OSHA Inspection: LARIAT SERVICES, INC.

Issued

Jan 31, 2007

Abate by

Apr 1, 2007

Penalty

Initial $5,000 · Current $3,500 Reduced

General-duty citation text

Section 5(a)(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970:  The
employer did not
furnish a place of employment which was free from recognized hazards that
were causing or
likely to cause death or serious physical harm to employees in that
employees were exposed
to struck by hazards:
(a)Lariat Services, Inc. at Rig 15, SW SE Section 12, T11N, R88W, Clark, CO
80428:  On or before 8/25/06, the employer did not ensure that the hook
load weight
did not exceed the capacity of the rotary drilling line (wire rope) when
tripping out of
the hole.  Although the employer provided a Pason system with alarms, the
alarms
had been disabled. In addition, there was no clear training and
instruction for drillers
regarding the hook load limitations of the rotary drilling line.  Finally,
the ton-mile
calculations did not include infrequent events causing additional wear on
the wire
rope, such as stuck pipe, drag, and jarring, and the training for these
ton-mile
calculations was inadequate.  Condition exposed employees to struck by
hazards when
the wire rope parted.
Abatement Note:  Abatement certification and documentation are required
for this item (See
enclosed "Sample Abatement-Certification Letter").
Among other methods, some feasible and acceptable abatement methods are
stated in the
following references:
1)The employer shall train employees on the wire rope manufacturer's
directions for
use, and on the limitations of the specific wire rope in use.  On page 12,
Table 4 of
these directions, the manufacturer noted that the minimum breaking force
of 1 1/8
inch, 6 x 19 classification, bright (uncoated) independent wire rope core
was 130,000
pounds.  The manufacturer provided a chart of design factors for 130,000
pound
nominal strength wire rope, and stated "If heavier loads are used so that
the
design
factor drops below 3.0, the ton mile service falls off sharply.  Below a
design factor
of 2.0, wire rope is permanently and irreversibly damaged."
2)The wire rope manufacturer provided supplemental charts on how to
calculate ton
miles associated with stuck pipe, setting casing, drag, and jarring.
3)API Recommended Practice 9B, Eleventh Edition, August 2002, Sections
3.3, 5.3,
and 6.0 provide direction on the evaluation of the rotary drilling line,
including
criteria regarding the design factors, pulling on stuck pipe, and similar
infrequent
operations.

Issued

Jan 31, 2007

Abate by

Apr 1, 2007

Penalty

Initial $5,000 · Current $3,500 Reduced

General-duty citation text

Section 5(a)(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970:  The
employer did not
furnish a place of employment which was free from recognized hazards that
were causing or
likely to cause death or serious physical harm to employees in that
employees were exposed
to struck by hazards:
(a)Lariat Services, Inc. at Rig 15, SW SE Section 12, T11N, R88W, Clark, CO
80428:  On or before 8/25/06, the employer did not ensure that the
hoisting lines
were thoroughly inspected by qualified employees at least once each month,
and a
record made of these monthly inspections, designating any noted defects.
In addition,
the employer did not ensure that these hoisting lines were inspected at
least once each
day by a qualified person.  The employees were not qualified to conduct
these
inspections for several reasons, including: 1) the employees were not
trained to
recognize wire rope deficiencies, such as stretching, thinning, and broken
wires;  2)
employees did not use the appropriate gauges and tools to measure wire rope
stretching, thinning, and broken wires, and sheave grooves;  3) the
employees were
not familiar with wire rope inspection criteria, and 4)  the employees
were not
directed and trained to supersede ton mileage calculations with wire rope
inspections
if the wire rope inspections identified any deficiencies.  Finally, the
employer did not
ensure that a system of accountability was in place to ensure that both
monthly and
daily inspections were conducted.  Condition exposed employees to struck
by hazards
when the wire rope parted.
Abatement Note:  Abatement certification and documentation are required
for this item (See
enclosed "Sample Abatement-Certification Letter").
Among other methods, one feasible and acceptable abatement method is
stated in API
Recommended Practice 54, Section 9.6.1, which provides that, "All hoisting
lines should be
visually inspected at least once each day when in use.  Hoisting lines
should be thoroughly
inspected once each month and a record made of the monthly inspection,
designating any
noted defects."
API Recommended Practice 9B Section 6.4 provides that, "A program should
be
"tailored"
to the individual rig...In all cases, visual inspection of the wire rope
by the operator should
take precedence over any predetermined procedures."
The wire rope manufacturer also provides requirements for inspections, and
noted that wire
rope inspections are to take precedence over ton mile calculations: "It
must be remembered
that in all cases, visual inspection of wire rope by the drilling
contractor must take
precedence over any predetermined calculations." (Union Wire Rope Cut-Off
Program for 1
1/8" Rotary Drilling Line, no page number available.)

Issued

Jan 31, 2007

Abate by

Apr 1, 2007

Penalty

Initial $5,000 · Current $3,500 Reduced

General-duty citation text

Section 5(a)(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970:  The
employer did not
furnish a place of employment which was free from recognized hazards that
were causing or
likely to cause death or serious physical harm to employees in that
employees were exposed
to struck by hazards:
(a)Lariat Services, Inc. at Rig 15, SW SE Section 12, T11N, R88W, Clark, CO
80428:  On or before 8/25/06, the employer did not clear the rig floor
when an
unusual hard pull occurred because of a stuck pipe.  The driller was
pulling on stuck
pipe with over 364,000 pounds of load on the hook, and up to 392,000
pounds, over
the course of 6 minutes, and neither he nor any of the four other crew
members were
adequately trained and directed to clear the rig floor.  Condition exposed
employees
to struck by hazards when the wire rope parted.
Abatement Note:  Abatement certification and documentation are required
for this item (See
enclosed "Sample Abatement-Certification Letter").
Among other methods, one feasible and acceptable abatement method is
stated in API
Recommended Practice 54, Section 9.2.11, which provides that, "During
instances of
unusual loading of the derrick or mast, such as when making any unusually
hard pull, only
the driller or other essential supervisory personnel should be on the rig
floor,
and no one
should be in the derrick, mast, or cellar."

Issued

Jan 31, 2007

Abate by

Feb 14, 2007

Penalty

Initial $5,000 · Current $3,500 Reduced

General-duty citation text

Section 5(a)(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970:  The
employer did not
furnish a place of employment which was free from recognized hazards that
were causing or
likely to cause death or serious physical harm to employees in that
employees were exposed
to struck by hazards:
(a)Lariat Services, Inc. at Rig 15, SW SE Section 12, T11N, R88W, Clark, CO
80428:  On or before 8/25/06, the employer did not ensure that each
section of
flexible high pressure hoses, and each section of high pressure rigid
line, was secured
to prevent movement should the line fail.  The two vertical high pressure
hydraulic
lines, and the two lower horizontal pipes, were connected to the power
swivel only by
the threaded ends of the pipe.  Neither the vertical hydraulic lines, nor
the 1.5 inch
and the 2.5 inch horizonal pipes, were adequately secured directly to the
power
swivel.  Condition exposed employees to struck by hazards if the sections
of line were
to fail.
Abatement Note:  Abatement certification and documentation are required
for this item (See
enclosed "Sample Abatement-Certification Letter").
Among other methods, one feasible and acceptable abatement method is
stated in API
Recommended Practice 54, Section 9.13.3, which provides that, "Each
section of high
pressure rigid line should be secured using appropriate means to prevent
movement should
the line fail.  Flexible high pressure hose should be properly secured to
prevent unsafe
movement."  These two pipes were 5 to 7 feet long, and the hydraulic hoses
connected on
one side created a downward pressure on the other ends connected to the
power swivel only
by threads.  This downward pressure, along with the vibration and movement
of the power
swivel, made it more likely that failure would occur.  If the threaded
connections
of the two
pipes were to fail, the pipes and lines could fall and strike the driller
and the floor hands.  In
addition, with these lines carrying up to 10,000 pounds of hydraulic
pressure, the pipes and
lines could flap around, striking the employees, and inundating them with
hot hydraulic oil.

Issued

Jan 31, 2007

Abate by

Feb 14, 2007

Penalty

Initial $2,500 · Current $1,750 Reduced

Issued

Jan 31, 2007

Abate by

Apr 1, 2007

Penalty

Initial $2,500 · Current $1,750 Reduced

Issued

Jan 31, 2007

Abate by

Apr 1, 2007

Issued

Jan 31, 2007

Abate by

Apr 1, 2007

Penalty

Initial $2,500 · Current $1,750 Reduced

Issued

Jan 31, 2007

Abate by

Apr 1, 2007

Issued

Jan 31, 2007

Abate by

Feb 14, 2007

Penalty

Initial $2,500 · Current $1,750 Reduced

Issued

Jan 31, 2007

Abate by

Mar 14, 2007

Penalty

Initial $12,500 · Current $12,500

Issued

Jan 31, 2007

Abate by

Mar 14, 2007

Penalty

Initial $25,000 · Current $25,000

Issued

Jan 31, 2007

Abate by

Feb 14, 2007

Issued

Jan 31, 2007

Abate by

Feb 14, 2007