Safety Performance Indicators - 2015 data Total recordable injury rate Lost time injury frequency Figure 3: Lost time injury frequency vs. total recordable injury rate (2006–2015)

REPORT

2015sJUNE2016

DATA SERIES

Safety performance indicators – 2015 data

Disclaimer

Whilst every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the information contained in this publication, neither IOGP nor any of its Members past present or future warrants its accuracy or will, regardless of its or their negligence, assume liability for any foreseeable or unforeseeable use made thereof, which liability is hereby excluded. Consequently, such use is at the recipient’s own risk on the basis that any use by the recipient constitutes agreement to the terms of this disclaimer. The recipient is obliged to inform any subsequent recipient of such terms.

This publication is made available for information purposes and solely for the private use of the user. IOGP will not directly or indirectly endorse, approve or accredit the content of any course, event or otherwise where this publication will be reproduced.

Copyright notice

The contents of these pages are ©International Association of Oil & Gas Producers. Permission is given to reproduce this report in whole or in part provided (i) that the copyright of IOGP and (ii) the sources are acknowledged. All other rights are reserved. Any other use requires the prior written permission of IOGP.

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

AcknowledgementsIOGP acknowledges the participation of the companies that have submitted safety performance indicators. This report was produced by the Safety Committee.

Photography used with permission courtesy of ©psphotograph/iStockphoto (Back cover)

Revision history

VERSION DATE AMENDMENTS

1.0 June 2016 First release

REPORT

2015sJUNE2016

DATA SERIES

Safety performance indicators – 2015 data

4Safety performance indicators – 2015 data

Contents

Contributing companies 6

Executive summary 7

Introduction and background 9

1. Summary of 2015 results 111.1 General 111.2 Fatalities 121.3 Total recordable injuries 151.4 Lost time injuries 16

2. Overall results 192.1 Fatalities 192.2 Fatal accident rate (FAR) 202.3 Fatalities by incident category and activity 222.4 Number of fatal incidents per 100 million work hours 292.5 Total recordable injury rate (TRIR) 312.6 Lost time injury frequency (LTIF) 332.7 Lost work day case categories and activities 352.8 Severity of lost work day cases 442.9 Severity of restricted work day cases 472.10 Incident triangles 502.11 Causal factors 532.12 Life-Saving Rules 59

3. Results by region 623.1 Fatalities 623.2 Fatal accident rate (FAR) 633.3 Total recordable injury rate (TRIR) 643.4 Lost time injury frequency (LTIF) 653.5 FAR, TRIR and LTIF five-year rolling averages 663.6 Severity of lost work day cases 683.7 Individual country performance 703.8 Incident triangles by region 73

5

4. Results by function 774.1 Fatalities 774.2 FAR, LTIF and TRIR – five-year rolling averages 784.3 Severity of lost work day cases (LWDC) 804.4 Exploration performance 804.5 Drilling performance 834.6 Production performance 864.7 Construction performance 894.8 Unspecified performance 92

5. Results by company 955.1 Overall company results 955.2 Company results by function 103

Appendix A – Database dimensions 105Proportion of database used in analysis 108

Appendix B – Data tables 110Section 1 Summary 111Section 2 Overall results 111Section 3 Results by region 115Section 4 Results by function 124Section 5 Results by company 130Database Dimensions (Appendix A) 132

Appendix C – Contributing companies 134

Appendix D – Countries represented 136

Appendix E – Glossary of terms 139


Contributing companies

The safety statistics for 2015 were derived from data provided by the following companies:

ADNOC

ANADARKO

BG GROUP

BHP BILLITON

BP

CAIRN ENERGY

CHEVRON

CNOOC

CONOCOPHILLIPS

DEA DEUTSCHE ERDOEL AG

DOLPHIN ENERGY

DONG O&G

E.ON

ENGIE E&P INTERNATIONAL

ENI

EXXONMOBIL

GALP

HESS CORPORATION

HUSKY

INPEX

KOSMOS

KUWAIT OIL COMPANY

MAERSK OIL

MARATHON OIL COMPANY

MOL

OIL SEARCH

OMV

ORIGIN

PAN AMERICAN ENERGY

PEMEX

PERENCO

PETRONAS CARIGALI SDN BHD

PJSOC BASHNEFT

PLUSPETROL

PREMIER OIL

PTTEP

QATAR PETROLEUM

RASGAS

REPSOL

SASOL

SHELL COMPANIES

STATOIL

SUNCOR

TALISMAN ENERGY

TOTAL

TULLOW OIL

WINTERSHALL

WOODSIDE

YEMEN LNG

7Executive summary

Executive summary

The 2015 IOGP Safety Performance Indicators show that the Fatal Accident Rate for reporting companies has increased by 41% compared with 2014. The number of fatalities has increased from 45 in 2014 to 54 in 2015.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

20152014201320122011201020092008200720060.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

2015201420132012201120102009200820072006

Num

ber o

f fat

aliti

es

FAR

fata

litie

s pe

r 100

mill

ion

hour

s w

orke

d

115 103

87

8880

45

99 94

65

Fatal accident rate (FAR)Fatalities

54

Figure 1: Number of fatalities and fatal accident rate (2006–2015)

Analysis of the 40 fatal incident descriptions in which there were 54 fatalities has shown that at least 73% of the fatal incidents reported in 2015 related to the IOGP Life-Saving Rules published in March 2012, see IOGP report 459.

Insufficient information 13%

No appropriate rule 15%

Supplementary rules 45%

Core rules 27%

Figure 2: Life-Saving Rules applicable to 2015 fatal incidents – % of total incidents reported in 2015


There are a number of common causal factors related to the fatal incidents and high potential events from the last 6 years. The following five causal factors appear consistently in the top ten for both fatal incidents and high potential events for each of the past five years.

• PROCESS (CONDITIONS): Organizational: Inadequate training/competence • PEOPLE (ACTS): Inattention/lack of awareness: Improper decision making or

lack of judgement• PROCESS (CONDITIONS): Organizational: Inadequate work standards/

procedures • PROCESS (CONDITIONS): Organizational: Inadequate supervision• PROCESS (CONDITIONS): Organizational: Inadequate hazard identification or

risk assessment.

The 4th most common causal factor for fatal incidents, which did not show in the top ten for high potential events was:

• PEOPLE (ACTS): Following procedures: Improper position (line of fire).

Personal injury performance shows the lost time injury frequency decreasing by 19% and the total recordable injury rate decreasing by 21% compared with 2014 results.

Five fatal incidents resulting in 18 fatalities were as a result of process safety events.

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0TRIR

LTIF

2015201420132012201120102009200820072006

LTIF

and

TRI

R (p

er m

illio

n ho

urs

wor

ked)

Total recordable injury rate Lost time injury frequency

Figure 3: Lost time injury frequency vs. total recordable injury rate (2006–2015)

9Introduction & background

Introduction and background

The International Association of Oil & Gas Producers, IOGP, has been collecting safety incident data from its member companies globally since 1985. The data collected are entered into the IOGP safety database, which is the largest database of safety performance in the exploration and production (E&P) industry.

The principal purpose of the data collection and analysis is to record the global safety performance of the contributing IOGP member companies on an annual basis. The submission of data is voluntary and is not mandated by IOGP membership. The annual reports provide trend analysis, benchmarking and the identification of areas and activities on which efforts should be focused to bring about the greatest improvements in performance.

The IOGP incident reporting system covers worldwide E&P operations, both onshore and offshore, and includes incidents involving both member companies and their contractor employees.

The key indicators presented are: number of fatalities, fatal accident rate, fatal incident rate, total recordable injury rate, lost time injury frequency, number of lost work day cases and number of lost work days, number of restricted duty case and restricted duty days, and number of medical treatment cases. The report presents contributing IOGP Members’ global results for these indicators, which are then analysed by region, function and company. A code is used to preserve the anonymity of the reporting company, which will typically report its own data as well as that of its associated contractors (see Appendix C).

In 2010, data collection was initiated to capture 'causal factors' associated with fatal incidents and high potential events. These data are presented in section 2.11 of this report. Wherever practicable, results are presented graphically. The data underlying the charts are presented in Appendix B. The causal factors and chart data are available to IOGP Members in editable format from the Members’ area of the IOGP website.

This report is published with two separate addendums which provide the narrative descriptions for the fatal incidents and high potential events reported by participating IOGP member companies. These can be downloaded from the IOGP public website http://www.iogp.org/Our-library, as well as the IOGP Safety Zone website http://safetyzone.iogp.org/.


Scope of reporting and data validationThe data requested from participating IOGP member companies are published in an annual user guide in two parts:

• Part A contains definitions and the scope of the safety data submission. This document is published on the IOGP public website.

• Part B contains practical information for the company nominees submitting the data, copies of the data submission forms and a data submission checklist.

The safety data submission process is used for the collection of data relating to safety performance, process safety performance and motor vehicle crashes. The IOGP safety database has built-in data validation requirements and each company data submission is validated by the IOGP Secretariat and the work group (Safety Committee, Sub-committee, Task Force or Network) responsible for the data set in accordance with the IOGP data collection and reporting procedure. Any communication with reporting companies is conducted by the IOGP Secretariat and any data validated by an IOGP workgroup is blind coded to preserve the anonymity of the reporting companies.

A self-assessment questionnaire is included within the data submission process to determine the alignment between the requested data and the company submissions. The information provided in this questionnaire is also used in the validation process. Data that appear to be incorrect and that cannot be confirmed by the submitting company as correct may be excluded from the data set at the discretion of the Secretariat.

The scope of data included within this report is detailed in Appendix A.

Data seriesOther IOGP data reports published annually include:

• Environmental performance indicators• Health performance indicators• Process safety event data• Motor vehicle crash data.

These are available from the IOGP website http://www.iogp.org/Our-library/

http://www.iogp.org/Our-library/

11Summary of 2015 results

1. Summary of 2015 results

Safety performance indicators – 2015 data summarizes the safety performance of contributing IOGP member companies for 2015.

The key performance indicators (KPI) used to benchmark safety performance are; number of fatalities, fatal accident and incident rates, total recordable injury rate and lost time injury frequency.

Third party fatalities are not included in this report.

1.1 GeneralThe safety performance of contributing IOGP member companies in 2015 is based on the analysis of 3,719 million work hours of data.

Submissions were made by 49 of the 57 operating company IOGP Members.

The data reported cover operations in 108 countries.

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

201520102005200019951990198502468101214161820

Num

ber o

f wor

k ho

urs

(mill

ions

)

FAR

(fata

litie

s pe

r 100

mill

ion

hour

s w

orke

d)

Company Contractor Fatal accident rate

Figure 4: Reported work hours and fatal accident rate (1985–2015)

DefinitionsFatal accident rate (FAR): The number of company/contractor fatalities per 100 million hours worked

Lost time injury frequency (LTIF): The number of lost time injuries (fatalities + lost work day cases) per million hours worked

Total recordable injury rate (TRIR): The number of recordable injuries (fatalities + lost work day cases + restricted work day cases + medical treatment cases) per million hours worked


1.2 FatalitiesAgainst the background of a 15% decrease in work hours reported, the number of fatalities has increased from 45 in 2014 to 54 in 2015. The 54 fatalities occurred in 40 separate incidents. The resulting fatal accident rate (1.45) is 41% higher than last year’s figure (1.03). The company and contractor FAR are 1.34 and 1.49 respectively. Onshore and offshore FAR are 1.19 and 2.21 respectively.

Each reported fatal incident is allocated a work activity and incident category. With regard to the incident category, the largest proportion of the fatalities reported in 2015 were categorized as ‘explosions or burns’ (18 fatalities in 7 separate incidents). Two of those incidents were in the activity ‘production operations’, two were in ‘Drilling, workover, well services’, two were in the activity ‘Maintenance, inspection, testing’ and one was in the ‘construction, commissioning, decommissioning’ activity. (20% of fatalities reported in 2014 were in the category ‘explosions or burns’.)

Fatalities categorized as ‘Caught between’ were the second greatest contributors to the fatality statistics with 11 fatalities in 11 separate incidents, accounting for 20% of the fatalities (16% in 2014).

Other 5.6%Water related 1.9%

Struck by 18.5%

Pressure release 9.3%

Falls 3.7%

Exposure N, C, B, V 1.9%

Exposure electrical 3.7%

Explosions/burns 33.3%

Caught between 20.4%

Assault 1.9%

Figure 5: Percentage of fatalities by incident category (2015)


Table 1: Fatalities by category 2015

Category Number of fatalitiesAssault: Assault or violent act 1Caught between: Caught in, under or between 11Confined space: Confined space 0Cut: Cut, puncture, scrape 0Explosions/burns: Explosions or burns 18Exposure electrical: Exposure electrical 2Exposure N, C, B, V: Exposure noise, chemical, biological, vibration 1Falls: Falls from height 2Overexertion: Overexertion, strain 0Pressure release: Pressure release 5Slips/trips: Slips and trips (at same height) 0Struck by: Struck by 10Water related: Water related, drowning 1Other: Other 3

The activity with the highest number of fatalities reported by the IOGP member companies is ‘Production operations‘ (26%) with 14 fatalities as a result of 5 separate incidents. 12 fatalities (22%) were reported in 8 separate incidents in the ‘Drilling, workover, well services’ activity. 7 fatalities (13%) were reported in 7 separate incidents in the ‘Transport – Land’ activity.

Unspecified 5.6%

Transport – Water 1.9%

Transport – Land 13.0%

Seismic 3.7%

Production 25.9%

Office 1.9%

Maintenance 5.6%

Lifting 9.3%

Drilling 22.2%

Diving 3.7%

Construction 7.4%

Figure 6: Percentage of fatalities by incident activity (2015)


Table 2: Fatalities by incident activity (2015)

Activity Number of fatalitiesConstruction: Construction, commissioning, decommissioning 4Diving: Diving, subsea, ROV 2Drilling: Drilling, workover, well services 12Lifting: Lifting, crane, rigging, deck operations 5Maintenance: Maintenance, inspection, testing 3Office: Office, warehouse, accommodation, catering 1Production: Production operations 14Seismic: Seismic/survey operations 2Transport – Land: Transport – Land 7Transport – Water: Transport – Water, incl. marine activity 1Unspecified: Unspecified – other 3

The fatal accident rate for 2015 is 1.45, 41% higher than the 2014 rate (1.03). The company only FAR for 2015 is 1.34, more than double the rate for 2014.

0

1

2

3

4

5

2015201420132012201120102009200820072006Fat

al a

ccid

ent r

ate

(per

100

mill

ion

hour

s w

orke

d) Company Contractor Overall

Figure 7: Fatal accident rate by company & contractor (2006–2015)


1.3 Total recordable injuriesThe rate for all recordable injuries (fatalities, lost work day cases, restricted work day cases and medical treatment cases) was 1.21 injuries per million hours worked (1.54 in 2014).

0

1

2

3

4

2015201420132012201120102009200820072006Tota

l rec

orda

ble

inju

ry ra

te (p

er m

illio

n ho

urs

wor

ked) Company Contractor Overall

Figure 8: Total recordable injury rate by company & contractor (2006–2015)


1.4 Lost time injuriesThe overall lost time injury frequency (LTIF) fell from 0.36 in 2014 to 0.29 in 2015. This represents a reduction of 19% compared with 2014 and 486 fewer lost time injuries.

Company LTIF shows an increase of 15% in 2015 compared with 2014. Contractor LTIF shows a reduction of 26%.

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2015201420132012201120102009200820072006

Lost

tim

e in

jury

freq

uenc

y (p

er m

illio

n ho

urs

wor


Figure 9: Lost time injury frequency by company & contractor (2006–2015)

There were 1,032 reported injuries resulting in at least one day off work:• 777 incidents were contractor related, and • 255 were company related. • The greatest number of incidents was reported as ‘Caught in, under or

between’ (216 cases accounting for 20.9% of the total; 2014 results showed 342 cases, accounting for 22.5% of the total).

• ‘Struck by’ accounted for 193 cases, 18.7% of the total (353 cases, 23.3% of the total in 2014).

IOGP member companies reported 36,913 days of work lost through injuries.


Other 6.8%

Water related 0.1%

Struck by 18.7%

Slips/trips 18.8%


Overexertion 5.4%

Falls 9.4%




Cut 5.7%

Confined space 0.9%


Assault 0.2%

Figure 10: Percentage of lost work day cases by incident category (2015)

Table 3: Lost work day cases by incident category (2015)

Category Number of LWDCAssault: Assault or violent act 2Caught between: Caught in, under or between 216Confined space: Confined space 9Cut: Cut, puncture, scrape 59Explosions/burns: Explosions or burns 97Exposure electrical: Exposure electrical 12Exposure N, C, B, V: Exposure noise, chemical, biological, vibration 14Falls: Falls from height 97Overexertion: Overexertion, strain 56Pressure release: Pressure release 12Slips/trips: Slips and trips (at same height) 194Struck by: Struck by 193Water related: Water related, drowning 1Other: Other 70


Unspecified 9.9%

Transport – Water 3.8%Transport – Land 3.9%Transport – Air 0.9%Seismic 0.6%

Production 22.9%

Office 5.9% Maintenance 17.2%

Lifting 6.0%

Drilling 18.7%

Diving 0.2%

Construction 10.1%

Figure 11: Percentage of lost work day cases by incident activity (2015)

Table 4: Lost work day cases by incident activity (2015)

Activity Number of LWDCConstruction: Construction, commissioning, decommissioning 104Diving: Diving, subsea, ROV 2Drilling: Drilling, workover, well services 193Lifting: Lifting, crane, rigging, deck operations 62Maintenance: Maintenance, inspection, testing 178Office: Office, warehouse, accommodation, catering 61Production: Production operations 236Seismic: Seismic/survey operations 6Transport – Air: Transport – Air 9Transport – Land: Transport – Land 40Transport – Water: Transport – Water, incl. marine activity 39Unspecified: Unspecified – other 102

192. Key performance indicators

2. Overall results

In this section the primary indicators used to measure contributing IOGP member companies’ safety performance are: the number and nature of fatalities, total recordable injury rate (TRIR), fatal accident rate (FAR), fatal incidents per 100 million work hours, and lost time injury frequency (LTIF).

Third party incidents are not included in this report.

2.1 Fatalities

Table 5: Number of fatalities (2014 & 2015)

Onshore Offshore Overall

2015 2014 2015 2014 2015 2014

Company 5 2 7 3 12 5

Contractor 28 28 14 12 42 40

Overall 33 30 21 15 54 45

2.1.1 Company/contractor fatalities• 54 company and contractor fatalities were reported in 2015. This is 9 more

than were reported in 2014 and 26 fewer than in 2013. • The 54 fatalities occurred in 40 separate incidents.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

20152014201320122011201020092008200720060.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

Num

ber o

f fat

aliti

es

FAR

(fata

litie

s pe

r 100

mill

ion

hour

s w

orke

d)

115 103

87

8880

45

99 94

65

Fatal accident rate (FAR)Fatalities

54

Figure 12: Number of fatalities and fatal accident rate (2006–2015)


2.2 Fatal accident rate (FAR)

Table 6: Fatal accident rate (2014 & 2015)

Fatal accident rate (FAR)

2015 2014 2015 relative to 2014 FAR

Company 1.34 0.53 # 153% higher

Contractor 1.49 1.17 # 27% higher

Overall 1.45 1.03 # 41% higher

Onshore 1.19 0.96 # 25% higher

Offshore 2.21 1.22 # 81% higher

In 2015 there were 12 company fatalities (5 in 2014) as a result of 6 separate incidents.

In 2015 there were 42 contractor fatalities (40 in 2014) as a result of 34 separate incidents.

The offshore FAR for 2015 is 2.21, 81% higher than the 2014 rate.

The difference between the onshore and offshore FAR displays a large variation over the 10-year period shown. Neither is consistently lower. This is generally attributable to single transportation or fire and explosion incidents involving high numbers of fatalities.

For calculations of FAR, all hours in the database were used.

0

1

2

3

4

5

2015201420132012201120102009200820072006Fat

al a

ccid

ent r

ate

(per

100

mill

ion

hour

s w

orke

d) Company Contractor Overall

Figure 13: Fatal accident rate by company & contractor (2006–2015)


0

1

2

3

4

5

2015201420132012201120102009200820072006Fata

l acc

iden

t rat

e (p

er 1

00 m

illio

n ho

urs

wor

ked) Onshore Offshore Overall

Figure 14: Fatal accident rate by onshore & offshore operations (2006–2015)

Definitions

Fatal accident rate (FAR): The number of company/contractor fatalities per 100 million hours worked


2.3 Fatalities by incident category and activity

Table 7: Fatalities by incident category and activity (2015)

Activity

Incident category

Assa

ult o

r vio

lent

act

Caug

ht in

, und

er o

r bet

wee

n

Conf

ined

spa

ce

Cut,

punc

ture

, scr

ape

Expl

osio

ns o

r bur

ns

Expo

sure

ele

ctri

cal

Expo

sure

noi

se, c

hem

ical

, bio

logi

cal,

vibr

atio

n

Falls

from

hei

ght

Over

exer

tion,

str

ain

Pres

sure

rele

ase

Slip

s an

d tr

ips

(at s

ame

heig

ht)

Stru

ck b

y

Wat

er re

late

d, d

row

ning

Othe

r

Over

all

Construction, commissioning, decommissioning

0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 4

Diving, subsea, ROV 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2Drilling, workover, well services 0 1 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 12

Lifting, crane, rigging, deck operations 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 5

Maintenance, inspection, testing 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3

Office, warehouse, accommodation, catering 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1

Production operations 1 1 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 14Seismic / survey operation 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 2

Transport - Air 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Transport - Land 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 7Transport - Water, incl. marine activity 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1

Unspecified - other 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3Overall 1 11 0 0 18 2 1 2 0 5 0 10 1 3 54


35 of the 40 fatal incidents involved one fatality.

4 of the 5 incidents that involved 2 or more fatalities were reported under the ‘Explosions or burns’ category. The remaining 4 fatalities were reported in a single incident under the ‘Pressure release’ category.

Explosions or burnsThe largest proportion of the fatalities reported in 2015 were the result of ‘Explosions or burns’ (18 fatalities, 33%) (20% in 2014):

• 6 contractors and 2 company employees lost their lives in 5 separate incidents in the ‘Production operations’ activity:

– 2 employees and 5 contractors died in an explosion and fire in the area of marine light crude dehydration.

– 1 contractor died in a welding accident.• 6 contractors died in 2 separate ‘Drilling, workover, well services’ incidents:

– 4 tanker crew died in an explosion when a road tanker reversing into the temporary crude loading bay ignited vapours from a storage tank.

– 2 workers died during a loss of well control event when wrong well sealing procedure was used that caused a spark and ignition.

• 3 contractors died in 2 separate ‘Maintenance, inspection, testing’ incidents: – 2 workers died when a rig tilted during the positioning of a jack up. – 1 worker died and 3 were injured when an explosion occurred inside a

temporary gas condensate vessel.• 1 contractor died as the result of an incident that occurred involving a fire at an

acid gas cooler during the removal of pipe and metal structures of a marine platform in the ‘Construction, commissioning, decommissioning’ activity.

Caught in, under or between11 fatalities, 20% of the total reported in 2015, were categorized as ‘Caught in, under or between’ (16% in 2014).

• 1 company employee and 3 contractors died in 4 separate land transport incidents, all of which involved a vehicle rollover.

• 3 contractors died in 3 separate ‘Lifting, crane, rigging, deck operations’ incidents:

– 1 worker was caught against a support pipe when a crane was turning. – 1 worker died after being trapped between a winch truck and the

tubular carrier structure it was removing. – 1 worker was trapped and fatally injured when a wave caused cargo on

the deck to move during severe weather conditions.


• 1 contractor died after becoming trapped between two pipelines during a diving operation.

• 1 company employee mechanic died in a ‘Drilling, workover, well services’ incident, after slipping and gripping a 350 kg BOP wheel for balance, which subsequently fell on him.

• 1 company employee died during ‘Production operations’ after becoming caught between the crank gear and the frame of a pump jack.

• 1 contractor died in an incident under the ‘Unspecified – other’ work activity, in which he was trapped by a rack containing oxyacetylene tanks when resting in a hammock placed between the rack and a storage tank of 1000 litres of water.

Struck by10 fatalities, 19% of the total reported in 2015, were categorized as ‘Struck by’ (33% in 2014).

• 5 contractors died in 5 separate incidents in the ‘Drilling, workover, well services’ activity:

– 1 worker died when he was struck by a winch approximately 100 kg falling from a height of 6 metres.

– 1 welder died during a casing cutting job when he was struck by an unbalanced BOP.

– 1 floor man was struck by a winch line that was under tension and was suddenly released when a lead sheave failed.

– 1 engineer died when he was struck on the head by the shackle and web sling of a forklift.

– 1 contractor died after being struck on the head when the bottom of a drill pipe stand as it swung free from the pipe racking system.

• 1 contractor died in a single ‘Lifting, crane, rigging, deck operations’ after a modular mobile crane base assembly failed during testing and caused the structure to collapse backward and hit the crane operator

• 1 contractor died in a single ‘Office, warehouse, accommodation, catering’ incident after the steel roller gate (1800 kg) for a fuel dump fell on him when the support bracket broke away.

• 2 contractors died in 2 separate land transport incidents.• 1 crew member died in a single ‘Transport – Water, incl. marine activity’

incident when he fell into the water between a boat and a barge with no life vest.


Pressure release5 fatalities, 9% of the total reported in 2015, were categorized as ‘Pressure release’ (33% in 2014).

• 4 contractors died and 1 was injured in a single incident in the ‘Production operations’ activity, during the repair work on an illegal connection on a Pipeline, when a sudden surge of crude oil and gas impacted personnel that were within the cofferdam.

• 1 contractor died when working on a flare header. A compressor injected air into a plug inserted into the pipe and it was ejected, striking the contractor's employee.

Other3 fatalities, 6% of the total reported in 2015, were categorized as ‘Other’ (2% in 2014).

• 1 company employee died in the activity ‘Diving, subsea, ROV’ after being found unconscious during TBOSIET training.

• 1 contractor died as the result of a land transport incident.• 1 contractor died when a freak wave crashed the cabin window in his living

quarters.

Exposure electrical2 fatalities, 4% of the total reported in 2015, were categorized as ‘Exposure electrical’ (7% in 2014) and both were in the ‘Construction, commissioning, decommissioning’ activity.

• 1 contractor electrician confused the line under construction without power with the working line under power, started working on it and was subsequently electrocuted.

• 1 contractor contacted live connectors and sustained a 6.6 kV electrical shock.

Falls from height2 fatalities, 4% of the total reported in 2015, were categorized as ‘Falls from height’ (11% in 2014).

• 1 contractor died after falling from a 195cm high trailer during the installation of a truck crane.

• 1 contractor died after falling 6 metres into a gorge during an assignment to recover the cable and geophones from a seismic shoot.


Assault or violent act1 fatality, 2% of the total reported in 2015, was categorized as ‘Assault or violent act’ (0 in 2014) in the activity ‘Production operations’. Unknown gun men opened fire on the security personnel at their sentry post.

Exposure noise, chemical, biological, vibration1 fatality, 2% of the total reported in 2015, was categorized as ‘Exposure noise, chemical, biological, vibration’ (0 in 2014). The worker died in the area of storage tanks battery separation.

Water related, drowning1 fatality, 2% of the total reported in 2015, was categorised as ‘Water related, drowning’ (7% in 2014). The incident was during geological reconnaissance work in the activity ‘Seismic/survey operations’. 1 contractor disappeared from the surface and died after a working group of 6 people fell into the water while crossing the river with an inflatable row boat.

There were no fatal incidents reported under the following categories:• Confined space• Cut, puncture, scrape• Overexertion• Slips, trips, falls (at same height).


Other 5.6%Water related 1.9%

Struck by 18.5%


Falls 3.7%





Assault 1.9%

Figure 15: Percentage of fatalities by incident category (2015)

Table 8: Fatalities by incident category (2015)

Category Number of fatalities

Assault: Assault or violent act 1

Caught between: Caught in, under or between 11Confined space: Confined space 0Cut: Cut, puncture, scrape 0Explosions/burns: Explosions or burns 18Exposure electrical: Exposure electrical 2Exposure N, C, B, V: Exposure noise, chemical, biological, vibration 1Falls: Falls from height 2Overexertion: Overexertion, strain 0Pressure release: Pressure release 5Slips/trips: Slips and trips (at same height) 0Struck by: Struck by 10Water related: Water related, drowning 1Other: Other 3


Unspecified 5.6%



Seismic 3.7%

Production 25.9%

Office 1.9%

Maintenance 5.6%

Lifting 9.3%

Drilling 22.2%

Diving 3.7%

Construction 7.4%

Figure 16: Percentage of fatalities by incident activity (2015)

Table 9: Fatalities by incident activity (2015)

Activity Number of fatalities

Construction: Construction, commissioning, decommissioning 4Diving: Diving, subsea, ROV 2Drilling: Drilling, workover, well services 12Lifting: Lifting, crane, rigging, deck operations 5Maintenance: Maintenance, inspection, testing 3Office: Office, warehouse, accommodation, catering 1Production: Production operations 14Seismic: Seismic/survey operations 2Transport – Air: Transport – Air 0Transport – Land: Transport – Land 7Transport – Water: Transport – Water, incl. marine activity 1Unspecified: Unspecified – other 3


2.4 Number of fatal incidents per 100 million work hours

Table 10: Fatal incidents per 100 million work hours (2014 & 2015)

Fatal incidents per 100 million work hours

2015 2014 2015 relative to 2014 FIR


Contractor 1.20 1.14 # 5% higher

Overall 1.08 0.96 # 13% higher

Onshore 0.94 0.92 # 2% higher

Offshore 1.47 1.06 # 39% higher

The number of fatal incidents per 100 million work hours is a measure of the frequency with which fatal incidents occur, in contrast to the FAR which measures the frequency of fatalities. Accordingly, for company and contractor fatalities, the number of fatal incidents per 100 million work hours will be less than or equal to the FAR. Comparison of FAR and number of fatal incidents per 100 million work hours gives an indication of the magnitude of the incidents in terms of lives lost.

• Overall the number of fatal incidents per 100 million work hours has increased by 13% compared with last year (40 fatal incidents in 2015, 42 fatal incidents in 2014).

For calculations of fatal incidents per 100 million work hours, all hours in the database were used.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

2015201420132012201120102009200820072006

Num

ber o

f fat

aliti

es a

nd fa

tal i

ncid

ents

54

40

82

6758

115103 103

87

73

8880

4543 4250 52

99 94

65

Fatalities Fatal incidents

Figure 17: Number of fatalities and fatal incidents (2006–2015)


0

1

2

3

4

5

2015201420132012201120102009200820072006

Fata

l inc

iden

ts p

er 1

00 m

illio

n ho

urs

wor

ked

Company Contractor Overall

Figure 18: Fatal incidents per 100 million hours by company & contractor (2006–2015)

0

1

2

3

4

5

2015201420132012201120102009200820072006

Fata

l inc

iden

ts p

er 1

00 m

illio

n ho

urs

wor

ked


Figure 19: Fatal incidents per 100 million hours by onshore & offshore (2006–2015)

Definitions

Fatal incidents per 100 million work hoursThe number of incidents that result in one or more fatalities per 100 million hours


2.5 Total recordable injury rate (TRIR)

Table 11: Total recordable injury rate (2014 & 2015)

Total recordable incident rate (TRIR)

2015 2014 2015 relative to 2014 TRIR

Company 0.89 0.90 $ 1% lower

Contractor 1.30 1.70 $ 24% lower

Overall 1.21 1.54 $ 21% lower

Onshore 1.08 1.33 $ 19% lower

Offshore 1.65 2.16 $ 24% lower

Submissions without information on medical treatment cases were filtered out, leaving a dataset of 3,317 million hours, 89% of the database (see Appendix A).

An overall reduction in TRIR of 21% is seen in 2015.

Definitions

Total recordable injury rate (TRIR)The number of recordable injuries (fatalities + lost work day cases + restricted work day cases + medical treatment cases) per million hours worked


0

1

2

3

4

2015201420132012201120102009200820072006

Tota

l rec

orda

ble

inju

ry ra

te (p

er m

illio

n ho

urs

wor

ked)


Figure 20: Total recordable injury rate by company & contractor (2006–2015)

0

1

2

3

4

2015201420132012201120102009200820072006

Tota

l rec

orda

ble

inju

ry ra

te (p

er m

illio

n ho

urs

wor

ked)


Figure 21: Total recordable injury rate by onshore & offshore (2006–2015)


2.6 Lost time injury frequency (LTIF)

Table 12: Lost time injury frequency (2014 & 2015)

Lost time injury frequency (LTIF)

2015 2014 2015 relative to 2014 LTIF


Contractor 0.29 0.39 $ 26% lower

Overall 0.29 0.36 $ 19% lower

Onshore 0.23 0.29 $ 21% lower

Offshore 0.47 0.52 $ 10% lower

There were 1,032 reported lost work day cases resulting in at least one day off work, which equates to an average of 29 injuries resulting in at least one day off work every week of the year or 4 injuries every day of the year.

For calculations of LTIF, all hours in the database were used.

The onshore and offshore LTIF both also show a reduction compared with 2014 (21% and 10% respectively).

Although the absolute number of LWDCs has reduced (1,518 in 2014), the time away from work has increased in all activities compared with 2014. See section 2.8 for further information on Lost Work Day Case severity.

Definitions

Lost time injury frequency (LTIF)The number of lost time injuries (fatalities + lost work day cases) per million hours worked


0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2015201420132012201120102009200820072006

Lost

tim

e in

jury

freq

uenc

y (p

er m

illio

n ho

urs

wor


Figure 22: Lost time injury frequency by company & contractor (2006–2015)

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2015201420132012201120102009200820072006

Lost

tim

e in

jury

freq

uenc

y (p

er m

illio

n ho

urs

wor

ked) Onshore Offshore Overall

Figure 23: Lost time injury frequency by onshore & offshore (2006–2015)


2.7 Lost work day case categories and activities

Table 13: Lost work day cases by category (2015)

Category Number % of totalAssault: Assault or violent act 2 0.2Caught between: Caught in, under or between 216 20.9Confined space: Confined space 9 0.9Cut: Cut, puncture, scrape 59 5.7Explosions/burns: Explosions or burns 97 9.4Exposure electrical: Exposure electrical 12 1.2Exposure N, C, B, V: Exposure noise, chemical, biological, vibration 14 1.4

Falls: Falls from height 97 9.4Overexertion: Overexertion, strain 56 5.4Pressure release: Pressure release 12 1.2Slips/trips: Slips and trips (at same height) 194 18.8Struck by: Struck by 193 18.7Water related: Water related, drowning 1 0.1Other: Other 70 6.8Overall 1,032

Other 6.8%

Water related 0.1%

Struck by 18.7%

Slips/trips 18.8%


Overexertion 5.4%

Falls 9.4%




Cut 5.7%

Confined space 0.9%


Assault 0.2%

Figure 24: Percentage of lost work day cases by category (2015)


Of the 1,032 reported lost work day cases resulting in at least one day off work, 777 incidents (75%) were contractor-related and 255 (25%) were company-related (1,277 and 241 respectively for 2014). The lost work day case category was provided for all of the Lost Work Day Cases reported, although 6.8% of the cases were categorized as ‘Other’.

The pie chart shows the percentage of LWDCs within each of the reporting categories for 2015.

• The greatest number of incidents was reported as ‘Caught in, under or between’ (216 cases accounting for 20.9% of LWDCs), (2014 results showed 342 cases accounting for 22.5%).

• ‘Slips and trips (at same height)’ accounted for 194 cases, 18.8% of the total (276 cases, 18.2% of the total in 2014).

• ‘Struck by’ accounted for 193 of the cases, 18.7% of the total (353 cases, 23.3% of the total in 2014).

• In comparison with 2014, the 2015 results were very similar.

Definitions

Lost work day case (LWDC)An incident resulting in at least one day off work. Fatal incidents are not included.


Table 14: Lost work day cases by category – company & contractor data (2015)

Category Company ContractorAssault: Assault or violent act 0 2Caught between: Caught in, under or between 38 178Confined space: Confined space 0 9Cut: Cut, puncture, scrape 9 50Explosions/burns: Explosions or burns 23 74Exposure electrical: Exposure electrical 1 11Exposure N, C, B, V: Exposure noise, chemical, biological, vibration 2 12

Falls: Falls from height 22 75Overexertion: Overexertion, strain 18 38Pressure release: Pressure release 1 11Slips/trips: Slips and trips (at same height) 71 123Struck by: Struck by 49 144Water related: Water related, drowning 1 0Other: Other 20 50Overall 255 777

Other 7.8%

Cut 3.5%

Water related 0.4%

Struck by 19.2%

Slips/trips 27.8%


Overexertion 7.1%Falls 8.6%

Exposure electrical 0.4%Exposure NCBV 0.8%



Figure 25: Lost work day cases by category – company data (2015)


Assault 0.3%Other 6.4%

Cut 6.4%

Struck by 18.5%

Slips/trips 15.8%


Overexertion 4.9% Falls 9.7%



Confined space 1.2%


Figure 26: Lost work day cases by category – contractor data (2015)

Table 15: Lost work day cases by category – onshore & offshore (2015)

Category Onshore OffshoreAssault: Assault or violent act 2 0Caught between: Caught in, under or between 112 104Confined space: Confined space 9 0Cut: Cut, puncture, scrape 36 23Explosions/burns: Explosions or burns 29 68Exposure electrical 5 7Exposure N, C, B, V: Exposure noise, chemical, biological, vibration 10 4

Falls: Falls from height 53 44Overexertion: Overexertion, strain 33 23Pressure release: Pressure release 10 2Slips/trips: Slips and trips (at same height) 136 58Struck by: Struck by 121 72Water related: Water related, drowning 1 0Other: Other 49 21Overall 606 426

Of the 1,032 reported lost work day cases resulting in at least one day off work, 606 incidents (59%) were related to onshore activity and 426 (41%) were related to offshore activity (892 and 626 respectively for 2014).


Assault 0.3%Other 8.1%

Cut 5.9%

Struck by 20.0%

Slips/trips 22.4%

Pressure release 1.7% Overexertion 5.4%

Falls 8.7%



Confined space 1.5%


Figure 27: Lost work day cases by category – onshore operations (2015)

Other 4.9%

Cut 5.4%

Struck by 16.9%

Slips/trips 13.6%


Overexertion 5.4%

Falls 10.3%


Exposure NCBV 0.9%



Figure 28: Lost work day cases by category – offshore operations (2015)


Table 16: Lost work day cases by activity (2015)

Activity Number % of totalConstruction: Construction, commissioning, decommissioning 104 10.1Diving: Diving, subsea, ROV 2 0.2Drilling: Drilling, workover, well services 193 18.7Lifting: Lifting, crane, rigging, deck operations 62 6Maintenance: Maintenance, inspection, testing 178 17.2Office: Office, warehouse, accommodation, catering 61 5.9Production: Production operations 236 22.9Seismic: Seismic/survey operations 6 0.6Transport – Air: Transport – Air 9 0.9Transport – Land: Transport – Land 40 3.9Transport – Water incl. marine activity 39 3.8Unspecified: Unspecified other 102 9.9Overall 1,032

Lost work day case activities were reported for all of the 1,032 Lost Work Day Cases reported.

Unspecified 9.9%

Transport – Water 3.8%Transport – Land 3.9%Transport – Air 0.9%Seismic 0.6%

Production 22.9%

Maintenance 17.2%

Lifting 6.0%

Office 5.9%

Drilling 18.7%

Construction 10.1%

Diving 0.2%

Figure 29: Lost work day cases by activity


Table 17: Lost work day cases by activity – company & contractor (2015)

Activity Company ContractorConstruction: Construction, commissioning, decommissioning 4 100Diving: Diving, subsea, ROV 0 2Drilling: Drilling, workover, well services 22 171Lifting: Lifting, crane, rigging, deck operations 5 57Maintenance: Maintenance, inspection, testing 51 127Office: Office, warehouse, accommodation, catering 29 32Production: Production operations 81 155Seismic: Seismic/survey operations 0 6Transport – Air: Transport – Air 5 4Transport – Land: Transport – Land 17 23Transport – Water incl. marine activity 3 36Unspecified: Unspecified other 38 64Overall 255 777

Construction 1.6%Unspecified 14.9%



Transport – Air 2.0%

Production 31.8%

Maintenance 20.0%

Office 11.4%

Lifting 2.0%

Drilling 8.6%

Figure 30: Lost work day cases by activity – company (2015)


Construction 12.9%

Drilling 22.0%

Unspecified 8.2%


Transport – Land 3.0%Transport – Air 0.5%Seismic 0.8%

Production 19.9%

Maintenance 16.3%

Office 4.1%Lifting 7.3%

Diving 0.3%

Figure 31: Lost work day cases by activity – contractor (2015)

Table 18: Lost work day cases by activity – onshore & offshore (2015)

Activity Onshore OffshoreConstruction: Construction, commissioning, decommissioning 83 21Diving: Diving, subsea, ROV 0 2Drilling: Drilling, workover, well services 116 77Lifting: Lifting, crane, rigging, deck operations 30 32Maintenance: Maintenance, inspection, testing 83 95Office: Office, warehouse, accommodation, catering 48 13Production: Production operations 114 122Seismic: Seismic/survey operations 4 2Transport – Air: Transport – Air 4 5Transport – Land: Transport – Land 38 2Transport – Water incl. marine activity 8 31Unspecified: Unspecified other 78 24Overall 606 426


Construction 13.7%

Drilling 19.1%

Unspecified 12.9%



Transport – Air 0.7%

Seismic 0.7%

Production 18.8%

Maintenance 13.7%Office 7.9%

Lifting 5.0%

Figure 32: Lost work day cases by activity – onshore (2015)

Construction 4.9%

Drilling 18.1%

Unspecified 5.6%


Transport – Land 0.5%Transport – Air 1.2%Seismic 0.5%

Production 28.6%

Maintenance 22.3%Office 3.1%

Lifting 7.5%

Diving 0.5%

Figure 33: Lost work day cases by activity – offshore (2015)


2.8 Severity of lost work day cases

Table 19: Severity of lost work day cases (2015 compared with 2010–2014)

Severity of LWDC (Average days lost per LWDC)

2015 2014 2015 relative to 2014 LTIF

2015 relative to 2010-2014 LTIF

Company 53.7 51.6 # 4% higher # 29% higher

Contractor 54.1 40.3 # 34% higher # 27% higher

Overall 54.0 42.2 # 28% higher # 27% higher

Onshore 45.2 39.9 # 13% higher # 18% higher

Offshore 66.4 45.5 # 46% higher # 38% higher

IOGP member companies reported a total of 36,913 days lost (LWDC days) through injuries.

• The number of days lost was reported for 73% of the database (see Appendix A and Appendix C).

• The offshore LWDC severity is 47% higher than onshore.

Definitions

Severity of lost work day casesThe number of days lost (where reported) for each lost work day case (LWDC)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

2015201420132012201120102009200820072006

Aver

age

days

lost

per

LW

DC


Figure 34: Severity of LWDC by company & contractor (2006–2015)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

2015201420132012201120102009200820072006

Aver

age

days

lost

per

LW

DC


Figure 35: Severity of LWDC by onshore & offshore (2006–2015)


The figure below show the average number of days lost per LWDC in 2015 compared with the average for the previous five-year period. A 27% increase is shown in overall LWDC severity when compared with the previous five-year period.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

OffshoreOnshoreOverallContractorCompany

Aver

age

days

of l

ost w

ork

per L

WDC

2015 2010–2014

Figure 36: Severity of lost work day cases (2015 compared with 2010–2014)


2.9 Severity of restricted work day cases

Table 20: Severity of restricted work day cases (2015 compared with 2010–2014)

Severity of RWDC (Average days lost per RWDC)

2015 2014 2015 relative to 2014 LTIF

2015 relative to 2010-2014 LTIF

Company 22.4 14.6 # 5% higher # 53% higher

Contractor 18.7 11.6 # 61% higher # 53% higher


Onshore 18.2 12.2 # 49% higher # 42% higher

Offshore 21.0 11.2 # 87% higher # 76% higher

A total of 12,846 days were restricted (RWDC days) as a result of restricted work day cases, in the sense that normal duties could not be performed. This compares with 36,913 days lost (LWDC days) on a 43% larger dataset (see Appendix A and Appendix C).

Definitions

Severity of restricted work day casesThe number of days of restricted work per restricted work day case (RWDC).

Restricted work day cases are not reported by all companies and RWDC days are not reported by all companies that report RWDC. See Appendix A.


0

5

10

15

20

25

2015201420132012201120102009200820072006

Aver

age

days

lost

per

RW

DC


Figure 37: Severity of restricted work day cases by company & contractor (2006–2015)

0

5

10

15

20

25

2015201420132012201120102009200820072006

Aver

age

days

lost

per

RW

DC


Figure 38: Severity of restricted work day cases by onshore & offshore (2006–2015)


The figure below shows the average number of days lost per RWDC in 2014 compared with the average for the previous five-year period. The overall average shows a reduction of 54% compared with the average for the previous five-year period.

0

5

10

15

20

25

OffshoreOnshoreOverallContractorCompany

Aver

age

days

of l

ost w

ork

per R

WDC

2015 2010–2014

Figure 39: Severity of restricted work day cases (2015 compared with 2010–2014)


2.10 Incident trianglesIn this section the relative numbers of types of occupational injury are shown in the form of ‘incident triangles’. The ratios have been corrected to account for the absence, in some data submissions, of medical treatment cases.

Table 21: Ratio of lost time injuries and recordable injuries to fatalities

Year Ratio of lost time injuries to fatalities

Ratio of total recordable injuries to fatalities

2015 20:1 74:1

2014 35:1 134:1

2013 21:1 73:1

2012 20:1 72:1

2011 22:1 93:1

2010 15:1 60:1

DefinitionsLost time injuries: Lost work day cases and fatalities

Recordable injuries: Fatalities, lost work day cases, restricted work day cases and medical treatment cases where medical treatment cases are reported for the data set

Ratio of lost time injuries to fatalities: The number of lost time injuries divided by the total number of fatalities (lost time injuries/fatalities)

Ratio of total recordable injuries to fatalities The number of recordable injuries divided by the total number of fatalities (recordable injuries/fatalities)


Fatality

Lost time injuries

Recordable injuries

Company ContractorOverall

1

20

74 54 80

22 19

1 1

Figure 40: Incident triangles by company & contractor (2015)

Fatality

Lost time injuries

Recordable injuries

Company ContractorOverall

1

35

134 140 133

49 32

1 1

Figure 41: Incident triangles by company & contractor (2014)

The varying ratio of fatalities to lost time injuries to recordable injuries for 2014–2015 challenges the traditional notion of recordable injuries and lost time injuries overall as a precursor to fatalities as shown in the incident triangles. In some incident categories however such as 'confined space, 'assault or violent act' and 'water related, drowning', the ratio will be higher as shown in Tables 22 and 23.


Table 22: Ratio of fatalities to lost time injuries by category (2015)

Category LTIs (fatalities + LWDCs)

Fatalities Ratio LTI: Fatality

Assault or violent act 3 1 3:1Caught in, under or between 227 11 21:1Confined space 9 0 n/aCut, puncture, scrape 59 0 n/aExplosions or burns 115 18 6:1Exposure electrical 14 2 7:1Exposure noise, chemical, biological, vibration 15 1 15:1

Falls from height 99 2 50:1Overexertion, strain 56 0 n/aPressure release 17 5 3:1Slips and trips (at same height) 194 0 n/aStruck by 203 10 20:1Water related, drowning 2 1 2:1Other 73 3 24:1

Table 23: Ratio of fatalities to lost time injuries by activity (2015)

Activity LTIs (fatalities + LWDCs)

Fatalities Ratio LTI: Fatality

Construction, commissioning, decommissioning 108 4 27:1

Diving, subsea, ROV 4 2 2:1Drilling, workover, well services 205 12 17:1Lifting, crane, rigging, deck operations 67 5 13:1

Maintenance, inspection, testing 181 3 60:1Office, warehouse, accommodation, catering 62 1 62:1

Production operations 250 14 18:1Seismic/survey operations 8 2 4:1Transport – Air 9 0 n/aTransport – Land 47 7 7:1Transport – Water, incl. marine activity 40 1 40:1

Unspecified – other 105 3 35:1


2.11 Causal factorsThe allocation of ‘causal factors’ to fatal incidents and high potential events was requested as part of the 2015 data submission. This request was first made in 2010, therefore a comparison of six years of data is possible.

To standardize the response an IOGP list of causal factors and a glossary was provided to the member companies as part of the IOGP user guide. The causal factors list is divided into two sections:

• People (Acts) classifications usually involve either the actions of a person or actions which were required but not carried out or were incorrectly performed. There are four major categories of actions, with an additional level of detail under each of the major categories.

• Process (Conditions) classifications usually involve some type of physical hazard or organizational aspect out of the control of the individual. There are five major classification categories, with an additional level of detail under each of the major categories.

2.11.1 Fatal incident causal factorsCausal factors are divided into two separate groups, People (Acts) and Process (Conditions), see Report 2015su Safety data reporting users' guide – 2015 data and Glossary for details.

• 29 of the 40 fatal incidents reported were assigned causal factors (33 of 42 in 2014)

• 150 causal factors were assigned for the 40 fatal incidents• Between 1 and 15 causal factors were assigned per incident (between 1 and

13 in 2014).

Table 24: Causal factors assigned to fatal incidents (2014 & 2015)

Causal factor group 2015 2014

PEOPLE (ACTS) 63 75

PROCESS (CONDITIONS) 87 101


The causal factors assigned to fatal incidents are shown in Table 25. The highlighted content indicates the top ten causal factors assigned to fatal incidents in 2015 compared with the previous five years. Seven of the top ten were the same for all five years.

Additional information on the fatal incidents reported by region can be found on the IOGP Safety Zone website: http://safetyzone.iogp.org. The information provided includes a narrative description of the incident, the corrective actions and recommendations and the causal factors assigned by the reporting company.


Table 25: Causal factors assigned to fatal incidents (2010–2015)

Causal factors 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010

PROCESS (CONDITIONS): Organizational: Inadequate training/competence 11 16 21 13 10 13PROCESS (CONDITIONS): Organizational: Inadequate hazard identification or risk assessment 11 18 13 17 15 30PEOPLE (ACTS): Inattention/Lack of Awareness: Improper decision making or lack of judgment 10 13 16 11 16 14PEOPLE (ACTS): Following Procedures: Violation unintentional (by individual or group) 9 9 11 13 9 12PROCESS (CONDITIONS): Organizational: Inadequate supervision 9 13 14 16 18 18PROCESS (CONDITIONS): Organizational: Inadequate work standards/procedures 8 18 15 15 8 10PROCESS (CONDITIONS): Tools, Equipment, Materials & Products: Inadequate design/specification/management of change

7 4 4 7 5 10

PROCESS (CONDITIONS): Organizational: Inadequate communication 6 6 8 6 9 12PEOPLE (ACTS): Following Procedures: Improper position (in the line of fire) 6 14 12 13 9 16PEOPLE (ACTS): Use of Protective Methods: Personal Protective Equipment not used or used improperly 6 8 7 4 6 1PEOPLE (ACTS): Use of Protective Methods: Failure to warn of hazard 5 4 6 4 8 7PROCESS (CONDITIONS): Tools, Equipment, Materials & Products: Inadequate/defective tools/equipment/materials/products

5 9 7 5 4

PROCESS (CONDITIONS): Protective Systems: Inadequate/defective Personal Protective Equipment 5 4 5 5PROCESS (CONDITIONS): Protective Systems: Inadequate/defective warning systems/safety devices 4 5 5 5 6 5PROCESS (CONDITIONS): Work Place Hazards: Inadequate surfaces, floors, walkways or roads 4 1 3 4 7 1PROCESS (CONDITIONS): Protective Systems: Inadequate/defective guards or protective barriers 4 6 10 6 11 7PEOPLE (ACTS): Use of Tools, Equipment, Materials and Products: Improper use/position of tools/equipment/materials/products

4 6 10 7 6 9

PEOPLE (ACTS): Following Procedures: Violation intentional (by individual or group) 4 5 2 4 4 12PEOPLE (ACTS): Inattention/Lack of Awareness: Lack of attention/distracted by other concerns/stress 4 3 4 5 7 5PEOPLE (ACTS): Use of Protective Methods: Equipment or materials not secured 3 3 8 4 4 6PEOPLE (ACTS): Use of Tools, Equipment, Materials and Products: Servicing of energized equipment/inadequate energy isolation

3 4 3 3 3

PEOPLE (ACTS): Following Procedures: Work or motion at improper speed 3 1 2 1 2PROCESS (CONDITIONS): Protective Systems: Inadequate security provisions or systems 3 3 1 4 2 2PROCESS (CONDITIONS): Tools, Equipment, Materials & Products: Inadequate maintenance/inspection/testing

3 5 9 5 6 4

PROCESS (CONDITIONS): Work Place Hazards: Congestion, clutter or restricted motion 3 4 4 2PROCESS (CONDITIONS): Organizational: Poor leadership/organizational culture 2 3 6 4 4 9PEOPLE (ACTS): Following Procedures: Improper lifting or loading 2 1 4 7 2 8PEOPLE (ACTS): Use of Protective Methods: Inadequate use of safety systems 2 2 7 9 4 5PEOPLE (ACTS): Inattention/Lack of Awareness: Fatigue 2 1 1PROCESS (CONDITIONS): Work Place Hazards: Hazardous atmosphere (explosive/toxic/asphyxiant) 1 2 2 1 1PROCESS (CONDITIONS): Work Place Hazards: Storms or acts of nature 1 2 5 2PROCESS (CONDITIONS): Organizational: Failure to report/learn from events 3 1 1 3PEOPLE (ACTS): Use of Protective Methods: Disabled or removed guards, warning systems or safety devices

2 2 3 2 2

PEOPLE (ACTS): Inattention/Lack of Awareness: Acts of violence 2 1 6PEOPLE (ACTS): Inattention/Lack of Awareness: Use of drugs or alcohol 1PEOPLE (ACTS): Following Procedures: Overexertion or improper position/posture for task 1 3

Causal factors are listed in order of frequency for 2015. The top 10 causal factors assigned to fatal incidents for each year are highlighted in yellow.

2014: three causal factors were equal 9th with six assigned incidents (11 factors are highlighted)2013: two causal factors were equal 10th with nine assigned incidents (11 factors are highlighted)2012: four causal factors were equal 9th with seven assigned incidents (12 factors are highlighted)


2.11.2 High potential event causal factors

• 98 of the 120 high potential events were assigned causal factors (86 of 141 in 2014)• 383 causal factors were assigned for the 120 high potential events (336 in 2014)• Between 1 and 16 causal factors were assigned per event (between 1 and 12 in 2014)

Table 26: Causal factors assigned to high potential events (2015 & 2014)

Causal factors assigned to high potential events 2015 2014

PEOPLE (ACTS) 130 119

PROCESS (CONDITIONS) 253 217

The causal factors assigned to high potential events are shown in Table 27. The highlighted content indicates the top ten causal factors assigned to high potential events in 2015 compared with the previous four years. Six of the top ten were the same for all five years.

Additional information on the high potential events reported by region can be found on the IOGP Safety Zone website: http://safetyzone.iogp.org. The information provided includes a narrative description of the event, the corrective actions and recommendations and the causal factors assigned by the reporting company.


Table 27: Causal factors assigned to high potential events (2010–2015)

Causal factors 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010

PROCESS (CONDITIONS): Organizational: Inadequate hazard identification or risk assessment 45 28 35 61 24 47PROCESS (CONDITIONS): Organizational: Inadequate training/competence 28 17 29 36 15 22PROCESS (CONDITIONS): Tools, Equipment, Materials & Products: Inadequate maintenance/inspection/testing

27 26 29 37 12 21

PROCESS (CONDITIONS): Organizational: Inadequate work standards/procedures 26 35 44 54 20 37PEOPLE (ACTS): Inattention/Lack of Awareness: Improper decision making or lack of judgment 22 21 24 38 21 23PROCESS (CONDITIONS): Organizational: Inadequate supervision 21 21 24 44 18 31PROCESS (CONDITIONS): Tools, Equipment, Materials & Products: Inadequate design/specification/management of change

21 23 29 16 18 13

PROCESS (CONDITIONS): Organizational: Inadequate communication 18 22 26 36 15 19PEOPLE (ACTS): Following Procedures: Violation unintentional (by individual or group) 17 17 11 23 15 27PEOPLE (ACTS): Use of Tools, Equipment, Materials and Products: Improper use/position of tools/equipment/materials/products

14 16 22 21 17 9

PROCESS (CONDITIONS): Tools, Equipment, Materials & Products: Inadequate/defective tools/equipment/materials/products

14 14 28 27 13 16

PEOPLE (ACTS): Following Procedures: Violation intentional (by individual or group) 13 10 9 7 6 9PROCESS (CONDITIONS): Protective Systems: Inadequate/defective guards or protective barriers 12 8 21 22 9 10PROCESS (CONDITIONS): Protective Systems: Inadequate/defective warning systems/safety devices 12 5 14 8 15 13PEOPLE (ACTS): Use of Protective Methods: Inadequate use of safety systems 10 5 9 19 12 2PEOPLE (ACTS): Following Procedures: Improper position (in the line of fire) 9 4 8 13 3 9PROCESS (CONDITIONS): Organizational: Poor leadership/organizational culture 9 4 9 10 9 15PEOPLE (ACTS): Use of Tools, Equipment, Materials and Products: Servicing of energized equipment/inadequate energy isolation

7 2 3 5 3 6

PEOPLE (ACTS): Use of Protective Methods: Failure to warn of hazard 7 6 12 31 13 9PEOPLE (ACTS): Use of Protective Methods: Personal Protective Equipment not used or used improperly

7 5 4 8 3 6

PEOPLE (ACTS): Use of Protective Methods: Equipment or materials not secured 7 13 9 15 9 3PEOPLE (ACTS): Inattention/Lack of Awareness: Lack of attention/distracted by other concerns/stress 7 6 11 21 8 15PROCESS (CONDITIONS): Organizational: Failure to report/learn from events 6 5 4 3 2 4PROCESS (CONDITIONS): Work Place Hazards: Hazardous atmosphere (explosive/toxic/asphyxiant) 5 4 3 6 5 6PEOPLE (ACTS): Following Procedures: Improper lifting or loading 4 4 5 11 9 5PROCESS (CONDITIONS): Protective Systems: Inadequate security provisions or systems 3 2 4 3 1PROCESS (CONDITIONS): Work Place Hazards: Congestion, clutter or restricted motion 2 4 5 3 3PROCESS (CONDITIONS): Work Place Hazards: Storms or acts of nature 2 2 3 2 2PEOPLE (ACTS): Inattention/Lack of Awareness: Fatigue 2 1 1 1 4 4PROCESS (CONDITIONS): Work Place Hazards: Inadequate surfaces, floors, walkways or roads 1 3 2 5 2 5PROCESS (CONDITIONS): Protective Systems: Inadequate/defective Personal Protective Equipment 1 4 2 1 3PEOPLE (ACTS): Following Procedures: Overexertion or improper position/posture for task 1 2 2 1 1 3PEOPLE (ACTS): Following Procedures: Work or motion at improper speed 1 4 2 5 3 3PEOPLE (ACTS): Inattention/Lack of Awareness: Acts of violence 1 2 1PEOPLE (ACTS): Use of Protective Methods: Disabled or removed guards, warning systems or safety devices

1 3 2 4 3 1

Causal factors are listed in order of frequency for 2015. The top 10 causal factors assigned to high potential events for each year are highlighted in yellow.

2015: two causal factors were equal 10th with 14 assigned incidents (12 factors are highlighted)2010: two causal factors were equal 10th with 15 assigned incidents (11 factors are highlighted)


The following eight causal factors were common to the top ten for both fatal incidents and high potential events in 2015.

• PROCESS (CONDITIONS): Organizational: Inadequate training/competence• PROCESS (CONDITIONS): Organizational: Inadequate hazard identification or

risk assessment • PEOPLE (ACTS): Inattention/Lack of Awareness: Improper decision making or

lack of judgment • PEOPLE (ACTS): Following Procedures: Violation unintentional (by individual

or group) • PROCESS (CONDITIONS): Organizational: Inadequate supervision • PROCESS (CONDITIONS): Organizational: Inadequate work standards/

procedures• PROCESS (CONDITIONS): • Tools, Equipment, Materials & Products: Inadequate design/specification/

management of change • PROCESS (CONDITIONS): Organizational: Inadequate communication

The following 5 causal factors appear consistently in the top ten for both fatal incidents and high potential events for 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011 and 2010.

• PROCESS (CONDITIONS): Organizational: Inadequate training/competence• PROCESS (CONDITIONS): Organizational: Inadequate hazard identification or

risk assessment• PEOPLE (ACTS): Inattention/Lack of Awareness: Improper decision making or

lack of judgment • PROCESS (CONDITIONS): Organizational: Inadequate supervision• PROCESS (CONDITIONS): Organizational: Inadequate work standards/

procedures


2.12 Life-Saving RulesIOGP has released a set of Life-Saving Rules (OGP Life-Saving Rules, Report 459), intended for use by the oil and gas industry to mitigate risk and reduce fatalities. Each Life-Saving Rule consists of a simple icon and descriptive text, providing clear, simple and consistent communication about risks in the workplace.

These rules were developed by using the fatal incident and high potential event data from the 1991 to 2010 safety performance indicators reports to identify the events and activities that are the highest risk and therefore provide clear instructions on how to mitigate against these risks. The Life-Saving Rules are split into eight ‘Core Rules’ and ten ‘Supplementary Rules’ (previously called 'Supplemental Rules').

1. 2. 3.

5. 6.

7. 8.

9. 10. 11. 12. 13.

14. 15. 16.

17. 18.

4.

Personal Safety

Driving

Site Safety

Control of Work

Figure 42: Life-Saving Rules (from IOGP Report 459)

Assessment of the applicability of the Life-Saving Rules to fatal incident descriptions for 2015 data shows that at least 72% of the fatal incidents reported are covered by the Life-Saving Rules and may have been prevented by the adoption of this system. Insufficient information was provided to be able to assign a rule for six of the incidents.


Insufficient information 13%

No appropriate rule 15%

Supplementary rules 45%

Core rules 27%

Figure 43: Percentage of fatal incidents applicable to Life-Saving Rules (2015)

Journey management 7.5%

Speeding/phone 5.0%

Work at height 5.0%

Dropped objects 12.5%

Insufficient information to assign a Rule 12.5%

No appropriate Rule 15.0%

PPE (Including flotation device) 5.0%

Overhead power lines 2.5%

Line of fire - safe area 22.5% Gas test 2.5%

Seat belt 5.0%

Isolation 5.0%

Figure 44: Percentage of Life-Saving Rules allocated to fatal incidents (2015)


Table 28: IOGP Life-Saving Rules allocated to fatal incidents (2015)

Rule IncidentsConfined space 0Isolation 2Journey management 3Permit to work 0Seat belt 2Speeding/phone 2Suspended load 0Work at height 2Dropped objects 5Drugs and alcohol 0Excavation 0Gas test 1Lift plan 0Line of fire – safe area 9Overhead power lines 1PPE (including flotation device) 2Smoking 0System override 0No appropriate Rule 6Insufficient information to assign a Rule 5Overall 40


3. Results by region

In this section the safety performance of the contributing IOGP Members is presented for regions and individual countries within those regions.

A list of countries from which companies have reported information and the division of countries into regions is provided in Appendix D.

NORTH AMERICA

SOUTH & CENTRAL AMERICA

EUROPE

AFRICA

MIDDLE EAST

ASIA/AUSTRALASIA

FSU

3.1 FatalitiesTable 29 shows the number of fatal incidents and fatalities in each of the seven regions into which the data are partitioned.

Further analysis of the fatality statistics is presented in section 3.5, where five-year rolling averages of FAR are presented for each of the regions.

Table 29: Fatalities, fatal incidents and fatal accident rate by region (2014 & 2015)

RegionFatalities FAR Fatal Incidents

2015 2014 2015 2014 2015 2014Africa 10 5 1.84 0.86 7 5Asia/Australasia 7 11 0.76 1.02 4 10Europe 4 4 1.17 1.04 4 4FSU 4 2 1.60 0.81 3 2Middle East 7 2 1.07 0.33 7 2North America 20 16 2.31 1.56 13 14South & Central America 2 5 1.41 1.13 2 5Overall 54 45 1.45 1.03 40 42


3.2 Fatal accident rate (FAR)Further Fatal Accident Rate analysis is presented in section 3.5, where five-year rolling averages of FAR are presented for each of the regions.

Table 30: Fatal accident rate by region (2011–2015)

FAR 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011Africa 1.84 0.86 4.53 2.83 1.25Asia/Australasia 0.76 1.02 0.87 1.35 3.28Europe 1.17 1.04 2.26 0.52 0.87FSU 1.60 0.81 1.25 0.55 1.59Middle East 1.07 0.33 0.63 1.95 1.74North America 2.31 1.56 2.03 7.50 1.50South & Central America 1.41 1.13 4.37 0.54 2.42Overall 1.45 1.03 2.12 2.38 1.88

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

All regionsSouth &CentralAmerica

NorthAmerica

MiddleEast

FSUEuropeAsia/Australasia

Africa

Fata

l acc

iden

t rat

e (p

er 1

00 m

illio

n ho

urs

wor

ked)

20152014201320122011

Figure 45: Fatal accident rate by region (2011–2015)

Definitions

Fatal accident rate (FAR)The number of company/contractor fatalities per 100 million hours worked


3.3 Total recordable injury rate (TRIR)

Submissions without information on medical treatment cases were filtered out, leaving a database of 3,317 million hours, 89% of the database (see Appendix A).

Table 31: Total recordable inury rate by region (2011–2015)

TRIR 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011Africa 0.76 1.02 1.05 1.14 1.22Asia/Australasia 0.92 1.01 0.97 1.37 1.46Europe 2.22 2.58 2.58 2.64 2.81FSU 0.69 0.59 0.81 0.99 0.99Middle East 0.73 0.86 0.90 1.02 0.78North America 2.13 2.40 2.58 2.82 3.19South & Central America 2.08 2.82 3.13 3.05 3.17Overall 1.21 1.54 1.60 1.74 1.77

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5


NorthAmerica

MiddleEast


Africa

Tota

l rec

orda

ble

inju

ry ra

te (p

er m

illio

n ho

urs

wor

ked)

20152014201320122011

Figure 46: Total recordable injury rate by region (2011–2015)

Definitions

Total recordable injury rate (TRIR)The number of recordable injuries (fatalities + lost work day cases + restricted work day cases + medical treatment cases) per million hours worked


3.4 Lost time injury frequency (LTIF)

Further analysis of the lost time injuries is presented in section 3.5, where five-year rolling averages of LTIF are presented for each of the regions, 100% of the database (see Appendix A).

Table 32: Lost time injury frequency by region (2011–2015)

LTIF 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011Africa 0.19 0.29 0.31 0.33 0.30Asia/Australasia 0.14 0.17 0.15 0.26 0.30Europe 0.70 0.81 1.02 0.91 1.08FSU 0.19 0.18 0.33 0.28 0.31Middle East 0.17 0.17 0.21 0.24 0.18North America 0.41 0.39 0.74 0.94 0.59South & Central America 0.66 0.77 0.85 0.69 0.64Overall 0.29 0.36 0.45 0.48 0.43

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2


NorthAmerica

MiddleEast


Africa

Lost

tim

e in

jury

freq

uenc

y (p

er m

illio

n ho

urs

wor

ked)

20152014201320122011

Figure 47: Lost time injury frequency by region (2011–2015)

Definitions

Lost time injury frequency (LTIF)The number of lost time injuries (fatalities + lost work day cases) per million hours worked


3.5 FAR, TRIR and LTIF five-year rolling averages

In order to smooth out variability in the annual values for the regional TRIR, FAR and LTIF, five-year rolling averages are computed which should provide a more reliable indicator of performance trends.

The five-year rolling average is calculated by summing the total number of incidents of the five previous years, and dividing by the sum of the work hours for these years. For example, the five-year rolling average for 2015 is calculated by:

(Number of injuries in 2011+2012+2013+2014+2015)

(Total work hours in 2011+2012+2013+2014+2015)

The number series involved in the calculation is frame-shifted along by one each year, e.g. 2015 is calculated from 2011–2015 data.

The figures show TRIR, FAR and LTIF five-year rolling averages for each of the regions, and includes the ‘overall’ curve.

The increase in the North America five-year rolling average FAR for 2012 can be attributed to the effect of a gas leak and explosion following the loss of mechanical integrity of a pipeline in Mexico (onshore) in which 31 individuals lost their lives.

1

2

3

4

5

201520142013201220112010FAR

five-

year

rolli

ng a

vera

ge (p

er 1

00 m

illio

n ho

urs) Africa Asia/Australasia Europe FSU

Middle East

NorthAmerica

South &Central America

Overall

Figure 48: FAR five-year rolling average by region (2010–2015)


0

1

2

3

4

5

201520142013201220112010TRIR

five

-yea

r rol

ling

aver

age

(per

mill

ion

hour

s) AfricaAsia/Australasia Europe FSU

Middle East

NorthAmerica


Overall

Figure 49: TRIR five-year rolling average by region (2010–2015)

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

201520142013201220112010LTI

F fiv

e-ye

ar ro

lling

ave

rage

(per

mill

ion

hour

s) AfricaAsia/Australasia Europe FSU

Middle East

NorthAmerica


Overall

Figure 50: LTIF five-year rolling average by region (2010–2015)


3.6 Severity of lost work day cases

The number of days lost was reported for 73% of lost work day cases.

The severity of lost work day cases is the highest in the North America region compared with the other regions (88 days lost per LWDC in 2015). This has more than doubled compared with the average for the previous five-year period.

Appendix A provides further information on the proportion of the database which can be used for lost work day case severity, 83% of the data submitted for Africa and the Middle East was usable for this metric, in comparison with only 58% of equivalent data for Europe.

Table 33: Severity of lost work day cases by region (2015 compared with 2010–2014)

RegionAverage days lost per LWDC

2015 2014 2015 relative to 2014 severity

2015 relative to 2010-2014 severity

Africa 42.7 33.2 # 29% higher # 40% higher

Asia/Australasia 27.7 31.0 $ 11% lower 1 no change

Europe 38.8 33.8 # 15% higher # 1% higher

FSU 70.8 64.8 # 9% higher # 53% higher

Middle East 24.6 34.6 $ 29% lower # 24% higher

North America 87.8 49.2 # 78% higher # 107% higher

South & Central America 55.9 49.1 # 14% higher $ 17% lower


Definitions

Lost work day case (LWDC)An incident resulting in at least one day off work. Fatal incidents are not included.

Severity of lost work day casesThe number of days lost (where reported) for each lost work day case (LWDC).


0

20

40

60

80

100

South & Central America

North America

Middle East


Africa

Aver

age

days

lost

per

LW

DC

20152010–20142015 Overall

54.0

Figure 51: Severity of lost work day cases by region (2015 compared with 2010–2014)


3.7 Individual country performanceThe safety performance reported by participating IOGP member companies of individual countries is presented in terms of the lost time injury frequency of companies jointly with contractors. To preserve the anonymity of companies, performance is only published for those countries for which at least 2 companies have reported statistics. Countries with less than 50,000 reported work hours are excluded, since results for such small populations of hours would be unrepresentative. Overall averages and regional averages include data from all countries regardless of work hours or number of contributing companies.

Of the 108 countries from which data have been reported, 26 are excluded by these constraints.

TRIR calculations exclude data where medical treatment cases are not reported. The chart of relative TRIR performance therefore compares the 2015 performance with that of 2014 and 2013 for 79 of the 82 countries.

The majority of countries in Africa, Asia/Australasia, FSU and Middle East achieved a TRIR equal to or lower than the overall average TRIR (1.21). The majority of countries in Europe, North America and South & Central America show a TRIR higher than the global average.

The chart of relative LTIF performance for the remaining 82 countries compares the 2015 performance with that of 2014 and 2013.

The majority of countries in Africa, Asia/Australasia, FSU and the Middle East achieved an LTIF equal to or lower than the overall average LTIF (0.29). The majority of countries in Europe, North America and South & Central America show an LTIF higher than the global average.

For comparison, the five-year rolling average FAR is shown for each of the regions. There appears to be little if any correlation between these values and the regional average LTIF and TRIR values.


0 3 6 9 12

SurinamGuyana UruguayEcuador

Trinidad & TobagoArgentina

PeruBoliviaBrazil

VenezuelaColombia

South & Central America

MexicoCanada

USANorth America

IranUAEIraq

QatarOman

KuwaitYemenTurkey

Kurdistan Region of IraqMiddle East

UkraineTurkmenistan

AzerbaijanKazakhstan

RussiaFSU

MonacoCyprus

PortugalItaly

RomaniaSpain

NetherlandsFrance

UKHungary

IrelandNorwayCroatia

GermanyDenmark

Europe

SingaporeMyanmar

ChinaMalaysia

IndonesiaBrunei

ThailandSouth korea

VietnamPakistan

IndiaPapua New Guinea

AustraliaJapan

New ZealandAsia-Australasia

MadagascarSenegal

TanzaniaUgandaNigeria

Equatorial GuineaEgypt

CongoAngola

LibyaMozambique

GhanaKenya

AlgeriaMauritania

TunisiaGabon

MoroccoD.R.Congo

South AfricaIvory Coast

Africa

17.90

1.21

41.6717.39

2015 Global average TRIR 2013201420152015 average TRIR

Five-year rolling average FAR (0.0)

(2.3)

(1.3)

(1.2)

(1.2)

(1.

Safety Performance Indicators - 2015 data Total recordable injury rate Lost time injury frequency Figure 3: Lost time injury frequency vs. total recordable injury rate (2006–2015)

Documents