This article presents a new risk model for estimating the probability of allision risk (the impact between a ship under way and a stationary installation) from passing vessels on the Norwegian Continental Shelf (NCS). Offshore petroleum operators on the NCS are required by the Norwegian Petroleum Safety Authority (PSA) to perform risk assessments to estimate the probability of impacts between ships and offshore installations, both for field related and passing (merchant) vessels. This has typically been done using the aging industry standard COLLIDE risk model, but this article presents a new risk model based on a Bayesian Belief Network (BBN) that can replace the old COLLIDE model for passing vessels. The new risk model incorporates a wider range of risk influencing factors (RIFs) and enables a holistic and detailed analysis of risk factors, barrier elements and dependencies. Even though the risk of allision with passing vessels is very small, the potential consequences can be critical. The new risk model is more transparent and provides a better understanding of the mechanisms behind allision risk calculations. The results from the new model are aligned with industry expectations, indicating an overall satisfactory performance. The article discusses several key elements, such as the use of expert judgement to estimate RIFs when no empirical data is available, model sensitivity, and a comparative assessment of the new risk model to the old COLLIDE model.
PSA. The risk level project. Main report. Development trends 2018 NCS (in Norwegian: RNNP Hovedrapport utviklingstrekk 2018 norsk sokkel. Risikonivå i norsk petroleumsvirksomhet), Petroleum Safety Authority, Norway, 2018.
3.
VinnemJE. Offshore risk assessment (Springer series in reliability engineering, vol. 1). 3rd ed. London: Springer-Verlag, 2014.
4.
SveenD. Oseberg B Jacket – damage assessment and repair after submarine collision. J Petrol Technol1990; 42(11): 1421–1425.
OGP. Ship/installation collisions. International Association of Oil & Gas Producers – Risk Assessment Data Directory. London: International Association of Oil & Gas Producers (OGP), 2010.
10.
SandhålandHOltedalHEidJ. Situation awareness in bridge operations – a study of collisions between attendant vessels and offshore facilities in the North Sea. Safety Sci2015; 79: 277–285.
RosqvistTNymanTSonninenS, et al. The implementation of the VTMIS system for the Gulf of Finland – a FSA study. In: RINA international conference on formal safety assessment, London, UK, 18–19 September 2002, pp. 151–164. London: Royal Institution of Naval Architects RINA.
13.
DaiLEhlersSRausandM, et al. Risk of collision between service vessels and offshore wind turbines. Reliab Eng Syst Safe2013; 109: 18–31.
14.
ProskeDCurbachM. Risk to historical bridges due to ship impact on German inland waterways. Reliab Eng Syst Safe2005; 90: 261–270.
PovelD. Collision risk analysis for offshore structures and offshore wind farms. In: ASME 25th international conference on offshore mechanics and arctic engineering, Hamburg, Germany, 4–9 June 2006. New York: ASME.
18.
LützenMFriis-HansenP. Risk reducing effect of AIS implementation on collision risk. In: Proceedings of society of naval architects and marine engineers, San Francisco, 18–20 October 2003. San Francisco, CA: Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers.
19.
TruccoPCagnoERuggeriF, et al. Bayesian belief network modelling of organisational factors in risk analysis: a case study in maritime transportation. Reliab Eng Syst Safe2008; 93(6): 845–856.
20.
NorringtonLQuigleyJRusselA, et al. Modelling the reliability of search and rescue operations with Bayesian belief networks. Reliab Eng Syst Safe2008; 93(7): 940–949.
21.
KujalaPHänninenMArolaT, et al. Analysis of the marine traffic safety in the Gulf of Finland. Reliab Eng Syst Safe2009; 94(8): 1349–1357.
22.
HänninenMKujalaP. The effects of causation probability on the ship collision statistics in the Gulf of Finland. Int J Marine Navig Safe Sea Transport2010; 4(1): 79–84.
23.
MartinsMRMaturanaMC. Application of Bayesian belief networks to the human reliability analysis of an oil tanker operation focusing on collision accidents. Reliab Eng Syst Safe2013; 110: 89–109.
24.
GoerlandtFMontewkaJ. A probabilistic model for accidental cargo oil outflow from product tankers in a ship–ship collision. Mar Pollut Bull2014; 79(1–2): 130–144.
25.
MontewkaJEhlersSGoerlandtF, et al. A framework for risk assessment for maritime transportation systems – a case study for open sea collisions involving RoPax vessels. Reliab Eng Syst Safe2014; 124: 142–157.
26.
AkhtarMJUtneIB. Human fatigue’s effect on the risk of maritime groundings – a Bayesian network modeling approach. Safety Sci2014; 62: 427–440.
27.
ThiemeCUtneIBHaugenS. Assessing ship risk model applicability to Marine Autonomous Surface Ships. Ocean Eng2018; 165: 140–154.
28.
HasselMUtneIBVinnemJE. Analysis of the main challenges with the current risk model for collisions between ships and offshore installations on the Norwegian Continental Shelf. In: 12th international probabilistic safety assessment and management conference (PSAM), Honolulu, Hawaii, 22–27 June 2014.
29.
HaugenS. Probabilistic evaluation of frequency of collision between ships and offshore platforms. PhD Thesis, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway, 1991.
van der TakCGlansdorpCC. Ship offshore platform collision risk assessment (SOCRA). In: The 5th international conference on loss prevention in the oil and gas industry, Aberdeen, Scotland, 11–13 September 1995.
PovelD. Collision risk analysis for offshore structures and offshore wind farms. In: Paper presented at the 25th international conference on offshore mechanics and arctic engineering, Hamburg, Germany, 4–9 June 2006.
40.
HänninenM. Analysis of human and organizational factors in marine traffic risk modeling. Espoo: Helsinki University of Technology, 2008.
41.
RausandM. Risk asssessment. Theory, methods, and applications. Hobroken: Wiley, 2011.
42.
HeckermanDGeigerDChickeringD. Learning Bayesian networks: the combination of knowledge and statistical data. Mach Learn1995; 20: 197–243.
43.
UusitaloL. Advantages and challenges of Bayesian networks in environmental modelling. Ecol Model2007; 203: 312–318.
ChenSHPollinoCA. Good practice in Bayesian network modelling. Environ Modell Softw2012; 37: 134–145.
46.
HänninenM. Bayesian networks for maritime traffic accident prevention: benefits and challenges. Accident Anal Prev2014; 73: 305–312.
47.
JanisIL. Victims of groupthink. 2nd ed.Boston: Houghton-Mifflin, 1982.
48.
PetersonRSOwensPDTetlockPE, et al. Group dynamics in top management teams: groupthink, vigilance, and alternative models of organizational failure and success. Organ Behav Hum Dec1998; 73: 272–305.
49.
MakkonenMHujalaTUusivuoriJ. Policy experts’ propensity to change their opinion along Delphi rounds. Technol Forecast Soc2016; 109: 61–68.
50.
CamererCFJohnsonEJ. The process-performance paradox in expert judgment – how can experts know so much and predict so badly? toward a general theory of expertise: prospects and limits. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991, pp. 195–217.
51.
ØienK. Risk indicators as a tool for risk control. Reliab Eng Syst Safe2001; 74(2): 129–145.
52.
Helmer-HirschbergO. Analysis of the future: the Delphi method. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 1967.
53.
LinstoneHATuroffM. The Delphi method: techniques and applications. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1975.
54.
WoudenbergF. An evaluation of Delphi. Technol Forecast Soc1991; 40: 131–150.
55.
RoweGWrightGMcCollA. Judgment change during Delphi-like procedures: the role of majority influence, expertise, and confidence. Technol Forecast Soc2005; 72: 377–399.
56.
HusslerCMullerPRondéP. Is diversity in Delphi panelist groups useful? evidence from a French forecasting exercise on the future of nuclear energy. Technol Forecast Soc2011; 78: 1642–1653.
GaryJEvonderGrachtHA. The future of foresight professionals: results from a global Delphi study. Futures2015; 71: 132–145.
59.
ArielyDTungAu WBenderRH, et al. The effects of averaging subjective probability estimates between and within judges. J Exp Psychol: Appl2000; 6(2): 130–147.
60.
WallstenTSDiederichA. Understanding pooled subjective probability estimates. Math Soc Sci2001; 41: 1–18.
61.
Merriam-Webster. Allision. In: The Merriam-Webster online dictionary. The Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, n.d.
62.
MazaheriAMontewkaJKujalaP. Towards an evidence-based probabilistic risk model for ship-grounding accidents. Safety Sci2016; 86: 195–210.
63.
HänninenMKujalaP. Influences of variables on ship collision probability in a Bayesian belief network model. Reliab Eng Syst Safe2012; 102: 27–40.
HockeyGRJHealeyACrawshawM, et al. Cognitive demands of collision avoidance in simulated ship control. Hum Factors2003; 45(2): 252–265.
67.
HetheringtonCFlinRMearnsK. Safety in shipping: the human element. J Safety Res2006; 37(4): 401–411.
68.
WagenaarWAGroenewegJ. Accidents at sea: multiple causes and impossible consequences. Int J Man Mach Stud1987; 27(5): 587–598.
69.
GeijerstamKSvenssonH. Ship collision risk – an identification and evaluation of important factors in collisions with offshore installations. Lund: Department of Fire Safety Engineering and Systems Safety, Lund University, 2008.
AarsætherKG. Modeling and analysis of ship traffic by observation and numerical simulation. PhD Thesis, Department of Marine Technology, NTNU, Trondheim, 2011.
73.
PitchforthJMengersenK. A proposed validation framework for expert elicited Bayesian networks. Expert Syst Appl2013; 40: 162–167.
74.
PollinoCAWoodberryONicholsonA, et al. Parameterisation and evaluation of a Bayesian network for use in an ecological risk assessment. Environ Modell Softw2007; 22: 1140–1152.
HasselMUtneIBVinnemJE. An empirical study of vessel traffic patterns around offshore petroleum installations on the Norwegian continental shelf. WMU Marit Aff2016; 16(2): 175–195.
77.
KirwanB. Human error identification techniques for risk assessment of high-risk systems—part 1: review and evaluation of techniques. Appl Ergon1998; 29: 157–177.
78.
TetlockPGardnerD. Superforecasting: the art and science of prediction. 1st ed.London: Random House, 2015.
