Risk Assessment Data Directory

Report No. 434 10

March 2010
I n t e r n a t i o n a l A s s o c i a t i o n o f O i l & G a s P r o d u c e r s
Water
transport
accident
statistics
P
ublications
Global experience
Te International Association of Oil & Gas Producers has access to a wealth of technical
knowledge and experience with its members operating around the world in many diferent
terrains. We collate and distil this valuable knowledge for the industry to use as guidelines
for good practice by individual members.
Consistent high quality database and guidelines
Our overall aim is to ensure a consistent approach to training, management and best prac-
tice throughout the world.
Te oil and gas exploration and production industry recognises the need to develop consist-
ent databases and records in certain felds. Te OGPs members are encouraged to use the
guidelines as a starting point for their operations or to supplement their own policies and
regulations which may apply locally.
Internationally recognised source of industry information
Many of our guidelines have been recognised and used by international authorities and
safety and environmental bodies. Requests come from governments and non-government
organisations around the world as well as from non-member companies.
Disclaimer
Whilst every efort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the information contained in this publication,
neither the OGP nor any of its members past present or future warrants its accuracy or will, regardless
of its or their negligence, assume liability for any foreseeable or unforeseeable use made thereof, which
liability is hereby excluded. Consequently, such use is at the recipients own risk on the basis that any use
by the recipient constitutes agreement to the terms of this disclaimer. Te recipient is obliged to inform
any subsequent recipient of such terms.
Tis document may provide guidance supplemental to the requirements of local legislation. Nothing
herein, however, is intended to replace, amend, supersede or otherwise depart fom such requirements. In
the event of any confict or contradiction between the provisions of this document and local legislation,
applicable laws shall prevail.
Copyright notice
Te contents of these pages are Te International Association of Oil and Gas Producers. Permission
is given to reproduce this report in whole or in part provided (i) that the copyright of OGP and (ii)
the source are acknowledged. All other rights are reserved. Any other use requires the prior written
permission of the OGP.
Tese Terms and Conditions shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of Eng-
land and Wales. Disputes arising here fom shall be exclusively subject to the jurisdiction of the courts of
England and Wales.
RADD Water transport accident statistics
OGP

contents

1.0 Scope and Application........................................................... 1
1.1 Scope ............................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Application ...................................................................................................... 1
1.3 Definitions ....................................................................................................... 1
2.0 Summary of Recommended Data............................................ 2
2.1 Personnel Risk................................................................................................ 3
2.2 Vessel Accident Frequencies ........................................................................ 3
2.3 Oil Spill Frequencies ...................................................................................... 4
3.0 Guidance on use of data ........................................................ 5
3.1 General validity ............................................................................................... 5
3.2 Uncertainties ................................................................................................... 5
3.3 Application of frequencies to specific locations ......................................... 5
3.3.1 Personnel Risk ........................................................................................................... 6
3.3.2 Ship Accidents and Oil Spill Frequencies ............................................................... 6
4.0 Review of data sources ......................................................... 6
4.1 Basis of data presented ................................................................................. 6
4.1.1 Personnel Transport .................................................................................................. 6
4.1.2 Vessel Incidents and Accidents.............................................................................. 10
4.1.3 Oil Spills.................................................................................................................... 12
4.2 Other data sources ....................................................................................... 13
4.2.1 Personnel Transport ................................................................................................ 13
4.2.2 Vessel Casualties..................................................................................................... 15
4.2.3 Oil Spills.................................................................................................................... 15
4.2.4 Dangerous Goods Transport .................................................................................. 15
5.0 Recommended data sources for further information ............ 16
6.0 References .......................................................................... 16

RADD Water transport accident statistics
OGP

Abbreviations:

ACDS Advisory Committee on Dangerous Substances
BSP Brunei Shell Petroleum
CALM Catenary Anchor Leg Mooring
DNV Det Norske Veritas
E&P Exploration and Production
ERRV Emergency Response & Rescue Vessel
FAR Fatal Accident Rate
GB Great Britain
GT Gross Tonnage
IR Individual Risk
LMIS Lloyds Maritime Information Services
MBC Marine Breakaway Coupling
MSMS Marine Safety Management System
NPC National Ports Council
OGP Oil and Gas Producers
P&I Protection & Indemnity
QRA Quantitative Risk Assessment
SAFECO Safety of Shipping in Coastal Waters
SMS Safety Management System
SPM Singe Point Mooring
SSB Sarawak Shell Berhad
UK(CS) United Kingdom (Continental Shelf)
USCG United States Coast Guard

RADD Water transport accident statistics
OGP

1
1.0 Scope and Application
1.1 Scope
This datasheet provides information on water transport accident statistics for use in
Quantitative Risk Assessment (QRA). The data sheet includes guidelines for the use
of recommended data and a review of the sources of the data.
The data in this sheet are intended for three main uses:
Assessing the risk of personnel on board vessels;
Assessing the frequencies of vessel/ship accidents;
Assessing the frequencies of oil spills.

Relevant personnel are crew boat passengers being transported to offshore facilities
and crew who work on vessels. The main focus in terms of vessel types is on supply
vessels, stand-by vessels (now commonly known within the UK as Emergency
Response & Rescue Vessels (ERRV)), crew vessels, anchor handling vessels, diving
support vessels and tankers. Drilling rigs, flotels, and production and storage vessels
are not included.

1.2 Application
This datasheet contains global data plus more detailed regional/national data where
relevant or where available. When using these data, it should be noted that they may
not be directly applicable to the specific location under study. Guidance on using
location specific data is given in Section 3.3.
The data presented are applicable to activities in support of operations within
exploration for and production of hydrocarbons.

1.3 Definitions
The primary source of ship accident data is the ship casualty database maintained by
Lloyds Maritime Information Services (LMIS). Loss frequencies can be obtained by
combining with fleet data from the Lloyds Register annual World Fleet Statistics [1].
These sources cover all self-propelled sea-going merchant ships over 100 GT.
Accidents to the ship are defined in terms of the following severity categories:

I nci dents Any event reported to LMIS and included in the
database. This is usually because the event may
involve some cost to the shipowner and may lead to an
insurance claim. In this analysis, the term incident is
taken to include serious casualties, while the term
non-serious incident excludes serious casualties.
Incidents are only recorded in the LMIS database for
tankers and passenger ships.
Seri ous casual ti es Incidents involving total loss (see below); breakdown
resulting in the ship being towed or requiring
assistance from ashore; flooding of any compartment;
or structural, mechanical or electrical damage requiring
repairs before the ship can continue trading.
RADD Water transport accident statistics
OGP

2
Total l oss Where the ship ceases to exist after a casualty, either
due to it being irrecoverable (actual total loss) or due to
it being subsequently broken up (constructive total
loss). The latter occurs when the cost of repair would
exceed the insured value of the ship.

Incidents in the LMIS database are categorised according to the following codes:
Col l i si on Striking or being struck by another ship, whether under
way, anchored or moored. This excludes striking
underwater wrecks.
Contact Striking or being struck by an external object, but not
another ship or the sea bottom. It includes striking
offshore rigs/platforms, whether under tow or fixed.
Foundered Sinking due to rough weather, leaks, breaking in two
etc, but not due to other categories such as collision
etc.
Fi re/ expl osi on Where the fire/explosion is the first event reported, or
where fire/explosion results from hull/machinery
damage. In other words, it includes fires due to engine
damage, but not fires due to collision etc.
Hul l / machi nery damage Where the hull/machinery damage is not due to other
categories such as collision etc. Also termed
Structural failure in sections below.
War l oss/ damage Includes damage from all hostile acts.
Wrecked/ stranded Striking the sea bottom, shore or underwater wrecks.
Also termed Grounding in sections below.
Mi scel l aneous Events not classified due to lack of information or not
included above, e.g. oil spill, flooding.

Personnel risks are presented as Fatal Accident Rates (FAR), defined as fatalities per
10
8
exposed hours.

2.0 Summary of Recommended Data
The recommended frequencies and associated data are presented as follows:
Personnel Risk (Section 2.1) relevant personnel are crew boat passengers being
transported to offshore facilities and crew who work on vessels.
Vessel Accident Frequencies (Section 2.2)
Oil Spill Frequencies from tankers and during transfer operations (Section 2.3)

RADD Water transport accident statistics
OGP

3
2.1 Personnel Risk
The recommended FAR for marine personnel (boat crew) is 3.
Where crew boats are used to transport other personnel to and from offshore
facilities, the risk to these offshore personnel can be expressed as follows:
FAR (fatalities per 10
8
exposed hours) = 30 + 26/Transit time per journey (hours).
Section 3.3.1 illustrates the use of this FAR format
1
.
These fatality rates for offshore personnel could be up to three times higher in certain
parts of the world. For seafarers not directly connected to the offshore industry the
fatality rates in some parts of the world could be a factor of up to 40 higher than the
FAR of 3.

2.2 Vessel Accident Frequencies
Tabl e 2. 1 Vessel Acci dent Frequenci es (per shi p year)
Vessel / Acci dent Type Total Loss
per shi p year
Seri ous Casual ty
per shi p year
Al l Sea-Goi ng merchant shi ps > 100
GT
3.0 ! 10
-3
9.3 ! 10
-3

Oi l Tankers 1.9 ! 10
-3
1.1 ! 10
-2

Tanker fi re/ expl osi on 7.2 ! 10
-4
2.6 ! 10
-3


Tabl e 2. 2 Causal Breakdowns for Total Losses
Acci dent Type % of Total Losses
Foundered 48
Missing 1
Fire/Explosion 14
Collision 12
Wrecked/Stranded 18
Contact 2
Other 5
TOTAL 100


1.
1
It is important to note that this equation comprises 2 elements: one for the actual transit
(30) + one for embarking and disembarking (26/Transit time). The first of these is
proportional to the transit time per journey; as the FAR is defined to be per 10
8
exposed
hours, it is constant. The second is proportional to the number of journeys made, which is
inversely proportional to transit time for a fixed total time exposure (i.e. 10
8
hours).
RADD Water transport accident statistics
OGP

4
2.3 Oil Spill Frequencies
Tabl e 2. 3 Oi l Tanker Oi l Spi l l Frequenci es
ACCI DENT TYPE OI L SPI LL
FREQUENCY
(spi l l s per shi p
year)
OI L SPI LL RATE
(tonnes per shi p
year)
AVERAGE OI L
SPI LL SI ZE
(tonnes)
Collision
Contact
Fire/explosion
War Loss
Structural failure
Transfer spill
Unauthorised discharge
Grounding
1.5 ! 10
-3
7.2 ! 10
-4
5.1 ! 10
-4
5.1 ! 10
-5
1.3 ! 10
-3
1.7 ! 10
-3
5.1 ! 10
-4
5.6 ! 10
-4

4.49
0.11
1.52
0.001
5.68
0.23
0.21
5.20
2922
148
2973
27
4435
133
408
9227
TOTAL 6.9 ! 10
-3
17.43 2522

Tabl e 2. 4 Offshore Crude Loadi ng Spi l l s (non-CALM systems)
SPI LL SOURCE MEAN
SI ZE
(barrel s)
SI ZE
RANGE
(barrel s)
FREQUENCY
(spi l l s per
cargo)
Storage on platform 121 0.1 to 4000 1.1 ! 10
-2

Pipeline to loading facility 19 NA
2
3.0 ! 10
-4

Loading buoy or facility 946 0.25 to 9400 3.0 ! 10
-3

Transfer hose and coupler 78 0.5 to 500 4.1 ! 10
-3

Tanker 4 2 to 5 6.0 ! 10
-4

TOTAL 237 0.1 to 9400 1.9 ! 10
-2


The following frequencies are given for pollution events during loading at Single Point
Moorings (SPM; all categories including CALM included) in relation to Marine
Breakaway Couplings (MBC):
1 event (tanker breakout or surge event) every 3,518 operating days without MBC
1 event every 5,621 operating days with MBC
Spill quantity with MBC fitted is 1/35 that without MBC
Note that operating days refers to the number of days a tanker occupies the SPM.
Typically a shuttle tanker loading operation lasts less than 24 hours; it is suggested
that operating days be used as a surrogate for number of cargoes loaded.


2
Only one event, hence no range
RADD Water transport accident statistics
OGP

5
3.0 Guidance on use of data
3.1 General validity
If transport risk is a relatively small contribution to an overall risk study, the data
above may be sufficient. However, if transport risk is the object of the study, local
data become very important. It is strongly recommended that local data sources on
accidents and transport risk are obtained. This is because there can be large local
variations.

3.2 Uncertainties
With respect to the personnel ri sk val ues in Section 2.1, the main uncertainties are
associated with estimating the exposed populations for each type of worker. These
population uncertainties could lead to a factor of 2 in the uncertainty in the frequency
estimates. Other factors which are relevant are the uncertainty in trends with time, the
differences between different types of vessel (e.g. supply, standby, anchor handling
etc.) and the uncertainties due to different locations around the world.
Concerning vessel acci dent f requenci es in Section 2.2, there are uncertainties over
when a vessel loss is defined as a total loss. Statistics dealing with total loss of
vessels may give lower figures for the latest years due to the fact that not all vessels
will be written off immediately after an accident. In some cases, the vessel may be
categorised as out of service, and after some time a decision to write it off or bring it
back in service will be made. There is a lack of consistency as to the year the vessel
may be written off; i.e. the year when the accident took place or the year when the
decision was made. In some cases the source may change the rules as to which year
the vessel will be classified as total loss without correcting the previous data.
Attempts have been made to take account of this in the analysis below. The total
population with regard to vessels is also difficult to assess. Most statistics available
have been collected and registered with regard to the flag, and not the region where
the vessels were sailing or where the accident took place. Worldwide frequencies
have been used to overcome these problems.
Oi l spi l l s not resulting from ship damage (e.g. transfer spills) are not covered
comprehensively in the LMIS database. Reporting of oil spills could be variable
especially for smaller spills. North Sea data which are considered better reported than
world averages have been used to try and reduce reporting uncertainty on transfer
spills.

3.3 Application of frequencies to specific locations
This datasheet contains global data plus more detailed regional data where relevant.
When using these data, it should be realised that they may not be directly applicable
to the specific location under study. It is therefore strongly recommended that local
data sources on accidents and transport risk from governmental or other national or
regional institutions are obtained before using the data given in this sheet.
Should these local data not be accessible, or their reliability/applicability be uncertain,
then the data in this data sheet could be used after factoring for local circumstances.
However, data which have been adjusted to allow for local circumstances should
always be used with caution: the assumptions made are likely to be judgemental and
hence may reduce the reliability of the adjusted data vis-vis reality. Each
assumption shall be clearly documented so that an audit trail is maintained.
RADD Water transport accident statistics
OGP

6

3.3.1 Personnel Risk
The Boat Crew FAR in Section 2.1 can be used in just the same way as all the other
FAR data in these OGP datasheets.
The FAR equation for transferring other personnel by crew boats in Section 2.1 can be
understood through the following example. Assume a transit time of 1.5 hours. The
FAR from Section 2.1 can be used to generate an individual risk per journey as
follows:
IR per journey = FAR ! 10
-8
! Transit time per journey (hours)
= (30 + 26/1.5) !10
-8
! 1.5 = 7.1!10
-7


Hence the expression for IR per journey can be generalised to:
IR per journey = 2.6 x 10
-7
+ 3.0 ! 10
-7
! Transit time (hours)

For the example journey above, with a transit time of 1.5 hours the individual risk is
again 7.1 ! 10
-7
per journey.
Location adjustments can make use of worldwide FAR data shown in Table 4.3 below.
The data presented below in Section 4.1.1.2 are not sufficient to distinguish between
transfers from shore to shore, shore to offshore and offshore to offshore.

3.3.2 Ship Accidents and Oil Spill Frequencies
The accident and spill rates in Sections 2.2 and 2.3 can be applied directly in generic
risk assessments. Ship accident rates could however be dependent on factors such
as location/ route, flag, ship operator SMS. If a detailed marine QRA is being
undertaken the data would need to be reviewed for local relevance.

4.0 Review of data sources
4.1 Basis of data presented
4.1.1 Personnel Transport
4.1.1.1 Marine Personnel Associated with Offshore Industry
Table 4.1 presents an analysis of fatalities on vessels operating on the UKCS [2].

Tabl e 4. 1 Locati on of Fatal Mari ne Rel ated Acci dents on UKCS, 1977-96
Locati on Events Fatal i ti es
Single point mooring 2 4
Barge 5 5
Diving support vessel 9 10
Supply vessel 13 14
Stand-by vessel / ERRV 3 4
Anchor handling vessel 3 3

RADD Water transport accident statistics
OGP

7
Based on these numbers of fatalities and estimates of offshore workforce together
with a consideration of trends with time, [2] made an estimate of an FAR of 3 for boat
crew working on the UKCS. Note that there is significant uncertainty on the
percentage of the workforce in the various occupations and hence this FAR is
probably +/- a factor of 2. There was insufficient exposure data in [2] to distinguish
between crew in the different locations in Table 4.1.

4.1.1.2 Crew Boat Transfers
The only data available on experience with crew boats is for Brunei Shell Petroleum
(BSP) and Sarawak Shell Berhad (SSB) in Malaysia [3].

Operator 1 (Asi a Paci fi c regi on) Experi ence
Operators crew boat experience during 1971-91 has been estimated as:
40,000 boat hours in transit
88,000 boat stages
There were on average 7.3 passengers on each boat stage, giving passenger
experience of:
292,000 passenger hours in transit
644,000 passenger transfer stages
Here, a stage consists of an embarkation and a disembarkation. In this period there
have been no fatalities on crew boats at all. Recent information indicates that
between 1991 and 2008 there have also been no fatalities.

Operator 2 (Asi a Paci fi c regi on) Experi ence
Operators crew boat experience prior to 1991 amounted to at least:
2,000,000 passenger hours
2,000,000 passenger transfer stages
As with Operator 1, Operator 2 had no fatalities associated with crew boats in that
period. Recent information indicates that between 1991 and 2008 Operator 2
experienced one crew member fatality but no passenger fatalities.
Given the limited size of these datasets they have been combined.

Crew Boat Acci dent Frequenci es
Where no accidents have occurred, the frequency may be estimated using statistical
techniques based on the Poisson distribution. The most likely frequency is equivalent
to assuming that 0.7 accidents have occurred to date, i.e. that the operation is 70% of
the way to its first accident. The confidence interval on this value is of course very
wide.
Since accidents in transit (such as the boat sinking) arise from different mechanisms
than accidents in transfer (such as crew members being crushed while transferring), it
may be appropriate to assume that both parts of the operation are independent and
70% of the way to an accident. This is pessimistic (for crew boats) and requires
careful sensitivity-testing.
RADD Water transport accident statistics
OGP

8
The above approaches yield accident frequency estimates for crew boats as given in
Table 4.2 based on prior 1991 data. The 90% confidence intervals are also shown. The
recent information indicates a further 17 years of operations by Operators 1 and 2
(referred to above) with no passenger fatalities. Thus as a sensitivity test one could
half the values given below assuming that the marine operations have maintained
their pre-1991 volume. Such a test would be within the 90% confidence band below.
However, given that a significant event could cause multiple passenger fatalities it is
recommended to maintain the values below as cautious best-estimates.

Tabl e 4. 2 Crew Boat Acci dent Frequenci es (1971-1991)

Fatal i ti es i n Transi t
(Per Passenger Hour)
Fatal i ti es i n Transfer
(Per Passenger Transfer
Stage)
Lower 5% value
Best estimate
Upper 5% value
2.2 ! 10
-8

3.0 ! 10
-7

1.3 ! 10
-6

1.9 ! 10
-8

2.6 ! 10
-7

1.1 ! 10
-6


4.1.1.3 Other Seafarers
[4] provides fatality rates for seafarers on UK merchant vessels and compares these
to other merchant fleets. For 1996-2005 there were 32 fatalities in accidents on UK
vessels:
23 personal occupational accidents while on duty
8 off duty personal accidents
1 in a shipping accident (an explosion)
These numbers exclude deaths due to disease, suicide and unexplained events (e.g.
disappeared overboard).
The 32 fatalities equate to a rate of 11 fatalities per 100,000 seafarer-years (see Table
4.3 under UK 1996-2005). Assuming an average of 4000 hours onboard a vessel per
seafarer year this equates to a FAR of 3. Table 4.3 indicates that this value is near the
bottom of the range of surveyed fleets; values up to a factor 40 higher would be
appropriate for other parts of the world.

RADD Water transport accident statistics
OGP

9
Tabl e 4. 3 Seafarer Fatal Acci dent Rates (from [4])
Merchant Fl eet Ti me
Peri od
No. of deaths
from
acci dents
Fatal Acci dent rate
(per 100, 000 seafarer-
years)
India 1990-1996 282 426
Hong Kong 1990-1995 68 253
Singapore 1984-1989 101 162
Greece 1990-1994 339 162
West Germany 1960-1972 820 148
Norway 1990-1994 156 102
Poland 1985-1994 49 100
Singapore 1990-1995 98 99
West Germany 1974-1976 - 92
Denmark 1996-2005 72 90
Poland 1996-2005 52 84
Poland (2 main companies) 1990-1995 35 80
Poland 1960-1999 412 72
UK seafarers in non-UK fleets 1986-1995 63 66
Belgium 1996-2005 3 63
Denmark 1986-1993 63 62
Japan 1990-1994 121 58
Hong Kong 2000-2005 44 56
UK 1976-1985 407 53
Hong Kong 1980-1989 36 48
Isle of Man 1988-2005 33 44
Netherlands 1990-1994 15 39
Germany 1990-1994 35 39
UK 1986-1995 100 39
Sweden 1984-1988 27 37
Canada 1996-2005 16 22
France 1990-2004 6 20
India 1996-2005 26 18
Spain 1990-1994 7 16
Sweden 1996-2005 19 13
UK 1996-2005 32 11
Australia 1990-1994 3 10
Sweden 1990-1994 9 10

4.1.1.4 Effect of Location

Overall FARs in exploration and production for oil & gas world-wide have been
produced by OGP [5], The ratios of offshore FARs in the different areas are
considered to be a suitable basis for modifying the fatality rates for marine personnel
associated with the offshore industry above. Table 4.4 has the relevant values from
the Occupational Risk datasheet. For other seafarers the values in Table 4.3 can be
used.

RADD Water transport accident statistics
OGP

10
Tabl e 4. 4 FAR Mul ti pl i cati on Factors Offshore for Di fferent Regi ons
Personne
l
Afri ca Asi a/
Austr-
al asi a
Europ
e
FSU Mi ddl e
East
North
Ameri ca
South
Ameri c
a
Al l 1.22 0.56 1.05 0.69 0.82 1.52 0.92
Company 1.00 0.72 2.94 0.00 0.00 0.47 0.00
Contract
or
1.17 0.53 0.88 0.68 0.84 1.86 1.10

4.1.2 Vessel Incidents and Accidents
The most readily available analysis of accidents is in the Lloyds Register annual
World Casualty Statistics. This gives the total losses in the current year and several
previous years. Loss frequencies can be obtained by combining with fleet data from
the Lloyds Register annual World Fleet Statistics. These sources cover all self-
propelled sea-going merchant ships over 100 GT.
Figure 4.1 shows the total loss frequency for all ships over 100 GT world-wide
between 1974 and 1998. It shows a generally declining trend. Some of the fluctuations
can be attributed to the Iran-Iraq War (1980-88, with particular effects on shipping in
1982) and the Gulf War in Kuwait in 1991.
Based on this graph and allowing for the under-reporting effect of the last two years a
total loss frequency of 3.0 ! 10
-3
per ship year has been estimated; this is the
recommended value given in Section 2.2. Data for 1999 and 2000 gives total loss rates
of 1.5 ! 10
-3
and 1.9 ! 10
-3
per ship year respectively. This indicates a potentially
reducing loss rate with time which could be used as a sensitivity test.

Fi gure 4. 1 Trend i n Total Loss Frequency for Al l Shi ps

RADD Water transport accident statistics
OGP

11

LMIS also provides information related to specific ship types. Based on the worldwide
LMIS database from 1992-1997 [6] made an estimate for oil tankers of a total loss
frequency of 1.9 ! 10
-3
per ship year. Of this fire/ explosion caused total losses with a
frequency of 7.2 ! 10
-4
per ship year. The serious casualty rates in Section 2.0 also
come from this source.
In terms of the impact of fleet on these rates, Table 4.6 (from [4]) can be used to derive
modification factors. Fatal casualty rates per ship year can be derived for each of the
fleets in Table 4.6. The maximum rate is 3.0 per 1000 ship years for Cambodia and 0.1
per 1000 ship years for UK and The Netherlands. The average rate is 0.8 per 1000 ship
years. Thus a modification range of a factor of 4 above the world average and a factor
of 8 lower than the world average is judged reasonable.
The effect of ship age is illustrated in Figure 4.2 below for oil tankers [6]. The effects
are expressed as the ratio of the frequency for specific age groups to the average
frequency for the whole fleet. The graph plots these ratios on a base of ship age,
using the mid-point of each group, and plotting the ratio for the 25+ age group at 27.5
years. This shows the pattern of low frequencies early in the ships life, rising in mid-
life and declining for older ships. This reduction for older ships is attributed to a
higher fraction of older ships being laid-up or used for storage, and hence being less
exposed to hazards.

Fi gure 4. 2 Effect of Oi l Tanker Age on Acci dent Frequenci es

[6] also reviewed the impact of size on oil tanker accident rates, but did not find a
significant effect.

RADD Water transport accident statistics
OGP

12
4.1.3 Oil Spills
4.1.3.1 Tankers
The oil spill data in Table 2.3 is based on a database of worldwide oil spills for 1992-
94. They are assumed to refer to spills over 1 tonne, but it is likely that the spill
frequency is under-estimated for smaller spill sizes. Figure 4.3 shows a frequency
size curve for the spills based on 1992-97 data.

Fi gure 4. 3 Frequency Si ze Curve for Oi l Spi l l s from Oi l Tankers (1992-
1997)


4.1.3.2 Offshore Loading
Release or spill into the sea from vessels engaged in the offshore activities may have
as its source spills during oil lifting/loading, accidental discharges overboard or
ruptured tanks. Most reporting systems of accidental release or spill into the sea have
few details of the unit involved or the cause of the accident. No reliable data has been
found on accidental discharges or ruptured tanks. However, one study [7] on
lifting/loading has been identified. It is based on UK offshore loading from 1975-93. It
was noted that pollution incidents associated with lifting should be grouped
according to the lifting system; and the study mainly covers non-CALM (Catenary
Anchor Leg Mooring) systems, as the CALM system was a first generation system and
have been phased out. This data forms the basis for Table 2.4.
More recent data have been published by OCIMF 15. In 2006 OCIMF conducted a
survey of member companies operating offshore terminals to collect information on
MBC operating experience. The information given in Section 2.3 is based on survey
returns from 9 operating companies representing 125,561 tanker/SPM operating days.

RADD Water transport accident statistics
OGP

13
4.2 Other data sources
4.2.1 Personnel Transport
Passenger casualty data from the Department for Transports 2006 report [8] for UK
registered merchant vessels gives a fatality rate of 0.3 per billion passenger
kilometres and Killed or Seriously Injured (KSI) of 43 per billion passenger kilometres.
This is based on 1996-2005 averages. It could be used as a sensitivity test for crew
boat passenger transport.
The Department for Transports website (www.dft.gov.uk) contains a table from its
Marine Accident Investigation Board showing the number of injuries from 1991 to 2004
on UK flagged vessels recorded by the Marine Accident Investigation Board as
"Associated with Offshore Industry". This is shown in Table 4.5. As above there is a
problem with exposed population; no data is given that would enable FARs or injury
rates to be estimated.
[4] also contains data about seafarer fatalities arising only from shipping casualties,
i.e. not including personal accidents, from merchant fleets around the world. These
are shown in Table 4.6.

Tabl e 4. 5 I nj uri es on UK fl agged vessel s Associ ated wi th Offshore
I ndustry (1991-2004)
I nj ury Type Total Number
of I nj uri es
Amputation of hand/ fingers/ toe 5
Bruising 49
Burns/ scalds other 3
Chemical poisoning/ burns from contract or inhalation 4
Concussion/ unconsciousness due to head injury 7
Crush injury 32
Cuts/ wound/ lacerations 51
Death - confirmed 6
Dislocations 10
Eye injuries 5
Fracture of the skull/ spine/ pelvis/major bone in arm or leg 31
Fracture other 60
Hypothermia body temperature too cold 4
Other 27
Strains other strains/ sprains/ torn muscles/ ligaments 40
Strains strained back 40
Unknown 38
Total 412


Koornstra [14] presents a passenger transport model which includes maritime
transport risk. Reference risks for ferries and cargo/ passenger ships are first
determined based on data from ships using European waters. Reference risks for
hopper and supply boats are based on assumptions about how they compare to
ferries and cargo/ passenger ships. Multiplication factors are then developed relating
maritime fatality risks to the Gross National Income per person (GNI/p). The report
proposes using an additional multiplication factor where there are strong indications
that a trip by a particular ship in a specific region is relatively less safe or relatively
safer than comparable ships in other countries with a comparable GNI/p level.
RADD Water transport accident statistics
OGP

14

Tabl e 4. 6 Fatal i ti es Ari si ng From Shi p Casual ti es (from [4])
Merchant Fl eet No. of deaths
from
shi ppi ng
casual ti es
(1996-2005)
(Correspondi ng
no. of shi ppi ng
casual ti es)
No. of cargo
shi ps i n
2000
Mortal i ty rate
from shi ppi ng
casual ti es per
1, 000 shi p-
years (1996-
2005)
Cambodia 76 (10) 335 22.7
Taiwan 54 (4) 370 14.6
Cyprus 154 (19) 1373 11.2
South Korea 116 (16) 1123 10.3
Syria 22 (5) 219 10.0
St Vincent 105 (21) 1147 9.2
Belize 98 (21) 1107 8.9
India 61 (6) 745 8.2
Indonesia 143 (16) 1924 7.4
Panama 393 (62) 5713 6.9
Honduras 61 (14) 899 6.8
PR China 175 (18) 2604 6.7
DIS (Denmark) 31 (7) 491 6.3
Malta 89 (18) 1452 6.1
Malaysia 40 (3) 768 5.2
Singapore 68 (11) 1677 4.1
Thailand 19 (4) 489 3.9
Turkey 38 (13) 1047 3.6
Antigua & Barbuda 27 (4) 756 3.6
Hong Kong 16 (5) 448 3.6
Ukraine 20 (5) 582 3.4
Greece 34 (11) 1055 3.2
Isle of Man 7 (2) 218 3.2
Vietnam 19 (6) 616 3.1
Norway 18 (5) 604 3.0
Bahamas 34 (11) 1157 2.9
Liberia 44 (10) 1523 2.9
Marshall Islands 8 (3) 291 2.7
Philippines 30 (7) 1093 2.7
Azerbaijan 6 (1) 228 2.6
Romania 5 (3) 219 2.3
UAE 7 (1) 337 2.1
Vanuata 5 (2) 248 2.0
Norway 10 (4) 648 1.5
Russia 36 (10) 2417 1.5
France 4 (1) 280 1.4
Italy 11 (5) 897 1.2
Egypt 4 (2) 353 1.1
Iran 4 (1) 369 1.1
USA 18 (8) 2412 0.7
Spain 2 (2) 334 0.6
Japan 28 (13) 5689 0.5
Canada 2 (1) 145 0.5
Germany 3 (3) 708 0.4
Netherlands 3 (1) 903 0.3
UK 0 (0) 811 0.0
RADD Water transport accident statistics
OGP

15
4.2.2 Vessel Casualties
The Safety of Shipping in Coastal Waters (SAFECO) Project [9] provides an analysis of
the LMIS database, giving frequencies of serious casualties for each major ship type,
based on the period 1991-95.
The UK Protection & Indemnity (P&I) Club produces a Major Claims Analysis,
examining the causes of third-party claims over $100,000. A summary is on the P&I
Club website www.ukpandi.com. It gives the number and value of claims, broken
down by claim type, claim value, ship type, incident cause, ship age, flag etc. No
population data is available.
The Swedish Club website www.swedishclub.com includes a brief analysis of claims
on hull & machinery and P&I insurance. It gives the number and average cost of
claims, broken down by claim type. It also gives information on the number of vessels
insured.

4.2.3 Oil Spills
The US Coast Guard maintains a Marine Safety Management System (MSMS) database
of oil and chemical spills in US waters reported under the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act. It includes spills into navigable inland waters and the sea up to 12 miles
from the shore, and also spills threatening this area. It covers ships, pipelines and
installations. It gives comprehensive coverage of spills since 1973, but also includes
some earlier accidents.
The USCG website www.uscg.mil/hq/g-m/nmc/response/stats/aa.htm gives summary
statistics on the number and quantity of oil and chemicals spilled, broken down by
spill size band, oil type, location, water body and source. The annual data mentions
the largest individual incident in each year and its size. The database covers a wide
variety of installations and marine environments. The summary statistics do not allow
simultaneous breakdowns (say, for oil tankers in the Great Lakes), and no population
data is available. As a result, no use is apparent for the internet data at present. USCG
might give more useful results on request from the database itself.

4.2.4 Dangerous Goods Transport
The National Ports Council [10] analysed incidents in 10 UK ports, obtaining incident
frequencies. The ports were categorised as river (e.g. Thames, Medway, Mersey,
Tees), estuarine (Southampton, Harwich and Milford Haven) and open sea (Swansea
only). The analysis included many minor incidents, including 33% that caused no
appreciable damage and 54% slight damage such as minor dents or split harbour
facing timbers. Hence only about 13% of the incidents would be comparable with the
LMIS incident category.
The Advisory Committee on Dangerous Substances (ACDS) of the UK Health & Safety
Commission produced a report in 1991 [11] which incorporates a detailed QRA
conducted by DNV Technica of risks to people ashore from tankers and liquefied gas
carriers in ports, including frequency data based on LMIS and NPC.
AEA Technology published an analysis of Incident Probabilities on Liquid Gas Ships
[12] using data from the LMIS database for 1975-87. This gives means and confidence
limits for incident frequencies broken down by gas carrier type, size and age, and by
year and cause of the incident, and expressed as frequencies per ship year and per
voyage. It covers all reported incidents, but also identifies serious casualties.
RADD Water transport accident statistics
OGP

16
AEA Technology published an analysis of Marine Incidents in Ports and Harbours in
Great Britain [13] using data gathered directly from the ports for 1988-92. It gives
incident frequencies broken down by port type, ship type, and by severity and cause
of the incident, expressed as frequencies per ship visit.

5.0 Recommended data sources for further information
For further information, the data sources used to develop the frequencies presented in
Section 2.0 and discussed in Section 4.0 should be consulted. The references used
for the recommended data in Section 2.0 are shown in bol d in Section 6.0.

6.0 References
1. Ll oyd s Regi ster 2005: Worl d Fl eet St at i st i cs 2004, Ll oyds Regi ster
Fai rpl ay Li mi ted, also corresponding annual reports for 1996-2003 data.
2. CMPT 1998: A Gui de t o Quant i t at i ve Ri sk Assessment of Of f shore
I nst al l at i ons, Centre for Mari ne and Petrol eum Technol ogy, London.
3. Spouge, J. R. , Smi th, E. J. & Lewi s, K. J. 1994: Hel i copt ers or Boat s - Ri sk
Management Opt i ons f or Transport Of f shore, SPE Paper No 27277,
Conference on Heal th, Safety & Envi ronment i n Oi l & Gas Producti on,
Soci ety of Petrol eum Engi neers, Jakarta.
4. Roberts, S. E. & Wi l l i ams, J. C. 2007: Updat e of Mort al i t y f or Workers i n
t he UK Merchant Shi ppi ng and Fi shi ng Sect ors, Report for the Mari ti me
and Coastguard Agency and the Department for Transport, Research
Proj ect 578.
5. OGP, 2007. Safety performance i ndi cators 2006 data, Report No.
391. Al so correspondi ng reports for 2001-2005 data.
http://www.ogp.org.uk/Publications/index.asp
6. DNV 2001: Formal Saf et y Assessment of Tankers f or Oi l , Proj ect
C383184/ 4.
7. E&P Forum 1996: Quant i t at i ve Ri sk Assessment Dat asheet Di rect ory, E&P
Forum Report No 11. 8/ 250.
8. Department for Transport 2006: Road Casualties Great Britain 2006,
http://www.dft.gov.uk/162259/162469/221412/221549/227755/rcgb2006v1.pdf.
9. DNV 1997, SAFECO, WP III.2, Statistical Analysis of Ship Accidents, Technical Report
97-2039.
10. NPC 1976: Analysis of Marine Incidents in Ports and Harbours, National Ports Council,
London.
11. ACDS 1991: Major Hazard Aspects of the Transport of Dangerous Substances,
Advisory Committee on Dangerous Substances, Health & Safety Commission,
HMSO.
12. Borrill, E., Gould, J.H., Blything, K.W. & Lelland, A.N. 1994: Incident Probabilities on
Liquid Gas Ships, AEA Report AEA/CS/HSE R1014.
13. Robinson, R.G.J. & Lelland, A.N. 1995: Marine Incidents in Ports and Harbours in
Great Britain, 1988-1992, Report AEA/CS/HSE-R1051, AEA Technology.
14. Koornstra, M.J. 2008. A Model for the Determination of the Safest Mode of Passenger
Transport between Locations in any Region of the World. Report for Shell International
Exploration and Production B.V.
15. OCI MF 2008. I nf ormat i on Paper, Mari ne Breakaway Coupl i ngs, Oi l
Compani es I nternati onal Mari ne Forum.
For further information and publications,
please visit our website at
www.ogp.org.uk
209-215 Blackfriars Road
London SE1 8NL
United Kingdom
Telephone: +44 (0)20 7633 0272
Fax: +44 (0)20 7633 2350
165 Bd du Souverain
4th Floor
B-1160 Brussels, Belgium
Telephone: +32 (0)2 566 9150
Fax: +32 (0)2 566 9159
Internet site: www.ogp.org.uk
e-mail: reception@ogp.org.uk