Safety Performance Indicators Improving Nuclear Safety through Operating Experience
Safety performance indicators – 2012 data
-
Upload
international-association-of-oil-and-gas-producers -
Category
Documents
-
view
221 -
download
0
Transcript of Safety performance indicators – 2012 data
-
7/22/2019 Safety performance indicators 2012 data
1/104
SAFETY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS 2012 DATAReport No. 2012s(June 2013)
OGP DATA SERIES
I n t e r n a t i o n a l A s s o c i a t i o n o f O i l & G a s P r o d u c e r s
-
7/22/2019 Safety performance indicators 2012 data
2/104
Global experience
Te International Association o Oil & Gas Producers has access to a wealth o technicalknowledge and experience with its members operating around the world in many dierentterrains. We collate and distil this valuable knowledge or the industry to use as guidelinesor good practice by individual members.
Consistent high quality database and guidelines
Our overall aim is to ensure a consistent approach to training, management and bestpractice throughout the world.
Te oil and gas exploration and production industry recognises the need to developconsistent databases and records in certain elds. Te OGPs members are encouragedto use the guidelines as a starting point or their operations or to supplement their ownpolicies and regulations which may apply locally.
Internationally recognised source of industry information
Many o our guidelines have been recognised and used by international authorities andsaety and environmental bodies. Requests come rom governments and non-governmentorganisations around the world as well as rom non-member companies.
Disclaimer
Whilst every eort has been made to ensure the accuracy o the inormation contained in this publication,neither the O nor any o its members past present or uture warrants its accuracy or will, regardlesso its or their negligence, assume liability or any oreseeable or unoreseeable use made thereo, whichliability is hereby excluded. Consequently, such use is at the recipients own risk on the basis that any useby the recipient constitutes agreement to the terms o this disclaimer. e recipient is obliged to inorm
any subsequent recipient o such terms .
Copyright notice
e contents o these pages are e International Association o Oil and Gas Producers.
Permission is given to reproduce this report in whole or in part provided (i) that the copyright o Oand (ii) the source are acknowledged. All other rights are reserved . Any other use requires the priorwritten permission o the O.
ese Terms and Conditions shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws o Englandand Wales. Disputes arising here om shall be exclusively subject to the jurisdiction o the courts oEngland and Wales.
Publications
-
7/22/2019 Safety performance indicators 2012 data
3/104
OGP saety perormance indicators2012 data
Report No: 2012s
June 2013
Revision history
Version Date Amendments1.0 June 2013 First issued
1.1 June 2013 Corrections to Executive Summary
1.2 June 2013 Corrections to page 2-5
-
7/22/2019 Safety performance indicators 2012 data
4/104ii
International Association of Oil & Gas Producers
OGP
-
7/22/2019 Safety performance indicators 2012 data
5/104iii
Safety performance indicators 2012 data
OGP
Saety
OGP has been collecting saety incident data rom its
member companies globally since 98. Te data collectedare entered into the OGP saety database, which is thelargest database o saety perormance in the explorationand production (E&P) industry.
Te principal purpose o the data collection and analysis isto record the global saety perormance o the contributingOGP member companies on an annual basis. Tesubmission o data is voluntary and is not mandated byOGP membership. Te annual reports provide trendanalysis, benchmarking and the identication o areas andactivities on which eorts should be ocused to bring about
the greatest improvements in perormance.Te OGP incident reporting system covers worldwideE&P operations, both onshore and oshore, and includesincidents involving both member companies and theircontractor employees.
Te key indicators presented are: number o atalities,atal accident rate, atal incident rate, number o lost
work day cases and number o lost work days, lost timeinjury requency, number o restricted work day cases andrestricted work day case days, number o medical treatmentcases and total recordable injury rate. Te report presents
contributing OGP members global results or theseindicators, which are then analysed by region, unction and
company. A code is used to preserve the anonymity o the
reporting company, which will typically report its own dataas well as that o its associated contractors (see Appendix B).
In , data collection was initiated to capture causalactors associated with atal incidents and high potentialevents. Tese data are presented in section . o report s.
Wherever practicable, results are presented graphically. Tedata underlying the charts are presented in Appendix B.Tese data are available to OGP members in editable ormatrom the members area o the OGP web-site. Te tables areorganised according to the section in the report where thechart appears.
Fatal incident and high potential event descriptionspreviously included in this report as appendices C and Dare now available or download on the OGP Saety Zone
website, http://ino.ogp.org.uk/saety.
Te main change to the Saety perormance indicatorsreport is:
For the purposes o clarity the presentation o FatalIncident Rate has been changed.
Tis change reects the Saety Data Sub-Committees aim
to improve the reliability o the data and its interpretation.
Data series
Other OGP data reports include the EnvironmentalPerormance Indicators, published every autumn and theHealth Perormance Indicators, published simultaneously
with this report. Tese are available rom the OGP website:http://www.ogp.org.uk/publications/
Preace
-
7/22/2019 Safety performance indicators 2012 data
6/104iv
International Association of Oil & Gas Producers
OGP
Te saety statistics or were derived rom dataprovided by the ollowing companies:
Contributing OGP Members
ADDAX
ADNOC
Anadarko
BG Group
BHP
BP
Cairn Energy
Chevron
CNOOC
ConocoPhillipsDolphin Energy
DONG E&P
Eni
ExxonMobil
GDF Suez E&P International
Hess Corporation
INPEX
KOSMOS
Kuwait Oil Company
Maersk Oil
Marathon
MOL
NCOC (North Caspian Operating Co.)
Nexen Inc
Oil Search
OMV
Pan American Energy
Pemex
Perenco
Petrobras
Petronas Carigali Sdn Bhd
Premier Oil
PEP
Qatar PetroleumRasgas
Repsol
RWE Dea AG
Sasol
Shell Companies
Statoil
Suncor
alisman Energy
NK-BP
otal
ullow Oil
Wintershall
Woodside
Yemen LNG
-
7/22/2019 Safety performance indicators 2012 data
7/104v
Safety performance indicators 2012 data
OGP
Contents
Executive Summary v
1. Summary 1-1
. General ..................................................................................................................................................................................................-. Fatalities ................................................................................................................................................................................................-. otal recordable injuries ....................................................................................................................................................................-. Lost time injuries ................................................................................................................................................................................ -
2. Overall results 2-1
. Fatalities ................................................................................................................................................................................................-. Fatal accident rate (FAR) ..................................................................................................................................................................-. Fatalities by incident category and activity ...................................................................................................................................-. Number o atal incidents per mill ion work hours ............................................................................................................ -. otal recordable injury rate (RIR) ..............................................................................................................................................-.6 Lost time injury requency (LIF) .................................................................................................................................................-6.7 Lost work day cases by category and activity ................................................................................................................................-7.8 Severity o lost work day cases........................................................................................................................................................-.9 Severity o restricted work day cases .............................................................................................................................................-. Incident triangles ..............................................................................................................................................................................-7. Causal actors analysis .....................................................................................................................................................................-9
3. Results by region 3-1
. Fatalities by region ..............................................................................................................................................................................-. Fatal Accident Rate (FAR) by region .............................................................................................................................................-. otal recordable injury rate (RIR) by region ............................................................................................................................-. Lost time injury requency (LIF) by region ...............................................................................................................................-. FAR, RIR and LIF -year rolling averages by region ...................................................................................................... -.6 Severity o lost work day cases by region .......................................................................................................................................-.7 Individua l country perormance by region ...................................................................................................................................-.8 Incident triangles by region ..............................................................................................................................................................-7
4. Results by function 4-1
. Fatalities by unction .........................................................................................................................................................................-. Fatal accident rate (FAR) -year rolling average by unction ...............................................................................................-. otal recordable injury rate (RIR) by unction ........................................................................................................................-. Lost time injury requency (LIF) -year rolling average by unction ..............................................................................-. Severity o lost work day cases by unction .................................................................................................................................. -.6 Exploration perormance by unction ...........................................................................................................................................-.7 Dril ling perormance by unction ..................................................................................................................................................-7.8 Production perormance by unction ............................................................................................................................................-9.9 Construction perormance by unction ......................................................................................................................................-. Unspecied perormance by unction ......................................................................................................................................... -
5. Results by company 5-1. Overal l company results ....................................................................................................................................................................-. Company results by unction ...........................................................................................................................................................-8
Appendix A: Database dimensions A-1
Appendix B: Data tables B-1
Appendix C: Contributing companies C-1
Appendix D: Countries represented D-1
Appendix E: Glossary of terms E-1
-
7/22/2019 Safety performance indicators 2012 data
8/104vi
International Association of Oil & Gas Producers
OGP
-
7/22/2019 Safety performance indicators 2012 data
9/104vii
Safety performance indicators 2012 data
OGP
Executive Summary
Te OGP saety perormance indicators show that the
atal accident rate or reporting companies has increasedby 7% compared with . Te number o atalities hasincreased rom 6 in to 88 in . o the atalitiesoccurred in one incident.
Analysis o the atal incident description has shown thatollowing an OGP Lie Saving Rule may have helped to
prevent 79% o the atal incidents reported in , seeOGP report 9.
Forty work orce atalities were identied as being relatedto process saety events (9 atalities were related to sixseparate process saety events).
Tere are a number o common causal actors related to theatal incidents and high potential events rom to .Te top 6 causal actors each year were:
Inadequate hazard identication or risk assessment
Inadequate supervision
Inadequate work standards/procedures
Improper decision making or lack o judgment
Unintentional violation (by individual or group)
Inadequate training/competence.
Personal injury perormance shows the lost time injuryrequency has increased by %, and total recordableinjury rate is virtually unchanged in compared with results.
Number o atalities and atal accident rate
2003-2012
Lost time injury requency and total recordable injury rateper million hours worked
0
1
2
3
4
5
LTIF
TRIR
2012201120102009200820072006200520042003
0
20
40
60
80
100
120Fatalities
2012201120102009200820072006200520042003
Numberoffatalities
FAR-
Fatalaccidentsper100millionhoursworked
1
2
3
4
5
6
FAR
2012201120102009200820072006200520042003
Fatal accident rate (FAR)
The number o company/contractor atalities per100,000,000 (100 million) hours worked.
Total recordable injury rate (TRIR)
The number o recordable injuries (atalities + lostwork day cases + restricted work day cases + medicaltreatment cases) per 1,000,000 hours worked.
Lost time injury requency (LTIF)
The number o lost time injuries (atalities + lost workday cases) per 1,000,000 hours worked.
-
7/22/2019 Safety performance indicators 2012 data
10/104viii
International Association of Oil & Gas Producers
OGP
-
7/22/2019 Safety performance indicators 2012 data
11/104-
Safety performance indicators 2012 data
OGP
1. Summary
The OGP safety performance indicators reportsummarises the saety perormance o contributing
OGP member companies or 2012.The key perormance indicators (KPI) used to benchmarksaety perormance are: number o atalities, atalaccident and incident rates, total recordable injury rateand lost time injury requency.
Third party atalities are not included in this report.
Te saety perormance o contributing OGP membercompanies in is based on the analysis o ,69million work hours o data.
Submissions were made by 9 o the 6 operatingcompany OGP members ( reported in ).
Te data reported cover operations in 7 countries.
1.1 General
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
work hours contractor
work hours company
2012201020052000199519901985
Hours worked
millions[data page B-2]
-
7/22/2019 Safety performance indicators 2012 data
12/104-
International Association of Oil & Gas Producers
OGP
Fatality categories, 2012% fatalities associated with each reporting category[data page B-3]
Fatality activities, 2012
% fatalities associated with each activity[data page B-3]
Struck by 15.9%
Water related, drowning 1.1%
Overexertion,strain 1.1%
Other 2.3%
Confined space 2.3%
Falls from height 3.4%
Exposure electrical 3.4%
Assault or violent act 3.4%
Pressure release 4.5%
Caught in, under or between 18.2%
Explosions orburns 44.3%
Unspecified other 2.3%
Transport water, inc.marine activity 2.3%
Transport air 2.3%
Seismic/survey operations 2.3%
Production operations 3.5%
Transport land 10.5%
Drilling, workover,well services 12.8%
Construction, commissioning,decommissioning 16.3%
Maintenance, inspection,testing 47.7%
1.2 Fatalities
Against the background o a 7% increase in work hoursreported, the number o atalities has increased rom 6 in to 88. Te atalities occurred in separate incidentsin . Te resulting Fatal Accident Rate (.8) is 7%higher than last years gure (.88). Te company andcontractor FAR are .8 and .9 respectively. Onshore andoshore FAR are .87 and .89 respectively.
Te reported atalities are divided into activity andcategory. Te activity with the highest number o atalitiesreported by the OGP member companies is Maintenance,
inspection, testing with atalities in 9 separate incidents.Tese included included a gas leak and explosion ollowingthe loss o mechanical integrity o a pipeline in Mexico in
which company and 6 contractor employees lost theirlives. Tere were atal incidents reported in the activityConstruction, commissioning, decommissioning whichresulted in atalities.
With regard to the incident category, the largest proportiono the atalities reported in (%) were categorised asExplosions or burns and were related to atal incidentsinvolving 9 atalities (6% o atal incidents reported in were in the category Explosions or burns).
Fatalities categorised as Caught in, under or between werethe second greatest contributors to the atality statistics,accounting or 8% o the atalities (% in ).
-
7/22/2019 Safety performance indicators 2012 data
13/104-
Safety performance indicators 2012 data
OGP
Te Fatal Accident Rate or North America (7.) is highcompared with a global average o .8. Tis is mainlydue to a single incident caused by a gas leak and explosionollowing the loss o mechanical integrity o a pipeline inMexico in which people died.
Fatal accident rate - company and contractorsper 100 million hours worked[data page B-2]
0
2
4
6
8
Overall
Company FAR
Contractor FAR
2012201120102009200820072006200520042003
-
7/22/2019 Safety performance indicators 2012 data
14/104-
International Association of Oil & Gas Producers
OGP
Te rate or all recordable injuries (atalities, lost workdaycases, restricted workday cases and medical treatment cases)was .7 injuries per million hours worked (.76 in ).
Te region that showed an increase in RIR compared withthe RIR or was the Middle East (%).
A reduction in RIR rom to was shown inArica (7%), Asia/Australasia (7%), Europe (6%), NorthAmerica (%) and South America (%). Te R IR or theFSU was unchanged.
1.3 Total recordable injuries
Total recordable injury rate company & contractors
per million hours worked[data page B-2]
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
2012201120102009200820072006200520042003
Contractor
Company
Overall
-
7/22/2019 Safety performance indicators 2012 data
15/104-
Safety performance indicators 2012 data
OGP
Confined space 0.1%
Water related, drowning 0.2%
Exposure electrical 0.7%Pressure release 0.9%
Assault or violent act 1.0%
Exposure noise, chemical,biological, vibration 2.0%
Cut, puncture, scrape 3.6%
Other 6.6%
Explosions or burns 7.5%
Overexertion, strain 7.8%
Falls from height 9.3%
Slips and trips(at same height) 15.6%
Caught in, underor between 20.7%
Struck by 24.0%
Unspecified other 12.4%
Transport water, includingmarine activity 5.2%
Transport land 4.1% Transport air 0.5%
Seismic/surveyoperations 1.4%
Production operations 12.4%
Office, warehouse,accommodation,catering 7.7%
Maintenance,inspection,testing 16.9%
Lifting, crane,rigging, deckoperations 7.8%
Drilling, workover,well services 21.2%
Diving, subsea,ROV 0.6%
Construction,commissioning,decommissioning 9.9%
Lost work day cases by category[data page B-3]
Lost work day cases by activity[data page B-3]
1.4 Lost time injuries
Te overall Lost ime Injury Frequency (LIF) increasedrom . in to .8 in . Tis represents anincrease o % compared with and 7 more losttime injuries.
Tis increase is similar in both company and contractorperormance. Te company and contractor LIF both showan increase compared with (% and % respectively).Te onshore and oshore LIF both also show an increasecompared with (% and 9% respectively).
Tere were ,699 reported injuries resulting in at least oneday o work; ,6 incidents were contractor related and
were company related. , lost work days were reported.
Te greatest number o incidents was reported asStruck by (8 cases accounting or % o the total; results showed 7 cases accounting or % othe total).
Caught in, under or between accounted or % o thetotal reported cases (9% in ).
Lost time injury requency company & contractors
per million hours worked[data page B-3]
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
Contractor
Company
Overall
2012201120102009200820072006200520042003
-
7/22/2019 Safety performance indicators 2012 data
16/104-6
International Association of Oil & Gas Producers
OGP
-
7/22/2019 Safety performance indicators 2012 data
17/104-
Safety performance indicators 2012 data
OGP
88 company and contractor atalities were reported in. Tis is more than were reported in and6 ewer than in . Te 88 atalities occurred in separate incidents.
In there were atalities as a result o a singleincident caused by a gas leak and explosion ollowingthe loss o mechanical integrity o a pipeline in Mexico
Tere were 6 incidents that involved atalities.Tese were:
two pilots died when a seismic helicopter crashedon its approach to a landing zone in a orested area
in Gabon; a drill rig explosion in Nigeria;
in Chad a gas accumulation rom wellbore uids in anopen-top tank combusted;
a security incident in Nigeria where two people wereshot and killed whilst gathering environmental data;
pressure release and re while routine testing a mobileair compressor in Kuwait; and
in Qatar a ash re was caused by the ignition oliquid oxygen.
2. Overall results
2.1 Fatalities
In this section the primary indicators used to measure
contributing OGP member companies saetyperormance are: the number and nature o atalities,total recordable injury rate (TRIR), atal accident rate(FAR), atal incidents per 100 million work hours, andlost time injury requency (LTIF).
Third party incidents are not included in this report.
Company/contractor atalities
Fatalities Onshore 2012(2011)
Oshore 2012(2011)
Total 2012(2011)
Company 10 (9) 2 (1) 12 (10)
Contractor 70 (43) 6 (12) 76 (55)
Total 80 (52) 8 (13) 88 (65)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120Fatalities
2012201120102009200820072006200520042003
Numberoffatalities
FAR-
Fatalacc
identsper100millionhoursworked
1
2
3
4
5
6
FAR
2012201120102009200820072006200520042003
Fig 2.1.1: Number o atalities and atal accident rate2003-2012[data page B-2]
-
7/22/2019 Safety performance indicators 2012 data
18/104-
International Association of Oil & Gas Producers
OGP
Fig 2.2.1: Fatal accident rate company & contractorsper 100 million hours worked[Data page B-2]
Fig 2.2.2: Fatal accident rate onshore & oshoreper 100 million hours worked[Data page B-2]
2.2 Fatal accident rate (FAR)
In there were company atalities ( in ) asa result o 6 separate incidents.
o the company atalities were as a result o asingle incident involving a gas leak and explosionollowing the loss o mechanical integrity o a pipelinein Mexico.
In there were 76 contractor atalities ( in ).
6 o the contractor atalities were as a result o asingle incident involving a gas leak and explosionollowing the loss o mechanical integrity o a pipelinein Mexico.
Te dierence between the onshore and oshore FAR
displays a large variation over the -year period shown.Neither is consistently lower. Tis is generally attributableto single transportation or re and explosion incidentsinvolving high numbers o atalities.
0
2
4
6
8
Overall
Company FAR
Contractor FAR
2012201120102009200820072006200520042003
0
2
4
6
8
Overall
Offshore
Onshore
2012201120102009200820072006200520042003
Fatal accident rate (FAR)
The number o company/contractor atalities per100,000,000 (100 million) hours worked.
2012 (2011) FAR Relative to 2011 FAR
Company 1.58 (1.33) (19% higher)
Contractor 2.59 (2.03) (28% higher)
Overall 2.38 (1.88) (27% higher)
Onshore 2.87 (1.94) (48% higher)
Oshore 0.89 (1.67) (47% lower)
-
7/22/2019 Safety performance indicators 2012 data
19/104-
Safety performance indicators 2012 data
OGP
2.3 Fatalities by incident category and activity
Fig 2.3.2: Fatalities by category, 2012% fatalities associated with each reporting category[Data page B-3]
Fig 2.3.1: Fatalities by activity, 2012% fatalities associated with each reporting category[Data page B-3]
Struck by 15.9%
Water related, drowning 1.1%
Overexertion,strain 1.1%
Other 2.3%
Confined space 2.3%
Falls from height 3.4%
Exposure electrical 3.4%
Assault or violent act 3.4%
Pressure release 4.5%
Caught in, under or between 18.2%
Explosions orburns 44.3%
Unspecified other 2.3%
Transport water, inc.marine activity 2.3%
Transport air 2.3%
Seismic/survey operations 2.3%
Production operations 3.5%
Transport land 10.5%
Drilling, workover,well services 12.8%
Construction, commissioning,decommissioning 16.3%
Maintenance, inspection,testing 47.7%
Te largest proportion o the atalities reported in were categorised as Explosions or burns (%)(6% in ).
o the atalities were the result o a single gasleak and explosion ollowing the loss o mechanicalintegrity o a pipeline in Mexico.
8% o the atalities reported in were categorisedas Caught in under or between (% in ).
wo atalities involved being run over by reversingtrucks.
Nine o the atalities occurred during construction,commissioning or decommissioning activities,two separate incidents were related to excavations,two separate incidents involved the roll-over o aront end loader and a bull dozer and two urtherseparate incidents involved being crushed by movingconstruction equipment.
6% o the atalities reported in were the resulto individuals being struck by alling or moving objects(8% in ).
wo atalities involved separate motor vehicle crashes.
wo separate atalities involved being struck by abulldozer or backhoe bucket.
A reduction is seen in the number o deaths resultingrom land transport incidents (9 atalities) compared
with ( atalities in , 8 in ).
Nine atalities were associated with nine separateland transport incidents, one o which was a shooting.
o the atal incidents involved one atality.
Incidents which involved two or more atalities werereported under the categories:
Caught in, under or between ( incident);
Explosions or burns ( incidents); and
Assault and violent act ( incident).
Tere were no atal incidents reported under theollowing categories:
Cut, puncture, scrape;
Exposure noise, chemical, biological, vibration; and
Slips, trips, alls (at same height).
Tere were no atalities reported under the ollowingactivities:
Diving, subsea, ROV; and
Oce, warehouse, accommodation, catering.
-
7/22/2019 Safety performance indicators 2012 data
20/104-
International Association of Oil & Gas Producers
OGP
Fatalities by incident category and activity, 2012
Assaultorviolentact
Caughtin,underorbetween
Confnedspace
Explosionorburns
Exposureelectrical
Fallsromheight
Overexertion,strain
Pressurerelease
Struckby
Waterrelated,
drowning
Other
Total
Construction, commissioning, decommissioning 0 9 1 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 14
Drilling, workover, well services 0 1 0 4 1 0 0 1 4 0 0 11Liting, crane, rigging, deck operations 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2
Maintenance, inspection, testing 0 0 1 35 2 0 0 2 1 0 0 41Production operations 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 3Seismic/survey operations 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2
Transport air 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2Transport land 1 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 4 0 0 9Transport water, including marine activity 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2
Unspecifed other 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2Total 3 16 2 39 3 3 1 4 14 1 2 88
-
7/22/2019 Safety performance indicators 2012 data
21/104-
Safety performance indicators 2012 data
OGP
Fig 2.4.1: Fatal incidents per 100 million work hours company & contractorsper 100 million hours worked[Data page B-2]
Fig 2.4.2: Fatal incidents per 100 million work hours onshore & oshore
per 100 million hours worked[Data page B-2]
Fig 2.4.3: Number o atalities and atal incidents10 year trend[Data page B-5]
2.4 Number o atal incidents per 100 million work hours
0
2
4
6
8
Overall FAR
Contractor
Company
Overall
2012201120102009200820072006200520042003
0
2
4
6
8
Overall FAR
Overall
Offshore
Onshore
2012201120102009200820072006200520042003
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140Fatalities
Fatal incidents
2012201120102009200820072006200520042003
Te number o atal incidents per million work hours
is a measure o the requency with which atal incidentsoccur, in contrast to the FAR which measures the requencyo atalities. Accordingly, or company and contractoratalities, the number o atal incidents per million workhours will be less than or equal to the FAR. Comparison oFAR and number o atal incidents per million workhours gives an indication o the magnitude o the incidentsin terms o lives lost.
Overall the number o atal incidents per millionwork hours has decreased by % compared with lastyear and is the lowest on record ( atal incidents in
, atal incidents in ). Te number o atal incidents per million work
hours oshore continues to reduce, showing a rate% lower than the result. Te number o oshoreatalities has reduced (8 atalities in and in ).
Number o atal incidents per 100 millionwork hours
The number o incidents that result in one or moreatalities per 100,000,000 (100 million) hours.
Number o atal incidents per 100 million work hours
2012 (2011) Relative to 2011
Company 0.79 (0.8) (1% lower)
Contractor 1.57 (1.63) (4% lower)
Overall 1.41 (1.45) (3% lower)
Onshore 1.58 (1.57) (1% higher)
Oshore 0.89 (1.03) (14% lower)
-
7/22/2019 Safety performance indicators 2012 data
22/104-6
International Association of Oil & Gas Producers
OGP
Fig 2.5.2: Total recordable injury rate onshore & oshoreper million hours worked[Data page B-2]
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Overall
Offshore
Onshore
2012201120102009200820072006200520042003
Fig 2.5.1: Total recordable injury rate company & contractorsper million hours worked[Data page B-2]
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
2012201120102009200820072006200520042003
Contractor
Company
Overall
2.5 Total recordable injury rate (TRIR)
Total recordable injury rate (TRIR)
The number o recordable injuries (atalities + lostwork day cases + restricted work day cases + medicaltreatment cases) per 1,000,000 hours worked.
2012 (2011) TRIR Relative to 2011 TRIR
Company 1.12 (1.32) (15% lower)
Contractor 1.9 (1.88) (1% higher)
Overall 1.74 (1.76) (1% lower)
Onshore 1.49 (1.45) (3% higher)
Oshore 2.53 (2.84) (11% lower)
Submissions without inormation on medical treatment
cases were ltered out, leaving a database o ,6 millionhours, 99% o the database (see Appendix A).
An overall reduction in RIR o % can be seen in ,with company RIR down by % and oshore RIRdown by % compared with results. Contractor andonshore RIR show an increase o % and % respectively.
-
7/22/2019 Safety performance indicators 2012 data
23/104-7
Safety performance indicators 2012 data
OGP
Fig 2.6.2: Lost time injury requency onshore & oshoreper million hours worked[Data page B-3]
Fig 2.6.1: Lost time injury requency company & contractorsper million hours worked[Data page B-3]
2.6 Lost time injury requency (LTIF)
Te overall LIF increased by % rom . in
to .8 in . Te contractor LIF increased by % compared
with .
Tere were ,699 reported lost work day cases resulting inat least one day o work, which equates to an average o injuries resulting in at least one day o work every week othe year. Although the absolute number o LWDCs hasincreased (, in ), the time away rom work hasreduced compared with . See Section .8 or urtherinormation on Lost Work Day Case severity.
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0Overall
Offshore
Onshore
2012201120102009200820072006200520042003
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
Contractor
Company
Overall
2012201120102009200820072006200520042003
Lost time injury requency (LTIF)
The number o lost time injuries (atalities + lost workday cases) per 1,000,000 hours worked.
2012 (2011) LTIF Relative to 2011 LTIF
Company 0.47 (0.42) (12% higher)
Contractor 0.49 (0.43) (14% higher)
Overall 0.48 (0.43) (12% higher)
Onshore 0.38 (0.34) (12% higher)
Oshore 0.81 (0.74) (9% higher)
-
7/22/2019 Safety performance indicators 2012 data
24/104-8
International Association of Oil & Gas Producers
OGP
2.7 Lost work day cases by category and activity
O the ,699 reported lost work day cases resulting in atleast one day o work, ,6 incidents were contractorrelated and were company related.
Te lost work day case category was provided or all o the
Lost Work Day Cases reported, although 7% o the caseswere categorised as Other.
Te pie chart shows the percentage o LWDCs within eacho the reporting categories or .
Te greatest number o incidents was reported asStruck by (8 cases accounting or % o LWDCs),( results showed 7 cases accounting or %).
Caught in, under or between accounted or % o thetotal reported cases (9% in ).
In comparison with , the results were verysimilar; the only categories that diered by more than% were Explosions or burns which increased by %and Other which decreased by % compared with .
Lost work day cases by category
Number %
Assault or violent act 17 1.0
Caught in, under or between 352 20.7
Conned space 1 0.1
Cut, puncture, scrape 61 3.6
Explosion or burns 127 7.5
Exposure electrical 12 0.7
Exposure noise, chemical, biological, vibration 34 2.0
Falls rom height 158 9.3
Overexertion, strain 133 7.8
Pressure release 16 0.9
Slips and trips (at same height) 265 15.6
Struck by 408 24.0
Water related, drowning 3 0.2
Other 112 6.6
Total 1,699
Confined space 0.1%
Water related, drowning 0.2%
Exposure electrical 0.7%Pressure release 0.9%
Assault or violent act 1.0%
Exposure noise, chemical,biological, vibration 2.0%
Cut, puncture, scrape 3.6%
Other 6.6%
Explosions or burns 7.5%
Overexertion, strain 7.8%
Falls from height 9.3%
Slips and trips(at same height) 15.6%
Caught in, underor between 20.7%
Struck by 24.0%
Fig 2.7.1: 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 resultingin at least one day o work. Fatal incidents arenot included.
-
7/22/2019 Safety performance indicators 2012 data
25/104-9
Safety performance indicators 2012 data
OGP
Company Contractor
Assault or violent act 2 15
Caught in, under or between 37 315
Conned space 0 1
Cut, puncture, scrape 7 54
Explosion or burns 31 96
Exposure electrical 0 12
Exposure noise, chemical, biological,vibration
5 29
Falls rom height 35 123
Overexertion, strain 33 100
Pressure release 4 12Slips and trips (at same height) 69 196
Struck by 70 338
Water related, drowning 1 2
Other 49 63
Total 343 1356
O the ,699 reported lost work day cases resulting inat least one day o work, were company related and,6 incidents were contractor related, (9 and ,6respectively or ).
Water related, drowning 0.3%
Assault or violent act 0.6%Pressure release 1.2%
Exposure noise, chemical, biological, vibration 1.5%
Cut, puncture, scrape 2.0%
Explosions or burns 9.0%
Overexertion, strain 9.6%
Falls from height 10.2%
Caught in, under orbetween 10.8%
Other 14.3%
Slips and trips(at same height)20.1%
Struck by 20.4%
Fig 2.7.2: Lost work day cases by categoryCompany[Data page B-4]
Confined space 0.1%
Water related, drowning 0.1%
Pressure release 0.9%Exposure electrical 0.9%
Assault or violent act 1.1%
Exposure noise, chemical,biological, vibration 2.1%
Cut, puncture, scrape 4.0%
Other 4.6%
Explosions or burns 7.1%
Overexertion, strain 7.4%
Falls from height 9.1%
Slips and trips
(at same height)14.5%
Caught in, under
or between 23.2%
Struck by 24.9%
Fig 2.7.3: Lost work day cases by categoryContractor[Data page B-4]
Lost work day cases by category company & contractors
-
7/22/2019 Safety performance indicators 2012 data
26/104-
International Association of Oil & Gas Producers
OGP
Water related, drowning 0.1%
Pressure release 0.8%Exposure electrical 0.9%
Assault or violentact 1.4%
Exposure noise, chemical,biological, vibration 2.4%
Cut, puncture, scrape 3.8%
Overexertion, strain 5.8%
Other 8.8%
Falls fromheight 9.3%
Explosions or burns 11.7%
Slips and trips (at same height)15.2%
Caught in, under orbetween 16.8%
Struck by 22.9%
Confined space 0.1%
Water related,drowning 0.3%
Exposure electrical 0.4%
Assault or violent act 0.4%Pressure release 1.1%
Exposure noise, chemical,biological, vibration 1.5%
Explosions or burns 1.8%
Cut, puncture, scrape 3.3%
Other 3.6%
Falls fromheight 9.4%
Overexertion,strain10.6%
Slips and trips(at same height) 16.1%
Struck by 25.4%
Caught in, underor between 26.0%
Fig 2.7.4: Lost work day cases by categoryOnshore[Data page B-4]
Fig 2.7.5: Lost work day cases by categoryOffshore[Data page B-4]
Onshore Oshore
Assault or violent act 14 3
Caught in, under or between 163 189
Conned space 0 1
Cut, puncture, scrape 37 24
Explosion or burns 114 13
Exposure electrical 9 3
Exposure noise, chemical, biological,vibration
23 11
Falls rom height 90 68
Overexertion, strain 56 77
Pressure release 8 8Slips and trips (at same height) 148 117
Struck by 223 185
Water related, drowning 1 2
Other 86 26
Total 972 727
O the ,699 reported lost work day cases resulting in atleast one day o work, 97 incidents were related to onshoreactivity and 77 were related to oshore activity (88 and7 respectively or ).
Lost work day cases by category onshore & oshore
-
7/22/2019 Safety performance indicators 2012 data
27/104-
Safety performance indicators 2012 data
OGP
Number %
Construction, commissioning, decommissioning 168 9.9
Diving, subsea, ROV 10 0.6
Drilling, workover, well services 360 21.2
Liting, crane, rigging, deck operations 133 7.8
Maintenance, inspection, testing 287 16.9
Oce, warehouse, accommodation, catering 131 7.7
Production operations 211 12.4
Seismic/survey operations 23 1.4
Transport air 8 0.5
Transport land 69 4.1
Transport water, including marine activity 89 5.2
Unspecied other 210 12.4
Total 1,699
Lost work day case activities were reported or all o the,699 Lost Work Day Cases reported, although % o thecases were reported as Unspecied-other. In , %
were reported as Unspecied-other.
In comparison with data only activities varied bymore than % o the total:
Production operations reduced by % o the totalrom to
Maintenance, inspection, testing increased by % othe total rom to
Fig2.7.6: Lost work day cases by activity% LWDCs associated with each reporting category[Data page B-3]
Lost work day cases by activity
Unspecified other 12.4%
Transport water, includingmarine activity 5.2%
Transport land 4.1% Transport air 0.5%
Seismic/surveyoperations 1.4%
Production operations 12.4%
Office, warehouse,accommodation,catering 7.7%
Maintenance,inspection,testing 16.9%
Lifting, crane,rigging, deck
operations 7.8%
Drilling, workover,well services 21.2%
Diving, subsea,ROV 0.6%
Construction,commissioning,decommissioning 9.9%
-
7/22/2019 Safety performance indicators 2012 data
28/104-
International Association of Oil & Gas Producers
OGP
Company Contractor
Construction, commissioning,decommissioning
4 164
Diving, subsea, ROV 1 9
Drilling, workover, well services 43 317
Liting, crane, rigging, deck operations 11 122
Maintenance, inspection, testing 69 218
Oce, warehouse, accommodation,catering
46 85
Production operations 79 132
Seismic/survey operations 1 22
Transport air 5 3Transport land 19 50
Transport water, including marineactivity
4 85
Unspecied other 61 149
Total 343 1356
O the ,699 reported lost work day cases resulting in atleast one day o work, (%) were company relatedand ,6 (8%) incidents were contractor related (% and78% respectively in ).
Fig 2.7.7: Lost work day cases by activityCompany[Data page B-4]
Fig 2.7.8: Lost work day cases by activityContractor[Data page B-4]
Lost work day cases by activity company & contractor
Unspecified other 17.8%
Transport water,including marine activity 1.2%
Transport land 5.5%
Transport air 1.5%
Seismic/survey operations 0.3%
Productionoperations 23.0%
Office, warehouse,accommodation,catering 13.4%
Maintenance,inspection, testing 20.1%
Lifting, crane, rigging,deck operations 3.2%
Drilling, workover,well services 12.5%
Diving, subsea, ROV 0.3%
Construction, commissioning,decommissioning 1.2%
Unspecified other 11.0%
Transport water,including marine activity 6.3%
Transport land 3.7%Transport air 0.2%
Seismic/survey
operations 1.6%
Productionoperations 9.7%
Office, warehouse,accommodation,catering 6.3%
Maintenance,
inspection,testing 16.1%
Lifting, crane,rigging, deckoperations 9.0%
Drilling, workover,well services 23.4%
Diving, subsea,
ROV 0.7%
Construction, commissioning,decommissioning 12.1%
-
7/22/2019 Safety performance indicators 2012 data
29/104-
Safety performance indicators 2012 data
OGP
Fig 2.7.9: Lost work day cases by activityOnshore[Data page B-4]
Fig 2.7.10: Lost work day cases by activityOffshore[Data page B-4]
Onshore Oshore
Construction, commissioning,decommissioning
113 55
Diving, subsea, ROV 1 9
Drilling, workover, well services 189 171
Liting, crane, rigging, deck operations 52 81
Maintenance, inspection, testing 162 125
Oce, warehouse, accommodation,catering
94 37
Production operations 105 106
Seismic/survey operations 18 5
Transport air 5 3Transport land 65 4
Transport water, including marineactivity
15 74
Unspecied other 153 57
Total 972 727
O the ,699 reported lost work day cases resulting in atleast one day o work, 97 (7%) incidents were onshorerelated and 77 (%) were oshore related (6% and 9%respectively in ).
Lost work day cases by activity onshore & oshore
Unspecified other 15.7%
Transport water, includingmarine activity 1.5%
Transport land 6.7%
Transport air 0.5%Seismic/surveyoperations 1.9%
Productionoperations 10.8%
Office, warehouse,accommodation,catering 9.7%
Maintenance,inspection,testing 16.7%
Lifting, crane, rigging,deck operations 5.3%
Drilling, workover,well services 19.4%
Diving, subsea, ROV 0.1%
Construction, commissioning,decommissioning 11.6%
Unspecified other 7.8%
Transport water,including marineactivity 10.2%
Transport land 0.6%
Transport air 0.4%
Seismic/surveyoperations 0.7%
Production operations 14.6%
Office, warehouse,accommodation, catering 5.1%
Maintenance,inspection,testing 17.2%
Lifting, crane, rigging,deck operations 11.1%
Drilling, workover,well services 23.5%
Diving, subsea,
ROV 1.2%
Construction, commissioning,decommissioning 7.6%
-
7/22/2019 Safety performance indicators 2012 data
30/104-
International Association of Oil & Gas Producers
OGP
Fig 2.8.1: Severity o lost work day cases company & contractorsaverage days lost per LWDC[Data page B-4]
Fig 2.8.2: Severity o lost work day cases onshore & oshoreaverage days lost per LWDC[Data page B-4]
2.8 Severity o lost work day cases
2012 (2011)severity
Relative to2011 severity
Relative to2007-2011average severity
Company 38.81 (41.06) 5% lower 9% higher
Contractor 41.28 (42.58) 3% lower 6% higher
Overall 40.74 (42.26) 4% lower 7% higher
Onshore 36.83 (39.84) 8% lower 5% higher
Oshore 45.99 (46.42) 1% lower 2% higher
OGP member companies reported , days owork lost through injuries.
Te number o days lost was reported or 78% o thelost work day cases.
Te dierence between company and contractorseverity levels is 7% (contractor is 7% higher).
Te oshore LWDC severity is % higher thanonshore.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Contractor
Company
Overall
2012201120102009200820072006200520042003
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Overall
Offshore
Onshore
2012201120102009200820072006200520042003
Severity o lost work day cases
Severity is dened as the average number o dayslost (where reported) or each lost work day case.
Lost work day case days are not reported byall companies. The database or this analysis isthereore reduced to 2,876 million work hours, 78%o all reported hours
-
7/22/2019 Safety performance indicators 2012 data
31/104-
Safety performance indicators 2012 data
OGP
Fig 2.8.3: Severity o lost work day cases company & contractorsaverage days lost per LWDC[Data page B-4]
Fig 2.8.4: Severity o lost work day cases onshore & oshoreaverage days lost per LWDC[Data page B-4]
0 10 20 30 40 50
Overall
Contractor
Company
2012
2007-2011
0 10 20 30 40 50
Overall
Onshore
Offshore
2012
2007-2011
Te gures show the average number o days lost per LWDCin compared with the average or the previous -year
period. An increase is shown in LWDC severity in all areaso activity when compared with the previous -year period;an increase o 7% overall.
-
7/22/2019 Safety performance indicators 2012 data
32/104-6
International Association of Oil & Gas Producers
OGP
2.9 Severity o restricted work day cases
Fig 2.9.1: Severity o restricted work day cases company & contractorsaverage days lost per RWDC[Data page B-5]
Fig 2.9.2: Severity o restricted work day cases onshore & oshoreaverage days lost per RWDC[Data page B-5]
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Contractor
Company
Overall
2012201120102009200820072006200520042003
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Overall
Offshore
Onshore
2012201120102009200820072006200520042003
2012 (2011)severity
Relative to2011 severity
Relative to 2007-2011 severity
Company 13.84 (12.92) 7% higher 6% lower
Contractor 12.05 (10.17) 18% higher 1% higher
Overall 12.21 (10.4) 17% higher (no change)
Onshore 11.48 (11.67) 2% lower 2% lower
Oshore 13.41 (8.55) 57% higher 2% higher
A total o ,6 days were restricted (RWDC days) as a
result o restricted workday cases, in the sense that normalduties could not be perormed. Tis compares with ,days lost (LWDC days) on a % larger dataset.
Te number o days lost overall is virtually unchangedcompared with the previous -year period but hasincreased by 7% compared with results.
Te average number o days lost to restricted work percase increased most noticeably in oshore operations. days, compared with 8. days in (anincrease o 7%), however is within % o the gure o . days.
Te number o days lost among company employees hasallen by 6% compared with the previous -year periodbut has risen by 7% compared with results.
Severity o restricted work day cases
The average number o days o restricted work perrestricted work day case.
Restricted work day case days are not reportedby all companies. The database or this analysis isthereore reduced to 2,183 million work hours, 59%o all reported hours.
-
7/22/2019 Safety performance indicators 2012 data
33/104-7
Safety performance indicators 2012 data
OGP
Fig 2.9.3: Severity o restriced work day cases company & contractorsaverage days of restricted work per RWDC[Data page B-5]
Fig 2.9.4: Severity o restriced work day cases onshore & oshoreaverage days of restricted work per RWDC[Data page B-5]
0 3 6 9 12 15 18
Overall
Contractor
Company
2012
2007-2011
0 3 6 9 12 15 18
Overall
Onshore
Offshore
2012
2007-2011
Te gures show the average number o days lost perRWDC in compared with the average or the previous-year period. Te overall average is virtually unchangedcompared with the average or the previous -year period.
-
7/22/2019 Safety performance indicators 2012 data
34/104-8
International Association of Oil & Gas Producers
OGP
2.10 Incident triangles
In this section the relative numbers o types o occupationalinjury are shown in the orm o incident triangles. Teratios have been corrected to account or the absence, insome data submissions, o medical treatment cases.
2011 incident triangles
2012 incident triangles
Overall
72 recordable injuries
lost time injuries
1 fatality
lost time injuries
1 fatality
lost time injuries
1 fatality
20
28
18
69 recordable injuries
72 recordable injuries
Company
Contractor
Overall
93 recordable injuries
lost time injuries1 fatality
lost time injuries
1 fatality
lost time injuries
1 fatality
22
31
21
97 recordable injuries
92 recordable injuries
Company
Contractor
Lost time injuries
Lost work day cases and atalities
Recordable injuries
Fatalities, lost work day cases, restricted workday cases and medical treatment cases. Data areonly included where medical treatment cases arereported or the data set.
Ratio o lost time injuries to atalities
The number o lost time injuries divided by thetotal number o atalities (Lost time injuries/atalities)
Ratio o total recordable injuries to atalities
The number o recordable injuries divided by the totalnumber o atalities (recordable injuries/atalities)
Year Ratio o lost timeinjuries to atalities
Ratio o total recordableinjuries to atalities
2012 20:1 72:1
2011 22:1 93:1
2010 15:1 60:1
2009 16:1 63:1
2008 17:1 61:1
-
7/22/2019 Safety performance indicators 2012 data
35/104-9
Safety performance indicators 2012 data
OGP
Te varying ratio o atalities to lost time injuries torecordable injuries or challenges the traditionalnotion o recordable injuries and lost time injuries overall as
a precursor to atalities as shown in the incident triangles. Insome incident categories however such as conned space,assault or violent act and water related, drowning, theratio will be higher as shown in the tables below.
Activity LTIs (atalities+LWDCs) Fatalities Ratio LTI: Fatality
Construction, commissioning, decommissioning 182 14 13:1
Diving, subsea, ROV 10 0 n/a
Drilling, workover, well Services 371 11 34:1
Liting, crane, rigging, deck operations 135 2 68:1
Maintenance, inspection, testing 328 41 8:1
Oce, warehouse, accommodation, catering 131 0 n/a
Production operations 214 3 71:1
Seismic / survey operations 25 2 13:1
Transport air 10 2 5:1
Transport land 78 9 9:1
Transport water, incl. marine activity 91 2 46:1
Unspecied other 212 2 106:1
Category LTIs (atalities+LWDCs) Fatalities Ratio LTI: Fatality
Assault or violent act 20 3 7:1
Caught in, under or between 368 16 23:1
Conned space 3 2 2:1
Cut, puncture, scrape 61 0 n/a
Explosions or burns 166 39 4:1
Exposure electrical 15 3 5:1
Exposure noise, chemical, biological, vibration 34 0 n/a
Falls rom height 161 3 54:1
Other 114 2 57:1
Overexertion, strain 134 1 134:1
Pressure release 20 4 5:1
Slips and trips (at same height) 265 0 n/a
Struck by 422 14 30:1
Water related, drowning 4 1 4:1
-
7/22/2019 Safety performance indicators 2012 data
36/104-
International Association of Oil & Gas Producers
OGP
2.11 Causal actors analysis
Te allocation o causal actors to atal incidents and high
potential events was requested or the data reportedto OGP. Tis request was rst made in , thereore acomparison o three years o data is possible.
o standardise the response an OGP list o causal actorsand a glossary was provided to the member companies as
part o the OGP User Guide. Te causal actors list isdivided into two sections:
People (Acts) classications usually involve either theactions o a person or actions which were required butnot carried out or were incorrectly perormed. Tereare our major categories o actions, with an additional
level o detail under each o the major categories. Process (Conditions) classications usually involve
some type o physical hazard or organizational aspectout o the control o the individual . Tere are ve majorclassication categories, with an additional level odetail under each o the major categories
-
7/22/2019 Safety performance indicators 2012 data
37/104-
Safety performance indicators 2012 data
OGP
7 o the atal incidents reported were assigned
causal actors ( o in ) causal actors were assigned or the 7 atal incidents
9 were People (Acts) (8 in , 9 in )
were Process (Conditions) ( in , in )
Between and causal actors were assigned perincident ( to in , to 8 in ).
Te causal actors assigned to atal incidents are shownbelow. Te highlighted content indicates the top causal actors assigned to atal incidents in compared
to and ; seven o the ten were the same or all
three years.Additional inormation on the atal incidents reportedby region can be ound on the OGP Saety Zone website:http://info.ogp.org.uk/Safety/. Te inormation provided includesa narrative description o the incident, the corrective actionsand recommendations and the causal actors assigned by thereporting company.
Note: the top 12 causal actors have been shownor 2012, as our o the causal actors were eachassigned 7 times.
2.11.1 Fatal incident causal actors
Causal actors assigned or atal incidents 2012 2011 2010
Process (conditions): Organisational: Inadequate hazard identifcation or risk assessment 17 15 30
Process (conditions): Organisational: Inadequate supervision 16 18 18
Process (conditions): Organisational: Inadequate work standards/procedures 15 8 10
Process (conditions): Organisational: Inadequate training/competence 13 10 13
People (acts): Following Procedures: Violation unintentional (by individual or group) 13 9 12
People (acts): Following Procedures: Improper position (in the line o fre) 13 9 16
People (acts): Inattention/Lack o Awareness: Improper decision making or lack o judgment 11 16 14
People (acts): Use o Protective Methods: Inadequate use o saety systems 9 4 5
People (acts): Use o Tools, Equipment, Materials and Products: Improper use/position o tools/equipment/materials/products
7 6 9
Process (conditions): Tools, Equipment, Materials & Products: Inadequate design/specifcation/management o change 7 5 10
Process (conditions): Tools, Equipment, Materials & Products: Inadequate/deective tools/equipment/materials/products
7 5 4
People (acts): Following Procedures: Improper liting or loading 7 2 8
Process (conditions): Protective Systems: Inadequate/deective guards or protective barriers 6 11 7
Process (conditions): Organisational: Inadequate communication 6 9 12
People (acts): Inattention/Lack o Awareness: Lack o attention/distracted by other concerns/stress 5 7 5
Process (conditions): Protective Systems: Inadequate/deective warning systems/saety devices 5 6 5
Process (conditions): Tools, Equipment, Materials & Products: Inadequate maintenance/inspection/testing 5 6 4
Process (conditions):Protective Systems: Inadequate/deective Personal Protective Equipment 5 5
People (acts): Use o Protective Methods: Failure to warn o hazard 4 8 7
Process (conditions): Work Place Hazards: Inadequate suraces, foors, walkways or roads 4 7 1
People (acts): Use o Protective Methods: Personal Protective Equipment not used or used improperly 4 6 1
People (acts): Use o Protective Methods: Equipment or materials not secured 4 4 6
People (acts): Following Procedures: Violation intentional (by individual or group) 4 4 12
Process (conditions): Work Place Hazards: Congestion, clutter or restricted motion 4 4 2
Process (condit ions): Organisational: Poor leadership/organisational culture 4 4 9
Process (conditions): Protective Systems: Inadequate security provisions or systems 4 2 2
People (acts): Use o Tools, Equipment, Materials and Products: Servicing o energised equipment/inadequateenergy isolation
3 3
People (acts): Use o Protective Methods: Disabled or removed guards, warning systems or saety devices 2 2 2
People (acts): Inattention/Lack o Awareness: Acts o violence 2 1 6
Process (conditions): Work Place Hazards: Hazardous atmosphere (explosive/toxic/asphyxiant) 2 1 1
People (acts): Following Procedures: Work or motion at improper speed 1 2
People (acts): Inattention/Lack o Awarenes: Fatigue 1 1
People (acts): Inattention/Lack o Awareness: Use o drugs or alcohol 1
People (acts): Following Procedures: Overexertion or improper position/posture or task 1 3
Process (conditions): Work Place Hazards: Storms or acts o nature 5 2
Process (conditions): Organisational: Failure to report/learn rom events 1 3
-
7/22/2019 Safety performance indicators 2012 data
38/104-
International Association of Oil & Gas Producers
OGP
69 o the 9 high potential events were assigned
causal actors (69 o 76 in ) 6 causal actors were assigned or the 69 high
potential events (7 in )
were People (Acts) ( in )
78 were Process (Conditions) (86 in )
Between and causal actors were assigned per event( to 9 in )
Te causal actors assigned to atal incidents are shownbelow. Te highlighted content indicates the top
causal actors assigned to atal incidents in compared to
and , seven o the ten were the same or both years.Additional inormation on the atal incidents reportedby region can be ound on the OGP Saety Zone website:http://info.ogp.org.uk/Safety/. Te inormation provided includesa narrative description o the incident, the corrective actionsand recommendations and the causal actors assigned by thereporting company
Note: the top 11 causal actors have been shownor 2010, as two o the causal actors were eachassigned 15 times.
2.11.2 High potential event causal actors
Causal Factors assigned or high potential events 2012 2011 2010
Process (conditions): Organisational: Inadequate hazard identifcation or risk assessment 61 24 47
Process (conditions): Organisational: Inadequate work standards/procedures 54 20 37
Process (conditions):Organisational: Inadequate supervision 44 18 31
People (acts): Inattention/Lack o Awareness: Improper decision making or lack o judgment 38 21 23
Process (conditions): Tools, Equipment, Materials & Products: Inadequate maintenance/inspection/testing 37 12 21
Process (conditions):Organisational: Inadequate communication 36 15 19
Process (conditions): Organisational: Inadequate training/competence 36 15 22
People (acts):Use o Protective Methods: Failure to warn o hazard 31 13 9
Process (conditions): Tools, Equipment, Materials & Products: Inadequate/deective tools/equipment/materials/products
27 13 16
People (acts): Following Procedures: Violation unintentional (by individual or group) 23 15 27
Process (conditions): Protective Systems: Inadequate/deective guards or protective barriers 22 9 10
People (acts): Inattention/Lack o Awareness: Lack o attention/distracted by other concerns/stress 21 8 15
People (acts): Use o Tools, Equipment, Materials and Products: Improper use/position o tools/equipment/materials/products
21 17 9
People (acts): Use o Protective Methods: Inadequate use o saety systems 19 12 2
Process (conditions): Tools, Equipment, Materials & Products: Inadequate design/specication/management o change 16 18 13
People (acts): Use o Protective Methods: Equipment or materials not secured 15 9 3
People (acts): Following Procedures: Improper position (in the line o re) 13 3 9
People (acts):Following Procedures: Improper liting or loading 11 9 5
Process (conditions): Organisational: Poor leadership/organisational culture 10 9 15
Process (conditions):: Protective Systems: Inadequate/deective warning systems/saety devices 8 15 13
People (acts): Use o Protective Methods: Personal Protective Equipment not used or used improperly 8 3 6
People (acts): Following Procedures: Violation intentional (by individual or group) 7 6 9
Process (conditions):: Work Place Hazards: Hazardous atmosphere (explosive/toxic/asphyxiant) 6 5 6
Process (conditions): Work Place Hazards: Congestion, clutter or restricted motion 5 3 3
Process (conditions): Work Place Hazards: Inadequate suraces, foors, walkways or roads 5 2 5
People (acts): Following Procedures: Work or motion at improper speed 5 3 3
People (acts): Use o Tools, Equipment, Materials and Products: Servicing o energised equipment/inadequateenergy isolation
5 3 6
People (acts):Use o Protective Methods: Disabled or removed guards, warning systems or saety devices 4 3 1
Process (conditions): Protective Systems: Inadequate security provisions or systems 4 3 1
Process (conditions): Organisational: Failure to report/learn rom events 3 2 4
Process (conditions): Work Place Hazards: Storms or acts o nature 2 2
Process (conditions): Protective Systems: Inadequate/deective Personal Protective Equipment 2 1 3
People (acts): Inattention/Lack o Awareness: Acts o violence 2 1
People (acts): Inattention/Lack o Awareness: Fatigue 1 4 4
People (acts): Following Procedures: Overexertion or improper position/posture or task 1 1 3
-
7/22/2019 Safety performance indicators 2012 data
39/104-
Safety performance indicators 2012 data
OGP
Te ollowing 6 causal actors were common to the top tenor both atal incidents and high potential events in ,these were also all in the top ten in and .
Process (conditions): Organisational: Inadequatehazard identication or risk assessment
Process (conditions): Organisational: Inadequate workstandards/procedures
Process (conditions): Organisational: Inadequatesupervision
People (acts): Inattention/Lack o Awareness:Improper decision making or lack o judgement
Process (conditions): Organisational: Inadequatetraining/competence
People (acts): Following Procedures: Violationunintentional (by individual or group)
OGP has released a set o lie-saving rules (OGP Lie-Saving Rules, OGP report 9, released Feb ),intended or use by the oil & gas industry to mitigate riskand reduce atalities. Each OGP Lie-Saving Rule consistso a simple icon and descriptive text, providing clear, simpleand consistent communication about risks in the workplace.
Tese Rules were developed by using the atal incident andhigh potential event data rom the 99 to SaetyPerormance Indicators reports to identiy the events andactivities that are the highest risk and thereore provide clearinstructions on how to avoid them. Te Lie-Saving Rules aresplit into eight core rules and ten supplementary rules.
Analysis o the atal incident descriptions or data hasshown that 79% o the atal incidents reported are covered
by the OGP Lie-Saving Rules and may have been preventedby the adoption o this system.
2.12 OGP Lie-Saving Rules
Fig 2.12.1: OGP Lie-Saving Rules applicable to 2012 atal incidentsper cent of total 2012 incidents
Supplementary rules 50%
Core rules 29%
No appropriate rule 21%
-
7/22/2019 Safety performance indicators 2012 data
40/104-
International Association of Oil & Gas Producers
OGP
-
7/22/2019 Safety performance indicators 2012 data
41/104-
Safety performance indicators 2012 data
OGP
3. Results by region
In this section the saety perormance o the contributingOGP members is presented or regions and individual
countries within those regions.A list o countries rom which companies have reportedinormation and the division o countries into regions isprovided in Appendix D.
3.1 Fatalities by region
Te table shows the number o atal incidents and atalitiesin each o the 7 regions into which the data are partitioned.
Further analysis o the atality statistics is presented inSection ., where -year rolling averages o FAR are
presented or each o the regions.
Fatalities
2012 (2011)
FAR
2012 (2011)
Fatal incidents
2012 (2011)
Arica 17 (7) 2.83 (1.25) 13 (7)
Asia/Australasia 10 (20) 1.35 (3.28) 10 (12)
Europe 2 (3) 0.52 (0.87) 2 (3)
FSU 2 (7) 0.55 (1.59) 2 (6)
Middle East 13 (12) 1.95 (1.74) 11 (9)
North America 42 (6) 7.50 (1.50) 12 (6)
South America 2 (10) 0.54 (2.42) 2 (7)
Regions and countries throughout the Saety perormanceindicators are grouped in the same geographic regionsas have been historically used in this report so as toensure consistency.
Arica
Asia/
Australasia
North America
SouthAmerica
Europe
FSU
MiddleEast
-
7/22/2019 Safety performance indicators 2012 data
42/104-
International Association of Oil & Gas Producers
OGP
Submissions without inormation on medical treatmentcases were ltered out, leaving a database o ,6 millionhours, almost % o the database (see Appendix A).
Further atal accident rate analysis is presented in Section., where -year rolling averages o FAR are presented oreach o the regions.
3.3 Total recordable injury rate (TRIR) by region
Fig 3.3.1: Total recordable injury rateper million hours worked
0
2
4
6
OverallSouthAmerica
NorthAmerica
MiddleEast
FSUEuropeAsia/Australasia
Africa
2012
2011
201020092008
Total recordable injury rate (TRIR)
The number o recordable injuries (atalities + lostwork day cases + restricted work day cases + medicaltreatment cases) per 1,000,000 hours worked.
2012 2011 2010 2009 2008
Arica 1.14 1.22 1.40 1.65 2.18
Asia/Australasia
1.37 1.46 1.30 1.22 1.34
Europe 2.64 2.81 3.05 3.48 3.89
FSU 0.99 0.99 1.08 1.21 1.22
Middle East 1.02 0.78 0.98 0.92 0.83
North America 2.82 3.19 2.89 3.08 4.25
South America 3.05 3.17 2.76 3.17 3.15
Overall 1.74 1.76 1.68 1.75 2.09
2012 2011 2010 2009 2008
Arica 2.83 1.25 3.38 2.21 4.40
Asia/Australasia
1.35 3.28 4.14 1.58 1.24
Europe 0.52 0.87 0.97 6.58 4.19
FSU 0.55 1.59 2.17 3.14 4.05
Middle East 1.95 1.74 1.63 2.16 2.40
North America 7.50 1.50 5.08 4.37 1.64
South America 0.54 2.42 1.57 2.37 5.17
Overall 2.38 1.88 2.76 2.76 3.12
3.2 Fatal accident rate (FAR) by region
Fig 3.2.1: Fatal accident rateper 100 million hours worked
0
2
4
6
8 2012
2011
201020092008
OverallSouthAmerica
NorthAmerica
MiddleEast
FSUEuropeAsia/Australasia
Africa
Fatal accident rate (FAR)
The number o company/contractor atalities per100,000,000 (100 million) hours worked.
-
7/22/2019 Safety performance indicators 2012 data
43/104-
Safety performance indicators 2012 data
OGP
Further analysis o the lost time injuries is presented inSection ., where -year rolling averages o LIF are
presented or each o the regions.
3.4 Lost time injury requency (LTIF) by region
Fig 3.4.1: Lost time injury requencyper million hours worked
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
OverallSouthAmerica
NorthAmerica
MiddleEast
FSUEuropeAsia/Australasia
Africa
2012
2011
201020092008
2012 2011 2010 2009 2008
Arica 0.33 0.30 0.36 0.42 0.61
Asia/Australasia
0.26 0.30 0.29 0.29 0.29
Europe 0.91 1.08 1.06 1.31 1.38
FSU 0.28 0.31 0.31 0.35 0.45
Middle East 0.24 0.18 0.25 0.26 0.29
North America 0.94 0.59 0.48 0.51 0.55
South America 0.69 0.64 0.61 0.69 0.90
Overall 0.48 0.43 0.42 0.45 0.55
Lost time injury requency (LTIF)
The number o lost time injuries (atalities + lostworkday cases) per 1,000,000 hours worked.
-
7/22/2019 Safety performance indicators 2012 data
44/104-
International Association of Oil & Gas Producers
OGP
3.5 FAR, TRIR and LTIF 5-year rolling averages by region
The ve year rolling average is calculated by summing the total number o incidents o the ve previous years,and dividing by the sum o the work hours or these years. For example, the ve year rolling average or 2012 iscalculated by:
(Number o injuries in 2008+2009+2010+2011+2012)
(Total work hours in 2008+2009+2010+2011+2012)
The number series involved in the calculation is rame shited along by one each year, e.g. 2011 will calculaterom 2007-2011.
In order to smooth out variability in the annual values o theregional RIR, FAR and LIF, -year rolling averages arecomputed which should provide a more reliable indicator o
perormance trends.
Te gures show RIR, FAR and LIF -year rollingaverages or each o the seven regions, and includes the allregions curve.
Te increase in the North America FAR in can beattributed to the eect o a gas leak and explosion ollowingthe loss o mechanical integrity o a pipeline in Mexico(onshore) in which individuals lost their lives.
3.5.1: FAR 5-year rolling averageper 100 million hours worked[Data rom B-7]
3.5.2: TRIR5-year rolling averageper million hours worked[Data rom B-6]
3.5.3: LTIF 5-year rolling averageper million hours worked[Data rom B-7]
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7 All regions
South AmericaNorth America
Middle EastFSUEurope
Asia/AustraliaAfrica
201220112010200920082007
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
201220112010200920082007
All regions
South AmericaNorth America
Middle EastFSU
Europe
Asia/AustraliaAfrica
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
201220112010200920082007
All regions
South AmericaNorth America
Middle EastFSU
Europe
Asia/AustraliaAfrica
-
7/22/2019 Safety performance indicators 2012 data
45/104-
Safety performance indicators 2012 data
OGP
3.7 Individual country perormance
Te saety perormance reported by participating OGPmember companies o individual countries is presented interms o the lost time injury requency o companies jointly
with contractors. o preserve the anonymity o companies,perormance is only published or those countries or whichat least companies have reported statistics. Countries
with less than , reported hours worked are excluded,since results or such small populations o hours would beunrepresentative. Overall averages and regional averagesinclude data rom all countries regardless o work hours ornumber o contributing companies.
O the 7 countries rom which data have been reported,
are excluded by these constraints.
Te chart o relative perormance or the remaining 8countries compares the perormance with that o and
Te majority o countries in Asia/Australasia, FSU, theMiddle East and South America achieved an LIF equal toor lower than the overall average LIF (.8). Te majorityo countries in Arica, Europe and North America show anLIF higher than the global average.
For comparison, the -year rolling average FAR is shownor each o the regions. Tere appears to be little i anycorrelation between these values and the regional average
LIF values.
3.6 Severity o lost work day cases by region
Fig 3.6.1: Severity o LWDCAverage days lost per LWDC[Data rom B-7]
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
2012
20072011 Average
SouthAmerica
NorthAmerica
MiddleEast
FSUEuropeAsia/Australasia
Africa
2012 Average 40.7
Te number o days lost was reported or 78% o lost workday cases.
Te severity o lost workday cases is the highest in the SouthAmerican region compared with the other regions (7 dayslost per LWDC in ).
2012 LWDC severit y Relative to 2007-2011average LWDC severity
Arica 35.94 51% higher
Asia/Australasia 24.23 11% lower
Europe 38.06 5% lower
FSU 41.42 16% higher
Middle East 26.21 49% higher
North America 36.66 2% lower
South America 69.53 1% higher
Overall 40.74 7% higher
Lost work day case (LWDC)
A Lost Work Day Case is an incident resulting in at
least one day o work. Fatal incidents are not included.Severity o lost work day cases
Severity is dened as the average number o dayslost (where reported) or each lost work day case.
-
7/22/2019 Safety performance indicators 2012 data
46/104-6
International Association of Oil & Gas Producers
OGP
Fig 3.7.1: Lost time injury requency companies with contractorsper million hours worked[Data rom B-8]
-
7/22/2019 Safety performance indicators 2012 data
47/104-7
Safety performance indicators 2012 data
OGP
In this section the relative numbers o types o occupationalinjury are shown in the orm o incident triangles. Teratios have been corrected to account or the absence, insome data submissions, o medical treatment cases.
Te triangles are shown or comparison overlea.
N/A is used where there are no atalities and no ratio canbe derived.
3.8 Incident triangles by region
Lost time injuries
Fatalities and lost work day cases
Recordable injuries
Fatalities, lost work day cases, restricted workday cases and medical treatment cases. Data areonly included where medical treatment cases arereported or the data set.
Ratio o lost time injuries to atalities
The number o lost time injuries divided by thetotal number o atalities (Lost time injuries/atalities)
Ratio o total recordable injuries to atalitiesThe number o recordable injuries divided by the totalnumber o atalities (recordable injuries/atalities)
-
7/22/2019 Safety performance indicators 2012 data
48/104-8
International Association of Oil & Gas Producers
OGP
2012 incident triangles Europe
2012 incident triangles FSU
2012 incident triangles Middle East
2012 incident triangles North America
2012 incident triangles South America
Year Ratio o lost time injuriesto atalities
Ratio o total recordableinjuries to atalities
2012 11:1 40:1
2011 23:1 97:1
2010 10:1 41:1
2009 18:1 74:1
Year Ratio o lost time injuriesto atalities
Ratio o total recordableinjuries to atalities
2012 19:1 101:1
2011 9:1 43:1
2010 7:1 31:1
2009 18:1 77:1
Year Ratio o lost time injuriesto atalities
Ratio o total recordableinjuries to atalities
2012 174:1 507:1
2011 124:1 315:1
2010 108:1 309:1
2009 19:1 52:1
Year Ratio o lost time injuriesto atalities
Ratio o total recordableinjuries to atalities
2012 51:1 179:1
2011 19:1 61:1
2010 14:1 50:1
2009 11:1 38:1
Year Ratio o lost time injuriesto atalities
Ratio o total recordableinjuries to atalities
2012 12:1 52:1
2011 10:1 44:1
2010 15:1 60:1
2009 12:1 42:1
Year Ratio o lost time injuriesto atalities
Ratio o total recordableinjuries to atalitiess
2012 12:1 35:1
2011 39:1 213:1
2010 9:1 57:1
2009 11:1 70:1
Year Ratio o lost time injuriesto atalities
Ratio o total recordableinjuries to atalities
2012 129:1 570:1
2011 26:1 130:12010 38:1 175:1
2009 29:1 133:1
2012 incident triangles Arica
2012 incident triangles Asia/Australsia
-
7/22/2019 Safety performance indicators 2012 data
49/104-9
Safety performance indicators 2012 data
OGP
Africa
Asia/Australasia
Europe
FSU
Middle East
North America
South America
Overall (region)
Companies
Contractors
11
40
21
73
11
38
11
40
recordable injuries
lost time injuries
1 fatality
recordable injuries
lost time injuries
1 fatality
recordable injuries
lost time injuries
1 fatality
recordable injuries
lost time injuries
1 fatality
recordable injuries
lost time injuries
1 fatality
recordable injuries
lost time injuries
1 fatality
recordable injuries
lost time injuries
1 fatality
18100
21
107
19
101
174
507
91
195
256
819
51
179
42
151
12
52
13
35
12
57
12
35
20
33
11
35
129
570
113
518
1138
n/a
n/a
n/an/a
-
7/22/2019 Safety performance indicators 2012 data
50/104-
International Association of Oil & Gas Producers
OGP
-
7/22/2019 Safety performance indicators 2012 data
51/104-
Safety performance indicators 2012 data
OGP
4. Results by unction
In this section the saety perormance within dierentunctions perormed in the E&P industry is presented.
Functions are defned as exploration, drilling,production, construction and unspecifed. Thecategory other is no longer in use. See the Glossaryo Terms at Appendix E or defnitions.
2012 2011
Fatalincidents
Fatalities Fatalincidents
Fatalities
Exploration 4 4 0 0
Drilling 11 12 7 12
Production 12 15 22 32
Construction 17 19 16 16
Unspecifed 8 38 5 5
Total 52 88 50 65
% o 2012 work hours % o 2011 work hours % o 2010 work hours % o 2009 work hours % o 2008 work hours
Exploration 2 2 2 2 2
Drilling 18 19 15 10 9
Production 33 35 28 26 30
Construction 25 24 25 30 27Unspecifed 22 20 29 32 31
4.1 Fatalities by unction
Te distribution o company and contractor atal incidentsand atalities between the unctions is shown or both and .
Te percentage o work hours reported under each unctionhas been detailed below. See Appendix B or urther data.
-
7/22/2019 Safety performance indicators 2012 data
52/104-
International Association of Oil & Gas Producers
OGP
Fig 4.2.1: Fatal accident rate 3-year rolling averageper 100 million hours worked[Data rom B-9]
0
2
4
6
8
10
Unspecified
Construction
Production
Drilling
Exploration
201220112010200920082007
4.2 Fatal accident rate (FAR) 3-year rolling average by unction
In order to smooth out variability in the annual atalaccident rate values -year rolling averages are presented.Tese should provide a more reliable indicator o
perormance trends.
In this section, year rolling averages are used rather than year rolling averages, as the unction other was replaced byconstruction or the rst time in 6.
Te increase in unspecied FAR is as a result o asingle incident involving a gas leak and explosion ollowing
the loss o mechanical integrity o a pipeline in Mexico, inwhich individuals lost their lives.
Te increase in the drilling FAR can be attributedto the eect o a re and explosion oshore in the USA in
which individuals lost their lives.
.
Note: e unction other was replaced by
construction or the frst time in 2006, thus the2007 3-year average fgure or construction isnot available.
The three year rolling average is calculated by summing the total number o incidents o the three previous years,and dividing by the sum o the work hours or these years. For example, the three year rolling average or drillingFAR 2012 is calculated by:
(Number o atalities in drilling unction 2010+2011+2012)
(Total work hours in drilling 2010+2011+2012)
The number series involved in the calculation is rame shited along by one each year, e.g. 2011 will calculate rom2009-2011, inclusive.
-
7/22/2019 Safety performance indicators 2012 data
53/104-
Safety performance indicators 2012 data
OGP
4.4 Lost time injury requency (LTIF) 3-year rolling average by unction
Lost time injury requency 3-year rolling averageper million hours worked[Data rom B-10]
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
Unspecified
Construction
Production
Drilling
Exploration
201220112010200920082007
Note: e unction other was replaced byconstruction or the frst time in 2006, thus
2007 3-year average fgure or construction isnot available.
4.3 Total recordable injury rate (TRIR) by unction
Fig 4.3.1: Total recordable injury rateper million hours worked[Data rom B-10]
0
1
2
3
4
52012201120102009
2008
UnspecifiedConstructionProductionDrillingExploration
Submissions without inormation on medical treatmentcases were ltered out, leaving a database o ,6 millionhours, almost % o the database (see Appendix A).
2012TRIR
2011TRIR
2010TRIR
2009TRIR
2008TRIR
Exploration 2.14 2.70 2.30 2.31 3.81
Drilling 2.59 2.84 2.94 3.81 4.63
Production 1.92 2.05 2.14 2.32 2.64
Construction 1.32 1.13 0.99 0.78 1.00
Unspecifed 1.21 0.95 1.13 1.53 1.72
All unctions 1.74 1.76 1.68 1.75 2.09
-
7/22/2019 Safety performance indicators 2012