Foredrag Task Force Zero Esbjerg 17 03 2010 "Health & Safety – Dilemmas and Challenges” by Aud Nistov, HSE Manager The Norwegian Oil Industry Association, OLF Sometimes excellent health & safety initiatives may lead to contradictory health & safety results and this talk will try to describe or illustrate different situations and examples were health & safety scenarios are associated with conflicting interests.

1. "Health & Safety – Dilemmas and Challenges”
Aud Nistov
HSE Manager
The Norwegian Oil Industry Association, OLF
The topic of today’s presentation is:
"Health & Safety – Dilemmas and Challenges”.
The Norwegian Oil Industry Association’s ambition is to be world
leading in the oil and gas industry for health, safety and the working
environment, based on a zero accident philosophy.
Addressing health, safety and the working environment issues and
identifying best practices throughout the value chain, add value to
the results on the Norwegian Continental Shelf (NCS).
However, sometimes excellent health & safety initiatives may lead to
contradictory health & safety results and this talk will try to describe
or illustrate different situations and examples that I have experienced
were health & safety scenarios are associated with conflicting
interests.
I’ve divided my talk into four main sections; each one illustrating
different conflicts or dilemmas.
Firstly, what I want to do is give you some examples from drilling.
Secondly, I will look into some challenges related to helicopter
transport.
Thirdly, I will move on to helicopter underwater escape training.
And finally, I will try to sum up the main conclusions.
1

2.
1.
Let’s us start with the first point which is related to drilling.
Approximately 90% of the chemicals supplied to the well site are
used during drilling operations, in particular in the formulation of
drilling fluids.
Current Oil and Gas industry initiatives aim to ensure that the
occupational health hazards of the chemicals used are minimised.
In addition, through the implementation of legislative directives such
as REACH there is also an increasing emphasis on reducing personal
exposure to chemical substances.
Drilling fluids are extensively used in the upstream oil and gas
industry.
During drilling operations, a large volume of drilling fluid is circulated
in an open or semi‐enclosed system, at elevated temperatures, with
agitation, potentially exposing workers to respiratory and dermal
contact.
As you are all familiar with, drilling fluids are a key requirement in the
vast majority of drilling operations for controlling down hole
pressures, removing drill cuttings from the hole, lubricating the bit,
and other critical functions to insure a safe and productive well.
There are two primary types of drilling fluids: water based fluids
(WBF) and non‐aqueous fluids (NAF).
It is common practice to use both water based and non‐aqueous
based drilling fluids when drilling various sections of the same well.
2

3. Water based fluids are generally used in the upper hole sections of
the well, with non‐aqueous fluids used in the more technically
demanding hole sections.
At least, this is the main situation on the Norwegian Continental
Shelf.
In addition, as drilling has become more complex, especially in long
sections, with increased temperatures and when drilling more
reactive formations, the number of additives has increased rapidly in
number and in complexity.
Quantifying occupational exposure hazards from drilling fluids by the
study and analysis of the base fluids and products used in the drilling
fluids may not be completely representative of the drilling fluid as
used in the field, hazardous substances may also be present from the
formations being drilled.
The type and level of contamination of a used drilling fluid is not
always foreseen or predictable.
For example: Hydrocarbons.
As the purpose of drilling a well is to produce hydrocarbons, one
known source of hydrocarbon contamination will be from the
reservoir formation. However often the formations drilled through to
the reservoir contain hydrocarbons themselves but not of producible
or commercial quantities.
These hydrocarbon sources can provide oil, condensate and gas
contamination in a drilling fluid. And please be aware of that gases
from formations are primarily methane.
Why go into such details?
3

4. The key words are; hydrocarbons, gases, vapours, elevated
temperatures, vapour pressure, boiling point of the base fluid, air etc.
Personnel may be exposed to drilling fluids either by inhaling aerosols
and vapours or by skin contact.
The highest potential for inhaling mist and vapour exists along the
flow line from the bell nipple to the solids‐control equipment (shale
shakers, desanders, desilters, centrifuges) and the fluid pits.
I would like to draw your attention to the Shaker house
High hydrocarbon mist and vapour exposure levels have been
reported in shale shaker house.
Shale shakers will mechanically generate mist that will contain both
light and heavier fractions of the drilling fluid components and this
effect increases with temperature.
The main exposure opportunities are:
• washing with high‐pressure guns using a hydrocarbon‐based
fluid as the washing medium. This operation generates mist in
the immediate working environment;
• cleaning and changing screens; and
• checking the shaker screens for wear.
At each stage of a drilling operation, if hazardous components of
drilling fluids have been identified with a risk of worker exposure, the
following hierarchy of controls should be considered:
• Elimination
• Substitution
• Engineering controls
• Administrative controls (hygiene measures, working hours,
awareness and training)
• Personal protective equipment.
4

5. Concerning Engineering Controls;
Ideally the design of the workplace should incorporate all the
engineering controls required to minimize exposure of hazardous
substances to the workforce.
Over recent years many new technologies have been developed to
address inferior work environment conditions.
One example is The Mud Cub
A screenbelt cycles a mesh screen onto which the returned mud and
solids are flowed. The fluid is sucked through the screenbelt by a
vacuum pump into a vacuum tank.
The solids are carried along the screenbelt and tipped off the end
into the solids disposal system.
Any cuttings, gas and oil fumes are sucked into the vacuum tank,
leaving the room clear of polluting fumes.
These gases are passed through a small hydro cyclone before being
pumped through an exhaust system to be vented to a safe area.
With its vacuum system, the MudCube is a totally enclosed unit.
Compared with a vibrating mud shaker, it is very quiet. The system is
designed to transport and process drilling fluids in a manner that
protects the work environment (HSE) and improves the drilling
process through reduced vibrations, acceptable noise levels and no
chemical emissions to the working environment.
The operation and performance of a MudCube is also assumed to be
more cost effective than a traditional shale shaker through reduced
mud loss and better filtration.
So fare; This is just great, isn’t it?
Do you see any show stoppers?
5

6.
Let’s look into this more closely.
In this situation we have got an enclosed box.
We have a complex of hydrocarbons mixed with air.
There are mechanical moving equipment moving working
(That is: able to produce sparks).
In other words; We may have created a huge explosive device !
It should be noted that several physical and chemical characteristics
affect the major risk of explosion and these should always have first
priority and be carefully assessed and monitored.
The prime concern of any operators and of The Norwegian Oil
Industry Association, are to prevent major accidents.
So, huge concerns and efforts were put into the issue of solving this
problem. And I want to stress that they succeeded!
These results can only be classified as an outstanding success.
And the first vacuum shaker is now being installed and operated at
one of Statoil’s installations in the North Sea. This is an example of
introducing a vast improvement of the health and working
environment conditions for the workers, that could have resulted in
increased risks of major accidents.
I have also encountered the same problem complex in other
situations.
You are all familiar with the “old rigs” built on the “open” vent
principles.
That is: Rigs that operate under circumstances
Where the removal of aerosols, gases and vapours
6

7. Have relied on open atmospheric ventilation (that is Northern winds
in the North Sea).
When the wind blows the ignitable gases away from the installation,
this reduces the risk of a major accident.
From a risk assessment perspective, the wind acts as one of the
barriers.
However, it may be cold working out in the open in the North Sea!
Therefore, at some rigs, I have come across panel fences that have
been built in order to reduce the exposure to the challenging
climates.
The working conditions for the workers have improved dramatically.
However, we do have several examples of rigs not being designed for
such panel fences.
And these design amendments have resulted in creating confined
spaces with explosive atmospheres, which was really not the
intention.
2.
Let’s now look at another dilemma derived from a completely
different part of our offshore activities.
The operations in the North Sea depend on helicopter transport to
and from the installations.
Every tenth year a Helicopter Safety Study is performed in order to
summarize results of the present and anticipated future risks
associated with civil helicopter transport of personnel in the North
Sea.
7

8. Recommendations are given on how to improve the offshore
helicopter flight safety during the next decade.
Several Norwegian oil and gas companies have funded the main part
of the study, in addition to the Civil Aviation Authority, Norway
(NCAA).
A new study is about to be published these days.
The conclusion is not yet available, but the general opinion is that
helicopter transport on the Norwegian Continental Shelf is on the top
world ranking when it comes to safety.
This also implies that helicopter passengers are transported to and
from the installations under maximum precautionary measures,
being optimal and best equipped in order to survive helicopter
emergency landings at sea (“ditchings”) to escape from the
helicopter body and finally also to survive and escape from
hypothermia.
• Survival following ditching
Helicopters are technically much better today compared to before.
Floatability has been improved and thereby the time available to get
ready to evacuate the helicopter (including zipping up the survival
suit and putting on the hood before evacuating the helicopter) after a
controlled landing at sea which is also called “ditching”.
Despite these technical improvements and achievements, helicopter
transportation is recognised as the highest risk activity on the
Norwegian Continental Shelf.
All effort must therefore be made to reduce the risk exposure and
prevent major accidents.
8

9. In 2003 the Norwegian Petroleum Safety Authority (PSA) sent a letter
to all oil companies with notifications of order stating that the rescue
of personnel from the sea should commence no later then 30
minutes after an accident.
This statement implied that the survival suits had to protect
personnel in the sea from hypothermia for 120 minutes based on the
assessment that the rescue operation will be completed within 90
minutes.
The industry therefore decided to send out a manifest which stated
that it was mandatory to keep the survival hood up during take off,
landing and during shuttling (transport of personnel between
installations in the North Sea).
The decision was based on passenger safety and the object was to
reduce water penetration in the survival suits in the event of
emergency landing at sea.
In other words, survival suit hood up during landing and take off
offshore was introduced due to:
o This is the most critical part of the helicopter travel
o Emergencies often create unpredictable behaviour of
personnel. Time available to properly prepare for emergency
landings is limited (secure loose equipment, survival hood up,
zipper up, etc.)
o Survival suit hood up reduces water penetration which also
reduces the risk of hypothermia.
o To pull the survival suit hood up and zip up after entering the
sea, may lead to potentially more water penetration.
9

10. Awaiting the announced new survival suites this OLF
recommendation was temporary introduced by all oil companies.
In 2007 some of the oil companies operating on the Norwegian
Continental Shelf started to question the topical recommendation
and reviewed to change the procedure from zip up/hood up during
landing and take off to just completely zip up but only for the newly
developed survival suit, the HH SeaAir suit.
The matter was discussed in the governing bodies of OLF, but it was
decided to maintain the recommendation.
However, OLF decided to execute tests of the survival suit, the HH
Sea Air suit.
These tests were performed here in Esbjerg, Denmark.
Test jumping from 3 meter height (with `Survival suit hood up` and
`Survival suit hood` off) showed all acceptable results.
Additional tests were also performed during HUET training with
`Survival suit hood up` and `Survival suit hood` off.
In the `Survival suit hood` up test it was shown that water
penetration and isolation for 2 hours stay in the sea was acceptable.
In the test where the survival suit hood was off (with proper rolled up
collar and trained instructor) the average results proves marginally
not acceptable with respect to water penetration (525gram >
acceptance criteria of 500gram), which will lead to faster developing
hypothermia.
Moreover, one oil company performed new tests which consisted of
jumps from 3 and 5 metre heights with vertical landings in the water.
10

11. The results of these test showed that the new HH SeaAir survival suit
had acceptable water penetration both for hood up and for zip up
only.
• Noise protection
Why discuss such an apparent detail?
Isn’t the main focus passenger safety?
Why bother with some discomfort related to having the survival suit
zipped up and hood up while the main issue is to prevent water
penetration and hypothermia in case of a ditching ?
Well, the survival suit hood up means that passengers will be
protected with only one set of hearing protection (plugs) which
means that exposure to noise is considerable.
Through the annual report from the PSA, the Trends in Risk Level on
the Norwegian Continental Shelf, there has been detected an
increase in the incidence of new noise induced hearing losses in
addition to a registered escalation of existing injuries.
Therefore, in 2009 one of the major operators decided to deviate
from OLF’s recommendation for hood up on all helicopter flights
based on noise measurements to protect personnel from high noise
exposure.
Thus, there is a relatively high probability that helicopter
transportation of personnel may be a major contributor inducing
damages from noise every year within the oil industry.
11

12.
It is important to focus on preventive measures considering health,
due to the fact that reduced hearing capacity will lead to a strongly
reduced quality of life.
Concerning helicopter transport, the heaviest noise exposure is while
waiting in the helicopter on the helideck while the helicopter door is
open (103‐105 dB), and when getting off or on the helicopter
offshore (103‐109dB).
Individuals are not protected with double hearing protection during
transportation from/to the helicopter with the engine running while
on helideck and when being in the cabin with the doors open.
To reduce the noise exposure, individuals can use double hearing
protection when being in the cabin when the door is open and when
moving to and from the helicopter.
A better assortment of disposable ear plugs is important, as well as to
offer passengers form‐casted hearing plugs (formstøpte propper) (ER
25), and sufficient earmuffs for everyone which are regarded to be
most comfortable type for the passengers.
Measurements and calculations prove that criteria of maximum noise
exposure for one day, will be exceeded for more than 5% of the
personnel when shuttling / landing / take‐off.
Depending of helicopter type, it is to be noted that there are
variation in noise level in the cabin, but measurements executed
shows values over the limit also for new helicopters, at 85 dBA.
In addition, the communication between the helicopter passengers
and the pilots is important, especially in emergency situations.
12

13.
• PA systems in helicopters
The Civil Aviation Authority – Norway (Luftfartstilsynet) has focused
on the safety information given on board the helicopters by the pilots
over the personal address systems (PA‐systems), that is that this
information is being received by the passengers.
Information given on the PA systems is difficult to catch when hood is
up.
The information may also be challenging to pick up when utilizing
double hearing protection. However, the double hearing protection
equipment is usually connected to the PA systems in the helicopters.
OLF`s aviation experts therefore recommend to keep the survival suit
hood off during take off, landing and transportation.
As per today the OLFs recommendation is that passengers shall have
the survival suit hood up during helicopter departure and landing to
reduce the risk of hypothermia in the event of landing at sea.
However, OLF have received feedback from several oil companies
that want to remove the survival suit hood up requirement in order
to improve the receipt of messages over the PA communication
system and also first and foremost to avoid inducing noise damages.
All the professional experts within the Norwegian Oil Industry
Association, that is within health, industrial hygiene, aviation,
emergency preparedness and safety have come together and
decided on a conclusion:
The OLF recommendation for Hood up is withdrawn.
A new best practice with focus on noise protection should be
stablished.
13

14. 3.
This brings me to the third and final dilemma which is also related to
survival suits, but at this point connected to helicopter underwater
escape training, HUET training.
How many people here have ever been to this training?
Can I ask for a show of hands?
Well, from this simple opinion poll, I can see that the majority of you
are quite familiar with this HUET training.
I would now like to draw your attention to the survival suit and its
design and equipment.
The Norwegian Oil Industry Association has developed minimum
requirement specifications for the design and efficiency of integrated
survival suits for use on the Norwegian Continental Shelf.
These requirements build on existing international standards for
survival suits and emphasise:
• That the design of the survival suit shall be adapted to the
ergonomical needs during normal activity before, during and
after transportation by helicopter, during evacuation of the
platform, when in the water and during resue.
• The need for thermal protection against thermal stress may be
relevant during flights, when passengers are in the helicopter
cabin, and protection against thermal loss is necessary when in
the water after an accident.
14

15. • Emergency situations that require underwater evacuation from
the helicopter and the need for breathing systems which help
prolong the time available for evacuation.
• Integration of equipment that contributes to facilitating the
search for missing persons at sea.
• The relevant climatic conditions pertaining to helicopter flights
and the work offshore on the Norwegian shelf.
The following specifications or equipment apply to integrated survival
suits used in our offshore activities.
Design, sizes and materials
The suit shall either be adapted to each individual user
or designed in a range of sizes that satisfies all users, that is both
female and male users of different sizes.
The suit design shall also take into account the difference in the body
shapes of females and males.
The material in the soles of the suit shoes
must provide a good grip on the surface
during all conditions that are relevant to the use of the suit.
The material used in the sealing around the head and wrists
shall be elastic and have a design that does not cause the user
discomfort or inhibits the flow of blood to tissue on
both sides of the seal.
15

16. Water penetration
The suit shall be designed to prevent more than 200 g of water
from penetrating into it,
when it has been donned properly.
Comfort and thermal protection
The suit design shall not cause a reduction in the comfort
so that the suit represents a safety or health risk.
This also applies to thermal comfort during long flights
with strong irradiance.
At the same time, the suits shall provide the user
with thermal protection in the water
The suit insulation shall ensure that
The temperature in all parts of the body is sufficiently high
to maintain the necessary physical, physiological and mental
functions.
Breathing system
The suit shall have an integrated breathing system
that provides more time for underwater evacuation
than what is possible when that time is limited
to each individual’s capacity to hold his/her breath.
The breathing system shall provide
sufficient air supply for 60 seconds of breathing time.
Spray protection/hood
The requirements state that the suit shall have a spray hood.
16

17.
Personal locater beacon
The suit is to be fitted with a pocket for a personal locater beacon,
which is fitted on the suit when handed out at the heliport.
If I could just digress for a second;
Are you all familiar with the problems related to personal beacons
which was experienced on the UK sector ?
Following the ditching of an offshore helicopter in the UK sector
in February this year,
the UK Air Accident Investigation Board (AAIB)
began their investigation into the incident.
This investigation discovered that passenger PLB’s
may interfere with the long range rescue beacons
that are fitted to the helicopter and life rafts,
effectively shutting them down,
and could therefore impact
the effectiveness of search and rescue operations.
As a result of these findings,
the UK Civil Aviation Authority (CAA)
instructed offshore helicopter operators within the UK
that all PLB’s should not be carried in the ‘stand by’ position
as there was a risk of inadvertent activation
and subsequent risks of interference with aircraft safety systems.
It has now been made clear
that the interference during the ETAP ditching,
which caused the main aircraft and life raft beacons to switch off
was caused by the fact those beacons were of the SMART type.
17

18.
The SMART technology is designed to shut beacons down
if they detect another beacon signal within a certain radius.
Moreover, the problem has been assessed and solved
and a press release from Oil & Gas UK 4 February 2010,
confirmed new personal locator beacons (Sea Marshall AU9‐HT)
to be back in use from 8 February 2010
I chose to mention this incident
as it illustrates another dilemma between
safety intentions and results
since incidentally, this safety equipment
actually turned out to cause a potentially serious impact on
the effectiveness of the search and rescue operation.
Let me now come back to the requirements for the survival suit.
Lifting strap
The suit shall be equipped with a lifting strap
that shall allow lifting in a foetal position
or a near horizontal position.
This will reduce the risk of sudden blood‐pressure drop and shock in
people who have
been in cold water for a long time.
Buddy line
18

19. The suit shall have a buddy line.
Inflation system
All parts of the suit that requires air or gas inflation
to meet the efficiency requirements
must satisfy the relevant requirements in the topical ISO standard.
This includes a tube for inflating the suit by mouth,
valves, gas cylinders and inflatable chambers.
Buoyancy and floating position
The survival suit has also requirements relating to
buoyancy and righting.
The suit is to give the users a stable floating position
lying on the back
and when they are placed crosswise in relation to the waves.
The mouth freeboard
(defined as the lowest part of the mouth where water can enter)
shall be a minimum of 120 mm above the water line in calm seas.
The suit shall protect against drowning in rough seas and wind.
As you can all understand,
The Norwegian survival suit is very well equipped !
The design and materials used in the chosen design of the suit
shall not contain any elements
that can be expected to have a detrimental effect
on the operation of helicopters or equipment.
19

20.
But this applies in particular to protruding suit parts
that can get caught or represent a danger
during flying,
emergency evacuation from helicopters or platforms.
Such parts shall be properly covered, protected or fastened.
However, examining the survival suit,
we all detect different protruding suit parts.
I have observed people suited up,
ready to evacuate the helicopter
through one of the emergency exits or windows
(and be aware of that the least acceptable size is 405 mm x 465 mm)
and I have seen this happened
both evacuating the helicopter in the air and under water
that people has been caught in the emergency exits
due to different protruding suit parts
or due to air accumulated on the inside of the suit
to the detriment of the passengers trying to evacuate.
One passenger was about to drown
and the other one got his ribs fractured.
I have given you a fairly detailed introduction
into the Norwegian requirements and philosophy
related to the survival suits for offshore activities.
If I can briefly summarize this philosophy
it states that the survival suit should be able to
protect against hypothermia for 120 minutes
20

21. when having to evacuate in the water.
On the other hand, the survival suit is so well equipped
that you may experience trouble getting out of the helicopter
and into the water.
I am familiar with the emergency and rescue philosophy
on other sectors.
These are based on concerns and principles
to make it more easy for people to get out of the helicopter
and relay on the fact that people are picked up
after a short time in the sea.
Personally I would prefer to wear a swim suit
when doing my helicopter underwater escape training.
There is of course no right or wrong answers
to the questions related to the survival suits.
Closing the presentation
That brings me to the end of my presentation
I have tried to share some experiences with you
in order to hold promise of a higher awareness and understanding
of important health & safety issues and potential conflicts.
My hope is that all HSE personnel thoroughly considers
every aspect of the operations and working conditions
in order to ensure high health & safety standards.
Thank you for your attention !
21

22. 22