21st century ocean energy safety research roadmap oesi research roadmap... · subject matter...

21st Century Ocean Energy Safety Research Roadmap

...helping enable safer and environmentally responsible offshore energy operations

21st Century Ocean Energy Safety Research RoadmapThe Ocean Energy Safety Institute (OESI) asked the Research Partnership for a Secure Energy America (RPSEA) to assist in the development of a technology-focused roadmap. The goal is to help enable prioritization of research and development investments needed to improve offshore health, safety, and environmental performance. The scope of this final report will be focused on the Gulf of Mexico, while incorporating applicable findings and research from all offshore regions where oil and gas is produced.

This roadmap report utilizes publications, a network of subject matter experts, two 2014 OESI documents: “Ocean Energy Safety Research Roadmap for the 21st Century Forum for Dialogue” and the “Portfolio of Ocean Energy Safety Research Efforts.” Additionally, this roadmap builds on the RPSEA 2018 “R&D Plan,” and a May 2018 Society of Petroleum Engineers (SPE) and Gulf Research Program (GRP) “Safer Offshore Energy System Summit.” The SPE and the International Association of Drilling Contractors (IADC) have also published summaries from other safety workshops and meetings that have been incorporated into this Roadmap. The report was also reviewed by stakeholder experts, some of whom are listed at the end of the report.

The project team, consisting of Jim Pettigrew from OESI; and Tom Williams, Rich Haut and John Cohen from RPSEA; thank everyone who contributed time and effort in the development of the roadmap. Without their support and dedication, the roadmap would not have the detail and thoroughness needed to be a comprehensive resource. Thanks also to the many subject matter expert contributors to this report from the OESI advisory committee, RPSEA program advisors, SPE and IADC members, industry and academia. Specifically, our roadmap reviewers were instrumental in ensuring that a top-notch product was produced. They deserve special recognition: John Allen, Tom Knode, Bryce Levett, Trey Mebane and Roland Moreau.

However, this research roadmap would not have been possible without the visionary leadership of Dr. M. Sam Mannan, principal investigator of OESI and executive director of the Mary Kay O’Connor Process Safety Center. Tragically, Sam passed away during the production of this roadmap. We know that he would be pleased with this project and would tell us “get to work!” This research roadmap is dedicated to him.

DisclaimerIt is sincerely hoped that the information presented in this document will be useful for all stakeholders. The report was prepared by the Ocean Energy Safety Institute (OESI) under a U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement contract (Award Number E14AC00001, NOFA Number E13AS00001). The report has been prepared and submitted on a best-efforts basis by the OESI staff and may or may not represent the opinions of the OESI Advisory Committee members, other OESI committee members, their employers, or any other individuals/organizations participating in the various activities of the OESI. The OESI and the member universities of OESI disclaim making or giving any warranties or representations, expressed or implied, including with respect to fitness, intended purpose, use or merchantability and/or accuracy of the content of the information presented in this document. The user of this document accepts any legal liability or responsibility whatsoever for the consequence of its use or misuse.

Research Roadmap

MissionHelp further enable safer and environmentally responsible ocean energy operations.

VisionTo be the Center of Excellence for process safety related issues impacting ocean energy operations through:

• Stakeholder dialogue• Science-based research

closing stakeholder-identified gaps

• Training opportunities from the deck plates to the boardroom

Table of ContentsEXECUTIVE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7SafeOCS Reporting System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7Center for Offshore Safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8OESI 21st Century Roadmap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9SPE GRP Summit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9Subsea Systems Institute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10RPSEA Roadmap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Safety and Environmental Awareness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10Technological Advances Related to Preventing/Mitigating Environmental Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

The Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

THE GOAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

OFFSHORE SAFETY/ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE STATISTICS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

RESEARCH NEEDS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17Drilling and Completions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17BOP Reliability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19Future Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19Well Control Equipment Standards and Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . 19Simulators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19Exploration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21High Pressure/High Temperature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22Managed Pressure Drilling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22Dual Gradient and Riserless Drilling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26Surface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26Subsea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Unmanned Vehicles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29Remotely Operated and Unmanned Vehicles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Spills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30Prevention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31Intervention (capping, drilling fluid) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32Relief Wells . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32Containment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32Airborne Oil Spill Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

4 | Ocean Energy Safety Institute

TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35Coordination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35Leveraging with Existing Conferences, Forums and Workshops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36Webcasts/Podcasts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

INTERNATIONAL EFFORTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

List of FiguresFigure 1. Causes of Offshore Fatalities, FY 2007-2016 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Figure 2. U.S. Water Total LTI and Recordable Incidence Rates vs Man-hours . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Figure 3. Fires/Explosions Normalized per Number of Installations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Figure 4. Lifting Incidents Normalized by Number of Installations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Figure 5. Losses of Well Control on the OCS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Figure 6. U.S. Water Total Recordable Incidents by Time in Service (based on 52 incidents) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Figure 7. U.S. Water Total Recordable Incidents by Age (based on 35 Incidents) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Figure 8. Total Volume of Releases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

AppendixADDITIONAL REFERENCES NOT SITED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Key References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43Other References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

SEG SEAM PRESSURE PREDICTION AND HAZARD AVOIDANCE THROUGH IMPROVED SEISMIC IMAGING PROJECT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

SPE-GRP RESEARCH AREAS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

OFFSHORE RESEARCH NEEDS – FROM THE ICCOPR – OIL POLLUTION RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY PLAN (2015) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

OTC AND SPE PAPERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

Executive SummaryThe personnel who make up the offshore oil and gas industry have an expectation they will be able to do their job each day with zero harm to their personal and co-worker’s safety and the environment. There are four interdependent pillars to achieving this:

First are the Human Factors and the body of work developing the proper culture, tools and training for all workers to apply these resources for a safe work environment. This includes both the way people interact with machines and how the brain works, and the way people interact in a social environment.

Second is Process Safety, and how the oil and gas industry manages hazards to protect people, equipment and other assets. Process safety is a disciplined framework for managing the integrity of operating systems and processes that handle hazardous substances. For the oil and gas industry the emphasis of process safety and asset integrity is to prevent catastrophic failures of equipment or process, leading to unplanned releases that could result in a major incident.

Third are the Safety and Environmental Management Systems (SEMS) that can be audited. SEMS are also part of the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Performance (BSEE) rule known as the Workplace Safety Rule, intended to provide greater protection by supplementing operators’ SEMS programs, like those developed through the Center for Offshore Safety (COS), with a process for identifying and documenting these systems. Also included is employee training, empowering field level personnel with safety management decisions and strengthening auditing procedures by requiring them to be completed by independent third parties. The BSEE rule made mandatory the previously voluntary practices in the American Petroleum Institute’s (API) Recommended Practice 75 (RP 75) and are aligned with elements of the ISO standards 9001, 14001 and 45001.

The fourth pillar is Technology as a result from investments in safety and environmental research and innovation. This roadmap focuses primarily on this pillar by identifying the challenges when advancing technology through research and development (R&D) is warranted. The basis for the roadmap is to identify the current state-of-the-art, and areas where technology is rapidly advancing through innovation. Some of these do not warrant outside investments that could in fact slow the process down. There are other barriers to accepting new technology. They include industry’s apprehension to try new technologies, the risk associated with making changes for “need” instead of “necessity,” regulatory barriers and the reluctance of regulators to approve new technologies through the lack of understanding of the technology, through uncertainty of the advantages, risks and other factors.

Investments in safety and environmentally protective research should be the responsibility of all parties. This report stresses that new technologies are of little value if they cannot be applied, so the process of early stage adoption, advancements and technology transfer play a key role. It is important to note that as new technologies are developed, the personnel qualifications may also change, as will associated training.

In addition, the rankings of the R&D categories in this report are based on areas where the government funding and leadership can play an important role. This roadmap enables OESI to create a dialogue between the research community, end users and regulators.

The recommendations in this roadmap come from workshops, interviews of subject matter experts, surveys and an extensive literature search. Prior recommendations are also included from reports published by the Society of Petroleum Engineers, the Gulf Research Program, the Center for Offshore Safety, OESI and the Research Partnership to Secure Energy for America (RPSEA), which is the primary author of this document.

As stated in these recommendations, this roadmap stresses the need for better coordination among all stakeholders.

The roadmap is broken down by topics, including drilling and completions, operations, production, transportation, spills and technology transfer. Within these topics are specific research needs in a variety of areas, from planning through surface and subsea operations. Progress is slowly being made on increasing the certainty and reliability of pore pressure prediction and fracturing gradient. These research efforts coupled with seismic activity ahead of the bit and advances to downhole gas influx detection through better sensors and communication systems are promising. These efforts also complement needed and ongoing efforts to match predrill models with real-time pore pressure prediction. A concerted effort to fund near or real-time downhole data could substantially reduce a significant risk. This report includes references to this work.

Some of the topics submitted in this roadmap are addressing events that would fall in the low likelihood/severe consequence events category. Many of these topics could benefit from using artificial intelligence from past events (provided that sufficient data is available to identify causation), utilizing lagging indicators to help predict leading indicators. The most important recommendations are the value of all parties working together, (operators, contractors, service providers, academia, OEMs and regulators) and exchanging information so that many failures can be avoided. OESI brings together the best of multiple academic research capabilities and students to help answer these and other questions.


IntroductionThe offshore oil and gas industry has made significant progress in developing safety and environmental management systems and procedures. These systems and processes provide an opportunity to incorporate advances in technology for continued improvements. Working with regulators, service providers and researchers, this document addresses an important need to identify and prioritize limited research investments.

The goal is for R&D investments to target the development of safe, environmentally sensitive, cost-effective technologies. The application of these advances will allow industry to develop resources in increasingly challenging conditions and ensure that the understanding of the risks associated with operations will keep pace with the technologies that industry has developed. Advances in knowledge will aid in the assessment and mitigation of the risk in offshore production activities related to controls, safeguards and environmental impact mitigation procedures during drilling, completion, production operations and abandonment. This is of critical importance.

The oil and gas industry must be consulted and engaged throughout the entire research, development, demonstration and deployment process. The operators will be the organizations that deploy and operate the new technologies developed. The service, supply and manufacturing industry representatives provide a unique perspective concerning development issues related to novel technologies. They provide safety and environmental concerns associated with new developments and specific technological gaps and needs within their areas of expertise.

Academic researchers provide an additional link between fundamental and applied research that can shed light on newer, promising, beyond-the-horizon technologies.

Members of the oil and gas industry have for more than two decades set health, safety and environment (HSE) goals that are focused on reducing incidents with the ultimate intended outcome that no one is hurt, and no releases occur. Therefore, the concept of zero harm is not a new one in the industry. However, what has been a challenge for decades is aligning on an effective pathway to achieve these goals. To attain zero harm, a step change in thinking, performance and alignment around HSE is required across the industry. Nathan Meehan, 2016 SPE president stated, “This trend in performance improvement over the past decade has plateaued. We need a breakthrough,” (Meehan, 2015).

Between 2009 and 2016, the Society of Petroleum Engineers (SPE) facilitated several global sessions to develop ideas for the continued improvement of HSE in the industry. These sessions brought together leaders from across industry, government

and academia representing diverse disciplines to discuss a simple question: How can the oil and gas industry achieve zero harm? Outcomes from the SPE “Getting to Zero” sessions were reviewed and incorporated into the research roadmap.

Advances in training are paramount to the adaptation of technical advances, especially since the resulting innovations often result in more complex systems and processes. Organizations like the International Association of Drilling Contractors stress the need for improvements in human performance, leadership, skill selection and communication. Key performance indicators (KPI’s) identify what training, team building, culture assessment and personal accountability is needed.

Communication includes the need for better data exchange – which involves the relationship between regulator and regulated with recommendations to encourage cooperation rather than punishment, driven by the need to create aligned goals of improving safety. Better training and benchmarking regulators – in operations design, risk assessment, and behaviors – is recommended.

The following organizations and reports have been key contributors to this roadmap.

SafeOCS Reporting SystemThe SafeOCS confidential reporting system collects and analyzes data to advance safety in oil and gas operations on the outer continental shelf (OCS). SafeOCS is managed by the Department of Transportation’s Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) and was developed jointly with the Department of Interior’s Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE). The SafeOCS framework is a monumental first step in collecting confidential industry data, and it addresses the need for better data exchange in a timely basis. The aggregated information is then shared in a report to all stakeholders. BTS operates SafeOCS under the Confidential Information Protection and Statistical Efficiency Act.

In 2017, the first full year of Well Control Rule (WCR) reporting, 18 of 25 operators associated with rig operations in the Gulf of Mexico reported 1,129 equipment component failure events. The reported events occurred on 45 of the 59 rigs operating in the GOM during this period. Based on information sent to BSEE, the 18 reporting operators account for 90.2 percent of new wells drilled. Both types of blow out preventor (BOP) stacks (subsea and surface) were associated with component failures and the majority of notifications were associated with the more complex subsea BOP stacks (92.5 percent).

Research Roadmap | 7

Leaks remained the most frequently reported observed failure and wear and tear remained the most frequently reported root cause of failure events in 2017 as they were in 2016. Loss of containment (LOC) events caused by equipment component failures represent the highest potential for risk to operations, crew and the environment. However, during most operations, redundancy in BOP rams, control systems, and emergency systems reduce the risk of a LOC event.

In 2017 during normal operations, one event, resulting in a stack pull, caused a loss of containment (drilling fluids leaked externally). This was a well-control incident that did not lead to a loss of well control. A discharge of approximately 94 barrels (approximately 4,000 gallons) of synthetic oil-based mud (SOBM) into the environment occurred from a breached seal system on a BOP ram door on the pipe ram preventer. Through investigation, it was determined that the event was a result of the following factors:

The most critical factor was the existing BOP RAM design that required unusual and time-consuming cleaning procedures to prevent an excessive buildup of drilling debris in the RAM cavities. Secondary factors that played a role in the event were: a) failure by the OEM to effectively communicate the level of effort needed to properly prevent debris buildup, b) failure by the OEM to communicate that improper cleaning can lead to loss of seal integrity and c) failure by the operator to implement the initial recommendations specified by the OEM.

This is an example of the benefits of exchanging this information on an industry-wide basis. What happened, what was learned and how to prevent is shown in a previous year report.

The SafeOCS adapts to the reluctance (for a variety of reasons) by the operators to share data with regulators and peers, particularly in a real-time basis. Comments and recommendations in developing this document dealt with the need for better data exchange between all stakeholders on a timely basis. Recommendations included the use of computer learning that allows data and lagging indicators to be used by industry for predicting leading indicators, and proactive prediction of risks and the prevention of failures.

Center for Offshore Safety The Center for Offshore Safety (COS) is an industry-sponsored group formed after the Macondo incident focused exclusively on offshore safety on OCS. The center serves the U.S. offshore oil and gas industry with the purpose of adopting standards of excellence to ensure continuous improvement in safety and offshore operational integrity.

The center is responsible for:

• Development of good practice documents for the offshore industry in the areas of safety and environmental management systems (SEMS)

• Assuring that third-party certification program auditors meet the program’s goals and objectives

• Compiling and analyzing key industry safety performance metrics

• Coordinating center-sponsored functions designed to facilitate the sharing and learning process

• Identifying and promoting opportunities for the industry to continuously improve

• Development of outreach programs to facilitate communicating with government and external stakeholders

By COS developing a SEMS process for exceeding BSEE requirements, there is a process now to better incorporate new technology components in offshore exploration & production (E&P) activities. This is an important element for this roadmap. The data collected by the COS also identifies areas where technology improvements can enhance improvements being made in process safety and human behaviors. This is a process for constant improvements and an incentive for focused safety and environmental R&D.

Five key questions that the center is addressing are:

1. What defects can be eliminated during design and construction that can reduce risk of incidents during well and production operations? What role can new technology play?

2. What errors can be eliminated by better understanding or implementation of human performance principles – the interaction between individuals and each other, plant and process?

3. How can we close gaps between work as imagined and work as done?

4. Whether it is called safety culture, operating culture, safe operations or operating disciple, how can it be raised to a level that gets the industry to, and sustain, zero?

5. What role does leadership play?


OESI 21st Century RoadmapOn Oct. 7-8, 2014, the OESI convened top academic and research experts from various companies, universities and organizations throughout the world for an unprecedented think-tank workshop to address the development of an “Ocean Energy Safety Research Roadmap for the 21st Century” that was held at Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas. The morning of the first day was dedicated to the presentation of current and future research initiatives by some of the key players: the National Academy of Science (NAS), American Petroleum Institute (API), Center for Offshore Safety (COS), DeepStar and the Research Partnership to Secure Energy for America (RPSEA). These talks were preceded by an overview of the Ocean Energy Safety Research portfolio presented by the Mary Kay O’Connor Process Safety Center (MKOPSC). The afternoon of the first day welcomed presentations on more specific research topics related to ocean energy safety like nanotechnologies, system reliability, subsea well modeling, real-time monitoring and smart cementing. Presenters coming from other industries also provided valuable insights on atmospheric modeling of climate extremes and military simulations. During the breaks, a poster session was organized where students from Texas A&M and the University of Houston could interact and discuss their research with academic and industrial experts.

In addition to the presentations, OESI distributed to the attendees a first-draft report that intended to provide a compilation of research initiatives in ocean energy safety and to serve as a background for discussion. An in-depth evaluation of the research results and a precise evaluation and prioritization of future research needs were beyond the scope of this document, but the report is defined as a summary of the main research topics in the different areas of ocean energy safety: oil spill, platform, subsea, environmental conditions and safety management systems, together with the main funding agencies and a general assessment of research gaps whenever possible are identified.

During the second day, the attendees were divided in three sessions discussing drilling safety, well containment and spill response. The results of the breakout discussions, consisting of identified research topics identified together with some comments on the draft report, were reported during a general session and commented. With over 80 attendees, the research workshop was successful at bringing together industry, academia and the government in an environment of dialogue and cooperation. Recommendations from this workshop and from the OESI advisors included these research topics.

From this and other forum discussions, the initial three areas of focused research were developed. Human factors engineering, zonal Isolation and new materials were

common threads of discussion throughout many stakeholder discussions. White papers were developed in each of these areas, with follow-on projects identified and initiated to further delve into the gap areas of these topics.

SPE GRP Summit The National Academy of Science, Engineering and Medicine – Gulf Research Program (GRP) is directed to operate in three areas: oil system safety, human health and environmental resources and is directed to work via three mechanisms: research and development, education and training, and environmental monitoring.

The GRP sponsored, and SPE organized a summit, SPE Summit: Safer Offshore Energy Systems, where 41 offshore experts participated over 2.5 days during May 2018. The purpose was to engage a broad set of industry experts to reach a consensus on areas where GRP or jointly funded research is needed to minimize and manage risks for both people and the environment by minimizing the possibility of a major incident. A summary report of the summit was developed.1 A total of 136 opportunities were identified as potential research projects. The list of opportunities, ranked by importance, and the report are found in the appendix. The program developed ideas for:

• Improving collaboration among industry, regulatory and academic communities to advance understanding

1 SPE Summit: Safer Offshore Energy Systems. Summary Report. Aug. 17, 2018.


and communication about systemic risk in the offshore environment

• Outlining fundamental scientific and technological research to spur innovation aimed at reducing or managing risks associated with offshore energy systems

• Exploring how to create robust and resilient organizations that minimize major incidents with improved change management, sim-ops management, decision support and operational procedures that support safe work

• Identifying educational or training programs to promote a skilled and safety-oriented workforce and to retain that workforce through economic cycles in the oil and gas industry

The participants ranked the importance of these opportunities in each theme as follows:

1. Crews (people)

2. Risk analysis/understanding

3. Innovation/evolution/technology

4. Data collection and analytics

5. Automation/remote actions

6. Inspection/testing of equipment/barriers

7. Interface management/systems engineering

8. Regulators, regulations and laws

9. Standardization/simplification

10. Communication

11. Environmental

The proceedings from the workshop identified several important challenges that should be funded and are included in this roadmap report. Regardless of the priority, the list and report are something every OCS operator and HSE manager need to review – for example, the medium and low offer a good checklist and an aid to make sure these are included in safety processes.

The SPE held a special session at the 2018 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition to discuss the SPE Technical Report, Getting to Zero and Beyond the report that was the basis for the SPE GRP workshop. The special session resulted in the following six recommendations that are applicable to the offshore research roadmap.

1. Shift from zero as a goal to zero as an expectation

2. Continue to progress the application of human factors

3. De-emphasize lagging performance indicators and use leading indicators.

4. Optimize collaboration across companies and crews

5. Remove barriers to open sharing of lessons learned

6. Collaborate with regulatory authorities

These six recommendations have been weaved into the development of the roadmap.

Subsea Systems InstituteThe Subsea Systems Institute (SSI) was established in 2015 as a Texas Center of Excellence under the RESTORE Act and a collaboration among the University of Houston, Rice University and the Johnson Space Center (NASA). The SSI and the University of Houston have partnerships with Lone Star Community College, Texas Southwest University, Houston Community College, and other colleges to lead research and develop training and educational programs to accelerate energy-related workforce development in critical areas for the state of Texas.

The vision and objectives of SSI are to:

• Support economic and workforce development in the state of Texas through collaborations among research institutions, colleges and industry

• Positively impact offshore safety by bringing together NASA, industry and academic expertise to develop best available technology and risk mitigation practices to the Gulf of Mexico

• Provide unbiased third-party validation and establishment of best practices to build public trust in the sustainable and safe offshore drilling and production operations in the Gulf of Mexico region and beyond

• Attract and retain talent for jobs and investments in the local, state and national economy, and to reinforce Houston and the state of Texas’ reputation as the energy capital of the world.

SSI has issued a series of request for proposals for grants to develop innovative research that can positively impact safe and reliable deepwater exploration and production from Gulf of Mexico reservoirs. Ongoing projects have primarily been early state technical readiness level (TRL) efforts. These projects may provide opportunities for continuing R&D.

RPSEA Roadmap Safety and Environmental AwarenessA key goal in the 2018 RPSEA R&D Roadmap was “improving safety and minimizing environmental impacts.” The roadmap was broad and included onshore, offshore and environmentally sensitive/arctic areas. The report noted that access to additional energy resources cannot be


realized unless those resources can be reliably produced with minimal risk to the public, oil and gas development personnel, and the environment. This is a tenet that industry should embrace in order to maintain a license to operate with the required access to our resources. Additionally, the risks associated with oil and gas development in the targeted resources must be transparent and understood not just by industry, but by the public and the regulatory bodies charged with ensuring the safety of the public and the environment. Recommendations from RPSEA members reflect R&D effort and funds directed toward addressing and evaluating the risks associated with oil and gas development offshore and technology development to mitigate those risks. Working with industry associations like API, IADC and the COS, and professional societies like SPE, SEG, AAPG to prioritize safety technologies needs will assist in collaboration instead of duplication and facilitate technology transfer.

This roadmap was based on prior work to develop environmentally sensitive, cost-effective technologies. Additionally, work continues to identify and develop resources in increasingly challenging conditions and ensure that the understanding of the risks associated with deepwater operations keeps pace with the technologies that industry has developed. This could be carried further to identify regulatory barriers that slow or inhibit these technologies.

The recommendations stressed that a research program should determine how drilling and production systems could be developed by utilizing adaptive machine learning, condition-based monitoring and real-time diagnostics, better equipment reliability with longer life designs, reliable sea floor systems that replace surface facilities and can be maintained, autonomous inspection systems and others.

Recommended safety research topics from meetings and workshops include:

• Development of improved well control and wild well intervention techniques; expediting the completion of relief wells

• Next generation well control and BOPs

• Early/real time pore pressure detection

• Real-time downhole detection of hydrocarbons during drilling operations

• Improvements in life of the well integrity, cementing and casing

• Innovative identification and repair of sustained casing pressure and gas migration

• Evaluation of instrumentation and monitoring

Technological Advances Related to Preventing/Mitigating Environmental ImpactsIndustry has had impressive success in innovating new technologies to find, develop and commercialize oil and gas in deepwater, but additional work remains to be done to increase certainty and confidence that shoreline communities are protected, offshore workers are safe and the integrity of the environment is maintained. The National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling report to the president highlighted the degree to which technological advances in the prevention and mitigation of environmental impacts have not kept pace with advances that have focused on commercializing oil and natural gas offshore. The report recommended that a research program be developed to focused on safety. Continued development of offshore resources will require the assessment of risks, the evaluation of technologies and processes to anticipate and mitigate accidents, and the ongoing evaluation of new innovations pursued by operators. There is value through the coordination of researcher activities. Ongoing research from the Restore Act through the coastal states, including the centers of excellence established in each state, needs to be better coordinated allowing funding to be leveraged and increasing advances in technology development.

Given the growing importance of deepwater production worldwide, it is imperative that U.S.-operating companies and technology developers maintain a focus on technologies that can help improve safety performance and minimize environmental impacts cost effectively. Domestic oil production will continue to play an important role in our nation’s energy security, and oil and gas operations must be performed responsibly for the safety of our workers and our environment.

Recommendations in the development of the RPSEA plan stressed the need for an R&D effort directed toward addressing and evaluating the risks associated with oil and gas development and technology development to mitigate those risks. This should be an overriding factor when soliciting and selecting research proposals. Incorporating advances in safety technologies and processes such as safety and environmental management plans (API-RP 75) provide excellent processes based on lessons learned from offshore Gulf of Mexico.

The Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement This report also reviewed the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) research projects posted at BSEE.gov, including their long-term oil spill response, proceedings from various workshops and the technology assessment programs. This information and recommendations were important in compiling this roadmap.


The GoalGulf of Mexico production has benefited from advances in all forms of exploration and production technology. Technologies specifically focused on safety and the environment have reduced risks, costs and increased efficiencies. On an annual basis, oil production in the GOM is expected to continue increasing through the near future, based on forecasts in EIA’s latest Short-Term Energy Outlook (STEO). In 2016, eight projects came online in the GOM, contributing to the high production levels. Another seven projects are anticipated to come online by early 2019. Based on anticipated production levels at these new fields and existing fields, annual crude oil production in the GOM is expected to increase to an average of 1.9 million b/d in early 2019.

Because of the length of time needed to complete large offshore projects, many up to 10 years, oil production in the GOM is less sensitive to short-term oil price movements than onshore production in the lower 48 states. Crude oil price increases have a significant impact on exploration operations in the GOM, but not as much on activities to bring prior discoveries online. In deepwater, the investment required from discovery to production can approach a billion dollars before there is any return on that investment. Since the offshore rig count in the GOM drops significantly as oil prices decline, the long-term trend implies the drop would affect GOM oil production. While there are new reserves discovered, many are not economical with current technology at the current price of oil and gas. Investments in R&D are required to reduce costs, improve safety and ensure there is a long-term positive trend in offshore production.

Offshore exploration and production are vital to our energy mix. The U.S. is now the largest producer in the world because it has been the technical leader; however, increasing R&D investments in the North Sea countries and Brazil, coupled with decreasing R&D investments in the U.S., are causing the balance in technology leadership to shift.

The Department of Interior’s proposed plan for the Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Program, would greatly expand the offshore program to areas that have not been available for decades. A great deal of environmental, safety and technical research will be needed in order to support the implementation of the expansion.

The U.S. has a lot to gain from reliable, safe and environmentally conscious development of our domestic natural resources. Advances in technology have allowed us to increase our production and decrease our dependence on foreign production. A public-private partnership focused on cross-cutting applied R&D has been demonstrated as an

effective way to assure funding is leveraged and properly invested where advances in technology can continue.

Certain R&D topics are not listed in this report because some technologies are rapidly being developed by industry and do not require government investments; to be approved they do require interaction with regulators and end users. The majority of the topics and challenges included in this report are best advanced through collaborative government and industry investments. Government support for the advancement of new technologies can go beyond providing appropriate funding. The commercialization process can be assisted by having clear paths through the regulatory agencies.


Offshore Safety/Environmental Performance StatisticsBSEE tracks incidents concerning safety and environmental performance in the Gulf of Mexico. The latest information, summarized in the following table, is included on their website. Further information is also given in the most recent annual report2, some of which is also included in this report.

Incidents on the Outer Continental Shelfwww.bsee.gov/stats-facts/offshore-incident-statistics

Fiscal Year

CollisionsEvacuations & Musters

FatalitiesFires &

ExplosionsGas

ReleasesInjuries Lifting

Loss of Well Control

Spills* TOTAL

2017 11 53 0 73 16 150 126 0 10 4292016 9 50 2 86 17 150 155 2 16 4732015 9 70 1 105 21 206 163 3 24 5802014 0 52 2 135 21 285 210 5 21 7112013 21 68 4 116 21 276 197 8 24 7162012 13 48 1 132 27 280 167 3 30 6762011 11 36 3 113 17 221 110 5 4 5202010 14 31 12 134 20 253 118 4 9 5952009 26 55 4 148 33 260 243 7 7 7832008 28 43 12 141 22 263 185 7 33 7342007 26 33 5 145 14 322 180 6 7 738

*The numbers in the Spills column include spills of oil, drilling mud and other chemicals.

*For years prior to FY 2012, the number shown is the count of spills ≥ 50 barrels. For later years, the number shown is the count of spills ≥ 1 bbl.

Behind each human injury, behind each fatality, there is a person – and in most cases a family and friends. Analysis of the numbers helps to identify and prioritize research needed to make the offshore work environment safer. The industry and other stakeholders involved in offshore energy development wants everyone to be able to return home unharmed.

Figure 1 taken from the BSEE 2016 Annual Report, illustrates the causes of offshore fatalities for FY 2007-2016. During this decade the causes of fatalities have varied widely over various activities related to exploration, drilling/completions, production and facility construction/ decommissioning.

2 Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement, Annual Report 2016. U.S. Department of the Interior.

Figure 1. Causes of offshore fatalities, FY 2007-2016

Safety & Environmental Performance | 31

the fatality occurred and what should be done to prevent the breach of safety barriers that may have contributed to the fatality.

BSEE strongly believes that the inherent risks of working offshore can be identified and mitigated, but when risk management is not done well, a single lapse and resulting incident can generate catastroph-ic consequences and multiple fatalities. The effects of such an event can be seen in the data from prior years, most notably the Deepwater Horizon tragedy in 2010. The factors we are describing should not be interpreted to suggest that fatality data are random, but they are highly volatile, pointing to the great need for continued and enhanced vigilance on the part of industry and government alike. Therefore BSEE will continue to work with industry to reduce risk, encourage the growth of the offshore safety culture, and help the offshore industry achieve the milestone of zero offshore fatalities in a fiscal year, which has proven elusive during the past decade.

InjuriesThe offshore oil and gas industry has achieved greater precision and predictability as a result of advances in technology used to support drilling, the advent of satellite-controlled navigation and position control, and real-time monitoring. There has also been a great reduction in the amount of direct physical labor required to perform certain tasks. These developments have decreased the overall risk of injury over time; however, workers continue to interact with powerful equipment ca-pable of exerting ever-greater force as drilling ex-tends into deeper water and farther offshore. In short, risk of injury remains a constant concern on the OCS, an environment where oil and gas pro-duction operations, general offshore support op-erations (e.g., crane lifting), and other inherently dangerous activities are commonplace.

BSEE requires the immediate reporting of all injuries that require evacuation of an individual from the facility to shore or to another offshore fa-cility (30 CFR 250.188(a)(2)). Operators are also obligated to provide a written report within 15 calendar days of injuries “that result in one or more days away from work or one or more days on restricted work or job transfer.” For internal analysis, BSEE categorizes reported injuries as follows1:

• Major = More than 3 days away from work or more than 3 days of restricted work or job transfer (collectively referred to as DART);

• Minor = 1-3 DART; and• Other = Injuries that resulted in less than one DART (or those that required evacuation to

shore or to another offshore facility for medical treatment but did not result in any DART).

Between FY 2007 and 2016, aggregate annual recordable injuries on the OCS have ranged from a high of 322 in FY 2007 to an all-time low of 151 in FY 2016. An average of approximately 252 injuries per year has been reported on the OCS over the last 10 years. Comparing the 10-year average to the FY

1 DART = Days away from work or days of restricted work or job transfer. Recordable injuries include all three categories − Major, Minor, and Other.

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Figure 3.1 The annual rate of fatalities since BSEE was formed in 2011 has been essentially static, ranging from 1 to 4. Looking further back at the two highest fatality years (FY 2008 and 2010), it remains clear that a single lapse in proper risk management can be catastrophic. BSEE considers any fatality unacceptable.

Nu

mb

er o

f Fa

talit

ies

Fiscal Year

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

Figure 3.2 The causes of offshore fatalities for the FY 2007-2016 period are summarized here. For FY 2016, one fatality resulted from a lifting incident and one from falling debris. Over the past 10 years the causes of fatalities have varied widely, occurring across a wide spectrum of exploration, development, production, or facility construction/decommissioning activities. Fatalities cannot be tied to one specific location or circumstance, therefore BSEE continues robust enforcement of safety regulations and champions vigilance by industry during all offshore operations.

Explosions/Fires 19

Lifting 7

Helicopter 5

Diving Related 4

Construction Fall 2

Personnel Transfer 1

Man Overboard 5

Electrocution 1

Support Vessel - 1Anchor

Falling Debris 1


In 2018, the International Association of Drilling Contractors (IADC) issued a report3 that summarizes occupational incidents in U.S. waters. Figure 2 gives the 25-year trend concerning incidents.

Oil and gas facilities are engaged in exploring for, extracting and processing combustible fluids and gases, making the danger of fire/explosions a constant hazard. Due to the nature of offshore facilities, any fire has the potential to create an explosion or to become catastrophic. From 2007-2016 an average of approximately 126 fires/ explosions per year were reported to BSEE for the entire OCS. Data for overall reported fires/explosions are variable, but FY 2016 was the year with lowest number of fire/explosion incidents (all incidents were fires in FY 2016). FY 2016 is also noteworthy for the absence of major or catastrophic fires/explosions. As seen in Figure 3, when the data are normalized against the number of operating OCS installations, there is an overall increasing trend, peaking in FY 2014.

Lifting incidents range in severity from near misses and minor injuries to fatalities. Frequent and routine lifting operations for personnel and material are a normal activity for offshore oil and gas installations. Over the course of fiscal years 2007-

2016, an average of about 173 lifting incidents was reported to BSEE per year. Lifting incidents normalized on a per installation basis are illustrated in Figure 4. For FY 2016 the rate was one incident per 14.1 installations, a slight increase

3 IADC ISP Program 2017 Summary of Occupational Incidents (U.S. Water Totals). June 15, 2018.

Figure 3. Fires/Explosions Normalized per Number of Installations

Figure 2. U.S. Water Total LTI and Recordable Incidence Rates vs Man-hours

Issued: 15 June 2018 1 Copyright © International Association of Drilling Contractors

IADC 2017 US Water Totals (Table 1)

Total

Total Man-hours 22,777,018 Total Medical Treatment Incidents 23 Total Restricted Work Incidents 17 Total Lost Time Incidents 11 Total Fatalities 1 Total Recordables 52

MTO Incidence Rate 0.20 RWC Incidence Rate 0.15 LTI Incidence Rate 0.11 LTI Frequency Rate 0.53 DART Incidence Rate 0.25 DART Frequency Rate 1.27 Recordable Incidence Rate 0.46 Recordable Frequency Rate 2.28

Companies Reporting: Water – 14

Medical Treatment Incidence Rate = MTOs X 200,000 Restricted Work Incidence Rate = RWCs X 200,000 Lost Time Incidence Rate = LTIs + FTLs X 200,000 Lost Time Frequency Rate = LTIs +FTLs X 1,000,000 DART Incidence Rate = LTIs + RWC X 200,000 DART Frequency Rate = LTIs + RWC X 1,000,000 Recordable Incidence Rate = RCRD X 200,000 Recordable Frequency Rate = RCRD X 1,000,000

US Water Total LTI & Recordable Incidence Rates vs Man-hours (Figure 1)

0

1

2

3

4

5

619

93

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

Inci

denc

e R

ate

0

10000000

20000000

30000000

40000000

50000000

60000000

Man

-hou

rs

LTI Rate Rec. Rate DART Rate Man-hours

34 | BSEE Annual Report 2016

Based on the last 10 years of data, an average of five losses of well control occur each year on the OCS (Figure 3.9). FY 2016 exhibited the lowest number of LWC events in recent years. One of those occurrences involved an underground tem-porarily uncontrolled flow of fluid while the other was a shallow water flow (the latter is often not con-sidered an LWC, but BSEE includes them in the count of LWCs). The data do show a continually decreasing trend over the last four years, from a high in 2013. As with some of the other categories of incidents, LWC’s can be loosely correlated to the recent oil price-driven trends in exploration and de-velopment activities mentioned in the prior section. The recent downturn in these types of activities on the OCS may account in part for the low number of LWC events. BSEE will continue to closely oversee industry’s management of LWC prevention, and will continue working to provide clear guidance on implementation of the Well Control Rule, so that when exploration and development rig activity in-creases, LWC events remain rare.

CollisionsCollisions (inclusive of allisions) on the OCS are de-fined by BSEE in 30 CFR 250.188(a)(6) as “a mov-ing vessel (including an aircraft) striking another vessel, or striking a stationary vessel or object (e.g., a boat striking a platform).” Such incidents can result not only in structural damage to vessels and facili-ties, but in some instances injury, loss of life or losses of well control. BSEE shares jurisdiction with the Coast Guard for many collisions involving oil and gas operations on the OCS. BSEE requires that col-lisions resulting in more than $25,000 in estimated property damage be reported immediately via oral report, followed by a written report within 15 days. In the Gulf of Mexico Region, operators may instead opt to file an electronic written report (via BSEE’s eWell system) within 12 hours of the occurrence. BSEE also frequently receives reports of collisions resulting in damage of less than $25,000; those are classified as minor in Figure 3.10, and are reported for illustrative purposes because BSEE tracks them internally. However because “minor” collisions are

not technically required to be reported, the data for major collisions provides the best indication of the rate of this type of incident.

Over the 10-year timeframe considered in this report, an average of just under 13 major collisions was reported per year (Figure 3.10). The trend in reported major collisions over the last three years has been downward, and in FY 2016 the number of reported major collisions dropped to a 10-year low of four such incidents. While BSEE is not currently aware of a particular cause for the drop in major collisions in FY 2016, it seems possible the recent impact of low oil prices – observed as a decrease in development rig ac-tivities, increase in non-rig development activities, and decrease in overall exploration activity on the OCS – may be a contributing factor. Another factor that may be contributing to the downward trend is that industry is trying to make operations more efficient by reducing the number of support vessels on the OCS.

Fisc

al Y

ear

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

Figure 3.7 Over the 10-year timeframe of this report, an average of approximately 126 fires and explosions per year were reported for the entire OCS. The data for overall reported fires/explo-sions are variable, but FY 2016 was the year with lowest number of fire/explosion incidents (all of the incidents were fires in FY 2016). FY 2016 is also noteworthy for the absence of major or catastrophic fires/explosions. Note: The X axis on this graph begins at 50.

Incidental

Minor

Major

Catastrophic

Number of Fires and Explosions

50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150

0

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

0.06

Fire

s an

d E

xplo

sio

ns

per

Inst

alla

tio

n

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Fiscal YearFigure 3.8 When the data for fires and explosions are normalized against the number of operating OCS installations, there was an overall increasing trend until a peak in FY 2014, and a subsequent decrease over the last two years. The data are still within the historic range of variability.


from FY 2015. This is an area where BSEE believes improvement is both needed and possible.

The Deepwater Horizon/Macondo incident demonstrated the catastrophic consequences that may result when well control is lost. Not every well exhibits the same technical challenges of the well that was compromised during that event, but every well has control risks that must be properly identified and managed. Based on the last 10 years of data, an average of five losses of well control (LWC) occur each year on the OCS (Figure 5). FY 2016 exhibited the lowest number of LWC events in recent years. One of those occurrences involved an underground temporarily uncontrolled flow of fluid while the other was a shallow water flow (the latter is often not considered an LWC, but BSEE includes them in the count of LWCs). The data do show a continually decreasing trend over the last four years, from a high in 2013.

The IADC report also breaks down the statistics for 2017 in a variety of areas. Figure 6 and Figure 7, taken from the report, summarizes incidents by time of service as well as by age. Out of 52 recorded incidents, 75 percent involved workers with less than five years of time in service. Out of 35 recorded incidents, 74.28 percent involved workers between the ages of 18 and 35.

Offshore spills generate public interest, and the effects of the events can capture local, regional and even national attention for extended periods of time. The total volume of oil or other liquid pollutants released over time in individual spills greater than 50 barrels is depicted in Figure 8. Apart from the marked peak in 2010 (coinciding with the Deepwater Horizon tragedy) and a lesser peak in 2008, spills have been variable, though within a certain range.

The International Association of Oil & Gas Producers (IOGP) has been collecting safety incident data from its member companies globally since 1985 and recently reported 2017 data for safety performance indicators.4 Against the

background of a 4 percent increase in work hours reported, the number of fatalities has decreased from 50 in 2016 to 33 in 2017. The 33 fatalities occurred in 30 separate incidents. The resulting fatal accident rate (1.10) is 36 percent lower than last year’s figure (1.73). The company and contractor FAR are 1.02 and 1.13 respectively. Onshore and offshore FAR are 1.10 and 1.11 respectively.

Australia’s National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority (NOPSEMA) recently


Lifting IncidentsFrequent and routine lifting operations involving personnel and material transfer – both on OCS fa-cilities and between vessels and facilities – is a nec-essary and commonplace function of the offshore work environment. As with many hazardous off-shore operations, engaging in daily routine activity can lead to complacency and a lowered awareness of risk. Lifting – typically by crane – always carries risk due to close quarters, metocean conditions and the need to coordinate with ongoing simultaneous operations (drilling, production, etc.). Lifting inci-dents range in severity from near misses and mi-nor injuries to fatalities. Most lifting incidents are preventable. As such, BSEE pays close attention to lifting practices among OCS operators and has been working on a new Crane Safety Rule, which is being designed to help reduce lifting incidents. The Stop Work Authority institutionalized under the SEMS program is also of particular value in dy-namic situations involving lifting.

BSEE coordinates regularly with the Coast Guard, which shares regulatory space with BSEE in regard to lifting incidents. The data presented here include lifting incidents that are reportable to BSEE. There may be lifting incidents resulting from offshore operations, such as those related to vessel-to-vessel transfer of personnel, which may also be reported to other federal agencies (e.g., USCG). BSEE requires that all lifting incidents (defined as those involving crane or personnel/ma-terial handling operations) be reported immediate-ly, per 30 CFR 250.188(a)(8). A follow-up written report is required within 15 days.

Over the course of fiscal years 2007 through 2016, an average of approximately 173 lifting inci-dents were reported to BSEE per year, with an an-nual range of 110 (in 2011) to 243 (in 2009). The FY 2016 total of 155 lifting incidents is very close to the 10-year average, but is the lowest since FY 2012 and is reflective of a slight decline over the prior two years (Figure 3.14). When the number of such inci-dents is calculated on a normalized per installation basis, a slight increase from FY 2015 to FY 2016 emerges (Figure 3.15). For FY 2016, the calculated rate was approximately one lifting incident per 14 installations. BSEE considers this to be an area where much improvement is both needed and possible, and it will continue to be a focus of our regulatory efforts.

Gas ReleasesThe management of hazardous gases is a critical component of safety and environmental compliance during offshore drilling, production and processing. These gases range from those that are potentially dangerous if mishandled (e.g., nitrogen gas) to those that are acutely toxic. In the latter category, hydrogen sulfide (H2S) gas requires particular scrutiny during facility design, construction, and operation.

BSEE regulations require identification of gas hazards prior to initiating operations, appropriate design and institutional controls on gas management during operations, and rapid reporting of most gas releases. There are two basic levels of reporting gas releases:

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Nu

mb

er o

f Li

ftin

g In

cid

ents

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016Fiscal Year

Figure 3.14 Frequent and routine lifting operations for personnel and material are required for offshore oil and gas installations. Over the course of fiscal years 2007 through 2016, an average of approximately 173 lifting incidents was reported to BSEE per year. Overall, lifting incidents have been variable over time, but were lower in FY 2015 and 2016 than the three preceding years.

0

0.01

0.09

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

0.06

0.07

0.08

Lift

ing

Inci

den

ts p

er In

stal

lati

on

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016Fiscal Year

Figure 3.15 When lifting incidents are normalized on a per installation basis, the trends look similar to the trend seen for overall data. For FY 2016, the calculated rate was one lifting incident per 14.1 installations.


SpillsSpills of oil and related substances offshore typ-ically generate the most public interest, and the effects of the worst such events can capture local, regional and even national attention for extended periods of time. BSEE understands the concerns related to this issue and takes seriously its mis-sion to help prevent spills and ensure that indus-try is prepared for spills before they occur, so that damage to the marine environment is minimized. Our commitment to environmental protection is evidenced by the millions of dollars in oil spill re-search projects we fund every year; it is made even clearer by our robust oversight of the OCS indus-try’s oil spill preparedness through the BSEE Oil Spill Preparedness Division. Although much of BSEE’s emphasis is focused on ensuring that off-shore operators are equipped to prevent, control, and clean up after any potential spill, BSEE also requires the rapid reporting of spills if they occur. Per 30 CFR 250.187 and 30 CFR 254.46(a), oper-ators are required to immediately report to BSEE all spills of oil or other liquid pollutants that are known or suspected to be one barrel in volume or greater. This requirement is in addition to, and does not substitute for, National Response Center reporting requirements.

Per 30 CFR 254.46(b)(2), spills greater than 50 barrels in volume require more detailed report-ing and monitoring, and such spills trigger greater investigative response by BSEE, which may require the operator to submit additional information about their spill response. From FY 2007 to 2016, an average of nine spills greater than 50 barrels was reported annually on the OCS. The fewest such spills (three) were reported in 2016, and the great-est number was reported in 2008 (Figure 3.11). The majority of the spills in 2008 were a result of facility damage during Hurricanes Gustav and Ike. From FY 2007 through FY 2016, 31% of spills greater than 50 barrels were either crude or refined petroleum, approximately 33% contained synthetic based drilling fluid, approximately 22% contained other chemicals, and just over 13% were mixtures of products (Figure 3.12). There is no apparent trend in the types of fluids spilled each year.

The total volume of oil or other liquid pollutants released over time in individual spills greater than 50 barrels is depicted in Figure 3.13. Apart from the marked peak in 2010 (coinciding with the Deepwater Horizon tragedy) and a lesser peak in 2008, spills have been variable, though within a certain range. Re-moving the peaks might reveal a slightly different trend, but peaks are relevant; additional years of data collection are required before any overall trends can be defined. Even if there were evidence of a decreasing trend, BSEE remains committed to compelling a high degree of preparedness in industry, with the intent of preventing spills and properly responding if they do occur. For further information on long-term trends related to spills, see the report, “2016 Update of Occurrence Rates for Offshore Oil Spills,” which is avail-able at: https://www.bsee.gov/sites/bsee.gov/files/osrr-oil-spill-response-research//1086aa.pdf.

0

5

10

15

20

25

Nu

mb

er o

f C

olli

sio

ns

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016Fiscal Year

Figure 3.10 Over the 10-year timeframe considered in this report, an average of just over 17 collisions was reported per year. Major collisions have steadily decreased over the last four years, but minor collisions (which could potentially have become major) climbed last year after a multi-year decrease. BSEE will be watching this trend closely as a possible leading indicator.

Major

Minor

Fisc

al Y

ear

Number of Losses of Well Control

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

Figure 3.9 With the exception of FY 2013, there appears to be an annual decrease in the occurrence of LWC incidents in recent years, with FY 2016 being the lowest year on record.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Surface

Surface Equipment

Diverter

Underground

4 Safety Performance Indicators – 2017 data. International Association of Oil & Gas Producers. June 2018

Figure 4. Lifting Incidents Normalized by Number of Installations

Figure 5. Losses of Well Control on the OCS


Figure 8. Total Volume of Releases36 | BSEE Annual Report 2016

0

4

2

6

8

10

12

16

14

Nu

mb

er o

f Sp

ills

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 20162015

Fiscal Year

Crude & Refined Petroleum

Synthetic Based Drilling Fluid

Other Chemicals

Mixture

Figure 3.12 Overall, there is no apparent trend in types of fluids spilled each year. The “other chemicals” category generally includes substances like zinc bromide, calcium bromide, sodium bromide, asphaltene inhibitors, methanol and glycol.

1

10

100

1000

10000

100000

1000000

10000000

Tota

l Vo

lum

e o

f Sp

ills

≥ 50

Bar

rels

(lo

g)

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Fisical Year

Figure 3.13 Apart from the marked peak in FY 2010 (coinciding with the Deepwater Horizon tragedy) and a lesser peak in FY 2008 (associated with OCS facilities damaged during Hurricanes Gustave and Ike in the Gulf of Mexico) aggregate spill volume has generally been well below 10,000 barrels per year on the OCS. BSEE remains committed to further reducing volumes and compelling a high degree of preparedness in the industry so companies can respond properly if spills occur. Note: data in this graph are presented on a logarithmic scale.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Nu

mb

er o

f Sp

ills

>50

Bar

rels

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016Fiscal Year

Figure 3.11 From FY 2007 to 2016, an average of nine spills greater than 50 barrels was reported annually on the OCS. The lowest number of such spills (three) was reported in FY 2016, and the greatest number occurred in FY 2008; that year drives the average in this case.

Figure 7. U.S. Water Total Recordable Incidents by Age. (based on 35 Incidents)

released its Annual Offshore Performance Report for 2017.5 The report contains data gathered through NOPSEMA’s regulatory functions covering occupational health and safety, well (structural) integrity and environmental management of offshore petroleum facilities and activities in Commonwealth waters. For the fifth straight year, no fatalities were recorded, despite a 31 percent increase in man-hours worked compared to 2016 figures. There were 291 dangerous occurrences

recorded for the year – the lowest in a decade, though the OCS experienced 29 uncontrolled hydrocarbon releases in 2017, the second consecutive year of increased incidences.

Tracking, analyzing and reflecting on safety and environmental statistics is a key factor in determining where emphasis needs to be placed and what further research is needed to shift from zero as a goal to zero as an expectation.

Figure 6. U.S. Water Total Recordable Incidents by Time in Service. (based on 52 incidents)

5 Annual Offshore Performance Report – Safety and Environmental Performance of Australia’s Offshore Petroleum Industry to Dec. 31, 2017. NOPSEMA. nopsema.gov.au.

Issued: 15 June 2018 - 17 – Copyright © International Association of Drilling Contractors

US Water Total Recordable Incidents by Time in Service (Chart 16) Based on 52 Incidents

10+ yrs.5.77%

>5 yrs. < 10 yrs.19.23%

>1 yr. < 5 yrs.46.15%

>6 mos. < 1 yr.5.77%

>3 mos. < 6 mos.9.62%

0 mo. < 3 mos.13.46%

Issued: 15 June 2018 - 21 – Copyright © International Association of Drilling Contractors

US Water Total Recordable Incidents by Age (Chart 20) Based on 35 Incidents

18 - 2528.57%

26 - 3545.71%

36 - 4511.43%

46 - 558.57% 56 - 65

5.71%


Research NeedsThe following sections discuss the various research needs that have been identified.

Drilling and Completions PlanningResearch related to planning offshore drilling operations can reduce operational downtime and avoid the potential of current induced damage to facilities and equipment. This can also reduce risks and lower costs of well construction.

Decision Support for Dynamic Barrier Management is a joint industry project (JIP) managed by DNV GL that combines safety barrier concepts from the offshore industry with success path concepts from the nuclear power industry. The JIP’s initial goal was to develop bowtie analysis diagrams – which helps companies identify human, technical and organizational barriers in managing safety hazards – that are more useful for real-time operations. This was done by building a response tree that focused on what it would take for physical barriers to succeed. This approach has been used to develop decision support concepts for real-time monitoring of barrier health and guidance for actions to be taken when barriers are degraded or fail. The approach is based on the systematic identification of the information required to assess barrier health, instrumentation that can be used to provide this information, and clear decision criteria that prescribe when actions must be taken to restore degraded barriers or implement alternate success paths. The approach can also be used for continuous assessment of regulatory compliance during operations and communication with regulatory authorities regarding decisions for continued operation or shutdown following equipment failures. To test the focus on barrier success, the JIP conducted a series of workshops in which participants had to identify success paths for a well integrity case study. The result was an 80 percent match in how participants – which included regulators, drilling contractors, operators and service providers – perceived success. The concept also could help companies identify operational areas where sensors and machines can make decisions, and where human workers should make decisions instead. The JIP would like to study the application of the success path to sensor placement in a second phase if they can find additional funding.

Research sponsored by NOAA, DeepStar, RPSEA and others has contributed to Metocean sciences. Industry experts recommended additional investments in:

• Loop current/eddies – Improve prediction and extend further out in time (3+ months target)

– Cheaper ways to monitor loop/eddies over large areas

– Monitor further upstream – i.e. Caribbean inflow

– Advanced statistical forecast methods

Other recommended research topics include:

• Better pre-drill prediction of pore pressure and frac gradient

– Increase the certainty and reliability of pore pressure prediction and frac gradient

– Specify the accuracy tolerance that will lead to a step change in forecasting accuracy of pore pressure and frac gradient including principal stresses

• Novel and/or improved methodologies for shallow hazard assessment and kick detection during riserless drilling

• Develop methodologies/protocols to improve estimates of potential extreme wave height due to hurricanes

• Develop machine learning techniques to bridge the gap between global position measurements and mooring integrity

• Develop a test center that can be used to test, verify and validate various subsea equipment including subsea connectors and BOPs

• Through developing better understanding of all the variables/parameters for customizable automated well control. Develop a data-driven approach to monitoring and proactively adjusting drilling parameters to manage the wellbore for maximum drilling efficiency, to and quickly mitigate unwanted wellbore pressure

• Faster and more reliable detection of kicks, particularly when MPD equipment is not available

• Advancing tools to support decision making/risk communication for drilling contractors and operators, integrating fault/decision trees with real-time data.

• Well integrity should be a primary focus area for additional research. This includes investigating, characterizing, and describing the physical and chemical behavior of typical cements (including resins) that are used in primary zonal isolation.

A series of meetings and interviews led to a discussion on sensors. A new JIP has been established under the IADC Drilling Engineers Committee (DEC), driven by the growing importance of verifying and validating sensor data in situ, or during drilling operations. The industry is starting to rely more heavily on sensor data for decision making, but environmental and operational conditions can impact the performance of sensors and the quality of the data they provide. The JIP’s goal


is to develop a methodology and procedures to independently verify and validate sensors while they’re in operation, providing acceptable control for manual operations through various levels of automated drilling, and to support data analytics. The project is managed by Southwest Research Institute (SwRI). The deliverable of the JIP will be a recommended practice (RP) that any industry participant could use.

With more reliable sensors and additional research, real-time kick detection will be possible.

Sensors enable real-time drilling management, which includes downhole, subsea, riser and topside measurements, data telemetry, mud flow/circulation models and drilling penetration efficiencies.

Through additional development and instrumentation, the industry has the capability to get a lot of data on what is happening at and near the bit, along the drillpipe, and at the wellhead or mudline. We can have a much better picture of what is happening with the wellbore, the bit, the mud and cuttings, the casing and cement, the BOP, the riser, etc. A giant step forward in getting information in real-time during drilling will enable several subsequent steps forward that improve drilling safety.

Reliable sensor technology coupled with advances in wired drill pipe (an NOV technology) and through the deployment of new high-bandwidth, low-complexity acoustic telemetry solutions (an XACT technology) enables these technologies.

Without the research to push the capability to the next level, the industry may well continue to limit itself and its possibilities to produce energy safely and profitably.

Current downhole pressure sensors are unable to detect small density changes that would indicate the onset of inflow from a high-pressure zone. Prototypes of a “fluid density sensor (FDS)” module that could be placed in the bottomhole assembly have been developed and tested in a simulated static wellbore-like test stand with fluids varying from water, salt water (brine) to mud with a density up to 18 ppg. The FDS sensor’s density response was linear over the density range and showed a sensitivity to a wellbore fluid density as low as 0.1 ppg, which would be sufficient for real-time kick detection and well control. This sensor would complement a typical PWD tool, which measures the entire annular pressure gradient from surface to the BHA. The current status of the qualification of the downhole FDS will be presented. Once developed, real-time data with advances in real-time transmission of the data could provide a step change in early kick detection and management.

GRP projects awarded to Louisiana State University (LSU) and Texas A&M, as well as the University of Houston, address kick and gas-in-riser detection/mitigation. Pressure barriers provide the primary means of preventing uncontrolled

hydrocarbon releases in offshore wells. However, these barriers are only effective if they have been designed, properly operated and maintained for the conditions of the environment in which they are employed. The project focuses on gaps in understanding about the behavior of riser gas under high temperature and pressure. Testing will be done using an existing well retrofitted with pressure and temperature sensors to produce data for validating and verifying riser gas models that inform design of pressure barriers and techniques for preventing uncontrolled hydrocarbon releases.

Blowout Preventers

The SPE BOP performance working group is a subcommittee under the SPE DSATS committee. The working group was formed to develop a process system that measures the maturity of the “BOP system” with the intent to improve BOP performance in the industry. This has been supported by a broad cross section of industry, contractors, innovators and regulators.

The ram BOP was invented by James Smither Abercrombie and Harry S. Cameron in 1922 and was brought to market in 1924 by Cameron Iron Works. Several advances have been developed since then. Following Macondo, hundreds of new patent applications were filed on improvements to the BOP system. Being dominated by three vendors, the market has


been reluctant to significantly innovate or work with new innovator technology companies; some providing disruptive technology solutions. Coupled with a reluctance of regulatory approvals for new systems, inspection, maintenance and quality control innovations, have slowed advances in new systems and step-change components. Recently the SPE has formed a BOP performance framework working group to develop a process system that measures the maturity of the “BOP system” with the intent to improve BOP performance in the industry. This will expedite various improvements in the BOP system (both subsea and surface), understanding each component must work within a reliable system. In addition, industry standards (ISO, API and others) must be considered.

BOP ReliabilityThe BOP system is one of the most critical items when drilling. The BOP is often the last stop between controlling a well and loss of control (blowout). Proper operations and reliability are a requirement for safe drilling operations.

Current Technology

Current subsea BOP systems use hydraulic energy to activate the elements of the BOP. Complex electrohydraulic systems control the operation of the BOP. These systems have demonstrated reliability issuers6. Steps to improve reliability have included redundancy of some critical items. However, these secondary systems are only for use in an emergency should the primary system fail. If the primary or the secondary system fails, the BOP must still be pulled, and the system restored to working order. This process is costly, time consuming and introduces additional safety concerns and potential for accidents. In addition, the systems are so complex and the number of components so large it is exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, to improve the reliability of the total system.

Future TechnologyA different approach is the only way to make a step change in subsea BOP reliability. One step change that is now under development is an all-electric BOP. This step change has not taken place before now due to the absence of reliable electrical components for subsea use. However, in recent years subsea electrical components, for other systems, have been developing. These components are now common place, used every day, and are exceptionally reliable. Assembly of these proven components into an electrically actuated BOP system is now possible. Included in the improved components are improved batteries. These new batteries have enough power to operate the BOP many times and offer the ability to distribute power, so a single failure does not case a failure of the entire system.

There are additional new approaches that are also under development including kinetic energy systems, intensifier rams and others.

Advancing the development of these new BOPs requires two elements. First, groups like the IADC and API should start now to develop recommended rules, regulations, and requirements for the next-generation BOPs so these can become a part of the rules that regulatory agencies use to assess offshore drilling. Failure to do this will make deployment and testing of new BOPs difficult and delay the development. The second requirement supports the first and is additional investigation into the improved (statistical) reliability of subsea electrical components over electrohydraulic systems.

Well Control Equipment Standards and TestingThe American Petroleum Institute develops recommended practices for well control equipment and operations. API RP 59, Recommended Practice for Well Control Operations provides information that can serve as a voluntary industry guide for safe well control operations. This publication is designed to serve as a direct field aid in well control and as a technical source for teaching well control principles. This publication establishes recommended operations to retain pressure control of the well under pre-kick conditions and recommended practices to be utilized during a kick. It serves as a companion to API RP 53, Recommended Practice for Blowout Prevention Equipment Systems for Drilling Wells and API RP 64 Recommended Practice for Diverter Systems Equipment and Operations. RP 53 establishes recommended practices for the installation and testing of equipment for the anticipated well conditions and service and RP 64 establishes recommended practices for installation, testing, and operation of diverters systems and discusses the special circumstances of uncontrolled flow from shallow gas formations.

SimulatorsOne area of technology that has seen significant growth is the use of simulators to train personnel and prepare the drilling plan. Many have stated that the oil industry is behind in the use of simulators for all facets of offshore operations. This is not true for one area, well control, well control simulators have been in use for training for many years, and Amoco Europe reported using a simulator in well control training in1975.7

Well control simulation is an especially useful tool for managing risks and making critical well control decisions. Recent advances in computer technology have made well control simulators available as tools for drilling engineering

6 VanKuilenberg, Robert and Li, Jie; 2018. 2 Million Pounds Force Electrical Ram BOP. Offshore Technology Conference, Houston’ May 7-10, 2018. OTC-28964-MS.7 Kendall, H. A. 1975.Training Techniques in Well Control. SPE-European Spring Meeting of the Society of Petroleum Engineers of AIME, London, England,

April 14-15, 1975. SPE 5276.


and operations. Simulators may complement well planning, drilling operations as well as evaluation of special well control operations.8

Today’s simulators are much more advanced than the earlier versions and include everything from laptop simulators to full immersion simulators that give the trainee the feeling of being on the rig floor or in the driller’s cabin. These more advanced simulators also allow instructors to test students on what they have learned by simulating well conditions and well control events that they have never seen before.

Simulators provide a means for students to practice well control processes in a safe environment, where they can see the results of their actions without the danger of losing control of a well. It also allows for experimentation to see what the effect of different actions have in a safe environment. The simulator also allows for after-action training to simulate an actual event and test or see what could have been done to improve actual actions.

Regulators have also seen the benefits of well-control training and simulators; dependent on their job, many personnel on the rig are required to take and pass certified well-control training. The providers of this training and the instructors should meet established requirements and are audited to make sure they meet the requirements and are truly training and testing the students. These classes and simulators will continue to improve and help train personnel in the future.

As the use of well-control specific simulators has increased, there has been another development. This innovative approach is combining simulators to fully simulate the drilling operations. The new simulators combine simulations of the drilling process, with well-control simulation, and often third-party simulators to fully represent the drilling equipment and environment.

The combining of simulators allows for a more accurate representation of what is available on the rig, including specialty equipment such as DGD equipment. The combination of simulators also can improve well control training as some third-party services, such as DGD, provide for better methods to control well pressures and thus better well control management. In addition, it enables trainees to learn how well-control measures may need to be modified to accommodate the new equipment.

As the simulators have become more advanced, so have the algorithms that provide the means to simulate everything from equipment operation to the response of the formation encountered as drilling proceeds. It is these improvements that have moved the use of simulators from training to well and operations planning. Simulators help build well drilling

programs and test these plans.9 This trend will continue as better instrumentation and algorithms improve the simulation of equipment and formation response to varying drilling conditions. The next big step, which has already begun, is to compare simulator results to the actual well conditions as drilling continues. This can alert personnel, when actual conditions depart from the simulations; asking what is different why. This can head off potential problems. At the very least and it allows the simulator to be updated to match the actual conditions so that future deviations between simulations and actual measurements can be evaluated.

As modern technologies, such as look-ahead sensors, improve and provide more data, the use and performance of simulators will improve and become more a part of the planning and execution of drilling wells. These technologies help improve safety as they allow personnel, both engineers and rig workers, to be better prepared for difficult drilling situations and the reduction of the unknown in the drilling process.

As the simulators are used more in the drilling process as the standard to measure the actual drilling data, it will become important for sharing of the data between others working in the Gulf of Mexico. In short, this means that what we call competitors today, will need to share important data with each other to improve safety. This process will need to take place while still providing for proprietary information and competitive advantage. This may be more difficult than the actual equipment development, but it is essential if safety is to be a primary objective of everyone working in the Gulf.

ExplorationResearch related to exploration activities can reduce the uncertainty for structural and formation properties so that changing conditions can be anticipated. Recommended research includes:

• Real-time validation of seismic prediction – validating velocity assumptions and depth conversions utilizing LWD data prior to drilling hazard interval

• Increasing the ability to incorporate pre-drill pore pressure fracture gradient models adapting to exploration drilling conditions and revising the models

• Additional research building upon the SEG SEAM project Pressure Prediction and Hazard Avoidance through Improved Seismic Imaging project

• Develop technologies and processes to reduce costs associated with exploring for seepages to enable geologists to obtain additional data and explore the seabed in real time

8 Ng, Fred. Well Control Simulation – A Tool for Engineering and Operations, Wild Well Control. AADE.9 Bikra, H., Pia, G, Svenddsen, M., et al. The Operational Benefit of Testing HPHT/MPD Procedures Using an Advanced Full-Scale Drilling Simulator, Presented at IADC/

SPE Drill Conference and Exhibition, Fort Worth, Texas, March 4-6, 2014. IADC/SPE 167958


• Novel and improved methodology for shallow hazard assessment and mitigation during riserless drilling conditions

• Develop new types of seismic sources to deliver acoustic output and frequency content comparable to conventional impulsive source array. Objective is to yield seismic illumination of the Earth that delivers a clear characterization of subsurface structures, lithology and fluid distributions, with minimal environmental impact, in both shallow and deepwater environments

• The industry is advancing the potential Artificial Intelligence (AI) applications for petroleum geophysics in 3 areas - seismic data processing, interpretation, and reservoir dynamics. These have a tremendous upside to reducing risk and improving safety, particularly for exploration. R&D investments supporting efforts by the SEG SEAM, AI developers, labs, and academia. Elements of consideration should include actions, responsibilities and handling of intellectual property.

DevelopmentResearch related to development drilling can improve safety/environment, tighten security and reduce costs. Recommended research topics include:

Safety/Environment

• Technology development to operate under a closed system (continuous circulation)

– Eliminate diverter in favor of riser gas handling

– Move to closed loop as a default in lieu of open loop

– Automated management of bottom hole pressure

• Improved detection of potential kicks

– Seismic ahead of the bit

– Downhole gas influx detection

• Better wellbore integrity characterization

– Annular pressure buildup mitigation techniques

– Identification of pressure in multiple annuli

• Better BOPs (i.e., better systems, controls, corrosion, instrumentation, etc.)

– Better BOP control systems

– Better measurement of BOP systems

– How to take advantage of differential pressure for improved BOP performance

– Corrosion-proof sealable surfaces in BOPs

– Improvements in electric BOP (eBOP) systems to improve safety, reduce costs and provide improved monitoring

• Human-machine zone management/worker position detection

– Better ways to track and manage worker positions relative to machines, equipment and other hazards on rig floor

• Improved gas detection and sensor capabilities

• Develop guidelines for probabilistic risk assessment for critical equipment

• Improve implementation of Crew Resource Management (CRM) principles extended to include operational integrity situations

• Develop/implement an accredited framework to optimize effective leadership training programs and decision making for offshore personnel. Such a program should consider things like:

– Well site leadership training

– Situational awareness training

– Understanding risk vs. consequence

– Focusing human performance during external distractions

– Identifying confirmation bias

– Teambuilding prior to crew going to rig

– Accelerated/continuing education for critical positions

– Improving transition from work force employee to supervisor


• Increasing individual fluency in understanding of barriers to better manage barriers

• Understand variables/parameters for customizable automated well control

• Integration of mechanical dispersion methods (in contrast to chemical dispersion methods) into emergency response processes

• Application of real-time pore pressure prediction, monitoring and related decision making

• Establish best practices for procedure and frequency for testing safety equipment including to ensure appropriate location/environment for better/safer tests. (e.g., relief valve testing procedure, SPPE testing frequencies and high-pressure equipment)

• Use of artificial intelligence (AI) to better identify scenarios for risk analysis. Find better ways to identify scenarios that create low likelihood/severe consequence events

• Better capture, characterization and analysis of lifting incidents such that actionable lessons can be learned (e.g., use detailed bow ties and data to provide context around lift safety data; more focused actions based on real (operational/field) data.) Include dynamic lifts

• Develop cost-effective technologies/processes to assess, monitor and repair abandoned wells and other infrastructure, including nearshore abandoned wells that have been exposed due to erosion caused by hurricanes and other events

– Develop risk-assessment protocols for leakage risks, probability of barrier failure and potential future leakage rates

• Sensors to track worker movement with relationship to rig activities. Risk awareness

Security

• Improved mechanisms to optimize cyber safety/security

• Identify patterns of cybersecurity threats to examine risks and solutions

Cost Reduction

• How to leverage technology for better inspections

– Drones, etc. confined spaces, fluid testing

– Better ways of inspecting risers, mooring systems, structures (fixed and floating)

– Novel usages of augmented reality to improve construction and inspection

– Better measurement of accumulated effects of time history and cycles/strain/corrosion

High Pressure/High Temperature (HP/HT)HP/HT research is needed to focus on new materials, standardized testing and protocols on new and existing materials, and management of situations arising from new materials during the lag time between adoption of the new materials and the time that an applicable standard is adopted.

An article “High-pressure/high temperature technology comes of age” published in July 2018 Offshore Magazine, by Luiz Feijo, ABS), stated measures need to be put in place to verify that the equipment is manufactured and tested based on intended applications, and built with safety and reliability in mind. The article noted the lack a management system process that maintains equipment information used by all stakeholders.

Recommended R&D Topics:

• Develop long flowline tie-backs that incorporate a high-integrity pressure protection system (HIPPS) with isolation valves that are capable of operation with a failsafe position and with multiple sensors that can be employed with the hardware to make shutdown decisions from topside locations

• Verify the limits under which the above system can be maintained in optimum modes

• Support of industry and DeepStar consortium efforts related to HP/HT including technology development lifecycle developed to incorporate a systematic approach to the development of HP/HT equipment including - standardized material selection basis of design (MSBOD) and equipment testing guidelines criteria, 20 ksi systems verification and qualification testing of ultra-deepwater 20 ksi materials.

Managed Pressure DrillingOil and gas drilling require successful well control, and well control means managing the well bore pressure. So, in one sense all drilling is managed pressure drilling. In conventional drilling the well pressure is managed with the drilling fluid. If more pressure is needed the drilling fluid weight is increased; if less pressure is needed, the drilling fluid weight is decreased. As drilling became more of a science it was found that the flow rate up the annulus of the well also affected the well bore pressure. The flow of the fluid up the annulus is resisted by friction of the fluid against the well bore walls the drill sting and other elements that change the flow. If the flow rate is increased so is the friction and thus the pressure down hole and the opposite with lower flows. Drillers learned to use this fact to help control the well bore pressure without changing the weight of the drilling fluid.

While changing the flow rate has an immediate effect on the well bore pressure, it only lasts as long as flow continues; when


the flow stops the added pressure from the flow goes away. Changing drilling fluid weight takes a long time as all the drilling fluid in the well must be changed out. As a result, the industry looked for ways to quickly change the well bore pressure so they could adapt the well bore pressure to the current drilling conditions. Thus was born new techniques that are lumped under the managed pressure drilling (MPD) umbrella.

Currently there are two main types of MPD, back pressure and controlled mud level MPD. In simplest terms, MPD keeps the well-bore pressure above the natural pressure of the fluids (water, gas, oil) in the formation, but below the pressure that damages those formations, resulting in loss of the drilling fluid into the formations.

The equipment for MPD can include pumps, subsea pumps, rotating control devices, chokes and specialty manifolds for managing the drilling fluid. Many say that all wells should be drilled using MPD to increase safety, so research and development efforts for MPD need to center around simplifying the systems and reducing the costs. Investment of scarce resources needs to be limited to only those efforts that have the potential of a significant impact in the cost simplifying implementation. As with many areas, improved instrumentation will have significant impact on MPD; however, these instrumentation improvements will not be limited to MPD but will affect many areas.

Dual Gradient and Riserless DrillingThe oil and gas industry has, since the inception of drilling offshore, looked for safety improvements. One method, dual gradient drilling, often grouped under the larger topic area of managed pressure drilling, has been under development since at least the 1990s10.

In conventional operations, drilling fluid pumped down the drill pipe is circulated up the annulus of the well and into a drilling riser that carries the fluid from the sea floor back to the surface drilling vessel. This process has minimal effect on bottom hole pressure in shallow water depths. However, in deeper water the weight of the drilling fluid in the riser increases the bottom-hole pressure limiting the drilling pressure window; the difference between the pore and fracture pressures of the formation.

In dual gradient drilling a pump is placed on the sea floor to lift the mud and cuttings exiting the well to the drilling vessel. This allows the riser to be filled with a fluid having a similar density to the surrounding seawater. This better matches the natural pressure gradient found in the formations and opens the pressure drilling window. This makes drilling longer sections possible and increases the difference between the actual well-bore pressure and the critical pore and fracture pressure limits. The actual well-bore pressure must be above the pore pressure and below the fracture pressure to avoid well-control problems. Failure to stay between the pore and fracture pressures can lead to loss of the well from collapse and/or an influx that can lead to a blowout.

Some methods of drilling have been developed that violate the traditional rules of staying in the drilling pressure window. These are specialty cases (underbalanced drilling) and must be well engineered to avoid well problems.

There are different variants of dual gradient drilling that are commercial today, allowing some wells that would be otherwise undrillable to be drilled. However, the ultimate dual gradient drilling method is riserless drilling. In this method the drilling riser is eliminated and a smaller package of pipes replaces the riser. The mud is returned up one line in the new pipe package while other lines are used in well control, and to operate the blowout preventer. Riserless drilling enables drilling in deeper water with smaller rigs and since seawater provides the pressure gradient at the seabed, well integrity and pressure control is improved along with safety. The following will describe the benefits of dual gradient drilling in general and discuss the work needed to make riserless drilling commercial.

10 S. Sangesland, 1998. Riser Lift Pump for Deep Water Drilling. Presented at the IADC/SPE Asia Pacific Drilling Technology, Jakarta Indonesia, 7-9 September. SPE-47821-MS. https://www.onepetro.org/conference-paper/SPE-47821-MS


Riserless Drilling

Conventional drilling and dual gradient drilling require a drilling riser between the seabed and surface. This drilling riser is a large, heavy and expensive piece of equipment. The size and weight of the drilling riser is a significant contributor to the size of the drilling rig required to store, run and support this drilling riser. It is also time consuming to run the drilling riser. In addition, the BOP is deployed subsea on the drilling riser, meaning that running and retrieving the BOP is also a time consuming and expensive endeavor.

Riserless drilling is a special case of DGD. In riserless drilling the drilling riser is eliminated and replaced by a smaller bundle that returns the drilling fluid to the rig and is used in well control and operation of the blowout preventer. This smaller

bundle of pipes and control lines would be less expensive and require less drilling rig facilities to store run and support than the full drilling riser. A subsea pump is still needed to boost the pressure of the drilling fluid to pump it up this smaller line. Riserless drilling is seen as the ultimate DGD.

Status of Industry

The industry has held multiple projects, many of them joint industry projects to develop DGD and Riserless drilling technology. Several methods were tried including:

• Dual gradient drilling This system was further developed later during another project to implement that system in the Gulf of Mexico11,12,13

11 Eggemeyer, J. C.; Akins, M. E.; Brainard, R. R., et al., SubSea MudLift Drilling: Design and Implementation of a Dual Gradient Drilling System, Presented at the 2001 SPE Annual Technology Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, Louisiana, Sept. 30 – Oct. 3, 2001, SPE 71359.

12 Smith, K.L. Gault, A.D., Witt, D.E., et al., Subsea MudLift Drilling Joint Industry Project: Delivering Dual Gradient Drilling Technology to Industry, Presented at the 2001 SPE Annual technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, Louisiana, Sept. 30, – Oct. 3, 2001, SPE 71357.

13 Schumacher, J. P., Dowell, J. D., Ribbeck, L. R., et al., Subsea Mudlift Drilling: Planning and Preparation for the First Subsea Field Test of a Full-Scale Dual Gradient Drilling System at Green Canyon 136, Gulf of Mexico, Presented at the 2001 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, Louisiana, Sept. 30 – Oct. 3, 2001, SPE 71358.


• A pumping system which boosted the fluid up the main riser and did not have a seawater gradient fluid

• A system which used hollow beads to lighten the fluid column in the riser14

• A system which diluted the return drilling fluid in the drilling riser reducing its density, but not to seawater gradient

• Systems to perform mud recovery during top hole drilling have been developed and are in use commercially in several parts of the world. These systems have some water depth limitations.

• Controlled Mud Level Systems – system using a subsea pump

There are several DGD systems that are currently commercial. However, all these only put the pump at approximately 2000 ft below the rig. These systems then lower the level of drilling fluid in the riser replacing the displaced mud with air. The large difference between the weight of air (essentially zero) and typical drilling fluid is so great that pressure profile in the well nearly matches that of DGD as described above. These systems require the drilling riser remain in the system, so deepwater large drill ships are still necessary, and while they offer many of the safety benefits they do not meet the full potential of Riserless drilling.

Needed Research & Development

For Riserless Drilling to become commercial several items need further development.

Subsea Pump

While considerable work has been done on subsea pumps for dual gradient drilling, there is not one suitable for current deployment in deepwater riserless drilling. The pumps used on the commercial systems are not strong enough to pump the drilling fluid from the depths necessary for full application of riserless drilling.

A significant effort to employ DGD developed a MudLift Pump (MLP)15 designed for deployment on the seabed. However, changing economic conditions resulted in this effort being stopped, so the pump is not currently commercial for DGD. To make riserless drilling commercial, further research and development on this pump or another pump is needed. The pump must be capable of lifting mud from the seabed back to the surface and be robust and reliable. This represents a significant effort for commercialization.

Injector

Another area needing research and development is the development of an injector with a seal/rotating control device at the top. When preparing to enter the well the Bottom Hole Assembly (BHA) will need to be lowered into an injector that can be closed at the top. This injector will keep the drilling fluid in the well separated from the seawater and will seal the well before the blowout preventer is opened to allow entry into the well. The length of this injector will likely require either a support system from the surface or top buoyancy to keep it vertical. While the injector does not require an effort equal to the pump it does represent a significant effort.

Replacement Riser

The purpose of riserless drilling is to eliminate the drilling riser. However, lines from the drilling vessel to the seabed are still necessary. This new riser can be much smaller than a conventional drilling riser. It will, however, need to include a drilling fluid return line, choke and kill lines, and umbilical lines to control the blowout preventer. This effort will also need to develop methods to connect the smaller riser to the plump, the blowout preventer and the well bored. This riser should be engineered by a current riser, produces with minimal additional effort.

Well Control Procedures

Another area that will require a significant effort is the development of procedures to operate the system and maintain proper well control in the event of a well bore fluid influx. This effort needs to be robust and complete to make sure no areas are missed and that the drilling crew is fully trained and proficient on the new procedures.

Well Control

One important safety aspect of drilling oil and gas wells is maintaining well control, or preventing an unintentional flow of oil, gas or water from the well. Key aspects of well control include the following:

1) Detection – monitoring the well to detect any gain or loss of fluid as soon as possible

2) Stopping any detected influx - shutting in the well

3) Killing the well - returning the well to safe conditions

Detection is a very important aspect of well control, as a well control event which is detected early is generally much easier to address than one that is detected late after an influx is larger. Detection is performed by monitoring drilling parameters and volumes of mud in the well and surface

14 Halkyard, J., Anderson, M. R., Maurer, W. C., Hollow Glass Microspheres: An Option for dual Gradient Drilling and Deep Ocean Mining Lift, Presented at 2014 Offshore Technology Conference, Houston Texas, May 5-8, 2014, OTC-25044-MS.

15 Smith et al. 2013. Concept Alternatives and Feasibility Analyses of Dual Gradient Drilling Riser Systems. Presented at the Offshore Technology Conference, Houston Texas, May 6-9. OTC 24081-MS. https://www.onepetro.org/conference-paper/OTC-24081-MS


pits. Both dual gradient drilling and riserless drilling improve detection by adding additional instrumentation to the well. To gain full advantage of the additional detection ability, training on the use of the tools is required.

Stopping the Influx is the first step when an influx is detected. In conventional drilling, the influx is stopped by closing the BOP to apply pressure to the well. With DGD and riserless drilling, additional methods of stopping the influx such as increasing pressure below an RCD or raising the mud level higher in the riser are also available, in addition to closing the BOP to stop the influx. The use of these new methods requires the development of additional procedures and training. Both methods maintain the ability to stop the influx by closing the BOP as with conventional drilling.

Once an influx has been detected and stopped, the well must be “killed.” The killing process involves circulating the influx out of the well under controlled conditions such that further influx is prevented and increasing the density of the drilling fluid such that the bottom hole pressure is increased. Industry has developed methods, procedures and training programs for this for conventional drilling. With the addition of a subsea pump, the well control methods, procedures and training need modification to include the effects of the additional items in the system.

Losses

A gain of fluid is a well control event as formation fluid has entered the wellbore, which could develop into a blowout. In addition to the gain, losses are also a concern. Losses are a concern because uncontrolled losses can lead to the well no longer being filled with drilling fluid. If the well is not maintained full, or in the case of Controlled Mud Level, with a controlled level of mud, hydrostatic pressure applied to downhole formations is reduced, which can lead to an influx of fluids from the reservoir.

Both DGD and Riserless Drilling offer additional techniques for addressing losses, and enhance well control through improved detection and improved mitigation of losses.

Riser Margin

When drilling first moved from land to offshore, it was normal to plan wells with a drilling fluid density such that the hydrostatic of the drilling fluid would be greater than the pore pressure if the riser was disconnected from the well exposing the well at seabed level to seawater ambient pressure. This required use of a mud with a higher density than would be required to control the pore pressure with the mud column fully back to the rig. This additional mud density is referred to as Riser Margin. As drilling moved into deeper water, it became impractical to drill wells with mud of a density including Riser Margin, and this practice has been abandoned. With the use of full dual gradient drilling or Riserless Drilling, Riser Margin is restored. This improves well safety in the event of a catastrophic failure of the drilling equipment above the BOP.

OperationsSurfaceResearch related to surface operations may lead to improved safety systems. This list includes the development and exchange of good practices and recommended research topics that include:

• Measure/monitoring the culture of safety in an installation or construction team – “KPIs” for safety culture, leading/lagging indicators for safety culture. Find a common way to identify safety culture and its effects on safer operations over time. Include: engaging works input, “hassle avoidance,” stop work, following JSAs, “doing the right thing in the rain and 2 a.m. when no one is looking,” etc.…

• Increase team performance – build more effective teams with personality traits.

• Leverage technologies to augment safe work practices with dynamic engagement. – utilize apps, sensors, and other tools take JSAs, op procedures, safer work practices, etc. dynamically to the job.

• Better dissemination of knowledge throughout industry – central repository (with appropriate data analytics) of ongoing and past safety related research, JIPs, etc.; including lessons learned from incidents, design efficiencies, and around designs that works, and why (e.g. Piper)

• Reduce lifting operations – reduce the frequency of lifting using drones, lower inventory, etc. Also research the possibility of standardizing lifting and material handling

• Better capture, characterization and analysis of lifting incidents such that actionable lessons can be learned. For example, use detailed bow ties and data to provide context around lift safety data; more focused actions based on real (operational/field) data. Include dynamic lifts

• How to better transfer personnel in a less risky way. This was rated low on the GRP, however, it is a high value topic.

• Develop systems so that more tasks can be done by automation/robotics – reduce staffing needs and exposure on offshore facilities

• Develop guidelines on the integration and testing of automated safety instrumented systems (SIS)

• Explore digital transformation (ready-made apps, etc.) to extend life of production equipment, reduce maintenance and operations costs, improve productivity and increase production

• How to use current/future technology to better connect to remote/offshore facilities in an economically


feasible way; develop way to increase bandwidth for communication

• Data sharing of actual equipment reliability and failures beyond OEM specifications

Cybersecurity is also a concern. This is a common and universal problem appropriate for a government/private partnership to assist operators and contractors to have updated protocols. Constant monitoring of threats and solutions. The IADC and API have provided leadership in this area. This is a technology driven problem extending through all facets of the E&P business. The collection of data, the advancement and use of sensors to collect information, and control activities must be done with the added challenges of a cyber threat.

SubseaSubsea systems have been trending towards all-electric solutions over the past decade. Research is needed to improve reliability and reduce costs associated with fully electric solutions and how an electrification strategy could be aligned with automation and digital strategies. Advancing the reliability includes powering these systems through battery and recharging technologies.

Additional research is needed on extended reach systems – subsea boosting, headed flow lines, all electric subsea controls, seabed water treatment and pumping, electrical power distribution, resident AUVs and seabed chemical injection.

Monitoring underwater equipment, such as wellheads, manifolds, risers, anchors, pipeline end terminations (PLETS), blowout preventers (BOPs), pumps, touch down points, suction piles, chains, slip joints and pipelines is important to ensuring the safe and reliable operation of such equipment. Through environmental and/or operational conditions, such underwater equipment can experience undesirable movement, vibration conditions and temperature differentials. Conventional techniques for detecting and monitoring movement and vibration require the installation of vibration, accelerometers and/or motion sensors directly on the equipment to be monitored. Accordingly, available systems require that they be physically attached to the equipment, either by integrating a monitoring device into the equipment prior to putting the equipment in operation, or by attaching the monitoring device to the equipment while that equipment is in place. Moreover, each underwater structure to be monitored requires its own vibration, accelerometer and/or motion sensor. External temperature variations of


subsea components are an indication of internal issues within the system. For instance, hot spots can indicate cracks in insulation, overheating pumps, thinning of internal pipe walls, or other problems. Cold spots can indicate hydrate formations inside pipes or equipment that either reduce or totally block flow and other problems. Currently the only way to measure these temperature deltas are with point probes either attached to the subsea equipment or carried by a diver or remote vehicle. This provides a very sparse temperature “map” with many gaps.

Access to equipment installed on the seafloor can be difficult, and the installation of additional devices directly on the monitored equipment poses the risk of damaging that subsea equipment. The devices installed must be connected to subsea power sources or have batteries installed (which requires periodic changing). The data recorded by the devices must be downloaded periodically, which typically requires a direct connection for large amounts of data. Both of these scenarios require contact of the subsea equipment by divers, Remote Operated Vehicles (ROVs) or Autonomous Underwater Vehicles (AUVs), which is costly and risks damaging expensive subsea equipment.

It is recommended that R&D investments are warranted to provide a single compact sensor that can be deployed on inspection class ROVs and AUVs (or long-term installation) that remotely monitors underwater equipment, does not require direct contact with the equipment) and provides multiple

monitoring functions such as movement, vibration, temperature measurement and leak detection all in a single sensor.

• Identify, characterize and quantify the limits under which currently existing subsea electrical connection technologies can be maintained in optimum operating modes

• Develop technologies that will improve both the failsafe integrity and reliability of electrical connectors and penetrators in ultra-deepwater architecture and technology

ProductionResearch related to production operations may lead to improved safety as well as reduced costs of operations. Recommended development and exchange of good practices and research topics include:

• Design, development, demonstration and deployment of equipment that requires inherently less maintenance and improved safety – thereby reducing risk by removing personnel from high risk work environments. Ensure that systems are developed that improve safety without leading to complacency or limiting human capability to react.

– Research the appropriate level of automation that would manage risk without having excess automation increase risk

– Research the appropriate level of standardization.

– Develop technology to allow monitoring of physical condition of equipment

– Develop technology to better characterize and respond to upset/abnormal conditions

• Identify leading indicators to improve risk management. Explore the use of existing data to identify potential problems earlier. Universities need to work closely with industry to address this.

• Effective non-invasive hydrate detection/monitoring is a major need for on-lines flowline/safety monitoring.

• Halite prediction, management and mitigation. Halite (NaCl) is becoming a persistent problem in deeper and deeper oil and gas wells. The salt domes that confine much of the deep GOM oil and gas can saturate the produced water with halite, calcite and sulfates. Deep-water halite problem should be studied. Research could improve workover costs and disposal issues.

• Ultra-efficient long-term chemical delivery technology. For years, chemical companies have competed to produce longer and longer scale squeeze treatments by modifying the chemicals and conditions of injection and return. The alternative use large tanks of chemicals


located onsite and slowly pumped down the well, etc. The squeezes must be redone periodically, and the surface tanks take up space and must be continually re-serviced, both expensive, time consuming, and often fraught with safety and environmental concerns. By combining modern advanced methods of formulation and science it should be possible to finally treat a well once for the anticipated lifetime of the well, and furthermore to do this to mitigate numerous processes in addition to scale control, such as corrosion, biocides, and asphaltenes to mention a few. These methods must be safe, long-term effective, environmentally benign and have no adverse effects on production.

• Field sampling, analysis, data processing and automatic treatment. In the past few years, the information revolution has transformed data analysis and sharing worldwide. Many aspects of sampling, analysis and reporting are still done largely by a series of humans and commonly takes one to several weeks to obtain routine well performance data on scale formation, corrosion, biological activity, etc. Each step in this process is fraught with so much uncertainty that the information is often ignored by the operator until some operational problem causes production to slow or stop. A completely new approach is needed that starts with automatic sample collection, analysis and processing –all done onsite. This processed data should be routinely and remotely sent for examination, etc. Software can follow the well progress and anticipate, by any of numerous methodologies, the immediate and future needs for chemical/physical/production change. At the same time that the samples are being automatically taken from the well, preserved brine/gas/oil samples could be taken and stored, possibly for additional testing. Although timeliness of this new approach is fundamental, the secondary benefit of greatly improved data reliability may be equally valuable.

• Use AI technology to improve data processing to identify common trends and anticipate options in production in reservoir management. This could lead to added HS&E improvements in operations

• Advance early identification of both surface and seabed incidents. This would include better monitoring of production failures (alarms, shutdown equipment)

• Investigate systems for the early detection of gas and chemical leaks in the facility design. (Added design on blast containment, buoyancy)

• Technologies that reduce the costs of production like using alternative energy to offset costs

• Computer aided assessments of trends to predict failures and flag non-routine maintenance to reduce failures

• Cost-effective tools to conduct subsurface inspections and maintenance of infrastructure through AUVs where inspection data can be transferred back to surface in real time. These use inspection tools like imaging and LIDAR. Added to this – see the OTC paper

• Production transition to transportation of oil and gas -sensor monitoring and early shutdown of leaks, particular to HIPP systems and related gathering and export equipment

• Advances needed in real-time production monitoring and optimization, couple with data analytics

TransportationSafety statistics show that the transportation and transfer (from vessels, lifting, cranes) of people, supplies and equipment to and from offshore operations are one of the highest areas of incidents. Industry organizations like API, IADC and NOIA work together with regulators to reduce these incidences. These efforts and investments are not included in this roadmap.

Unmanned VehiclesDefining unmanned vehicles and drones for the purpose of this report: Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) operate in the air. Unmanned Ground Vehicles (UGVs) operate on all types of terrain. Unmanned Surface Vehicles (USVs) are floating systems that operate on water. Unmanned Underwater Vehicles (UUVs) operate below the surface of both shallow and deep waters.

Unmanned vehicles, whether airborne, ground or underwater, provide unimaginable capabilities and do what humans cannot or would require much more resources and time to complete. The use of this automated equipment reduces the human interaction and costs while improving the safety and operational efficiency. The technology is rapidly being developed and applied by industry. The role for government and industry is to work collectively, share data and use these advances to improve safety.

Technologies related to unmanned vehicles warrant encouragement as a common practice. Although drones provide a tremendous safety tool for industry and regulators, government R&D investments are not needed.

Remotely Operated and Unmanned VehiclesUnmanned vehicles are not new to the offshore energy industry. However, until recently the Remotely Operated Vehicle (ROV) has been the primary unmanned vehicle. ROVs have become a main stay for many critical applications including; inspection of subsea equipment, and structures, auxiliary operators for safety equipment (BOPs), resupply


of critical fluids, such as hydraulic fluid, and assembly aids, helping to hook up hoses, lines (wire rope), and electrical components. In many cases video alone from ROVs aid in the drilling and assembly process. It would be exceedingly difficult to conduct normal offshore operations today without ROVs.

The future, however, will see use of more varieties of unmanned vehicles, and much of this use will be to increase safety of dangerous operations.16

The unmanned vehicle industry is a growth industry in many areas so new rules and regulations will be required to operate in a safe manner. The energy industry should engage in this process from the very beginning to make sure the rules include the special needs of the offshore environment. In addition, research and development is needed to make sure these vehicles have enough sensors and software to make sure that they are safe in the offshore environment. This work is ongoing but will need further support to advance these vehicles to the point where the energy industry will accept them the same way they except ROVs. In addition, there are opportunities to develop frameworks for safe operations of unmanned vehicles.

The unmanned vehicles will benefit from sensor development in other areas. What is critically needed are the sensors and software (logic) to keep the vehicle safe. The driverless car development shows how important these areas are, and we need further efforts to make these a reality. Until unmanned vehicles are used the energy industry can work on the development of ROVs, including drones, land (surface) and sea-based vehicles for many of the routine and dangerous operations.

SpillsOil Spill research can be divided into the following categories:

• Prevention

• Intervention (capping, drilling fluid)

• Containment

• Response

• Advanced spill modeling and transport and fate of spilled materials

The RESTORE Act has funded various research efforts, for example, the University of Oklahoma is developing training modules to evaluate and strengthen workers’ decision-making skills by developing tools and modules that simulate loss of well control scenarios in the offshore oil and gas environment. These modules could enhance process safety in

offshore oil and gas operations by helping operators, training organizations, and regulators assess and manage preventable risks related to human factors. The effort, Virtual reality offshore operations training infrastructure: Enhancing expert containment, decision making, and risk communications, is funded by The National Academies of Sciences - Gulf Research Program (NAS - GRP).17

The Gulf of Mexico Research Initiative (GoMRI) is also funding through the RESTORE Act the Gulf of Mexico Integrated Spill Response Consortium (GISR) headed up by Texas A&M University. The Consortium is focused on evaluating the mechanisms controlling fate and transport of oil in the Gulf of Mexico through laboratory, field, and numerical experiments.18

Additional research funded through the RESTORE Act may be found at the Deepwater Horizon Project Tracker website.19

The Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) oversees oil spill planning and preparedness for oil and gas exploration, development and production facilities in both state and federal offshore waters of the U.S. All functions related to BSEE authorities in oil spill planning and preparedness are administered by the Oil Spill Preparedness Division (OSPD). OSPD primary functions include:

• Reviewing and approving oil spill response plans

• Executing government initiated unannounced exercises

• Inspecting oil spill response equipment and resources

• Auditing responder and management team training and exercises

• Providing subject matter expertise during responses to offshore oil spills

• Conducting, funding and disseminating oil spill response research

• Managing Ohmsett – the National Oil Spill Response Research Test Facility

• Supporting the National Response Team, Regional Response Team, Area Committees and the Interagency Coordinating Committee on Oil Pollution Research

OSPD funds and conducts oil spill response research and manages the Ohmsett test facility where full-scale oil spill response testing, training and research can take place with oil in a realistic, simulated marine environment. Reports detailing research on chemical treating agents, in situ burning of oil, behavior of oil, decision-making support tools, mechanical recovery, remote sensing and Arctic oil spill response are

16 Leightell, Chris. 2017. How Drones Will Transform The Oil and Gas Industry in 2018. Droneblog, June 16, 2017, https://www.droneblog.com/2017/06/16/how-drones-will-transform-the-oil-and-gas-industry-in-2018/ (accessed Oct. 3, 2018)

17 https://dwhprojecttracker.org/project/55818 https://dwhprojecttracker.org/project/17719 https://dwhprojecttracker.org


located on the Oil Spill Response Research page.20 Any research and technology development managed by OESI will be coordinated with BSEE.

The Oil Pollution Research and Technology Plan (OPRTP) (2015) presents the collective opinion of the 15 departments and agencies that constitute the members of Interagency Coordinating Committee on Oil Pollution Research (ICCOPR), regarding the status and current focus of the federal oil pollution research, development and demonstration program (established pursuant to section 7001(c) of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (33 U.S.C. 2761(c))). The statements, positions and research priorities contained in this OPRTP may not necessarily reflect the views or policies of an individual department or agency, including any component of a department or agency that is a member of ICCOPR. This OPRTP does not establish any regulatory requirement or interpretation, nor implies the need to establish a new regulatory requirement or modify an existing regulatory requirement.

ICCOPR selected 150 priority oil pollution research needs using a deliberative process described in Chapter 6 of the report. These priorities represent the federal opinion on where federal research programs should focus in order to make the most progress to addressing the overall research needs. Each federal agency should consider these priorities as they make their research investments. ICCOPR encourages non-federal research programs to use these priorities as well. ICCOPR will track progress toward addressing these priorities during the next planning cycle and establish a new set of priorities at that time. The research needs listed in the OPRTP related to offshore are listed in the appendix. Many of these research needs are also embedded in the research roadmap of this report.

PreventionComments were provided on prevention that included the collection and exchange of data and information:

• Using a more robust process to collect and evaluate lagging indicators and develop predictive leading indicators is possible. We need the ability to record (capture) and exchange data from safety equipment related failures and near miss incidents. The current system provides human error on how things are reported, and how the data is exchanged, while protecting the sources from liability. The volunteer SafeGulf reporting system should be industry wide with a more dynamic way to report information throughout the year with better filters to assure the information reported is accurate.

• The industry should move to a system closer to the aviation industry where all data is captured, reported and exchanged.

Technology development and research needs related to prevention include early kick detection, shearing technology, acoustic activation and continuous monitoring of well-bore integrity. These needs include the following enablers:

• Process

– Measuring Safety and Environmental Management Systems (SEMS) effectiveness

– Sharing data information for continuous learning and improvement

– Enhancing Management of Change (MOC)

– Recognizing hazards in complex/interrelated activities

– Moving from training to continuously applied skills and knowledge, coaching and mentoring

20 https://www.bsee.gov/what-we-do/research/oil-spill-preparedness/oil-spill-response-research


• Technical

– Automation and data systems delivering decision support

– Sensors and well-control models delivering decision support

– Real-time data systems delivering enhanced Management of Change (MOC) and teamwork

– Enhanced barriers

– Better experienced simulators and exercises

Technology development in the areas of robust instrumentation, data stream analysis, alarms and automatic control systems, well flow detection algorithms, and enhanced kick detection sensors are all critical components for well safety.

Intervention (capping, drilling fluid)Research and technology development needs related to intervention include:

• Develop new methods to release the lower marine riser package (LMRP) without riser tension

• Develop methods for high angle LMRP release without damage and high angle reconnects

• Develop new quick release for risers at or above the flex joint/stress joint

• Extend containment concepts to subsea producing operations and equipment

• Remove a damaged or non-functioning BOP stack. Be able to use an ROV and surface intervention vessel to unlatch and remove a BOP stack to gain access to a subsea wellhead

• Evaluate possibilities to regain full control over all important BOP functions if the rig has released the BOP stack, but the LMRP is in place and there is no control connection to the pods and/or pods are inoperative

• Effect of plume generated forces on ROV activity and containment deployment

Relief Wells Typically, relief well contingency planning is performed on many exploration wells to help understand the feasibility of a kill operation during a worst-case scenario blowout from the target formation during the final hole section. While this evaluation can provide significant value to the design team for the particular hole section of interest, it fails to provide a true complexity assessment of the well design by neglecting to evaluate all potential flow scenarios leading up to the final hole section, as well as after the well has been put on production. A relief well intervention project is often thought by many to occur primarily for blowout

events that take place during drilling operations. However, relief wells are rarely utilized in such an occasion. More often, a relief well is used to perform complex P&As where conventional access through the wellhead/tubulars has been lost and conventional P&A methods cannot be used. This understanding can allow for optimization of the well design to further reduce the operational risk throughout the lifecycle of the well. The process to identify the target will drilling and assure the planned well is executed has not advanced to the point where research to advance methods on how to optimize a proposed well design for intervention well operations is warranted.

ContainmentTo contain an oil spill, the first step is to diagnose the condition of the barriers that have been breached, whether it is a loss of well control, pipeline or another situation. Research and technology development in the areas of instrumentation and data analysis after loss of a barrier can include:

• Diagnose mechanical condition of well after loss of control

• Assessing and mitigating risks posed by underground blowouts

• Diagnose the secondary capabilities and systems for a backup BOP (e.g. acoustic activation, Remotely Operated Vehicles (ROV) intervention)


• Analyzing systems to regain control of a BOP

• Enhanced methods and equipment for subsea well control and well flow containment

• Studying ways to stop uncontrolled well flow at the seafloor. Papers have been written that suggest in the well design a configuration below the BOP could be considered for access on the use of a well-flow barriers. One area is creating hydrates for containment. Another is to use epoxy resins that if injected would seal the flow when combined with setting agents, somewhat like actuators are used for shear.

Airborne Oil Spill MonitoringThe oil and gas industries along with others have for a very long time been concerned about both clandestine (purposeful) and accidental spills. Accurate knowledge is necessary to properly respond to these spills. Instrumentation now exists that can provide valuable information on how to handle the spills and what equipment to deploy. Multiple studies and workshops, following the Deepwater Horizon accident, have indicated that the best way to deploy these sensor technologies is on an airborne platform21 (Alessandro Vageta, 2018).

Current Technology

An airborne multisensor platform has been tested and deployed in the Gulf of Mexico to locate and measure oil spills. The service is commercial and is primarily being deployed on accidental spills. This platform gathers large amounts of data and, using analytics and trained personnel, reduces the data to significantly smaller amounts and displays the data on maps for those on the ground to use in responding to the spill. These data are then transmitted over a microwave radio data-link17 (Alessandro Vagata, 2018), where they are used to determine the response needed to minimize the damage from the spill.

Future Technology

In the future it may be possible to reduce the size of the sensors and further automate data analysis. The most important and near-term probable improvements will be to link and use satellite imaging to help deploy airborne platform. However, the most needed research and development work is an economic model to deploy the technology on a regular basis to catch and stop unknown accidental spills and clandestine spills.

ResponseBSEE (and former organizations) have maintained a comprehensive, long-term research program dedicated to improving oil spill response options. The major focus of the Oil Spill Response Research (OSRR) program is to improve the methods and technologies used for oil spill detection, containment, treatment, recovery and cleanup. The OSRR program is a cooperative effort bringing together funding and expertise from research partners in government agencies, industry and the international community to collaborate on oil spill research and development (R&D) projects. The research funded by BSEE may be found on their website.22

The Environmental Response Management Application® (ERMA) is a web-based Geographic Information System (GIS) tool that assists both emergency responders and environmental resource managers in dealing with incidents that may adversely impact the environment. ERMA integrates and synthesizes various real-time static datasets into a single interactive map, thus providing fast visualization of the situation and improving communication and coordination among responders and environmental stakeholders.23 The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) funds this effort as well as related research.

Given the variety of tools to respond to a spill, there is uncertainty about the best suited technology to respond to a spill. In this context, studying current spill response methodologies and their operational limits, as well as their scalability, would shed light onto the best alternative(s) for a given type of response (small scale, deepwater, surface, large scale, etc.). In-situ burning could be studied under this category as well.

Relief wells are one of the most efficient ways to stop a spill. However, the need for this type of well occurs under different circumstances than regular production wells: the relief wells need to be drilled faster and safer than production wells and be precise in their target location. Research could help determine the optimal or quickest way to drill a relief well. Poedjono, et. al. recently published a paper discussing the complexity of drilling a relief well.24 This paper discusses the relief well workflow process and provides insight into the seven phases of the workflow, including planning, approach target, locate target, follow target, intercept target, killing operations, and plug and abandon operations.

Mechanical oil recovery tools are inefficient, recovery rates are less than 10 percent. Technology development is needed

21 Alessandro Vagata, Guilherme Pinnho. 2018. Tactical Airborne OilSpill Remote Sensing: Poseidon, A new Operational Approach. Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, May 7-10, 2018. OTC-28946-MS.

22 https://www.bsee.gov/what-we-do/research/oil-spill-preparedness/oil-spill-response-research 23 https://erma.noaa.gov/gulfofmexico/erma.html 24 Poedjono, B., Macresy, L., & Sikal, A. (April 30, 2018). Managing Risks in Relief Well Operations: From Planning to Execution. Offshore Technology Conference.

doi:10.4043/OTC-28883-MS


to devise new separation systems. Similarly, the use of chemical dispersant is a topic for areas of improvement. Research is needed to determine what happens with the oil that gets dispersed: does it degrade, or does it reside on the seafloor. In addition, research is needed on the optimal location of where to place the dispersant. The Ohmsett facility in New Jersey25 is currently the only one that provides an opportunity to conduct research on oil in the water.

Potential research topics concerning oil spill response include:

• In-situ burning: need to improve decision making on what conditions are best applicable for the technique

• Relief well drilling: need of methods and technologies to get close, faster access to the well

• Oil dispersant research and approval process: investigate mixing of dispersants directly in the plume

• Remote sensing: wide area, in-well/near well, well flow rate

• Mechanical clean-up: top hat, skimmers, separation

• Determining how to incorporate mechanical dispersion methods (vs. chemical dispersion methods) into emergency response processes

• Wellbore collapse: induced, why it didn’t occur

• Near shore cleanup: development of technology and science-based decision process

• ROV: data collection-swarm, spill mitigation, buoy-on location data

• Health impacts monitoring

• Fracturing out around a well to release pressure/ wellbore integrity around a well

• Emergency response: convene workshop of the responders to discuss issues of planning, communication, leadership/decision, local communities, what data or science can improve decisions and bow-tie mitigation

25 https://www.ohmsett.com


26 2017 ATCE SPE Paper Development of a Technology Transfer Model in the 2020 Era for the Oil and Gas Industry by J. C. Viscomi, Petroleum Technology Transfer Council; L.G. Schoeling, NeoTek Energy Inc.; T. E. Williams RPSEA

Technology TransferIt is essential that technology developed under any research project be rapidly and effectively applied by operators exploring for and developing new hydrocarbon resources. The goal for technology transfer is to maximize the impact of program technology by engaging stakeholders all along the technology value chain, from conceptual development to commercial application.

This report identifies the need for better dissemination of knowledge throughout the industry. Avoiding overload or complexities in many IT developed systems where the process of collecting and obtaining relevant data prevents the effective use of well-intended systems.

There is a plethora of conferences, and while peer-to-peer conferences are a good way to exchange lessons learned, many valuable lessons learned are filtered because of restrictions to report on learnings from failures including corporate restrictions to avoid liability. There is no-one good place to access ongoing offshore related research, JIPs and technical advances.

The information needed includes risk awareness, competence on how to deal with these risks and operational decisions.

The “21st Century Ocean Energy Safety Research Roadmap” noted that technology transfer or acceptance is difficult in every industry; however, the oil and gas industry has had it especially hard with volatile commodity prices, variability of technology sources and the regulatory uncertainty. The definition of technology transfer varies from organization to organization, however, in its most literal sense, technology transfer is the movement of a useful technology from development into widespread use across a community, a region or even and entire industry. The oil and gas industry is no stranger to the utilization of new technologies. In fact, oil and gas companies have been using emerging technology to find and produce resources for decades. This paper describes a program that the end user of the technology (operator) can utilize to get quick access to technology without significant costs in order to increase oil/gas production and decrease operating expenses.26 The paper described several fundamental components including: 1) technology leadership guided by industry to initiate and manage the technology transfer process, 2) problem identification activities that help create a two-way dialogue between industry and leadership organization, 3) documented demonstration projects rooted in findings from problem identification activities 4) focused technology workshops serving to disseminate demonstration project findings and 5) regional resource centers with outreach resources serving as local and online repositories

for easy future access from industry. The paper identifies various sources of research and technology development funding illustrating how an effective technology transfer process can improve the time between idea and technology commercialization. In the last few years the landscape of the oil and gas industry has changed dramatically in relation to technology.

A key focus should be that once projects are identified, projects are to be adequately designed to build the confidence of all stakeholders. This requires the scientific assessment of risks, the evaluation of existing environmental impact mitigation methodologies and technologies, and the development and testing of novel concepts based on these assessments and the new data and insights that are being generated during the rapid development in offshore or from multiple shale plays across the U.S. It also requires the accurate, timely and objective dissemination of information. The movement of the program toward the integration of technical results and the demonstration of their application in actual development situations is critical in accelerating the adoption of improved technical solutions and assuring the public and other stakeholders of the efficacy of these solutions.

Future research should complement the efforts of other agencies and organizations to ensure that these issues are addressed, and the potential positive impact of the shale gas resource is fully realized. An active and successful technology transfer network involves all stakeholders and outreach activities contributing to increasing public confidence in safe and responsible development.

Coordination Technology transfer begins before the project is started, rather than being solely an activity that is initiated after a project is completed, as technology transfer occurs within the timeframe and throughout the progress of any given research project. Interactions between researchers, end users and regulators throughout the R&D process not only serve to create interest and demand for the new results, but also provide valuable feedback to investigators to ensure that their efforts are well aligned with anticipated needs. When a project reaches completion, successful examples and case studies generated during the project are the basis for formal technology transfer efforts. These efforts include workshops and other means of dissemination.


Leveraging with Existing Conferences, Forums and WorkshopsThere is an abundance of industry conferences, forums and workshops. These events are produced and sponsored by a variety of entities, including for-profit companies, governmental/regulatory agencies, professional societies and other non-governmental organizations (NGOs). Event objectives for organizers may range from simply earning a profit to transferring technology, so that event quality and effectiveness at meeting desired goals can vary significantly.

It is also important to have an established working relationship with OTC, PTTC, SPE, AAPG, SEG, AADE, IPAA,

IADC, Hart’s, PennWell, World Oil, American Oil and Gas Reporter, state and regional oil and gas associations and others. Participation assists in timely and cost-effective dissemination of R&D project results and targeting existing events with audiences that have specific needs for the technologies being presented.

Webcasts/PodcastsWebcasts and podcasts have become a popular and effective medium for communication. Presentations by researchers and discussions among researchers, service companies and producers regarding potential applications are among the types of material that might be appropriate for this medium.

International EffortsThere are a variety of international programs that are addressing the research needs of offshore oil and gas development. A few of them are summarized below. When developing, prioritizing and funding a research program it is important to consider what facilities exist, what programs exist and what others around the world are emphasizing in various research efforts. Collaboration and leveraging of resources should be a priority of all stakeholders.

International Committee on Regulatory Authority Research and Development (ICRARD) – ICRARD is focused on transferring knowledge in the area of health, safety and environment in the international petroleum sector. The Technology, Assessment and Research Program collaborates with national and international government and industry organizations to ensure that high priority topics are chosen for research work and duplication is minimized. Major companies operate in many countries, and in each, certain organizations assess and ensure the use of sound technological developments. ICRARD’s purpose is to coordinate research activities, exchange information and promote research cooperation between these organizations. ICRARD is open for membership to any interested country. The current country members are: Australia, Brazil, Canada, Mexico, New Zealand, Norway, The Netherlands, the United Kingdom and the United States. To promote further cooperation, the terms of reference have been modified to accept participation, not only from the regulatory bodies, but their representative research branches and any national oil companies that support offshore research and development programs. Research activities performed by ICRARD can be prioritized in the areas of: ageing and life extension, emerging energy technologies and deepwater drilling and activities. ICRARD U.S. works closely with BSEE and BOEM to promote the research program.

API-IOGP Europe Cybersecurity Conference – The American Petroleum Institute (API) and the International Association of Oil & Gas Producers (IOGP) teamed up to host the second annual API-IOGP Europe Cyber security Conference in June 2018. Discussions were held on how to manage cyber risks, future challenges and how the latest technologies may assist in countering cyber threats and make cyber assets more secure. Cybersecurity is a priority of the oil and natural gas industry. The industry faces the threat of cyber-attacks from a variety of actors, including nation states, seeking to steal intellectual property and/or compromise industrial control systems (ICS).

Research Council of Norway – Each of the Research Council’s programs has its own webpage, in Norwegian and English. In most cases, the Norwegian webpage will be more comprehensive than the corresponding English page,

which usually only contains basic information about the research program.

Centers for Research-based Innovation (SFI)

The vision of the SFI is to become the international knowledge and research hub for the next generation of advanced autonomous mechatronic systems for offshore operation and condition monitoring of topside drilling systems under the control of land-based operation centers, to ensure safe and efficient operations in deeper water and in harsh environments. The SFI shall contribute significantly to growth and innovation in the industry, creating jobs and business with potential both within the target sector and beyond, such as the maritime industry, with a net positive impact on society.

DEMO 2000 (DEMO2000)

The DEMO 2000 program seeks to ensure long-term competitiveness in the oil and gas industry and continued profitable and sustainable recovery of petroleum resources on the Norwegian continental shelf. The aim of the DEMO 2000 program is to demonstrate and qualify innovative products and systems in close collaboration between the supplier industry, petroleum companies and research institutes. Demonstration and qualification activities are to be carried out under realistic conditions offshore or in suitable facilities on land.

Large-scale Program for Petroleum Research (PETROMAKS2)

The Large-scale Program for Petroleum Research (PETROMAKS 2) has the overall responsibility for research to promote responsible, optimal management of Norway’s petroleum resources as well as future-oriented industrial development in the petroleum sector. The scope of the program is limited to upstream activities, and all research projects must clearly address research questions related to petroleum resources on the Norwegian continental shelf. Activities under the program will encompass strategic basic research, knowledge and competence-building, researcher recruitment, applied research, and technology development.

Marine Resources and the Environment (MARINFORSK)

The research program on Marine Resources and the Environment (MARINFORSK) is responsible for research related to ocean and coastal areas and is the Research Council’s most important thematic initiative in the field of marine research.

Norwegian Centers of Excellence (SFF)

One of the 21 Centers of Excellence (COE) created under the SFF program is the Center for Arctic Gas Hydrate, Environment and Climate (CAGE) hosted by UiT the Arctic


University of Norway, which is in Tromsø. The CAGE Center is investigating the role of gas hydrates in the arctic areas, and the effects they will have on the oceans and our global climate in the future. The main goal is to study methane release from hydrates gas beneath the Arctic Ocean to unveil potential impacts on marine environments and global climate systems.

Research Centres for Petroleum Activities (PETROSENTER)

Two research centers (PETROSENTER) were established in 2013 as a result of the Government’s white paper. St. 28 (2010-2011) “An industry of the future-Norway’s petroleum activities”. The white paper Report. St. 7 (2011-2012) “The High North” is a key document for one of the centers. The Research centers are time-limited, and are characterized by broader objectives, a longer-term perspective and a more targeted focus in order solve identified challenges for the exploitation of the Norwegian petroleum resources. The two centers are focused on: 1) improved oil recovery on the Norwegian Continental Shelf, and 2) petroleum activities in the northern areas and the Arctic.

Student Entrepreneurship (STUD ENT)

The STUD ENT scheme is a national competitive arena in which students and recent master’s degree graduates, in cooperation with a university or college, may seek financial support for realizing their knowledge-or research-based business ideas. In the application review process the Research Council uses only external referees with relevant experience in relation to the individual grant applications.

The Industrial Ph.d. Scheme (NAERINGSPHD)

Under the Industrial Ph.D. scheme (NAERINGSPHD) companies may apply for support for a three-year period for an employee seeking to pursue an ordinary doctoral degree. The doctoral candidate must be employed by the company and the doctoral research project must be of clear relevance to the company’s activities.

The Norwegian RD & D CCS programme (CLIMIT)

CLIMIT is the national program of research, development, piloting and demonstration of CO2 capture and storage (CCS) technologies for power generation and other industrial sources. The program now includes CCS in fossil fuel-based power generation and industrial point source emissions. The program is managed by Gassnova in cooperation with the Research Council of Norway.

SINTEF – SINTEF is the largest independent research organization in Scandinavia and has the objectives of creating value through knowledge generation, research and innovation, and developing technological solutions that are brought into practical use. SINTEF has eight different research institutes; SINTEF Petroleum Research investigates issues related to Ocean Energy Safety, with focus areas such as:

• Drilling and Well: laboratory experiments and field testing that focuses on making results available for joint industry partner operational teams, in order to contribute to faster, safer and more economical drilling and well operations, while also caring for the long term integrity of the wells

• CO2 – Storage: deep underground storage is the only current means of disposing of large amounts of CO2, safely and permanently, thus reducing global-warming

• Exploration: applying geological and geophysical expertise and developing in-house software to model all elements of a petroleum prospect

• Flow Assurance: to ensure safe and economical oil and gas transport through pipelines from the reservoir to the point of sale efficient engineering tools are needed

• Improved Recovery: about half of the oil in known North Sea fields has been produced and finding additional reservoirs is becoming increasingly difficult. An alternative is to find means of extracting the remaining known oil from existing reservoirs, i.e. Enhanced Oil Recovery

Canada – The Government of Canada has several ongoing science and research initiatives related to oil spill preparedness and response. This includes increasing the investment in improving the security of the transport of oil products, spill recovery and responses, by focusing research on the fate, behavior and effects of various oil products in different spill conditions and under extreme Canadian climates.

Canada R&D – The Canadian government set up an $80 million on oil spill research from the $1.5-billion Oceans Protection Plan, looking at how to prevent spills as well as their effect on the marine environment.

The Oil Spill Response Science (OSRS) Program supports the Government of Canada’s Oceans Protection Plan (formerly known as World-Class Tanker Safety System). The program received $5 million for research, development and demonstration (RD&D) projects focused on improving recovery technologies and processes for the cleanup of heavy oil products spilled in marine environments.

The Offshore Energy Research Association of Nova Scotia (OERA) is an independent, not-for-profit organization that funds and facilitates collaborative offshore energy and environmental research and development, including the examination of renewable energy resources and their interaction with the marine environment. OERA’s mission is to lead environmental, renewable and geoscience energy research that enables the sustainable development of Nova Scotia energy resources through strategic partnerships with academic, government and industry.


ABS-China Offshore Technology Center – Established in partnership with Shanghai’s Jiaotong University, the center focuses on new technology research for offshore facilities. While the research efforts will support development activities in the Greater China region, applied research will also be conducted on a wide range of oil and gas development issues. ABS has established four research centers around the world as an extension of the society’s Corporate Technology Research & Development Group. This network of offshore research centers compliments work carried out within ABS and its close association with leading universities around the world.

China National Offshore Oil Corporation – With the view of adapting to the company’s development strategies, enhancing independent innovations, collecting all forces to tackle key technologies having impact on the industrial competitions, developing core technologies of independent intellectual property and boosting the international competitiveness of this industry, the China Offshore Oil Engineering Corporation (COOEC) has established the Technical Center for Offshore Engineering under the framework of the Engineering Technical Center of China National Offshore Oil Corporation (CNOOC).

Centre for Offshore Research & Engineering (CORE) – CORE was established in 2003 at National University of Singapore (NUS) and was officially launched in 2004 by the Economic Development Board (EDB), to help strengthen Singapore’s performance as an oil and gas hub. CORE aims to develop advanced technologies and enlarge the talent pool in offshore engineering research and development through working with other local R&D institutes, international experts and partners in the oil and gas industry. Research areas include offshore structural systems, hydrodynamics and wave-structure interactions, offshore geotechnics, subsea engineering, petroleum engineering and geosciences.

Brazil (Petrobras) – The Leopoldo Américo Miguez de Mello Research and Development Center (Cenpes) is one of the largest industry research complexes in the world. The mission of the center is to provide and anticipate technological solutions in products and processes for Petrobras. The center is more than three million square feet of laboratories, simulation and immersion rooms designed to simulate various energy industry processes. In Brazil, Petrobras has partnerships with more than 100 universities and research institutes communicating over 49 thematic networks dedicated to technology-related topics of strategic interest to all corporate areas.

Australia – The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) is an independent Australian federal government agency responsible for scientific research. Its chief role is to improve the economic and social

performance of industry for the benefit of the community. Offshore oil and gas research focuses on understanding subsea geology and enabling the safe, efficient and sustainable development of Australia’s offshore resources. CSIRO is working with industry, governments and academia to provide scientific knowledge and advice for offshore oil and gas; covering the environmental, economic and social factors associated with the entire oil and gas value chain. In addition to developing new technologies for subsea operation, technologies that CSIRO has developed include:

• Flow assurance systems to ensure uninterrupted flow of oil and gas in subsea pipelines and access to previously stranded gas

• Hydrocarbon sensor arrays to monitor the movement of oil spills

• A global ocean forecasting system that provides information on oceanic conditions to help manage Australia’s diverse area of maritime operations

• Technology to repair pipelines quickly and safely with minimal disruption and loss of operation downtime

• Methodology to collect and analyze subsurface formation pressure, temperature and salinity from oil and gas wells

CSIRO has identified four strategic opportunities:

1. Enhanced Basin Productivity – Technology breakthroughs will help lower cost of locating resources and producing reserves.

2. Digital Operations and Maintenance – Rapid evolving digital technologies provide opportunities for safer and more efficient O&M of assets.

3. Advanced Environmental Solutions and Processes – Developing technologies and processes that reduce the environmental and social impacts of field developments and processing plants may also provide financial benefits to the sector.

4. High-Value Diversification – Businesses should consider adapting their business models and diversifying into higher-value product and service offerings to gain a competitive advantage and hedge against an uncertain future energy mix.

CSIRO’s roadmap27 discusses these items in further detail.

2 Oil and Gas – A Roadmap for Unlocking Future Growth Opportunities for Australia, CSIRO, October 2017. www.csiro.au


Summary and Recommendations More opportunities to leverage and collaborate with ongoing R&D are needed.

The BP Horizon spill funds include: NAS Gulf Research Program, Restore Act Funding, NOAA Restore Act Science Program, TX Restore Act Center of Excellence (Harte and UH led Subsea Systems), NFWF Gulf Fund, GoMRI, MOEX Clean Water Act Penalties, NAS R&D Grants. see: dwhprojecttracker.org

The Department of Interior and BOEM have funded studies on mapping existing oil and gas infrastructure including issues regarding aging infrastructure. Many of these studies are out of date and incomplete. It is recommended that a comprehensive study on the Gulf of Mexico to identify needs for evaluation, certification, risk and upgrades should to be conducted that will:

• Create leverage wherever possible on funding, personnel, equipment, operations and other resources

• Create synergies through integration or investments in cross-cutting and enabling technologies, allowing the whole to be greater than the sum of its parts

• Allow for investment in high-risk, high-reward activities and ensure that good project management derives maximum learning benefit from failures that are expected from a portfolio with an appropriate risk profile

• Avoid the funding of many disparate small and/or one time, single-use projects, which generally minimize the potential for high-impact results

• Focus, as the portfolio matures, on a relatively fewer number of larger and/or higher potential impact projects, which create legacy opportunities with appropriate provisions for follow-on funding and resources

• Identify expertise and technologies outside of the natural gas and oil industry that may have applications to help achieve the mission of the Program

• Assure safety and environmental protection goals are addressed and documented – this also assures new technologies will achieve faster regulatory approval

Successful research in many cases requires demonstration in real-word field site laboratories prior to field implementation. This testing will help in operator acceptance, regulatory approvals and the uptake of commercialization. There are a number of these facilities with mission specific functions. The use of these type of resources should be a prerequisite in funding for some high-risk potentially high-reward R&D.

Operator engagement in the process is critical because:

• The operators will be the organizations called upon to actually deploy and operate the new technologies developed under the program

• The service, supply and manufacturing industry representatives provide a unique perspective concerning development issues related to novel technologies

• The safety and environmental concerns are fully aware of new developments and specific technological gaps and needs within their areas of expertise

• Academic researchers provide an additional link between fundamental and applied research that can shed light on newer, promising, beyond the horizon technologies

• Stakeholders need to be aware of ongoing efforts in order to reduce duplicative programs, to pursue collaboration and to optimize research


Appendix

Additional References Not SitedThe following references were reviewed during the development of the research roadmap.

Key ReferencesNational Academies Press: The Human Factors of Process Safety and Worker Empowerment in the Offshore Oil Industry: Proceedings of a Workshop http://nap.edu/25047, At a workshop held January 23–24, 2018, in Houston, Texas, more than 100 experts in offshore oil and gas drilling, safety procedures and government regulation gathered to discuss ways to prevent accidents in the offshore oil industry by applying understanding of the human factors involved in process safety and worker empowerment to reduce and mitigate hazards.

Oil Pollution and Technology Plan, 2015-2021

Title VII of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA 90) established the Interagency Coordinating Committee on Oil Pollution Research (ICCOPR) to “… coordinate a comprehensive program of oil pollution research, technology development and demonstration among the Federal agencies, in cooperation and coordination with industry, universities, research institutions, state governments and other nations, as appropriate, and shall foster cost-effective research mechanisms, including the joint funding of research.” Section 7001(c) of OPA 90 required ICCOPR to establish a federal oil pollution research and development (R&D) program. Pursuant to Section 7001(b) of OPA 90, ICCOPR developed the Oil Pollution Research and Technology Plan (OPRTP) to implement the Federal research and development program. The purpose of the FY 2015-2021 version of the OPRTP, and subsequent revisions, is to provide current assessments of the oil pollution research needs and priorities. ICCOPR intends to update this OPRTP every six years to reflect advancements in oil pollution technology and changing research needs. This ongoing planning process will capitalize on the unique roles and responsibilities of member agencies to address oil pollution research and development needs and maintain awareness of research needs.

Other References1. Ocean Energy Safety Institute: “Human Factors and

Ergonomics in Offshore Drilling and Production: The Implications for Drilling Safety,” December 2016. Available through http://oesi.tamu.edu.

2. Interagency Coordinating Committee on Oil Pollution Research (ICCOPR): “Oil Pollution Research and Technology Plan: Fiscal Years 2015-2021,” September 2015.

3. Dunlop, R.A., Noad, M.J., McCauley, R.D., Scott-Hayward, L., Kniest, E. Slade, R., Paton, D. and Cato, D.H.: “Determining the Behavioural Dose-Response Relationship of Marine Mammals to Air Gun Noise and Source Proximity,” The Company of Biologist Ltd, Journal of Experimental Biology, pp. 2878-2886, doi: 10.1242/jeb.160192, May 22, 2017.

4. Hinton, J. J., Glencross, C. M., Zamora, T., Knode, T., & Dingee, A.: “Getting to Zero and Beyond,” Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/190485-MS. April 16, 2018.

5. SPE Summit: “Safer Offshore Energy Systems Summary Report,” August 17, 2018.

6. Enayatpour, S., & van Oort, E.: “Advanced Modeling of Cement Displacement Complexities,” Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/184702-MS. March 14, 2017.

7. Liu, P., Mullins, M., Bremner, T., Benner, N. and Sue, H-J.: “Interfacial Phenomena and Mechanical Behavior of Polyetheretherketone/Polybenzimidazole Blend under Hygrothermal Environment,” The Journal of Physical Chemistry, B 2017, 121 (21), 5396-5406 DOI: 10.1021/acs.jpcb.7b01533.

8. Ng, F.: “Well Control Simulation – A Tool for Engineering and Operations,” Wild Well Control. Available at www.wildwell.com.


9. Smith, K.L., Gault, A.D., Witt, D.E., and Weddle, C.E.: “SubSea MudLift Drilling Joint Industry Project: Delivering Dual Gradient Drilling Technology to Industry,” SPE 71357. Presented at the 2001 SPE ATCE, New Orleans, LA, Sept. 30 – Oct. 3, 2001.

10. Eggemeyer, J. C., Akins, M. E., Brainard, R. R., Judge, R. A., Peterman, C. P., Scavone, L. J., and Thethi, K. S.: “SubSea MudLift Drilling: Design and Implementation of a Dual Gradient Drilling System,” SPE 71359. Presented at the 2001 SPE ATCE, New Orleans, LA, Sept. 30 – Oct. 3, 2001.

11. Schumacher, J.P., Dowell, J.D., Ribbeck, L.R. and Eggemeyer, J.C.: “Subsea Mudlift Drilling: Planning and Preparation for the First Subsea Field Test of a Full-Scale Dual Gradient Drilling System at Green Canyon 136, Gulf of Mexico,” SPE 71358. Presented at the 2001 SPE ATCE, New Orleans, LA, Sept. 30 – Oct. 3, 2001.

12. Kendall, H.A.: “Training Techniques in Well Control,” SPE 5276. Presented at the SPE-European Spring Meeting 1975, London, England, April 14-15, 1975.

13. van Kuilenburg, R. and Li, J.: “2 Million Pounds Force Electrical Ram BOP,” OTC-28964-MS. Presented at the Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, TX, April 30 – May 3, 2018.

14. Vagata, A., Pinho, G. and Hengstermann, T.: “Tactical Airborne Oil Spill Remote Sensing: Poseidon, A New

Operational Approach,” OTC-28946-MS. Presented at the Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, TX, April 30 – May 3, 2018.

15. Madaleno, A.L.F., Neto, S.L.S., dos Santos, L.A. and de Oliveira, C.A.L.: “Operational and Safety Improvements of Applying Real-Time Analytics in a Drilling Contractor RTOC,” Presented at the Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, TX, April 30 – May 3, 2018.

16. Leightell, C.: “How Drones Will Transform the Oil and Gas Industry in 2018,” June 16, 2017.

17. Halkyard, J., Anderson, M. R., and Maurer, W. C.: “Hollow Glass Microspheres: An Option for Dual Gradient Drilling and Deep Ocean Mining Lift,” Offshore Technology Conference. doi:10.4043/25044-MS. March 25, 2014.

18. ABS: “ABS Leads Industry in Addressing Jackup Safety Through Targeted R&D,” available through www.eagle.org.

19. Blikra, H., Pia, G., Wessel, J. S., Svendsen, M., Rommetveit, R., and Oedegaard, S.I.: “The Operational Benefit of Testing HPHT/MPD Procedures Using an Advanced Full Scale Drilling Simulator,” Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/167958-MS. March 4, 2014.

SEG SEAM Pressure Prediction and Hazard Avoidance Through Improved Seismic Imaging Project The objectives of the SEG SEAM Pressure Prediction and Hazard Avoidance through Improved Seismic Imaging project, 12121-6002-02, were to: 1) deliver a benchmark simulated seismic dataset that will be used by industry and academic research institutes to investigate improved approaches for prediction of shallow hazards and deep over-pressured reservoirs; and 2) reduce both safety and environmental drilling risk through improved pre-drill pressure prediction methodologies that are derived from iterative interpretations of the Phase 1 GOM simulated dataset (from project 07121-2001), enhanced for pore pressure-rock physics-seismic models.

The project consisted of two main elements: (1) model construction and (2) seismic simulation. Model construction involved first building a complex geological model of a region that contained physically realistic pore pressure scenarios. Then rock physics had to be applied to define elastic properties of the rocks that could be used for seismic simulation. Separate reports have been prepared by various vendors that worked under contract to the project to conduct various elements of the project like basin simulation, rock physics, downscaling, seismic simulation and quality control. These reports contain significant details. A part of the project also focused on time lapse imaging of producing reservoirs. The goal here was to study the feasibility of using modern numerical methods to build a complete simulation framework for understanding, predicting and detecting the changes in an oilfield reservoir that occur after wells are drilled and begin to produce — the changes in the rocks, pore fluids and pressures that accompany reservoir flow and production.

The technical effort consisted of a six-month feasibility study, organized by SEAM with the help of the Society of Petroleum Engineers (SPE). The core project team consisted of technical staff representing SEAM, SPE, RPSEA and Chevron. During the construction of the pore pressure model, 20 2D basin

simulations were conducted using one cross-section of the SEAM Phase 1 model to better understand the relationship between pore pressure generating mechanisms and the resulting distributions of pore pressures and rock porosity. Parameters for the 3D basin simulation were assessed based on the outputs of those simulations. The interaction between those involved in basin simulation with those involved directly with pore pressure prediction in the Gulf of Mexico led to a tremendous exchange of knowledge. A series of 3D basin simulations were conducted during the construction of the geological model. State-of-the-art approaches for rock physics were modified and applied to transform the geological model into a geophysical model that could be used for simulation of acquired datasets.

The RPSEA/SEAM Pore Pressure Prediction project continued past the Sept. 2016 end date using participant funding. More work was performed on improved data processing, rock physics, pore pressure analyses, additional simulations and use of 3D subsets of the simulations to test how different acquisition geometries impact the reliability of pore pressure estimates. Data and reporting were made available to members effective Oct. 2016. Data sets were made available to universities next, then to the public for the cost of data copying and distribution in Oct. 2017. The project extension to the case study for time dependent effects on seismic measurements during reservoir production was a natural addition to the pore pressure project, since once the first well is in a reservoir one can see pressure changes with 4D seismic imaging and improved reservoir and geomechanical modeling. A multi-company, multi-million-dollar project called “Life of Field” has been created as a result of the successful completion of the RPSEA extension project. One of the many benefits of this project will be to will help us better understand how to detect and manage stranded oil and gas. This project has tremendous upside for reducing offshore geohazard risk and warrants additional funding.


SPE-GRP Research AreasThe following information from the SPE-GRP forum was reviewed during the development of the research roadmap.

THEME GRP# RANK OPPORTUNITY NAME OPPORTUNITY DESCRIPTION

Automation / Remote Actions D9 LBetter instruments that have self diagnosis/self correcting including flow sensors

Better instrumentation that has self diagnosis/self correcting including flow sensors

Automation / Remote Actions D11 L Employee less rig floors Implement technology for employee less rig floors

Automation / Remote Actions D34 H Customizable automated well control Understand variables/parameters for customizable automated well control

Automation / Remote Actions D38 M Drone usage Improved delivery of supplies offshore using drones

Automation / Remote Actions C21 M Use technology to reduce or eliminate manning

Utilizing technology (more reliable equipment, sensors, digitalization, etc) to improving human/machine offshore interface

Automation / Remote Actions P2 H How to reduce staffing on offshore facilities

Can physical (mechanical) systems be designed so that more tasks can be done by automation/robotics

Automation / Remote Actions P3 M Alternative ways to conduct surveillances / operator rounds

Better ways to assess physical conditions through use of automation to remove personnel from exposure

Automation / Remote Actions P4 L Reduce dependence on maintenance staff (for example, I&E techs)

Create systems and methods to simplify maintenance such that less physical human inspections and activities are needed

Automation / Remote Actions P6 H What is the appropriate level of automation

Too much automation may lead to higher levels of risk; when is automation too much automation?

Automation / Remote Actions P15 H Remote access to expertiseHow can we help increase access to expertise without needing physical presence (i.e. remote mentoring/coaching, etc.)

Automation / Remote Actions P29 H Reduce lifting offshore How to reduce the frequency of lifting through the use of drones, lower inventory, etc.

Communications D33 L Lessons learned faster Improved mechanisms for sharing lessons learned

Communications P48 L How do organizations communicate better vertically

How to better communicate throughout the organization to assure that the messages are being relayed timely and accurately

Communications P57 L Fragmented nature of industry response to specific technical issues

Should industry act in a collaborative way to upcoming and ongoing technical issues (i.e. oxygen scavenging)

Communications P59 M Safety risks as a result of divestures and acquisitions What are effects of M&A on safety?

Crews (People) D15 M Rethink how we hire and promote people Improved criteria for hiring and promoting people

Crews (People) D17 M Personal fatigue limits Improved analysis of fatigue limits by job classification

Crews (People) D24 H Crew resource management for operational integrity

Improved implementation of CRM principles extended to include operational integrity situations

Crews (People) D29 M How to evaluate a safety culture, accounting cost control is the enemy

Improved methodology to evaluate safety culture towards High Reliability Organization principles

Crews (People) D31 H

Well site leadership training, situational awareness training, training to understand risk vs. consequence, focusing human performance in the midst of external distractions, identifying confirmation bias, teambuilding prior to crew going to rig, accelerated/continuing education for critical positions, improving transition from work force employee to supervisor

Develop/implement an accredited framework to optimize effective leadership training programs and decision making for offshore personnel



Crews (People) D32 H Individual competency on barrier management Improved barrier management

Crews (People) C13 M Improving assurance of fitness for duty - mental and physical

Reliable and workable ways for teams to check that all members are in a “safe mental place” – not tired, not worried and knowledgeable. Improved understanding the mental and physical status

Crews (People) C14 HHow do we measure/monitor the culture of safety in an installation or construction team

"KPIs" for safety culture, leading/lagging indicators for safety culture. Common way to identify safety culture and its effects on safer operations over time. Include: "Hassle avoidance," Stop work, Following JSAs, "Doing the right thing in the rain and 2 a.m. when no one is looking," etc.

Crews (People) C18 L Operating and construction staff Competencies

Establishing, developing and assuring the competencies and knowledge of operating and construction staff (getting the right "know how")

Crews (People) C20 H Increasing team performance Build more effective teams with personality traits. Can we build a team with profiling? E.g., can we profile people “Match.com” to people with jobs

Crews (People) P7 HHow do you make sure people are not overly reliant on their safety/ equipment systems?

How to ensure that there is an appropriate level of balance between relying and trusting the systems without sacrificing human thought and decision making

Crews (People) P17 H

Understanding the future skillset of workforce and what types of analytics will be necessary to identify those skills

Can we forecast the skills that will be needed to competently deploy new technology (i.e., real-time monitors, drones, etc.)

Crews (People) P18 LWhat modifications of equipment will be necessary to accommodate future workforce

How does equipment need to modify to accommodate future workforce

Crews (People) P25 L How to better communicate data to right people at the right time

What are the best methods to communicate in a timely way to the appropriate people in a way that is understandable

Crews (People) P26 M What is the appropriate time in position for various personnel

Understanding what the "right" time in position is to allow for safe operations without sacrificing ability to move/promote

Crews (People) P34 MPractical and pragmatic understanding of how team dynamics can be improved

What are the practical ways to assess and understand team dynamics at a facility

Crews (People) P39 L Practical implementation of existing research in personal fatigue

How to leverage existing research on personnel fatigue into practical and pragmatic solutions

Crews (People) P45 H

Better way to drive personal accountability to everybody (primarily "front-line" workers) around their safety responsibility

How to better understand and drive personal accountability to workforce around their safety responsibilities

Crews (People) P46 L Operator training standard What does good training for a production operator look like?

Crews (People) P47 H How to make sure training standards are upheld and used

How can companies get an assurance that the training standards are being used and are useful

Crews (People) P55 H How to maintain progressive competency

How to use tabletop, drills, etc. to better train operators to keep their skills sharp and respond to changes to the facility

Crews (People) P56 HThe effects of prioritization on normalization of deviance/risk nominalization

How does prioritization and work schedule impact culture

Crews (People) P64 L Effects of overall societal health on fitness for duty

What are the effects of changing overall societal health conditions (i.e. increased instances of obesity, etc.) on safety planning and risk?

Crews (People) P65 M Emotional/mental effects of working offshore

What are the psychological, emotional and mental effects of working offshore, especially working offshore over a longer period of time



Crews (People) Pre6 LCompetency assurance for individuals involved in design and interpretation phase

Removal of company or personal bias that leads to unsafe or inefficient designs for a well/project.

Data Collection & Analytics D5 M Instrumented riser and improved riser analysis Improved riser system failure analysis/characterization

Data Collection & Analytics D21 M

Application of high reliability concepts on well site performance - understand failure mode analysis, how to process big data, determination of leading indicators

Interpretation of data for predictive failure prevention.

Data Collection & Analytics D22 L Improved procedures around shallowwater/open hole sections Better characterization of near mud line geohazards

Data Collection & Analytics C12 H Better utilization of incidents to increase lifting safety

Better capture, characterization and analysis of lifting incidents such that actionable lessons can be learned. E.g., use detailed bow ties and data to provide context around lift safety data; more focused actions based on real (operational/field) data. Include dynamic lifts

Data Collection & Analytics C6 H Better dissemination of knowledge throughout industry

Central and useful Repository (with appropriate data analytics) of ongoing and past safety related research, JIPs, etc.; including lessons learned from incidents, design efficiencies and around designs that works, and why (e.g. Piper)

Data Collection & Analytics C7 M Better integration of operational knowledge into design process

Giving 'designers' practical knowledge and feedback to better inform design; perhaps include training and field exposure of technical staff. Including knowledge of past learnings

Data Collection & Analytics P20 L Better information collection systems What is the data that we actually need to drive improvements in operations, MIT, etc.

Data Collection & Analytics P21 MBetter understanding of the things that would impact the safe handling of fluids

This includes things like reservoirs characteristics, intervention chemical characteristics and behaviors, etc.

Data Collection & Analytics P24 HHow to better data mine and understand existing data (company and industry)

Use existing data that is already collected and reported to identify signals of potential problems earlier

Data Collection & Analytics P32 H Sharing of equipment reliability data How to better share and use reliability data around specific equipment and components

Data Collection & Analytics P37 H Better leading indicators How to build predictive indicators

Data Collection & Analytics P44 L How to understand how facilities will and have reacted to storm events

Is there a way to use existing and new technology to understand the current state of facility to react to a storm event and after a storm event

Environmental Impact D6 M Alternative contingency systems for spill response

Alternative contingency systems for source control response

Environmental Impact D13 M Alternatives to use of diesel fuel Improvement of air quality through implementation of alternatives to diesel fuel for all OCS vessels

Environmental Impact D14 L Characterization of natural surface seepage Improved characterization of natural surface seepage

Environmental Impact D35 H Mechanical dispersionIntegration of mechanical dispersion methods (in contrast to chemical dispersion methods) into emergency response processes

Environmental Impact D36 L View of the future - deployment of secondary well-control ends the problem

Improved effectiveness of deployment of secondary well control

Environmental Impact C9 L

Science-based rules for overall environmental result from offshore facility/infrastructure decommissioning

Clear assessment criteria and protocols for 'rigs to reef'/offshore infrastructure to deliver best safety and environmental benefit

Environmental Impact P62 M How to better monitor fugitive and actual emissions

Are there better ways to measure fugitive and actual emissions to better measure impact to environment and safety, especially on aging facilities?



Innovation / Evolution / Technology D1 M

Improve primary cement jobs/tough cement, solidification of drill mud to cement.

Better zonal isolation barrier to minimize potential impacts on operations. Research historical solutions for solidification of drill mud to cement for current applicability

Innovation / Evolution / Technology D2 H

Eliminate diverter in favour of riser gas handling, closed loop as a default in lieu of open loop, Automated management of bottom hole pressure

Technology development to operate under a closed system (continuous circulation)

Innovation / Evolution / Technology D3 H Seismic ahead of the bit, downhole

gas influx detection Improved detection of potential kicks


Annular pressure buildup mitigation techniques, Identification of pressure in multiple annuluses

Better well-bore integrity characterization


Better bop control systems, better measurement of BOP systems. How do we take advantage of differential pressure for improved BOP performance, corrosion proof sealable surfaces in BOPs

Better BOP systems/controls/corrosion/instrumentation

Innovation / Evolution / Technology D8 L High-speed downhole telemetry Improved high-speed downhole telemetry

Innovation / Evolution / Technology D10 L Improve data transmission to/from

shore to remote sites

Improve data transmission to/from shore to remote sites to enable availability of information to offshore personnel

Innovation / Evolution / Technology D12 M Drilling equipment integrity/reliability Improve drilling equipment reliability

Innovation / Evolution / Technology D18 H Human-machine zone management/

worker position detectionHuman-machine zone management/worker position detection

Innovation / Evolution / Technology D19 L

How to shorten lifecycle on new products, shorten adoption time for new products

Improved process for new product development and implementation

Innovation / Evolution / Technology D23 H Better ways to manage gas exposure

situations Improved gas detection/sensor capabilities

Innovation / Evolution / Technology D37 H Pore pressure Application of real-time pore pressure prediction,

monitoring and related decision making

Innovation / Evolution / Technology C22 H

Leveraging technologies to augment safe work practices with dynamic engagement.

Utilize aps, sensors and other tools take JSAs, op procedures, safer work practices, etc. dynamically to the job

Innovation / Evolution / Technology C25 L Identifying and remediating

asphaltenes in flow lines

Tools and processes to identify that there will be an Asphaltene problem in wells and/or flowline, and how to remediate the same. Predictive tools are inadequate, deposits may defeat/compromise safety barriers, remediation chemicals are dangerous, and intervention activities create hazards.

Innovation / Evolution / Technology C8 L Improved/more efficient leak

detection from pipelinesIdeas: fiber optics, and/or barriers to getting access to government satellite imagery for leak detection

Innovation / Evolution / Technology P1 M Phase separation onshore Move phase separation onshore to simply offshore

operations

Innovation / Evolution / Technology P5 H How can we create equipment that

needs less maintenance?Create equipment that requires inherently less maintenance

Innovation / Evolution / Technology P8 M Subsurface separation Doing 3-phase separation subsurface, then reinject or

release fluid

Innovation / Evolution / Technology P10 H Higher usage of thermocomposite

pipe on facilitiesHow to make thermocomposite pipe more useful (i.e., sizing) and economically feasible

Innovation / Evolution / Technology P12 M Everlasting paint Paint that does need to be replaced

Innovation / Evolution / Technology P13 M Visual indicators of stressed

equipment (piping, vessels, etc.)Visual indicators that alert local personnel to the stress/pressure the underlying equipment is placed under



Innovation / Evolution / Technology P14 M Visual tools to allow for easier ID of

human factorsWearable technology that would allow for easier ID of human factors at work (i.e., stress, fatigue, etc.)

Innovation / Evolution / Technology P16 M Better connectivity in an offshore

environment

How to use current/future technology to better connect to remote/offshore facilities in an economically feasible way; how to get higher bandwidth

Innovation / Evolution / Technology P22 L Leveraging nanotech in initial design Incorporating nanotech in the design and monitoring

of the fluids and equipment

Innovation / Evolution / Technology P38 L How to better transport people How to better transfer personnel in a less risky way

Innovation / Evolution / Technology P66 H What will future production look like?

What will future greenfield production look like with all of the new technology, new designs, new materials, etc. being introduced? How will the way tasks and activities are completed need to change?

Innovation / Evolution / Technology Pre12 M

Novel measurement techniques that improve characterization in front of the bit

Physics research and development of tools and techniques to gather more data in front and ahead of the bit

Innovation / Evolution / Technology Pre13 L Formation strengthening plan

Can near well bore stresses be altered without adverse effects to widen the drilling window between PP and frac gradient

Innovation / Evolution / Technology Pre15 H Shallow hazard management and

mitigationNovel and/or improved methodologies for hazard assessment and kick detection during riserless drilling

Innovation / Evolution / Technology Pre16 M Drilling through salt interface

Techniques or technologies for determining formation stability, strength, fluid and rock type and pressure at salt interfaces

Innovation / Evolution / Technology Pre2 M Topographic Rossby wave forecasting Improved numerical modeling for TRW phenomenon

Innovation / Evolution / Technology Pre4 H Better pre-drill prediction of pore

pressure and frac gradient

Increasing the certainty and reliability of pore pressure prediction and frac gradient. Specify the accuracy tolerance that will lead to a step change in forecasting accuracy of pore pressure and frac gradient including principal stresses

Innovation / Evolution / Technology Pre5 H Real-time validation of seismic

predictionValidating velocity assumptions and depth conversions utilizing LWD data prior to drilling hazard interval

Inspection/Testing of Equipment/Barriers C1 H Safely testing equipment

Establish best practices for procedure and frequency to ensure appropriate location/environment for better/safer tests. (e.g., relief valve testing procedure, and SPPE testing frequencies, high-pressure equipment)

Inspection/Testing of Equipment/Barriers C2 M Remote barrier testing methodologies

Be able to measure slow/small leaks in remote well or subsea barriers. Measuring slow/small leaks because of volume involved or avoid the hazards flow line leak upstream of boarding valve.

Inspection/Testing of Equipment/Barriers C5 H Leveraging technology for better

inspection

Drones, etc. confined spaces, fluid testing. Better ways of inspecting risers, mooring systems, structures (fixed and floating). Novel usages of augmented reality to improve construction and inspection. (Digital twin) and better measurement of accumulated effects of time history and cycles/strain/corrosion

Inspection/Testing of Equipment/Barriers P19 H

SMART technology for existing inspection and maintenance activities, especially in brownfields

What is the technology that will allow for better monitoring of physical condition of equipment that handles inconsistent/multi-phase fluids

Inspection/Testing of Equipment/Barriers P42 H How to assure the reliability of MIT

programs on offshore facilitiesHow to assure that the MIT activities are being done in a way that supports reliable operations

Interface Management & Systems Engineering P41 M

How to better characterize software interactions when multiple software is in use

Research into an easier way to understand how to characterize and assess the software interactions between multiple software applications, including when changes are made

Interface Management & Systems Engineering P49 M What are the effects of over designing? Better understanding of how to design, and not

overdesign, to allow for safer operations of facility



Interface Management & Systems Engineering P50 M Alarm response How to set up alarms to allow for appropriate human

response

Interface Management & Systems Engineering P51 H How to better write and manage

procedures

What are the key characteristics that lead to effective procedure writing, management, and communication, including a better understanding of how humans understand and receive information

Interface Management & Systems Engineering P53 H Early warning signs for procedural

drift

How to better write/manage procedures to ID procedural drift and deviations or abnormal responses earlier - how to know when you've gone off procedure

Interface Management & Systems Engineering P61 M

Effects of various joint operatorship/ level of interface between different entities on same facility

What are the effects of various interfaces on safety

Interface Management & Systems Engineering P63 M What is the effect on safety of sharing

logistical support?

Does increased sharing of logistical support (i.e., transport, etc.) have an impact on safety and environmental performance?

Interface Management & Systems Engineering Pre17 L Cross discipline well design efficiencies

(SCRUM agile)

Risk reduction and process efficiency via a cross discipline interface design process for the lifecycle of a well

Interface Management & Systems Engineering Pre18 L Time-bound decision making

How to introduce into the design process a timeline or hard stop to allow for sufficient time to plan and execute

Regulators, Regulations & Laws D20 M

Mandatory common reporting and follow up system for reporting, Minimum time from reg submission to industry receipt for learning events

Improved regulatory action to protect staff, employees, companies from punitive consequences resulting from safety data reporting

Regulators, Regulations & Laws D26 L 3-year term rig commitment for

activation in OCS waters3-year term rig commitment for activation in OCS waters

Regulators, Regulations & Laws D27 L

Industry-driven standardize rig acceptance criteria, regulatory harmonization across countries

Regulatory standardization across operating environments

Regulators, Regulations & Laws D28 M Publish comparison of operator

regulatory performanceDevelop criteria for evaluating operator regulatory performance

Regulators, Regulations & Laws C15 M Transform the relationship between

the regulators and the regulated

Reset relationship between regulator and regulated to encourage cooperation rather than punishment. Create aligned goals around of improving safety. May include: better training of regulators – in operations design, risk assessment, behaviors. Benchmark regulators from industry/regulators to see what they say about doing impact on industry.

Regulators, Regulations & Laws C19 M Jones Act interpretation for

construction activities

Clear legal differentiation from transportation and construction activities so that we can use safer equipment on heavy lift operations. (Jones Act issues)

Regulators, Regulations & Laws Pre14 L

Define the common standards around the definition of significant sands to be used in WCA/WCST (Well Containment Analysis / Well Containment Screening Tool)

How can we optimize and standardize the risks and weighting for definition of a risk (significant sands with regard to HC and H2O bearing sands)

Regulators, Regulations & Laws Pre8 L

Establish minimum standards methodologies for PP/frac gradient prediction in GOM

Consider revising/updating DEA 119 as potential standard for PP/FC solutions

Regulators, Regulations & Laws Pre9 M Sharing of data and knowledge of risk

across the industry

Study the value of sharing the data (proof of concept) and what will give maximum return on safety with minimum impact on competition

Risk Analysis/ Understanding D16 M

Qualified individual designation for company corporate officers for operational events, centralized critical response team

Improve competency assurance for low-frequency/high-consequence incidents including more realistic relevant drills

Risk Analysis/ Understanding D25 H Probabilistic risk assessment for critical equipment

Develop guidelines for probabilistic risk assessment for critical equipment



Risk Analysis/ Understanding D30 H Cybersecurity offshore Improved mechanisms to optimize cyber safety/security

Risk Analysis/ Understanding C10 H Using AI to better identify scenarios for risk analysis

Find better ways to identify scenarios that create low likelihood/severe consequence events. Can use AI on past events? What about using AI on P&IDs?

Risk Analysis/ Understanding C17 MBetter understanding of risks associated with “brownfield” developments

Improving documentation, working knowledge, etc. to make better informed decisions on brownfield developments. Perhaps diagnostic tools to understand the current state

Risk Analysis/ Understanding C3 M Optimization of field development, project and life cycle risks

Better manage overall risk of well construction, subsea, production design. Optimized trade off of risks between “silos” balance construction, drilling well risk and facility risk

Risk Analysis/ Understanding C4 L Developing contracting strategy reduce and manage overall risk

Understanding how various contracting strategies/approaches can affect project safety/execution/cost/success. Ensuring clarity of R&R and where decisions are made

Risk Analysis/ Understanding P9 M

Do differences between different operating environments (i.e., deepwater vs shelf, brownfield vs greenfield) require different solutions?

Trying to apply “one-size-fits-all” solution to all types of operations may not be most effective in improving safety - are there inherent differences that require different types of solutions

Risk Analysis/ Understanding P36 M Study effects on safety due to the cyclic nature of O&G industry

To understand with the effects of cyclical nature O&G business on safety performance over time

Risk Analysis/ Understanding P40 L How to better evacuate an offshore facility

Better understanding of how to more safely and more effectively evacuate a facility

Risk Analysis/ Understanding P43 L How to better react to hurricanesIs there a way to use existing and new technology to more effectively react to hurricanes and limit their impacts to human and equipment

Risk Analysis/ Understanding P54 H How to respond to upset conditions How to better characterize and respond to upset/abnormal conditions

Risk Analysis/ Understanding P58 H How to improve risk management What are the most value-adding ways to improve risk management in offshore industry?

Risk Analysis/ Understanding P60 L Effects of various ownership structure on safety

What are the effects of various ownership structures on safety

Risk Analysis/ Understanding P67 LWhat are cybersecurity risks specifically to production and process control?

What are the cybersecurity risks and how best to combat them specific to production, process control and increased automation

Risk Analysis/ Understanding Pre1 HLoop current / eddies - Improve prediction and extend further out in time (3+ months target)

Cheaper ways to monitor loop / eddies over large areas. Monitor further upstream - i.e., Caribbean inflow. Advanced statistical forecast methods

Risk Analysis/ Understanding Pre10 L Well plan assurance with additional industry input

Peer review of well plans taking into account probability versus frequency – "UL listed"

Risk Analysis/ Understanding Pre3 M Improved hurricane evacuation decision making

Demonstrate reliability of ensemble modeling andevaluate evacuation risk model

Standardization / Simplification C26 L Standardization of construction

processes or aids

Evaluate where standardization of construction aids, processes and practices could improve safety. (e.g., scaffolding, tagging, rigging, factors of safety, etc.)

Standardization / Simplification P30 H Standardizing lifting and material

handling

Standardize lifting for onshore and offshore applications (i.e., standardized lifting weight limits, standardized lifting standards, standardized connections, etc.)

Standardization / Simplification P33 H What is the "basic minimum" of

process safety?

How to characterize the minimum process safety requirements and characteristics applicable to all O&G industry


The following information was reviewed during the development of the research roadmap.

Prevention• Improve performance and decision-making by

developing innovative training methods including readiness evaluations, gaming and simulators

• Conduct research to determine current level of expertise for operators within modern transportation systems including marine, rail, truck and pipeline

• Improve and develop sensors, instrumentation, command electronics, and advanced data interpretation technologies and alert systems, including data analysis and expert systems to enhance decision-making capabilities

Offshore Facilities and Systems• Evaluate corrosion and corrosion mitigation processes

at the splash zone for offshore platforms

• Study effects of ice forces, scour and gouging with respect to prevention of oil spills from offshore facilities

• Conduct studies related to the longevity and integrity of metallic materials used under extreme conditions in relation to new surface treatments and alloys

Vessel Design• Develop designs and methods to improve survivability

of ships and structures in damaged condition

• Develop improved analytical tools (procedures, computer models and software) to evaluate performance of structures in collisions, allisions and groundings, so that estimates of damage extent and loss of oil-tight boundaries are available

• Develop improved designs and analytical tools (procedures, computer models and software) for the design and operation of ships and marine structures in extreme environments

Deepwater Drilling and Technology• Evaluate subsea blowout preventer control pod

batteries including assessments of battery design, life expectancy, performance and reliability with respect to different manufacturers

• Conduct a gap analysis on current managed pressure drilling (MPD) techniques to identify future critical needs

• Study the interaction and potential for failure at the interface of each system (formation - cement - instrumentation) and develop advanced downhole tools to assess the integrity of the system in situ

Reservoir Characterization • Conduct research, including improved modeling,

on the conditions (e.g., in situ stress, sediment rheology, fluid pressure, flow rate and blowout duration) where hydrocarbon pathways to the sea floor are established through hydraulic fractures and reactivated natural faults

• Characterize reservoirs to identify geologic conditions, such as bounding strata weaknesses that need special engineering considerations to ensure hydrocarbon containment

• Characterize reservoir conditions associated with offshore Arctic oil and gas provinces to identify potential issues in areas of offshore clathrates, sea ice, and other effects

Habitats and Species Baselines• Study ecological structure and population of key Arctic

indicator species and protected species (including those with subsistence and ecosystem importance) particularly in areas that are likely to be explored/developed for oil and gas extraction in the near to midterm

• Study and synthesize existing information for intertidal habitats (i.e., sand beaches, rocky and cobble habitats) regarding productivity, species diversity, community structure and the effects of oil on these parameters, including recovery time, with consideration for regional variation

Offshore Research Needs – from the ICCOPR – Oil Pollution Research and Technology Plan (OPRTP) (2015)


• Study ecological structure and population of key indicator and protected species in deepwater and ultra-deepwater (including those with subsistence and ecosystem importance), particularly in areas that are likely to be explored/developed for oil and gas extraction in the near to midterm

Oceanographic and Geological Baselines

• Conduct a series of large-scale Arctic studies of oceanographic exchanges, shelf basin exchanges via wind and eddies, coastal boundaries, under-ice river plumes and sea ice boundaries to better inform pre- and post-spill modeling and response

• Develop a better understanding of coastal processes unique to the Gulf of Mexico (i.e., changing shorelines due to erosion and deposition from the Mississippi River) to help inform protection and recovery strategies for oil spills

• Develop methodologies for using baseline flow characteristic data (such as tidal energy mapping and other energy sources) to support shallow water inlet protection strategies during oil spills

Environmental Baseline Planning • Develop models of background variability relative

to habitat and species data in various environments where oil is transported or extracted so that the impacts from oil or other stressor(s) can be delineated from those of natural variation

• Evaluate the adequacy of existing ecosystem-based scientific studies for legal defense of Natural Resource Damage Assessment (NRDA) injury assessments for outer continental shelf areas that are currently in production or likely to be explored/developed

• Conduct baseline studies of microbial communities in a variety of areas where oil is transported or extracted (e.g., Great Lakes, rivers, ports and offshore) and their potential for hydrocarbon degradation in the event of a spill

Response Management Systems• Develop techniques and/or software for automatically

translating data collected from different sources into common, usable formats

• Develop spill planning and response tools based on gap analysis of the availability of countermeasures in different Arctic locations and seasons

• Develop improved information systems for decision-making, including the use of data from coastal

mapping, baseline data and other data related to the environmental effects of oil discharges and cleanup technologies

Structural Damage Assessment and Salvage

• Study methods for remotely and rapidly determining whether a cargo tank contains sea water and the extent of the water bottom (height of the oil/water interface from the bottom of the tank)

• Develop technologies and techniques to better determine the presence of oil and the probability of its release from specific sunken vessels

• Develop improved use of remotely operated vehicles (ROVs) and emerging technologies for underwater assessment of vessel and marine structure integrity

At-Source Control and Containment• Study the range of failure states and flow rates for

which subsea containment may be required

• Develop subsea containment equipment for integration into spill response operations, including relevant procedures and standards for training personnel

• Determine how extreme environmental conditions affect at-source containment and control (including Arctic, ultra-deep and other extreme conditions)

Arctic Behavior and Modeling • Develop improved modeling tools and trajectory

models in order to predict spreading of oil in different weather and ice conditions in the Arctic

• Study the fate of oil in Arctic conditions; including open water, ice infested water and oil trapped in ice, particularly as it relates to the effectiveness of spill response countermeasures and the potential for ecosystem exposure

• Study Arctic-based indigenous microbial populations in the water column and benthic sediment, and define rates of microbial processes to determine the role such communities have in the oil weathering process

Oil Behavior Models • Study the oil droplet size from deepwater blowouts,

the thickness of surfacing oil and the behavior of dissolvable components

• Study bottom substrate dynamics that might affect submerged oil fate and behavior


• Study how oil degrades in intertidal and shallow subtidal habitats (e.g., cobble, pebble, sand, mud, mussel beds, mangrove and marsh)

Transport Models• Use best available scientific data on oil weathering

and fate to develop and improve transport model parameters (e.g., volatilization, solubilization, emulsification and biodegradation)

• Develop/improve oil trajectory and fate models that can be used during spill response to predict the behavior and transport of dispersed oil and verify/validate them in an appropriately designed experimental setting or during actual spills

• Develop a decision template or conceptual model of the conditions under which oil might become submerged that considers oil properties and environmental characteristics.

Oceanographic Models• Link ocean circulation models to observations (e.g., ocean

observing systems) to better incorporate real-time data

• Increase development and availability of high-resolution nearshore models

• Integrate upper sea surface turbulence, with particular emphasis on quantifying horizontal and vertical diffusivities and the rate of energy dissipation, to improve 3D and 4D spill transport models

Emerging Crude (including oil sands products [OSP], Bakken, etc.)

• Conduct research on the fate and transport of oil sands products in freshwater and marine environments

• Study the persistence of OSP in marine and freshwater environments

• Conduct research on the chemical and physical characteristics of various crudes (including blends of dilbit, synbit and Bakken crude) to better understand how to address spills

Remote Detection• Develop technologies that enable remote oil spill

detection and mapping in low visibility conditions (e.g., night, fog)

• Develop enhanced technology for detecting oil under ice, encapsulated in ice and floating within broken ice fields

• Identify specific characteristics of crude oil exposed to the full microwave radiation spectrum (at hyperspectral

intervals) and develop high resolution sensors for oil spill visualization, detection and quantification

Monitoring• Develop a refined SMART or equivalent protocol and

operational procedures for use during subsea and surface responses based on recent experiences

• Develop technology to rapidly analyze physio chemical properties of spilled oil to improve decision-making regarding dispersant use and in situ burning (ISB)

• Develop new technologies to improve oil, dispersant, and oil/dispersant detection in the water column and on the seafloor, and for monitoring dispersant effectiveness in the field

Submerged Oil Detection• Study the potential of acoustic systems and light

detection and ranging (LiDAR), both individually and as packaged suites, to detect submerged oil on the seafloor and in the water column

• Develop new or improve existing chemical sensors for detecting submerged oil

• Develop methods to calibrate the degree of oiling on snare sampling systems with the amount of oil on the seafloor or in the water column

Control and Recovery Technology• Develop new mechanical recovery methods/

technologies for logistically challenging Arctic conditions (e.g., cold water, ice, broken ice)

• Develop new tools to control and recover oil that is submerged, suspended in the water column or on the seafloor

• Develop control and recovery capabilities for oil in river conditions with pack ice and ice flows

Recovery Operations and Testing• Develop/improve standardized testing protocols

(especially for wave tanks) that yield cross-comparability of results and establish practical oil recovery limits that are achievable during response operations

• Conduct field tests of cleanup techniques and create protocols for various habitats and conditions, including Arctic conditions

• Develop surrogates for different types of oil to be used for training and for research and development testing


Shore Containment and Recovery• Study the effectiveness of a range of technologies for

shoreline or nearshore cleanup, including dispersants, bioremediation agents, shoreline cleaners and mechanical methods

• Study the effectiveness of surface washing for shoreline cleanup and develop standards for surface washing

• Conduct research to assess the ability of chemicals to prevent oil from reaching or sticking to shorelines

Dispersant – Cold Weather and Ice Conditions

• Understand the “window of opportunity” for potential deployment of all dispersants in the Arctic and sub-Arctic

• Study the best dispersants for different types of crude oil over a range of environmental conditions, including ice infested waters

• Study the fate and effects of subsea application of dispersants in Arctic waters, including in ice infested water and under ice

Dispersant – Behavior • Study the transport and detection of oil, dispersants,

and oil/dispersants in surface and subsurface environments, including deepwater

• Study the impact of natural processes such as flocculation and hydrate encapsulation on oil and dispersed oil

• Quantify degradation rates of chemically dispersed, physically dispersed and undispersed oil, including biodegradation kinetics

Dispersant – Impacts• Improve protocols for testing toxicity of dispersants and

other chemical agents to better represent real-world exposure scenarios

• Study and evaluate dispersant and dispersed oil chronic and sub-lethal effects on key species, and subsequent long-term ecological effects for varying real-world exposure scenarios and durations

• Collect existing dispersed oil toxicity data and studies to aid in risk-based decision making regarding use of dispersants at spills

Dispersant – Efficacy and Effectiveness • Study the relative effectiveness of various surface

dispersant delivery techniques/systems

• Study the effects of subsea dispersant application on subsequent mechanical recovery of oil

• Develop methods and quantify the factors needed to scale results of laboratory and wave tank experiments so that they become more accurate indicators of real-world effectiveness

Dispersant – Fate • Develop studies to quantify the weathering rates

and final fate of chemically dispersed vs. physically dispersed oil droplets under different scenarios

• Study the differences in the effects of photolysis on undispersed, chemically dispersed and physically dispersed oil droplets

• Study the adhesiveness of physically and chemically dispersed oil on organisms and habitats, including how adhesion changes over time and with oil type

Dispersant – Subsurface • Study the relationship between subsurface application

of dispersants, the characteristics of oil at the surface and the fate of oil constituents, including volatile organic compounds (VOCs), in the water column and at the surface

• Develop conditions of operability for dispersant use in the subsea, including the characteristics of the most effective dispersant, application methods and dispersant to oil ratios

• Conduct research involving the application of dispersants at high pressure and low temperatures, including quantifying the mixing energy at the wellhead

In Situ Burning – Effectiveness and Impacts

• Develop improved pre- and post-spill plume modeling to determine whether an ISB should be conducted and facilitate decisions on measures to protect local populations, including the potential effect of “fall-out” from a smoke plume that goes over land-based subsistence resources

• Study ISB residues, especially toxicity, physical properties and bioavailability of contaminants contained within the residue matrix, especially regarding potential benthic community effects

• Conduct additional research to improve ISB effectiveness in the Arctic and better define its applicability under various conditions


In Situ Burning – Planning and Technology

• Conduct a comparative study of ISB vs. mechanical, chemical and natural attenuation methods in cleanup of wetlands or marshy areas

• Develop enhanced designs for containment of burning oil, such as reusable and high seas capable booms

• Develop methods to improve and sustain combustion of emulsions

Alternative Chemical Countermeasures

• Study the potential use of chemical herders to enhance response capabilities of ISB, recovery of oil-in-ice or recovery of oil in confined/covered spaces

• Study the value and impact of chemical herders with respect to the timing for deployment of various countermeasures, particularly with respect to a second-stage recovery effort during ice melt to target oil that had previously been entrained in sea ice

• Conduct laboratory and field tests of chemical agents for breaking or inhibiting emulsions

Oily and Oil Waste Disposal• Develop innovative techniques for oil/water separation

decanting systems for various oil types

• Develop methods to recycle sorbents and reduce the waste created by using sorbents as a recovery option

• Develop methods to temporarily store or dispose of recovered oil/pollutants in remote or harsh environments

Bioremediation and Biodegradation• Study the relative effectiveness and environmental

impacts of bioremediation technologies

• Develop an improved understanding of bioremediation processes with a wider range of conditions/environments (e.g., cold water), multiple types of oil, nutrient enrichment, toxicity and eutrophication

• Study the factors controlling bioavailability of petroleum hydrocarbons in estuarine and freshwater sediments

Species Impacts• Study the effect of exposure to oil on physiological

functions of organisms (immune, reproductive, and other vital systems) potential impacts on individual fitness, and population vitality rates, abundance and trends

• Develop an increased understanding of the environmental effects of ISB, chemical dispersants and herding agents on Arctic ecology

• Conduct research that examines the state of knowledge of specific NRDA metrics that would help identify specific population, physiological, habitat and exposure data to support future NRDA activities in Arctic areas that are likely to be explored/developed for oil and gas extraction in the near to midterm

Toxicological and Sub-Lethal Impacts• Develop relevant biological markers of exposure and

guidelines for their use

• Conduct research on key species to determine the long-term, sub-lethal effects of short-term exposure to oil

• Study the bioavailability and toxicity of oil sands products in freshwater and marine environments

Sunken and Submerged Oil Impacts• Develop an understanding of the pathways of exposure

and mechanisms of chronic toxicity of submerged oil to benthic communities

• Develop approaches for long-term monitoring of the impacts of submerged oil spills after termination of cleanup efforts


• Develop an understanding of the potential threats of chronic releases from sediments containing oil and oily residues

Ecosystem and Habitat Impacts • Develop relevant exposure conditions (spatially

and temporally) and examine connections between exposure and ecological effects

• Develop an understanding of trophic and habitat linkages among organisms to incorporate into models predicting cascading effects

• Develop an understanding of the difference between oil effects and natural stressors by assessing community structure and function for different habitats

Recovery• Study recovery rates of injured habitats using different

types of oils and methods (e.g., previous spills, mesocosm, field studies)

• Develop conceptual models of service loss and recovery from key habitats and gather the information necessary to parameterize recovery models

• Conduct a study comparing environmental injury footprints and ecosystem recovery times after implementation of various response technologies and techniques

Risk Assessment and Impact Metrics• Develop models to estimate injury to natural resources

encompassing a range of exposure scenarios to biota at different life stages

• Conduct research to determine the best metrics for assessing injury and damages to natural resources

• Conduct single species toxicity research to assess population effects and help risk-based decision making during an event

Environmental Restoration Methods and Technologies

• Develop methods for restoration assessment (including establishing indicators and applying performance metrics) and estimation of restoration cost

• Conduct comparative analysis of restoration vs. natural attenuation

• Study the factors associated with long-term restoration success

Safety• Develop technologies, methods and standards

for protecting on-scene personnel, including the incorporation of training, adequate supervision, information databases, protective equipment, maximum exposure limits and decontamination procedures

• Study the levels of oil constituents, including VOCs, throughout the water column under different dispersant application scenarios (e.g., subsea, surface) and establish their contribution to potential worker health and safety issues

• Conduct research on the short- and long-term safety of seafood following a spill or fisheries closure and develop methods to communicate these to the public

Human Exposure• Develop the framework needed to conduct rapid

research response on human exposure during oil spills

• Study the short- and long-term impacts to humans from exposure to contaminants from oil spills (e.g., dermal, oral [through seafood], and respiratory)

• Study the toxicological effects and the causal or correlative relationships between chemical (i.e., oil and dispersants) exposure and human health

Community and Economic Impacts• Develop more effective models/frameworks for

community/stakeholder involvement in oil spill planning, response and restoration

• Develop improved methods for communicating risks and tradeoffs to various audiences, including tradeoffs of mechanical recovery, dispersant use and other technologies

• Study cumulative community vulnerability and resilience to past spills, including social impacts.

Human Impacts• Study the resilience of social-ecological systems to

environmental disasters, including the degree of impact on human well-being from ecosystem services losses

• Determine human/community impacts associated with a spill, including subsistence losses and culturally significant natural resource injuries

• Study the effects of media and community groups in shaping individual and public perceptions of a spill’s impact


OTC and SPE PapersThe following table lists out the OTC and SPE papers that were reviewed during the development of the research roadmap.

PAPER # TITLE LEAD AUTHOR COMPANY

2018

OTC-28623-MS Filling Gaps in SIS Standards for Reliable, Cost-Effective Safety Solutions Statham Emerson Automation Solutions

OTC-28643-MS Digital Transformation and IIoT for Oil and Gas Production Berge Emerson Automation Solutions

OTC-28708-MS Expand the Use of Open Wireless Gas Detection Systems for Life Safety and Asset Integrity Yeo United Electric Control

OTC-28747-MS A Practical Approach to Evaluate Acoustic and Flow Induced Fatigue of Piping Systems Chen Atkins, SNC-Lavalin Group

OTC-28774-MSProject R.E.A.D.S. RFID-Enabled Aerial Detection System: Providing Real-time Safety Information During Offshore

EmergenciesTaylor The University of Texas

OTC-28782-MS BOP Testing and Its Availability on Demand-A Case Study Zulqarnain Louisiana State University

OTC-28786-MS Modeling Subsea Gas Release to Atmospheric Gas Dispersion Cloud White DORIS

OTC-28824-MS Operational and Safety Improvements of Applying Real-time Analytics in a Drilling Contractor RTOC Madaleno QGOG Constellation

OTC-28830-MSApplication of System-Theoretic Process Analysis to the Isolation of Subsea Wells: Opportunities and Challenges

of Applying STPA to Subsea Operations Kim Norwegian University of Science

and Technology

OTC-28848-MSA Comprehensive Innovation Method to Assess

Uncertainties and Increase Performance of Infill Project in Mature Oilfields

Shi China National Offshore Oil Company

OTC-28849-MSEnhancing Situation Awareness and Process

Safety in Offshore Drilling Operations: Applications of Eye-Tracking System

Salehi University of Oklahoma

OTC-28859-MS All-Electric Subsea Systems - Intelligence on Demand Elgsaas Baker Hughes

OTC-28861-MS Condition and Performance Analysis of a Subsea BOP Control System Pressure Regulator Mutlu University of Houston

OTC-28883-MS Managing Risks in Relief Well Operations: From Planning to Execution Poedjono Schlumberger

OTC-28885-MS Risk Based Statistical Approach to Assessment of Corrosion Anomalies in Pipelines Scales Atteris Pty Ltd

OTC-28904-MS Risk Based Internal Corrosion Assessment of Pipe in Pipe Flowline Hogelin Noble Energy Inc

OTC-28906-MS Modeling of Subsea BOP Shear and Sealing Ability Under Flowing Conditions McCleney Southwest Research Institute

OTC-28929-MS Autonomy Applied to Seep Hunting for De-Risking Exploration Lindsø Oceaneering International, Inc.

OTC-28946-MS Tactical Airborne Oil Spill Remote Sensing: Poseidon, A New Operational Approach Vagata Fototerra Aerial Survey LLC

OTC-28950-MSUnmanned Aerial Vehicles for Survey of Marine

and Offshore Structures: A Classification Organization's Viewpoint and Experience

Wen ABS

OTC-28955-MS Leakage Monitoring of Subsea Blowout Preventer Control System Wassar University of Houston

OTC-28958-MS Integration of Wearable Technology for Inspection Tasks Pray ABS



OTC-28959-MS Managing Marine Risks to Offshore Oil Structures: How Close is Too Close? Tieman Oceaneering International, Inc.

OTC-28961-MS System Model Integration in Subsea Design Hudson Barrios Technologies

OTC-28964-MS 2 Million Pounds Force Electrical Ram BOP Kuilenburg Noble Drilling

OTC-28980-MS Pressure Relief Valves Fugitive Emissions Testing Tezzo Emerson Automation Solutions

OTC-29045-MS Integrated Emergency Management Platform Using IoT to Improve MEM Booker Maersk Training

SPE-190967-MSDevelopment of Low Toxicity and High Temperature Polymer Drilling Fluid for Environmentally Sensitive

Offshore Drilling Liu CNPC

SPE-191060-MS Operational Designs and Applications of MPD in Offshore Ultra-HTHP Exploration Wells Yin China University of Petroleum

SPE-191042-MS

Minimising Excess, Mitigating Losses and Improving Cementing Job Quality along Challenging Tophole

Sections by a Simplified Novel Spacer-Cement Train: Evaluation of 3 Case Histories Offshore Malaysia

Brandl Baker Hughes

SPE-190969-MSWell Control for Offshore High-Pressure/High-

Temperature Highly Deviated Gas Wells Drilling: How to Determine the Kick Tolerance?

Chen China University of Petroleum

SPE-191029-MS BD Gas Field Near-HPHT and Critical Sour Development: A Journey to Maintain Well Integrity Tian HCML

SPE-191084-MSOvercoming the Challenges During Cementing Spacer

Design for Deep Deviated HPHT Wells Containing Heavy Oil Based Muds

Brandl Baker Hughes

SPE-191091-MS Driving Efficiencies in Well Intervention Operations Yong Halliburton

SPE-191049-MS Innovative and Cost-Effective Invert-Emulsion Fluids for Drilling Complex Wells Al-Bagoury Elkem

SPE-191087-MS Innovative Solution for High Temperature High Gas Rate Carbonate Well Rashid Petronas

SPE-189678-MSReal-Time Eye-Tracking System to Evaluate

and Enhance Situation Awareness and Process Safety in Drilling Operations

Kian University of Oklahoma

SPE-189699-MS Offshore Well Intersection and Casing Pull Through to Deliver Pipeline Segment Leonard Chevron

SPE-189690-MS Tubular Ratings Used in Well Containment Screening Tool Rahman Blade

SPE-189651-MS Well Control Simulator: Enhancing Models with Compositional PVT Models and Kinetics Bjørkevoll SINTEF

SPE-189701-MS A Cyber-Physical Approach to Early Kick Detection Andia BP

SPE-189606-MS Gas Kicks in Non-Aqueous Drilling Fluids: A Well Control Challenge Madaleno University of Texas

SPE-189645-MSDesign and Manufacture of an Original

Equipment Manufacturer Deepwater Managed Pressure Drilling Integrated Solution

Dow Schlumberger

SPE-189578-MS Using Simulator to Prepare for Total Loss Risk Scenarios Utilizing Controlled Mud Cap Drilling in the Barents-Sea Oedegaard eDrilling

SPE-189576-MS A Comprehensive Real-Time Data Analysis Tool for Fluid Gains and Losses Andia BP

SPE-189664-MS Application of a New Dynamic Tubular Stress Model with Friction Zwarich ConocoPhillips

SPE-189610-MS Predicting Hydrocarbon Burn Efficiency of Ignited Blowout for Oil Spill Source Control Dunn Hilcorp Alaska

SPE-189604-MS Well Integrity: Coupling Data-Driven and Physics of Failure Methods Das SafeQ Services



ISOPE-18-28-1-040 Fully Coupled Analysis of an Offshore Deck Mating Operation of a Large Topside Module Hong Korea Research Institute of Ships and

Ocean Engineering

ISOPE-18-28-2-190Coupled DEM–FEM Analysis of Ice-Induced Vibrations

of a Conical Jacket Platform Based on the Domain Decomposition Method

Wang Dalian University of Technology

ISOPE-18-28-1-072 Research on Short-term Ice Cases for Predicting Ice Force on Conical Structure in the Bohai Gulf Gong Huazhong University of Science and

Technology

ISOPE-18-28-3-287 An FEA-Based Methodology for Assessing the Residual Strength of Degraded Mooring Chains Crapps ExxonMobil Upstream Research

ISOPE-18-28-2-212 Estimation of Soil Heave Inside a Suction Pile Mohammadlou Taash Company

ISOPE-18-28-3-328 On the Cautious Estimation of Characteristic Soil Strength for Axial Pile Capacity Ronold DNV GL

ISOPE-18-28-3-240 Statistical Analysis of Turbulent Dispersion in the Sea Surface Layer Based on Satellite-Tracked Drifter Data Pini DICEA, University of Rome

SPE-0218-0047-JPT Closed-Loop Drilling Offers Advantages in Process Safety and Cost Savings Wilson JPT Special Publications Editor

SPE-0318-0088-JPT Acquisition With Autonomous Marine Vehicles: Field Test Carpenter JPT Technology Editor

SPE-0518-0051-JPT DeepStar Accomplishments in Continued-Service Realm Carpenter JPT Technology Editor

SPE-0218-0046-JPT Technology Focus: Drilling Technology and Rigs (February 2018) Weatherl Well Integrity

SPE-0218-0055-JPT Turritella FPSO - Design and Fabrication of the World’s Deepest Producing Unit Wilson JPT Special Publications Editor

SPE-0518-0048-JPT Hybrid Solution to the Grand Challenge of Developing Deepwater Stranded Gas Carpenter JPT Special Publications Editor

SPE-0418-0065-JPT All-Electric Subsea Well Brings Benefits vs. Traditional Hydraulic Technology Wilson JPT Special Publications Editor

SPE-0618-0042-JPT HSE Conference Marks a Tipping Point for the Industry Dunlop SPE HSE Technical Director

SPE-0518-0081-JPT Managed-Pressure Cementing: Successful Deepwater Application WIlson JPT Special Publications Editor

SPE-0218-0057-JPT Optical Sensors Monitor Vulnerable Top Sections of Flexible Risers Wilson JPT Special Publications Editor

SPE-0118-0071-JPT Reducing Costs of Well Plugging and Abandonment While Verifying Risk Carpenter JPT Technology Editor

SPE-0418-0081-JPT Technology Focus: High-Pressure/ High-Temperature Challenges Ziegler Weatherford

SPE-0618-0014-JPT Guest Editorial: Regain Trust by Aligning with Society’s Needs Luca Community Wisdom Partners

OTC-28419-MS Preventing Dropped Objects on Offshore Units and Installations Corcoran American Bureau of Shipping

OTC-28590-MS Experience in Process Safety IPF Study & Verification Jelani Petronas

OTC-28295-MS Development of Technologies of Floating LNG Bunkering Terminal and Assessment of Safety and Performance Kim Korea Research Institute of

Ships and Ocean Engineering

OTC-28487-MS From Compliance to Commitment: The Impact of Human Psychology on Safety Culture Mahmood Weatherford

OTC-28403-MS

Improving the Competency Assessment and Verification Process for Wells Personnel Involved in Safety and

Environmentally Critical Operations Will Improve HSE Performance and Reduce Major Accident Incidents

Kinkead Kinkead Consulting Limited

OTC-28400-MS Estimating Storm Surge and Reservoir Subsidence of Offshore Platforms Using WaveRadar REX SAAB Sensors Anokhin Sarawak Shell Bhd

OTC-28606-MSImproved Pre-Drill Pore Pressure Prediction for HPHT Exploration Well Using 3D Basin Modeling

Approach, A Case Study Offshore VietnamNguyen Bien Dong Petroleum Operating Company



OTC-28509-MS The Journey of SSHE Audit Tracking System Klunngien PTT Exploration and Production

OTC-28294-MS Capping-Stack Deployment Expedited to Minimize Catastrophic Loss of Well Control Consequences Cuthbert Halliburton

OTC-28443-MS First-of-A-Kind Batch Installation of High-Torque Threaded Drilling Riser Saves the Operator $500,000.00 Chang Weatherford

OTC-28359-MS Decommissioning Project in Malaysia: How It Became Valuable and Successful Mohammad Petronas

OTC-28289-MSDrilling Fluid Impact Studies Show that Worker Health and the Environment Can Be Protected

While Improving Drilling PerformanceLim Shell MDS Malaysia

OTC-28546-MS Best Practicable Environmental Options Assessment for Drilled Cuttings and Fluids Waste Management Strategy Yudistira BP Berau Ltd.

OTC-28413-MS

Application of Innovative High Density High-Performance Water-Based Drilling Fluid Technology in the Efficient

Development and Production of Ultra-Deep Complicated Formations in the Tian Mountain Front Block in China

Long Jiangxi Science & Technology Normal University

OTC-28246-MS Capex and Opex Benefits of Wireless Instrumentation in Not-Normally Manned Wellheads Mahadevan McDermott

OTC-28346-MS The Research of Big Data Analysis Platform of Oil & Gas Production Ruidong RIPED CNPC

OTC-28455-MS Hybrid Riser Towers - Not Just for Deepwater Lim 2H Offshore

OTC-28617-MSAccessing Data from a Deepwater Sandface Monitoring

System Using an Autonomous, Unmanned Surface Vehicle - Japan Case Study

Chee Schlumberger

OTC-28564-MS Innovative Robot Development for Maintenance and Inspection Kulwatthanasal PTT Exploration and Production

OTC-28277-MS Innovative Noise Analysis Modeling Scheme Produces Results in Half the Time of the Traditional Method Zhu American Bureau of Shipping

OTC-28352-MS Integrating an RBI Approach for Vibration-Induced Fatigue into a Mechanical Integrity Programme Crowther Wood

OTC-28481-MS Well Integrity Risk Assessment - Software Model for the Future Brechan NTNU

OTC-28364-MS Risk Management Study on Compaction and Subsidence for CO2 Storage Project Ali Petronas

OTC-28464-MS E-RTTM: A Multidimensional Approach to Pipeline Leak Detection Hochgesang KROHNE Oil & Gas

SPE-190590-MS Process Safety Behaviour Change: Improving Operational Integrity Through Process Safety Fundamentals Bryden Shell Global Solutions International

SPE-190511-MS Enhancing Oil & Gas Safety Culture by Affecting Human Experience Jose North Highland

SPE-190545-MS Industry Safety Data, What is it Telling Us? Walker Schlumberger

SPE-190681-MS Wellness as an Enabler of Safety and Productivity – Implications for Safe Operations Davis-Street Chevron

SPE-190620-MS The Legacy of Piper Alpha 30 Years on: Is the Oil Industry Doing Enough about Process Safety? Saadawi Ringstone Petroleum Consultants

SPE-190500-MS Modeling Offshore Drill Cuttings Discharge Zhang ExxonMobil Upstream Research

SPE-190586-MS The Application of Unmanned Aerial Systems UAS's to Improve Emergency Oil Spill Response Hall Oil Spill Response Ltd

SPE-190485-MS Getting to Zero and Beyond Hinton Baker Hughes

SPE-190573-MSWe Want Zero! - Using Lateral Thinking

Strategies to Address a Fundamental Question: What is Preventing Us to Achieve Zero?

Scotti Saipem SpA



SPE-190092-MS

Engaging and Educating our Community: A Case History of the California Regulatory Environment and a Local

O&G Company's Path on Building an Ambassador Program to Empower its Employees

Lal Aera Energy LLC

SPE-191183-MS Risk Management of Major Oil Spill Suárez Inversiones GAMMA S.A.

SPE-190595-MS Smart Automated Designs for Better HSE Performance Akhtar ADNOC LNG

SPE-189701-MS A Cyber-Physical Approach to Early Kick Detection Andia BP

SPE-190522-MS Evaluating the Global Social Performance Generated Locally by Saipem's Sustainable Business Strategy Charlot-Clarisse Saipem SpA

SPE-190520-MS An Innovative Communication Strategy to Spread Life Saving Rules Companywide Scotti Saipem SpA

SPE-191197-MS Model of Human Resource Needs for the Upstream Petroleum Sector Alleyne UTT

SPE-190513-MS Integrating Human Factors in the Constructability Process Palazzolo Saipem SpA

SPE-191038-MS Enhancing Technology Development Process Through Purpose-Built Testing and Training Facilities Johnson AFGlobal

SPE-190550-MS Sustainable Development Goals Atlas Mire ExxonMobil (Retired)

SPE-191311-MS DeepString: Robotic Remote Deepwater Oil and Gas Production Edwards DeepString Technologies

SPE-190601-MSMission to End Emission: Flare Minimisation and Energy Conservation by Process Optimisation in

NGL Fractionation Facility Shathar ADNOC Gas Processing

SPE-191084-MSOvercoming the Challenges During Cementing Spacer Design for Deep Deviated HPHT Wells

Containing Heavy Oil Based Muds Brandl Baker Hughes

SPE-192264-MS Reduce the Rate of Abandoning Radioactive Sources in Oil and Gas Wells Shhub Saudi Aramco

SPE-190678-MSThe Environmental Management Index EMI - A Proposed

Methodology for Environmental Risks and Impacts Management for the Oil & Gas Industry

Nájera REPSOL

SPE-180322-PA On the Instability of the Cement/Fluid Interface and Fluid Mixing Forushan University of Tulsa

SPE-190655-MSExperimental Investigation of

Bio-Degradable Environmental Friendly Drilling Fluid Additives Generated from Waste

Al-saba Australian College of Kuwait

SPE-190564-MS Potential Application of Crude Oil Degrading Bacteria in Oil Spill and Waste Management Mujaini Sultan Qaboos University

SPE-185890-PA Leakage Calculator for Plugged-and-Abandoned Wells Moeinikia University of Stavanger

201727740 The Impact of Lubrication on Safety Donlon ExxonMobil Fuels and Lubricants

27750Use of a Cybersecurity Laboratory in Support of the Virtual Vessel Concept to Increase Safety Onboard

Marine and Offshore AssetsSelvan ABS

27594 Stones Development: World Class Safety Performance in Singapore Lohr Shell International E&P

27565 Preparing Offshore Facilities for Seismic Events Sheppard Energo Engineering, a KBR Co.

27674 Stones Development: A Pioneering Management Philosophy for Enhancing Project Performance and Safety Lohr Shell International E&P



27615A Practical and Interdisciplinary Framework to

Develop Post-Earthquake Evacuation and Inspection Thresholds for Offshore Platforms

Chen Energo Engineering, a KBR Co.

28123 A Step Change in Safety and Quality for ESP Deployment in the North Sea Pastre Schlumberger

27678 Investigations into Break Strength of Offshore Mooring Chains Potts AMOG Consulting

27818 Bow-tie Analysis of Underwater Robots in Offshore Oil and Gas Operations Yu Mary Kay O'Connor Process Safety Center,

Texas A&M University

27906DeepStar® Global Offshore Technology

Development Program 12504: Real-time Monitoring for Critical Barriers

Mason Blade Energy Partners

27647 An Innovative Regional Approach to the Analysis of Hurricane Impact on Offshore Platforms Dubois Open Ocean SAS

28124 Epoxy Resin Helps Restore Well Integrity in Offshore Well: Case History Vicente Perez Halliburton

27866 Mooring Integrity and Machine Learning Prislin BMT Scientific Marine Services

27586 Meeting the Demand for Barrier Plug Integrity Assurance & Verification of Well Abandonment Barriers Stein Interwell Norway

27938 Integrity, Monitoring, Inspection and Maintenance of FPSO Turret Mooring Systems Duggal SOFEC, Inc.

27629 HSE Management System Effectiveness – A New Approach to Realize Continuous Improvement Ezeldin ERM Certification and Verification Services

27895 Using a Cognitive Analytic Approach to Enhance Cybersecurity on Oil and Gas OT Systems Rosner Spark Cognition

27728 ER: Are We Really Keeping People Safe? Edwards OPTIO

27945 Drilling Riser Integrity Assurance for Deepwater Floating Drilling Neidhardt IntrGate

27845 Risk-Based Asset Management: Global Implementation Supry Life Cycle Engineering

27562 Wellhead Fatigue Monitoring During Subsea Well Plug and Abandonment Activities McNeill Stress Engineering Services

27543 A Holistic Approach to Sustainable Operational Risk Assessments in Oil and Gas Industry Laskar Occidental Oil & Gas Corp

27596 Verification Analysis and Validation Testing of Subsea Connectors Perales Drill-Quip, Inc.

27770 Well Control Course Redesign for the 21st Century Arnold Rosemary Rosenkampff, Intertek

27697 Improving Reliability of MODU Mooring Systems Through Better Design Standards and Practices Ma Chevron

27847 Intervention and Abandonment - Riserless Productive Zone Abandonment Using Epoxy Resin Dahlem Hess Corporation

28208 HSE in Libra Project – Designing for Outstanding Performance Bo Shell Brasil Ltda

27792 Azimov Genesis

27837Assessing the Variability in Intensity and Width of the Loop Current Eddy High Speed Band from Airborne

Ocean Surface Current MeasurementsSchiller Fugro

27593Finding Safe Ground for Deepwater Development;

Integrated Probabilistic Geohazard Assessment iPGA for Pipeline Routing and Facilities

Moore CH2M

28029 An All-Electric BOP Control System: A Game-Changing Technology Dale Electrical Subsea & Drilling

28118 Planned Shutdown Time Optimization Using Lean Six Sigma Matos Radix Engineering



27708 Making the Most of Probabilistic Marine Forecasts on Timescales of Days, Weeks and Months Ahead Steele Met Office

27711

Establishment of a Quantitative Risk-Based Approach for Evaluation of Containment

Performance in the Context of Permanently Plugged and Abandoned Petroleum Wells

Øystein IRIS

27921 Risk-Based Approach to Well Plugging & Abandoning - Reducing Costs While Verifying Risk Fanailoo DNV GL

27696 Seismic Response Spectrum in Lieu of Time History Analysis for Subsea Structure Design Wang Genesis

27814 Qualitative Fault Tree Analysis of Blowout Preventer Control System for Real-time Availability Monitoring Mutlu University of Houston

28011 WSOG and Emergency Disconnection Guidelines Cruz Petrobras

27859 Stones Development: Best in Class Risk Reduction and Cost Improvement During Project Execution Pena Shell E&P Company

28146

Evaluation of Social and Economic Impacts of Local Content Management in Oil & Gas

and Shipbuilding Industry in Brazil: An Application of Input-Output Analysis

Furtado Petrobras

28160 Risk Mitigation on Deepwater Drilling Based on 3D Geomechanics and Fit-For-Purpose Data Acquisition Pedroso Queiroz Galvão Exploração & Produção

28152 Improved Ocean Current Estimation Using a Seismic Streamer Model Grindheim Geograf AS

27628 Hazard Quantification of Seismically Induced Tsunamigenic Subaerial/Submarine Mass Movements Sancio Geosyntec Consultants

27703 A Toolbox for Optimizing Geotechnical Design of Subsea Foundations Gourvenec University of Western Australia

201626986 Can Teamwork Enhance Safety? Salas Rice University

27139 A Complementary Safety Tool for Blowout Preventers Rojas Raptors Design, Inc.

27015 Integration of Human Factors into Safety and Environmental Management Systems Ciavarelli Human Factors Associates, Inc.

27188Improving Safety of Deepwater Drilling

Through Advanced Instrumentation, Diagnostics, and Automation for BOP Control Systems

Nelson DNV GL

27213A Perspective on the Development of a

Basis of Design for Evaluation of Seismically-Induced Offshore Geohazards

Al-Sharif Sancio

27217Seismic Stability Performance of a Coastline Slope

Beneath a Pipeline: A Case History of Onshore Observations for Offshore Application

Sancio Geosyntec Consultants

26908

Further Weight and Cost Saving of Fire and Blast Resistant Walls on Offshore Installations,

Through the New, 4th Type and a Comprehensive Decision Making Model

Groeneveld InterDam BV

27239 A Risk-Based Approach to Managing the Integrity of Aging Production Facilities in the Gulf of Mexico Kemp Hess

27021 DCNS' Solutions for Deep Sea Environmentally Friendly Activities Demoor DCNS

27191 Loop Current Operational Forecasting in 2015: Skill Assessment and Lessons Learned Frolov WeatherPredict Consulting

26896 Integrity Management Services for Floating Units from Design to Decommissioning Boutrot Bureau Veritas



27229 Loop Current Hyperactivity: Analysis of In Situ Measurements in the Gulf of Mexico Sharma Horizon Marine, Inc.

26975 Source Control is a Viable Solution for Shallow Water Blowouts: Case Histories and Discussion Derr Halliburton-Boots & Coots

27036 Innovative Methods for Methane Leakage Monitoring Near Oil and Gas Installations Waarum Norwegian Geotechnical Institute

26930 Well Control in Carbonate Zone – Total Loss and Kick in Gas Reservoir Mahry SKK Migas

27204 New Squall Wind Criteria for the Gulf of Mexico Jeans Oceanalysis

26906 Macondo and Bardolino: Two Case Studies of the Human Factors of Kick Detection Prior to a Blowout St. John Pacific Science & Engineering Group, Inc.

27282 Comparison of Hydraulic Power Sources for Subsea BOP's Bedrossian Bastion Technologies

27119Operational Simulations of Safe LNG Offloading to Conventional LNG Carriers in Severe Open Sea

EnvironmentsCahay Technip

27235 BOP System Reliability Planning and Testing Zou GE Oil & Gas

27248 Using Operational Failure Modes and Effects Analysis to Identify Project Top Risks Kokosz Bastion Technologies

27026 Pipeline Leak and Impact Detection System - PipeLIDS - Monitoring Product Dedicated to Onshore Pipelines Mabily Cybernetix

27242 Mitigating Gas in Riser Rapid Unloading for Deepwater Dual Gradient Well Control Yuan Schlumberger

27296Development of Novel Integrity Assurance

Approach for Technology Qualification of New Subsea Technologies by Deepstar®

Furtado DNV GL

27292Holistic Systems Analysis: A Case Study

Demonstrating Simple Models Improving the Reliability of the BOP Control Equipment Ecosystem

Barker Cameron

27157 A Sub-Scale Experimental Test Method to Investigate the Failure of Variable Ram Blowout Prevention Valves Jayanath Clarkson University

201525952 While History May Not Repeat Itself, It Often Rhymes:

Evolution of Offshore Technical Process Safety Herbert MMI Engineering

25948 Vision 2020- Delivering Great Process Safety Globally Grounds BP

25877 Process Safety KPI's - Wells and Drilling Activities Carvalho Petrobras

26043 Performance Standards: Bridging the Gap between Safety Cases and Safety Critical Equipment Schwartz Life Cycle Engineering

25708 North Sea and GoM Initiatives to Enhance Process Safety Pitblado DNV GL

26003 Safety Case Versus SEMS, Are They Really All That Different? Israni Environmental Resources Management

25911 Integrated Geohazards Assessments Offshore Azerbaijan, Caspian Sea Unterseh Total SA

25737 The Long & Winding Road the Process Safety Journey: Where Are We and Where Are We Headed? Broadribb Baker Engineering and Risk Consultants

25883 The Impacts of the Safety Culture in Oil and Gas Operations Floris TETRA Technologies, Inc.

25957 Safety Case in GoM: Method and Benefits for Old and New Facilities Carvalho Bureau Veritas North America



25974Systematic Technology Qualification for HPHT Subsea BOP Stack Equipment and System to Improve Safety, Reliability, and Availability

Patel ABS

26018Improving Operation Safety of Multi-Zone

Single Trip Gravel Pack: Holistic Approach to Minimize Well Control Risk in Mahakam

Muryanto Total E&P

25946Lessons Learned and Safety Considerations for

Installation and Operation of a Managed Pressure Drilling System on Classed Floating Drilling Rigs

Patel American Bureau of Shipping

25701 A Case Study of Asset Integrity and Risk Assessment for Subsea Facilities and Equipment Life Extension Carvalho DNV GL

25855 Case Studies of Testing at NASA's Neutral Buoyancy Laboratory (NBL) for Oil & Gas Industry Risk Mitigation Hogan Oceaneering International, Inc.

25950Well Integrity Management at Premier Oil and the Benefits of Implementing a Well

Integrity Data Management System Gell Expro

25837 VIM Study for Deep Draft Column Stabilized Floaters Antony Houston Offshore Engineering

25734 Guidance for the Development and Implementation of an Effective Well Integrity Management System Wilson ConcoPhillips

25918 Reducing the Environmental Footprint: Innovations on the CLOV Project Vallot Total

25975 Safe Handling and Disposal of Nanostructured Materials Raja Baker Hughes

25964 Adapting Aerospace Technology to DP Vessels for Safe and Stable Station Keeping Hickey Honeywell

25766 Well Integrity as Performance Metrics in Deepwater Drilling Samuel Halliburton

25847 Kick Detection at the Subsea Mudline Toskey Letton Hall Group

26039Environmental Consequences of Engineered

Nanomaterials: An Awareness Campaign to Promote Safe Nanotechnology and Dispel Related Misconceptions

Pavan Baker Hughes

25765 Developing a Set of Human Factors Barriers for Deepwater Drilling Risk Assessment St. John Pacific Science & Engineering Group

25870 ACG Field Geohazards Management: Unwinding the Past, Securing the Future Hill BP America

25906 Saving Time and Reducing Risk with Subsea Wellhead System Running and Test Tools Williams Dril-Quip

25727 Risk Evaluation Methods of Gas Hydrate When Shallow Strata Drilling in Deepwater Area Xu China University of Petroleum


The Ocean Energy Safety Institute (OESI) is a collaborative initiative between the Texas A&M Engineering Experiment Station’s Mary Kay O’Connor Process Safety Center, partnering with Texas A&M University, The University of Texas

at Austin and the University of Houston. The institute provides a forum for dialogue, shared learning and cooperative research among academia,

government, industry and other non-governmental organizations in offshore energy-related technologies and activities that ensure safe

and environmentally responsible offshore operations. While there have been efforts to identify scientific and technological gaps,

and to recommend improvement of drilling and production equipment, practices and regulation, the OESI will strive to coordinate and focus these products. Initial funding of the

Institute came from the Department of the Interior and the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement.

19_2590

oesi.tamu.edu

21st century ocean energy safety research roadmap oesi research roadmap... · subject matter...

Documents