Computerized Scoring System for Oil Gas Facility Impact Assessment
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions
Solution Overview
Problem
Current methods for evaluating the conformance of oil and gas facilities to safety and operation guidelines are inflexible, unable to consider relative exposure, importance of combinatorics, uncertainty, and nuances in performance, leading to weak or overly harsh ratings that fail to recognize operators going above and beyond minimum standards.
Innovation Solution
A computer-based scoring system using a multiway decision tree to generate a normalized and objective score that accounts for technical and operational uncertainty, exposure, and relative importance, allowing for continuous performance assessment across diverse environments and challenges.
Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles
Engineering Contradiction Analysis
1Ease of manufacture
If a manual checklist method is used to evaluate facility conformance, then the assessment is simple and objective, but it is inflexible and cannot consider relative exposure or nuances in performance
Solution Approach 1:
The patent transforms the rigid checklist parameters into flexible weighted parameters that can be adjusted based on exposure levels. Each checklist item is assigned a weight that reflects its relative importance and exposure, allowing the same checklist to adapt to different facility types and risk profiles while maintaining ease of use.
Solution Approach 2:
The assessment system transitions from a static checklist to a dynamic scoring model where weights and thresholds can be adjusted based on facility characteristics, exposure levels, and performance nuances. This allows the system to adapt to different scenarios while maintaining a structured evaluation framework.
2Ease of operation
If a checklist with fixed criteria is used, then the assessment is straightforward, but it cannot account for uncertainty or recognize operators going above and beyond minimum standards
Solution Approach 1:
The patent applies different levels of scrutiny and weighting to different checklist items based on their local importance and exposure. Critical safety items receive higher weights and stricter evaluation, while optional improvement items receive lower weights, allowing the system to maintain simplicity while accurately recognizing exceptional performance in specific areas.
Solution Approach 2:
The system allows operators to receive credit for partial implementation of best practices and recognizes performance that exceeds minimum standards through weighted scoring. This enables the assessment to be both simple to administer and reliable in capturing nuanced performance levels, including uncertainty ranges in the scoring.
3Productivity
If traditional assessment methods are used, then the process is simple, but it cannot provide comprehensive impact estimation or normalize scores across different environments
Solution Approach 1:
The patent adds dimensional depth to the assessment by incorporating exposure levels, uncertainty ranges, and weighted importance factors. This transforms a flat checklist into a multi-dimensional scoring system that maintains computational efficiency while providing comprehensive impact estimation and enabling normalization across different facility environments and risk profiles.
Data Source
AI summary
A data processing method for execution using a programmed computer to generate an objective score value specifying an estimated impact of an oil or gas processing operation comprises: receiving a plurality of data associated with the oil or gas processing operation; identifying, using the plurality of data, a plurality of events that may occur during the oil or gas processing operation; for each event of the plurality of events, determining a relative weighting of potential impact of the event for the oil or gas processing operation using local conditions and a master event profile for the event; for each event of the plurality of events, determining an effectiveness of one or more control efforts; for each event of the plurality of events, determining a score using the relative weighting of the potential impact of the event and the effectiveness of the one or more control efforts; determining the objective digitally stored score value for the oil or gas processing operation using the score for each event of the plurality of events and benchmarking the objective digitally stored score value to a plurality of objective digitally stored score values for other oil or gas processing operations.