INTERNATIONAL REGULATORS FORUM
GLOBAL OFFSHORE SAFETY
Annual Meetings
14th Session of the International Regulators’ Forum
December 7th 2007
Progress Reports on IRF Programs
1. Performance Measures
5 recommendations were established at the last meeting in The Netherlands. Handouts were provided regarding current status.
Some decisions were made based on qualitative data concerns and parameters need to be established.
Requests for further guidance was solicited, specific input items listed.
Decisions needed regarding data to be published
2. Lifting
Working Group has established parameters for inspection, investigation, and the creation of a web-based database.
Inspection: report generation is lacking but it is easily accessible.
Data is collected and managed through a spreadsheet rather than a relational database. 3 levels of access: reader (inspector), contributor (member body), and administrator.
Industry expressed interest in Database. The pitch is that it’s an extension of national concerns.
Action
Provide an annual report of our findings on the IRF website.
3. Drilling Committee
Membership needs to be confirmed. Concern expressed regarding letting well integrity slip as a priority.
Action
IRF members to confirm Drilling Committee member
4. Issues Arising from the Carolita Kallaur Award Process
Genuine interest outside of the IRF has developed in the awards process.
All believe that awards process should be continued.
We need to reinforce the message why they won the award (i.e. aligning with IRF values).
Consensus view that nominations should come from the IRF and not be self-nominating.
Consensus agrees that awards shouldn’t go to IRF members.
Consensus but not unanimity is necessary to decide award, but veto exists if nominee is performing poorly in one or more IRF countries.
Taf believes that those who have supported the IRF process should be rewarded by offering them a voice at a future meeting.
IRF needs to offer awards to global corporate leadership rather than regional leadership--members concur.
Action
Revise the webpage and process to clarify that the nominations will come from IRF members.
New chair is needed for the awards ceremony. The Netherlands will chair the awards process for the next three years.
Updates to the webpage will be made to reflect changes in the nomination process.
5. Hot Topic: CO2 storage is a growing issue
IRF should study this studied further due to ever-increasing domestic interest. NOPSA is also commissioning a study on this next year.
Norway already has a pilot project underway in CO2 storage.
HSE has done much research in this area.
There are some projects from the ICRARD site.
Norway’s Petroleum R&D Website, powerful search engine for members contributions
Action
A “contact group” to be created on the topic with contribution from members.
6. IRF Annual Meeting planning
Location: Sydney
Timeframe: October 2008
7. Proposal for a new Committee on “auditing guidelines
Most members contend that auditing specifications differ greatly among IRF regimes—may get a mixed message.
Action
NOPSA to provide some direct input to the ANP in terms on incorporating best practices for their nascent regulatory body.
8. Potential Additions to the IRF Work Program: Discussions at the Conference
IADC has asked IRF to provide a series of articles to their magazine on “asset integrity”
Members question why IADC magazine and not any other trade magazine?
Such an effort will reinforce the message to those who attend the conference that points and outcomes from the conference are being incorporated” into the working fabric of the IRF.”
Next Conference Plans
Canada has proposed to host, detailed planning will be discussed at next IRF meeting in Australia.
We may want to have two parallel themes at the next conference: one asset management; and two, something else linked (e.g. competent organization possibly outside the industry, or abandonment and decommissioning).
MMS will develop the program for the next conference
Should include a presentation from “practical experience” (i.e. blue collar) personnel.
9. Paper on the Role of the Verifier
Memo aims to understand different legislative, regulatory, and process approaches to managing oil and gas resources
Definitions amongst members are formulated differently
Perceptions also differ greatly: validation and verification, inspection and auditing. How do we level the field?
Is it worth further defining these terms for mutual acceptance among the IRF?
What role does a “verifier” have upon us as regulators?
Need to establish whether there is a great utility in further analysis; slight misinterpretations don’t necessitate the large analytical burden that this effort would entail.
Independence of the verifier is often a very difficult task.
Action
Provide further defining of these terms after members have had a chance to review the terms per the memo.
OGP Standards
Global standards used locally worldwide, most fall under ISO/TC67
OGP has been a catalyst for change in industry’s approach to standards
Fully use and promote ISO standards
Standards should be based on a consensus of need
ISO/TC67 created in 1947, reactivated in 1987. Currently under U.S. leadership. Covers all issues of O&G excluding offshore structures subject to IMO oversight.
134 standards, 19 published this year, 15 revisions and 4 new; over 50 have been adopted as joint API/ISO standards. In Europe, CEN has adopted most all of the standards.
In April 2006 OGP renewed an inquiry to reevaluate all areas of standards applicability. Twelve new areas were identified for analysis; examples, hot tapping of pipelines, pedestal cranes, pipeline overpressure protection, gastight cements formulation and testing, well integrity in drilling and well operations just to name a few.
Lifetime extensions standards have been identified by IRF as an area of interest. ISO and API are looking diligently. API SC2 will have a draft out soon on the topic. ISO TC67 SC7 plans to adopt this API 2SIM standard when published.
Take home message: whether ISO standards are meeting the needs of IRF members, and whether they are being utilized.
Action
IRF should consider a request to have direct input into the ISO process (similar to that which has been provided for OGP and others). This would enable IRF to provide guidance or expectations without working through domestic TAGs or other organization. Bud Danenberger will request information on the terms and conditions for such an arrangement.
