In light of the publication of the European Commission's proposals, UK MEP Vicky Ford shares her views on the regulation with Oil & Gas UK. Vicky Ford is a member of the European Parliament's Industry, Research and Energy (IRTE) Committee and was the appointed draftsperson or 'Rapporteur' for a previous parliamentary report on offshore safety
On 27 October, the European Commission finally released a proposal for a new regulation on 'the safety of offshore oil and gs prospection, exploration and production activities'. The EU Energy Commissioner, Gunther Oettinger, had promised a review of the existing framework after revising his initial call for a moratorium on offshore drilling in the wake of the Gulf of Mexico tragedy.
This is just the start of a long process that will undoubtedly see a number of changes introduced before final legislation is agreed, let alone correcting the numerous spelling errors and typos that pepper the Commission draft. The proposals must work their way through the EU's two legislative institutions, the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers. Both institutions will write many amendments and adopt their own positions before meeting to try and agree on a final text. Within the Council, the UK Government will certainly be a key player in the negotiations, and I expect EU member states to favour a more decentralised approach to offshore safety.
I was the appointed draftsman on the European Parliament's most recent position on the offshore industry, and MEP's overwhelmingly supported a number of key founding principles such as the importance of a site-specific safety case approach rather than 'tick box' rules.
The Commission has based much of its proposal on UK and North Sea models to try and level up standards in all European waters. However, by drafting the legislation as a regulation rather than a directive, the proposals may force Eu member states to repeal parts of their current regulatory framework and insert the new legislation in its place. I fear this could cause a legal nightmare and even greater uncertainty for regulators and operators.
Even my first layman's reading of the proposal leaves me with many questions. The Commission's text requires operators to produce a 'Major Hazards Report' and for this to be assessed and accepted by the national competent authorities, but how does this compare to the 'as low as reasonably possible' approach currently employed in the UK? Will the Major Hazard Report be the equivalent of a UK Safety Case which is a living and evolving document so that material, technical or equipment changes are subject to approval?
There is plenty in the draft proposal about 'independence' both of inspectors and regulators but it is not clear where the lines are drawn. More work should be done to clarify licensee and operator rules.
What could be the implications of the proposed 'financial capacity' language for smaller exploration companies? Will the procedures on sharing of information result in rapid notification of incidents or potential incidents so that lessons can be rapidly shared an further accidents prevented? The Commission's original suggestion of a pan-European regulator was not supported by the Parliament but how will the work of the North Sea Offshore Authorities Forum and International Regulators Forum evolve to encourage collaboration both across the EU and in neighbouring countries?
On top of these questions, amongst my fellow MEP's there were demands for an inspection role for the European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA), a role the agency themselves have said are not equipped to carry out though they could be of valuable assistance, for example, in collating inventories of available response equipment so that were an accident to occur its effects could be minimised.
At the time of writing the Parliament has yet to select an MP draftsman to lead the work on this regulation, but I hope that whoever picks up this role will work together with appointed shadows from across all the political groups and will listen carefully to the opinions of operators, regulators, inspectors, and environmental and safety experts when considering amendments.
My recent report for the Parliament was supported by 602 votes with only 64 MEP's voting against. Its opening words were: 'Indigenous sources of oil and gas contribute significantly to Europe's current energy needs and are crucial at present for our energy security and energy diversity.' Let us all remember this.
