The House Energy and Commerce Committee has posted a discussion draft of the Blowout Prevention Act of 2010. A hearing is scheduled for 30 June.
First Post-Macondo Well Control Legislation
June 26, 2010 by offshoreenergy
Posted in accidents, well control incidents | Tagged accidents, Blowout Prevention Act, blowouts, Deepwater Horizon, macondo, oil spill, safety, well control | 1 Comment
One Response
Leave a comment Cancel reply
-
Archives
- December 2025 (1)
- November 2025 (26)
- October 2025 (30)
- September 2025 (29)
- August 2025 (29)
- July 2025 (27)
- June 2025 (25)
- May 2025 (46)
- April 2025 (39)
- March 2025 (28)
- February 2025 (34)
- January 2025 (34)
- December 2024 (30)
- November 2024 (25)
- October 2024 (34)
- September 2024 (32)
- August 2024 (29)
- July 2024 (32)
- June 2024 (20)
- May 2024 (25)
- April 2024 (25)
- March 2024 (24)
- February 2024 (27)
- January 2024 (29)
- December 2023 (27)
- November 2023 (32)
- October 2023 (32)
- September 2023 (30)
- August 2023 (31)
- July 2023 (22)
- June 2023 (27)
- May 2023 (28)
- April 2023 (29)
- March 2023 (36)
- February 2023 (26)
- January 2023 (31)
- December 2022 (39)
- November 2022 (30)
- October 2022 (28)
- September 2022 (39)
- August 2022 (37)
- July 2022 (33)
- June 2022 (40)
- May 2022 (39)
- April 2022 (28)
- March 2022 (38)
- February 2022 (29)
- January 2022 (28)
- December 2021 (25)
- November 2021 (33)
- October 2021 (32)
- September 2021 (32)
- August 2021 (23)
- July 2021 (4)
- August 2011 (5)
- July 2011 (25)
- June 2011 (18)
- May 2011 (41)
- April 2011 (22)
- March 2011 (60)
- February 2011 (46)
- January 2011 (46)
- December 2010 (24)
- November 2010 (50)
- October 2010 (40)
- September 2010 (53)
- August 2010 (50)
- July 2010 (48)
- June 2010 (65)
- May 2010 (40)
- April 2010 (49)
- March 2010 (17)
- February 2010 (13)
-
Categories
- accidents (657)
- well control incidents (332)
- Alaska (34)
- Australia (14)
- NOPSEMA (6)
- Bahamas (2)
- Barbados (3)
- California (175)
- Canada (40)
- CCS (48)
- climate (186)
- conferences (36)
- cuba (23)
- decommissioning (115)
- deep sea mining (12)
- drilling (150)
- energy (75)
- energy policy (704)
- flaring and venting (13)
- Florida (9)
- Georges Bank (7)
- Gulf of Mexico (553)
- Guyana (50)
- Health (13)
- hurricanes (59)
- Interviews (4)
- IRF (14)
- Jamaica (17)
- Mexico (13)
- natural gas (71)
- NOPSEMA (2)
- Norway (79)
- offshore (32)
- Offshore Energy – General (1,102)
- oil spill response (25)
- pipelines (120)
- Regulation (295)
- rigs-to-reefs (27)
- Russia (26)
- seeps (8)
- UK (71)
- Uncategorized (432)
- Wind Energy (240)
- Offshore Wind (215)
- accidents (657)
-
Pages

The draft legislation captures some significant changes. However:
I think there are 2 aspects to well design:
A: Imagining what can happen to the well given the well configuration chosen
B: Calculating the stresses generated by the “load case” on the configuration chosen
The second activity (B) is reasonably easy to check and is probably performed well today (and in the past).
The 1st activity (A) is much more difficult. It is dependent on recognizing a situation that is unlikely and potentially which has never happened before (Macondo is an example). The key will be to come up with well designs that are so simple that it is very apparent what can happen, given the chosen design.
Devising legislation to cover this aspect of the process is very difficult.
Regarding 2 sets of shear rams. I think we also should consider whether, it is always best to always shear and then use the EDS (Emergency Disconnect). Even with the new regulations, will this system always work? In particular, if no well control event is occurring, such an event can be induced if the shears are used and fail to seal. The alternative (staying connected – the (DP) rig “moored” by the riser) may result in some damage to the riser system, but might enable hydrostatic head to be maintained. It would be worth having analyses carried out by the operator/contractor to see which course of action is preferred.
Finally, I would like to see some addition to legislation which requires the operator to determine up front what the rig crew will see during a particular operation or situation, such that when events deviate from this baseline, the rig team is on the same page in recognizing the situation and taking corrective action. This is aimed at removing the “human factor” from the operation wherever possible.