OGP Data

Kirsty Walker
Schlumberger
(Chair of OGP Safety Data SC)
Content

• OGP data series

• Data collection process
• Validation of data
• Leading indicators
• Reports and results
• Ongoing and future work
OGP Data Series
• Safety data
• since 1985 – 50 companies
• Environmental Data
• since 1999, 43 companies
• Process Safety Event Data
• since 2011, 39 companies
• Motor vehicle crash data
• data analysis since 2008, first publication 2014, 35 companies
• Aviation data
• since 1994 – reports in 1999 and 2007, annual reports to Aviation
Sub-Committee – will be an annual OGP report from 2014, 15
companies
• Health Leading Indicators
• Results published since 2010 - 23 companies
OGP Data Handling Procedure

• Data Ownership
• Data collection process
• Validation
• User Guide
• Provision of Results
• Publication
• Company Codes and blind results
• New data sets
• Industry Alerts
• Surveys
• Press releases and public statements
Safety Data Performance Indicators
Report timeline
• User Guide sent out in December to nominees
• Data submission deadline 1st March
• Report reviewed at SDSC meeting 1st week in April
• Draft to be provided to Safety Committee for review
• Comments by 3rd week in April
• Publication due 31st May
o Publish Fatality and HiPo descriptions electronically on Safety Zone
o Executive summary published as a “flyer”
o Press release
10 April
Revised draft [in 18 May
12 March 1 May
company Word format] Formatted 31 May
23 March 4-5 April final draft goes
1 March results circulated to report circulated
to OGP Final changes
circulated to Draft report [in SDSC meets to Safety to Chairs only
Deadline for Publications for incorporated and
contributors for Word format] review draft Committee, of Safety
submission of format and report
comment circulated to report [in Word SDSC and Committee and
data layout published
SDSC by email format] contributors for SDSC
-allow 1 week comment - allow 2½ electronically
19Mar - allow 1 week
weeks
- allow 2 weeks 25 May
24 Apr
OGP User Guides

• User Guides published annually

• Safety
• Environment
• Aviation
• Safety User Guide
• Occupational Safety, Process Safety, Motor Vehicle Crash
• Part A – For the public
o Definitions e.g. work relatedness, injury, activities, functions,
classifications, categories, causal factors
o Reporting boundaries
o Glossaries
• Part B – For the data entry nominee
o Instructions for completing the forms and online data entry with
examples
o Self-Assessment questionnaire
 OGP Report Forms

• Report 1 - Occupational Injuries

• Report 1A Lost Work Day Case Breakdown by category
• Report 1B Lost Work Day Case Breakdown by activity
• Report 2 - Fatal Incidents
• Activity, category, causal factors (Life Saving Rules)
• Report 3 - High Potential Events
• Activity, category, causal factors (Life Saving Rules)
• Occupational Illnesses are no longer reported
• Report 5 – Motor Vehicle Crashes
• Report 6 – Process Safety Events (PSE)
• Report 6A – PSE due to sabotage or wilful damage
• Report 6B – Tier 1 PSE (Activity, category, causal factors,
barrier failures)
OGP database entry
OGP database entry
OGP database entry
OGP database entry
 Data Validation

• Checks written into the data base

• Comments required to explain data scope changes
• Company results returned for review by submitter
• Review of narrative descriptions and data
• Self assessment questionnaire now built into the database
• Review of draft report by SDSC
• Review of stage 2 draft by Safety Committee and
Management Committee
• Review of publication proof by OGP and SDSC Chair
Self-assessment questionnaire

• Determines alignment with OGP definitions

• Explanations required for data scope changes
• Results expressed by % of companies and %
of database work hours
• Performed annually – now part of the data
base entry
• Provides additional assurance on the meaning
of the data
Leading Indicators

Health Performance Indicators

 Health Elements and scoring

• Health risk assessment and planning

• Industrial hygiene and control of workplace exposures
• Medical emergency management
• Management of ill-health in the workplace
• Fitness for task assessment and health surveillance
• Health impact assessment
• Health reporting and record management
• Public health interface and promotion of good health
• 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
 Health Leading Indicators Tools
• OIHC Percentage Tool
• Measures the extent of the management of
8 health elements across a business
• Benchmarking between companies
• Proportion of the organisation at each level
• Responses to add up to 100%

• OIHC Health Management System Gap

Analysis Tool
• Within individual companies at site and
company level to measure management.
• Can be used for:
o gap analysis
o comparison between sites within a company
o benchmarking between companies.
Health Leading Indicators –
Gap Analysis Tool
 Health Indicators – Example Results
Health Risk Assessment and
Overall Company Results –
Planning – Gap Analysis
Gap Analysis
Results

Safety Data Results

 Summary of key points

1. Transportation stays a high risk area - air, marine and land

2. Focus required on process safety, including well control and structural integrity

3. TRIR/LTIF performance plateau over the last 5 years.

4. Past 15 years shows global improvement in company/contractor performance with

bottom quartile having significantly improved

5. Regional differences continue to be seen

6. Keep focus on occupational injuries and HiPos, e.g. “falls from height ” and “dropped
objects”

7. Top 5 causal factors over the last 4 years: 4 of the top 5 relate to “conditions” and are
of “organisational” nature.

8. “Improper position - line of fire” remains a key difference between fatalities and Hipos

9. Life Saving Rules adherence shown to have continued validity

 2013 safety data –
database dimension

• 3771 million work hours (+2%)

• 4 new reporting companies, 2 lost from 2012
• 50 of the 62 OGP member companies reported (49 of 63 in 2012)
• All reported contractor data
• 78 % contractor and 22 % company work hours
• Operations in 110 countries (107 for 2012)
 2013 reported fatalities
• 80 fatalities in 43 incidents (88 fatalities in 52 incidents - 2012)
• 33 fatalities occurred in 3 incidents
• Fatal Accident Rate 11% lower than 2012
• 15 Company and 65 Contractor fatalities (12 and 76 in 2012)

• 1998: airplane crash (74)

• 1999: helicopter crashes (12, 4)
• 2000: pipeline explosion; (security?) (19)
• 2001: road transport (2)
• 2002: helicopter crash (11)
• 2003: road transport (5)
• 2004: helicopter crash (9)
• 2005: confined space (4)
• 2006: security (5)
• 2007: anchor handling vessel capsized (8)
• 2008: onshore pipeline explosion (7)
• 2009: helicopter crash (16); confined space (6 in
2 incidents)
• 2010: aircraft crash (21); blow-out (11)
• 2011: security (5)
• 2012: pipeline explosion (31)
• 2013: helicopter crash (13); tug capsized (11);
security (9)
2013 fatalities by activity and cause
• In 2013, 35 of 80 fatalities are
related to Transportation, air, road or
marine.
• Transportation/transit is, over the
years, a high risk context for
workers.
• Over the past 15 years fires and
explosions due to HCR have had a
lower impact on the work force;
major accidents relate to onshore
pipelines (3) and blowout (1).
• 5 fatal incidents, which involved 7
fatalities, were tagged and verified by
the PSSC as process safety events
• Over the past 15 years there were a
few structural integrity failure leading
to human consequences; walkways
have failed with people attached to
them, one rig collapse in 2001 and
one in 1999, and some crane
collapses.
 2013 TRIR/LTIF

• TRIR 1.60 (- 8%)

• LTIF 0.45 (- 6%)

• 1627 lost work day cases • Trend of slight improvement

• 1416 restricted work day cases in TRIR
• 2932 medical treatment cases
• LTIF, plateau of performance
over last 5 years
• Trend is confirmed by 5-year
rolling average; there are
however regional differences
– see next slides
 2013 TRIR/LTIF – Regional indicators

• Difference in performance is more visible with LTIF than TRIR

• Regional differences seen over the years. There is no clear or single reason:
• Cultural and social regime?
• Bias induced by lack of restricted duty and/or medical treatment reporting in some areas?
• Bias in reporting induced by incorrect incentive/culture?
• Larger national companies specifically working in one area that are no longer members/ stop
reporting to OGP?
 Global Industry/OGP trend - LTIF

2013 performance by Companies (with

contractors) compared to years 1998, 2003,
and 2008. 2013

• OGP membership appears globally

improving, not only the top quartile.
2008
• Poorest performer reporting member (LTIF per
million hours worked):
o 1998: LTIF= 27 (2nd is 10)
o 2003: LTIF= 6 (2 members)
o 2008: LTIF= 4 2003
o 2013: LTIF= 3.2
• Future improvement potential mostly from
the bottom quartile.
1998
 Lost Work Day Cases
• Statistics for company and contractor by category
Lost Work Day Cases – Severity
Severity of LTI consistently increased
over past 10 years.
What is this indicator/trend telling us?
• More emphasis on ensuring personnel are
medically fit to return to work after an injury?
• Better reporting on severity?
• Limited participation in severity data reporting in
Europe and North America may affect the data
• Could the trend be related to an “added (social or
other) pressure” for reporting and classifying light
injuries as Medical treatment or Restricted Work
Cases?
Regional differences
Statistics by Functions

% Company/Contractors
• Drilling: 12/88
• Production 27/73
• Construction 8/92
 Causal Factors
• Good response:
• 34 of 43 fatal incidents reported in 2013 were assigned causal factors
(47 of the 52 in 2012, 42 of the 50 in 2011 and 51 of 58 in 2010).

• 124 of the 179 high potential events were assigned causal factors and
(169 of the 195 in 2012, 69 of the 76 in 2011 and 97 of 98 in 2010).

• The top 5 causal factors for 2013 are also the 5 causal factors
that consistently appear in the 2012, 2011 and 2010 top 10 for
both fatal incidents and high potential events. These are:
• Inadequate training/competence
• Improper decision making or lack of judgment
• Inadequate work standards/procedures
• Inadequate supervision
• Inadequate hazard identification or risk assessment
• The 6th most common causal factor for fatal incidents, which
did not show in the top 10 for High Potential Events was:
• Improper position (line of fire)
OGP Life Saving Rules Report 459
 SPE Technical Papers

SPE HSSE Long Beach 2014

• SPE 168375 - Continuing the Efforts to Learn From Industry Safety
Data
• SPE 168514 - Upstream Oil and Gas Industry Process Safety Event
Data: A First Step
• SPE 168359 - Oil and Gas Industry Leading Health Performance
Indicators
SPE HSSE Perth 2012
• SPE 157434 - International Association of Oil and Gas Producers (OGP)
Life-Saving Rules
• SPE 157432 - Improving the Opportunity for Learning from Industry
Safety Data
• SPE-156133 - Health Performance in the Oil and Gas Industry – The
Results
 SDSC – Future Work Plan
Identify learning
• Development of “generic alerts” using historical information
• Request member companies to report against OGP Life Saving Rules
• Encourage reporting of safety alerts and Learning from Events
• Develop guidance for companies on the learning from events process
Data consistency
• Continue work on PSE and aviation data collection and validation
• Develop guidance on reporting HiPos and classification as PSE
• Further clarification on safety data reporting boundaries:
o Vessels (marine, drilling, charters)
o Mobilisation and de-mobilisation activities
o Security?
New Indicators
• Diving
• Security
Other
• Publish editable data tables in members area
• Automate self-assessment analysis
 Learning From Events –
Company Learning Process
• Company presentations of their systems

• Company Learning Process Guidance

• Reporting
• Investigation
• Systematic Learning
• Support Learning processes
• Success Factors

• Generic alerts – examples of topics

• Dropped Objects
• Falls from height
• Mechanical Lifting and Hoisting
 Learning From Events –
Industry Learning
• Use the information available
• Narrative descriptions of Fatal Incidents and HiPos
• Extract common learnings
• Develop material to support Life Saving Rules

• Generic alerts – example topics

• Dropped Objects
• Falls from height
• Mechanical Lifting and Hoisting

• Safety Zone website development

• Use “Skybrary” as a template
• Link industry guidance to event data
• Searchable by topic
QUESTIONS?