Lessons from BP's Deepwater Horizon Disaster
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Week in News: November 10-16, 2008
Week in News: November 10-16, 2008 Over a Barrel Richmond Times Dispatch, November 16, 2008; http://www.inrich.com/cva/ric/opinion.apx.-content-articles-RTD- 2008-11-16-0061.html Congress likely to back offshore drilling: API head Reuters, November 14, 2008; http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE4AD86B20081114 Arctic is rich in promising energy source: gas hydrates Anchorage Daily News, November 14, 2008; http://www.adn.com/oil/story/587411.html Governor hopefuls give views on offshore drilling Richmond Times Dispatch, November 14, 2008; http://www.inrich.com/cva/ric/news.apx.-content-articles-RTD- 2008-11-14-0144.html Jersey officials fuming as feds talk of oil drilling off East Coast The Star-Ledger, November 14, 2008; http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/jersey/index.ssf?/base/news- 12/1226639760112030.xml&coll=1 Feds move on Virginia oil drilling The News Observer, November 14, 2008; http://www.newsobserver.com/politics/story/1294126.html Greens Pave Way to Republican Comeback FOX News, November 13, 2008; http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,451304,00.html Agency Begins Process to Allow Drilling off Va. Coast Washington Post, November 13, 2008; http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp- dyn/content/article/2008/11/12/AR2008111202866.html?hpid=moreheadlines Resolution of disputed leases unlikely under Bush, Interior secretary says E&E News, November 12, 2008; http://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2008/11/12/4 Falling crude prices could slow deep-water drilling Houston Chronicle, November 12, 2008; http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/business/6107661.html Feds: Va. offshore drilling "moving as fast as we can" Richmond-Times Dispatch, November 12, 2008; http://www.inrich.com/cva/ric/news.apx.-content-articles-RTD- 2008-11-12-0191.html Interior takes initial steps towards Va. -
Gulf Oil Disaster Complaint Exhibit 2: Deepwater Horizon Exploratory Plan
United States Department of the Interior MINERALS MANAGEMENT SERVICE Gulf of Mexico OCS Region 120 1 Elmwood Park Boulevard New Orleans, Louisiana 701 23-2394 In Reply Refer To: MS 5231 April 6, 2009 Ms. Scherie Douglas BP Exploration & Production Inc 501 Westlake Park Boulevard Houston, Texas 77079 Dear Ms. Douglas: Reference is made to the following plan: Control No. N-09349 'n"L'e Initial Exploration Plan (EP) Received February 23, 2009, amended February 25, 2009 Lease (s) OCS-G 32306, Block 252, Mississippi Canyon Area (MC) You are hereby notified that the approval of the subject plan has been granted as of April 6, 2009, in accordance with 30 CFR 250.233(b)(1). This approval includes the activities proposed for Wells A and B. Exercise caution while drilling due to indications of shallow gas and possible water flow. In response to the request accompanying your plan for a hydrogen sulfide (H,S) classification, the area in which the proposed drilling operations are to be conducted is hereby classified, in accordance with 30 CFR 250.490 (c), as "H2S absent. 'I If you have any questions or comments concerning this approval, please contact Michelle Griffitt at (504) 736-2975. Sincerely, Dignally qncd by Michael M ic ha e 1 ~~b~~=MichaelTolbm,o. ou. go". <=us Dale: 1009 04.06 14:51!30 Tol bert -0soo' for Michael J. Saucier Regional Supervisor Field Operations UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT March 10, 2009 MEMORANDUM To: Public Information (MS 5030) From: Plan Coordinator, FO, Plans Section (MS 5231) Subject: Public Information copy of plan Control # N-09349 Type Initial Exploration Plan Lease(s) OCS-G32306 Block - 252 Mississippi Canyon Area Operator BP Exploration & Production Inc. -
Oil and Chemical Spills: Federal Emergency Response Framework
Oil and Chemical Spills: Federal Emergency Response Framework David M. Bearden Specialist in Environmental Policy Jonathan L. Ramseur Specialist in Environmental Policy August 29, 2017 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov R43251 Oil and Chemical Spills: Federal Emergency Response Framework Summary Thousands of oil and chemical spills of varying size and magnitude occur in the United States each year. When a spill occurs, state and local officials located in proximity to the incident generally are the first responders and may elevate an incident for federal attention if greater resources are desired. The National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan, often referred to as the National Contingency Plan (NCP), establishes the procedures for the federal response to oil and chemical spills. The scope of the NCP encompasses discharges of oil into or upon U.S. waters and adjoining shorelines and releases of hazardous substances into the environment. The NCP was developed in 1968 and has been revised on multiple occasions to implement the federal statutory response authorities that Congress has expanded over time. Three federal environmental statutes authorized the development of the NCP: the Clean Water Act, as amended; the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended; and the Oil Pollution Act of 1990. Several executive orders have delegated the presidential response authorities of these statutes to federal departments and agencies that implement the NCP. The lead federal agency serves as the On-Scene Coordinator to direct the federal response. Generally, EPA leads the federal response within the inland zone, and the U.S. -
Blowout: Legal Legacy of the Deepwater Horizon Catastrophe:Federal Public Law and the Future of Oil and Gas Drilling on the Oute
Roger Williams University Law Review Volume 17 | Issue 1 Article 10 Winter 2012 Blowout: Legal Legacy of the Deepwater Horizon Catastrophe:Federal Public Law and the Future of Oil and Gas Drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf David Pettit Natural Resources Defense Council David Newman Natural Resources Defense Council Follow this and additional works at: http://docs.rwu.edu/rwu_LR Recommended Citation Pettit, David and Newman, David (2012) "Blowout: Legal Legacy of the Deepwater Horizon Catastrophe:Federal Public Law and the Future of Oil and Gas Drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf," Roger Williams University Law Review: Vol. 17: Iss. 1, Article 10. Available at: http://docs.rwu.edu/rwu_LR/vol17/iss1/10 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at DOCS@RWU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Roger Williams University Law Review by an authorized administrator of DOCS@RWU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Federal Public Law and the Future of Oil and Gas Drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf David Pettit* and David Newmant I. INTRODUCTION Transocean's Deepwater Horizon offshore drilling rig, on lease to BP, exploded and caught fire on April 20, 2010. This event caused the deaths of eleven workers and resulted in an oil geyser that spewed millions of gallons of oil into the Gulf of Mexico.' The Deepwater Horizon sank two days after the explosion. Nearly three months later, on July 15, 2010, BP was finally able to cap the well.2 The Flow Rate Technical Group, a group of scientists from federal agencies and academic institutions, estimated that * David Pettit, a 1975 graduate of UCLA Law School, is a Senior Attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council. -
Ntl 2010-N06
OMB Control Number: 1010-0183 OMB Expiration Date: February 28, 2014 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BUREAU OF OCEAN ENERGY MANAGEMENT, REGULATION, AND ENFORCEMENT NTL No. 2010-N06 Effective Date: June 18, 2010 NATIONAL NOTICE TO LESSEES AND OPERATORS OF FEDERAL OIL AND GAS LEASES, OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF (OCS) Information Requirements for Exploration Plans, Development and Production Plans, and Development Operations2015-N01 Coordination Documents on the OCS Purpose No. Pursuant to 30 CFR 250.213(g) an Exploration Plan (EP) must be accompanied by a blowout scenario description. 30 CFR 250.243(h) imposes the same requirement for a Development and Production Plan (DPP) and a Development and Coordination Document (DOCD).1 Pursuant to 30 CFR 250.219 and 250.250, all plans must also be accompanied by information regarding oil spills, includingNTL calculations of your worst case discharge scenario. In April 2008, the Gulf of Mexico Region issued NTL No. 2008-G04 (Information Requirements for Exploration Plans and Development Operations Coordination Documents in the Gulf of Mexico),2 and pursuant to 30 CFR 250.201(c), limited the information required to accompany plans you submit to the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement (BOEM) (formerly known as MMS) with regard to a blowout scenario andBOEM worst case discharge scenario. The purpose of this Notice to Lessees and Operators (this NTL) is to rescind the limitations set forth in NTL No. 2008-G04 regarding a blowout scenario and worst case discharge scenario, and to provide national guidanceby to Lessees and Operators regarding the content of the information BOEM requires in your blowout scenario and worst case discharge scenario descriptions. -
July 21, 2016 U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission 100 F Street, NE Washington, DC 20549-1090
July 21, 2016 U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission 100 F Street, NE Washington, DC 20549-1090 Attn: File No. S7-06-16, Docket No. 33-10064, Business and Financial Disclosure Required by Regulation S-K The Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University School of Law,1 University of Chicago Abrams Environmental Law Clinic,2 and Oceana3 respectfully submit these comments in response to the Securities and Exchange Commission’s “concept release” on business and financial disclosures. Specifically, in response to the SEC’s question about increasing environmental disclosures,4 these comments advocate for either new rules or an interpretive release with guidance clarifying the disclosure requirements around the risks from offshore oil and gas operations, particularly in frontier areas like ultra-deepwater and the Arctic Ocean. The SEC is tasked with the tripartite mission of protecting investors; maintaining fair, orderly, and efficient markets; and facilitating capital formation.5 In pursuit of that mission, the SEC requires certain mandatory disclosures by issuers of securities. This disclosure regime is driven by the concept that all investors should have access to certain facts about an investment.6 The disclosure of meaningful information to the public creates a common pool of knowledge that investors may use to evaluate for themselves whether to buy, sell, or hold a particular security.7 With changing 1 Policy Integrity is a non-partisan think tank dedicated to improving the quality of government decision-making through advocacy and scholarship in the fields of administrative law, cost-benefit analysis, and public policy. These comments do not necessarily reflect the views of NYU School of Law, if any. -
Welcome and Objectives
2005 Offshore Hurricane Readiness and Recovery Conference July 26•27, 2005 InterContinental Houston Hotel Houston, Texas Welcome and Objectives Sandi Fury, Chevron 1 Conference Sponsers n Co Sponsors: – American Petroleum Institute – Offshore Operators Committee – Minerals Management Service – United States Coast Guard – United States Department of Energy – Office of Pipeline Safety – National Ocean Industries Association – Offshore Marine Service Association n Endorsed by: – International Association of Drilling Contractors Conference Expectations n This is a working technical conference designed to: – Advance our understanding of the metocean conditions possible from extreme storm events like Hurricane Ivan – Put Ivan into a historical context with regard to resulting environmental forces – Assess the performance of Gulf of Mexico infrastructure to Ivan: MODUs, platform rigs, production platfroms and pipelines – Identify gaps or opportunities for improvements to current design or operational standards that could improve the reliability and performance of infrastructure on the OCS to hurricane events n We don’t expect to have the answers to all of the questions by the end of the conference n We do expect to leave the conference with a path forward to complete the performance assessment and answer the question “are the current design standards adequate?” 2 Hurricane Ivan Industry Assessment n Industry performance during Ivan was not atypical to historical hurricane performance, despite Ivan’s severity n Minimal release of oil to the environment -
Bop) Control System
RISK ASSESSMENT OF THE DEEPWATER HORIZON BLOWOUT PREVENTER (BOP) CONTROL SYSTEM April 2000 - Final Report Prepared for: CAMERON CONTROLS CORP. EQE INTERNATIONAL Confidential Treatment Requested by Transocean Holdings LLC TRN-HCEC-00056391 Deepwater Horizon BOP Control System Risk Assessment April 2000 • 4. EVALUATION RESULTS As discussed in the introduction, the evaluation of the fault trees by boolean reduction results in the identification of the minimal cutsets, or the minimum combinations of failures that will result in the occurrence of the undesired event. Each of these cutsets is composed of one or more failures and each of the failures is assigned a probability of failure as discussed in Section 3. The product of the failure probabilities for all failure events in a cutset represents the probability of occurrence of the cutset. The sum of the cutsets for each fault tree model represents the probability of occurrence of the associated undesired event. In addition to these quantitative results, potential problem areas are often identified durmg the development of the model. These are discussed in Section 5. Table 4·1 summarizes the probability of occurrence of each of the undesired events. The number of cutsets shown in the table are those with a probability of occurrence greater than 1E-1 O. The overall potential for any of the events occurring which lead to the failure to perform the EDS function is 3.1 2E-4 (1183 cutsets). which is less than the sum of the individual events in Table 4-1. This is due to the fact that some of the cutset combinations result in failure of more than one of the functions but are correctly only counted once when looking at the overall likelihood. -
Lingering Relevance of the Coastal Zone Management Act to Energy Development in Our Nation’S Coastal Waters?
Lingering Relevance of the Coastal Zone Management Act to Energy Development in our Nation’s Coastal Waters? Sam Kalen* Ryan M. Seidemann† James G. Wilkins** Megan K. Terrell†† I was not on watch that night, but sometime between 10:20 and 10:30 that evening I was called by the operational duty officer up there, Curtis Andrews, and he requested if I could come in as quickly as possible, that they had an unfolding event that gave the appearance of a mass rescue 1 operation coming into play. So I proceeded on in. I. THE DEVELOPING OCS REGULATORY REGIME: AN OVERVIEW .......................................................................................... 78 II. THE CZMA AND OCS ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ............................... 82 III. LOUISIANA AND OCS DEVELOPMENT ............................................... 92 A. Blanco v. Burton ................................................................. 95 B. Resumption of the Status Quo ............................................ 98 C. The DEEPWATER HORIZON ........................................ 104 IV. CONCLUSION .................................................................................... 106 © 2010 Sam Kalen, Ryan M. Seidemann, James G. Wilkins and Megan K. Terrell. Funding for this research was provided solely by the authors. The contents of this Article do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the Louisiana Department of Justice or the Louisiana Attorney General. * Assistant Professor, University of Wyoming College of Law. † Section Chief of the Lands and Natural Resources Section, Louisiana Department of Justice. ** Director of the Louisiana Sea Grant Law and Policy Program and Professor, Louisiana Sea Grant College Program. †† Section Chief of the Environmental Section, Louisiana Department of Justice. 1. U.S. Coast Guard/MMS Marine Board of Investigation into the Marine Casualty, Explosion, Fire, Pollution, and Sinking of Mobile Offshore Drilling Unit Deepwater Horizon, with Loss of Life in the Gulf of Mexico 21-22 Apr. -
Final Report on the Investigation of the Macondo Well Blowout
Final Report on the Investigation of the Macondo Well Blowout Deepwater Horizon Study Group March 1, 2011 The Deepwater Horizon Study Group (DHSG) was formed by members of the Center for Catastrophic Risk Management (CCRM) in May 2010 in response to the blowout of the Macondo well on April 20, 2010. A fundamental premise in the DHSG work is: we look back to understand the why‘s and how‘s of this disaster so we can better understand how best to go forward. The goal of the DHSG work is defining how to best move forward – assessing what major steps are needed to develop our national oil and gas resources in a reliable, responsible, and accountable manner. Deepwater Horizon Study Group Investigation of the Macondo Well Blowout Disaster This Page Intentionally Left Blank Deepwater Horizon Study Group Investigation of the Macondo Well Blowout Disaster In Memoriam Karl Kleppinger Jason Anderson Roughneck Senior tool pusher Adam Weise Dewey Revette Roughneck Driller Shane Roshto Stephen Curtis Roughneck Assistant driller Wyatt Kemp Donald Clark Derrick man Assistant driller Gordon Jones Dale Burkeen Mud engineer Crane operator Blair Manuel Mud engineer 1 Deepwater Horizon Study Group Investigation of the Macondo Well Blowout Disaster In Memoriam The Environment 2 Deepwater Horizon Study Group Investigation of the Macondo Well Blowout Disaster Table of Contents In Memoriam...............................................................................................................................................1 Table of Contents .......................................................................................................................................3 -
Introduction Blowout Preventer Stack Equipment
WELL CONTROL EQUIPMENT & PROCEDURES WC-1 Introduction Preventing and, when prevention is not sufficient, respond- ing to potential uncontrolled releases of oil or gas ("blow- out") is critical to safe drilling operations. A kick is an influx of formation fluids into the wellbore. A blowout is an uncon- trolled kick exiting the well at surface. Well control is a process that begins with spudding the well and is not complete until the well is put on production and all drilling operations cease. This chapter will examine equipment commonly used in well control and processes used to control kicks of oil or gas. Blowout preventer stack equipment Annular blowout preventer The annular blowout preventer is installed at the top of the BOP stack (Figure WC-1) and has the capability of closing (sealing off) on anything in the bore or completely shutting off (CSO) the open hole by applying closing pressure. The sealing device of an annular blowout preventer is re- ferred to as the “packing element”. It is basically a do- nut-shaped element made out of elastomeric material. To reinforce the elastomeric material, different shapes of me- tallic material are molded into the element. This keeps the elastomeric material from extruding when operating system pressure or wellbore pressure is applied to the bottom of the packing element. Since the packing element is exposed to different drilling environments (i.e., drilling fluid/mud, cor- rosive H S gas and/or temperature of the drilling fluid), it is 2 Figure WC-1: Schematic (top) and photo of annular blowout important to make sure that the proper packing element is preventers. -
COMPLAINT for VIOLATIONS of the FEDERAL SECURITIES LAWS and ENGLISH COMMON LAW Case 4:14-Cv-01068 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 04/18/14 Page 2 of 100
Case 4:14-cv-01068 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 04/18/14 Page 1 of 100 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION ) MARYLAND STATE RETIREMENT AND ) PENSION SYSTEM, ) ) CIVIL ACTION NO. _____________ Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) ) ) BP, PLC; BP AMERICA, INC.; BP ) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION, INC.; ) ANTHONY B. HAYWARD; ANDREW G. ) INGLIS; DOUGLAS J. SUTTLES, ) ) ) Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE FEDERAL SECURITIES LAWS AND ENGLISH COMMON LAW Case 4:14-cv-01068 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 04/18/14 Page 2 of 100 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. NATURE OF THE ACTION AND OVERVIEW ............................................................. 2 II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE ......................................................................................... 7 III. PARTIES .......................................................................................................................... 10 A. Plaintiff ................................................................................................................. 10 B. Defendants and Related Parties ............................................................................ 11 IV. SUBSTANTIVE ALLEGATIONS .................................................................................. 16 A. Prior Incidents of Safety Lapses ........................................................................... 16 B. The Baker Report .................................................................................................. 20