Gavin GuyanManager - Well Integrity

NOPSEMA

DrillSafe 1 March 2012

Scope

• NOPSEMA & Legislation 2012– Wells focus

• Industry Performance 2011 – MODU focus

• NOPSA’s functions expanded to include environment protection and general administration and is continued in existence as the National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Authority (NOPSEMA)

• Creation of National Offshore Petroleum Titles Administrator (NOPTA) to replace the Designated Authorities in Commonwealth waters

• NOPTA is a branch within RET, administer titles and petroleum data and advise the JA

National Regulator Amendments – 1 Jan 2012

• The OPGGS Amendment (Significant Incident Directions) Bill 2011 has just been passed by Parliament

• Enables NOPSEMA to direct a titleholder, in the event of a significant offshore petroleum incident that has caused or might cause an escape of petroleum, to:– take action (prevent, eliminate, mitigate, manage or

remediate) or not to take an action, and – may be unconditional or subject to conditions– The direction may apply either within or outside the

titleholder’s title area

Significant incident directions

• Operations– Offshore petroleum operations– Offshore greenhouse gas storage operations

• Scope– Occupational health and safety– Structural integrity of facilities and wells– Environmental management of petroleum

activities

- Petroleum Safety Zones

NOPSEMA Coverage

Legislation administered by NOPSEMA

• Schedule 3 to Cth OPGGSA

• OPGGS (Safety) Regulations 2009

• Part 5 of the OPGGS (Resource Management and Administration) Regulations 2011 [Wells regulations]

• OPGGS (Environment) Regulations 2009

Commonwealth Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act

2006

[OPGGSA]

Safety Regulations

Schedule 3 – OHS law

Wells regulations

Environment regulations

Environment Regulatory framework (Petroleum)

• Environment Regulations 2009 - Unchanged

• Petroleum activity conducted:– consistent with the principles of ecologically

sustainable development; and – in accordance with an accepted environment plan

that has appropriate environmental performance objectives and standards as well as measurement criteria for determining whether the objectives and standards are met.

Environment Plan requirements include

• Description of the– Activity,– Environment– Environmental impacts and risks– Environmental performance objectives & standards

• Implementation strategy• Reporting and monitoring arrangements

Wells Regulatory framework – Part 5 RMAR 2011

• Performance-based regime that requires the titleholder to control well integrity hazards or risks where integrity means:‒ under control in accordance with an accepted WOMP‒ able to contain reservoir fluids‒ subject only to risks that have been reduced to a level

that is as low as reasonably practicable

• Risks managed in accordance with sound engineering principles, standards, specifications and good oil field practice

Key wells regulatory changes – 29 April 2011

• NOPSEMA replaced the Designated Authority as the regulator for wells

• NOPSEMA decides:‒ WOMP acceptance/rejection‒ individual well activities approval / rejection

• Integrity definition includes that the well is subject only to risks have been reduced to a level that is as low as reasonably practicable

• Part 5 (RMAR) is a listed OHS law => NOPSEMA powers apply

WOMP Regulations – Safety Case for Wells

• Be appropriate • Explain philosophy and criteria; company policies and

processes that are the basis of the design, construction operation and management of the wells

• Identify risks & controls - demonstrate well integrity risks are reduced to ALARP

• Include performance standards, objectives & associated measurement criteria

• Explain how a well integrity hazard or increase in risk will be managed => contingency planning.

WOMP - Core Concepts

• WOMP must:– be appropriate to the wells and well activities

contemplated – be a stand-alone document that is sufficient to meet

the contents & level of detail requirements of the regulations without need to refer to other documents external to the WOMP.

• Only by inclusion of a sufficient level of detail in the WOMP will NOPSEMA be able to make a judgement on the appropriateness of the WOMP in accordance with the regulations

Well regulation challenges

• 30 WOMPs & 146 AAUWAs assessed to date – (4 rejections)

• Relationship between WOMP & AAUWA– Content & Level of detail

• Guidance – Intention to develop a WOMP contents guidance document similar to that used for the SC guidance notes has proved problematic.

• Review of well regs (Part 5 RMAR), with a view to considering revision, is underway.

A safe Australian offshore petroleum industry

-PERFORMANCE

IRF Data

Australia

IRF Countries0

5

10

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Rate

Gas Release Rates (per 100 million BOE)

Conservative estimate based on stable BOE 2010-11

0

5

10

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Rate

Injury Rates (ADI+LTI)(per million hours )

Injuries

0

5

10

15

20

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Rate

TRC Ratesper million hours worked

ALL Operators

ALL MODU Operators

Facility Numbers

Facility Group Based on Current (2011) data *

Platforms 58

FPSOs 14

MODUs 15

Vessels 13

Pipelines 109

TOTAL: 209

Incidents by Facility Type

NB : Incidents includes Accidents and Dangerous Occurrences

0

2

4

6

8

10

FPSO / FSOs Platforms MODUs Vessels Pipelines

Rate

Incidents per Facility per year By Facility Type

2011

Severity of Incidents

• Based on the International Regulators Forum (IRF) severity rating.

• Major is considered more serious, • followed by Significant as less

serious.

Major Incident Rate

Significant Incident Rate

0

4

8

12

16

20

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Rat

e (p

er m

illio

n h)

MODU Incident Severity Rates

Accidents & Dangerous Occurrences

Accident Rate

Dangerous Occurrence Rate

0

4

8

12

16

20

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Rat

e (p

er m

illio

n h)

MODU Incident Rates

Number of MODU Incidents reported per year

Incident Type 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011Trend 2005-11

Accident - Death or Serious Injury 1 1 6 9 2 1 4

Accident - Incapacitation >3 days LTI 5 10 8 15 10 14 8

Could have caused Death or Serious Injury 9 7 25 22 18 14 11

Could have caused LTI 20 29 24 22 15 12 14

Fire or Explosion 3 4 3 7 1 2 3

Collision marine vessel and facility 4 4 0 3 4 2 1

Uncontrolled HC release >1 - 300 kg 0 0 0 0 1 0 0

Well kick >50 barrels 0 0 0 0 0 1 0

Unplanned Event - Implement ERP 5 0 4 6 6 8 0

Damage to Safety-critical Equipment 0 5 5 7 9 7 6

Other kind needing Immediate Investigation 8 9 12 16 9 8 2

TOTAL 55 69 87 107 75 69 49 Number of MODU Complaints reported per year

Complaints 5 12 17 8 5 6 12 Red = Major Incident Types

MODU Incidents – 2005-2011

Incident Root Causes

Top three TapRoot® Groups for All Incidents2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Procedures - Not

Followed

Preventive Maintenance

Procedures - Not

Followed

Procedures - Not

Followed

Procedures - Not

FollowedDesign Specs Design Specs

Preventive Maintenance

Mgmt System -

SPAC

Preventive Maintenance

Preventive Maintenance

Design SpecsProcedures -

Not Followed

Procedures - Not

Followed

Design SpecsProcedures -

Not Followed

Design Specs TrainingPreventive

MaintenancePreventive

MaintenancePreventive

Maintenance

0

5

10

15

20

25

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

MODUs Inspected per year

Inspection Findings - Recurring

• Maintenance Management• Lifting Equipment Management• Lifeboat issues• Client Contractor interface management• Supervisory Competence Assurance

Questions?