Issues Paper – Review of the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage (Environment) Regulations 2009
Page/Section Reference Issue/Proposal Recommendation/Additional Information General comments - Guidance documentation Chevron notes that clear, specific and concise guidance documentation that reflects NOPSEMA’s approach to applying the regulations and assessing Environment Plans (EPs) will still be required.
Chevron looks forward to working with NOPSEMA to ensure that guidance documents provide clear advice of NOPSEMA’s approach to the regulations.
Term of Reference 1 – Appropriateness of current objects (Chapter 3) Page 12-14 Defining principles of Ecologically Chevron recommends that ESD not be included in the regulations. Sustainable Development (ESD). Evaluation of ‘cumulative impacts and Chevron considers concepts of ESD and cumulative impact are applicable at a strategic level risks’ and a definition. and not appropriate to the activity level of an EP.
Meaningful cumulative impact assessment is far outside the scope of activity-specific EPs (bearing in mind that some EPs are only in place for a few weeks). These are concepts which should be addressed at a higher/strategic level e.g. when title releases (and other government planning processes) are being developed.
Additionally, cumulative impact assessment as it applies to the construction and operation of production facilities is addressed in assessments and approvals under the EPBC Act – there is no value in duplicating the requirements of the EPBC Act.
Term of Reference 2 – Best Practice and continuous improvement (Chapter 4) Page 17 (also page 9) Include definition of “acceptable level” Chevron supports the inclusion of a definition. However, “acceptable” will always be subjective and defined in the context of the activity, the location and a number of other variables.
Given that ‘acceptable’ is a risk based concept, what is ‘acceptable’ will vary according to specific circumstances, therefore clear guidance is needed on how to: a) Define acceptability in particular circumstances; and b) Demonstrate that acceptability has been evaluated. Page 17 Consequence and risk – introduction of Chevron supports the approach to focus on MEEs with other impacts managed through Issues Paper – Review of the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage (Environment) Regulations 2009 Page/Section Reference Issue/Proposal Recommendation/Additional Information concept of “Major Environmental Event management systems that can be described in the EP. (MEE)” vs requirement to demonstrate all risks to be acceptable and ALARP. Currently the regulations refer to ‘all impacts and risks’. This is not aligned with regulatory approach in environmental impact assessment or safety management. A consistent Amendment to the Regulations would approach would require the assessment of all risks, but management controls proposed only focus efforts in environmental risk for “significant risks”. Where a risk can be demonstrated to be already reduced to ALARP, it management (and therefore EPs) on is irrelevant to then have to propose and implement management controls for that risk. significant risks and impacts. The introduction of the ‘Major Environmental Event’ would achieve appropriate risk management if applied consistently through the regulations (e.g. in acceptance criteria, EP content requirements, implementation strategy requirements, etc). It is also in line with Safety Case development, where all risks must be ALARP but full justification and detail only on significant risks.
If the concept of an MEE is to succeed, , clarity must be achieved around a) the process for determining what a MEE is, and what the concept excludes b) what is an acceptable level of detail for ALARP demonstration both significant and non-significant risks, to avoid under/over explanation (i.e. operators giving full detail on everything to avoid missing something).
MEEs must also link well to performance objectives, standards and criteria, and that can then translate into auditable performance for m a j o r r i sk s . Term of reference 3 – Consultation and notification (Chapter 5) Pages 23-27 Proposals to extend consultation Chevron recommends consultation requirements should be streamlined for EPs, not requirements extended. We view that meaningful consultation most appropriately occurs during an EIA for the construction and operation of a production facility. At the point of EP generation there is little scope for genuine ‘consultation’ , it is really informing other users that the activity will be occurring, as consultees have little scope for meaningful influence over a seismic , drilling or facility EP.
Chevron considers that the current consultation requirements for EPs assessed by NOPSEMA are excessive and are in fact overwhelming certain stakeholders. Chevron would encourage a more holistic view of the lifecycle of approvals required for oil and gas activities, and where Issues Paper – Review of the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage (Environment) Regulations 2009 Page/Section Reference Issue/Proposal Recommendation/Additional Information consultation is most appropriately targeted to reduce ‘consultation fatigue’ and ensure that feedback can be best sought and meaningfully addressed. Consultation for EPs for activities for seismic and exploration drilling could meaningfully occur at strategic level (e.g acreage release) by government. Where consultation is required at an EP level , ‘relevant’ stakeholders for activities requiring EPs should be clearly defined, ie those who could be directly affected.
Chevron further recommends consideration of how the extended consultation requirements would impact cases where a proponent decides an activity will not be covered in an EP because there is a low risk. Page 25 Notification of commencement and This proposal would be acceptable to Chevron. completion. Ie. notification of when activities start is currently only required for drilling, but is now proposed for all activities. Page 25 Extended requirements to notify the While Chevron accepts the proposal in principle, we note that if the intention of this Department or agency for the requirement is to facilitate state social and economic planning, notification around responsible State or NT Minister for all commencing a particular EP would seem of little value as it occurs too late. It may be of seismic and drilling activities. Ie. greater value for an operator to engage around their broader annual programs. currently only operators only advise commencement/completion for actions where there may be an effect on communities; proposed amendment would require all actions to be notified. Page 26 Proposals for: Chevron does not support public disclosure before EP submission as the current obligations - Public disclosure before EP on consultations are already extensive, and it would duplicate those consultation submission requirements. - Stakeholder engagement with regulator There are many other opportunities for stakeholders to be identified and informed (e.g. through title release; EPBC and EIA processes etc), in addition to the current OPGGSA regime.
There is potential in the suggested options for targeted protest/delay activity should there be additional mechanisms (such as engaging with the regulator as well as the operator) that Issues Paper – Review of the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage (Environment) Regulations 2009 Page/Section Reference Issue/Proposal Recommendation/Additional Information may derail the genuine process of consultation and transparency; as well as significant resourcing implications for industry and the regulator. Term of reference 7 – Transparency (Chapter 9) Page 40 Proposals to expand publication Chevron considers the current publication of EP summaries is sufficient. Stakeholder requirements beyond summaries. consultations through the development of the OSCP and a published summary of the OSCP (as part of the EP summary) provide sufficient transparency into operator’s oil spill arrangements and capabilities; and the acceptance of the OSCP by the regulator is considered sufficient acknowledgement that those capabilities and arrangements are appropriate.
EPs are activity-based implementation focussed technical documents written for approval by/and to provide direction to technical experts . They are not intended for public consumption, and in making them publicly available could have unintended consequences, for example, impact the efficacy of a spill response.
EPs may also contain commercially sensitive material, which if disclosed, would give competitors a commercial advantage, or cause the proponent to lose its advantage.
Term of reference 8 – Marine Pollution Incidents (Chapter 10) Page 43 Oil spill response requirements to be Greater clarity and specificity is supported in the regulations, but it is important that the more specific, ie. response activities to requirements be flexible for the nature and scale of the credible spill scenario, and not a be detailed for the range of credible ‘one shoe fits all’ approach. scenarios defined within the risk assessment. Supporting guidance is recommended in addition to greater clarity in the regulations.
Page 45 Proposals for EPs to detail mutual aid, As EPs are operational documents, Chevron does not support the view that EPs are the insurance and cost recovery. appropriate place to detail insurances and other financial arrangements.
This proposal would require the regulator (and/or third party) assessment of the adequacy of financial arrangements, including insurance, to support spill response and remediation/compensation/recovery. The need for the arrangements to be in place is without question, but the appropriateness of containing those details in the EP is questionable. It is suggested that a more appropriate process for validating financial arrangements is through titles administration. Issues Paper – Review of the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage (Environment) Regulations 2009 Page/Section Reference Issue/Proposal Recommendation/Additional Information Page 49 Proposal to add regulation enabling the The value of spill response exercises is without question. However, the regulations should regulator to conduct no-notice real focus on ensuring Operators have appropriate response testing arrangements in place and time spill response exercises. implemented, not having the regulator test the arrangements themselves.
This proposal has major cost, resourcing, and time implications for industry and the regulator, and should be carefully considered. Operators already conduct spill response testing, and so the potential value of a regulator-led duplication is questionable.
If an operator has not adequately demonstrated capability against testing requirements then this should be dealt with by requiring that capability to dealt with in advance of an approval, not by calling a no-notice real time event. Term of reference 9 – Alignment of terminology (Chapter 11) page 51-53, 57-58 Definition of petroleum activity It is considered that a better definition of petroleum activity would (in principle) be clearer in guiding operators to determination of what activities need an environment plan.
Chevron recommends the scope of ‘petroleum activity’ should be restricted to activities d irectly related to the exploration for, and production of, hydrocarbons, such as seismic surveys, drilling of wells, pipelay activities, etc.
It is considered that many industry activities (and their risks/potential impacts) that have recently required environment plan, such as scientific investigations, are appropriately regulated under other existing mechanisms (e.g. the EPBC Act, MARPOL, etc) Generating and regulating such EPs creates an unnecessary burden on both operators and regulators that does not materially increase environmental performance.
Term of reference 10 – Monitoring (Chapter 12) Page 62 Post spill monitoring of response Environmental monitoring requirements should be explicitly linked to the nature and scale of efficacy. Proposal for regulations to the activity and the potential impacts; fit for purpose in objective and potential outcomes; specifically include requirement for and relevant to the environmental receptors that are to be managed. response arrangements to cover operational monitoring to inform the Monitoring is already required and expected when control measures are related to the response activities and scientific receiving environment. monitoring for environmental damage assessment – including extent, severity The issues paper states that increasing the current level of monitoring would place a “minor Issues Paper – Review of the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage (Environment) Regulations 2009 Page/Section Reference Issue/Proposal Recommendation/Additional Information and duration. additional burden” on industry. This is incorrect. Offshore environmental monitoring can create a significant financial burden on industry. Monitoring needs to be tightly linked to the concepts of significance or major environmental risks/potential impacts.
Term of reference 11 – Life Cycle (Chapter 13) Page 64-65 Proposal to mandate engagement with The engagement is supported in principle but regulating it is not of value. Site selection, regulator at design/site concept selection etc are made early in early design stages and are covered under EIA and selection/technology development EPBC Act. It is difficult to envisage how the OPGSAct regulator can formally input into this phase; as well as planning for end-of- process. life considerations in EP approval phase. The regulator may not be in a position to provide input until an EP is prepared, and the planning of site selection and technologies occurs well before this.
In addition, life-cycle planning will be potentially ongoing through the project (depending on scope) and so will evolve with technology and other considerations. It is considered that the option to engage in this planning should be available but not required.
Term of reference 13 – Government policy & guidance (Chapter 15) Pages 68-72 Proposals to reduce regulatory burden This is supported in principle, although careful and detailed scoping around information requirements for regulators acting on behalf of, or assessing previously accepted information, will be needed to complete their assessment.