In a little over four years, Hercules Offshore has grown from a privately held company with five jackup drilling rigs and 22 liftboats to a publicly held international corporation with a fleet of 73 drilling rigs and 64 liftboats, plus a workboat fleet. This growth has seen people and equipment coming from as many as 10 different companies and cultures. With the acquisition of Todco in July 2007, the company quadrupled in size to over 4,000 people! This presented the considerable challenge of growing one HSE or “safety” culture from many different parts.

Early on, the tendency was to take the easy route and rely on the talents of the team, with only a basic safety management framework. Much of that safety management system was cut and pasted from one legacy system or the other, or borrowed from our clients. Working teams were empowered to carry on “business as usual” and do what they know how to do in the management of their day-to-day operations.

Leaving people to “do what they’ve always done” did not, however, foster a united team with common goals. It actually created a protective and closed environment; not one of open dialogue and reporting desired in a robust safety culture. While history is an undeniable part of culture, letting go of history is difficult, and “us and them” factions often result. The question was, “How do we honor the contributions of the legacy companies while shedding attachments in favor of one company culture?”

If culture consists of our “attitudes and beliefs,” growing a safety culture must involve aligning the attitudes and beliefs of the individuals within the organization. It’s not enough to ask, “What do team members believe about their safety management system?” We must ask, “Do they believe in the safety management system?”

Creating belief in the system is key to it being used effectively, if at all. Considering the culture in question consists of thousands of individual attitudes and beliefs; this is challenging enough. The various influences of the many parts make the challenge daunting.

The historical approach of the “safety professional” in growing a culture has been to add to what’s in place. The result often is to complicate the basic tools that are already there, assuming that team members understood them in the first place. We create more detail thinking that more complex is somehow better. In many cases, not only have some of our tools turned into “paper exercises,” many people in the field don’t even get that they should be more!

Hercules Offshore is working under the assumption that the basic safety tools are not obvious and that belief requires education and training. In March 2007, we began an ongoing effort to educate and train everyone in the company. Through our “Hero’s Training,” we set out to:
• Understand purpose
• Streamline/simplify
• Create buy-in and belief
• Engage/enlighten
• Build visibility
• Own accountability
• Show leadership
• Create one culture from many.

The Hero’s Training is set up to create belief and alignment in the core values of the company, and to create belief and effective utilization of our safety management system. Thinking of our safety management system as a “safety tool box,” there are many tools inside that toolbox that we use everyday.

There are also four key tools that are common to most companies. Possibly the most important, these are the tools most often taken for granted. These are also the tools we focus on: job safety analysis, permits to work, “time-out” (our stop-work responsibility tool) and “Hero” (our behavioral observation tool). We call them the “Power Tools.”

Time-Out

Stop-work authority is not a new idea in the offshore industry. Yet time and again, when we investigate incidents, we find that people were watching as the incidents were set in motion. Why don’t individuals speak up?

Part of the answer might be in the language we use. When we speak about “stop-work authority,” we are saying that an individual has the authority or “right” to stop work in progress. The challenge is, we are also saying he has just as much right not to. We now speak of “stop-work responsibility,” stressing that if one sees something that concerns him, it is not only his right to stop it – it is his job!

Another obstacle might be attributed to bystander apathy, a phenomenon identified by sociologists after an infamous attack on a woman named Catherine Genovese in 1964. Thirty-eight people witnessed all or part of her attack and murder in New York City, yet no one intervened. The case prompted various experiments, and researchers theorized that people do nothing because other people are doing nothing.

This phenomenon seems to be directly related to the day-to-day failings of individuals in the workplace to speak their concerns. The assumption is that it must be alright because no one else is saying anything. Those same sociologists say that the best cure for this phenomenon is educating people that it exists!

There is third reason we have failed to empower individuals to stop work: We failed to give them the tool to do it. Through the years, as we pushed stop-work authority, we left the individuals to exercise that authority as they saw fit. Because we had no common language, very often argument, anger and adrenaline would come into the conversation before people realized that the individual was just trying to do the right thing. Hero’s Training stresses that “time-out” is the tool for our stop-work responsibility. This familiar expression becomes a common language accompanied by a familiar gesture when noise is a problem. With this common language, we all instantly know what’s going on.

Hero Observation, Conversation

Behavioral safety is now over a decade old in the offshore industry. Many companies have embraced one observation process or another. Unfortunately, many processes also got sidetracked as they became more about “cards” than about conversations.

Individuals were encouraged or required to participate by observing and writing something on an observation card. Well-meaning supervisors focused on cards and how many their crews were writing as a means of measuring and rewarding participation. As crew members felt the pressure, they tended to take the easy way out and look for good things to write, or to make things up!

In the assessment phase prior to Hero Training, we found that the existing observation process was yielding around 95% “all-safe” observations.
The Hero Conversation Process is one where the emphasis is put on just that – the conversation. Over the course of the three days of Hero’s Training, 90% of the discussion and practice of this process is focused on a conversation. A simple observation card is reviewed only for clarity on the last day. When an individual puts himself or others at risk, there is very little chance that a card written about it will change his behavior; an intervening conversation is far more likely to produce a different result. A Hero Conversation is structured to create that dialogue in a fashion most likely to produce results.

Job Safety Analysis

Risk assessment can be one of the most critical Power Tools in our safety toolbox. While time-out and the Hero Process might be considered proactive in nature, they are actually reactive considering the physical work is ongoing. Job safety analysis is truly proactive. In theory, a job well risk-assessed might even require fewer interventions because we planned well. This probability is lost, however, if our risk assessment tool is lost in paper.

During the assessment phase, we found many cases of pulling out a pre-printed job safety analysis form and simply having work team members sign it without any review. The assumption was that crews knew they probably should be doing more with it, but were choosing to side-step the process. Deeper investigation revealed that, in some cases, crew members were not aware that there might be more to it. The act of “just signing the JSA before going to work” had become standard operating procedure.

Job safety analysis is, above all, a thought process and conversation about the job we are about to do, the hazards therein, and what we are going to do to keep the job safe. The steps of that thought process are:

• Job steps – The job is broken down into manageable steps so that we might be thorough when identifying the hazards in the job.
• Hazards – The hazards of each of the job steps are identified, focusing on those most likely to do us harm.
• Reduction Measures – Reduction measures are put into place for each of the hazards, remembering that the most desirable reduction measure is to eliminate the hazard altogether.

Because we have not done a good job of education in the past, workers offshore have lost sight of this simple three-step thought process. They often begin with a discussion of the hazards of the job without breaking the job into steps. They confuse reduction measures for job steps. They routinely go straight to protection or personal protective equipment (PPE) as a reduction measure rather than first looking for ways to eliminate or minimize the hazard. In many cases, they use the risk assessment “buzz words” without ever actually speaking about the specific hazards in the job they are about to do.

And that’s if they speak at all. Many times these vagaries are limited to what’s scrawled on the paper. In Hero’s Training, crew members learn that a simple three-column document is a complement to the risk assessment conversation rather than believe that the form is the risk assessment.

Permit to Work

The permit to work is probably the oldest of the Power Tools, and it has become the most lost in paper. It’s true that a permit system is designed to provide oversight to higher-risk jobs. But as safety professionals continue to add one column after the other to our “permits,” its purpose has become more and more lost. In some cases, this has created the perception that the permit to work and job safety analysis are redundant processes. Getting back to purpose, we have identified four main purposes for a permit to work:

• Cross-checking – Ensuring that this job doesn’t create hazards for or interfere with other jobs and vice versa.
• Informing – Informing the person in charge so that he can inform all necessary parties of the work being performed.
• Higher-level risk management – Ensuring that risks have been assessed and that the higher levels of risk inherent in these type jobs have been managed.
• Authorization – Once the person-in-charge has cross-checked jobs, assured risks/hazards have been identified and managed, and informed involved parties, he will give “permission” for the work to proceed.

To streamline and get back to purpose, a one-page permit to work document was created as a part of the Power Tools. It captures the four main purposes of a permit system and leaves the assessment of risk to the job safety analysis. The document is color-coded for the different types of work possible. In order to get authorization of a job, the applicant simply completes the corresponding color-coded section. If a job involves several types of work, the applicant completes each corresponding section.

If a permit system has become so complicated that team members would rather argue that a job doesn’t need a permit than simply go through the process of getting one, the tool is well on its way to ineffectual.

While HERO is the company stock ticker, “Hero’s” is an acronym we use to represent “Helping Everyone Respond Openly to Safety.” More importantly, Hero represents what any team member can be any day by having conversations about safety and using our safety tools. After all, if having a conversation saves a life, is that not “heroic”?

David Crochet is behavioral safety specialist for Hercules Offshore.

This article is based on a presentation at the 2009 IADC HSE&T Conference & Exhibition, 3-4 February, Houston, Texas.

By Richard C Haut, Houston Advanced Research Center; David Burnett, Texas A&M University; Tom Williams, TerraPlatforms; Gene Theodori, Sam Houston State University

Industry has made great strides in protecting the environment while increasing oil and natural gas production in the US. Producers, however, still face daunting challenges to effectively produce more natural gas in environmentally sensitive areas.

The Houston Advanced Research Center (HARC) is collaborating with Texas A&M University and TerraPlatforms to manage the Environmentally Friendly Drilling Systems (EFD) program, which combines new low-impact technologies that reduce the footprint of drilling activities, integrates lightweight drilling rigs with reduced-emission engine packages, addresses on-site waste management, optimizes the systems to fit the needs of specific development sites and provides stewardship of the environment.

The EFD partnership consists of universities, national laboratories, oil and gas producers and service companies, environmental organizations and government agencies. The objective is to identify, develop and demonstrate cost-effective technologies that reduce environmental trade-offs and allow operations in environmentally sensitive areas that are currently off-limits.

The EFD program began in 2005 with co-funding from the US Department of Energy (DOE) and has shown that the industry can achieve significant reduction in environmental impact if low-impact technologies are combined into a complete system. The program also offers a collaboration to address public concerns on the development of unconventional gas resources in environmentally sensitive areas.

To inform the public of the industry’s environmental advancements in technology, the EFD program is developing a computer-based model to select complementary environmentally friendly technologies for E&P operations, along with an EFD scorecard to measure performance. The scorecard concept engages all stakeholders in identifying technologies and systems that can be used to recover unconventional natural gas reserves with the lowest possible environmental footprint. The model and scorecard are based on the principles of “what gets measured gets done” and “what gets identified gets dealt with.”

Use of the EFD scorecard provides a gauge of a program’s effectiveness in adapting to the environment. The scorecard, still under development, may be used by the industry to measure the balance between environmental trade-offs and costs. The EFD program is expected to result in greater access, reasonable regulatory controls, lower development cost and reduction of the environmental footprint associated with oil and gas operations.

The program may also increase the public’s and regulators’ acceptance of E&P operations in environmentally sensitive areas, thereby adding reserves.

The EFD program disseminates technology to successfully produce oil and gas while addressing environmentally sensitive issues. For example, it is identifying, developing and testing technologies that may be applicable to the Bakken shale development, a play offering the equivalent of over 3 billion bbl of oil for development. Certainly, the Fayetteville and the Haynesville plays could also benefit. Workshops are held to educate industry about cost-effective technologies.

E&P companies face restrictions, and in some cases complete prohibitions, that prevent operations in sensitive areas in the continental United States. Environmental constraints, including laws, regulations and implementation procedures, can limit natural gas development and production on both federal and private lands. More than 30 environmental policy and regulatory impediments to domestic natural gas production have been identified and documented. Yet US stakeholders are united in the desire to understand the environmental trade-offs necessary to secure energy resources and improve the energy independence of the country.

Data collected in a previously funded EFD project shed insight on the way the public perceives environmentally friendly drilling technologies. These data reveal that the majority of citizens are in favor of eliminating or relaxing governmental regulations that limit oil and natural gas exploration and production in environmentally sensitive settings as the energy industry adopts and uses a more environmentally friendly approach.

A significant majority of survey respondents indicated that, as an environmentally friendly approach is implemented, current governmental regulations should be eliminated or relaxed. In environmentally sensitive areas such as coastal wetlands, desert ecosystems and hardwood forests, the percentages of respondents who agreed that current regulations could be eliminated or relaxed (i.e., relaxed greatly, relaxed moderately or relaxed slightly) were 68%, 72% and 63%, respectively.

According to recommendations by the National Petroleum Council (NPC), access to indigenous resources is essential for reaching North America’s full supply potential. New discoveries in mature North American basins represent the largest component of the supply outlook.

However, the trend towards more leasing and regulatory land restrictions in the Rocky Mountain region and the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) is occurring in precisely the areas that hold significant potential for natural gas production. The NPC evaluated the effect of removing the OCS moratoria and of reducing the impact of conditions of approval in the Rocky Mountains – a potential addition of 3 billion cu ft/day by 2020.

Land-use policies of federal, state and local governments have not kept pace with technological advances that allow for exploration and production while protecting sensitive areas. Technical advances have reduced the number and size of onshore drilling sites and production facilities. The federal government has continued to set federal lands off-limits to development through legislation, executive orders, and regulatory and administrative decisions.

Moreover, an increasingly complex and costly maze of statutory and regulatory requirements effectively places additional lands off-limits to development, even though they are technically available for leasing.
The US Bureau of Land Management (BLM) – or Forest Service (FS), for actions on National Forest System lands – are responsible for ensuring compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). During reviews of development proposals that encompass multiple wells in a specific area, the BLM, the surface management agency, or the agency’s or operator’s environmental contractor conduct an environmental analysis and prepare a document in conformance with NEPA requirements and Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations.

Regardless of which agency, entity or individual prepares the document, the BLM (or FS) must concur with the content prior to issuing a decision document. In the case of National Forest System lands, where the environmental analysis is conducted jointly with the BLM, each agency issues its own decision.

The extent of the environmental analysis process and the time frame for issuance of a decision depend on the complexity of the proposed action and resulting analysis, the significance of the environmental effects disclosed, and the completion of appropriate consultation processes.
The EFD program targets new and emerging technologies that enable low-impact operations. Some of these were identified in the program co-funded by the DOE and a 2005-2008 joint industry project led by Texas A&M University and HARC.

In general, it is difficult to select the best combination of EFD technologies for a given site because there are many possible combinations, many different evaluation criteria, and many different environments. The program identified critical technologies appropriate for low-impact systems (i.e., combination of technologies) compatible with ecologically sensitive or off-limits areas.

The EFD program has become an industry leader and a clearing house of technologies that enable drilling and production with a goal of zero environmental impact, or as minimal an impact as possible. It has shown that the industry can achieve more than 90% reduction in environmental impact if low-impact technologies are combined into a complete system. More than 120 specific technologies have been identified.

A prototype Systems Engineering Methodology Model has been developed to optimize selection of these technologies for specific well plans. Additionally, a scorecard has been conceived to evaluate environmental impact of different processes and practices and to allow comparison among different options.

By minimizing the environmental objections to development, companies may encounter less resistance to development, find permitting efforts less onerous, and realize significant financial savings in field cleanup and remediation after drilling operations. The results may be (1) less costly development of unconventional resources and (2) gas brought to market in less time with fewer environmental objections.

One conclusion from the previously funded program is that public acceptance for oil and gas operations increased by 20% when EFD technologies were used. Significant new gas reserves from unconventional resources could be realized if the increase in public acceptance offsets objections to development.

Small producers and entrepreneurial companies can also benefit if they have developed technology but do not have the resources to market their products or processes to different areas of the country. The program offers a way to clearly identify how a technology fits into a low-impact system.

The success of the EFD effort will enable industry to identify environmental trade-offs associated with harvesting energy resources throughout the continental US. It offers a system and infrastructure that allows development, testing and technology transfer of low-impact E&P practices to environmentally sensitive areas of the country.

The impact of this transfer is expected to reduce the opposition to development, reduce the footprint of drilling operations, create a basis of comparison of technology, and provide regulators and service providers with the means to assure new systems will perform as intended and reduce the risk taken on by operators, service providers and regulators.

There are significant tight gas sands resources throughout sensitive ecosystems and significant shale gas resources throughout the semi-arid ecosystem of New Mexico, Colorado and Appalachia. More than 200 trillion cu ft of gas is technically recoverable, and the biggest barrier to their development is the environmental concern of the public and elected officials.

The EFD program targets these environmentally sensitive ecosystems by enabling these reserves to be harvested in an environmentally sensitive manner. If widespread adoption of low-impact drilling and production practices is achieved, it is expected that as much as one-third of that resource could be developed, representing more than 50 trillion cu ft of gas.

Development activities are under way in the massive Marcellus Shale in the northeastern US. In early 2008, reserves were estimated at more than 500 trillion cu ft of natural gas. Using the same horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing methods that had previously been applied in the Barnett Shale, perhaps 10% of that gas (50 trillion cu ft) might be recoverable, enough to supply the entire United States for about two years. There is concern on how to develop these deposits in an environmentally friendly manner.

Environmental benefits from providing a reduced footprint for energy resource recovery operations should not be underestimated. Federal lands held in trust for the public could be leased for gas development with assurances that the environment would not be harmed. In addition, further restrictions to lands may be avoided.

In areas where air emissions are of concern, the selection of low- or no-emission power systems could be utilized. In National Parks where operations are of concern, the EFD program can identify practices with reduced footprint, minimizing roads and access points. Pad-less drilling and other minimally invasive technologies can substantially reduce potential damage to habitats.

Having a program that has the potential to “lighten the impact” of gas drilling in environmentally sensitive areas such as public lands in the West, urban areas in the South and Gulf Coast, and forests and recreational areas in the Northeast is extremely important. Gas leases beneath these properties are owned by private companies, not the government. Only by setting environmentally responsible standards can public officials protect the environment while providing access to these resources.

The overall concept of the EFD program is not to accept the prevalent opinion that government ownership and oversight is the answer to protecting the environment. Rather, it’s that private stewards continue to be the best stewards. On the whole, private stewards take pride in managing their land, and technology can provide many of the methods to accomplish this.

Article references:
USGS Study Extent of Bakken Oil Shale Development in North Dakota, Montana, and Canada.

Elcock, Deborah: ‘Environmental Policy and Regulatory Constraints to Natural Gas Production,’ ANL/EAD/04-1, Argonne National Laboratory, December 2004.

Theodori, G.L. and H. Lyke-Ho-Gland. 2008. Energy Resources and Natural Environments Survey of Texans: An Illustrative Summary. Huntsville, TX: Sam Houston State University.

Balancing Natural Gas Policy – Fueling the Demands of a Growing Economy Volume I Summary of Findings and Recommendations, National Petroleum Council, September 25, 2003.

Valko, Peter, “How is Your Barnett Shale Well Doing?” a Crisman Institute Lecture, May 30, 2008 Texas A&M University.

Engelder, Terry and Lash, Gary (2008). Unconventional Natural Gas Reservoir Could Boost U.S. Supply. Penn State Live.

This article is based on a presentation at the IADC Health, Safety, Environment & Training Conference & Exhibition, 3-4 February 2009, Houston, Texas.

The Sustainable ocean Summit has been postponed to 2010, Dates have yet to be set.

Ocean sustainability issues are increasingly affecting the future of the offshore oil and gas industry and overall ocean health. Leadership from the offshore drilling industry in “corporate ocean responsibility” is essential to navigating this critical juncture and ensuring the long-term health of the industry.

Leadership of the drilling industry addressing sustainability issues is not only important to the future of the industry, but also to the future of the ocean. Responsible industry performers are well positioned to develop and drive business-oriented solutions to marine-environment challenges and collaborate with other ocean industries and stakeholders in ensuring the health of the seas, as well as its continued economic use.

Many policy, practical and public reputation aspects of the offshore oil and gas industry are now affected, if not dominated, by environmental concerns. These issues are affecting all industries that use ocean space and resources, e.g., fisheries, shipping, aquaculture, ports, marine tourism, ocean renewable energy, seabed mining, etc. This is creating important needs and opportunities for collaboration, synergies and business benefits among the ocean business community.

Unfortunately, ocean industries are not engaging in a coordinated, systematic approach to many of the developments affecting their ability to do business in the ocean. They’re missing opportunities for collaboration and economies of scale in developing solutions.

As the principle users of the marine environment, ocean industries – including offshore oil and gas drilling – have the most to gain by developing and delivering sustainability solutions. Of course, they also have the most to lose by continuing to be perceived as the cause of ocean problems.

Access to offshore oil and gas deposits and other ocean resources, services and space is at risk of losing the “social license” to operate in seas and from ocean governance regimes and policies that are emerging from processes in which industry is not well engaged.

To address the ocean sustainability issues and opportunities critical to business, the World Ocean Council (WOC) is creating an unprecedented global, cross-sectoral industry alliance. The WOC is catalyzing proactive, collaborative efforts towards “corporate ocean responsibility” by bringing together the offshore petroleum industry and other sectors. Cross-sectoral leadership and collaboration will result in significant business value for those committed to the vision of a healthy and productive ocean that supports sustainable use.

Growing ocean use

Although the ocean covers over 70% of the Earth’s surface, it is an increasingly crowded place. In addition to offshore oil and gas, other large industries such as shipping, fisheries, aquaculture and tourism have been expanding rapidly, with increasing impact to the marine environment. The expansion of the oil and gas industry into deeper waters and new areas, such as Brazil and West Africa, are well known and substantially changing the composition of the industry.

There has been significant growth in other ocean sectors as well. Seaborne shipping now accounts for 90% of global trade, and worldwide cargo will continue to rise in the coming decades, notwithstanding the current economic downturn. In the seafood sector, human consumption of fish grew from 20 million to 85 million tons during 1960 to 2002, at the same time that the FAO estimates that 70% of fish stocks have become fully or overexploited.

Add in other ocean uses – such as the doubling of cruise ship passenger capacity in the past 20 years, the recent growth in offshore aquaculture, wind farms and wave energy – and the overall mix becomes complex. Inter-industry conflicts in the ocean are on the rise – for example, last year’s skirmishes between fishers and oil firms off the coast of Norway.

As noted by Michael Grey of Lloyd’s List of London: “It is probably sooner rather than later that we will hear of the first accident involving a ship or fishing craft and a wave generator, so systems that promote inter-industry cooperation must surely be welcomed.”

Underlying this growing level and variety of industry activities is an ocean in trouble. Oceans provide 59% of the world’s ecosystem benefits; near-shore marine areas alone (5% of the Earth’s surface) provide 38% of these global benefits. Unfortunately, the global marine environment, its unique biodiversity and its life-sustaining resources are being degraded, destroyed and overexploited at an ever increasing rate and global scale.

Sustainability challenges

Sustainable development of the dynamic, interconnected global ocean “commons” – for which everyone, and no one, is completely responsible – presents unique challenges for industry. As marine environmental health declines, oil and gas and other ocean industries are collectively being held responsible by the public, governments, non-government organizations (NGOs), and intergovernmental organizations (IGOs). Advocacy groups are aggressively confronting ocean industries on a sector, incident or local basis (e.g., oil spills, trawling, port expansion). Moreover, ocean environmental concerns are increasingly being pursed through globally coordinated campaigns (e.g., ocean zoning, marine protected areas, ocean noise, marine debris, greenhouse gas emissions).

Unfortunately, there is often not a corresponding coordination of effort by the fragmented ocean business community to engage these issues.

Ocean stakeholders are pushing for increased regulation in a variety of international venues where international ocean “rules” are established. Although the oil and gas industry has a long-standing and productive interaction with the International Maritime Organization (IMO) regarding oil spills and marine pollution, most ocean sustainability concerns are much broader than this coverage and are being actively taken up in other policy arenas.

Some of the most important ocean governance developments are being pursued through the non-sector-specific international policy processes covering oceans, e.g., the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), the Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES), etc. Coordinated industry participation in these processes is lacking, as is balanced and comprehensive information regarding industry efforts to address marine environmental issues.

Marine industries are often portrayed only as the cause of ocean problems, with little or no recognition of efforts to develop and implement solutions. This is, in part, because these are usually piecemeal efforts restricted to a single company, or perhaps a sector, and therefore limited in comparison to the broad, multi-sectoral nature of the issues.

The limited efforts by responsible companies to differentiate themselves from poor performers and to try to do business in a more environmentally sustainable way are very important. However, the efforts of one company or even a whole sector are not enough to address collective impact by a diverse range of industries in a shared global ecosystem.

As a result, private-sector access to ocean resources, services and space – even by companies with the best environmental record – is increasingly at risk due to the loss of the “social license” to operate. Ocean governance regimes and policies are emerging from processes in which industry is not well engaged and in which other stakeholders have sophisticated, well-organized agendas and involvement.

Industry leadership, collaboration

As the private sector is the primary ocean user, it is well placed to develop and deliver solutions in response to society’s demands that marine ecosystem use is sustainable and industry impact are minimized. As Vaclav Mikulka, director, United Nations division of ocean affairs and law of the sea, states: “Managing the global oceans requires the involvement of all stakeholders, especially the private sector, and all ocean industries have a responsibility to help maintain the health and productivity of the marine environment.”

The ocean business community can develop this leadership and deliver ocean sustainability solutions that work for business, rather than being forced to react to conditions advanced by other stakeholders. Cross-sectoral ocean business community leadership and collaboration is needed among those who want to address marine environmental issues, differentiate themselves from poor performers, collaborate with like-minded companies within and across sectors, and engage ocean stakeholders and policy processes.

Given the size and scope of the offshore oil and gas-related industries, visionary companies and executives have a particular opportunity to provide leadership in collaborative, industry-driven ocean sustainability.

With the establishment of the World Ocean Council, there is now a structure and process for companies to seize this opportunity and create an international industry leadership alliance on the ocean. As Mr Mikulka says, “The World Ocean Council efforts to bring together the global ‘ocean business community’ to develop leadership and collaboration for ocean sustainability and stewardship are critical to the future of the oceans.”

Solution-oriented strategies, action

The WOC is working to create business value to responsible ocean companies through reduced risk, increased sustainability and solutions through collaboration. This includes reducing risks to ocean industries from uninformed policies by better tracking and participation in these processes and by improving industry relationships with stakeholders.

There are also economic benefits to collaboration amongst industry sectors in developing solutions to shared, pre-competitive issues. Improved communications with the media and public on positive industry actions to address ocean sustainability will generate credibility, visibility and improve reputation. The opportunity to interact with colleagues from other ocean industries will improve relationships among ocean sectors and reduce inter-industry conflicts.

The WOC is the only international organization created to catalyze cross-sectoral industry efforts on ocean sustainability. Through the following strategies and actions, the WOC is working with the responsible ocean business community to address the challenges of ocean sustainability:

1. Creating a vibrant international, cross-sectoral ocean business community that provides private-sector leadership towards achieving marine ecosystem sustainability and addresses threats to ocean space and resource access.
2. Ensuring companies are well-informed on ocean policy and decision-making processes and constructively engaged on key issues and developments with ocean stakeholders.
3. Catalyzing and coordinating cross-sectoral industry collaboration in developing practical, cost-effective, science-based solutions to specific marine environmental issues.
4. Working with ocean industries to improve environmental performance by developing and implementing continuous improvement, best practices and standards.
5. Developing operational ocean industry leadership alliances in priority regional or national or sub-national sea areas.
6. Facilitating interaction among sectors to improve mutual understanding, create cross-sectoral dialogue and reduce ocean use conflicts.
7. Developing collective industry support for, and participation in, improved ocean science, especially on climate change.
8. Undertaking proactive outreach and communication to the media and public on ocean industry efforts and progress in addressing marine environmental issues.

The WOC is achieving considerable progress in its mission to bring together the multi-sectoral ocean business community to catalyze global leadership and collaboration in ocean sustainability and corporate ocean responsibility. Extensive interaction with companies has leveraged involvement and in-kind support for the alliance and the basis of WOC membership.

Interaction with many of the global ocean industry associations (oil and gas, tankers, fisheries, shipping, aquaculture, etc) has led to their interest in the WOC. Relationship-building with the UN and other international ocean agencies, and with NGOs, have resulted in strong endorsements of the WOC mission and efforts.

The Future

Few people know the ocean better than those who depend on it for their livelihood. Companies dedicated to offshore oil and gas – as well as those involved in fishing, seafood, shipping, aquaculture and other marine industries – can and should be leaders in responsible ocean use and ensuring the ocean is healthy and productive.

The World Ocean Council is helping make this happen through an unprecedented business alliance for individuals, companies and associations who care about the ocean – creating private-sector leadership and collaboration in tackling ocean environmental issues, generating business benefits and reducing the threats to continued responsible ocean use.
As Lloyd’s Register notes, “If we are thinking globally, oceanically and collectively, rather than considering our own narrow industry requirements, the World Ocean Council could be a very good idea. (It) could provide just the sort of cooperative inter-industry vehicle we need.”

Paul Holthus, executive director of the World Ocean Council, will provide the keynote presentation at the 2009 IADC Environmental Conference & Exhibition, 12-13 May, Stavanger, Norway.

Quote:
Sustainable Ocean Summit

A major international industry conference, the “Sustainable Ocean Summit” (Belfast, 16-17 June 2009), will be the first cross-sectoral conference on ocean sustainability developed by and for the ocean business community. For more information, go online to www .oceancouncil.org or contact Paul Holthus at paul.holthus@oceancouncil.org.

Editor’s note: This is the final article in our series focusing on the critical issue of asset integrity. First, the International Regulators Forum presented findings from a three-year inspection programme. Then, the Petroleum Safety Authority Norway and the UK Health and Safety Executive discussed life extension for mobile offshore units. Australia’s National Offshore Petroleum Safety Authority also provided an overview of its Facility Integrity National Programme. Here, the Netherlands’ State Supervision of Mines offers its “helicopter view” of critical asset integrity issues.

At the December 2007 International Regulators’ Offshore Safety Conference, regulators and industry representatives discussed management practices critical to maintaining the asset integrity of offshore oil and gas facilities worldwide. The reason was that the average age of the industry infrastructure is increasing. This is not only the case for fixed production installations but also for the current aging drilling fleet.

In the case of a MODU, asset management encompasses hull and main rig structure, safety critical devices, lifesaving appliances and third-party equipment. Throughout their life cycle, rigs are exposed to corrosion, fatigue, wear and tear, degradation, accidental damage, extreme weather conditions, geotechnical/geological hazards and modifications in technology or use. These exposures underline the importance of effective asset integrity management.

During the conference, a sense of urgency was felt by all stakeholders comparable with that seen in the post-Cullen era. The stakeholders, involved in assuring asset integrity, are rig owners, classification societies, operators and service contractors.

Introduction

The IRF defines asset integrity as the ability of the asset to perform its required function effectively and efficiently throughout its lifecycle whilst safeguarding life and environment. Managing asset integrity means going through the process of knowing:

• About the design and safe operation of all plant, equipment and systems;
• What can go wrong;
• That effective measures are in place to prevent and control undesired events;
• Whether personnel are trained and competent;
• That monitoring, inspection and auditing arrangements will verify that the desired outcome is achieved.

Clearly, the outcome of this process is meeting certain performance standards for effective control of risks, supported by effective management systems. Overall asset integrity can be subdivided into three categories:

1. Design integrity: assurance that facilities are designed in accordance with governing standards and meet specified operating requirements;
2. Technical integrity: appropriate work processes for inspection and maintenance systems and data management to keep the operations available;
3. Operational integrity: appropriate knowledge, experience, manning, competence and decision-making data to operate the plant as intended throughout its lifecycle.
Adequate and coherent management of all three categories will result in safe processes, thereby securing overall asset integrity.

A helicopter view

In 2008, the State Supervision of Mines (SSM) carried out a survey amongst the key stakeholders involved in assuring asset integrity in the Dutch offshore drilling sector. Drilling operations on the relatively shallow Dutch continental shelf are carried out solely by jackup drilling units of international drilling contractors. The survey contained a gap and interface analysis.

Building on SSM’s experience in this area, the following resulting helicopter view was perceived.

Design Integrity

Design integrity is governed by a classification system that entails design and construction requirements. This system is embedded in the rules of the classification societies and the requirements of the Flag and Coastal State.
Verification of compliance with classification is a crucial element in the management of asset integrity. The verification is carried out by classification societies that are involved in the rig’s integrity management from the design stage onwards. Classification societies verify whether required rules and standards are being implemented, observed and maintained according to the verification scheme.

Still, it is of course the rig owner’s responsibility that the rig complies with the rules and standards at all times. Therefore, timely execution of essential verifications according to the scheme is paramount. Being consistent is a safeguard to assure asset integrity objectives. Challenges arise when this consistency is jeopardized by operational pressure, thus compromising the validity of the certificate of fitness.

A challenge for rig owners arises when modifications are planned and executed on the rig. For example, in 2006 a serious accident was replicated in Dutch waters because of a non-fail-safe link tilt system. Although this unsafe system had led to several accidents in the past and those had been published in various safety alerts worldwide, the drilling industry did not react to prevent similar incidents. Following the 2006 SSM ban on non-fail-safe link tilt systems in Dutch waters, it was noted that adapting new systems proved to be cumbersome.

Further, SSM is alarmed that serious accidents still occur from the use of other non-inherently safe drilling equipment. SSM notes that, for instance, the principles of safety integration, i.e., implementing inherently safe design measures, are still not being applied in the design of something as straightforward as a side door collar-type elevator.

The challenge for the drilling industry is to insist on inherently safe design measures in rig equipment. Reviews in terms of performing full risk analysis and identification of conflicting interfaces are the minimum actions that should be taken. A further challenge is the management of safety critical software integration into existing systems and equipment, using techniques such as Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA).

Technical integrity

Driven by the mainly goal-setting Dutch legislation, rig owners are required to have a safety management system in place. Such a system delivers a coordinated and comprehensive set of measures designed to direct and control resources to optimally manage safety. Arrangements for achieving a safe operation are also laid down in IADC’s HSE Case Guideline for Mobile Offshore Drilling Units. The Safety Cases based on that format are recognised by North Sea regulators as recommended good practice.

In terms of asset integrity, the management system controls appropriate work processes for inspection, maintenance and data management to keep the operations available. From the survey, it became clear that rig owners have a very thorough approach towards assuring asset integrity of the primary structures, i.e., legs, hull, jacking system by the use of these management systems. The aforementioned safety management systems prove to be an effective tool to ensure these aspects of asset integrity.

Operational integrity

Although it appears that control of both asset design integrity and asset technical integrity is well established through management systems and classification systems, some challenges remain. It appears from the survey that operational asset integrity seems more challenging. In the operational phase, it is not only the rig owner’s responsibility to assure asset integrity, it is also the phase where other stakeholders get involved. Appropriate knowledge, experience, manning, competence and decision-making data to operate the MODU, including presence of third-party equipment, become challenging.

The requirement for third-party equipment is often initiated by the operator. On the other hand, this third-party equipment is often connected to the rig where drilling contactor staff assist in their installation and operation. Proper coordination is the key to ensuring that both operator’s and drilling contractor’s interests are met. In this context, expertise should be shared and exchanged among operator, drilling contractor and third-party staff. A proactive approach by the drilling contractor is vital since the rig is the asset where this equipment is installed, maintained and operated.

One complication is that it is not mandatory for third-party and temporary equipment to be included in verification schemes. This introduces a loop hole in the verification process. That is why a proactive approach towards maintaining asset integrity of third-party equipment on a MODU should be a shared responsibility.

The most important challenge is to assure that sufficient time and resources are continually allocated for carrying out essential inspection and verification of safety critical equipment. For this, there seems to be a conflict between making time available during booming drilling business periods versus making financial resources available during the low-activity periods. Awareness of market forces and cycling rig rates should focus attention on safeguarding asset integrity at all times.

To overcome these cycling effects, consideration should be given to building long-term relationships and subsequent contracts between clients and third parties. This may be appropriate for larger operators, as smaller operators do not have long-term drilling programs. This introduces a challenge for regional and global umbrella organizations, such as IADC, to develop and disseminate recommended guidance on this issue.

2004 multinational audit

The challenge of asset integrity assurance of third-party equipment was already recognised by North Sea authorities in the past. An international working group, established by the North Sea Offshore Authorities Forum (NSOAF), identified challenges in the interfacing of third-party equipment back in 2004. This was revealed after a series of systematic audits carried out on rigs that were active in two or more NSOAF member countries. The theme of the audit was “contract management related to third-party equipment, supervision and training.”

The main findings from that audit in relation to asset integrity aspects of third-party systems, equipment, maintenance and verifications were:

• Drilling contractors to follow up on the maintenance of third-party equipment; however, they rarely verify the quality of the work or witness testing of safety critical equipment (SCE);
• Roles and responsibilities of the drilling contractor and operator regarding maintenance of third-party equipment is not clearly defined and understood on the audited MODUs;
• Operators and drilling contractors do not in most cases verify the maintenance systems used by the third-party service contractors.

Today’s challenges

The main challenges from this survey can be summarised as follows:
• Commitment to facilitate timely execution of the required verification by classification societies.
• Ensuring that inherently safe design measures are included in rig equipment.
• Execution of full risk analysis during the implementation of modifications or adding new systems to existing MODU infrastructure.
• Ensure proper management of safety critical software integration into existing systems and equipment.
• Constant vigilance that sufficient time and resources are allocated to carry out essential inspections and verification during both high and low rig utilisation.
• Eliminate unclear accountability issues between operator and (sub)contractors when working with third-party equipment.

So, one common challenge emerges: interface management. Interface management systematically controls all communications that support the management of the asset integrity process. Given the significance of human involvement in most operations, it is important that interactions between people, representing the stakeholders, be managed and carefully coordinated to avoid degradation of the overall asset integrity.

Interface management is an essential component of effective leadership in any organization. Not only within each individual organisation, but especially between different organisations. In other words, it means not only determining each stakeholder’s own responsibility, but also sharing the responsibility amongst the stakeholders, that is the key in assuring asset integrity of MODUs.

Jan de Jong is inspector general of mines, Jos Marx is safety advisor, and Michael de Vos is senior inspector, all with the State Supervision of Mines.

Editor’s note: Mr DeBuys, under the auspices of the IADC Well Servicing Committee, prepared this article detailing the substantial differences in well control procedures and challenges between drilling and workover/well-servicing operations.

What do you call an operation that works with live hydrocarbon producing wells on a daily basis? If workover and well servicing sprang to mind, you’re right! While conventional drilling usually operates with a mud column sufficient to hold formation pressures in check to prevent an inflow of formation fluids, workover and well-servicing personnel typically confront wells with exposed flow-capable hydrocarbon-bearing zones, and often begin their day killing the well.

This article will focus on fluids used and other differences in operations, well control and equipment between drilling and workover/well services.

I know the majority of the readers of this magazine are the drilling contractors. On occasion, they are called to perform completions and even workover operations. It has been said that drilling is easy; all you worry about are kicks, lost circulation and stuck pipe. Workover and well servicing have these problems and many more, often unknown until you get into the well.

The table on Page 103 contrasts complexities in workover/well servicing with those of balanced/overbalanced drilling operations. These are generalizations, do not include all problems and are not arranged in order of importance.

The driving economics

During a producing well’s lifespan, it may go from primary hydrocarbon recovery, i.e., an initial free-flowing well, to one requiring secondary and tertiary recovery techniques, such as pumping and formation stimulation techniques. Equipment may be added or changed out to try to squeeze as much as possible from the formation. This may be a well-orchestrated plan or reactionary, depending on what’s going on downhole, sometimes both.

In workover and well-servicing operations, identifying the problem(s) is key. Regardless of what is done, it is of utmost importance to minimize damage to the producing formations and still safely control the well.

The formation is the cash register. There must be enough recoverable oil and gas to warrant financing workover and well-servicing operations, with a reserve to properly abandon the well. Damage the formation, and your cash register contains less, perhaps even ruining the well of economical recoverable reserves.

Mud VS Clear Fluids

Drilling operations are usually performed with weighted fluids – mud – to prevent the well from flowing. A kick is avoided at all costs. Workover and well servicing often use field water or clear brines. Both fluids have the same function – to keep the well under control while work is being performed and to minimize damage to formations.

Mud consists of a liquid portion, usually water or oil, and solids, such as weight materials, clays and chemicals, to give it desired flow and carrying capacity. Both the solids and liquids may plug and damage the formation. It is possible for the liquid portion to filter into the formation and swell native clays, whereas native field water may not. The solids may form a wall cake, which may minimize the mud’s liquid phase from entering the formation and often allow heavier-weight fluids to minimize kick potential.

There have been cases where an overbalance of the drilling mud damages the formation, and workover operations are needed to acidize, stimulate or fracture the formation to get it to produce again.

A workover fluid, on the other hand, is usually clear with few or no solids. It may enter the formation easily, even at the same weight as the original drilling mud or less. Hydrocarbon and formation depletion, loss of the formation’s drive mechanism, especially in areas that wells are fractured, all lead to problems between the formation’s pressure and the hydrostatic pressure of a fluid used to keep the well from flowing prior to workover.

Controlling the Well

There are perhaps as many philosophies on how to keep the well static from flowing while performing workover and well-servicing operations as there are fields. It may be as simple as a pump truck showing up and pumping a volume into the tubing, or the crew just bleeding the well down. But one thing is certain: The best well control method is the pre-work planning you put into it, then the execution of that plan. Poor plan, poor well control; good plan, good well control.

Many wells are still producing, decades after their initial completion, in an environment where not only the surface conditions but also downhole conditions may be more hostile to equipment than originally planned. The effect of downhole harmonics, deterioration of metals and the wear and tear on tubulars, cement and surface equipment often require additional well control concerns.

However, the majority of derrick-type rig-based workover operations are conducted in reservoirs where the driving pressure has long been depleted. Pulling/tripping operations are commonplace to replace or repair downhole equipment. And it’s usually the routine operation that has unanticipated well control problems.

Often, detecting a problem depends on different criteria than those used in drilling (e.g., increase in flow, pit gain, etc). It may be popping, pinging or other sounds from the tubing or well, change in type or color of fluids from the well, smell or other signs and indicators that may signify the onset of a well control event. Other areas may have ongoing formation injection processes, and if a well is opened prior to allowing the pressures to subside, a well control event may occur.

This may be compounded by high-temperature (e.g., steam and fire flood injections) operations with equipment and fluids hot enough to scald unwary or untrained personnel.

This discussion will be focused on derrick-type rig-based workover operations where conventional well control methods (e.g., wait and weight, driller’s, concurrent, bullhead, etc) aren’t typically utilized, such as pumping equipment, weight materials and mixing facilities may be nonexistent in the area or not readily available. Some of the techniques unique to workover include the “pill and kill,” “rolling the hole” and “trickle” methods. Their use and effectiveness in controlling the well largely depend on the type of formation, type of fluids produced, well pressures and experience in the area.

The pill and kill technique usually uses field brine as the controlling fluid. A sufficient quantity is pumped into the well to keep it static, allowing workover operations to proceed. The brine may be pumped either down the tubing, casing or both, usually the side the pressure is on. The volume pumped usually is adequate to provide sufficient hydrostatic pressure to prevent the well from flowing.

Some formations may slowly accept the control liquid’s water and will begin to flow after a while. Still other areas may use heavier brines to keep the well static. In certain areas, concerns also exist regarding the stability of a fluid left in the annulus. Over time, particles within a completion fluid, packer fluid or drilling muds may settle out or fall down to the top of the packer and can damage formations once the packer has been released. It’s almost as much art as it is science, and personnel working in the field are experts on fluid type selection and how to keep the well static.

The rolling the hole technique is used to capture the oil inside the tubing. By pumping field brine into the annulus, the well will naturally “U-Tube” as the heavier brine displaces a lighter oil up the tubing. Once the brine reaches surface, workover operations can begin.

The above techniques may be inadequate, especially when tripping out of the well. The level of the controlling liquid’s hydrostatic may drop due to the tubing’s displacement to a point where the well may begin to flow. Also, swabbing is a concern when pulling tight clearance equipment downhole, such as packers, and is also dependent on the trip rate. Faster is not always quicker if a well control event takes place.

When losses to the formations and/or tripping displacement are concerns, some operations use a trickle method. This can be as simple as a hose connected to a nearby brine storage tank to operations involving pumps and pits with weighted brines. The function is to ensure that some hydrostatic pressure is present to keep the well static.

Well control equipment: I’ve been fortunate over the last several years to be involved in a project that has brought me to many of the fields, operators and workover operations around the US. From these visits and reviewing the well control equipment on location, one thing was very evident. The presence, quantity, condition and maintenance of the BOPe rest squarely on the operator and their concerns and policies.

Third-party equipment, equipment owned by the contractor and even equipment owned by the oil company were observed in various conditions and states of repair and disrepair, both new equipment and ones older than me. And, since many marginal wells are routinely put on or off line depending on the spot price of oil, equipment selection, rental and usage are often closely tied together. Often environmental concerns are the driving force behind mandatory and additional equipment selection.

In many fields, test pumps are unavailable and the BOPe moved from well to well with function testing as the only test performed, and it is not uncommon for equipment to stay in the field for many months without maintenance or repair shop intervention. Of course, there are also many operations where strict API testing and recommendations are followed as well.

Final observations

Many “informal statistics” from discussions and interviewing crews and operational personnel show a few key points:

1. Personnel (crews, consultants and company men) need proper training on the type of equipment, its use and how to operate and properly maintain it.
2. Many companies need to review and perhaps revise policies for well control equipment selection, testing and re-certifying it on a regular basis.
3. Forward planning meetings between the operator and contractors are necessary. A review of current policies and information exchange (e.g., bridging documents) is necessary for safe and environmentally friendly operations.
4. Peer pressure needs to be evaluated. The old adage of “hurry up and get it done” only elevates risks. If personnel understand the consequences of their actions, they understand the risks they undertake.

In 1982, a determined MMS employee named Lowell Hammons initiated the Safety Awards for Excellence (SAFE) program. Lowell recognized that only so much could be achieved through regulations and enforcement, and that exceptional safety and environmental performance required the total commitment of the operating companies and their contractors. The SAFE program was established to identify, recognize and encourage the pace-setting companies that were raising the bar for safety and environmental achievement.

Lowell’s timing was good because a small cadre of enlightened managers were beginning to transform the offshore workplace. These leaders discouraged risk-taking and bravado, and encouraged coaching, teamwork and comprehensive safety planning. When they said “safety first,” they really meant it, and their actions backed up their words. The lessons taught by these visionaries have been embraced by many offshore operators and contractors. Now the challenge is to sustain and advance this “cultural revolution,” and committed companies have developed safety leadership courses to reinforce their safety and environmental messages.

The fundamentals of the MMS SAFE program have not changed in the 27 years since Lowell started it. MMS district offices present awards to the top performers in their district, and National SAFE awards are presented to the companies with the most outstanding overall performance. The number of award categories has grown to distinguish between high- and moderate-activity operators and to recognize the important contribution of contractors. Also, we are now better able to use quantitative compliance and incident data, and the associated activity indicators, to determine the top performers. These data, along with specific input from our field offices, determine the National SAFE finalists and winners. The SAFE selection process is thus unique in that nominations are neither solicited nor accepted. Companies self-nominate through their performance, which MMS closely monitors; and only the best make the cut.

The National SAFE Award presentations have had numerous venues. For the past ten years, the MMS has hosted the presentations at various Houston hotels, and there has been remarkable growth in interest in the program. This year will mark the beginning of a new era in that the National SAFE Awards will be presented at a special OTC luncheon. We are pleased to be presenting these important awards at the offshore industry’s premier conference. Please join us at the Reliant Center on 7 May to celebrate safety leadership and achievement.

This years National SAFE finalists are (alphabetical order by category):

Production contractor category:

• Baker Energy
• C&D Production Specialist Co
• Danos & Curole Marine Contractors

Drilling contractor category:

• Diamond Offshore Drilling
• ENSCO International
• Noble Drilling
• Transocean

Moderate-activity production operator (>100 components and 1 million BOE
annual production):

• Badger Oil
• BHP Billiton Petroleum
• Hunt Petroleum (AEC)
• Noble Energy

High-activity production operator (>1000 components and 10 million
BOE annual production):

• Anadarko Petroleum
• BP Corp North America
• Devon Energy Production Co
• Exxon Mobil

Bud Danenberger is chief of offshore regulatory programs for the US Minerals Management Service.

By Linda Hsieh, assistant managing editor

Rogelio Noyola always knew he had what it takes to work on a rig. He had served in the US military as infantry team leader for four years and in the National Guard for two years. He was going to college part-time, working towards a degree in interdisciplinary arts, while making a small living as a store clerk in South Texas. As if that weren’t enough, he was also a new father caring for his baby son.

“I had been interested in working in the oilfield since I got out of the military,” he said, but never got the opportunity. “I knew I could do it… I had tried before, but a lot of people don’t hire people without any experience.”

By 2008, his son was three-years-old, and he knew he needed a job that offered health insurance benefits. “I was trying to get something going for him,” he said.

The opportunity finally came along early that year – when IADC Career Connection kicked off its Returning Military Campaign with a job fair at Fort Hood in Killeen, Texas. Nearly 200 soldiers attended – among them Mr Noyola. He had heard about the event through his brother, who’s also in the military. “I decided to go and take a look, see what’s there.”

Finding the right people

Seventeen drilling companies attended that job fair, all looking to recruit competent people who could run their busy rigs. Among them was Precision Drilling (Grey Wolf Drilling at the time), which already had created its own Transitioning Military Program (TMP) as a way to step up recruiting.

“The TMP seeks young soldiers – typically specialists or sergeants that have completed between three and six years in the military. We recruit these young men to work as rig hands, with the idea that they will eventually develop into fine drillers and eventually rig managers,” said Tammy Gatlin, the company’s human resources manager for the Gulf Coast division.

As a recruiting representative at the job fair, she remembers being impressed by the number and quality of soldiers that showed up, especially “the leadership skills most of these soldiers learn.” She also met Mr Noyola that day and explained what working on a drilling rig would be like – not just the good stuff like nice pay and days off, but also the challenges like the physical demands and being away from home.

For Mr Noyola, this was an opportunity to truly learn about the drilling industry and assess whether he had what it takes. “She gave me an overview of the job and what it entails. She told me the difficulties too. Some people say they’re willing to do the job, but, when they get there, they don’t realize how difficult it can get. She let me know everything. I walked out of that meeting with a good understanding of what the job was.”

A month after the job fair, Mr Noyola had a second interview and was hired. Soon after, he started as a floorhand trainee. And now, he’s a full-fledged floorhand working on the company’s’ Rig 102 in East Texas.
This means weekly 11-hour drives to and from his South Texas home, yet he’s loving the 7-on/7-off schedule because it gives him “the opportunity to be at home with my son. On my time off, I get to really be home and not have to worry about work.”

As for actually working on a drilling rig, Mr Noyola admits that it was tough at first. “But the team really helped me out. They took me aside when they knew there was something I didn’t understand, until they were comfortable and I was comfortable with the task. They took care of me and made sure I didn’t get hurt or get involved in anything that was over my head.”

He added: “It’s an exciting job. There’s always something new going on. And it gives you a sense of accomplishment at the end of the day – that was one thing I was looking for in a job, something where you can feel like you’ve really done something that day.”

A talent resource

Although Mr Noyola is just one success story, the company notes that military personnel have been an overall great source of talent for the drilling industry.

“They are reliable, hard-working, drug-free, willing to move and understand leadership development from both the senior and subordinate positions,” said company project manager Wayne Mason. “They are exactly the kinds of people that we seek to attract and keep.”

For more information about the IADC Career Connection program, go online to http://careers.iadc.org.

The IADC South Central Asia (SCA) Chapter has formed a work group that will coordinate a response plan to challenge requirements issued last year by India’s Directorate General of Shipping (DGS). Under those regulations, jackups older than 25 years and not classed with the Indian Register of Shipping must undergo extensive inspections and take any required corrective actions before beginning operations in Indian waters. Additionally, the DGS would require payment of an “appropriate fee” for obtaining the inspection.

The work group was formed to pursue two courses of action: “representation” to the DGS of issues related to applicability, and filing of a writ petition in the courts challenging DGS authority to apply the regulations to MODUs. A draft position paper has been updated and circulated. Legal counsel will prepare documents and submit them to the DGS, as well as prepare a writ petition to file on behalf of the IADC SCA Chapter.

Industry argues for more OCS leasing

The US House Committee on Natural Resources held hearings in late February on the status of the current OCS leasing system. Seven major oilfield trade associations, including IADC, submitted joint testimony for the hearing record, citing the industry’s superlative operational and environmental records. Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar recently announced a deadline extension for comments on the next five-year leasing plan. Allied industry interests in Washington are working to limit congressional and executive branch damage to that plan. They’re noting the country’s continuing need for hydrocarbons in the national energy mix over the next decades, which requires diversification of crude oil and natural gas supplies from global markets.

Law of the Sea gathers momentum

The Obama Administration has signaled that US Senate accession to the Law of the Sea Treaty will be a priority. In her confirmation hearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said that it will be one of her primary goals. This was seconded by committee chairman Sen. John Kerry.

IADC has long supported the treaty. Senior vice president – government affairs Brian Petty was invited to the Council on Foreign Relations to participate in an advisory committee chaired by former US Ambassador to the UN Thomas Pickering to promote Senate passage. The group includes representatives of the US Navy and the CEO of the Ocean Conservancy, an environmental organization. IADC is the only oilfield stakeholder represented on the panel.

The group takes the position that the treaty is directly relevant to US foreign policy and that it is germane to a host of emerging maritime challenges of strategic importance to the US, including commercial uses of oceans, such as oil and gas production. The advisory committee will guide the shaping of a “Council Special Report” to be released in March advocating Senate action as soon as possible.

Larry Dickerson, Diamond Offshore, was named 2009 IADC Contractor of the Year during a luncheon at the Houston Petroleum Club on 4 March. The award, sponsored for the 22nd year by NOV ReedHycalog, recognizes outstanding contributions and leadership to the association and the drilling industry.

“This is a tremendous honor. The list of past recipients is incredible, with many pioneers in the industry. I’m certainly humbled to be grouped with them,” Mr Dickerson said in accepting the award.

Referring to a quote by Milton Friedman asserting that no one can make a pencil – because no one person possesses all the skills needed to make the pencil – Mr Dickerson said he believes that “no one can drill a well.” It requires not only the expertise of drilling contractors, but also many other disciplines from service companies, operators, regulators and governments.

“So I take this award really saying that no one can earn it. It is something that reflects not only the individual company but really the entire industry,” he said.

Mr Dickerson thanked everyone he’s worked with at Diamond Offshore, particularly his assistant Sandy Landry. Finally, he thanked his wife Marcela. They’ve been married since 1980 and have two sons, Steven and Stuart.

The IADC Contractor of the Year Award winner is selected entirely by his drilling industry peers for contributions to safety, technical innovations and economic efficiency. NOV ReedHycalog president Robin MacMillan, who presented the award, noted that his company will donate a $7,500 scholarship on Mr Dickerson’s behalf to the Kipp Academy, a national network of free college-preparatory public schools.

Mr Dickerson is president and CEO of Diamond Offshore, where he began his career in 1979. He received a bachelor of business administration degree with honors from the University of Texas.

He served during 2003 as IADC chairman, 2002 as vice chairman and 2001 as secretary-treasurer. He is a director of IADC and of the National Ocean Industries Association, as well as a member of its Executive Committee. He also served on the US Commission on Ocean Policy.

IADC elects division VP, secretary-treasurer

David Reid, VP – E&P technology & business of National Oilwell Varco, was elected IADC vice president of the drilling & well servicing division at the association’s Directors Meeting on 4 March. Additionally, Beth Gordon, controller for Diamond Offshore, was elected secretary-treasurer.

As NOV’s VP – E&P technology & business, Mr Reid is responsible for developing corporate business interaction with strategic E&P companies. Since he joined Varco International 17 years ago, he has been widely recognized for his contributions to the drilling industry. He is chairman of the IADC Advanced Rig Technology Committee and is an active member of the SPE Drilling Systems Automation Technical Interest Group.

Ms Gordon has served as controller for Diamond Offshore for the last nine years. She graduated magna cum laude with a bachelor of business administration degree from the University of Houston and has been a CPA since 1982. She currently chairs the IADC’s Accounting Issues/Procedures committee.

Ballard, Jacob receive service awards

IADC president Dr Lee Hunt presented Exemplary Service Awards to longtime IADC members and industry stalwarts Ed Jacob and Marshall Ballard, ENSCO, on 4 March at the IADC Contractor of the Year Luncheon & Directors Meeting, held in conjunction with the Houston Chapter.

Mr Jacob, who left Grey Wolf Drilling earlier this year, accepted the award by thanking IADC, commenting, “It’s humbling to be presented this award on the same day as Marshall Ballard, a true legend in our industry.”

He also thanked George Dotson of Helmerich & Payne and Pete Miller, also with H&P at the time, and Tom Richards with Grey Wolf for their professional support.

Mr Richards “not only provided me with the opportunity to participate with IADC, but also encouraged me to be an active participant,” he said. “This has been very valuable for me over my career because not only have I made a lot of relationships through this organization – which is one of the most incredible networking organizations in our industry – but I’ve made a lot of friends.”

Personally, Mr Jacob also thanked his wife Ruth and son Shawn for their inspiration and support.
Mr Ballard accepted his award by thanking everyone who’s given him support and help, “because, without that, what success I have enjoyed – I probably wouldn’t have enjoyed it.”

UBO & MPD Committee to streamline objectives

The IADC Underbalanced Operations & Managed Pressure Drilling Committee will reorganize its subcommittee structure to better reflect current priorities and work objectives, the group decided during its first quarterly meeting of 2009, held in San Antonio, Texas, on 10-11 February.

“This new structure will streamline the committee’s various activities and projects and will better utilize the group’s technical expertise,” remarked committee chairman Don Reitsma, At Balance Americas. “It will also focus on recruiting additional participation from companies utilizing these important technologies.”

Subcommittees target UBO, MPD, HSE and training, standards and nomenclature, and committee outreach.

The group’s top priority is the drafting of a “best practice” document for MPD to complement the recently published API RP92U, Recommended Practice for Underbalanced Drilling Operations. The MPD document is targeted for completion in late 2009 or early 2010. Companies engaged in applying this technology are encouraged to participate.

Imagine no more downtime.
I wonder if you can.
No more top drive failures.
Nothing falling from the stand!

Ah, yes, you may call me a dreamer. But – with apologies to John Lennon – the IADC Advanced Rig Technology Committee is doing everything it can in its small way to approach this reality.

Top drive survey

Before anything can be changed, though, it must be measured. The Reliability Subcommittee, under the leadership of vice chairman Robert Urbanowski, Precision Drilling Oilfield Services, is in the last stretch of developing a survey on top drive reliability. The survey queries, for most manufacturers and models, baseline questions, such as time in service since last major overhaul, hoisting capacity, power, and rig type where deployed, before sinking its teeth into the major meat: hookload at time of failure, drilling depth and RPM, failure type, top drive downtime and rig downtime due to the top drive. The survey also includes requisite definitions.

The selections of failure type are highly detailed. Selections include three types of “control” failures (electrical, hydraulic or software); four types of hydraulic or pneumatic failure (pump, valve, leak or other); four choices of power failure (VFD/SCR, HPU, motors or service loop); gearbox; or three choices of structural failures (dolly, torque tube or bracket).

You can also make suggestions to the manufacturer. But please be gentle. I blush easily.

This survey has been a joint industry effort of contractors, operators, service companies and consultants working – wonder, wonder – in joy and harmony toward a common goal.

We will soon deploy the online survey on the committee’s website and alert the industry to its existence. We have already had enthusiastic top drive users contact us, ready to provide their data.

Speaking of data, IADC will manage the survey and maintain data confidentiality. Data will only be publicly released in aggregate – no manufacturers or end users will be identified.

This is a good project, and plans are to springboard from top drives to other rig equipment, including pipehandling and MUX systems. Our continuing modus operandi will be to bring together operators, contactors and manufacturers to develop the questionnaires.

ART Matrix

What advantages and disadvantages does a given piece of advanced drilling equipment offer? Bringing together the pluses and minuses is the purpose of the IADC Advanced Rig Technology Matrix, developed by our Guidelines Subcommittee under the leadership of Vice Chairman Logan Puckett, Pride International.

This matrix covers 37 distinct pieces of drilling gear, from top drives and automatic drillers to downhole telemetry and BOP MUX controls.
You can view a draft of this spreadsheet at http://www.iadc.org/committees/advanced_rig_technology.

Future Technology

Yes, Virginia, there is a future – despite the dreary economic climate. But will we have the technologies we need when the future is now? Frank Springett, National Oilwell Varco, is Vice Chairman of the Future Technology Subcommittee, which has devised – you guessed it – a survey on the best-performing technologies and which need or should receive the greatest focus moving forward.

Look for more on this in the weeks ahead. I expect interesting and possibly surprising results.

So, sure. I may be a dreamer. But I’m not the only one. (Sorry again, John.)

You can reach Mike Killalea at mike.killalea@iadc.org.