• 4 hours Oil Prices Rise After API Reports Major Crude Draw
  • 5 hours Citgo President And 5 VPs Arrested On Embezzlement Charges
  • 5 hours Gazprom Speaks Out Against OPEC Production Cut Extension
  • 6 hours Statoil Looks To Lighter Oil To Boost Profitability
  • 7 hours Oil Billionaire Becomes Wind Energy’s Top Influencer
  • 8 hours Transneft Warns Urals Oil Quality Reaching Critical Levels
  • 9 hours Whitefish Energy Suspends Work In Puerto Rico
  • 10 hours U.S. Authorities Arrest Two On Major Energy Corruption Scheme
  • 22 hours Thanksgiving Gas Prices At 3-Year High
  • 1 day Iraq’s Giant Majnoon Oilfield Attracts Attention Of Supermajors
  • 1 day South Iraq Oil Exports Close To Record High To Offset Kirkuk Drop
  • 1 day Iraqi Forces Find Mass Graves In Oil Wells Near Kirkuk
  • 1 day Chevron Joint Venture Signs $1.7B Oil, Gas Deal In Nigeria
  • 1 day Iraq Steps In To Offset Falling Venezuela Oil Production
  • 1 day ConocoPhillips Sets Price Ceiling For New Projects
  • 4 days Shell Oil Trading Head Steps Down After 29 Years
  • 4 days Higher Oil Prices Reduce North American Oil Bankruptcies
  • 4 days Statoil To Boost Exploration Drilling Offshore Norway In 2018
  • 4 days $1.6 Billion Canadian-US Hydropower Project Approved
  • 4 days Venezuela Officially In Default
  • 4 days Iran Prepares To Export LNG To Boost Trade Relations
  • 4 days Keystone Pipeline Leaks 5,000 Barrels Into Farmland
  • 5 days Saudi Oil Minister: Markets Will Not Rebalance By March
  • 5 days Obscure Dutch Firm Wins Venezuelan Oil Block As Debt Tensions Mount
  • 5 days Rosneft Announces Completion Of World’s Longest Well
  • 5 days Ecuador Won’t Ask Exemption From OPEC Oil Production Cuts
  • 5 days Norway’s $1 Trillion Wealth Fund Proposes To Ditch Oil Stocks
  • 5 days Ecuador Seeks To Clear Schlumberger Debt By End-November
  • 5 days Santos Admits It Rejected $7.2B Takeover Bid
  • 6 days U.S. Senate Panel Votes To Open Alaskan Refuge To Drilling
  • 6 days Africa’s Richest Woman Fired From Sonangol
  • 6 days Oil And Gas M&A Deal Appetite Highest Since 2013
  • 6 days Russian Hackers Target British Energy Industry
  • 6 days Venezuela Signs $3.15B Debt Restructuring Deal With Russia
  • 6 days DOJ: Protestors Interfering With Pipeline Construction Will Be Prosecuted
  • 6 days Lower Oil Prices Benefit European Refiners
  • 6 days World’s Biggest Private Equity Firm Raises $1 Billion To Invest In Oil
  • 7 days Oil Prices Tank After API Reports Strong Build In Crude Inventories
  • 7 days Iraq Oil Revenue Not Enough For Sustainable Development
  • 7 days Sudan In Talks With Foreign Oil Firms To Boost Crude Production
Alt Text

Bankrupt Venezuela Asks Partners For Free Oil

Following Venezuela’s official default last…

Alt Text

Oil Prices Stuck Ahead Of OPEC Meeting

Oil prices are holding steady…

The Harsh Reality of Fail Safe Engineering

The Harsh Reality of Fail Safe Engineering

As I have said many times, all of our energy options require trade-offs. I can’t think of any that don’t have some negative consequences and risks associated with their production and/or use. One job of the engineer is to minimize those risks down to an acceptable level. Often times, public expectation mistakenly assumes that “acceptable” means that accidents should never occur, but there are many reasons why that metric will never be achieved.

We sometimes find out — as we did with the Deepwater spill — that even seemingly basic safety measures have been overlooked. While an accident like that is a black eye for the offshore oil industry, the industry will learn some valuable lessons and the risk of a similar future accident should be lessened. But beyond the human and environmental toll, there is a real financial toll for the industry and thus strong economic incentive to do a thorough job of engineering safe systems.

The Deepwater incident certainly stalled momentum for offshore drilling in the U.S. by reminding us that the consequences of our drive to access energy can be severe indeed. A nuclear accident has the same potential for stalling momentum in the nuclear field. Since Deepwater, I have wondered many times whether the nuclear industry has a Deepwater that is simply awaiting a series of unlikely events before a major accident occurs.

Don’t get me wrong, I support nuclear power and believe it is going to become an ever-more-important source of energy as fossil fuel supplies decline. Japan is the third largest user of nuclear power in the world with 53 52 reactors providing 34.5% almost 34.5% of their electricity. I am sure Japan would much rather produce all of their electricity with wind and solar power, but the very scale of energy usage in developed countries combined with Japan’s lack of fossil fuel resources is why I foresee continued strong growth in the nuclear industry.

Risks, Probability, Economics, and the Price of Failure

But there really isn’t such a thing as “fail safe engineering.” That is simply because we can’t guard against every possible outcome. The nuclear plant in Japan that seems to have been destroyed in the wake of last week’s devastating tsunami was engineered to protect against numerous possible scenarios. Earthquakes? Without a doubt. Earthquake followed by a tsunami? Almost certainly. Earthquake plus a tsunami plus random occurrences X and Y? That’s where you get into very low probability events that can’t always be engineered against in an economical way.

For example, in a chemical plant, there is a real probability that 1). Lightning will strike a storage tank; 2). A meteorite will strike a storage tank. However, only one of those probabilities is high enough to devote money toward preventing its occurrence. There are things we can do to mitigate against both of these outcomes. But the cost of mitigating against a meteorite strike — combined with the very low probability of a tank being struck by a meteorite — means that we live with that possibility.

While the previous is a somewhat absurd example, it is an example that entered my thoughts many times over the years as we attempted to engineer safe processes. It is a simple example to show why you can’t economically engineer against all possible outcomes. If a process has a 1% chance of happening every 20 years, the worst possible outcome is a broken fingernail, and it will cost a million dollars to prevent it — we call that an acceptable risk and move on. If the chance of happening is the same and the possible outcome is death, we modify the design.

But as you can probably guess there is a tremendous amount of gray area. The 1% chance of a broken fingernail in 20 years may become a much worse outcome if a couple of other low probability events happened. If Events A, B, and C each have a 1 in 1000 chance of happening at any particular time, the combination may have (depending on lots of variables), a (1/1000)*(1/1000)*(1/1000) chance of happening in connection with each other, which is a probability of 1 in a billion. A very common reason accidents occur is that we either didn’t consider that A, B, and C could all happen at the same time, or we underestimated the probability of them doing so. I have been involved in many incident investigations where I heard “Who could have imagined that those events would all line up as they did?”


It is far too early to speculate on the sequence of events that led to the current situation at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant. Of course we know that the earthquake/tsunami was involved, but in the end it won’t surprise me if some other low probability events were involved. Plants often operate at non-optimal conditions for a variety of reasons (maintenance, for instance), and it could be that the design for earthquake/tsunami was fine, but random Event C — deemed a low probability at the same time of an earthquake/tsunami — contributed.

The purpose of this essay is to communicate why it is practically impossible to design systems incapable of failure. The best we can do is to design systems so that if they do fail, they fail in a safe way. For instance, if a valve in a pipeline fails, we can design it to fail closed (if, for instance it had the potential to feed fuel to a fire) or open (if it was preventing pressure build-up in a system).

These are the sorts of lessons that are learned when accidents take place, which have made our energy production and delivery infrastructure much safer over time. But it will always involve some element of risk, and at times very difficult trade-offs.

By. Robert Rapier

Source: R Squared Energy Blog

Back to homepage

Leave a comment

Leave a comment

Oilprice - The No. 1 Source for Oil & Energy News