Important Notice: Our web hosting provider recently started charging us for additional visits, which was unexpected. In response, we're seeking donations. Depending on the situation, we may explore different monetization options for our Community and Expert Contributors. It's crucial to provide more returns for their expertise and offer more Expert Validated Answers or AI Validated Answers. Learn more about our hosting issue here.

Is there persuasive evidence that an expanded role for smaller independents on the OCS would: 1) hinder the pace or effectiveness of petroleum resource development, and 2) pose greater environmental and safety risks?

0
Posted

Is there persuasive evidence that an expanded role for smaller independents on the OCS would: 1) hinder the pace or effectiveness of petroleum resource development, and 2) pose greater environmental and safety risks?

0

As the study progressed it also seemed appropriate and efficient to use our data to determine if the Minerals Management Service s (MMS) safety and platform inspection programs have reduced the frequency or severity of accidents or spills in the Gulf. A final objective of the study was to test the “bad actor” hypothesis. This hypothesis postulates that a few “bad actors” with poor safety and environmental performance dominate and distort the offshore industry s safety and environmental record. DESCRIPTION: For analytical purposes, oil and gas operators operating in the U.S. have been classified into three groups–the majors, large independents and smaller independents. Definitions of these groups vary among different sources of information, but we used the following definitions: Majors are integrated companies with more than 1 billion BOE in petroleum reserves worldwide. Large independents are those firms cited in the Oil and Gas Journal (OGJ) list of the largest 100 firms that are not

What is your question?

*Sadly, we had to bring back ads too. Hopefully more targeted.