Offshore Support Vessels –Safety performance

Jeremy DunsterManager Assessment & Inspection (Vessel Facilities)

Perth – June 2015

• Activity

• Performance Statistics

• Safety Case Submissions

• Maintaining safety performance

23 June 2015A424481 2

Agenda

Activity12 Months to April 2015

23 June 2015A424481 4

Facility types

Facility GroupRegistered

facilities% Active* facilities %

Platforms 35 18% 32 23%

FPSOs / FSOs 18 9% 12 9%

MODUs 17 9% 9 7%

Vessel Facilities 44 22% 8 6%

Pipelines 84 42% 77 55%

TOTAL 198 100% 138 100%

*Based on data at Apr 2015. Numbers fluctuate over time due to mobile and inactive facilities

There have been 15 Vessel facilities “active” over the

12 months to April 2015

Similarly there have been13 MODUs “active” over the

12 months to April 2015

23 June 2015 5

Regulatory Activity

OHS Activity Apr 2014 – Apr 2015

IndustryTOTAL

VesselFacilities

Vessel Facility %

Assessments (safety cases & scopes of validation) 154 40 26.0%

Inspections 122 13 10.7%

Accidents & Dangerous Occurrences 371 23 6.2%

Complaints (OHS only) 5 3 60.0%

Enforcement actions 15 3 20.0%

A424481

Performance Statistics -Data by facility type

23 June 2015A424481 7

Incidents by Facility Type12 Months to April 2015

This equates to 6.2%

23 June 2015 8

Incident CategorisationApril 2014 – April 2015

Incident category All facilitytypes

Vessel Facilities

Vessel Facility%

Collision marine vessel and facility 2 1 50%Death or serious injury 3 1 33%Incapacitation >= 3 days LTI 8 2 25%Could have caused incapacitation >= 3 days LTI 12 3 25%Could have caused death or serious injury 27 3 11%Other kind needing immediate investigation 29 3 10%Unplanned event - implement emergency response plan 172 9 5%

Damage to safety-critical equipment 84 1 1%

Fire or explosion 11 0

Pipeline – kind needing immediate investigation 1 0

Uncontrolled HC release > 1 - 300kg 15 0

Uncontrolled HC release > 300kg 3 0

Uncontrolled PL release > 80 – 12 500L 4 0

Total 371 23 6%

A424481

23 June 2015A424481 9

Incidents by VF operator12 Months to April 2015

Incidents from two facilities vs one for the others

23 June 2015A424481 10

Incidents - root causes (1)12 Months to April 2015

OHS Incident Root Causes – all facility types(excludes EM incidents, complaints and not reportable incidents)

Basic Cause – all facility types Proportion

Design 18%

Procedures 15%

Preventive Maintenance 14%

Equipment Parts/Defects 9%

Human Engineering 9%

Tolerable Failure 8%

NA or None 7%

Work Direction 7%

50% of reported root causes are

Equipment difficulty related

23 June 2015A424481 11

Incidents - root causes (2)12 Months to April 2015

OHS Incident Root Causes – vessel facilities(excludes EM incidents, complaints and not reportable incidents)

Basic Cause - vessels Proportion

Procedures 17%

NA or None 17%

Work Direction 14%

Design 14%

Management Systems – people 11%

Human Engineering 11%

Training 3%

Communications 3%

60% of reported root causes are

Human performance related

23 June 2015A424481 12

Enforcements by facility type12 months to April 2015

20% of enforcement

Performance Statistics -Rates

23 June 2015A424481 14

Offshore hours by facility type

23 June 2015A424481 15

% Hours by facility type12 months to April 2015

3.4 Million hours

23 June 2015 16

Incident RatesFacility Type comparison

A424481

23 June 2015 17

Injury RatesFacility type comparison

A424481

23 June 2015A424481 18

Injury RatesFacility type comparison

23 June 2015A424481 19

Injuries 12 months to April 2015

TRC = LTI + ADI + MTI

Injury Types Injuries occurring on vessels No

TRC Total Recordable Cases 21

LTI >= 3 days Lost Time Injuries >=3 days 3

LTI <3 days Lost Time Injuries < 3 days 1

ADI Alternative Duties Injuries 9

MTI Medical Treatment Injuries 8

This one operator accounts for 52% of all injuries reported on vessel facilities over the period.

From monthly injury report summaries

Safety Case Submissions

23 June 2015A424481 20

23 June 2015A424481 21

Assessments12 months to April 2015

Assessments Industry Total Vessels Vessel %

Safety cases 102 23 22.5%

New 30 14 46.7%

Revision 72 9 12.5%

Scopes of validation 52 17 32.7%

23 June 2015A424481 22

SC Acceptance rates12 months to April 2015

Safety cases Accepted Not accepted Total Acceptance%

Vessels 13 10 23 56.5%

New 6 8 14 42.9%

Revision 7 2 9 77.8%

All industry 72 28 100* 72.0%

New 14 15 29 48.3%

Revision 58 13 71 81.7%

*2 safety cases still in progress

• Vague scope– i.e. an inadequate description that gives details of “the

activities that will, or are likely to, take place at, or in connection with, the facility” (OPGGS(S) regulation 2.5(1)(c)

• Failing to address hazards with MAE potential in the Formal Safety Assessment description– e.g. working adjacent to, or over, infrastructure containing

petroleum fluids (OPGGS(S) regulation 2.5 (2))

• Systemic issues across the FD, FSAD and SMSD– e.g. conflicting information across the safety case

• Several cases have been rejected twice…..

23 June 2015A424481 23

Common issues12 months to April 2015

Maintaining Safety Performance

“An issue that has been at the forefront of discussion for many industry participants has been the decline in global oil and gas prices.

….we all need to remain vigilant and ensure that increasing economic pressure does not affect commitments made in safety cases, well operations management plans and environment plans.”

Selected extract from the NOPSEMA CEO message, The Regulator issue 6 2014

23 June 2015A424481 25

From the NOPSEMA CEO

• Legislation

• Safety Case Guidance Notes

• Data reports and statistics

• The Regulator

NOPSEMA website resourcesUseful links

23 June 2015A424481 26

Thank you

27