Risk Assessment and Management Using Accident Precursors Modeling in Offshore Process Operation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Offshore oil and gas operations are located in remote and often harsh marine environments. An offshore development can never be completely safe; however the degree of safety can be increased by selecting the optimum design, and developing proactive risk management strategies. This requires the identification and assessment of major risk contributors, which can be accomplished using quantitative risk assessment techniques. Dynamic failure assessment is a new approach in process safety management, which enables the real time failure analysis of a process. This approach uses Bayesian and joint probability theories to develop a predictive failure model for a given process. As a process proceeds and generates incidents and accident precursors, the accident occurrence probability is predicted. This paper presents a methodology based on the concept of dynamic failure assessment and its use in revising the risk profile for a process system based on accident precursor data modeling. An event tree is formed for a given abnormal event. Subsequently, using accident precursor data from the facility prior and posterior failure probabilities of events are calculated. A predictive model is developed using joint probability theory. Accident likelihood is combined with consequence analysis results to estimate posterior risk profile. Application of the proposed methodology is demonstrated on a process in an offshore process facility.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".