Environment plan transparency and public comment - NOPSEMA
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Environment plan transparency and public comment National Offshore Petroleum Safety & Environmental Management Authority Department of Industry, Innovation and Science Australian Petroleum Production Exploration Association National Energy Resources Australia WA Fishing Industry Council
The path to transparency
2019
Transparency
2018 regulations
2017 Exposure draft take effect
Transparency released
2016 Taskforce
Engagement established
with
DIIS regarding
2015 regulatory
Consultation & change
transparency
program
initiated
2
Session outline
Session overview Presenter Timing
Welcome, acknowledgment to Country, opening statements Cameron Grebe (NOPSEMA) 1300-1310
Changes to regulations following the Exposure Draft DIIS 1310-1345
Key changes to NOPSEMA guidance, two week public comment period Raquel Carter and 1345-1430
and NOPSEMA systems showcase Sarah Miller
(NOPSEMA)
Break and refreshments 1430-1450
Consultation and transparency – A stakeholder’s perspective Mannie Shea (WAFIC) 1450-1520
Industry’s preparations for transparency Jason Medd (APPEA) & 1520-1550
Matt Smith (NERA)
Q&A and feedback Participants 1550-1620
Closing statement Cameron Grebe (NOPSEMA) 1620-1630
3
Department of Industry,
Innovation & Science
Email: offshorenvironment@industry.gov.au
Visit: industry.gov.au
4
Consultation and transparency - regulatory amendments Catherine Kesteven and Lisa Wechmann 27 March 2019
Session overview 1. Background 2. Key information and dates 3. Amendments – overview 4. Consultation overview 5. Transitional arrangements
Background
• Review of consultation and
1 transparency requirements
• Ministerial announcement
2 November 2017
• Exposure draft October 2018
3
Approval of the regulatory changes
• The amendments to the OPGGS Environment Regulations
were approved by the Federal Executive Council on
21 March 2019.
• The amended Regulations were registered on the Federal
Register of Legislation on 25 March 2019.
• The new regulations will commence on 25 April 2019.
• https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2019L00370
Consultation on the exposure draft
• Consultation was undertaken between 8 October and
16 November 2018
• 15 submissions were received from a range of
stakeholders, including industry, ENGOs, fishing
representatives and interested community members
Key changes following consultation
• Retaining environment plan summary requirement
• Clarification of sensitive information in the explanatory
documents
• Amended definition - seismic or exploratory drilling
activity
• Revision due to significant new or increased
environmental impact or risk – exclusion from public
comment period and further assessmentTransitional provisions • The new regulations will apply to all environment plans submitted on or after 25 April 2019 • The amendments will not apply to plans already accepted or already under assessment when the new arrangements commence
Summary
• Regulations registered 25 March 2019
• Regulations commence 25 April 2019
• Environment Plans submitted on or after the
commencement date will be subject to the new
requirementsQuestions
• For further information or updates email
offshoreenvironment@industry.gov.auDepartment of Industry, Innovation and Science Industry House 10 Binara Street Canberra City, ACT 2601, Australia Telephone +61 2 6213 6000
NOPSEMA guidance, web- based systems and external communications Email: communications@nopsema.gov.au Visit: nopsema.gov.au
Outline: changes to assessing Exploration EPs
Published documents
New process step Publication of Publication of Publication of
Publication of
EP and TH Public Publication of Key Matters
EP under
Submission Comment accepted EPs Report
Existing process step assessment
Information Report (NOPSEMA)
and EP Summary
EP prep and
TH response
Completeness Public Completeness Assessment Assessment
Consult Submit EP to Public
Check Comment Check Decision
Comment
submitted
5 days 30 days 30 days
TH download NOPSEMA
TH submits Respond to TH submits Respond to
public takes into
separate ‘incomplete separate ‘incomplete
No change comments account public No change
sensitive info submission’ sensitive info submission’
from shared comment
part of EP notifications part of EP notifications
folder (inc TH report)
16NOPSEMA guidance open for comment Two week comment period for: • EP assessment policy • Making submissions to NOPSEMA guideline • EP summary statement form • EP content requirements guidance note • Responding to public comment guidance note • Titleholder report on public comment template • NOPSEMA key matters report template (includes public comment report) See the ‘Transitioning to transparency – EP guidance open for comment’ news item on NOPSEMA’s website: nopsema.gov.au/news-and-media/ for details. Comments to be provided no later than CoB 10 April 2019 17
Policy: EP assessment
• EP assessment principles - to improve efficiency and consistency
• Referring to information already provided – information needs to be publicly
available and will considered part of the submission
• Repeat public comment period – applies to activities that have been significantly
modified following public comment
• Reasonable opportunity to modify – each resubmission must be in fullGuideline: Making submissions guideline
Maximum of four documents can be submitted to NOPSEMA as part of an EP submission:
EP part: for publication EP part: not for publication
Environment plan with relevant appendices Sensitive information, including full text
consultation transcripts
Oil pollution emergency plans (OPEP) may
be provided separately
Oil pollution monitoring plans (OSMP) may
be provided separately
19Form: EP summary statement
20Guidance note: EP Content requirements
• No change to content requirements for EPs
• New section on transparency
• Full review and update - strengthening of ‘regulatory purpose’; ‘core concept’;
‘considerations’
• Advice on best practice approach to setting environmental performance
outcomes.
21Guidance note: Responding to public comment
• Access to public comment – via a share folder, updated weekly
• Response to public comment - Responding in ‘general terms’ outlining
consideration of the issues or themes raised in public comments
• NOPSEMA’s consideration of public comment - NOPSEMA will consider public
comments and assess how the titleholder has taken these into account
• Submitting an EP following public comment – NOPSEMA assessment process
commences when the EP is submitted following public comment
22Guideline: Titleholder report on public comment template
23Key matters report (NOPSEMA)
• Published at the time a final decision is made:
- Format follows the Titleholder’s report on public comment (Issue raised; how titleholder has responded to issue)
- Addresses how NOPSEMA took into account public comment (what NOPSEMA decided)
- Addresses other assessment decision matters that Regulator believes need to be publicly communicated
24External comms and website changes
Available now:
• Public comment on EPs brochure
• EP assessment process – post
transparency fact sheet
Available from 25 April 2019:
• NOPSEMA online
• NOPSEMA consultation and public
comment platform
Available mid 2019:
• Underway offshore
25EPs open for comment
26Submitting a public comment
27Submitting a public comment (2)
28Submitting a public comment (3)
29Submitting a public comment (4)
30Submitting a public comment (5)
31Under assessment page
32EP details page
33Underway offshore (current)
34Underway offshore (in the making)
Company Project Region
Chevron Australia Wheatstone Pilbara
INPEX Ichthys North West
Woodside Energy North West Shelf North West
35Example – Underway offshore
Project - North West Shelf
Name:
Contact number:
Email:
36Western Australian Fishing Industry Council Email: oilandgas@wafic.org.au Visit: wafic.org.au
Who is WAFIC? • The peak not-for-profit industry body representing professional fishing, pearling and aquaculture enterprises. • Mission: WAFIC works to secure a responsible and sustainable industry that is confident of resource sustainability and security of access to a fair share of the resource; cost-effective fisheries’ management; that businesses can be operated in a safe, environmentally responsible and profitable way; and that investment in industry research and development is valued and promoted.
Stats and Figures
• GVP ~ A$600m (beach value)
• A$1b to WA state economy
• ~ 54 Fisheries
• Lobster A$420m - per annum
• Shark Bay Prawn Trawl A$25m
• Abalone A$10m
• Northern Demersal Scalefish
A$9m
• West Coast and Gascoyne
Demersal Scalefish A$7m
• ~ 2,500 employees
• ~ 10,000 indirect employees
• 90% - 95% of people who eat fish
buy it (rather than catch it)
• Incredible diversity of seafood -
tropical to temperateFunding Model • WAFIC is funded by fishing industry money that is collected by the State Government as part of a fee that is used by the State to manage WA’s fisheries. • Fish stocks are owned by the State, or rather the entire community of the State, they don’t “belong to commercial fishers”. • Government collects funds from each fishery (GVP), similar to mining companies paying a royalty on the ores they mine, ensuring there is a return to the community. • Collects 5.75% (5% goes to Government) • 0.5% ( goes to WAFIC) • 0.25% ( goes to FRDC) - matched dollar for dollar by the Federal Government. • Other states do not have this funding arrangement.
Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) • 3rd party certification - WA leading the world. • Western Rock Lobster - first MSC accredited fishery (globally) in 2000. • WA govt A$14.5m – funds MSC pre- assessment for every commercial fishery. • Western Rock Lobster, Exmouth Gulf Prawn Trawl, Shark Bay prawn trawl, Deep Sea Crustacean, Abalone, Pearls, Peel Harvey Crab, Peel Harvey Mullet - all certified. Beche-de- mer and Octopus to be certified soon. • ~ 90% of WA GVP is MSC certified
NOPSEMA and Oil & Gas Consultation 1. NOPSEMA 2012 2. Stakeholder Communications and Engagement 3. NOPSEMA website - For every environment plan, a titleholder undertakes consultation with relevant persons that could be affected by the proposed petroleum activity – ie potentially affected parties.
Commercial Fishing and Oil & Gas Consultation – how is it looking now? 1. Stakeholder fatigue, poor information. 2. Accordingly, very few replies. 3. The farce of “open and transparent” engagement. 4. The “tick the box” mentality – it’s all about getting the EP approved, not a lot of genuine consultation. 5. Gargantuan volume of O&G engagement of varying information and quality. 6. A complete lack of understanding and lack of respect that commercial fishers are full-time fishers – not the secretarial service for the O&G industry. 7. WAFIC (and other representative bodies) are also not the unpaid secretarial service for the O&G industry. 8. 100% mitigation costs rests with commercial fishers.
Commercial Fishing and Oil & Gas Consultation – how is it looking now? 1. Information overload (FOMO mentality, including as much information as possible in case NOPSEMA may / may not think that you have / have not included enough. 2. Long, detailed facts sheets with complex, detailed technical information – yet the two words “commercial fishing” are not mentioned once. 3. The expectation that we have to read all the information, assess the O&G activity and work out how we may / may not be potentially impacted – not our job! 4. Very poor maps, some with / some without latitudes and longitudes, distance from the coast, water depth, landmarks. 5. Don’t use eastings and northings – commercial fishing uses latitudes and longitudes.
Commercial Fishing and Oil & Gas Consultation – how is it looking now? 1. Not enough time - 30 days or less is not enough time for a consultation period. Many fishers are at sea longer than this or for most of a month – then have to unpack, ship, refuel, reprovision etc – we need 8 weeks – so plan ahead!. 2. No identification re how this activity may / may not impact others in the shared marine environment (ie fishers). 3. Fishery by fishery overlapping the activity site – do your assessment and proposed mitigations and then and only then, consult with fishers. 4. This is not a duplication of work – upfront information relevant to the (almost only) affected parties on the water. 5. Especially relevant with the requirement for a final 30 day review of the full EP and publication of the full EP after NOPSEMA acceptance.
Potentially Affected Parties • The heart of O&G consultation is consultation with relevant potentially affected parties. • Offshore – who are classed as potentially affected parties?
Relevant Potentially Affected Parties • Relevant potentially affected parties offshore • Commercial fishers • Recreational fishers • Marine Tourism operators • Relevant potentially affected parties in the commercial fishing industry?
Consultation Issues – Relevant Parties
• A relevant party is one who has fishing activity
overlapping the site, therefore their physical fishing
activity may potentially be disrupted / disadvantaged
by the O&G activity – they need to be consulted.
• If the fishery does not overlap the site / activity they
are not a relevant party (based on fishing activity).
• A fishery which has a border near by but not
overlapping the site / activity is not a relevant party.
• We have zero interest in “just in case we thought you
might be interested” or an “if in doubt send to
everyone” process.
• An O&G proponent still needs to address the resource
impacts separate to potential impacts on the fishing
activity.Consultation Practices – O&G – How we can improve
• A “one size first all” process is unworkable for commercial fishers.
• As we are (almost) the only potentially affected party on the water,
we expect / need bespoke consultation relevant to the commercial
fishing activity in the region concurrent with the proposed O&G
activity.
• EP writers need to address – upfront – potential issues with the
O&G activity and commercial fishers operating in the area and the
commercial fishing resource.
• Covering email summary – cover your back, attach the usual fact
sheet!
• If the fishery does not overlap the site / activity they are not a
relevant party to the activity (maybe to the EMBA but consultation is
not required).Seismic Consultation Practices – O&G – How we can improve • The potential impacts of seismic activity is the key issue for commercial fishers. It is a global issue. • Timing needs to be based on an encompassing environmental assessment – not when there’s a boat available. • Provision of upfront information showing how you have assessed this proposed seismic survey over the commercial fishing activity and the commercial fishing resource overlapping this acquisition area. • Seeking the “window of opportunity”. • Prepare a matrix – great for the proponents' use, a clear demonstration of assessment to potentially affected parties.
Common Practices (which need to be improved)
• For commercial fishing it is a four way process:
• Potential impact on commercial fishing activities.
• Potential impacts on the commercial fishing resource (ie
the key indicator species, spawning).
• Potential impacts on the overall marine environment.
• Case-by-case scenario – the need to formally incorporate a
“make good” process within the EP.The Transparency Review
• WAFIC has been “at the table”.
• A chance for all of us to work together.
• Transparency with EPs – we will now know that
commercial fishing feedback has been considered and
addressed.
• Be part of the solution not part of the problem.
• Not asking oil and gas to do anything more than what they
are already doing, just to do it upfront and bespoke.Oil and Gas – Commercial Fishing FRDC Project • Fisheries Research and Development Corporation (FRDC) - www.frdc.gov.au. • Project title “2017-186 Oil and Gas: National coordination - seismic and other issues”, project number 2017-186 http://frdc.com.au/project/2017-186 . • FRDC a co-funded partnership between its two stakeholders, the Australian Government and the fishing and aquaculture sectors. • WAFIC has secured a 3 year funded project – oil and gas – seismic research and engagement between the commercial fishing sector and oil and gas activities (and the role of NOPSEMA). .
Oil and Gas – Commercial Fishing FRDC Project –
Seismic information
• Seismic Research Portal / web site
• A publicly accessible portal – to be housed on the FRDC
website (http://www.frdc.com.au/ )
• Seismic focussed a "one stop shop" for research papers etc
covering commercial fishing activities / commercial fishing
resource and offshore O&G seismic surveys etc
• Australian papers, International papers
• Where possible, peer reviewed
• Need to ensure relevance for ready and easy access by the
commercial fishing sector, O&G and the broader communityOil and Gas – Commercial Fishing
FRDC Project – Seismic Information
• Research Gaps
• Commercial fishing activities / commercial fishing resource and
offshore seismic research gap analysis prioritisation.
• Deliver a set number of supported research applications relevant to
the potential effects of oil and gas offshore seismic activities on
commercial fishing / commercial fishing stocks etc.
• As “science gaps” become evident refer the information back to the
FRDC in “real time” – not at the end of the project – for FRDC
consideration and potential allocation to fill the gap sooner rather than
later.
• Quadrant / Santos AIMS project and other potential opportunities –
working together.Oil and Gas – Commercial Fishing
FRDC Project – Fishery Profiles
• Relevant Party Information
• Housed on the FRDC site
• Became the priority over the seismic information
• Fishery profile / fact sheet – state by state and commonwealth fisheries
• Fully referenced facts and science – location, map, licence holders, MSC, fishing
methods, where fished (FishCube), the resource, stock, spawning etc.
• When a licence holder in a fishery is / is not a relevant party.
• Examples – Mackerel by zone/water depth, Marine Aquarium Fish, WA SharkPremier’s Oil and Gas Jobs Taskforce
• Announced May 2018
• Stavanger O&G event 2018, WA contingent - introduction of the Scottish
Fishermen’s Federation (SFF).
• SFF “How we made oil and water mix” www.sff.co.uk .
www.sffservices.co.uk .
• Premier’s taskforce managed via Department of Jobs, Tourism, Science
and Innovation.
• Taskforce at the senior level of government and O&G, WAFIC on a working
group.
• Early days!
• WAFIC seeking to establish a business entity incorporating similar but much
smaller scale SFF example – such as escort vessels, trawl trials, guard
boats etc.
• O&G and commercial fishing working together – off-season, concurrent
with a major O&G project (and therefore restricted fishing access etc).
• Need a standard / workable vessel etc assessment system.Questions? • Any questions? • For more information head to our website www.wafic.org.au
Australian Petroleum Production & Exploration Association Email: appea@appea.com.au Visit: appea.com.au
Building environmental knowledge & improved outcomes Jason Medd APPEA
60 Full Members 140 Associate Global Partners
How we improve
Stakeholder Input
Improved
Knowledge
Coordinated
Scientific Program & Environmental
Performance
Outcomes
Consistent
Approach
63Stakeholder Input
• Industry engagement with
fishing sector November 2018
• Ongoing engagement with
fishing representative bodies.
• Planning and strategies for more
efficient and effective industry
engagement.
64Coordinated Scientific Program
• Work currently ongoing within APPEA EHS working groups to progress
– Marine noise
– Produced formation water
– Oil spills, response and modelling
– Decommissioning
65Consistent Approach
• Consistent scientific methodologies
• Consistent terms and concepts
• Industry collaboration
• Readily available information for stakeholders
Image courtesy of Woodside Energy
66Our goal
• Improved knowledge through best practice research
• Further reduction in environmental risk
• Collaborative and coordinated stakeholder engagement
• Up to date information readily available
67National Energy Resources Australia Email: matt.smith@nera.org Visit: nera.org.au
Reference cases
Matt SmithBackground
• EP’s growing in size and complexity
• Collaboration across titleholders has the
potential to improve;
• Productivity;
• Environmental outcomes; and
• Stakeholder understanding.
• OECD (2002) recognizes importance of
guidelines to support objective-based
regulation
• Establish environmental standards to
improve the transition to greater
transparencyTimeline May 2017 NERA commissions the 4 reference cases July 2018 APPEA Environment Committee selects preferred topics January 2018 NERA volunteers to be temporary custodian of project February 2018 NERA publishes 2 complete reference cases March 2018 NERA commences review of the project May 2018 APPEA and NERA agree amended Terms of Reference December 2018 NERA and APPEA publish review report
Review findings (survey)
Review findings (interviews) • Unsubstantiated inconsistency in NOPSEMA assessments • Titleholders underestimate project timeframes • Decisions being delayed seeking more detail • Uncertainty about ‘acceptable levels’ of impact/risk • No change in environmental outcomes • Deteriorating trust between titleholders and relevant persons
Conclusion and
recommendations
Recommendation
APPEA, in particular its members with
1. Compliance mentality in a subjective process offshore petroleum titles, and NOPSEMA
2. Absence of common environmental knowledge should jointly consider the implications of
this report to identify, characterise, and
3. Accountability for EP product agree the difficulties with the environmental
approvals process and together design and
implement titleholder lead initiatives that
will address these difficulties.What’s next?
Collaborative Seismic EP Project
• 10 companies willing to properly
collaborate
• Final product will standardize how seismic
activities are conducted in Australia
• Supported by fishers and Government
• Approval being sought for 2020-2025Panel Q&A session
Closing statement
You can also read
