Skip to content
Author
PUBLISHED: | UPDATED:
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...

* Maintenance backlog on safety-critical systems

* Operators delay safety checks to boost production

* Fail-safe devices on Elgin may have been faulty

By Oleg Vukmanovic

ABERDEEN, Scotland, April 5 (Reuters) – The UK North Sea’s

dwindling oil and gas reserves are pushing companies to tap

unstable reservoirs at high pressure and extreme heat, while

safety checks and maintenance are behind schedule, a North Sea

rig auditor who works for the industry told Reuters.

French oil major Total is battling to stem a

12-day gas leak at its North Sea Elgin platform after a series

of technical failures that industry sources say reflect wider

lapses across Britain’s offshore industry.

The auditor, an engineer and a union official said a range

of measures designed to prevent a leak must have failed on

Elgin, allowing gas to escape to the surface.

Total did not return requests for comment on issues raised

by this report.

“There is a worrying backlog of maintenance on

safety-critical equipment, including release valves, pipelines

and sub-sea fail-safe devices,” said the auditor, an oil

industry professional with more than a decade’s experience of

safety systems and procedures.

“My experience in this region is that if you scratch beneath

the surface, things get quite scary quite quickly,” he said.

He said some North Sea rigs designed in the 1960s and 1970s

were “falling to pieces” after exceeding their production

lifespans, while more modern platforms were lagging well behind

scheduled maintenance programmes.

Another source at a major oil company said safety still

ranked high, but low gas prices – at about half their levels

before the 2008 financial crisis – forced operators to weigh

‘loss of life risks against loss of production risks.’

With rising operating costs and lower revenues, companies

have put pressure on facilities to produce more fuel in order to

break even, which means reducing the number of safety checks

that could interrupt production.

The UK’s offshore regulator, the Health and Safety

Executive, has previously identified maintenance backlogs in

successive asset integrity reviews, noting that maintenance on

safety-critical equipment was especially poor.

“In some companies the decline in integrity performance that

started following the low oil price has not been effectively

addressed, and there appears to be an acceptance of this,

knowing that the assets are likely to be sold,” it said in 2009.

High-pressure, high-temperature (HPHT) reservoirs, like the

one feeding the Elgin platform, exacerbate matters because they

combine higher costs to drill and maintain with “the inherent

risks associated with them,” the auditor said.

“I have seen things on some platforms that HSE would be

extremely unhappy about,” he said.

Maintenance on systems critical to safe-guarding life in

some cases has been pushed back by up to a year, he said.

An engineer who designs rig equipment said the entire

industry was “swamped by work” so maintenance backlogs could

also be down to limited resources as companies providing piping

and valves were working flat out to meet demand.

Industry body Oil & Gas UK’s health and safety director,

Robert Paterson, said: “All safety-critical systems on every

installation are subject to regular and rigorous inspections.

Offshore safety isn’t getting worse, it’s continually getting

better.

“Over the last 15 years … we’ve seen a 70 per cent

reduction in major and significant hydrocarbon releases (and) a

66 per cent reduction in all types of injury.”

A spokesman for Royal Dutch Shell, which also operates in

the UK North Sea said: “Asset integrity is a high priority for

Shell. In 2011, we invested around $600 million in our North Sea

assets, including maintenance. We strive to operate all our

assets, regardless of age or location, in a way that meets or

exceeds both our global internal standards and relevant legal

and regulatory requirements. We are confident that the

maintenance plans for our North Sea assets are robust.”

BP, another major North Sea operator, did not comment.

AGEING EQUIPMENT

One offshore worker speaking from a helicopter departure

lounge prior to a three-week stint on a North Sea gas

installation said maintenance backlogs were a common problem

that could take years to clear.

“I make repairs in designated safety areas … and the way

things are, I’ll have a job in the North Sea for the rest of my

life,” he said.

“There is a wide issue with the age of the platforms,” said

Oberon Houston, Petroleum Engineering Manager, with experience

of working on a number of rigs in the North Sea.

“People tend to think, ‘The platform only has 4-5 years left

in it, so we don’t do anything to it’, but oil prices rise, or

you find more oil, and suddenly you’re going for another 12, 15

years or more,” he added.

Dick West, Operations Director of North Sea operator Xcite

Energy, said ageing facilities did, however, need to

prove their safety to have their life extended, and the HSE had

been demanding more detail in the last 18 months.

The British safety regulator said there were about 70 major

or significant hydrocarbon releases a year in the British part

of the North Sea – “significant” meaning it could cause multiple

fatalities and escalate further. Norway had just eight in 2010.

“It is lack of assessing risk, lack of control of the work,

people cutting in the wrong pipework, people doing a shoddy job,

making or breaking pipework, corrosion that should have been

anticipated and monitored,” Steve Walker, head of the offshore

safety division at UK Health and Safety, told Reuters in

October.

“SWISS-CHEESE” SAFETY MEASURES

Total’s Elgin leak occurred above the water line on the rig

itself, the auditor noted.

“There are all kinds of safety mechanisms that should kick

in and prevent a leak at that height … Quite clearly these

fail-safes did not work,” he said.

Total repeatedly reassured workers that safety systems would

prevent a leak up to and including a few hours before the

blowout that triggered the arrival of Royal Air Force and

Norwegian helicopter evacuation teams, according to Jake Molloy,

head of the RMT trade union’s offshore arm.

Workers had raised safety concerns beginning more than a

month before the incident, he said.

The offshore industry’s safety regime operates on what is

known as the “Swiss-cheese model”, building in layers of

individually incomplete safety precautions that together should

stop an emergency developing.

“But all that depends on the number of layers of barriers

and the rigour with which they are maintained,” the source from

an oil major said.

The extreme environment in HPHT reservoirs – which are

increasingly common as maturing fields become less productive –

raises the risks.

Total itself has identified such risks based on problems

encountered during production.

In research papers, it has described how, as a well goes

through gas pockets under different levels of high pressure, gas

could leak inside the well and rise to the surface.

“It was realised that conventionally cemented casings was

unlikely to hold this gas back during the production lifecycle

of the wells,” it said in a 2005 paper.

That year a barrier in a well drilled in the West Franklin

field failed, leading to an increase in gas pressure and the

risk of gas from the reservoir escaping to the platform.

In the incident, described in a 2007 paper whose authors

included Total engineers, the problem was difficult to fix

because it required a “complex well-kill operation to resolve”.

This is what Total now plans for the faulty Elgin well.

“From a production point of view, life extension of ageing

assets is the name of the game. Operators are squeezing the last

drop from the North Sea … so when production from normal wells

dries up, they’ve got the HTHP to bring out of their back

pocket,” the auditor said.

Asked if it was investigating the possibility of equipment

failures at Total’s Elgin rig, the HSE said: “It will not be

legally appropriate for HSE as the regulatory authority to

respond, as the answers given may prejudice the investigation or

subsequent enforcement.”

(Additional reporting by Gwladys Fouche in Oslo and Tom Bergin

in London; Editing by Will Waterman)