In this multi-disciplinary audit, the operators and contractors collaborated on descriptions and evaluations, and produced an overall risk assessment for one employee group in their own organization. The results show considerable differences between operator and contractor employees for the groups comprised by the audit.
Typically, the operator groups in the audit had systems for surveys and risk assessments integrated into their management system, while such systems only to a limited degree were integrated in the contractors' systems. Similarly, the operator groups usually had established a methodology and procedures for planning, implementation and follow-up of surveys and risk assessments, while this was less common in the contractor groups. (You can read more about the defining factors for the operator and contractor groups jointly or individually in the summary of the multi-disciplinary. Please refer to the link on the right, or Chapter 9 of the report).
The audit also indicated major differences in occupational illness and injuries; on the whole, operating companies had more resources available for medical check-ups and monitoring than the contractors. The operators were also more systematic in their approach to this work than the contractor groups. The most conspicuous feature was, however, that the contractor groups to a far lesser extent than the operator groups were in contact with the companies' health service. While almost 100 per cent of the operator groups were in regular contact with the health services, the corresponding situation for the contractor groups was less than 60 per cent.
Will be used to fine-tune measures
The audit has contributed to an increased realization in the companies that the risk situation for certain groups has not been sufficiently safeguarded, and that this particularly relates to contractor employee groups. The purpose of the audit was precisely to consider how some companies were able to assess and follow-up the risk of occupational illness and injury for groups of employees, and how the companies linked risk with framework conditions.
The companies' ability to consider how framework conditions may impact the group's risk was emphasized in the audit. Examples of framework conditions, which to a varying degree were considered in the companies' reviews, were contractual issues, mobility and working hours. A general observation in the audit was that there are weaknesses in how the framework conditions are interpreted and understood in relation to the risk conditions for the group.
One of the objects of the audit was that the results should contribute towards increasing the knowledge level regarding groups at risk in the petroleum industry, and that this knowledge could be used actively to fine-tune measures which would reduce the risk for those groups where the need and impact are greatest.
Background and priorities
The risk of injury and illness is unevenly distributed among groups of employees. For some groups we have good knowledge about exposure factors, while for others the knowledge is inadequate. The distribution of such knowledge is not accidental. Employee groups at risk are one of the Petroleum Safety Authority's main priorities this year. One of the objectives of this initiative is to develop an overall impression of occupational illness and injury for the individual employee group, and to consider the importance of framework conditions for risk for the group.
Contacts in the PSA:
Inquiries from the media:
Tel.: +47 51 87 62 19
Apply for access: (documents in Norwegian)
07/1218-100 Aker Solution
07/1218-98 IKM Testing AS
07/1218-94 Fabricom AS
07/1218-92 Seawell Norge AS
07/1218-90 D&F Group AS
07/1218-88 Schlumberger Norge AS
07/1218-96 BIS Industrier AS
07/1218-99 ExxonMobil Exploration & Production Norway AS
07/1218-97 A/S Norske Shell
07/1218-95 Talisman Energy Norge AS
07/1218-91 BP Norge AS
07/1218-89 StatoilHydro Mongstad
07/1218-78 StatoilHydro - Gullfaks