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


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


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


4/104ii

International Association of Oil & Gas Producers

OGP


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


6/104iv


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


7/104v


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


8/104vi


OGP


9/104vii


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.


10/104viii


OGP


11/104-


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]


12/104-


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 ).


13/104-


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


14/104-


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


15/104-


OGP

Confined space 0.1%


Exposure electrical 0.7%Pressure release 0.9%


Exposure noise, chemical,biological, vibration 2.0%

Cut, puncture, scrape 3.6%

Other 6.6%

Explosions or burns 7.5%

Overexertion, strain 7.8%


Slips and trips(at same height) 15.6%

Caught in, underor between 20.7%

Struck by 24.0%


Transport water, includingmarine activity 5.2%

Transport land 4.1% Transport air 0.5%

Seismic/surveyoperations 1.4%


Office, warehouse,accommodation,catering 7.7%

Maintenance,inspection,testing 16.9%

Lifting, crane,rigging, deckoperations 7.8%


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


16/104-6


OGP


17/104-


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]


18/104-


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



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)


19/104-


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%


Overexertion,strain 1.1%

Other 2.3%

Confined space 2.3%




Pressure release 4.5%

Caught in, under or between 18.2%

Explosions orburns 44.3%


Transport water, inc.marine activity 2.3%

Transport air 2.3%



Transport land 10.5%



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.


20/104-


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


21/104-


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)


Oshore 0.89 (1.03) (14% lower)


22/104-6


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)



2012 (2011) TRIR Relative to 2011 TRIR

Company 1.12 (1.32) (15% lower)


Overall 1.74 (1.76) (1% lower)


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.


23/104-7


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


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)


Overall 0.48 (0.43) (12% higher)


Oshore 0.81 (0.74) (9% higher)


24/104-8


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%


Exposure electrical 0.7%Pressure release 0.9%




Other 6.6%






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.


25/104-9


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 ).


Assault or violent act 0.6%Pressure release 1.2%

Exposure noise, chemical, biological, vibration 1.5%





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%


Pressure release 0.9%Exposure electrical 0.9%




Other 4.6%




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


26/104-


OGP


Pressure release 0.8%Exposure electrical 0.9%

Assault or violentact 1.4%




Other 8.8%

Falls fromheight 9.3%


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%


Assault or violent act 0.4%Pressure release 1.1%




Other 3.6%

Falls fromheight 9.4%

Overexertion,strain10.6%


Struck by 25.4%


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


27/104-


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



Transport land 4.1% Transport air 0.5%





Lifting, crane,rigging, deck

operations 7.8%


Diving, subsea,ROV 0.6%

Construction,commissioning,decommissioning 9.9%


28/104-


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


Transport water,including marine activity 1.2%

Transport land 5.5%

Transport air 1.5%


Productionoperations 23.0%


Maintenance,inspection, testing 20.1%

Lifting, crane, rigging,deck operations 3.2%


Diving, subsea, ROV 0.3%



Transport water,including marine activity 6.3%

Transport land 3.7%Transport air 0.2%

Seismic/survey

operations 1.6%



Maintenance,

inspection,testing 16.1%

Lifting, crane,rigging, deckoperations 9.0%


Diving, subsea,

ROV 0.7%



29/104-


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



Transport land 6.7%

Transport air 0.5%Seismic/surveyoperations 1.9%






Diving, subsea, ROV 0.1%



Transport water,including marineactivity 10.2%

Transport land 0.6%

Transport air 0.4%



Office, warehouse,accommodation, catering 5.1%




Diving, subsea,

ROV 1.2%



30/104-


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


31/104-


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.


32/104-6


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.


33/104-7


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.


34/104-8


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



Company

Contractor

Overall


lost time injuries1 fatality

lost time injuries

1 fatality

lost time injuries

1 fatality

22

31

21



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


35/104-9


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


36/104-


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


37/104-


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


38/104-


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


39/104-


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%


40/104-


OGP


41/104-


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


42/104-


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



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


Africa




43/104-


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


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


The number o lost time injuries (atalities + lostworkday cases) per 1,000,000 hours worked.


44/104-


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


Middle EastFSU

Europe


0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

201220112010200920082007

All regions


Middle EastFSU

Europe



45/104-


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


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.


46/104-6


OGP

Fig 3.7.1: Lost time injury requency companies with contractorsper million hours worked[Data rom B-8]


47/104-7


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)


48/104-8


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


2012 11:1 40:1

2011 23:1 97:1

2010 10:1 41:1

2009 18:1 74:1



2012 19:1 101:1

2011 9:1 43:1

2010 7:1 31:1

2009 18:1 77:1



2012 174:1 507:1

2011 124:1 315:1

2010 108:1 309:1

2009 19:1 52:1



2012 51:1 179:1

2011 19:1 61:1

2010 14:1 50:1

2009 11:1 38:1



2012 12:1 52:1

2011 10:1 44:1

2010 15:1 60:1

2009 12:1 42:1


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



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


49/104-9


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


50/104-


OGP


51/104-


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.


52/104-


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.


53/104-


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

Documents

Safety performance indicators – 2012 data