Mark Aravidis - Woodside Energy - OVID inspections: Interpreting and acting on findings for OSV’s
-
Upload
informa-australia -
Category
Business
-
view
119 -
download
7
Transcript of Mark Aravidis - Woodside Energy - OVID inspections: Interpreting and acting on findings for OSV’s
Offshore Vessel Inspection
Database - OVID
How OCIMF Started
Torrey Canyon oil spill (1967)
History1967 Grounding of Torrey Canyon
1970 OCIMF formed with 18 members
1975 First OCIMF guideline published -Ship to Ship Transfer Guide
1977 Incorporated, granted consultative status at the
International Maritime Organization (IMO)
1993 SIRE launched
1998 50th publication released
2000 SIRE Accreditation commenced
2004 SIRE extended to include barges
2004 Tanker Management & Self Assessment (TMSA) launched
2009 Embark on Offshore Vessel Inspection Database and Consolidated Marine Terminal System
2010 OVID launched
Background
• Following a number of major incidents oil company project teamshave become more focused on marine assurance
• Existing regimes are fragmented/incomplete
Offshore Vessel Inspection Database (OVID)
OCIMF
• Members requested OCIMF to
investigate alternatives
• OCIMF with OGP (Oil & Gas Producers) engaged with IMCA
Aim
• To provide a robust web based inspection tool and database of
inspection reports, underpinned with professional, trained and
accredited inspectors; complimented by an Offshore Vessel
Management Self Assessment (OVMSA) protocol.
Offshore Vessel Inspection Database (OVID)
OVID is an inspection protocol that will allow project and marineassurance teams to assess the safety and environmental
performance of a vessel and its operators in a more effective
and uniform manner.
Inspections are completed by inspectors who are accredited
and subject to continuous review.
The Uniform Inspection Procedure
The concept of the OVID programme
mirrors that of the experience of the SIRE
programme in that a uniform inspection
procedure is used.
All members have the same question set
and the same software application for
completion of the report.
All reports look identical.
OVID – Current Status
Current OVID Statistics for April 2015
• Member Companies - 68
• Vessel Operators – 1395
• Vessels Registered with OVID - 8301
• Vessels with OVPQ - 4947
• OVID Inspections – 4853
• Inspections Purchased - 4500
• Operators with OVMSA – 676
• Published OVMSA - 452
OVID – System Components
• Offshore Vessel Inspection Database has been created to try
and help make effective marine assurance processes
overcome the weaknesses of traditional checklist inspection
schemes.
• OVID uses the methodology and experience of 22 years of
SIRE development, but focuses on non-tanker vessels and
operations.
• 3 Components of OVID:
– OVPQ – Offshore Vessel Particulars Questionnaire
– OVIQ – Offshore Vessel Inspection Questionnaire
– OVMSA – Offshore Vessel Management and Self
Assessment
OVIQ
Offshore Vessel Inspection Questionnaire
• OVIQ questions are primarily designed to highlight operational
practices and behaviour patterns; and the management
controls on board and from the operator’s office by sampling
the effectiveness of the safety management system at that
point in time.
• Observations/comments are designed to extract a response
from the operator as to how the issues raised will be
managed. The questions are not designed to be used like
CMID, to create a list of priority corrective actions as
determined by an inspector.
• Oil Major experience has shown that the Operator’s responses
can be more effective in assessing the quality of the vessel
and its management controls, than the observations
themselves.
General Responsibilities and Obligations
• OVIQ reports belong to the Oil Company that initiated the
inspection – not the Inspector, his company, or the shipoperator.
• Confidentiality is an inherent part of membership of OVID. The
forwarding of OVIQ reports without the formal permission of
the report owner is not permitted and can contravene most
anti-trust laws.
• Forwarding review/comment on a vessel and their operators
to any third party does contravene most anti-trust laws.
Discussions on issues or concerns with a vessel can only be
discussed between Oil Company and the vessel’s operator,
not other charterers, brokers, etc.
• If an inspection report is generated it must be uploaded into
the database, unless the Inspector has created a faulty report.
10
Does OVID Replace ALL Marine Inspections?
• NO!
• There is not one inspection format that can cover all of the
Marine Inspection requirements of the Oil Majors
• OVID is not a Suitability Survey
• OVID IS a General Marine inspection that also reviews theoperators SMS system via the OVIQ and OVMSA.
• Due to the dynamics of the offshore world, unfortunately there
will always be multiple checks on offshore vessels to ensure
safety, procedures, integrity and operational suitability.
Other Vetting Considerations
Age
Will it fit?
Name of Operator
OVMSA
Can it load
nominated
cargo/perform
Task?
Current
Class?
Class Changes?
Flag Changes?
Change
of
Operator Structural Analysis
Inspection History
Operational History
Overall Fleet
Profile Voyage Risk
Assessment
Inspection Commissioning
• Only an OVID Member can commission and OVID Inspection.
• When an inspection is commissioned, it must reflect the
notations as listed on the vessels Classification Certificate.
Inspection Variants:
13
Accommodation, Flotel Anchor Handling Cable Lay
Crew Boats Diving Drilling Unit
ERRV / SBV Geotechnical Survey Heavy Lift
Icebreaker Oil Recovery Pipe Lay
ROV Operations Seismic Survey Supply
Towing / Pushing Trenching Barge Mooring
Cat 2 – Small Craft Dynamic Positioning Helicopter Operations
Ice Operations Well Servicing and Sub-sea Operations
Spread Mooring
Validation of Reports
Validation of the Inspection Report involves:
• Checking for obvious errors such as questions answered “not seen”
instead of “No”, or if an inspector has answered “not applicable”
for an inappropriate question. The ship operator will not be
directed to respond to “not applicable” answers, only the “No’s”
• Some inspectors may still try to answer questions by putting “not
applicable” for a question referring to unused equipment, an
operation the vessel may not be expected to undertake. or is not a
statutory requirement. A “No” answer may not affect the
immediate operation, but may still be indicative of poor on board
maintenance or management.
14
Validated Reports
• If the Commissioning Member has concerns with the content of
the Inspectors observations, then a re-submission from theInspector shall be requested. A Commissioning Member shall not
validate a report until they are satisfied that it meets the
expectations of OCIMF.
• Once a report is validated and uploaded into the database, the
vessel operator is automatically advised that the report is ready
for them to respond to the observations on-line.
• If there is an urgent need for the vessel to be considered, the
inspection nominator should review the report in depth and notethe “No” answers, or other negative comments. These can be
discussed with the vessel operator immediately over the phone.
• The Vessel Operator should respond to all observations by
uploading data into the OVID report online. Responses should be
proactive in nature and provide clarity to an OVID Member
reading the report.
15
Responses from Operators
Several opportunities are provided to Vessel Operators to upload
responses. The “Initial Response” is made immediately after the
Inspection is validated by the Commissioning Member (within 14
days of validation).
There are then four further opportunities in the twelve month period
from the date of the OVID Inspection where the Vessel Operator
can upload “Further Operator Comments”.
16
Responses from Operators - continued
When responding to Observations, try to provide as much
information as possible - the following three points should be
considered:
1) Why an issue existed, as a result of which the inspector madea written observation (some onboard safety management
process either failed, or did not exist)
2) What was done in response to ensure that the vessel could
continue operations in a safe manner (such as risk assessment
and risk management procedures created and monitored)
3) What changes to the company safety management
processes will be made to ensure the issue does not recur.
If a charterer knows that a strong safety management control
structure exists within a vessel operating company, such a
company is likely to be preferred charterer.
How NOT to Respond – Vessel Operators
• Do not “attack” the Inspector. If concerns exist around the
Inspectors behaviour then please contact the OCIMF OVID
Secretariat to discuss.
• Responding with answers like “not a requirement”, “now
fixed”, “Master sacked” and similar does not add value to the
report.
• No response at all is not encouraging to OVID Members
wishing to potentially charter the vessel.
• Vessel Operators must be aware that their vessels and crew
are not perfect which may be reflected in the report.
• Relying on references to statutory or Class requirements.
18
Operators responses -
How NOT to respond
• 9.5.7 Are the emergency stops, if fitted, for winches/windlasses routinely tested
and records maintained?
• Inspector Observations: No record available.
Initial Operator Comments: Contractually not required. (For Info)
• 8.6.15 Does the vessel have a tension gauge and/or tension limiter to monitor
bollard pull and is it regularly calibrated?
• Inspector Observations: Tension meter not fitted for the bollard pull. Initial
Operator Comments: Contractually not required. (For Info)
• 8.6.16 Are bollard pull figures available for when power is diverted to
transverse thrusters or other large power consumers?
• Inspector Observations: not available.
Initial Operator Comments: Contractually not required. (For Info)
Operators responses -How NOT to respond
Operators Responses –
Compare and Contrast
Operators Responses –
note the change in tone
Operator Comments –
Note Initial & Further Comments
What Inspectors should NOT be doing
• Being inconsistent with answers:
The inspector and the OVID Report are devalued when either
the Commissioning Member reviewing the report or the Vessel
Operator get a “No” observation on one issue then a “Yes”
comment on an associated question, or, cases wherequestions were answered “yes” with additional comments that
were opposite in intent.
Example:
Selecting “N/A” to evidence of training Contractors in the
content of vessel SMS, and commenting that the vessels own
Personnel do all repairs and maintenance.
The next question about evidence of contractors beingfamiliarised with vessel emergency procedures has “Yes”
selected and “as part of the JSA” for comment.
24
What inspectors should NOT be doing
• Answering “Yes” and then adding comment that indicates
that “Yes” is not entirely correct, or the comment doesn’t even
address the question.
• Putting in “leading” comments such as “this is not a
requirement” or “this is not a normal practice”.
This tends to lead the vessel operator into making such a
response, rather than actively explaining or justifying their
operational practice.
• Putting in unnecessary comments such as “The vessel has
several kits around the vessel” to question 5.2.5 “Are first aidkits readily available and subjected to regular inspection to
confirm their contents”.
What inspectors should NOT be doing
• Putting “Not Seen” or “Not Applicable” when a “No” answer is
more appropriate.
• Examples include:
15.1.1 Regardless of DP Class Notation (IMO, DP1,2,3) does the
vessel have on board a copy of the DP FME(C)A (Yes / No)?
(N/A) DP1 Vessel FMEA never done.
1.1.14 Is an up to date OCIMF OVPQ available on board (Yes /
No / Not Seen)?
(NS) Inspector Observations: Not completed by operator
• Using information provided by Shoreside Management that
may present during the Inspection over Shipboard Personnel
responses.
What inspectors should NOT be doing
• Telling ship staff what they should be doing, or making
recommendations for changes on board.
Such actions are not part of the OVID process.
• Confrontations or arguments with ship staff over inspection
issues.
This still happens occasionally, sometimes an inspector is
annoyed by the crew’s poor attitude and loses patience;
Sometimes the crew or master is confrontational.
In the latter case, the inspector may contact the submitting
company for guidance on whether to continue o terminate
the inspection.
What inspectors SHOULD be doing
• Answering the question, as it is written, or as the guidance
notes suggest. Not interpreting or aligning answer with local
practice.
• Using knowledge and professionalism to identify good or poorcontrols, practices, procedures, and of course false data.
Indicating actual state of affairs with non-judgemental
observations and positive comments
• Observations must always accompany a “No” selection
• Comments can be written to provide explanatory information
for the Oil Company, such as explaining why a NA has been
selected
• If unable to get a suitable answer from ship staff after a few
minutes, the question should be answered “No” and
explanation put in the Observation. Vessel Operator can then
find out why and explain in Operator responses.
What inspectors SHOULD be doing
• At the end of the inspection, discussing with the Captain each
Observation and any other negative comments to ensure that
there is no misunderstanding over what was said.
• Observations should not normally be changed at this point
(unless a genuine error of understanding over the question has
occurred) but a positive comment may be added if
something has been corrected or made safe – even if fixed
whilst inspector is on board, the observation still remains.
• Comments, particularly positive ones can show a vessel
operator in a good light, but should only be made when they add value to the report.
Inspector Observations –
Suggestions Should Not Be Given
Inspector Observations –
Incorrect Use of ‘N’ Answer
Lines of Defence
• First line of defence for all OVID reporting is the Oil Company
MA group. If the report generated by an inspector does not meet the OVID standards, then the MA group should reject
the report and return to the inspector for correction.
• 2nd line of defence is the operator. As an operator, if you are
unhappy with a report or it does not reflect the actual
situation onboard a vessel, I is expected that you will contact
the commissioning oil company to discuss.
• Last line of defence is to contact Alex Van Dusen at the Secretariat to discuss.
• Remember, the reports remain on our system for 12 months
and then are archived for 12 months. After 24 months the
reports are deleted.
Thank you