INTERNATIONAL REGULATORS FORUM
GLOBAL OFFSHORE SAFETY

Presentation ‘Lifting Programme’ – Ian Whewell, HSE

Summary

Good progress in this project has been made. Inspection- and incident investigation reporting templates have been prepared and tested. Training material has been prepared to assist in achieving this. There is now a need for an IRF-wide database for storing the investigation reporting data, though what form this should take is still undecided. The options are a web-based database and a server based database. The former is expensive and needs financial commitment from IRF countries though the latter, while being cheaper, has its limitations.

Action points

1. Consensus needs to be reached by all IRF members on what type of database should be used for the investigation reporting data, preferably after April 2007, when the results of the NSOAF multinational audit will be available.
2. It needs to be decided which member could play the ‘champion’ to set up the database and bear the initial costs. (Howard will discuss this at home).
3. The results of the multinational audit (NSOAF) will be presented in April to the plenary NSOAF meeting. At that time Jan de Jong will prepare a proposal for sharing the information with the IRF working group and (depending on the NSOAF decision on continuation of the activities) for either joining the efforts or optimising the coordination to prevent any overlap.

Presentation ‘Performance Measurement Project’ – Bud Danenberger, MMS

Summary

The Performance Measurement Workgroup, led by the US, to rework investigation data (fatalities, injuries, lost work time hours, hydrocarbon and gas releases, collisions, fire/explosions) from 2004 and 2005 received data from all IRF countries. The criteria were refined and the results entered into an Excel spreadsheet, which produced graphs giving a clear overview of how the industry is performing, though gaps are obvious. In comparing the IRF and OGP data: it appears that the two are inconsistent and harmony and consistency is needed, along with accurate data.

Action points

1. All countries are to supply their comments on the draft document for the IRF-website within 2 weeks after the IRF meeting to the MMS.
2. IRF will discuss the data and statistics on the Friday session with OGP and IADC to encourage them to use the same definitions.
3. All countries are asked to comment on the 5 recommendations made by the project group within 2 weeks.
4. IRF members are to give their views on the need for a database.

Presentation ‘Drilling Issues’ – Lars Herbst, MMS

Summary

The goals of setting up definitions on drilling activities is to gather information on drilling technology and to determine problem areas. These goals and the compiling of data to enter into a database were completed in the latter half of 2005. Various lessons were learned from this data collection which resulted in notices to licensees in the US.

Action points

1. IRF countries are asked to give comments on the distributed HP/HT and MPD notification to lessees (NTLs), by the middle of December.
2. IRF is asked to exert their influence on industry (namely HP/HT) to share information on drilling technology and practices (action all).
3. The recent established (NSOAF) well regulators working group which is chaired by Norway will be asked to extend the membership with other IRF representatives. IRF country members are asked to supply contact persons (with e-mail addresses). The present chairman will than take initiative in contacting all present other new members.
4. This group should consider meeting once a year to discuss relevant drilling issues (this should go further than just MPD). (Action PSA Norway)

Presentation ‘Update on Hurricane Issues’ – Lars Herbst, MMS

Summary

There were two major hurricanes in the US last year, Katrina and Rita, both causing damage to rigs though the latter more extensively. Previous hurricanes were not as destructive to the oil industry. Older rigs were the ones to suffer most damage, however there were no fatalities reported. What can be done to prevent this in the future? Recommentations and standards were amended, and these were implemented in API guidelines for Jack-ups and moored MODUs which will be used for the 2006 hurricane season. These are freely available from the API website. The Metocean criteria for monitoring hurricanes was outdated and have been updated. Anchor design and mooring constraints were updated, that the wells must be secured prior to evacuation.

Action points

1. N.a.

Presentation ‘MMS Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking’ – Bud Danenberger, MMS

Summary

MMS has Safety Management programmes in place for achieving and maintaining safety. This Safety and Environmental Management Rulemaking (SEMS) contains elements which together assist in achieving this. These elements are given in the presentation.

Action points

1. MMS will send a website link containing the proposed safety management implementation in their legislation. Comments are welcome. Following this, all countries are asked to supply their comments, preferably by October 20th, 2006. Comments will be also accepted after this date.

Presentation ‘Safety Statistics’ – Jan de Jong, SSM

Summary

Different definitions are used for lost-time incidents, resulting in individual cases where the statistics are no longer accurate. A case on a MODU was given to demonstrate. The IRF should discuss these varying definitions, and try to put the harmonising hereof on the Friday agenda.

Action points

1. Discuss the differences in LTI and RWC definitions with OGP and IADC on Friday.

Update on freefall lifeboat safety issues and IMO-MODU code changes– Magne Ognedal, PSA

Summary

There is no standard/guide for the testing of lifeboats. The PSA is pushing the industry to produce a document which contains this. Rather than waiting for the next 5-year check, the PSA has to work to fill the gap before this time in the interest of safety.

Action points

1. The PSA will keep the IRF updated on the relevant information received from the Norwegian Maritime Directorate.

Country Updates

Canada Newfoundland

Newfoundland and Labrador has identified problems with the lifting hooks of the lifeboats. Transport Canada has raised this issue at IMP. CNLOPB will keep all IRF members advised of further results.

The Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board (CNLOPB) decided to examine its practices and procedures in the interest of achieving greater regulatory efficiency. This was prompted by calls from industry and governments for a speedier regulatory approvals process.
The Board decided in 2005 to ask the Norwegian Regulators (PSA and NPD) to conduct an external review of its practices and procedures in three areas: 1) safety; 2) resource management; and 3) environmental protection. The Norwegian Regulators met with the Board and its staff over 2 days in the fall of 2005; interviewed Board staff, governments and industry in the winter of 2005; and, presented a report in the spring of 2006.
The CNLOPB is currently formulating an implementation plan for the Report’s findings.

Norway

What is the role of the verifier? The PSA attempted to describe this to report to the IRF. The description of this is documented in a country update paper distributed by PSA. The PSA would like to discuss during the session to come to a consensus what this role should be.

Action points

All IRF members should review the PSA’s views on the role of the verifier and report comments back by the end of 2006.

Presentation ‘Update Asset Integrity Programme’ – Ian Whewell, HSE

Summary

The project is in the last year of a three-year programme. Six key issues/weaknesses have been identified. Major area of concern is corrosion management exacerbated by shortage of skilled manpower. There is also a shortage of offshore support vessels. Feedback has been provided to industry and an ‘integrity toolkit’ has been issued. Enforcement activity is increasing. Integrity issues are being taken forward by UKOOA, Step-Change and I Mech E, OSD. Topic teams are running associated programmes, and there are 3 KP-3 HSE/industry subgroups running programmes on HVAC, minor hydrocarbon releases and corrosion.
Next year OSD will concentrate on companies own audit systems, duty-holders actions to close out on verification findings, and there will be a project on management change and corrosion.

Action points

1. The HSE will give feedback on the outcome of the consultant advice to OSD on use of company audit information.
2. The HSE will give feedback to the IRF members on the progress of the project as it occurs

Presentation ‘Theme Inspection Project Maintenance’ – Vincent Claessens, SSM

Summary

‘Maintenance of installations’ theme project of SSM was set up in 2006 after discovery that many incidents/accidents are a direct result of an inefficient maintenance process. The HSE experience from the KP3 project was used as input for the SSM project. The duration of the project is 1 year, from initiation to follow-up. A summary of subjects & the work programme was made for the project and the findings of the safety critical elements and performance standards entered into a Maintenance Management System (MMS). On-site testing of equipment and systems, including fire dampers, was carried out by inspectors, the evidence documented, and recommendations given where necessary.
Significant issues included; identification of safety critical equipment and their performance standards, identification of hazards, supervision, maintenance, temporary repairs, design and function testing of HVAC dampers and sprinkler/fire detection and availability and performance of fire water systems.

Action points

1. N.a.

Presentation ‘Social psychologic model to systematically improve safety behaviour’ – Marco van Pinxteren, SSM

Summary

A workgroup consisting of representatives of the industry contractors and SSM, has been set up to improve safe behaviour within the industry. By understanding how people behave in certain situations you can predict their behaviour and by influencing the unconscious actions of people you can improve safe behaviour. The workgroup uses four forces, taken from the Maslow theory, to analyse behaviour of those working in the industry. By teaching people to pay equal attention to all these forces, you can influence their ability for them to work in a safe manner. An analysis scheme has been set up by the workgroup to improve safe behaviour, which will be used during interviews in the coming year, and the results will assist in setting up guidelines and plans. The project works on a top-down basis as the behaviour of management has to be changed before the behaviour of workers can be changed and on improving communications between management and the workers.

Action points

1. Update on the progress of the workgroup in future IRF meetings

‘Supply Chain Problems’ – Ian Whewell, HSE

Summary

There has been a global reorganisation of major oil companies since 2000 with a simultaneous squeezing of the supply side margin, resulting in potential negative impact on HSE performance. The concern is that there is no long-term strategy for sustaining a competent supply side. The pressure on the contractors to deliver on health and safety whilst delivering the supply is ever-increasing.
Key areas of investment for the HSE is improving the confidence in pursuing a career in the industry amongst potentional future young employees and achieving competence amongst present personnel. The relationships between contractor and operator is being analysed with the goal of identifying key contractual requirements to assure best HSE performance.

Action points

1. HSE will update on the progress in future IRF meetings

Presentation ‘NSOAF activities’ – Jan de Jong, SSM

Summary

The NSOAF, consisting of a Safety Training Group and an HS&E working group, was set up in 1988. The latter has the aim of the harmonisation and mutual recognition /acceptance of safety-, emergency response, and specialist training. SSM held the chair of the workgroup in 2005 and 2006, with the objectives of improving HSE-related issues offshore, harmonising/reducing the administrative burden, and lateral learning amongst regulators.

Action points

1. IRF needs to consider how to best coordinate with NSOAF to complement each others methods of work and to avoid duplication and overlap. (see also ‘IRF’s future role’)
2. (see also action point 3 of day 1, session 1, ‘lifting programme’)

Presentation ‘Future of the IRF’ – Stuart Pinks, CNOPB

Summary

Commitments from the London meeting were discussed. The TOR of the IRF should be looked at closely and amended where necessary to include the more outward-thinking approach of the IRF today. The possibility of expanding the objectives (demonstrated with tools) of the IRF to, for example, promote good safety performance within the global regulatory community, whilst helping to realise that this can be achieved simulateneously with good economic performance. A more global participation in the IRF would require some form of requirement criteria. A consensus was reached not to seek additional members at this time.
The status of the IRF mini-meeting was discussed. The consensus reached was that the mini-meeting is to formulate the agenda for the IRF annual meeting and not for official actions and decisions.

Action points

1. Stuart will edit his paper on the future and TOR of IRF in line with the results of the discussions during this session. He will send the paper by the end of October. Members are asked to submit their comments before the end of November.
2. Having established these new TOR, Brazil will be approached (through the Brazilian Ambassador in the Netherlands) to determine their interest in participating in the IRF, which includes agreeing to the three objectives, and the obligations stipulated in the TOR. (Action: Jan de Jong)

Presentation ‘IRF website’ – Ian Whewell, HSE

Summary

The IRF website has been outsourced by the HSE and the homepage was presented, with three style options, all including an altered IRF logo.

Action points

1. Modify homepage to include the logos at the top of the homepage for comment by IRF members (Action: HSE)
2. All IRF members are to supply a contact point (with e-mail) for the website
3. HSE will circulate the homepage text for comment to IRF members
4. The IRF website homepage will be ready to go online by the end of this month, after which any comments can be given to HSE for alteration
5. MMS will supply links for the Miami conference for the website to HSE

Presentation ‘Miami conference 2007’ – Bud Daneberger, MMS

Summary

Hotel location for the International Regulators Offshore Safety Conference in 2007 chosen for the informal atmosphere (and Florida for the warm weather!). The theme chosen by MMS was discussed and altered. A more detailed description of the theme will be given on the IRF website to include, amongst others, performance and the reputation of the industry amongst potential young employees. A list of purposes for the 2007 meeting was given and discussed and the predicted budget given. The members agreed not to seek industry sponsorships. Consensus was reached on a fee of no more than $700 p.p. for the meeting with a separate reduced fee for partners. A link to the registration for will be posted on the website. The issue of VIPs (e.g., government, labour, industry) as key note speakers for the meeting was discussed.
-----------------------------------------------------------

Ian Whewell gave a presentation on the same subject, with an overview of the proposed programme for the meeting containing some key points for discussion, including number of participants and the exclusion/inclusion of academic representation. There was agreement that the key note speakers should be spread out over the programme.

Action points

1. MMS will get back to the IRF members on the fee (preferably $ 500-700) for the 2007 Miami Conference.
2. All IRF members are encouraged to inform colleagues of this conferences.
3. There will be a line added to the registration form for those who can’t pay registration by credit card. (Action: MMS)
4. Taf Powell (via Ruby) would like each country to nominate 1/2 keynote speaker. All members are asked to suggest names to Ruth within 2 weeks.

Presentation ‘Awards 2007’ – Ian Whewell, HSE

Summary

The Carolita Kallaur Safety Awards scheme was discussed. A filtering system should be applied to limit the number of nominees. Nominations will be sent to an address specified by HSE. HSE will forward nominations to the review team. A maximum of five per country was agreed on. Nominations from all countries (also outside the IRF) will be considered by the nomination committee. The kick-off point for nominations will be when the award page on the IRF website is up and running.

Action points

1. Taf Powell suggested this issue be discussed via a conference call.
2. HSE will draft a standard letter to the IRF for comment end of this month.
3. Taf Powell would like nominations for the judgement panel end of this month.

Presentation ‘IADC Global HSE safety case template’ – Dominic Cattini & Alan Spackman, IADC

Summary

A summary of this paper will be distributed by IADC.

Presentation ‘Progress on IADC’s work on accident statistics’ – Lee Hunt, IADC

Summary

The method of reporting accident/incident statistics used by the IADC was discussed. There is a ‘village’ culture amongst drilling contractors there, where contractors are more aware of safety within their own immediate community than of safety awareness as a whole. This village culture means that the contractors are perhaps even more consistent and diligent in their safety awareness in their immediate surrounding than those in the West. The IADC didn’t feel there was much value at the moment in changing the statistics method due to this culture. The IRF members expressed the need for reliable statistics from the IADC to gain the most from the IRF/IADC partnership in the long-term. However, comparing statistics and gaining harmony in the interpretation of LTI definitions before they enter the statistics is a difficult issue and this was recognised. This harmony is needed before reliable statistics can be gained.

Action points

1. IADC (Dominic Cattini) will investigate the difference and will suggest modifications if necessary. His aim is to stay as close as possible to the definition of IRF and OGP.

Presentation ‘OGP Progress on partnership to improve safety performance in our industry’ – Volkert Zijlker & Don Smith, OGP

Summary

Safety performance in the field of transportation (road, marine, air, and lifting and hoisting) was presented. How can people and equipment be transported safely? OGP has the ambition of achieving this in the industry through the issuing of recommended practices and the setting up of safety committees with the goal of monitoring. This issue is an important one, as 60% of fatalities in the industry are reported in this field. OGP has issued targets to reduce this. A safety data task force has also been set up, which includes NSOAF representatives, with the objective of reviewing the fatalities reported to the OGP in 2005, identifying key learnings and producing a summary report.

Action points

1. OGP is organising a workshop on the management of major incidents on the 14th and 15th of November in London. IRF members will encourage members of their staff to attend this workshop.

Date and place for IRF 2007 and 2008

There was consensus that the IRF meeting 2007 could follow the IRF conference in Miami. The meeting agenda will be streamlined to limit the time needed.

The 2008 meeting will be held in Australia. Suggestions on preferred location are welcome and can be submitted to NOPSA.