Bill Overview
Title: Offshore Accountability Act of 2021
Description: This bill establishes disclosure and reporting requirements for operators of offshore oil or gas facilities after equipment failures of critical systems. Such operators must notify the Department of the Interior and the manufacturers of the equipment of such failures. In addition, the operators must provide equipment failure analyses to Interior and the manufacturers. Interior must post the analyses on its website. Finally, operators must report to Interior on changes made by such manufacturers to the design of critical systems as the result of reported failures and changes in the operators' procedures as a result of reported failures.
Sponsors: Rep. McEachin, A. Donald [D-VA-4]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals involved with or affected by offshore oil or gas operations
Estimated Size: 50000
- The bill impacts operators of offshore oil or gas facilities as they are required to perform new reporting and disclosure activities.
- The operational changes due to equipment failures also impact the manufacturers of the equipment used in offshore oil or gas facilities, as they must be informed and may need to redesign the equipment.
- The Department of the Interior will have an expanded role in terms of collecting and disseminating data related to equipment failures.
- Communities in proximity to offshore drilling sites could be indirectly impacted if the bill leads to improvements in safety and environmental practices.
- Employees working on offshore drilling platforms, including those in safety and maintenance positions, may experience changes in their procedures based on the legislation.
Reasoning
- Operators of offshore oil or gas facilities are directly impacted due to new reporting obligations, which could cause operational and financial strain initially. However, improved equipment safety and reliability can lead to long-term gains.
- Manufacturers of offshore equipment may face costs due to redesign requirements but could benefit in the long run from improved equipment reliability and potential sales opportunities due to higher standards.
- Department of the Interior's additional workload increases federal employment opportunities but comes with increased budgetary demands.
- Communities near drilling sites might benefit from improved safety and environmental protections, potentially enhancing local wellbeing.
- Employees on offshore platforms might experience safer working conditions due to procedural changes, although initial implementation could be disruptive.
Simulated Interviews
Offshore Oil Rig Manager (Houston, TX)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy will mean more paperwork and stricter oversight, which can be a headache, but it's necessary for safety.
- In the long run, improving equipment reliability is good for everyone.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 8 |
Environmental Scientist (New Orleans, LA)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I believe this policy is a step forward for environmental management, providing transparency.
- There might be initial pushback from operators due to increased regulatory burden.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Maintenance Technician (Gulfport, MS)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- New policies are likely to change some of our safety procedures, which can be good for reducing incidents.
- Initially, it might be challenging to adjust to the new standards.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Policy Analyst for Department of the Interior (Washington, D.C.)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The bill adds more responsibility to our department, ensuring safe practices are followed.
- It could increase operational costs but contributes to transparency.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
CEO of Offshore Equipment Manufacturer (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Policy can lead to expensive redesigns but aligning with new standards is crucial for future business.
- It's a challenge but necessary for long-term reliability improvement.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Local Resident Near Offshore Drilling Site (Mobile, AL)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Anything that reduces environmental risk from nearby drilling is positive.
- Initially, effects are unclear, but hope for reduced incidents in the area.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Financial Analyst for Oil and Gas Sector (Dallas, TX)
Age: 32 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Regulations add costs but also can stabilize market through increased safety confidence.
- Financial markets may react negatively to initial cost projections.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Community Health Worker (Anchorage, AK)
Age: 42 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Better reporting can help track and mitigate potential health impacts.
- Community engagement could improve with more transparency.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Energy Policy Researcher (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could set a precedent for greater accountability which is vital.
- It might face resistance but can lead to significant improvements.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Safety Engineer (Corpus Christi, TX)
Age: 37 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Implementing stricter guidelines ensures safety, which is always a priority.
- New standards will improve overall safety compliance and reduce accidents.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $150000000 (Low: $100000000, High: $200000000)
Year 2: $50000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $70000000)
Year 3: $50000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $70000000)
Year 5: $50000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $70000000)
Year 10: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- Ensuring effective implementation of reporting requirements without excessive burden on operators is crucial.
- Potential for reduced risk of offshore incidents, leading to environmental benefits and cost savings.
- Balancing additional federal costs against long-term savings from enhanced safety practices.
- Possibility of initial resistance or adjustment issues from the industry due to increased regulations.