Safety and environmental critical elements (SECE) trends, and their underlying causes.
Steven Harris
Managing Director | HSSE | Risk | Strategy | Brand | Influence | Leadership | Performance | Key Note Speaker | Published Author | University Lecturer (part time) |
In the wake of Macondo, a UK-based inquiry concluded independent verification of well design, well equipment and safety and environmental critical elements (SECE) was key to reduce the likelihood of similar events on the United Kingdom Continental Shelf (UKCS).
As a result, my clients regularly request reviews of their SECE maintenance which involve examining the efficiency and effectiveness of performance standards benchmarked against The Offshore Installations (Offshore Safety Directive) (Safety Case Etc.) Regulations 2015.
These bespoke inspections provide assurance that an asset's risk level is as low as reasonably practicable (ALARP), and that they are conducting business in harmony with the Offshore Major Accident Regulator's Offshore SECE Management and Verification Inspection Guide.
An integral part of this is the examination of measurable criteria: functionality, availability, reliability, survivability, and interdependence. This is followed by studying the suitability, logic, accuracy, and application of assurance and maintenance tasks by the duty holder.
I would like to share five common findings (a trend) from these inspections. This is done in the hope responsible professionals will reference this insight when checking their systems:
领英推荐
Unfortunately, it is also common to find that the duty holder is unaware of these issues and that they have grown to a complexity beyond the verification/ scrutiny of the Independent Competent Person (ICP). The reoccurring underlying causes for this is generally that:
In summary, I am not suggesting the UKCS is on the brink of a Macondo, just that the risk profile may not be as low as you think. If you would like to hear more about process safety, or how to gain meaningful results from maintenance data, then let's meet for a virtual coffee!
Maintenance and Reliability Team Lead at Vysus Group (Formerly LR Energy).
2 年Thanks for Sharing Steve, these points will resonate with a lot of people the industry. Points 3 on the false positives and 5 on SECE categorization are very common ones we come across when reviewing clients CMMS data, fortunately once identified both are easily fixed.
HSEQ Team Lead
2 年Thanks for sharing Steven! Very insightful and I hope that your message is shared far and wide. Still trying to keep up with what’s happening in Oil and Gas and always look forward to you sharing your knowledge ??????
Strategic HSE advisor | Contractor & Risk Management: Empowering Safety Excellence | MSc Safety Sciences & LLM Energy Law
2 年Interesting article, thanks!
Europe/America/Middle East/Scotland/NewYork/Paris/Peckham & Worldwide Travel ?? ?? ???? An absolute ninja at making ‘stuff’ sound better than it really is. LinkedIn PLAGIARIST……………
2 年Steven Harris FIIRSM CMIOSH MSc thank you again for sharing that information, something that I found needed improving between client and contractor. Unknown why both parties didn’t have a conduit. Kenny Mowat how does this sit in terms of your experiences when undertaking onsite verification checks/inspections. I’d be generally interested in your thoughts Kenny.
A sherpa of transformation and change in the business Himalayas.
2 年Great topic Steven, it seems that there is still a silo approach which could be strengthened via true collaboration between all operators/ICP’s and sharing of trends/findings. It feels like this would be seen as sharing one’s dirty washing, but surely this would benefit all parties if approached from a continuous improvement stance? After all, it must be in everybody’s interest not to have a Macondo on our watch in the UKCS!