【24h】

HOW RISKY WERE MY OLD PLATFORMS?

机译:我的旧平台有多高风险?

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例

摘要

API RP2A, 21st edition recognizes several consequence-based levels of platform design or assessment. L-l gives critical new platforms a level of reliability almost comparable to continuously manned platforms in the North Sea, and the economic impact of their failure risk essentially vanishes. L-2 is used for manned-evacuated platform, gives a finite but still low level of risk based on economic trade-offs; it has served the Gulf of Mexico industry well for three decades. Re-assessment criteria are lower in terms of metocean loading, and accept more risk, because upgrading platforms in place is an order of magnitude more expensive than adding a little beef to a new-build. Assessment level A-l is for well-maintained platforms built to "100-year" metocean criteria of the 1960s, but still serving vital functions, e.g. pipeline hubs, where the business interruption risk they pose to upstream producers can be considerable. A-2 simply provides for personnel safety in case a sudden (but weak) hurricane precludes evacuation; economic consequences are left for the operator to evaluate. Levels L-3 and A-3 are reserved for unmanned structures whose collapse does not even have significant economic consequence. It is presumed that high-reliability SCSSVs will prevent pollution in any case.The existing A-2 level is substantially weaker than L-2. It is suitable for production platforms on stripper-well status under the philosophy of "Produce until it falls down," which makes more sense than arbitrarily abandoning the productionprematurely. However, the risk of an old A-2 platform (or a cluster of them in the same field) failing before another decade is out has been estimated to be as high as 25% to 45%. This puts structural risk right up there with reservoir and price uncertainties, deserving consideration in the venture evaluation stage. Mitigation strategies, e.g. plugging depleted wells while they are still upright, also deserve consideration. This paper will examine these structural risks in light of existing standards, based on earlier criteria studies. The API-2 INT series of Interim standards, currently under development based on HEAT (Hurricane Evaluation and Assessment Team) work, will be the subject of future presentations.
机译:API RP2A,第21版识别平台设计或评估的几个基于结果的级别。 L-1为关键的新平台提供了几乎可以与北海连续有人值守的平台相媲美的可靠性,并且其故障风险对经济的影响也基本消失了。 L-2用于载人撤离平台,基于经济平衡,可提供有限但仍较低的风险;它已经为墨西哥湾工业服务了三十年。重新评估的标准在海洋负荷方面较低,并且承受更大的风险,因为到位的升级平台要比在新建飞机上增加一点牛肉要贵一个数量级。评估级别A-1适用于维护良好的平台,这些平台是根据1960年代的“ 100年”气象标准建造的,但仍起着至关重要的作用,例如:管道枢纽,它们给上游生产商带来的业务中断风险可能很大。 A-2仅提供人员安全,以防万一突然(但微弱)的飓风阻止了疏散;经济后果留给运营商评估。 L-3和A-3级别保留给无人的建筑物使用,其倒塌甚至不会带来重大的经济后果。据推测,高可靠性的SCSSV在任何情况下都可以防止污染。现有的A-2水平明显弱于L-2。它适用于“生产直至跌落”的理念下处于汽提井状态的生产平台,这比随意过早放弃生产更有意义。但是,据估计,旧的A-2平台(或它们在同一领域中的一个集群)在再过十年之前发生故障的风险据估计高达25%到45%。这样就将结构风险与储量和价格不确定性放在一起,在风险评估阶段值得考虑。缓解策略,例如当枯竭的井仍处于竖立状态时,也要进行堵塞,这也值得考虑。本文将根据早期标准研究,根据现有标准检查这些结构性风险。目前正在根据HEAT(飓风评估和评估小组)工作开发的API-2 INT临时标准系列将成为未来演讲的主题。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号