INTERNATIONAL REGULATORS FORUM
GLOBAL OFFSHORE SAFETY
Annual Meetings
12th
Annual IRF MEETING19-21 September 2005, Craigellachie
DAY 1, 19th September
1. Lifting
IRF endorsed the strategy proposed by Ian Paterson and requested
he produce the first progress report by April 2006, the anniversary
of IRF international conference.
Ian Paterson will develop the templates to be used by each country;
inputs by members will take account of the different regulations within
the countries.
Strategy to be shared with OGP and IADC (IMCA too?), consideration
to be given to establishing a high level working group.
OGP lifting guidance expected in Jan/Feb 2006. IRF notes it would
be a first for industry to produce guidance against which they will
later be measured by IRF.
The high level Working Group, (if established), to consider the management
of the database – OGP, IADC, ICRARD? The default position would
be to use the IRF website. Final decision to be taken by IRF.
2. Performance Measures
IRF reviewed the data, and agreed that they were not yet in a position
to release individual country data, although this remained the ultimate
goal.
Further refinement to the data was required, with data from other,
currently non-contributory IRF members available over time.
It was agreed that aggregated IRF data would be published subject
to the information being cleared by members first. IRF requested Melinda
produce the new summary information (which would become de facto a baseline
of performance for IRF member countries). As well as being published
on member websites, it was suggested the data be offered to the DNV
global incident reporting site.
Criteria for harmonising performance measures between countries are
also to be published (with the data).
Melinda to gather information (events and causes) of significant hydrocarbon
release events, incorporating the UK/Norway criteria for such events,
and circulate to IRF members. IRF would later consider the merits of
publishing a report.
Netherlands is prepared to instruct their industry to report HCR in
line with IRF (UK/Norway) standards.
3. Drilling Practices Committee
IRF members agreed to develop the proposal submitted by USA and invited
Don Howard to take the necessary steps.
It was agreed the proposed start-up issues namely:
- Managed pressure drilling
- Surface BOP’s on floating MODU’s
- HTHP wells
are relevant to all members but there are others that should be taken
into account.
As a first step, IRF requested Don’s new Committee canvas views
from each country, and develop an IRF priority issues list (similar
to the approach adopted for the lifting and performance measures projects).
It was hoped the first list could be prepared by April 2006.
4. Netherlands – Perception of Safety Theme Workshop
A very relevant report, with Human Factor issues embedded within the
document. IRF observed the summary captured cultural and other human
factors that are important to each member country.
Report to be placed on the IRF Website.
IRF keen to learn of follow-up actions taken within the companies
at the next meeting.
5. UK - Human Factors
Another very relevant presentation delivered by Rob Miles.
Presentation to be placed on the IRF website.
Small and informal Human Factors ’sharing club’ to be
established between UK, Netherlands and Australia (other members welcome).
Rob Miles to be invited to set up the club.
6. US – Hurricane Issues and Thunder Horse
Overarching theme from 27th July workshop with industry reviewing
Hurricanes Andrew and Ivan, was the reluctance of industry to respond
to inadequate standards especially, in this case, mooring standards
The benefit of the regulator (MMS in this situation) is clearly demonstrated
in its persistence in tabling the issues and confronting industry with
its responsibility to implement suitable risk controls. Aftermath of
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita is likely to reduce resistance of industry.
UK will obtain electronic version of the BP Thunder Horse report
to add to the MMS report for the IRF memory stick.
7. US - New Regulatory Approach
Statistical evidence was presented that safety performance on the
USCS is getting worse, and MMS is considering a mandatory Safety Environmental
Management Program.
IRF endorsed the suggestion to hold a special IRF workshop as an
opportunity to compare suitability of different regulatory regimes and
assist USA to develop its supervisory programmes. If it goes ahead,
IRF suggested the workshop examine the boundary between the regulator
and the duty holder in terms of managing risks.
8. UK – Asset Integrity
The presentation demonstrated validity of the template approach that
has been agreed for the lifting programme.
In addition to the existing leading indicator (LI) two new LI’s
for asset integrity have been agreed with UK industry:
- ‘n’ as the number of non compliances reported by independent
verifiers that remain open at the end of each month
- monthly production shortfall reported against planned maximum monthly
production
9. PSA - OGP/IADC
Magne had circulated to IRF members a recent response from OGP to
the IRF request for further clarification of global variations in safety
performance amongst OGP member companies.
Magne will continue to pursue the IADC response.
DAY 2, 20th September
10. Canada Nova Scotia -The Future of IRF
IRF decided that it would not take environmental issues into its
remit, but acknowledged the inevitable inter-relation between safety
and the environment. and would remain aware of the relationship.
IRF recognised that there was a natural tendency to contribute at
different levels often depending on resources available to different
member countries. However IRF did not want to formally adopt different
tiers of membership.
It was accepted that the IRF Global Conference was a key event, ascribing
irresistable momentum for change that requires reporting back to conference
delegates via the IRF website (see below).
4. IRF considered expanding its membership to include India’s
OISD, but could not agree on the generic point of expansion. It was
instead agreed to make a strategic assessment of expanding IRF. Stuart
agreed to canvas ideas from members and prepare a further paper on expansion
issues, taking into account the following:
- Whether we want to expand and why, and if so what criteria should
be applied for additional membership?
- Whether safety and economics are integral or relative. There was insufficient
time to debate where the economic parameters should be incorporated
and the paper could usefully address this.
- Are there alternative strategies that could expand IRF’s objectives?
- Whether further expansion would secure greater international interest
in IRF’s views and programmes, and secure greater leverage to
achieve our objective of improving global performance.
- Aim to have first draft in circulation by early January 2006.
Taf to write to Mr Verma, Director of OISD to inform him of IRF’s
decisions and proposed actions regarding expanding membership.
11. Canada, Newfoundland - Website and residual funding
Surplus funds from 2005 Global Conference to be rolled forward for
next conference, less any used to maintain existing IRF website for
the time being.
Current website to be retained to capture documents from IRF Craigellachie
Conference, but would not be used for the next conference.
New website to be developed along the lines of ICRARD (Norway), owned
and maintained by IRF with a three year turnover between members. First
site steward to be agreed between US and UK. Post conference update:
UK has agreed to take stewardship of website for first period (to December
2008).
12. Canada, Newfoundland – Practical outcomes in response
to delegates at IRF conference (this is a summary of relevant agreed actions
up to this point in the meeting)
Commitment to create a website that provided information to the wider
community by April 2006 (Section 11, above - UK).
Lifting template and toolkit to be available by April 2006 (Section
1 - UK).
International performance measures/standards in process of development,
with commitment to publish combined IRF data, performance measure criterion
and ‘most significant’ hydrocarbon release incidents, with
causes (Section 2 - USA).
Decision made to keep status quo of IRF membership for the time being,
awaiting outcome of discussions of IRF vision and strategy (Section
10 - Canada Nova Scotia).
Drilling working group to be created and to investigate global priority
issues (Section 3 - USA).
OGP/IADC regional performance differences – reply had been
received from OGP, IADC yet to reply (Section 9 - Norway).
DAY 3, 21st September
13. Norway – New issues and emerging risks
USA: there is recycling of well known risks placing technical challenges
on industry. Industry lacks commitment to raise standards. Exploration
strategies of majors are unclear.
Netherlands: NL aims to increase focus on human factors in the safety
case. Newer operators are acquiring relinquished and fallow assets presenting
a competency challenge for SSM.
UK: concerned at critical damage made to supply side of industry
by major operators during past 3 - 4 years of global reorganisation.
Brazil: new FPSO intended for Brazilian CS. Floating sea-tank design
that will also emerge elsewhere (e.g. UK).
Australia: also experiencing problems associated with supply chain
degradation. Twenty eight rigs being built in Singapore and have noted
poor fabrication and technical standards that challenge project integrity
of oilfield customers in Australia.
Norway: integrated and remote controlled operations present challenges
for PSA. New concept FPF by Aker Kvaerner proposes permanently unmanned
production facilities, eliminating many safety risks, effectively moving
subsea concept to topsides.
Norway: recent lifeboat issues. Design, commissioning and testing
criteria are inappropriate.
Actions arising from discussion:
Norway will produce a paper concerning the design and testing codes
for lifeboats with a view to developing an IRF stance through consultation.
Particular emphasis to design codes and test criteria. Influence could
be channelled through IMO and change brought about through each country’s
regulatory regime.
UK will produce a ‘kick off’ paper detailing issues with
supply chain management. It would be difficult to regulate, but useful
for the IRF to issue statements of their observations and expectations.
Small informal workgroup on human factors will be set up, made up
of John, Roel and Taf. Other members welcome.
14. USA - Global Conference
Agreement that the UK hosted conference had been a success relative
to IRF’s remit and further agreement that IRF should aim to organise
further conferences every three years.
Next conference may be held in the US. Bud to confirm that the US
is able to be host, and to advise the date – possibly Spring 2008.
Norway may be able to host the event if US are unable. Post
meeting update. USA has confirmed it will host the next international
conference in the fall of 2007 or Spring 2008.
It was suggested the conference be held in a prestigious international
location. A professional conference partner was suggested as essential.
Members that do not have sponsorship restrictions should pursue sponsorship
to support USA; USA will aim to set up an appropriate account. The most
convenient way to set up a cash account is to find an appropriate conference
partner (equivalent to Spearhead plc in the UK).
UK will pass residual funds from the 2005 Conference to USA when
conference account is set up. (Action Bud and Taf).
UK will chair the Programme Committee, with input from Norway as
past chair.
UK will weight the feedback from the 2005 Conference and pass on
to USA and Programme Committees.
The 2005 Conference database to be transferred to USA.
Feedback from IRF 2005 meeting to be fed back to International Conference
delegates via the IRF website with a view to promoting interest in the
2008 conference.
15. USA – Future Awards scheme
Scheme will be carried forward and developed by the UK, awards to
be made every three years at the global conference.
Scheme to be disseminated to industry by individual IRF members, depending
on country organisation, and also advertised on the IRF website.
The scheme will allow both self-nominations subject to relevant IRF
country endorsement, and direct nominations from IRF members.
Award nominations to be preferably evaluated by the IRF judging panel
at a face to face meeting, separate to, but possibly attached to, the
annual meeting. Judging panel should include people with knowledge of
all the nominations to ensure proper evaluation. This may require research
by an IRF member country if the nominated initiative or product is not
known to us.
The degree to which the nominated initiative or product meets the
IRF key challenges is to be incorporated into the ‘significance’
rating of nominations.
Subject to paragraph 5 above, the current scoring system was agreed
suitable for the next awards event.
Timeline to be established by the UK, working back from the date
of the next global conference.
Consideration to be given to the possibility of providing feedback
to unsuccessful nominations, perhaps by giving advice of assessment
criteria and judging.
16. Review of meeting & next meeting
UK will issue notes of 2005 meeting promptly and aim to send memory
sticks loaded with conference documents and country updates as soon
as practically possible.
Replacing the formal country update presentations with papers had
worked well, and this will be carried forward to the next meeting.
The 2006 meeting to be held in the Netherlands.
The 2007 meeting will be hosted by Australia.
A mini meeting to be organised to coincide with OTC 2006.
Taf thanked everyone for their participation. Many people contributed
to IRF 2005, but special thanks were given to Elaine and Ruby for their
hard work leading up to and during the conference.
