|Theme||Visible||Selectable||Appearance||Zoom Range (now: 0)|
Environmental performance indicators are a tool for engineering service providers to enhance the visibility and understanding of environmental impacts amongst study teams when designing offshore facilities. This paper presents the rationale for selecting certain indicators, and some of the challenges inherent to certain facility functions, and limitations set by various study types. It explores publicly available indicators which may be usable as benchmarks, and covers field, topside (both greenfield and brownfield) and subsea facilities.
Abstract The paper describes the use of a tool and process that shows management whereto make interventions that reduce the risk of having a major accident. The tool indicates those areas that need immediate attention and those thatneed to be addressed in the future. It allows these interventions to be trackedand is designed to be used by all levels of management. The process is based on the simple concept that prior to a major event thereare numerous small events which if identified and then eliminated by managementinterventions will prevent a major accident. It describes how an oil and gas contractor found itself in the position ofbeing legally responsible for the operation of a number of substantial oil andgas facilities over a very short time frame. It already had in place a mature and robust Management System with the keyelements of Process Safety Management in place across the assets concerned. However there was not a reliable and simple way of comparing each asset interms of vulnerability of having a major accident. There was no method in place to quantify the vulnerability and the existingreports from the management system were in arrears which meant that anymanagement intervention actions were inevitability too late to beeffective. This gap was identified as a critical business need. The potential liabilitiesboth legal and financial resulting from major accidents are punitive. Seniormanagement required to have visibility and be assured that their operationswere being managed correctly. The tool and process has now been in place for over 4 years. It is a practicaldemonstration of Process Safety Management in the international Oil and Gasindustry. It is a global process for the company concerned and is an essentialpart of its Process Safety Management System.
Abstract An essential element of any improvement program is the measure of existing performance needs, as well as identification of new and future needs. This paper presents Process Safety KPI's (Key Performance Indicators) for Wells and Drilling activities, created by a committee in a Brazilian Energy Company comprised by experienced professionals with expertise in those activities. The continuous improvement of Process Safety Management in this company leaned on four steps: accidents (definition of process safety anomalies), competence, diagnostics and implementation of effective leading and lagging process safety metrics. The company understands that said continuous improvement can be achieved through the definition of accidents, incidents and Process Safety deviations, awareness promotion, process safety training (developed in cooperation with the Corporate University), definition of Process Safety Management elements at corporate level and development and implementation of effective leading and lagging process safety metrics with periodic critical analysis. Monitoring and analysis of results derived from Process Safety Indicators provide inputs to the continuous improvement process in Safety Management. In fact, these results make it possible to focus efforts on the weaknesses identified and to determine potential opportunities for improvement. Furthermore, throughout the maturation time of these indicators, it is possible to verify those that are most representative for the process under analysis and the need for reformulation or exclusion of some metrics during the trial period.
As we are getting used to the new normal of USD 50/bbl oil, buzzwords such as efficiencies, automation, best practices, and partnering have become standard in our discussions. This is all well and good but how real are these new processes? Like the cyclical nature of our industry, will these processes also become cyclical, soon to be relegated to small incremental change, rather than the needed step change as the price of oil recovers, or as our experienced people ride off into the sunset? What are the real opportunities for disruptive step change that will help us to catch up and leapfrog other industries that have given rise to companies such as Amazon, Google, and Apple, and have driven the renewal of the auto, airline, and transportation industries?
Today, companies are patting themselves on the back for handling the “great crew change,” and rightly so. But is this really cause for celebration? Should we be celebrating simply for doing our job? Would the great crew change be manageable if activity and the price of oil had not crashed? What about the individuals who have lost their jobs in the downturn and have not been able to recover? Can experience really be fully transferred by training classes? Does the young engineer walking onto an offshore drilling rig immediately notice the small things that “just don’t seem right” that an “old hand” might? How can we leverage communications technology to make a sustainable step change in efficiency and lower costs without compromising quality, safety, and the environment?
Three Critical Areas
Firstly, we need to consider key performance indicators (KPIs). A famous quote from Lou Gerstner, IBM’s CEO from 1993 to 2002, “People don’t do what you expect but what you inspect,” is often quoted as, “Inspect what you expect.” In other words, we need to mea-sure performance. However, the metrics used in tracking KPIs must be directly related to the expected outcomes, the component data easy to manage, and the outputs statistically meaningful.KPIs can be divided into two main groups. Lag indicators are typically measures of present or past performance, easy to measure but difficult to relate to future or improved performance. Lead indicators are harder to measure as they typically relate to processes or activities to improve performance, but are equally important as lag indicators. Lag indicators enable valid data analytics, benchmarking, and target metrics or “par” values for performance. Data analytics provide “calibration points” to track continuous improvement and ideas on lead indicators by identifying processes that consistently give good results.
“Facts are ventriloquists’ dummies. Sitting on a wise man's knee they may be made to utter words of wisdom; elsewhere, they say nothing, or talk nonsense,
Aldous Huxley (English Novelist , Critic, 1894-1963)
Facts can be useless unless they are put into method to measure a system against criteria. The wisdom is in constructing a method which easily shows these metrics to achieve the desired results.
How can we expect management engagement in EHS activites when performance metrics are hidden or unrelated to other performance criteria? Management may not have ready access to indicators of EHS performance, EHS compliance and safety management system status. Many small companies with limited budgets recognize the need for more than lagging safety indicators (safety statistics) as the only measure of safety performance. Senior management is looking for an initial computer based overview of EHS performance with the ability to review more specific detail using online screens. The initial overview should show blended metrics: leading, lagging, compliance, and financial indicators of EHS performance in a simple visual presentation. There is a requirement for a flexible system for each site or department which can allow for changes each year to meet needs of the organization and show progress on objectives. There is also a requirement to roll up a site’s performance into a single consolidated metric. Similarly, EHS program performance indicators need to be rolled up for corporate wide consolidated metrics.