Offshore wind is not a no-hazard industry. Wind turbine work installation and maintenance requires technicians to perform tasks that may be at height, or in restricted spaces, or on systems with high-voltage electricity. They may be in small teams of about three in a remote asset, or with a larger crew on, for example, an installation vessel. Work will involve intricate operations including the transporting, lifting and assembly of huge components. And being at sea brings its own complexity; if you work in the industry, you will know your weather window.

The maritime industry is a crucial sector upon which offshore wind power relies. When considering hypothetical major incident scenarios for the industry, with potential for multiple casualties or catastrophic asset damage, most will involve a vessel. Keeping our people safe while on vessels, whatever the task, is imperative. The vessels must be safe, be operated safely, and coordinating marine traffic is crucial, especially where the seabed is getting busier and the industry interfaces with other users of the sea.

But it is important to recognise that the same vessel standards, and even the same vessels, are used in offshore wind as in other maritime industries, with the same international offshore regulations, guidelines and practices applying.

And offshore wind has benefited from decades of evolution in safety and the accumulated operational experience from wider energy, maritime, manufacturing and construction sectors. Offshore wind has not developed in a vacuum and with no understanding of what came before.

But the nature of the offshore environment alone doesn’t mean offshore wind exposes workers to the levels of occupational hazards managed on a daily basis by other types of energy sector operations. We’re not talking about a direct connection to huge reservoirs of hydrocarbons, for example, or working near radioactive nuclear fuel that requires continuous active cooling. In both cases, not managing those hazards can have enormous environmental and human impacts. Yes, there are operations in offshore with the potential for multiple casualties. But also, no, that potential is neither constantly present for the majority of the lifecycle, nor is it to the level seen in other energy sectors.

Offshore wind has benefited from decades of evolution in safety and the accumulated operational experience from wider energy, maritime, manufacturing and construction sectors.
 

G+ recognises the importance of working with industry best practice, so it has adopted the safety data reporting definitions used by the International Association of Oil and Gas Producers (IOGP). That means that it is feasible to compare injury rates published by the two industry bodies. But just because comparisons are possible doesn’t mean that they are necessarily helpful, and may lead to misleading conclusions. When we do headline comparisons, we can miss the nuance and complexity each unique dataset has, and therefore miss opportunities to meaningfully learn from each other.

In this specific case, it is important to recognise that the G+ dataset was, until 2019, a European dataset, and even though the last couple of years have seen a large spike of activity in the Asia-Pacific and US, work hours from Europe hover around 60% of the database. This matters because injury rates in Europe, as reported by IOGP, are much higher than for other regions.

Another crucial point is to understand that the assigned category of severity of an injury (eg lost work day cases) depends on the working context, among other factors, not just the actual severity of the injury. A considerable proportion (between half and a third depending on year) of lost time injuries in the G+ data are due to sprains or strains, or resulting in bruises or contusions. In wind, workers are primarily travelling to their offshore worksite daily, with very physically demanding transfer to reach the assets and perform their roles. This means that for offshore wind workers, even relatively minor injuries that might be otherwise categorised as ‘first aid’ or a ‘medical treatment’ case will be counted as ‘lost work days’ when they lead to a wind technician not being cleared to transfer to the turbine or substation.

Good practice guidance
In a previous life, I was part of the IOGP task force that developed the Life-Saving Rules. To do that we read through the descriptions of nearly 500 fatal incidents that had occurred in the previous 10 years. I will never forget that experience. These days at G+, when I read through the narrative descriptions of even the worst incidents in the G+ database, cases where someone lost their life or had a permanent injury are a rarity.

G+ is proud of its data-led good practice guidance programme, such as the Safe by Design workshops that have led to recommendations to the industry that have changed how turbines, equipment and systems are designed. And we do so through collaboration whenever we can; for example, with the DROPS dropped object safety scheme, HeliOffshore for our helicopter guidance, or the International Marine Contractors Association (IMCA) on so many topics. We collaborate to achieve our common safety goals.

Still, offshore wind is not so naïve as to declare that serious accidents can never happen. Multiple fatality events have happened (although not to G+ members). It is crucial to explore our blind spots and understand our changing risk profile.

Injury rates can be poor indicators of broader safety. While the G+ data also includes asset damage data, and there are some leading indicators in our hazards and near-miss reporting, we still have work to do to develop a better understanding of leading indicators for the safety and reliability of the system. Data must support us as we seek to better understand our multiple casualty scenarios and probe the presence and strength of the barriers we have in place to prevent them. Research and fresh perspectives play a significant role in continuing to examine the changing risk profile of the industry and supporting the G+ mission to ensure the safety of those who build, maintain and decommission offshore wind farms. G+ welcomes all such efforts.

The views and opinions expressed in this article are strictly those of the author only and are not necessarily given or endorsed by or on behalf of the Energy Institute.

• Further reading: ‘Health and safety: Why the new G+ lifesaving rules for offshore wind are so important’. What are the 10 fundamental safety rules for those building and working on offshore wind energy? Find out about the rationale behind the rules and why they are needed.
• ‘Making industry safer, one job at a time’. Discover the value of reporting incidents both for individuals and companies working both in offshore wind and in other industries, according to Siemens Gamesa’s Graeme Paterson, Global Head of Health, Safety and Environment for Offshore.