Risk Perception and Safety in the UK Offshore Oil and Gas Industry

Rhona H. Flin,Kathryn Mearns,Rachael P.E. Gordon,Mark T. Fleming

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2118/35907-ms

1996-06-09

Abstract:Abstract This paper presents a selection of the final results from a study of risk perception and safety attitudes in workers on UKCS offshore oil and gas platforms, which was sponsored by the HSE Offshore Safety Division, Amerada Hess, British Gas, BP, Conoco, Elf Enterprise and Total Oil Marine. The study was designed in conjunction with Dr Rundmo of Trondheim University who was carrying out a matched survey with Norwegian offshore workers for the Norwegian Petroleum Directorate. A representative sample of 622 UKCS workers on six production platforms were surveyed about their job characteristics, perceived risks, safety attitudes, safety satisfaction, accidents and injuries and the Safety Case. The results indicate that the relative feelings of safety in relation to major hazards (e.g. explosion, blow-out) are aligned with QRA calculations. In general, the workforce feel safe but are aware of the hazards in their environment. Further analyses and statistical modelling indicates that organisational factors (e.g. management commitment to safety, safety attitudes) have the greatest direct effect on workers' perception of risk and their satisfaction with safety measures. The British and Norwegian data sets are now being merged and preliminary findings will be mentioned. To explore the emerging issues further, a new study on human factors in UK offshore safety has just been launched with the support of OSD, OCA and six operating and contractor companies. A brief outline will be presented. Introduction Those who promote and regulate health and safety need to understand how people think about and respond to risk. Without such an understanding, well intentioned safety policies may turn out to be ineffective. Technological experts use an intellectual discipline known as risk assessment, to analyse the objective risks of today's modern hazards. However, most people rely on intuitive risk judgements, known as risk perceptions to assess and evaluate hazards in their everyday life. For accident prevention, it is often useful to make a distinction between objective risk and subjective or perceived risk. Objective risk can be expressed in terms of annual fatalities, probability of death per hour of exposure and loss of life expectancy. Calculations of this type must be included in the formal Safety Case which is now submitted to the Health and Safety Executive by the operator of each oil and gas installation on the UKCS. The Safety Case must demonstrate that "all hazards with the potential to cause a major accident have been identified; and risks have been evaluated and measures have been, or will be, taken to reduce risks to persons affected by those hazards to the lowest level that is reasonably practicable." (Reg 8c & 8d, page 13). Perceived risk is the subjective interpretation of the probability of a particular type of accident occurring and the extent to which the individual is concerned about that type of accident. It is of interest to discover how a person's subjective interpretation of the riskiness of a situation affects their decision-making processes and thereafter, their behaviour. Risk perception is a complex subject and cultural, social, physical, political and psychological factors all contribute to how a person perceives risk and behaves in response to it. The research literature on the subject is extensive and summaries have outlined the practical difficulties of directly testing subjective perceptions of risk against objective risk. The recent ACSNI Human Factors report emphasises the importance of assessing workforce perceptions of risk in order to achieve a proper safety culture. Risk perception and accident involvement have been assessed with regard to road safety manufacturing construction, forestry, the nuclear industry. "Risk perceptions and attitudes form a special problem. People are bad at judging probability and especially at judging risk. Typically they are too frightened of strange situations and too casual about familiar ones. They also under-estimate risks that they choose to take, compared with those imposed upon them; and under-estimate the danger of something they want to do. P. 187