Process Safety Through

Improved Asset
Performance
Management - Beyond
Personal Safety
An effective way for companies
to respond to recommendations
in the Baker Report
by Roy Whitt, Vice President, Meridium

Abstract
To be successful, asset-intensive manufacturing businesses need to
achieve profit levels that will satisfy their primary stakeholders
while maintaining safety performance that is more than just acceptable.
This paper demonstrates how a top-down approach to managing the
performance and reliability of assets can help companies effectively
respond to the findings and recommendations of the Baker Report.

Introduction

The Challenge

In my more than 30 years in the industry, Ive

observed that norms in the industrial world have
evolved to the point that work place injuries are
simply unacceptable, and companies have learned
that better safety equates to greater levels of efficiency and production.

To be successful, asset-intensive manufacturing

businesses need to achieve profit levels that will
satisfy their primary stakeholders while maintaining safety performance that is more than just
acceptable. Productivity in manufacturing has
been steadily improving for decades, placing
demands on the industry to compete by producing
more at lower cost and with fewer people.

Manufacturers have also learned that emphasis on

process safety will lead to better personal safety
while the reverse is not necessarily true. Yet,
many companies still struggle to achieve the level
of safety and production to which they aspire.
Seemingly, this struggle would also put negative
pressure on safety performance in these facilities,
as was indicated by the incident at BPs Texas
City refinery on March 23, 2005 in which 15 people lost their lives. The January 2007 Report of
the BP U.S. Refineries Independent Safety
Review Panel (commonly known as the Baker
Report) emphasizes the key difference between
personal and process safety: Personal or occupational safety hazards give rise to incidents that
primarily affect one individual worker for each
occurrence. Process safety hazards can give rise to
major accidents involving the release of potentially dangerous materials, the release of energy
(such as fires and explosions), or both.
Fundamentally, the Baker Report concluded that
BP had placed too much emphasis on personal
safety to the detriment of process safety. Hence,
the review panel and subsequent recommendations focused on deficiencies relating to corporate safety culture, process safety management systems, and performance evaluation, corrective
action and corporate oversight.

But, there is an inherent, positive link between

safety and production. The solution lies in better
Asset Performance Management (APM) applied
within a corporate structure that effectively
addresses three keys to successful, safe production
through process safety: leadership, management
processes and systems, and expertise. Leadership
sets the stage for both direction and expectations.
Without it, programs are destined to fail because
of insufficient funding, lack of consistency, a failure to persist through difficult financial times, and
the inability to find and retain the right expertise
to get the job done. Management processes and
systems provide the necessary record-keeping, risk
analysis of alternative solutions and tracking to
produce results in a manufacturing setting.
People with the necessary level of knowledge and
expertise ensure positive results and success of the
program.
In parallel with this corporate structure, companies must implement APM systems capable of
handling vast amounts of data, analyzing that
data, integrating the resultant recommendations
into their work processes, and continuously
improving on the results.

A Brief History of Safety in Refining

This paper demonstrates how a top-down
approach to managing the performance and reliability of assets can help companies effectively
respond to the findings and recommendations of
the Baker Report.

Its important to understand the historical aspect

of safety in refining operations. Manufacturers
have always been faced with the challenge of creating a product at an agreed-upon profit margin
while maintaining acceptable levels of worker
safety and reasonable environmental impact.

2 Process Safety Through Improved Asset Performance Management - Beyond Personal Safety

Figure 1 indicates that

the US refining industry
had much better safety
performance than all private industry in the last
decade. In the 1970s
and 1980s, while many
operators, particularly
industry leaders, had very
good personal safety programs and what could be
considered a strong safety
culture. But, the prevalent attitude amongst
workers and management
in some oil refining companies was that work
place injuries were a natural part of the business.
Getting the job done and
keeping units operating and production rates up
required doing whatever it takes. Documented
procedures were readily available for only a few
aspects of operations and successful operations
were largely dependent on the memories of the
most experienced hands in the company, at the
site or on a given shift. Oftentimes, those individuals and others in leadership felt their presence during unit start-up or shut-down was
absolutely necessary for a successful operation.
So, it was not uncommon for a process to reach a
critical stage as these key individuals were completing 24, 36 or more continuous hours of work.
Workers and managers do not function at their
peak when stressed with fatigue associated with
this many hours or days of insufficient rest.
While many factors affect the safety results of a
manufacturing site, this mentality and the failure
to take time to document good procedures (then
insist that people follow them) were undoubtedly
serious contributors to the poor safety record of
these facilities.

Figure 1

Manufacturing safety pioneers like E. I. DuPont

de Nemours and Company (whose early company
motto was When you know enough and are careful enough about safety, we shall have no accidents) led the way for U.S. industries to embrace
the concept of an injury free work place.i In the
1980s and 1990s, most oil refiners adopted some
form of this motto and worked toward making it a
reality.
Early forms of these safety initiatives were largely
based in negative motivation with punitive measures for failure to comply with safety rules. While
it was common for corporate safety programs to
include some incentives in the form of recognition and inexpensive gifts, these initiatives were
less successful than later philosophiesii with
emphasis on behavioral safety.
Workers could accept the notion that a company
was in business to make money; however, they
were not motivated to alter their behavior
because they did not believe their own manage-

3 Process Safety Through Improved Asset Performance Management - Beyond Personal Safety

ment put a priority on safety. The real motivator

for employees was for management to demonstrate that its commitment to worker safety was as
great as that for profits. What was needed was an
enterprise-wide, holistic approach to asset management based on risk analysis of the assets
accompanied by an appropriate record-keeping
and task-tracking system.
This 20-year period also saw a severe rationalization of the number of refineries in the U.S., largely due to economies of scale and lack of efficiency, from more than 300 to about 150. Those that
survived did so with acceptable financial performance and much improved safety records.

Trend toward Improved Personal Safety

For decades, manufacturing facilities struggled
with balancing plant safety against meeting cost
and profit demands. In many plants since the
beginning of the industrial revolution, injury rates
and fatalities were poor by any standard, and a
general mandate to improve existed in all manufacturing sectors.
As recently as the 1990s, annual injury rates per
200,000 hours worked were reported to be in the
high teens for some oil refineries, while days
away from work rates were commonly seen in
the 4-5 range. And, fatalities were simply too
many. In 1995, all private industry in the United
States experienced an average injury and illness
incident rate of 8.1 with petroleum refining at 3.2
and chemicals and allied products at 5.5 (see
Figure 1.) Ninety-two percent of these incidents
were due to workplace injuries.
By 2005, the overall U.S. rate had dropped to 4.6
(a drop of almost 50%), while the portion due to
injury had risen to 94%. Petroleum refining had
seen its incidence rate drop by more than half to
1.4 and the chemical manufacturing sector
improved at the same rate.iii The U.S. manufac-

turing industry (in particular, the hydrocarbon

processing industry) has clearly made vast
improvements in the last decade and should be
applauded for that success.
However, many people recognized the need for a
deeper commitment to safely operating facilities
with highly hazardous chemicals. This recognition
is represented by the U.S. Department of Labor,
Occupational Safety & Health Administrations
(OSHA) promulgation of regulation number
1910.119: Process safety management of highly
hazardous chemicals (PSM) in June 1992.
The PSM regulation contained 14 provisions
that, when rigorously followed, would necessarily
improve the safety performance of a facility and
the safety of those around it. Its purpose was
preventing or minimizing the consequences of
catastrophic releases of toxic, reactive, flammable,
or explosive chemicals [that] may result in
toxic, fire or explosion hazards.
While industrys performance in personal safety
has improved, as evidenced by the injury-incidence rate reductions, some recent safety-related
incidents show the need for improved process
safety. To accomplish this, the Baker Report challenged U.S. processing industries to heed their
findings and recommendations.iv
Owners of manufacturing facilities must ask
themselves if there is a direct, positive correlation
between improvements in process safety and
those in personal safety. If so, (and the obvious
answer is yes) then what must be done to ensure
better process safety? Companies that implement
APM or asset optimization initiatives have experienced a simultaneous increase in production
uptime and improved safety performance while
reducing spending.v Organizations must proactively improve process safety by establishing an
effective APM program and practicing the principles outlined in this paper.

4 Process Safety Through Improved Asset Performance Management - Beyond Personal Safety

How to Achieve Better Process Safety

Operators of process plants were already trying to
ensure the safety of their employees and those
around their facilities before the BP Texas City
tragedy of 2005. The incident and subsequent
recommendations from the U.S. Chemical Safety
and Hazard Investigation Board (CSB) and the
Baker Report have certainly served to accelerate
changes in approach and standards as well as
enforcement of those standards. The American
Petroleum Institute (API) also initiated an immediate review of its facility-siting standard, which
covers site considerations for buildings, with an
emphasis on temporary buildings. API and
National Petrochemical and Refiners Association
(NPRA) members reviewed their compliance
with existing PSM regulations. OSHA stepped
up its review and enforcement of the PSM law.vi
Boards of directors across the country and around
the world renewed their search for ways to
improve and ensure good process safety results.
All these organizations have increased efforts to
identify ways to demonstrate process safety leadership, put process safety management systems in
place, and strengthen process safety knowledge
and expertise.
The underlying message of the Baker Report is
that companies can focus on circumstances and
conditions that result in fewer employees being
injured in the workplace, but can still leave a host
of potential mechanical failures ready to occur
and cause great harm to many people and much
damage to equipment. The solution to this problem (or correction of the inherent issues that create the potential for disaster) appears to be
embodied in the proper application of OSHAs
PSM regulation. The Baker Report summarizes
this point: The Panel believes that as process
safety is embedded in all aspects of corporate culture, management systems, and operations relating toU.S. refineries[the] refining business
will benefit.

As indicated earlier, the Baker Report supports

three keys to successful, safe production: leader ship, management processes and systems, and
people. The following describes how an effective
Asset Performance Management (APM) initiative can be applied to these three key areas, within which each of the reports recommendations
and observations can be effectively managed.

Leadership
The Baker Report rightly identified corporate culture and leadership as key issues related to achieving better process safety. The report contains a
wealth of information about what should be
looked at and emphasized in an organizations
quest toward better process safety. But, the report
leaves it to industry and its operators to decide
how to achieve those objectives. With the
wealth of knowledge and expertise contributing
to the report, companies will be well-served by
following its recommendations, just as industry
has profited by compliance with OSHAs PSM
regulation.
The Baker Report indicates that to demonstrate
leadership in process safety, a high level reliability
and process safety position should be established
and employee perspective of PSM elevated. Both
the position and subject must be viewed as one of
great importance to the company. Executive
management should conduct frequent, periodic
reviews (at least annually) of key results that
reflect the effectiveness of the PSM program.
Reviews should include third party audits that
have measured a significant percentage of the
companys assets for PSM performance on an
annual basis.
PSM coordinators at company sites must be given
authority to ensure compliance with the many
requirements in the regulation and should have
deep expertise related to one or more of the fol-

5 Process Safety Through Improved Asset Performance Management - Beyond Personal Safety

lowing areas: maintenance, operations, engineering or reliability. These coordinators need to

become more than recommendation monitors;
they should be integrally involved with the plant
management team in reviewing equipment reliability and recommending changes for mechanical
integrity improvement. Management, executive
and board-level leaders should be kept informed
of both the existence and effectiveness of the
companys process safety management program.
Moving toward better process safety requires a
commitment from the highest levels in an organization, but that commitment must be expressed in
terms of day-to-day, ongoing operational goals
and expectations. Cost and profit goals are relatively easily conceived and conveyed, and may
even be easily met in the short term in many
manufacturing settings. Labor costs can be readily adjusted downward and may go unnoticed for a
quarter, or even a year or two. Capital can be
withheld for years in some businesses before it
becomes evident that insufficient capital spending
has positioned the company for imminent failure.
In these cases, short term profits and return on
capital may look quite attractive. However, my
30 years of refining experience leads me to
believe that this approach is almost certainly destined to fail in the long run. A much better
model one practiced by a former Marathon
Ashland Petroleum Company, LLC executive
vice president of refining, Manfred Spindler
acknowledges an implied Manufacturing License
to Operate, which must be earned by a facility
and the associated corporate structure as a prerequisite for conducting a profitable business (see
Figure 2.)
Working under this leadership and seeing the positive results obtained by insisting these fundamental principles be met without regard to cost has
convinced me of the validity of this approach.
Costs and production must then be optimized to

Figure 2

determine if the business is viable and profitable

enough to satisfy all the stakeholders. The
concept of a license to operate was developed
and refined by the University of British
Columbia, Applied Ecosystem Services, Inc.
and others.vii, viii
As applied here, the license to operate would
include providing a safe work place for employees,
being a responsible corporate citizen in the community, and clearly meeting (with a comfortable
margin for error) all the regulatory and compliance requirements. It is only after each of these
prerequisites is met that one can hope to generate
profits in an ongoing, sustainable way. While
impacts of the other two are important, only the
first element of the license (a safe work place) is
directly addressed in this paper. John S. Mitchell,
author of Physical Asset Management Handbook,
observes that enforcing a principal such as this
implies strong leadership - or top down management - and is necessary to change organizational
behavior, direct the many complex relationships,
and guide an organization to successful results.
Many key factors influence the success of the

6 Process Safety Through Improved Asset Performance Management - Beyond Personal Safety

manufacturing process: personnel, raw materials,

efficiency of equipment, and the nature of the
marketplace, to name a few. More importantly,
the culture of a company (as established by leadership and manifested in the behavior of all
employees and their results) will govern the
degree of success in safety performance.

operating within its defined physical capabilities,

performing maintenance recommended by
manufacturers guidelines, and
identifying good maintenance strategies using
advanced, risk- and statistical-based analytical
techniques, or other proven methods.

Actions of leaders will determine the results more

so than their words. Certainly, words convey
expectations and rewards reinforce the message
being sent. In the case of the BP Texas City incident, BPs executive management believed profits
never superseded spending on safety, but some
employees surveyed felt that safety programs were
under-funded. The Baker Report noted that, even
though BP Texas City reduced maintenance and
capital spending from 1992-1998, another 25%
cost-reduction target was set by BP management
after its takeover of the refinery from Amoco in
2000.ix There were also indications that employees and managers alike received conflicting messages that had a negative impact on their safety
culture.

An effective APM program is needed to ensure

every piece of equipment is operated and maintained within prescribed limits. When armed
with the right information (statistically derived
and risk-adjusted) informed decisions can be
made about the production plan. The resultant
equipment and unit reliability ensures safety of
the process.

One very successful approach (used by Marathon

Refining to achieve safe, profitable manufacturing
results) can be expressed as Design it Right,
Operate it Right, Maintain it Right. This paper
embraces the Design it Right, Operate it Right,
Maintain it Right philosophy for manufacturing
and describes how one can apply it in concert
with the Baker Report, which emphasized the
need to have the right corporate safety culture
that leads to better process safety. The emphasis
here will be on the Maintain it Right principle.
The application of some kind of comprehensive
asset optimization program is key to increased
effectiveness driven by improved reliability, which
results in major gains in corporate profitability.
Companies can maintain and reliably operate
well-designed equipment by:

By consciously invoking the principles embodied

in the Manufacturing License to Operate, following the Design it Right, Operate it Right,
Maintain it Right philosophy, and complying
with the Baker Report recommendations, companies can achieve world-class performance in manufacturing and ensure both personal and process
safety.

Management Processes and Systems

To demonstrate a commitment to process safety
management, companies must seek processes and
systems capable of handling vast amounts of data,
analyzing that data, integrating the resultant recommendations into their work processes, and
continuously improving on the results.
Many processes are needed to effectively achieve
reliability of the equipment in a plant. Key to
managing a facility is knowing the status of the
organization in terms of process maturity. Those
processes, or domains, can be represented by:
business strategy, work processes, reliability
improvement, technology and data, organization

7 Process Safety Through Improved Asset Performance Management - Beyond Personal Safety

Asset Performance Management Maturity Model

DOMAIN OBJECTIVES

DOMAINS
Figure 3

and people, and transformation management.

Figure 3 represents a model developed by
Meridium to characterize the maturity of a manufacturing facility with respect to reliability, competence and capability.
Meridiums maturity model is based on benchmarking 36 key elements for a comprehensive
reliability program and includes the concept of a
scorecard based on a detailed assessment of a
manufacturing site with pre-determined key performance indicators (KPIs). This approach provides an objective basis for identifying and prioritizing improvement opportunities. Such a scorecard can identify gaps in best practice and the
value that can be gained by implementing a reliability improvement initiative. It also can provide
a means of certifying the performance and proficiency of ongoing reliability programs and the

individuals responsible for those results. Equally

important, the assessment scorecard provides a
detailed, objective list of all the elements that
must be considered and prioritized for inclusion in
a reliability program to gain full benefits and
value.
In todays business environment, every U.S. operator of a hydrocarbon processing facility has a
process safety management (PSM) system of some
kind in place. The rigor with which that system
is capable of monitoring the equipment, generating maintenance strategies and managing them
will dictate the effectiveness of the system.
Understand that with any asset-intensive business, it is also vitally important to track the
equipment data and history. What competent
engineer would not be able to safely operate a sys-

8 Process Safety Through Improved Asset Performance Management - Beyond Personal Safety

tem that contained one pump, one valve and one

heater and can devote their full attention to that
operation? However, multiply that system by
tens, hundreds or even thousands, spread manpower resources across those many systems, operate them 24 hours per day, 365 days per year and
then envision how each is to be operated without
incident.
Using multiple software packages to collect disparate data (from enterprise asset management or
computerized maintenance management systems)
is difficult to coordinate, represents a large training challenge, increases administrative costs, and
may sub-optimize the solution. The obvious
approach is to have an integrated enterprise APM
system reinforced with good work practices that
allows organization, analysis and presentation of
the right data and results to the right people at
the right time.
The best process safety management system will
consolidate useful equipment information into
one location, perform advanced analytics and
reporting, as well as keep all the information and
analyses up to date and evergreen. This solution
should provide one source for all of a companys
equipment information that provides ready access
with current or real time data input for those who
need to know anything about maintaining or
operating the equipment.
Comprehensive programs also must be in place to
monitor and maintain fixed and rotating equipment, power systems and instrumentation. In
multiple-site companies and in large facilities, it is
unreasonable to attempt to manage such a
detailed-information system using manual data
collection and analysis. These systems will
include (but may not be limited to) use of lifecycle design criteria, positive material identification (PMI) of existing and new components, rigorous piping and vessel inspection routines, a corrosion under insulation (CUI) program, safety

instrumented systems (SIS) compliance, instrument calibration monitoring, vibration programs

for rotating equipment, and power management
programs.
The critical nature of instruments in process safety has been assumed for quite some time. Since
the Baker Report highlighted the fact that a number of failed instruments contributed to the BP
incident in 2005, it is even more apparent that
companies must give appropriate emphasis to
instruments by putting in place an instrumentation performance management (IPM) system, a
critical component of any comprehensive reliability program. Through the integration of tools,
processes and workflows, IPM provides a system
for managing and improving the performance of
process instrumentation and safety instrumented
systems using calibration and SIS-lifecycle management and reliability analytics.
Those familiar with and experienced in safety in
heavy manufacturing understand that better safety performance correlates to improved reliability,
and production performance improvements
always follow safety improvements. Those who
successfully implement comprehensive APM
processes and systems will achieve world class performance in reliability, production and safety.
Figures 4 and 5 depict the results for one client
but are typical for many plants.
In a generally profitable business, it would be difficult for a modestly capable manager to spend
more on safety than a site would return in productivity and gross revenue. If, however, leaders
were to find themselves in such a situation, the
conclusion should be to cease operations rather
than compromise safety! The skill is to know the
difference between a safe operation and one that
has failed to achieve that necessary level of performance. (Many factors contribute to the real
state of any manufacturing facility, but the macro
measure of the injury-incidence rate represents a
good indicator of the safety performance of that
facility. Admittedly, the focus is on personal safe-

9 Process Safety Through Improved Asset Performance Management - Beyond Personal Safety

provides an integral way to continuously

improve asset strategies and keep them evergreen

People

Figure 4
Excellence in Stationary Equipment Reliability
F. Walter Pinto, Lyondell, presented at 2004 NPRA Reliability &
Maintenance Conference & Exhibition

ty; but, even for a safe facility with a good safety

culture, it is virtually impossible to operate without experiencing few on-the-job injuries.)
Therefore, a system to ensure better equipment
reliability and overall process safety is needed in
addition to programs that foster good personal
safety. The most effective system will be capable
of:
providing a solid foundation for gathering
all pertinent asset information, keeping
track of equipment data, and doing
advanced analytics on the data
making the organized data and maintenance strategy recommendations readily
visible on a near-real time basis to all who
need to see them
conducting risk-based analysis via
advanced analytical techniques that result
in optimized maintenance strategies
facilitating utilization of these principles
across a plant and multiple sites
ensuring sustained profitability with continuous improvement using current information from an integrated platform that

In order to maintain a safe, efficient and profitable plant, companies must seek and retain personnel with the necessary level of knowledge and
expertise which will ensure positive results and
success of the program. Equipping those people
with the right tools and data is equally important,
so companies must:
collect in an easily retrievable place all the
pertinent information about each piece of
equipment
have the capability of analyzing the initial data
as well as changes that routinely take place to
create appropriate maintenance strategies for
the equipment within a defined operating
envelope
Having the data and capability of analyzing it will
produce good results only if the organization
includes individuals who are competent in using
the information. Finding, hiring and retaining
people with the right skill sets in reliability and
safety has always been a challenge but will be

Figure 5
Excellence in Stationary Equipment Reliability
F. Walter Pinto, Lyondell, presented at 2004 NPRA Reliability &
Maintenance Conference & Exhibition

10 Process Safety Through Improved Asset Performance Management - Beyond Personal Safety

even more so as the experienced work force in

the U.S. and other regions of the world ages and
retires. The Society of Petroleum Engineers
(SPE) estimates that the industry will experience
a 44% attrition rate among petroleum engineers
by 2010.xi These attrition rates are common
amongst professionals in all fields related to reliability and must be addressed through improved
procedures and training. Data storage media is
readily available and affordable for capturing good
procedures, but the work processes associated with
retrieval of that data by the right person at the
right time have yet to mature and become readily
available to manufacturers. Many attempts have
been made to come up with an effective knowledge management system to address this need, but
none have been widely accepted in the industry.
Most systems have approached the issue from the
perspective of finding ways to move information
from function to function in an organization, perhaps by establishing communities of practice.xii
But, engineers, operators and craftsmen have
more tasks to keep them busy in a work day than
hours to complete the work. Therefore, the effort
to communicate with a colleague in a community
of practice is usually relegated to slow times or
lulls in the action, if at all. That colleague may
be hard to find at just the right time. A search of
documentation for the needed information may
likewise turn out to be an exercise in futility as its
location in the companys archives is probably not
well known (if its even there).
The success of this approach is better ensured by
linking important or required information to individual pieces of equipment. Combine this linkage
with the influence and collaboration of a community of practice, functional advisory group, or

other cooperative assemblage in an organization,

and companies have the optimal way to leverage
expertise from current and retired talent of a
company.
When applied well, these APM initiatives
establishing an executive reliability position and
deploying a system capable of handling vast
amounts of data and knowledge management
will result in world-class reliability and the
accompanying process safety.

The Key to Process Safety:

Improved Asset Performance
Management
Safely operating equipment in asset intensive
manufacturing settings is a huge challenge.
Whether that business is petrochemical, mining,
power generation, or the manufacture of consumer goods, many of the challenges are the
same. Having intimate knowledge of each piece
of equipment being operated from conceptual
design through construction, operation, maintenance and redesign gives an owner the opportunity to proactively affect safe usage and remain
within mechanical limits of the equipment.
The Baker Report challenged the refining and
chemical industry to heed lessons learned from
the 2005 BP incident. Implementing an APM
system will provide an effective approach to
proactively achieving world-class reliability based
on enterprise asset management concepts and
practices. These practices require exemplary executive leadership, establishment of comprehensive
process safety management systems with proper
underlying work processes, and the capture, retention and transferal of knowledge and expertise.

11 Process Safety Through Improved Asset Performance Management - Beyond Personal Safety

i
ii
iii
iv
v
vi

vii

viii
ix

x
xi
xii

DuPont Thumbnail History,

<http://www.historylink.org/essays/output.cfm?file_id=5633>.
Tim Bryce, How do we Manage?,
,http://ezinearticles.com/?How-do-we-Manage?&id=209931>.
U.S. Labor Department, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
The Report of the BP US Refineries Independent Safety Review
Panel, January 2007.
John S. Mitchell , Physical Asset Management Handbook,
Fourth Edition (Houston: Clarion Technical Publishers, 2007) 6.
OSHA Instruction, Directive Number: CPL 03-00-004,
Petroleum Refinery Process Safety Management National
Emphasis Program, June 7, 2007, U.S. Department of Labor,
Occupational Safety and Health Administration.
Norman B. Keevil, Institute of Mining Engineering, University
of British Columbia,
<http://www.mining.ubc.ca/SocialLicense.html>.
Applied Ecosystem Services, Inc.,
<http://www.appl-ecosys.com/sl.shtml>.
Steven Mufson, BP Failed on Safety, Report Says, January 17,
2007, <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/16/AR2007011600208.html>.
Mitchell 7-9.
R. Whitt and T. Ayral, Hydrocarbon Processing, How companies are complying with the Baker Report, November 2007.
Steve Denning, Communities for knowledge management,
<http://www.stevedenning.com/communities_knowledge_management.html>.

Corporate Headquarters
Roanoke, Virginia, USA +1.540.344.9205
Regional Office
Houston, Texas, USA +1.281.920.9616
Europe
Walldorf, Germany +49.6227.7.33890
Middle East, Africa
Dubai, United Arab Emirates +971.4.365.4808
Asia Pacific
Perth, Australia +61.08.6465.2000
www.meridium.com
info@meridium.com

About the author

Roy Whitts 30-year career in the refining industry, most recently with Marathon Petroleum
Company, included various positions in operations, engineering and management. He managed
a 220,000 bpd refinery and held roles as manager
of refining engineering and vice president of business operations. Roy has served on the API
General Committee on Refining and Operating
Practices Advisory Committee, as well as NPRAs
Manufacturing Committee. He is a Registered
Professional Engineer in the State of Kentucky
and a member of AIChE. He received a Bachelor
of Science degree in Chemical Engineering from
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (New York,
USA) and an MBA from Morehead State
University (Kentucky, USA). He is a graduate of
the Ashland Management Development program
at Indiana University and the Executive Program
of the University of Michigans Business School.