Offshore Self Regulation Management System

Offshore Self Regulation Management System – Strong regulations have become a concern in managing the risks of offshore drilling operations over the past decade. However, the concept of health risk regulation is not fully developed in China. This document aims to understand what affects the strength of risk regulations and how a strong regulatory regime for drilling operations can be achieved in China. It begins with identifying the risks and costs of the offshore oil industry, emphasizing that proper regulation is the primary means of managing such risks in offshore drilling operations. It then discusses the dimension of regulatory robustness and evaluates and compares regulatory regimes for high-risk offshore oil industries in the UK, Norway, US and China. In particular, China’s path to risk management of offshore operations is summarized. A key theoretical debate on the management of offshore drilling operations is how regulation can facilitate the strengthening of risk regulations. Regulations and self-regulation and self-regulation represent the two main regulatory modes of overseas risk regulation. The former is heavily reliant on public practice, while the latter emphasizes the ongoing internal refinement of the offshore oil industry. To establish good Gulf regulation in China, this paper suggests that a specific combination of the two modes is necessary to provide optimal regulatory results.

Major accidents arising from offshore drilling operations are usually caused by man-made hazards, such as operational errors, technical problems, legal failures, or a combination of them. In China, how to manage offshore drilling operations and manage the risk of offshore accidents has become a major issue in maritime economic development and environmental protection. Although a growing number of Chinese laws and regulations address overseas safety and environmental issues, they do not cover comprehensive risk analysis and mitigation. Thus, the paper agrees that health regulations are a key way to improve safety in the Gulf because it has the potential to investigate and address specific issues and challenges, thereby preventing major accidents and reducing risks in the process. Round of Gulf Operations (Baram and Lindøe), 2014; Renn, 2014). The document aims to contribute to the design concept and implementation of a proper legal regime for the prevention of accidents in the Gulf and improve the health, safety and environmental practices of operators in China. Under this search, the former regulatory paper is an integral part of the health regimes for offshore drilling operations.

Offshore Self Regulation Management System

Offshore Self Regulation Management System

The concept of resilience first appeared in sciences such as ecology and engineering, which later inspired sociologists and policy researchers in their own analysis (Capano and Woo, 2017). The term “good” from a risk perspective is used to describe a system that is able to withstand risks and has the ability to maintain its function in exceptional circumstances. A proper regulatory regime comes with a wide range of objectives and principles, governance, regulatory and developmental approaches, and a balance between policy and regulation. In accordance with these dimensions, this document mainly discusses three aspects related to the risk regulation of offshore drilling operations: (1) legal framework and principles. (2) the mode of regulation and their definition of legal norms, inspection authorities, compliance and compliance. (3) Illegal standards, including industry standards, best practices, and cultural aspects.

Brief Overview Of The Regulatory Framework And Health, Safety And Environment Management In Malaysian Oil & Gas Industry

This document adopts a comparative study method by comparing China with the United Kingdom (UK), Norway and the United States (USA) to investigate similarities and differences in their regulatory regimes for offshore drilling operations. Globally, offshore oil industries in different countries face common challenges in sustainable development and risk management. The United Kingdom, Norway, the United States and China have all had coastal disasters in recent decades and have made a series of regulatory reforms. It should be noted that the regulatory reforms in the four jurisdictions followed a similar path, albeit at different times (Bennear, 2015). That is, their risk regulation for offshore operations relied primarily on prescription methods, then shifted to more objective and practice-based regulatory approaches after the Gulf incidents highlighted the weakness of regulation and control. CAC). However, each jurisdiction has its own legal system and regulatory context, which leads to differences in offshore risk regulations. It is difficult to judge which regulatory approach is more effective in reducing the risk of offshore drilling operations. The study argues that the joint use of various regulatory approaches, while maintaining its regulatory characteristics in China, would be the best opportunity for disaster prevention and facilitation of risk regulation at risk. Overseas in China.

Offshore oil and gas resources are an important part of China’s energy system. In line with the arrival of the highest demand for oil, China’s domestic crude oil production is expected to peak by 2030 and domestic natural gas by 2035 (Wang et al., 2021). This spurred offshore oil exploration and exploitation to move from waters to more and deeper areas in the Bohai Bay, the East China Sea and the South China Sea. New offshore technologies are now emerging widely in China, with the aim of improving the production efficiency of offshore oil resources and reducing tensions between energy consumption and low carbon development. For example, China’s first self-propelled deepwater field, Shenhai-1, has been drilling since 2021, producing more than 1 billion cubic meters of natural gas per year (CGTN, 2022). Accordingly, offshore oil and gas operations in China are facing new challenges posed by increasingly difficult coastal ecosystems and more complex drilling sites.

Some risks, risks and uncertainties in offshore drilling operations pose a threat to human health, overseas safety and the marine environment. Typical hazards in offshore operations include oil and gas spills and possible fires, explosions, and explosions in specific hazards. For example, the Deepwater Horizon eruption in the United States. And the 2011 Bohai Bay accident in China killed or injured staff and led to oil pollution and pollution of beaches and the environment. Compared to ship oil pollution, pollution from offshore drilling operations is difficult to estimate and manage, especially catastrophic hazards. Surveys suggest that oil pollution from ships is reduced, while oil spills as a consequence in offshore drilling disasters are more expensive (Jernelöv, 2010). According to incomplete statistics, about 57% of overseas accidents are distributed in the North Sea, 26% in the United States. It. Gulf of Mexico (GOM) and 17% in other regions (WOAD, 2019). This should explain why current research is conducted primarily on safety regulations in Europe and the United States. It. Continental shelf.

Offshore drilling activities are extremely dangerous, leading to attitudes and measures to risk stakeholders. Awareness of risks is related to the probability of accidents and their practical consequences that can be prevented by participants (Renn, 2014). Meanwhile, coastal Chinese residents show low support and moderate confidence in offshore mining activities (Chen and Martens, 2021). National and international oil companies are involved in balancing the production and health, safety and environment of offshore drilling activities. Both regulators and industry recognize that environmental risks must be minimized at all stages of offshore operations. Such hybrid cooperation is introduced in the risk management measures of offshore drilling operations. That is, diverse stakeholders at various levels of government strive to build institutions and develop regulations (Osofsky et al., 2016).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *