Who regulates the regulators?

By Hamish the experienced oilfield professional

In recent months in the “decom sector” we have seen a number of events that have led me to ask that age-old question - “What is the role of a regulator and what should we, as UK taxpayers, expect from those Government Departments and Agencies that are charged with the onerous task of regulating?”

Firstly, I would proffer the concept they are there to protect and steward our national interests, natural resources and environment. So, let’s look more closely at decommissioning.

Without doubt the largest item on the agenda is Brent Field. A huge producer that has boosted the earnings, value and share price of Shell and Exxon, the Partners in operating JV, Shell Expro for years. This is a $1.5+billion project, scheduled over decades, not years. As such, it is regulated by OPRED, part of BEIS. But has that profile given it undue influence and have regulators been technically competent to assess the many detailed complications of the asset’s installations?

My answer is, they should be. In the early days, the late Peter Holt (incidentally the civil servant who drafted the OSPAR 98/3 framework) and his successor, Keith Mayo, undoubtedly were capable individuals, whom were also excellent at listening and evaluating the implications of various options throughout the application dialogue. They also clearly appreciated that decommissioning is primarily a ‘waste management process’, albeit with appreciable environmental impacts and engineering obstacles, that have to be reviewed from beginning to end, as it passes through its various stages of evolution. At each of these stages, it is important that the Regulator is able to interrogate .evaluate and inform Operators on the framework of international regulations and Government policies that ultimately determine the execution and conclusion of their project. Whether small (a single subsea wellhead structure) or to a complex multi-platform field.

At the behest of Operators, this preferable degree of scrutiny appears to have been replaced by a simplified process which has given applicants much more flexibility to dictate methodologies and has turned the regulatory dialogue into a series of “tick-box exercises”, where spelling and vocabulary are more seriously vetted, than compliance with the complex, but not insurmountable, matrix of overlapping fiscal, environmental and social issues.

The net result is inadequate stewardship of applications and premature acceptance of clearly non-complaint decommissioning programmes. What is worse, from an international reputational perspective, these are then used as the basis for deficient Derogation Cases submitted to the OSPAR signatories for adoption.

The mutually embarrassing outcome, for regulator and applicant is the sort of debacle our “flagship” Brent Decommissioning Derogation Case now finds itself embroiled in – log-jammed by international regulatory non-compliance and with enough egg to cover 10,000 faces! Don’t take my word for it. Read the independent assessment reports commissioned by the German and Netherlands Governments, tabled and referred to in the official .objections lodged (that are in the public domain).

The full horror of the compounded misinterpretations; poor scientific studies; and application of redundant, or at least, superseded technologies and the UK national humiliation and reputational damage to Shell and Exxon is complete. The issues are not primarily “technical”, they are grounded in blatant misunderstanding or intentional disregard for regulations. Just read them.

But how did we get here? In my humble opinion because, like the Operators, the new breed of regulator sees the process as about “big engineering” and “huge cost factors”, rather than a large, but manageable, waste handling process. Granted, not a very sexy teaching module for the new National Centre for Decommissioning at University of Aberdeen.

How do we remedy it? I suggest by re-injecting common sense, pragmatism and a renewed vigilance of the existing regulations of the time. Campaign for framework change if you want, but be careful what you wish for. Every renegotiation can go either way! First and foremost, realise that engineering and science are a means to an end, not an end in themselves.

Who regulates the Regulators? We all do! Get our UK Regulators back on track, with investment in relevant expertise and following UK Policy and industry guidelines (apart from Comparative Assessments) and best practice, if you want a better marine environment and a thriving UK decommissioning Sector.