DROPPED OBJECT PREVENTION WHERE WE TODAY ......Unsecured load during loading/unloading Lift Planning – routine lifts Pre-Lift Inspections not being done Unclear accountabilities

DROPPED OBJECT PREVENTION WHERE WE TODAY, AND WHAT’S LEFT TO DO? A SHELL PERSPECTIVE IADC HEALTH, SAFETY ENVIRONMENT & TRAINING CONFERENCE & EXHIBITION, HOUSTON, TX 3 FEBRUARY 2015

Joseph Murphy, CSP Deepwater Wells SE Manager

CONFIDENTIALITY AND DISCLAIMER STATEMENT

Disclaimer

Royal Dutch Shell plc. (RDS) and the companies in which it directly or indirectly owns investments are separate and distinct entities. In this presentation, the collective expression ‘Shell’ may be used for convenience where reference is made in general to these companies. Like the other (interim) holding companies in the Shell Group, RDS is not directly involved in the operations of Shell companies. Shell companies are independent companies and are autonomously managed. Shell companies do not instruct each other, but are deemed to comply with those “Shell” policy rules that they have adopted themselves. If and to the extent this presentation contains forward-looking statements, these are based on current expectations and assumptions and involve known and unknown risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results, performance or events to differ materially from those expressed or implied in the presentation. Readers should not place undue reliance on forward-looking statements. This presentation is intended for general information purposes only. No representations or warranties, express or implied, are made by Shell concerning the applicability, suitability, accuracy or completeness of the information contained herein and Shell does not accept any responsibility whatsoever for the use of this information. Shell shall not be liable in any way for any liability, loss, cost or damage incurred as a result of the receipt or use of the information contained herein. Except to the extent otherwise indicated, this presentation presents information as of the date hereof. Finally, the delivery of this presentation shall not, under any circumstances, create any implication that there will be no change in the affairs of Shell after the date hereof, and Shell reserve the right to amend or replace this presentation at any time and undertakes no obligation to update any of the information contained in the presentation or to correct any inaccuracies that may become apparent.

Copyright of INSERT COMPANY NAME HERE

PREVENTION OF DROPPED OBJECTS MANUAL EP 2009-9039

3 2/10/2015

There are four principles, each with a number of Mandatory Requirements as set out in the Prevention of Dropped Objects Manual.

They are designed to prevent harm to personnel and damage to equipment from dropped objects in the execution of Shell’s drilling, completion and well intervention activities.

Each principle has a series of mandatory requirements:

Principle 1 Contractors providing equipment and personnel on Shell well sites shall have a Dropped Object Prevention Scheme

Principle 2 A systematic dropped object inspection programme shall be in place

Principle 3 Worksite Hazard management for dropped objects shall be in place

Principle 4 Audits to check for compliance with Dropped Object Prevention Scheme shall be in place

Copyright of Shell Projects and Technology

Training Topics Tools at Height Red Zones/No-Go Zones Toolstrings and Lubricators Tubular Handling Drilling Equipment Winches and Tuggers

Implementation JSIP Equipment upgrades/modifications Posters Awareness Animation DVDs Newsletter Articles

DROPS PROGRAM RESOURCES

4 2/10/2015

Prevention of Dropped Objects Manual

EP 2009-9039

Gap analysis Template


IMPLEMENTATION JOUNEY 2009 2010 2012 2013 2014


EP 2009-9039

2011

EVP Wells



SHELL PERFORMANCE SUMMARY...

….despite our efforts to prevent dropped objects, we are still not where we need to be. We incur one dropped object every day in our operations and in June one of our contractors was fatally

injured as result of a dropped object. – Peter Sharpe – Shell, EVP Wells Dec 2014 .

6

Pinedale USA

Fatal incident caused by falling drill

pipe

South Texas USA

Fatal incident, floor man struck by

forklift lifting device

Egypt

Fatal incident, during rig

move operation

10 months 16 months 45 months

June 2008 April 2009

Where?

What are we doing

differently to prevent the

next fatality?

Who?

? When? August 2010 June 2014

Canada

Fatal incident during truck

loading activity.

Where?

What are we doing

differently to prevent the

next fatality?

Who?

? When?


DROPS – 2013 DORIS SUMMARY

By filtering current data by year, DORIS clearly shows that we have not improved our dropped object prevention performance… but perhaps we have raised awareness of the problem and the causes?

7


DROPS PERFORMANCE – REPORTED EVENTS - SOV

8

2013 - 2014: An increase of 26 (34%) RAM4+ potential DROPS events whilst -17% manhours

2 RAM4+ potential DROPS incidents per week in 2014 (1.5 in 2013)

Decrease in total DROPS frequency after 6 years (2008 – 2013), worsening trend in 2014.

After 4 years of reduction in RAM4+ (2010 – 2013), increasing trend in 2014.


WHAT’S THE PROBLEM...

9


DROPS EVENTS PER CATEGORY

10

The introduction of DROPS program caused significant reduction in static DROPS,

However, no impact in number of dynamic drops


2014 YTD SOV – RAM4+ CLASSIFICATION

11

Category

RAM4+ Count Event Types Learnings from Incidents (LFI)

Lifting and Hoisting

22 Load collisions Loose items during lifting operation Parted sling/chain Unsecured load during

loading/unloading

Lift Planning – routine lifts Pre-Lift Inspections not being done Unclear accountabilities – lift PIC Lack of load securement procedures

Tubular handing

16 Collisions Dropped tubulars - elevator/lift sub

mismatches Dropped protectors

Lift Planning – as above Equipment standardization and

identification Competence Line of sight Human Interface / control logic not

forgiving for human mistakes

Derrick Travelling Equipment

14 Collisions - pipe handling equipment Equipment fatigue and failure Hose/Sling catch derrick/temp

equipment

By-passed / overrides ‘anti collision system’ pipe-handling & TDS system, failing sensor(s)

Non-DROPs compliant equipment Poor PM and inspections Hose ‘catch areas’ not ‘spotted’

(Hazard awareness)

Working at height

7 Dropped tools Dropped equipment during

repair/maintenance

No DROP program in place and/or embedded

WAH guide / material / tools not used (tethered tools etc)

Dynamic

Dropped Objects


CONTRACTORS VIEW 2013/2014YTD (SOV)

12

Company #1 Company #2 Company #3 Company #4 Company #5 Company #6 Company #7 Company #8 Company #9

52 contractors contributed 185 DROPS Incidents

26 contractors contributed 68 RAM4+ DROPS incidents

60% RAM4+ by 5 contractors


IMPLEMENTATION JOUNEY 2009 2010 2012 2013 2014


EP 2009-9039

2011

EVP Wells


1 in 5 “at risk” contract partners

have a documented DROPS Program...


SHELL WELLS DROPS IMPROVEMENT ROADMAP

2015 2016 2017


SUMMARY

Despite significant effort by some, the industry has not improved, with increases in dynamic related drops resulting from lifting and hoisting operations...

To improve:

• Everyone must have a comprehensive, fit-for-purpose DROPS prevention scheme

• Sustain the gains we’ve made – don’t lose focus or energy

• Know where your opportunities are – report and inspect

• Expand focus on dynamic drops (L&H) in addition to static

15

DROPPED OBJECT PREVENTION WHERE WE TODAY ......Unsecured load during loading/unloading Lift Planning – routine lifts Pre-Lift Inspections not being done Unclear accountabilities

Documents