Moving away from oil and gas production
Lessons learned on regulatory compliance when transferring from offshore fossil fuels into low-carbon solutions
As the energy transition accelerates, many oil and gas (O&G) professionals are moving into low-carbon projects. Their expertise is valuable, but direct transfer is not straightforward.
Although projects share components and materials, each technology has distinct hazards. In O&G, drilling, transferring, and processing hydrocarbons expose facilities to multiple classified zones, raising fire and explosion risks.
Solar and wind do not handle flammable materials but present high-voltage hazards. Carbon capture involves gases under pressure, while hydrogen generation poses greater explosion risk due to hydrogen’s flammability rapid dispersion and ease of ignition.
Regulatory framework
O&G regulations, shaped by decades of incidents, are prescriptive and detailed, leaving little room for ambiguity. Low-carbon solutions attempt to assimilate these lessons but with gaps in application. To close gaps, countries introduced national rules that rely on performance. This demands a mindset shift from ‘rulebook’ compliance to risk-based thinking.
Companies must also navigate CE/UKCA marking (European Conformity/UK Conformity Assessed), national certifications, and maritime approvals, often duplicating effort. While lighter frameworks can reduce costs and speed development, balance between safety, quality, and efficiency remains critical.
Meanwhile, O&G risk management focuses on mitigating inherent hazards, while low-carbon projects face different challenges, such as solar and wind intermittency affecting grid stability.
Companies must design new strategies that reflect these characteristics. Unlike O&G, where risk is accepted and mitigated, low-carbon activity is expected to be ‘clean by design’ with ‘zero harm’. Transferring an O&G mindset without adapting to these societal expectations can create new concerns.
Certification, conformity assessment and regulatory authorities
Inspection bodies, certifiers, and regulators are essential in both O&G and low-carbon solutions, but their expertise is often narrow. Applying it to broader projects creates delays, conflicting interpretations.
Projects frequently face uncertainty whether an inspection authority, a duty holder, or a local regulator has final authority. Early clarification of roles and responsibilities are essential to avoid misunderstandings and ensure smoother project execution.
While O&G projects expect long approval processes, they are usually well-mapped. Low-carbon permitting is often less predictable due to overlapping authorities and political priorities. Early stakeholder engagement and proactive dialogue with regulators are key to avoiding costly delays.
Certificates accepted in O&G, such as type approvals or manufacturer approvals, are often not recognised in the low-carbon sector, even when technically valid. This mismatch, combined with limited supplier knowledge of the regulatory environment for low-carbon solutions, creates challenges.
Whereas O&G with complex projects with material requisitions allowed less detailed specifications, as suppliers were familiarised to the regulatory framework. Low-carbon projects, however, involve fewer components that require precise technical packages. Without clear specifications, suppliers may reject orders.
Digitalisation, environment and talent gap
O&G place emphasis on real-time monitoring and integrity management. By contrast, low-carbon solutions are still developing, with fragmented use of digital twins, SCADA (supervisory control and data acquisition), and predictive maintenance. O&G professionals often expect high levels of regulatory digital reporting, but renewables may not yet require it.
While O&G regulation emphasises pollution and emissions control, renewables are judged on biodiversity, noise, and social acceptance. O&G professionals are often surprised at how decisive public perception can be. The lesson: social license to operate is not secondary but central to project success.
O&G and low-carbon companies do share a talent gap that requires specialised skills. Closing it demands targeted training and development to prepare employees for each sector.
Experience from O&G is invaluable for low-carbon alternatives, especially in safety culture, assurance, and project discipline. But direct transfer of regulations works with caution. Success lies in blending O&G rigor with renewables’ flexibility, sustainability, and stakeholder focus. The transition requires translation, not replication.
This article represents the views and thoughts of the author, and not of IMarEST.
Alexandre Gerszt has 25 years of experience in oil and gas, mainly focused on regulatory compliance. Since the beginning of this year, he was involved in a major 2GW offshore wind project in Germany.
Image: gas storage tanks in the harbour area of Hamburg, Germany. Credit: Shutterstock.
