setting the standard for gas detection/safety supervision ... · setting the standard for gas...

Chris Whitaker, CSHODirector of Operations

Safety Automation Technology, [email protected]

361.960.9080

Setting the Standard for Gas Detection/Safety Supervision During Completion Operations

November 29-30, 2016

• Enlisted in the Army as a Combat Medic in response to the terrorist resurgence following the invasion of Iraq.

• Assigned to protect and support the Battalion Commander & Battalion Operations Officer in the Tactical Alternate Command & Small Kill Team 3 on 400+ Combat Patrols during an 18 month deployment to Iraq.

Chris Whitaker


After an incredibly educational experience at Safety Solutions in Midland I was recruited by Gary Crook to help

build a new safety company (SAT) in South Texas that would develop the Shepherd Safety System – A gas detection

system that promised to revolutionize the way we protect our people in remote or isolated locations by providing unprecedented conceptual changes to the previously

accepted, albeit antiquated, standards for such products.


Hazards During Completion Operations?

Respirable Silica

High Density Traffic

Extreme Pressures

HazardousChemicals

H2S/Explosive Gas

High Explosives

Slips/Trips/FallsSnake Bites,Heat Exhaustion,

Lightning

Defective or Antiquated Safety Equipment

Unqualified or Extraneous Personnel

Lack of Safety Systems Oversight & Management


Hazards of H2S and Explosive GasesH2S fatalities and fugitive gas explosions are rare, but…

The results are often catastrophic.

Aftermath of frack site fire in Eastern New MexicoPhoto by: Jon Austria, Farmington Daily News


Drilling vs. CompletionDeployment of gas detection equipment during drilling is relatively standardized.

If H2S exposure is possible, the Operating Company will hire a 3rd party Safety Company to deploy H2S sensors and emergency breathing equipment with appropriate signage.

A current example of “Drilling Package” includes:• 4 – H2S Sensors (placed on the rig floor, sub, and shakers)• 5 – 10-Minute Escape Packs (placed on rig floor and shakers)• 2 – 30-Minute SCBAs for Rescue (placed at primary and secondary Muster Area)• Lights/Sirens• Condition Sign (placed at location entrance)• Windsocks (placed at Muster Areas)

The Safety Company remains on “stand-by” to respond if the alarms sound. During a “gas call”, the H2S technician will don a 30-minute SCBA and inspect the entire location with a handheld 4-gas detector. If gas is confirmed, the technician will remain on-site to provide over watch during ongoing operations.


Drilling vs. Completion (cont.)No “Typical” Completions Package…

Deployment of gas detection equipment and procedures vary widely from operator to operator in South Texas and seem to be the result of sales tactics rather than standards.

Some operators “go big”, with full-time on-site EMTs, mobile cascade systems on standby, and an excessive amount of sensors scattered about the entire process – from toe prep until the well is turned through to production. Other operators choose not to deploy any gas detection or breathing air equipment during their completions operations.

After observing this strange behavior the question must be asked:“What should we be doing in South Texas?”


Field Interviews & Findings

The primary scope of preliminary field interviews involved an assessment of each Operator’s basis for their current safety

practices during completions operations.

- After three months of informal meetings and interviews with Safety Personnel directly employed by each operator the results could be broken down into two categories:


Field Interviews & Findings- The Majors: Despite their best efforts, Safety Professionals

employed by the larger Operators in South Texas were completely unable to find their own company’s original basis for the existence of a policy or standard requiring large-scale equipment and personnel deployments.

- The Minors: Safety Professionals, Operations Managers, and Superintendents from smaller Operators in South Texas were all able to identify the reasoning for each different safety package deployed during each step of their completions operations.


Top-Down vs. CollaborativeSmaller Operators were best able to collaborate between field, supervisory, and corporate personnel to generate site-specific

safety plans for each stage of their completions operations.

• Knowledge of existing well profiles and the use of off-set data provided the foundation for incorporating each choice into the engineered well-plan.

• Special circumstances such as adjacent production facilities, compressor stations, plants, and tank batteries were factored into their decisions and incorporated into safety considerations for additional “SimOps” equipment.


Top-Down vs. Collaborative(Continued)

Larger Operators applied a “standardized” top-down package that did not account for specific hazards, or lack thereof, during each stage of completions operations. Additionally, these Operators did not implement the use of site-specific data.

• While not verifiable through investigative techniques available at the field level, the assumed existence of a company policy based on a standard continued to be a prevailing belief among these interviewees.

• With such little information available to their own Safety Professionals I have come to suspect that the governing corporate policy was solicited from a safety service company rather than being created through effective collaboration between the Operator’s Safety/Compliance group and their Operations Department.


Utilizing Industry StandardsWith any directly citable standard still not available, the following three months were dedicated to acquiring all possibly applicable industry standards.

• This began with the few standards that were specific to safety policies, procedures, and recommendations. These documents were surprisingly not helpful.

• The second stage of this process involved the analysis of published operational guidelines for completions operations in addition to all associate tasks which would normally be conducted on site.

• In total, 28 separate publications were utilized while creating the recommendations that follow.


Completions Flowchart & Recommendations

Supplement Toe Prep with 2-4x H2S/LEL Sensors and Redeploy

for HF OPS

Mobilize, RU, ToePrep Well, Pre-

Frac Meeting.

Mobilize, RU, Begin HF Operations

(If Scheduled)Mobilize, RU, Begin

DO Operations

RD HF Equipment. Mobilize, RU, Begin

DO Operations.

Mobilize, RU, Begin FB Operations

according to well plan.

RD DO & Continue FB (Mobilize & RU

FB if not already done)

4x H2S/LEL Sensors w/2x SCBA & Minimal Condition/Muster/Flagging

Supplement Existing Package w/ 6-8x H2S/LEL Sensors for DO Ops

Remove Extraneous Sensors After RD HF Ops

Supplement Existing Package w/ 2-4x H2S/LEL Sensors for FB RU

Remove Extraneous Sensors After RD DO Ops

Consider Air Trailer for FB Ops


Recent Advances in TechnologyThe recommendations presented in this scenario are dependent

on the use of a remote monitoring safety system to provide complete operational oversight of the Operator’s location.

• Service Company must be held responsible for the system’s timely and accurate deployment during transitions between operations.

• Service Company must be held responsible to provide constant remote oversight with regard to the condition of the deployed safety system.

• Must be wire-free, battery powered, and Intrinsically Safe design is preferred.• Well-Site Supervisor must be provided with a remote monitoring platform

running in an “always on” mode and located in their office.• Wireless Siren Systems should be considered for deployment during each

transition.

Response to warnings or alarms should be initiated by Service Company within 2-5 minutes of event


Value of Remote Monitoring

Real-time situational awareness directly improves operational safety.

Quickly resolve false alarms and other equipment problems

Eliminate the costs of unnecessary on-site safety technicians

Electronic records increase accountability and legal protection

Operators can use data to identify “hot-spots” and adapt procedures


WHY IT WORKS


Example HF Configuration


Example Drillout Configuration


Using On-Site “Safety” Technicians

Animation of Captured Data collected during operations for one customer in 2016

• Remote Monitoring Systems with modernized gas detection technology remove the need for minimally trained H2S Technicians to stay on-site with outdated equipment.

• The use of on-site Safety Technicians should be reserved for locations with high-hazard potential OR when unplanned operations create additional hazards which may become unpredictable in nature (Screening-out, sour returns during DO or FB Operations, stuck CT and subsequent fishing ops).


• These technicians should have advanced training specificallyfor high-hazard environments involving all toxic & explosivegases, specialized training for rescue operations, First Aid + CPR w/Defibrillator Training, and be Quantitatively Fit-Testedfor all masks utilized by their service company.


Applicable Standards (cont.)• API RP 54• API RP 68• API RP 74• API BUL 75L• API RP 55• API RP 4G• API RP 49• API RP 500• API RP 2016• ANSI/ASSE Z390.1• NFPA 1006• DHHS TP-H2S• NFPA 77

• NFPA 326• NFPA 497• NFPA 30• NFPA 400• OSHA 3763-12 2014• NFPA 69• TRRC 36• NFPA 51B• NFPA 10• TIC 6001 & 28TAC

34.500• ISO/CD 45001


Questions?Contact Information:

Chris Whitaker, CSHODirector of Operations

Safety Automation Technology, [email protected]

361.960.9080

Visit the Shepherd Safety/SAT Booth: #509

mailto:[email protected]

setting the standard for gas detection/safety supervision ... · setting the standard for gas...

Documents