Managing Risk in the Norwegian Offshore Industry a report by Magne Ognedal Director General, Petroleum Safety Authority Norway
All efforts to prevent accidents and near misses are about the management of risk. Inadequate control and insufficient understanding of risk can have disastrous consequences. Management involves assessing, setting priorities for and devoting resources to the areas which are expected to yield the biggest and best benefits. Risk management is wholly dependent on knowledge of the elements which make up the threat and of the incident mechanisms which could be involved. Efforts by management to reduce the risk of major accidents are crucial. Supervision by the Petroleum Safety Authority Norway (PSA) confirms this, as does experience from events internationally and recognised accident theories.
Impact on Health, Safety and the Environment Norway’s petroleum regulations require that, if adequate knowledge is lacking about the impact of technical, operational or organisational methods on health, safety and the environment (HSE), solutions must be chosen to reduce this uncertainty. Generally speaking, a high level of uncertainty calls for a cautious approach – through conservative assessments and estimates, for instance. These will find expression in requirements for barriers and robust solutions, or via the application of the ‘as low as reasonably practicable’ (ALARP) principle. Companies must not only comply with the regulations, but also reduce risk to the lowest possible level. If they do not know what effects a preventive measure could have, the regulations require that further measures must be adopted to avoid possible harmful effects. Knowing as much as possible about how companies understand these principles, how they are put into effect and the basis for concluding that risk has been reduced is crucial for the PSA.
Recognition of Risk
Managing risk requires a recognition that it exists and an understanding of what it comprises. All human activity involves risk, and being conscious of it and prepared to tackle it is vital. The risk of major accidents is present not only in Norway but also in all other countries which carry out petroleum activities. However, accepting and understanding this is not the same as accepting accidents; quite the contrary, in fact. But it is important to remember that accidents have happened, and that they can happen again.
Magne Ognedal holds a BSc in mechanical and electrical engineering. His early experience was in automation of ship engine rooms and in automation of industrial processes. He started work for the Norwegian Petroleum Directorate from 1974 as an engineer. In 1980, he became Director for Safety and Working Environment Division, dealing with all aspects within safety and working environment for Norwegian offshore petroleum installations. In January 2004, Magne Ognedal was
appointed Director General for the new Petroleum Safety Authority Norway, dealing with safety and working environment offshore and named facilities onshore.
E:
oyvind.midttun@ptil.no
Demonstration of Risk
Experience from the petroleum business so far has clearly demonstrated the risk associated with its operations. The biggest disaster on the Norwegian continental shelf (NCS) occurred in March 1980, when the Alexander L. Kielland flotel overturned on the Ekofisk field in the North Sea. Only 89 of those on board survived, while 123 lives were lost. In addition to this tragedy and a number of other serious incidents, with and without loss of life, many events with a major accident potential have occurred on the NCS over the years. These are defined as incidents which could have become major with only a marginal change of circumstances.
Risk Analysis
Norway’s offshore regulations require company managements to analyse their own operations in detail to identify how dangerous conditions can arise and develop and their possible consequences. Safety and emergency preparedness measures must be proportionate to the risk in each activity. The greater the risk, the more numerous and extensive are the reduction measures needed. Risk identified through such analyses influences the types of measures implemented, their scope and their dimensioning. Methods of preventing undesirable incidents include the design of facilities, as well as choosing technical solutions with good inherent safety properties and effective barriers. The latter are used both to reduce the probability of an undesirable incident happening and to eliminate or reduce the consequences of such events.
Acceptable Working Environment
Organisations carrying out petroleum operations are responsible for ensuring a fully acceptable working environment by managing conditions in the workplace. Through its extensive supervisory activities, the PSA has found that risk exposure varies between different categories of offshore workers. It has documented that contractor personnel, generally speaking, face more risk in their working environment compared with operator employees, and have a higher exposure to risk. Several factors contribute here, including frame conditions such as contractual and financial terms, as well as organisation of work. These can affect contractors’ opportunities to reduce risk. After a number of years in which groups exposed to greater risk were given higher priority by the PSA, more awareness can be seen among those responsible, as well as a range of specific improvements. A number of companies, for instance, have developed tools to compare information about conditions in the working environment and personal injuries between different categories of workers. While a good working environment is valuable in itself, it also represents an important requirement for keeping the risk of major accidents low. To understand the causes of major incidents and thereby take effective countermeasures, mutually dependent factors – technology, management systems, organisation, people and culture – must be seen in relation to each other. The study of human factors is an important specialist discipline which operates at
88 © TOUCH BRIEFINGS 2011
HSE
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124