BP implements voluntary safety standards for Gulf drilling *updated*

BP today vowed today it would take new steps to safeguard all of its deep-water drilling in the Gulf of Mexico as part of a bid to reassure federal regulators the company can prevent a repeat of the lethal blowout at its Macondo well last year.

The London-based oil giant said it was voluntarily implementing the safety changes, which go beyond drilling requirements the federal government imposed in the wake of last year’s Deepwater Horizon disaster. BP also has to meet the new federal requirements for any oil and gas operations in U.S. waters.

In a release announcing the move, BP said the voluntary performance standards “reflect the company’s determination to apply lessons it learned from the Deepwater Horizon accident and subsequent oil spill.”

The planned new safeguards include using a second set of pipe-cutting shear rams on equipment known as blowout preventers, to double the opportunities for those devices to successfully shear off drill pipe and seal a subsea well in case of an emergency.

Bob Dudley, BP group chief executive said the company was committed “to apply what we have learned to improve the way we operate.”

“We believe the commitments we have outlined today will promote greater levels of safety and preparedness in deep-water drilling,” Dudley added.

Although BP is a financial partner in several offshore oil and gas projects launched since last year’s spill, the company has not received the U.S. government’s permission to take the lead role operating any new wells.

BP made the overture in a letter to federal regulators at the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement, which oversees oil and gas development in federal waters. BP made clear that its new voluntary standards should be viewed as having the force of requirements, which the agency could enforce for any of the company’s future drilling in the Gulf:

“These voluntary performance standards, as applicable, will become conditions of operation, fully enforceable by BOEMRE, upon the approval by BOEMRE of any proposed plan or drilling permit application submitted by BP.”

Bureau officials have said there is no agreement with BP to allow the company to resume offshore drilling. The agency director, Michael Bromwich, also stressed that applications for permits to drill are reviewed individually on the merits of those proposals.

“We have established strong new safety and environmental standards that all operators are required to meet in order to operate on the outer continental shelf,” Bromwich said in a statement today. “We welcome additional safety steps and best practices that companies may decide to implement that are in addition to the requirements that are applied across the board.”

Other oil companies also take safety steps above and beyond what is required in federal regulations. For instance, Shell has pledged to use a second set of shear rams on any blowout preventers safeguarding its proposed drilling in Arctic waters near Alaska. Bromwich said he welcomed the move from any company operating offshore but stressed that BP’s drilling proposals still will be judged individually.

“We’ve been clear that each and every operator that applies for permits or that submits plans will be treated in the exact same way, so all our enhanced standards will apply to each and every BP application,” Bromwich said. “And now BP has said it is signing up to do these voluntary standards that will have the force — their letter says — of requirements, so I think that is a substantial step.”

Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., said BP’s move shows that its voluntary changes are “technologically feasible” for oil companies and should be adopted industry-wide. At a House Natural Resources Committee hearing this morning, Markey pressed Bromwich to impose similar requirements on all oil and gas companies operating offshore.

Bromwich stressed that some of BP’s voluntary steps could be included in new rules the ocean energy bureau is preparing to propose. But he noted that the rulemaking process will take time.

BP’s new voluntary steps, which the company is limiting to the Gulf of Mexico, “may be among the additional reforms that we embrace,” Bromwich said. “These are definitely on the table for our consideration down the road,”

But Bromwich added: “We want to consider that carefully. We’ve certainly heard the voice of industry that if we change the regulations too much and too often (that creates an unsettled environment).”

In addition to strengthening its blowout preventers, BP also pledged to have engineers witness all laboratory testing of the cement slurries used as barriers at its deep-water wells. BP said it would also make those test results available to BOEMRE officials. The change responds to criticism about the cement mixture applied at BP’s failed Macondo well, which failed early stability tests.

BP also said it would beef up its oil spill response plan with new information about how the company would tackle a spill in open water, near coasts and at the shoreline.

BP’s move aims to convince federal regulators and the public that the company has made changes since last year’s oil spill that would boost safety at any yet-to-be-approved offshore projects in the Gulf.

“BP is adopting these voluntary actions as part of its commitment to safe and reliable operations and to help rebuild trust in the company following last year’s accident and oil spill,” said James Dupree, BP’s regional president for the Gulf of Mexico.

Bromwich acknowledged BP’s goals today. “BP has clearly been through a lot,” he told the natural resources panel. “They clearly understand they have to win back not only the regulators’ confidence but the public’s confidence as well.”

But Bromwich rejected any notion that the company’s move boiled down to a PR stunt.

“They are looking for ways to demonstrate that they’ve learned the lessons of Deepwater Horizon (and that) they are determined to reform the company so it becomes characterized by more of a safety culture than they apparently had in the past,” Bromwich added. “So it’s clear that the chief motivation for doing this is to win the confidence of a broad range of people, including us, and to get back to work.”

The presidential commission that investigated last year’s oil spill said the Deepwater Horizon disaster was evidence of “systemic” industry-wide problems but also faulted BP for making decisions that boosted risks at the Macondo well. The April 20, 2010 Macondo well blowout triggered an explosion that killed 11 workers and unleashed the nation’s worst oil spill.

BPBOEMRELetter

23 Comments

  1. ntangle

    second set of pipe-cutting shear rams on equipment known as blowout preventers, to double the odds that the devices will successfully shear off drill pipe
    ——————–
    That sounds a little disconcerting. You can’t double the odds (probability) unless they were less than 50% before. Maybe they meant twice the opportunities to shear the pipe.

    #1
  2. Jennifer Dlouhy

    Full disclosure: That was *my* inartful phrasing, not BP’s.

    #2
  3. bon jovi

    I’ii tell ya what Chronicle. Will we hear if they never do it? BP has always talked a good game then they seem to somehow not get it done?

    #3
  4. bon jovi

    Yeah we don’t want to make BP mad? Heavens no. Ho Hum. To me their already setting out milk for the media cats? I will brlieve it and only want to see it after they do it.

    #4
  5. bon jovi

    Yeah we don’t want to make BP mad? Heavens no. Ho Hum. To me their already setting out milk for the media cats? I will brlieve it, only want to read about it, and only want to see it after they do it. You know if were not skeptical by now when will we be?

    #5
  6. jklapper

    I will believe this cat changed it’s spots when it quits having the WORST safety record in any industry it does business in…

    #6
  7. Stan Scam

    Voluntarily my gluteus maximus.

    #7
  8. KaliGhoulish

    Their method of running their business still scares me…

    #8
  9. ntangle

    Full disclosure: That was *my* inartful phrasing, not BP’s.
    —————–
    Jennifer – If that’s the worst thing I can come up with, you’re doing a very good job.

    #9
  10. Nurse Jayne

    Why did Republicans vote down the blowout prevention safety bills in Congress? Twice?

    #10
  11. Humilitea

    How nice of them.

    #11
  12. Trail Trash

    @ntangle, the industry has been talking about dual shear rams before this to eliminate the possibilty of a thicker tool joint being the wrong place at the wrong time.

    #12
  13. Bob

    Crock of you know what. BP has so many safety standards and requirements the employees do not even have a clue on which and how to apply all of their BS. KISS is a standard BP has no clue. It was a terrible mistake to let these Brits take over Amoco and ARCO, both were far better at doing the job. We have come so far but yet have gone backwards for years. Keep them out of the USA.

    #13
  14. woman2wander

    Isn’t safety the first mandatory, priority??
    Their record speaks to that!!
    NO!!

    #14
  15. Elmo

    Voluntary — as in “The check is in the mail.” No oversight, no enforcement, no sanctions. No wonder the check never got here.

    #15
  16. Dr. Dave

    ntangle said, “That sounds a little disconcerting. You can’t double the odds (probability) unless they were less than 50% before. Maybe they meant twice the opportunities to shear the pipe.” This is not correct. The odds do not double nor do they need to be less than 50%.

    The improvement of the odds of the rams of a BOP sealing the well increase with the square of the rate of failure. If the rams are successful 70% of the time, which is typical in testing, then the rate of failure is 30%. The result is that the use of two sets would reduce the failure rate to 9% as one could expect 30% of the time the second set of rams would fail during the 30% of the time that the first set failed. If a third set of rams were incorporated, then the overall failure rate would be about 2.7%. In other words, the failure rate would be decreased by the power of the number of rams. In that last case, the power would be 3, not 2.

    #16
  17. ntangle

    Thanks Dr. Dave for the detailed explanation. Was just being just a little facetious, i.e., that the odds of success aren’t additive and can never exceed 1.0. Agree w/ your calculations….that the odds for all of the independent trials to fail is simply the product of the trials’ failure probabilities. Frankly, I had no idea what the odds were for each ram as I’m not an E&P guy. But as I said, < 50% would be disconcerting.

    #17
  18. Trail Trash

    Dr. Dave, I believe the recommendation for dual shear RAMs is not a matter of probability, but rather spacing them out so one will always be closing on drill pipe. With a single shear RAM you have to be careful a tool joint is not located in the cutting area.

    #18
  19. AnimuX

    BP is implementing “voluntary” standards that BP actively fought against establishing as official regulations? Well, that just makes everything all better.

    See? We can just take their word for it. Drilling is “safe” again.

    #19
  20. Trail Trash

    Hey Aniy, where you been? Big Dead Zone growning in the Gulf. Time to get after Big Ag for all their run off.

    #20
  21. ntangle

    Trail – You make a great, central point…that the odds aren’t independent. Like you said, if one shear encounters a joint, the spacing is such that the other one won’t. And maybe that’s the dominant failure mode. But it’s sure not the only failure mode, as we learned from the various BOP accounts. Maybe there are things they both depend upon, ie., do they share the same accumulator bottles? Do they share the same AMF modules? ….

    #21
  22. Signal2Noise

    How sweet of them…

    #22
  23. Trail Trash

    I’m not a BOP tech, but I’d think all the rams will be independent of each other. Also, I think we will see beefed up pinchers to handle the heavier casing sizes, as well as acoustic control systems. Still, the shear rams are not the first line of defense against a blow out. The first response would be to close the annular rams and circulate the gas out of the mud system. The shear rams are mainly to allow for disconnect from the sub-sea wellhead if the drill ship were to lose dynamic positioning.

    #23