Safety: At what risk?

October 9, 2012

With offshore wind having become a busy and fast emerging business over the past few years, in which money seems to be present in abundance, the industry seems to be blind for lessons learned. Even to the point that fatal accidents have been accepted at a very early stage, in the development phase. Recent fatalities seem to have proven why ‘competence’, ‘management arrogance’, and not’fit for purpose’ are the top 3 of high risks in the offshore wind industry to date.

With a new look on practical risk management money could be saved on offshore wind project development and, as a consequence, radically lower the price of a generated megawatt hour. This would result in offshore wind taking the top position in renewable energy systems it deserves. The first step to achieve this would be for us offshore wind people to admit that we are a bit stubborn, to say the least.

Competence is common sense

Expecting a top manager to do a good job because he is the boss of a few billion euros project does not guarantee things will work out well in the end. There are all sorts of ‘qualifying’ systems in place to assure that there are, for example, competent contractors in the projects. These contractors go through meticulous pre qualification trials involving lots of paper work (Did they, or did we, really pick the ‘lowest price’ bidder anyway?). Should this not apply for the top management also? What kind of competencies do investors ask of top management before they allow them to ‘care’ for their billion euros project? Is number crunching a competence that is the first step to ‘penny wise, pound foolish’ ? Should a fatal accident be a reason to fire top management or do we allow them to resign and get a post shovelling snow in the pole circle?

I’m a bit ‘old school’ and think everybody deserves a second chance but when the reputation of the top manager reflects upon the company he or she represents, as does the logo on work clothing of the workers, I think letting them back into the office after such an incident would not really show continuous commitment or even common sense.

We should ask ourselves if the road to an incident and accident free offshore wind project is paved with golden water lilies where management can easily fall through, or with solid gold bricks as the nice glossy leaflets make us believe?

Management arrogance & corporate manslaughterlaw

The ‘We can do that much better’ mentalities, together with company or geographical political interest in a fine mix with overworked management assistance (first line ‘victims’ of management arrogance) are indicators that caution is needed. ALERT ALERT ALERT! Management arrogance is peeking around the corner. Nothing is more dangerous than the person who thinks he is capable of doing a task but is not suited for the job!

The less experience a manager has the better it seems they are able to maintain their positions within the offshore wind development teams. One should expect that investors get more return on their invested billions of euros by putting a competent manager at the head of an offshore wind development team.

The opposite is often true. Instead it seems they are looking around to find the less competent, less experienced ‘friend of a friend’ and make him the head of the company. If the top management gives only a 50% ‘good example’ to the work floor, what is left of that given ‘good example’ when it reaches implimentation? Therefore I applaud the United Kingdom’s ‘corporate manslaughter act’ and

Competence is common sense

Expecting a top manager to do a good job because he is the boss of a few billion euros project does not guarantee things will work out well in the end. There are all sorts of ‘qualifying’ systems in place to assure that there are, for example, competent contractors in the projects. These contractors go through meticulous pre qualification trials involving lots of paper work (Did they, or did we, really pick the ‘lowest price’ bidder anyway?). Should this not apply for the top management also? What kind of competencies do investors ask of top management before they allow them to ‘care’ for their billion euros project? Is
number crunching a competence that is the first step to ‘penny wise, pound foolish’ ? Should a fatal accident be a reason to fire top management or do we allow them to resign and get a post shovelling snow in the pole circle?

Management arrogance & corporate manslaughterlaw

The ‘We can do that much better’ mentalities, together with company or geographical political interest in a
fine mix with overworked management assistance (first line ‘victims’ of management arrogance) are indicators that caution is needed. ALERT ALERT ALERT! Management arrogance is peeking around the corner. Nothing is more dangerous than the person who thinks he is capable of doing a task but is not suited for the job!

Would you accept your child to be brought to a day care shelter where rats walk over the floor? Where the staff are children themselves and have zero experience? See competence and ‘fit for purpose’.

Fit for purpose?

Offshore wind developed in the harsh maritime or coastal environment. That seems to be cut and dry but is often interpreted as a rather prejudiced idea. If it is a ship and it floats it is, therefore, ‘fit for purpose’. This is often said when you discuss marine equipment for the offshore wind developer.

I oppose the statement, very impolitely, with the question what is the estimated cost for an average crane barge should it have one extra day in port? No idea is the first response and rather irrelevant until the costs are identified. The first victory, I would say, in bringing down the price for the megawatt hour.

Pleasure yachts, coastal or inner water ships, and even leisure equipment are being used to perform offshore wind related tasks often causing delay upon delay and incident after incident. This all adds up to enormous expenses that make the market look a bit silly. The mature offshore oil & gas industry people look at us offshore wind people with a knowing grin. It is their laws and regulations that have often been brought down and adapted for the offshore wind industry. These people have already been there and have also made similar mistakes when underestimating the harsh sea environment.

Expediting experience and available knowledge

We are not a virgin industry anymore and we should be able to work without loss of life regardless of which phase we are working in. Calculating loss of life into a project is never acceptable. Instead of this we should be looking to hire in experienced people and link them to the less experienced people and make knowledge transfer as easy as possible.

The way to a cheaper megawatt hour

As management we should be aware of our limits and be less focussed on possible individual benefits and make the ‘team’ benefit from things that work out well in a project of which amongst others ‘no lost time incidents’ is just one.

‘Lead by example’ is one thing from the oil & gas industry I still think is valid. A key performance indicator to be recommended in the ‘lead by example’ style is actual management knowledge transfer from top to bottom on factual risk management related topics in which HSE can also be counted. Just don’t accept any other equipment to be used than the equipment that is ‘fit for purpose’. It is the owner of the equipment that should provide ‘proof’ the equipment is ‘fit for purpose’ prior to the start of a contract.

Country and EU legislation on marine equipment should be better aligned. Currently UK marine standards seem to be accepted in EU countries. This is possibly easier to implement than local e.g. Dutch marine standards but should basic national laws be integrated to make a better international regulation?

Thanks to Ed Wehnes, Senior Risk Management Consultant at Ecofys