Presentation Transcript

1. Identification and Bridging of the current Gaps in OIL and Gas Arena Emergency Response Practices

2. Your Speaker As a recognized leader in his field, John Coates has been providing emergency response planning and readiness for petrochemical and industrial producers most of his career and is considered to be one of the foremost authorities. John has built a reputation that personifies excellence in the field. As an educator and speaker, John has taught emergency response planning and readiness internationally, John R. Coates, CFPS, NEBOSH focusing on bringing the issues and lack of planning to the forefront. As a subject matter expert, he has reshaped and reengineered multiple countries and companies awareness and commitment to emergency response planning and readiness. John leads Global Responders Group by combining all of his strengths and experience providing the holistic approach to emergency response services that GRG delivers to its clients.
3. Your Speaker John R. Coates, CFPS Chief Officer – GLOBAL RESPONDERS GROUP, Abu Dhabi, UAE BP Azerbaijan-GeorgiaTurkey Region Fire Rescue Team Chief – Sangachal Terminal Emergency Response Team Leader – Sangachal Terminal Emergency Response Subject Matter Expert – AGTR Midstream ADMA-OPCO (Abu Dhabi Marine Operating Co) Das Island Fire Service SWCC, Saudi Arabia SWCC Fire & Safety Department Jack Daniels Distillery Fire Protection Consultant Sikorsky Helicopters Sikorsky Fire Department
4. Topics Identifying the gaps Worst case scenario or credible case Risk analysis in emergency response planning Planning mitigation of the risk Shifting the focus
5. Identifying the gaps TOPIC 1 Identifying the gaps in our current response practices
6. Identifying the gaps Recent events show us that the petrochemical industry has major gaps in planning and response preparations
7. Identifying the gaps
8. Identifying the gaps How do we identify the gaps? Establish a response philosophy Risk Assessments PEER Reviews Gap Assessments Lessons Learned Exercise Findings Loss Analysis Comparative Analysis Survey Operators and Users
9. Identifying the gaps No matter what methodology, or combination of methods, you use, the time has come for our industry to look closer at our response and the preparations we make to mitigate potential risks. Now we will look into how to develop scenarios that apply to your facility.
10. TOPIC 2 worst case scenario or credible case Discussing the differences between worst case scenario and most credible case scenarios and how they affect emergency response planning
11. worst case scenario orcredible case  A worst case scenario (rarely possible) is the largest possible emergency from a single facility, or process, that considers the failure of all control systems and results in maximum damage. A credible case scenario indicates most likely and/or reasonably possible incident scenario and damage based on that scenario. A credible case scenario takes into account the effect of existing control measures and considers the malfunctioning of the control system or safety device.
12. worst case scenario orcredible case Why is this important….. Often in our planning we look at the worst case scenario and incorporate mitigations for that scenario, but that does not guarantee that a facility will have the proper control measures in place to mitigate the most credible scenarios. Example – preparing the mitigation for a full surface tank fire scenario will give a facility large diameter hose, large monitors and large quantities of foam. This equipment cannot be used for a room and contents fire or oil spill clean-up
13. worst case scenario orcredible case Would you use this… …On this fire?
14. worst case scenario orcredible case If your facility or business practice’s, philosophy includes requirements to prepare for worst case, then you must also consider what is more likely to happen (credible case) and mitigate against that also.
15. worst case scenario orcredible case Some of the methods for determining credible scenarios and damage potentials: Computer Modeling Quantitative Risk Analysis Optimal Risk Analysis (ORA) Probabilistic Safety Analysis Lessons Learned
16. worst case scenario orcredible case Computer modeling is one of the most widely used methods to determine credible scenarios and to obtain the damage path potentials. Some latest computer models are: CIRRUS ARCHIE PHAST SAFETI ALOHA
17. worst case scenario orcredible case Quantitative Risk Analysis What can go wrong - HAZOP, FMEA, FEHA Likelihood - How likely is it to occur? Quantify negative impacts – Number of fatalities or injuries or property loss Calculate actual risk Optimal risk analysis (ORA) Hazard identification and screening Hazard assessment (both qualitative and probabilistic) Quantification of hazards or consequence analysis Risk estimation
18. worst case scenario orcredible case Probabilistic Safety Analysis - a systematic analysis of hazards and quantification of the corresponding risks Hazard Identification Accident-Sequence Modeling; Data Acquisition and Parameter Estimation Accident-sequence Quantification HazardousSubstance-Release-Categories Assessment Consequence Assessment Integration of Results.
19. worst case scenario orcredible case DON’T FORGET LESSONS LEARNED Whatever method you choose to use in your planning ,or gap assessment process, both worst case and credible scenarios must be determined. In addition to this, risks outside the operating envelope must be assessed as well. Once that is done, you can move onto the risk matrix (Topic 3) to determine what risks should be addressed in your facility.
20. risk analysis in emergency response planning TOPIC 3 Using risk analysis as the basis for emergency response planning
21. risk analysis in Emergency response planning Using risk analysis basis for emergency response planning “I always get a chill when I hear about risk analysis being used as a basis for anything because for me, in the past, that has always involved some element of cost cutting or budgeting restriction”.
22. risk analysis in Emergency response planning Risk Matrix must go beyond operational risks
23. risk analysis in Emergency response planning Risk Matrix must go beyond operational risks
24. risk analysis in Emergency response planning Risk Matrix must go beyond operational risks Common Operational Risks, often considered Fire Explosion Spill Injury
25. risk analysis in planning Risk Matrix must go beyond operational risks Common Operational Risk Scenarios, often considered LOPC – Loss of primary containment Valve or equipment failures Loss of electrical or power supply Rim Seal Fire Tank fire Gas release B.L.E.V.E. Naked flame, hot work Confined Space
26. risk analysISin Emergency response planning Risk Matrix must go beyond operational risks Additional risks that need to be considered in emergency planning Loss of firewater main or fire water supply Earthquake/natural disaster Loss of IT infrastructure Aviation and air operations Transportation and road traffic accidents Nucleonic Sources Bomb Threat and Terrorist Incident Accommodation and non-process area incidents Contractors and contract work on-site Marine environments and operations
27. risk analysis in Emergency response planning Risk Matrix must go beyond operational risks What other risks can you think of that might require response or action?
28. risk analysis in Emergency response planning Risk Matrix must go beyond operational risks A few more risks that may be considered in emergency planning Business Reputational Impact Community Relations Impact Loss or Impact on Supply Chain Loss or Impact to Distribution Lines Loss of Infrastructure and Support Services Multiple Causality Incidents Loss of Communications Incident Occurs
29. risk analysis in Emergency response planning EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLANNING MUST CONSIDER POTENTIAL SCENARIOS THAT COULD AFFECT THE: BUSINESS FACILITY RESPONDERS POPULATION ENVIRONMENT and INFRASTRUCTURE …. A holistic approach
30. Planning mitigations of the risks TOPIC 4 Once you have established ‘the risks’ and analyzed their priority for your facility, how do you plan your mitigations for those risks
31. Planning mitigations of the risks Risk mitigation planning is the process of developing options and actions to enhance opportunities and reduce threats to project objectives . Risk mitigation implementation is the process of executing risk mitigation actions. Risk mitigation progress monitoring includes tracking identified risks, identifying new risks, and evaluating risk process effectiveness throughout the project.
32. Planning mitigations of the risks Types of risk mitigation planning: Risk Reduction Engineering out the problem or potential Change the process, or feature, to reduce the risk Eliminating the risk completely Residual risk is then addressed by Control of work Providing passive, or active, fixed solutions Providing manual intervention
33. Planning mitigations of the risks Types of risk mitigation planning: Residual risk Control of work Permit to Work System Standbys Procedures Audits and field checks
34. Planning mitigations of the risks Types of risk mitigation planning: Residual risk Providing passive or active fixed solutions Barriers Intumescent Coatings Deluge System Fixed Foam System Water Mist or Gaseous Systems
35. Planning mitigations of the risks Types of risk mitigation planning: Residual risk Providing manual intervention Site response team and equipment Oil spill responders and equipment Specialized response teams, such as IT
36. Planning mitigations of the risks Risk mitigation planning: Accept the existence of the risk. Management makes the decision to accept the risk without engaging in special efforts to control the risk Avoid the risk by adjusting process requirements or constraints to eliminate, or reduce, the risk. This adjustment could be accommodated by a change in funding, schedule, or technical requirements.
37. Planning mitigations of the risks Risk mitigation planning: Implement control actions to minimize the impact or likelihood of the risk. Transfer or reassign organizational accountability, responsibility, and authority to another stakeholder willing to accept the risk. Watch and/or monitor the environment for changes that affect the nature and/or the impact of the risk.
38. Planning mitigations of the risks Risk mitigation planning: Assume/Accept Avoid Control Transfer Watch/Monitor
39. Planning mitigations of the risks Garvey, P.R., 2008, AnalyticalMethods for Risk Management: A Systems Engineering Perspective, Chapman-Hall/CRC-Press, Taylor & Francis Group (UK), Boca Raton, London, New York, ISBN: 1584886374.
40. Shifting the focus TOPIC 5 Shifting the focus of petrochemical philosophy to a holistic emergency response approach which captures all aspects of risk mitigation
41. Shifting the focus Shifting the focus of petrochemical philosophy to a holistic emergency response approach which captures all aspects of risk mitigation Through this session, we have outlined methods used to: Identify the gaps Identify potential scenarios Risk assess those potential scenarios Plan mitigations Now this topic takes us through tying everything together, into a single philosophy using a holistic approach
42. Shifting the focus With mounting pressure on the industry to create a safer work place, management can no longer employee what is know as the “Ostrich Affect” Risks must be identified, assessed, reduced and mitigated
43. Shifting the focus Holistic response takes into account all aspects of emergency planning and ties them together into a single plan or emergency response philosophy. Departments, facilities or segments within the same business unit or organization need to work and plan together their approach to handling emergencies as a unified response. In the past and current practices one can observe: A heavy reliance on outside (governmental) services Traditional Fire Department structures and Fire Safety Departments Multiple response plans within a single entity (often uncoordinated) Departments or segments not working together Different response philosophies between Management and Operators
44. Shifting the focus Holistic approach requires that: An overarching emergency response philosophy for the business or segment is developed Interdepartmental planning involves all business segments Where multiple plans exist, all must be tied together and subordinate to the emergency response philosophy Tactical Response Teams or structures encompasses all aspects of tactical response under a single command structure Operators and site personnel or responders work in a Unified Command Group with governmental resources that are called Mutual response between different business units
45. Shifting the focus Holistic approach requires that: Verification of available resources required in the mitigation steps Involving business or facility contactors in the planning process Verifying contractors plans and tying those into the business’s response philosophy Continual self-checks and assessments on a recurring basis and as the process or facility changes
46. Shifting the focus Most important of all, a holistic approach must include all potential impacts of the incident: BUSINESS FACILITY RESPONDERS POPULATION ENVIRONMENT and INFRASTRUCTURE
47. conclusion We have discussed: Identifying the gaps in our current response practices Discussing the differences between worst case scenario and most credible case scenarios and how they affect emergency response planning Using risk analysis basis for emergency response planning Once you have established the risks and analyzed their priority to your facility, how do you plan your mitigations for those risks Shifting the focus of petrochemical philosophy to a holistic emergency response approach which captures all aspects of risk mitigation
48. conclusion BEING AWARE OF THE GAPS THAT EXIST IN OUR EMERGENCY PLANNING AND ADDRESSING THEM USING A COMPREHENSIVE APPROACH WILL MAKE OUR INDUSTRY SAFER AND MORE PROFITABLE BE SAFE!
49. Identification and Bridging of the current Gaps in the Emergency Response Practices in the Oil and Gas Arena Thank You спасибо سلمت يداك!