The document describes the development of a risk-based decision support model for subsea blowout preventers (BOPs). It was created in response to the 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil spill to provide a consistent, transparent way to assess risks and make pull/no-pull decisions for BOP components. A team from Lloyd's Register Energy developed the model by considering failure effects, regulations, and operational procedures. The resulting model expresses risk levels through color-coding and helps balance non-productive time against safety and compliance. It has improved decision-making and maintenance planning for BOPs.

1. SPE 166581-MS
Pull or No-pull:
Risk-based Decision Support for Subsea
Blowout Preventers (BOPs)
Pieter van Asten, Lloyd’s Register Energy – Drilling

2. SPE 166581-MS • Pull or No-pull: Risk-based Decision Support for Subsea Blowout Preventers (BOPs)• Pieter van Asten
Innovation comes after denial and before success
Pieter van Asten 2013

3. SPE 166581-MS • Pull or No-pull: Risk-based Decision Support for Subsea Blowout Preventers (BOPs)• Pieter van Asten
• The BOP risk model background
• why was it made and for what
purpose?
• The project
• how was it done and by whom?
• The solution
• what is the result and how is it used?
• The conclusion

4. SPE 166581-MS • Pull or No-pull: Risk-based Decision Support for Subsea Blowout Preventers (BOPs)• Pieter van Asten
Background
Project
Solution
Conclusion
The tragic Gulf of Mexico accident in April 2010 can be marked
as the moment that confirmed the idea for making a subsea
BOP (Blow Out Preventer) risk model.
It showed that society, enabled by
(social-)media, is our biggest stakeholder
with its own risk acceptance perception.

5. SPE 166581-MS • Pull or No-pull: Risk-based Decision Support for Subsea Blowout Preventers (BOPs)• Pieter van Asten
Background
Project
Solution
Conclusion
What does the
majority of society
remember about this
tragedy?
Societal risk awareness and its (non-) acceptance created the
need to manage these risks and became the foundation for the
demand for a solution to enable this.
•The industry was faced with a very conservative approach to
BOP component failure
•This conservatism was fed by the fear that something could go
wrong as we all saw happening which was very costly

6. SPE 166581-MS • Pull or No-pull: Risk-based Decision Support for Subsea Blowout Preventers (BOPs)• Pieter van Asten
Background
Project
Solution
Conclusion
A focal point of attention and contribution to what
happened in April 2010 became the subsea BOP
With our stakeholder’s biggest concerns in focus, the objective of the
requested solution became:
“Enable assistance in decision making if a BOP needs to be pulled or
not by means of risk based consistent failure investigation and effect
modelling and due communication”

7. SPE 166581-MS • Pull or No-pull: Risk-based Decision Support for Subsea Blowout Preventers (BOPs)• Pieter van Asten
Background
Project
Solution
Conclusion
A subsea BOP is a special system and among few systems
combining multiple functions:
•Drilling operations control
•Risk prevention tool (preventer)
•Emergency response tool
It is also
•Highly regulated
•Not visible when operational
These combinations mean simple component failures can cause
severe risk exposure and non-compliance.
But what to do when a
component
may have or has failed?

8. SPE 166581-MS • Pull or No-pull: Risk-based Decision Support for Subsea Blowout Preventers (BOPs)• Pieter van Asten
Background
Project
Solution
Conclusion
Delivery of objective assessment and consistent
communication about the risk of a BOP component
failure leading to a decision to continue or suspend
operations has proven to be a challenge.
Some symptoms:
•BOP pulling is costly and time consuming: major NPT
•BOP pulling is a risk in itself:
Leaving it down with known failure may mean taking
safety risks or being out of regulatory compliance
•Non consistent decision-motivation to senior management,
regulatory bodies and other stakeholders in the industry
•Different solutions for similar problems on different rigs or
crews
•Lack of risk based information to enable management of
compliance aspects against cost of NPT

9. SPE 166581-MS • Pull or No-pull: Risk-based Decision Support for Subsea Blowout Preventers (BOPs)• Pieter van Asten
Background
Project
Solution
Conclusion
Our solution and its approach to this has a true innovative
character in every aspect:
•High (society and industry) stakes
•A joined effort with five involved parties
•No route-map but the main objectives
•An industry looking at us
Today, drilling operations are always balancing
between conflicting factors:
NPT (Costs) – Risk (Safety) - Compliance

10. SPE 166581-MS • Pull or No-pull: Risk-based Decision Support for Subsea Blowout Preventers (BOPs)• Pieter van Asten
Background
Project
Solution
Conclusion
What made it succeed?
I worked with people that were involved in the extreme
circumstances after the accident and who lost colleagues.
That made me very humble and realized that we just could
not fail: there was too much at stake: safety and lives.
I worked with a wonderful team and this team effort, including
our client, was one of the most contributing factors for our
success.
I am proud of
•what we did;
•how we did it and
•what we achieved.

11. SPE 166581-MS • Pull or No-pull: Risk-based Decision Support for Subsea Blowout Preventers (BOPs)• Pieter van Asten
Background
Project
Solution
Conclusion
The total risk model is like a three dimensional cube with
six sides that input and affect the outcome and each other.
The cube’s three dimensions
represent the complexity and
interaction of all aspects
of a complete BOP risk model.
How is all this information combined to
become a risk model?

12. SPE 166581-MS • Pull or No-pull: Risk-based Decision Support for Subsea Blowout Preventers (BOPs)• Pieter van Asten
Background
Project
Solution
Conclusion

13. SPE 166581-MS • Pull or No-pull: Risk-based Decision Support for Subsea Blowout Preventers (BOPs)• Pieter van Asten
Background
Project
Solution
Conclusion
The risk model assesses the effect of component
failure by calculations and expresses this in a risk
level taking regulations, specifications and
operational procedures into account.
A color-coding traffic light is used as visual
indication to express the risk level of the whole
BOP, a subsystem or component.
•Red
•Orange
•Yellow
•Green

14. SPE 166581-MS • Pull or No-pull: Risk-based Decision Support for Subsea Blowout Preventers (BOPs)• Pieter van Asten
Background
Project
Solution
Conclusion
Example of the user screen showing the effect of
a failure of the 5k to 3k regulator to the blue POD.

15. SPE 166581-MS • Pull or No-pull: Risk-based Decision Support for Subsea Blowout Preventers (BOPs)• Pieter van Asten
Background
Project
Solution
Conclusion
BOP risk model solution:
• Risk-based approach in balancing
the conflicting factors
• Consistent, transparent pull or no pull
decision assistance and motivated
decision reporting to all stakeholders
• Better prioritization of maintenance
• Industry credit: done with a major drilling contractor
• Regulator agreement on methodology (BSEE)

16. SPE 166581-MS • Pull or No-pull: Risk-based Decision Support for Subsea Blowout Preventers (BOPs)• Pieter van Asten
Background
Project
Solution
Conclusion
• Pre-considered equipment failure:
• No need to go through all information and
• assessments upon component failure
• Reduction of rig downtime:
• Faster pull or not-pull decision
• Records history of failed and restored
components to assist pull, no-pull decisions
• The model cannot be changed by operating crew.
• Is unique for every BOP and regulatory environment
• Does not take away or replace thinking, competence or
responsibility
• Enables training and can create what-ifs: play with different
failure scenarios

17. SPE 166581-MS • Pull or No-pull: Risk-based Decision Support for Subsea Blowout Preventers (BOPs)• Pieter van Asten
Background
Project
Solution
Conclusion
Preventing one unnecessary BOP pull proves the
value of a BOP risk model.
Saving one life with the BOP risk model makes it
truly invaluable
This allows for the next steps towards failure prevention:
• BOP reliability and integrity management optimization
• Maintenance and spare parts management optimization
• Enhanced graphical representation
• Web-based application
• Other operational or safety critical equipment

18. For more information, go to:
www.lr.org/BOPmodel
Slide 18