The current economic climate has been detrimental to the resources of both the operator and the regulator, and innovation might seem like a fantasy, but by appreciating the goal setting principles of the regulations here in the UK, there is a way forward.
Plunging oil prices and the current economic climate is having different impacts on sectors within the industry in the UK. For now, oil and gas firms are seeing mass job losses while downstream manufacturers are thriving on reduced feedstock costs. The present, though, has no bearing on what lies ahead. All sectors within the industry have one thing in common when it comes to the future – uncertainty. Innovation is a measure that could improve the chances of operators coming out the other side. Creating more effective processes, products and, ultimately, prospects provides a better chance of ongoing success.
There would appear to be a creeping change towards more prescriptive regulation, in part because it is not just operators that have fewer resources to invest in innovation, but the regulator too. There is a feeling that this is leading to the compromise of the principles on which regulations in the UK are built. UK regulations take a goal setting approach, reporting what must be accomplished, but not how it should be achieved. This is intended to provide the latitude for operators to demonstrate how they manage risk proportionately and according to their individual circumstances and risk. This should provide operators with the confidence that they can make changes without compromising risk management or disturbing their relationship with the regulator.
In reality though, with less manpower to investigate and support operations which might be looking towards more innovative and unfamiliar ways of working, an easy solution is to default to ‘good practise’. For the regulator it is likely to require fewer resources to apply a more prescriptive approach to monitoring compliance; ticking boxes can reduce the time and effort required to consider the unique requirements of each site. It is possibly the same for the operator, following the well trodden path ensures that requirements are continually met, and removes the need for the resource and intelligence needed for improvement. This not only stifles the potential for innovation, it also limits the relationship between the operator and the regulator, removing the potential for the proactive and collaborative development that we would argue is intended within the scope of UK regulation.
Perhaps we should start looking at the regulations in a more positive light by interpreting them with their principles in mind. If we could think of them as a framework for improvement, the finer details of which are adaptable, allowing the stipulations to be met whilst still catering for unique circumstances of the project, then innovation and improvement become more likely. For example, including the regulator from the start of a project gives them the chance to get involved. A better understanding and relationship from the outset results in constructive input and fewer constraints whilst achieving the common goal of the entire industry – better risk management.
