The states of Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas are suing against a new rule that tightens up the criteria for oil and gas companies to prove they can meet the financial obligations for decommissioning, according to a recent press article published by Public Radio wbhm.
Oil and gas companies with offshore infrastructure are obligated to decommission it when it is no longer useful, by plugging wells and removing platforms within set deadlines.
As of June 2023, more than 2,700 wells and 500 platforms were overdue for decommissioning in the Gulf of Mexico, according to the US Government Accountability Office. It states that the lack of effective enforcement by the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) has contributed to widespread decommissioning delays that have grown into a substantial backlog, and that the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) does not effectively assure that operators have the financial and technical capacity to meet decommissioning obligations in advance of potential delays, bankruptcies, or other defaults. Delays can increase environmental and safety risks, as well as potentially indicating that companies are in financial trouble and may leave the government to foot the bill for decommissioning.
Protecting smaller companies
A 20-year-old BOEM rule requires a company to provide financial assurance to prove it can clean up the infrastructure afterward before it can get a lease to drill. In April 2024, the BOEM passed a new rule, substantially strengthening the financial assurance requirements for the offshore oil and gas industry operating on the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf (OCS), to better protect the American taxpayer from bearing the cost of oil and gas facility decommissioning. It includes the requirement that companies which cannot provide adequate financial assurance have to put up a surety bond.
“The offshore oil and gas industry has evolved significantly over the last 20 years, and our financial assurance regulations need to keep pace,” said BOEM director Elizabeth Klein at the time of the issue of the updated rule. “Today’s action addresses the outdated and insufficient approach to supplemental bonding that does not always accurately capture the risks that industry may pose for the American taxpayer – like financial health of a company or the value of the assets that the lessee holds.”
The three states are suing against the new rule on the grounds it would be unaffordable for independent small and mid-sized oil companies, potentially causing bankruptcies and job losses. Meanwhile, environmental groups, the API and major oil companies (who might be better able to shoulder any additional costs), are supporting the new rule.
It is reported that the district judge for the Western District of Louisiana will decide whether or not to approve an injunction, which will pause the rule while arguments are heard. In the meantime, the rule remains in effect.
