Health and Safety performance indicators – 2011 data

Health performance indicators

Report No. 2011h

October 2012
Disclaimer
Whilst every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the information
contained in this publication, neither the OGP nor IPIECA nor any
of their members past, present or future warrants its accuracy or will,
regardless of its or their negligence, assume liability for any foreseeable
or unforeseeable use made thereof, which liability is hereby excluded.
Consequently, such use is at the recipient’s own risk on the basis that any
use by the recipient constitutes agreement to the terms of this disclaimer.
The recipient is obliged to inform any subsequent recipient of such terms.

Copyright notice
The contents of these pages are © The International Association of Oil
and Gas Producers and IPIECA. Permission is given to reproduce this
report in whole or in part provided (i) that the copyright of OGP and (ii)
the source are acknowledged. All other rights are reserved. Any other
use requires the prior written permission of both the OGP and IPIECA.
These Terms and Conditions shall be governed by and construed in
accordance with the laws of England and Wales. Disputes arising
here from shall be exclusively subject to the jurisdiction of the courts of
England and Wales.

About IPIECA About OGP

IPIECA is the global oil and gas industry association for OGP represents the upstream oil & gas industry before
environmental and social issues. It develops, shares and international organisations including the International
promotes good practices and knowledge to help the industry Maritime Organisation, the United Nations Environment
improve its environmental and social performance, and Programme (UNEP), Regional Seas Conventions and other
is the industry’s principal channel of communication groups under the UN umbrella. At the regional level, OGP
with the United Nations. Through its member-led is the industry representative to the European Commission and
working groups and executive leadership, IPIECA brings Parliament and the OSPAR Commission for the North East
together the collective expertise of oil and gas companies Atlantic. Equally important is OGP’s role in promulgating
and associations. Its unique position within the industry best practices, particularly in the areas of health, safety, the
enables its members to respond effectively to key environmental environment and social responsibility.
and social issues.
 Health and safety performance
indicators 2011 data
Health performance indicators

Report No: 2011h

October 2012

Revision history
Version Date Amendments
1 October 2012 First issued
International Association of Oil & Gas Producers

The health statistics for 2011 were derived from data provided by the following companies:

Contributing OGP and IPIECA Members

Baker Hughes
BG Group
BP
Chevron
ConocoPhillips
ExxonMobil
Hess
Maersk Oil
Nexen
OMV
PDO
Petrobras
Premier Oil
Saipem
Schlumberger
Shell
Statoil
Total

Acknowledgements
This report was produced by the OGP Safety Data Subcommittee and the OGP-IPIECA Health Committee

ii © OGP-IPIECA
 Health leading performance indicators – 2011 data

Contents
Executive Summary v
Health ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................v
Safety ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................v

Preface vii

Health performance indicators 2011 1

Scope ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................1
Introduction.............................................................................................................................................................................................................1
Percentage tool results............................................................................................................................................................................................2
Gap analysis tool results........................................................................................................................................................................................4

Appendix A A-1
Percentage tool.................................................................................................................................................................................................... A-1
Health management system gap analysis tool............................................................................................................................................. A-3

© OGP-IPIECA iii
International Association of Oil & Gas Producers

iv © OGP-IPIECA
 Health leading performance indicators – 2011 data

Executive Summary

Health
HPI self-assessment returns – 2011
Average from 17 participating companies Members of the OGP-IPIECA Health Committee piloted
a set of eight leading indicators of health performance
within their companies during September 2008, 2009 and
2010. Two tools were used: the first indicated the extent of
Health Risk Assessment management of the 8 areas across each participating com-
4
pany globally; the second allowed for in-depth analysis at
Public Health/ Industrial
Promotion 3
Hygiene site and corporate level.
2 The tools were enhanced in response to feedback from OGP
and IPIECA member companies and final versions of both
1
Medical
tools were used during September 2011 to gauge health
Health Emergency performance across the participating OGP and IPIECA
Reporting Management
member companies. 17 companies took part and many of
these had participated in the 2008 pilot. The results are dis-
played as both radar plots and tables which are colour coded
Health as heat-maps.
Management
Impact of Ill-Health
Assessment Individual companies have used earlier years’ results to
identify gaps in their own health management systems so it
Fitness for Task/Surveillance
is pleasing to note that mean values for each health area have
• Level 1 – Process under development improved over the four years.
• Level 2 – Process in place but not fully implemented and embedded
• Level 3 – Process in place and implemented. System functioning; system procedures The health indicators report illustrates the final versions of
documented and results being measured both tools, actual anonymous results for 2011, trends over
• Level 4 – Process in place and implemented. System sustained and supported by an time and the potential benefits to health management in the
on-going improvement process
industry.

Safety
Number of fatalities vs fatal accident rate
2002-2011

120 6
Fatalities Fatal accident rate (FAR)
FAR
100 5
The number of company/contractor fatalities per 100,000,000
Fatal accidents per 100 million hours worked

(100 million) hours worked.

80 4 Total recordable injury rate (TRIR)
Number of fatalities

The number of recordable injuries (fatalities + lost work day

60 3 cases + restricted work day cases + medical treatment cases) per
1,000,000 hours worked.
40 2 Lost time injury frequency (LTIF)
The number of lost time injuries (fatalities + lost work day cases)
20 1 per 1,000,000 hours worked.

0 0
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

The 2011 OGP safety performance indicators show that

the Fatal accident rate for reporting companies has reduced
by 32% compared with 2010. The number of fatalities has
reduced from 94 in 2010 to 65 in 2011. This means that, on
average, more than one person per week lost their life in 2011.

© OGP-IPIECA v
International Association of Oil & Gas Producers

Lost time injury frequency vs total recordable injury rate Personal injury performance is broadly flat with lost time
per million hours worked injury frequency increasing by 2% and total recordable injury
5 rate increasing by 5% in 2011 compared with 2010 results.
TRIR
LTIF
There are a number of common causal factors related to the
4 fatal incidents and high potential events in both 2010 and
2011. The top six causal factors were:
• Inadequate hazard identification or risk assessment
3
(10.0% of total)
• Inadequate supervision (7.3% of total)
2 • Inadequate work standards/procedures (6.5% of total)
• Improper decision making or lack of judgment (6.4%
of total)
1
• Unintentional violation (by individual or group) (5.4%
of total)
0
• Inadequate training/competence (5.2% of total)
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

OGP Life-Saving Rules applicable to 2011 fatal incidents

percent of total 2011 incidents In February 2012, OGP released a set of ‘life-saving rules’
(OGP Life-Saving Rules, OGP report № 459), intended
for use by the oil & gas industry to mitigate risk and reduce
fatalities. Each OGP Life-Saving Rule consists of a simple
icon and descriptive text, providing clear, simple and con-
sistent communication regarding risks in the workplace.
No appropriate rule Core rules
20% 26% These Rules were developed by using the fatal incidents and
high potential events data provided from the 1991 to 2010
Safety performance indicators reports to identify the events
and activities that most commonly result in fatal incidents.
The Life Saving Rules are split into eight ‘core rules’ and ten
‘supplemental rules’.
Supplemental rules
54% Analysis of the fatal incident descriptions for 2011 data has
shown that 80% of the fatal incidents reported are covered
by the OGP Life-Saving Rules and may have been prevented
by the adoption of this system.

vi © OGP-IPIECA
 Health leading performance indicators – 2011 data

Preface

In 2007 the OGP-IPIECA Health Committee published between companies and the industry as a whole. Both tools
Health Performance Indicators – A guide for the oil and were used in 2011 to gauge health performance across the
gas industry (OGP report № 393). Text within this was used industry; the results are published in this report (№ 2011h).
to develop two tools to assess health leading performance
The scope of the health performance indicators data is
indicators within individual companies and to compare
different from the safety data.
performance between different parts of a company and

The International Association of Oil & Gas Producers, day cases and number of lost work days, lost time injury
OGP, has been collecting safety incident data from its frequency, number of restricted work day cases and restricted
member companies globally since 1985. The data collected work day case days, number of medical treatment cases and
are entered into the OGP safety database, which is the largest total recordable injury rate. The report presents contributing
database of safety performance in the E&P industry. This is OGP members’ global results for these indicators, which are
reported in report № 2011s which is published separately then analysed by region, function and company. A code is
and available at http://www.ogp.org.uk/pubs/2011s.pdf. used to preserve the anonymity of the reporting company,
which will typically report its own data as well as that of
The principal purpose of the safety data collection and
its associated contractors (see report № 2011s, Appendix C).
analysis is to record the global safety performance of the
contributing OGP member companies, each year. The Wherever practicable, results are presented graphically. The
submission of data is voluntary and is not mandated by data underlying the charts are presented in report № 2011s,
OGP membership. The annual reports provide trend Appendix B. These data are available to OGP members in
analysis, benchmarking and the identification of areas and editable format in the members’ area of the OGP website.
activities on which efforts should be focused to bring about The tables are organised according to the section in the
the greatest improvements in performance. report where the chart appears.
The OGP incident reporting system covers worldwide In 2010, safety data collection was initiated to capture
exploration and production (E&P) operations, both “causal factors” associated with fatal incidents and high
onshore and offshore, and includes incidents involving both potential events. The data reported for 2010 and 2011 are
member companies and their contractor employees. presented in section 2.11 report № 2011s. The source data
is available to OGP members in editable format in the
The key indicators presented are: number of fatalities,
members’ area of the OGP web-site.
fatal accident rate, fatal incident rate, number of lost work

The main changes to the 2011 report are:

• Inclusion of health leading performance indicator data,
Published as report № 2011h.
• The metric that combined Restricted Work Day Case
+ Lost time injury frequency is no longer reported
• Fatal incident and high potential event descriptions
previously included in the 2010 data report as appendixes
C and D are now available for download on the OGP
Safety Zone website, http://info.ogp.org.uk/safety
• The addition of a free standing Executive Summary
These changes reflect the growing need for data in all
aspects of the industry and a continued effort to improve
the reliability of the data and its interpretation.

© OGP-IPIECA vii
International Association of Oil & Gas Producers

viii © OGP-IPIECA
 Health leading performance indicators – 2011 data

Health leading performance indicators 2011

Scope

The Health Committee is run jointly between IPIECA, activities, therefore there is no separation of upstream
the global oil & gas industry association for environmental and downstream operations. The scope of the health
and social issues, and the International Association of Oil performance indicator data also includes data provided by
& Gas Producers (OGP). The OGP membership includes associate member contracting companies that have chosen
oil and gas companies operating in the upstream oil and to participate.
gas industry whereas the IPIECA membership includes
For comparison, report № 2011s contains lagging safety
companies operating in both the upstream and downstream
data indicators. The safety data presented is reported by
oil & gas industry. Therefore, the scope of the health
the participating oil & gas operating companies, inclusive
performance indicators data presented in report № 2011h:
of their contracted employees and activities related to their
Health performance indicators is different from the safety
upstream operations. Contactor companies, even though
data presented in 2011s: Safety performance indicators.
they may be associate members, do not report safety data
Health performance indicators are leading indicators as directly to OGP. This is a deliberate approach that has been
the process involves a self-assessment of the company’s taken to avoid duplicate reporting.
performance in relation to standardised statements
The reporting of both safety data and health performance
related to the level of implementation of their own health
indicator data is voluntary.
management systems. The participating companies perform
this self-assessment on the scope of their operational

Introduction

The principles described in the 2007 Report Health least the respondent companies) as differences between how
Performance Indicators – A guide for the oil and companies interpreted and used the tools are likely to even
gas industry were used to develop two tools which out when the data is reconsolidated. Whilst combining the
could be used to assess health performance within individual data from all respondent companies can provide a picture
companies and to compare performance between different of health performance for the industry as a whole, limited
parts of a company and between companies and the industry interpretation should be made of the differences between
as a whole. These are all leading performance indicators. companies. This is because each company and the actual
individual respondents are likely to have approached
During September 2008, 2009 and 2010, members of
interpretation and hence answering the questions differently
the OGP-IPIECA Health Committee piloted the 2 tools
from each other
within their companies in the form of an un-validated self-
assessment of performance. The tools were enhanced in Participating companies (listed page ii) have authorised
response to feedback from members. Final versions of both publication of anonymous data that reflects the 2011 analysis
tools were used during late 2011 to gauge health performance and also grouped trends over time. Each company has
across the industry. 18 companies took part, 17 using each received a report containing their own data and grouped data
tool, and many of these companies had started participating for comparison.
in 2008. Individual companies were assigned a code letter,
which changed each year to maintain confidentiality. When A detailed description of the two tools has been provided
these responses are taken together, they provide a good in Appendix A, the results provided for each of the tools
indication of the industry performance, as a whole (or at has been provided in the following section.

© OGP-IPIECA 1
International Association of Oil & Gas Producers

Percentage tool results

This percentage tool measures the extent of a company’s Level 3 – Process in place and implemented. System
management of eight typical health management system functioning; system procedures documented
elements across its business, the results can be used to compare and results being measured.
performance between different parts of a company and
Level 4 – Process in place and implemented. System
between companies and the annual means of the participating
sustained and supported by an on-going
companies. The responses are determined by a self-assessment
improvement process.
performed by each company to gauge the extent of their
alignment with the requirements of each element. The tool The total scores of each element are required to add up to 100%.
is completed by entering the percentage portion of a business
The results from the percentage tool are displayed as radar
which aligns with each level from 1 to 4:
charts representing levels 1 to 4 with the best performance
Level 1 – Process under development demonstrated by the largest block of colour. Individual
companies can compare their own radar charts with the
Level 2 – Process in place but not fully implemented
means below which represent the consolidated results from
and embedded
the 17 companies that participated in 2011.

Figure 1. Figure 2.
Percentage tool - 2011 Percentage tool - 2010
(Average from the returns of 17 Participating companies) (Average from the returns of 8 Participating companies)

Health Risk Health Risk

Assessment Assessment
(2.94) (2.89)

Public Health/ 4 Industrial Public Health/ 4 Industrial

Promotion Hygiene Promotion Hygiene
(2.91) (3.14) (3.11) (3.23)
3 3

2 2

1 1
Health Medical Health Medical
Reporting Emergency Reporting Emergency
(3.35) Management (3.2) Management
(3.74) (3.43)

Health Management Health Management

Impact of Ill-Health Impact of Ill-Health
Assessment (3.52) Assessment (3.23)
(2.38) (2.41)
Fitness for Task/ Fitness for Task/
Surveillance Surveillance
(3.41) (3.05)

Figure 3. Figure 4.
Percentage tool - 2009 Percentage tool - 2008
(Average from the returns of 6 Participating companies) (Average from the returns of 10 Participating companies)

Health Risk Health Risk

Assessment Assessment
(2.98) (3.00)

Public Health/ 4 Industrial Public Health/ 4 Industrial

Promotion Hygiene Promotion Hygiene
(2.67) (3.05) (2.67) (2.58)
3 3

2 2

1 1
Health Medical Health Medical
Reporting Emergency Reporting Emergency
(3.03) Management (2.92 Management
(3.50) (3.17)

Health Management Health Management

Impact of Ill-Health Impact of Ill-Health
Assessment (3.12) Assessment (3.00)
(2.33) Fitness for Task/ (2.50) Fitness for Task/
Surveillance Surveillance
(3.03) (3.08)

2 © OGP-IPIECA
 Health leading performance indicators – 2011 data

Progress can also be viewed by overlapping

each year’s results. The graph shown in Figure 5 shows a
snap-shot of the mean scores reported by the participating
companies from 2008 to 2011 inclusive. The graph should
not be interpreted as being representative of industry-
wide trends

Figure 5 Figure 6
Percentage tool mean analysis Participants 2008-2011

20
Health Risk 17

Assessment 15

10
10
8
Public Health/ 4 Industrial 6
Promotion Hygiene 5

3 0
2008 2009 2010 2011

1
Health Medical
Reporting Emergency
Management

Health Management
Impact of Ill-Health 2008
Assessment 2009
Fitness for Task/ 2010
Surveillance 2011

© OGP-IPIECA 3
International Association of Oil & Gas Producers

Gap analysis tool results

This tool allows for in-depth analysis at site and corporate circumference, enabling performance gaps to be visualised.
level. The same eight health management system elements All eight elements can be viewed as a heat chart to identify
are used. However, in this tool each element is broken areas for improvement.
into component statements relating to activities that may
17 companies took part in 2011 and all 77 statements and
be performed by different professionals or may not apply
grouped results are as follows.
to a particular site or company. The statements are rated
as levels 1-4 (as they are in the percentage tool), but with Combined company results from 2009-2011 are shown
an additional level 5 for ‘not applicable’. Note: where a and these can be viewed by company (Figures 7-9). This
company has allocated a score of five, indicating the issue enables individual companies not only to use their results
is not applicable, this score is not included in the average to identify potential gaps in their own health management
values. The results for each element can be viewed as a systems and set targets for improvement, but also to see how
radar chart with the individual statements around the they compare with their peers.

Figure 7
Gap Analysis Tool 2011 by Company (17 companies took part)
Sorted by: average by company worst to best

IPIECA / OGP Elements

Company Health Risk Industrial Medical Management Fitness for Task/ Health Impact Health Public Health/ Av. by
Assessment Hygiene Emergency of Ill-health Surveillance Assessment Reporting Promotion Company
(1) (2) Management (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)
(3)
D 1.6 2.0 2.7 3.3 2.9 1.0 2.7 1.8 2.24
C 3.3 2.9 3.2 2.6 2.0 1.0 2.9 1.0 2.35
E 1.8 3.0 2.8 3.8 3.4 1.0 3.4 3.2 2.79
H 2.4 3.7 3.8 3.3 2.9 1.4 3.1 2.6 2.88
G 2.8 2.6 2.9 3.4 3.0 3.1 2.8 2.8 2.93
K 3.0 2.8 3.6 4.0 2.8 3.0 3.0 2.8 3.12
V 2.9 3.1 4.0 3.1 3.4 2.3 3.3 3.0 3.14
O 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.4 3.8 2.1 2.8 3.0 3.26
R 2.9 3.1 3.6 4.0 4.0 N/A 3.2 3.2 3.44
Q 3.0 3.6 3.9 4.0 3.5 2.6 3.7 3.4 3.45
M 3.4 3.7 3.8 3.7 3.9 2.6 3.8 3.0 3.48
F 3.6 3.9 3.8 3.6 3.9 3.0 3.8 3.6 3.64
U 2.9 3.4 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.3 3.6 4.0 3.65
N 3.7 3.4 3.9 3.7 3.6 3.8 3.9 3.2 3.66
W 3.9 4.0 4.0 3.7 4.0 2.6 4.0 3.2 3.67
T 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.9 4.0 3.8 3.0 3.8 3.68
B 3.2 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.9 3.3 3.9 3.6 3.74
Av. by Element 2.93 3.35 3.64 3.62 3.45 2.49 3.34 3.01

4 © OGP-IPIECA
 Health leading performance indicators – 2011 data

Figure 8
Gap Analysis Tool 2010 by Company (8 companies took part)
Sorted by: average by company worst to best

Company Health Risk Industrial Medical Management Fitness for Task/ Health Impact Health Public Health/ Av. by
Assessment Hygiene Emergency of Ill-health Surveillance Assessment Reporting Promotion Company
(1) (2) Management (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)
(3)
O 2.4 3.1 2.3 2.4 1.9 1.1 2.9 1.6 2.21
S 2.0 2.7 2.2 2.7 3.5 1.1 3.1 3.4 2.58

B 2.2 2.7 2.9 2.9 2.3 3.0 2.8 2.8 2.69

G 2.5 3.1 3.4 3.4 3.0 2.3 3.1 3.0 2.97
Q 3.0 3.6 3.0 3.4 2.9 3.3 2.6 3.0 3.09
C 2.9 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.4 2.3 3.3 3.2 3.13
F 2.9 3.8 3.9 4.0 3.9 2.8 3.8 3.2 3.53
J 3.4 3.9 3.9 3.6 4.0 2.6 3.5 3.6 3.56

Av. by 2.66 3.22 3.20 3.18 3.09 2.30 3.13 2.98

Element

Figure 9
Gap Analysis Tool 2009 by Company (6 companies took part)
Sorted by: average by company worst to best

Company Health Risk Industrial Medical Management Fitness for Task/ Health Impact Health Public Health/ Av. by
Assessment Hygiene Emergency of Ill-health Surveillance Assessment Reporting Promotion Company
(1) (2) Management (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)
(3)
B 2.9 2.6 2.6 2.4 2.0 1.6 1.9 2.0 2.25
E 2.7 2.0 2.8 3.3 2.8 1.0 2.8 2.0 2.41

G 2.3 3.0 3.1 3.0 2.5 2.0 3.1 3.0 2.75

C 2.8 3.0 4.0 2.9 3.3 2.1 3.3 3.4 3.09
R 3.5 3.3 3.7 3.7 2.6 2.0 3.5 2.6 3.12
F 2.5 3.2 4.0 4.0 3.9 3.0 3.2 2.6 3.31

Av. by 2.80 2.85 3.37 3.21 2.83 1.96 2.94 2.60

Element

The results can also be viewed by element to highlight

the health elements in which the industry appears to
be performing well, as well as those where additional
guidance and support would be useful.

© OGP-IPIECA 5
International Association of Oil & Gas Producers

Figure 10
Gap Analysis Tool 2011 by Company (17 companies took part)
Sorted by: company score per element worst to best

Company Health Impact Health Risk Public Health/ Health Industrial Fitness for Management Medical Av. by
Assessment Assessment Promotion Reporting Hygiene Task / of Ill-health Emergency Company
(6) (1) (8) (7) (2) Surveillance (4) Management (3)
(5)
D 1.0 1.6 1.8 2.7 2.0 2.9 3.3 2.7 2.24
C 1.0 3.3 1.0 2.9 2.9 2.0 2.6 3.2 2.35
E 1.0 1.8 3.2 3.4 3.0 3.4 3.8 2.8 2.79
H 1.4 2.4 2.6 3.1 3.7 2.9 3.3 3.8 2.88
G 3.1 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.6 3.0 3.4 2.9 2.93
K 3.0 3.0 2.8 3.0 2.8 2.8 4.0 3.6 3.12
V 2.3 2.9 3.0 3.3 3.1 3.4 3.1 4.0 3.14
O 2.1 3.0 3.0 2.8 4.0 3.8 3.4 4.0 3.26
R N/A 2.9 3.2 3.2 3.1 4.0 4.0 3.6 3.44
Q 2.6 3.0 3.4 3.6 3.6 3.5 4.0 3.9 3.45
M 2.6 3.4 3.0 3.8 3.7 3.9 3.7 3.8 3.48
F 3.0 3.6 3.6 3.8 3.9 3.9 3.6 3.8 3.64
U 3.3 2.9 4.0 3.6 3.4 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.65
N 3.8 3.7 3.2 3.9 3.4 3.6 3.7 3.9 3.66
W 2.6 3.8 3.2 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.7 4.0 3.67
T 3.8 3.0 3.8 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.9 4.0 3.68
B 3.3 3.2 3.6 3.9 4.0 3.9 4.0 4.0 3.74

Av. by 2.49 2.93 3.01 3.34 3.35 3.45 3.62 3.64

Element

Figure 11
Gap Analysis Tool 2010 by Company (8 companies took part)
Sorted by: company score per element worst to best

Company Health Impact Health Risk Public Health/ Fitness for Industrial Health Management Medical Av. by
Assessment Assessment Promotion Task / Hygiene Reporting of Ill-health Emergency Company
(6) (1) (8) Surveillance (2) (7) (4) Management (3)
(5)
O 1.1 2.4 1.6 1.9 2.9 2.4 2.3 3.1 2.2
S 1.1 2.0 3.4 3.5 3.1 2.7 2.2 2.7 2.6
B 3.0 2.2 2.8 2.3 2.8 2.9 2.9 2.7 2.7
G 2.3 2.5 3.0 3.0 3.1 3.4 3.4 3.1 3.0
Q 3.3 3.0 3.0 2.9 2.6 3.4 3.0 3.6 3.1
C 2.3 2.9 3.2 3.4 3.3 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.1
F 2.8 2.9 3.2 3.9 3.8 4.0 3.9 3.8 3.5
J 2.6 3.4 3.6 4.0 3.5 3.6 3.9 3.9 3.6

Av. by 2.30 2.66 2.98 3.09 3.13 3.18 3.20 3.22

Element

6 © OGP-IPIECA
 Health leading performance indicators – 2011 data

Figure 12
Gap Analysis Tool 2009 by Company (6 companies took part)
Sorted by: company score per element worst to best

Company Health Impact Public Health Risk Fitness for Industrial Health Management Medical Av. by
Assessment Health/ Assessment Task / Hygiene Reporting of Ill-health Emergency Company
(6) Promotion (1) Surveillance (2) (7) (4) Management (3)
(8) (5)

B 1.6 2.0 2.9 2.0 2.6 1.9 2.4 2.6 2.4

E 1.0 2.0 2.7 2.8 2.0 2.8 3.3 2.8 2.7
G 2.0 3.0 2.3 2.5 3.0 3.1 3.0 3.1 2.8
C 2.1 3.4 2.8 3.3 3.0 3.3 2.9 4.0 3.2
R 2.0 2.6 3.5 2.6 3.3 3.5 3.7 3.7 3.4
F 3.0 2.6 2.5 3.9 3.2 3.2 4.0 4.0 3.5

Av. by 1.96 2.60 2.80 2.83 2.85 2.94 3.21 3.37

Element

As with the percentage tool, progress can be viewed by

overlapping each year’s results. The graph shown in Figure
13 shows a snap-shot of the mean scores reported by the
participating companies from 2009 to 2011 inclusive. The
graph should not be interpreted as being representative of
industry-wide trends

Figure 13 Figure 14
HPI Gap Analysis Tool - Means 2009 – 2011 Gap Analysis Participants 2009 – 2011

Health Risk 20
17
Assessment
15

Public Health/ 4 Industrial

Promotion Hygiene 10
8
6
3
5

2
0
2009 2010 2011

1
Health Medical
Reporting Emergency
Management

Health Management
Impact of Ill-Health
Assessment 2009
Fitness for Task/ 2010
Surveillance 2011

© OGP-IPIECA 7
International Association of Oil & Gas Producers

A deeper look at selected elements

It can be seen from both tools that based on the data For the purpose of this report it is not possible to analyse in
provided by the respondents, oil and gas companies manage depth the subelements and their respective scores for each of
medical ill health and emergencies best and health impact eight main elements. Looking at the charts it was identified
assessment less well. However, despite new companies that improvement in Element 2 - Industrial hygiene and control of
starting to participate each year, mean values for each health workplace exposures (Table 1), had not progressed, therefore,
area have improved over the four years. a deeper analysis of grouped data for each statement was
undertaken. The results have been presented by company
and by individual statement.
Table 1
Element 2 - Industrial hygiene and control of workplace exposures

Element 2 - Industrial hygiene and control of workplace exposures

The workplace environment meets legal requirements for protection of human health. A
Industrial hygiene and occupational health expertise is used to assess the following and advise on the implementation of appropriate controls and work practice to eliminate of minimize
exposures for the following:
All chemical health hazards. B
All physical health hazards. C
All biological health hazards. D
All ergonomic health hazards. E
All psychological health hazards. F
Workplace exposure monitoring is used to confirm ongoing effectiveness of control measures. G
Material safety data sheets are in place and kept current. H
Employees are trained to understand the health risks, preventive measures and emergency procedures associated with their work. I

Figure 15
Gap Analysis Tool 2011 by Company (17 companies took part)
Industrial Hygiene & Control or Workplace Exposure sorted by:
Average company score
OGP-IPIECA Elements (Industrial Hygiene & Control or Workplace Exposure)
Company A B C D E F G H I Av. by
Company
D 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 2.00
G 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.56
K 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.78
C 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 1.0 2.0 4.0 3.0 2.89
E 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 3.00
R 3.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 1.0 4.0 4.0 3.11
V 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.11
N 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 3.44
U 4.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.44

Q 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 3.56
H 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.67
M 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.67
F 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 3.89
W 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.00
T 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.00
B 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.00
O 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 N/A 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.11

Av. by 3.71 3.47 3.47 3.47 3.35 2.88 3.18 3.53 3.24
Element

8 © OGP-IPIECA
 Health leading performance indicators – 2011 data

Figure 16
Gap Analysis Tool 2011 by Company (17 companies took part)
Industrial Hygiene & Control or Workplace Exposure sorted by:
Lowest sub-element scores

OGP-IPIECA Elements (Industrial Hygiene & Control or Workplace Exposure)

Company F G I E B C D H A Av. by
Company
D 1.0 2.0 1.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 2.00
G 2.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.56
K 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.78
C 1.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 2.89
E 3.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.00
R 3.0 1.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 3.11
V 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 3.11
N 2.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 3.44
U 3.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.44
Q 2.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.56
H 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.67
M 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.67
F 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.89
W 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.00
T 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.00
B 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.00
O N/A 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.00

Av. by 2.75 3.18 3.24 3.35 3.47 3.47 3.47 3.53 3.71
Element

This showed statement F on psychological hazards and G on

workplace exposure monitoring to have the poorest results.

© OGP-IPIECA 9
International Association of Oil & Gas Producers

The year on year mean results indicated that Element 6 - Health

Impact Assessment was an element that warranted deeper
investigation. The detailed results of the 2011 gap analysis
related to Health Impact Assessment, as detailed in Table 2,
are presented in Figures 17 and 18.”

Table 2
Element 6 - Health Impact Assessment (HIA)

Element 6 - Health Impact Assessment (generally understood to be ‘outside the fence’ activities)
HIAs are initiated during the development stage of all new projects and expansions. A
Prior to the start of a new project, baseline data are established on the following:
Demography (age distribution and key social characteristics). B
Community health status (e.g. nutritional status, disease prevalence, vulnerable groups). C
Key environmental factors affecting human health including air, soil and water quality. D
Health impact assessors are assigned to work with social and environmental impact assessors in order to outline the range and types of hazard and potential beneficial impacts E
from the new project/ expansion.
External stakeholders are identified. F
Project staff communicate with external stakeholders (e.g. local community) and consult with them on a regular basis. G
Relationships are developed with joint venture, contractors and local governments to create a common, cost-effective approach to health management. H

Figure 17
Gap Analysis Tool 2011 by Company (16 companies took part)
Health Impact Assessment sorted by: Average company score

OGP-IPIECA Elements (Health Impact Assessment)

Company A B C D E F G H Av. by
Company
d 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.00
c 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.00
e 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.00
H 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 1.38
O 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.13
R 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 N/A 2.0 2.0 3.0 2.29
W 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 2.63
Q 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.63
M 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.63
K 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.00
F 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.00
G 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.13
B 2.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 3.25
U 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 3.25
T 4.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.75
N 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.75

Av. by 2.38 2.38 2.44 2.50 2.47 2.63 2.56 2.56

Element

10 © OGP-IPIECA
 Health leading performance indicators – 2011 data

Figure 18
Gap Analysis Tool 2011 by Company (16 companies took part)
Health Impact Assessment sorted by: Lowest sub-element scores

OGP-IPIECA Elements (Health Impact Assessment)

Company A B C E D H G F Av. by
Company
d 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.00
c 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.00
e 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.00
H 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 1.38
O 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.13
R 3.0 2.0 2.0 N/A 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.29
W 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 2.63
Q 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 2.63
M 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.63
K 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.00
F 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.00
G 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.13
B 2.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.25
U 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.25
T 4.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.75
N 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 3.75

Av. by 2.38 2.38 2.44 2.47 2.50 2.56 2.56 2.63

Element

Figures 17 and 18 show that many companies have

identified health impact assessment as an area which
required improvement and that aligning with statement E,
(working with social and environmental impact assessors),
is the most challenging. Statements A and B, are related to
health impact assessments (refer to Appendix A for the full
text of these statements).
Note - only 16 of the 17 companies that completed the gap
analysis tool perform Health Impact Assessments.

© OGP-IPIECA 11
International Association of Oil & Gas Producers

12 © OGP-IPIECA
 Health leading performance indicators – 2011 data

Appendix A

Percentage tool

This percentage tool measures the extent of a company’s a business which complies with each level from 1 to 4, the
management of 8 health management system elements across total is required to add up to 100%. The results are displayed
their business, the results can be used for benchmarking as radar charts with the largest block of colour representing
between companies. The responses are determined by a self- the highest level of compliance.
assessment performed by each company to gauge the extent
An example of one of the percentage tool elements is
of their compliance with the requirements of each element.
shown below in figure A-1.
The tool is completed by entering the percentage portion of

Figure A-1
Health risk assessment and planning

List of health managment systems elements

There is a qualitative description, taken from the 2007
publication, covering the key aspects of what needs to 1. Health risk assessment and planning
2. Industrial hygiene and control of workplace exposures
be done to adequately manage each element. The tool is
3. Medical emergency management
completed by entering the percentage portion of a business 4. Management of ill-health in the workplace
which complies with each level from 1 to 4. The percentages 5. Fitness for task assessment and health surveillance
must add up to 100. 6. Health impact assessment
7. Health reporting and record management
Level 1 – Process under development 8. Public health interface and promotion of good health

Level 2 – Process in place but not fully implemented

and embedded
Level 3 – Process in place and implemented.
System functioning; system procedures
documented and results being measured
Level 4 – Process in place and implemented.
System sustained and supported by an on-going
improvement process

© OGP-IPIECA A-1
International Association of Oil & Gas Producers

1. Health risk assessment and planning There is a task checklist for different job categories, and health
assessments/surveillance are performed by a competent health
Health risk assessment is generally understood to relate practitioner who has knowledge of the work to be performed.
to ‘within the fence’ activities. Workplace, product and Pre-employment, pre-placement and periodic health
environmental health hazards are identified, their risks assessed assessments are conducted as dictated by legal requirements
and a health plan produced for all current activities, operations and by the health risks associated with specific tasks. Wherever
and products. This takes place during the development stage possible, work is adapted so that individuals are included rather
of all new projects and products, prior to modifications to than needlessly excluded from work. Health surveillance is
plant or process, and before the acquisition or divestiture of performed where required by legislation or where the work is
sites, leases, plant or other processes or materials, to address known to be associated with the development of a recognised
changing public and environment health conditions. The health problem for which there is a valid method for testing.
health plan addresses any risks identified, is reviewed regularly
and is progressed against internally set targets.
6. Health impact assessment (HIA)
2. Industrial hygiene and control of workplace exposures Health impact assessment is generally understood to relate
to ‘outside the fence’ activities. HIAs are initiated during the
The workplace environment meets legal requirements and does development stage of all new projects and expansions. Baseline
not harm health. Industrial hygiene and occupational health data are established on the demography, community health
expertise is used to assess all chemical, physical, biological, status, air, soil and water quality prior to the start of a new
ergonomic and psychological health hazards and advise on the project. Health impact assessors are assigned to work with social
implementation of appropriate controls and work practices and environmental impact assessors in order to outline the
to eliminate or minimise exposures. Workplace exposure range and types of hazard and potential beneficial impacts from
monitoring is used to confirm on-going effectiveness of control the new project/expansion. External stakeholders are defined,
measures. Material storage, labelling and safety data sheets and the product/project staff communicate and consult with
are kept current. Employees are trained to understand the them on a regular basis. Partnerships are developed with joint
health risks, preventive measures and emergency procedures ventures, contractors and local government to create a common,
associated with their work. The workplace maintains adequate
cost-effective approach to health management.
records for auditing and demonstrating compliance.
7. Health reporting and record management
3. Medical emergency management
Health information on all operations and products meets
Provision is made for the management of medical emergencies
legal requirements and is accurate, secure and readily available.
associated with company operations and activities. There
Records are maintained on raw materials, processes, products,
is a medical emergency plan based on competent medical
work locations and work duties, as well as monitoring the
advice and level of risk, and it is in alignment with existing
assessment activities such as health risk assessments, workplace
local provisions. The plan is integrated into other emergency
and personal exposure monitoring. Significant health
procedures, communicated effectively, and practised regularly
incidents or trends are investigated. Personal health records are
with drills and reviews as appropriate. A process is in place
retained for a minimum of 40 years after an individual leaves
to ensure that lessons learned are acted upon as a result of
employment. Categories and cases of occupational ill-health are
drills or incidents. Appropriate response times are established
tracked and analysed on a regular basis, and form part of the
for first aid, emergency medical care and evacuation, and
routine presentation of operating, business and financial metrics
adequate resources have been made available to meet these
to facility management. In turn, these data are aggregated to
times. All staff are provided with emergency contact numbers
form part of the annual business planning process.
for medical assistance on each work site and during travel.
8. Public health interface and promotion of good health
4. Management of ill-health in the workplace
An effective interface between public health and occupational
Employees have access to occupational health practitioners
health is maintained to mitigate major business risks and identify
who can help mitigate the effects of ill-health on their
key sources of epidemiological information. Communications
ability to work effectively, including facilitating employee
are maintained with local governments and health authorities to
rehabilitation and return to work post-illness or post-injury.
plan timely response to major outbreaks of infectious diseases.
A system is in place to provide access to primary, secondary
A programme is in place to identify key employee health issues
and emergency medical facilities as well as counselling and
and develop programmes to educate around prevention/harm
employee assistance where appropriate. reduction. Where appropriate these programmes extend beyond
the workforce and into the community; examples might include
5. Fitness for task assessment and health surveillance HIV, tuberculosis, smoking, obesity, heart disease, malaria and
Employees’ health status is compatible with the work that vaccination programmes.
they do, and this is confirmed by assessments when necessary.

A-2 © OGP-IPIECA
 Health leading performance indicators – 2011 data

Health management system gap analysis tool

This tool allows for in-depth analysis at site and corporate

level. The same eight elements are used as for the percentage
tool but each paragraph is broken into component
statements relating to activities that may be performed
by different professionals or may not apply to a particular
site or company. The statements are rated levels 1-4 as in
the percentage tool but with an additional level 5 for ‘not
applicable’. The results for each element can be viewed as
a radar chart with the individual statements around the
circumference, enabling performance gaps to be visualised.
All eight elements can be viewed as a heat chart to identify
areas for improvement.
An example extract from the health management system
gap analysis tool is shown below.

Figure A-2
Input Screen:

Figure A-3
Output Screen:

© OGP-IPIECA A-3
International Association of Oil & Gas Producers

A list of the component statements relating to activities Element 3 - Medical emergency management (10 statements A-J)
under each element of the health management system is
provided below. Provision is made for the management of medical A
emergencies associated with company operations and
Element 1 - Health risk assessment and planning (generally under- activities.
stood to relate to ‘within the fence’ activities; 13 statements A – M) There is a medical emergency plan based on B
competent medical advice and level of risk, and it is in
Workplace health hazards are identified, their risks assessed alignment with existing local provisions.
and a health plan addressing any risks is implemented for the
following: The medical emergency plan is integrated into other C
emergency procedures.
all current activities and operations A The medical emergency plan is communicated D
during the development stage of all new projects B effectively.
prior to modifications to plant and equipment C The medical emergency plan is practised regularly E
prior to acquisition or divestiture of sites, leases, D with drills and reviews as appropriate.
plant or other processes or materials A process is in place to ensure that lessons learned are F
to address changing public and environmental E acted upon as a result of drills or incidents.
health conditions or new scientific information Appropriate response times are established for first G
Internal targets are set for the workplace health plans. F aid, emergency medical care and evacuation.

The workplace health plans are reviewed regularly G Adequate resources have been made available H
and progressed against the internally set targets. to meet established response times for first aid,
emergencymedical care and evacuation.
Product health hazards are identified, their risks assessed and All staff are provided with emergency contact I
a product health plan produced for the following: numbers for medical assistance on each work site.
All staff are provided with emergency contact J
for all current products H
numbers for medical assistance during travel.
during the development stage of all new products I
prior to acquisitions J Element 4 - Management of ill-health in the workplace
to address changing public and environmental K (7 statements A-G)
health conditions or new scientific information
Employees have access to occupational health practitioners
Internal targets are set for the product health plans. L who can:
The product health plans are reviewed regularly and M
progressed against the internally set targets. help mitigate the effects of ill-health on their A
facilitate employee rehabilitation B
Element 2 - Industrial hygiene and control of workplace exposures facilitate return to work post-illness or post-injury C
(9 statements A-I)
A system is in place to provide access for employees to:
The workplace environment meets legal A
requirements for protection of human health primary medical care facilities D
secondary medical care facilities E
Industrial hygiene and occupational health expertise is used
to assess the following and advise on the implementation emergency medical care facilities F
of appropriate controls and work practices to eliminate or counselling and employee assistance where G
minimize exposures for the following: appropriate

all chemical health hazards B Element 5 - Fitness for task assessment and health surveillance
all physical health hazards C (8 statements A-H)
all biological health hazards D Fitness for task (to ensure employees’ health status is compatible
all ergonomic health hazards E with the work that they do)
all psychological health hazards F A check-list identifying fitness requirements by task is A
Workplace exposure monitoring is used to confirm G in place covering each appropriate job category.
on-going effectiveness of control measures.
Health assessments (i.e. to match people with task) are
Material safety data sheets are in place and kept H
performed by a competent health practitioner who has
current.
knowledge of the work for the following:
Employees are trained to understand the health I
risks, peventive measures and emergency procedures prior to placing an employee in a task with fitness B
associated with their work. requirements

A-4 © OGP-IPIECA
 Health leading performance indicators – 2011 data

periodically as dictated by legal or company C Records are maintained on the following:

requirements
raw materials and products (Material Safety C
as part of change management D
Data Sheets – MSDS)
Wherever practicable, work is adapted so individuals E
are included rather than excluded from work. work duties D
health risk assessments E
Health surveillance (to ensure employees are working workplace monitoring results F
safely where their work is known to be associated with the
development of a recognized health problem for which there is personal exposure monitoring G
a valid method for testing) fitness for task health assessments H
health surveillance I
All activities that require health surveillance are F
defined. Personal health records are retained confidentially J
in line with any legal requirements on access and
Surveillance is conducted by a competent health practitioner data protection.
and meets legal requirements: Health records are retained for a minimum of 40 K
prior to an employee starting the work (e.g. to G years after an individual leaves employment.
establish a baseline)
Significant health incidents (including occupational illness)
periodically as dictated by the nature of hazard H and significant near misses are:

Element 6 - Health impact assessment (generally understood investigated L

to be ‘outside the fence’ activities; 8 statements A-H) root causes determined M
HIAs are initiated during the development stage of A corrective actions identified N
all new projects and expansions. corrective actions tracked to completion O
Prior to the start of a new project, baseline data are established reported to appropriate authorities as required P
on the following: Health data is analysed routinely to identify any Q
necessary changes to operations or products.
demography (age distribution and key social B
characteristics Element 8 - Public health interface and promo-
community health status (e.g. nutritional status, C tion of good health (5 statements A-E)
disease prevalence, vulnerable groups)
key environmental factors affecting human health D An effective interface between public health and A
including air, soil and water quality occupational health is maintained to mitigate
major business risks and identify key sources of
Health impact assessors are assigned to work with E epidemiological information.
social and environmental impact assessors in order to
outline the range and types of hazard and potential Communications are maintained with local B
beneficial impacts from the new project/expansion. governments and health authorities to plan timely
response to major outbreaks of infectious diseases.
External stakeholders are identified. F
A programme is in place to:
Project staff communicate with external stakeholders G
(e.g. local community) and consult with them on a identify key employee health and wellness C
regular basis. (e.g. smoking, obesity, heart disease, high risk
Relationships are developed with joint ventures, H behaviour) issues
contractors and local government to create a common, develop programmes to educate employees on D
cost-effective approach to health management.
prevention and risk reduction (e.g. anti-smoking
and fitness campaigns)
Element 7 - Health reporting and record management (including
tracking and analysis; 17 statements A-Q) where appropriate extend these programmes E
beyond the workforce to include the community
Health information on all operations is accurate, secure A (e.g. HIV, tuberculosis, malaria and vaccination
and readily available and meets legal requirements. programmes)
Health information on all products is accurate, secure B
and readily available and meets legal requirements.

© OGP-IPIECA A-5
International Association of Oil & Gas Producers

A-6 © OGP-IPIECA
 For further information and publications,
please visit our website at

www.ogp.org.uk
www.ipieca.org
209-215 Blackfriars Road
London SE1 8NL
United Kingdom
Telephone: +44 (0)20 7633 0272
Fax: +44 (0)20 7633 2350

165 Bd du Souverain 209-215 Blackfriars Road

4th Floor London SE1 8NL
B-1160 Brussels, Belgium United Kingdom
Telephone: +32 (0)2 566 9150 Telephone: +44 (0)20 7633 2388
Fax: +32 (0)2 566 9159 Fax: +44 (0)20 7633 2389

Internet site: www.ogp.org.uk Internet site: www.ipieca.org

e-mail: reception@ogp.org.uk e-mail: info@ipieca.org