Offshore Petroleum & Greenhouse Gas Environment …...2014/10/14 · Overview: Stages of petroleum...
38
Offshore Petroleum & Greenhouse Gas Environment Regulation Cameron Grebe David Christensen Katherine Ross Environment Division, NOPSEMA Presentation to Kangaroo Island Community 14 October 2014
Transcript of Offshore Petroleum & Greenhouse Gas Environment …...2014/10/14 · Overview: Stages of petroleum...
Offshore Petroleum & Greenhouse Gas Environment Regulation Cameron Grebe David Christensen Katherine Ross Environment Division, NOPSEMA Presentation to Kangaroo Island Community 14 October 2014
Agenda
Introduction, NOPSEMA overview
Cameron Grebe General Manager Environment
Environmental assessment and compliance
David Christensen Environment Specialist
Consultation and consideration of issues
Katherine Ross Environment Specialist
Questions
Purpose
• Background and role of NOPSEMA • Clarify offshore petroleum environmental
approval processes and how NOPSEMA secures compliance
• Provide context to NOPSEMA decision making on environment plans such as Bight Petroleum Lightning 3D Marine Seismic Survey
• Explain consultation process and overview of how issues are considered
• Provide contacts for further information 3
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Not here for…
Background - NOPSEMA
• NOPSA established in 2005 for OHS
• Montara Commission of Inquiry and Australian Government response
• Environmental management function established 1 January 2012
• EPBC Act endorsement from 28 February 2014 to become single national offshore petroleum regulator
4
Jurisdiction for environment
5
Jurisdiction
6
Commonwealth waters (OPGGS Act)
State jurisdictions (powers may be conferred under (2) to NOPSEMA)
1
2 3 4
Independent statutory authority
7
Legislated functions
8
Compliance Monitor
and Enforce
Investigate
Improvement Promote Advise
Governance Co-operate Report
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Informed consultation not informed consent – role of nopsema to decide whether information is adequate to meet requirements of the law, not stakeholders.
Oil and gas life cycle
9
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Overall lifecycle Acreage release process – aust energy policy, resource exploitation will occur to secure energy for the future (not NOPSEMA) Relevant sensitivities identified for due diligence purposes (did include upwellings EPBC issues for Bights titles) Title release – work program commitment to conduct exploration for commercial quantitites of hydrocarbons. Obligation to complete this while satifying relevant laws and legislation NOPSEMA part -
Overview: Stages of petroleum exploration & development
10
Environment Plan required
Example timeline from title award if petroleum discovered
Exploration (& appraisal if discovery) Development End of Life
* New development without EPBC Act decision
Offshore Project Proposal required*
About seismic surveys
11
Seismic survey general layout
Source: Geoscience Australia, Australian Government
Source: Geoscience Australia, Australian Government
Seismic cross section
Context: Lightning 3D marine seismic survey
12 Date Source: Environment Plan Summary for Lightning 3D MSS
Context: BP Ceduna 2012 marine seismic survey
13 Source: Environment Plan Summary for BP Ceduna 3D MSS
Key legislation
• OPGGS Act and Environment Regulations
• Objectives of Environment Regulations – Principles of ecologically sustainable development – Impacts and risks are ALARP and to an acceptable level
• Amendments to Regulations 1 January 2012 and 28 February 2014 – Strengthen regulations – Informed consultation enhanced (not informed consent) – Enabled EPBC Strategic Assessment Program
endorsement (including addition of OPP)
• Other OPGGS Act amendments to strengthen environmental compliance/enforcement 14
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Objectives of Env Regs carried out in a manner consistent with the principles of ESD set in section 3A of EPBC Act carried out in a manner by which the environmental impacts and risks of the activity will be reduced to ALARP and an acceptable level General amendments: clarification to definitions, petroleum activity obligations of titleholders and applicants simplifying the assessment process (further information) EP content strengthened for OPEP and OSMP activity reporting and performance reporting transparency of assessments EPBC Streamlining Part of broader Government agenda to reduce regulatory burden Strategic assessment under EPBC Act conducted with NOPSEMA’s environmental authorisation regulatory process endorsed Key objectives met: Reduce duplication and overlap in regulatory approvals processes Increased clarity and certainty in decision-making processes retaining strong environmental safeguards Key Streamlining amendments: clarification to description of environment (MNES) no activities within a World Heritage property Offshore Project Proposals - ‘lifecycle’ assessment for development proposals Other OPGGS Act Amendments: Polluter pays principle via financial assurance amendments to OPGGS Act Potential for subsequent regulatory amendments to further clarify requirements Compliance measures amendments to OPGGS Act Single class of NOPSEMA inspector Increased and enhanced range of tools available to secure compliance with environmental management requirements
Overview: NOPSEMA environmental decision-making
• Independent, professional
• Must be reasonably satisfied of all impacts & risks managed to acceptable and ALARP levels
• Substantial internal expertise, team based
• Seek external advice where necessary
• Request for further information and/or provide opportunity to modify and re-submit
• Subject to merits and judicial review 15
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Discuss acceptable and ALARP in more detail and highlight the difference between the concept of no impact or risk
Questions on NOPSEMA and its role?
Next: NOPSEMA compliance activities – assessments and inspections of petroleum activities
Environmental approval process
17
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Provide regulatory context OPGGS Act & Environment Regulations Objectives of Environment Regulations - Principles of ESD - Impacts and risks are ALARP and to an acceptable level Amendments to Regulations 28 February 2014 EPBC Streamlining – changes to the regulations, additional permitting document OPP, changes to the content of an EP Other Act amendments to strengthen environmental compliance / enforcement – new powers, now nopsema inspectors
Environment Division
General Manager
Environment
Assessment and Inspection – Seismic and Production Operations
Assessment and Inspection – Drilling and
Development Operations
Spill Risk Environmental Effects
Environment Manager (x1)
Environment Specialists
(x 7)
Environment Manager (x1)
Environment Specialists
(x 6)
Environment Manager (x1)
Environment Specialists
(x 5)
Environment Manager (x1)
Environment Specialists
(x 5)
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Give overview of the approach to the presentation Structure of the Environment Division Can and do get technical advice outside of the Division if and when needed Briefly explain what the teams do in relation to when a plan come in for assessment
Acceptance criteria for an environment plan
NOPSEMA must accept an environment plan if reasonably satisfied that the environment plan: • is appropriate for the nature and scale of the activity; • environmental impacts and risks will be acceptable and
reduced to as low as reasonably practicable (ALARP); • has appropriate performance standards (ie conditions) • includes an appropriate implementation strategy and
monitoring, recording and reporting arrangements; • demonstrates that the titleholder has carried out the
consultation required by Division 2.2A • ……etc. Refer to Regulation 10A of the Environment Regulations
19
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Here is the specific regulations relevant for accepting an EP Nature and scale – this applies to all aspect of a plan, the more complex the more detail, supporting information is needed Explain what an acceptable level means – social licence to operate – stakeholder expectations, consistent with law, EPBC Act plans of management, company policy Explain what ALARP means – The key element of ALARP is the construct of reasonable practicability; the weighing up of the magnitude of the risk against the cost of reduction. A risk reduction measure can be considered as being reasonably practicable if the costs to implement it are not grossly disproportionate to the reduction in risk achieved. In terms of demonstrating ALARP or acceptable levels these are at the discretion of the titleholder Performance standards arise from the controls that a titleholder is using to manage or treat risks, for example EPBC Policy statement 2.1 – for interactions with cetaceans, or starting in a certain location at a certain time, must conduct self assurance check on these and provide reports to NOPSEMA if there have been any breaches Implementation strategy - how they are going to do what they said they would be able to
Environment plan process
20
Risk managemebnt process (AS/NZS ISO 31000)
Environmental management system (AS/NZS ISO 14001)
Snap shot: What environmental impacts and risk?
The environment has been defined in the Environment Regulations to include: • Ecosystems & their parts including people and
communities • Natural and physical resources • Qualities, characteristics of locations, places and areas • Heritage value of places
…and the social, economic and cultural features of these matters.
Presenter
Presentation Notes
- Identical definition of environment to that provided in the EPBC Act 1999 Environment includes social, economic and cultural features. Relevant values and sensitivities (e.g. listed species) One of the strength of the regulations is the broad definition of environment, these then means that a titleholder must evaluate impacts and risks to these features, commercial or recreational fisheries, or other business that rely on the environment – ecotourism
NOPSEMA assessment policy
Assessment policy principles • All information contained in submissions provided
for assessment will be treated as confidential, but information may be disclosed where compelled or authorised by law
• Each assessment will be fair and technically competent
• There will be consistency of methodology between different assessments
• The detail of assessment will be proportional the level of risk
22
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Information is published on NOPSEMA’s website at the time of submission and on acceptance via the EP Summary Each assessment fair and technically competent – we take a team based approach to all assessments with the more complex the assessment the more people, we make sure that we have the right person for the job based on their skill and knowledge of the assigned topic area All assessment and inspection activities captured in Policies, Procedures and Work Instructions Fairly sophisticated technology to capture assessment and inspection findings All assessments include topics with more selected if the activity and management measures more complex
NOPSEMA assessment process
Assessment methodology • Two part assessment of the plan against
requirements of the Environment Regulations – General and topic assessment, with the topic based on
components of the activity that pose the greatest level of environmental impact or risk
• Assessment tools include the provision of further written information, or request for modification to an environment plan
• Environment plan submission details and summary published on NOPSEMA’s website
23
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Very thorough general assessment, don’t just rest there – go and identify key risks and then take a deeper dive into those risks. Necessary to identify deficiencies. The people that do the deeper dive are taken from the technical teams Sampled assessment process based on key risks and impacts So generally for a seismic survey topics include an assessment of the evaluation provided for impacts and risks relating to use of the source array – particular species or socio-economic, consultation Once the scope of the assessment has been determined, a brief is sent to the RON, reviewed and approved Discuss full length of time that we assessed the plan – including first submission, RFI, OMR etc. – see separate notes, average period is 90 days for a drilling activity, slightly less than this for seismic Challenge titleholders to demonstrate all impacts & risks are managed to acceptable and ALARP levels. Verify information and claims against published material and management plans Seek external advice where necessary
Merit-based decision making
Principles of good decision making: • Within power – a decision must be made within legal authority and the
decision-maker must apply the correct tests and follow any required procedures
• Relevant – a decision must encompass the statutory criteria and other matters to which is should properly have reference
• Well-founded – a decision is well-founded if it has a proper basis in the assessment of evidence
• Fair – a decision should be impartial and should provide parties whose interests are affected with sufficient opportunity to give their views and have them considered
• Logical and clear – Well explained and one that a hypothetical “reasonable decision-maker” would be able to reach
24
Presenter
Presentation Notes
These are the principles of good decision making that are applied in all of NOPSEMA’s assessments – Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 Well founded - Consider and challenge the environment plan content: Qualitative risk assessment of impacts and risks provided in EP (ranking and text justifications) Data provided (previous sightings, modelling reports) Referenced literature (incl DoE publications) Titleholder management decisions based on risk assessment outcomes External sources of published research, international guidelines, govt and industry reports Outcomes from other seismic surveys
Securing compliance
• Assessment process ensures: – All environment plans contain clear information on
environmental performance standards (ie controls) and measurement criteria
– That controls are measureable and time based, not vague commitments
• Titleholders have to monitor own performance, demonstrate compliance and report back
• NOPSEMA monitors and enforces compliance through inspection powers, incident investigation and compliance enforcement tools
25
Presenter
Presentation Notes
The requirements of regulations make it quite clear what a titleholder must do to manage their risks Titleholder have to check and monitor their own performance and report to NOPSEMA on that performance Compliance strategy for this year includes a focus on seismic activities and consultation undertaken at the planning stage and also during the activity Inspection a number of activities in Commonwealth waters adjacent to WA, Vic, SA Inspection powers, issue recommendations, serve notices or request the submission of a revised EP
Control measures as a result of consultation – case study 1
Managing impacts and risks to Whales to an ALARP and acceptable level
Environmental performance outcome
Environmental performance standard
Measurement criteria
seismic vessel will move to less sensitive area to continue operations if whales are encountered
scout is 5-10 km ahead of seismic vessel with a dedicated MMO
MMO records and ships log
power/shut down when whales detected
2 qualified PAM operators, 24hrs operations (+MMOs)
PAM records, ships log
26
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Information is provided to a titleholder relating to an impact or risk, the titleholder then assess this information in accordance with the risk management process, this results in an additional control measure which may not have been developed Additional controls applied to give certainty around presence of whales Key message: Consultation is important and results in better environmental outcomes, titleholder must and do consider objections and claims made by relevant persons
Outcomes comparison – case study 2
27
EPBC Act Referral Conditions EP control measures
Restricted seismic ops to avoid peak whale times
Seismic ops timed to minimise impacts to multiple species
Statement 2.1 for whale interactions
Statement 2.1 for whale and other marine mammal species
Additional MMOs Additional MMOs
Restricted night/low visibility operations
Aerial surveys to detect upwelling and whale aggregations
Restricted ops when whales feeding
Use of PAM 24hrs to detect certain cetacean species
Records taken of pinniped and other marine species
Controls for fishing interactions
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Key message - Environmental outcome the same or better as the EPBC Act referral process – the process is different i.e. setting conditions Example looked at two EPs both in upwelling locations, similar distance from the coast In general, conditions applied by DoE for seismic activities cover interactions with whales only Often cover timing of the survey to minimise impact Minor adjustments to Statement 2.1 List not complete – 5 conditions in total under EPBC referral, 11 controls in alternate EP just relating to whales, many more relating to full range of environmental risks and impacts
Questions on assessment and compliance activities by NOPSEMA?
Next: consultation requirements under the Environment Regulations
Consultation in the environment plan process
REVIEW THE LEGISLATIVE
REQUIREMENTS & GUIDANCE
CONSIDER FEEDBACK
ASSESS MERITS
CONTROL MEASURES
PROVIDE FINAL
RESPONSES
EVALUATE THE RISKS AND IDENTIFY
POTENTIAL CONTROLS
IDENTIFY RISKS,
STAKEHOLDERS &
STAKEHOLDER ISSUES
SUBMIT EP TO
NOPSEMA FOR
ASSESS-MENT
PLAN
NIN
G S
TEPS
Planning: consultation with ‘relevant persons’ on impacts relating to functions, activities or interests via sufficient info and time
Titleholder
Assessment of submission
NOPSEMA
COMMENCE ACTIVITY
IMPLEMENT CONTROLS &
SYSTEMS
Implementation: ongoing consultation
Enforce complaince
Environment Plan Summary
Specific consultation requirements – planning stages
• In the course of preparing an environment plan, a titleholder must consult with ‘relevant persons’ – Government agencies – Persons or organisations who functions, interests of
activities may be affected by the activities to be carried out under the EP
30
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Titleholders present methodology in EP – NOPSEMA evaluates appropriateness
Specific consultation requirements – planning stages (cont)
• Relevant persons must be given sufficient information to allow them to make an informed assessment of the possible consequences of the activity on their functions/interests/activities
• Must also be allowed a reasonable period
31
Presenter
Presentation Notes
NOPSEMA evaluates sufficient information and reasonable period Informed consultation not informed consent
Specific consultation requirements – planning stages (cont)
• The EP must contain a report on all consultations between the titleholder and relevant persons: – Summary of response – Assessment of merits of any objections or claims – Statement of the titleholder’s response – Copies of full text of relevant persons’ response.
32
Presenter
Presentation Notes
NOPSEMA evaluates content, anything missing, appropriateness of assessment of merits, incorporation of relevant information and controls (or demonstration as to why not – ALARP)
Consultation – case study
• Bight Petroleum Lightning Survey – main issues raised (ecological): – Impacts of seismic noise to protected species – Survey timing in relation to upwelling and listed
species movements – Use of PAM and other control measures – Uncertainty of impacts to fish and larvae/eggs – Potential impacts of oil spills
33
Consultation – Case study (cont)
• Bight Petroleum Lightning Survey – main issues raised (socio-economic): – Shipping risks – Fisheries interactions (especially Southern Bluefin cage
towing) – Potential impacts on tourism and species which tourism
depends on – Adequacy of information provided – Adequacy of consultation – Attitude of titleholder to consultation.
34
Consultation – Titleholder’s role
• Information included in the EP: – Method of consultation – Relevant persons list – Summaries of responses – Objections/claims raised and assessment of merits – Full text copies – EPBC referral submissions and comments.
35
Presenter
Presentation Notes
This info included EPBC referral comments and responses to comments, as well as EP-related consultation.
Consultation – NOPSEMA’s role
• Third party correspondence - what happens?
• Types of concerns raised with NOPSEMA: – Persons not being contacted in preparation of the new EP – Persons stating that insufficient information had been
provided (including requests to see full EP) – Concern that consultation was not being undertaken in a
model fashion – Concern that objections/claims would not be satisfactorily
addressed.
36
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Third party corro – NOPSEMA considers: - Claims raised in the context of the assessment - The requirements of Regulation 11A. NOPSEMA assessed claims: In preparation of the EP is considered to include the previously submitted EP and EPBC consultations because it addressed the activity, and so was considered to be in the course of preparing Informed of consequences, and demonstrate in the EP that ALARP and acceptable Regs don’t stipulate manner of consultation, NOPSEMA assesses for appropriateness and completeness against regulations Impacts and risks demonstrated to be ALARP and acceptable – if that changes, revise and resubmit EP (or enforcement)
Post-assessment
• Ongoing consultation by titleholder • NOPSEMA compliance monitoring and enforcement • Publication on NOPSEMA website:
– Environment plan profile information published on submission including titleholder contact information
– Environment plan summary published after acceptance – If refused or withdrawn, website entry
• Notifications – to State/NT agencies – Commencement/completion
of activities – Reportable incidents
notified
www.nopsema.gov.au
Presenter
Presentation Notes
After acceptance: Ongoing consultation (14(9)) where triggered – triggers in EP, including significant change or new impact or risk – government agencies and relevant persons Compliance processes – inspection, environmental compliance reporting Additional/new information on impacts/risks – revise and resubmit EP
More information: website: www.nopsema.gov.au Email: [email protected] Incident notification/complaint: 24 hours - (08) 6461 7090 Email: [email protected]
