THE STUDY OF RISK BASED SERVICE MAINTENANCE MODEL FOR OIL &

GAS PIPELINES DOOR AT MALAYSIA OFFSHORE PLATFORM:

RISK ASSESSMENT

1.0 INTRODUCTION
Based on a study of risk based service maintenance model for oil and gas pipelines
door at Malaysia offshore platform[ CITATION Azr07 \l 1033 ], a risk assessment was
carried out to estimate the risk acceptability of some undesired event. The risk of a
hazard is determined by the probability that it will result in an undesired event and the
consequences that such an event would have. This relationship can be described by
the equation:

Risk = probability x consequence

The set of products of the above equation from the assessment of a few undesired
events will generate a set of risk assessment matrices. These matrices are used to rank
different risks in order of importance. This allows priorities to be set for the
implementation of control and remedial measures. The two variables, probability and
consequence, may be classified by qualitative or quantitative values[ CITATION
Don01 \l 1033 ].

Probability is determined by the frequency of the undesired event to occur. It can be

classified using qualitative terms and quantitative frequency (f) strata such as:

Rank Category Qualitative Definition Quantitative Definition

A Frequent is likely to occur frequently 1
f>
3
B Probable is likely to occur several times in 1 1
<f ≤
the life of the operation 5 3
C Occasional is likely to occur sometime in the 1 1
<f ≤
life of the operation 10 5
D Remote is unlikely but possible to occur 1 1
sometime in the life of the <f ≤
50 10
operation
E Improbable is so unlikely that it can be assumed 1
f≤
that it may never occur 50

Due to the lack of information from the study, consequences may only be classified
by qualitative terms such as[ CITATION Map10 \l 1033 ]:

Rank Category Economic Loss Environment and

Social Effects
I Catastrophic Serious damage that could cause a Irreversible effect
platform to shut down
II Critical Significant damage that need major Major leak, long term

0
 repair effect
III Marginal Slight damage that only need minor Minor leak, short term
repair effect
IV Negligible In good condition and do not need Negligible effect
any repair
In the study, ninety seven platforms were examined, and out of all platform examined,
sixty five of them were recorded in detail with the consequences. Hence, the risk
assessment was carried out based on a sample of sixty five platforms.
Undesired events (pipeline door failure) were classified into the likelihood loop which
composes of 5 risk factors. They are corrosion, external influence, construction and
material defect, human and operation error, and others. Where else, the impacts of the
pipeline door failure were classified into the consequence loop. In the loop, two types
of impacts were identified; they are economy loss and environmental and social
effects. The economic loss composes of loss of total amount of reserve, disruption of
operation/flow rate, possible product loss, and function interruption of pipeline.
Whereas, the environmental and social effects are including of severity to ecology,
severity to people, quantity of leak, and affected area.

2.0 METHODOLOGY
The table below is a hazard risk assessment using semi-quantitative matrix which is
expressed using quantitative measures of probability and qualitative measures of
consequence. The numbers represent rank order of risk. They are referred to as risk
assessment codes (RAC) and simply reflect the relative importance of each issue and
the need for control.

Probability Consequences
Term Catastrophic Critical Marginal Negligible
Rank I II III IV
Frequent A 1 3 7 13
Probable B 2 5 9 16
Occasional C 4 6 11 18
Remote D 8 10 14 19
Improbable E 12 15 17 20

The risk acceptability criteria are determined as below:

RAC Risk Acceptability

1–5 Unacceptable; risk must be reduced

6–9 Undesirable; all practicable controls must be used, with documented

acceptance of residual risk
10 – 17 Acceptable with documented acceptance of residual risk

18 – 20 Acceptable

1
3.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

3.1 RESULT

Probabilities Consequences
Risk
Risk Factor Quantitative Frequency of Qualitative Mean RAC
Rank Rank Acceptability
Measure Occurrence Assessment Consequence
1,14,15,17,22,32,3 II,III,III,III,II,III,
Corrosion 3,38,42,43,44,45,4 III,III,III,III,III,III,
17/65 = 0.262 B II.VII III 9 Undesirable
9,50,57,61,62 III,III,III,III,III

2,4,7,9,11,13,16, III,II,III,I,III,III,III, Acceptable with

External 31,37,48,54,59,63 III,III,III,III,III,III documented
13/65 = 0.200 C II.VIII III 11
Influence acceptance of
residual risk
Construction 18,19,20,22,23,25, II,II,III,II,III,III,
and Material 26,28,29,30,32, III,III,III,III,III,
22/65 = 0.338 A II.IX III 7 Undesirable
Defect 34,35,40,41,44,53, III,III,III,III,III,III,
55,56,57,58,60 III,III,III,III,III
Human and 3,6,12,17,18,19, II,III,III,III,II,II,
Operation 21,28,29,36,40,41, II,III,III,III,III,III,
18/65 = 0.27 B II.VII III 9 Undesirable
Error 46,47,51,52,55, 56 II,II,III,III,III,
III
42,43,46 III,III,II Acceptable with
Others documented
3/65 = 0.046 D II.VII III 14
acceptance of
residual risk
Based on Details of Pipelines Door Report for Year 2006 – PMO in the study, problems form all sixty five platforms were categorized
into the 2 following tables. The first table assesses the risk acceptability of the five risk factors on economic loss. Whereas, the second
table assesses the risk acceptability of the five risk factors on environmental and social effects.

2
 Probabilities Consequences
Risk
Risk Factor Quantitative Frequency of Qualitative Mean RAC
Rank Rank Acceptability
Measure Occurrence Assessment Consequence
1,14,15,17,22,32,3 III,IV,III,III,II,II,
Corrosion 3,38,42,43,44,45,4 II,IV,III,III,III,III,
17/65 = 0.262 B II.IX III 9 Undesirable
9,50,57,61,62 IV,II,IV,IV

2,4,7,9,11,13,16, IV,II,IV,I,IV,IV,IV,I
External 31,37,48,54,59,63 II,IV,IV,IV,IV,IV
13/65 = 0.200 C III.V IV 18 Acceptable
Influence

Construction 18,19,20,22,23,25, II,II,III,II,III,III,

and Material 26,28,29,30,32, III,III,III,IV,II,
22/65 = 0.338 A II.IX III 7 Undesirable
Defect 34,35,40,41,44,53, IV,IV,IV,IV,III,I,
55,56,57,58,60 III,III,II,III,III
Human and 3,6,12,17,18,19, III,III,III,III,II,II,
Operation 21,28,29,36,40,41, II,III,III,IV,IV,IV,
18/65 = 0.27 B III III 9 Undesirable
Error 46,47,51,52,55, 56 II,II,IV,IV,III,
III
42,43,46 IV,IV,IV
Others
3/65 = 0.046 D IV IV 19 Acceptable

Both probability and consequence are ranked, and then they were used to obtain the RAC for the respective risk factor. Lastly, the
risk acceptability for each risk factor was obtained. From the first table, the economical loss due to corrosion, construction and material
defect, and human and operation errors are rated undesirable. Where else the economical loss due to external influence and others are
rated acceptable with documented acceptance of residual risks.

3
 From the second table, the economical loss due to corrosion, construction and
material defect, and human and operation errors are rated undesirable. Where else the
economical loss due to external influence and others are rated acceptable.

3.2 DISCUSSION

From the risk assessment, platform manager can pin point the most imminent risk
factor and hence, give priority to alleviate its impact on the platform.

Corrosion, construction and material defect, and human and operation errors
are undesirable in inflicting economical loss and endangering the environment. In this
situation, all practicable controls must be used to mitigate their effects on the
economical loss. Hence, Annual Closure Inspections and Routine Maintenance
Procedures were suggested in the Maintenance Plan. The Annual Closure Inspection
is aimed to detect any missing or damage facilities. Besides, the Routine Maintenance
Procedures are aimed for corrosion extermination.

It is possible to improve the precision of the risk assessment by using the

entire quantitative risk assessment matrix. In order to do this, the exact economical
loss in Ringgit Malaysia has to be quantified in ranking the consequences. Also, the
periods to recover from the environment and social effects have to be quantified in
ranking the consequences.

4.0 CONCLUSION

The semi-quantitative matrix is useful for ranking occupational risk using existing
data. It may also be of use in future work to more accurately define the risk associated
with current exposures.

4
REFERENCES

Azrul Nizar, A. M. (2007). The study of risk service maintenance model for oil and gas
pipelines door at Malaysia offshore platform. 20th International Conference on Emergency
Response & Planning (p. 7). Bintulu: Engineering Faculty, University Putra Malaysia.

Donoghue, A. (2001). The design of hazard risk assessment matrices for ranking
occupational health risks and their application in mining and minerals processing. Society of
Occupational Medicine , 51 (2), 118-123.

Maponte. (2010). Flight Research Hazard Analysis. NASA Glenn Research Center, Aircraft
Operation Branch. Cleveland: NASA.