Summary Many oilfield companies require field crews to systematically analyze safety aspects of their activities before starting work. Most commonly this process is called a job safety analysis, or JSA. Recent developments in measuring safety performance have changed the JSA process by better defining its function, as explained in this paper. This change provides major improvements and is rapidly gaining acceptance throughout the Gulf of Mexico petroleum industry. An informal survey of Gulf of Mexico offshore production facilities and drilling rigs showed that JSAs tend to be viewed as a tedious formality that crews comply with only because they are required to do so. For a typical jackup drilling rig, adopting the new JSA process and its standards can reduce the total time spent in JSA meetings from approximately 30 man-hours per day to fewer than 4 man-hours per day. In general, work crews enthusiastically approve of the new style of JSA because of the time savings and because it clarifies key responsibilities. Where conventional JSAs simply identify things that should happen, the new style causes things to happen, and the result is a considerable reduction in the likelihood of accidents. Introduction Major oil companies often require their own employees, and most contractors, to use a JSA process (although the process is sometimes referred to by another name). The crux of the idea is that crews hold a meeting before beginning any job, analyze the job, and decide what they can do to prevent accidents during the job. While visiting rigs, production facilities, construction sites, and other work areas, a considerable difference between perception of implementation and the actual implementation of JSAs was noted. For example, on one location the noise level was so high outside the offices and quarters that everyone had to wear hearing protection. The crew gathered and the supervisor read a JSA while the crew members stood, unable to hear any of the JSA information. The crew then completed the job and the supervisor filed a report stating that a JSA was conducted according to the requirements of the company policy. It was no surprise to find the crew was privately scoffing at the JSA process and viewed it as bureaucratic excessiveness. Company health, safety, and environmental departments often believe the JSA process is being followed and accepted scrupulously by work crews; they may even identify records and testimonies that support that conclusion, as in the example above. However, objective observers who spend enough time with a work crew to gain their confidence often find people privately confessing they see no benefit in the JSA process and generally consider it a required-but-meaningless formality. This situation is common throughout the industry: management sends out strongly worded orders that a JSA must be conducted and they get back reports that the order was followed, but what actually happens has little or no effect on the probability of accidents. Because of this, it was necessary to develop a better way to accurately gauge the effectiveness of a JSA program. A JSA is valuable only if it prevents accidents, but even without a JSA, most jobs would not result in an accident. That makes it hard to determine if the JSA made a real difference. The problem is amplified by official or unofficial programs that encourage employees to hide accidents or to change their records. In many instances, accident reports are distorted to make the occurrence of accidents seem less frequent than they really are. How, then, can management better determine whether a given accident report decreased the chances of that particular accident occurring again? How, then, can we prove that a JSA actually decreased the chances of accidents occurring? Effective JSAs produce the same corrective actions produced by a good accident report. The only difference is that the JSA determines the corrective action before, rather than after, the accident occurs. Therefore, the effectiveness of a JSA can be measured by the exact process used to measure the effectiveness of corrective actions in accident reports (Veley 2002). This means that an effective JSA is a plan, or a prearranged schedule of events leading to a particular objective. To meet theis definition, a JSA must produce specific things to do that will become corrective actions when they are assigned.
TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435. ProposalSafety performance is an increasingly important factor in deciding which bidders get contracts. Companies also make safety performance an important element in selecting employees for promotion, or for termination. The stakes are high, and it is critical that safety performance measurements accurately reflect probability of future accidents.Conventional measurements are proving to be unreliable indicators of the future and can cause contracts to go to bidders with the highest, not lowest, probability of accidents. They punish supervisors and companies for things they cannot control. Additionally, they can unfairly derail the careers of capable employees at all levels. This new system rewards supervisors based on corrective actions entirely within their control. It receives strong approval from all management levels, and is proving much more effective in preventing accidents. Now, a new metric is available that eliminates these problems. It is based on a simple, objective, highly reliable system of evaluating corrective actions. This new system generates a single number directly indexed to future safety performance. The system eliminates problems with conventional frequency and severity ratios, and it is proving to be a powerful management tool in many ways. It is currently being tested and implemented by large and small companies throughout all of the industry.
Traditionally, well-construction projects have required ongoing wellsite involvement of various personnel such as individuals representing the operator, contractor, and third party. The movement of people represents exposure to risk related to both travel and onsite operations. Conventional risk-mitigation methods currently include journey management, hazard analysis, and various other administrative controls. With the advent of real-time operations, a new opportunity to help reduce these risks has been introduced. Individuals who, in the past, were required to be on site can now access critical information, provide technical support, make decisions, and implement corrective actions while removed from the location. This improves manpower utilization and reduces cycle time, which can result in decreased exposure to all project personnel. Real-time operations enable all parties to gather and analyze data and take immediate corrective action without being onsite, significantly reducing the risk factors associated with a well-construction project. Introduction Over the past several years, the exploration and production industry has reported continuing improvements in lost time and recordable injury rates.1 One of the keys to this improvement is the use of risk identification and management tools. Operators, contractors, and regulators are working together as never before to identify, quantify, and mitigate known risk factors. As a result, industry has made tremendous progress in identifying and deploying tools focused on management systems, documented procedures, and workforce behavior. An associated risk-reduction change is also occurring in the form of technological advancements. Risk takes on various aspects when viewed across an entire well-construction project. The ability for all parties to cooperate and communicate known hazards is critical to maintaining an incident-free workplace. New tools, equipment, and services are being introduced that incorporate safety engineering and environmental concepts to reduce onsite hazards.2 In addition to reducing the hazards on site, another important mitigation tool involves minimizing the number of personnel who are at risk of being harmed. One advancement in technology that is particularly important to this type of risk reduction is the ability to deliver data from the wellsite to anywhere in the world instantaneously. This capability can lead to more informed and timely decisions while decreasing the need for certain experts to be on site. Not having to send experts to location can mitigate risks, save time, enhance productivity, and ultimately reduce the operating expense of the project. Depending on the scope, a typical drilling and completion operation can involve dozens of personnel over a period of months or years. Therefore, any means that can eliminate the need for onsite personnel can reduce exposure to the individuals. Displacement of unnecessary personnel from the project site and faster decision-making allow well-construction time to be cut, which in turn reduces exposure hours across all support functions. The resulting savings can then be redirected to additional risk analyis, well-construction services, performance recognition, and engineering programs. The Risk of Travel The International Association of Oil and Gas Producers (OGP) reports that the industry has shown substantial improvement in overall safety performance in the past 10 years, but the rate at which fatalities occur has shown little change.3,4 Data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) and the OGP indicates that transportation, specifically vehicle-related incidents, is a leading cause of fatalities in upstream stages of exploration and production.3,4,5 When satellites and remote links are used, the only people who need to travel to location are those actually performing the tasks, such as operating the equipment or managing onsite operations. The use of remote technology allows technical experts to supervise the operation from their offices, a collaborative environment, or their homes (Fig. 1).6
fax 01-972-952-9435. AbstractBack and hand injuries are among the most common types of injuries that occur while engaging in pressure pumping at the wellsite. This is not surprising given the heavy iron that must be lifted off trucks, carried into position, and then connected using hammers. The challenge is to implement engineering and human factor controls to minimize risk to employees.This question was posed to an outside group of ergonomics experts. Consultants were used because their opinions were less likely to be biased by potential preconceptions of those working around the hazards for years. These consultants were requested to evaluate the ergonomics of rigging up, running a job, then rigging down pumping equipment. They visited wellsites and witnessed a variety of locations and job types.Based on the prioritized conclusions of the ergonomists, a customized back-safety training program has been piloted to address body mechanics. The study has also led to the identification and sharing of best practices for equipment design. It also resulted in the creation of a prejob preparation video that highlights stretching exercises that should help reduce the potential for injury. Preliminary results of the pilot program are encouraging.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.