Evaluation of Risks Related to Transfer of Rural Housing Land for Tourism Development in the Context of “Separation of Three Rights” Reform in China

In this paper, based on a field survey on typical villages in a Chinese metropolis suburb, we employ a risk matrix and the Borda ranking method to evaluate risks related to transfer of rural housing land for tourism development from the perspectives of different stakeholders. We also make suggestions regarding how to standardize transfers and revitalize utilization of rural housing land use rights. Combining qualitative analysis and quantitative analysis, the risk matrix determines the various risk levels faced by different stakeholders in the circulation of rural housing land for tourism development from two dimensions: risk impact degree and risk occurrence probability. Then, the Borda ranking method can subdivide the risk types within each risk level, thus identifying the most critical risks. Our results indicate that (1) unfair distribution of income from land transfers is the major risk faced by farm households and directly decides their willingness to transfer their housing land; (2) market instability is the prime risk factor faced by social investors, and together with project progress risk, indirectly leads to occurrence of operation risk and severely affects the motivation of social investors to invest in transfer, development and operation of rural housing land for tourism development; (3) disappearance of countryside characteristics is the critical risk factor faced by village collectives, and coordination and management risk is the main impediment that blocks the process of transfer of rural housing land for tourism development; and (4) other risks confronted by stakeholders in land transfer, although not the main ones, still need to be granted great importance and followed up closely. Therefore, it is necessary not only to establish appropriate risk avoidance measures for different critical risk factors faced by different stakeholders of such land transfers, but also to strengthen study of the association between the risks, identify the conduction effect of direct and indirect risks, macro and micro risks, and before action and after action risks, and improve the ability to prevent and mitigate these risks.

A Global Scale Analysis of River Flood Risk of UNESCO World Heritage Sites

Floods can significantly affect Cultural Heritage with consequences that might not easily be repaired, given the unicity of this type of exposed asset. Flood losses are both tangible and intangible since communities rely on cultural heritage for its historical, spiritual, aesthetic, and socio-economic values. This work aims at examining river flood risk of UNESCO tangible World Heritage (UNWH) sites to identify the most at risk assets with a risk matrix approach entailing hazard, exposure, and vulnerability at a global scale. A distinction is made between natural sites, for which only hazard and exposure are assessed, and cultural and mixed sites. Hazard is evaluated by using the river flood maps at global scale developed by JRC for six probabilistic scenarios, exposure classification is based on the World Heritage List selection criteria and vulnerability is based on site typology. The analysis on 1,121 sites, as of March 2021, shows that 35% of natural and 21% of cultural and mixed UNWH sites are exposed to river floods. The risk matrix combining hazard, exposure, and vulnerability reveals that 2% of UNWH is at extremely high risk and 7% at very high risk, mostly in the Europe-North America and Asia-Pacific Regions. The analysis also stresses the need for a systematic collection, update, and storage of georeferenced data for cultural heritage. Further analysis should be carried out at local scales, with a priority for higher risk sites to better estimate hazard and vulnerability at a higher spatial resolution.

Using Risk Based Maintenance Optimization RBMO to Save Costs

Maintenance is a crucial pillar in plant integrity and availability. Saving money in maintenance should be established without affecting the asset's integrity. Based on this, the core of work is to maximize the maintenance return on investment (ROI). Maintenance ROI is the ratio between invested money in maintenance to mitigated risks due to maintenance actions. The objective is to minimize maintenance cost while maximizing assets integrity and availability. RBMO starts with ‘Maintenance Criticality Assessment’ (MCA) at unit/system level to define high (20 % of systems that represent 80% of risks), medium (20% of systems that represent 15% of risks), and low critical systems (60% of systems that represent only 5% of risks). Based on system criticality, a dedicated risk assessment is implemented to evaluate risks at tag level to define the worst maintenance action/s. High critical systems’ maintenance programs are developed using ‘Reliability-Centered Maintenance’ (RCM). Medium critical system maintenance program is developed using ‘Failure Mode, Effects and criticality analysis’ (FMECA). "Maintenance strategy for Low Critical item" guideline document is developed to define the best maintenance strategy for low critical units. All risks are evaluated using the standard ADNOC risk matrix. The risk is converted to monetary value in $ to evaluate maintenance actions using a formula. A special program was developed to facilitate MCA evaluation for each system and represent risk as monetary value using ADNOC Risk Matrix taking into consideration the redundancy and demand on a system during operation. MCAs were completed for all ADNOC Onshore Assets, see results below. Optimization starts by evaluating maintenance programs for low critical systems to save costs where low critical systems represent 50% to 60% of total systems in ADNOC Onshore. Based on this the total number of work orders has decreased by 6856, which is equivalent to saving $1M annually. In parallel, RCMs are conducted on high critical systems. Risk mitigation calculator in $ value was developed and embedded in the RCM information sheet to calculate cost benefit from implementing maintenance programs that were developed. RBMO is a systematic and traceable methodology to minimize maintenance cost and at the same time maximize system integrity and availability. This work showed the importance of reviewing the low critical systems’ maintenance program, as a first step in RBMO after implementing MCA, where low critical systems represent 50% to 60% of total assets and only 5% of total risks. ADNOC Onshore developed a dedicated guideline document "Maintenance Strategy for Low Critical Item" to facilitate decision making for proper maintenance strategy for low critical systems. Adding RCM risk mitigation calculator to RCM to calculate RCM cost benefit.

Contextual Failure Analysis Improves Reliability While Pushing the Envelope of Extended Reach Wells in a Giant Brown Field, UAE

The current combination of increasingly complex wellbores and tightening budgets forces operators to do more with less and find new ways to expand the drilling envelop. Often this pushes the parameters to the limit in order to achieve faster penetration rates. Operating at the limit or beyond impacts equipment reliability and project cost. A thorough failure analysis of the root cause(s) of every incident can help identify and address areas that need improvement. Identifying a cause fosters improvement while it simultaneously pushes the boundaries so the profitability of mature assets can be maximized. Typical failure analysis attempts to determine the cause of a failure and establish corrective actions to prevent reoccurrence. In a large extended reach drilling project targeting a mature field, the approach to a single failure was expanded and projected in a proactive manner to anticipate the impact of current failure modes in future more challenging scenarios. This innovative method combines the classic failure analysis approach with a comparative approach designed to identify and classify each factor that contributed to the failure. This information is then compiled into a dynamic predictive risk matrix to improve the planning. This method, thanks to the contextualization of individual failures and the multi-facet comparative analysis, revealed a pattern between reliability trends and environmental challenges. The pattern was correlated with the increased drilling difficulty over the lifetime of the project, and suggested that the long-established practices had to be revised to overcome the new scenario. The analysis contributed to the delineation of a strong action plan that immediately revealed a consistent service quality improvement quarter on quarter and nearly a 50% decrease in failure rate. The enhanced reliability had a direct impact on the performance that registered a significant reduction of the drilling time, thus lowering the overall well construction cost. In today's economics where cost reduction, resource optimization and sustainability are at the top of the operator's priority list, failure analysis has become paramount to ensure continuous improvement. Effective analytic methods to identify and eliminate showstoppers are needed to minimize unplanned events and deliver within budget. By digging deep into the root cause of incidents, this new approach to failure analysis enabled an enhanced, broader and more effective quality improvement plan that tackled service quality from multiple angles. From refining bottomhole assembly (BHA) design and risk matrix to drafting field guidelines and roadmaps, this approach also provided extra guidance and risk awareness for future well planning improvement. This particularly applies to mature fields where wellbore complexity increases at the same time budgets decrease and it's necessary to improve operational excellence to assure profitability.

Reliability Based Structural Risk Assessments and Associated Economic Gains

Managing a large fleet of offshore structures is a dynamic process that aims at minimising risks to personnel, environment, and businesses, as well as minimising the associated Operations Expenditure. Through the collaborative efforts of ADNOC Offshore and Kent, formerly Atkins Oil & Gas, (Atkins, 2020), revised structural evaluation and integrity approaches have yielded significant cost savings. The considerable savings were associated with the elimination of the requirement for installing many new offshore structures and through reducing the subsea inspection associated efforts. The approach for evaluating the offshore assets’ structural performance was developed based on adopting target probability of failure figures subject to each asset's consequence of failure. Accordingly, structural reliability analyses were conducted specific to each structure, where the analysis considered structure specific environmental hazard curves and failure surfaces. Through mapping the evaluated structural probability of failure and ADNOC's corporate risk matrix's HSE Likelihood, each structure was precisely placed on the risk matrix. Furthermore, the inspection intervals and Topsides, Splash Zone, Subsea Levels I, II and III were mapped to each risk evaluation on the risk matrix. The optimisation approach of adopting a structure specific reliability analysis and mapping with ADNOC's corporate risk matrix yielded considerable cost benefits while providing a more accurate representation of each asset's risk. As a result of the implementation of the developed process, approximately 41% of the assets got lower risk evaluation compared to the legacy approach and presented extra structural capacities that can be utilised for future expansions and eliminating the requirement for installation of new assets. As the process expanded to include asset inspections, the subsea inspection requirements reduced by approximately 43% reflecting a considerable decrease in operating costs. A major contribution of the risk improvement is attributed to the consideration of the storm prevailing approach directions, the joint probability of wave and current magnitudes and directions, as well as the relative alignment of each structure. The developed approaches provide a framework that allows continuous update of the risk assessment and enables executives and management to make risk-based-decision supported by a consistent measure of structural risk. This has been translated into the generation of the Structural Passports (Summary reports) clearly demonstrating the assets current risk and recommendations for mitigation measures, if deemed required.

Risk assessment of geological disaster in the region of Primorsko Municipality

Risk assessment methodology is described in detail and applied for assessing the geological hazard for potential landslides and earthquakes. This methodology follows the guidelines of ISO 31010 and the JRC recommendations, and is applied for the first time in Bulgaria. The obtained results have high practical applicability. The flexibility of the methodology allows the final result to be presented as either a risk matrix or risk profiles. It depends on the specific tasks, issues and scientific problems that need to be solved.

A Failure Modes and Effects Analysis Framework for Assessing Geotechnical Risks of Tailings Dam Closure

Tailings dams remain on site following mine closures and must be designed and reclaimed to meet long-term goals, which may include walk-away closure or long-term care and maintenance. The underperformance of these structures can result in significant risks to public and environmental safety, as well as impacts on the future land use and economic activities near the structure. In Alberta, Canada, the expectation is for a tailings dam to be reclaimed and closed so that it can undergo deregistration. To aid in assessing the risks of underperformance during and after closure, a Generalized Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (G-FMEA) framework was developed to assess the long-term geotechnical risks for tailings dams in Alberta, with the goal of assessing the potential success of a tailings dam closure strategy. The G-FMEA is part of an initiative to enhance closure evaluations in Alberta in a collaborative effort between industry, the regulator, and academia. The G-FMEA incorporates the element of time to account for the evolution of the system, which should be applied at the planning stage and updated continually throughout the life of the facility. This paper presents the developed G-FMEA framework for tailings dams in Alberta, including the developed risk matrix framework.

404. COVID-19 Normality Rate: Criteria for Optimal Time to Return to In-person Learning

Background The COVID-19 pandemic created the most severe global education disruption in history. According to UNESCO, at the peak of the crisis over 1.6 billion learners in more than 190 countries were out of school. After one year, half of the world’s student population is still affected by full or partial school closures. Here we investigated whether or not it is possible to build a multivariate score for dynamic school decision-making specially in scenarios without population-scale RT-PCR tests. Methods Normality rate is based on a COVID-19 risk matrix (Table 1). Total score (TS) is obtained by summing the risk scores for COVID-19, considering the six parameters of the pandemic in a city. The COVID-19 Normality Rate (CNR) is obtained by linear interpolation in such a way that a total score of 30 points is equivalent to a 100% possibility of normality and, in a city with only six total points would have zero percent chance of returning to normality: CNR = (TS – 6)/24 (%). The criteria for opening and closing schools can be defined based on the percentages of return to normality (Table 2). Table 1. Limits for each parameter of the risk matrix and "normality" scores in relation to COVID-19: the lower the risk, higher is the “normality” score. Table 2. Criteria for opening and closing schools in a city according to the COVID-19 Normality Rate. Results at June 3rd, 2021, we evaluated all 5,570 Brazilian cities (Figure 1): 2,708 cities (49%) with COVID-19 normality rate less than 50% (full schools closure), 2,223 cities (40%) with normality rate between 50% and 70% (in-person learning only for 5 years and 8 months-old children), 583 with normality rate between 71% and 80% (in-person learning extended to children age 12 years and less), 583 cities (1%) with normality rate between 81% to 90% (in-person learning extended to the student population age 18 years), and just one city with 92% COVID-19 normality rate (in-person learning extended to all the student population). We calculated the COVID-19 normality rate between January and May, 2021, in four countries: Brazil, USA, UK, and Italy (Figure 2). At Jun, 3rd, 2021, percentage of people fully vaccinated in Brazil varied from 0% to 69%, an average of 11%. Figure 1. COVID-19 Normality Rate in 5,570 cities in Brazil, Jun/03/2021. Figure 2. COVID-19 Normality Rate between January and May, 2021: comparison among Brazil, USA, UK, and Italy. Conclusion COVID-19 vaccination programs take several months to implement. Besides fully vaccination of the population, it is important to check if people became really safe from the virus. The COVID-19 Normality Rate is a double check multivariate score that can be used as a criteria for optimal time to return to in-person learning safely. Disclosures All Authors: No reported disclosures