Attacking Metropolitan Driving Hazards with Field-Proven Practices

Abstract

The exposure to risk from driving in field-type operations by companies engaged in the oil and gas industry is generally well recognized and, in many places, well addressed. Driving in a non-field or support-role environment provides similar exposure; however, even when this exposure is recognized, it is generally not well addressed. A challenge to a large oilfield service company was to leverage the best practices of a successful field-oriented journey management program for application in a metropolitan environment. The number of miles driven on company business in this non-field metropolitan environment is substantial, but driving to and from work (commuting) was found to eclipse this exposure by 25 times. Because the greatest exposure to our metropolitan employees is commuting, the challenge becomes even greater---to develop a journey management plan that not only addresses business driving but also commuter driving. Introduction A major international oilfield service company recognized many years ago that driving was its greatest exposure to a catastrophic event on a daily basis. This continues to hold true. The International Association of Oil & Gas Producers (OGP) has also established that the highest common cause of fatalities in the industry---21.9% (2004)---is driving related. The company responded to this critical situation with aggressive goals for reduction, and supported these with the development of comprehensive and multilayered practices and processes collectively referred to as journey management. These measures have been instrumental in significantly decreasing crash events. For example, in 2000 the crash rate was 2.0 per million miles driven and in 2004 it had been lowered to 0.5 per million miles. This has been achieved with a fleet of over 12,500 vehicles and mileages now totaling over 200 million miles annually (Fig. 1). With this reduction in the number of events that occur primarily in "the field," the company is now focusing more closely on "non-field" events. These non-field events have traditionally been associated with product/technology centers and headquarter support facilities that tend to be in metropolitan areas. Historically, these events don't receive the same attention as those occurring in the field as they have less impact on business continuity. However, it is realized that the impact on the employee is equal. This paper addresses the company's application of field-derived risk management process and controls to provide the basis for a journey management plan for the city of Houston, Texas. The exposure in this target city is composed of:11 company facilities5,500 employees plus contractors5,500 personal vehicles70 company vehicles40,000,000 commuter miles annually320,000 business miles annually1,200,000 mi/yr driven by visitors on business* * including "for hire" transport and rental vehicles

The Risk of Using Risk Matrices

“…There are also a number of excellent publications that apply the fundamental concepts of decision analysis to the types of problems to which RMs are commonly applied. A small, but relevant, sample include Paté-Cornell and Fischbeck's (1994) work on performing a probabilistic risk analysis of failure of the exterior surface tiles on the US space shuttle orbiter; Paté-Cornell's (2002) use of probabilistic risk analysis to solve government safety decisions; Chapman and Ward's (2003) discussion of project risk management; and Hubbard's (2009) introduction of several alternatives to RMs. These authors warn that the processes and tools they discuss, illustrate, and recommend are not perfect and should be used in accordance with sound decision-analysis principles.…”