HSESQ & SD in Projects

Port Harcourt 10 – 14 March 2003

Feedback

Workshop ObjectivesWorkshop Objectives

1. To meet each other as a team and our colleagues in SPDC DMP

2. Discuss the role of the HSESQ Team in EP Projects and some of the issues facing us

3. Assist the Major Projects Group in their efforts to raise the bar in HSESQ among the project teams and contractors

4. Use site inspections as a vehicle to assist the above

ProgrammeProgramme

1. Introduction and scene setting with presentations on EP Projects and from DMP

2. Syndicate exercises to address:1. Identify opportunities to achieve HSES objectives

2. Contractors perspective on achieving SPDC’s HSES objectives

3. How do we make things work best in Nigeria?

3. Site inspection visits

Review of Exercise 1Review of Exercise 1

How do we achieve our HSES goals?

Challenges and Opportunities• HSE and contractor selection and management • Accountability• Competence and Knowledge Sharing• Global standards • Poor enabling environment

Review of Exercise 2Review of Exercise 2

Contractors’ Perspectives on achieving Shell’s HSES goals

Challenges and Opportunities• Clarity of HSES Requirements • Lowest bid syndrome • Community Relations • Managing sub-contractor HSE

Review of Exercise 3Review of Exercise 3

How do we make things work best in Nigeria?

Issues and responses• Contractor selection

– Increase weighting and address acceptance of contractors known to be below criteria

• Organisation - accountability of Contract Holders – Having the right resources in the project teams, working as a team.

• Policies & Standards – Some scope for rationalising standards

• Compliance – The tools are there - implementation needed, e.g. CMG

• Community engagement– Clear and aligned strategy & delivering on promises

Site Inspection VisitsSite Inspection Visits

Sites VisitedSites Visited

• OGGS (Offshore Gas Gathering System)• IOGP (Integrated Oil & Gas Production Facility,

Cawthorne Channel• BTIP (Bonny Terminal Integrated Project)• Stolt Globestar (FYIP)

ObjectivesObjectives

• Assess and report the implementation of HSES in contract management

• Provide opportunity for participants to see Major Projects activities in Nigeria

• Create avenue to exchange views on HSES management across EP Projects

Coverage & FocusCoverage & Focus

• Site construction HSESQ activities • Associated infrastructure

– Logistics– Accommodation

Audit TeamsAudit Teams

CCIPChris Inglesfield

Ton Sipkema

Uche Igbokwe

OGGSAlistair Gourlay

Joan Korpal

Babs Babalola

BTIPRob Munster

Hugo Le Breton

Arinze Oduah

GlobestarBob Bearden

Jane Alcock

Terri Bob

Jim Tigg

Imad Mohsen

Amechi Onianwa

Observations - FindingsObservations - Findings

• By and large appropriate policies and documentation are in place

• Very variable HSEQ performance and compliance depending on contractor abilities and relationship with SCIN

• Numerous potentially unsafe situations, tolerance of rule breaking, which individually may seem minor, are indicative of lack of commitment

• Prevailing influence is not consistently exercised which leads to loss of learning and undermines improvement leverage

• Variable level of supervision and competencies

Underlying drivers and issuesUnderlying drivers and issues

• Variable level of leadership commitment and accountability

• Past performance with regards to community relationship – legacy of mistrust

• Organisation – HSE function is sometimes suffering from lack of integration in the line

• Partnership with contractor leads to more positive outcome

• External influences, especially in contractor selection is has a strong impact on the project execution

• Level of SCIN supervision and HSEQ competency commensurate with contractor ability

BTIP Site VisitBTIP Site VisitOverall• Impression of sound teamwork with a good focus on HSESQ

management.• HSEQ important as work is taking place close to producing

assets

Specific findings • Despite the good foundation, work will be required to ensure

continued good performance as activities grow in scale and complexity. – E.g. focus on crane work and lifting procedures required to ensure

full compliance with SPDC standards. • Formal assessment of impact of concurrent operations at

NLNG on BTIP, especially the new LPG plant. • Integration of SIA findings into strategy – esp. community

development

FYIP - GeneralFYIP - General

• Project is suffering severe delays– mainly due to poor performance of Suffolk (part the

ADEMAC group)• scored well below the 60% min. SPDC acceptance

criteria• NAPIMs assessed at >80% and insisted on their

inclusion– also due to community disturbances (despite MOU)

• Unable to make site visit due to community disturbances

FYIP - Globestar YardFYIP - Globestar Yard• Yard is well established• Stolt employ competent personnel, the workforce of 370 includes

some long serving indigenous workers and 30-40 expatriate supervisors (with the potential to lever good practice)

• Site spacious and well laid out with generally good housekeeping• Use of sand for grit blasting• Problems with standard of lifting equipment & its location• Lack of compliance with PPE requirements• LTI reported to SPDC but deemed to have no prevailing influence• In the Workshop and Store areas emergency response equipment

(fire extinguishers, first aid posts, eye-wash centres) was not clearly visible

The Review Team was impressed by the high level of commitment to HSE demonstrated by SPDC and project staff. SPDC and Daewoo staff were open and well prepared for the visit, which was very well organised. The review team identified two main areas of concern:

• Incident reporting – specifically reporting near misses• Linguistic barriers creating communication problems between Korean and other staff.

 The site was well maintained with PPE used comprehensively and with workers applying sound work practices Heavy equipment, and especially scaffolding materials in use were in excellent condition, and can be considered best in class.

Cawthorne Channel (CCIP) ProjectCawthorne Channel (CCIP) Project

• Comprehensive documentation. Good use of CMG. HSE plan bridge to contractors. Monitoring plans for HSE in place; link to performance indicators for Project. Encourage contractor master log for use as pre-qualification tool

• Critical HSE assessments done and procedures in place. (incl ER and Contingency). Procedures appear to be working.

• Implementation difficult. General level of HSE awareness of contractor staff is low. The overall feeling is that DSNL together with this EPIC contract are a ‘high risk’ case, and consequently SPDC need to provide more support and advice than expected.

• Leadership commitment lacking. Not providing enough resources for on-site support (& training). Not visiting enough and ‘talking-up’ HSEQ.

• Daily Toolbox meetings were being used to good effect. Specific hazards and how to guard against them are raised and everyone signs off.

• DSNL have a long way to go and need HSE advice and support. Their staff are not generally aware of hazards, which reflects their experience level.

• Lack of compliance to PPE is evident in several places on site and a number of specific HSE hazard activities were observed which merit mention:-- Oxygen bottles in open without cages, next to acetylene-- Diesel transfer in open area (apparently membrane has been sunk, but no markings evident

OGGS SummaryOGGS Summary

• Site health issues improving. Emergency evacuation depends on the use of other facilities I.e. NLNG. New clinic being completed. SPDC must maintain personnel on-site to provide Health support. Contractor should improve staff induction process.

• Induction training on HSE too short. At 45 minutes it is insufficient to make a significant difference.

OGGS Summary pt IIOGGS Summary pt II

Key Issues – Sphere of InfluenceKey Issues – Sphere of Influence

SPDC influence on contractors– Needs to be clearly defined philosophy which is then consistency applied across projects (use supply chain approach)– The objective should be to justify why a contractor (or sub or sub-sub) should be excluded

Key Issues - ImplementationKey Issues - Implementation

– Documents and processes well described (e.g. CMG) but implementation varies:

• HSE is left to HSE advisers in some instances

• Ownership of HSE resources within project teams (shared vs deployed) is important to avoid erosion of commitment

• Leaders and supervisors need to be more supportive and ‘hands on’ – currently variable

Key Issues – Contractor selection Key Issues – Contractor selection and awardand award

– HSE features in bid evaluation but there is scope to strengthen

– SPDC obliged to enter into contracts with known under performers

• Undermines SPDC’s HSE policies

• Wrong-foots projects and demotivates teams

• Stresses the organisation

What can we do?What can we do?

– Proactive HSE planning through facilitation within project teams to generate HSE plans as an integral part of project execution plans

– HSE in contracts – support a drive to implement the CMG

– Support with resources and trouble shooting– Looks at issues common across the projects to allow

projects to focus on core business