Jeremy Dunster - NOPSEMA - Offshore support vessel performance
-
Upload
informa-australia -
Category
Business
-
view
107 -
download
0
Transcript of Jeremy Dunster - NOPSEMA - Offshore support vessel performance
Offshore Support Vessels –Safety performance
Jeremy DunsterManager Assessment & Inspection (Vessel Facilities)
Perth – June 2015
• Activity
• Performance Statistics
• Safety Case Submissions
• Maintaining safety performance
23 June 2015A424481 2
Agenda
Activity12 Months to April 2015
23 June 2015A424481 4
Facility types
Facility GroupRegistered
facilities% Active* facilities %
Platforms 35 18% 32 23%
FPSOs / FSOs 18 9% 12 9%
MODUs 17 9% 9 7%
Vessel Facilities 44 22% 8 6%
Pipelines 84 42% 77 55%
TOTAL 198 100% 138 100%
*Based on data at Apr 2015. Numbers fluctuate over time due to mobile and inactive facilities
There have been 15 Vessel facilities “active” over the
12 months to April 2015
Similarly there have been13 MODUs “active” over the
12 months to April 2015
23 June 2015 5
Regulatory Activity
OHS Activity Apr 2014 – Apr 2015
IndustryTOTAL
VesselFacilities
Vessel Facility %
Assessments (safety cases & scopes of validation) 154 40 26.0%
Inspections 122 13 10.7%
Accidents & Dangerous Occurrences 371 23 6.2%
Complaints (OHS only) 5 3 60.0%
Enforcement actions 15 3 20.0%
A424481
Performance Statistics -Data by facility type
23 June 2015A424481 7
Incidents by Facility Type12 Months to April 2015
This equates to 6.2%
23 June 2015 8
Incident CategorisationApril 2014 – April 2015
Incident category All facilitytypes
Vessel Facilities
Vessel Facility%
Collision marine vessel and facility 2 1 50%Death or serious injury 3 1 33%Incapacitation >= 3 days LTI 8 2 25%Could have caused incapacitation >= 3 days LTI 12 3 25%Could have caused death or serious injury 27 3 11%Other kind needing immediate investigation 29 3 10%Unplanned event - implement emergency response plan 172 9 5%
Damage to safety-critical equipment 84 1 1%
Fire or explosion 11 0
Pipeline – kind needing immediate investigation 1 0
Uncontrolled HC release > 1 - 300kg 15 0
Uncontrolled HC release > 300kg 3 0
Uncontrolled PL release > 80 – 12 500L 4 0
Total 371 23 6%
A424481
23 June 2015A424481 9
Incidents by VF operator12 Months to April 2015
Incidents from two facilities vs one for the others
23 June 2015A424481 10
Incidents - root causes (1)12 Months to April 2015
OHS Incident Root Causes – all facility types(excludes EM incidents, complaints and not reportable incidents)
Basic Cause – all facility types Proportion
Design 18%
Procedures 15%
Preventive Maintenance 14%
Equipment Parts/Defects 9%
Human Engineering 9%
Tolerable Failure 8%
NA or None 7%
Work Direction 7%
50% of reported root causes are
Equipment difficulty related
23 June 2015A424481 11
Incidents - root causes (2)12 Months to April 2015
OHS Incident Root Causes – vessel facilities(excludes EM incidents, complaints and not reportable incidents)
Basic Cause - vessels Proportion
Procedures 17%
NA or None 17%
Work Direction 14%
Design 14%
Management Systems – people 11%
Human Engineering 11%
Training 3%
Communications 3%
60% of reported root causes are
Human performance related
23 June 2015A424481 12
Enforcements by facility type12 months to April 2015
20% of enforcement
Performance Statistics -Rates
23 June 2015A424481 14
Offshore hours by facility type
23 June 2015A424481 15
% Hours by facility type12 months to April 2015
3.4 Million hours
23 June 2015 16
Incident RatesFacility Type comparison
A424481
23 June 2015 17
Injury RatesFacility type comparison
A424481
23 June 2015A424481 18
Injury RatesFacility type comparison
23 June 2015A424481 19
Injuries 12 months to April 2015
TRC = LTI + ADI + MTI
Injury Types Injuries occurring on vessels No
TRC Total Recordable Cases 21
LTI >= 3 days Lost Time Injuries >=3 days 3
LTI <3 days Lost Time Injuries < 3 days 1
ADI Alternative Duties Injuries 9
MTI Medical Treatment Injuries 8
This one operator accounts for 52% of all injuries reported on vessel facilities over the period.
From monthly injury report summaries
Safety Case Submissions
23 June 2015A424481 20
23 June 2015A424481 21
Assessments12 months to April 2015
Assessments Industry Total Vessels Vessel %
Safety cases 102 23 22.5%
New 30 14 46.7%
Revision 72 9 12.5%
Scopes of validation 52 17 32.7%
23 June 2015A424481 22
SC Acceptance rates12 months to April 2015
Safety cases Accepted Not accepted Total Acceptance%
Vessels 13 10 23 56.5%
New 6 8 14 42.9%
Revision 7 2 9 77.8%
All industry 72 28 100* 72.0%
New 14 15 29 48.3%
Revision 58 13 71 81.7%
*2 safety cases still in progress
• Vague scope– i.e. an inadequate description that gives details of “the
activities that will, or are likely to, take place at, or in connection with, the facility” (OPGGS(S) regulation 2.5(1)(c)
• Failing to address hazards with MAE potential in the Formal Safety Assessment description– e.g. working adjacent to, or over, infrastructure containing
petroleum fluids (OPGGS(S) regulation 2.5 (2))
• Systemic issues across the FD, FSAD and SMSD– e.g. conflicting information across the safety case
• Several cases have been rejected twice…..
23 June 2015A424481 23
Common issues12 months to April 2015
Maintaining Safety Performance
“An issue that has been at the forefront of discussion for many industry participants has been the decline in global oil and gas prices.
….we all need to remain vigilant and ensure that increasing economic pressure does not affect commitments made in safety cases, well operations management plans and environment plans.”
Selected extract from the NOPSEMA CEO message, The Regulator issue 6 2014
23 June 2015A424481 25
From the NOPSEMA CEO
• Legislation
• Safety Case Guidance Notes
• Data reports and statistics
• The Regulator
NOPSEMA website resourcesUseful links
23 June 2015A424481 26
Thank you
27