
































Microsoft Word - 65-full article with Author-145-1-2-20210517


         American Journal of Agricultural Science, Engineering and Technology 
 

 
 

 ISSN: 2158-8104 (Online), 2164-0920 (Print), 2021, Vol. 5, Issue.1 
http://journals.e-palli.org 

 



         American Journal of Agricultural Science, Engineering and Technology 
 

 
 

 ISSN: 2158-8104 (Online), 2164-0920 (Print), 2021, Vol. 5, Issue.1 
http://journals.e-palli.org 

The American Journal of Agricultural Science, Engineering and Technology (AJASET) is 
blind peer reviewed international journal publishing articles that emphasize research, 
development and application within the fields of agricultural science, engineering and 
technology. The AJASET covers all areas of Agricultural Science, Engineering and 
Technology, publishing original research articles. The AJASET reviews article within 
approximately two weeks of submission and publishes accepted articles online immediately 
upon receiving the final versions.  

Published Media: ISSN: 2158-8104 (Online), 2164-0920 (Print).  

Frequency: 2 issues per year (January, July)  

Area of publication: Agricultural Science, Engineering and Technology. The subjects 
covered by the journal includes but not limited to:  

 

Agriculture 
Agricultural Economics and Agri-business  
Agricultural Engineering  
Agricultural Statistics  
Agricultural Extension and Development 
Agro-forestry and Ecotourism  
Agronomy  
Agro-tourism  
Animal Science and Nutrition  
Applied Agriculture  
Applied Economics and Finance 
Aquaculture  
Bioinformatics  
Biotechnology and Biochemistry Climate 
Change and Green Technology 
Collaborative Engineering  
Computer Science and Engineering 
Computational Biology  
Crop Science and Production  
Dairy Science & Poultry Science  
Decision Support System  
Engineering 
Entomology  
Environmental Science and Extension 

Dental and Medical Science  
Experimental Agriculture  
Food science, Engineering and 
Technology Genetics Technology  
Geophysics  
GIS, GPS, and Remote Sensing 
Horticultural Science  
ICT for Agricultural Development  
Irrigation and Water Resource Engineering 
Land Use and Development  
Mathematics  
Modeling of Crop and Animal System 
Pathology and Plant Protection  
Fisheries  
Plant Breeding and Crop Science  
Post-harvesting Technique and 
Technology  
Precision Agriculture  
Production Engineering  
Renewable Energy 
Science 
Social Science and Agricultural 
Development Soil Science  
Tropical Agriculture  
Veterinary Science and Technology 



         American Journal of Agricultural Science, Engineering and Technology 
 

 
 

 ISSN: 2158-8104 (Online), 2164-0920 (Print), 2021, Vol. 5, Issue.1 
http://journals.e-palli.org 

EDITORIAL BOARD 

 

Chief Editor 

Dr Mamun-Or-Rashid 

Professor, Dhaka University, Bangladesh 

 

Board Members  

Dr. Sumit Garg, IL, USA 

Professor Dr. James J. Riley, The University of Arizona, USA 

Dr. Ekkehard KÜRSCHNER, Agriculture Development Consultant, Germany 

Professor Dr. Rodriguez Hilda, USA 

Professor Dr. Michael D. Whitt, USA 

Professor Dr. Wael Al-aghbari, Yemen 

Dr. Clement Kiprotich Kiptum, University of Eldoret, Kenya 

 

Managing Editor 

Md. Roshidul Hasan 

Professor, Department of Computer Science and Information Technology,  
Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman Agricultural University 



         American Journal of Agricultural Science, Engineering and Technology 
 

 
81 ISSN: 2158-8104 (Online), 2164-0920 (Print), 2021, Vol. 5, Issue.1 

http://journals.e-palli.org 

INVESTIGATION OF RISK AND SAFETY SCENARIO IN RISK MATRIX OF 
PETROLEUM PRODUCTION SYSTEM OF THREE GAS FIELDS, BANGLADESH 

Md. Numan Hossain1, M. Farhad Howladar2 

DOI: http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4837222  

ABSTRACT 

The economic growth of Bangladesh largely depends on the petroleum industry. The most 
important part of petroleum industry is the production system. However, accident is a 
common scenario in the petroleum industry. In fact, several risks may be involved during the 
drilling, production, and transportation phase of this industry. In the case of comprehension, 
these risks associated at an early stage may acquire the appropriate measures aligned to them. 
This study investigates personnel perceptions about risk and safety involved in production 
system of the petroleum industry. To perform this research, the data were collected from 
three fields Kailashtila, Haripur & MSTE Plant operated by Sylhet Gas Fields Limited 
(SFGL), Bangladesh. The collected data were analyzed by IBM SPSS 20. The frequency 
analysis performed and risk matrix generated in this study. The Frequency analysis shows 
that the overall safety situations. Moreover, the results of the risk matrix pointed out the risk 
level as low, medium or high. At the end of study, based on the implicit risks, the necessary 
measures are recommended for the future security of the industry.  

Keywords: Petroleum production system, Risk, Safety, Risk Matrix, Risk level 
identification. 

 
1 Dept. of Petroleum & Mining Engineering, Shahjalal University of Science & Technology, 
Sylhet, Bangladesh.E-mail: numan.hossain10@gmail.com 

2 Dept. of Petroleum & Mining Engineering, Shahjalal University of Science & Technology, 
Sylhet, Bangladesh. E-mail: farhad-pme@sust.edu 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



         American Journal of Agricultural Science, Engineering and Technology 
 

 
82 ISSN: 2158-8104 (Online), 2164-0920 (Print), 2021, Vol. 5, Issue.1 

http://journals.e-palli.org 

INTRODUCTION 

Risk is any incident which can cause accident. According to ISO, Risk is characterized by 
reference to potential events and consequences or a combination of these (ISO,2009). Risk is 
a common term in petroleum production system. Accident may occur at any time in oil and 
gas industry from a little mistake or improper work. And also, Production can’t be maximized 
without ensuring safety of the industry. So, it is the most vital part to prevent the occurrence 
of accident to save the industry as well as to save the workforces. For this, it is very important 
to give consideration on safety. Safety may be defined as the freedom from risk which is not 
tolerable (ISO,2014). Risk and safety study in oil & gas sector become a matter of highly 
concern after occurring several disastrous accidents such as Piper Alpha in the North Sea 
(1988), Alexander L. Kielland in Scotland (1980), Ocean ranger rig disaster (1982), Drillship 
Seacrest accident 1989) and so on (Mendes et al, 2014). Many researchers conducted their 
research work on risk and safety analysis of oil and gas sectors. Among them Rundmo 
(1992), Flin et al (1996), Mearns et al (2003;1998), Cox & Cheyne (2000), Suslick & 
Schiozer (2004) and so on. After occurring another disaster at Mumbai High North (2005), 
researchers Arezes & Miguel (2008), Jafari et al. (2009), Rasmussen (2013), Torres et al. 
(2017) provided some good works on safety research of oil and gas industry. 

Most of the researchers conducted their research on risk & safety of petroleum operations 
based on perceived risk. Risk perception is the outcome of the processing, assimilation and 
evaluation of personal experiences, or information about risk, by individuals or groups in 
society, and it is the judgements of risk sources, evaluation of hazardous activities and 
technologies by individuals (Espeland,2010; ISO,2014). In Bangladesh, Petroleum field 
discovered in 1955 (Imam,2013). After starting production, it has been already faced some 
accidents (Nasir & Khan, 2014). So, it is very important to know the root cause behind the 
accident for the future of petroleum industry. This study will help to understand the perceived 
risk & safety of petroleum production system of three gas fields of Bangladesh. And also 
helps to demonstrate the risk level associated in such industry in risk matrix and point out 
actions which should be followed to minimize the level of risk. Hope, this study will be very 
helpful and create a new dimension in safety research of Bangladesh. 

 

METHODOLOGY 

Study Area & Data Collection 

The data were collected from three gas fields operating by Sylhet Gas Fields Limited 
(SGFL). These are Haripur Gas Fields (also known as Sylhet gas fields), Kailashtila Gas 
Fields & Kailashtila MSTE plant (Figure-1). This study is a questionnaire based. Here, a list 
of questionnaire items was used for collecting contextual information for leading the research 
work. First, questionnaire was distributed by physically visiting among the personnel of gas 
fields working in different departments. After that, the response of the employees was 
collected for analysis. Approximately 95 questionnaires were distributed in three gas fields 
where response rate was 78% out of 100%. The respondents had the full freedom to 
participate in this survey willingly. 



         American Journal of Agricultural Science, Engineering and Technology 
 

 
83 ISSN: 2158-8104 (Online), 2164-0920 (Print), 2021, Vol. 5, Issue.1 

http://journals.e-palli.org 

 

Figure-1: Study area (Google Map). 

Questionnaire Items 

The questionnaire relevant to the risk and safety of oil & gas industry was selected first. The 
inquiry items were adjusted from previous research work Rundmo (1992), Flin et al (1996), 
Mearns et al (2003) and Chutelkar & Mishra (2019). The risk related question included 17 
items relevant to individual and installation risks, 18 items related to risks associated with 
work tusks and 13 quarry items related to safety & contingency measures of the workplace 
(Table-1). The questionnaire evaluation procedure was rating based. The personnel taking 
part in this survey was rated question based on their own opinion. The evaluations included 
ratings on a five-point rating scale for each test item. The scale for risk perception ranged 
from “very safe” to “very unsafe.” The scale for safety and contingency aspects ranged from 
“very ideal” to “not at all ideal”.  

Table-1: questionnaire items. 

Individual and installation 
risks 

Risks associated with work 
tasks/ activities 

Safety & contingency 
measures of the workplace 

 Falling objects / 
structural failure  

 Crushing by machines  
 Slippery surfaces  

 Live electrical equipment  

 Burns  

 Cold/ hot surfaces  

 Blow-out  

 Fire  
 Noxious gases  

 Sabotage  

 Escape routes  
 Evacuation facilities  

 Startup installations and 
processes  

 Stop, reduce pace, run 
down a process  

 Handle material, manual 
control of process  

 Monitor production 

 Set up scaffolds, cranes, 
machines 

 Perform preventive 
maintenance 

 Perform repair work  

 Perform cleaning of 

 Control and inspection 
routines in the safety 
work  

 Work instructions 

 Safety instructions 
 Follow up and measures 

taken after injuries and 
accidents have taken 
place 

 First aid training 

 Contingency training 
 Safety training 

 Order and cleanliness at 



         American Journal of Agricultural Science, Engineering and Technology 
 

 
84 ISSN: 2158-8104 (Online), 2164-0920 (Print), 2021, Vol. 5, Issue.1 

http://journals.e-palli.org 

 Alarm systems 

 Medical services  

 First-aid  

 Slipping  

 Falling to lower level  

machines and equipment  

 Perform manual lifting, 
handling  

 Perform mechanical 
lifting, handling  

 Participate in 
transportation of other 
material 

 Participate in function 
testing of equipment  

 Carry out inspection  

 Move about on the 
platform  

 Clean the premise  

 Non-routine operations  
 When drilling is taking 

place 

 Overall  

the place of work 

 Access to emergency 
exits/escape routes 

 Protection and safety 
devices on machines and 
equipment 

 Marking and sign posting 

 Availability of personal 
safety equipment 

 Use of personal safety 
equipment 

 

Data Analysis Procedure 

It is known that in statistical analysis for comparing the perception of different individual, it 
is very easy to use closed-ended questions because closed ended questions have discrete 
responses, so, analyze of these responses can be done by assigning a number or a value to 
every answer. So, for gaining quantitative data this study has been designed with rating based 
closed-ended question or Likert Scale based items where individuals were rated the answer 
with their own perception. After collecting all of the data, these have been analyzed by using 
SPSS Software and MS Excel 2013.  The statistical analysis was conducted by SPSS 
Software and the hypothetical analysis was conducted by MS Excel 2013. The analysis 
basically included the evaluation of frequency and generation of risk matrix. The frequency 
analysis was performed by using the descriptive statistics of analyze options of SPSS 
Software. The result of frequency expresses either the condition is safe or unsafe (Almquist et 
al,2017; Mearns et al, 2003; Flin et al, 1996; Rundmo, 1992). And, for generating risk matrix, 
crosstab options of descriptive statistics have been used to correlate the frequency of two 
dependent variable. At the end, using MS Excel the risk matrix is hypothetically generated 
(Johnsen et al., 2007; Brazier, 2016; Alam, 2019; Chutelkar & Mishra, 2019). 

 

RESULTS & DISCUSSION 

The Status of workforces feeling safe with risk sources 

The individual’s perceptions of threats from different risk sources are presented here (Table-
2). The most of the personnel feeling safe 93.2% in case of crushing machine/ machine parts 



         American Journal of Agricultural Science, Engineering and Technology 
 

 
85 ISSN: 2158-8104 (Online), 2164-0920 (Print), 2021, Vol. 5, Issue.1 

http://journals.e-palli.org 

and lesser amount of people feeling safe in case of evacuation facility. This study also shows 
that alarm system, slippery surface, escape roots facility is comparatively poor than others. 
And the personnel feeling more unsafe in case of fire and noxious gas. The average 
percentages of feeling safe with risk sources is 81.3%. this percentage is quite larger than the 
previous study. In case of Flin et al. (1996) the value of personnel feeling safe was 65.9% and 
in case of Rundmo (1992) perception of feeling safe was 64.6%. From this result it would be 
concluded that the personnel of petroleum fields of BD feeling safer relative to others in most 
of the cases. If some cases including evacuation facilities are improving by proper treatments 
it would be excellent.  

Table-2: The personnel of workplace feeling safe with risk sources. 

Risks Sources % safe* %neither* %unsafe* 
% safe (Fin 
er al 1996) 

%safe (Rundmo 
1992) 

Blow-out 89.2 5.4 5.4 63 50 
Fire 82.4 6.8 10.8 61 47 
Noxious gases 83.7 5.4 10.8 67 55 
Sabotage 82.4 12.2 5.4 63 75 
Crushing by 
machines/machine 
parts 

93.2 5.4 1.4 79 66 

Fall to a lower level 74.3 5.7 0 80 62 
Slipping 78.4 20.2 1.4 38 - 

Slippery surfaces 74.3 24.3 1.4 - 43 
Burns 78.4 16.2 5.4 68 - 
Live electrical 
equipment 

86.5 8.1 5.4 78 68 

Cold/hot surfaces 91.9 8.1 - 49 74 
Medical services 78.4 16.2 5.5 70 79 
First-aid 83.8 10.8 5.5 - 79 
Alarm systems 74.3 25.7 - - 74 
Escape routes 79.7 20.3 - - 72 
Evacuation 
facilities 

58.1 41.9 - - 59 

Total (Average) 81.3 14.1 4.6 65.9 64.6 
Safe *=safe + very safe, neither* = neither safe nor unsafe, unsafe*= unsafe + very unsafe  

The risk situation of petroleum fields associated with work tasks/ activities 

The workforce feeling safe or unsafe during work tasks/ activities displayed in Table-3. The 
total percentages of workforce feeling safe with work tasks/activities is 87.04% which is little 
bit high than T. Rumndo’s result 83.77% and very high than the result of Fin et al on the UK 
offshore oil and gas industry (76.4%). In petroleum fields of Bangladesh very small amount 
of people feeling unsafe (0.32% only) with the work tasks. On the other hand, 12.64% feeling 
neither safe nor unsafe. 



         American Journal of Agricultural Science, Engineering and Technology 
 

 
86 ISSN: 2158-8104 (Online), 2164-0920 (Print), 2021, Vol. 5, Issue.1 

http://journals.e-palli.org 

Safety condition of workplace based on employee’s perception     

The most important things of maximizing production are ensuring safety of the production 
system. The overall safety condition and contingency measures of three gas fields are 
displayed in (Table-4). The total idealism of workplace based on result is 72.26% where not 
ideal safety condition found as 4.26%. And 23.08% respondents were not sure either ideal or 
not ideal safety situation in the fields. The more security noticed in case of work instruction. 
On contrary, comparatively less value of protection found in case of use of personal safety 
equipment, contingency training, first aid training, availability of personal safety equipment.  

Table-4: Safety condition of workplace based on employee’s observation. 

The safety and contingency measures % Ideal* %Neither* % Not ideal* 
Control and inspection routines in the safety work 70.3 24.3 5.4 

Work instructions 90.5 9.5 0 

Safety instructions 74.3 16.2 4.1 
Follow up and measures taken after injuries and 
accidents have taken place 

70.3 28.4 1.4 

First aid training 64.9 33.8 1.4 

Contingency training 62.4 23 14.9 

Safety training 72.9 23 4.1 

Order and cleanliness at the place of work 73 23 4 

access to emergency exits/escape route 75.7 20.3 4 

Protection and safety devices on machines and 
equipment 

85.1 14.9 - 

Marking and sign posting 73 22.9 4.1 

Availability of personal safety equipment 66.3 27 6.7 

Use of personal safety equipment 60.8 33.8 5.4 

Total (Average) 72.26 23.08 4.26 
Ideal= ideal+ very ideal, Neither = neither ideal nor not ideal, Not ideal= not ideal+ not at all 

ideal. 
 

Table-3 

Work 
tasks/activities 

% Safe* %Medium* %Unsafe* Fin et al(1996) % Safe* 

Startup 
installations and 
process 

100 0 0 74 81 

Move about on the 
platform 

83.8 16.2 0 87 85 

Perform repair 
work 

94.6 5.4 0 83 86 

Stop, reduce pace, 
run down a process 

91.9 8.1 0 81 87 



         American Journal of Agricultural Science, Engineering and Technology 
 

 
87 ISSN: 2158-8104 (Online), 2164-0920 (Print), 2021, Vol. 5, Issue.1 

http://journals.e-palli.org 

Handle material, 
manual control of 
process 

100 0 0 75 66 

Monitor 
production 

100 0 0 86 94 

Set up scaffolds, 
cranes, machines 

94.6 5.4 0 79 - 

Perform preventive 
maintenance 

77 23 0 84 89 

Perform cleaning 
of machines and 
equipment 

89.2 10.8 0 82 90 

Perform manual 
lifting, handling 

89.2 10.8 0 76 84 

Participate in 
transportation of 
other material 

75.7 24.3 0 60 56 

Participate in 
function testing of 
equipment 

78.4 21.6 0 71 81 

Carry out 
inspection 

82.5 17.5 0 82 92 

Non-routine 
operations 

68.9 27 4.1 60 - 

When drilling is 
taking place 

81.1 17.6 1.4 56 - 

Clean the premises 87.8 12.2 0 80 - 
Overall 85.1 14.9 0 83 98 

Total (Average) 87.04 12.64 0.32 76.4 83.77 

 

Risk level and required actions 

The risk involved with production system of three gas fields represented in risk matrix. This 
graphical representation expresses the level of risk associated with production system in a 
tabular form. The level of risk may be defined as very low, low, moderate, high and very 
high. When the level of risk very low then no immediate action is required. In case of low 
risk some concern should be given. For moderate risk some actions required within a 
timeframe. And when risk level is high then actions should be taken immediately. And in 
case of high-risk production should be stopped till eliminating the risk (Alam,2014). Figure-2 
represents some result. The level of risk is moderate for slippery surface and slipping. For 
this case, actions should be taken within a timeframe. Similarly for other cases.  



         American Journal of Agricultural Science, Engineering and Technology 
 

 
88 ISSN: 2158-8104 (Online), 2164-0920 (Print), 2021, Vol. 5, Issue.1 

http://journals.e-palli.org 

\

 

 

 

 



         American Journal of Agricultural Science, Engineering and Technology 
 

 
89 ISSN: 2158-8104 (Online), 2164-0920 (Print), 2021, Vol. 5, Issue.1 

http://journals.e-palli.org 

 

Figure-2: Risk Matrix representing the Risk Level 

CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS  

Conclusions 

The study was directed to investigate the perceived risk and safety on petroleum industry of 
three gas fields. The results can be concluded as: 

 The total percentages of personnel of gas fields feeling safe with risk sources is about 
81.3% which is higher than previous study Flin et al (65.9%) and Rundmo (64.6%). 

 The workforce of studied fields feeling secured is about 87.04% which is also higher 
than the results of Flin et al (76.4%) and Rundmo (83.77%) 

 The overall idealism of safety and contingency measures of studied petroleum fields 
72.26%. It should be improved as soon as possible. 

 The risk level for slippery surface and slipping is moderate. Actions should be 
required in this case within a time frame. 

 In case of Fire and safety training, availability of personal protective equipment (PPE) 
and use of PPE risk level also moderate. Required measures also should be taken for 
both cases immediately. 

 The risk level in case of monitoring production and work instruction, safety training 
and perform repair work is low. For both of cases, no actions required but concern 
should be given. 

 In case of alarm system and escape routes, risk level is low. So, no actions should be 
required for this case.  

Recommendations  

At the end it could be added that, Slippery surface cause slipping and so, a special concern 
should be given to reduce it as much as possible. The available personal safety equipment 
should be used properly for carrying out duties like monitoring production, handling 
equipment, function testing equipment which may keep safe from several accidents including 
falling objects, structural failure etc. Several training such as safety training, first aid training, 
contingency training should be improved. If a future study conducted including a large 
number of fields, it would be very helpful and added a new dimension on safety research. 
And accidents associated with perceived risks will minimize. 



         American Journal of Agricultural Science, Engineering and Technology 
 

 
90 ISSN: 2158-8104 (Online), 2164-0920 (Print), 2021, Vol. 5, Issue.1 

http://journals.e-palli.org 

Acronyms 

BAPEX=Bangladesh Petroleum Exploration and Production Company Limited. 

BD= Bangladesh. 

ISO= International Organization for Standardization 

MMSCFD= Million Cubic Feet per Day. 

MSTE= Molecular Sieve Turbo Expander. 

UK= United Kingdom. 

SGFL= Sylhet Gas Fields Limited. 

Petrobangla= Bangladesh Oil Gas & Mineral Corporation. 

PPE=Personal Protective Equipment. 

 

REFERENCES 

Alam, M. Z., 2019, Hazard identification, risk assessment, and control procedure [EHS & 
Career, Tootle Solutions]. 

Almquist, B., Ashir, S. and Brännström, L., 2017, A Guide to Quantitative Methods, Version 
1.0.1., Stockholm University, Sweden. 
http://www.chess.su.se/polopoly_fs/1.173484.1396595707!/menu/standard/file/Almq
uist_Ashir_Brannstroem_Guide_1.0.1.pdf 

Arezes, P. M. & Miguel, A. S., 2008, Risk Perception and Safety Behavior: A study in an 
occupational environment, Safety Science, 46, 900-907. 

Brazier, A., Oct 19, 2016, Using Risk Assessment Matrix, 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JHz5tr6pPhE. Accessed on: 10 March 2019. 

Chutelkar, P. & Mishra, M. K., 2019, Safety in Petroleum Industry (Hazard Identification & 
Risk Assessment), International Journal of Research & Technology (IJERT), Vol -8, 
Issue 05 May 2019. 

Cox, S.J. & Cheyne, A.J.T., 2000, Assessing safety culture in offshore environments, Safety 
Science,34 (2000),111-129,  

Espeland, T.J., 2010, Perception of Risk in the Environment of Integrated 
Operations,Master’s   thesis in Risk Psychology, Environment and Safety Trondheim, 
NTNU. 

Flin, R.H., Mearns,k., Gordon, R.P.E. and Fleming, M.T., 1996,  Risk Perception and Safety 
in the UK Offshore Oil and Gas Industry, paper SPE 35907 presented at the 
International Conference on Health, Safety and Environment, New Orleans, 
Louisiana,9-12, June-1996. 

Imam, B., 2013, Energy Resources of Bangladesh, 2nd edition, Published by University 
Grants Commission of Bangladesh, Dhaka, p.59.  

ISO, 2009, International Organization for Standardization, ISO GUIDE 73:2009(E/F), Note-
3, pp-2; Note-4. 



         American Journal of Agricultural Science, Engineering and Technology 
 

 
91 ISSN: 2158-8104 (Online), 2164-0920 (Print), 2021, Vol. 5, Issue.1 

http://journals.e-palli.org 

ISO, 2014, International Organization for Standardization, ISO/IEC GUIDE 51:2014(E) 
Jafari1, M.J.  F. Kouhi, M. Movahedi, & Allah-Yari, T., 2009, The effect of job safety 

analysis on risk perception of workers at high risk jobs in a refinery, Iran 
Occupational Health, Vol. 6 (4). Winter 2010. 

Johnsen, S., Ask, R. and Roisli, R., 2007, Reducing Risk in Oil and Gas Production 
Operations, International Conference on Critical Infrastructure Protection, pp 83-95.    

Mearns, K., Flin, R., Gordon, R. and Fleming, M., 1998, Measuring Safety Climate on 
Offshore Installations, Work& Stress, Vol-12, No-3, pp.238-254. 

Mearns, K., Whitaker, S.M. and Flin, R., 2003, ‘Safety climate, safety management practice 
and safety performance in offshore environments’, Safety Science, Vol. 41, No. 8, 
pp.641–680  

Nasir, F.B. and Khan, M.A.I., 2014, A Review Over Major Gas Blowouts In Bangladesh, 
Their Effects And The Measures To. Prevent Them In Future, International Journal of 
Scientific & Technology Research, 3(9),109-113 

Rasmussen, H. B., 2013, The possibilities and challenges for accident prevention in the 
Danish oil and gas industry, Ph.D. thesis, Centre of Maritime Health and Society, 
Faculty of Health Sciences University of Southern Denmark. 

Rundmo, T. 1992, Risk perception and safety on offshore petroleum platforms - Part I: 
Perception of risk, Safety Science, 15, 39-52. 

Rundmo, T. 1992, Risk perception, and safety on offshore petroleum platforms - Part II: 
Perceived risk, job stress, and accidents, Safety Science, 15, 53-68. 

Suslick, S.B. and Schiozer, D.J., 2004, Risk Analysis Applied to Petroleum Exploration and 
Production: An Overview, Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 44, pp.1-9. 

Torres, L., Yadav, O. P., Khan, E., 2017 Perceived risks of produced water management 
and naturally occurring radioactive material content in North Dakota; Journal of 
Environmental Management, 196 (2017), 56-62, 
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.02.077 0301-4797 


