5 Steps to Close the Process Safety Gap in Energy Operations
Despite heavy investment in Process Safety Management, catastrophic incidents in the energy sector continue to rise — claiming 32 worker lives across 21 incidents in 2024 alone. The core problem is not missing controls, but the gap between policy and practice when conditions are abnormal and pressure is highest. This POV argues that true process safety improvement requires a deliberate shift from compliance activity to demonstrated control effectiveness, underpinned by clear governance, visible leadership, and accountability that holds under real operating conditions. Drawing on field evidence from two real organisations, dss+ outlines five practical steps to close this gap: defining catastrophic scenarios, specifying critical controls, giving leaders line-of-sight, establishing trigger-action escalation, and testing controls under abnormal conditions — not just on paper.
Energy organisations invest heavily in PSM (Process Safety Management) — yet catastrophic events keep occurring. The problem is not missing controls. It is the gap between policy and practice when conditions are abnormal, systems are degraded, and pressure is highest.
32 worker fatalities reported by IOGP members in 2024 — across 21 separate incidents
+5 more deaths than 2023 — despite sustained PSM investment and improving personal safety rates
Source: IOGP Safety Performance Indicators – 2024 Data, International Association of Oil & Gas Producers. Available at: www.iogp.org/bookstore/product/iogp-safety-performance-indicators-2024-data/
3,700+ alarms in ~12 hours at BP-Husky Toledo — a landmark example of controls failing under real conditions
Source: U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (CSB), Final Report: BP-Husky Toledo Refinery Fire, June 2024. Available at: www.csb.gov/us-chemical-safety-board-issues-final-report-into-fatal-2022-fire-at-bp-husky-refinery-near-toledo-ohio/
THE ROOT PROBLEM
WHY PSM FAILS IN PRACTICE
- Limited Leader Visibility
Senior forums focus on lagging metrics and audit completions — not real-time control health.
Impairments are normalised before leaders see them. - Diffused Accountability
When conditions degrade, “no one owns the call.” Escalation defaults to schedule pressure — not risk ownership. - Values Tested Under Pressure
Production and cost pressure quietly redefines what is “tolerable.” Bypasses persist. Deferrals become backlogs.
In the full article, dss+ draws on field evidence from two real organisations and outlines five practical steps to close the gap.