Don’t compromise safety in search for profits
Productivity problems and the state’s LNG industry were among the topics addressed in responses to our website: www.wabusinessnews.com.au
With regard to the article ‘Productivity boost through reform: Chaney’...
MR Chaney needs to get out a bit more.
Sitting in the palatial surroundings of the chairman's office, he has missed the main reason for Australia's (and in particular Western Australia's) lack of productivity.
Hasn't it been caused by too many large companies owning too many resources, tripping over one another to get them built as quickly as possible, to make as much money as soon as possible because shareholders want short-term gain not long-term promises?
It's almost comical watching BHP Billiton,
Rio Tinto, FMG, Woodside, and Chevron simultaneously trying to build multi-billion dollar infrastructure in the tiny labour market of WA all at the same time.
As a consequence: the professional and labour resources become diluted across the projects; people get promoted beyond their competency; huge churn rates develop; skill and IP among contractors becomes thinner; plant and equipment becomes rare and expensive; reliability shrinks; quality suffers as the rush increases; and contracting organisations bloom and die etc.
On top of all this chaos, caused by a lack of coordination and planning, a very thick layer of health and safety environment is required. This is very good, but has Mr Chaney ever tried working in long pants, a long-sleeved shirt, wearing a hard hat, safety, goggles, gloves, ear muffs, steel-toe capped boots, thick socks, a welding visor and leather trousers while trying to weld 40 feet up in an elevated work platform wearing a safety harness in 40 degrees centigrade and 20 knots of wind?
And you want productivity as well? Best of luck.
You've driven us to where we are and I don't think you can have everything. Senior management has planned, designed and executed poorly; don't just blame decreasing productivity.
Steve Brown
Perth
LNG developments
With regard to the article: ‘Floating LNG to be saviour ofAust industry: Shell’...
GIVEN the massive waste evident during just the civil works on land-based gas projects, I am not surprised at all.
My understanding is that this waste is driven by over-regulation in the safety sector. Given the emotional concerns, there is no brake on the zealots and their new ways to try to remove even the slightest risk keep growing at a seemingly exponential rate.
It is a smokescreen to say wages are too high when the biggest saving is in labour utilisation. There is just so much lost productivity that one of the biggest issues is labour morale due to inactivity and waste. This is despite the attractive wages.
I would estimate that 20 per cent efficiency in labour on some sites would be optimistic, whereas poorly run metro works would be running at 65 at worst.
Based on this and a wage factor of, say, 2.5, you can guess that these works' wage costs are eight times the equivalent as works in the metro area; and that's before FIFO costs.
It is no wonder that these projects are looking for cheaper ways to avoid ground-based projects.
There goes the wonderful incentive to develop these projects and I would hope the royalty costs will escalate accordingly as the advantages of these projects to Australians decrease.
Michiel de Ruyter
Perth
I CONCUR in the main with Ms Pickard, who's correct in saying (floating LNG) technology is not more dangerous than that onshore.
In both cases the wells (the source of the oil-gas, and hence pollution risk) are located offshore; indeed as there is no requirement for connecting pipelines, there is a strong argument that offshore is safer.
Mr Barnett's argument is driven by a desire for state royalties. If the project is developed offshore, the taxes go to the federal government; if onshore, they go to the state.
I do disagree with Ms Pickard in her claim of lower productivity among the workforce. It may be true that the output per worker costs more as compared to East Africa, but the safety regime, not just the environmental side, but also for job procedures, and associated paperwork workload that is enforced by the companies takes time.
If you measure production against industry deaths, Australia has very favourable percentages.
Additionally, although Australia is a higher initial cost, the political stability will ensure the continuation and expansion of the sector.
Dave Hume
Fremantle
