Digital Technologies in Occupational Health and Safety Management in Nigeria’s Upstream Offshore Oil and Gas Sector: A Critical Review of Gap-Bridging Potential

Authors

Kingsley Inyang Ekpo

Centre for Occupational Health and Safety, University of Port Harcourt (Nigeria)

Esang Lazarus Esitikot

Highstone Global University, Texas (Nigeria)

Seye Tare Ganranwei

Centre for Occupational Health and Safety, University of Port Harcourt (Nigeria)

Numondogiyo Benjamin Naworio

Centre for Occupational Health and Safety, University of Port Harcourt (Nigeria)

Unwana Ekpo Nta

Centre for Occupational Health and Safety, University of Port Harcourt (Nigeria)

Ndantiobong Peter Akpan

Centre for Occupational Health and Safety, University of Port Harcourt (Nigeria)

Article Information

DOI: 10.51584/IJRIAS.2026.11070040

Subject Category: Health

Volume/Issue: 11/7 | Page No: 705-718

Publication Timeline

Submitted: 2026-07-22

Accepted: 2026-07-27

Published: 2026-07-30

Abstract

The accelerating proliferation of digital technologies presents unprecedented opportunities to address the systemic implementation gaps that have long characterised occupational health and safety (OHS) management within Nigeria’s upstream oil and gas sector. Building on a foundational study that identified six critical barriers—including production-priority conflicts, resource inadequacy, regulatory enforcement deficits, and the invisibility of cumulative occupational exposures—this paper examines the gap-bridging potential of real-time risk platforms and artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted hazard identification systems in overcoming these entrenched challenges. Drawing on a critical, non-systematic review of recent empirical literature and industry deployment evidence, the study applies a Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) and Diffusion of Innovation (DOI) theoretical lens to evaluate how digital solutions interact with organisational, regulatory, and human factors in high-hazard offshore environments. The evidence synthesis indicates that AI-enabled predictive safeguards, IoT-integrated monitoring architectures, and data-driven decision-support platforms are theoretically and empirically positioned to address the production-priority override, resource inadequacy, and chronic exposure invisibility barriers—the three most pervasive implementation failures documented in the sector—while offering the potential to transform occupational health surveillance from reactive to continuous and predictive. However, significant contextual barriers—including legacy infrastructure constraints, cybersecurity vulnerabilities, workforce digital literacy deficits, ethical and privacy considerations, and cost-prohibitive adoption thresholds—continue to moderate uptake in the Nigerian context. The paper concludes with a strategic framework for staged digital integration and targeted policy recommendations for the Nigerian Upstream Petroleum Regulatory Commission (NUPRC) and industry operators seeking to operationalise technology-enabled safety governance.

Keywords

artificial intelligence; hazard identification; real-time risk platforms; occupational health and safety; Niger Delta offshore

Downloads

References

1. International Labour Organization (ILO), “Safety and Health at the Heart of the Future of Work: Building on 100 Years of Experience,” ILO, Geneva, Switzerland, 2019. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Z. A. Ali and M. S. Misnan, “Evaluating the current level of safety and health practices in the upstream sector of the Nigerian oil and gas industry: A review,” Int. J. Res. Innov. Soc. Sci., vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 463–487, 2025. doi: 10.47772/IJRISS.2025.9010044 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. J. E. Vinnem, Offshore Risk Assessment vol. 1: Principles, Modelling and Applications of QRA Studies, 3rd ed. London, UK: Springer, 2014. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. J. Ogbonna and P. Iwuanyanwu, “Policy gaps and implementation barriers in occupational health management of oil drilling workers with chronic exposure risks,” Int. J. Med. Pharm. Eng. Res., vol. 9, no. 7, pp. 29–51, 2025. doi: 10.56201/ijmepr.v9.no7.2025.pg29.51 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. A. T. Aderamo, H. C. Olisakwe, Y. A. Adebayo, and A. E. Esiri, “AI-enabled predictive safeguards for offshore oil facilities: Enhancing safety and operational efficiency,” Compr. Res. Rev. Eng. Technol., vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 023–043, 2024. doi: 10.57219/crret.2024.2.1.0060 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. A. Adejumo, K. O. Tobitem, and O. Akindayini, “Integration of AI and IoT for real-time monitoring and predictive maintenance in offshore oil & gas platforms,” Int. J. Artif. Intell. Res. Dev., vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 197–204, 2025. doi: 10.34218/IJAIRD_03_01_013 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. A. T. Aderamo, H. C. Olisakwe, Y. A. Adebayo, and A. E. Esiri, “AI-driven HSE management systems for risk mitigation in the oil and gas industry,” Compr. Res. Rev. Eng. Technol., vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 001–022, 2024. doi: 10.57219/crret.2024.2.1.0059 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. E. Hollnagel, Safety-I and Safety-II: The Past and Future of Safety Management. Farnham, UK: Ashgate, 2014. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. J. T. Olorunlogbon, I. O. L. Adekeye, O. A. Olatunde, and A. Olasunkanmi, “Impact of occupational safety health and environment professionals on safety outcomes in Nigeria’s oil and gas sector,” Int. J. Multidiscip. Res. Growth Eval., vol. 6, no. 6, pp. 1221–1228, 2025. doi: 10.54660/.IJMRGE.2025.6.6.1221-1228 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. F. Khan, S. Rathnayaka, and S. Ahmed, “Methods and models in process safety and risk management: Past, present and future,” Process Saf. Environ. Prot., vol. 98, pp. 116–147, 2015. doi: 10.1016/j.psep.2015.07.005 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. G. Ng, “AI is advancing risk management in offshore oil and gas operations,” Offshore Mag., Sep. 3, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.offshore-mag.com [Trade press — cited for illustrative purposes only; peer-reviewed corroboration required.] [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. K. Ramasamy, “Advanced digital transformation for offshore and modular oil & gas assets,” LinkedIn Pulse, Jun. 18, 2025. [Online]. [Grey literature — cited for framework illustration only.] [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Y. Lu, “Industry 4.0: A survey on technologies, applications and open research issues,” J. Ind. Inf. Integr., vol. 6, pp. 1–10, Jun. 2017. doi: 10.1016/j.jii.2017.04.005 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. A. Rasheed, O. San, and T. Kvamsdal, “Digital twin: Values, challenges and enablers from a modeling perspective,” IEEE Access, vol. 8, pp. 21980–22012, 2020. doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2020.2970143 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Nigerian Upstream Petroleum Regulatory Commission (NUPRC), “Safety guidelines: Health, safety, environment & community department,” NUPRC, Abuja, Nigeria, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://nuprc.gov.ng/safety-environment/ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. F. D. Davis, “Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology,” MIS Q., vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 319–340, Sep. 1989. doi: 10.2307/249008 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. E. M. Rogers, Diffusion of Innovations, 5th ed. New York, NY, USA: Free Press, 2003. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), Guide to Industrial Control Systems (ICS) Security, NIST Special Publication 800-82, Rev. 2. Gaithersburg, MD, USA: NIST, 2015. doi: 10.6028/NIST.SP.800-82r2 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. J. Reason, Human Error. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1990. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. R. Flin, P. O’Connor, and M. Crichton, Safety at the Sharp End: A Guide to Non-Technical Skills. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate, 2008. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. D. F. Sittig and H. Singh, “A new sociotechnical model for studying health information technology in complex adaptive healthcare systems,” Quality & Safety in Health Care, vol. 19, Suppl. 3, pp. i68–i74, 2010, doi: 10.1136/qshc.2010.042085. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. E. Coiera, J. Ash, and M. Berg, “The unintended consequences of health information technology revisited,” Yearbook of Medical Informatics, pp. 163–169, 2016, doi: 10.15265/IY-2016-014. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. National Information Technology Development Agency (NITDA), Nigeria Data Protection Regulation (NDPR) 2019. Abuja, Nigeria: NITDA, 2019. [Online]. Available: https://nitda.gov.ng/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/NigeriaDataProtectionRegulation11.pdf. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. International Labour Organization (ILO), Protection of Workers’ Personal Data: An ILO Code of Practice. Geneva, Switzerland: International Labour Office, 1997. [Online]. Available: https://www.ilo.org/publications/protection-workers%E2%80%99-personal-data-ilo-code-practice. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. F. Hendrickx, Protection of Workers’ Personal Data: General Principles, ILO Working Paper No. 62. Geneva, Switzerland: International Labour Organization, 2022. doi: 10.54394/VBKR9991 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

Metrics

Views & Downloads

Similar Articles