1. My Company Learning Day November 2004

2. HSE Performance – Accident Pyramid
MCTT
Rank
FAR –
12 mth
0.02
0.15 1
DAFW – 12 mth
0.0595 11
DAFW – 3 mth
0.0633
0.1185 7
RIF –
0.51
0.65
Fatalities
(3)
DAFWs
(43)
Total
Recordables
(388)
First Aids
(3531)
Near Hits
Fat.-1
(7887)
Unsafe Acts and Conditions
HIPOS – 4 3
(2,046,977)
An additional tool that will be used to assess performance is the Accident Triangle, which has been an accepted tool used across the industry. The Accident Triangle illustrates incident reporting levels through the ratio of fatalities, DAFWs, total recordables, first aids, and unsafe acts and conditions.
E&P YTD 4
ASA’s (3,133)
Saf. Obs. (51,149)
Training hrs. (70,058)
Manhours (4,976,908)
Vehicle Mil. (3,210,234 km)
DAFWCS – 2 23
OSHA Recordables – 12
First Aid - 44 89
412
Near misses - 124
YTD-2003
YTD-2004

3. Incident analysis: 2002 - 2004 2003 High risk Intervention areas ’02
YTD
’03
’04
TAR
HIPO 22 3
DAFWC
DAFWCf
DAFWcf - 12mth Roll. 11
0.37
0.31 4
0.12
0.30 2
0.08
0.05
0.10
RIRR
TVAR
0. 89
2.58
0.78
0.95
0.56
1.25
0.63
0.59
2003 High risk
Intervention areas
Findings on emerging risks:
Slips, Trips & Falls
Dominant type of falls – slip and fall, trip and fall
Causes – slippery surfaces, foreign object on the walking surface (both issues infer housekeeping)
Type of operation – drilling, fabrication & construction
Struck by / Struck against
1.An individual’s inattention to the surroundings and his actions(this would result in mostly struck against incidents)
2.Improper storage of materials would result in mostly “struck by” incidents since this parameter serves as potential incidents where an object can fall onto the person .
3.Fault in the procedure of performing the task would result in unperceived incidents.E.g. taking short cuts etc
Inattention to surroundings and Improper procedure account for 72.9% of the struck incidents.
Type of operation – drilling, fabrication & construction, production
Caught in, under & between
Dominant type - “Caught between” had the highest cumulative frequency
Causes – Inattention to surroundings, Not following proper procedure, Improper placement of tools, Faulty tools
Severity Index

4. HSSE 5-Year Analysis

5. Injury? 1(5) 1(3) 1(6) (8) (1) 1(8) 1(3) 2(26) 0(1) 1
Injury?
( ) Cumulative figures
Skin
Chest
Head/ Face
1(5)
Eyes
1(3)
Neck
REC
Arm/Elbow
1(6)
Back / Shoulder
(8)
REC
Hip
REC
REC
Torso/Abdomen
(1)
Leg / Knee
1(8)
REC
Groin
Foot/Ankle
1(3)
Hand/Fingers/Wrist
2(26)
REC
REC
REC
Fatality 1
Needs Data
Respiratory Tract
Mouth/Teeth
0(1)
DAFWC
REC
DAFWC
REC
REC
REC

6. Who? Who? Where? 60 people hurt from January – September 2004
6 Developments PU 4%
37 Production PU 34%
6 CEO/COO 21%
4 Infrastructure 36%
1 Exploration 2%
1 Marketing Development 3%
Who?
(52 were Contractors, 8 MC employees)
Man-hours
8 My Company
8 Contractor A
7 Contractor B
4 Contractor C
3 Contractor D
3 Contractor E

7. Possible Incident Causes
PARETO PIE CHART
POSSIBLE IMMEDIATE CAUSE
PARETO DOUGHNUT CHART
POSSIBLE SYSTEM CAUSE

8. STOP Deviations

9. STOP Deviations
Procedures And Housekeeping

10. STOP Deviations
Tools And Equipment

11. STOP Deviations
Positions Of People (Possible Injury Causes)

12. STOP Deviations
Personal Protective Equipment

13. STOP Deviations
Reactions Of People

14. ASA Deviations

15. ASA Deviations

16. ASA Deviations

17. ASA Deviations

18. ASA Deviations

19. ASA Deviations

20. ASA Deviations

21. Investigations
Possible Immediate Cause

22. Investigations
Possible System Cause