Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Center for Offshore Safety’

The Center for Offshore Safety (COS) was established in response to a recommendation by the National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling for improved self-regulation by the offshore industry. The Commission supported the creation of a non-profit, industry-funded organization similar to the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations, to promote the highest levels of safety and operational excellence. 

The COS has been effective in strengthening corporate Safety and Environmental Management Systems, influencing the industry’s safety culture, and sharing best practices and lessons learned. These are important accomplishments.

The COS has fallen short in gathering the data needed to assess the offshore industry’s safety performance. As is the case with most voluntary reporting programs, data completeness and accuracy issues limit the significance of COS performance reviews.

Observations regarding the most recent COS Offshore Safety Performance Report follow:

  • The COS uses accepted performance indicators and a logical classification scheme.
  • COS reports that their members accounted for 78% of OCS oil and gas activity in 2024. This is accurate when cross-checked with BSEE hours worked data. However, the % of hours worked is not a good measure of the % of incidents reported in any category.
  • Companies not participating included important operators like LLOG, Cantium, Walter, and W&T, a host of smaller Gulf independents, the 2024 violations leader (by a wide margin) Cox, and troubled Fieldwood. (See Fieldwood’s 2021 and 2022 performance.)
  • Only two drilling contractors – Helmerich & Payne and Valaris – are members. Major contractors like Noble, Transocean, and Seadrill are not members. Their incidents will thus not be reported if they are not working for a COS member.
  • No production contractors are COS members. These companies conduct most of the platform operations on the shelf, where many of the lease operators are not COS members.
  • Pacific and Alaska Region operators do not participate.
  • Looking only at fatalities (table below), the most important and easily verified incident category, there are troubling omissions:
    • COS reports no 2024 fatalities when in fact there was a fatality during an operation for a COS member.
    • COS reports no 2022 fatalities when there were actually five. A workover incident took the life of one worker, and four died in a helideck crash on an OCS platform. In both cases, the facility operator was a non-member company.
    • COS records one 2021 fatality, but fails to include a 2021 Fieldwood fatality. There were also 6 “non-occupational” fatalities on OCS facilities in 2021, as classified by BSEE. Given the importance of worker health (the H in HSE), such a high number of non-occupational fatalities should be of interest industry-wide.
    • The COS report includes only two of the six 2020 fatalities, 2 of which were classified by BSEE as non-occupational.
    • The bottom line is that COS accounted for only 3 of 12 (25%) occupational fatalities during the 2020-24 period. There were at least 20 fatalities if you include the non-occupational incidents.
fatalities per COSoccupational
fatalities (from BSEE data)
non-occupational
fatalities (from BSEE data)
202401?
202300?
202205?
2021126
2020242

The offshore industry is only as good as its worst performer, so complete participation is essential. Voluntary reporting is seldom complete reporting, because some companies are more concerned about confidentiality than completeness and information sharing.

For industry reporting programs to be comprehensive and credible:

  • The entity receiving the reports and managing the data must be independent and not affiliated with an industry advocacy organization.
  • All operating companies must participate and complete reporting must be required. This can be accomplished contractually. If necessary, the regulator can require participation (either as a separate regulation or as a SEMS element).
  • Company incident submittals should be audited by the independent entity.
  • Fees should be solely for the purpose of supporting the independent reporting system.
  • For SP1 and SP2 incidents (per the COS classification scheme), the names of the responsible companies should be included in the performance reports. The current COS system prioritizes confidentiality over accountabiity and information sharing.

Read Full Post »

I don’t buy the argument that industry and regulators have paid too much attention to personal safety at the expense of process safety. Casualties from falls, falling objects, helicopter crashes, and other workplace activities have been persistent, and safety management programs must emphasize practices and procedures that will reduce occurrence rates.

Also, process safety has hardly been ignored. API RP 14 C has proven to be an effective safety analysis procedure for addressing undesirable events associated with each process component of a production facility.  For more complex facilities, Deepwater Operating Plans and API RP 14J, “Recommended Practice for Design and Hazard Analysis for Offshore Production Facilities, ” are good risk management supplements to RP 14C.

That said, we need better programs for sustaining the focus needed to further reduce the probability of low frequency, high consequence events.  When memories about the most recent disaster start to fade, what do we do to keep workers on edge and prevent complacency? What more can be done to prevent events with enormous consequence potential?  Some thoughts:

  1. Establish programs to remind employees about past disasters – how they happened and how they could have been prevented. How many offshore workers know the chain of events that led to the Santa Barbara blowout, Ocean Ranger sinking, Alexander Kielland capsizing, Piper Alpha fire and explosion, Ixtoc blowout, and other historic incidents? When discussing international incidents, we need to explain how our facilities or region might have been vulnerable under similar circumstances.
  2. Present information on minor incidents that could have escalated into disasters, emphasizing what could have gone wrong and why.
  3. Don’t just focus on the last disaster.  While addressing the operational and organizational issues that surfaced at Montara and Macondo, we also must assess incident data and identify activities and practices that could lead to the next disaster.
  4. Operators should not rely on the regulator to manage their operations. Reading about Montara and Macondo, one senses that the regulators were called on to referee internal company disputes and protect the operators and contractors from themselves.
  5. Regulators should not be making day-to-day operating decisions. Regulators should make sure that the regulations are clear and that operators have effective management procedures for adjusting programs as new information is obtained. Regimes that provide for regulator approval of each activity or adjustment promote operator complacency and are not in the best interest of safety over the long term.
  6. Service companies and contractors must challenge operators and regulators.  Operators should expect contractors to think and question, not to simply execute orders. There are impressive examples of contractors insisting on safety improvements, and being willing to forego business rather than compromise on safety.
  7. All sectors of the offshore industry should participate in standards development. Effective standards are dependent on diverse input.
  8. Industry and government leaders should promote innovation. Obvious weaknesses should be identified and industry should be challenged to propose solutions. For example, why do concerns about “false alarms” preclude automatic alarm activation (see Transocean’s Macondo report)? Data from redundant sensors can be analyzed by predictive software that is capable of quickly identifying real events. Similarly, why have advances in BOPE, including monitoring systems, been so slow? Why are BOP capabilities still poorly understood? Why are well integrity and casing pressure issues (producing wells) so common?

Read Full Post »