ANP TECHNICAL NOTE NO. 9/2024 AND EUROPEAN REGULATION 2024/1787: WELL INTEGRITY, METHANE EMISSIONS REDUCTION, AND BRAZIL’S ROLE IN ENERGY TRANSITION

This article examines the significance of ANP Technical Note No. 9/2024 in light of the recent European Regulation EU 2024/1787, which aims to reduce methane emissions in the energy sector. Both regulations converge on fundamental practices to ensure well integrity and promote operational safety while advancing the goals of energy transition and climate risk mitigation.

This study presents the points of intersection and divergence between these regulations, assessing how their principles can be applied to strengthen operational safety. Furthermore, I propose Quantitative Risk Analysis (QRA) as an essential methodology to address the demands of well integrity and emissions mitigation, balancing regulatory rigour with operational reality.

• Introduction to the Brazilian and European Regulatory Context

In Brazil, ANP Resolution No. 46/2016 established the Well Integrity Management System (WIMS) or as known in Brazil RANP 46/2016 - SGIP, setting minimum standards for operational safety and environmental preservation throughout the well lifecycle. This framework focuses on maintaining the physical and functional integrity of Well Barriers, which are essential for controlling and mitigating unintentional inflows between zones or to the external environment.

ANP Technical Note No. 9/2024 complements RANP 46/2016 by proposing specific actions for repairs in wells with degraded Well Barriers, prioritising operational safety in critical situations, such as temporarily abandoned wells without monitoring or those with dual barrier failures.

Furthermore, the Technical Note highlights the occurrence of unreported Well Barriers failure events, linking this issue to the guidelines established by ANP Resolution No. 882/22 and the ANP Incident Reporting Manual. According to these guidelines, the Operator has up to 48 hours from the first observation to report the failure (section 5.17), with one of the required pieces of information being the “estimated time for correcting the failure.” Failure to comply with this requirement subjects offenders to the penalties established in Law No. 9,847 of 26 October 1999 and Decree No. 4,136 of 20 February 2002.

In Europe, Regulation EU 2024/1787 represents a regulatory milestone in combating methane emissions. Focusing on the entire fossil energy value chain, it establishes rigorous requirements for the monitoring, detection, and correction of emissions, including the use of advanced technologies such as Leak Detection and Repair (LDAR). Additionally, it introduces restrictions on venting and routine flaring, reflecting a commitment to climate reduction.

• Comparative Analysis and Intersection of Objectives

The intersection of these documents’ objectives is what makes them particularly relevant, as both address essential topics for well integrity and environmental sustainability, albeit with different approaches. Furthermore, both regulations share a concern for inactive or abandoned wells.

The European regulation, EU 2024/1787, adds a critical climate layer, focusing on the measurement and reduction of methane emissions in abandoned or temporarily sealed wells, in alignment with global climate goals.

In contrast, Brazil, through ANP Technical Note No. 9/2024, emphasises practices geared towards well integrity and operational safety, highlighting the importance of structural security in Well Barriers and the need for monitoring to prevent fluid leaks, including methane.

The implementation of these regulations requires a significant shift in well management. In Brazil, operators must prioritise corrective actions for wells with degraded Well Barriers, while in Europe, compliance with climate requirements demands investments in advanced technologies for detection and mitigation of emissions.

• Timelines and Regulatory Rigor

The timelines for regulatory compliance and the level of rigor applied to the industry reveal significant differences between the two regulations.

The European Regulation EU 2024/1787 establishes strict schedules and clear climate impact targets. Its implementation requires advanced technologies and involves high operational costs, which can be particularly challenging in emerging markets. This regulation includes a Leak Detection and Repair (LDAR) Programme, which mandates:

Implementation Deadlines: All operators must submit an LDAR programme by May 5, 2025, for existing sites, and within six months for new sites.

Inspection Frequency: Regular inspections are required, ranging from 12 to 60 months depending on the type of component and its location (surface, underground, or offshore).

Priority Repairs: Identified leaks must be repaired immediately or within a maximum of 30 days, with extensions limited to safety or technical feasibility concerns.

Component Replacement: Devices with recurring leaks must be replaced with technologies that ensure long-term protection against future leaks.

In contrast, ANP Technical Note No. 9/2024 proposes longer timelines and a more flexible approach. It defines repair timelines ranging from 30 to 360 days, depending on the level of risk, with less emphasis on climate impacts. This approach reflects the practical limitations of the Brazilian context, including constraints in technical and operational resources.

In Brazil, ongoing discussions are addressing the timelines proposed in the Technical Note, as they may create technical and operational inconsistencies concerning the risk associated with different groups of wells. Recognising the need for improvements, the ANP fosters dialogue by allowing operators to submit alternative correction timelines, provided they are technically justified and risk based.

The European Regulation, aiming to prevent emissions, mandates detailed documentation, continuous monitoring, strict inspection schedules, and independent verification (a practice currently under consideration by the ANP in the revision of the New SGSO). In contrast, the ANP focuses on the functional recovery of Well Barriers, recommending that repair prioritisation be based on operational risk and urges Operators to expedite their repair actions.

Unlike the European approach, which enforces severe penalties, the ANP adopts a more flexible strategy, sharing its perspective with Operators on the urgency of actions required for the prompt restoration of Well Barriers, aiming to encourage compliance through cooperation.

• Support Methodologies for Regulatory Objectives

Quantitative Risk Analysis (QRA) emerges as a critical methodology for assessing and managing risks in wells, going beyond qualitative approaches. QRA allows for repair timelines to be set based on the probability of failures and the severity of associated risks, enabling a data-driven and well-specific response that not only enhances safety but also provides a transparent basis for operational decisions, resource allocation, and the integration of operational safety with environmental goals.

1. Risk-Based Resource Prioritisation: Classifies wells by risk levels, considering degraded Well Barriers, proximity to sensitive areas, and potential methane emissions, enabling efficient resource allocation and prioritisation of actions for high-risk wells.
2. Integration of Safety and Sustainability: Aligns operational safety objectives with emission reduction targets, providing clear metrics to justify interventions in critical wells and demonstrating how the integrity of Well Barriers directly impacts methane emission mitigation.
3. Risk-Based Incentives: QRA also facilitates the creation of regulatory incentives through mechanisms that reward operators who demonstrate, based on QRA, reduced risk levels in their wells. These incentives can encourage the adoption of advanced monitoring and mitigation technologies, promoting more efficient and sustainable management practices.
4. Technical Justification for Timelines: Provides a scientific basis for regulatory timelines, balancing safety and operational feasibility.

Consequently, the application of QRA transcends simple risk management, offering an integrated approach that connects operational safety, environmental sustainability, and regulatory efficiency. By enabling data-driven decisions and promoting incentives that recognise best practices, QRA positions itself as a strategic pillar for aligning the interests of industry, regulators, and society, ensuring consistent progress toward safety and sustainability in the energy sector.

?

• Brazil’s Role in the Energy Transition

With a strategic position in the oil and gas market, Brazil can lead global initiatives by adopting advanced practices in integrity management and emissions control. Incorporating climate aspects into national regulation strengthens the country’s competitiveness and aligns its operations with international standards.

Moreover, Brazil, through Petrobras, possesses well-established expertise in the application of Quantitative Risk Analysis (QRA) for wells—a tool already employed to manage risks associated with well integrity. The use of QRA in the country has enabled a reliability-based, data-driven approach to prioritising interventions, optimising resources, and enhancing operational safety. This expertise positions Brazil as a benchmark in the adoption of robust methodologies that can be scaled to meet global demands for methane emissions reduction. By aligning its technical capacity in QRA with climate goals, Brazil will not only demonstrate leadership in the energy sector but also strengthen its position as a model of regulatory and operational innovation in emerging markets.

• Conclusion and Recommendations

The convergence between ANP Technical Note No. 9/2024 and the European Regulation 2024/1787 can serve as a foundation for a balanced and efficient regulatory model.

The adoption of QRA as a methodology supports decision-making and prioritisation of corrective actions for Well Barriers failures.

There is room for the integration of emission metrics into Brazilian regulation in the medium to long term, expanding ANP's focus to include climate objectives. Aligning national regulations with global standards not only strengthens safety and sustainability but also positions Brazil as a leader in the future energy landscape.

The comparison highlights significant differences between the regulations, with the European framework being more stringent and detailed, while ANP prioritises adaptation to local realities. Nevertheless, ANP's openness to discussing alternative timelines and its ongoing regulatory review, such as the New SGSO, represent positive steps toward balancing operational safety and environmental sustainability in Brazil.

REFERENCES:

- Regulation (EU) 2024/1787 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 June 2024 on the reduction of methane emissions in the energy sector and amending Regulation (EU) 2019/942.

- TECHNICAL NOTE No. 9/2024/SSO-CSO/SSO/ANP-RJ - Analysis of data on wells with degraded Well Barriers (CSBs) and proposed actions for Operators and regulatory oversight by ANP.

- APPLICATION OF QUANTITATIVE RISK ANALYSIS (QRA) FOR WELL INTEGRITY REGULATION IN BRAZIL - Mayra Aquino

- REGULATORY DEVELOPMENTS FOR WELL INTEGRITY IN BRAZIL – Analysis of ANP Technical Note No. 9/2024 - Mayra Aquino