The maritime industry continues to deal with the risks of offshore disasters, with the Deepwater Horizon incident still influencing regulatory measures many years later. As energy companies push into deeper waters in search of limited hydrocarbon reserves, the focus on safety and environmental protection has never been more crucial. In 2024, the discovery of approximately eight billion barrels of oil equivalent spurred a wave of operations further offshore where technological and regulatory complexities often clash. The central question is whether new regulations can safeguard against future failures, especially under the weight of ongoing economic pressures.1
Image Credit: deela dee/Shutterstock.com
The Complex Regulatory Seascape
The regulatory framework governing offshore operations appears fragmented rather than cohesive. International conventions such as MARPOL (the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships) set essential environmental standards for vessels and drill ships, regardless of location.
As noted by Steven Otillar, a partner at the global law firm White & Case, MARPOL is significant because it establishes universal requirements that transcend geographic boundaries. However, these international standards serve only as a foundation for regional and national authorities, which create their own specific requirements. This leads to a complex compliance environment, especially for operators working across different jurisdictions.1
The Gulf of Mexico exemplifies this regulatory complexity, where political changes can significantly impact operations. For instance, the transition from the Biden administration to President Trump resulted in substantial policy shifts, including the reversal of leasing moratoriums covering over 625 million acres of federal waters.
Trump's National Energy Dominance Council aims to streamline regulations while pushing for deeper drilling. In April 2024, the Interior Department implemented new guidelines allowing pressure differentials in the Wilcox rock formation to rise significantly, which could increase output but has raised safety concerns.1,2
Across the Atlantic, the North Sea presents a different regulatory philosophy focused on energy transition. The UK's North Sea Transition Authority is advocating for operational changes like electrification to reduce emissions. However, ambitious climate goals face challenges, such as the UK's Energy Profits Levy, which has inadvertently slowed drilling activities. Judicial interventions, such as a Scottish court's nullification of hydrocarbon project approvals based on emissions, add further uncertainty for operators in the region.1
Technological Frontiers and Regulatory Lag
As offshore operations progress into deeper waters and utilize more advanced technology, regulations face ongoing challenges in keeping pace with innovation. Modern offshore platforms incorporate artificial intelligence for real-time monitoring, seismic sensors for locating reservoirs, and satellite systems for environmental tracking. While these technologies enhance operational control and safety, they also introduce new risks related to cybersecurity, system complexity, and human-machine interaction that existing regulatory frameworks are not equipped to handle.1
The drive to access deeper reserves has accelerated technological advancement, often outpacing regulatory development. Research indicates that the probability of incidents such as blowouts and pollution increases significantly with greater water depths, particularly in ultra-deep operations beyond 8,000 feet.
The United States follows a prescriptive regulatory model, which is rigid and may struggle with novel technologies, whereas Europe employs a goal-oriented approach that allows for flexibility but can lead to inconsistent enforcement. This regulatory divergence complicates operations for Mobile Offshore Drilling Units that operate in both US and European waters.3,4,5
Persistent Gaps in Governance and Evidence
Despite advancements in regulation, important governance gaps continue to affect offshore safety.
A recent study published in Nature Climate Change surveyed 332 practitioners involved in marine climate interventions and found that a majority of these projects, approximately 71 percent, are launched with insufficient consideration of ecological, cultural, and social risks. Moreover, practitioners lacked consensus on climate goals, often implementing interventions in poorly regulated environments. This governance challenge also compromises safety practices, as decision-making prioritizes meeting minimum permitting requirements over comprehensive risk management.4
Evidence-based regulation encounters notable challenges. Occupational safety practitioners have expressed a need for improved evidence on cost-effective interventions to reduce workplace harm.
This concern is underscored by the recent establishment of the Global Safety Evidence Centre, funded by the Lloyd's Register Foundation with a £15 million investment. According to the International Labour Organization, one in five workers suffers harm at work, contributing to approximately three million fatalities each year. The scarcity of systematic safety data is concerning, particularly since research indicates that newer and more complex offshore platforms tend to have a higher frequency of incidents.3,6
Regulatory frameworks also inadequately address the human element of safety. While technological solutions are advancing, regulations often fall short in ensuring effective training, safety culture, and communication, all crucial elements in accident prevention.7
Emerging Regulatory Frameworks
The 2025 regulatory landscape introduces important frameworks aimed at addressing historical weaknesses. The FuelEU Maritime Regulation, effective from January 2025, implemented a lifecycle approach to greenhouse gas emissions, requiring gradual decarbonization.7
The Hong Kong International Convention on the Safe and Environmentally Sound Recycling of Ships finally enters into force in June 2025 after receiving sufficient accessions. This treaty mandates that ships over 500 gross tons create and maintain an Inventory of Hazardous Materials. However, implementing the convention may lead to regulatory complexities and inconsistencies with existing regulations.7
Download your PDF copy now!
Beyond treaty-based regulations, initiatives like the Global Safety Evidence Centre aim to address knowledge gaps in occupational safety through practical solutions such as measuring safety improvements. Furthermore, standardizing electronic Ballast Water Record Books under MEPC.383(81) represents the industry's ongoing digital transformation, highlighting the need for better data, analysis, and tools to improve regulatory compliance and effectiveness.6,7
Toward Prevention or Complacency
The effectiveness of recent regulatory developments will be determined by their ability to prevent another disaster like the Deepwater Horizon incident. While technological advancements in well control and emergency response have made strides, three key issues remain: the impact of political and economic pressures on safety standards, inconsistent regulatory approaches, and the gap between written regulations and their practical application.
The tension between energy security and safety is evident in regulatory decisions, such as the recent increase in allowable pressure differentials in the Gulf's Wilcox formation, which prioritizes production despite warnings about safety risks.
Industry experts emphasize the need for shared responsibility, transparency, and agility among regulators and operators. The challenge lies in creating a safety culture that supports consistent implementation of standards and embraces evidence-based practices while prioritizing long-term safety over short-term profit. Years after its most serious incident, this remains a significant challenge for the offshore industry.
References and Further Reading
- Jenns, C. (2025). Navigating deepwater drilling regulations for the oil and gas industry. Offshore Technology. https://www.offshore-technology.com/features/navigating-deepwater-drilling-regulations-for-the-oil-and-gas-industry/
- Gardner, T. (2025). US aims to boost offshore oil drilling by easing pressure rules. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/us-aims-boost-offshore-oil-drilling-by-easing-pressure-rules-2025-04-24/
- Muehlenbachs, L., Cohen, M. A., & Gerarden, T. (2013). The impact of water depth on safety and environmental performance in offshore oil and gas production. Energy Policy, 55, 699-705. DOI:10.1016/j.enpol.2012.12.074. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030142151201141X
- Ogier, E. M. et al. (2025). Novel marine-climate interventions hampered by low consensus and governance preparedness. Nature Climate Change, 15(4), 375-384. DOI:10.1038/s41558-025-02291-4. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-025-02291-4
- Brkić, D. (2024). Fire Hazards Caused by Equipment Used in Offshore Oil and Gas Operations: Prescriptive vs. Goal-Oriented Legislation. Fire, 8(1), 29. DOI:10.3390/fire8010029. https://www.mdpi.com/2571-6255/8/1/29
- Global Safety Evidence Centre Launches to Tackle Marine Industry Risks. (2025). The Fishing Daily - Irish, UK and European Fishing Industry News. https://thefishingdaily.com/latest-news/global-safety-evidence-centre-launches-to-tackle-marine-industry-risks/
- Suzuki, H. (2025). Charting the 2025 maritime regulatory landscape | Gard's Insights. Gard. https://gard.no/insights/charting-the-2025-maritime-regulatory-landscape/
Disclaimer: The views expressed here are those of the author expressed in their private capacity and do not necessarily represent the views of AZoM.com Limited T/A AZoNetwork the owner and operator of this website. This disclaimer forms part of the Terms and conditions of use of this website.