|
BSEE proposes simplified regulations
Wants to reduce some of the regulatory burden of drilling safety rule introduced following the Deepwater Horizon disaster Alan Bailey Petroleum News
The federal Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement has announced proposed simplifications to the drilling safety rule implemented by the Obama administration in 2016 in the aftermath of the Deepwater Horizon disaster in the Gulf of Mexico. Commenting that the agency is responding to directives by President Donald Trump and Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke to reduce unnecessary regulatory burdens on industry while ensuring safe and environmentally responsible offshore operations, BSEE said that it is publishing its proposed new rule, the Blowout Preventer Systems and Well Control Rule, in the Federal Register. Publication will be followed by a 60-day public comment period.
“Using innovation and best science to increase safety and reliability, BSEE took a careful and deliberate approach to reduce unnecessary regulatory burdens,” said BSEE Director Scott Angelle when announcing the proposed new rule on April 27. “These reform efforts are part of the Trump administration’s push for smart and safe energy development. We’ll continue to work to do our job smarter and to ensure industry is exploring and operating safely.”
In July 2016 BSEE also implemented a new rule specifically targeting drilling safety in the Arctic offshore. Guy Hayes, BSEE public affairs officer for Alaska, has told Petroleum News that the agency is also reviewing that rule.
Reviewed 2016 rule BSEE said that its team of engineers and regulatory specialists reviewed the 2016 Well Control Final Rule and identified some provisions that are burdensome, unclear and impractical to implement. These problematic regulations require BSEE to repeatedly allow the use of alternative procedures or equipment, the agency said. The team also identified long-standing policies that could be incorporated in the regulations the agency said.
Ultimately, BSEE determined that 59 of the 342 provisions in the 2016 regulations required updating and revision.
Having figured out potential changes to the regulations, the BSEE team checked these changes against the 424 recommendations in 26 reports that followed the Deepwater Horizon incident.
“The team determined that none of the proposed rule changes would ignore or contradict any of those recommendations, or would alter any provision of the 2016 Well Control Final Rule in a way that would make the results inconsistent with those recommendations,” BSEE said.
Moreover, the provisions of the new rule would not impact any of the other regulations introduced since Deepwater Horizon, including the Drilling Safety Rule of 2010, and the two safety and environmental systems, or SEMS, rules, BSEE said. The proposed rule revisions would change the well blowout preventer testing protocol, modify the capability requirements for remotely operated vehicles, remove duplication in the verification requirements, and incorporate revisions to industry standards.
“The result of this analysis is proof that our regulatory reform efforts continue to be careful, tailored, and balanced,” Angelle said. “We have been successful in developing a solid set of proposed revisions. We look forward to the public comment dialogue and to providing America with smart regulations that ensure safe exploration for America’s energy future.”
Cost savings of $946 million During an April 27 news conference Angelle commented that BSEE anticipates industry cost savings of $946 million over 10 years as a result of implementation of the new rule. Fred Brink, the lead drafter of the proposed rule, gave as an example of cost savings some simplifications to the manner in which BSEE approval is obtained for well cementing operations - these simplifications would impact rig time during drilling operations, Brink said.
Another area of significant cost saving relates to clarity in rules for blowout preventer testing, Brink said.
Kate MacGregor commented that one concern relating to the original regulations was the potential for wear and tear on blowout preventer components as a consequence of the frequency with which the components have to be tested.
“We tried to infuse some common sense to that,” MacGregor said.
| 