics: A Modern Approach 5th ed.,” W. W. Norton and Company, New York, 1999 |
20. | R. Brealey and S. Myers, “Principles of Corporate Finance,” McGraw-Hill International Book Company, 1996 |
21. | J. Baron, “Thinking and Deciding, 3rd Edition,” Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2002 |
22. | T. E.Copeland and J. F. Weston, “Financial Theory and Corporate Policy,” Addition-Wesley, Massachusetts, 1988 |
23. | E. B. Abrahamsen, T. Aven, J. E. Vinnem,H. Wienche, “Safety Management and the Use of Expected Values,”Risk Decision and Policy, Vol. 9, pp. 347-357, 2004 |
24. | E. B. Abrahamsen, A. M. Gelyani, H. B Abrahamsen, F. Asche, B. Heide,M. F. Milazzo, “Are Too Many Safety Measures Crowding Each Other Out?”Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Vol. 174, pp. 108-113, 2018 |
25. | T. Aven and R. Flage, “Use of Decision Criteria based on Expected Values to Support Decision-Making in a Production Assurance and Safety Setting,” Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Vol. 94, No. 9, pp. 1491-1498, 2009 |
26. | T. Aven and E. B. Abrahamsen, “On the Use of Cost-Benefit Analysis in ALARP Processes,” International Journal of Performability Engineering, Vol. 3, No. 3, pp. 345-353, 2007 |
27. | T. Aven and J. E. Vinnem, “Risk Management, with Applications from the Offshore Petroleum Industry,” Springer, London, 2007 |
28. | T. Aven, “Quantitative Risk Assessment. The Scientific Platform,” Cambridge University Press, 2011 |
29. | S. Sanni, E. Lyng,D. M. Pampanin, “III: Use of Biomarkers as Risk Indicators in Environmental Risk Assessment of Oil based Discharges Offshore,”Marine Environmental Research, Vol. 127, pp. 1-10, 2017 |
30. | E. B. Abrahamsen, J. T. Selvik,H. B. Abrahamsen, “A Note on the Layered Approach for Implementing ALARP and the Grossly Disproportionate Criterion,” International Journal of Business Continuity and Risk Management, Vol. 7, No. 3, pp. 204-210, 2017 |
31. | E. B. Abrahamsen, J. T. Selvik, B. Heide,J. E. Vinnem, “A Semi-Quantitative Approach for Assessment of Risk Trends in the Norwegian Oil and Gas Industry,” in Knowledge in Risk Assessment and Management (eds. T. Aven and E. Zio), Wiley, 2018 |
32. | R. Flage and T. Aven, “Expressing and Communicating Uncertainty in Relation to Quantitative Risk Analysis,” Reliability and Risk Analysis: Theory and Applications, Vol. 2, No. 13, pp. 9-18, 2009 |
33. | J. T.Selvik and T. Aven, “A Framework for Reliability and Risk Centered Maintenance,” Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Vol. 96, No. 2, pp. 324-331, 2011 |
|