Layer | Fill | Outline |
---|
Map layers
Theme | Visible | Selectable | Appearance | Zoom Range (now: 0) |
---|
Fill | Stroke |
---|---|
Collaborating Authors
The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is loosening pipeline cybersecurity rules imposed after the hack of Colonial Pipeline last year, giving companies a longer window to report cyberattacks and more leeway to design their defenses. The first-of-their-kind cyber directives, unveiled after a ransomware attack disrupted the East Coast's largest fuel conduit for 6 days in May 2021, drew pushback from businesses that argued the standards were overly prescriptive and in some cases risked disrupting the flow of oil and gas. Lobbyists say that updated versions of the two yearlong directives could hint at how the agency intends to write permanent cyber regulations for pipelines and other surface transportation. "We're encouraged by the changes they've made," said Suzanne Lemieux, director of operations security and emergency response policy at the American Petroleum Institute, an oil and gas trade group. "There were a lot of things that weren't well thought out in the urgency of getting this out [last year]."
- Information Technology > Security & Privacy (1.00)
- Government > Military > Cyberwarfare (1.00)
- Energy > Oil & Gas (1.00)
Abstract Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) represents a potentially useful tool in enabling the European Union (EU) to manage its emissions of CO2 as it transitions from a fossil fuel to renewables energy strategy. There is a challenge in reducing the EU's emissions at a rate which meets the required target of a 20% reduction in emissions against the 1990 levels by 2020. The capture and injection to long-term storage of emissions from fossil fuel power generation facilities (and potentially others) represents an opportunity in this regard, although it should be noted that such activities should be viewed as a part of an overall strategy which is comprehensive and long sighted in its design. CCS represents a challenge to regulators who have a dual mandate of requiring to effectively assess and control the risks of such activities to the population and environment; and provide a structure which encourages and enables the performance of the tasks required. EU legislation is broad in its scope and application. Analgoues and lessons for EU regulators assessing the potential controlling structures for CCS are plentiful. This paper examines the regulatory requirements for effective operation of CCS via identification of the issues and risks associated with the capture, transport and storage of CO2; and reviews the regulatory options available and their applicability to the operation, management and control of CCS. Existing legislation around Environmental Impact Assessment, Health & Safety, Emissions, Trading, Control of Hazardous Substances, Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control, Waste Management and Environmental Liability, amongst others, all have a potential role to play. Amendment and clarification of all existing legislation would be required to enable its application to CCS but a number of options are available. The EU Commission however has a number of policy decisions to make to clarify the process, of which the key is to determine whether captured and injected CO2 would be classed as a waste or non-waste.
- North America > United States (0.98)
- Europe (0.88)
- Water & Waste Management > Solid Waste Management (1.00)
- Energy > Oil & Gas > Upstream (1.00)
- Government > Regional Government > North America Government > United States Government (0.98)
- Reservoir Description and Dynamics > Storage Reservoir Engineering > CO2 capture and sequestration (1.00)
- Health, Safety, Environment & Sustainability > Sustainability/Social Responsibility > Sustainable development (1.00)
- Health, Safety, Environment & Sustainability > Environment > Climate change (1.00)
ABSTRACT Tragedies in the offshore industry such as Macondo have urged the industry to implement effective safe guards to reduce major accidents offshore and to limit their consequences should they occur. The EU Offshore Safety Directive, due for implementation, is an initiative to reduce major accident risks in the offshore industry. This paper will discuss risk based verification of Safety and Environmental Critical Elements (SECE) and will demonstrate the systematic implementation of "Independent Verification of SECE, verification of Well Operations and verification of Material changes" as required by the Offshore Safety Directive (2013/30/EU EU Directive On the Safety of Offshore Oil and Gas Operations). A high-level introduction to the Directive's requirement for independent SECE will be discussed. With years of experience in verification, DNV GL has developed an in-depth knowledge of the value that can be unlocked through a systematic and effective approach to risk management. With in-service SECE verification, the optimal point for Operators' maintenance and assurance activities can be identified, and thereby optimizing a healthy balance of safety and reliability - enabling cost savings through both safer and smarter operations. DNV GL has recently issued Service Specification DNV GL-SE-0466 – In-service Verification of Oil and Gas assets. This SE will also provide the methodology to ensure safety and reliability of offshore assets by managing the integrity of major accident barriers in the in-service phase. Finally, next generation of risk barrier management principles and development as well as introduction of digitalization will be mentioned. INTRODUCTION Systematic risk management is an important element in operational excellence. DNV GL has developed systematics and guidelines to support operators in implementing robust barrier management while incorporating the OSD requirement into independent verification of Safety and Environmental Critical Elements.
Abstract In June 2013, the European Commission (EC) published the EU Directive 2013/30/EU on Safety of Offshore Oil and Gas Operations (hereafter referred to as the EU Offshore Safety Directive). The objective of the EU Offshore Safety Directive is to reduce as far as possible the occurrence of major accidents related to offshore oil and gas operations and to limit the consequences of any such accident, including any damage to protected species and natural habitats. The Directive defines protected species and natural habitats by referring to Directive 92/43/EEC on the Conservation of Natural Habitats and of Wild Fauna and Flora (hereafter referred to as the Habitats Directive). In order to ensure that all sensitive environmental receptors that may be affected in the event of an accident are identified, eni Upstream, with the support of Amec Foster Wheeler, have mapped sensitive areas in the Mediterranean Sea based on a set of natural and socio-economic criteria. This has been conducted considering both the Habitats Directive and industry good practices. The mapping exercise is an iterative process; maps are based on data that are publicly available and are updated as new datasets become available. In selecting relevant sensitive areas, eni have considered both the EU Habitats Directive Annexes I and II and criteria aligned with the IPIECA/IMO/IOGP guidance document, Sensitivity Mapping for Oil Spill Response (2012). All data collected are geo-referenced and can be uploaded onto a Geographic Information System (GIS) platform; the data includes, but are not limited to: Protected Areas (including Natura 2000 sites); Habitats listed in Annex I of the EU Habitats Directive; Species listed in Annex II of the EU Habitats Directive; Species of commercial interest; Aquaculture infrastructure; Touristic areas; This desktop-based baseline can be used for several purposes. In addition to helping eni to comply with the new legislation (e.g. outlining potential environmental consequences of Major Accidents), the maps enable Environmental Specialists to inform decision-making processes along the project lifecycle regarding areas of high environmental value or special vulnerability where extra baseline studies may be needed. The maps can also be used to support Oil Spill Emergency Response teams, so that they can promptly identify sensitive receptors and make informed decisions during emergencies. This paper illustrates the main features of this GIS platform and provides examples of its application.
- Health, Safety, Environment & Sustainability > Safety (1.00)
- Health, Safety, Environment & Sustainability > HSSE & Social Responsibility Management > Contingency planning and emergency response (1.00)
- Health, Safety, Environment & Sustainability > Environment > Oil and chemical spills (1.00)
- Data Science & Engineering Analytics > Information Management and Systems (1.00)
ABSTRACT: Directive 2008/56/EC establishes a framework for community action in the field of marine environmental policy in the European Union (EU): the Marine Strategy Framework Directive, in short MSFD. Its aim is to achieve good environmental status of the EU's marine waters by 2020. MSFD will have dramatic consequences not only on produced water legislation but also in other areas such as underwater noise, a source of energy regulators consider as polluting. As a first step in the process of implementing the Directive, the European Union has designed descriptors of the good environmental status of the seas bordering the EU. Strong discussions have already taken place in which industry had to lobby to ensure that a fair treatment is made, not at least regarding descriptor n° 11 (introduction of energy in the water). Another facet of the MSFD is that it heavily relies on regional conventions: OSPAR in the North Sea, HELCOM in the Baltic and the Barcelona Convention in the Mediterranean Sea. These conventions are all struggling at developing the framework and the tools required by the MSFD. The paper develops what is at stake and the foreseeable consequences for the E&P industry. It explains the process in place to implement the provisions of the MSFD, and the role of the stakeholders in this process including the prominent one that the national and global E&P industry organisations play
- Europe > United Kingdom > North Sea (0.25)
- Europe > Norway > North Sea (0.25)
- Europe > North Sea (0.25)
- (2 more...)
- Government (1.00)
- Energy > Oil & Gas > Upstream (1.00)
- Europe > Poland > Baltic Basin (0.89)
- Europe > Middle East > Malta > Mediterranean Sea (0.89)