safety performance indicators - 2015 data total recordable injury rate lost time injury frequency...
Post on 01-Feb-2021
13 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
-
REPORT
2015sJUNE2016
DATA SERIES
Safety performance indicators – 2015 data
-
Disclaimer
Whilst every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the information contained in this publication, neither IOGP nor any of its Members past present or future warrants its accuracy or will, regardless of its or their negligence, assume liability for any foreseeable or unforeseeable use made thereof, which liability is hereby excluded. Consequently, such use is at the recipient’s own risk on the basis that any use by the recipient constitutes agreement to the terms of this disclaimer. The recipient is obliged to inform any subsequent recipient of such terms.
This publication is made available for information purposes and solely for the private use of the user. IOGP will not directly or indirectly endorse, approve or accredit the content of any course, event or otherwise where this publication will be reproduced.
Copyright notice
The contents of these pages are ©International Association of Oil & Gas Producers. Permission is given to reproduce this report in whole or in part provided (i) that the copyright of IOGP and (ii) the sources are acknowledged. All other rights are reserved. Any other use requires the prior written permission of IOGP.
These Terms and Conditions shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales. Disputes arising here from shall be exclusively subject to the jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales.
AcknowledgementsIOGP acknowledges the participation of the companies that have submitted safety performance indicators. This report was produced by the Safety Committee.
Photography used with permission courtesy of ©psphotograph/iStockphoto (Back cover)
-
Revision history
VERSION DATE AMENDMENTS
1.0 June 2016 First release
REPORT
2015sJUNE2016
DATA SERIES
Safety performance indicators – 2015 data
-
4Safety performance indicators – 2015 data
Contents
Contributing companies 6
Executive summary 7
Introduction and background 9
1. Summary of 2015 results 111.1 General 111.2 Fatalities 121.3 Total recordable injuries 151.4 Lost time injuries 16
2. Overall results 192.1 Fatalities 192.2 Fatal accident rate (FAR) 202.3 Fatalities by incident category and activity 222.4 Number of fatal incidents per 100 million work hours 292.5 Total recordable injury rate (TRIR) 312.6 Lost time injury frequency (LTIF) 332.7 Lost work day case categories and activities 352.8 Severity of lost work day cases 442.9 Severity of restricted work day cases 472.10 Incident triangles 502.11 Causal factors 532.12 Life-Saving Rules 59
3. Results by region 623.1 Fatalities 623.2 Fatal accident rate (FAR) 633.3 Total recordable injury rate (TRIR) 643.4 Lost time injury frequency (LTIF) 653.5 FAR, TRIR and LTIF five-year rolling averages 663.6 Severity of lost work day cases 683.7 Individual country performance 703.8 Incident triangles by region 73
-
5
4. Results by function 774.1 Fatalities 774.2 FAR, LTIF and TRIR – five-year rolling averages 784.3 Severity of lost work day cases (LWDC) 804.4 Exploration performance 804.5 Drilling performance 834.6 Production performance 864.7 Construction performance 894.8 Unspecified performance 92
5. Results by company 955.1 Overall company results 955.2 Company results by function 103
Appendix A – Database dimensions 105Proportion of database used in analysis 108
Appendix B – Data tables 110Section 1 Summary 111Section 2 Overall results 111Section 3 Results by region 115Section 4 Results by function 124Section 5 Results by company 130Database Dimensions (Appendix A) 132
Appendix C – Contributing companies 134
Appendix D – Countries represented 136
Appendix E – Glossary of terms 139
-
6Safety performance indicators – 2015 data
Contributing companies
The safety statistics for 2015 were derived from data provided by the following companies:
ADNOC
ANADARKO
BG GROUP
BHP BILLITON
BP
CAIRN ENERGY
CHEVRON
CNOOC
CONOCOPHILLIPS
DEA DEUTSCHE ERDOEL AG
DOLPHIN ENERGY
DONG O&G
E.ON
ENGIE E&P INTERNATIONAL
ENI
EXXONMOBIL
GALP
HESS CORPORATION
HUSKY
INPEX
KOSMOS
KUWAIT OIL COMPANY
MAERSK OIL
MARATHON OIL COMPANY
MOL
OIL SEARCH
OMV
ORIGIN
PAN AMERICAN ENERGY
PEMEX
PERENCO
PETRONAS CARIGALI SDN BHD
PJSOC BASHNEFT
PLUSPETROL
PREMIER OIL
PTTEP
QATAR PETROLEUM
RASGAS
REPSOL
SASOL
SHELL COMPANIES
STATOIL
SUNCOR
TALISMAN ENERGY
TOTAL
TULLOW OIL
WINTERSHALL
WOODSIDE
YEMEN LNG
-
7Executive summary
Executive summary
The 2015 IOGP Safety Performance Indicators show that the Fatal Accident Rate for reporting companies has increased by 41% compared with 2014. The number of fatalities has increased from 45 in 2014 to 54 in 2015.
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
20152014201320122011201020092008200720060.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
2015201420132012201120102009200820072006
Num
ber o
f fat
aliti
es
FAR
fata
litie
s pe
r 100
mill
ion
hour
s w
orke
d
115 103
87
8880
45
99 94
65
Fatal accident rate (FAR)Fatalities
54
Figure 1: Number of fatalities and fatal accident rate (2006–2015)
Analysis of the 40 fatal incident descriptions in which there were 54 fatalities has shown that at least 73% of the fatal incidents reported in 2015 related to the IOGP Life-Saving Rules published in March 2012, see IOGP report 459.
Insufficient information 13%
No appropriate rule 15%
Supplementary rules 45%
Core rules 27%
Figure 2: Life-Saving Rules applicable to 2015 fatal incidents – % of total incidents reported in 2015
-
8Safety performance indicators – 2015 data
There are a number of common causal factors related to the fatal incidents and high potential events from the last 6 years. The following five causal factors appear consistently in the top ten for both fatal incidents and high potential events for each of the past five years.
• PROCESS (CONDITIONS): Organizational: Inadequate training/competence • PEOPLE (ACTS): Inattention/lack of awareness: Improper decision making or
lack of judgement• PROCESS (CONDITIONS): Organizational: Inadequate work standards/
procedures • PROCESS (CONDITIONS): Organizational: Inadequate supervision• PROCESS (CONDITIONS): Organizational: Inadequate hazard identification or
risk assessment.
The 4th most common causal factor for fatal incidents, which did not show in the top ten for high potential events was:
• PEOPLE (ACTS): Following procedures: Improper position (line of fire).
Personal injury performance shows the lost time injury frequency decreasing by 19% and the total recordable injury rate decreasing by 21% compared with 2014 results.
Five fatal incidents resulting in 18 fatalities were as a result of process safety events.
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0TRIR
LTIF
2015201420132012201120102009200820072006
LTIF
and
TRI
R (p
er m
illio
n ho
urs
wor
ked)
Total recordable injury rate Lost time injury frequency
Figure 3: Lost time injury frequency vs. total recordable injury rate (2006–2015)
-
9Introduction & background
Introduction and background
The International Association of Oil & Gas Producers, IOGP, has been collecting safety incident data from its member companies globally since 1985. The data collected are entered into the IOGP safety database, which is the largest database of safety performance in the exploration and production (E&P) industry.
The principal purpose of the data collection and analysis is to record the global safety performance of the contributing IOGP member companies on an annual basis. The submission of data is voluntary and is not mandated by IOGP membership. The annual reports provide trend analysis, benchmarking and the identification of areas and activities on which efforts should be focused to bring about the greatest improvements in performance.
The IOGP incident reporting system covers worldwide E&P operations, both onshore and offshore, and includes incidents involving both member companies and their contractor employees.
The key indicators presented are: number of fatalities, fatal accident rate, fatal incident rate, total recordable injury rate, lost time injury frequency, number of lost work day cases and number of lost work days, number of restricted duty case and restricted duty days, and number of medical treatment cases. The report presents contributing IOGP Members’ global results for these indicators, which are then analysed by region, function and company. A code is used to preserve the anonymity of the reporting company, which will typically report its own data as well as that of its associated contractors (see Appendix C).
In 2010, data collection was initiated to capture 'causal factors' associated with fatal incidents and high potential events. These data are presented in section 2.11 of this report. Wherever practicable, results are presented graphically. The data underlying the charts are presented in Appendix B. The causal factors and chart data are available to IOGP Members in editable format from the Members’ area of the IOGP website.
This report is published with two separate addendums which provide the narrative descriptions for the fatal incidents and high potential events reported by participating IOGP member companies. These can be downloaded from the IOGP public website http://www.iogp.org/Our-library, as well as the IOGP Safety Zone website http://safetyzone.iogp.org/.
-
10Safety performance indicators – 2015 data
Scope of reporting and data validationThe data requested from participating IOGP member companies are published in an annual user guide in two parts:
• Part A contains definitions and the scope of the safety data submission. This document is published on the IOGP public website.
• Part B contains practical information for the company nominees submitting the data, copies of the data submission forms and a data submission checklist.
The safety data submission process is used for the collection of data relating to safety performance, process safety performance and motor vehicle crashes. The IOGP safety database has built-in data validation requirements and each company data submission is validated by the IOGP Secretariat and the work group (Safety Committee, Sub-committee, Task Force or Network) responsible for the data set in accordance with the IOGP data collection and reporting procedure. Any communication with reporting companies is conducted by the IOGP Secretariat and any data validated by an IOGP workgroup is blind coded to preserve the anonymity of the reporting companies.
A self-assessment questionnaire is included within the data submission process to determine the alignment between the requested data and the company submissions. The information provided in this questionnaire is also used in the validation process. Data that appear to be incorrect and that cannot be confirmed by the submitting company as correct may be excluded from the data set at the discretion of the Secretariat.
The scope of data included within this report is detailed in Appendix A.
Data seriesOther IOGP data reports published annually include:
• Environmental performance indicators• Health performance indicators• Process safety event data• Motor vehicle crash data.
These are available from the IOGP website http://www.iogp.org/Our-library/
http://www.iogp.org/Our-library/
-
11Summary of 2015 results
1. Summary of 2015 results
Safety performance indicators – 2015 data summarizes the safety performance of contributing IOGP member companies for 2015.
The key performance indicators (KPI) used to benchmark safety performance are; number of fatalities, fatal accident and incident rates, total recordable injury rate and lost time injury frequency.
Third party fatalities are not included in this report.
1.1 GeneralThe safety performance of contributing IOGP member companies in 2015 is based on the analysis of 3,719 million work hours of data.
Submissions were made by 49 of the 57 operating company IOGP Members.
The data reported cover operations in 108 countries.
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
201520102005200019951990198502468101214161820
Num
ber o
f wor
k ho
urs
(mill
ions
)
FAR
(fata
litie
s pe
r 100
mill
ion
hour
s w
orke
d)
Company Contractor Fatal accident rate
Figure 4: Reported work hours and fatal accident rate (1985–2015)
DefinitionsFatal accident rate (FAR): The number of company/contractor fatalities per 100 million hours worked
Lost time injury frequency (LTIF): The number of lost time injuries (fatalities + lost work day cases) per million hours worked
Total recordable injury rate (TRIR): The number of recordable injuries (fatalities + lost work day cases + restricted work day cases + medical treatment cases) per million hours worked
-
12Safety performance indicators – 2015 data
1.2 FatalitiesAgainst the background of a 15% decrease in work hours reported, the number of fatalities has increased from 45 in 2014 to 54 in 2015. The 54 fatalities occurred in 40 separate incidents. The resulting fatal accident rate (1.45) is 41% higher than last year’s figure (1.03). The company and contractor FAR are 1.34 and 1.49 respectively. Onshore and offshore FAR are 1.19 and 2.21 respectively.
Each reported fatal incident is allocated a work activity and incident category. With regard to the incident category, the largest proportion of the fatalities reported in 2015 were categorized as ‘explosions or burns’ (18 fatalities in 7 separate incidents). Two of those incidents were in the activity ‘production operations’, two were in ‘Drilling, workover, well services’, two were in the activity ‘Maintenance, inspection, testing’ and one was in the ‘construction, commissioning, decommissioning’ activity. (20% of fatalities reported in 2014 were in the category ‘explosions or burns’.)
Fatalities categorized as ‘Caught between’ were the second greatest contributors to the fatality statistics with 11 fatalities in 11 separate incidents, accounting for 20% of the fatalities (16% in 2014).
Other 5.6%Water related 1.9%
Struck by 18.5%
Pressure release 9.3%
Falls 3.7%
Exposure N, C, B, V 1.9%
Exposure electrical 3.7%
Explosions/burns 33.3%
Caught between 20.4%
Assault 1.9%
Figure 5: Percentage of fatalities by incident category (2015)
-
13Summary of 2015 results
Table 1: Fatalities by category 2015
Category Number of fatalitiesAssault: Assault or violent act 1Caught between: Caught in, under or between 11Confined space: Confined space 0Cut: Cut, puncture, scrape 0Explosions/burns: Explosions or burns 18Exposure electrical: Exposure electrical 2Exposure N, C, B, V: Exposure noise, chemical, biological, vibration 1Falls: Falls from height 2Overexertion: Overexertion, strain 0Pressure release: Pressure release 5Slips/trips: Slips and trips (at same height) 0Struck by: Struck by 10Water related: Water related, drowning 1Other: Other 3
The activity with the highest number of fatalities reported by the IOGP member companies is ‘Production operations‘ (26%) with 14 fatalities as a result of 5 separate incidents. 12 fatalities (22%) were reported in 8 separate incidents in the ‘Drilling, workover, well services’ activity. 7 fatalities (13%) were reported in 7 separate incidents in the ‘Transport – Land’ activity.
Unspecified 5.6%
Transport – Water 1.9%
Transport – Land 13.0%
Seismic 3.7%
Production 25.9%
Office 1.9%
Maintenance 5.6%
Lifting 9.3%
Drilling 22.2%
Diving 3.7%
Construction 7.4%
Figure 6: Percentage of fatalities by incident activity (2015)
-
14Safety performance indicators – 2015 data
Table 2: Fatalities by incident activity (2015)
Activity Number of fatalitiesConstruction: Construction, commissioning, decommissioning 4Diving: Diving, subsea, ROV 2Drilling: Drilling, workover, well services 12Lifting: Lifting, crane, rigging, deck operations 5Maintenance: Maintenance, inspection, testing 3Office: Office, warehouse, accommodation, catering 1Production: Production operations 14Seismic: Seismic/survey operations 2Transport – Land: Transport – Land 7Transport – Water: Transport – Water, incl. marine activity 1Unspecified: Unspecified – other 3
The fatal accident rate for 2015 is 1.45, 41% higher than the 2014 rate (1.03). The company only FAR for 2015 is 1.34, more than double the rate for 2014.
0
1
2
3
4
5
2015201420132012201120102009200820072006Fat
al a
ccid
ent r
ate
(per
100
mill
ion
hour
s w
orke
d) Company Contractor Overall
Figure 7: Fatal accident rate by company & contractor (2006–2015)
-
15Summary of 2015 results
1.3 Total recordable injuriesThe rate for all recordable injuries (fatalities, lost work day cases, restricted work day cases and medical treatment cases) was 1.21 injuries per million hours worked (1.54 in 2014).
0
1
2
3
4
2015201420132012201120102009200820072006Tota
l rec
orda
ble
inju
ry ra
te (p
er m
illio
n ho
urs
wor
ked) Company Contractor Overall
Figure 8: Total recordable injury rate by company & contractor (2006–2015)
-
16Safety performance indicators – 2015 data
1.4 Lost time injuriesThe overall lost time injury frequency (LTIF) fell from 0.36 in 2014 to 0.29 in 2015. This represents a reduction of 19% compared with 2014 and 486 fewer lost time injuries.
Company LTIF shows an increase of 15% in 2015 compared with 2014. Contractor LTIF shows a reduction of 26%.
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2015201420132012201120102009200820072006
Lost
tim
e in
jury
freq
uenc
y (p
er m
illio
n ho
urs
wor
ked) Company Contractor Overall
Figure 9: Lost time injury frequency by company & contractor (2006–2015)
There were 1,032 reported injuries resulting in at least one day off work:• 777 incidents were contractor related, and • 255 were company related. • The greatest number of incidents was reported as ‘Caught in, under or
between’ (216 cases accounting for 20.9% of the total; 2014 results showed 342 cases, accounting for 22.5% of the total).
• ‘Struck by’ accounted for 193 cases, 18.7% of the total (353 cases, 23.3% of the total in 2014).
IOGP member companies reported 36,913 days of work lost through injuries.
-
17Summary of 2015 results
Other 6.8%
Water related 0.1%
Struck by 18.7%
Slips/trips 18.8%
Pressure release 1.2%
Overexertion 5.4%
Falls 9.4%
Exposure N, C, B, V 1.4%
Exposure electrical 1.2%
Explosions/burns 9.4%
Cut 5.7%
Confined space 0.9%
Caught between 20.9%
Assault 0.2%
Figure 10: Percentage of lost work day cases by incident category (2015)
Table 3: Lost work day cases by incident category (2015)
Category Number of LWDCAssault: Assault or violent act 2Caught between: Caught in, under or between 216Confined space: Confined space 9Cut: Cut, puncture, scrape 59Explosions/burns: Explosions or burns 97Exposure electrical: Exposure electrical 12Exposure N, C, B, V: Exposure noise, chemical, biological, vibration 14Falls: Falls from height 97Overexertion: Overexertion, strain 56Pressure release: Pressure release 12Slips/trips: Slips and trips (at same height) 194Struck by: Struck by 193Water related: Water related, drowning 1Other: Other 70
-
18Safety performance indicators – 2015 data
Unspecified 9.9%
Transport – Water 3.8%Transport – Land 3.9%Transport – Air 0.9%Seismic 0.6%
Production 22.9%
Office 5.9% Maintenance 17.2%
Lifting 6.0%
Drilling 18.7%
Diving 0.2%
Construction 10.1%
Figure 11: Percentage of lost work day cases by incident activity (2015)
Table 4: Lost work day cases by incident activity (2015)
Activity Number of LWDCConstruction: Construction, commissioning, decommissioning 104Diving: Diving, subsea, ROV 2Drilling: Drilling, workover, well services 193Lifting: Lifting, crane, rigging, deck operations 62Maintenance: Maintenance, inspection, testing 178Office: Office, warehouse, accommodation, catering 61Production: Production operations 236Seismic: Seismic/survey operations 6Transport – Air: Transport – Air 9Transport – Land: Transport – Land 40Transport – Water: Transport – Water, incl. marine activity 39Unspecified: Unspecified – other 102
-
192. Key performance indicators
2. Overall results
In this section the primary indicators used to measure contributing IOGP member companies’ safety performance are: the number and nature of fatalities, total recordable injury rate (TRIR), fatal accident rate (FAR), fatal incidents per 100 million work hours, and lost time injury frequency (LTIF).
Third party incidents are not included in this report.
2.1 Fatalities
Table 5: Number of fatalities (2014 & 2015)
Onshore Offshore Overall
2015 2014 2015 2014 2015 2014
Company 5 2 7 3 12 5
Contractor 28 28 14 12 42 40
Overall 33 30 21 15 54 45
2.1.1 Company/contractor fatalities• 54 company and contractor fatalities were reported in 2015. This is 9 more
than were reported in 2014 and 26 fewer than in 2013. • The 54 fatalities occurred in 40 separate incidents.
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
20152014201320122011201020092008200720060.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
Num
ber o
f fat
aliti
es
FAR
(fata
litie
s pe
r 100
mill
ion
hour
s w
orke
d)
115 103
87
8880
45
99 94
65
Fatal accident rate (FAR)Fatalities
54
Figure 12: Number of fatalities and fatal accident rate (2006–2015)
-
20Safety performance indicators – 2015 data
2.2 Fatal accident rate (FAR)
Table 6: Fatal accident rate (2014 & 2015)
Fatal accident rate (FAR)
2015 2014 2015 relative to 2014 FAR
Company 1.34 0.53 # 153% higher
Contractor 1.49 1.17 # 27% higher
Overall 1.45 1.03 # 41% higher
Onshore 1.19 0.96 # 25% higher
Offshore 2.21 1.22 # 81% higher
In 2015 there were 12 company fatalities (5 in 2014) as a result of 6 separate incidents.
In 2015 there were 42 contractor fatalities (40 in 2014) as a result of 34 separate incidents.
The offshore FAR for 2015 is 2.21, 81% higher than the 2014 rate.
The difference between the onshore and offshore FAR displays a large variation over the 10-year period shown. Neither is consistently lower. This is generally attributable to single transportation or fire and explosion incidents involving high numbers of fatalities.
For calculations of FAR, all hours in the database were used.
0
1
2
3
4
5
2015201420132012201120102009200820072006Fat
al a
ccid
ent r
ate
(per
100
mill
ion
hour
s w
orke
d) Company Contractor Overall
Figure 13: Fatal accident rate by company & contractor (2006–2015)
-
212. Key performance indicators
0
1
2
3
4
5
2015201420132012201120102009200820072006Fata
l acc
iden
t rat
e (p
er 1
00 m
illio
n ho
urs
wor
ked) Onshore Offshore Overall
Figure 14: Fatal accident rate by onshore & offshore operations (2006–2015)
Definitions
Fatal accident rate (FAR): The number of company/contractor fatalities per 100 million hours worked
-
22Safety performance indicators – 2015 data
2.3 Fatalities by incident category and activity
Table 7: Fatalities by incident category and activity (2015)
Activity
Incident category
Assa
ult o
r vio
lent
act
Caug
ht in
, und
er o
r bet
wee
n
Conf
ined
spa
ce
Cut,
punc
ture
, scr
ape
Expl
osio
ns o
r bur
ns
Expo
sure
ele
ctri
cal
Expo
sure
noi
se, c
hem
ical
, bio
logi
cal,
vibr
atio
n
Falls
from
hei
ght
Over
exer
tion,
str
ain
Pres
sure
rele
ase
Slip
s an
d tr
ips
(at s
ame
heig
ht)
Stru
ck b
y
Wat
er re
late
d, d
row
ning
Othe
r
Over
all
Construction, commissioning, decommissioning
0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 4
Diving, subsea, ROV 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2Drilling, workover, well services 0 1 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 12
Lifting, crane, rigging, deck operations 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 5
Maintenance, inspection, testing 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
Office, warehouse, accommodation, catering 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
Production operations 1 1 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 14Seismic / survey operation 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 2
Transport - Air 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Transport - Land 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 7Transport - Water, incl. marine activity 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
Unspecified - other 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3Overall 1 11 0 0 18 2 1 2 0 5 0 10 1 3 54
-
232. Key performance indicators
35 of the 40 fatal incidents involved one fatality.
4 of the 5 incidents that involved 2 or more fatalities were reported under the ‘Explosions or burns’ category. The remaining 4 fatalities were reported in a single incident under the ‘Pressure release’ category.
Explosions or burnsThe largest proportion of the fatalities reported in 2015 were the result of ‘Explosions or burns’ (18 fatalities, 33%) (20% in 2014):
• 6 contractors and 2 company employees lost their lives in 5 separate incidents in the ‘Production operations’ activity:
– 2 employees and 5 contractors died in an explosion and fire in the area of marine light crude dehydration.
– 1 contractor died in a welding accident.• 6 contractors died in 2 separate ‘Drilling, workover, well services’ incidents:
– 4 tanker crew died in an explosion when a road tanker reversing into the temporary crude loading bay ignited vapours from a storage tank.
– 2 workers died during a loss of well control event when wrong well sealing procedure was used that caused a spark and ignition.
• 3 contractors died in 2 separate ‘Maintenance, inspection, testing’ incidents: – 2 workers died when a rig tilted during the positioning of a jack up. – 1 worker died and 3 were injured when an explosion occurred inside a
temporary gas condensate vessel.• 1 contractor died as the result of an incident that occurred involving a fire at an
acid gas cooler during the removal of pipe and metal structures of a marine platform in the ‘Construction, commissioning, decommissioning’ activity.
Caught in, under or between11 fatalities, 20% of the total reported in 2015, were categorized as ‘Caught in, under or between’ (16% in 2014).
• 1 company employee and 3 contractors died in 4 separate land transport incidents, all of which involved a vehicle rollover.
• 3 contractors died in 3 separate ‘Lifting, crane, rigging, deck operations’ incidents:
– 1 worker was caught against a support pipe when a crane was turning. – 1 worker died after being trapped between a winch truck and the
tubular carrier structure it was removing. – 1 worker was trapped and fatally injured when a wave caused cargo on
the deck to move during severe weather conditions.
-
24Safety performance indicators – 2015 data
• 1 contractor died after becoming trapped between two pipelines during a diving operation.
• 1 company employee mechanic died in a ‘Drilling, workover, well services’ incident, after slipping and gripping a 350 kg BOP wheel for balance, which subsequently fell on him.
• 1 company employee died during ‘Production operations’ after becoming caught between the crank gear and the frame of a pump jack.
• 1 contractor died in an incident under the ‘Unspecified – other’ work activity, in which he was trapped by a rack containing oxyacetylene tanks when resting in a hammock placed between the rack and a storage tank of 1000 litres of water.
Struck by10 fatalities, 19% of the total reported in 2015, were categorized as ‘Struck by’ (33% in 2014).
• 5 contractors died in 5 separate incidents in the ‘Drilling, workover, well services’ activity:
– 1 worker died when he was struck by a winch approximately 100 kg falling from a height of 6 metres.
– 1 welder died during a casing cutting job when he was struck by an unbalanced BOP.
– 1 floor man was struck by a winch line that was under tension and was suddenly released when a lead sheave failed.
– 1 engineer died when he was struck on the head by the shackle and web sling of a forklift.
– 1 contractor died after being struck on the head when the bottom of a drill pipe stand as it swung free from the pipe racking system.
• 1 contractor died in a single ‘Lifting, crane, rigging, deck operations’ after a modular mobile crane base assembly failed during testing and caused the structure to collapse backward and hit the crane operator
• 1 contractor died in a single ‘Office, warehouse, accommodation, catering’ incident after the steel roller gate (1800 kg) for a fuel dump fell on him when the support bracket broke away.
• 2 contractors died in 2 separate land transport incidents.• 1 crew member died in a single ‘Transport – Water, incl. marine activity’
incident when he fell into the water between a boat and a barge with no life vest.
-
252. Key performance indicators
Pressure release5 fatalities, 9% of the total reported in 2015, were categorized as ‘Pressure release’ (33% in 2014).
• 4 contractors died and 1 was injured in a single incident in the ‘Production operations’ activity, during the repair work on an illegal connection on a Pipeline, when a sudden surge of crude oil and gas impacted personnel that were within the cofferdam.
• 1 contractor died when working on a flare header. A compressor injected air into a plug inserted into the pipe and it was ejected, striking the contractor's employee.
Other3 fatalities, 6% of the total reported in 2015, were categorized as ‘Other’ (2% in 2014).
• 1 company employee died in the activity ‘Diving, subsea, ROV’ after being found unconscious during TBOSIET training.
• 1 contractor died as the result of a land transport incident.• 1 contractor died when a freak wave crashed the cabin window in his living
quarters.
Exposure electrical2 fatalities, 4% of the total reported in 2015, were categorized as ‘Exposure electrical’ (7% in 2014) and both were in the ‘Construction, commissioning, decommissioning’ activity.
• 1 contractor electrician confused the line under construction without power with the working line under power, started working on it and was subsequently electrocuted.
• 1 contractor contacted live connectors and sustained a 6.6 kV electrical shock.
Falls from height2 fatalities, 4% of the total reported in 2015, were categorized as ‘Falls from height’ (11% in 2014).
• 1 contractor died after falling from a 195cm high trailer during the installation of a truck crane.
• 1 contractor died after falling 6 metres into a gorge during an assignment to recover the cable and geophones from a seismic shoot.
-
26Safety performance indicators – 2015 data
Assault or violent act1 fatality, 2% of the total reported in 2015, was categorized as ‘Assault or violent act’ (0 in 2014) in the activity ‘Production operations’. Unknown gun men opened fire on the security personnel at their sentry post.
Exposure noise, chemical, biological, vibration1 fatality, 2% of the total reported in 2015, was categorized as ‘Exposure noise, chemical, biological, vibration’ (0 in 2014). The worker died in the area of storage tanks battery separation.
Water related, drowning1 fatality, 2% of the total reported in 2015, was categorised as ‘Water related, drowning’ (7% in 2014). The incident was during geological reconnaissance work in the activity ‘Seismic/survey operations’. 1 contractor disappeared from the surface and died after a working group of 6 people fell into the water while crossing the river with an inflatable row boat.
There were no fatal incidents reported under the following categories:• Confined space• Cut, puncture, scrape• Overexertion• Slips, trips, falls (at same height).
-
272. Key performance indicators
Other 5.6%Water related 1.9%
Struck by 18.5%
Pressure release 9.3%
Falls 3.7%
Exposure N, C, B, V 1.9%
Exposure electrical 3.7%
Explosions/burns 33.3%
Caught between 20.4%
Assault 1.9%
Figure 15: Percentage of fatalities by incident category (2015)
Table 8: Fatalities by incident category (2015)
Category Number of fatalities
Assault: Assault or violent act 1
Caught between: Caught in, under or between 11Confined space: Confined space 0Cut: Cut, puncture, scrape 0Explosions/burns: Explosions or burns 18Exposure electrical: Exposure electrical 2Exposure N, C, B, V: Exposure noise, chemical, biological, vibration 1Falls: Falls from height 2Overexertion: Overexertion, strain 0Pressure release: Pressure release 5Slips/trips: Slips and trips (at same height) 0Struck by: Struck by 10Water related: Water related, drowning 1Other: Other 3
-
28Safety performance indicators – 2015 data
Unspecified 5.6%
Transport – Water 1.9%
Transport – Land 13.0%
Seismic 3.7%
Production 25.9%
Office 1.9%
Maintenance 5.6%
Lifting 9.3%
Drilling 22.2%
Diving 3.7%
Construction 7.4%
Figure 16: Percentage of fatalities by incident activity (2015)
Table 9: Fatalities by incident activity (2015)
Activity Number of fatalities
Construction: Construction, commissioning, decommissioning 4Diving: Diving, subsea, ROV 2Drilling: Drilling, workover, well services 12Lifting: Lifting, crane, rigging, deck operations 5Maintenance: Maintenance, inspection, testing 3Office: Office, warehouse, accommodation, catering 1Production: Production operations 14Seismic: Seismic/survey operations 2Transport – Air: Transport – Air 0Transport – Land: Transport – Land 7Transport – Water: Transport – Water, incl. marine activity 1Unspecified: Unspecified – other 3
-
292. Key performance indicators
2.4 Number of fatal incidents per 100 million work hours
Table 10: Fatal incidents per 100 million work hours (2014 & 2015)
Fatal incidents per 100 million work hours
2015 2014 2015 relative to 2014 FIR
Company 0.67 0.32 # 109% higher
Contractor 1.20 1.14 # 5% higher
Overall 1.08 0.96 # 13% higher
Onshore 0.94 0.92 # 2% higher
Offshore 1.47 1.06 # 39% higher
The number of fatal incidents per 100 million work hours is a measure of the frequency with which fatal incidents occur, in contrast to the FAR which measures the frequency of fatalities. Accordingly, for company and contractor fatalities, the number of fatal incidents per 100 million work hours will be less than or equal to the FAR. Comparison of FAR and number of fatal incidents per 100 million work hours gives an indication of the magnitude of the incidents in terms of lives lost.
• Overall the number of fatal incidents per 100 million work hours has increased by 13% compared with last year (40 fatal incidents in 2015, 42 fatal incidents in 2014).
For calculations of fatal incidents per 100 million work hours, all hours in the database were used.
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
2015201420132012201120102009200820072006
Num
ber o
f fat
aliti
es a
nd fa
tal i
ncid
ents
54
40
82
6758
115103 103
87
73
8880
4543 4250 52
99 94
65
Fatalities Fatal incidents
Figure 17: Number of fatalities and fatal incidents (2006–2015)
-
30Safety performance indicators – 2015 data
0
1
2
3
4
5
2015201420132012201120102009200820072006
Fata
l inc
iden
ts p
er 1
00 m
illio
n ho
urs
wor
ked
Company Contractor Overall
Figure 18: Fatal incidents per 100 million hours by company & contractor (2006–2015)
0
1
2
3
4
5
2015201420132012201120102009200820072006
Fata
l inc
iden
ts p
er 1
00 m
illio
n ho
urs
wor
ked
Onshore Offshore Overall
Figure 19: Fatal incidents per 100 million hours by onshore & offshore (2006–2015)
Definitions
Fatal incidents per 100 million work hoursThe number of incidents that result in one or more fatalities per 100 million hours
-
312. Key performance indicators
2.5 Total recordable injury rate (TRIR)
Table 11: Total recordable injury rate (2014 & 2015)
Total recordable incident rate (TRIR)
2015 2014 2015 relative to 2014 TRIR
Company 0.89 0.90 $ 1% lower
Contractor 1.30 1.70 $ 24% lower
Overall 1.21 1.54 $ 21% lower
Onshore 1.08 1.33 $ 19% lower
Offshore 1.65 2.16 $ 24% lower
Submissions without information on medical treatment cases were filtered out, leaving a dataset of 3,317 million hours, 89% of the database (see Appendix A).
An overall reduction in TRIR of 21% is seen in 2015.
Definitions
Total recordable injury rate (TRIR)The number of recordable injuries (fatalities + lost work day cases + restricted work day cases + medical treatment cases) per million hours worked
-
32Safety performance indicators – 2015 data
0
1
2
3
4
2015201420132012201120102009200820072006
Tota
l rec
orda
ble
inju
ry ra
te (p
er m
illio
n ho
urs
wor
ked)
Company Contractor Overall
Figure 20: Total recordable injury rate by company & contractor (2006–2015)
0
1
2
3
4
2015201420132012201120102009200820072006
Tota
l rec
orda
ble
inju
ry ra
te (p
er m
illio
n ho
urs
wor
ked)
Onshore Offshore Overall
Figure 21: Total recordable injury rate by onshore & offshore (2006–2015)
-
33Summary of 2015 results
2.6 Lost time injury frequency (LTIF)
Table 12: Lost time injury frequency (2014 & 2015)
Lost time injury frequency (LTIF)
2015 2014 2015 relative to 2014 LTIF
Company 0.30 0.26 # 15% higher
Contractor 0.29 0.39 $ 26% lower
Overall 0.29 0.36 $ 19% lower
Onshore 0.23 0.29 $ 21% lower
Offshore 0.47 0.52 $ 10% lower
There were 1,032 reported lost work day cases resulting in at least one day off work, which equates to an average of 29 injuries resulting in at least one day off work every week of the year or 4 injuries every day of the year.
For calculations of LTIF, all hours in the database were used.
The onshore and offshore LTIF both also show a reduction compared with 2014 (21% and 10% respectively).
Although the absolute number of LWDCs has reduced (1,518 in 2014), the time away from work has increased in all activities compared with 2014. See section 2.8 for further information on Lost Work Day Case severity.
Definitions
Lost time injury frequency (LTIF)The number of lost time injuries (fatalities + lost work day cases) per million hours worked
-
34Safety performance indicators – 2015 data
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2015201420132012201120102009200820072006
Lost
tim
e in
jury
freq
uenc
y (p
er m
illio
n ho
urs
wor
ked) Company Contractor Overall
Figure 22: Lost time injury frequency by company & contractor (2006–2015)
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2015201420132012201120102009200820072006
Lost
tim
e in
jury
freq
uenc
y (p
er m
illio
n ho
urs
wor
ked) Onshore Offshore Overall
Figure 23: Lost time injury frequency by onshore & offshore (2006–2015)
-
35Summary of 2015 results
2.7 Lost work day case categories and activities
Table 13: Lost work day cases by category (2015)
Category Number % of totalAssault: Assault or violent act 2 0.2Caught between: Caught in, under or between 216 20.9Confined space: Confined space 9 0.9Cut: Cut, puncture, scrape 59 5.7Explosions/burns: Explosions or burns 97 9.4Exposure electrical: Exposure electrical 12 1.2Exposure N, C, B, V: Exposure noise, chemical, biological, vibration 14 1.4
Falls: Falls from height 97 9.4Overexertion: Overexertion, strain 56 5.4Pressure release: Pressure release 12 1.2Slips/trips: Slips and trips (at same height) 194 18.8Struck by: Struck by 193 18.7Water related: Water related, drowning 1 0.1Other: Other 70 6.8Overall 1,032
Other 6.8%
Water related 0.1%
Struck by 18.7%
Slips/trips 18.8%
Pressure release 1.2%
Overexertion 5.4%
Falls 9.4%
Exposure N, C, B, V 1.4%
Exposure electrical 1.2%
Explosions/burns 9.4%
Cut 5.7%
Confined space 0.9%
Caught between 20.9%
Assault 0.2%
Figure 24: Percentage of lost work day cases by category (2015)
-
36Safety performance indicators – 2015 data
Of the 1,032 reported lost work day cases resulting in at least one day off work, 777 incidents (75%) were contractor-related and 255 (25%) were company-related (1,277 and 241 respectively for 2014). The lost work day case category was provided for all of the Lost Work Day Cases reported, although 6.8% of the cases were categorized as ‘Other’.
The pie chart shows the percentage of LWDCs within each of the reporting categories for 2015.
• The greatest number of incidents was reported as ‘Caught in, under or between’ (216 cases accounting for 20.9% of LWDCs), (2014 results showed 342 cases accounting for 22.5%).
• ‘Slips and trips (at same height)’ accounted for 194 cases, 18.8% of the total (276 cases, 18.2% of the total in 2014).
• ‘Struck by’ accounted for 193 of the cases, 18.7% of the total (353 cases, 23.3% of the total in 2014).
• In comparison with 2014, the 2015 results were very similar.
Definitions
Lost work day case (LWDC)An incident resulting in at least one day off work. Fatal incidents are not included.
-
372. Key performance indicators
Table 14: Lost work day cases by category – company & contractor data (2015)
Category Company ContractorAssault: Assault or violent act 0 2Caught between: Caught in, under or between 38 178Confined space: Confined space 0 9Cut: Cut, puncture, scrape 9 50Explosions/burns: Explosions or burns 23 74Exposure electrical: Exposure electrical 1 11Exposure N, C, B, V: Exposure noise, chemical, biological, vibration 2 12
Falls: Falls from height 22 75Overexertion: Overexertion, strain 18 38Pressure release: Pressure release 1 11Slips/trips: Slips and trips (at same height) 71 123Struck by: Struck by 49 144Water related: Water related, drowning 1 0Other: Other 20 50Overall 255 777
Other 7.8%
Cut 3.5%
Water related 0.4%
Struck by 19.2%
Slips/trips 27.8%
Pressure release 0.4%
Overexertion 7.1%Falls 8.6%
Exposure electrical 0.4%Exposure NCBV 0.8%
Explosions/burns 9.0%
Caught between 14.9%
Figure 25: Lost work day cases by category – company data (2015)
-
38Safety performance indicators – 2015 data
Assault 0.3%Other 6.4%
Cut 6.4%
Struck by 18.5%
Slips/trips 15.8%
Pressure release 1.4%
Overexertion 4.9% Falls 9.7%
Exposure electrical 1.4%Exposure NCBV 1.5%
Explosions/burns 9.5%
Confined space 1.2%
Caught between 22.9%
Figure 26: Lost work day cases by category – contractor data (2015)
Table 15: Lost work day cases by category – onshore & offshore (2015)
Category Onshore OffshoreAssault: Assault or violent act 2 0Caught between: Caught in, under or between 112 104Confined space: Confined space 9 0Cut: Cut, puncture, scrape 36 23Explosions/burns: Explosions or burns 29 68Exposure electrical 5 7Exposure N, C, B, V: Exposure noise, chemical, biological, vibration 10 4
Falls: Falls from height 53 44Overexertion: Overexertion, strain 33 23Pressure release: Pressure release 10 2Slips/trips: Slips and trips (at same height) 136 58Struck by: Struck by 121 72Water related: Water related, drowning 1 0Other: Other 49 21Overall 606 426
Of the 1,032 reported lost work day cases resulting in at least one day off work, 606 incidents (59%) were related to onshore activity and 426 (41%) were related to offshore activity (892 and 626 respectively for 2014).
-
392. Key performance indicators
Assault 0.3%Other 8.1%
Cut 5.9%
Struck by 20.0%
Slips/trips 22.4%
Pressure release 1.7% Overexertion 5.4%
Falls 8.7%
Exposure electrical 0.8%Exposure NCBV 1.7%
Explosions/burns 4.8%
Confined space 1.5%
Caught between 18.5%
Figure 27: Lost work day cases by category – onshore operations (2015)
Other 4.9%
Cut 5.4%
Struck by 16.9%
Slips/trips 13.6%
Pressure release 0.5%
Overexertion 5.4%
Falls 10.3%
Exposure electrical 1.6%
Exposure NCBV 0.9%
Explosions/burns 16.0%
Caught between 24.4%
Figure 28: Lost work day cases by category – offshore operations (2015)
-
40Safety performance indicators – 2015 data
Table 16: Lost work day cases by activity (2015)
Activity Number % of totalConstruction: Construction, commissioning, decommissioning 104 10.1Diving: Diving, subsea, ROV 2 0.2Drilling: Drilling, workover, well services 193 18.7Lifting: Lifting, crane, rigging, deck operations 62 6Maintenance: Maintenance, inspection, testing 178 17.2Office: Office, warehouse, accommodation, catering 61 5.9Production: Production operations 236 22.9Seismic: Seismic/survey operations 6 0.6Transport – Air: Transport – Air 9 0.9Transport – Land: Transport – Land 40 3.9Transport – Water incl. marine activity 39 3.8Unspecified: Unspecified other 102 9.9Overall 1,032
Lost work day case activities were reported for all of the 1,032 Lost Work Day Cases reported.
Unspecified 9.9%
Transport – Water 3.8%Transport – Land 3.9%Transport – Air 0.9%Seismic 0.6%
Production 22.9%
Maintenance 17.2%
Lifting 6.0%
Office 5.9%
Drilling 18.7%
Construction 10.1%
Diving 0.2%
Figure 29: Lost work day cases by activity
-
412. Key performance indicators
Table 17: Lost work day cases by activity – company & contractor (2015)
Activity Company ContractorConstruction: Construction, commissioning, decommissioning 4 100Diving: Diving, subsea, ROV 0 2Drilling: Drilling, workover, well services 22 171Lifting: Lifting, crane, rigging, deck operations 5 57Maintenance: Maintenance, inspection, testing 51 127Office: Office, warehouse, accommodation, catering 29 32Production: Production operations 81 155Seismic: Seismic/survey operations 0 6Transport – Air: Transport – Air 5 4Transport – Land: Transport – Land 17 23Transport – Water incl. marine activity 3 36Unspecified: Unspecified other 38 64Overall 255 777
Construction 1.6%Unspecified 14.9%
Transport – Water 1.2%
Transport – Land 6.7%
Transport – Air 2.0%
Production 31.8%
Maintenance 20.0%
Office 11.4%
Lifting 2.0%
Drilling 8.6%
Figure 30: Lost work day cases by activity – company (2015)
-
42Safety performance indicators – 2015 data
Construction 12.9%
Drilling 22.0%
Unspecified 8.2%
Transport – Water 4.6%
Transport – Land 3.0%Transport – Air 0.5%Seismic 0.8%
Production 19.9%
Maintenance 16.3%
Office 4.1%Lifting 7.3%
Diving 0.3%
Figure 31: Lost work day cases by activity – contractor (2015)
Table 18: Lost work day cases by activity – onshore & offshore (2015)
Activity Onshore OffshoreConstruction: Construction, commissioning, decommissioning 83 21Diving: Diving, subsea, ROV 0 2Drilling: Drilling, workover, well services 116 77Lifting: Lifting, crane, rigging, deck operations 30 32Maintenance: Maintenance, inspection, testing 83 95Office: Office, warehouse, accommodation, catering 48 13Production: Production operations 114 122Seismic: Seismic/survey operations 4 2Transport – Air: Transport – Air 4 5Transport – Land: Transport – Land 38 2Transport – Water incl. marine activity 8 31Unspecified: Unspecified other 78 24Overall 606 426
-
432. Key performance indicators
Construction 13.7%
Drilling 19.1%
Unspecified 12.9%
Transport – Water 1.3%
Transport – Land 6.3%
Transport – Air 0.7%
Seismic 0.7%
Production 18.8%
Maintenance 13.7%Office 7.9%
Lifting 5.0%
Figure 32: Lost work day cases by activity – onshore (2015)
Construction 4.9%
Drilling 18.1%
Unspecified 5.6%
Transport – Water 7.3%
Transport – Land 0.5%Transport – Air 1.2%Seismic 0.5%
Production 28.6%
Maintenance 22.3%Office 3.1%
Lifting 7.5%
Diving 0.5%
Figure 33: Lost work day cases by activity – offshore (2015)
-
44Safety performance indicators – 2015 data
2.8 Severity of lost work day cases
Table 19: Severity of lost work day cases (2015 compared with 2010–2014)
Severity of LWDC (Average days lost per LWDC)
2015 2014 2015 relative to 2014 LTIF
2015 relative to 2010-2014 LTIF
Company 53.7 51.6 # 4% higher # 29% higher
Contractor 54.1 40.3 # 34% higher # 27% higher
Overall 54.0 42.2 # 28% higher # 27% higher
Onshore 45.2 39.9 # 13% higher # 18% higher
Offshore 66.4 45.5 # 46% higher # 38% higher
IOGP member companies reported a total of 36,913 days lost (LWDC days) through injuries.
• The number of days lost was reported for 73% of the database (see Appendix A and Appendix C).
• The offshore LWDC severity is 47% higher than onshore.
Definitions
Severity of lost work day casesThe number of days lost (where reported) for each lost work day case (LWDC)
-
452. Key performance indicators
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2015201420132012201120102009200820072006
Aver
age
days
lost
per
LW
DC
Company Contractor Overall
Figure 34: Severity of LWDC by company & contractor (2006–2015)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2015201420132012201120102009200820072006
Aver
age
days
lost
per
LW
DC
Onshore Offshore Overall
Figure 35: Severity of LWDC by onshore & offshore (2006–2015)
-
46Safety performance indicators – 2015 data
The figure below show the average number of days lost per LWDC in 2015 compared with the average for the previous five-year period. A 27% increase is shown in overall LWDC severity when compared with the previous five-year period.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
OffshoreOnshoreOverallContractorCompany
Aver
age
days
of l
ost w
ork
per L
WDC
2015 2010–2014
Figure 36: Severity of lost work day cases (2015 compared with 2010–2014)
-
472. Key performance indicators
2.9 Severity of restricted work day cases
Table 20: Severity of restricted work day cases (2015 compared with 2010–2014)
Severity of RWDC (Average days lost per RWDC)
2015 2014 2015 relative to 2014 LTIF
2015 relative to 2010-2014 LTIF
Company 22.4 14.6 # 5% higher # 53% higher
Contractor 18.7 11.6 # 61% higher # 53% higher
Overall 19.1 11.8 # 62% higher # 54% higher
Onshore 18.2 12.2 # 49% higher # 42% higher
Offshore 21.0 11.2 # 87% higher # 76% higher
A total of 12,846 days were restricted (RWDC days) as a result of restricted work day cases, in the sense that normal duties could not be performed. This compares with 36,913 days lost (LWDC days) on a 43% larger dataset (see Appendix A and Appendix C).
Definitions
Severity of restricted work day casesThe number of days of restricted work per restricted work day case (RWDC).
Restricted work day cases are not reported by all companies and RWDC days are not reported by all companies that report RWDC. See Appendix A.
-
48Safety performance indicators – 2015 data
0
5
10
15
20
25
2015201420132012201120102009200820072006
Aver
age
days
lost
per
RW
DC
Company Contractor Overall
Figure 37: Severity of restricted work day cases by company & contractor (2006–2015)
0
5
10
15
20
25
2015201420132012201120102009200820072006
Aver
age
days
lost
per
RW
DC
Onshore Offshore Overall
Figure 38: Severity of restricted work day cases by onshore & offshore (2006–2015)
-
492. Key performance indicators
The figure below shows the average number of days lost per RWDC in 2014 compared with the average for the previous five-year period. The overall average shows a reduction of 54% compared with the average for the previous five-year period.
0
5
10
15
20
25
OffshoreOnshoreOverallContractorCompany
Aver
age
days
of l
ost w
ork
per R
WDC
2015 2010–2014
Figure 39: Severity of restricted work day cases (2015 compared with 2010–2014)
-
50Safety performance indicators – 2015 data
2.10 Incident trianglesIn this section the relative numbers of types of occupational injury are shown in the form of ‘incident triangles’. The ratios have been corrected to account for the absence, in some data submissions, of medical treatment cases.
Table 21: Ratio of lost time injuries and recordable injuries to fatalities
Year Ratio of lost time injuries to fatalities
Ratio of total recordable injuries to fatalities
2015 20:1 74:1
2014 35:1 134:1
2013 21:1 73:1
2012 20:1 72:1
2011 22:1 93:1
2010 15:1 60:1
DefinitionsLost time injuries: Lost work day cases and fatalities
Recordable injuries: Fatalities, lost work day cases, restricted work day cases and medical treatment cases where medical treatment cases are reported for the data set
Ratio of lost time injuries to fatalities: The number of lost time injuries divided by the total number of fatalities (lost time injuries/fatalities)
Ratio of total recordable injuries to fatalities The number of recordable injuries divided by the total number of fatalities (recordable injuries/fatalities)
-
512. Key performance indicators
Fatality
Lost time injuries
Recordable injuries
Company ContractorOverall
1
20
74 54 80
22 19
1 1
Figure 40: Incident triangles by company & contractor (2015)
Fatality
Lost time injuries
Recordable injuries
Company ContractorOverall
1
35
134 140 133
49 32
1 1
Figure 41: Incident triangles by company & contractor (2014)
The varying ratio of fatalities to lost time injuries to recordable injuries for 2014–2015 challenges the traditional notion of recordable injuries and lost time injuries overall as a precursor to fatalities as shown in the incident triangles. In some incident categories however such as 'confined space, 'assault or violent act' and 'water related, drowning', the ratio will be higher as shown in Tables 22 and 23.
-
52Safety performance indicators – 2015 data
Table 22: Ratio of fatalities to lost time injuries by category (2015)
Category LTIs (fatalities + LWDCs)
Fatalities Ratio LTI: Fatality
Assault or violent act 3 1 3:1Caught in, under or between 227 11 21:1Confined space 9 0 n/aCut, puncture, scrape 59 0 n/aExplosions or burns 115 18 6:1Exposure electrical 14 2 7:1Exposure noise, chemical, biological, vibration 15 1 15:1
Falls from height 99 2 50:1Overexertion, strain 56 0 n/aPressure release 17 5 3:1Slips and trips (at same height) 194 0 n/aStruck by 203 10 20:1Water related, drowning 2 1 2:1Other 73 3 24:1
Table 23: Ratio of fatalities to lost time injuries by activity (2015)
Activity LTIs (fatalities + LWDCs)
Fatalities Ratio LTI: Fatality
Construction, commissioning, decommissioning 108 4 27:1
Diving, subsea, ROV 4 2 2:1Drilling, workover, well services 205 12 17:1Lifting, crane, rigging, deck operations 67 5 13:1
Maintenance, inspection, testing 181 3 60:1Office, warehouse, accommodation, catering 62 1 62:1
Production operations 250 14 18:1Seismic/survey operations 8 2 4:1Transport – Air 9 0 n/aTransport – Land 47 7 7:1Transport – Water, incl. marine activity 40 1 40:1
Unspecified – other 105 3 35:1
-
532. Key performance indicators
2.11 Causal factorsThe allocation of ‘causal factors’ to fatal incidents and high potential events was requested as part of the 2015 data submission. This request was first made in 2010, therefore a comparison of six years of data is possible.
To standardize the response an IOGP list of causal factors and a glossary was provided to the member companies as part of the IOGP user guide. The causal factors list is divided into two sections:
• People (Acts) classifications usually involve either the actions of a person or actions which were required but not carried out or were incorrectly performed. There are four major categories of actions, with an additional level of detail under each of the major categories.
• Process (Conditions) classifications usually involve some type of physical hazard or organizational aspect out of the control of the individual. There are five major classification categories, with an additional level of detail under each of the major categories.
2.11.1 Fatal incident causal factorsCausal factors are divided into two separate groups, People (Acts) and Process (Conditions), see Report 2015su Safety data reporting users' guide – 2015 data and Glossary for details.
• 29 of the 40 fatal incidents reported were assigned causal factors (33 of 42 in 2014)
• 150 causal factors were assigned for the 40 fatal incidents• Between 1 and 15 causal factors were assigned per incident (between 1 and
13 in 2014).
Table 24: Causal factors assigned to fatal incidents (2014 & 2015)
Causal factor group 2015 2014
PEOPLE (ACTS) 63 75
PROCESS (CONDITIONS) 87 101
-
54Safety performance indicators – 2015 data
The causal factors assigned to fatal incidents are shown in Table 25. The highlighted content indicates the top ten causal factors assigned to fatal incidents in 2015 compared with the previous five years. Seven of the top ten were the same for all five years.
Additional information on the fatal incidents reported by region can be found on the IOGP Safety Zone website: http://safetyzone.iogp.org. The information provided includes a narrative description of the incident, the corrective actions and recommendations and the causal factors assigned by the reporting company.
-
552. Key performance indicators
Table 25: Causal factors assigned to fatal incidents (2010–2015)
Causal factors 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010
PROCESS (CONDITIONS): Organizational: Inadequate training/competence 11 16 21 13 10 13PROCESS (CONDITIONS): Organizational: Inadequate hazard identification or risk assessment 11 18 13 17 15 30PEOPLE (ACTS): Inattention/Lack of Awareness: Improper decision making or lack of judgment 10 13 16 11 16 14PEOPLE (ACTS): Following Procedures: Violation unintentional (by individual or group) 9 9 11 13 9 12PROCESS (CONDITIONS): Organizational: Inadequate supervision 9 13 14 16 18 18PROCESS (CONDITIONS): Organizational: Inadequate work standards/procedures 8 18 15 15 8 10PROCESS (CONDITIONS): Tools, Equipment, Materials & Products: Inadequate design/specification/management of change
7 4 4 7 5 10
PROCESS (CONDITIONS): Organizational: Inadequate communication 6 6 8 6 9 12PEOPLE (ACTS): Following Procedures: Improper position (in the line of fire) 6 14 12 13 9 16PEOPLE (ACTS): Use of Protective Methods: Personal Protective Equipment not used or used improperly 6 8 7 4 6 1PEOPLE (ACTS): Use of Protective Methods: Failure to warn of hazard 5 4 6 4 8 7PROCESS (CONDITIONS): Tools, Equipment, Materials & Products: Inadequate/defective tools/equipment/materials/products
5 9 7 5 4
PROCESS (CONDITIONS): Protective Systems: Inadequate/defective Personal Protective Equipment 5 4 5 5PROCESS (CONDITIONS): Protective Systems: Inadequate/defective warning systems/safety devices 4 5 5 5 6 5PROCESS (CONDITIONS): Work Place Hazards: Inadequate surfaces, floors, walkways or roads 4 1 3 4 7 1PROCESS (CONDITIONS): Protective Systems: Inadequate/defective guards or protective barriers 4 6 10 6 11 7PEOPLE (ACTS): Use of Tools, Equipment, Materials and Products: Improper use/position of tools/equipment/materials/products
4 6 10 7 6 9
PEOPLE (ACTS): Following Procedures: Violation intentional (by individual or group) 4 5 2 4 4 12PEOPLE (ACTS): Inattention/Lack of Awareness: Lack of attention/distracted by other concerns/stress 4 3 4 5 7 5PEOPLE (ACTS): Use of Protective Methods: Equipment or materials not secured 3 3 8 4 4 6PEOPLE (ACTS): Use of Tools, Equipment, Materials and Products: Servicing of energized equipment/inadequate energy isolation
3 4 3 3 3
PEOPLE (ACTS): Following Procedures: Work or motion at improper speed 3 1 2 1 2PROCESS (CONDITIONS): Protective Systems: Inadequate security provisions or systems 3 3 1 4 2 2PROCESS (CONDITIONS): Tools, Equipment, Materials & Products: Inadequate maintenance/inspection/testing
3 5 9 5 6 4
PROCESS (CONDITIONS): Work Place Hazards: Congestion, clutter or restricted motion 3 4 4 2PROCESS (CONDITIONS): Organizational: Poor leadership/organizational culture 2 3 6 4 4 9PEOPLE (ACTS): Following Procedures: Improper lifting or loading 2 1 4 7 2 8PEOPLE (ACTS): Use of Protective Methods: Inadequate use of safety systems 2 2 7 9 4 5PEOPLE (ACTS): Inattention/Lack of Awareness: Fatigue 2 1 1PROCESS (CONDITIONS): Work Place Hazards: Hazardous atmosphere (explosive/toxic/asphyxiant) 1 2 2 1 1PROCESS (CONDITIONS): Work Place Hazards: Storms or acts of nature 1 2 5 2PROCESS (CONDITIONS): Organizational: Failure to report/learn from events 3 1 1 3PEOPLE (ACTS): Use of Protective Methods: Disabled or removed guards, warning systems or safety devices
2 2 3 2 2
PEOPLE (ACTS): Inattention/Lack of Awareness: Acts of violence 2 1 6PEOPLE (ACTS): Inattention/Lack of Awareness: Use of drugs or alcohol 1PEOPLE (ACTS): Following Procedures: Overexertion or improper position/posture for task 1 3
Causal factors are listed in order of frequency for 2015. The top 10 causal factors assigned to fatal incidents for each year are highlighted in yellow.
2014: three causal factors were equal 9th with six assigned incidents (11 factors are highlighted)2013: two causal factors were equal 10th with nine assigned incidents (11 factors are highlighted)2012: four causal factors were equal 9th with seven assigned incidents (12 factors are highlighted)
-
56Safety performance indicators – 2015 data
2.11.2 High potential event causal factors
• 98 of the 120 high potential events were assigned causal factors (86 of 141 in 2014)• 383 causal factors were assigned for the 120 high potential events (336 in 2014)• Between 1 and 16 causal factors were assigned per event (between 1 and 12 in 2014)
Table 26: Causal factors assigned to high potential events (2015 & 2014)
Causal factors assigned to high potential events 2015 2014
PEOPLE (ACTS) 130 119
PROCESS (CONDITIONS) 253 217
The causal factors assigned to high potential events are shown in Table 27. The highlighted content indicates the top ten causal factors assigned to high potential events in 2015 compared with the previous four years. Six of the top ten were the same for all five years.
Additional information on the high potential events reported by region can be found on the IOGP Safety Zone website: http://safetyzone.iogp.org. The information provided includes a narrative description of the event, the corrective actions and recommendations and the causal factors assigned by the reporting company.
-
572. Key performance indicators
Table 27: Causal factors assigned to high potential events (2010–2015)
Causal factors 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010
PROCESS (CONDITIONS): Organizational: Inadequate hazard identification or risk assessment 45 28 35 61 24 47PROCESS (CONDITIONS): Organizational: Inadequate training/competence 28 17 29 36 15 22PROCESS (CONDITIONS): Tools, Equipment, Materials & Products: Inadequate maintenance/inspection/testing
27 26 29 37 12 21
PROCESS (CONDITIONS): Organizational: Inadequate work standards/procedures 26 35 44 54 20 37PEOPLE (ACTS): Inattention/Lack of Awareness: Improper decision making or lack of judgment 22 21 24 38 21 23PROCESS (CONDITIONS): Organizational: Inadequate supervision 21 21 24 44 18 31PROCESS (CONDITIONS): Tools, Equipment, Materials & Products: Inadequate design/specification/management of change
21 23 29 16 18 13
PROCESS (CONDITIONS): Organizational: Inadequate communication 18 22 26 36 15 19PEOPLE (ACTS): Following Procedures: Violation unintentional (by individual or group) 17 17 11 23 15 27PEOPLE (ACTS): Use of Tools, Equipment, Materials and Products: Improper use/position of tools/equipment/materials/products
14 16 22 21 17 9
PROCESS (CONDITIONS): Tools, Equipment, Materials & Products: Inadequate/defective tools/equipment/materials/products
14 14 28 27 13 16
PEOPLE (ACTS): Following Procedures: Violation intentional (by individual or group) 13 10 9 7 6 9PROCESS (CONDITIONS): Protective Systems: Inadequate/defective guards or protective barriers 12 8 21 22 9 10PROCESS (CONDITIONS): Protective Systems: Inadequate/defective warning systems/safety devices 12 5 14 8 15 13PEOPLE (ACTS): Use of Protective Methods: Inadequate use of safety systems 10 5 9 19 12 2PEOPLE (ACTS): Following Procedures: Improper position (in the line of fire) 9 4 8 13 3 9PROCESS (CONDITIONS): Organizational: Poor leadership/organizational culture 9 4 9 10 9 15PEOPLE (ACTS): Use of Tools, Equipment, Materials and Products: Servicing of energized equipment/inadequate energy isolation
7 2 3 5 3 6
PEOPLE (ACTS): Use of Protective Methods: Failure to warn of hazard 7 6 12 31 13 9PEOPLE (ACTS): Use of Protective Methods: Personal Protective Equipment not used or used improperly
7 5 4 8 3 6
PEOPLE (ACTS): Use of Protective Methods: Equipment or materials not secured 7 13 9 15 9 3PEOPLE (ACTS): Inattention/Lack of Awareness: Lack of attention/distracted by other concerns/stress 7 6 11 21 8 15PROCESS (CONDITIONS): Organizational: Failure to report/learn from events 6 5 4 3 2 4PROCESS (CONDITIONS): Work Place Hazards: Hazardous atmosphere (explosive/toxic/asphyxiant) 5 4 3 6 5 6PEOPLE (ACTS): Following Procedures: Improper lifting or loading 4 4 5 11 9 5PROCESS (CONDITIONS): Protective Systems: Inadequate security provisions or systems 3 2 4 3 1PROCESS (CONDITIONS): Work Place Hazards: Congestion, clutter or restricted motion 2 4 5 3 3PROCESS (CONDITIONS): Work Place Hazards: Storms or acts of nature 2 2 3 2 2PEOPLE (ACTS): Inattention/Lack of Awareness: Fatigue 2 1 1 1 4 4PROCESS (CONDITIONS): Work Place Hazards: Inadequate surfaces, floors, walkways or roads 1 3 2 5 2 5PROCESS (CONDITIONS): Protective Systems: Inadequate/defective Personal Protective Equipment 1 4 2 1 3PEOPLE (ACTS): Following Procedures: Overexertion or improper position/posture for task 1 2 2 1 1 3PEOPLE (ACTS): Following Procedures: Work or motion at improper speed 1 4 2 5 3 3PEOPLE (ACTS): Inattention/Lack of Awareness: Acts of violence 1 2 1PEOPLE (ACTS): Use of Protective Methods: Disabled or removed guards, warning systems or safety devices
1 3 2 4 3 1
Causal factors are listed in order of frequency for 2015. The top 10 causal factors assigned to high potential events for each year are highlighted in yellow.
2015: two causal factors were equal 10th with 14 assigned incidents (12 factors are highlighted)2010: two causal factors were equal 10th with 15 assigned incidents (11 factors are highlighted)
-
58Safety performance indicators – 2015 data
The following eight causal factors were common to the top ten for both fatal incidents and high potential events in 2015.
• PROCESS (CONDITIONS): Organizational: Inadequate training/competence• PROCESS (CONDITIONS): Organizational: Inadequate hazard identification or
risk assessment • PEOPLE (ACTS): Inattention/Lack of Awareness: Improper decision making or
lack of judgment • PEOPLE (ACTS): Following Procedures: Violation unintentional (by individual
or group) • PROCESS (CONDITIONS): Organizational: Inadequate supervision • PROCESS (CONDITIONS): Organizational: Inadequate work standards/
procedures• PROCESS (CONDITIONS): • Tools, Equipment, Materials & Products: Inadequate design/specification/
management of change • PROCESS (CONDITIONS): Organizational: Inadequate communication
The following 5 causal factors appear consistently in the top ten for both fatal incidents and high potential events for 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011 and 2010.
• PROCESS (CONDITIONS): Organizational: Inadequate training/competence• PROCESS (CONDITIONS): Organizational: Inadequate hazard identification or
risk assessment• PEOPLE (ACTS): Inattention/Lack of Awareness: Improper decision making or
lack of judgment • PROCESS (CONDITIONS): Organizational: Inadequate supervision• PROCESS (CONDITIONS): Organizational: Inadequate work standards/
procedures
-
592. Key performance indicators
2.12 Life-Saving RulesIOGP has released a set of Life-Saving Rules (OGP Life-Saving Rules, Report 459), intended for use by the oil and gas industry to mitigate risk and reduce fatalities. Each Life-Saving Rule consists of a simple icon and descriptive text, providing clear, simple and consistent communication about risks in the workplace.
These rules were developed by using the fatal incident and high potential event data from the 1991 to 2010 safety performance indicators reports to identify the events and activities that are the highest risk and therefore provide clear instructions on how to mitigate against these risks. The Life-Saving Rules are split into eight ‘Core Rules’ and ten ‘Supplementary Rules’ (previously called 'Supplemental Rules').
1. 2. 3.
5. 6.
7. 8.
9. 10. 11. 12. 13.
14. 15. 16.
17. 18.
4.
Personal Safety
Driving
Site Safety
Control of Work
Figure 42: Life-Saving Rules (from IOGP Report 459)
Assessment of the applicability of the Life-Saving Rules to fatal incident descriptions for 2015 data shows that at least 72% of the fatal incidents reported are covered by the Life-Saving Rules and may have been prevented by the adoption of this system. Insufficient information was provided to be able to assign a rule for six of the incidents.
-
60Safety performance indicators – 2015 data
Insufficient information 13%
No appropriate rule 15%
Supplementary rules 45%
Core rules 27%
Figure 43: Percentage of fatal incidents applicable to Life-Saving Rules (2015)
Journey management 7.5%
Speeding/phone 5.0%
Work at height 5.0%
Dropped objects 12.5%
Insufficient information to assign a Rule 12.5%
No appropriate Rule 15.0%
PPE (Including flotation device) 5.0%
Overhead power lines 2.5%
Line of fire - safe area 22.5% Gas test 2.5%
Seat belt 5.0%
Isolation 5.0%
Figure 44: Percentage of Life-Saving Rules allocated to fatal incidents (2015)
-
612. Key performance indicators
Table 28: IOGP Life-Saving Rules allocated to fatal incidents (2015)
Rule IncidentsConfined space 0Isolation 2Journey management 3Permit to work 0Seat belt 2Speeding/phone 2Suspended load 0Work at height 2Dropped objects 5Drugs and alcohol 0Excavation 0Gas test 1Lift plan 0Line of fire – safe area 9Overhead power lines 1PPE (including flotation device) 2Smoking 0System override 0No appropriate Rule 6Insufficient information to assign a Rule 5Overall 40
-
62Safety performance indicators – 2015 data
3. Results by region
In this section the safety performance of the contributing IOGP Members is presented for regions and individual countries within those regions.
A list of countries from which companies have reported information and the division of countries into regions is provided in Appendix D.
NORTH AMERICA
SOUTH & CENTRAL AMERICA
EUROPE
AFRICA
MIDDLE EAST
ASIA/AUSTRALASIA
FSU
3.1 FatalitiesTable 29 shows the number of fatal incidents and fatalities in each of the seven regions into which the data are partitioned.
Further analysis of the fatality statistics is presented in section 3.5, where five-year rolling averages of FAR are presented for each of the regions.
Table 29: Fatalities, fatal incidents and fatal accident rate by region (2014 & 2015)
RegionFatalities FAR Fatal Incidents
2015 2014 2015 2014 2015 2014Africa 10 5 1.84 0.86 7 5Asia/Australasia 7 11 0.76 1.02 4 10Europe 4 4 1.17 1.04 4 4FSU 4 2 1.60 0.81 3 2Middle East 7 2 1.07 0.33 7 2North America 20 16 2.31 1.56 13 14South & Central America 2 5 1.41 1.13 2 5Overall 54 45 1.45 1.03 40 42
-
633. Results by region
3.2 Fatal accident rate (FAR)Further Fatal Accident Rate analysis is presented in section 3.5, where five-year rolling averages of FAR are presented for each of the regions.
Table 30: Fatal accident rate by region (2011–2015)
FAR 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011Africa 1.84 0.86 4.53 2.83 1.25Asia/Australasia 0.76 1.02 0.87 1.35 3.28Europe 1.17 1.04 2.26 0.52 0.87FSU 1.60 0.81 1.25 0.55 1.59Middle East 1.07 0.33 0.63 1.95 1.74North America 2.31 1.56 2.03 7.50 1.50South & Central America 1.41 1.13 4.37 0.54 2.42Overall 1.45 1.03 2.12 2.38 1.88
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
All regionsSouth &CentralAmerica
NorthAmerica
MiddleEast
FSUEuropeAsia/Australasia
Africa
Fata
l acc
iden
t rat
e (p
er 1
00 m
illio
n ho
urs
wor
ked)
20152014201320122011
Figure 45: Fatal accident rate by region (2011–2015)
Definitions
Fatal accident rate (FAR)The number of company/contractor fatalities per 100 million hours worked
-
64Safety performance indicators – 2015 data
3.3 Total recordable injury rate (TRIR)
Submissions without information on medical treatment cases were filtered out, leaving a database of 3,317 million hours, 89% of the database (see Appendix A).
Table 31: Total recordable inury rate by region (2011–2015)
TRIR 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011Africa 0.76 1.02 1.05 1.14 1.22Asia/Australasia 0.92 1.01 0.97 1.37 1.46Europe 2.22 2.58 2.58 2.64 2.81FSU 0.69 0.59 0.81 0.99 0.99Middle East 0.73 0.86 0.90 1.02 0.78North America 2.13 2.40 2.58 2.82 3.19South & Central America 2.08 2.82 3.13 3.05 3.17Overall 1.21 1.54 1.60 1.74 1.77
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
All regionsSouth &CentralAmerica
NorthAmerica
MiddleEast
FSUEuropeAsia/Australasia
Africa
Tota
l rec
orda
ble
inju
ry ra
te (p
er m
illio
n ho
urs
wor
ked)
20152014201320122011
Figure 46: Total recordable injury rate by region (2011–2015)
Definitions
Total recordable injury rate (TRIR)The number of recordable injuries (fatalities + lost work day cases + restricted work day cases + medical treatment cases) per million hours worked
-
653. Results by region
3.4 Lost time injury frequency (LTIF)
Further analysis of the lost time injuries is presented in section 3.5, where five-year rolling averages of LTIF are presented for each of the regions, 100% of the database (see Appendix A).
Table 32: Lost time injury frequency by region (2011–2015)
LTIF 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011Africa 0.19 0.29 0.31 0.33 0.30Asia/Australasia 0.14 0.17 0.15 0.26 0.30Europe 0.70 0.81 1.02 0.91 1.08FSU 0.19 0.18 0.33 0.28 0.31Middle East 0.17 0.17 0.21 0.24 0.18North America 0.41 0.39 0.74 0.94 0.59South & Central America 0.66 0.77 0.85 0.69 0.64Overall 0.29 0.36 0.45 0.48 0.43
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
All regionsSouth &CentralAmerica
NorthAmerica
MiddleEast
FSUEuropeAsia/Australasia
Africa
Lost
tim
e in
jury
freq
uenc
y (p
er m
illio
n ho
urs
wor
ked)
20152014201320122011
Figure 47: Lost time injury frequency by region (2011–2015)
Definitions
Lost time injury frequency (LTIF)The number of lost time injuries (fatalities + lost work day cases) per million hours worked
-
66Safety performance indicators – 2015 data
3.5 FAR, TRIR and LTIF five-year rolling averages
In order to smooth out variability in the annual values for the regional TRIR, FAR and LTIF, five-year rolling averages are computed which should provide a more reliable indicator of performance trends.
The five-year rolling average is calculated by summing the total number of incidents of the five previous years, and dividing by the sum of the work hours for these years. For example, the five-year rolling average for 2015 is calculated by:
(Number of injuries in 2011+2012+2013+2014+2015)
(Total work hours in 2011+2012+2013+2014+2015)
The number series involved in the calculation is frame-shifted along by one each year, e.g. 2015 is calculated from 2011–2015 data.
The figures show TRIR, FAR and LTIF five-year rolling averages for each of the regions, and includes the ‘overall’ curve.
The increase in the North America five-year rolling average FAR for 2012 can be attributed to the effect of a gas leak and explosion following the loss of mechanical integrity of a pipeline in Mexico (onshore) in which 31 individuals lost their lives.
1
2
3
4
5
201520142013201220112010FAR
five-
year
rolli
ng a
vera
ge (p
er 1
00 m
illio
n ho
urs) Africa Asia/Australasia Europe FSU
Middle East
NorthAmerica
South &Central America
Overall
Figure 48: FAR five-year rolling average by region (2010–2015)
-
673. Results by region
0
1
2
3
4
5
201520142013201220112010TRIR
five
-yea
r rol
ling
aver
age
(per
mill
ion
hour
s) AfricaAsia/Australasia Europe FSU
Middle East
NorthAmerica
South &Central America
Overall
Figure 49: TRIR five-year rolling average by region (2010–2015)
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
201520142013201220112010LTI
F fiv
e-ye
ar ro
lling
ave
rage
(per
mill
ion
hour
s) AfricaAsia/Australasia Europe FSU
Middle East
NorthAmerica
South &Central America
Overall
Figure 50: LTIF five-year rolling average by region (2010–2015)
-
68Safety performance indicators – 2015 data
3.6 Severity of lost work day cases
The number of days lost was reported for 73% of lost work day cases.
The severity of lost work day cases is the highest in the North America region compared with the other regions (88 days lost per LWDC in 2015). This has more than doubled compared with the average for the previous five-year period.
Appendix A provides further information on the proportion of the database which can be used for lost work day case severity, 83% of the data submitted for Africa and the Middle East was usable for this metric, in comparison with only 58% of equivalent data for Europe.
Table 33: Severity of lost work day cases by region (2015 compared with 2010–2014)
RegionAverage days lost per LWDC
2015 2014 2015 relative to 2014 severity
2015 relative to 2010-2014 severity
Africa 42.7 33.2 # 29% higher # 40% higher
Asia/Australasia 27.7 31.0 $ 11% lower 1 no change
Europe 38.8 33.8 # 15% higher # 1% higher
FSU 70.8 64.8 # 9% higher # 53% higher
Middle East 24.6 34.6 $ 29% lower # 24% higher
North America 87.8 49.2 # 78% higher # 107% higher
South & Central America 55.9 49.1 # 14% higher $ 17% lower
Overall 54.0 42.2 # 28% higher # 27% higher
Definitions
Lost work day case (LWDC)An incident resulting in at least one day off work. Fatal incidents are not included.
Severity of lost work day casesThe number of days lost (where reported) for each lost work day case (LWDC).
-
693. Results by region
0
20
40
60
80
100
South & Central America
North America
Middle East
FSUEuropeAsia/Australasia
Africa
Aver
age
days
lost
per
LW
DC
20152010–20142015 Overall
54.0
Figure 51: Severity of lost work day cases by region (2015 compared with 2010–2014)
-
70Safety performance indicators – 2015 data
3.7 Individual country performanceThe safety performance reported by participating IOGP member companies of individual countries is presented in terms of the lost time injury frequency of companies jointly with contractors. To preserve the anonymity of companies, performance is only published for those countries for which at least 2 companies have reported statistics. Countries with less than 50,000 reported work hours are excluded, since results for such small populations of hours would be unrepresentative. Overall averages and regional averages include data from all countries regardless of work hours or number of contributing companies.
Of the 108 countries from which data have been reported, 26 are excluded by these constraints.
TRIR calculations exclude data where medical treatment cases are not reported. The chart of relative TRIR performance therefore compares the 2015 performance with that of 2014 and 2013 for 79 of the 82 countries.
The majority of countries in Africa, Asia/Australasia, FSU and Middle East achieved a TRIR equal to or lower than the overall average TRIR (1.21). The majority of countries in Europe, North America and South & Central America show a TRIR higher than the global average.
The chart of relative LTIF performance for the remaining 82 countries compares the 2015 performance with that of 2014 and 2013.
The majority of countries in Africa, Asia/Australasia, FSU and the Middle East achieved an LTIF equal to or lower than the overall average LTIF (0.29). The majority of countries in Europe, North America and South & Central America show an LTIF higher than the global average.
For comparison, the five-year rolling average FAR is shown for each of the regions. There appears to be little if any correlation between these values and the regional average LTIF and TRIR values.
-
713. Results by region
0 3 6 9 12
SurinamGuyana UruguayEcuador
Trinidad & TobagoArgentina
PeruBoliviaBrazil
VenezuelaColombia
South & Central America
MexicoCanada
USANorth America
IranUAEIraq
QatarOman
KuwaitYemenTurkey
Kurdistan Region of IraqMiddle East
UkraineTurkmenistan
AzerbaijanKazakhstan
RussiaFSU
MonacoCyprus
PortugalItaly
RomaniaSpain
NetherlandsFrance
UKHungary
IrelandNorwayCroatia
GermanyDenmark
Europe
SingaporeMyanmar
ChinaMalaysia
IndonesiaBrunei
ThailandSouth korea
VietnamPakistan
IndiaPapua New Guinea
AustraliaJapan
New ZealandAsia-Australasia
MadagascarSenegal
TanzaniaUgandaNigeria
Equatorial GuineaEgypt
CongoAngola
LibyaMozambique
GhanaKenya
AlgeriaMauritania
TunisiaGabon
MoroccoD.R.Congo
South AfricaIvory Coast
Africa
17.90
1.21
41.6717.39
2015 Global average TRIR 2013201420152015 average TRIR
Five-year rolling average FAR (0.0)
(2.3)
(1.3)
(1.2)
(1.2)
(1.
top related