|Theme||Visible||Selectable||Appearance||Zoom Range (now: 0)|
The International Association of Oil and Gas Producers (IOGP) and IPIECA, the oil and gas industry group focused on environmental and social performance, have released their annual assessment of health performance in the industry. The report is based on voluntary reporting from the two groups' member companies. The health performance indicators presented in the report are leading indicators. IOGP and IPIECA member companies conduct self-assessments of their performance in relation to standardized statements about the level of implementation of the company's own health management systems. The 2019 report presents data from 28 companies.
Proposal The paper describes the development, implementation and application of a program of environmental performance measurement in a global service company working the in exploration & production industry. A set of environmental performance indicators has been defined in order to provide data on internal compliance, environmental incidents, resource consumption, and waste generation (and management). Information is captured in an on-line database from over 500 sites in approximately 100 countries, on a monthly basis, and is immediately available for analysis and management review. The paper discusses the selection of the indicators that are used, and the intended value of each indicator, or group of indicators. Having described the basis for the EPI program, examples from the data capture and management review process are presented. These examples are used to illustrate the evolution of the EPI process over the past three years. There is particular emphasis on discussion of the challenges that are presented by a highly devolved and decentralized data capture process. The third section of the paper concerns the trends and themes that are evident from the database, and their application and value to the management process. There is a discussion of indicators that have been removed from, or added to the program and the reasons for those changes. The paper concludes with a discussion of the possible areas for future development of the program. Introduction A health, safety and environmental database system has been in operation in Schlumberger for several years. The system is intranet-based, accessible to all of the (approximately 50,000) employees in the organization, and only requires web browser software on the users computer. However, environmental data in the system had, prior to 2003, been largely limited to incident reports and the related remedial action plans. In 2002 a limited set of environmental performance indictors (EPIs) were introduced. Then, as part of a review of the corporate environmental management system (EMS) in 2003, it was realized that the objectives of the EPI process were not clear, and that the established EPIs did not allow for the creation of a comprehensive assessment of the organization's environmental programs and performance. The review in 2003 led to the creation and implementation of a new, extended and revised set of EPIs. This set was further developed during 2004, and will be revised once again in 2005 as our understanding of what constitutes an appropriate set of performance indicators develops. The Selected Environmental Performance Indicators The EPIs that were developed in 2003 (for use in 2004) are grouped into six categories, as follows: Environmental Incidents. All environmental incidents are captured and classified in five levels of severity (according to actual and, or potential impact or loss) and four risk categories (accidental discharge, inappropriate disposal, sanctions & scrutiny, physical damage). Environmental Audits. Data is collected on the implementation of standard corporate environmental audit programs, and on the implementation of local audit and inspection processes. When reports on audits conducted using the standard corporate template are entered in the database, information on scoring (level of compliance) and on remedial action items (and their closure / implementation) is also captured. Audits can be given restricted access controls to protect confidential information. Accidental Discharge Incidents (Spills) By extracting information from the environmental incident reports (see above), a summary of accidental discharge events is generated.
Abstract Over the past three years, the oil and gas industry has experienced its deepest downturn since the 1980s. Recovery has been slow, setting the deepwater industry at a strategic inflection point where step changes are necessary to remain competitive. Considering that deepwater upstream capital projects are some of the most expensive projects in the industry, capital costs on a per well basis must be reduced in order for deepwater to continue to attract capital. Achieving operational excellence by embracing the big data revolution will help answer the challenge in thriving in a low-cost oil environment. Oil and gas operators as well as others suffer from data overload. A major challenge in the process of achieving operational excellence is to find a way harness big data and capitalize on its benefits. The paper outlines the solution that a major operator and service company developed that established a unique well construction optimization process, improved consistency and moved every operation closer to the technical limit. The solution was developed for the major operator in Gulf of Mexico (GOM) deepwater fleet and was successful in reducing the well cycle times by: Applying a unique approach and workflow to transform big data into usable knowledge and enable critical thinking in the process of data analysis. This led to challenging current established operational procedures, making adjustments to actual well conditions and maximizing the efficiency of the rig. Enhancing a standard set of key performance indicators (KPIs) so that each operation is measured and the performance is understood. Establishing an effective in-house real-time data analysis center that fully supports the integrated drilling teams in order to drive data-driven decision making. Utilizing concise visualization of surface digital data so that clarity from the data can be gained and insights communicated to the rig teams.
Abstract Employee risk reports are a valuable part of a safety program. Managers frequently encourage employees to identify, correct, and report risks they discover while performing their jobs. The efforts by managers can have an immediate impact on safety performance by reducing or eliminating hazards in the workplace. However, the additional benefits that can be gained if employee reports are routinely analyzed for trends are often not realized. If these reports are analyzed, they provide constant and valuable feedback. This feedback can be used to detect negative trends and set priorities for future actions and improvements. In addition, reporting the results of an analysis to employees can increase employee participation in the risk-reporting system. The case study described in this paper shows the positive benefits achieved through risk-report analysis over a 2-year period. The feedback from this analysis was used to set priorities and was reported directly to employees, resulting in a more than 30% increase in employee risk reporting. Introduction Beginning in the late 1980s, one major oilfield service company started programs to encourage employees to identify hazards they encountered at work, and to share this information with coworkers. The methods used to collect and share this information were informal systems managed at each operating location. However, within a decade the company developed a reporting system that enabled an employee to report a hazard and share it with coworkers worldwide. The introduction of a worldwide reporting system not only enabled information sharing, but also created an opportunity for managers to use this employee feedback to identify trends and set priorities worldwide. To do this, we completed a systematic review of the reports pertaining to ionizing radiation submitted during the period from January 1, 2001 through December 31, 2002. Completing this review, we detected several important facts. The radiation safety category covers a wide range of possible topics. In spite of this, employee reports centered on eight key topics or subcategories, with three subcategories dominating. A regional analysis of the data showed worldwide consistency in the reports. Within each of three regions, the eight subcategories and the three dominant subcategories were consistent, and employees submitted reports in nearly equal percentages in each subcategory. Company management incorporated these important discoveries into decisions when setting priorities for their radiation safety program. The company communicated these priorities to its employees and this feedback resulted in a 30% increase in the number of reports. History of Risk Reporting Safety risk reporting is a process to encourage employees to report to their supervisors and managers the risks they identify while performing their jobs. Risk reporting within the oilfield service company began in the late 1980s as field employees began reporting hazardous or unsafe conditions during the course of jobs being conducted on offshore drilling platforms. This process was primitive compared to the system used today. The information was simply captured on a piece of paper and submitted to the facility manager. Even though there was no official means of capturing, analyzing, or disseminating this information, safety managers realized the potential value of these risk reports. Safety managers generally agreed that two potential benefits existed:Accidents could be reduced when unsafe conditions were eliminated, before they resulted or contributed to an accident. Accidents could be reduced when employees learned valuable lessons from the risk reports made by other employees, and could take proactive steps to identify and either resolve or mitigate the unsafe condition at other locations. By the early 1990s, a concerted effort began to standardize the report form with the introduction of what was known as the Risk Identification Report (RIR). Each field location was responsible for tracking, categorizing, and disseminating the information. Regional offices manually compiled and maintained this information from each field location.
Abstract This paper will undertake an overall evaluation of the role performance metrics plays in E&P companies’ Social Responsibility (SR) programs and show how to build value into SR efforts. Regardless of whether companies are in an early design phase or involved in advanced phases of implementation of the SR metrics programs, they will be able to use this information as a basis for evaluating the value of the metrics they use/intend to use. They will understand what drives their sustainability metrics efforts - external demands to report or internal sustainability goals. When metrics are separated from the reporting function, they will function as a powerful tool to foster improvement across the entire business. The paper creates a current profile of how companies across the E&P sector manage and use SR metrics and details challenges their organizations have faced as programs have been implemented.