Gå til hovedinnhold

Audit of follow-up of incidents at Mongstad

During the period 21-22 February 2007, the Petroleum Safety Authority Norway (PSA) conducted an audit of Statoil Mongstad's (SM's) work to prevent undesirable incidents. We did not identify any nonconformities in relation to regulatory requirements during the audit, but we did identify some items where there is potential for improvement.

Mongstad (kilde: Statoil)

The Mongstad terminal (Source: Statoil)

Background for the audit

Mongstad is approaching a period involving many major construction and modification projects. Managing the work on health, safety and environment (HSE) will thus be particularly important during such periods.

The audit targeted the following areas:

  • Further development of the level of safety.

  • Follow-up and further development of the management system.

  • Formulation and use of procedures at Mongstad.

  • Investigation of incidents.

  • Development, implementation and follow-up of measures after incidents.


The audit was primarily based on requirements in the Provisional regulations relating to safety and working environment for certain petroleum facilities on land and associated pipeline systems, and the Regulations relating to systematic health, safety and environment work in enterprises (the Internal Control Regulations).

Purpose of the audit

The purpose of the audit was to investigate how SM manages the preventive HSE work to avoid incidents, and how work is implemented to learn from actual undesirable incidents that occur at Mongstad.

Another objective of this audit was to clarify management involvement in the effort to prevent incidents.

Result of the audit

Several conversations indicate that the HSE work is good. The organization has also been strengthened in the area of HSE work.

The contractors involved in the activity worked systematically and in a good manner to follow-up and learn from incidents.

No regulatory nonconformities were revealed in this audit, however, some improvement items were identified.

The analysis methodology is positive, but could be further developed.

Contact person i the Petroleum Safety Authority
Mike Theiss