Primary tabs

FY 16-17: Agency Priority Goal

Oil and gas resource management

Priority Goal

Improve production accountability, safety, and environmental protection of oil and gas operations through increased inspection of high-risk oil and gas production cases.

By September 30, 2017, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) will complete 100 percent of the inspections for federal and Indian potential high-risk oil and gas production cases annually to better ensure accountability and safety.

Themes:

Energy Natural Resources and Environment

DOI.gov

XML

CSV

Expand All

Performance Indicators

Percent of high risk oil and gas cases inspected

Performance is tracked using the key indicator, “percent of high-risk oil and gas cases inspected.” The Washington Office reports quarterly progress of the number of high risk production cases inspected to date.

In addition to the key indicator, the following milestones assist Interior in tracking the issues identified by GAO in its High Risk List:

a) For Onshore Oil and Gas Orders

1) Draft published in the Federal Register

2) Final rulemaking published Federal Register

3) Development of implementation plans completed

b) For royalty rate determination

1) Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking published in the Federal Register

2) Final rulemaking published Federal Register

c) For training for managers

1) Training modules completed (Completed)

2) 100 percent of managers completed training (Completed)

Interior makes most of its progress during the late spring, summer, and early Fall when the weather is more conducive to conducting inspections. The first two quarters of each year provide time for conducting the risk assessment that determines the number of high-risk cases to be targeted for inspection during the year. The variability in staffing, weather, drilling and production activities involved in planning for inspections makes it difficult to predict in advance how many will be completed on a quarterly basis. However, Interior compares each year’s results with the previous years’ experience for the same quarter, in order to gage how well the activity is progressing.

Fiscal Year	High Risk Cases Inspected
2011	74% (2,606 inspections / 3,526 cases)
2012	88% (2,147 inspections / 2,440 cases)
2013	82% (2,083 inspections / 2,526 cases)
2014	100% (2,483 inspections / 2,483 cases)
2015	100% (2,030 inspections / 2,030 cases)
2016 (Q1)	(281 inspections / 1,965 cases)

Data Accuracy and Reliability

The Department ensures the accuracy and reliability of the performance data in measuring progress towards its Agency Priority Goals, in accordance with the five data quality specifications in the GPRA Modernization Act of 2010 for:

Means used to verify and validate measured values: All performance data reported on http://www.performance.gov/ by the Department is subject to the data verification and validation standards initially published in 2003 and reissued in 2007 (see https://www.doi.gov/performance/data-validation-and-verification). Implementing organization heads or chief officials confirm in writing the validity of the data. In the case of Agency Priority (Performance) Goals, senior officials in the implementing organization personally present the data on a quarterly basis to the senior Departmental leadership.

Sources for the data: In response to data calls, bureau program managers provide performance data based on their count of inspections completed. These data are tracked and maintained in separate systems, including spreadsheets. Following review by the providing bureau, data is collected, reviewed, integrated, and maintained by the Department’s Office of Planning and Performance Management on the www.performance.gov website.

Level of accuracy required for the intended use of the data: Performance data reported on http://www.performance.gov/ is used for management purposes, as a representative indicator of progress in relation to a target or goal established by the corresponding implementing organization. The accuracy of the data is that considered necessary to provide a reasonable representation of the progress made relative to a target or goal for discussion purposes, so as to help:
- determine if the progress is considered adequate
- provide understanding of the ability for the processes and methods being implemented to achieve the goal
- indicate if any further exploration or evaluation is needed to better ensure achievement of the goal; and
- whether alternative action, including adjusting funding levels, facilities, workforce, IT capabilities, etc., is needed to help better ensure achievement of the goal.

Limitations to the data at the required level of accuracy: Performance data is subject to potential errors from: individual observation; miscommunication; and/or failure to effectively employ the guidance described in the “Indicator” description in http://www.performance.gov/. However, based on multiple review levels and accuracy certifications, we do not believe these limitations to be significant.
How the agency has compensated for such limitations if needed to reach the required level of accuracy: Along with the implementing organization’s official assurance of faithfully employing the data verification and validation standards, submitted data is reviewed within the context of the scope and nature of the activity, plans, and past experience to help confirm accuracy. Following review and verification by the submitting bureau or office, the data is reviewed within its corresponding trends and programmatic context by the Department’s Office of Planning and Performance Management to determine if further consultation with the data provider is necessary to adjust or correct the reported data before publication. Senior management and leadership consider this level of accuracy to be acceptable in their use of the data. Past experience in using the data, historical trend and programmatic context assessments, and bureau data quality certifications indicate that the limitations are considered minor and compensating measures are not considered necessary.

In addition to employing the Department’s data validation and verification standards, and internal reviews of submitted data, the best “test” of the data’s accuracy is in its use. Agency Priority (Performance) Goal data is reviewed during quarterly status reviews where senior officials report their data directly to the Department’s senior leadership and is made publicly available through http://www.performance.gov/.

Indicator target and actual value information
Fiscal Year Quarter	Period Ending (Month, Year)	Target Value	Actual Value	Explanation of Actual
2014-Q1	December, 2013		3
2014-Q2	March, 2014		21
2014-Q3	June, 2014		64
2014-Q4	September, 2014	95	100
2015-Q1	December, 2014		8
2015-Q2	March, 2015		33
2015-Q3	June, 2015		65
2015-Q4	September, 2015	100	100
2016-Q1	December, 2015		14	Performance is tracked using the key indicator, “percent of high-risk oil and gas cases inspected.” The Washington Office reports quarterly progress of the number of high risk production cases inspected to date. Interior makes most of its progress during the late spring, summer, and early Fall when the weather is more conducive to conducting inspections. The first two quarters of each year provide time for conducting the risk assessment that determines the number of high-risk cases to be targeted for inspection during the year. The variability in staffing, weather, drilling and production activities involved in planning for inspections makes it difficult to predict in advance how many will be completed on a quarterly basis. However, Interior compares each year’s results with the previous years’ experience for the same quarter, in order to gage how well the activity is progressing.
2016-Q2	March, 2016		39	As of Q2 FY 2016, BLM has conducted 766 high risk inspections, or 39% of the 1,965 high risk cases identified for FY 2016.
2016-Q3	June, 2016		69
2016-Q4	September, 2016		100
2017-Q1	December, 2016
2017-Q2	March, 2017
2017-Q3	June, 2017
2017-Q4	September, 2017

Indicator Statement:

Improve production accountability, safety, and environmental protection of oil and gas operations through increased inspection of high-risk oil and gas production cases.

By September 30, 2017, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) will complete 100 percent of the inspections for federal and Indian potential high-risk oil and gas production cases annually.

Indicator Overview:

In addition to the key indicator, the following milestones assist Interior in tracking the issues identified by GAO in its High Risk List:

a) For Onshore Oil and Gas Orders

1) Draft published in the Federal Register

2) Final rulemaking published Federal Register

3) Development of implementation plans completed

b) For royalty rate determination

1) Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking published in the Federal Register

2) Final rulemaking published Federal Register

c) For training for managers

1) Training modules completed (Completed)

2) 100 percent of managers completed training (Completed)

Fiscal Year	High Risk Cases Inspected
2011	74% (2,606 inspections / 3,526 cases)
2012	88% (2,147 inspections / 2,440 cases)
2013	82% (2,083 inspections / 2,526 cases)
2014	100% (2,483 inspections / 2,483 cases)
2015	100% (2,030 inspections / 2,030 cases)
2016 (Q1)	(281 inspections / 1,965 cases)

Data Accuracy and Reliability

Means used to verify and validate measured values: All performance data reported on http://www.performance.gov/ by the Department is subject to the data verification and validation standards initially published in 2003 and reissued in 2007 (see https://www.doi.gov/performance/data-validation-and-verification). Implementing organization heads or chief officials confirm in writing the validity of the data. In the case of Agency Priority (Performance) Goals, senior officials in the implementing organization personally present the data on a quarterly basis to the senior Departmental leadership.

Sources for the data: In response to data calls, bureau program managers provide performance data based on their count of inspections completed. These data are tracked and maintained in separate systems, including spreadsheets. Following review by the providing bureau, data is collected, reviewed, integrated, and maintained by the Department’s Office of Planning and Performance Management on the www.performance.gov website.

Level of accuracy required for the intended use of the data: Performance data reported on http://www.performance.gov/ is used for management purposes, as a representative indicator of progress in relation to a target or goal established by the corresponding implementing organization. The accuracy of the data is that considered necessary to provide a reasonable representation of the progress made relative to a target or goal for discussion purposes, so as to help:
- determine if the progress is considered adequate
- provide understanding of the ability for the processes and methods being implemented to achieve the goal
- indicate if any further exploration or evaluation is needed to better ensure achievement of the goal; and
- whether alternative action, including adjusting funding levels, facilities, workforce, IT capabilities, etc., is needed to help better ensure achievement of the goal.

Limitations to the data at the required level of accuracy: Performance data is subject to potential errors from: individual observation; miscommunication; and/or failure to effectively employ the guidance described in the “Indicator” description in http://www.performance.gov/. However, based on multiple review levels and accuracy certifications, we do not believe these limitations to be significant.
How the agency has compensated for such limitations if needed to reach the required level of accuracy: Along with the implementing organization’s official assurance of faithfully employing the data verification and validation standards, submitted data is reviewed within the context of the scope and nature of the activity, plans, and past experience to help confirm accuracy. Following review and verification by the submitting bureau or office, the data is reviewed within its corresponding trends and programmatic context by the Department’s Office of Planning and Performance Management to determine if further consultation with the data provider is necessary to adjust or correct the reported data before publication. Senior management and leadership consider this level of accuracy to be acceptable in their use of the data. Past experience in using the data, historical trend and programmatic context assessments, and bureau data quality certifications indicate that the limitations are considered minor and compensating measures are not considered necessary.

Unit Of Measurement: High risk cases

Indicator Reporting Frequency: Quarterly

Indicator Direction: INCREASING

Primary tabs

Oil and gas resource management

Priority Goal

Goal Overview

Strategies

Progress Update

Next Steps

Performance Indicators

Percent of high risk oil and gas cases inspected

Contributing Programs & Other Factors

Strategic Goals

Strategic Goal:

Strategic Objectives

Ensure Environmental Compliance and Safety of Energy Development Activities

Develop Renewable Energy Potential

Manage Conventional Energy Development

Account for Energy Revenue

Agency Priority Goals

FY14-15 Renewable Energy Resource Development

FY14-15 Oil and gas resource management

Strategic Objectives

Strategic Objective:

Agency Priority Goals

FY14-15 Oil and gas resource management