Research Papers: Offshore Technology

Dynamic Bayesian Network-Based Risk Assessment for Arctic Offshore Drilling Waste Handling Practices

[+] Author and Article Information
Yonas Zewdu Ayele

Department of Engineering and Safety,
UiT The Arctic University of Norway,
Tromsø 9037, Norway
e-mail: yonas.z.ayele@uit.no

Javad Barabady

Department of Engineering and Safety,
UiT The Arctic University of Norway,
Tromsø 9037, Norway
e-mail: javad.barabady@uit.no

Enrique Lopez Droguett

Department of Mechanical Engineering,
University of Chile,
Santiago 8370448, Chile
e-mail: elopezdroguett@ing.uchile.cl

1Corresponding author.

Contributed by the Ocean, Offshore, and Arctic Engineering Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF OFFSHORE MECHANICS AND ARCTIC ENGINEERING. Manuscript received November 7, 2015; final manuscript received May 18, 2016; published online June 17, 2016. Assoc. Editor: David R. Fuhrman.

J. Offshore Mech. Arct. Eng 138(5), 051302 (Jun 17, 2016) (12 pages) Paper No: OMAE-15-1116; doi: 10.1115/1.4033713 History: Received November 07, 2015; Revised May 18, 2016

The increased complexity of Arctic offshore drilling waste handling facilities, coupled with stringent regulatory requirements such as zero “hazardous” discharge, calls for rigorous risk management practices. To assess and quantify risks from offshore drilling waste handling practices, a number of methods and models are developed. Most of the conventional risk assessment approaches are, however, broad, holistic, practical guides or roadmaps developed for off-the-shelf systems, for non-Arctic offshore operations. To avoid the inadequacies of traditional risk assessment approaches and to manage the major risk elements connected with the handling of drilling waste, this paper proposes a risk assessment methodology for Arctic offshore drilling waste handling practices based on the dynamic Bayesian network (DBN). The proposed risk methodology combines prior operating environment information with actual observed data from weather forecasting to predict the future potential hazards and/or risks. The methodology continuously updates the potential risks based on the current risk influencing factors (RIF) such as snowstorms, and atmospheric and sea spray icing information. The application of the proposed methodology is demonstrated by a drilling waste handling scenario case study for an oil field development project in the Barents Sea, Norway. The case study results show that the risk of undesirable events in the Arctic is 4.2 times more likely to be high (unacceptable) environmental risk than the risk of events in the North Sea. Further, the Arctic environment has the potential to cause high rates of waste handling system failure; these are between 50 and 85%, depending on the type of system and operating season.

Copyright © 2016 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.


Martin, A. S. , 2012, “ Deeper and Colder: The Impacts and Risks of Deepwater and Arctic Hydrocarbon Development,” Sustainalytics, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Ayele, Y. Z. , Barabadi, A. , and Barabady, J. , 2013, “ Drilling Waste Handling and Management in the High North,” IEEE International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management (IEEM), pp. 673–678.
Svensen, T. , and Taugbol, K. , 2011, “ Drilling Waste Handling in Challenging Offshore Operations,” SPE Arctic and Extreme Environments Conference and Exhibition, Moscow, Russia, Oct. 18–20.
Sadiq, R. , Husain, T. , Veitch, B. , and Bose, N. , 2004, “ Risk-Based Decision-Making for Drilling Waste Discharges using a Fuzzy Synthetic Evaluation Technique,” Ocean Eng., 31(16), pp. 1929–1953. [CrossRef]
Kokelj, S. V. , Riseborough, D. , Coutts, R. , and Kanigan, J. C. N. , 2010, “ Permafrost and Terrain Conditions at Northern Drilling-Mud Sumps: Impacts of Vegetation and Climate Change and the Management Implications,” Cold Reg. Sci. Technol., 64(1), pp. 46–56. [CrossRef]
Veil, J. , 2002, “ Drilling Waste Management: Past, Present, and Future,” SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, TX, Paper No. SPE-77388-MS.
Valeur, J. R. , 2010, “ Environmental Impacts of Different NORM Disposal Methods,” Middle East Health, Safety, Security, and Environment Conference and Exhibition, Manama, Bahrain, Paper No. SPE-136312-MS.
Ayele, Y. Z. , Barabadi, A. , and Barabady, J. , 2015, “ A Risk-Based Approach to Manage the Occupational Hazards in the Arctic Drilling Waste Handling Practices,” Safety and Reliability: Methodology and Applications, European Safety and Reliability Conference, ESREL 2014, pp. 1329–1334.
Melton, H. R. , Smith, J. P. , Mairs, H. L. , Bernier, R. F. , Garland, E. , Glickman, A. H. , Jones, F. V. , Ray, J. P. , Thomas, D. , and Campbell, J. A. , 2004, “ Environmental Aspects of the Use and Disposal of Non Aqueous Drilling Fluids Associated With Offshore Oil and Gas Operations,” SPE International Conference on Health, Safety, and Environment in Oil and Gas Exploration and Production, Calgary, AB, Paper No. SPE-86696-MS.
Neff, J. M. , 1987, “ Biological Effects of Drilling Fluids, Drill Cuttings and Produced Waters,” Long-Term Environmental Effects of Offshore Oil and Gas Development, D. F. Boesch , and N. N. Rabalais , ed., Elsevier Applied Science, London, pp. 469–538.
Fenton, N. , and Neil, M. , 2012, Risk Assessment and Decision Analysis With Bayesian Networks, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
Røed, W. , Mosleh, A. , Vinnem, J. E. , and Aven, T. , 2009, “ On the Use of the Hybrid Causal Logic Method in Offshore Risk Analysis,” Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf., 94(2), pp. 445–455. [CrossRef]
Ayele, Y. Z. , Barabady, J. , and Droguett, E. L. , 2015, “ Risk Assessment of Arctic Drilling Waste Management Operations Based on Bayesian Networks,” Safety and Reliability of Complex Engineered Systems: ESREL, Zurich, Switzerland, pp. 1907–1915.
Lee, C. J. , and Lee, K. J. , 2006, “ Application of Bayesian Network to the Probabilistic Risk Assessment of Nuclear Waste Disposal,” Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf., 91(5), pp. 515–532. [CrossRef]
Øien, K. , 2013, “ Remote Operation in Environmentally Sensitive Areas: Development of Early Warning Indicators,” J. Risk Res., 16(3–4), pp. 323–336. [CrossRef]
Guo, Q. , Geehan, T. , and Pincock, M. , 2005, “ Managing Risks and Uncertainties in Drill Cuttings Re-Injection in Challenging Environments–Field Experience From Sakhalin Island,” SPE 93781, SPE/EPA/DOE E&P Environmental Conference, Galveston, TX.
Barabadi, A. , Gudmestad, O. T. , and Barabady, J. , 2015, “ RAMS Data Collection Under Arctic Conditions,” Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf., 135, pp. 92–99. [CrossRef]
Ayele, Y. Z. , Barabadi, A. , and Droguett, E. L. , 2016, “ Risk-Based Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Waste Handling Practices in the Arctic Drilling Operation,” J. Offshore Mech. Arct., 138(3), p. 031301. [CrossRef]
Marquez, D. , Neil, M. , and Fenton, N. , 2010, “ Improved Reliability Modeling Using Bayesian Networks and Dynamic Discretization,” Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf., 95(4), pp. 412–425. [CrossRef]
Mihajlovic, V. , and Petkovic, M. , 2001, “ Dynamic Bayesian Networks: A State of the Art,” Available http://doc.utwente.nl/36632/
Ghahramani, Z. , 2009, “ Learning Dynamic Bayesian Networks,” Adaptive Processing of Sequences and Data Structures, C. L. Giles , and M. Gori , ed., Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, Germany, pp. 168–197.
Ross, S. M. , 2009, Introduction to Probability and Statistics for Engineers and Scientists, Elsevier Academic Press, London, UK.
Wang, C. , 2007, “ Hybrid Causal Logic Methodology for Risk Assessment,” Ph.D. thesis, University of Maryland, College Park, MD.
Aven, T. , 2008, Risk Analysis—Assessing Uncertainties Beyond Expected Values and Probabilities, Wiley, Chichester, West Sussex, UK.
Friedman, N. , Murphy, K. , and Russell, S. , 1998, “ Learning the Structure of Dynamic Probabilistic Networks,” Fourteenth Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, pp. 139–147.
Charles, M. , Sayle, S. , Phillips, N. W. , and Morehouse, D. , 2010, “ Offshore Drill Cuttings Treatment Technology Evaluation,” SPE International Conference on Health, Safety and Environment in Oil and Gas Exploration and Production, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, April 12–14.
Wilks, D. S. , 2011, Statistical Methods in the Atmospheric Sciences, vol. 100, Academic Press, San Diego, CA.
Korb, K. B. , and Nicholson, A. E. , 2010, Bayesian Artificial Intelligence, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
Hassan, J. , Khan, F. , and Hasan, M. , 2012, “ A Risk-Based Approach to Manage Non-Repairable Spare Parts Inventory,” J. Qual. Maint. Eng., 18(3), pp. 344–362. [CrossRef]
Glickman, M. E. , and van Dyk, D. A. , 2007, “ Basic Bayesian Methods,” Topics in Biostatistics, W. T. Ambrosius , ed., Humana Press, Totowa, NJ, pp. 319–338.
Moon, T. K. , 1996, “ The Expectation-Maximization Algorithm,” Signal Process., IEEE, 13(6), pp. 47–60. [CrossRef]
Borman, S. , 2004, “ The Expectation Maximization Algorithm-A Short Tutorial,” Available: https://www.cs.utah.edu/∼piyush/teaching/EM_algorithm.pdf
Det Norske Veritas, 2009, “ Barents 2020: Assessment of International Standards for Safe Exploration, Production and Transportation of Oil and Gas in the Barents Sea,” Det Norske Veritas (DNV), Oslo, Norway.
Freitag, D. R. , and McFadden, T. T. , 1997, Introduction to Cold Regions Engineering, ASCE Press, Reston, VA.
Larsen, A. , and Markeset, T. , 2007, “ Mapping of Operations, Maintenance and Support Design Factors in Arctic Environments,” Safety and Reliability of Complex Engineered Systems: ESREL 2007, Stavanger Norway, pp. 2463–2470.
Gudmestad, O. T. , and Lund, E. E. , 2014, “ Winterization of Cold Climate and Arctic Offshore Operations,”' Proceeding of the 10th International Conference and Exhibition on Performance of Ships and Structures in Ice (ICETECH), Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers.
Ortiz, N. , Wheeler, T. , Breeding, R. , Hora, S. , Meyer, M. , and Keeney, R. , 1991, “ Use of Expert Judgment in NUREG-1150,” Nucl. Eng. Des., 126(3), pp. 313–331. [CrossRef]
Meyer, M. A. , and Booker, J. M. , 2001, Eliciting and Analyzing Expert Judgment: A Practical Guide, Vol. 7, SIAM, Philadelphia, PA.
Hoffman, R. R. , Shadbolt, N. R. , Burton, A. M. , and Klein, G. , 1995, “ Eliciting Knowledge From Experts: A Methodological Analysis,” Organ. Behav. Hum. Dec., 62(2), pp. 129–158. [CrossRef]
AgenaRisk, 2015, Agena—Bayesian Network and Simulation Software for Risk Analysis and Decision Support Available: http://www.agenarisk.com/
Ayele, Y. Z. , and Løset, S. , 2015, “ Drilling Waste Handling Practices in Low Temperature Operations: A Risk Perspective,” International Conference on Port and Ocean Engineering Under Arctic Conditions, Trondheim, Norway, June 14–18.
Bernier, R. F. , Garland, E. , Glickman, A. H. , Jones, F. V. , Mairs, H. L. , Melton, H. R. , Smith, J. P. , Ray, J. P. , Thomas, D. , and Campbell, J. A. , 2003, “ Environmental Aspects of the Use and Disposal of Non Aqueous Drilling Fluids Associated With Offshore Oil & Gas Operations,” International Association of Oil and Gas Producers Report, Report No. 342.
Statoil 2013, Planning an Oil Terminal at Veidnes, June 11, Available: http://www.statoil.com/en/NewsAndMedia/News/2013/Pages/12feb_Skrugard.aspx


Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Schematic flowchart showing separation of drill cuttings from drilling fluids and options for cuttings disposal. Modified from Bernier et al. [42].

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Qualitative part of the proposed DBN-based risk assessment methodology

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Quantitative part of the proposed DBN-based risk assessment methodology

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Johan Castberg oil field: (a) Johan Castberg oil field [43] and (b) North Sea – reference area, Barents Sea – target area

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Solids-control system installed in the rig. Adapted from Bernier et al. [42]. (Reprinted with permission from the International Association of Oil & Gas Producers.)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

The original static BN fragment

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

The extension of the static BN into two time slices of DBNs. Z denotes a set of any initiating (trigger) events, which are the risk-influencing factors, and C denotes the control measure, which can be a winterization measure—enclosure of the solids-control systems. W denotes the main risk event—a system or component failure, which shows that the cause of the trigger Z produces the effect W. E denotes the consequence of the system failure, which is an environmental risk (marine pollution). M denotes the mitigating event that prevents any cause E, such as rapid emergency response that avoids or reduces the consequence event.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Probability transition diagram for four-state Markov chain of the snow

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Estimated posterior environmental risks for the month of March, for both regions: Arctic and North Sea (see online for color version)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Post shale shaker reliability versus operating time. The degraded and fully operating states are expressed as posterior reliability and the failed state of the shale shaker is expressed as posterior unreliability (1 − R(t)).

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Environmental risk (ER) (%) versus operating time (days): (a) % higher ER versus operating time (days), (b) % medium ER versus operating time (days) (c) % lower ER versus operating time (days)



Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In