bluuebunny/crossref_metadata_2025_split huggingface dataset:
Addressing the Gaps Between Occupational and Process Safety Culture
Authors: Lakhiani Sunil D. , "Trey" Morrison Delmar R. , Sala Joseph B. 
Published: March 2016

Abstract
Safety culture has been identified as a critical element in high consequence incidents in the oil and gas industry over the past few decades. Traditionally, safety culture, which is the collection of beliefs, perceptions, attitudes, and behaviors of the stakeholders within an organization regarding safety, has been viewed in terms of occupational safety: i.e., perception of components and norms that affect personal safety. It is clear that lapses in occupational safety can lead to injuries or fatalities to individual workers. However, lapses in process safety can cause injuries or fatalities to groups of workers or the public, or extensive damage to the facility and environment. The visible nature of hazards to individual workers often leads companies to focus more on occupational safety culture as opposed to process safety culture since occupational safety performance is easier to recognize. Process safety hazards are related to the process, conditions which are not necessarily obvious but are hidden within the complex systems comprising the chemical, mechanical, and controls of the process unit. Thus, process safety requires engineering discipline to systematically identify and manage the potential hazards posed by a process system throughout its life. Process safety culture is the collective group of values (i.e., beliefs, perceptions, attitudes) and behaviors that affect the safety management of processes in an organization.
In the traditional safety culture assessment approach, the focus is on individual behavior, attitudes, and perception of process safety concerns such as management of change, process hazard analyses, near-miss reporting, etc. has been missing. Due to such gaps, the application of traditional safety culture assessment tools and methods in the process industry does not provide a comprehensive status of the state of process safety culture in such organizations.
The objective of this paper is to discuss the differences between the occupational safety culture and process safety culture assessment techniques and present methods and guidelines to develop a process safety culture assessment tool.
Process Safety Elements that can Prevent the Worst Case
Authors: Gala Deepak M. , Quick Richard , Dupal Ken 
Published: March 2016

Abstract
Over the past 30 years the oil and gas industry has made great strides in developing a culture that promotes personal safety for all workers in well site and support roles. Comprehensive personal safety programs and ever-improving safety records are fundamental goals of operating companies and their contractors. While awareness of personal safety principles (examples include personal protective equipment and lock-out/tag-out procedures) has improved personal safety at the workplace, it has not prevented catastrophic process safety lapses such as the 2010 Macondo explosion and spill, GOM, USA, the 2009 Montara blowout and spill, Timor Sea, Australia and 2003 Gao Qiao gas well blowout, Chongqing, China to name few.
Process Safety incidents are distinctive from other incidents as they may result in catastrophic outcomes. The ‘Think Process Safety’ initiative aims to reduce the number of incidents by helping staff to understand their role in keeping all hydrocarbons safely in the pipe, well or reservoir at all times. The focus is on avoiding, correcting and learning from the minor events to prevent the more serious, and potentially catastrophic incidents.
To prevent future incidents both large and small, the industry needs to continue focusing on personal safety and at the same time make a paradigm shift and pay the same attention to process safety. The inter-relation between personal safety and process safety will be discussed herein.
The paper will primarily share the approach of ten elements that are deemed to be critical to process safety in wells operations; examples include physical barriers, emergency response, subsurface uncertainties, well control equipment, and standards and procedures.
The Think Process Safety initiative supports engagement at every level from senior leaders to frontline workers and contractors. Examples of each of the ten elements will be presented in addition to how employees are benefiting from implementing from each one.
Major Hazards - Seamlessly Embedding Considerations of the Environment
Authors: Jennet Christelle , Libre Jean-Marie , Bain Andy , MacPherson Calum , Whittaker Luke 
Published: March 2016

Abstract
TOTAL have recognised the fact, that there has been a need to put more focus on the environmental aspects associated with major accidents hazards. Major accidents as defined by the Offshore Installations (Offshore Safety Case) Regulations 2015 have been specifically assessed by the UK affiliate to identify if they could result in a Major Environmental Incident(s) (MEIs); in line with the EU Directive 2004/35/EC on environmental liability with regard to the prevention and remedying of environmental damage.
Hydrocarbon releases of over 1,000bbls have therefore been modeled using the OSCAR software for events such as topside / subsea releases and wells blow outs in order to define fate and location of hydrocarbons from these releases. The exposure/effect (acute mortality, population loss, quantity of oil reaching/endangering shoreline habitats) of the releases on Valued Ecosystem Components (VECs) has then been assessed to define restitution time of the relevant organisms/habitats. Results of the modeling have been assessed so that any event that has a potential effect on the VECs classed by the Company as "Catastrophic" (&gt;3years restoration time) or above is classed as MEI. The incidents not identified as MEIs are then screened along with other liquid releases using a complementary method. This method utilises a matrix to define the environmental severity, based on the volume and toxicity of the release as well as the sensitivity of the marine environment and when relevant (shoreline) the extent of the release.
The above Offshore Safety Case regulation defines Safety and Environmental Critical Elements (SECEs) as "parts of an installation where either (a) failure could cause or contribute substantially to a major accident or (b) it has a purpose to prevent, or limit the effect of, a major accident". For major accidents potentially resulting in MEIs, a review of existing barriers was undertaken to demonstrate their adequacy and sufficiency. As an outcome of this process, Critical Elements performance standards were reviewed and amendments proposed as required.
Recognizing and Driving Excellence Through a Mature HSE Recognition Program
Authors: Brooke-Lander Melanie , Kuykendall Dina 
Published: March 2016

Abstract
The value of positive reinforcement for instilling good HSE behaviors is well-documented and plays a vital role in motivating employees to improve and reach for the next level of HSE performance. However, it's not easy to design a credible HSE recognition program that drives excellence and is aligned with company goals and objectives, without adding an undue administrative burden.
Our HSE recognition programs have evolved over time as our organization has changed, and as we learned what worked and what did not. Key lessons described in this paper include how to maintain the energy of participants; determining whether the program should be inclusive or exclusive; matching the scope and breadth of the program to the culture of the company; and the type and value of rewards given. We also drew input from a benchmarking study conducted in 2009 which looked at recognition programs at peer companies and large companies from other industries.
The cornerstone is our annual HSE awards program, which promotes team leadership by recognizing teams that have achieved excellent HSE performance in alignment with our business and HSE goals and initiatives. The most coveted of these awards is the Chairman's HSE Excellence Award, which has a 15 year track recor d of success and is presented by the CEO. This program evolved since its inception, when it was designed to be inclusive and recognized teams that met or exceeded target criteria for the prior year. This award is now presented to only five teams globally that have best demonstrated sustained HSE excellence over a three-year period.
As the Chairman's Award was refined into a more exclusive recognition program, a second award program was introduced. The new President's HSE Recognition award program was designed to recognize superior HSE performance during the past year and is bestowed by business segment presidents. The program consists of two awards: The President's HSE Performance Award (which recognizes performance based upon leading HSE indicators) and the President's Perfect HSE Day Award. Both awards require teams to achieve 365 Perfect HSE Days – a full year with no recordable injuries, serious motor vehicle accidents, and no major spills. More than 110 teams won a President's HSE award in 2014, up from 42 in the first year.
Additional HSE recognition programs are managed on a local level to reward employees for proactive HSE efforts, including Stop Work, superior HSE Observations and heroic efforts to help fellow employees or community members, among others. Together, these recognition programs serve to build our HSE Culture by providing a lofty target to aspire to and strive for, stretching and challenging employees to achieve breakthrough HSE performance.
Barriers, Collaboration and Well Control - A Service Contractor's Response
Authors: Novia Matthew D. , Fernandes Mary D. 
Published: March 2016

Abstract
For decades, service contractors have played a vital role in enabling the recovery of hydrocarbons in wells across the globe; and they are relied upon for providing the technology and services needed to construct and service wells in increasingly challenging environments. Rising to these challenges naturally comes with the expectation that service contractors will perform their work without compromising HSE or well integrity. However, this expectation sometimes easier said than done when variables outside of the service contractor's control are taken into consideration such as: numerous third-parties and their equipment, variances in processes across different companies, and the integrity of well barriers owned and/or maintained by the operator or other contractors. Many of these challenges are magnified by inadequate communication and missed opportunities for collaboration.
This paper discusses a service contractor's approach to drive a step change in the way the industry collaborates when performing services critical to well integrity and well control, with particular emphasis on processes that take service contractors outside the "silos" in which they have historically worked. This approach includes the following key components: An overview of internal processes for well barrier identification, verification, and well controlHow collaboration with external parties has been embedded into the well control assurance processes for job planning and executionA discussion of lessons learned during implementation of this process
These components are steps toward an ideal collaborative environment around barriers and well control from the perspective of a service contractor. Ultimately, this perspective emphasizes the criticality of collaboration at the wellsite to bridge understanding between risk acceptance and risk management.
The Global Initiative: 20 Years of Government and Industry Cooperation
Authors: Ruck Philip , Coolbaugh Thomas , Guevarra Joselito , Rhodes Anton , Taylor Peter 
Published: March 2016

Abstract
The Global Initiative (GI) is a partnership between IPIECA, the global oil and gas industry association for environmental and social issues, and the International Maritime Organization (IMO). The programme aims to enhance oil spill preparedness and response capacity for potential spills at specific locations around the world, by bringing industry (through IPIECA) and governments (through IMO) together. 2016 marks the 20th anniversary of the first Global Initiative efforts – as such, this paper will reflect on the key achievements and progress made since the GI was established in 1996.
Typical activities of a GI programme include the identification of responsible government agencies in charge of oil spill preparedness and response at national levels and the offering of technical workshops, training courses and exercises, which promote the ratification and implementation of relevant IMO conventions (i.e. the International Convention on Oil Pollution Preparedness, Response and Co-operation 1990 and the conventions relating to compensation for damage caused by oil spills from shipping), the development and approval of national oil spill contingency plans and regional/sub regional co-operation plans, and improved communications between governments and industry. Currently there are programmes established in four regions: (1) the Black Sea, Caspian Sea and Central Eurasia (OSPRI), (2) West, Central and Southern Africa (GI WACAF), (3) South East Asia (GI SEA) and (4) China (GI China). Updates on progress and activities of these established programmes over the last two years will be given, as well as a reflection on key achievements since their inception.
Results from the various GI programmes have been positive and the programme has raised the capacity in the regions of focus since its establishment in 1996. Case studies and specific results will be provided as an indication of how the situation in these regions in terms of oil spill preparedness and response has improved as a result of the GI programme.
The paper will also highlight other regions being considered as potentially suitable for GI activities based on an examination of current and future risk factors. These include regions such as the Mediterranean and East Africa, and recent progress in these regions will be discussed.
Breakthrough HSE Performance in a Large North American Oil and Gas Business Through Change Leadership and a Focused Strategy
Authors: Dunsmore Braden , Ellis Hein 
Published: March 2016

Abstract
On the backdrop of current oil and gas economics, flawless, safe execution and operational excellence have never been in greater demand and have never been more difficult to achieve with margins, talent and organizational sustainability under pressure.
This paper demonstrates how leadership, strategy and actions were undertaken to implement and achieve a sustainable improvement in HSE performance and culture. Dramatic improvement in performance occurred across multiple high-risk oil and gas environments, spread across a wide geography. The steps taken are described, the planning and implementation behind these steps are discussed, and the results and impacts are presented.
Early 2014 showed concerning trends on HSE performance and culture in this business area. Steps taken included a change of key leadership positions and establishment of a mission with key supporting pillars that helped elevate safety importance as a first-line approach to improve overall HSE performance, financial performance, competency and business execution.
Leadership visibility was driven and tracked, together with the number of perfect HSE days achieved. An annual commitment day was supplemented with quarterly safety stand-downs. In addition, regular monthly podcasts were used to address business performance, always focusing strongly on safety first. Near-miss reporting was emphasized, and incidents that occurred were fully reviewed with senior management through Incident Review Boards.
By mid-2015, key safety statistics had improved by 38% on 2014 performance and 46% on 2013 performance to levels below the peer-reported average. Year-on-year reductions of 60% total recordable injuries and 35% days away from work were achieved. This business unit was awarded 5 of 11 company's presidential safety performance awards. Leadership, transparency, and authenticity were keys to the safety culture. In addition, the elevation of safety to a critical emphasis before other business metrics helped prevent incidents, and resulted in fast and dramatic improvements. Combining the correct tracking of leading and lagging indicators, together with regular feedback on performance, drove a truly interdependent safety culture.
These results are a practical guide to managers and leaders seeking to tackle safety and performance improvement
Culture Change Framework Dramatically Improves Safety Performance
Authors: Dunsmore B. , Rainbow G. 
Published: March 2016

Abstract
The importance of having a ‘good safety culture' has long been recognized for achieving great HSE performance and yet, perhaps due to the complexity of analyzing culture, it's often a struggle to positively impact it. This paper explains the use of a simple framework to plan, implement and achieve a dramatic improvement in safety culture. Real culture change and associated improvement in safety statistics occurred at a major chemical manufacturing location. The model is described, implementation is discussed with challenges, and the impacts of its use are presented. The result is a practical guide to managers and leaders seeking to improve safety performance.
The practical advice given in this paper is useful to any oil and gas manager, regardless of level and scope of business. This advice is particularly relevant to dealing with remote locations and high-risk operations where chemicals and machinery are in use. This approach fits well into the current environment, where budgets and costs are significantly reduced, and careful planning is required to minimize cost and ensure any investments for safety deliver returns.
A site where recordable incidents and spills were expected became a model facility with over 1,000 perfect HSE days, resulting in two Chairman's and two President's HSE awards bestowed in subsequent years. The managers and leaders in these businesses had their own beliefs and standards on safety leadership permanently changed for the better. To our knowledge, this is the first time such a culture framework has been adapted and used for this purpose.
Who are Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services Stakeholders?
Authors: Pollard Edward , Bennun Leon 
Published: March 2016

Abstract
Engaging constructively with stakeholders is vital to managing Biodiversity and Ecosytem Services (BES) risks successfully. Understanding and engaging with stakeholders is relevant at both corporate and operational levels and is necessary throughout the project life cycle. We have identified a wide range of potential stakeholders who have BES interests and how these interests can provide opportunities for risk management at a corporate or asset level.
Stakeholder engagement, especially regarding relationships with local communities around assets, is often a key part of a company's activities to manage social risk, but has been underlooked as part of managing environmental riks.
Stakeholders with an interest in BES are both internal and external to the company, and exist at a global, national and local level. They can be from groups ranging from company staff, or local communities near an asset, to scientists and non-governmental organisations national and internationally. Engaging with different stakeholder groups can help: comply with regulators, meet the expectations of lenders, and thus enable financing;enhance transparency and improve reputation, and thus the social licence to operate;identify important biodiversity features (for example during an impact assessment screening process);understand the status of important biodiversty features, how relevant stakeholders value them (for example as part of baseline studies);help determine Priority ES that could be impacted by the project, that are important components of livelihood and that are irreplaceable (for example as part of an ecosystem services review), and thus avoid social conflict, and potential project delays;identify actions to mitigate impacts on BES;build partnerships with parties who will implement long-term elements of the mitigation hierarchy (for example for restoration programs and biodiversity offsets).
Many of the issues which may arise regarding stakeholder expectations on BES are partly or predominantly cultural, socio-economic or political, rather than ecological. It is crucial therefore to coordinate the different components of engagement (environmental, social and public relations) and that the relevant company/project teams collaborate so that they understand how stakeholders value and use BES and their expectations concerning BES management.
A Sustainable Supply Chain Model For Promoting Collaboration With Hydrocarbon Sector Suppliers And Contractors
Authors: Carmona Luis Gabriel , Correa Fernando 
Published: March 2016

Abstract
Corporate sustainability increasing requires sustainable supply chain management. This concept has been successfully applied in Colombia, where Mansarovar Energy operates, but had not involved the hydrocarbon sector. Mansarovar saw an opportunity for the adoption of a sustainable supply chain model and in 2015 adapted one to meet their specific needs. The resulting Web+, where Mansarovar acted as the anchor company, is still in its pilot stage but results have been encouraging. The model was designed as a voluntary partnership to promote sustainability within supplier and contractor activities that are part of Mansarovar's supply chain with the support of a certified training/enabler organisation. Ten participants were involved and the seven successfully proposed sustainability projects are estimated to save $117,000 per annum due to the resulting reduction in energy, waste and agro-chemicals consumption and other social or organizational co-benefits. This indicates that sustainable practices are all the more important when oil price drops and are integral to hydrocarbon sector profitability in both the short and long term.