Oil & Gas Safety Excellence
Manage COMAH requirements, well integrity, and process safety with digital tools designed for high-hazard operations.
The Challenge
Onshore oil and gas operations face the full weight of COMAH regulations, requiring comprehensive safety reports, Major Accident Prevention Policies, and demonstrated control of major hazards. Well integrity, permit-to-work systems, and process safety management generate enormous documentation requirements that paper systems cannot manage effectively. Failures mean catastrophic environmental damage, community harm, regulatory shutdown, and criminal prosecution - with personal liability for directors and managers.
How Assistant Manager Solves Oil & Gas Compliance
Each module is designed to address the specific challenges oil & gas businesses face every day.
Digital Checklist
Oil and gas operations rely on multiple barrier systems to prevent major accidents - systematic verification of these barriers is the foundation of COMAH compliance and process safety management
The Problems
Why This Matters for Oil & Gas
- Safety critical element verification relies on paper checklists that can't demonstrate real-time completion status or provide immediate alerts when checks are missed
Safety barriers degrade without detection because verification activities weren't completed as scheduled, leaving you unable to prove barrier status to regulators
- Well integrity monitoring requires regular readings from multiple measurement points, but paper-based systems can't trend data to identify developing problems
Gradual barrier degradation goes unnoticed until failure occurs, with no early warning to allow intervention before integrity is compromised
- Process safety inspections generate findings that are recorded on paper forms which get filed but never systematically reviewed for patterns across multiple inspections
Recurring issues aren't identified because individual inspection findings aren't aggregated and analysed, and you miss opportunities to prevent major incidents
The Solution
How Digital Checklist Helps
Safety critical element verification with scheduled frequencies, automatic trend analysis, completion rate dashboards, and immediate escalation when checks are overdue
Every safety barrier is verified on schedule with automatic alerts for developing trends, completion status is visible in real-time, and patterns across multiple inspections are automatically identified
Use Cases:
- • Safety critical element verification scheduling and tracking
- • Well barrier status monitoring and trend analysis
- • Process safety inspection with pattern analysis
- • Pressure relief device testing documentation
- • Flare system inspection and performance verification
- • Tank integrity inspection scheduling and completion
- • Pipeline inspection and anomaly tracking
Feature Screenshot
Digital Checklist
Real-World Examples
Example 1: Safety critical element verification relies on paper checklists that can't demonstrate real-time completion status or provide immediate alerts when checks are missed
Real Scenario
"A pressure relief valve fails to operate during a process upset. Investigation reveals the SCE verification checklist for that device hadn't been completed for three months, but nobody was tracking checklist completion rates."
Example 2: Well integrity monitoring requires regular readings from multiple measurement points, but paper-based systems can't trend data to identify developing problems
Real Scenario
"Annulus pressure has been rising gradually over months, indicating barrier migration. Paper records showed readings within acceptable limits on each individual check, but nobody was trending the data to see the upward drift."
Example 3: Process safety inspections generate findings that are recorded on paper forms which get filed but never systematically reviewed for patterns across multiple inspections
Real Scenario
"A major process leak occurs at a flange joint. Review of historical inspection records reveals this flange had been flagged as a minor concern on three previous inspections, but nobody was looking at patterns across inspections."
Staff Training
Oil and gas operations have specific competency requirements under COMAH and industry standards like OPITO - demonstrating competency assurance is fundamental to operating licence retention and personal liability protection
The Problems
Why This Matters for Oil & Gas
- Control room operators, well intervention specialists, and safety critical role holders require documented competency assessment, but paper-based systems can't enforce competency verification before role assignment
Personnel work in safety critical roles without current competency verification, exposing the operation to major accident risk and personal liability for managers who authorised the work
- COMAH requires demonstration that all personnel understand major accident hazards and their roles in prevention and response, but training records don't link to specific major accident scenarios
You can't prove to the competent authority that personnel are trained in the specific major accident scenarios relevant to their roles
- Emergency response roles require regular drill participation and competency maintenance, but tracking who participated in which drills and maintaining competency for mutual aid scenarios is overwhelming
Emergency response capability degrades because personnel don't maintain competency, and you can't demonstrate response readiness to regulators or insurers
The Solution
How Staff Training Helps
Safety critical role competency management with assessment tracking, automatic expiry alerts, drill participation monitoring, and integration with work assignment systems
Personnel can only be assigned to safety critical roles when competency is current, training is linked to specific major accident scenarios, and emergency response readiness is maintained and demonstrable
Use Cases:
- • Control room operator competency assessment and tracking
- • Well intervention specialist qualification management
- • Major accident scenario training and verification
- • Emergency response role competency maintenance
- • Drill participation tracking and gap identification
- • Safety critical role assignment verification
- • Contractor competency verification for COMAH sites
- • Annual refresher training scheduling and compliance
Feature Screenshot
Staff Training
Real-World Examples
Example 1: Control room operators, well intervention specialists, and safety critical role holders require documented competency assessment, but paper-based systems can't enforce competency verification before role assignment
Real Scenario
"A control room operator mishandles an abnormal situation, leading to a process upset. Investigation reveals his competency assessment expired six months ago and he hadn't completed the required refresher training on emergency response."
Example 2: COMAH requires demonstration that all personnel understand major accident hazards and their roles in prevention and response, but training records don't link to specific major accident scenarios
Real Scenario
"During a COMAH inspection, regulators ask how you verify that operators understand the major accident scenarios for their specific work areas. Your training records show generic safety training but nothing linked to the specific MAPP scenarios."
Example 3: Emergency response roles require regular drill participation and competency maintenance, but tracking who participated in which drills and maintaining competency for mutual aid scenarios is overwhelming
Real Scenario
"During a major incident, the emergency response team struggles because key members haven't participated in relevant drills for over a year. Post-incident review reveals your drill participation tracking had completely broken down."
Safe Supplier
Oil and gas sites operate under COMAH and depend on contractors and suppliers for safety critical activities - supplier management must meet the same standard as internal operations to maintain the safety report claims
The Problems
Why This Matters for Oil & Gas
- Well service contractors, process equipment suppliers, and maintenance providers operate on high-hazard sites without systematic verification of their safety management systems and competencies
Contractor activities contribute to major accident risk, and joint liability exposes the site operator to prosecution for contractor failings
- Critical equipment suppliers provide safety critical elements without adequate verification of quality systems, testing certification, and compliance with process safety requirements
Substandard equipment enters safety critical service, undermining barrier integrity and creating major accident potential
- Multiple contractors work simultaneously under overlapping permit conditions, but there's no central visibility of which contractors are on site and what activities they're performing
Simultaneous operations create unmanaged interactions between activities, leading to incidents that neither contractor anticipated
The Solution
How Safe Supplier Helps
COMAH-grade supplier management with safety management system verification, equipment certification tracking, contractor site access control, and simultaneous operations visibility
Every contractor and supplier is verified against COMAH site requirements, equipment certification is confirmed before safety critical service, and simultaneous operations are visible and managed
Use Cases:
- • Well service contractor safety management verification
- • Process equipment supplier quality system auditing
- • Safety critical element supplier certification tracking
- • Contractor COMAH site induction and access control
- • Simultaneous operations visibility and coordination
- • Equipment certification verification before commissioning
- • Ongoing supplier audit and performance monitoring
Feature Screenshot
Safe Supplier
Real-World Examples
Example 1: Well service contractors, process equipment suppliers, and maintenance providers operate on high-hazard sites without systematic verification of their safety management systems and competencies
Real Scenario
"A well service contractor causes a loss of containment during intervention work. Investigation reveals their procedures didn't meet site requirements and their personnel weren't competent for COMAH site operations. The site operator faces prosecution alongside the contractor."
Example 2: Critical equipment suppliers provide safety critical elements without adequate verification of quality systems, testing certification, and compliance with process safety requirements
Real Scenario
"A pressure safety valve fails to lift during a process upset. Investigation traces the failure to manufacturing defects that weren't identified because supplier quality certification wasn't properly verified before purchase."
Example 3: Multiple contractors work simultaneously under overlapping permit conditions, but there's no central visibility of which contractors are on site and what activities they're performing
Real Scenario
"A welding contractor ignites vapours from a venting operation by a different contractor. Neither contractor was aware of the other's activities because there was no central contractor visibility system."
Action Tracker
Oil and gas operations face intense regulatory scrutiny with personal liability for senior leaders - systematic action tracking demonstrates the management commitment that regulators expect and protects individuals from prosecution
The Problems
Why This Matters for Oil & Gas
- Competent authority improvement requirements from COMAH inspections generate actions that must be completed to maintain operating consent, but tracking is scattered across emails and spreadsheets
Actions are missed or completed late, undermining regulatory relationship and risking escalating enforcement action including consent withdrawal
- Safety report commitments and MAPP implementation requirements generate hundreds of actions across the organisation, with no systematic tracking of completion status or evidence
The safety report claims capability that doesn't exist in practice, creating regulatory exposure and actual major accident risk
- HAZOP, LOPA, and other risk assessment studies generate recommendations that are assigned to action owners but not systematically tracked to completion and verification
Risk reduction measures identified in studies aren't implemented, leaving major accident risks uncontrolled despite the studies having identified them
The Solution
How Action Tracker Helps
COMAH-compliant action management with regulatory action prioritisation, safety report commitment tracking, risk study recommendation management, and verification of action effectiveness
Every regulatory requirement is tracked to completion with evidence, safety report commitments are monitored for actual delivery, and risk study recommendations are implemented and verified
Use Cases:
- • Competent authority inspection action tracking
- • Safety report commitment compliance monitoring
- • MAPP implementation action management
- • HAZOP and LOPA recommendation tracking
- • Incident investigation action completion and verification
- • Emergency planning action management
- • Insurance inspection recommendation follow-through
Feature Screenshot
Action Tracker
Real-World Examples
Example 1: Competent authority improvement requirements from COMAH inspections generate actions that must be completed to maintain operating consent, but tracking is scattered across emails and spreadsheets
Real Scenario
"The competent authority required three actions from their last inspection. One action was overlooked because it fell between department responsibilities. When regulators return, the incomplete action triggers a formal improvement notice."
Example 2: Safety report commitments and MAPP implementation requirements generate hundreds of actions across the organisation, with no systematic tracking of completion status or evidence
Real Scenario
"Your safety report claims a specific inspection frequency for process equipment. An audit reveals the actual inspection rate is half what's claimed because nobody was tracking whether the safety report commitments were being met."
Example 3: HAZOP, LOPA, and other risk assessment studies generate recommendations that are assigned to action owners but not systematically tracked to completion and verification
Real Scenario
"A HAZOP from two years ago recommended an additional layer of protection for a high-consequence scenario. The action was assigned but never completed. The scenario occurs and the missing protection layer would have prevented the escalation."
Document Vault
Oil and gas COMAH compliance requires extensive documentation demonstrating major accident prevention and control - systematic document management is essential for regulatory compliance and operational integrity
The Problems
Why This Matters for Oil & Gas
- The COMAH safety report, supporting studies, and evidence documents are scattered across multiple systems with no central repository or version control
When regulators request evidence of safety report implementation, staff waste time searching for documents and may produce outdated versions that contradict current operations
- Process safety studies including HAZOPs, LOPAs, bow-ties, and risk assessments are completed but not linked to the equipment, systems, and procedures they relate to
When changes are made to equipment or procedures, the relevant studies aren't reviewed because nobody knows which studies are affected
- Well data, integrity assessments, and intervention histories are stored in multiple locations with no single source of truth for barrier status and integrity evidence
Well integrity decisions are made without access to complete historical data, and you can't demonstrate lifecycle integrity management to regulators or asset owners
The Solution
How Document Vault Helps
COMAH-compliant document management with safety report structure, study-to-equipment linking, well data lifecycle repository, and regulatory submission management
Safety report evidence is instantly retrievable, process safety studies are linked to the equipment they protect, and well integrity data provides complete lifecycle visibility
Use Cases:
- • Safety report and supporting study repository
- • MAPP and implementation evidence storage
- • HAZOP and bow-tie linking to equipment and systems
- • Well lifecycle documentation and integrity evidence
- • Competent authority submission tracking
- • Process safety procedure version control
- • Risk assessment archive with review scheduling
Feature Screenshot
Document Vault
Real-World Examples
Example 1: The COMAH safety report, supporting studies, and evidence documents are scattered across multiple systems with no central repository or version control
Real Scenario
"Competent authority inspectors request evidence for a safety report claim. Three different versions of the supporting procedure are produced from three different locations. Inspectors question the integrity of your document control system."
Example 2: Process safety studies including HAZOPs, LOPAs, bow-ties, and risk assessments are completed but not linked to the equipment, systems, and procedures they relate to
Real Scenario
"A process modification is implemented without reviewing the original HAZOP. The modification defeats a safeguard that the HAZOP relied upon. A major incident results from the scenario that safeguard was meant to prevent."
Example 3: Well data, integrity assessments, and intervention histories are stored in multiple locations with no single source of truth for barrier status and integrity evidence
Real Scenario
"A well intervention decision is based on incomplete data because the original completion report was in a different system. The intervention causes integrity issues that the original data would have predicted."
Incident Reports
Oil and gas operations must demonstrate a strong process safety culture to regulators - systematic incident capture, investigation, and learning is how you prove that culture exists and prevent major accidents
The Problems
Why This Matters for Oil & Gas
- Loss of containment events, near-misses, and process safety indicators aren't captured consistently, with minor releases going unreported because they didn't cause immediate harm
Process safety trends aren't identified, minor events that precede major incidents go unrecognised, and you can't demonstrate the safety culture that COMAH requires
- COMAH requires notification of major accidents and near-misses to the competent authority, but determining what meets the notification threshold is complex and time-sensitive
Notifiable events go unreported or are reported late, damaging regulatory relationships and potentially constituting a criminal offence
- Major incident investigations generate extensive evidence, witness statements, and expert analysis that paper-based systems can't organise for effective root cause determination and learning
Investigations don't reach true root causes because evidence isn't systematically organised, and learning isn't embedded across the organisation
The Solution
How Incident Reports Helps
Process safety incident management with loss of containment tracking, automatic notification threshold assessment, structured investigation methodology, and organisational learning distribution
Every loss of containment and process safety event is captured and investigated, notification requirements are automatically determined, and learning from incidents reaches everyone who needs it
Use Cases:
- • Loss of containment event capture and classification
- • COMAH notification threshold determination
- • Process safety indicator tracking and trending
- • Structured incident investigation with evidence management
- • Root cause analysis methodology support
- • Organisational learning bulletin distribution
- • Regulatory investigation support and evidence retrieval
Feature Screenshot
Incident Reports
Real-World Examples
Example 1: Loss of containment events, near-misses, and process safety indicators aren't captured consistently, with minor releases going unreported because they didn't cause immediate harm
Real Scenario
"A major release occurs from a flange that had previously leaked multiple times. None of the minor leaks were formally reported or investigated. The trend that could have predicted the major event was invisible."
Example 2: COMAH requires notification of major accidents and near-misses to the competent authority, but determining what meets the notification threshold is complex and time-sensitive
Real Scenario
"A loss of containment should have been notified to the competent authority within hours. The operations team weren't sure whether it met the threshold and waited for management guidance. By the time notification was made, the delay itself became a compliance issue."
Example 3: Major incident investigations generate extensive evidence, witness statements, and expert analysis that paper-based systems can't organise for effective root cause determination and learning
Real Scenario
"A serious incident investigation takes six months but still doesn't identify root causes because the investigation team couldn't organise and analyse the volume of evidence effectively. The same underlying issues cause another incident eighteen months later."
Audit Trail
Oil and gas incidents trigger intense regulatory and legal investigation - audit trails must withstand scrutiny from the competent authority, HSE, police, and potentially courts
The Problems
Why This Matters for Oil & Gas
- Permit-to-work activities, isolations, and safety critical tasks are authorised on paper systems that can't provide real-time status or irrefutable evidence of completion sequence
Work proceeds without proper authorisation, isolation integrity can't be verified, and permit compliance can't be demonstrated when incidents occur
- Safety critical element tests, inspections, and maintenance activities are recorded on paper that provides no irrefutable evidence of completion timing or results
SCE performance degradation isn't detected, and you can't prove to regulators that safety barriers are being verified as the safety report claims
- Change management activities, management of change approvals, and implementation verification rely on email chains and paper forms that can't demonstrate proper approval sequence
Changes are implemented without proper approval, or approval evidence is lost and can't be recovered when incidents trigger investigation
The Solution
How Audit Trail Helps
Comprehensive audit trails for permit activities, SCE verification, and change management with tamper-proof timestamps, digital signatures, and complete activity history
Every safety critical activity is documented with irrefutable evidence, permit compliance is demonstrable, and change management approvals create complete audit trails
Use Cases:
- • Permit-to-work authorisation and completion audit trails
- • Isolation verification and de-isolation records
- • Safety critical element test completion evidence
- • Management of change approval history
- • Safety report commitment verification trails
- • Regulatory submission and response documentation
- • Legal hold and evidence preservation for investigations
Feature Screenshot
Audit Trail
Real-World Examples
Example 1: Permit-to-work activities, isolations, and safety critical tasks are authorised on paper systems that can't provide real-time status or irrefutable evidence of completion sequence
Real Scenario
"A worker is injured when equipment starts unexpectedly. Investigation reveals the isolation permit was signed off as complete, but the actual isolation steps weren't done in the correct sequence. Paper permits can't prove what actually happened."
Example 2: Safety critical element tests, inspections, and maintenance activities are recorded on paper that provides no irrefutable evidence of completion timing or results
Real Scenario
"A safety critical valve fails during an abnormal situation. Records show it was tested last month, but investigation reveals the test was never actually completed - the paperwork was filled in retrospectively."
Example 3: Change management activities, management of change approvals, and implementation verification rely on email chains and paper forms that can't demonstrate proper approval sequence
Real Scenario
"A process change contributes to a major incident. Investigation seeks to establish whether the change was properly approved through management of change. Key approval emails have been deleted and paper records have conflicting dates."
Process Monitoring
Oil and gas operations manage complex systems where multiple barriers and parameters must be monitored together - integrated monitoring is how you prevent the cascade failures that cause major incidents
The Problems
Why This Matters for Oil & Gas
- Well integrity parameters, process conditions, and environmental indicators are monitored by separate systems with no integrated view of overall asset health and barrier status
Developing problems aren't identified because nobody is looking at the integrated picture, and barrier degradation goes unnoticed until failure occurs
- Safety critical parameter limits are set in control systems but not linked to the assumptions in process safety studies, meaning limits may not provide the protection that studies rely upon
Process conditions drift outside safe envelopes without triggering appropriate response because alarm settings don't match study assumptions
- Environmental permit conditions require monitoring and reporting of emissions, flaring, and discharge quality, but integrating this data with process operations is manual and error-prone
Environmental permit breaches occur because operational decisions don't consider environmental limits, and reporting gaps create regulatory exposure
The Solution
How Process Monitoring Helps
Integrated process and well monitoring with barrier status dashboards, safety study parameter linking, and environmental compliance integration
All asset health indicators are visible in integrated dashboards, safety critical parameters are verified against study assumptions, and environmental compliance is monitored in real-time
Use Cases:
- • Well barrier status dashboard with integrated parameters
- • Process safety study parameter verification
- • Safety critical limit alignment with study assumptions
- • Environmental permit compliance monitoring
- • Flaring and emissions real-time tracking
- • Integrated asset health visualisation
- • Trend analysis across multiple parameter types
Feature Screenshot
Process Monitoring
Real-World Examples
Example 1: Well integrity parameters, process conditions, and environmental indicators are monitored by separate systems with no integrated view of overall asset health and barrier status
Real Scenario
"Well annulus pressure, process temperatures, and environmental emissions were all showing gradual adverse trends. Nobody was looking at the integrated picture. When the well failed, all three trends converged into a major incident."
Example 2: Safety critical parameter limits are set in control systems but not linked to the assumptions in process safety studies, meaning limits may not provide the protection that studies rely upon
Real Scenario
"A LOPA study assumed that high pressure would trigger automatic shutdown at a specific setpoint. The actual control system alarm was set higher. When the scenario occurred, the protection layer didn't respond as the study assumed."
Example 3: Environmental permit conditions require monitoring and reporting of emissions, flaring, and discharge quality, but integrating this data with process operations is manual and error-prone
Real Scenario
"Flaring exceeded permit limits during a process upset. Operations weren't aware they were approaching limits because environmental data wasn't visible to the control room. The breach triggered Environment Agency investigation."
Results Oil & Gas Businesses Achieve
Other Mining & Quarrying Solutions
Fuel Your Safety Excellence
Join oil and gas operators using Assistant Manager to maintain the highest safety standards.