Drilling safety

[soiledup]

Righto chaps,

I was lounging at home watching tele the other night when I heard a rather shocking 'fact'. I was watching 'oil riggers' about static oil rig in the states, following the trials and tribulations of drillers and roughnecks. Anyway, the programme stated that,,,get this,,,eight people a MONTH die on US drilling rigs. Can any of our US companions enlighten me? Can this be true? 96 people a year? Really?

I was sure I misheard,, maybe it should have been hurt / injured.

Any guesses?

Soiledup

 

[BigH]

Likely - and more than 60 die each year in Trench cave-ins or other trench related issues (gas; falling objects). And 30,000 die from complications of the flu and 50,000 or so more due to vehicle accidents and likely 250k plus due to cancer and . . .

 

[soiledup]

Okay I appreciate you putting the argument into proportion with the medical facts but,,,,, seeing the chaos in the UK since that lad was killed in the trench (see other thread), with our paperwork, reiteration of safety to juniors, toolbox talks, training in the use of shoring etc etc etc I'm amazed at those figures? Over here, it's taken one life to cause a lot of, possibly unnecessary reiteration. How many roughnecks are there in the US? What are the ratios? How does your HSE react?

Sorry to keep on, but those numbers are, to me, staggering. My god, if 8 people died in one month alone on drill rigs, the HSE would shut the industry down. Full stop.

Soiledup

 

[kslee1000]

THe reason is simple, 8/????????=?%, compared with $8/gal at pump, affecting ???????????????? persons.

 

[soiledup]

Whoa there kslee1000. Any time I question the strict H&S requirements from our H&S people, particularly when they are being very 'diligent' and have cost implications, they simply reply to me 'What price someone's life?'. Which is something one cannot argue against. In the UK we are adopting the 'if it's not safe - it doesn't get done until a safe working practice can be adopted' approach.

Are we to treat our junior engineers / drillers & plant operators as consumable items?

Soileup

 

[BigH]

soiledup - drilling is a tough business - on the big rigs. Shit happens no matter how careful one is, no matter how many safety meetings one has, etc. - a moment's lapse and sheisse hits the fan. It might have been a bad month that they quoted? Was the statistic related to individual accidents or to a catastrophic event - we lost some 45 people if memory serves me correct on a rig off the eastern coast of Canada. Do they count the deaths due to helicopter accidents going to and from the rigs? I think that UK has had several of these this year alone. I am for safety - but it has to be reasonable - see iandig's comments to my query in Concrete Testing Engineering forum. In listening to safety professionals, it seems to be the rule - every accident leads to death; sort of like with my ex where every argumen, on the second iteration was "I want a divorce." Not trying to be flippant; the deaths you quote are of concern, but does any common sense come into play? I'm waiting for them to require tie-offs for olympic high board divers??

 

[kslee1000]

The world would be much safer to live in, if everyone can standup for themself and just say no. How about coal miners? Would like to hear sucessful stories from UK.

 

[dgillette]

There are a lot of things going on oil rigs:

Large pieces of steel swinging around and large distances that dropped items can fall before they hit a worker or that a worker could fall.

Very large motors that won't just stop if something breaks or gets snagged

Plenty of older rigs with minimal safety equipment, particularly in shallow coal-bed methane fields.

Stuff that can explode and burn.

Slippery conditions from mud, crude, ice, and lubricants.

Macho culture.

The very high cost of rig time and pressure to get each well on-line as fast as possible, which lead to:
Long shifts (often two 12-hr shifts per day, seven days per week) with tired workers and tolerance for use of methamphetamine
Reluctance to shut the rig down to replace/repair, e.g., shrouds around moving parts. (There was a horrible accident on an older rig in WY a couple years ago, when a young guy got a glove snagged on a rotating rod, which pulled him into the rod, causing him to use his other hand to hold himself back, causing the other hand to get caught. Lost both arms, then died due to blood loss in the helicopter on the way to hospital.)

I don't know how much inspection there is of smaller land-based rigs. My nonexpert impression is that offshore rigs are run more like a tight ship.

Not for me, thanks.

 

[rconner]

I believe every life is precious. While certainly not diminishing your concern for us Americans, I believe it is and has always been a quite dangerous world out there without getting out on the ocean (and sometimes in ways or frequencies beyond well-publicized things like car accidents and smoking deaths etc. that most folks do not even imagine).
An alert chap I work with even got up and saved the life of a Customer not long ago, when the Customer walked away from a dinner table when he was actually choking on a piece of food. While I don't think this necessarily proves (if that is what one would/is wont to do!) that Americans are gluttons, when I did a rough Google search I saw a report that claimed more than three thousand Americans a year die of “suffocation” (that in turn I think is most commonly caused by food or other objects blocking the airways).
In the same report I saw that more than 500 Americans even die in sorts of “medical misadventures” each year, while one would think in the care of most highly educated, trained, and licensed care-givers (and incidentally I think legions of American malpractice lawyers or barristers at least in that volume unparalleled anywhere else in the world looking over their shoulders!) This must not necessarily mean (despite what one hears in the media) that American health care is bad, as folks flock here from all over the world to avail themselves of it.
There is little doubt however that there are a lot of American folk/practitioners out there, and we of course trust that at least even ardent British e.g. soccer followers, even in the sort of heat of the moment, don’t do anything not well thought out or unsafe!
Regards, and everyone have a great weekend.

 

[soiledup]

Yeah, don't get me wrong, I'm faily pragmatic and belive that if a job needs doing, get on with it! But, how many of those accident are avoidable? I'm fully aware of the dangers of rigs, both large and very small, and I realise that genuine accidents happen.

I' dunno, just seemed like a heck of a lot of lives lost, probably through nothing more than recklessness?

Incidentially, no I don't think it included heli accidents, only focusing on land rigs. I'm trying to find stats of how many accident occur on sea rigs although as stated above I expect they are sh*t hot on safety.

Just makes me wonder how I'd behave if I was shift supervisor on one of those rigs. Oh, and there is no coal mining over here any more. The Iron Lady screwed that up for us. But now everything is governed by the mines and quarries act which is one of the strictest set of regulations I've ever seen. It reduced the deaths occuring in quarries by 80%, BUT only reduced!!!! Death through genuine accidents still occur. It's down too what is avoidable and what isn't!

So back to my point - are our juniors, drillers and roughnecks to be treated as consumable items?

 

[kslee1000]

Direct to your question:

As a supervisor, stick to the safety regulations, and know how to assess/recognize situation involving risks, shut down the task if you have any doubt.

Fire your juniors, drillers and roughnecks whoever seem lack of safety conscientious, and behave in a reckless manner. At least send the worker home for a day if appear disorientated. Stop work place horsing, teasing around, especially under high risk, high stress work environment, for which too many tragic have been the result.

Tell them it is ok to refuse your order they don't feel safe, or physically fit to perform. Remind them not to put you in the position to have to make the call to theirs loved ones to say sorry.

I think without our/his/her own effort, everyone is consumable.

 

[BigH]

In Indonesia, on a mining site, if there is a broken bone - including a pinkie finger, the federal mine inspectors have to come out and investigate!! soiled up - I don't think that any workers are treated, in the developed world, as consumable items. The few deaths you read about . . . Stalin once said: "A single death is a tragedy; a million merely a statistic." The deaths in the industry - what percentage? How does that compare to long haul truck drivers? or, race car drivers? and to insurers' actuaries? I believe things are a whole lot safer now than they ever were - we never had ear plugs on rigs back in the 70s. And it will continue to improve and be accepted I gather. Glad you are concerned - and rightly so

 

[kslee1000]

"I don't think that any workers are treated, in the developed world, as consumable items."

Sight!

While I am the one in a country that enjoys the vasty results from cheap labors in the "developing countries", I resent the unblanced checks, since we either chose to ignore or down play the fact that 3/4 (?) of world population been treated as consumables. They will be treated more humanly, if we are in the "developed world" decided to stop consume, or consume less.

How about endless killings in the "under developed world", a power struggle to grab the scarce resources, which largely ends up in the "developed world".

Apology to the originator, take up a little space to relieve own sentiment on human as consumable goods.

 

[BigH]

kslee1000 - with all due respect, there is no question that workers in China, India, Laos and other countries do not have the same safeguards as those in "developed" countries. Legally - maybe, but this is reality - whether one likes it or not and I don't like it. I have worked in these countries; the unskilled workers in many jobs are most definitely considered in the vein that we do not like to contemplate. There was no barb intended - but as you can well imagine, HSE types monitoring in the USA, Canada, UK etc are far more stringent in applying the rules (with more severe consequences) than they are in many developing countries. A lot of this is cultural. I don't think that this is related to the hight levels of goods consumption by the more developed countries. When I was in China, the contractor had stone masons merrily chipping away at rock squaring it off for slope protection works. I tried and tried to get the contractor to provide them goggles so that should a chip be sent flying it would protect the worker - a loss of an eye is loss of income for him and his family. The contractor (not foreign) never did. When I was in Laos, I tried to get the workers to wear, at the least, sneakers - in barefoot, should they scrape a steel bar across the foot - blood, open cut and infection which, again, would mean loss of income to the family for several weeks at least. No. None provided and to be honest, the workers wouldn't wear them. The site I am on is the safest I have ever been on in Asia - and you can't imagine how hard it is to get the workers to understand the risk that they put themselves in. They get training, morning talks, etc. and you go to site . . . What is the answer?

 

[kslee1000]

Do not mean to argue.
I think the imbalance in goods production and consumption has put a lot of trades/people in jeopardy. Since these countries are playing catch up games, the higher rate in education, usually results in higher production costs, partly contributes to safety awareness. Then, the manufactures would move to countries with lower cost structures. Again, part of the lower costs contributes lower education rate, thus lower safety awareness.

Ignorance and lack of means to refuse works are larger than caltural differences. The developed countries were not in current position by any superior caltural means, we have struggled for centuries as well, but on boarded the wagon little earlier than those less fortunate. However, politics, politicians, greeds, consumption beyond means occasionally put little brake on our adnancement on safety issues, a huge barrier for the others to overcome.

 

[Debaser]

@ soiledup

I probably watched the same programme as you (ahh lazy Saturday mornings, can't beat 'em), and I too was shocked at some of the practices.
In the UK we have something called CDM (Construction, Design and Management) which governs the duties of the various parties involved in a project, from Client to Designer to Contractor.
Nowadays the onus is on the Designer to remove any risk at the design stage (e.g. if something is to be constructed at height can it be pre-fabbed on the ground so no operatives have to be placed at height). Personal Protective Equipment is regarded as the very last line of defence and it feels like designs should be undertaken as if it doesn't exist.
As a Designer, it seems this approach has been taken because going after the Contractors and subbies and fining them for breaches of Health and Safety has not worked, so the spotlight on safety has shifted along to us. Not that we should complain, as has been said, every life is precious. I certainly wouldn't want to do a 'Harry Lime' and point out exactly whose life was worthless.

 

[hokie66]

Remove any risk at the design stage? Preposterous!

 

[Debaser]

Well it's not as bad as remove ALL risk, but yes that's the idea.

http://www.hse.gov.uk/construction/cdm/summary.htm

 

[Debaser]

Better explanation of UK Construction (Design and Management) Regulations as applied to Designers.

Duties of designers
11.—(1) No designer shall commence work in relation to a project unless any client for the
project is aware of his duties under these Regulations.

(2) The duties in paragraphs (3) and (4) shall be performed so far as is reasonably practicable,
taking due account of other relevant design considerations.

(3) Every designer shall in preparing or modifying a design which may be used in construction
work in Great Britain avoid foreseeable risks to the health and safety of any person—
(a) carrying out construction work;
(b) liable to be affected by such construction work;
(c) cleaning any window or any transparent or translucent wall, ceiling or roof in or on a
structure;
(d) maintaining the permanent fixtures and fittings of a structure; or
(e) using a structure designed as a workplace.

(4) In discharging the duty in paragraph (3), the designer shall—
(a) eliminate hazards which may give rise to risks; and
(b) reduce risks from any remaining hazards,
and in so doing shall give collective measures priority over individual measures.

(5) In designing any structure for use as a workplace the designer shall take account of the
provisions of the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 which relate to the
design of, and materials used in, the structure.

(6) The designer shall take all reasonable steps to provide with his design sufficient information
about aspects of the design of the structure or its construction or maintenance as will adequately
assist—
(a) clients;
(b) other designers; and
(c) contractors,
to comply with their duties under these Regulations.

 

[hokie66]

To me, removing any risk is the same as removing all risk, which is impossible.

Are UK insurers willing to cover designers on this basis?