As injury rates continue to decline in the oil and gas industry, solutions to long-standing problems need to become more creative. The solutions must be specifically suited for and targeted to task-level activities. Additionally, they must incorporate new methods of engaging the workforce and changing the way we do business so that the goal of zero incidents can be reached.
Recently, Halliburton undertook an effort to reevaluate long-standing processes and procedures from the perspective of unique, meaningful, and manageable alternative work methods. Evaluation of its global safety performance, which has improved significantly over the past decade, indicated that opportunities exist in the area of hand and back injuries. The need for improvement in these areas is not unique to the activities of Halliburton; anecdotal and published information1 indicate that the hand and back are often among the most injured areas of a body on the workforce.
Because we use a wide range of internal risk identification and mitigation tools, the company has experienced a significant reduction in these types of injuries over the last several years. But the company needed a different approach and perspective to attain the next level of performance improvement.
To begin, Halliburton hired a consulting ergonomics group to study working conditions and workforce habits. This group was tasked with recommending short, medium and long-term solutions. The goal of the evaluation and eventual program was to: raise awareness, dispel myths, spread best practices, and change behavior to ultimately eliminate injuries to backs and hands. In addition, the group would identify contributing factors that were the result of outside influences, such as time constraints, location constraints, and simultaneous operations.
Phase 1 — evaluate ergonomics
The project was ultimately conducted in four phases. In Phase 1, the consultants conducted numerous job task evaluations across various product lines and geographical locations. The objective of this particular phase was to identify ergonomic concerns, primarily around the rig-up and rig-down processes. These processes had been identified within the statistical analysis as potential focus areas, based on higher frequency of incidents vs. other job execution functions.
They were tasked with visiting a pre-determined number of job sites where stimulation and cementing services were being conducted. Detailed observations and analysis were conducted and documented by taking photographs and videos of employees working. The primary objective was to conduct the observations as the work procedures were routinely performed, rather than staging them for observation. They were instructed to retain a low profile and not interfere with the job so that the most accurate results possible could be obtained. Any amount of job interference could potentially alter the way people worked. The only exception to that instruction was that if a dangerous activity was witnessed, then they were required to intervene to mitigate risk and prevent an injury.
The work groups being observed had no advanced notice of the consultant's arrival, although pre-job meetings were conducted with each group to communicate the program's intent and allow the crews to ask questions or express concerns.
At the beginning of each observation, the work crews attempted to do everything "right," or differently than they normally would. In all cases, however, the crews quickly returned to their routine work methods, enabling the research team to obtain a representative evaluation. The evaluation identified 47 ergonomic-related risk factors that included engineering and design, body mechanics, and pre-job planning. Of these, 16 were selected ultimately for further action.
After about 14 weeks, the observation teams had visited 12 well sites in 4 states, representing a cross section in geography and activity types. The jobs were followed from beginning to end so that the teams could see rig up and rig down and all possible influences on safety performance. The teams logged hours of jobsite time in a variety of operating conditions.
As challenging as that was, it was apparent early on that the decision to engage third party ergonomic experts was the right one.
The objectivity and detailed nature of their observations provided a much-needed perspective that had been missing in our internal reviews. The "age-old" problems now had potentially new solutions.
null
null
Phase 2—study results
Clearly, Phase 1 of the program was a success. The outside perspective and ergonomics expertise of the ergonomics consultant lent itself well to coming up with new solutions. Like any other undertaking of this nature, it didn't come without challenges. Even after compiling the information and applying our standard risk analysis matrix, we had 16 actionable mitigation opportunities. After prioritizing the list and capturing the ergonomic assessments for each opportunity, we were now ready for Phase II.
The objective of Phase 2 was two-fold: First, determine how many of the 16 opportunities could be addressed based on our predetermined operational constraints, and then build an action plan around each opportunity that clearly identified roles, responsibilities, milestones, and timelines.
To meet the first objective, the effort was focused on the top three identified opportunities:
1. Body mechanics.
2. Equipment engineering and design.
3. Pre-job planning and preparation.
The team expanded to include not only the ergonomics consultants but also Halliburton health, safety, and environment (HSE) and operations experts. They agreed that problems in these areas were more about "quality" and not "quantity." Changes to these areas would be a culture change, and those types of changes are typically successful when implemented as an evolutionary process with some revolutionary ideas. The three areas would be addressed concurrently because they are interrelated and can contribute to injuries equally.
The first issue was body mechanics. The observations had indicated that despite basic training being available for years, there was still a significant lack of understanding about the proper way to lift and transport equipment and materials. This lack of understanding was not only a problem with our field operations personnel, but also within the HSE professional ranks.
One common myth that needed to be dispelled was the notion that the proper lifting technique is to use a "straight" back. The preferred lifting method is actually a reverse curvature of the lower spine (Fig. 1), which is indicated in the McKenzie method.2
Based on McKenzie's supporting analysis and his years of experience and research, a very compelling argument can be made against the "straight" back lifting method. As a result of taking this different approach to lifting, alternative work methods had to be identified and tested. Ultimately, these methods were built around specific tool configurations, equipment design, and multiple-person lifting requirements.
These new techniques and thought processes were incorporated into a pre-existing, third-party intervention program customized for Halliburton. The strong track record of this third-party program and their willingness to customize the program for Halliburton led to the decision to partner with them. The program also includes information on hand-injury awareness, warm-up/stretching, physical fitness, and proper nutrition.
null
The second issue was equipment engineering and design. One of the well established ways to reduce risks is to eliminate them with engineering and design change. Our approach, which was built into this program, revolved around gathering existing ideas from our workforce, where they had modified or retrofitted pieces of equipment to minimize the physical exertion required. The internal web site for this program has a section for capturing and disseminating these ideas.
One important concept we worked on with the ergonomics experts was the "30 ft to fatigue" guideline. Snook and Ciriello3 determined that an individual exerting him or herself over a distance of about 30 ft becomes increasingly fatigued, thereby escalating the chance of injury.
Figs. 2 and 3 show several ways in which our operations have attempted to provide for mechanical lifting and transport of the equipment to within 30 ft of the target zone. Several other engineering and design modifications are being deployed, most of which are focused on the accessibility of the equipment on the transports.
The third area to be addressed was pre-job planning and preparation. The essence of this issue is properly planning the best layout before attempting to spot the equipment.
null
On several occasions during Phase 1, multiple rig ups were observed, many due in part to inadequate pre-job planning. This additional effort creates additional exposure of the workers to the risk. The preparation aspects of this issue relate to warming up and stretching.
The ergonomics team observed that, on most occasions, crews arrived and immediately began their rig-up procedures. After multiple hours of road travel, the human body is not properly prepared to begin heavy lifting activities.
Therefore, a reasonable warm-up and stretching regiment was identified, built, and tested for this program. A video on proper stretching techniques was created to supplement the training using company personnel and equipment (Fig. 4).
Another key element within the pre-job planning and preparation process was that of identifying potential hand-injury or pinch-point hazards. In Phase 1, the teams identified numerous potential hazards in this area, as well as a number of proposed solutions.
Many of the concerns stemmed from improper hand position and equipment configurations.
These particular concerns presented some of the most challenging issues to resolve because of the virtually unlimited number of hazards that could result in a hand injury or pinch point and the difficulty of trying to identify and communicate those hazards, in detail, on the job location.
In the end, the consensus from the team was that the most effective way to deal with this issue is to conduct a more general awareness and review process before commencing operations during the pre-job safety meeting.
Phase 3 — deployment
Phase 3 of the process was deployment. Halliburton has nine major product lines operating in more than 100 countries around the world. The challenge was to determine how best to test the elements of this program on a narrow enough scale to provide relatively quick turnaround but broad enough to have a statistically meaningful assessment.
In the end, the program was piloted in two of the major product lines in four of our most active geographical areas.
A variety of other reasons factored into the selection, including historical performance, cultural relevance, and logistics.
People in each of the product lines identified more than 4,000 employees in these areas who would participate in the program. Discussions were held with local operations managers so that they would be aware and supportive of the effort. The training schedule is very aggressive and will be completed within 4 months.
Phase 4— monitor results
Phase 4 of the process is to monitor the deployment, which is being done with both leading and lagging indicators of the implementation. The details of the program are outlined on an internal web site and include automatically published reports containing salient information. The published data include:
- Number of targeted employees identified and trained.
- Percent of targeted employees trained.
- Back strain and hand recordable injury rates (according to the US Occupational Safety and Health Administration definition).
- Total injury rates.
- Mean time between failures.
- Training classes completed and pending.
The online data are presented in tabular and graphical format for ease of review and is refreshed daily.
Additionally, the behavior-based performance (BBP) team members were asked to be among the first to attend the training to raise the BBP observers' awareness of the key elements of the program.
The BBP checklists were then to be modified to include observations of the lifting techniques, engineering and design changes, and pre-job planning techniques taught in the program.
What the future holds
About 2 months into the program, management and employees have provided very positive feedback in regards to the program's new ideas, relevance, and ease of deployment.
After all the targeted employees have been trained, a suitable time frame will be established to further evaluate the program.
The leading and lagging indicators, BBP observations, and feedback from the participants will be assessed to verify the impact on performance. If the pilot is determined to be successful, then it will be rolled out to a wider audience using the same tools and tracking methods.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank Halliburton for permission to publish this article. We also specifically thank Gary Moore, vice-president of cementing, and Jim Prestidge, vice-president of production enhancement for their sponsorship of the study and program implementation. F
References
1. "IADC ASP Program 2002: Summary of Occupational Incidents (Industry Totals)," International Association of Drilling Contractors, Houston, May 2003.
2. McKenzie, R., Treat Your Own Back, New Zealand, Spinal Publications, 1997.
3. Snook, S.H., and Ciriello, V.M., "The design of manual handling tasks: revised tables of maximum acceptable weights and forces," Ergonomics, vol. 34, no. 9, pp. 1197-1213, 1991.
The authors
Joel Disatell ([email protected]) is the global HSE manager for technical HSE support at Halliburton in Houston. His past positions include Gulf of Mexico and North America HSE manager. Disatell has a degree in finance from the University of Louisiana at Lafayette and he is a member of SPE.
Tom Knode ([email protected]) is the HSE manager for business development at Halliburton. Before taking this position, he was in the global HSE technical support group, an environmental engineer in manufacturing, and a laboratory petrophysicist. Knode has a BS in geology from Texas Christian University and an MS in geology from the University of Texas at Arlington. He is a member of SPE.