IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/enepol/v113y2018icp701-710.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Offshore risk regulation: A comparative analysis of regulatory framework in Ghana, the United Kingdom and Norway

Author

Listed:
  • Acheampong, Theophilus
  • Akumperigya, Rainer

Abstract

This paper assesses Ghana's offshore health and safety regulatory regime in the context of international best practice in the upstream oil and gas industry. It contributes to the discussion of the emerging issue of offshore risk regulation in new petroleum producing countries. We present a comparative analysis contrasting two leading safety regimes namely the United Kingdom and Norway to Ghana's emerging regime to benchmark common features as well as weaknesses. Our findings indicate that Ghana requires a robust regulatory regime that ensures that health and safety risks are properly delineated if the country is to avoid catastrophic accidents. This is especially important as these risks are more pronounced with deepwater operations such as those prevalent in the country's petroleum basins. We propose the enactment of a general Health & Safety at Work law in Ghana backed by subsidiary regulations to harmonise the disjointed and sometimes incoherent health and safety provisions. Additionally, we propose that the health and safety regulatory function of the Ghana Petroleum Commission should be decoupled to form an independent Competent Authority as activity levels and the degree of complexity of operations increase to prevent conflict of interest between its regulatory and licensing functions.

Suggested Citation

  • Acheampong, Theophilus & Akumperigya, Rainer, 2018. "Offshore risk regulation: A comparative analysis of regulatory framework in Ghana, the United Kingdom and Norway," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 701-710.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:113:y:2018:i:c:p:701-710
    DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2017.10.009
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421517306328
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.enpol.2017.10.009?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:113:y:2018:i:c:p:701-710. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/enpol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.