Procedure Objectives

Optimize public safety and environmental protection in light of resource constraints

Ensure that corporate risk strategies regarding asset integrity flow through to location-specific actions.

Ensure a defensible, consistent, location-specific RM process is employed across the organization

Bring together into single process, procedures to ensure compliance with multiple regulatory RM requirements (PMM)

Reduce subjectivity and manual processing of information

Procedure Objectives
Optimize public safety and environmental protection in light of resource constraints
Ensure that corporate risk strategies regarding asset integrity flow through to location-specific actions.
Ensure a defensible, consistent, location-specific RM process is employed across the organization
Bring together into single process, procedures to ensure compliance with multiple regulatory RM requirements (PMM)
Reduce subjectivity and manual processing of information

• How to begin
• Profiling
• Seduced by Graphics, Article

Process / Procedure

Risk Assessment Results Analyses

Corporate Level

Risk Assessment Results Analyses

Cost Benefit Analyses

Evaluating potential risk mitigation projects requires analyses of both the risk and the economics associated with the project.  This is often in comparison with status quo, ie, not performing the project.

To illustrate this multi-dimensional nature, consider the following scenario.  A large subdivision is planned over and all around an older high pressure pipeline.  An associated increase in third party damage potential is recognized.  This new risk is estimated to be $2K/yr of additional Expected Loss (EL).

Options to manage this increased risk are identified and analyzed.  Two of the identified options are compared as follows

Protective concrete slab versus increased patrol.  The concrete cap would be installed over 4,000 ft of pipeline at a cost of $200K.  It is estimated to have negligible influence on potential consequences of pipeline failure but should reduce probability of failure by 90%.  That is, only one in ten of the potential damaging third party incidents would actually cause a failure while nine out of ten would be successfully thwarted by the new slab.  This lowers the new EL to $200/yr for the 4,000 ft where the slab is installed.

The alternative of increased patrol is estimated to cost $20k /yr and, for logistical efficiency reasons, would cover not only the 4,000 ft impacted by the new subdivision, but an additional 5,000 ft.  So, 9,000 ft of the pipeline would also benefit.  The frequencies and detection capabilities of the potential new patrols are estimated to cause a minor reduce consequence potential and a modest reduction in failure probability for the 9,000 ft of pipeline.  The risk reductions for the 4,000 ft and the 5,000 ft segments are assessed and estimated to be a total of $500/yr less EL .

$200 Anomaly