Measured sensibly, action by the oil and gas industry in response to the Gulf of Mexico disaster promises to be far more effective than what the US government so far has proposed. In deep water, the industry wants to improve blowout prevention and response. The government wants simply to limit drilling.
The industry obviously recognizes the systemic lapses that allowed the deepwater Macondo wildcat off Louisiana to blow out on Apr. 20 and flow out of control until mid-July. And it's responding.
The American Petroleum Institute is reviewing standards and procedures, Upstream Director Erik Milito told a joint committee of the National Academy of Engineering and National Research Council on Aug. 12. "We recognize the accident in the gulf in April requires a fresh look at everything affecting safety, including industry standards and government regulations," he said. "In addition to our ongoing standards work, API is conducting a top-to-bottom review of offshore equipment, operating practices, spill response, and well control that is providing safety recommendations to the Department of the Interior."
Response system
Meanwhile, four producing-industry giants are moving to fill a void made painfully obvious by the tragedy. Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, and Shell plan to assemble a rapid-response system for future deepwater spills. Designed for water as deep as 10,000 ft, the system will be able to capture and contain 100,000 b/d. The companies have committed $1 billion to the project's initial costs. They say the system, able to be mobilized within 24 hr of a blowout, will be applicable to "a wide range of well designs and equipment, oil and natural gas flow rates, and weather conditions."
These standards are ambitious. Seabottom conditions in deep water are severe and various. Blowouts create unpredictable problems. Designing a response system flexible enough to be effective in all imaginable scenarios will be a challenge.
But the effort is supremely important. BP had to grope for a solution for weeks, its failure to be ready for the worst on full display. That can't happen again.
On these and other fronts, and not just in the US, the industry thus is seeking ways to improve its work, of which the government, by contrast, seems focused mainly on allowing less.
The House has passed and the Senate is considering legislation that would chase all but the largest producers out of deep water by removing caps on liability for accidents. The Macondo incident presents no reason to take this step. BP, the well operator, already has spent many times more than the existing cap of $75 million. The precaution is unnecessary yet certain to slash deepwater activity.
More recently the Interior Department has moved toward a toughening of offshore regulation under the National Environmental Protection Act, the law that requires preparation of environment impact statements (EISs). Those statements haven't been required for every regulatory step between the planning of lease sales and drilling of wells. Routine steps near the drilling stage typically receive "categorical exclusions" from costly and time-consuming NEPA requirements. The Interior Department on Aug. 16 said it will restrict use of categorical exclusions on the Outer Continental Shelf while it reviews NEPA regulation. The threat thus looms that it will require more NEPA review than has been the case.
Unaffordable goal
Adding to NEPA requirements wouldn't improve the safety of deepwater drilling and production. It simply would add costs, create delays, and give antidrilling activists new ways to obstruct offshore work.
The proper goal of industry and government, the goal that best serves national energy, economic, and environmental interests, is to encourage offshore activity and make it safer at the same time. Since the Macondo blowout, the industry has moved aggressively toward improved safety. The government has moved aggressively toward less activity. Diminished drilling means lower risk of blowouts, of course. But it's not a goal that an economic superpower with commensurate energy needs can afford to pursue for long.
More Oil & Gas Journal Current Issue Articles
More Oil & Gas Journal Archives Issue Articles
View Oil and Gas Articles on PennEnergy.com
