The Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission has proposed new regulations and changes to existing regulations. The public comment period ended Oct. 13 and AOGCC received a nine-page response from the Alaska Oil and Gas Association, signed by Tamara Maddox, AOGA’s regulatory and legal affairs manager.
AOGA recommends against adoption of a new regulation requiring an AOGCC-approved emergency well control contingency plan and the industry guidance bulletin which the commission issued on that regulation. AOGA also has technical issues with other proposed regulatory changes.
The AOGA comments say the organization “supports a streamlined, predictable regulatory process to enable efficient oil and gas project development and operation,” but said the regulations AOGCC has proposed “create unclear requirements and impose significant new burdens on oil and gas development and operations.”
Emergency well control
In a public notice summarizing the regulation changes, AOGCC said a section to be added to its regulations, “20 AAC 25.529, titled ‘Emergency well control contingency plan’, is proposed as a new section that would transfer the requirement for operators to submit an emergency well control contingency plan to the AOGCC from the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC). The new regulation would establish general requirements for the plan and is accompanied by a draft Guidance Bulletin.”
AOGA said the proposal for well control contingency planning does “not define necessary timelines or regulatory processes” and contains “requirements that are inconsistent” with those of ADEC “and with standard industry practices.”
AOGA is requesting that AOGCC not adopt 20 AAC 25.529 and the proposed industry guidance bulletin.
“The proposed well control regulations would create regulatory burdens that could create confusion and inconsistencies with existing regulatory requirements and standard industry practices, as well as hinder efficient oil and gas development and operations,” AOGA said.
ADEC spill plans
AOGA said well control planning is part of the spill plans required by ADEC. “Well control planning is not a stand-alone document and does not need to be separated form spill plans,” the organization said.
It said AOGCC’s proposed well control regulations require planning which conflicts with that required by ADEC regulations, federal emergency drill procedures and standard industry practices. The regulations also lack deadlines for AOGCC to make decisions and “risk undermining oil and gas development by prohibiting activities already approved by permits to drill and sundry approvals until a well control plan is approved.”
AOGA said that while it believes AOGCC should not move forward with these regulations, should it do so, the organization is recommending modifications.
“First, the proposed well control regulations should be modified to eliminate the requirement that operators create a new plan for emergency well control,” as a new plan could conflict with ADEC’s regulatory authority and that of the Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Coast Guard and the U.S. Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement, as well as with standard industry practices.
If AOGCC goes forward, AOGA said, it recommends a requirement that operators certify “to their commitment of appropriate resources to implement emergency well control, including information on methods, equipment, personnel, logistics, and time frames for well control response.”
AOGCC sets a 15-day window to regain control of a well, while ADEC has a planning standard for calculating response discharge. “This shift to a performance standard is unduly burdensome and creates inconsistencies with ADEC planning requirements,” AOGA said.
Also, the proposed regulations appear to abandon best available technology, BAT, the industry standard, in favor of relief wells. “Well control has proven effective by using BAT, as applied to a particular circumstance, which could include well capping or ignition,” AOGA said, and recommends AOGCC recognize BAT as the planning standard.
Without a deadline for AOGCC to approve new or modified well control plans, and without grandfathering existing planning, the proposed regulations create “uncertainty and an unnecessary regulatory burden on AOGCC and operators who would be required to start the well control planning process anew.”
AOGA said it recommends that, if AOGCC goes ahead with well control regulations, it “accept operator certification statements.”
Other regulatory changes
AOGCC is also proposing changing 20 AAC 25.170, onshore location clearance, adding “language stating that site clearance for an individual well is not required when there is active production and/or injection at a location.:
AOGA had no comment on that proposed change.
On 20 AAC 25.172(c), on offshore location clearance, which adds language that site clearance is not required for individual wells when there is active production and/or injection at the location, AOGA said it supports the change but recommends that the commission provide more detail on specific requirements to address such issues as will there be a new category of wells considered abandoned or suspended? What other requirements, including periodic inspections, apply? If the well meets surface plugging requirements, will it still be subject to the regulation if the wellhead is still installed? And will an additional form be required for site clearance?
On changes in workover operations to specify a completion date, 20 AAC 25.289(g), sets a 13-month deadline for completion of work authorized under sundry approvals. AOGA asked for 24 months, telling the commission that projects approved but taking more than 12 months are most often delayed because equipment is not available, “not because approved work is failing to progress.”
As an alternative to 24 months, AOGA suggested allowing 18 months, with work which has begun during the 18 months allowed if the operator submits a subsequent application for sundry approval.
AOGA asked for changes to 20 AAC 25.412(c) governing testing pressure, when tests must be performed and test acceptance criteria.
It also objected to language in 20 AAC 25.537(b) on public and confidential information, telling the commission the change “eliminates important confidentiality protections from applicant information, based solely on the information having been included in an application for a commission order, where it would have been protected if it were filed with the commission under other circumstances. The proposed regulation could disincentivize applicants from providing valuable information to the commission for its decision making.”
Engagement requested
AOGA said it is requesting that the commission “consider whether the proposed regulatory changes are needed, particularly as to well control contingency planning.”
“Should AOGCC choose to re-engage with the regulated community on these issues, AOGA requests that it receive notice of those efforts.”
AOGA member companies are Alyeska Pipeline Service Co., BlueCrest Energy Inc., Chevron Corp., ConocoPhillips Alaska Inc., Eni, ExxonMobil Alaska, Furie Operating Alaska LLC, Glacier Oil & Gas Corp., Hilcorp, Marathon Petroleum Corp., Petro Star Inc., Repsol, Santos and Shell Exploration & Production Co.
