MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4238187098 · doi:10.2523/86838-ms

Controlling Hazards through Risk Management - A Structured Approach

2004· article· en· W4238187098 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Rick Theriau, K. Rispler, S. Redpath

Notice bibliographique

RevueProceedings of SPE International Conference on Health, Safety, and Environment in Oil and Gas Exploration and Production · 2004
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineDecision Sciences
ThématiqueRisk and Safety Analysis
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésCitationComputer scienceWorld Wide Web

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Controlling Hazards through Risk Management - A Structured Approach R. Theriau; R. Theriau Halliburton Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Scholar K. Rispler; K. Rispler Halliburton Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Scholar S. Redpath S. Redpath Halliburton Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Scholar Paper presented at the SPE International Conference on Health, Safety, and Environment in Oil and Gas Exploration and Production, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, March 2004. Paper Number: SPE-86838-MS https://doi.org/10.2118/86838-MS Published: March 29 2004 Cite View This Citation Add to Citation Manager Share Icon Share Twitter LinkedIn Get Permissions Search Site Citation Theriau, R., Rispler, K., and S. Redpath. "Controlling Hazards through Risk Management - A Structured Approach." Paper presented at the SPE International Conference on Health, Safety, and Environment in Oil and Gas Exploration and Production, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, March 2004. doi: https://doi.org/10.2118/86838-MS Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All ContentAll ProceedingsSociety of Petroleum Engineers (SPE)SPE International Conference and Exhibition on Health, Safety, Environment, and Sustainability Search Advanced Search ProposalAn effective health, safety, and environment (HSE) program has many requirements. One of the key components to a comprehensive HSE program is an effective system for hazard identification, assessment, and control. It is critical to not only have a systematic approach to hazard assessment and control, but to ensure that the system is accessible, understood, and accepted by front-line employees.This paper presents a description of a hazard and risk assessment system, starting with documentation in a quality system through to implementation at the front line. The paper includes a description of tools employed, such as (1) hazard and risk identification imbedded in an operational quality system, (2) job safety analysis (JSA), (3) decision-making tools, (4) hazard observation, and (5) communication tools. Additionally, methods to make these tools available and used by the front line are discussed. Improved safety performance is in part a result of the reduction of hazards and risks through a systematic approach to hazard and risk identification.To realize the greatest reduction in risk, correct application of all of the tools and the knowledge of when to use each of the tools are critical. Specific examples are used to help ensure that the readers gain a basic understanding of which tools they will likely require.IntroductionWithin every organization, the level of success (measured by the actual numbers of total incidents) with the HSE program is directly proportional to the ability of the organization to control the risks associated with applicable hazards. In other words, the more the company reduces the level of risk, the greater reduction in overall incidents the company will see.There are four basic steps to successful risk control:Identification of the hazard(s).Assessment of the overall risk necessary to determine the type of control to be implemented.Control of the risk.Communication of the risk and its controls to those affected.This approach to hazard control is considered a structured approach. Because many people in and out of the HSE circle interchange these terms, and to understand this structured approach, it is necessary to define several terms:HazardHazard effectRiskResidual riskLikelihood or probabilityFollowing a detailed discussion of these terms and how they interact with each other to manage the risk associated with a particular task or activity, the paper will discuss effective controls aimed at reducing a particular risk or group of risks. Several controls will be examined and will be prioritized in order of long-term success and effectiveness. However, regardless of the control method used, the hazard and its control(s) must then be communicated to those exposed to the risk. Without this communication, the overall effectiveness of the risk management program will be in jeopardy.Structured vs. Unstructured Approach to Risk ManagementTo be effective at risk management, a structured approach must be taken. This four-step approach described above is a vital necessity in any risk-management program. Despite this fact, many organizations, and in some cases "safety professionals," decide to reduce the risk of their business and start implementing a safety program in a random or unstructured nature. This method can often be observed in a company that decides to implement a formal safety program by first copying the safety manual of another company or developing an emergency response plan without truly understanding the potential risks inherent in their business. This approach can also be observed by reviewing an inspection program of a particular company that has failed to examine their worksite for specific hazards. The inspection would appear to randomly address various site concerns. This approach to risk management is shown by the abstract nature of the "Unstructured Approach" in Fig. 1. Keywords: spe 86838, upstream oil & gas, hazard effect, information, hazard identification, identification, risk assessment, society of petroleum engineers, work activity, effectiveness Subjects: Safety, Risk Management and Decision-Making, Operational safety, Risk, uncertainty, and risk assessment This content is only available via PDF. 2004. Society of Petroleum Engineers You can access this article if you purchase or spend a download.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,009
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Méthodes · Signal consensuel: Méthodes
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,009
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,046

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0090,011
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0020,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,002
Bibliométrie0,0030,002
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,004
Communication savante0,0080,008
Science ouverte0,0040,006
Intégrité de la recherche0,0030,004
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0070,002

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,072
Tête enseignante GPT0,319
Écart entre enseignants0,246 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreMéthodes

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2004
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueProceedings of SPE International Conference on Health, Safety, and Environment in Oil and Gas Exploration and ProductionMême sujetRisk and Safety AnalysisTravaux en français237 207