Safety? 'Time for Change'

As defined in Wikipedia and other sources the word 'Safety' is far distant than focusing on 'people getting hurt' i.e. occupational safety, where in most industries this is perhaps the central root to the majority of our current safety problems. i.e. majority of effort resourced to the 5% of accidents, associated where 'people get hurt', vs the 95% of non-injury related accidents, where <5% of resource/organisational time is afforded.

To test the litmus paper on this? Ask where are your 19 recordable and investigated reports for non-injury events? vs each singular 1 injury-related events?

In oil and gas industry 'personal injury frequencies'  FACT are <1.0 per million man hours for >15years. Furthermore according to safety experts, <1.0 now becomes a random number. So this industry has done a fantastic job reducing personal  injuries to such low as practicable ' ALARP' levels and we want to remain there.

However this target was achieved 'ALARP' 15years ago yet other safety has not moved on  i.e. to address the 95% of non-injury related accidents resulting in the workplace to deliver a far safer and more operable workplace.

Yet many other industries have embraced this approach as early as the 1960's, so this approach is not new and many industries have follow with great results.

So what  is Oil & gas waiting for? Or does it continue on it's merry-go-round spinning faster and faster, that now requires almost a superhuman leap of faith, to jump off, take a wider look and close the widening gaps that exists, i.e take the walk across the bridge from occupational safety to a 'loss control' total accident approach.

Its not that difficult a change because what we currently have in current safety management systems just needs tweaked. What is required? is simply to integrate 'loss control' into these systems that would also likely simply these greatly.   

With leading industries and organisations showing us the way to far greater safety and operational results through a 'loss control' approach. e.g. DNV adopted a loss control approach from the mid 80's onwards and have trained more that 500,000 maritime personnel. Why don't we choose to follow their lead?

Safety would be re-defined, as illustrated below, with a new set of more valued metrics resulting and greater business value added. Ordinary people and organisations would be changed and the results we know from other industry's is in fact quite extraordinary.

• Safety; control of accidental loss (harm, damage, consequential loss).
• Accident; an inadequately controlled event resulting in unintended harm of damage
• Incident; an inadequately controlled event that under slightly different circumstances could result in unintended harm of damage (often referred to as a near miss or near-accident.)
• Consequential accident; an inadequately controlled event resulting in unintended harm of damage that frequently follows and results from a hazardous condition created by property e.g. rig, well, material damage.
• Loss; avoidable waste of any resource.
• Consequential loss; as stated on page 40 of ITT is fine "indirect losses and/or loss of production, loss of product, process, loss of revenue, profit or anticipated profit"
• Control; compliance with standards and best practice requirements.
• Barrier; a physical or procedural measure that blocks, impedes, separates or controls unwanted or unintended contacts with energy or a substance. In terms of energy this control affect (blocks or minimizes) the transfer or exchange.
• Hazard; a condition or practice with the potential for causing accidental loss.
• Risk; likeliness of accident/incident loss.
• Risk evaluation; assessment of the potential severity and probability of loss involved in any risk.
• Occupational health; control of work related illness.
• Environmental protection; control of harm or damage to anything (living or non-living) in the environment.

Comments, thoughts, views, physical evidence welcomed.