U.S. Offshore Drilling Rules Finalized By Government

WASHINGTON (AP) — Government regulators issued a final set of safety rules for offshore drilling Wednesday, fine-tuning a series of emergency measures put in place after the BP oil spill in 2010.

Oil industry groups reacted tepidly, saying they were still poring over the 137-page rule released by the Interior Department. Some environmental activists, meanwhile, panned it, calling it insufficient to prevent another catastrophe such as the explosion on the Deepwater Horizon rig that killed 11 people and caused 200 million gallons of oil to leak into the Gulf of Mexico.

The safety measures are intended to make sure oil flow can be stopped if there are problems. They deal with how the wells are designed, and how the cement and barriers used to secure them are tested.

The rules also require that blowout preventers, which failed in the 2010 disaster, be independently tested by a third party to ensure they are capable of cutting off the flow of oil.

"Today's action builds on the lessons learned from the Deepwater Horizon tragedy and is part of the administration's all-of-the-above energy strategy to expand safe and responsible development of America's domestic energy resources," Jim Watson, director of the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement, said in a statement.

The biggest change to the interim rules deals with industry standards that were broadly referenced as part of the rule. Industry groups, including the American Petroleum Institute, argued the rule was confusing and could introduce new risk into the system. The interim rules made mandatory some measures that the industry had made voluntary. The result was that some measures appeared to conflict with each other.

The revised rules released Wednesday restored the industry's distinction between "should" and "must."

Watson said the changes incorporated input from stakeholders, suggestions from the public and recommendations from investigations that followed the spill.

The Interior Department said the final rules will cost the industry about $131 million annually to comply, or about $53 million less than the emergency rules. Among the changes, the department trimmed by about $86 million its estimate for how much it will cost to test remotely-operated underwater vehicles, such as those that provided video feeds of oil spilling into the Gulf in 2010.

"We are reviewing the rule and hope that they carefully considered the language used in the document to allow certainty and clarity for the industry," said Reid Porter, a spokesman for the American Petroleum Institute. "Our No. 1 priority is safety."

But environmental activists said even the positive elements of the rules were undermined by a lax inspection system and paltry fines that the industry will laugh off.

"They basically said to the oil industry, 'OK, I guess we're going to have to regulate you,' and the industry said, 'OK, here are some things that won't hurt too much,'" said Jacqueline Savitz of Oceana, an international ocean-conservation group.

Offshore drilling has become highly politicized, pitting those concerned about the practice's safety against those who argue for increased domestic energy production amid a weak economy. President Barack Obama issued a moratorium on offshore drilling in the wake of the BP spill, but reversed it months later when the emergency rules were put in place.

More than 750 permits for offshore drilling activities have been approved since the Deepwater Horizon spill.

By JOSH LEDERMAN

kvaerner company worker opinons

HSE from the workfloor

Some employees at Stord and Verdal are asked for their opinion on HSE and how it affects their daily work.

 Solveig Amalie Tveita Tingvoll
Sheet-metal worker at Kvaerner's
yard at Stord.

 

 

I’m a sheet-metal worker at shop 3 at Stord. Sheet-metal workers build and assemble units prior to welding. I started at Kvaerner in 2008 and have worked on the Gjøa, Mongstad, Kolsnes, Skarv, Clair Ridge and now Eldfisk projects. I have also worked as a rigger at H6-e in an offshore rotation.  Lately the HSE work and activities have changed. The department, group meetings and the foremen have always had a strong focus on HSE, but lately we have been introduced to HSE theme of the month, special HSE themes, and the personnel safety representatives have expanded their HSE duties with a safety round. The attitude with regard to “Reporting of Undesired Incidents” varies from person to person. We have an objective to report at least one incident per month. Some of the reported incidents are not very serious, but nevertheless important because the reporting requirement objective makes us more attentive. Sometimes issues that have been reported are on the agenda in meetings. We now print the reported incidents and distribute them in rest areas and in the canteens for all to read. I think this increases the awareness on HSE.

Offshore oil drilling: European Commission envisages EU safety rules

The European Commission for the very first time envisages comprehensive EU legislation on oil platforms aimed at ensuring the highest safety standards in the world. In the Communication on the safety of oil and gas activities the Commission contemplates new EU standards, including criteria for granting drilling permits, controls of the rigs and safety control

mechanisms.

Günther Oettinger, Commissioner for Energy, said: "Safety is non negotiable. We have to make sure that a disaster similar to the one in the Gulf of Mexico will never happen in European waters. This is why we propose that best practices already existing in Europe will become the standard throughout the European Union."

In the Communication, the Commission recommends specific EU legislation on oil platforms, indicating that a formal proposal could be tabled early next year. Such an EU wide approach is deemed necessary, as the environmental, economic and social damages caused by a possible offshore accident do not know borders.

The Communication covers standards on the prevention, the response and the financial liability:

- Granting permits: When granting licences for new drillings, Member States will have to make sure that the oil companies meet key EU requirements:

Companies must have a contingency plan and prove that they have the financial means available to them to pay for environmental damage caused in the event of an accident.

- Controls: Oil platforms are controlled by national authorities. These supervision tasks of national authorities should be evaluated by independent experts.

- Standards for safety equipment: Technical standards will ensure that only control equipment meeting the highest safety standards will be allowed. This includes in particular blow out preventers.

- Damages/Response: Oil companies have to clean up and remedy the damage caused to the environment following an accident within a zone of maximal 200 nautical miles from the coast. The European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA),

presently focussing on pollution caused by ships will also help on those caused

by oil platforms.

- International: The Commission will work for implementing existing international conventions and new common initiatives. 2

Background:

Following the disaster in the Gulf of Mexico on 20 April 2010, the European Commission has screened existing rules on oil platforms. Although safety standards in the EU industry are generally high, the rules often vary from a company to company and legislation differs from one Member State to another. Certain safety aspects are also governed by existing EU legislation, such as the EU environmental Liability Directive, the Waste Framework Directive. The analysis showed however

that an overhaul and a more coherent legal framework is needed, if the highest safety standard should be assured.

The 2010 Commission's Report on Environmental Liability can be found here:

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/legal/liability/index.htm

http://ec.europa.eu/energy/oil/offshore/standards_en.htm

FREE BROCHURE

Hi friends  , for the first time get your free oil and gas, safety magazine absolutely for free , just leave a comment  and share this page  you will get the link .

10 questions to ask about your safety program

When approaches to find new results do not quickly yield a return on investment (ROI), it is logical to look for something new to try. Why did the tactic not work? Was it the tactic itself, or the execution of it?

There is nothing wrong with a never-ending search for more elements to enhance our proverbial safety toolbox; in fact, this is vital to evolution. However, we must remind ourselves that our world is becoming leaner. While the amount or availability of individuals reduces, the scrutinizing of budgets increases. Doing more with less is a reality for all.

For organizations maintaining mature safety programs and culture, further improvement rarely results from more activities. Rather, it lies with ensuring maximization of efficiency and effectiveness within existing tools, focus and ownership. Prior to searching for a new solution, consider reexamining your existing strategies by asking and seeking answers to the following ten questions.

1.    What is the goal? Simply put, what are you trying to accomplish? It is important to place focus on improving safety rather than accomplishing specific tasks. However, to not appear naïve, all initiatives will have short-term process performance indicators, but these are not truly the goal. Ensure everyone involved (participating, or a customer of the initiative) sees how this fits into the overall strategy in safety improvement.

2.    Are the expectations clear? Can people recite what the expectations are? Remember, results and performance expectations are often two different things. It is critical that people know what results are expected to measure their own progress towards completion or success. However, if the performance necessary to achieve success is ambiguous, alignment will not occur and people will be essentially guessing.

3.    Who determines and recognizes the value? Can people point to the value this effort provides? Is it clear how this effort can be measured against an overall safety excellence strategy that you are executing? Consider performing a value stream map (current and future-desirable state) of the initiative or tool. Value stream mapping is very effective to identify the elements (process, flow, communication, data, effort, etc.) that 1.) add no value and can be eliminated, 2.) add no value but are critical/necessary and 3.) do add value. This strategy will also help you identify the different stakeholders or customers as mentioned in question one.

4.    Is the WIIFM question answered? Does this program answer the famously selfish, but realistic question: What’s in it for me? Someone can see the value in your effort for the overall benefit of the organization or safety improvement, but not see how it impacts them personally at 2:30 in the morning when hyper-competitive priorities kick in and occasionally influence undesirable actions. It is not always possible to show personal value and provide an answer to the WIIFM question; however, let us not ignore it. Consider brainstorming with different stakeholders how what you are doing adds value to the employee, the employee’s family, their department, and the overall company or site. This exercise will begin to answer this question, yet it is important to never assume what is valuable to one person is shared by  all.

5.    How much creative input was a part of the design? Any time a process fails to provide the desirable results, ask yourself, “How much creative input did I provide to the targets of this change or initiative?” Remember, if you desire ownership, involvement is vital. In general, discretional effort will come more from someone who is a part of the design, than by those it is designed for.

6.    Is the initiative flexible? Any approach that provides new value, new results, or improves performance or culture will need to be tweaked at some point. Otherwise, it will become an awkward fit. Occasionally, with question one, identifying the goal, the purpose may have been short-term and the results have been exhausted. If true, perhaps a more flexible and expandable option might be a better solution? Make the approach and initiative fit your organization, rather than making your organization fit a pre-defined solution. Can your current program grow with you? For this to occur, there needs to be a positive answer to the next question.

7.    Are the expertise internalized? Do you have the internal expertise to continuously evolve your existing strategies and tools? Companies with a dependency on vendors for the effectiveness or enhancements of their tools result in unhealthy and unsustainable relationships. While not always possible or practical, any expertise in a tool that is necessary for the continuance of your performance is better internalized than externalized. Should your budget get cut, and mandatory services or royalties go unpaid, your results will often suffer. This is not in the best interest of the organization.

8.    What triggers activity? What prompts activities to occur? Are they reactive or proactive? In medical terms, when our bodies react to something, this is negative. Responding, however, is positive. What percentage of your overall activities are reactive vs. proactive? A healthy mixture is necessary, such as a very effective emergency response plan. World-class operations favor much more preventative efforts than reactive ones. Are activities driven by the desire for results, or to meet numbers or key performance indicators? (e.g., are activities, like behavioural observations, triggered by the need for more observations, or the need to understand influencers, risk exposure, or encourage specific precautions? Do we hold safety meetings because the time has come, or to proactively discuss a newly-identified risk?)

9.    What is the knowledge of the focus? Can any employee tell you the current focus or objective of the program or initiative you are exploring here? For example, if employees cannot name the focus of the behavioural observations, you will forever rely on the checklist. If people are unaware of the focus of the initiative, how will they measure if it is successful? How will they see value and answer the WIIFM question?

10.    What are the successes? “If you don’t blow your own horn, there will be no music.” – Alan Weiss. For most committees, like most programs, the biggest opportunity for further gains will come from being a bit of a braggart. For fear of appearing to be one, most teams or those managing activities, fail to over-communicate their successes. When this occurs, it is normal for others to view the teams or efforts as ineffective or insignificant. This obviously compromises the volunteerism, which is so desirable by most organizations. Would you join a team or initiative if you felt it was pointless? Probably not. Ensure anyone, when prompted, can name two or three successes from your efforts over the past few months.

If your answers to the previous questions are mostly negative, but you have received results from your effort, I would argue the results will be temporary, at best. By recognizing that most projects do not fail in the end, they fail in the beginning, there is still hope. Experience has taught me that positive answers to these questions are critical to achieve sustainability.

No two organizations are the same. Even within a company, no two sites or groups are identical. Each has different complex cultures, history of past successes and failures, leadership and followership styles, and willingness and unwillingness to support different things. Take these questions, not as a prescription for success in any activity; rather that they may encourage you to question your results, positive or negative, from your efforts.

Even with success, we must remember that sometimes we have become so because of intentional effort, others because of luck. Remember, luck is far from a sustainable strategy of world-class operations.

 Written by :Shawn M. Galloway ( Canadian safety expert)

Shawn M. Galloway

Shawn M. Galloway is the president of ProAct Safety, an international safety excellence consulting firm. As an author, speaker and expert business-safety strategist, he has assisted hundreds of organizations to achieve and sustain excellence in safety, culture and operational performance. Shawn is the host of the COS video series, Culture Shock, and the weekly podcast series, Safety Culture Excellence. He can be reached at 936-273-8700 or info@ProActSafety.com.

Confined space safety ( Part One)

 

 What entrants need to know: testing and monitoring, protection, and rescue

 A confined space is defined as a space that is large enough for a worker to enter, is not designed for continuous worker occupancy, and has limited open­ings for entry and exit. Types of confined spaces include storage tanks, process vessels, boilers, sewers, tunnels, underground utility vaults, pipelines, storm drains and ship void spaces. Some confined spaces can be open-topped, including pits, degreasers, water tanks, ship holds and trenches.

Prior to introducing its standards on confined spaces, OSHA reviewed industry incidents and statistics to deter­mine what was needed to develop standards. What the agency found when studying confined space fatalities was that:

• 89% of fatalities occurred with jobs authorized by supervisors.

• 80% of fatalities happened in locations that had been previously entered by the same person who later died.

• In 40% of fatal atmospheric accidents, the hazard was not present at the time of initial entry.

• 35% of those who died were supervisors.

• Only 7% of locations had warning signs indicating that they were confined spaces.

Sixty-five percent of confined space fatalities are due to atmospheric hazards. The remaining 35% are due to factors such as electrical shock or electrocution, being caught in or crushed by machinery, engulfment,

 falls inside the confined space, and ingress or egress accidents.

Confined space entry poses a number of safety chal­lenges for employers and workers. One is the fact that most confined spaces are unique, having distinct charac­teristics and potential hazards. As such, employers must conduct a thorough assessment of each confined space in order to ensure worker safety.

“Some people aren’t even aware that they need to be testing before they enter confined spaces,” notes Shaun Endsley, industrial/military regional manager for Scott Safety. “As a result, one of the things we like to do is increase awareness among customers by educat­ing them on confined-space rules and regulations. We want them to understand what the hazards and proper procedures are.”

Hazards can vary by industry, according to Endsley. “For example, petrochemical companies have to deal with many tank-cleaning jobs, which involve toxic chemi­cals. On the other hand, municipal wastewater facilities are must deal with problems associated with H2S (hydro­gen sulfide).” 

Testing & Monitoring: Gas Detection 

According to Mel Gerst, product line manager, portable gas detection, for Scott Safety, it is important to test the entry to a confined space before you enter it. “You want to test for oxygen depletion, explosive gasses and toxic gasses, in that order,” he states.

In many cases, entrants do not know they need to monitor the environment of the confined space they are entering. Also, they may not have the proper equipment on hand or in proper working order to properly monitor. Gas monitors must be designed to be easily carried with the entrant, either in their hand or with a robust clip that can attach to a work belt or clothing. If calibrating the gas monitor is complicated, it rarely will be completed, which contributes to improperly functioning equipment.

Best practices in using gas detection equipment include “zeroing” your monitor every day before use, “bump testing” it before use and making sure it remains calibrated. (Scott Safety recommends calibrating every 30 days.) 

 

Scott Safety’s Protege Multi-Gas Monitor is well-suited for confined spaces. Featuring a small, compact design, it fits ergonomically in your hand, so you can operate it with one hand while holding a sampling probe in the other. It allows you to hold the monitor in one hand while recording readings on the confined space permit. For hands free operation the Protégé has a robust “alliga­tor” clip so the unit can be attached to a belt or work clothing for use as a personal monitor.