able to discern how our structures will withstand all of the operational loads from installation in construction through production after completion. We might have a lot of "history based" engineering, aka "cut and paste" engineering going on and this is a problem in the most complex and interdependent The point in saying, and not operations.” “should” “are” is, as it has been mentioned by many people before now, that “cut n paste” or engineering is a problem. History based engineering “history based” uses a successful well design in another location and the problem is that the reason for this might be to avoid the diligence necessary to carefully develop the operational envelope of exposures and vulnerabilities. While the program may very well work in most cases the common “cut n paste” language we need to focus on and internalize is never even acknowledged. This is where a language of probably be and “will okay” about the details gets dangerously introduced into the “who cares” vernacular of complex and interdependent operations. We must operate on that precursory level of "knowing" and not on the risk and probability level of "will probably be okay" since it worked for someone else and yet "who cares" about the "uniqueness" of the details, and the precursors of consequence. The better vernacular is in terms of the “operational and thus the precise location our focus must be in order to envelope” detect emergencies because hazard emerges from the epiclipse of the operating envelope of load (exposure) versus resistance (vulnerability). We must utilize exposure and vulnerability based engineering, not only as a of formal protocol and yet because it creates the very vernacular “nicety” that our human based operations must use to communicate internally.
able to discern how our structures will withstand all of the operational loads from installation in construction through production after completion. We might have a lot of "history based" engineering, aka "cut and paste" engineering going on and this is a problem in the most complex and interdependent operations.” The point in saying, “should” and not “are” is, as it has been mentioned by many people before now, that “cut n paste” or “history based” engineering is a problem. History based engineering uses a successful well design in another location and the problem is that the reason for this might be to avoid the diligence necessary to carefully develop the operational envelope of exposures and vulnerabilities. While the “cut n paste” program may very well work in most cases the common language we need to focus on and internalize is never even acknowledged. This is where a language of “will probably be okay” and “who cares” about the details gets dangerously introduced into the vernacular of complex and interdependent operations. We must operate on that precursory level of "knowing" and not on the risk and probability level of "will probably be okay" since it worked for someone else and yet "who cares" about the "uniqueness" of the details, and the precursors of consequence. The better vernacular is in terms of the “operational envelope” and thus the precise location our focus must be in order to detect emergencies because hazard emerges from the epiclipse of the operating envelope of load (exposure) versus resistance (vulnerability). We must utilize exposure and vulnerability based engineering, not only as a “nicety” of formal protocol and yet because it creates the very vernacular that our human based operations must use to communicate internally.
Process%20Safety%20Comments%20ver%2017.docx