Incidents occur every year in Norway’s petroleum industry which could have developed into a major accident under only slightly different circumstances. A clarification of the risk concept in the regulations could help to reduce these events.
We have given Vår Energi consent to use the Ringhorne facility for production drilling on the Ringhorne field.
We have carried out an audit of Equinor Energy (Equinor) and their management of logistics, emergency preparedness and the working environment for the living quarters facility for the Johan Sverdrup field.
We have given Norske Shell consent to use the Island Constructor mobile drilling facility for activities on the Knarr and Ormen Lange fields.
We have carried out an audit of Saipem Drilling Norway AS within the domains of emergency preparedness and logistics on board Scarabeo 8. We identified regulatory breaches and as a consequence we are issuing Saipem with a notification of order.
We have carried out an audit of Equinor Mongstad in order to monitor how they have followed up non-conformities we have previously pointed out within the working environment domain. The audit revealed that a number of non-conformities had not been rectified and we are consequently issuing Equinor with a notification of order.
New technological solutions, data sharing and interconnecting systems are meant to benefit the oil industry – but also help to increase vulnerability. The PSA is responding to this challenge by learning more and extending its supervisory activities.
We have carried out an audit of Equinor focused on the design and fabrication of the turret for FPSO Johan Castberg.
We have given Lundin consent for exploration drilling of wells 16/5-8 S and 16/5-8 A.
We have carried out an audit of Seadrill and their management of emergency preparedness, logistics, maintenance and the working environment on the West Hercules mobile drilling facility. The audit identified extensive breaches of the regulations and detected that the company had not rectified non-conformities that we had previously pointed out. We have now issued Seadrill with a notification of order.
Two questions concern us above all others:
Identifying risk, with an associated understanding of possible accident scenarios and consequences, represents the basis for all safety work.
Understanding risk is necessary in order to
Risk is not a static and innate characteristic of a given activity, which cannot be influenced. It develops over time in step with such aspects as
As a decision support tool, risk analyses form part of the basis for managing risk. Risk analyses and studies seek to obtain the greatest possible insight into the enterprise, including the identification of knowledge gaps.
The aim is to understand how hazards can arise and develop in order to implement the most appropriate measures where they can be most effective in
Risk analyses must necessarily build on some assumptions and assessments, which are based to a varying degree on experience, knowledge, scientific methods and expectations of the future.
An understanding of the basis on which such analyses build and the limitations they incorporate is accordingly crucial.
The analyst must accordingly clarify what they know and do not know, what is history and what assessments of the future, and what opportunities are available for influencing operations so that they can be conducted in an acceptable manner.
Nor must the results or figures generated by risk analyses overshadow the point of conducting them: to obtain the knowledge need to control risk in each activity.
A risk analysis process enhances risk understanding in order to implement risk-reduction measures.
What is risk?
The traditional way of describing risk in an analytic context is as probability times consequences, calculated through various risk values or categories.
In certain contexts, moreover, it can be appropriate to compare risks in order to acquire a perspective on their comparative importance in an activity.
But this approach to defining risk is too narrow and limiting for the ability to understand, administer and manage activities and enterprises.
On that basis, risk can be defined as the consequences of an activity with the associated uncertainty.
Quantitative or qualitative analyses, assessments or comments retailed to this uncertainty, and thereby the risk, must always be viewed in relation to who is conducting the analysis. Uncertainty is somebody’s uncertainty about what the consequences will be.