Identification Of Global Indicators For Risk, Health. Safety and Environment Management In Platforms E & P - Case Study Of Brazilian Industry Based In Management System

IDENTIFICATION OF GLOBAL INDICATORS FOR RISK, HEALTH. SAFETY AND ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT IN PLATFORMS E & P - CASE STUDY OF BRAZILIAN INDUSTRY BASED IN MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

Almeida, A.G (*). Figueiredo, M.A.G, D.Sc (**)

(*) State University of Rio de Janeiro, Graduate Program in Chemical Engineering

(**) State University of Rio de Janeiro, Department of Operations and Industrial Projects, email mgaya@uerj.br

Despite efforts in the search for alternative sources of energy, the continued growth in demand for petroleum natural gas is a reality (Harsem et al, 2011). The growth trend estimated for the next 25 years the consumption of natural gas and oil around the world will increase, respectively, 50% and 20% (EIA, 2011). However, accidents such as the Piper Alpha platform in 1988 in the UK, the P-36 platform in Brazil and the Deepwater Horizon in the U.S. in 2010, negatively impacted the exploration and production of oil and gas at sea. The management failures resulting in a system of risk management poorly implemented or nonexistent in an enterprise result in large losses (CCPS, 2007) and may impact long-term change in the strategy including the use of energy sources in a country (DHJIT, 2010). As tools used to minimize these occurrences stand out audit programs, preventive maintenance, incident investigation, risk analysis and monitoring of performance indicators, which when used in an integrated way with other practices, ensure the continuous improvement of processes through a system of risk management, providing accident prevention (CCPS, 2007). With example of this approach, the project Trends in Risk Level (RNNP) developed by the Petroleum Safety Authority Norway (PSA), the Norway regulator of safety offshore, monitors since 1999 industry performance E & P by the use of indicators of safety performance with different approaches and since achieving significant results in preventing accidents (PSA, 2011). Besides this other initiative was developed as the Centre for Chemical Process Safety (CCPS), a body linked to the American Institute of Chemical Engenieers (AIChE) United States of America (Sepada, 2006), the United Kington Health and Safety Executive (HSE) ( HSE, 2007), and the International Association of Oil and Gas Producers (OGP) (OGP, 2008). This study aimed, buoyed in resolution, drawn up by the Brazilian National Petroleum Agency (ANP), number 43/2007, establish performance indicators Management System Operational Safety (SGSO), marked the implementation of the seventeen (17) practices advocated by that resolution. Analyzing the prevention,standpoint the recommended practices, allowed typify the SGSO in dealing with accident prevention in three major groups, namely, Group 1 - Leadership, management and staff. Group 2 - Facilities and Technology Group 3 - Operational procedures, as shown in Figure 1. We searched sixty-seven platforms (67), seeking to propose (or identify) performance indicators related to prevention policy (Risk) for each of these major groups. For group 1, were identified / proposed ten (10) indicators. For Group 2   was identified twelve (12) and  for the Group 3 a total of five (5) indicators.

Figure 1 Model for Operationl and safety Management

As an example of specific indicators for each group we have, for group 1, Indicator awareness and participation (ICoPa) being the ratio between the total hours spent on awareness activities by total hours worked. The indicator Qualification staff (IQP) and the relationship between spending on training in the area of prevention by total hours worked. For group 2 have the service indicator recommendations of risk analysis (IAAr) with being the ratio between the number of recommendations identified in audits answered divided by the total number of recommendations. In the case of group 3 have, for example, the indicator Risk Assessment and Permissions Jobs (IARPT) as the ratio between number of risk analysis for permission to work divided by the number of jobs open permissions. All these indicators were grouped and prioritized which deforms for group 1 was generated global Indicator Leadership, Personnel and Management (IGLPG), in group 2 the Global Indicator Installation and technology (IGIT) and group 3 the overall indicator for Operating Practices (IGPO). The data obtained in the survey signaled that with this proposition, the management of risk can be monitored by these three groups, allowing evaluating investments / outcomes in each of the segments. The overall indicator RISK HEALTH. SAFETY AND ENVIRONMENT (IGRSSMA) proposed to be formed by the prioritization of the three global indicators, and will serve as a driver of investment in the area of risk, health, safety and environment, enabling more efficient management and in accordance with the guidelines recommended by the ANP Resolution 43/2007.

REFERENCES

DEEPWATER HORIZON INCIDENT JOINT INVESTIGATION (DHJIT). Marine Board of Investigation into Marine Casualty, Explosion, Fire, Pollution and Sinking of Mobile Offshore Drilling unit Deepwater Horizon, with the Loss of Life in the Gulf of Mexico, April 20-27, 2010. The U.S. Coast Guard / Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement (BOEMRE) Joint Investigation Team (2010).

HARSEM, Ø.; EIDE A.; HEEN, K.; Factors influencing future oil and gas prospects in Artic. (2011).

INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF OIL AND GAS PRODUCERS (OGP) OGP, 2008. Asset Integrity - The Key to Managing Major Incident Risks, Report No. 415, (2008).

PETROLEUM SAFETY AUTHORITY NORWAY (PSA) Summary report 2010 - Norwegian Continental Shelf Trends in Risk Level in Petroleum Activity, (2011).

UNITED KINGDOM HEALTH AND SAFETY EXECUTIVE (HSE) Key Programme 3 Report, Asset Integrity Programme, HSE's Hazardous Installations Directorate. (2007)

UNITED KINGDOM HEALTH AND SAFETY EXECUTIVE (HSE). Developing process safety indicators: a step-by-step guide for chemical and major hazard industries, (2006).