Safety performance indicators 2011 data

(1)

(2)

Global experience

The International Association of Oil & Gas Producers has access to a wealth of technical knowledge and experience with its members operating around the world in many different terrains. We collate and distil this valuable knowledge for the industry to use as guidelines for good practice by individual members.

Consistent high quality database and guidelines

Our overall aim is to ensure a consistent approach to training, management and best prac-tice throughout the world.

The oil and gas exploration and production industry recognises the need to develop consist-ent databases and records in certain fields. The OGP’s members are encouraged to use the guidelines as a starting point for their operations or to supplement their own policies and regulations which may apply locally.

Internationally recognised source of industry information

Many of our guidelines have been recognised and used by international authorities and safety and environmental bodies. Requests come from governments and non-government organisations around the world as well as from non-member companies.

Disclaimer

Whilst every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the information contained in this publica-tion, neither the OGP nor any of its members past present or future warrants its accuracy or will, regard-less of its or their negligence, assume liability for any foreseeable or unforeseeable use made thereof, which liability is hereby excluded. Consequently, such use is at the recipient’s own risk on the basis that any use by the recipient constitutes agreement to the terms of this disclaimer. The recipient is obliged to inform any subsequent recipient of such terms.

Copyright notice

The contents of these pages are © The International Association of Oil and Gas Producers. Permission is given to reproduce this report in whole or in part provided (i) that the copyright of OGP and (ii) the source are acknowledged. All other rights are reserved. Any other use requires the prior written permission of the OGP.

(3)

Report No: 2011s

May 2012

Revision history

Version Date Amendments

(4)

The safety statistics for 2011 were derived from data provided by the following companies:

Contributing OGP Members

ADDAX ADNOC BG Group BHP BP Cairn Energy Chevron CNOOC ConocoPhillips Dolphin Energy DONG E&P Eni ExxonMobil GDF Suez Hess Corporation INPEX KOSMOS

Kuwait Oil Company Maersk Oil

Marathon MOL

NCOC (North Caspian Operating Co.) Nexen Inc

Oil Search OMV

Pan American Energy Perenco Petrobras Petronas Carigali Sdn Bhd Premier Oil PTTEP Qatar Petroleum Rasgas Repsol RWE Dea AG Shell Companies Statoil Suncor Talisman Energy TNK-BP Total Tullow Oil Wintershall Woodside Yemen LNG

(5)

Executive Summary v Preface vii

1 Summary 1-1

1.1 General ... 1-1 1.2 Fatalities ...1-2 1.3 Total recordable injuries ...1-4 1.4 Lost time injuries ...1-5

2 Overall results 2-1

2.1 Fatalities ...2-1 2.2 Fatal accident rate (FAR) ...2-2 2.3 Fatalities by incident category and activity ...2-3 2.4 Fatal incident rate (FIR) ... 2-4 2.5 Total recordable injury rate (TRIR) ...2-5 2.6 Lost time injury frequency (LTIF) ...2-6 2.7 Lost work day cases by category and activity ...2-7 2.8 Severity of lost work day cases ...2-13 2.9 Severity of restricted work day cases ...2-15 2.10 Incident triangles ...2-17 2.11 Causal factors analysis ...2-19 2.12 OGP Life-Saving Rules ... 2-22

3 Results by region 3-1

3.1 Fatalities ...3-1 3.2 Fatal Accident Rate (FAR) ...3-2 3.3 Total recordable injury rate (TRIR) ...3-2 3.4 Lost time injury frequency (LTIF) ...3-3 3.5 FAR, TRIR and LTIF – 5-year rolling averages ... 3-4 3.6 Severity of lost work day cases ...3-5 3.7 Individual country performance ...3-5 3.8 Incident triangles by region ...3-7

4 Results by function 4-1

4.1 Fatalities ...4-1 4.2 Fatal accident rate (FAR) – 3-year rolling average ...4-2 4.3 Total recordable injury rate (TRIR) ...4-3 4.4 Lost time injury frequency (LTIF) – 3-year rolling average ...4-3 4.5 Severity of lost work day cases ... 4-4 4.6 Exploration performance ...4-5 4.7 Drilling performance ...4-7 4.8 Production performance ...4-9 4.9 Construction performance ...4-11 4.10 Unspecifed function performance ... 4-13

5 Results by company 5-1

5.1 Overall company results ...5-1 5.2 Company results by function ...5-8

Appendices

Appendix A Database dimensions ...A Appendix B Data tables ...B Appendix C Contributing companies ... C Appendix D Countries represented ... D Appendix E Glossary of terms ...E

(6)

(7)

Personal injury performance is broadly flat with lost time injury frequency increasing by 2% and total recordable injury rate increasing by 5% in 2011 compared with 2010 results.

The 2011 OGP safety performance indicators show that the Fatal Accident Rate for reporting companies has reduced by 32% compared with 2010. The number of fatalities has reduced from 94 in 2010 to 65 in 2011. This means that, on average, more than one person per week lost their life in 2011.

Number of fatalities vs fatal accident rate

2002-2011 Lost time injury frequency vs total recordable injury rateper million hours worked

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Fatalities 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 Number of fatalities

Fatal accidents per 100 million hours worked

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 FAR 0 1 2 3 4 5 TRIR LTIF 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002

Safety

Fatal accident rate (FAR)

The number of company/contractor fatalities per 100,000,000 (100 million) hours worked.

Total recordable injury rate (TRIR)

The number of recordable injuries (fatalities + lost work day cases + restricted work day cases + medical treatment cases) per 1,000,000 hours worked.

Lost time injury frequency (LTIF)

The number of lost time injuries (fatalities + lost work day cases) per 1,000,000 hours worked.

There are a number of common causal factors related to the fatal incidents and high potential events in both 2010 and 2011. The top 6 causal factors were:

• Inadequate hazard identification or risk assessment (10.0% of total)

• Inadequate supervision (7.3% of total)

• Inadequate work standards/procedures (6.5% of total) • Improper decision making or lack of judgment (6.4%

of total)

• Unintentional violation (by individual or group) (5.4% of total)

(8)

HPI self-assessment returns – 2011

Average from 17 participating companies Members of the OGP/IPIECA Health Committee piloted a set of 8 leading indicators of health performance within their companies during September 2008, 2009 and 2010. 2 tools were used: the first indicated the extent of manage-ment of the 8 areas across each participating company glob-ally; the second allowed for in-depth analysis at site and corporate level.

The tools were enhanced in response to feedback from OGP/IPIECA member companies and final versions of both tools were used during September 2011 to gauge health performance across the participating OGP/IPIECA member companies. 17 companies took part and many of these had participated in the 2008 pilot. The results are dis-played as both radar plots and tables which are colour coded as heat-maps.

Individual companies have used earlier years’ results to identify gaps in their own health management systems so it is pleasing to note that mean values for each health area have improved over the 4 years.

The health indicators report illustrates the final versions of both tools, actual anonymous results for 2011, trends over time and the potential benefits to health management in the industry.

Health

Health Risk Assessment

1 2 3 4 Industrial Hygiene Medical Emergency Management Management of Ill-Health Fitness for Task/Surveillance

Health Impact Assessment Health Reporting Public Health/ Promotion

OGP Life-Saving Rules applicable to 2011 fatal incidents

percent of total 2011 incidents

No appropriate rule

20%

Supplemental rules

54%

Core rules

26%

In February 2012, OGP released a set of ‘life-saving rules’ (OGP Life-Saving Rules, OGP report № 459), intended for use by the oil & gas industry to mitigate risk and reduce fatalities. Each OGP Life-Saving Rule consists of a simple icon and descriptive text, providing clear, simple and con-sistent communication regarding risks in the workplace. These Rules were developed by using the fatal incidents and high potential events data provided from the 1991 to 2010 Safety performance indicators reports to identify the events and activities that most commonly result in fatal incidents. The Life Saving Rules are split into 8 ‘core rules’ and 10 ‘sup-plemental rules’.

Analysis of the fatal incident descriptions for 2011 data has shown that 80% of the fatal incidents reported are covered by the OGP Life-Saving Rules and may have been prevented by the adoption of this system.

• Level 1 – Process under development

• Level 2 – Process in place but not fully implemented and embedded

• Level 3 – Process in place and implemented. System functioning; system procedures documented and results being measured

• Level 4 – Process in place and implemented. System sustained and supported by an on-going improvement process

(9)

The International Association of Oil & Gas Producers, OGP, has been collecting safety incident data from member companies globally since 1985. The data collected are entered into the OGP safety database, which is the largest database of safety performance in the E&P industry. The principal purpose of the data collection and analysis is to record the global safety performance of the contributing OGP member companies, each year. The submission of data is voluntary and is not mandated by OGP membership. The annual reports provide trend analysis, benchmarking and the identification of areas and activities on which efforts should be focused to bring about the greatest improvements in performance.

The OGP incident reporting system covers worldwide explo-ration and production (E&P) opeexplo-rations, both onshore and offshore, and includes incidents involving both member companies and their contractor employees.

The key indicators presented are: number of fatalities, fatal accident rate, fatal incident rate, number of lost work day cases and number of lost work days, lost time injury fre-quency, number of restricted duty case and restricted duty days, number of medical treatment cases and total record-able injury rate. The report presents contributing OGP members’ global results for these indicators, which are then analysed by region, function and company. A code is used to preserve the anonymity of the reporting company, which will typically report its own data as well as that of its associ-ated contractors (see Appendix C).

Wherever practicable, results are presented graphically. The data underlying the charts are presented in Appendix B. These data are available to OGP members in editable format in the members’ area of the OGP website. The tables are organised according to the section in the report where the chart appears.

In 2007 the combined Health Committee of OGP and IPIECA published Health Performance Indicators – a guide for the oil and gas industry. Text within this was used to develop two tools to assess health leading performance indicators within individual companies and to compare performance between different parts of a company and between companies and the industry as a whole. Both tools were used in 2011 to gauge health performance of IPIECA member companies; the results have been published in the Health report.

In 2010, safety data collection was initiated to capture “causal factors” associated with fatal incidents and high potential events. The data reported for 2010 and 2011 is presented in section 2.11 of this report. The full source data is available to OGP members in editable format in the mem-bers’ area of the OGP web-site.

The main changes to the 2011 performance indicators are: • The metric that combined Restricted Work Day Case

+ Lost Time Injury frequency is no longer reported • Fatal incident and high potential event descriptions

previously included in this report as appendixes C and D are now available for download on the OGP Safety Zone website, http://info.ogp.org.uk/safety

• Inclusion of health leading performance indicator data • The addition of a free standing summary

These changes reflect the Safety Data Sub-Committee’s aim to improve the reliability of the data and its interpretation.

(10)

(11)

The OGP safety performance indicators report summarises the safety performance of contributing OGP member companies for 2011.

The key performance indicators (KPI) used to benchmark the safety performance of the industry are: number of fatalities, fatal accident and incident rates, total recordable injury rate and lost time injury frequency.

Third party fatalities are not included in this report.

The safety performance of contributing OGP member com-panies in 2011 is based on the analysis of 3,456 million work hours of data, 1% more than were reported in 2010.

Submissions were made by 45 of the 59 operating company OGP members (42 reported in 2010). All but one reported statistics for their contractors. The data reported cover oper-ations in 98 countries.

• 78% of the hours reported were associated with onshore activities, 22% with offshore activities.

• Of the 45 companies, 41 had contributed data in 2010. Since these 41 accounted for 99% of the database in 2011, comparison of the year 2011 results with those of 2010 is legitimate and statistically meaningful. 40 of the companies submitting 2011 data had also provided data in 2009.

• 20 of the companies contributed 90% of the hours. 6 companies between them covered 50% of the hours, and the largest contributor accounted for 11%.

• 22% of the reported work hours were related to com-pany personnel and 78% were related to contractors.

1.1 General

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 workhours contractor workhours company 2011 2005 2000 1995 1990 1985 Hours worked

(12)

Fatality categories, 2011

% fatalities associated with each reporting category [data page B-3]

Fatality activities, 2011

% fatalities associated with each activity [data page B-3]

Other 12% Water related,

drowning 8%

Struck by 18% Pressure release 3%

Falls from height 9%

Exposure noise, chemical, biological, vibration 2% Exposure electrical 1%

Explosion/burn 6% Confined space 8%

Caught in, under or between 25% Assault or violent act 8%

Transport - water, including marine activity 5% Transport -land 23% Transport -air 11% Seismic/survey operations 6% Production operations 8% Maintenance, inspection, testing 17%

Lifting, crane, rigging, deck operations 4% Drilling, workover,

well services 6% Diving, subsea, ROV 3% Construction, commissioning,

decommissioning 17%

1.2 Fatalities

Against the background of a 1% increase in work hours reported, the number of fatalities has decreased from 94 in 2010 to 65 fatalities which occurred in 50 seperate incidents in 2011. The resulting Fatal Accident Rate (1.88) is 32% lower than last year’s figure. The company and contractor FAR are 1.33 and 2.03 respectively. Onshore and offshore FAR are 1.94 and 1.67 respectively.

The reporting categories are divided into ‘activity’ and ‘category’. The activity with the highest number of fatali-ties reported by the OGP member companies is ‘Transport – land’ with 15 fatalities in 11 separate incidents. These included a Pakistan ‘assault or violent act’ incident involv-ing the ambush of a convoy in which 5 contractor employees and 1 third party lost their lives. There were 11 fatal incidents reported in the activity ‘Construction, Commissioning, Decommissioning’ which resulted in 11 fatalities.

With regard to the incident category, excluding those reported as ‘Other’ (which included the two air transport incidents), the largest proportion of the fatalities reported in 2011 (25%) were categorised as ‘Caught in, under or between’ (10% in 2010). Excluding those categorised as ‘Other’, incidents that were the result of individuals being struck by falling or moving objects (18%) were the second greatest contributors to the fatality statistics (21% in 2010). Similar to last year, 9% of the fatalities were the result of ‘Falls from height’ (6% in 2010) and 8% of the fatalities were categorised as ‘Confined space’ (1% in 2010).

(13)

The Fatal Accident Rates for Asia/Australasia (3.3) is high compared with a global average of 1.9. This is mainly due to three single fatal incidents with multiple fatalities in the region (3 incidents resulted in 10 fatalities).

The FIR is a measure of the frequency with which fatal inci-dents occur, in contrast to the FAR which measures the fre-quency of fatalities. Accordingly, the FIR will be less than or equal to the FAR. Comparison of FAR and FIR gives an indication of the magnitude of the incidents in terms of lives lost.

Overall the fatal incident rate has decreased by 15% com-pared with last year and is the lowest on record to date.

Fatal accident rate

per 100 million hours worked [data page B-2]

Fatal incident rate – company & contractor

per 100 million hours worked [data page B-2]

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Overall Contractor Company 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 0 2 4 6 8 _Overall Contractor Company 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002

(14)

The rate for all recordable injuries (fatalities, lost work day cases, restricted work day cases and medical treatment cases) was 1.76 injuries per million hours worked (1.68 in 2010). This is a 5% increase compared with 2010 with 344 more injuries reported than in 2010.

The region that showed the largest increase in TRIR was South America (12.9%); an increase in TRIR was also seen in Asia/Australasia (11.0%) and North America (9.1%). A reduction in TRIR from 2010 to 2011 was shown in the Middle East (25.6%), Africa (14.8%), the FSU (10.1%) and Europe (8.5%). The North America work hours increased by 36% compared with 2010.

1.3 Total recordable injuries

Total recordable injury rate – company & contractor

per million hours worked [data page B-2]

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Overall Contractor Company 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002

(15)

drowning 0.5% Struck by 25%

Slips and trips (at same height) 17% _{Pressure release 1%}Overexertion, strain 7% Falls from height 9%

Exposure noise, pressure, chemical, biological, vibration 2%

Exposure electrical 2% Explosion or burns 3% Cut, puncture, scrape 3%

Confined space 0.4% Caught in, under or between 19% Assault or violent act 0.4%

Unspecified - other 10% Transport - water, including

marine activity 5% Transport - land 5% Transport - air 1% Seismic/survey operations 1% Production operations 16% Office, warehouse,

Maintenance, inspection, testing 14% Lifting, crane, rigging,

deck operations 10% Drilling, workover,

well services 22% Diving, subsea, ROV 0.8% Construction, commissioning,

decommissioning 9%

Lost Work Day Cases – by category [data page B-14]

Lost Work Day Cases – by activity [data page B-4]

1.4 Lost time injuries

The overall Lost Time Injury Frequency (LTIF) increased from 0.42 in 2010 to 0.43 in 2011. This represents an increase of 2% compared with 2010 and 50 more lost time injuries.

This increase is similar in both company and contractor per-formance. The company and contractor LTIF both show a 2% increase compared with 2010. Offshore LTIF has also shown an increase (19%), while onshore the LTIF continues to fall and is the lowest on record to date.

There were 1,415 reported injuries resulting in at least one day off work; 1,106 incidents were contractor related and 309 were company related. This equates to an average of 27 such injuries every week of the year. Approximately 272 work-years (assuming 220 working days per year) are esti-mated to have been lost by reporting companies and their contractors as a result of injuries.

Although the absolute number of LWDCs has increased (1,336 in 2010), the average time away from work has reduced by 4%. Offshore injuries resulted in a 17% higher number of lost work days than onshore. The severity of lost work day cases is the highest in South America compared with the other regions, with 71.6 days lost per LWDC in 2011. The average days lost per LWDC for South America is 55% greater than the average for the region for the previous 5-year period (46.2)

The lost work day case category was provided for all of the Lost Work Day Cases reported, although 10% of the cases were categorised as ‘Other’.

• The greatest number of incidents was reported as ‘Struck by’ (357 cases accounting for 25% of the total; 2010 results showed 347 cases accounting for 26% of the total).

• ‘Caught in, under or between’ and ‘Slips and Trips (at the same height)’ accounted for 19% and 17% respec-tively of the total reported cases. 2010 results showed 17% for both categories.

Lost work day case activities were reported for all of the 1,415 Lost Work Day Cases reported, although 10% of the cases were reported as ‘Unspecified-other’. In 2010, 9% were reported as ‘Unspecified-other’.

Lost time injury frequency – company & contractor

per million hours worked [data page B-3]

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 _Overall Contractor Company 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002

(16)

(17)

• 65 company and contractor fatalities were reported in 2011. This is 29 fewer than were reported in 2010 and 34 fewer than in 2009. In 2010 there were 21 fatali-ties as a result of a single air transport incident and 11 fatalities as a result of a single fire & explosion incident. • The 65 fatalities occurred in 50 separate incidents.

• There were five incidents that involved more than two fatalities. These were:

êA Pakistan incident involving the ambush of a convoy, in which 6 people (including one third-party individ-ual) lost their lives.

êA fire & explosion onshore in the UAE in which 4 people lost their lives when their vehicle caught fire after crossing a pool of leaking oil.

êA helicopter crash in Brazil in which 4 people lost their lives after the helicopter crashed into the sea. êAn incident in Indonesia where 3 people died after

attempting to save a colleague who had fallen uncon-cious after entering a tank with a low oxygen content. êA further helicopter crash in Myanmar in which 3

people drowned when the helicopter crashed into the sea.

2.1 Fatalities

In this section the primary indicators used to measure contributing OGP member companies’ safety performance are: the number and nature of fatalities, total recordable injury rate (TRIR), fatal accident rate (FAR), fatal inci-dent rate (FIR) and lost time injury frequency (LTIF).

Third party incidents are not included in this report.

Company/contractor Fatalities

Fatalities Onshore 2011 (2010) Offshore 2011 (2010) Total (2010)

Company 9 (22) 1 (1) 10 (23)

Contractor 43 (44) 12 (27) 55 (71)

(18)

Fatal accident rate – company & contractors

per 100 million hours worked [Data page B-2]

Fatal accident rate – onshore & offshore

2.2 Fatal accident rate (FAR)

• In 2011 there were 10 company related fatalities (23 in 2010) as a result of 10 separate incidents.

• In 2011 there were 55 contractor related fatalities (71 in 2010).

êFive of the contractor fatalities were as a result of a single incident in Pakistan in which their convoy was ambushed by unknown attackers.

êSeven of the contractor fatalities were as a result of two separate incidents in Brazil and Myanmar in which the helicopters crashed into the sea.

êFive of the contractor fatalities were as a result of two separate incidents involving fire & explosions in UAE and Russia.

êThree of the contractor fatalities were the result of a single incident in Indonesia after they entered a tank with low oxygen content to rescue an unconscious colleague.

• The difference between the onshore and offshore FAR displays a large variation over the 10 year period shown. Neither is consistently lower. This is generally attribut-able to single transportation incidents involving high numbers of fatalities. 0 2 4 6 8 _Overall Contractor Company 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2 4 6 8 Overall Offshore Onshore

Fatal accident rate (FAR)

2011 (2010) FAR Relative to 2010 FAR

Company 1.33 (3.17) 58% lower

Contractor 2.03 (2.64) 23% lower

Overall 1.88 (2.76) 32% lower

Onshore 1.94 (2.62) 26% lower

(19)

2.3 Fatalities by incident category and activity

Fatalities by category, 2011

% fatalities associated with each reporting category [Data page B-3]

Fatalities by activity, 2011

% fatalities associated with each reporting category [Data page B-3]

drowning 8%

Struck by 18% Pressure release 3%

Falls from height 9%

Exposure noise, chemical, biological, vibration 2% Exposure electrical 1%

Explosion/burn 6% Confined space 8%

Caught in, under or between 25% Assault or violent act 8%

Transport - water, including marine activity 5% Transport -land 23% Transport -air 11% Seismic/survey operations 6% Production operations 8% Maintenance, inspection, testing 17%

Lifting, crane, rigging, deck operations 4% Drilling, workover,

well services 6% Diving, subsea, ROV 3% Construction, commissioning,

decommissioning 17%

Fatalities – by incident category and activity, 2011

As sa ul t or vi ole nt ac t Ca ug ht i n, u nd er o r b et we en Con fine d s pac e Ex plo sion or bu rn s Ex po sur e e lec trica l Ex po su re no ise , c hemi ca l, bi olo gic al, vib ra tio n Fal ls f ro m h eigh t Pre ssu re re lea se St ru ck by W at er re la te d, d row nin g Othe r To ta l

Construction, commissioning, decommissioning 0 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 4 0 1 11 Diving, subsea, ROV 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 Drilling, workover, well services 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 4 Lifting, crane, rigging, deck operations 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 Maintenance, inspection, testing 0 1 2 4 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 11 Production operations 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 5 Seismic/survey operations 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 4 Transport – air 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 7 Transport – land 5 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 15 Transport – water, including marine activity 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 3

Total 5 16 5 4 1 1 6 2 12 5 8 65

• Seven of the 8 fatalities categorised as ‘Other’ were as a result of 2 air transport incidents. (25% were catego-rised as ‘Other’ in 2010 and were fatal air transport incidents).

• Excluding those categorised as ‘Other’, the largest pro-portion of the fatalities reported in 2011 were catego-rised as ‘Caught in, under or between’ (28%) (13% in 2010).

ê5 of the 15 fatalities in 2011 involved bulldozers, 1 involved a front end loader and 1 involved a road grader.

• Excluding those categorised as ‘Other’, the second greatest proportion of the fatalities reported in 2011 were the result of individuals being struck by falling or moving objects (21%) (28% in 2010).

êTwo fatalities involved separate tree felling incidents in seismic operations

êTwo fatalities involved separate head-on motor vehi-cle crashes

êOne fatality involved a bulldozer

• An increase is seen in the number of deaths resulting from land transport incidents (15 fatalities) compared to previous years (8 fatalities in 2010, 10 in 2009). ê5 fatalities occurred in one assault and violent act

incident

ê9 fatalities were associated with 9 separate fatal inci-dents

• A reduction is seen in the number of deaths resulting from the activity ‘Drilling, Workover, Well Services’ (4 fatalities) compared to previous years (21 fatalities in 2010, 13 in 2009).

• 44 of the fatal incidents involved one fatality.

• Incidents which involved 2 or more fatalities were reported under the categories:

êOther (including air transport) (2 incidents). êExplosions or burns (2 incidents).

êAssault and violent act (1 incident). êConfined space (2 incidents).

• There were no fatal incidents reported under the fol-lowing categories:

êCut, Puncture, Scrape.

êExposure Noise, Chemical, Biological, Vibration. êOverexertion, Strain.

(20)

Fatal incident rate – company & contractors

Fatal incident rate – onshore & offshore

2.4 Fatal incident rate (FIR)

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Overall Contractor Company 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 1 2 3 4 5 6 Overall Offshore Onshore

The FIR is a measure of the frequency with which fatal incidents occur, in contrast to the FAR which measures the frequency of fatalities. Accordingly, for company and con-tractor fatalities only, the FIR will be less than or equal to the FAR. Comparison of FAR and FIR gives an indication of the magnitude of the incidents in terms of lives lost.

• Overall the Fatal Incident Rate has decreased by 15% compared with last year and is the lowest on record (50 fatal incidents in 2011, 58 fatal incidents in 2010). • The offshore Fatal Incident Rate reduced by 39%

com-pared with 2010 results. This is an actual reduction of 15 fatal incidents from 2010.

Fatal incident rate (FIR)

The number of fatal incidents that result in one or more fatalities per 100,000,000 (100 million) hours.

2011 (2010) FIR Relative to 2010 FIR

Company 0.80 (1.10) 27% lower

Contractor 1.63 (1.86) 12% lower

Overall 1.45 (1.70) 15% lower

(21)

Total recordable injury rate – onshore & offshore

per million hours worked [Data page B-2]

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Overall Offshore Onshore 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002

Total recordable injury rate – company & contractors

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Overall Contractor Company 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002

2.5 Total recordable injury rate (TRIR)

Total recordable injury rate (TRIR)

The number of recordable injuries (fatalities + lost work day cases + restricted work day cases + medi-cal treatment cases) per 1,000,000 hours worked.

2011 (2010) TRIR Relative to 2010 TRIR

Company 1.32 (1.19) 11% higher

Contractor 1.88 (1.81) 4% higher

Overall 1.76 (1.68) 5% higher

Onshore 1.45 (1.41) 3% higher

Offshore 2.84 (2.45) 16% higher

Submissions without information on medical treatment cases were filtered out, leaving a database of 3,428 million hours, 99% of the database (see Appendix A).

(22)

Lost time injury frequency – onshore & offshore

Lost time injury frequency – company & contractors

2.6 Lost time injury frequency (LTIF)

• The overall LTIF increased by 2% from 0.42 in 2010 to 0.43 in 2011.

• The offshore LTIF increased by 19% compared with 2010. The incident categories associated with the increase in offshore LTIF are “Caught in, under or between”, “Falls from height” and “Overexertion, strain”; the activities associated with the increase are “Production operations” and “Transport – water, including marine activity”.

There were 1,415 reported lost work day cases resulting in at least one day off work, which equates to an average of 27 injuries resulting in at least one day off work every week of the year. Approximately 272 work-years are estimated to have been lost by reporting companies and their contrac-tors (assuming 220 working days per year) as a result of injuries. Although the absolute number of LWDCs has increased (1,366 in 2010), the average time away from work has reduced by 4%. See Section 2.8 for further information on Lost Work Day Case severity.

0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 Overall Offshore Onshore 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 _Overall Contractor Company 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002

Lost time injury frequency (LTIF)

The number of lost time injuries (fatalities + lost work day cases) per 1,000,000 hours worked.

2011 (2010) LTIF Relative to 2010 LTIF

Company 0.42 (0.41) 2% higher

Contractor 0.43 (0.42) 2% higher

Overall 0.43 (0.42) 2% higher

(23)

2.7 Lost work day cases by category and activity

Of the 1,415 reported lost work day cases resulting in at least one day off work, 1,106 incidents were contractor related and 309 were company related.

The Lost Work Day Case category was provided for all of the lost work day cases reported, although 10% of the cases were categorised as ‘Other’.

The pie chart shows the percentage of LWDCs within each of the reporting categories for 2011.

• The greatest number of incidents was reported as ‘Struck by’ (357 cases accounting for 25% of LWDCs), (2010 results showed 347 cases accounting for 26%). • ‘Caught in, under or between’ and ‘Slips and trips (at

the same height)’ accounted for 19% and 17% respec-tively of the total reported cases. (2010 results showed 17% for both categories).

• In comparison with 2010, the 2011 results were very similar; no category differed by more than 2%.

Lost Work Day Cases by category

Number %

Assault or violent act 6 0.4

Caught in, under or between 274 19.4

Confined space 5 0.4

Cut, puncture, scrape 46 3.3

Explosion or burns 44 3.1

Exposure electrical 25 1.8

Exposure noise, chemical, biological, vibration 29 2.0

Falls from height 131 9.3

Overexertion, strain 97 6.9

Pressure release 10 0.7

Slips and trips (at same height) 241 17.0

Struck by 357 25.2

Water related, drowning 7 0.5

Other 143 10.1 Total 1,415 Other 10% Water related, drowning 0.5% Struck by 25%

Slips and trips (at same height) 17% _{Pressure release 1%}Overexertion, strain 7% Falls from height 9%

Exposure noise, pressure, chemical, biological, vibration 2%

Exposure electrical 2% Explosion or burns 3% Cut, puncture, scrape 3%

Confined space 0.4% Caught in, under or between 19% Assault or violent act 0.4%

Lost Work Day Cases – by category

% LWDCs associated with each reporting category [Data page B-3]

Lost Work Day Case (LWDC)

A Lost Work Day Case is an incident resulting in at least one day off work. Fatal incidents are not included.

(24)

Lost work day case activities were reported for all of the 1,415 Lost Work Day Cases reported, although 10% of the cases were reported as ‘Unspecified-other’. In 2010, 9% were reported as ‘Unspecified-other’.

In comparison with 2010 data only two activities increased by over 2% of the total:

• Production operations, increased by 5% from 2010 to 2011

• Lifting, rigging, crane and deck operations increased by 3% from 2010 to 2011

Lost Work Day Cases – by activity

% LWDCs associated with each reporting category [Data page B-3]

Lost Work Day Cases by activity

Number %

Construction, commissioning, decommissioning 134 9.5

Diving, subsea, ROV 12 0.8

Drilling, workover, well services 306 21.6 Lifting, crane, rigging, deck operations 137 9.7 Maintenance, inspection, testing 194 13.7 Office, warehouse, accommodation, catering 81 5.7

Production operations 223 15.8

Seismic/survey operations 19 1.3

Transport – air 18 1.3

Transport – land 67 4.7

Transport – water, including marine activity 79 5.6

Unspecified – other 145 10.2

Total 1,415

accommodation, catering 6% Maintenance, inspection, testing 14% Lifting, crane, rigging,

well services 22% Diving, subsea, ROV 0.8% Construction, commissioning,

(25)

Of the 1,415 reported lost work day cases resulting in at least one day off work, 309 were company related and 1,106

incidents were contractor related. Other 18%

Struck by

20% _{(at same height) 28%}Slips and trips Pressure release 1%

Overexertion, strain 8% Falls from height 7% Exposure noise, chemical,

biological, vibration 2% Exposure electrical 2% Explosion or burns 4% Cut, puncture, scrape 3% Confined space 0.3% Caught in, under or between 6% Assault or violent act 1%

Company [Data page B-4]

drowning 0.6% Struck by

27%

Slips and trips (at same height) 14%

Pressure release 1%Overexertion, strain 6% Falls from height 10%

Exposure noise, chemical, biological, vibration 2% Exposure electrical 1.6%Explosion or burns 3% Cut, puncture, scrape 3%

Confined space 0.4% Caught in, under or

between 23% Assault or violent act 0.3%

Contractor [Data page B-4]

Lost Work Day Cases by category – company & contractor

Company Contractor

Assault or violent act 3 3

Caught in, under or between 20 254

Confined space 1 4

Cut, puncture, scrape 9 37

Explosion or burns 11 33

Exposure electrical 7 18

Exposure noise, chemical, biological, vibration 5 24

Falls from height 21 110

Overexertion, strain 25 72

Pressure release 2 8

Slips and trips (at same height) 87 154

Struck by 61 296

Water related, drowning 0 7

Other 57 86

(26)

Other 13% Struck by

27%

Slips and trips

(at same height) 18% Pressure release 1%

Overexertion, strain 5% Falls from height 9%

Exposure noise, chemical, biological, vibration 1% Exposure electrical 2% Explosion or burns 4% Cut, puncture, scrape 3% Confined space 0.5% Caught in, under or between 16% Assault or violent act 1%

Onshore [Data page B-4]

Other 6% Water related, drowning 1%

Struck by 23%

Slips and trips (at same height) 15%

Pressure release 0.5% Overexertion, strain 10% Falls from height 10%

Exposure noise, chemical, biological, vibration 3% Exposure electrical 1%Explosion or burns 2%

Cut, puncture, scrape 4% Confined space 0.2% Caught in, under or

between 24% Assault or violent act 0.2%

Offshore [Data page B-4]

Of the 1,415 reported lost work day cases resulting in at least one day off work, 858 incidents were related to onshore activity and 557 were related to offshore activity.

Lost Work Day Cases by category – onshore & offshore

Onshore Offshore

Assault or violent act 5 1

Caught in, under or between 139 135

Confined space 4 1

Cut, puncture, scrape 24 22

Explosion or burns 33 11

Exposure electrical 20 5

Exposure noise, chemical, biological, vibration 13 16

Falls from height 75 56

Overexertion, strain 43 54

Pressure release 7 3

Slips and trips (at same height) 155 86

Struck by 228 129

Water related, drowning 1 6

Other 111 32

(27)

Of the 1,415 reported lost work day cases resulting in at least one day off work, 309 were company related and 1,106

incidents were contractor related. Unspecified -_{other 19%}

Transport - water, including marine activity 1% Transport - land 6% Transport - air 1% Seismic/survey operations 1% Production operations 33% Office, warehouse, accommodation, catering 10% Maintenance, inspection, testing 13% Lifting, crane, riggin,

well services 8%

Construction, commissioning, decommissioning 2%

Company [Data page B-4]

marine activity 7% Transport - land 4% Transport - air 1% Seismic/survey operations 1% Production operations 11% Office, warehouse, accommodation, catering 5%

Maintenance, inspection, testing 14%

Lifting, crane, rigging, deck operations 11%

Drilling, workover, well services 25% Diving, subsea, ROV 1% Construction, commissioning,

decommissioning 12%

Contractor [Data page B-4]

Lost Work Day Cases by activity – company & contractor

Company Contractor Construction, commissioning, decommissioning 6 128

Diving, subsea, ROV 0 12

Drilling, workover, well services 25 281

Lifting, crane, rigging, deck operations 18 119

Maintenance, inspection, testing 41 153

Office, warehouse, accommodation, catering 30 51

Production operations 102 121

Seismic/survey operations 3 16

Transport – air 4 14

Transport – land 17 50

Transport – water, including marine activity 4 75

Unspecified – other 59 86

(28)

accommodation, catering 7% Maintenance, inspection, testing 10% Lifting, crane, rigging,

well services 24% Construction, commissioning,

decommissioning 10%

Onshore [Data page B-4]

Unspecified -other 5% Transport - water, including

marine activity 12% Transport - land 0.2% Transport - air 2% Seismic/survey operations 1% Production operations 17% Office, warehouse, accommodation, catering 4%

Maintenance, inspection, testing 19% Lifting, crane, rigging, deck operations 12%

Drilling, workover, well services 17% Diving, subsea, ROV 2% Construction, commissioning,

decommissioning 9%

Offshore [Data page B-4]

Of the 1,415 reported lost work day cases resulting in at least one day off work, 858 incidents were onshore related and 557 were offshore related.

Lost Work Day Cases by activity – onshore & offshore

Onshore Offshore Construction, commissioning, decommissioning 84 50

Diving, subsea, ROV 0 12

Drilling, workover, well services 210 96

Lifting, crane, rigging, deck operations 69 68

Maintenance, inspection, testing 89 105

Office, warehouse, accommodation, catering 62 19

Production operations 128 95

Seismic/survey operations 16 3

Transport – air 8 10

Transport – land 66 1

Transport – water, including marine activity 10 69

Unspecified – other 116 29

(29)

Severity of LWDC – company & contractors

average days lost per LWDC [Data page B-4]

Severity of LWDC – onshore & offshore

2.8 Severity of lost work day cases

2011 (2010) severity Relative to 2010

severity Relative to 2006-2010 average severity

Company 41.06 (35.43) 16% higher 38% higher

Contractor 42.58 (46.02) 7% lower 24% higher Overall 42.26 (43.90) 4% lower 27% higher Onshore 39.84 (39.39) 1% higher 28% higher Offshore 46.42 (52.56) 12% lower 18% higher

• OGP member companies reported 42,172 days of work lost through injuries. This equates to around 272 work-years of activity.

• The number of days lost was reported for 79% of the lost work day cases.

• The difference between company and contractor sever-ity levels is 4%.

• The offshore LWDC severity is 17% higher than onshore. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Overall Contractor Company 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Overall Offshore Onshore 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002

Severity of lost work day cases

Severity is defined as the average number of days lost (where reported) for each lost work day case.

(30)

Severity of LWDC – company & contractors

Severity of LWDC – onshore & offshore

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 2011 2006-2010 Overall Contractor Company 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 2011 2006-2010 Overall Offshore Onshore

These figures show the average number of days lost per LWDC in 2011 compared with the average for the previ-ous 5-year period. An increase is shown in LWDC severity in all areas of activity compared with the previous 5 year period, an increase of 27% overall.

(31)

2.9 Severity of restricted work day cases

Severity of restricted work day cases – company & contractor

average days lost per RWDC [Data page B-5]

Severity of restricted work day cases– onshore & offshore

average days lost per RWDC [Data page B-5] 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Overall Contractor Company 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Overall Offshore Onshore 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2011 (2010) severity Relative to 2010

severity Relative to 2006-2010 severity

Company 12.92 (14.72) 12% lower 12% lower

Contractor 10.17 (13.78) 26% lower 18% lower Overall 10.40 (13.88) 25% lower 17% lower Onshore 11.67 (13.59) 14% lower 2% higher Offshore 8.55 (14.35) 40% lower 42% lower

A total of 7,996 days were restricted (RWDC days) as a result of restricted work day cases, in the sense that normal duties could not be performed. This compares with 45,835 days lost (LWDC days) on a 34% larger database.

• The number of days lost overall has fallen by 17% pared with the previous 5-year period and by 25% com-pared with 2010 results.

• The average number of days lost to restricted work per case decreased compared with the previous 5-year period, most noticeably in offshore operations (42%). • The number of days lost among contractor staff has

fallen by 18% compared with the previous 5-year period and by 26% compared with the 2010 results.

Severity of restricted work day cases

The average number of days of restricted work per restricted work day case.

Restricted work day case days are not reported by all companies. The database for this analysis is there-fore reduced to 2,041 million work hours, 59% of all reported hours.

(32)

Severity of restriced work day cases – company & contractor

average days of restricted work per RWDC [Data page B-5]

Severity of restriced work day cases – onshore & offshore

average days of restricted work per RWDC [Data page B-5]

0 5 10 15 20 2011 2006-2010 Overall Contractor Company 0 5 10 15 20 2011 2006-2010 Overall Offshore Onshore

These figures show the average number of days lost per RWDC in 2011 compared with the average for the previ-ous 5-year period. A reduction is shown in RWDC sever-ity in all areas of activsever-ity compared with the previous 5-year period with the exception of ‘onshore’ activities where it has risen by 2%. The overall average is 42% lower than the aver-age for the previous 5-year period.

(33)

2.10 Incident triangles

In this section the relative numbers of types of occupational injury are shown in the form of ‘incident triangles’. The ratios have been corrected to account for the absence, in some data submissions, of medical treatment cases.

2010 incident triangles

2011 incident triangles

22 93 recordable injuries 21 92 recordable injuries

31 lost time injuries 97 recordable injuries

1 fatality

lost time injuries

Overall Companies Contractors 15 60 recordable injuries 16 68 recordable injuries 12 37 recordable injuries 1 fatality 1 fatality 1 fatality

lost time injuries

lost time injuries Overall

Companies

Contractors

Year Ratio of lost time injuries

to fatalities Ratio of total recordable injuries to lost time injuries

2011 22:1 4:1

2010 15:1 4:1

2009 16:1 4:1

2008 17:1 4:1

Lost time injuries

Lost work day cases and fatalities

Ratio of lost time injuries to fatalities

The number of lost time injuries divided by the total number of fatal incidents (LTI/fatal incidents)

Ratio of total recordable injuries to lost time injuries

The number of recordable injuries divided by the total number of fatal incidents (recordable injuries/ fatal incidents)

Recordable injuries

Fatalities, lost work day cases, restricted work day cases and medical treatment cases where medical treatment cases are reported for the data set.

(34)

These data challenge the concept that the ratio between fatalities, lost time injuries and recordable injuries show similar relationships for different incident categories and activities. In some incident categories such as “confined space”, “assault or violent act”, “water related, drowning”, the ratio will be higher. Certain activities and categories of incident also more commonly result in multiple fatalities, such as “Transport – air”, “Confined space” and “Explosion or burns”.

The varying ratio of fatalities to lost time injuries to record-able injuries for 2010-2011 challenges the traditional notion of recordable injuries and lost time injuries as a precursor to fatalities. In some incident categories such as “confined space”, “assault or violent act” and “water related, drown-ing”, the ratio will be higher as shown in the tables below.

Activity Fatalities (fatalities+LWDCs)LTIs fatalities:LTIsRatio,

Construction, commissioning, decommissioning 11 145 13:1

Diving, subsea, ROV 2 14 7:1

Drilling, workover, well services 4 310 78:1

Lifting, crane, rigging, deck operations 3 140 47:1

Maintenance, inspection, testing 11 205 19:1

Office, warehouse, accommodation, catering 0 81 n/a

Production operations 5 228 46:1

Seismic/survey operations 4 23 6:1

Transport – air 7 25 4:1

Transport – land 15 82 5:1

Transport – water, including marine activity 3 82 27:1

Unspecified – other 0 145 n/a

Category Fatalities (fatalities+LWDCs)LTIs fatalities:LTIsRatio,

Assault or violent act 5 11 2:1

Caught in, under or between 16 290 18:1

Confined space 5 10 2:1

Cut, puncture, scrape 0 46 n/a

Explosion or burns 4 48 12:1

Exposure electrical 1 26 26:1

Exposure noise, chemical, biological, vibration 1 30 30:1

Falls from height 6 137 23:1

Overexertion, strain 0 97 n/a

Pressure release 2 12 6:1

Slips and trips (at same height) 0 241 n/a

Struck by 12 369 31:1

Water related, drowning 5 12 2:1

(35)

2.11 Causal factors analysis

The allocation of ‘causal factors’ to fatal incidents and high potential events was requested for the 2011 data reported to OGP. This request was first made in 2010, therefore, a comparison of two years of data is possible.

A list of causal factors and their descriptions were supplied to those providing data for this document to ensure stand-ardised responses.

The causal factors list is divided into two sections:

• People (acts) classifications usually involve either the actions of a person or actions which were required but not carried out or were incorrectly performed. There are four major categories of actions, with an additional level of detail under each of the major categories. • Process (conditions) classifications usually involve some

type of physical hazard or organisational aspect out of the control of the individual. There are five major clas-sification categories, with an additional level of detail under each of the major categories.

(36)

The causal factors assigned to fatal incidents are shown below. The highlighted content indicates the top 10 causal factors assigned to fatal incidents in 2011 compared to 2010; eight of the ten were the same for both years.

Additional information on the fatal incidents reported by region can be found on the OGP Safety Zone website: http://info.ogp.org.uk/Safety/. The information provided includes a narrative description of the incident, the corrective actions and recommendations and the causal factors assigned by the reporting company.

• 42 of the 50 fatal incidents reported were assigned causal factors (51 of 58 in 2010)

• 203 causal factors were assigned for the 50 fatal inci-dents

ê81 were People (Aacts) (109 in 2010) ê122 were Process (conditions) (133 in 2010)

• Between 1 and 12 causal factors were assigned per inci-dent (1 to 18 in 2010)

2.11.1 Fatal Incident Causal Factors

Causal factors assigned for fatal incidents 2011 2010

Process (conditions): Organisational: Inadequate supervision 18 18

People (acts): Inattention/Lack of Awareness: Improper decision making or lack of judgment 16 14 Process (conditions): Organisational: Inadequate hazard identification or risk assessment 15 30

Process (conditions): Protective Systems: Inadequate/defective guards or protective barriers 11 7

Process (conditions): Organisational: Inadequate training/competence 10 13

Process (conditions): Organisational: Inadequate communication 9 12

People (acts): Following Procedures: Violation unintentional (by individual or group) 9 12

People (acts): Following Procedures: Improper position (in the line of fire) 9 16

People (acts): Use of Protective Methods: Failure to warn of hazard 8 7

Process (conditions): Organisational: Inadequate work standards/procedures 8 10

Process (conditions): Work Place Hazards: Inadequate surfaces, floors, walkways or roads 7 1 People (acts): Inattention/Lack of Awareness: Lack of attention/distracted by other concerns/stress 7 5 People (acts): Use of Protective Methods: Personal Protective Equipment not used or used improperly 6 1 People (acts): Use of Tools, Equipment, Materials and Products: Improper use/position of tools/equipment/materials/

products 6 9

Process (conditions): Tools, Equipment, Materials & Products: Inadequate maintenance/inspection/testing 6 4 Process (conditions): Protective Systems: Inadequate/defective warning systems/safety devices 6 5 Process (conditions): Tools, Equipment, Materials & Products: Inadequate design/specification/management of change 5 10

Process (conditions): Tools, Equipment, Materials & Products: Inadequate/defective tools/equipment/materials/products 5 4

Process (conditions): Work Place Hazards: Storms or acts of nature 5 2

Process (conditions): Protective Systems: Inadequate/defective Personal Protective Equipment 5 0 People (acts): Use of Protective Methods: Equipment or materials not secured 4 6 People (acts): Use of Protective Methods: Inadequate use of safety systems 4 5 People (acts): Following Procedures: Violation intentional (by individual or group) 4 12

Process (conditions): Organisational: Poor leadership/organisational culture 4 9 Process (conditions): Work Place Hazards: Congestion, clutter or restricted motion 4 2 Process (conditions): Protective Systems: Inadequate security provisions or systems 2 2

People (acts): Following Procedures: Work or motion at improper speed 2 0

People (acts): Following Procedures: Improper lifting or loading 2 8

People (acts): Use of Protective Methods: Disabled or removed guards, warning systems or safety devices 2 2

People (acts): Inattention/Lack of Awareness: Acts of violence 1 6

People (acts): Inattention/Lack of Awareness: Fatigue 1 0

Process (conditions): Work Place Hazards: Hazardous atmosphere (explosive/toxic/asphyxiant) 1 1 Process (conditions): Organisational: Failure to report/learn from events 1 3 People (acts): Following Procedures: Overexertion or improper position/posture for task 0 3 People (acts): Use of Tools, Equipment, Materials and Products: Servicing of energized equipment/inadequate energy

(37)

• 69 of the 76 high potential incidents were assigned causal factors (97 of 98 in 2010)

• 317 causal factors were assigned for the 76 high poten-tial events (400 in 2010)

ê131 were People (Acts) (134 in 2010) ê186 were Process (Conditions) (266 in 2010)

• Between 1 and 19 causal factors were assigned per event (1 to 11 in 2010)

2.11.2 High Potential Event Causal Factors

Causal Factors assigned for high potential events 2011 2010

Process (conditions): Organisational: Inadequate hazard identification or risk assessment 24 47 People (acts): Inattention/Lack of Awareness: Improper decision making or lack of judgment 21 23

Process (conditions): Organisational: Inadequate work standards/procedures 20 37

Process (conditions): Organisational: Inadequate supervision 18 31

Process (conditions): Tools, Equipment, Materials & Products: Inadequate design/specification/management of change 18 13 People (acts): Use of Tools, Equipment, Materials and Products: Improper use/position of tools/equipment/materials/

products 17 9

People (acts): Following Procedures: Violation unintentional (by individual or group) 15 27

Process (conditions): Organisational: Inadequate communication 15 19

Process (conditions): Organisational: Inadequate training/competence 15 22

Process (conditions): Protective Systems: Inadequate/defective warning systems/safety devices 15 13

People (acts): Use of Protective Methods: Failure to warn of hazard 13 9

Process (conditions): Tools, Equipment, Materials & Products: Inadequate/defective tools/equipment/materials/products 13 16

People (acts): Use of Protective Methods: Inadequate use of safety systems 12 2 Process (conditions): Tools, Equipment, Materials & Products: Inadequate maintenance/inspection/testing 12 21

People (acts): Following Procedures: Improper lifting or loading 9 5

People (acts): Use of Protective Methods: Equipment or materials not secured 9 3 Process (conditions): Organisational: Poor leadership/organisational culture 9 15

Process (conditions): Protective Systems: Inadequate/defective guards or protective barriers 9 10 People (acts): Inattention/Lack of Awareness: Lack of attention/distracted by other concerns/stress 8 15

People (acts): Following Procedures: Violation intentional (by individual or group) 6 9 Process (conditions): Work Place Hazards: Hazardous atmosphere (explosive/toxic/asphyxiant) 5 6

People (acts): Inattention/Lack of Awareness: Fatigue 4 4

People (acts): Following Procedures: Improper position (in the line of fire) 3 9

People (acts): Following Procedures: Work or motion at improper speed 3 3

People (acts): Use of Protective Methods: Disabled or removed guards, warning systems or safety devices 3 1 People (acts): Use of Protective Methods: Personal Protective Equipment not used or used improperly 3 6 People (acts): Use of Tools, Equipment, Materials and Products: Servicing of energized equipment/inadequate energy

isolation 3 6

Process (conditions): Protective Systems: Inadequate security provisions or systems 3 1 Process (conditions): Work Place Hazards: Congestion, clutter or restricted motion 3 3 Process (conditions): Organisational: Failure to report/learn from events 2 4 Process (conditions): Work Place Hazards: Inadequate surfaces, floors, walkways or roads 2 5

Process (conditions): Work Place Hazards: Storms or acts of nature 2 0

People (acts): Following Procedures: Overexertion or improper position/posture for task 1 3

People (acts): Inattention/Lack of Awareness: Acts of violence 1 0

Process (conditions): Protective Systems: Inadequate/defective Personal Protective Equipment 1 3 The causal factors assigned to fatal incidents are shown below. The highlighted content indicates the top 10 causal factors assigned to fatal incidents in 2011 compared to 2010, seven of the ten were the same for both years.

Note: the top 11 causal factors have been shown for 2010, as two of the causal factors were each assigned 15 times. Additional information on high potential events reported by region can be found on the OGP Safety Zone website: http://info.ogp.org.uk/Safety/. The information provided includes a narrative description of the event, the corrective actions and recommendations, and the causal factors assigned by the reporting company.

(38)

2.12 OGP Life-Saving Rules

The following seven causal factors were common to the top ten for both fatal incidents and high potential events in 2011. • Process (conditions): Organisational: Inadequate hazard identification or risk assessment

• People (acts): Inattention/Lack of Awareness: Improper decision making or lack of judgment • Process (conditions): Organisational: Inadequate supervision

• Process (conditions): Organisational: Inadequate work standards/procedures • Process (conditions): Organisational: Inadequate training/competence

• People (acts): Following Procedures: Violation unintentional (by individual or group) • Process (conditions): Organisational: Inadequate communication

OGP Life-Saving Rules applicable to 2011 fatal incidents

percent of total 2011 incidents OGP recently released a set of ‘life-saving rules’ (OGP

Life-Saving Rules, OGP report № 459), intended for use by the oil & gas industry to mitigate risk and reduce fatalities. Each OGP Life-Saving Rule consists of a simple icon and descriptive text, providing clear, simple and consistent com-munication regarding risks in the workplace.

These Rules were developed by using the fatal incidents and high potential events data provided from the 1991 to 2010 Safety performance indicators to clearly identify the events and activities that are the highest risk and therefore provide clear instructions on how to avoid them. These are split into 8 ‘core rules’ and 10 ‘supplemental rules’.

Analysis of the fatal incident descriptions for 2011 data has shown that 80% of the fatal incidents reported are covered by the OGP Life-Saving Rules and may have been prevented by the adoption of this system.

No appropriate rule

20%

Supplemental rules

54%

Core rules

26%

(39)

In this section the safety performance of the contributing OGP members is presented for regions and individual countries within those regions.

A list of countries from which companies have reported information is provided in Appendix G, which also shows the division of countries into regions.

Regions and countries throughout the Safety performance indicators are grouped in the same geo-graphic regions as have been historically used in this report so as to ensure consistency;

3.1 Fatalities

The table shows the number of fatal incidents and fatalities in each of the 7 regions into which the data are partitioned. Further analysis of the fatality statistics is presented in Section 3.5, where 5-year rolling averages of FAR are pre-sented for each of the regions.

Fatalities 2011 (2010) FAR 2011 (2010) Fatal incidents 2011 (2010) FIR 2011 (2010) Africa 7 (19) 1.25 (3.38) 7 (15) 1.25 (2.67) Asia/Australasia 20 (30) 3.28 (4.14) 12 (10) 1.97 (1.38) Europe 3 (3) 0.87 (0.97) 3 (2) 0.87 (0.65) FSU 7 (10) 1.59 (2.17) 6 (10) 1.37 (2.17) Middle East 12 (11) 1.74 (1.63) 9 (11) 1.30 (1.63) North America 6 (15) 1.50 (5.08) 6 (5) 1.50 (1.69) South America 10 (6) 2.42 (1.57) 7 (5) 1.70 (1.31)

(40)

Submissions without information on medical treatment cases were filtered out, leaving a database of 3,428 million hours, almost 100% of the database (see Appendix A). Further analysis of the Fatal Accident Rate is presented in Section 3.5 where 5-year rolling averages of FAR are pre-sented for each of the regions.

3.3 Total recordable injury rate (TRIR)

Total recordable injury rate

per million hours worked

0 2 4 6 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 Overall South America North America Middle East FSU Europe Asia/ Australasia

Africa Total recordable injury rate (TRIR)

The number of recordable injuries (fatalities + lost work day cases + restricted work day cases +

medi-2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 Africa 1.22 1.40 1.65 2.18 1.96 Asia/Australasia 1.46 1.30 1.22 1.34 1.43 Europe 2.81 3.05 3.48 3.89 4.10 FSU 0.99 1.08 1.21 1.22 3.22 Middle East 0.78 0.98 0.92 0.83 2.06 North America 3.19 2.89 3.08 4.25 4.53 South America 3.17 2.76 3.17 3.15 3.31 Overall 1.76 1.68 1.75 2.09 2.68 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 Africa 1.25 3.38 2.21 4.40 3.62 Asia/Australasia 3.28 4.14 1.58 1.24 0.92 Europe 0.87 0.97 6.58 4.19 4.72 FSU 1.59 2.17 3.14 4.05 3.82 Middle East 1.74 1.63 2.16 2.40 3.79 North America 1.50 5.08 4.37 1.64 1.05 South America 2.42 1.57 2.37 5.17 3.11 Overall 1.88 2.76 2.76 3.12 2.99

3.2 Fatal Accident Rate (FAR)

Fatal Accident Rate

per 100 million hours worked

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 All regions South America North America Middle East FSU Europe Asia/ Australasia Africa _FAR

(41)

Further analysis of the lost time injuries is presented in Section 3.5 where 5-year rolling averages of LTIF are pre-sented for each of the regions.

3.4 Lost time injury frequency (LTIF)

Lost time injury frequency

per million hours worked [Data from B-6]

0.0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 Overall South America North America Middle East FSU Europe Asia/ Australasia Africa 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 Africa 0.30 0.36 0.42 0.61 0.64 Asia/Australasia 0.30 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.27 Europe 1.08 1.06 1.31 1.38 1.40 FSU 0.31 0.31 0.35 0.45 0.57 Middle East 0.18 0.25 0.26 0.29 0.50 North America 0.59 0.48 0.51 0.55 0.68 South America 0.64 0.61 0.69 0.90 1.08 Overall 0.43 0.42 0.45 0.55 0.66

Lost Time Injury Frequency (LTIF)

The number of lost time injuries (fatalities + lost workday cases per 1,000,000 hours worked).

(42)

3.5 FAR, TRIR and LTIF – 5-year rolling averages

The five year rolling average is calculated by summing the total number of incidents of the five previous years, and dividing by the sum of the work hours for these years. For example, the five year rolling average for 2011 is calculated by:

(Number of injuries in 2007+2008+2009+2010+2011) (Total work hours in 2007+2008+2009+2010+2011)

The number series involved in the calculation is frame shifted along by one each year, e.g. 2012 will calculate from 2008-2012.

The figures show TRIR, FAR and LTIF 5-year rolling averages for each of the seven regions, and includes the ‘all regions’ curve.

The increase in the North America FAR in 2010 can be in part attributed to the effect of a fire and explosion offshore in the USA in which 11 individuals lost their lives.

The increase in the Asia/Australsia FAR in 2010 can in part be attributed to the effect of a fatal air-transport incident in Pakistan in which 21 individuals lost their lives. The con-tinued increase in the Asia/Australasia FAR in 2011 can in part be attributed to three fatal incidents in the region which resulted in multiple fatalities:

• Pakistan “assault or violent act” which resulted in 5 fatalities

• Myanmar “transport – air” which resulted in 3 fatali-ties

• Indonesia “confined space” which resulted in 2 fatali-ties

• The increase in Europe FAR in 2009 can in part be atributed to the effect of a fatal air-transport incident in the UK in which 14 contractor employees and 2 air crew lost their lives.

In order to smooth out variability in the annual values of the regional TRIR, FAR and LTIF, 5-year rolling averages are computed which should provide a more reliable indica-tor of performance trends.

FAR 5-year rolling average

per 100 million hours worked [Data from B-6]

TRIR 5-year rolling average

per million hours worked [Data from B-6] LTIF 5-year rolling averageper million hours worked [Data from B-7]

2 4 6 8 Africa Asia/Australasia Europe FSU Middle East North America South America All regions 0 2 4 6 8 _Africa Asia/Australasia Europe FSU Middle East North America South America All regions 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 Africa Asia/Australasia Europe FSU Middle East North America South America All regions