{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.027374301675977653, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0011173184357541898, 'mean_word_length': 5.175862068965517, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Managing escape, evacuation and rescue (EER) risk on aging offshore facilities


Esso Australia Resources Pty Ltd and BHP Petroleum (Bass Strait) Pty Ltd own numerous offshore facilities, which have been operated by Esso Australia Pty Ltd (EAPL) for over 40 years. With respect to escape, evacuation and rescue (EER), the long standing philosophy for these facilities has been to muster at the external assembly areas (EAA) near the evacuation lifeboat stations, to allow for swift evacuation when the need is apparent. This philosophy has underpinned the design of these offshore assets to date.
For new-build offshore facilities, typical EER philosophies include the provision of an enclosed temporary refuge (TR), specifically to maintain a safe environment for personnel (in the event of an emergency) such that they can muster before evacuation, or remain on the facility until the event is brought under control. TRs typically provide protection to personnel from hazards that the EAA may not (i.e. smoke), but may increase the duration of a potential evacuation if they are not located within close proximity to evacuation stations.
This paper considers the potential changes in risk presented by the two evacuation philosophies, and the potential implications of changing from one philosophy to another on an existing facility. The analysis expands to facility operational and design considerations.
This paper also describes a methodology to leverage existing quantitative risk assessments to assess (a) how the risk profile to personnel may change depending on the EER philosophy; (b) how the implementation of additional risk controls will impact risk; and (c) how the results of the assessment can be used to establish an ‘as low as is reasonably practicable’ (ALARP) position.
