Biodiversity offsets are measurable conservation outcomes, deliberately achieved to balance any significant biodiversity losses that cannot be countered by avoiding or minimising impacts from the start, or restoring the damage done. They are specifically designed to address the impacts that remain in such a way that the offset can reasonably be predicted, on the basis of our scientific understanding, to result in no net loss of biodiversity from the perspective of relevant stakeholders. Recognising the lack of an international, multistakeholder forum in which to develop shared terminology, increase understanding and share best practice on biodiversity offsets; the lack of practical experience in this field and the lack of guidance on biodiversity offset design (particularly on how to quantify loss and gain of biodiversity and establish the equivalence of offsets to the residual losses caused by projects BBOP was established in 2004. It is nowa collaboration between some 75 organisations: companies, government agencies, conservation organizations and financial institutions from around the world, as well as some independent experts.
The aim of BBOP is to develop shared views and experience of best practice in following the mitigation hierarchy and demonstrating ‘no net loss' or a ‘net gain' of biodiversity, including through the use of biodiversity offsets.Over its initial four years, the members of BBOP's Advisory Group developed a set of ten principles and methodologies required to support best practice in voluntary biodiversity offsets. They tested these in a series of pilot projects, whilst opening broader consultation with policy makers and other stakeholder groups.
This paper covers two significant, recent developments. The first is a major driver for biodiversity offsets and key aspect of access to finance, namely the IFC's revised Performance Standard 6 (PS6), also adopted as of 1 January 2012 by the 73 financial institutions that are members of the Equator Principles Association. PS6 requires clients receiving project finance to demonstrate no net loss of biodiversity, where feasible, for impacts on ‘natural habitat', and in the case of impacts on ‘critical habitats', clients must show a net gain.
The Macondo event brought into sharp focus the role and liabilities of non-operating partners in oil and gas developments. One of the partners in this tragic event recently settled liabilities of some $4 Billion, to pay for damages incurred by the operating party. This has raised the question among oil and gas companies, most of whom function as both Operator and Non-Operating Partner, as to what extent they should or could influence the HSE performance of an operating partner.
There are still many conflicting opinions about the role that a non-operating partner should fulfil; from almost no involvement on the one hand to close supervision and direction at the other end of the scale. Non Operating Companies are being held liable for the actions of their operating partners and their contractors, so they must be prepared to take action to ensure that their operating partners develop and maintain HSE excellence throughout the lifetime of the project.
For the past several years, a group of global Energy companies, including nearly all of the super majors, has been working on a research initiative with a common mission to find an actionable leading indicator index to drive Safety and eventually overall Operational Excellence performance.
This group has been collaborating to provide a large multi-year data set, which contains millions of data records from events such as incidents, investigations, near misses, audits, observations, assessments, and many other routine field-level activities. Since 2008, a rigorous statistical analysis process has been iteratively applied to this data to identify the mix of leading metrics which most effectively predict Safety performance outcomes.
This paper will review the leading indicator research findings drawn from analyzing this large Energy industry data set. It will reveal the key components of an actionable leading index which has been found to be uniquely strong in organizations who continue to sustain top-level Safety lagging performance.
From the analytical research and careful review with this consortium of industry QHSE executives and Subject Matter Experts, the index that was found to best predict the Safety outcome performance of an organization included measurements of (a) proactive event reporting (Reporting Culture), (b) the discipline and consistency in execution of QHSE business processes, (c) the timeliness in closure of important corrective / preventive actions, and finally (d) the responsiveness of supervisors and line managers.
The paper will provide an overview of the analytical process that produced these results and will outline alternatives for applying these insights on leadership performance dashboards. Although the leading indicator research and analytics activities continue annually to strengthen the effectiveness of the leading indices, companies are applying the index to provide actionable leading metrics on executive scorecards. We will outline a sample process for implementing practical, "actionable?? leading metrics in each key area to drive line manager / leadership behaviour and ultimately improve QHSE performance outcomes.
Conflicts and potential problems have always been inevitable when our operational area borders with where community resides. It is particularly true when there is a significant gap of differences between those living beyond the fence and those inside. Additionally, such condition provides an exposure towards hazardous risk and disastrous potential as part of the operational risks to the community.
To embrace and encourage the community to participate in the safeguarding of safety and security of both operational area as well as living area, TOTAL E&P INDONESIE (TEPI) deployed a training of Community Based Emergency & Disaster Preparedness (CBE&DP). The CBE&DP training has trained 2.223 personnel, consisting of local influential people, youngsters, educationalist, police, military and health personnel, from 5 sub-districts surrounding TEPI's operational area. The training volunteers were prepared to assist TEPI in securing and rescuing people in the case of disastrous emergency and to provide early warning to TEPI when a potential hazardous event occurs (e.g. oil spill). Some volunteers will be selected to follow the advance training to assist TEPI's Emergency and Rescue Team in handling a larger scale of disaster.
The data base of the volunteers and local disaster map will be incorporated into Geographic Information System (GIS) as well as Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) of Emergency Response Plan (ERP). The integration of the data will allow an easier coordination in the time of crisis and disaster. The volunteer's ordinate data can easily be displayed on screen to allow direct coordination with Emergency Control Center (ECC) / TEPI's Emergency Committee (TIEC).
Several advantages obtained as result of the integration are:
Yadana consortium, partnership of Unocal, PTTEP, the Myanmar Oil and Gas Enterprise (MOGE) and Total Exploration & Production Myanmar (TEPM) as an operator, is operating the Yadana gas field located in the Gulf of Mottama. The extracted natural gas is exported to Thailand via a 63 kilometer onshore pipeline that passes through Kanbauk area in the region of Tanintharyi, south of Myanmar.
As part of its Corporate Social Responsibilities, Yadana consortium has been implementing a socio- economic program for the inhabitants of the villages neighboring the pipeline since 1998.
The coverage was extended step by step from 13 villages to 25. As of May 2012, the program directly covers about 33,000 inhabitants, but it is estimated that about 50,000 people benefit directly or indirectly of the activities implemented. For instance villagers from non-covered areas are also being welcomed to seek consultations in supported health facilities.
The Yadana' socio economic program is extended beyond the pipeline area to the national level supporting mainly on public health, education and social welfare infrastructure. Some projects are implemented by specialized NGOs.
The readiness of a response organisation to act when mobilised constitutes a key measure of performance. Central to the notion of ‘Response Readiness', are competent personnel who have been equipped and trained for the job. In the context of an of an oil spill response, it is recognised that responders are often required to work in diverse and challenging environments; these difficulties may be compounded by uncertainties in local support. Thus, the effective management of health and safety risks is critical, not only to ensure the safety and well being of personnel, but also to ensure that a response can be successfully carried out. To address this, Oil Spill Response Limited (OSRL) adopted a comprehensive approach that not only addresses conventional health and safety risks, but also unconventional threats posed by global terrorism and regional unrest, as well as devastation resulting from natural disasters. This approach is underpinned by pre-employment medical examination for new recruits, coupled with scheduled health assessments during employment, inoculation against a range of diseases, and provision of both broadbased and specialised HSE training to manage conventional health and safety risks. Unconventional risks are managed through the implementation of a travel security protocol that hinges on the subscription to specialist advice, access to information, risk assessment, and interfacing our operations with the clients'. Contingency planning is also an integral part of the risk management framework; this is supported by a Crisis Management Plan and access to international assistance for aid provision or personnel evacuation should the need arise. This paper will present the approach taken by OSRL to manage health and safety risks, as a showcase of how such risk management forms a cornerstone of ‘Response Readiness' to ensure service delivery as an international tier 3 oil spill response organisation. The paper will also examine the significance of management accountability and visibility as integral components of this framework.
As oil and gas projects explore more and more challenging territories, and as public opinion is increasingly aware of risks from drilling operations, it is of furthermost importance to better understand and systematically manage these risks.
For every well project on the Norwegian sector, the risks from a blowout are studied from the safety and the environmental perspective, through Quantitative Risk Assessments and Environmental Risk Analyses, respectively. The blowout characteristics (probability, flow rates, durations) are among the most influent input parameters for these analyses. Traditionally these parameters have been extracted from available historical statistics from blowout databases. These databases provide generic data with very limited consideration for the well and operation specific characteristics (e.g. exploration, development, HPHT).
DNV has developed a methodology for the assessment of blowout risks in order to better understand them and to be able to provide a more realistic risk picture. A multidisciplinary approach is applied during the risk assessment process, assessing the drilling or well operations according to a set of predefined criteria or risk factors. This benchmarking analysis is used as a basis for assessing the probability of a leak or a blowout. Well flow simulations are used and adjusted in order to assess the well specific leak and blowout rates for the different operations. The potential leak and blowout durations are calculated using statistical models and taking into account the context of the drilling and well operations.
This new method considers the field specific reservoir challenges, best available technology and best operational practices in order to generate a more field and operation specific risk exposure. The results are more accurate risk predictions. Traditional analysis may be too conservative and would typically not reflect the actual well conditions, barriers and operational steps. Relevant examples from the Norwegian sector are presented.
The burning of oil in place (in situ) on water is a viable means to mitigate the impact of marine oil spills. This paper defines three phases of decision-making, prioritizes the key issues of each phase, and proposes a process for analyzing the issues when considering controlled in-situ burning as an early response option in both icy and warm conditions. Also provided is a fact-based consideration of safe practices, such as those involving potential personnel exposure, sealife exposure, ignition control, fire control, and vessel safety. Controlled in-situ burning can be initiated on a pre-approved or case-by-case basis, and there is generally a short operational time window during which it can be effectively utilized; therefore, quick, informed decision-making is imperative. This paper provides a discussion of these factors, along with a knowledge base of best practices that includes general categories of considerations, decision-making support tools, and specific operational approaches. The Deepwater Horizon response is used to illustrate both the operational approaches and the three decision-making phases. Because of its long history of research, testing, and use during spills, as well as positive environmental trade-offs, controlled ISB is now considered by many to be a conventional response option.
Following detection of two open tuberculosis (TB) cases among offshore installation workers some years ago, screening for latent TB infection using an interferon gamma release assay, QuantiFERON-TB Gold test (QTBGT), was introduced in the oil industry. Since the introduction of QTBGT, this screening has been used as a prerequisite for working offshore with focus on TB diagnosis (active and latent) and monitoring of clinical management. The aim of our retrospective descriptive study was to determine the prevalence of patients with latent or active TB in offshore workers in Nigeria.
Methods. We used medical records in order to gather all demographic and medical data of patients who underwent QuantiFERON-TB Gold test (QFT-G Cellestis Limited, Carnegie, Victoria, Australia) within a period of 40 month in our facility. Ages, gender, country of origin and test results of the QTBGT were documented. We furthermore evaluated the findings of chest x rays, and compared findings by age and region of origin of the patients.
Results. 2055 workers were screened for tuberculosis infection. 145 patients could not be implemented due to incomplete medical files. Among the remaining 1910 workers tested with QTBGT, 1163 (61%) were negative, 689 (36%) were positive, 43 (2%) had indeterminate results and 15 samples were rejected by the laboratory due to inproper sample handling. In total 2 cases of active tuberculosis were detected. The range of positive samples on different platform ranges from 10 - 50%.
349 of the positive cases were further examined and placed on treatment for latent TB. Out of them 270 (78%) had normal chest x-ray findings; 79 (22%) patients showed hilar shadows. Out of those patients placed on treatment 24 persons were retested in our facilities, 8 did seroconvert to negative while 16 did not, 50% of indeterminate results turned negative on the repeat test.
Conclusion. There was good correlation between our findings and the numbers described in literature reflecting the incidence in other study populations QTBGT test appears to be an good screening tool as a safety measure to mitigate spread of TB among offshore workers; it would be highly beneficial if in-cooperated into pre-employment medicals especially in this region, HIV testing can be offered on voluntary basis to workers with positive QTBGT.