4.7 Article

A dynamic and quantitative risk assessment method with uncertainties for offshore managed pressure drilling phases

期刊

SAFETY SCIENCE
卷 104, 期 -, 页码 39-54

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.ssci.2017.12.033

关键词

Managed pressure drilling phases; Dynamic Bayesian network; Quantitative risk assessment; Dynamic risk evolution; Root causes

资金

  1. China University of Petroleum (Beijing) [YSKY-2015-ZY-12, CCL2017ZJFN1111]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Drilling into offshore oil and gas fields often meets many challenges and uncertainties, such as a narrow window of drilling fluid density and shallow gas zones. Managed pressure drilling (MPD) techniques are increasingly used as alternatives to conventional drilling operations to manage such extreme conditions and reduce drilling costs and risks. Many safety and operational issues related to MPD process need to be investigated more thoroughly. Well kick is considered a typical hazardous event that may occur at different drilling phases, and such an event is prone to develop into a blowout. During offshore drilling phases, the risk of accidents may change with time, and such a dynamic characteristic should be recorded in risk assessment. This study presents a method for the application of dynamic Bayesian networks (DBNs) in conducting accident scenario analysis and dynamic quantitative risk assessment for MPD safety. This method can model the influence of uncertain risk factors, which have been ignored in existing research, by introducing an additional probability parameter. The effects of degradation are also taken into account. DBN inference is adopted to perform quantitative risk analysis and dynamic risk evolution. Then, the vulnerable root causes are identified by sensitivity analysis for accident prevention and mitigation measures. Well kick for four drilling cases is analyzed as a case study to demonstrate the feasibility of the proposed method. Three-step analysis partially validates the correctness and rationality of the proposed DBN model.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据