Expertise
Modern Approaches to Occupational Safety in the Oil and Gas Industry
It’s uncommon in the oil and gas industry to hear about people not directly involved in oil production. Nevertheless, without the expertise of these professionals, the production, transportation, and processing of hydrocarbons would be exposed to additional risks to people and the environment. In this issue, we feature insights from Nurzhan Kassym, a recognized expert in industrial safety, occupational health, and environmental protection. Nurzhan holds prestigious international diplomas and certifications in occupational health and safety management (NEBOSH, CSP), and is a member of the American Society of Safety Professionals (ASSP).
During his almost quarter-century career, Nurzhan made significant contributions to developing the three major oil and gas companies in Kazakhstan (TCO, NCOC, and KPO) and had the opportunity to work on international projects in Turkiye and Kuwait. BP's North American division employs Nurzhan as the Senior Safety Advisor at the Whiting Refinery, Indiana, USA.
– Nurzhan, can you briefly describe our professional journey?
– I began my career in 2001 at Tengizchevroil (TCO), starting as a safety instructor and working my way up to team lead. I supported operations, maintenance, construction, and drilling departments, and also worked closely with contractors.
In 2008, I joined Chevron’s Eurasia Business Unit in Almaty, where I supported regional projects, including a deepwater exploration drilling project in the Black Sea offshore Turkey and the CPC expansion project.
In 2012, I was seconded to Chevron’s Saudi Arabian Business Unit and worked at the Wafra Joint Operations in Kuwait until 2016. Upon returning to Kazakhstan, I supported infrastructure readiness for the Future Growth Project at Tengiz.
In 2017, I took on the role of Health, Safety, and Environment (HSE) Manager at Shell Kazakhstan, where I had the opportunity to work closely with NCOC and KPO. In 2022, my family and I moved to the United States, where I currently work at BP’s largest refinery.
– Given your extensive experience in Kazakhstan and the Middle East and your current work in the US, what differences do you observe in how these regions approach occupational safety and health?
– The main difference lies in the systematic application of safety management processes, the development of a strong safety culture, employee engagement, and leadership commitment. Workplace safety cannot rely on a single person – an HSE specialist. It must be a shared responsibility across all departments and employees, supported by well-established and functioning systems.
Leadership plays a crucial role in this. It can foster a healthy environment where the focus is not on assigning blame but identifying root causes and learning from incidents. Moreover, building a safety culture takes time, effort, and resources. It doesn't happen overnight.
As I mentioned earlier, leadership must commit to long-term investment in developing and implementing safe work processes. Just as significantly, employees must be actively involved in designing these processes. Leadership must also consistently demonstrate personal commitment, setting a visible example for others. Additionally, companies must regularly assess the effectiveness of their processes and implement corrective actions where needed. All of these elements combined are what truly differentiate effective safety management systems.
– What can you say about differences in safety culture itself? Some argue that local culture determines employees’ approach to safety. Do you agree with that?
– Regardless of geography or local customs, the vast majority of people don’t come to work expecting to be injured or killed. Yet, organizations show widely different safety records.
Even in Kazakhstan alone, we see significant contrasts: some enterprises report much higher fatality rates than companies like TCO, NCOC, and KPO, despite facing similar levels of operational risk and employing workers from the same cultural background.
This difference is mainly due to the presence or absence of strong safety processes and leadership commitment. In other words, building a safety culture requires dedicated time and resources to identify hazards, assess risks, and implement appropriate controls.
Regardless of the scale of a task or project, a risk assessment must be conducted at the planning stage to prevent issues during execution; otherwise, the risk of incidents increases.
It is also critical to ask: Do all employees have the right to stop unsafe work? And what does the company prioritize – human life or production targets?
In the end, each employee’s safety and perception of it are direct results of a systemic approach. A strong safety culture is the product of years of consistent effort, yet poor leadership decisions and actions can undo it in moments.
Having worked extensively in both Kazakhstan and internationally, I can say with confidence that a lack of resources – and the resulting disregard for safety procedures – inevitably leads to higher injury and fatality rates, regardless of local cultural norms.
– Could you give a specific example of how these safety processes work?
– A simple example is working at height. No employee should begin such work without either properly installed and inspected scaffolds that prevent falls or legitimate personal fall protection equipment, like harnesses and fall arrest systems. If these conditions are not met, the work should be considered unacceptable from a safety standpoint. How an employee starts working at height should never be a spontaneous decision. It must be a well-planned and documented process that includes completed checklists, a permit to work, and a pre-job safety analysis.
This is precisely the type of process that builds a sustainable safety culture and prevents normalization of risk.
Another important – and often reactive – process is incident investigation. Investigations must focus on identifying systemic causes, not just assigning blame. Even when human error appears to be the main factor, we aim to go deeper and ask: What led to that mistake? It could be poor planning, flawed design, external pressure, lack of clear procedures, or gaps in competence. This approach allows us to learn from incidents and revisit existing processes to prevent recurrence.
– In your opinion, what motivates Western companies to take safety seriously?
– First and foremost, a legislative framework. In the West, companies are legally obligated to demonstrate a duty of care towards the life and health of their employees.
Second, public opinion. Since the share price of many large corporations is heavily influenced by public perception, employee wellbeing becomes a priority.
A third practical reason is that safe operation means good business. When you factor in the costs of lawsuits, environmental fines, compensation payouts, insurance premiums, and equipment repair, it becomes clear that investing in safety is essential for operational efficiency.
– Nurzhan, thank you for taking the time to share your valuable experience. In conclusion, what key recommendations would you give for improving the safety culture at Kazakhstani oil and gas enterprises?
– First, the level of individual criminal liability must be revised, and the legal and regulatory framework for occupational safety and health must be brought up to the highest standards. It should move towards risk-based principles, allowing employers to identify and manage risks independently while simultaneously increasing their financial liability for consequences.
Second, increasing employee engagement in developing work processes and procedures is essential. This not only takes advantage of the hands-on knowledge of those working in the field, but also makes them feel like valued contributors to the company’s success.
Such engagement helps build a culture of trust and shared accountability, moving away from the post-incident culture of blame. In the long run, this contributes to a more sustainable and resilient safety culture, regardless of the industry or company size.