[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 98 (Monday, May 22, 2006)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 29280-29285]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-7792]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Minerals Management Service

30 CFR Part 250

RIN 1010-AD19


Oil and Gas and Sulphur Operations in the Outer Continental Shelf 
(OCS)--Incorporate API RP 65 for Cementing Shallow Water Flow Zones

AGENCY: Minerals Management Service (MMS), Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 29281]]

SUMMARY: MMS is proposing to incorporate by reference the First Edition 
of the American Petroleum Institute's Recommended Practice for 
Cementing Shallow Water Flow Zones in Deep Water Wells (API RP 65) into 
MMS regulations. Since 1987, at least 113 OCS wells have encountered 
shallow water flow (SWF) to varying degrees. The majority of these 
wells experienced SWF to only a minor degree; however, there were 
instances of severe encounters resulting in abandonment of well sites 
and loss of wells. This action would establish best practices for 
cementing wells in deep water areas of the OCS that are prone to SWF.

DATES: MMS will consider all comments received by July 21, 2006. We 
will begin reviewing comments then and may not fully consider comments 
received after July 21, 2006.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments on the rulemaking by any of the 
following methods. Please use the Regulation Identifier Number (RIN) 
1010-AD19 as an identifier in your message. See also Public Comment 
Procedures under Procedural Matters.
     MMS's Public Connect on-line commenting system, https://ocsconnect.mms.gov. Follow the instructions on the Web site for 
submitting comments.
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the instructions on the Web site for submitting comments.
     E-mail MMS at [email protected]. Use RIN 1010-AD19 in 
the subject line.
     Fax: 703-787-1546. Identify with the RIN, 1010-AD19.
     Mail or hand-carry comments to the Department of the 
Interior; Minerals Management Service; Attention: Rules Processing Team 
(RPT); 381 Elden Street, MS-4024; Herndon, Virginia 20170-4817. Please 
reference ``Incorporate API RP 65 for Cementing Shallow Water Flow 
Zones, 1010-AD19'' in your comments and include your name and return 
address.
     Send comments on the information collection in this rule 
to: Interior Desk Officer 1010-AD19, Office of Management and Budget; 
202/395-6566 (facsimile); e-mail: [email protected]. Please also 
send a copy to MMS.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kirk Malstrom, Regulations & Standards 
Branch (703) 787-1751.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    MMS is authorized to issue and enforce rules to promote safe 
operations, environmental protection, and resource conservation on the 
OCS by the OCS Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1331 et seq.). Under this 
authority, MMS regulates all safety aspects of oil and gas drilling, 
production, and well-workover operations on the OCS.
    Since 1987, OCS operators have reported encountering shallow water 
flow (SWF) problems while drilling in specific areas of the Gulf of 
Mexico (GOM), including Garden Banks, Green Canyon, Mississippi Canyon, 
and Viosca Knoll. SWFs have also been reported to the agency from the 
Atwater, De Soto Canyon, East Breaks, Ewing Bank, and Port Isabel areas 
of the GOM. To date, MMS is aware of at least 113 wells, drilled by 
approximately 25 different operators, that have encountered problems 
with SWF. Data available to MMS shows that the water depth for these 
wells ranged from approximately 496 feet to 9,672 feet, with an average 
water depth of 3,562 feet. These wells encountered SWF from zones at 
depths ranging from approximately 450 feet below mud line (BML) to 
3,005 feet BML, with an average depth of encounter of 1,305 feet BML. 
These BML depths represent the top of the SWF zone. General information 
on SWFs, and maps showing the location of areas in the GOM that have 
had documented cases of SWF, can be viewed at our Web site at: http://www.gomr.mms.gov/homepg/offshore/safety/wtrflow.html.
    SWF is a phenomenon generally encountered at shallow depths BML in 
the deepwater areas of the GOM (greater than 500 feet and more commonly 
in water depths greater than 1,000 feet) and is typically attributable 
to penetrating abnormally pressured shallow sands. The greater than 
normal pressures in these sands can result from sediments being 
deposited at higher than normal rates, resulting in the pressurization 
of the pore water above normal hydrostatic pressure. The development of 
a formation, such as a shale body above this sand, may create a seal 
allowing the development of an abnormally pressured formation. As 
described, this situation does not represent a problem. However, with 
the development of appropriate permeability, such a formation, once 
penetrated, may result in an influx of water or sediment into or around 
the wellbore, or a SWF. Depending on the severity of the SWF, the flow 
may result in the creation of a channel behind the casing, creation of 
a large washout, buckling of casing, cross flow between a localized 
group of wells, premature permanent abandonment of the well, and 
expenditure of additional time and expense for the operator to control 
the well and resume drilling operations.
    According to the information available to MMS, the majority of the 
113 GOM wells that have encountered SWF did so to only a slight degree. 
However, some of the SWFs were severe and resulted in abandonment of 
the well sites, and required moving to an alternate location to drill 
new wells at great expense. A significant SWF event happened off the 
mouth of the Mississippi River in deepwater. The field is located in an 
area where SWF problems have been severe. The sediments in this area 
contain massive sands at above normal pressures at shallow depths BML. 
Once the problem of SWF was recognized, the company employed various 
drilling and cementing techniques while constructing wells in attempts 
to prevent and control the SWF problem. Ultimately the decision was 
made to abandon this site because many of the slots at the site were 
unusable due to the buckling of casing caused by SWF. It is estimated 
that abandonment of this site cost approximately $100 million. A new, 
second site, was selected approximately 1 mile from the original site. 
Selection criteria for this site emphasized SWF avoidance based on 
seismic data.
    Other SWF incidents in GOM have resulted in less expensive, but 
equally damaging situations. A well located in Garden Banks in 
deepwater was spudded and drilled in preparation for running conductor 
casing. The casing was run and cemented with foamed lead cement and 
higher density tail cement. The day after cement operations were 
completed, the well experienced a SWF from the drive pipe conductor 
casing annulus. Three days later the well was abandoned, and the rig 
was moved to an alternate location to commence drilling another well. 
The original well was monitored for SWF with a remote operating vehicle 
while the new well was drilled. Flow on the original well had decreased 
significantly and the well is currently classified as permanently 
abandoned. The information included in API RP 65 addressing best 
cementing practices in SWF environments might have helped prevent the 
above SWF incidents if it had been incorporated into MMS regulations.
    Today, SWF remains an economic and safety issue in the deepwater 
areas of the GOM. Both MMS and industry have participated in various 
initiatives to learn about SWF. DeepStar is a joint

[[Page 29282]]

industry technology development project focused on advancing the 
technologies needed to drill and produce hydrocarbons in water depths 
up to 10,000 feet. Members include oil and gas companies as well as 
service companies. In the mid 1990's, DeepStar compiled detailed 
information on SWFs and made it available to interested parties. The 
Energy Research Clearing House (ERCH), established in 1992, is an 
organization dedicated to promoting exploration and production research 
in technical areas of interest to members. Members include oil and gas 
companies, service companies, and other interested organizations. ERCH 
continued DeepStar's efforts with SWF, and for several years maintained 
a database of GOM SWF occurrences, with the goal being to facilitate 
proper planning for future wells. Due to funding concerns, this effort 
has recently ended. Various workshops, conferences, forums, and studies 
have been conducted, both by industry and MMS, to evaluate concerns 
related to SWF. These initiatives have proven useful in informing 
interested parties of the problems with SWF and in advancing 
technological solutions.
    MMS and industry realize that one factor with the potential to help 
control SWF is the use of a proper cementing program. In August, 2000, 
MMS approached API and requested that it work with MMS in developing a 
new standard to address how cementing technology can be used to 
minimize the occurrence of the annular flow of gas or water from OCS 
wells during or after cementing operations. At that time, MMS presented 
data to industry which documented that approximately 34 percent (11 out 
of 32 losses of well control) of all OCS losses of well control 
reported to MMS from 1995 through 2000 were a result of the annular 
flow of gas and/or water from the annulus of a well either during or 
after completion of a casing cement job. This trend has continued since 
that time. API was receptive to this idea and formed a Task Group 
composed of experts from the cement manufacturing industry, OCS 
lessees, drilling contractors, cementing service companies, and 
cementing consultants to create three new cementing standards to 
address various aspects of annular flow, including the specialized case 
of SWF.
    The first standard completed by the API Task Group, ``API 
Recommended Practice 65, Cementing Shallow Water Flow Zones in Deep 
Water Wells,'' First Edition, September, 2002 (API RP 65) offers a 
compilation of technology and ``best practices'' for use in well 
cementing operations in deep water SWF environments. The standard 
provides flexibility in designing and implementing a cementing program 
for zones with SWF potential. The information in API RP 65 suggests 
that no single cementing technique or series of cementing techniques 
can be used successfully in every situation to prevent SWF. In some 
situations, it may be possible to use a variety of techniques outlined 
in the standard to help minimize the risks associated with cementing in 
a SWF environment. The purpose of this standard is to provide a series 
of alternatives which should be evaluated to minimize the risks 
associated with cementing a SWF zone. The majority of the standard 
focuses on cementing alternatives, and only discusses SWF avoidance 
through proper site selection in a cursory fashion.
    In general, use of the best cementing practices addressed in API RP 
65, including casing centralization, pipe movement, light weight 
cements such as a foam system, proper mud circulation prior to 
cementing, proper job planning, communication, and job follow-up, 
should lower the risk of SWF problems. There are a variety of 
preventative drilling techniques which can also be utilized to minimize 
or avoid the risks associated with SWF zones in addition to the best 
cementing practices included in API RP 65. These techniques include: 
proper planning in regard to site selection, the drilling of pilot 
holes, setting extra strings of casing, use of measurement-while 
drilling (MWD) or pressure while drilling (PWD) technology, and use of 
a drilling riser for shallow sections of a deep water well. These 
items, though valuable in either avoiding a SWF-prone area or drilling 
a well in such an area, are beyond the scope of this standard and will 
not be addressed in this proposed rule.
    To assist MMS in determining the best method to use API RP 65 in 
its regulatory program, we specifically solicit comments on the 
following questions:
    (1) API RP 65 presents a broad range of information on how to 
minimize problems associated with cementing shallow water flow zones in 
deep water wells. Is there a benefit to singling out a specific 
cementing technique or ``best practice'' included in this standard to 
incorporate into MMS regulations in lieu of incorporating the entire 
standard?
    (2) Are there other cementing applications in MMS regulations 
(e.g., well abandonment operations, general cementing requirements 
included in 30 CFR 250.415) where the cementing techniques discussed in 
API RP 65 could be used to enhance safety if it was incorporated into 
our regulations?

The Purpose of This Rule

    This proposed rule would upgrade requirements for cementing 
operations in 30 CFR Part 250 Subpart A--General, and Subpart D--Oil 
and Gas Drilling Operations. Subpart A--General, would be amended to 
incorporate by reference ``API RP 65, Recommended Practice for 
Cementing Shallow Water Flow Zones in Deep Water Wells,'' First 
Edition, September, 2002. Subpart D--Oil and Gas Drilling Operations, 
Sec.  250.415 would be amended by adding new subparagraph (e) to 
include information on when API RP 65 is to be evaluated in designing a 
cementing program. Some of the key points of this proposal include the 
following:
     Use of this standard is not warranted for every OCS well 
or for all casing strings in a particular well. Its use should be 
limited to situations where there is a risk of encountering a SWF based 
upon past drilling activity, seismic data or interpretation, or 
correlation of data from offset wells, in water depths greater than 500 
feet. (SWF has not been encountered in wells in water depths less than 
500 feet.)
     The risk associated with encountering a SWF is 
characterized in one of two ways: an area with an unknown shallow water 
flow potential, or an area known to contain a shallow water flow 
hazard.
     For purposes of this proposed rule, these terms are 
defined as follows:

--An area with an unknown shallow water flow potential means a zone or 
geologic formation where neither the presence nor absence of potential 
for a SWF has been confirmed,
--An area known to contain a shallow water flow hazard means a zone or 
geologic formation for which drilling has confirmed the presence of 
SWF.

     Use of this standard is limited to water depths greater 
than 500 feet for areas with an unknown shallow water flow potential or 
areas known to contain a shallow water flow hazard. Data available to 
the MMS on the 113 wells that have encountered SWF shows that the water 
depths for these wells ranged from approximately 500 feet to 9,675 
feet, with an average water depth of 3,560 feet.
     As part of an operator's Application for Permit to Drill 
(Form MMS-123), a statement needs to be included concerning how API RP 
65 was evaluated, and which of the cementing techniques from this 
standard were used as part of the cementing program for a

[[Page 29283]]

well drilled in either ``areas with an unknown shallow water flow 
potential'' or ``areas known to contain a shallow water flow hazard''. 
This information will be evaluated by MMS during the review of the 
application for permit to drill and discussed with the operator as 
appropriate.
     Particular attention should be placed on evaluating, 
designing, and implementing the cementing programs of both the surface 
and conductor casing strings in wells requiring review under API RP 65. 
Data available to MMS on the 113 wells that have encountered SWF shows 
that the tops of the SWF zones ranged from approximately 450 feet BML 
to 3,005 feet BML, with an average depth of encounter of 1,305 feet 
BML. These depths are typical of the setting depths of either conductor 
or surface casings.

Procedural Matters

Public Comment Procedures

    All submissions received must include the agency name and 
Regulation Identifier Number (RIN) for this rulemaking. Our practice is 
to make comments, including names and addresses of respondents, 
available for public review. Individual respondents may request that we 
withhold their address from the record, which we will honor to the 
extent allowable by law. There may be circumstances in which we would 
withhold from the record a respondent's identity, as allowable by the 
law. If you want us to withhold your name and/or address, you must 
state this prominently at the beginning of your comment. However, we 
will not consider anonymous comments. Except for proprietary 
information, we will make all submissions from organizations or 
businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as 
representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, available 
for public inspection in their entirety.

Regulatory Planning and Review (Executive Order (E.O.) 12866)

    a. This is not a significant rule under E.O. 12866 and does not 
require review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The 
proposed rule would not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 
million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a 
sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the 
environment, public health or safety, or state, local, or tribal 
governments or communities. The proposed rule would not create an 
adverse effect upon the ability of the United States offshore oil and 
gas industry to compete in the world marketplace, nor would the 
proposal adversely affect investment or employment factors locally.
    The economic analysis prepared by MMS indicates that, if the 
techniques included in API RP 65 are evaluated by operating companies 
in the planning phases of wells drilled in Areas with an Unknown 
Shallow Water Flow Potential or Areas Known to Contain a Shallow Water 
Flow Hazard, this process would increase the planning costs associated 
with these wells by no more than $20,000 per well (industry estimate). 
This cost includes planning associated with a full range of SWF 
mitigation measures. The measures include casing centralization, pipe 
movement, use of light weight cements such as a foam system, proper mud 
circulation prior to cementing, site selection, the drilling of pilot 
holes, setting extra strings of casing, use of MWD or PWD technology, 
and use of a drilling riser for shallow sections of a deep water well. 
Today, most lessees conducting operations in SWF-prone areas of the GOM 
already use some of these techniques. As a result, additional costs 
associated with implementing these techniques under this proposed rule 
would be negligible.
    Based on information available to MMS, there have been a total of 
1,275 wells drilled on the OCS in water depths of 500 feet or greater 
for the period 2000-2004. The cost to industry over the past 5 years 
for SWF mitigation would have been approximately $25.5 million ($20,000 
per well x 1,275 wells = $25.5 million) if proper planning were 
conducted prior to drilling all of these wells. In reality, a 
significant number of these 1,275 wells would have been located in 
areas known to be free of shallow water flow and would not have 
required an operating company to implement the techniques included in 
API RP 65 as part of their well planning efforts, resulting in a 
significant decrease to the $25.5 million cost to the offshore 
industry.
    Using the well data trends from 2000-2004, in water depths greater 
than 500 feet, MMS estimates an average of 200 wells will be drilled 
per year. Using the average of 200 wells, the estimated annual cost to 
industry would be approximately $4 million ($20,000 per well x 200 
wells = $4 million). Based on actual drilling figures, estimated total 
well costs are in excess of $40 million per well. Industry estimates of 
$20,000 per well for SWF mitigation represents only 0.05 percent of 
total well costs. When $20,000 per well costs for SWF mitigation are 
compared to $40 million per well total costs, it is clear that the 
possible consequences of SWF, well abandonment, or well loss are far 
more severe than the 0.05 percent of well costs for SWF mitigation.
    For the above reasons the proposed rule will have a minor economic 
effect on the offshore oil and gas industry.
     b. The proposed rule would not create inconsistencies with other 
agencies' actions. It would not change the relationships of the OCS oil 
and gas leasing program with other agencies' actions. These 
relationships are all encompassed in agreements and memoranda of 
understanding that will not change with this proposed rule. MMS 
consulted with experts specializing in the field applications of well 
cementing, cement manufacturers, lessees, and contractors working both 
onshore and offshore.
    c. The proposed rule would not affect entitlements, grants, loan 
programs, or the rights and obligations of their recipients. It is 
strictly a planning requirement for specific well cementing processes 
to prevent accidents and environmental pollution on the OCS.
    d. This proposed rule would not raise novel legal or policy issues. 
There is a precedent for actions of this type under regulations dealing 
with the OCS Lands Act and the Oil Pollution Act of 1990.

Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    DOI has determined that this proposed rule would not have a 
significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities. 
While it would affect a substantial number of small entities, the 
economic effects of the rule would not be significant.
    Based on information available to MMS, there have been a total of 
1,275 wells drilled on the OCS in water depths of 500 feet or greater 
for the period 2000-2004. Of the total 1,275 wells drilled, 1,107 were 
drilled by large businesses and 168 by small businesses. The 168 wells 
were drilled by a total of 15 small businesses. In the GOM with water 
depths greater than 500 feet the 1,107 large business wells correspond 
to 87 percent of all wells drilled, leaving 13 percent as small 
business wells.
    Industry estimates of $20,000 for SWF mitigation represents only 
0.05 percent of total well costs. With an estimated average of 200 
wells drilled per year in water depths greater than 500 feet, the total 
cost for all SWF mitigation is estimated at $4 million annually. 
Thirteen percent (26 wells) of the estimated 200 wells drilled, 
represent small businesses. Twenty-six wells account for approximately 
$520,000 ($20,000 per well x 26 annual small business wells = $520,000) 
of the total annual industry cost of $4 million for SWF mitigation.

[[Page 29284]]

    The proposed rule would have a minor economic effect on the oil and 
gas offshore platform operators on the OCS, regardless of company size. 
This is due to the comparison of the relatively small SWF mitigation 
costs to the high drilling costs. Moreover, in the overwhelming 
majority of cases, operators choose to perform improved and safer well 
cementing procedures on their own initiative, not because of an MMS 
safety inspection. The proposed rule would add relatively little to the 
cost of a well cementing procedure. Thus, there would not be a 
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities under the 
RFA (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). The proposed rule would not cause the 
business practices of any of these companies to change.
    Your comments are important. The Small Business and Agriculture 
Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and 10 Regional Fairness Boards were 
established to receive comments from small businesses about Federal 
agency enforcement actions. The Ombudsman will annually evaluate the 
enforcement activities and rate each agency's responsiveness to small 
business. If you wish to comment on the enforcement actions of MMS, 
call toll-free at 1-888-734-3247.

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA)

    This proposed rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the 
SBREFA. The proposed rule would not increase significantly the cost of 
well cementing. If there is an increase, it would not be a large cost 
compared to the overall cost of a well cementing procedure. Moreover, 
it may reduce significantly the possibility of a damaging and costly 
incident during the course of a well cementing operation. Such an 
accident could be economically disastrous for a small entity. Thus, the 
proposed rule would have a minor economic effect on the small offshore 
oil and gas operators. Based on our economic analysis:
    a. It would not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 
million or more. As indicated in our cost analysis, direct annual costs 
to industry for the entire proposed rule could not be assessed 
adequately. The proposed rule would have a minor economic effect on the 
offshore oil and gas industries.
    b. It would not cause a major increase in costs or prices for 
consumers, individual industries, federal, state, or local government 
agencies, or geographic regions.
    c. It would not have significant adverse effects on competition, 
employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of 
U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This proposed rule does not contain any unfunded mandates to state, 
local, or tribal governments, nor would it impose significant 
regulatory costs on the private sector. Anticipated costs to the 
private sector will be far below the $100 million threshold for any 
year that was established by UMRA.

Takings Implication Assessment (Executive Order 12630)

    DOI certifies that this proposed rule does not represent a 
governmental action capable of interference with constitutionally 
protected property rights.

Federalism (Executive Order 13132)

    According to E.O. 13132, the proposed rule does not have 
significant federalism effects. The proposed rule does not change the 
role or responsibilities of federal, state, and local governmental 
entities. It does not relate to the structure and role of states and 
will not have direct, substantive, or significant effects on states.

Civil Justice Reform (Executive Order 12988)

    According to E.O. 12988, the Office of the Solicitor, Department of 
the Interior, has determined that this proposed rule would not unduly 
burden the judicial system and meets the requirements of sections 3(a) 
and 3(b)(2) of the Order.

Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995

    The proposed revisions to 30 CFR 250 refer to, but do not change, 
information collection requirements in current regulations. They 
propose no new reporting or recordkeeping requirements, and an OMB form 
83-1 submission to OMB under the PRA, Sec.  3507(d), is not required. 
The PRA provides that an agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection 
of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. 
Until OMB approves a collection of information and assigns a number, 
you are not required to respond. OMB approved the referenced 
information collection requirements for 30 CFR 250 under OMB control 
numbers 1010-0114 (22,288 burden hours), expiration October 31, 2007, 
and 1010-0141 (163,714 burden hours), expiration August 31, 2008.

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969

    This proposed rule does not constitute a major federal action 
significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. A 
detailed statement under NEPA is not required.

Energy, Supply, Distribution, or Use (Executive Order 13211)

    Executive Order 13211 requires the agency to prepare a Statement of 
Energy Effects when it takes a regulatory action that is identified as 
a significant energy action. This proposed rule is not a significant 
energy action, and therefore does not require a Statement of Energy 
Effects, because it:
    a. Is not a significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866,
    b. Is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the 
supply, distribution, or use of energy, and
    c. Has not been designated by the Administrator of the Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, as 
a significant energy action.

Clarity of This Regulation

    Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write regulations 
that are easy to understand. We invite your comments on how to make 
this proposed rule easier to understand, including answers to questions 
such as the following:
    (1) Are the requirements in the proposed rule clearly stated?
    (2) Does the proposed rule contain technical language or jargon 
that interferes with its clarity?
    (3) Does the format (grouping and order of sections, use of 
headings, paragraphing, etc.) aid or reduce its clarity?
    (4) Is the description of the proposed rule in the ``Supplementary 
Information'' section of this preamble helpful in understanding the 
proposed rule? What else can we do to make the proposed rule easier to 
understand?
    Send a copy of any comments that concern how we could make this 
proposed rule easier to understand to: Office of Regulatory Affairs, 
Department of the Interior, Room 7229, 1849 C Street, NW., Washington, 
DC 20240. You may also e-mail the comments to this address: 
[email protected].

List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 250

    Continental shelf, Environmental impact statements, Environmental 
protection, Investigations, Oil and gas exploration, Public lands--
mineral resources, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, 
Incorporation by reference.


[[Page 29285]]


    Dated: May 10, 2006.
R.M. ``Johnnie'' Burton,
Acting Assistant Secretary, Land and Minerals Management.
    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Minerals Management 
Service (MMS) proposes to amend 30 CFR part 250 as follows:

PART 250--OIL AND GAS AND SULPHUR OPERATIONS IN THE OUTER 
CONTINENTAL SHELF

    1. The authority citation for part 250 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 43 U.S.C. 1331, et seq., 31 U.S.C. 9701.

    2. In Sec.  250.198, the following document incorporated by 
reference is added to the table in paragraph (e) in alphanumerical 
order.


Sec.  250.198  Documents incorporated by reference.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Title of documents             Incorporated  by reference at
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                              * * * * * * *
API RP 65, Recommended Practice for        Sec.   250.415(e).
 Cementing Shallow Water Flow Zones in
 Deep Water Wells, First Edition,
 September, 2002. Product No. G56001
 
                              * * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. In Sec.  250.415, add a new paragraph (e) as set forth below.


Sec.  250.415  What must my casing and cementing programs include?

* * * * *
    (e) For wells drilled in water depths greater than 500 feet, show 
how you evaluated the best practices included in API RP 65, Recommended 
Practice for Cementing Shallow Water Flow Zones in Deep Water Wells 
(incorporated by reference as specified in Sec.  250.198), to design 
your cement program to minimize the consequences of encountering a 
shallow water flow for the following two areas:
    (1) An ``area with an unknown shallow water flow potential'' is a 
zone or geologic formation where neither the presence nor absence of 
potential for a shallow water flow has been confirmed.
    (2) An ``area known to contain a shallow water flow hazard'' is a 
zone or geologic formation for which drilling has confirmed the 
presence of shallow water flow.
 [FR Doc. E6-7792 Filed 5-19-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-MR-P