99 Safety Performance of the Global E&P Industry

7/25/2019 99 Safety Performance of the Global E&P Industry

1/92

Report No. 6.86/305May 2000

1999

Safety performance of theglobal E&P industry


2/92

P

ublications

Global experience

The International Association of Oil & Gas Producers (formerly the E&P Forum) hasaccess to a wealth of technical knowledge and experience with its members operatingaround the world in many different terrains. We collate and distil this valuable knowl-edge for the industry to use as guidelines for good practice by individual members.

Consistent high quality database and guidelines

Our overall aim is to ensure a consistent approach to training, management and bestpractice throughout the world.

The oil and gas exploration and production industry recognises the need to develop con-sistent databases and records in certain fields. The OGPs members are encouraged touse the guidelines as a starting point for their operations or to supplement their ownpolicies and regulations which may apply locally.

Internationally recognised source of industry information

Many of our guidelines have been recognised and used by international authorities andsafety and environmental bodies. Requests come from governments and non-governmentorganisations around the world as well as from non-member companies.

Disclaimer

Whilst every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the information contained in thispublication, neither the OGP nor any of its members will assume liability for any use madethereof.

Copyright OGP

Material may not be copied, reproduced , republished, downloaded, posted, broadcast or

transmitted in any way except for your own personal non-commercial home use. Any otheruse requires the prior written permission of the OGP.

These Terms and Conditions shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the lawsof England and Wales. Disputes arising here from shall be exclusively subject to the jurisdic-tion of the courts of England and Wales.


3/92

Safety performance of the globalE&P industry - 1999 data

Report No: 6.86/305

May 2000


4/92

The safety statistics for 1999 were derived from data provided by the following companies:

Amerada Hess

Anadarko

Arco

BG

BHP

BP Amoco

Chevron

Conoco

Denerco

DNO Heather

Dansk Olie & Naturgas

Ecopetrol *

Elf

ENI

Exxon

Greater Nile Petroleum

Hocol

Kuwait Oil Company

Lasmo

Maersk Oil & GasMarathon

Mobil Corporation

Occidental

PDVSA

Petro-Canada

Petronas Carigali

Phillips

Premier

PTT EP

QGPC

RasGas

Repsol

Saudi Aramco

Shell

Statoil

Texaco

Triton

TotalFina

Veba

Wintershall*

* non-member


5/92i

Safety performance of the global E&P industry 1999

2000 OGP

Preface ii

1 Summary 1

1.1 Fatalities .......................................................................................................................................................11.2 Lost time injuries..........................................................................................................................................21.3 Total recordable incidents.............................................................................................................................21.4 Database....................................................................................................................................................... 2

2 Overall results 3

2.1 Fatalities .......................................................................................................................................................32.2 Fatal accident rate.........................................................................................................................................42.3 Fatal incident rate.........................................................................................................................................52.4 Fatality causes ..............................................................................................................................................62.5 Fatality demography.....................................................................................................................................72.6 Lost time injury frequency............................................................................................................................ 82.7 Severity of lost workday cases .......................................................................................................................92.8 Total recordable incident rate ..................................................................................................................... 102.9 Incident ratios............................................................................................................................................. 11

3 Results by region 12

3.1 Fatalities .....................................................................................................................................................123.2 Lost time injury frequency.......................................................................................................................... 133.3 FAR and LTIF 5-year rolling averages ........................................................................................................ 143.4 Severity of lost workday cases ..................................................................................................................... 163.5 Total recordable incident rate ..................................................................................................................... 173.6 Individual country performance................................................................................................................. 18

4 Results by function 204.1 Fatalities .....................................................................................................................................................204.2 Lost time injury frequency.......................................................................................................................... 214.3 Severity of lost workday cases .....................................................................................................................224.4 Total recordable incident rate ..................................................................................................................... 234.5 Exploration performance ............................................................................................................................ 244.6 Drilling performance.................................................................................................................................. 264.7 Production performance............................................................................................................................. 284.8 Other performance.....................................................................................................................................30

5 Results by company 32

5.1 Overall company results ............................................................................................................................. 335.2 Company results by function...................................................................................................................... 38

6 Significant incidents 40

7 Conclusions 41

Appendices

Appendix A Database dimensions ..................................................................................................................42Appendix B Data tables..................................................................................................................................46Appendix C Fatal incident reports by region.................................................................................................. 59Appendix D Significant incident reports by region.........................................................................................66Appendix E Restricted workday analysis ........................................................................................................72

Appendix F Glossary of terms ........................................................................................................................80Appendix G Contributing companies ............................................................................................................83Appendix H Countries represented................................................................................................................ 84

Table of contents


6/92ii

International Association of Oil & Gas Producers

2000 OGP

Preface

The principal purposes of this report are to record thesafety performance of the E & P industry in 1999 andrelative to previous years, and to enable OGP members

and others to benchmark their performance against thatof the global industry.

The key indicators for analysis of safety performanceare fatalities, lost time injuries and the totals of recorda-ble incidents. The report presents global results for theseindicators, which are then analysed by region, functionand company. A code is used for the company resultsto preserve anonymity. The performance of both com-panies and contractors is reported.

Wherever practicable, results are presented graphically.

The data underlying the charts are tabulated in Appen-dix B. The tables are organised according to the sectionin the report where the chart appears.

Except as used in the expression significant incident,the word significant in this report has a statisticalmeaning. A result that is significantly different from

another result is one that is statistically different witha level of confidence of 95%. The term significanttherefore implies real difference. Two results may berather different, but if the databases of hours on whichthey are based are both small or widely disparate, thedifference may not be significant. On the other hand,small differences in results may be significant if thedatabases for the two results are both large.


7/921


2000 OGP

1 Summary

1.1 Fatalities

There were 84 company and contractor fatalitiesreported in 1999, 61 fewer than in 1998. In addition,18 third party fatalities were reported. Together,these amount on average to two deaths per week.

The worst incident was a helicopter crash in theMiddle East in which 12 personnel lost their lives,of whom 9 were E&P personnel. Eight other inci-dents led to more than one fata lity.

The fatal accident rate for companies was 4.8 fatali-ties per 100 million hours worked, inflated by the

helicopter crash by about 50% relative to the levelprevailing in 1996 and 1997.

The contractor fatal accident rate was 8.1 fatalitiesper 100 million hours, the lowest level in the past 5years.

The fatal incident rate, which measures the fre-quency of incidents that result in one or more fatal-ities, fell to 5.9 incidents per 100 million hoursworked, equalling the lowest on record.

The most common types of incident leading tofatalities were persons being struck by moving orfalling objects, falls and vehicle incidents.

The largest number of lives were lost in air crashesand explosions/burns followed by falls.

Fatal accident rateper 100 m illion hours w orked

0

5

10

15

20Contractor

Company

19991998199719961995

8.2

9.9

3.1

11.4

3.3

10.9

4.7 4.8

16.6

8.1

Impact of air crash

Fatality causesnum ber of deaths

Other

5Vehicle incidents

9

Struck by

10

Falls

14

Explosion/burns

16

Electrocution2

Drowning

8

Caught

between

4

Air transport

16


8/922


2000 OGP

1.2 Lost time injuries

Lost t ime injur y frequencyper m illion hours w orked

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0ContractorCompany

19991998199719961995

2.6

3.9

2.0

3.1

2.0

3.0

1.9

2.7

1.6

2.1

There were 2239 injuries resulting in at least one

day off work. This equates to an average of 43 suchinjuries every week of the year.

The average time lost per injury was 28.5 days.Over 70,000 days (190 man-years) are estimated tohave been lost in total.

The frequency of lost time injuries reduced to anew record low of 1.94 injuries per million hoursworked, a reduction of 20% on the 1998 frequency.Most of the improvement owed to contractor per-formance, which was 23% better than in 1998.

Encouragingly, both contractors and companies,and both onshore and offshore sectors, all turned inrecord low levels of lost time injury frequency.

Performance in the exploration part of the indus-try was 0.88 lost time injuries per million hoursworked, the first time that any business sector hasbeaten the 1.0 hurdle.

On the basis of 5-year rolling averages, all regionsrecorded their lowest ever lost time injury frequen-cies. The best region in 1999 was Asia/Australasia

with an LTIF of 0.85, and the worst South Americaat 3.1.

1.3 Total recordable incidents

The rate for all recordable incidents (fatalities, lostworkday cases, restricted workday cases and medi-cal treatment cases) was 5.98 incidents per millionhours worked, essentially the same as in 1998.

1.4 Database

The database covers 1197 million hours worked, a6% increase on 1998 and the highest in the his-tory of safety data reporting in the global oil & gasindustry.

40 companies contributed data. All but five reportedstatistics for their contractors.

Operations in 66 countries are covered by the data-base.


9/923


2000 OGP

2 Overall results

2.1 Fatalities

There were 84 company and contractor fatalities in 1999. The worst incident was a heli-copter crash in which 9 company and 3 third party lives were lost.

The fatal accident rate for 1999 was substantially lower than in 1998. However, the 1998results were skewed by the major air crash that claimed 65 company and contractor lives.Without the effect of the air crash, the fatal accident rate was marginally worse in 1999than 1998.

The types of incidents most commonly resulting in company and contractor fatalities arefalls, persons being struck by moving objects, and vehicle incidents.

Over the past ten years, the contractor FAR has shown a sustained reduction.

The lost time injury frequency improved substantially in 1999. This result extends theconsistent trend of improvement seen over the past 10 years, particularly among contrac-tors and in the offshore environment. For contractors, the LTIF now stands at one third

of its level at the beginning of the decade.

Company fatalities 19

Contractor fatalities 65

Third party fatalities 18

Worst incident: air crash with 12 fatalities

There were 84 reported fatalities in 1999. In 1998there were 145 fatalities, 65 of which occurred in asingle air crash.

Three companies between them reported 18 thirdparty fatalities. In reality, there were probably manymore. Of those reported, 10 resulted from vehicleaccidents, three involving very young children.

The 84 fatalities - 19 company and 65 contractorpersonnel - occurred in 58 separate incidents, 13fewer than in 1998. Third party fatalities were

incurred in a further 13 fatal incidents. Nine incidents resulted in multiple fatalities. The

worst was a helicopter crash in the Middle East,

which resulted in 9 company lives lost as well as 3third party deaths. Another helicopter crash in Asiacaused 4 deaths of contractor employees.

Explosions in South America and Africa led to 6and 5 deaths respectively among contractor person-nel. Collapse of a drilling platform in South Amer-ica caused 4 contractor deaths.

Africa and the South America accounted for twothirds of the fatal incidents. 37 fatal incidents hap-pened in onshore operations and 21 offshore.

A listing of all fatal incidents appears in Appendix C.


10/924


2000 OGP

2.2 Fatal accident rates (FAR)

Fatal accident rate - company & con tracto rsper 100 m illion hours w orked

0

5

10

15

20Overall

Contractor

Company

1999199819971996199519941993199219911990

Fatal accident rat e - onshore & o ff sho reper 100 m illion hours w orked

0

5

10

15

20Overall

Offshore

Onshore

1999199819971996199519941993199219911990

Throughout this report, significant difference is calculated at the 95% confidence level

Overall 7.01 (44% better)*

Company 4.81 (3% worse) Contractor 8.10 (51% better)

Onshore 6.21 (57% better)

Offshore 9.45 (44% worse)

*The per cent. in parentheses relate to the 1998 results

The significantimprovement in fatal accident raterelative to the previous year owes entirely to theavoidance of an air disaster on the scale of theonshore crash in 1998 which claimed 65 company

and contractor lives. If this single accident had notoccurred, the FAR in 1998 would have been 6.81fatalities per 100 million hours worked, better thanfor 1999.

The same comment applies to the significantimprovement in contractor FAR. The result of 8.10in 1999 would compare to 8.71 in 1998 had it notbeen for the major air crash in that year.

The fatal accident rate onshore also shows a sim-ilar significant improvement, mainly due to theabsence of an air disaster with a death toll as highas occurred in 1998. However, in this instance theresult would still have been 10% better than in1998 even if that major disaster had not happened.

The offshore FAR deteriorated from 6.58 in 1998to 9.45 in 1999. Although the deterioration is notsignificant at the 95% confidence level, it is never-theless a matter of concern.

The major air crash in 1998 distorts the 10-year FARtrends except for offshore. If that crash is discounted,the overall fatal accident rate shows an underlying trend

of improvement, though the fatality rate remains stub-bornly worse than might be the aspiration.

Over the last 10 years, there is also a more noticeablyimproving trend in contractor performance, except forthe 1998 peak owing to the air crash. Although com-pany performance on the FAR yardstick has been con-sistently better than that of contractors, there is nounderlying trend of improvement for companies.

A trend of improvement can also be seen onshore, butthere is no discernible pattern in FAR performance off-

shore other than major swings up and down. Neithersector is consistently better than the other.

The broken lines in the charts above show the FAR exclud-ing the air crash in 1998.


11/925


2000 OGP


2.3 Fatal incident rate (FIR)

Fatal incident rat e - company & cont ractorsper 100 m illion hours w orked

0

2

4

6

8

10

Overall

Contractor

Company

1999199819971996199519941993199219911990

Fatal incident rat e - onshore & offshoreper 100 m illion hours w orked

0

2

4

6

8

10

Overall

Offshore

Onshore

199919981997199619951994


Company 2.53 (11% better)

Contractor 5.98 (23% better)


Offshore 7.09 (14% worse)

For the second year, incidents resulting in a fatal injuryto a third party are included. There were 13 such inci-dents in 1999 that happened during the course of workoperations. In addition two company/contractor incidents

involved third party fatalities as well as company/contractordeaths.

Only 3 companies reported third party fatalities.

Inclusion of third party fatal incidents affects the overalland onshore results. There were no third party resultsrecorded in 1997 and earlier years.

The overall fatal incident rate (including third par-ties) fell to 5.93 incidents per 100 million hoursworked in 1999, an encouraging improvement.

Without third parties, the FIR also fell, reachingthe lowest level for the past 10 years.

There were improvements in FIR performancefor both companies and contractors. The FIR foronshore operations also improved, but offshorethere was a deterioration, though not significant.

The general trend of improvement over the last 10 yearsin the overall FIR is adversely affected by the inclusionof third party fatal incidents in 1998 and 1999. With-out this new feature (broken lines in the figures oppo-

site), the overall FIR in 1999 stood at 50% of the levelin 1990. Over the last few years, there has been a gen-eral trend of improvement in both company and con-tractor performances. There are no discernible trends inonshore or offshore performances.

Without third party incidents

Overall 4.84 (21% better)


*Relative to 1998

The broken lines in the charts above show the FIR exclud-ing third party fatal incidents.


12/926


2000 OGP


2.4 Fatality causes

Fatality causes

Other

7.3%

Vehicle

incidents

23.9%

Struck by

15.1%Falls

7.1%

Explosion/burns

10.9%

Electrocution

2%

Drowning

6%

Caught

between

5.8%

Air transport

22%

Other

6.0%

Vehicle incidents

10.7%

Struck by

11.9%

Falls16.7%

Explosion/burns

19.0%

Electrocution

2.4%

Drowning

9.5%

Caught

between

4.8%

Air transport

19.0%

1999 1994 - 1998

19% of reported company and contractor fatalitiesin 1999 occurred in four separate helicopter aircrashes. The worst crash led to 9 company staffdeaths (and 3 third party deaths), and the othersresulted in 4, 2, and 1 deaths.

There were also multiple deaths in three explosionincidents. Six contractor deaths occurred whenexcavation of a buried gas pipeline was begun, 5when a weld was being ground in a store room forgas cylinders, and 2 when a diesel tanker caughtfire. In total there were 16 fatalities of this kind,accounting also for 19% of company/contractorfatalities.

Two incidents in the category of falls and one of adrowning nature also led to more than one fatality.Four lives were lost when a failed well foundationcaused a drilling platform to overturn, two whenscaffolding collapsed in high winds, and three (twoof whom were third party) in a collision betweenboats.

Deaths in vehicle accidents (11%) were fewerthan over the past 5 years (24%). However, vehi-cle accidents remained the largest cause of thirdparty deaths. The incidence of death from falls

and explosions/burns was higher than in previousyears.

The number of incidents that led to one or more fatali-ties was:

Air transport 4Caught between 4

Drowning 8 (9)

Electrocution 2

Explosions/burns 6

Falls 10

Struck by 10 (11)

Vehicle incidents 9 (19)

Other 5 (6)

Overall 58 (71)

The figures in parentheses are the numbers of fatal inci-dents inclusive of third party incidents.

The categories of falls, persons being struck by movingobjects, and vehicle accidents between them accountedfor 50% of all company and contractor fatal incidents.These categories were the most common type of fatalincident in 1998 too. The inclusion of third party inci-dents more than doubles the incidence of fatal vehicleincidents.


13/927


2000 OGP


2.5 Fatality demography

Numb er of fat alities by age grou p fo r 1998-1999

0

5

10

15

20

25

>5551-5546-5041-4536-4031-3526-3021-25


14/928


2000 OGP


These excellent results continue the trends of improve-ment seen over the past 10 years. Overall, the LTIF in1999 was just 41% of its level 10 years ago. For contrac-tors, the equivalent figure is an even better 32%, whilst

in the offshore sector too the figure is as low as 33% ofthe level at the beginning of the decade.

Contractor performance has continued to close on thatof companies. Offshore performance, despite the dra-matic improvements over the past decade, is still a longway short of that onshore, being some 60% worse.

Lost time in jury f requency - onshore & off shoreper m illion hours w orked

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10Overall

Offshore

Onshore

1999199819971996199519941993199219911990

3.6

8.2

3.7

7.3

3.7

6.2

3.5

5.2

3.3

3.6

3.1

4.0

2.3

3.8

2.2

4.5

1.7

2.7

2.2

3.0

Lost time in jury frequency - company & contractorsper m illion hours w orked

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10 Overall

Contractor

Company

1999199819971996199519941993199219911990

2.5

6.6

2.1

1.6

2.8

6.1

3.3

5.2

3.0

4.7

2.5

4.1

2.6

3.9

2.0

3.1

2.0

3.0

1.9

2.7

2.6 Lost time injury frequency (LTIF)


Company 1.63 (12% better)

Contractor 2.09 (23% better)


Offshore 2.72 (10% better)

*Relative to 1998

There were 2239 injuries resulting in at least oneday off work. 72% were among contractor employ-ees (who accounted for 67% of worked hours). 65%occurred in onshore operations (75% of the worked

hours). On the indicator of lost time injuries per million

hours worked (lost workday cases and fatalities),the industry performance improved by a significant20% relative to that of 1998, which was itself a sub-stantive improvement on the previous year.

Not only was the overall industry performancemarkedly better, but so also were the separate resultsfor companies, contractors, onshore and offshore,which were each significantly better at the 95%confidence level.

The onshore result was significantly better than off-shore, and the company result significantly betterthan that for contractors.


15/929


2000 OGP


Severity - company & cont ractorsaverage days lost per LW D C

Severity - onshore & off sho reaverage days lost per LW D C

0

5

10

15

20

25

30Overall

Contractor

Company

19991998199719961995

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Overall

Offshore

Onshore

19991998199719961995

2.7 Severity of lost workday cases

Overall 28.5 days (40% more)*

Company 27.5 days (55% more)

Contractor 28.9 days (35% more)

Onshore 26.4 days (32% more)

Offshore 32.9 days (58% more)

* Relative to 1998

Severity is defined as the average number of days lost(where reported) for each lost workday case.

The upstream industry lost 42,200 days throughinjuries. This equates to about 115 man-years.

In reality, the time lost is understated, since only66% of the LWDCs reported have associated lostdays stated. If lost days had been reported for allLWDCs, by extrapolation the time lost would beover 70,000 days, equivalent to about 190 man-years.

The average time lost per injury was 28.5 days

The severity of injuries increased substantially in1999 relative to previous years, both for compa-nies and contractors and for onshore and offshore.There is no obvious reason.

The 5-year trends show that contractor injuries are con-sistently more severe than those of company personneland, apart from one year, offshore injuries worse than

those onshore. Possible explanations might be that con-tractor personnel tend to be exposed to greater hazardsthan their company counterparts and that return towork offshore is less easy than onshore because of trans-port constraints.


16/9210


2000 OGP


Tot al recordable incident rate - onshore & offshoreper m illion hours w orked

0

3

6

9

12

15Overall

Offshore

Onshore

19991998199719961995

There was no change in the total recordable inci-dent rate per million hours worked for either com-panies or contractors.

The TRIR offshore was significantly better than in1998, though remaining significantly worse thanthat onshore.

The contractor TRIR was more than twice as high

as company TRIR, a much higher differential thanthat pertaining for the LTIF criterion. This find-ing suggests that, in the case of an occupationalinjury, contractor staff are less likely to be grantedtime off work, the injury thereby being classed as amedical treatment case, decreasing the LTI statisticand relatively increasing the TRIR rating.

2.8 Total recordable incident rate (TRIR)

Total recordab le incident rat e - company & cont ractorsper m illion hours w orked

0

3

6

9

12

15Overall

Contractor

Company

19991998199719961995

Overall 5.98 (no change)*

Company 3.51 (no change) Contractor 7.18 (no change)

Onshore 5.08 (4% worse)

Offshore 8.66 (12% better)

*Relative to 1998

Total recordable incidents include fatalities, lost workdaycases, restricted workday cases and medical treatment cases.TRIR calculations are only made on returns that include

information on medical treatment cases as well as otherdata, i.e. on 90% of the total database in 1999.

The 5-year trends indicate underlying improvementsexcept for the 1997 results. Company performance hasbeen significantly better than that of contractors over

the period, and onshore performance has been signifi-cantly better than offshore.


17/9211


2000 OGP


2.9 Incident ratios

1

28

85

1

26

89

1

34

73

fatalities

lost time injuries

recordable incidents

fatalities

lost time injuries

recordable incidents

Overall

Companies Contractors

The relative numbers of types of occupational injuryare shown in the form of accident triangles. The ratioshave been corrected to account for the absence in some

returns of medical treatment cases.

Overall, the ratio of lost time injuries to fatalities is28:1 and for total recordable incidents to lost time inju-ries about 3:1. The ratios for contractors are very simi-

lar. For companies, there are more lost time injuries foreach fatality, and the ratio of total recordable incidentsto lost time injuries is just over 2:1.

In comparison with previous years, there are somewhatmore medical treatment cases being reported relative tothe number of lost time injuries. This is an encouragingtrend and should be continued.


18/9212


2000 OGP


3 Results by region

3.1 Fatalities

Europe and North America have the lowest fatality rates for 1999.

The lost time injury frequency improved in all regions except the Middle East and North

America.

On a 5-year rolling average, the LTIF shows the best results ever achieved in all regionsin the five years to 1999 and a long term trend of improvement .

Asia/Australasia is the regional leader in safety performance on the LTIF criterion andclose to the best on the TRIR yardstick, but fares worse in terms of its fatality rate.

The best country LTIF performance that was significantly different from the world aver-age was in Syria, with a remarkable LTIF of 0.14. The LTIF was worst in Congo.

Five countries delivered a significant improvement in performance from 1998, and 3countries a significant deterioration.

A list of countries from which companies have reported information is provided in Appendix H,which also shows the division of countries into regions. The term Australasia refers to Australia,New Zealand and the islands in the SW Pacific.

The distributions of company and contractor fatal inci-dents and fatalities across the regions were:

Over 60% of the fatal incidents and fatalities occurred inAfrica and South America, although these two regionsaccounted for just 37% of the reported hours worked.Clearly, greatest impact on the global fatality statistic

will be gained from concentrated efforts to reduce theincidence of fatalities in these two regions.

The numbers of fatal injuries are a matter of concernbut are too small to allow meaningful statistical analy-sis of fatal accident rates by region, except on the basisof 5-year rolling averages - see section 3.3.

Fatal Fatalities

incidents

Africa 22 27

Asia/Australasia 7 10

Europe 2 2

FSU 1 1

Middle East 4 12

North America 6 7

South America 16 25

Overall 58 84


19/9213


2000 OGP



Lost t ime injury frequencyper m illion hours w orked

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

1999

1998

Asia/Australasia

FSUMiddleEast

AfricaNorthAmerica

EuropeSouthAmerica

2.1

3.6

2.3

3.4

3.03.1

1.5

2.2

1.41.3 1.3

1.11.2

0.8

1999 average 1.94


Africa 1.48 (36% better)

Asia/Australasia 0.85 (33% better)

Europe 2.99 (12% better)

FSU 1.05 (25% better)

Middle East 1.26 (8% worse)

North America 2.20 (5% worse)

South America 3.10 (15% better)

*Relative to 1998

The lost time injury frequency was lowest in Asia/

Australasia (0.85 lost time injuries per million hoursworked), less than half the world average.

The worst performance was in South America,where it was 3.10 and 60% higher than the worldaverage. This position repeats that of 1998, eventhough there was a significant improvement on lastyears result.

Africas LTIF performance was better than theworld average, in marked contrast to its record onfatalities.

The results in all regions were significantly differ-ent from the average.

Four regions - Africa, Asia/Australasia, Europe, andSouth America - turned in results that were signifi-cantly better than in 1998. No regions were signifi-cantly worse at the 95% confidence level.


20/9214


2000 OGP


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Overall LTIF

Overall FAR

Asia/Australasia LTIF

Asia/Australasia FAR

1999199819971996199519941993199219911990

Asia/AustralasiaFAR and LTIF 5-year rolli ng average(FAR per 100 m illion hours w orked, LTIF per m illion hours w orked)

3.3 FAR and LTIF 5-year rolling averages

AfricaFAR and LTIF 5-year ro lli ng average

(FAR per 100 m illion hours w orked, LTIF per m illion hours w orked)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Overall LTIF

Overall FAR

Africa LTIF

Africa FAR

1999199819971996199519941993199219911990

Five-year rolling averages smooth out spurious resultsin individual years and provide a good indicator ofperformance trends. In the charts in this section, theFormer Soviet Union is omitted because data were notcollected as a separate region in earlier years. FSU datawere incorporated in the reports for Europe until 1996;since then the data for Europe refer to Europe alone.

The fatal accident rate is falling in Africa, Europeand South America, though not always continu-ously. The upswing in South America in 1998 and

1999 reflects the impact of the major air crash in1998.

The continuous rise in the FAR in Asia-Australasiasince 1994 is disturbing.

The upswings in FAR in the Middle East in theearlier years and later in North America appear tohave been arrested in the last few years.

In the five years to 1999, the lowest fatality ratewas in Europe, less than half the average. In SouthAmerica it was the highest, almost double the aver-

age. This region, as well as Africa and the MiddleEast, have a long way to go before they reach thestandard of the best.

The LTIFs in all regions in the five years to 1999 arethe lowest on record. This is an excellent result.

For both fatalities and lost time injury frequency, theworst performance is in South America. Europeslost time injury frequency is also worse than aver-age, although on the FAR indicator Europe is theleader. Africa and the Middle East, poor on the

FAR indicator, are better than average on the LTIFindicator. These findings, which repeat findings inprevious years reports, are surprising and cannot bereadily explained, because the probability of a lostworkday case becoming a fatality must be the samein all regions. Can it be that there is a much lowertolerance to granting time off following injury inAfrica and the Middle East than elsewhere, anda greater tolerance in Europe (and perhaps NorthAmerica)?


21/9215


2000 OGP


EuropeFAR and LTIF 5-year rolli ng average(FAR per 100 m illion hours w orked, LTIF per m illion hours w orked)

Middle EastFAR and LTIF 5-year ro lling average(FAR per 100 m illion hours w orked, LTIF per m illion hours w orked)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Overall LTIF

Overall FAREurope LTIF

Europe FAR

19991998199719961995199419931992199119900

5

10

15

20

25

30

Overall LTIF

Overall FARMiddle East LTIF

Middle East FAR

1999199819971996199519941993199219911990

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Overall LTIF

Overall FAR

North America LTIF

North America FAR

1999199819971996199519941993199219911990 0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Overall LTIF

Overall FAR

South America LTIF

South America FAR

1999199819971996199519941993199219911990

North AmericaFAR and LTIF 5-year rolli ng average(FAR per 100 m illion hours w orked, LTIF per m illion hours w orked)

South AmericaFAR and LTIF 5-year ro lling average(FAR per 100 m illion hours w orked, LTIF per m illieon hours w orked)


22/9216


2000 OGP



Severityaverage days lost per LW D C

0

10

20

30

40

501999

1995-1998 average

Asia/Australasia

FSUMiddleEast

AfricaNorthAmerica

EuropeSouthAmerica

1999 average 28.5

1997-1998 only

The regional results in the chart on the left are shown

in the same order as regions ranked on the LTIF indica-tor. The region on the left of the chart (South America)scored worst on LTIF, and that on the right (Asia/Australasia) scored best.

Severity of lost workday cases was very high inEurope (47 days on average being lost for every lostworkday case), over 60% higher than the averagefor the previous three years and than the world aver-age for 1999. This large jump in severity is unex-plained.

The severity in South America jumped to an aver-age of 36 days lost, double what it was in the previ-ous three years. A similar level was recorded in theFormer Soviet Union.

In other regions there were smaller changes in sever-ity, and in the Middle East it was lower.


23/9217


2000 OGP



Tot al recordab le incident rateper m illion hours w orked

0

2

4

6

8

10

121999

1995-1998 average

Asia/Australasia

FSUMiddleEast

AfricaNorthAmerica

EuropeSouthAmerica

1999 average 6.0

1997-1998 only


Africa 3.73 (21% worse)

Asia/Australasia 3.35 (25% better)

Europe 9.15 (20% better)

FSU 3.03 (60% better)

Middle East 3.02 (10% worse)

North America 9.69 (9% better)

South America 7.29 (1% better)

The figures in brackets show the change relative to theaverage results for 1995-98 (1997-98 for FSU)

The total recordable incident rate is shown in the chartin the same region order again as for LTIF.

The lower rates were in the FSU, Middle East,Asia/Australasia and Africa, all significantly lowerthan the world average.

The rates in Europe and the Americas were signifi-cantly higher than the average.

Relative to the results averaged over the previousthree years, Asia/Australasia, Europe, the FSU, andNorth America produced TRIR results that were

significantly better in 1999. Africa delivered a sig-nificantly worse result.

In comparison with the performance of the regions onthe LTIF indicator, South America and Africa haveTRIRs somewhat lower than might be expected andNorth America substantially higher.

This finding poses the question again whether medicaltreatment cases are as rigorously reported in SouthAmerica and Africa as elsewhere.


24/9218


2000 OGP


3.6 Individual country performance

For a second year, the safety performance in individualcountries is reported. The parameter selected is the losttime injury frequency for companies jointly with con-

tractors. To preserve anonymity of companies, perform-ance is only published for those countries for whichat least two companies have reported statistics. Thesecond criterion is that countries with less than 50,000reported hours worked are excluded; results for suchsmall populations of hours would be unrepresentative.

Of the 66 countries from which data have been reported,16 are excluded by the first criterion and an additionalone by the second. One more country was excluded

since over 99.9% of the reported hours originated fromone company.

The chart of relative performance for the remaining48 countries shows whether the 1999 performance wasbetter or worse than that in 1998. Text in bold faceindicates that the change from 1998 is significant at the95% confidence level, and n/asignifies that compari-son with 1998 is not applicable because the country didnot qualify for inclusion in the 1998 analysis. A bulletpoint on the right of the country LTIF bar indicatesthat one or more fatalities were suffered in 1999.

The remarks below refer only to those countries included in the listing.

Three countries - Brazil, Turkey and Vietnam -recorded zero lost time injuries. However, none ofthese results was significantly different from theworld average because the numbers of hours workedin these countries were relatively small.

The best result that was significantly different fromthe world average was in Syria, with an LTIF as lowas 0.14, which was also a significant improvementon 1998. Second best was Oman with an LTIF of

0.39.

Five countries in Asia/Australasia in addition toVietnam returned LTIF results lower than 0.9(Malaysia, Thailand, Indonesia, Brunei and Aus-tralia in rank order). Sadly, Malaysia and Indone-sia suffered fatalities. Kazakhstan, too, achieved aresult just under 0.9, but also incurred a fatality.

The poorest performer was Congo with an LTIFover 4 times the global average. Other countrieswith an LTIF worse than 5.0 were Libya and

France. Excluding North America, where only 2 countries

qualified for inclusion, the spread of results wasgreatest in Africa and least in Asia/Australasia.

5 countries performed significantly better than in1998 (Australia, Italy, Peru, Syria and Trinidad &Tobago) and 3 significantly worse (Brunei, Egyptand Norway). However, only 14% of the hours inItalys 1999 return were contractor hours comparedto 30% in 1998.

Africa, Libya, Algeria and Congo performed signif-icantly worse than the global and regional averages.

Tunisia was significantly worse than the regionalaverage but not relative to the global average becauseof the small number of hours worked. NigeriasLTIF was 1.01, significantly better than both theworld and regional averages, which is perhaps sur-prising in view of the very high incidence of fatali-ties in this country.

Safety performance in the diverse region of Asia/Australasia was uniformly very good. The worst

country, Bangladesh, performed better than theworld average and almost as well as the best per-former in Europe.

In Europe, all but one country, Germany, had aworse standard of performance than the global aver-age. Five out of the 7 countries included were sig-nificantly worse.

In the Former Soviet Union, only performance inKazakhstan was significantly different from theglobal average (better).

Syria, Oman, UAE and Kuwait in the Middle Eastwere all significantly better than the world average.Iran was significantly worse.

Canada had a significantly worse result than theworld average and than the other country in theregion, USA.

No countries in South America performed signifi-cantly better than the global average. Peru, Ven-ezuela, Colombia and Argentina all had results thatwere significantly worse than the average across the

world.


25/9219


2000 OGP


Lost t ime injur y frequency - companies with contractorsper m illion h ours w orked

0 2 4 6 8

BrazilBolivia

Trinidad & Tobago

Argentina

Colombia

South America average

Venezuela

Peru

South America

USA

North America average

Canada

North America

Turkey

SyriaOman

UAE

Kuwait

Middle East average

Qatar

Iran

Middle East

Kazakhstan

Azerbaijan

FSU average

Russia

Turkmenistan

FSU

GermanyUK

Italy

Netherlands

Europe average

Denmark

Norway

France

Europe

Vietnam

Malaysia

Thailand

Indonesia

Asia/Australasia average

Brunei

AustraliaPakistan

China

Myanmar

Papua N G

Bangladesh

Asia/Australasia

Nigeria

Angola

Africa average

Gabon

Egypt

Dem Rep Congo

Cameroon

Tunisia

AlgeriaLibya

Congo

Africa

betterbetter

better

better

better

better

better

better

better

better

better

better

betterbetter

better

better

better

better

better

betterbetter

better

better

better

better

betterbetter

better

worse

worse

worse

worse

worse

worse

worse

worse

worse

worse

worse

worse

worse

worse

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

Performance relative to 1998 One or more fatalities

Globalaverage1.94


26/9220


2000 OGP


4 Results by function

4.1 Fatalities

The exploration performance on both LTIF and TRIR counts is the best of all functionsand significantly improved on previous years. For the first time in the history of OGPs

record keeping, exploration beat the hurdle of an LTIF rate less than 1.0. Drilling has the worst LTIF and TRIR. However, performance on the LTIF indicator is

improving rapidly, and in 1999 was at its lowest level in over 10 years.

Production performance improved marginally.

Otherperformance on the LTIF criterion worsened marginally and on the TRIR indi-cator worsened significantly.

Function reports are for exploration, drilling, production, and other, the last being the categoryfor activities other than in thefirst three, such as major construction or decomissioning. The overallresults quoted include data provided by contributing companies which were not allocated to a

particular function, i.e. the unspecifiedcategory.

The distributions of company and contractor fatal inci-dents and fatalities between the functions are:

It is encouraging that the drilling function, which his-torically has been more accident prone than other partsof the business, had a smaller proportion of fatal inci-dents relative to hours worked in 1999 than otherfunctions. Otherand production had the highest pro-portions.

Fatality rates are not calculated; conclusions drawnwould be misleading in view of the small numbersinvolved.

Fatal Fatalities

incidents

Exploration 3 3

Drilling 3 3

Production 26 48Other 15 19

Unspecified 11 11

Overall 58 84


27/9221


2000 OGP



Lost t ime injury frequencyper m illion hours w orked

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8Exploration

Drilling

Production

Other

1999199819971996199519941993199219911990


Exploration 0.88 (62% better)

Drilling 2.81 (36% better)

Production 2.34 (4% better)

Other 1.29 (10% worse)

* Relative to 1998

There was a dramatic improvement in the LTIF forthe exploration function, reaching an all-time lowof 0.88. This was the first time that any functionhad beaten the 1.0 barrier for LTIF.

Drilling also achieved an all-time low and a signifi-cant improvement on 1998, though drilling still hasa performance on LTIF that is significantly worsethan in other functions.

The performances of production and otherwerenot significantly different from 1998. The smalldeterioration in LTIF in othermust be seen in thecontext of a substantial improvement in 1998.

The 10-year trend shows a marked improvement in thedrilling LTIF, which is now converging on the perform-

ances of the other functions. There has been a com-mendably steady improvement in production, whilstexploration has seen pronounced swings up and downin performance.


28/9222


2000 OGP



Severityaverage lost days per LW D C

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

401999

1995-1998 average

ExplorationOtherProductionDrilling

1999 average 28.5

1997-1998 only

The function results are displayed in the order of theirranked performance on the LTIF criterion, i.e. drilling

worst, exploration best.

The severity of LWDCs is least in exploration andgreatest in drilling, implying that the nature of theaverage injury in exploration is less severe than inother activities and in drilling more severe.

The average numbers of days lost in drilling and pro-duction were half as high again as in 1995-98, andvery much higher than in exploration or other.


29/9223


2000 OGP



Tot al recordab le incident rateper m illion hours w orked

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

1999

1995-1998 average

ExplorationOtherProductionDrilling

1999 average 5.98

1997-1998 only


Exploration 4.40 (38% better)

Drilling 11.99 (24% worse)

Production 5.42 (1% better)

Other 4.76 (35% worse)

Relative to the average result for the period 1995-98

Results are plotted below in the same order as the rankorder on LTIF performance.

The rate in drilling is significantly higher than theworld average; in exploration and otherfunctions

the rates are significantly lower. The relative posi-tioning of the functions reflects the positions onthe LTIF criterion.

The rate in drilling is also significantly higher thanthe average of the previous four years. So too is theTRIR in other, but the rate in exploration is sig-nificantly lower.

Higher rates do not necessarily indicate an adversetrend. It may well be that reporting of medical treat-ment cases is becoming more rigorous.

In the charts in the remainder of this chapter, it should be noted that:

LTIF charts are plotted in rank order of contractor performance (worst performer on left, best on right); TRIR charts are plotted in the same order of regions as for the LTIF.


30/9224


2000 OGP


4.5 Exploration performance

Lost time in jury frequency - explorationper m illion hours w orked

0

2

4

6

8

10

Contractor 1999

Contractor 1997-1998 average

FSUMiddle

East

AfricaEuropeAsia/

Australasia

South

America

North

America

0

2

4

6

8

10Company 1999

Company 1997-1998 average

FSUMiddle

East

AfricaEuropeAsia/

Australasia

South

America

North

America

Contractor 1999 average 1.14 Company 1999 average 0.39

The average LTIF performance of exploration contrac-

tors at 1.14 was 56% improved on the 1997-98 average,a commendable achievement. The greatest improve-ments were in South America (75%), Africa (67%) andEurope (58%), all significant at the 95% confidencelevel. None were significantly worse.

Exploration performance of contractors in the Americaswas significantly worse than the world average in 1999,and in Africa significantly better.

Company exploration performance improved signifi-

cantly in 1999, with an average of 0.39, relative to1997-98. The improvement derived from significantchange for the better in Asia/Australasia, where therewere no LTIs, and particularly in Africa where the LTIFreduced to 10% of its value in the previous two years.Overall, company performance is much better thancontractors.

4.5.1 Lost time injury frequency


31/9225


2000 OGP


Total recordab le incident rate - explorat ionper m illion h ours w orked

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Contractor 1999


FSUMiddleEast

AfricaEuropeAsia/Australasia

SouthAmerica

NorthAmerica

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Company 1999


FSUMiddleEast

AfricaEuropeAsia/Australasia

SouthAmerica

NorthAmerica

Contractor 1999 average 5.87Company 1999 average 1.86

On the contractor TRIR indicator, there was a widerange in performance, from around the 2.0 level inAsia/Austra lasia, Africa, FSU, and the Middle East toalmost 16.0 in the Americas, about eight times higher.The overall contractor average TRIR for explorationwas 5.87. On the company side the range is muchsmaller, the highest TRIR being 4.6 in North Amer-ica. The rank order of performance between regions isthe same for TRIR as LTIF, except for Asia/Australasiawhich has a worse position on LTIF than on TRIR.

Despite the high TRIR in North and South America,the contractor overall TRIR in 1999 was significantlylower than in 1997-98, thanks to significant improve-ments in Asia/Australasia and Europe. As regardscompanies, significant improvements were achieved inAfrica, Asia/Australasia and South America, though theoverall improvement across all regions was not signifi-cant. Companies performed better than contractors inall regions in 1999.

4.5.2 Total recordable incident rate


32/9226


2000 OGP


4.6 Drilling performance

Lost t ime injur y frequency - drillingper m illion hours w orked

0

2

4

6

8

10Contractor 1999


MiddleEast

Asia/Australasia

NorthAmerica

SouthAmerica

AfricaFSUEurope 0

2

4

6

8

10Company 1999


MiddleEast

Asia/Australasia

NorthAmerica

SouthAmerica

AfricaFSUEurope


The average LTIF for drilling contractors was 2.93, a

significant improvement on the average LTIF of 4.22in the previous 2 years. Similarly, the company drill-ing LTIF improved significantly to 1.92 from 2.36 in1997-98.

Contractor drilling performance improved in all but oneregion, and improved significantly in Europe and SouthAmerica. The best LTIF was in the Middle East and the

worst in Europe, but the range was much smaller than

in the previous two years.The company results were better than those of contrac-tors except in the Middle East and, most noticeably,South America, where it was over four times the averageacross all regions and over three times that of contrac-tors.



33/9227


2000 OGP


Total recordab le incident rate - dril lingper m illion h ours w orked


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Contractor 1999


MiddleEast

Asia/Australasia

NorthAmerica

SouthAmerica

AfricaFSUEurope 0

5

10

15

20

25

30Company 1999


MiddleEast

Asia/Australasia

NorthAmerica

SouthAmerica

AfricaFSUEurope

Contractor 1999 average 13.24

Company 1999 average 2.91

There were significant deteriorations in drilling contrac-tor TRIR performance in the Middle East and Northand South America, which led to the higher TRIR of13.24 in 1999 compared to 9.60 in 1997-98. In SouthAmerica the 1999 level was 50% higher than the worldaverage for drilling contractors and double that in theregion in 1997-98.

The company result in South America (10.17) wasalso markedly higher than elsewhere, though only justover half of its contractor counterpart, and significantlyworse than in 1997-98. The improvement overall incompany result is not statistically significant. All com-pany results were better than contractors.


34/9228


2000 OGP


4.7 Production performance

Lost t ime injur y frequency - produ ctionper m illion hours w orked

4.7.1 Lost time injury frequesncy

0

2

4

6

8

10

Contractor 1999


Asia/Australasia

MiddleEast

AfricaFSUNorthAmerica

EuropeSouthAmerica

0

2

4

6

8

10

Company 1999


Asia/Australasia

MiddleEast


EuropeSouthAmerica

Contractor 1999 average 2.36 Company 1999 average 2.32

The average LTIF for contractors in production was

2.36, only a small change relative to 1997-98. Never-theless, the improvement in Europe was significant, aswas the overall improvement (10%) across all regions.

Contractors outperformed companies in both the

Middle East and Europe, where the company LTIFswere significantly worse than in 1997-98. South Amer-ica company performance improved significantly. Theoverall production average LTIF for companies was2.32.


35/9229


2000 OGP


Total recordab le incident rat e - product ionper m illion h ours w orked


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Contractor 1999


Asia/Australasia

MiddleEast


EuropeSouthAmerica

0

5

10

15

20

25

30Company 1999


Asia/Australasia

MiddleEast


EuropeSouthAmerica



There was a significant improvement in contractor

TRIR performance overall to 6.4, thanks to significantimprovements in Europe, the FSU, the Middle East andNorth America. Africas performance was significantlyworse. Despite the progress made, contractor TRIR ishighest in Europe and North America.

Company TRIR is lower than for contractors in all

regions except the Middle East. There were significantimprovements in North and South America, offsetby significant deterioration in Africa, Europe and theMiddle East. The level in Europe is twice the average of4.08.


36/9230


2000 OGP



4.8 Other performance

Lost time in jury frequency - oth erper m illion hours w orked

0

2

4

6

8

10

Contractor 1999


Asia/Australasia

AfricaSouthAmerica

MiddleEast

NorthAmerica

EuropeFSU 0

2

4

6

8

10

Company 1999


Asia/Australasia

AfricaSouthAmerica

MiddleEast

NorthAmerica

EuropeFSU



The average performance of contractors working outside

the three main functions improved significantly from1.84 in 1997-98 to 1.44 in 1999. This was achievedmainly by significant improvements in Africa and Asia/Australasia. The large increase in the FSU is not statis-tically significant.

There were no LTIs among company staff for other

activities in the FSU, though the result is not significant.The improvement in North America and the deterio-ration in Africa were significant. In Africa, LTIF per-formance of company employees was worse than that oftheir contractor colleagues.


37/9231


2000 OGP



Total recordab le incident rate - otherper m illion h ours w orked

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Contractor 1999


Asia/Australasia

AfricaSouthAmerica

MiddleEast

NorthAmerica

EuropeFSU 0

5

10

15

20

25

30Company 1999


Asia/Australasia

AfricaSouthAmerica

MiddleEast

NorthAmerica

EuropeFSU


The contractor other TRIR average in 1999 across

the regions was 5.35, 33% higher than the average for1997-98, despite the dramatic improvement in the FSU(76%). Although the FSU change is significant in thisinstance, the population of hours worked is small com-pared to other regions and has little impact on the over-all result. Europe, the Middle East and South Americaall suffered a significant fall-off in performance.

On a comparison of rank order of regional contractorperformance, it is apparent that the FSU and Middle

East score better on the TRIR indicator than on LTIF.

It would seem that fewer medical treatment cases arereported in these regions than elsewhere.

On the company side, the FSU had zero TRIR com-pared to 4.18 in 1997-98, but here the change is notstatistically significant. The worst company TRIR rateswere in South America (over three times the level in1997-98 and three times the company average across allregions) and the Middle East (over twice the level in1997-98).


38/9232


2000 OGP


5 Results by company

The outstanding company is the company coded as HH. Not only was it the top com-pany overall, but it was also best in three out of the four functional categories.

Company HH and its contractors achieved an LTIF of 0.43, about one fifth of the aver-age for all companies and contractors. The worst company with its contractors had anLTIF of 6.89, 355% of the average.

The range of company/contractor performance, although still large, was much smallerthan in previous years. The range for the performance of companies alone was also alittle reduced.

In several instances, contractors outperformed companies.

Four companies have achieved a performance improvement in every year for the past 5years.

All the charts in this chapter are based on LTIF, the most representative indicator for inter-company benchmarking.

For those companies who have merged to form a new corporate entity, prior year results have beencalculated by aggregating the individual company results and computing weighted averages.


39/9233


2000 OGP


Performance rankin g of companies joint ly w ith contractors - lost t ime injur y frequencyper m illion h ours w orked

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Company only

Company with contractors

IIHHGGFFEEDDCCBBAAZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

Fatality in 1999 (either company

or contractor operations)

average companies with contractors 1.94

5.1 Overall company results

Each of the 40 companies contributing to this reporthas been allocated a unique code letter (A to NN) inorder to preserve anonymity. The first chart shows in

rank order the LTIF for companies together with theircontractors. In this instance, there were 35 companies(A to II) that contributed contractor data, although notalways for every country in which operations were con-ducted. Two of these companies contributed contractordata only (companies B and CC).

Alongside the LTIF performance for company and con-tractors jointly, the LTIF for the company alone is plot-ted. Where the company or its contractors suffered afatal incident, it is marked on the company with con-tractor result. Details of results are tabulated in Appen-dix B, together with information on whether individualresults are significantly different at the 95% confidencelevel from the overall world result and from the resultin 1998.

Sixteen companies with their contractors performedbetter than the overall average (5 significantlybetter) and 19 companies worse (8 significantly

worse). These results provide evidence that thelarger companies tend to produce better results thanthe smaller companies.

Sixteen companies suffered one or more fatalities,fewer than in 1998 (19 companies).

One company (II) had a company with contractorLTIF of zero but, because of the relatively smallnumber of employees, this result was not statisti-cally significant.

The best result that was significantly different fromthe average was by company HH, delivering a com-pany with contractor LTIF of 0.43.

The worst company/contractor result was an LTIFof 6.89, over 3 times the average.

In 6 companies, contractors outperformed com-pany staff.

Nine companies turned in a significantly better per-formance in 1999 than in 1998. Only one companyperformed significantly worse.

The spread of results is much reduced from previ-ous years.


40/9234


2000 OGP


Perfo rmance ranking of compan ies alone - lost time injury f requencyper m illion hours w orked

0

2

4

6

8

10

12


Company only

IIAAWGEEHHFFQDDJZGGTRYUSVNNNELMMIMPKFOBBLLKKHCXAJJD



average, companies only, 1.63

The chart below shows essentially the same data asthe previous chart, except that here the companies areranked according to LTIF performance for the com-

pany alone, that is without contractor input. Thosecompanies who only submitted safety data for companyactivities (JJ to NN) are now included, but two compa-nies (B and CC) who only submitted contractor resultsare excluded.

Four companies (G, W, AA, and II) achieved anLTIF of zero for company employees alone. Onlythe performance of company AA was significantly

different from the average for all companies. Theother three companies had too small a number ofhours worked for the results to be significantly dif-ferent.

The worst result was an LTIF of 10.4, over 6 timesthe average, and even worse than the worst of thecompany-with-contractor results.

21 companies delivered LTIF results better than theaverage of all companies, 8 of which were signifi-cantly better, and 17 companies had worse results,

6 significantly worse. The spread in LTIF was a little reduced compared

to 1998. Six companies posted significantly betterresults than in 1998 (one having reduced its LTIFto 7% of the 1998 level!), and three companiesrecorded significantly worse results.


41/9235


2000 OGP


Performance ranking of companies joint ly w ith contractors, joint hou rs>10 million - lost time in jury f requencyper m illion h ours w orked

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Company only


HHEEDDAAZXVUTSRQOMKIFEDA



average companies with contractors 1.94

In the chart below, only companies which, with theircontractors, reported more than 10 million hours workedare included. There are 20 such companies. Like the

first in this suite of charts, companies are shown in rankorder of the company-with-contractor LTIF perform-ance.

Nine companies with their contractors performedbetter than the weighted average for all 35 compa-nies, 4 significantly better, and 11 worse than the

average, 7 significantly so. The skewed distributionsuggests again that the larger companies are gener-ally performing better than the smaller.

The best and worst companies are again HH andA. The range, including contractors, is from 0.43 to6.89 lost time injuries per million hours worked.

Fourteen of the 20 companies suffered one or morefatalities.


42/9236


2000 OGP


The table below shows the trends of company with con-tractor LTIF performance over the past five years. The35 companies reporting joint performance are listed

together with their LTIFs for 1999. For each company,where data are available, the chart shows whether per-formance in the reference year had improved or wors-ened relative to the previous year.

Of the 35 companies reporting joint data in 1999,31 reported joint data in 1998, 26 in 1997, 19 in1996, and the same 19 in 1995.

Four companies - K, M, X, and AA - achievedimprovements year by year over the 5-year period.They deserve congratulations!

A further company, E, achieved year by yearimprovements over the past 4 years, and anothersix companies achieved year by year improvements

over the past 3 years. 23 of the 31 companies report-ing in both 1999 and 1998 turned in an improvedperformance in 1999.

No companys performance deteriorated year byyear over the 5-year period. However, one companygot consistently worse over the last 4 years and twomore over the last 3 years.

Company Company & LTIF performance relative

code contractor to previous year

LTIF 1999 1999 1998 1997 1996

A 6.89 better better

B 6.17 better worse

C 5.88 worse

D 4.94 worse better better worse

E 4.29 better better better worse

F 4.09 worse better better worse

G 3.50 worse worse

H 3.20 better

I 3.12 worse worse worse better J 3.11 better worse better worse

K 3.08 better better better better

L 2.89 better better worse better

M 2.44 better better better better

N 2.33 better worse worse better

O 2.24 better

P 2.23 better

Q 2.05 better worse better worse

R 1.96 better worse

S 1.96 better better

T 1.85 better better worse better

U 1.75 better better worse better V 1.68 worse better worse worse

W 1.58 worse worse

X 1.57 better better better better

Y 1.50

Z 1.43 bet ter

AA 1.40 better better better better

BB 1.05 better better

CC 1.00

DD 0.76 better better worse better

EE 0.75 better worse better worse

FF 0.48 worse better worse better

GG 0.45

HH 0.43 better worse better worse

II 0.00


43/9237


2000 OGP


Exemplary improvement s in LTIFper m illion hours w orked by com panies w ith contractors

0 2 4 6 8 101999

1998

1997

1996

1995

1999

1998

1997

1996

1995

1999

1998

1997

1996

1995Company with best

improvement record since 1995

Company with second best

improvement record since 1995

Average for all companies

Company X

Company M

The final chart shows the achievements of the twocompanies with the greatest year-by year improvementsfrom 1995 to 1999 (companies X and M). Also shown

are the average performances of all companies.

Company X with its contractors achieved an 83%reduction in LTIF since 1995. From having anLTIF 170% above the average in 1995, it performedin 1999 at 80% of the overall average.

Company M has also achieved excellent year-on-year improvements, from being 130% above theaverage in 1995 to being only 26% above average

in 1999.


44/9238


2000 OGP


5.2 Company results by function

Lost time injur y frequency - Exploratio nper m illion hours w orked by com pany w ith contractors

Results of companies together with their contractorswere analysed by function to allow more in-depth

benchmarking between companies. Once again theLTIF indicator was selected, and the ranked results areshown in the following charts. Only companies who

provided data by function are included, and then onlythose companies who had more than 100,000 hours

worked. Results against smaller numbers of hours wouldnot have any statistical significance. The company codeletters are the same as used elsewhere in this chapter.

Four of the 15 companies that qualified for inclu-sion in exploration performance had a companywith contractor LTIF of zero. However, only one(HH) was statistically significantly better than theaverage for exploration of 0.88.

The worst performance was an LTIF of 4.13,approaching 5 times the average of all companies.

Two companies were significantly better than aver-age, and 4 companies significantly worse.

From a comparison with company/contractor per-formance across all functions (see section 5.1), itmay be seen that companies Z and T performed rel-atively worse in exploration activities than in otherfunctional activities, and companies E, P and Mbetter.

0

4

8

12

16

MPHHFFDDEICCUFQKTAZ

Overall 0.88

Lost time in jury frequency - Drillingper m illion hours w orked by com pany w ith contractors

The best performance in drilling was by companyHH with an LTIF of 0.34, significantly better thanthe average for all companies of 2.81.

Eight other companies performed better than aver-age, although only one significantly better.

13 of the 22 companies that qualified for inclusionperformed worse than average. Five companies weresignificantly worse than average, the worst havingan LTIF of almost 5 times the average.

Companies D and M had ranked positions mark-edly better than they achieved overall across allfunctions, and companies N, P and T had rankedpositions much worse.

0

4

8

12

16

HHEEFFDDDMUJEOIFWQBBZXTKPAN

Overall 2.81


45/9239


2000 OGP


Lost t ime inju ry frequ ency - Productio nper m illion hours w orked by com pany w ith contractors

Lost t ime injur y frequency - Oth erper m illion hours w orked by com pany w ith contractors

Of the 24 companies that qualified for inclusion,

12 had a production performance better than theaverage for production (5 significantly better) and12 a worse performance (5 significantly worse).

The best significantly different result was for com-pany HH with an LTIF of 0.48, one fifth of theaverage level.

The worst result was over 6 times the average LTIFand well over 30 times the best.

In the othercategory, 4 companies had an LTIF ofzero, but none were statistically significantly differ-

ent from the average for the whole of otherof 1.29.Three companies had results significantly betterthan average, the best being company Z with anLTIF of 0.32.

Four companies had significantly worse perform-ances than average, the worst with an LTIF of 5.03,nearly 4 times the average.

Companies O and S had ranked positions thatwere much better than they achieved overall acrossall functions, and companies X and P had worse

ranked positions.

A general conclusion from the foregoing is that com-pany HH is the outstanding company on safety per-formance, not only overall but also throughout thedifferent types of activity. This company delivered the

best significantly different results in exploration, drill-ing and production, and was also significantly better

than average in the category other. Company DD wasalso exemplary, achieving significantly better than aver-age positions in exploration, production and other, anda better than average result in drilling, whilst also rank-

ing very high on overall performance.

0

4

8

12

16

GGHHNFFEEDDZTXWYJUPMKOIQFLEDA

Overall 2.34

0

4

8

12

16

OWAASZDDHHBBUMEEQTIPXDFA

Overall 1.29


46/9240


2000 OGP


6 Significant incidents

Significant incidents by category

Other 13.8%

Vehicle

incidents

6.4%

Struck by

32.5%Falls 17.0%

Explosion/

burns

13.8%

Electrical 3.5%

Drowning 0.3%

Caught between 11.3%

Air transport 1.3%Other 16.5%

Vehicle

incidents

4.1%

Struck by

25.8%

Falls

7.2%

Explosion/burns 35.1%

Electrical 2.1%Drowning 2.1%

Caught between 1.0%

Air transport6.2%

1999 1996 - 1998

Incidents of the types explosions/burns and being struck by moving objects outnumberall other types.

Few vehicle incidents are reported, surprisingly.

Most of the significant incidents reported could readily have had fatal consequences.

Significant incidents are those that resulted in a losttime injury or had the potential to result in a fatalityor serious injury. Just 17 companies submitted reportson such incidents. The total number of reports was 97,far fewer than the 129 reports in 1998, and two compa-

nies returned 36 of the total reports. Clearly, less effortis being put into returning reports on significant inci-dents.

Incidents are categorised according to their potentialsource of injury in the charts above.

Over 60% of reported incidents were in the cat-egories with the potentials of explosions/burns andbeing struck by moving objects. This compareswith 46% in the preceding 3 years.

There were relatively fewer incidents in the catego-

ries of falls and being caught between objects thanthere were in 1996-98.

Only 4% of significant incidents are categorisedas vehicle incidents, which is low compared to theproportion of fatal incidents caused by vehicles.

The analysis of fatal incidents (excluding third partyincidents) showed that most resulted from drowning,falls, being struck by, and vehicle accidents, and inroughly equal numbers. The picture from reported sig-n

99 Safety Performance of the Global E&P Industry

Documents