0 marsh risk management? efu risk management presented by: khurram ali khan
TRANSCRIPT
1Marsh
RISK MANAGEMENT?
EFU Risk Management
Presented By: KHURRAM ALI KHAN
2Marsh
Relevance of Losses to (Engineering) Risk Management?
Stages of Risk Management
Risk Identification – what can go wrong
Risk Quantification – probability and severity
Mitigation – safeguards, “hard” and “soft”
Risk Tolerance Criteria – Corporate, Legislative, Social
Acceptability – ALARP “As Low as Reasonably Practical”
Relevance of Losses ?
EFU Risk Management
3Marsh
Relevance of Losses to (Engineering) Risk Management?
Tolerability criteria and Mitigation requirements, both legislative or corporate, are often based on incident investigations
– ASME Boiler codes written in blood spilled in the 19th and 20th centuries. Hauge street explosion, New York 1850 , 67 dead SS Pennsylvania, Memphis 1858, 250 dead Town and son factory, Yorkshire 1869, 15 dead “Rules for construction of Boilers” issued in 1914 as an act of
public service in response to numerous failures and mishaps in ships, factories, steel mills and woodworking shops”
– Management of Change procedures – post Flixbrough and 28 fatalities
EFU Risk Management
4Marsh
Risk Evaluation – Risk MatricesFrequency of Losses helps quantify probability
4 - Catastrophic C B A A
3 - Critical D C B A
2 - Marginal D D C B
1 - Negligable D D D C
1- Unlikely 2 - Occasional 3 - Probable 4 - Frequent
Increasing Frequency
Incr
easi
ng C
onse
quen
ce
CONSEQUENCE - People / Reputation / Environment / Assets
EFU Risk Management
Does Learning From Losses have a Shelf Life?
To help with this question we will examine a 1912 loss, the most famous maritime disaster in history.
6Marsh
Recognise this Ship?
EFU Risk Management
7Marsh
Recognise this Ship?
The White Star Liner’s The Olympic
EFU Risk Management
8Marsh
The Olympic: Commissioned14th June 1911
The Titanic: Commissioned11th April 1912
The White Star Liner Company
EFU Risk Management
9Marsh
Sinking of Titanic, 15 April 1912
Owner: White Star Line
Construction: Harland & Wolff, Belfast
EFU Risk Management
10Marsh
Olympic Class of White Star Steamers
Developed by JP Morgan’s White StarShipping Group
Constructed by Harland & Wolff in Belfast included The Olympic, The Titanic and The Britannic
Designed to compete with Cunard & German Shippers on the prestigious Transatlantic English Channel in the early 1900s
Built for affluent travelers offering highspeed luxury
– The prized ‘Blue Riband’ was bestowed upon the ship with the fastest crossing. Held by Cunard’s Mauretania 1907-1929
Reference: ‘The Riddle of the Titanic’, Gardiner et. al. Orion, 1998
EFU Risk Management
11Marsh
Sinking of Titanic, 15 April 1912
Details: – 882 ft 9 in (269.1 m) long, 92 ft 6 in (28.2 m) wide– Gross register tonnage of 46,328 tons– Steam from 29 boilers powered two reciprocating steam engines and one
low-pressure Parsons turbine, which drove three propellers. – Possible top speed of 23 knots (43 km/h).
EFU Risk Management
12Marsh
What has changed since 1912
Information technology– Computers, phones, radar
Advanced materials – metallurgy, plastics, resins
Huge advances in machinery design.
Mass transit systems
EFU Risk Management
13Marsh
Timeline
10 April 12:00 departure Titanic from Southampton on maiden voyage to New York (via Cherbourg and Queenstown)
12 April, reports of ice fields on course coming in
14 April, increasing ice field reports, course altered to south, speed maintained at 22 knots
14 April, night: moonless, clam seas, temperatures just below freezing
14 April, 23:00, Californian radioed more ice and mentioned it stopped for the night because of pack ice, answer from Marconi radio operator ”shut up, shut up, I’m busy, I’m working Cape Race”
EFU Risk Management
14Marsh
Timeline
14 April, 23:40 – “iceberg directly ahead” alarm from crows nest to bridge– First Officer Murdoch ordered helm hard to starboard and engines
stopped – to prevent stern hitting iceberg, he then ordered helm hard to port,
this manoeuvre came too early and – ship’s bow hit undersea shelf of ice, causing damage to riveted
seams
14 April, 23:52 decision to restart engines by Ismay, increasing leak, with rivets popped open below water line over length of 90 m, allowing increasing amounts of water to enter damaged compartments, causing bow to sink, and water eventually to rise above watertight bulkheads terminating at E deck
EFU Risk Management
15Marsh
Timeline
15 April, 00:10 distress calls started (SOS)
15 April, 00:19 engines stopped for last time
15 April, 00:27 first lifeboat lowered (with capacity for 65 people, carrying 27)
15 April, 00:35 distress rockets launched
15 April, 02:20 Titanic sinks
15 April, 04:10 Carpathia arrived on scene
EFU Risk Management
16Marsh
What lessons can we (still) learn ??
Learning from previous Incidents
Staff Selection
Organizational Goals and Leadership
Management of Change
Material Integrity
Emergency Planning
EFU Risk Management
17Marsh
The Olympic – Prelude to DisasterLearning from Incidents and Staff Selection
21st Jun 1911 – Upon commissioning crashed into & almost sunk O.L. Halenbeck in Manhattan
20th Sep 1911 - Crashed into the Naval Cruiser the HMS Hawke in Southampton
24th Feb 1912 - Knocked-off one of its twenty-six tone propellers on a well-known wreck in the Grand Banks
Captained by Edward J. Smith.
Were large displacement effects understood?
How were people trained?
EFU Risk Management
18Marsh
Staff selection and learning from previous incidents
Regarded as very experienced but…..
27th Jan 1889 - Ran The Republic aground in New York
1st Dec 1890 - Ran The Coptic aground in Rio de Janerio
4th Nov 1909 - Ran The Adriatic aground outside New York
History of running ships toofast through narrowpassages.. and of notadequately training his
officers Captain Smith was commissioned to command the Titanic
EFU Risk Management
19Marsh
Setting the Right Culture
Titanic was “Unsinkable” and specifically built to “Compete” for the fastest Atlantic crossing
– This set the tone for poor decisions and leadership pressures
Personnel competency and leadership (pressure to make fast crossing
Incident investigation (no culture of near miss reporting and accident / incident investigation on previous events involving captain Smith)
Decision by Ismay (White Star Managing Director) to start engines after impact and reach Halifax under own steam)
Smith received at least six warnings of Ice from ships at dead stop in the area
Titanic sped toward ice field at 22.5 knots vs a recommended 10knots in such conditions
No binoculars in the crows nest made early warning near impossible
No need for lifeboats
EFU Risk Management
20Marsh
‘Safety outweighing every other
consideration’
Was the framed notice in the chart room of every White Star liner in 1912
EFU Risk Management
21Marsh
Setting the right culture
“… I faced a dilemma on the day, standing 20 metres from the explosion and the fire as to whether or not I should activate ESD 1, because I was for some strange reason, worried about the possible impact on production …”
EFU Risk Management
22Marsh
Quality Control and Material Identification
Asset integrity (rivets of best rather than best-best quality with high concentration of slags)
Shortage of skilled riveters
Rivets popping contributed to speed of sinking
Inferior quality of steel alloys is a genuine concern today
Mix-up of materials is a known cause of incidents– 2nd fire at Texas City
EFU Risk Management
23Marsh
Quality Control and Material Identification
France: 6,500 faulty Chinese valves in use
N-090925-02 Sud Robinetterie (SRI). Vannes Rigau S.A.S. On September 24, the regional newspaper La Provence reported that it had exclusive information, confirmed by Direction Régionale de l’Environnement, de l’Aménagement et du Logement (DREAL – Regional Administration of Environment, Planning and Housing), that several thousand substandard Chinese-made valves were in use throughout French industry. The valves were reportedly delivered to Vannes Rigau S.A.S., in Lille, on the orders of its parent company in Marseille, Sud Robinetterie. The valves in question were described as “corner or angle valves”, “globe valves”, and “flapper valves”, in carbon steel, and certified by the German TÜV before their entry into France. According to La Provence, the valves have incorrect heat treatment, and are prone to leak at low temperatures. Expected to operate down to -10ºC, they can only be used down to +5ºC. It was alleged that one of these valves may have been involved in an un-reported incident at Total’s Gonfreville site in April, 2009
EFU Risk Management
24Marsh
Management of Change
Lowering watertight bulkheads to allow ease of movement of people– As the bow sank, water came above E deck, accelerating the sinking as there
were no bulkheads to limit the ingress.– Hazard evaluation (requirement to be unsinkable relies on integrity of watertight
compartments, see above)
Was the decision to change the rivets a conscious one?
Lifeboats had been reduced for 64 to 22 in favour of more expansive promenade decks cf Olympic design
Insufficient to take the passengers and crew
EFU Risk Management
25Marsh
Management Of Modifications As important as ever
Norway's PSA criticizes StatoilHydro's safety culture
In May 2008, StatoilHydro’s Statfjord A platform, discharged 400 m³ of oil from one of the shafts into the Norwegian North Sea. StatoilHydro was forced to evacuate 156 persons.
EFU Risk Management
26Marsh
Management Of Modifications As important as ever
Norway's PSA criticises StatoilHydro's safety culture
LONDON, September 27 2008 – Norway’s Petroleum Safety Authority (PSA) has released a report attacking StatoilHydro's safety standards on the Norwegian continental shelf
PSA indicated dissatisfaction with the quality of the risk assessment StatoilHydro and partners Industrikonsult AS (IK) and Aker Solutions AS carried out for the modification work on Statfjord A's utility shaft. It said they had failed to meet regulatory standards
PSA issued an order to StatoilHydro to revamp its procedures for these types of projects by November 1. It also ordered that management of modification improvements be appreciably improved by December 1
PSA also ordered Aker "to identify and implement necessary improvements in the company's management of modification assignments, including identification of risk and use of information about risk in planning and executing hazardous work operations, including the selection of work methods and equipment, and follow-up of subcontractors"
EFU Risk Management
27Marsh
Emergency Planning
Major accident potential (worst case scenario sinking) was discounted.
Emergency response arrangements (total lifeboat capacity of 1,172 for maximum number of passengers and crew of 3,547, however complying with regulatory requirements.– Original design had just about enough lifeboats
The officers on board The Titanic had not trained with the lifeboats and were unsure of their holding capacity.
Smith often claimed to have never faced a “near disaster”– Reportedly his performance deteriorated in the last two hours.
Many people could not read the English signs
There was not a standing safety-response plan.. the ‘Women and Children first’ response was a (commendable) reaction more than a previously-agreed plan.
EFU Risk Management
28Marsh
Lack of Emergency Planning – the results
Lives Saved: 705 Lives Lost: 1500
Total passengers 2,205 Max Lifeboat Capacity 1,600
It wasn’t until 45 minutes after the collision that officers commence preparing the lifeboats
Twenty lifeboats were launched
Officers feared that the ship’s davits & winches would not hold the weight of the recommended 70 people
All but the last few lifeboats floated were half-filled
It is a fact that had the Officers filled the lifeboats per their specification an additional 600+ people could have been saved.
EFU Risk Management
29Marsh
Does learning have a shelf life?
The lessons from Titanic are still relevant today
There are good lessons which cross between industries
“Can we learn from the past”….the Risk Engineering team would say yes!
EFU Risk Management
30Marsh
Learning From Losses – The Insurance Perspective
Much has been written on learning from incidents– Almost all clients have incident reporting systems– Few formal systems for ‘third party’ incidents
Major incidents occur relatively often somewhere– Focus has been mainly on personnel safety– Lessons do not appear to be new
Major incidents continue to occur
Lessons are well documented, but not always learnt by other organisations– A number of possible reasons for this exist
EFU Risk Management
31Marsh
Risk Management and Losses
“Why is learning from losses difficult?”
EFU Risk Management
32Marsh
(Not) learning from positive results
Learning from Transformer fires ?
– See plenty of transformers with no dividing fire walls
– See plenty of large transformers with no deluge systems
EFU Risk Management
33Marsh
“Classic” Process Industry Losses around the World
EFU Risk Management
34Marsh
Date 2004Country AlgeriaFatalities 27Injuries 80
35Marsh
Date 2005Country IndiaFatalities 13Injuries 300Financial Loss (PD) USD 380m
36Marsh
So why do we not learn ?
Distance effects
Time effects
Cultural effects
Tunnel vision
EFU Risk Management
37Marsh
Distance effects
Local awareness
Local media pressure
Local regulatory effects
Potential differences between multinationals and NOCs
EFU Risk Management
38Marsh
Incident Timeline
1966France
1974UK
1975UAE
1984Mexico
1987UK
1988Brazil
1989Indonesia
1992France
1993Venzuela
1998Australia
2000Kuwait
2004Algeria
2005USA
2005UK
EFU Risk Management
39Marsh
Time effects
“Time is a great healer”
Loss of experienced people
Loss of corporate memory
Young companies– Not just in the Middle East
Understanding Risk can change with age of plant– “Has worked fine for 20 years”
EFU Risk Management
40Marsh
Loss Trends and Analysis
Losses by Age of Process Unit (excluding Nat Cat.)
Only includes losses where age of process plant known (sample size of 79 losses)
65% of losses involve process units >30 years old
Typical design life 25-30 years
Source: LIU Loss Database
Losses by Age of Process Unit
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
<10yrs 10 to 20yrs 20 to 30yrs >30yrs
To
tal L
oss
(US
D M
illio
ns)
EFU Risk Management
41Marsh
Cultural effects
“It has not happened here”
Engineers like to believe things work – not consider failure
Flawed assumptions re “international standards”
Personnel safety vs Process safety
Fear of litigation
Fear of blame
Difficulty in challenging upwards in some cultures
EFU Risk Management
42Marsh
Tunnel vision
Within a site
Within a division
Within a company
Within the industry
“Unsinkable”, “built to compete”
Focus is on projects, rationalisation, expansion, staying afloat
EFU Risk Management
43Marsh
Feyzin, France 1966 Date 1966Country FranceFatalities 18Injuries 18Extensive damage to nearby village
44Marsh
FEYZIN 1966 – The Lessons
Design sphere drains / sample points– with fixed valve handles– to discharge outside shadow of sphere– no catch pits under spheres
Improved training about:– importance of correct valve sequence and operating procedures– BLEVE can occur with water sprays and open relief valve
Improved means and training about raising the alarm
Coordination of emergency plans with public authorities to stop public traffic, etc.
Improve fire brigade response times
EFU Risk Management
45Marsh
The effect of distance, time, and language ?
Feyzin– French spheres
generally good– Japanese
spheres poorer– Recent
Japanese-designed installations below average
– Recent survey found plant with most ball-valve handles removed
EFU Risk Management
46Marsh
What was learnt from these 2 incidents?
EFU Risk Management
47Marsh
1998 – Australia 2005 – USA
EFU Risk Management
48Marsh
Longford vs. Texas City
Longford Royal Commission Report 1998
“Those who were operating GP1 on 25 Sept 1998 did not have knowledge of the dangers associated with loss of lean oil flow and did not take steps necessary to avert those dangers. Nor did those charged with supervision of the operations have the necessary knowledge and the steps taken by them were inappropriate”.
Texas City Report 2005
Raffinate Splitter Startup Procedures and Application of Skills and Knowledge:
“Failure to follow the startup procedure contributed to the loss of process control. Key individuals (management and operators) displayed lack of applied skills and knowledge and there was a lack of supervisory presence and oversight during this startup.”
EFU Risk Management
49Marsh
Conclusions: how we can learn from mistakes
Recognise barriers of time and distance– Keep the lessons alive
Recognise cultural barriers
Promote culture of learning – not blame
Share positives and negatives
Recognise limitations of national and international standards
Look at other industries, Columbia 2003, Nimrod 2006
Extract value from your broker relationship .. It’s a great potential knowledge transfer opportunity
EFU Risk Management