Main deficiencies encountered in the safety management system of drilling operations

1 Safety meetings

Rig site meetings held on a weekly basis with short 'toolbox' meetings subject to operational requirement. 5-10 minute safety briefing before each shift or between each job phase (e.g. tripping and logging or casing running and cementing).

Office meetings involving management and senior operational staff, held on a weekly or monthly basis.

Deficiencies

• Minutes of meeting are not made and distributed.
• Action items are not reviewed to final close-out.
• No evidence of involvement by management in the site meetings and inclusion of site supervisors in the management meetings.
• Service companies and sub-contractors are left out or forgotten.

2 Permit to work

The most commonly used is the hot work permit. The company drilling supervisor is the ultimate signatory for the permit to become effective. The system is intended to provide proper control of work under hazardous conditions and to ensure adequate supervision of such work after necessary precautions have been taken and to establish that the correct procedures are followed.

Deficiencies

• The permit to work system is used only for hot work. Operations which involve vessel entry, working at height, unusual operations/tasks, diving operations are not included in the system.
• Many personnel employed on site remain ignorant of the purpose, use and application of the permit to work system
• Only the principal signatories of work permits are aware of the need for the permit; the work force is ill-informed as to the permit system.
• Permits (hot work) are being written for time spans exceeding one shift.
• Permits in force are not kept in a visible place such that all work being performed under the permit system can be seen together in one location (e.g. toolpusher's office).

3 Induction

A system of induction for new arrivals of personnel should cover:

1. Site rules
2. Emergency alarms and response required
3. Who is in charge, who to report to?
4. Safety requirements, e.g. hard hats, ear defenders, boots, goggles, etc.
5. Information concerning specific hazards, e.g. H2S, chemicals, heat hazards.

Deficiencies

• System for recording arrival and departure of personnel on site (POB) is often unreliable.
• No information for new arrivals who to report to or who is in charge.
• Alarm signals and muster station locations are often left to the imagination of the new-comer.
• Site-specific hazards are not highlighted during induction briefings.

4 Communications

Good communication between rig supervisors and crew is essential. In areas where English is not commonly used, front-line supervisors should know sufficient of the local language to be of practical value. Where this is not possible a bilingual foreman should be appointed to each crew.

Deficiencies

• Crews have to be employed with no language in common with their supervisors.
• Crews are unaware of the basic site rules, the meaning of many notices and do not understand information supplied to them in writing. Often because of the language problem there is no information supplied at all (particularly sub-contractors).
• Warning signs with written messages used with illiterate crews.

5 Drills

Drills are used to train and optimise response to emergency situations. There must be a concise report logged down on the type of drill, the response achieved and any shortcomings. Copies of such reports are sent to the drilling office where the quality of response as well as the significance of any shortcomings should be discussed at scheduled safety meetings. Unsatisfactory drills should be repeated at the earliest opportunity and rehearsed until successful. Drills should be planned to include different scenarios at different times of the day. It is good practice to 'take out' a key supervisor to test fall-back plans. Drills should be as realistic as possible.

Deficiencies

• Most drills held are reported, but there is rarely any comment on the quality of response or shortcomings
• Performance and shortcomings of drills are not reviewed by management safety meetings
• Drills held are found to be of poor realism and do not follow stated procedures.
• The head count on location does not tally with the reported personnel on site.
• The duties of the person responsible for the head count conflict with other duties during an emergency. E.g. often the medic is responsible for the head count, with no deputy in case of an injury.
• Drills are held at the same time each week to the same scenario.

6 Accident reporting

All companies have an accident reporting system. The need for a parallel system of near-miss reporting and unsafe act auditing is becoming increasingly evident. The key product of accident investigation procedures is to take appropriate action to prevent recurrence.

Deficiencies

• Identification of accident causes is often lacking in reports.
• Results/minutes of accident investigation meetings are not passed down the line to front-line supervisors.
• Many near-miss events are not recorded at all - a key element in accident prevention.
• Contractor/subcontractor accident reporting, investigation, and follow-up procedures are often of poor standard, if they exist at all.
• After many cases of accident reports, much time (and money) is invested in the invested in the investigation but nothing changes as a result.

7 Contracts

Some of the work or services are done under sub-contract. It is therefore most probable that in addition to the main drilling contractor are several service contractors and a number of sub-contractors (e.g. catering staff, transports, drilling crew, general labourers, male nurse, radio operator, etc.). The content and quality of contracts entered into by the Company remains the responsibility of Company management, however, the sub-contracts entered into by contractors vary in quality and content considerably.

Deficiencies

• Contract supervisors and contractor representatives do not have copies of the relevant parts of their respective contracts.
• Sub-contractors do not have copies of their contracts, neither do the contractor site supervisors or the Company drilling supervisor. In most cases a copy of the sub-contract is not available in the Company office.
• Work schedules, relief schemes and required levels of skills and language ability are frequently omitted in the text of the sub-contract.
• Relevant safety clauses and compliance with Company/contractor safety standards is often not mentioned. This is particularly evident in relation to personal protective equipment such as helmets, overalls, and safety boots. Similarly, the requirements for able swimmers offshore is frequently not mentioned.
• Contractors do not include or enforce safety clauses in their subcontracts.

8 Contingency plans

Comprehensive contingency plans are often prepared well ahead of drilling operations. Routine matters such as weekend duty rosters, emergency contact numbers, local emergency contact numbers are normally all contained in the contingency manual. In some cases, plans are tested with a dry run to check procedures, communications and to iron out any bugs in the procedures. A dry run exercise often takes considerable time to review as there are many personnel involved (medivac).

Deficiencies

• Contingency plans are in the hands of the key line supervisory staff but are not available to other staff (e.g. radio operator, medic, chief pilot, duty pilot, stand-by boat captain, etc.).
• Contingency plans prepared in advance describe contradictory duties, e.g. camp boss to man both the radio-room and conduct a head count at the upwind muster area.
• Company and contractor have conflicting plans.