annual report 2008 facts section

Transcription

1 annual report 2008 facts section

2 FOREWORD This publication is the facts section of the annual report from the Petroleum Safety Authority Norway (PSA) for It should be read in conjunction with our publication entitled Safety status and signals , which summarises issues of particular concern to us last year and looks ahead to the biggest challenges we foresee in the future. These pages provide factual information on conditions which affected our operations in That includes the priorities we set for our supervisory activities and other work, together with facts about incidents, accidents and injuries and our assessments related to these. Our selection of incidents, accidents and injuries has been based to some extent on the conditions we have found to be of general interest. In other words, the annual report does not aim to provide a complete picture of all types of risk to which players in the petroleum industry must relate. For a more comprehensive review of the risk picture in this sector, readers are referred to our annual report on Trends in risk level in the petroleum activity (RNNP). A summary of the information relating to offshore operations is available in English. We hope that these three publications will collectively provide a good overall picture of the safety challenges presented by the petroleum industry in Norway, the responsibilities of the participants in this activity, and how we as the regulatory authority supervise industry observance of these responsibilities.

3 CONTENTS 1. Supervision of health, safety and the environment Technical and operational integrity in extending production life Management s contribution to reducing major accident risk Integrated operation (IO) Groups particularly exposed to risk Prevention of harm to the natural environment Climate cure Carbon capture and storage (CCS) Well integrity Other results from supervision and guidance Investigation of incidents Player picture Chemical working environment Social dumping Acknowledgement of compliance (AoCs) Results of other work New regulations 8 2. National and international cooperation Safety Forum International North Sea Offshore Authorities Forum (NSOAF) International Regulators Forum (IRF) Bilateral collaboration with Russia Norad Accidents, injuries and incidents Fatal accidents Personal injuries in offshore operations Occupational illness in offshore operations Personal injuries and occupational illness at the land-based plants Gas leaks and fires Gas leaks and fires in offshore operations Gas leaks and fires at land-based plants Damage to structures and pipelines Cracking and storm damage Diving Long-term monitoring of diver health Public affairs and communication Our information policy Media management The internet AuthorityWeb Courses and speeches 17 5 Organisation Our organisation Senior management Supervision Professional competence Regulatory development Operational support and development 18 6 Key financial figures 19 20

4 1. SUPERVISION OF HEALTH, SAFETY AND THE ENVIRONMENT The concept of supervision embraces all the activities we pursue in order to form a picture of the HSE status of one or more of the players in the petroleum business influence the players with a view to improving HSE conditions ensure that all the players conduct their activities in accordance with regulatory and/or in-house requirements consider applications for consents, acknowledgements of compliance (AoCs) and plans for development and operation/installation and operation (PDO/PIO) assess whether compensatory measures adopted are adequate for operating acceptably investigate conditions relating to serious undesirable incidents conduct supervision pursuant to the Act on Pay Agreement Application (non-refundable activity). Our annual activity plans are based on a number of factors which reflect the reality in which we exercise our regulatory role, and the requirements and expectations set for us through the Ministry of Labour and Social Inclusion. To achieve the best possible application of our resources in meeting the targets which have been set, we frame a number of main priorities every year which form the basis for our supervisory activities. The following main priorities were set for 2008: 1. technical and operational integrity in extending production life 2. management s contribution to reducing major accident risk 3. integrated operation (IO) 4. groups particularly exposed to risk 5. prevention of harm to the natural environment. The order in which these priorities are listed is not intended to be a ranking by importance. Our main priorities are supplemented by certain conditions which are significant for HSE, but which will be confined to a specific company, for instance, a particular type of activity or the like. We seek to coordinate such tasks with other supervision which falls within the priority areas in order to make the best use of our resources. A summary is provided below of the challenges we have faces, our activities and our achievements within the various main supervisory priorities. 1.1 Technical and operational integrity in extending production life The purpose of this main priority is to supervise that the companies maintain an acceptable level of safety on installations and at plants being or due to be used beyond their original production life. Within a few years, more than half the installations on the Norwegian continental shelf (NCS) will have passed their design life. The challenges this presents affect safety for people, the environment and material assets. We set the following goals for our work in this area in 2008: determine criteria and frameworks for production life extension contribute to the development of good standards and guidelines by the industry for production life extension collaborate with regulators in other countries to exchange information and contribute to similar treatment of production life extension across national boundaries contribute to a high level of expertise on aging effects and production life extension in the industry and in our own ranks ensure resource-efficient consideration of consent applications. We have succeeded in influencing the industry to begin work on considering the challenges presented by aging and production life extension. That includes a commitment by the Norwegian Oil Industry Association (OLF) to develop standards and guidelines for extending production life, and this activity is under way. We commissioned development work to identify and assess challenges related to aging and production life extension. It is now important that the industry finds solutions to these challenges. We developed an in-house procedure in 2008 for considering consent applications for production life extensions in order to ensure that they were being treated consistently and acceptably. We have earlier issued separate guidelines on the content of such applications. The need for further research on aging and production life extension was identified in some areas. We commissioned Sintef to study challenges in this area related to well integrity, process and technical safety, subsea installations, pipelines and maintenance of aging installations. In November, we organised a major industry seminar at which the results of this research were presented and discussed. Great attention was devoted, internationally and in international collaboration fora for official regulators, to the issues of ageing, production life extension and technical integrity in general during Our knowledge in this area is in demand, and a number of our staff have given papers at recognised international conferences. 3

5 1.2 Management s contribution to reducing major accident risk We pursued a number of supervisory activities during 2008 with this main priority as the principal reference. Work included the integration process in StatoilHydro, resource management in terms of capacity and expertise, work leadership and the approach of the companies to managing their own business (enterprise management). The methods employed varied from the more traditional supervisory/audit methods to meetings with and questions to managements which called for a self-assessment by the company. Audits of work leadership on installations in some selected companies were also conducted on behalf of the North Sea Offshore Authorities Forum (NSOAF) in cooperation with other regulators around the North Sea. In addition, we pursued a number of incident investigations during 2008 where factors related to management follow-up of major accident risk were addressed. Special audits were conducted at a number of operators and entrepreneurs and at one company which manages extensive ownership interests. Questions were put which, in various ways and to varying extents encouraged transparency in processes within company managements which are significant for our supervision helped to identify how companies respond to and accept their own responsibility for factors related to major accident risk, from operational levels and above, up to and including the board produced self-assessments by the respective companies, with feedback that the work was perceived as stimulating and as a result also contributed in some degree to specific improvements contributed to our understanding of the factual base available to company managements for supervising the business contributed to our understanding of the way companies assess and act on compliance. 1.3 Integrated operation (IO) The trend towards IO offers opportunities, but can also create new types of HSE risk. Our goal in this priority area is to follow up the HSE significance of developments in information and communication technology (ICT), which includes the establishment of an industry-specific picture of critical factors influencing ICT safety developing a clear understanding of roles among players concerned and the regulatory authorities being a challenger on relationships between ICT safety and HSE risk being a prime mover in ensuring that IO contributes to an improvement in HSE. We have checked that the companies are establishing an ambition as well as specific measures for using IO in the further development of HSE management, and that the change processes prompted by IO are implemented in a good way. We will also influence the industry to establish HSE as a driver for developing new IO solutions, particularly with safety-critical work processes and systems. We seek to achieve our goals in this area through a planned linkage of technical projects, supervisory activities, creation of frameworks and provision of guidance. As a result of our overall commitment in this area during 2008, we consider that we have contributed to greater understanding in the industry of the types and scope of vulnerabilities in process management and safety systems, and to increased awareness of the way changes in information systems affect vulnerability in general. With regard to a clear understanding of roles by the players involved and the regulatory authorities, we have established a collaboration with other relevant specialist agencies such as the Norwegian Post and Telecommunications Authority and the Norwegian Water Resources and Energy Administration (NVE) to exploit possible synergies. We also participated actively in the development and execution of a national ICT safety exercise, where the role of the authorities occupied a central place. We contribute to and participate in R&D projects and working groups established by the OLF to identify links between ICT safety and the management of major accident risk. A positive trend we have also identified is that the industry, through the OLF and the large operators, now specifies that better HSE management will be a goal for IO. We have seen a number of specific examples where information systems and collaboration technology are applied to improve work on HSE. In addition, we conducted audits during 2009 with a number of development and change projects which occupy a key place in the move to IO. This work also involves a dialogue with the unions aimed at ensuring that IO-related change processes are conducted in a positive manner. Furthermore, we find that our efforts to place IO in a human-technology-organisational (HTO) perspective are now having an effect on the goals being set by the companies for the development of new IO solutions. 1.4 Groups particularly exposed to risk Systems to identify and monitor groups particularly exposed to risk were further developed and improved in those companies we audited for this aspect during We also see that the work has enhanced expertise in the companies. Furthermore, our supervision has helped to clarify responsibilities and the division of labour between operator and contractor with regard to following up groups particularly exposed to risk at the latter. In addition, audits of various contractors have contributed to improvement measures related to the general follow-up of the working environment in the affected companies. 4

6 Our activities within this main priority included an audit of six operator companies which had contractual relationships with seven contractors. The audit focused on the identification and follow-up of potentially exposed groups by the companies. We also conducted an audit of catering services in the petroleum industry involving three catering companies, 16 operators and 12 shipping companies. In addition, audits were carried out at three land-based plants with a focus on groups particularly exposed to risk. A database developed to express risk profiles has been used to create such profiles for groups identified by the industry itself as particularly exposed to risk, to serve as background data for audits. Through our work on the RNNP report, we have developed risk profiles for well service workers and electricians. Our databases and experience identify surface treatment personnel as the group potentially most exposed to risk in the petroleum activity. We also gave priority to supervisory activities directed at catering workers. This category has high levels of sickness absence and runs a great risk of musculoskeletal disorders. Information activities related to issues in this area were given priority in That included a seminar for the industry on groups of workers particularly exposed to risk, where experience from supervisory and research activities was presented. As part of our RNNP work, we also conducted seminars with technical exports in various working environment fields and representatives of surface treatment personnel and electricians. The aim was to acquire an integrated understanding of risk for these groups and to develop reduction measures. We have used consultants to support our work on developing risk profiles and knowledge about the way organisational, technical and social/cultural frame conditions affect the risk to which groups are exposed. 1.5 Prevention of harm to the natural environment Our supervision related to the natural environment is intended to influence the players to prevent acute emissions/discharges, make integrated assessments with regard to people, the environment and material assets, and choose solutions which support national and regional environmental goals. We contributed in 2008 to the preparation of the management plan for the Norwegian Sea and the followup to the management plan for the Barents Sea. We sought in this work to contribute to an enhanced understanding of integrated risk management and preventive measures. Four cross-company and 17 player-specific audits were conducted in General experience from these activities suggests that the players have still not fully appreciated the importance of working to prevent emissions/discharges as the first barrier against environmental harm. We also conducted three investigations during 2008 into incidents involving discharges to the sea. These revealed that, although the direct causes of the accidents differed, their underlying causes all shared the same general features. The latter concern key management aspects such as clear roles and responsibilities, expertise management, experience transfer and learning from previous incidents, and risk assessment of equipment and methods. Lack of knowledge about, respect for or compliance with in-house procedures has also proved a common denominator of these incidents Climate cure 2020 The goal of the Norwegian government s climate compromise last winter is that Norway will reduce its current emissions by a quarter up to The climate cure has been established to meet the goal of securing two-thirds of this cut domestically. Together with government funding of emission reductions in other countries, this will ensure that Norway lowers its emissions by 30 per cent from the 1990 level up to That marks a step towards becoming climate-neutral in Until the autumn of 2009, a number of technical government agencies will be drafting recipes for various instruments and measures. We have contributed to this work, which is led by the Norwegian Pollution Control Authority (SFT). The authorities are involving research bodies, industry, environmental organisations and other centres of expertise in this work, which is intended to yield an overview of instruments and measures in November Due to be submitted to the government, this report will identify a variety of opportunities and describe their consequences. We strengthened our own expertise on the natural environment in 2008 through recruitment and in-house education. We are continuing to build on our work concerning major accidents by making it clear that barriers must also prevent large-scale incidents which can harm the environment Carbon capture and storage (CCS) We initiated two substantial technical studies on the carbon dioxide issue in 2008, and are also participating with regulators in other countries as observers in an industry project. The goal of these activities is to identify risk factors and knowledge gaps related to the capture, transport and storage of carbon dioxide under high pressure and in liquid phase. Our contribution will be to uncover HSE-related knowledge gaps and to identify risk factors related to carbon capture and transport in the liquid phase. That includes commissioning Det Norske Veritas (DNV) to carry out a study of this issue. We are also seeking to learn more about well safety in connection with carbon injection, including the question of whether this substance can influence existing well barriers which prevent oil and gas leaks. Sintef has assessed these conditions for us. 5

7 DNV is also responsible for studying carbon pipelines. The goal is to identify special risk factors related to largescale carbon transport in order to produce recommended standards for such facilities both over land and on the seabed. We have an observer role in this project, which has been commissioned by the industry. We submitted a report to the Ministry of Labour and Social Inclusion in 2008 concerning regulations and frame conditions in this area Well integrity Priority supervision of well integrity was initiated in 2006, when we laid a basis through a series of extensive audits covering operator management in this area. Our supervisory activities here was again concentrated in 2008 on following up company work to implement measures prompted in part by these audits. Activity in 2008 also embraced follow-up of the OLF s work to establish guidelines for well integrity. In addition, we worked on categorising various types of problems with well barriers and on further development of measurement criteria used in the RNNP report. In terms of topics, we paid special attention in 2008 to continued work on the integrity of injection well in general, and carbon injection wells in particular, and on barriers and integrity in multilaterals. These efforts exposed challenges and weaknesses related to cementing quality, choice of materials, measuring barrier status and degradation of materials in barrier elements. We collaborated in 2008 with the Dutch authorities in their pilot project for establishing the integrity of wells offshore and on land in the Netherlands. Our contribution included transfer of experience from our work and supervisory activities in , active participation in auditing 10 operator companies, and the preparation of audit reports. The integrity and barrier status of 44 temporarily abandoned wells on the NCS was followed up in This work embraced data gathering from 10 operator companies and audits of six of these with wells temporarily abandoned for more than eight years. These audits showed that the operators have established satisfactory well integrity overviews and have conducted risk assessments of all such wells. 1.6 Other results from supervision and guidance Investigation of incidents Investigation is a good aid to learning about the causes of serious incidents and to focusing attention on causal mechanisms human, technological and organisational. The primary purpose of an investigation is to help ensure that similar incidents do not recur and to contribute to disseminating experience through the industry which can support learning processes in the companies. We completed the following investigations in 2008: Songa Dee, fire (4 December 2007) West Alpha, personal injury, Eni Navion Scandia, Draugen, loading system, Shell Statfjord A, loading hose (12 December 2007), StatoilHydro Statfjord A, oil spill, StatoilHydro Oseberg C, gas leak, StatoilHydro Troll A, lifting incident with personal injury, StatoilHydro. In addition to our own investigations, we served as an observer on a couple of inquiries pursued by companies themselves. We also conducted an audit of an in-house investigation by a company concerning an oily water leak. Experience from our investigations shows that the companies face challenges in the quality of their own inquiries with regard to addressing causes at management level rather than exclusively at the sharp end, and to identifying relevant measures and their follow-up. Through our own investigations and by following up those conducted by the companies, we have helped to concentrate greater attention on these challenges. We now seem to be observing a trend towards improvement. In addition, our investigations have identified deficiencies with the management of relevant work operations related to incidents, unclear responsibilities and lack of risk understanding. These conditions are expected to be improved through the measures taken by the companies Player picture Changes to the player picture during 2008 were dominated by the merger between Statoil and Hydro the year before. Great attention was paid by the new company to HSE challenges involved in such a far-reaching change, and we have not so far registered any particular negative trends attributable to the union. Over time, however, the very dominant position which StatoilHydro will occupy in Norway s petroleum sector could create supervisory challenges. The number of smaller players has increased substantially in recent years. We devote the largest resources to following up operator companies with fields in the production phase and with forthcoming exploration drilling and development projects. The number of players in this category has been relatively stable in recent years. However, we have witnessed a substantial expansion in small companies with low levels of activity in the respective production licences. Through acquisitions and mergers, we see that new medium- 6

8 sized companies are eventually being formed with the expertise and strength to undertake more extensive activities on the NCS. We will give priority to closer follow-up of these. At our initiative, the OLF has staged a seminar for new players. The companies which participated have given positive feedback, and we have noted that our need to provide guidance for new small companies has noticeably declined Chemical working environment Much of the activity on the chemical working environment in the petroleum sector is organised through the project on this issue being pursued by the OLF in collaboration with the other employer associations and unions. This project has not pursued its action plan in line with the milestones adopted in January However, changes made to the project organisation and staffing during the second half mean that the work has now got well under way and realistic plans have been laid for catching up with the schedule during In addition, the content of the project has been strengthened by comparison with the original plans. The project s own activities, and the R&D work it has initiated and is partially financing, are considered to be well focused on the weaknesses in company management identified by our supervisory activities in It is realistic to expect the project to lead to improved company practice, which will help to reduce the risk of immediate and long-term harm from chemical exposure. We have an observer role on the management committee for the project, which is otherwise drawn from the employers and the unions. In addition, we have had separate meetings with the project management, and this follow-up has allowed us to influence the content and progress of the work. We have collaborated directly with the project on expertise development and knowledge transfer, and on the development of risk indicators for the chemical working environment. We focused in 2008 on health risks and integrated chemical management related to the use of drilling fluids. The goals of this activity have included supporting necessary technology development. Work will continue in In circulars to the companies, we have reported on the work now being pursued in the chemical area and the role of the companies in the industry s improvement project. Given research results which indicate that the incidence of haematological cancers may be elevated among personnel working in the petroleum industry, we have asked the companies for an assessment of exposure to benzene and possibly to other relevant agents as well as information on which measures have been adopted to reduce such exposure. Data from the companies are being processed Social dumping Now that the land-based Nyhamna and Melkøya plants have moved into the production phase, the use of foreign labour in the industry has declined substantially. We accordingly continued our work on preventing social dumping during 2008 by monitoring activities in the industry and following up plants with project activities/turnarounds which involve the use of foreign labour. We conducted an audit at the Mongstad plant in 2008 with the focus on pay and working conditions as well as HSE factors for foreign employees. As a result of this work, we ordered one of the principal contractors to cease the use of workers whose pay and working conditions could not be documented as complying with the Act on Pay Agreement Application. An appeal against this order was made to the Ministry of Labour and Social Inclusion, where it was under consideration at 31 December. In February, the Ministry found in favour of the complainant and specified that we are not empowered to order a service supplier to present documentation related to the pay and working conditions of contract labour. This also means that we did not have the power to require that work be halted because the order was not complied with. As a result of the relevant audit, we also issued orders to the operator company and main contractor for failure to observe their compliance and information responsibilities. These orders have not been challenged, and will be followed up in the normal manner. We take the view that conditions for foreign workers at this land-based plant have significantly improved in terms of compliance with the Act on Pay Agreement Application. It is also our view that this issue has had a positive impact on the organisation of future activities at land-based plants subject to our regulatory authority. Furthermore, we have checked than the operator is dealing with the increased risk presented by language and cultural difference in the workplace. Our work within the framework of the collaboration agreements we have entered into with the Norwegian Labour Inspection Authority and the tax authorities includes the development of common information materials directed at foreign workers. We are also collaborating with the Labour Inspection Authority on coordinating and developing follow-up strategies pursuant to the Act on Pay Agreement Application Acknowledgement of compliance (AoCs) Seven AoCs were issued in 2008, and 35 mobile units had received such acknowledgements at 31 December. Seven applications were under consideration at the same date. 7

9 In our view, the AoC system helps to create greater predictability for the industry, improves knowledge and understanding of the regulations, and enhances the sense of responsibility of mobile unit owners. In certain cases, however, the resources we have devoted to considering applications are unnecessarily large because of the poor quality of the underlying documentation. This has resulted in time-consuming communication with the applicant and a longer process. Another consequence is that the owners incur costs. The issue of poor-quality applications has been raised with the industry in general. The individual applicant has also been reminded of the requirements for submitting an AoC when they notify us of their intention to apply. An AoC is mandatory for the following units which are registered in a national register of shipping: drilling rigs, accommodation units (flotels), floating production, storage and offloading units, floating drilling, production, storage and offloading units, and well intervention vessels which are to conduct petroleum operations on the NCS. An AoC has been a requirement since 1 January 2004 for mobile drilling units intending to conduct petroleum operations on the NCS. The extension came into force on 1 January The past year in particular has seen the entry of a number of new players with limited knowledge of the regulations and experience of the routines associated with the AoC system. Combined with substantial delays which have arisen in a series of fabrication projects, this meant that we devoted more resources than planned to considering applications for AoCs in Acknowledgement of compliance (AoC) An AoC is a statement from us that a mobile installation s technical condition as well as the applicant s organisation and management system are considered to comply with relevant requirements in Norway s offshore regulations. More information about this arrangement can be found on our website. 1.7 Results of other work New regulations We worked during 2008 on completing new common regulations for petroleum operations offshore and at specified land-based plants. For various reasons, it was not possible to complete this work in 2008 as originally planned. Conducted in , the first round of public consultation resulted in many and extensive comments on both the structure and content of the proposed regulations. The consideration of these response proved complicated and time-consuming, and a new consultation round proved necessary in the autumn of This has also raised issues of principle which have further delayed the process of finalising the regulations. This activity must accordingly be continued in Our collaboration with employers and unions over work on the regulations through the established Regulatory Forum again functioned well in Through their responses in the consultation process and proposals in the forum, both sides have made constructive contributions to the development of the regulations. 8

10 ÅRSBERETNING annual report petroleumstilsynet 2. NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION 2.1 Safety Forum The ambition for Norway s petroleum industry to be a world leader for HSE again helped to determine the Safety Forum s strategic choices in The matrix for assignments and responsibilities created to follow up White Paper no 12 on this issue was subject to semi-annual status reviews by the forum. Large-scale processes and projects related to priority areas such as the lifeboat project, the chemical project and the RNNP are entrenched in the forum. The lifeboat project was established by the OLF under pressure from us in September 2005 after weaknesses and limitations were exposed in freefall lifeboats on offshore installations. Extensive work was launched by the industry, with contributions from the parties involved. The first phase cost more than NOK 200 million. A total of model trials and just over 200 full-scale tests were carried out with freefall lifeboats. The second phase was launched in the autumn of 2007 and continued into A separate project has also been established by the Norwegian Shipowners Association (NR), which includes such elements as design and improvement of existing equipment, training and expertise, and maintenance and optimisation of rescue equipment. The NR is collaborating closely with the OLF s lifeboat project. Both lifeboat and chemical projects have been through demanding phases, with debates about their management and worker participation. A grip now seems to have been acquired on these challenges in a constructive manner, and substantial technical and financial resources are being devoted by everyone concerned to reach a conclusion within a binding framework. The Safety Forum is kept constantly informed about the progress and status of our follow-up of such priority areas as groups at risk, management of major accident risk, environmental challenges, aging installations and extended production life as well as integrated emergency preparedness. Management and control of major accident risk as well as technical and operational safety are key issues under discussion, partly in the wake of serious accidents and near-misses. Working environment conditions related to working time, restitution and rest, health, and customising work to avoid exclusion are key issues along with worker participation. The Safety Forum had worker participation and unionmanagement-government (tripartite) collaboration high on its agenda during In that context, the OLF undertook the organisation of a one-day seminar for forum members and other specially invited participants with participation and collaboration on the agenda. The annual conference of the Safety Forum has become the central arena for discussion of HSE challenges pursuant to the ambitions expressed in White Paper no 12. More than 200 people took part in the 2008 conference under the title TimeOut. Subjects discussed included such issues as the significance of capacity and expertise shortages, perspectives for HSE in the oil and gas industry after 2012, how the ambition of becoming a world leader for HSE should be sustained and the consequences of a concern for the natural environment if the industry moves steadily further north, and the position of the authorities when the pace of industry activity challenges the level of HSE performance. 2.2 International North Sea Offshore Authorities Forum (NSOAF) Safety regulators in the UK, the Netherlands, Germany, Denmark, Ireland, Sweden, the Faroes and Norway participate in the NSOAF. Over the years, working groups appointed by the forum have conducted many projects aimed at identifying common challenges and adopting joint measures which can contribute to improving the level of HSE. Many challenges are of such a nature that they demand common action to achieve improvements. The industry is international, and many companies operate across continental shelf boundaries, which requires the regulatory authorities to act in the most coordinated possible manner. The regulators have limited resources, and exchanging experience, sharing information and collaborating permit more optimum use of these. From time to time, the Norwegian regulations are alleged to set safety standards which drive up costs compared with offshore requirements in other countries. It is important in this context to have a good understanding of the way each offshore regulator enforces regulatory requirements. The NSOAF collaboration contributes to this. The forum s annual meeting receives reports from the various working groups and decides on the work programme for the coming period, including the possible winding up or creation of new working groups. There are currently four of these, covering training, wells, EU/EEC and HSE. The NSOAF s members cooperate with the European Diving Technology Committee (EDTC) and the Offshore Mechanical Handling Equipment Committee (OMHEC). Some 20 European countries belong to the EDTC, and each member state can appoint one civil service, union, industry and medical representative. Norway has appointed a representative from each of these four categories, with the PSA representing the authorities. The EDTC s principal activity is work on joint documents which are posted to its website. Although its scope is confined to Europe, documents 9

11 produced by the committee are also used as references in other parts of the world. One example is the document on diver expertise, which has been produced and issued together with the International Marine Contractors Association (Imca). The OMHEC brings together specialists on crane and lifting operations, and holds two meetings a year. Personnel from Denmark, the Netherlands, the UK and Norway participate in the committee s work, and each nation can appoint up to four representatives. Its principal activity is work on joint documents, such as common recommendations on issues related to cranes and lifting. These include recommendations on expertise requirements for personnel and competent persons, and on educational standards International Regulators Forum (IRF) Members of the IRF are the USA, Canada, Brazil, the UK, Australia, New Zealand, the Netherlands and Norway. The IRF held its 15th annual meeting in Sydney, Australia, during October An important issue on the agenda was the publication of results from the performance measures project. This has been under way for a number of years, and aims to permit the level of offshore safety to be measured and compared between member countries by collecting and collating incident data on the basis of common criteria. Since registration criteria for incidents and accidents vary very considerably from country to country, this issue has proved extremely difficult to resolve. Although the system which has now been developed is not perfect, the members agreed that it provides the best basis for comparison obtainable at the present time. It was accordingly resolved that the results would be published on the IRF website Bilateral collaboration with Russia Our collaboration with the Russian authorities represents an extension of the former Boris project, and is supported by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Continued capacity constraints and another reorganisation at Rostekhnadzor meant that joint activities in 2008 again fell short of the planned level. On the other hand, we have become involved in the work of the marine environment group under the Russo-Norwegian environmental commission, and have participated in meetings to plan common activities in 2009 and 2010 in this context. We have given priority in our collaboration to the approach taken to international industry standards in national regulations. The goal is to contribute to the Norwegian government s Barents 2020 initiative by ensuring that a joint review with Russian players of standards for petroleum activities in the far north becomes entrenched in national work on regulatory development. A seminar on the use of international standards in national regulations was staged in Oslo during 2008, with participation from Rostekhnadzor, the Russian embassy in Oslo, the Ministry of Labour and Social Inclusion, Standards Norway and DNV as well as ourselves. The SFT was also present. The programme included a briefing on the relationship between regulations and standards in Russia. We also contributed to the Arctic Frontiers conference, with a focus on risk assessment related to petroleum operations in far northern waters. Furthermore, we have monitored the development of offshore petroleum activities in Russian waters in part through meetings with Rostekhnadzor and StatoilHydro s Moscow office Norad The Norwegian government established its Oil for Development (OfU) project in 2005 as an assistance programme for developing countries in the petroleum sector. Operational responsibility rests with the Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation (Norad), which seeks technical support in this work for a number of specialist agencies. HSE forms part of most OfU programmes. We contribute to a number of these, primarily together with the Norwegian Petroleum Directorate (NPD) and the SFT. Together with the latter, we are responsible for executing a project in Vietnam. 3. ACCIDENTS, INJURIES AND INCIDENTS 3.1 Fatal accidents No lives were lost through accidents within our jurisdiction in the petroleum sector during Table 1 provides an overview of fatal accidents in our jurisdiction over the past decade. Figures for land-based plants are included from 2004, when regulatory responsibility for these facilities was transferred to us. As the table shows, six people were killed in accidents during these years. In line with the intentions and requirements of the regulations, the responsible companies must seek to ensure a continual reduction in the risk for all types of accident. 3.2 Personal injuries in offshore operations The number of serious personal injuries fell from 36 in 2007 to 34 in Since the number of hours worked rose by roughly five per cent, the serious injury frequency showed a relatively substantial decline from 0.95 per million working hours in 2007 to This frequency has been falling since 2005, and the industry is now virtually back to the 2004 level of 0.93 per million working hours. The decline in 2008 relates to 10

12 Year Cause 1999 Crushed while handling drill pipe 2000 Crushed during cargo handling 2001 (None) 2002 Hit by dropped object Crushed by dropped object 2003 (None) 2004 (None) 2005 Hit by tool during work in a rock cavern 2006 (None) 2007 Drowned after falling overboard during work 2008 (None) Table 1: Fatal accidents in the 10-year period permanently positioned installations, where the injury frequency for the year was the lowest ever. Mobile units, on the other hand, showed a negative trend with a frequency of 1.4 per million working hours in The total number of reportable personal injuries also declined from A total of 405 were reported in 2008, compared with 437 the year before. When the increase in working hours is taken into account, this represents an injury frequency of 10.2 per million working hours, compared with 11.6 in Mobile units experienced a marked reduction from 13.7 per million working hours in 2007 to 8.7. This frequency is now lower than for permanently positioned installations, where it was 10.8 in Injuries per million work-hours Figures 1 and 2 present the personal injury frequency for the main job categories on permanently positioned installations and mobile units respectively. They show a substantial reduction in the frequency of reportable personal injuries in the period, from just over 25 per million working hours on production installations and a little more than 30 on mobile units to roughly 11 for both categories. The personal injury frequency appears to have stabilised at this level. Around the turn of the century, a number of companies began to use all reportable personal injuries rather than lost-time injuries as a measure in safety work. This has focused greater attention on the classification of injuries at the boundary between medical treatment and first aid, since the latter are not included in the statistics. That probably helps to explain a significant proportion of the reduction from 2000 to Figure 3 shows that the injury frequency remains lower for operator employees than for contractor personnel on permanently positioned installations. However, the difference in 2008 was smaller than in The data on which the graph is based do not necessarily mean that contractors perform worse in safety terms than operators, but can say something about who does the riskiest jobs in terms of personal injuries. Sixty-five per cent of total working hours on production installations are performed by contractor personnel. Drilling and well operations, for instance, are performed almost exclusively by contractors, so that no basis exists for a comparison in that area. Where job categories are more comparable, such as administration, catering and construction/maintenance, little difference exists between injury frequencies for operator and contractor employees. Injury figures are reported collectively for production and administration on fixed installations. Where serious injuries are concerned, the drilling and well operations function accounts for the biggest contribution. Contractor personnel and operator employees both have virtually the same frequency of serious personal injuries on permanently positioned installations. The number of hours performed by contractor personnel was reduced by 0.1 million in Figure 1 Personal injury frequency by job category on permanently positioned installations Administration Drilling and well operations Catering Operation and maintenance Total 11

13 Figure 2 Personal injury frequency by job category on mobile units 60 Injuries per million work-hours Administration Drilling and well operations Catering Operation and maintenance Total The figures used to compile the graphs on these pages can be found on our web site at Further information is also provided in the full and summary RNNP reports on trends in risk level in the petroleum activity, which are available both as separate publications and in electronic form on our website. 3.3 Occupational illness in offshore operations In addition to the suffering of the person affected and their next of kin, occupational illness involves substantial costs for society and the companies. The incidence of such ill-health can provide an indicator of working environment quality, and we influence the companies through our supervisory activities to make active use of information about the occurrence of and reasons for occupational illness in their preventive safety and environmental work. A total of 880 reports of work-related illness were received in 2008, rather lower than the reported the year before. Reports of noise-induced hearing loss increased markedly in 2007 and remained at this high level during 2008, as figure 4 shows. However, there is no reason to suppose that this represents a genuine rise in the number of cases of hearing loss. Such conditions are usually identified through targeted investigations, and the number of reported cases accordingly depends largely on how many such campaigns were conducted and which categories of workers were checked. Although exposure to noise remains a problem, particularly in certain types of activities in the petroleum industry, there is little reason to believe that the incidence of hearing loss would show a real increase. Figure 4 also indicates that musculo-skeletal disorders again represented a large category of diagnoses in 2008, but the number of cases in this group was somewhat reduced from the year before. Excluding the hearing loss category, such conditions account for 62 per cent of the remaining cases of occupational illness in However, the offshore petroleum sector does not differ significantly from other industrial and commercial activity in Norway where such problems are concerned. The two most important groups of causes for musculo-skeletal disorders, accounting for about 50 per cent of all cases, are heavy loads or lifts and repetitive, monotonous work. The large role played by heavy lifting might seem hard to explain in the light of increased mechanisation, but demonstrates all the more clearly how important it is to organise work well. 12

14 Figure 3 Personnal injury frequency for operator and contractor employees on permanently positioned installations in 2008 Injuries per million work-hours ,6 5,2 Administration and production 12,5 Drilling and well operations 10,1 Catering 9,0 15,0 15,4 Construction and maintenance 12,1 Total 8,1 contractor operators Skin problems represent the third largest group of diagnoses. A considerable number of cases involve eczema on the hands as a result of contact with oil-based substances. Indeterminate conditions often refer to symptoms which are difficult to classify as a diagnosis, but are nevertheless considered to be occupationally-related. Other conditions embrace a set of diagnoses which occur relatively infrequently and are not included under the other headings. To protect the privacy of individuals, it is undesirable to list these diagnoses separately. We identified toxic effects as a separate group of diagnoses for the first time in our 2007 report. Twenty such cases were reported in 2008, a substantial decline from the previous year and more like the figure for This category primarily embraces people who have become ill from exposure to gas, smoke or fumes. Some increase in the number of reported cases probably relates to the attention given to such problems in recent years, both by the authorities and by the industry. Reported cases are broken down by job category in figure 5. After displaying a downward trend for several years, the drilling and well operations category reverted to a substantial rise in The principal reason for the higher proportion in this job category was thought to be the increase in reported cases of hearing loss in that year. Drilling and well personnel are a group particularly exposed to noise, and a number of hearing investigations conducted in 2007 focused precisely on this category. The number of cases of ill-health for such personnel declined somewhat in 2008 despite the continuing high incidence of noise-induced hearing loss, which shows that such injuries are also a major problem for other groups. Excluding this, changes in the distribution of occupational illness between the other job categories were relatively modest in Figure 4 Exposure factors - musculo-skeletal complaints Musculoskeletal system Skin Noise induced hearing loss Toxic effects Undefined conditions Other conditions