Research on oil platforms has a relatively short history; the early studies showed up in the mid-1980s (Hellesoy, 1985; Sutherland and Cooper, 1986). As a result, there is little research on the work experiences of workers in the oil and gas sector. Even when such research geared up, it however slowed considerably after the year 2000 because oil companies did not support such studies thus making research in the industry difficult (Burke and Richardsen, 2011). Also, workers working away from researchers’ reach exacerbate the difficulty of investigating oil workers’ working experience.
The oil and gas sector of any country is crucial for their economic performance and progress. Caplan et al., (1975) described the offshore oil environment as having constant noise and activity where the workers live and work in a restricted area for a long time without breaks; environment in the offshore oil and gas industry contains many environmental and organizational factors that are potential sources of stress. Consistently, Sutherland and Cooper (1989), and Parkes, (1998) regarded the offshore oil environment as a stressful occupation and the workers faced with both the offshore and onshore stress. However, numerous stressors have been identified as harmful to the wellbeing and safety of the workers. These stressors include the risks of travel by helicopter and ship, an adverse physical environment, rough seas, exposure to noise and accident hazards, arduous physical activities, a monotonous life within a limited space, isolation from the family and community, and the special demands and constraints inherent in offshore work (Aiken & McCance, 1982; Cooper & Sutherland 1987; Gann, Corpe, & Wilson, 1990; Norman et al .,
1988; Parkes, 1992, 1994; Rundmo, 1992a,b; Sutherland & Cooper, 1991; Ulleberg & Rundmo, 1997). Not only do these factors affect the offshore workers, they also have negative effects on their family members (Clark, McCann, Morrice, & Taylor, 1985; Morrice, Taylor, Clark, & McCann, 1985; Taylor, Morrice, Clark, & McCann, 1985). Again, Hellesoy (1985) found that offshore work lacks variety which resulted in lapses of attention which could be dangerous especially in cases of emergency.
Offshore workers live and work in an environment that has attracted the attention of some research workers as having a particular potential for stress (Gann et al, 1990). The study of occupational stress in the offshore industry dates back to the 80s. In their (Cooper and Marshall, 1976; Cooper and Sutherland, 1987 and Sutherland and Cooper, 1996) findings, career prospects and rewards, physical climate and work, organizational structure and climate, under-stimulation-low demand, work overload, air transportation, physical well- being, relationship at work and at home, the uncertainty element of the work environment, living in the environment and site management all formed part of the sources of stress they found in the offshore environment. More recently and sociologically based, a study by Amorim et al. (2013) on the offshore experience of nurses revealed that the work of offshore nurses differs from that of nurses working in healthcare institutions as the core competencies of the nurse are more broadly applied in the offshore context; for instance, the confinement of the workers, demands the presence of a health professional that can assist individuals with specific requirements, such as anxiety, nausea due to the rocking of the platform, diarrhea, and muscle pain caused by work efforts, among others.
Offshore environment
Oil companies operate in one of the toughest environments on earth; from the heat of the Middle Eastern deserts to the extreme cold of the Arctic region to the hostile waters of the North Sea (Rig Life, 2010). Work on offshore installations imposes environmental and work- related constraints and demands that do not apply in onshore work settings (Parkes, 2010).In fact, Elliot (1985) described the offshore environment as dangerous, arduous and socially isolating. Rigs and platforms (see fig 2.5) sometimes mobile or permanent are often used in oil offshore locations, anchored to the seabed. These rigs or platforms can be located on land, swamps or water (Rig Life, 2010). Because of the rough offshore environment, workers’ fitness for work in the offshore sector is ensured through medical examination (Donnelly, 2009; Parkes, 1998). Although offshore work is stressful, more and more workers desire to
work there because of the high level of pay with starting salaries on par with management onshore (Burke and Richardson, 2011).
Figure 2.3 - Oil offshore platform
There is a wide array of job roles in any oil offshore platform, going from engineers, managers, supervisors, cooks, maintenance workers, welders, crane operators etc. However, the highly skilled offshore workers are often employed in 3 aspects – exploration (for those who search for the oil), drilling (for those who access the oil reserve) and production (for those that bring the oil to the surface). These roles necessitate oil companies to have large production platforms to accommodate workers in these roles in order to achieve efficiency (Burke and Richardsen, 2011). With a working environment such as the description above, the following section will go on to discuss various stressors associated with workers in the offshore oil environment.
Parkes (2010) distinguished the sources of stress in the offshore oil environment into two main types - operational risks (e.g. risk of explosion, fire, structural failure, shut-down, reduced productivity) resulting from human error and impaired performance, and risk to the physical and psychological well-being of individual offshore workers (e.g. injury, illness, sleep disturbance, anxiety). Also, particular features of the offshore work environment and how they impact on the experience of stress by offshore workers will be described below.
Shift work
Offshore work is typical for its shift work pattern. The remote locations of offshore work makes it necessary for workers to extend their work patterns; working 2 weeks offshore and a leave period onshore depending on the organization. During the offshore weeks, the standard shift duration is 12-hrs, alternating with 12-hrs off-shift (Parkes, 2010). The study by International Labour Organization, (1993) suggests that a universal 12 hours shift duration
operated in offshore platforms worldwide. The large scale survey (N=9945) by Lauridsen, (2006) showed that 33% of offshore workers on the Norwegian platform had both day/night shift, 43% were day workers, while less than 3% worked night shifts only. This means that many of the offshore workers are over worked. Empirical evidence has shown that shift work has an adverse impact on physical health, well-being and job performance (Ross, 2009). Studies by Ross, 2009 and Bjorkum et al., (2004), although not conclusive, showed evidence that night shifts and long shifts have a significant relationship with increased accidents and reduced safety in the offshore environment.
Also, shift work has been linked to health and psychological problems, and problems of social adaptation due to long absences form home (Ross, 2009). More so, a study by Pallesen et al., (2004) suggests that shift work is linked to sleep disturbances (lower sleep duration and quality) and problems of adapting from night shifts when workers return onshore. In the study carried out by Waage et al., (2009) using 103 shift workers in the North Sea oil platform, it was found that 23% of workers suffered from a severe sleep disorder they termed ‘shift work disorder’ (SWD). SWD was characterized by sleepiness in the night and insomnia in the day which gave them poor sleep quality and health complaints. In addition, studies by Edwards & Rothbard (2000); Greenhaus & Beutell, (1985) and Kelloway et al. (1999) all posit that shiftwork, as common with offshore workers is most likely to cause work-family conflict due to the fact that involvement in one domain takes away time needed to meet demand in the other domain or stressors in one role (e.g., spousal conflict, work role ambiguity). This shift work inherently involves constrictions and recurrent changes for workers and their families that are different from typical office roles; this makes working offshore a lifestyle (Lewis et al., 1988).
Indeed, shift work can be unsettling to marital relationships especially when children are present (Presser 2000; White and Keith 1990). Offshore workers usually come home exhausted having come straight off shift and having travelled numerous hours (Clark and Taylor, 1988; Collinson, 1998). Pressure is usually placed on the family unit especially the children due to the absence of a family member (Mauthner et al., 2000). Parental shiftwork may have direct associations with the quality of parent-child relationships because parents working nonstandard hours spend less time with children in developmentally important activities. For example, parents working non-standard hours were less likely to read to their children, to participate in their child's education-related activities, and to help with homework, compared to those working standard hours (Wight et al., 2008). In addition, working in isolated conditions over long periods has negative effects on the well-being of
workers such as depressive mood, reduced work performance, physical and mental complaints, interpersonal conflict, lapses of attention and emotion (Sandal et al., 2006). Further evidence of increased anxiety, dissatisfaction with work pattern, distorted sleep pattern was reported by Parkes, (1993).
Risks
In terms of risks encountered in an offshore location, offshore workers have the most hazardous and dangerous jobs in the world. For instance, among 200 jobs considered, Forbes Magazine rated offshore workers as having the worst jobs in America in 2010. They used 5 conditions in their determinations: pay, stress, work environment, hiring outlook and physical demand (cf. Burke and Richardsen, 2011). Some of the risks are similar to a typical industrial workplace e.g. machinery accidents from malfunctions and human error, slips and falls, deaths or injuries (skull fracture, broken bones, burns, amputation)caused by falling objects. Some risks in the offshore locations are unique to the offshore work e.g. explosions and fires, exposure to hazardous chemicals, handling of oil and gas. Not only do oil workers face these risks, the rescue team who clean up after major disasters or accidents face the risks too (Burke and Richardsen, 2011). In Morken et al.’s (2004) study, they found that musculoskeletal disorders were significant causes of sick leave and disability among Norwegian offshore workers; this was attributed to physical stressors and the fast pace of working in the offshore industry. Also, Valentic et al. (2005) investigated incidents of illness and injuries using 518 offshore workers over a one year period. They found that the rate of injuries is high with hand and finger injuries the commonest, followed by injuries in the eyes, head, neck etc. because of the limited space offshore, the victims of injuries are usually evacuated.
Lifestyle
Working in these remote locations impacts largely on workers’ lifestyle because they normally work a few weeks away from home, in areas far away from the nearest civilization and require long travel times, working long shifts on a site that operates 24/7 and in tough climate conditions (Burke and Richardsen, 2011). Due to this lifestyle that is difficult to adjust to, the oil companies have an above-average labour turnover (Offshore oil Industry Lifestyle, 2010). The offshore lifestyle has increased the level of alcohol consumption of offshore workers. Aiken and McCance (1982) studied alcohol consumption among 213 male workers in the North Sea oil industry. The findings reported heavy drinking with 30 % consuming alcohol above suggested safe limits. Because alcohol was/is not allowed on oil platforms, alcohol consumption was measured during the week before departing offshore.
Also, as social relationships are a core element of quality of life and have been ranked second next health as the most important area of life, reduced social contact and the feeling of disconnectedness have been associated with a reduced quality of life, poor health, maladaptive behaviour and depressed mood. Apparently, offshore workers are vulnerable to a decline in social networks and support due to the nature of their work that compels them to work weeks away from home and community [Ontario Health Technology Assessment Series (OHTAS), 2008].
Family relations
According to Sutherland and Cooper (2000), it is not possible to obtain a complete stress profile by looking only at sources of stress in the workplace as there is a need to also examine the home-work interface. Managing the interface between one’s job and various roles and responsibilities off the job is considered as another potential source of stress (Cooper et. al., 2001). One would think that having stayed away from home for a long time, the troubles of offshore workers are over but that in itself impacts on their experience of stress. In fact, family relations have been found to suffer due to shift work, for example, recurrent partings and reunions of offshore workers also was found to place strain on intimate relationships regardless of marital status as individuals strive to match their lives apart with their lives together. Studies have shown that the offshore lifestyle causes strain on marriages and is made worse when working inflexible hours as it brings distinct stressors (Fenwick and Tausig, 2001; see Taylor and Simmonds, 2009). This situation indicates that offshore working has now become a lifestyle which requires family members to cope with regular absences and emotional demands of repeated partings and reunions. However, for majority of the respondents in this study, their reunion with family followed a characteristic pattern of initial happiness followed by a period of irritation reflecting difficulties for both partners to switch to their different lives. The study by Sutherland and Flin (1989) revealed that this offshore lifestyle does not just put pressure on personal relationships, rather, it increases divorce rates.
Specifically on the effects the offshore lifestyle has on families, the wives of the male offshore worker are faced with the ‘intermittent husband syndrome’ as coined by Clark et al., (1985) to refer to the recurrent absence of the male married workers. In their analysis, Clark et al., (1985) found that newly married, younger wives with pre-school children and no previous experiences of husband were most susceptible to anxiety, sexual difficulties and depression. Also, the continued absence of their husbands makes them independent as they make decisions and take up home responsibilities alone. This independence of wives has been
reported to have negative impacts such as conflict over authority and distrust. Until these conflicts are managed, tension in the family is likely to continue (Clark and Taylor, 1988). In confirming this, Lewis et al., (1988) contend that the workers’ absence requires the partners to carry out most of the responsibilities of managing the home and the children, maintaining relationships with extended families and often making independent decision which inadvertently causes conflict in homes. A situation where the offshore partner made all the decisions regarding the family in the absence of the offshore worker was strongly represented in this study and caused strain when the offshore workers attempted regaining their decision making authority.
Other stressors
Many studies support the fact that offshore work is significantly related to stress. For instance, studies by Sutherland and Cooper (1996a, 1996b) revealed offshore stress to be in the form of physical or psychological ill health, forced early retirement, alcohol problems, premature deaths, job dissatisfaction, absenteeism, marital disharmony, divorce, poor job performance. Also, Cooper and Sutherland (1987) found that offshore workers were less dissatisfied with their jobs than onshore workers. Sutherland and Cooper, (1996) argue that stress in the offshore oil and gas exploration and production industries can have far-reaching detriment in both financial and humanistic terms such as loss of life, ill-health and disability and poor performance and productivity. Sutherland and Cooper, (1996) found that growing job insecurity, inequity on rewards and compensations, in the offshore industry is a potent source of stress associated with several serious health problems including ulcers, colitis, alopecia and muscular and emotional complaints which adversely affect the individual and the organization. Further to the effect are disruptive performance, lowered tolerance to other stressors, poor morale and psychological distress. The study by Wong et al., (2002) using 561 male Chinese offshore oil workers ranked the 4 top stress factors as – physical environment of workplace, safety, interface between job and social life/family and career achievements.
Sutherland and Cooper, (1996) found that growing job insecurity, inequity on rewards and compensations, in the offshore industry is a potent source of stress associated with several serious health problems including ulcers, colitis, alopecia and muscular and emotional complaints which adversely affect the individual and the organization. Further to the effect are disruptive performance, lowered tolerance to other stressors, poor morale and psychological distress.
Within the offshore stressors above, it is seen that working offshore is physically demanding and dirty; it is associated with high risk, accident and health hazards (Leonnig and Kaufmann, 2010). Therefore, health and safety is taken seriously for example, a high quality is placed on safety and expertise on companies to bring disasters to the barest minimum. Specifically, oil companies as demanded by Government regulations secure the integrity of installations and the overall safety of the offshore environment, protecting workers from fire or explosions and then provide quick response from emergency services in case of fire or explosion (Rig Life, 2010). All offshore workers undergo training before resuming work in an oil rig (Rig Life, 2010). Specifically, workers in the UK and Norwegian sectors of the North Sea must take an induction course that deals with helicopter escape, personal survival, use of life rafts, first aid post evacuation, firefighting and use of a breathing apparatus. They get safety sessions before each flight and wear immersion suits and life jackets during the flight (Burke and Richardson, 2011).
Although research in the offshore oil industry is still evolving, the above analysis revealed that working offshore is indeed stressful that pose challenges to the overall quality of life of workers. Also, the studies discussed above engaged with the psychological insights of occupational stress and therefore limited their levels of analysis to the workplace and home. It can then be argued that engaging with insights from critical realism and a multi levelled approach will be necessary as it will examine how social structures within which the offshore environments are embedded contribute to the experience of stress.