Issues Paper
January 2014
Review of Part 5 of the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas
Storage (Resource Management and Administration)
Regulations 2011
Table of Contents
Consultation Process…………………………………………………………………………………………………………3
Chapter 1: Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………………….………4
Chapter 2: Background……………………………………………………………………………………………………..6
Chapter 3: Objectives………………………………………………………………………………………………….....15
Chapter 4: The Framework for the Regulation of Wells…………………………………………………..19
Chapter 5: Approval for Specific Well Activities………………………………………………………………34
Chapter 6: Inactive Wells…………………………………………………………………………………………...…..37
Chapter 7: Well Accidents…………………………………………………………………………..…….…………...39
Chapter 8: Compliance, Enforcement and Penalties……………………………………………..…….….43
Chapter 9: Next Steps……………………………………………………………………………………………………..45
APPENDIX 1: Abbreviations and Acronyms……………………………………………………………………..46
Copyright Notice…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….47
Issues Paper: Review of Part 5 of the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage (Resource
Management and Administration) Regulations 2011 (January 2014)
Page 2 of 47
Consultation Process
Interested parties are invited to make written submissions that address, but need not be limited by,
the issues raised in this paper including supporting information such as examples and evidence
where relevant.
Submissions may be lodged electronically or by post. Please direct submissions to:
Email: offshoreregulations@industry.gov.au
or
The Manager
Environment, Safety & Security Section
Offshore Resources Branch
Resources Division
Department of Industry
GPO Box 1564
CANBERRA ACT 2601
Closing date for submissions is COB, 28 March 2014.
Submissions will not be published on the Department of Industry website unless with prior written
consent or unless required by law.
Please indicate clearly if you would like your submission, or any part of it, to be treated as
‘confidential’. A request for a submission marked confidential to be made available will be
determined in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth). Under this Act, agencies
and ministers need to publish on their websites information that has been released in response to
freedom of information access requests.
Further information is available at the Department of Industry website.
Issues Paper: Review of Part 5 of the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage (Resource
Management and Administration) Regulations 2011 (January 2014)
Page 3 of 47
Chapter 1: Introduction
The exploration and production of hydrocarbons from under the sea is susceptible to very rare
but serious incidents. The “blowout” of hydrocarbons from a well in the Montara offshore oil
and gas field in the Timor Sea in 2009 was one such example. This incident and the subsequent
inquiry, the Montara Commission of Inquiry, combined with the need to keep the regulatory
system for controlling the inherent risks of oil and gas exploration under review, has led to this
public consultation on Part 5 of the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage (Resource
Management and Administration) Regulations 2011 (“Part 5 of the RMAR” or simply “Part 5”).
Part 5 represents one part of the Australian regulatory system for offshore petroleum and
greenhouse gas storage. A summary of the overall system is presented in Chapter 2 to show
where Part 5 of the RMAR fits into this system. Persons considering making a submission should
familiarise themselves with this material, noting in particular that, despite the location of the
Part 5 provisions in the RMAR, Part 5 is concerned solely with the regulation of wells and well
operations by the National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management
Authority (NOPSEMA). The regulatory requirements in Part 5 relate to structural integrity of
wells and not to resource management.
The objective of this review is to ensure that the regulation of well operations in Australian
waters reflects leading practice, objective-based regulation of the structural integrity of wells
and well activities.
Purpose, Scope and Approach
The purpose of this Issues Paper is to:

identify policy, legal and operational issues that could impact on the effectiveness of the
regulation of wells and well activities for petroleum and greenhouse gas storage
activities undertaken in Commonwealth waters;

discuss those issues and identify options to address them; and

invite comment on the identified issues and options, including on their impacts on the
industry and other parties, and identify other relevant issues and options.
This Issues Paper is broken down into chapters addressing the framework for the regulation of
wells and the key tools and processes for that regulation. Each chapter outlines current
arrangements, includes a discussion of key issues and seeks comment on appropriate
approaches to regulating well operations.
The options in this paper are provided to assist stakeholders in preparing submissions in relation
to key issues. Submissions received will be considered in developing and finalising the
Government position on how best to regulate well operations.
It is not intended in this process to anticipate outcomes or duplicate other Australian
Government review processes currently in progress for the offshore petroleum legislative
regime; however relevant matters referred to in the review from other policy processes will be
considered. This includes, for example, matters that arose from the review of the compliance
and enforcement regime for offshore petroleum activities within the OPGGS Act1 and the recent
1
As part of its response to the Report of the Montara Commission of Inquiry, the Australian Government
undertook a review of the legislation applicable to offshore petroleum activities and the marine
environment in the first half of 2012. In June 2012, the Government agreed to implement a number of the
Issues Paper: Review of Part 5 of the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage
(Resource Management and Administration) Regulations 2011 (January 2014) Page 4 of 47
review of the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage (Environment) Regulations 2009
(the Environment Regulations). Decisions already taken on issues explored through this or other
policy processes are integrated into this paper where relevant, without the intention to further
debate their merit.
In general, the review and this Issues Paper do not address:

other regulations under the OPGGS Act, specifically the Environment Regulations and
the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage (Safety) Regulations 2009 (the
Safety Regulations);

policy regarding cost recovery through levies;

any resource management implications of changes to the regulation of well operations,
noting some discussion of this point in Chapter 3.
This Issues Paper does not assess the adequacy of each regulation in Part 5 but is a policy
assessment of an objective-based approach to the regulation of wells. The intent is that the
Issues Paper addresses the key matters for regulating well operations from a holistic
perspective.
findings of this review. The Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment (Compliance
Measures) Act 2013 received Royal Assent on 14 March 2013. This Act amended the OPGGS Act to
increase financial penalties for certain criminal offences and to introduce a civil penalty regime. The
Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment (Compliance Measures No. 2) Act 2013
received Royal Assent on 28 May 2013. With respect to compliance and enforcement measures, this Act
introduced additional alternative enforcement mechanisms that may be used by regulators or the courts,
including infringement notices, cumulative penalties for continuing breaches of the OPGGS Act, adverse
publicity orders and injunctions.
Issues Paper: Review of Part 5 of the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage
(Resource Management and Administration) Regulations 2011 (January 2014) Page 5 of 47
Chapter 2: Background
Compared to many countries internationally, Australia has a strong history of continuous
improvement in the regulation of offshore petroleum operations.
Objective-based regulation
On 6 July 1988, an explosion and fire on the North Sea production platform Piper Alpha
destroyed the platform and killed 167 men. In 1991, a tripartite Consultative Committee on
Safety in the Offshore Petroleum Industry recommended that key outcomes of the United
Kingdom Committee of Inquiry into the Piper Alpha disaster chaired by Lord Cullen, be
implemented in Australia.
The Australian Government made a policy decision to adopt a safety case regime and new
objective-based regulations to replace the then prescriptive regulations. The objective-based
approach is typical of most modern occupational health and safety regimes2. Objective-based
(or goal setting) regimes, including the safety case regime, are based on the principle that the
legislation sets the broad safety (or environmental) goals to be attained and the operator of the
facility develops the most appropriate methods of achieving those goals.3
An objective based approach imposes general duties on parties to the regime. In the case of the
offshore petroleum regime, this includes titleholders (typically oil companies), operators of
facilities (such as oil companies and rig owners), other contractors, suppliers and all those who
work on or near facilities. This responsibility ensures flexibility in operational matters to meet
the unique nature of differing projects and technological advances and encourages a mentality
that goes beyond compliance and acceptance of minimum standards to one of continuous
improvement and innovation in safety and risk management.
Key to an objective-based regime is the unambiguous assigning to the creator of the risk (the
duty holders) the responsibility for evaluating and managing the risk and reducing risk to ‘as low
as reasonably practicable’ (ALARP). The ALARP principle is now widely understood in the
international oil and gas industry. Further discussion on the ALARP principle is in Chapter 3.
Applying the principle recognises that ‘as low as reasonably practicable’ is generally the point
where the sacrifice required to reduce the risks of an activity any further would be
extraordinarily disproportionate to the benefit gained and may not be practically feasible. The
application of ALARP to offshore petroleum operations allows the duty holder to adopt practices
and technologies best suited to individual circumstances, activities and locations.
The introduction of the safety case strengthened the duty of care regime to require a
comprehensive and integrated risk management system describing how the duty holder will
fulfil their obligations. An important aspect of the safety case approach is that the dutyholder is
required to document the hazards and risks and how these will be managed to reduce the risks
to ALARP. This safety case is then subject to examination by the regulator. Unless the regulator
accepts the safety case following review the activity cannot proceed. Once accepted the
regulator carries out checks to ensure that the dutyholder is doing what they said they would do
in the safety case.
This approach has now been extended in Australia to include environment plans for petroleum
activities and well operations management plans (WOMPs) for well activities.
2
3
NOPSEMA's Offshore OHS Legislative Framework Information Paper
NOPSEMA's safety case approach
Issues Paper: Review of Part 5 of the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage
(Resource Management and Administration) Regulations 2011 (January 2014) Page 6 of 47
Regulating offshore petroleum and greenhouse gas storage operations in Australia
The legal framework within which offshore petroleum exploration and production activity takes
place in Australia had its origins in the 1979 Offshore Constitutional Settlement (OCS) and the
division of powers and responsibilities between the Australian Government and the
State/Northern Territory Governments.
Petroleum and greenhouse gas storage operations that are conducted onshore are not relevant
to this paper. Petroleum and greenhouse gas operations offshore up to three nautical miles
from the territorial sea baseline (referred to as ‘coastal waters’) are the responsibility of the
individual State and Territory Governments under state/territory legislation. Offshore petroleum
operations beyond state and territory coastal waters but within Australia’s 200 nautical mile
Exclusive Economic Zone lie within Commonwealth waters with legislative responsibility resting
with the Australian Government. Initially, the Commonwealth legislation conferred powers on
State and NT Ministers (the “Designated Authorities”) to regulate offshore petroleum
operations, including occupational health and safety, environmental management and well
integrity.
Following implementation of the outcomes of the Cullen Inquiry, a safety case regime was
adopted in Australia, and performance-based regulations replaced prescriptive safety rules. In
1992, the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act 1967 (PSLA) was amended to provide for
regulations to require the preparation and submission of a safety case for every offshore
petroleum facility.
On 1 January 2005 the independent National Offshore Petroleum Safety Authority (NOPSA) was
established to regulate the safety regime in Commonwealth waters and in state and territory
coastal waters where jurisdictions conferred powers. This followed a review of offshore safety in
Australia amid concerns over the adequacy of regulatory arrangements undertaken by the
states and the Northern Territory, who had been using a combination of the safety case
approach and prescriptive legislation. In 2006, the PSLA was replaced by the Offshore Petroleum
Act 2006 (OPA), which was renamed the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act
2006 (the OPGGS Act) in 2008, with the addition of a system of offshore titles for the injection
and storage of greenhouse gas substances in deep geological formations under the seabed.
The OPGGS Act and associated regulations and guidelines govern offshore petroleum and
greenhouse gas storage operations in Commonwealth waters. The Act, regulations and
guidelines provide for the orderly exploration for and production of petroleum resources and
injection and storage of greenhouse gas substances, and set out a framework of rights,
entitlements and responsibilities of government and of industry.
Despite the abolition of the state/territory Designated Authorities as regulators of offshore
operations, the Australian Government together with the State and the Northern Territory
governments jointly administer the regime of petroleum titles in Commonwealth waters
through a Joint Authority arrangement. The Joint Authority makes key decisions under the
OPGGS Act concerning the granting of petroleum titles, the imposition of title conditions and
the cancelling of titles, as well as decisions about petroleum-related resource management and
resource security.
The Montara Commission of Inquiry and Government Response
On 18 June 2010, the Montara Commission of Inquiry presented its report to the then Australian
Minister for Resources and Energy regarding the 21 August 2009 uncontrolled release of oil and
Issues Paper: Review of Part 5 of the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage
(Resource Management and Administration) Regulations 2011 (January 2014) Page 7 of 47
gas from the Montara Wellhead Platform in the Timor Sea. The report contained 100 findings
and 105 recommendations with wide-ranging implications for government, regulators and the
offshore petroleum industry.
The Australian Government moved quickly to implement the lessons arising from this incident.
On 25 May 2011, the Australian Government released the Final Response to the Report of the
Montara Commission of Inquiry. The Final Response accepted 92, noted 10, and did not accept
three of the 105 recommendations. The Final Response also included an implementation plan
for the accepted recommendations.
Many of the Montara Commission of Inquiry recommendations refer to matters of well integrity
or the regulation of wells under Part 5, including: objective-based regulation, the ‘good oilfield
practice’ concept, WOMPs, notification and reporting of increased risks and incidents, well
barrier requirements, and activity approvals. It would be excessive to list the recommendations
relevant to this review in this Paper, however links to the full papers are available here:



The Montara Commission of Inquiry Report
The Final Government Response to the Montara Commission of Inquiry Report
The Australian Government Progress Report on implementation of the
recommendations of the Montara Commission of Inquiry
In implementing the accepted recommendations from the Montara Commission of Inquiry, the
Australian Government acted to augment the functions of the safety regulator, NOPSA, to
include regulatory oversight of non-occupational health and safety structural integrity for
facilities, wells and well-related equipment. To give effect to NOPSA’s augmented functions
under the OPGGS Act, Part 5 of the RMAR was amended to provide NOPSA with regulatory
functions and powers relating to the management of well operations, which took effect on 21
April 2011. This amendment transferred regulation and oversight of structural integrity of
petroleum facilities (including pipelines), wells and well-related equipment in Commonwealth
waters from the state and Northern Territory Designated Authorities to NOPSA.
In addition, the Government implemented broad institutional reforms, accepting
recommendation 73 of the report of the Montara Commission of Inquiry, that “A single,
independent regulatory body should be created, looking after safety as a primary objective, well
integrity and environmental approvals. Industry policy and resource development and promotion
activities should reside in government departments and not with the regulatory agency.”4 The
Government agreed to “separate offshore regulation and titles administration to avoid any
potential or perceived conflicts of objectives”. The Government’s policy in this respect recognises
that the explicit separation of resource development and management on the one hand from
the regulation of risks to the health and safety of people and management of the environment
on the other hand is a fundamental tenet of modern, leading practice offshore petroleum
regulation. Well integrity is a core element of the management of risks to health and safety and
the environment.
On 1 January 2012, the Government established a single national regulator for the offshore oil
and gas industry, the National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management
Authority (NOPSEMA or the Regulator), with additional responsibility for environmental
management as well as existing functions relating to safety and well integrity. A National
Offshore Petroleum Titles Administrator (NOPTA) was also established, with responsibility for
day-to-day petroleum titles administration and data management functions.
4
Report of the Montara Commission of Inquiry, June 2010, p. 362
Issues Paper: Review of Part 5 of the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage
(Resource Management and Administration) Regulations 2011 (January 2014) Page 8 of 47
The regulator for the environmental management and offshore greenhouse gas storage
operations in Commonwealth waters is the responsible Commonwealth Minister. However,
NOPSEMA remains responsible for regulating occupational health and safety in both petroleum
and greenhouse gas storage-related activities.
Importantly, the Government also amended the OPGGS Act to clarify and strengthen the
compliance, monitoring, investigation and enforcement powers of NOPSEMA, and ensure that
enforcement measures for contraventions of the OPGGS Act are appropriate for a high-hazard
industry.
NOPSEMA functions and responsibilities
NOPSEMA was established as the single national regulator to enforce compliance with
occupational health and safety, well integrity, environmental management, and day-to-day
operations of offshore petroleum facilities in Commonwealth waters, and in coastal waters
where state and Northern Territory powers have been conferred. The single national regulator
model reflects international leading practice for the regulation of offshore petroleum.
The legislative framework and objectives and functions of NOPSEMA are set out in the OPGGS
Act. Where powers have been conferred, NOPSEMA’s functions in designated coastal waters of
the states and the Northern Territory are governed under the relevant Petroleum (Submerged
Lands) Acts of 1982.
NOPSEMA has the following legislated functions:

The functions conferred on it by or under the OPGGS Act or under a State or Territory
Petroleum Submerged Lands Act in relation to occupational health and safety matters,
structural integrity of facilities, wells and well-related equipment and environmental
management, in connection with offshore petroleum operations or offshore greenhouse
gas storage operations in Commonwealth waters

promote the occupational health and safety of persons engaged in offshore petroleum
operations

develop and implement effective monitoring and enforcement strategies to secure
compliance under the OPGGS Act and Regulations

investigate accidents, occurrences and circumstances relating to occupational health and
safety, well integrity and environmental management

advise on matters relating to occupational health and safety, well integrity and
environmental management

make reports, including recommendations, to the responsible Commonwealth minister and
each responsible state/Northern Territory ministers

cooperate with other Commonwealth and state/ Northern Territory agencies or authorities
having functions relating to regulated operations.
The role of the regulator in an objective-based regime is to provide independent assurance that
risks are properly controlled by challenging the operator or titleholder’s risk management
arrangements during the assessment of safety cases, environment plans and WOMPs. The
regulator then verifies by planned inspections that the operator or titleholder has implemented
Issues Paper: Review of Part 5 of the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage
(Resource Management and Administration) Regulations 2011 (January 2014) Page 9 of 47
its risk management commitment documented in the safety case, environment plan and
WOMP.5
As discussed earlier, under an objective-based regime, the law sets the broad safety or
environmental goals to be attained and the duty-holder develops the most appropriate methods
of achieving those goals. The requirements for acceptance by the regulator are set out in the
following regulations:



Part 5 of the RMAR for a WOMP;
the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage (Safety) Regulations 2009 for a safety
case;
the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage (Environment) Regulations 2009 for
an environment plan.
The objective-based model is under-pinned by comprehensive guidance by the regulator.
NOPSEMA provides guidance to industry in relation to what is acceptable in meeting the intent
of the regulations. Guidance is not law; rather, it sets out the regulator’s own interpretation of
the law, as an aid to understanding by the industry. It is not legal advice, and should not be
treated as such. Importantly, guidance also sets out the manner in which the regulator
proposes to apply the law in practical day-to-day circumstances. Guidance notes therefore are
an important tool for both the regulator and for industry in developing a common
understanding of legislative obligations and requirements.
Industry-wide guidance and standards for well operations are also produced by other
organisations and are developed to provide leading-practice guidance to the industry. This
guidance has a different purpose to that issued by the regulator.
5
NOPSEMA's Offshore OHS Legislative Framework Information Paper
Issues Paper: Review of Part 5 of the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage
(Resource Management and Administration) Regulations 2011 (January 2014) Page 10 of 47
Duty holders and their obligations
Occupational health and safety (‘safety’)
The OPGGS Act and related safety regulations impose duties and obligations on a range of
specific entities including persons, titleholders, facility operators, manufacturers, suppliers
and, employers and other persons. The approach adopted under the OPGGS Act goes
beyond general duties to require every operator to document in a safety case the hazards
and risks to people at or near the facility, as well as how these risks will be controlled and
managed.
In relation to well integrity matters, clause 13A of Schedule 3 (and 13B in relation to
greenhouse gas storage injection wells) of the OPGGS Act places an express duty on the
titleholder in relation to wells and well operations. This duty means that titleholders are
subject to the obligation to ensure that wells are designed, constructed, maintained and
operated so that risks to health and safety are reduced to as low as reasonably practicable.
Under Part 5 of the RMAR titleholders must, in order to undertake a well activity, apply to
the regulator for acceptance of a well operations management plan and seek approval from
NOPSEMA for specific well activities. While assessment of a WOMP is not confined to
matters of safety, since structural integrity of a well has implications for environmental
management and potentially other aspects of a titleholder’s compliance with the OPGGS
Act regime, safety of the workforce will always be the predominant concern of the regulator
in assessing a WOMP.
In relation to safety matters, obligations are imposed on the operator of a facility in
recognition of their responsibility for the day-to-day management and control of a
petroleum facility. Operators are subject to occupational health and safety obligations and
duties described in Schedule 3 of the OPGGS Act and are required to take all reasonably
practicable steps to secure the health, safety and welfare of persons at or near relevant
petroleum facilities. Under the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage (Safety)
Regulations 2009 (the Safety Regulations), operators are also required to prepare a safety
case for submission to NOPSEMA in consultation with members of the workforce (including
those working or likely to be working on the relevant facility). General duties of care under
the occupational health and safety regime are also imposed on any person who is in control
of any part of a facility or of any particular work carried out at a facility, employers,
manufacturers and suppliers.
Issues Paper: Review of Part 5 of the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage
(Resource Management and Administration) Regulations 2011 (January 2014) Page 11 of 47
Duty holders and their obligations (continued)
Environmental management
In relation to environmental management, the OPGGS Act places a number of environmentrelated duties on the titleholder. In particular, where there is a release of petroleum in
Commonwealth waters, the titleholder is obliged to control the spill at source, clean up the
environment and carry out environmental monitoring of the effects of the spill.
Alternatively, the titleholder must pay the costs of NOPSEMA in contracting with others to
carry out this work. Where the spill reaches state coastal waters, including beaches or other
coastal environments, the titleholder must pay any costs incurred by the state in doing or
contracting for the same kinds of work.
The Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage (Environment) Regulations 2009 (the
Environment Regulations) require that an environment plan be in force before any person
carries out a ‘petroleum activity’ and that the activity be carried out in accordance with the
environment plan. The environment plan is comparable to a safety case in that it sets out
the manner in which the duty-holder will ensure that environmental impacts of a
‘petroleum activity’ will be as low as reasonably practicable.
In relation to environment matters, obligations are currently imposed on the petroleum
activity ‘operator’ (different from the concept of operator for safety matters) however this
concept is subject to change (with a shift to placing the obligation on the titleholder, which
is consistent with the OPGGS Act) under the general review of the Environment Regulations
which is currently underway – with completion in the form of revised regulations in
February 2014.
The regulation of wells
Drilling and well operations are characterised by considerable complexity, involving a number of
players and driven by rapid technological development and deeper wells. That complexity is
best addressed through an objective-based regulatory approach.
Objective-based regulation of offshore petroleum well activities was introduced with the
Petroleum (Submerged Lands) (Management of Well Operations) Regulations 2004,
administered by the Designated Authorities in each state and the Northern Territory. Prior to
this, offshore well activities were regulated through directions given by the Designated
Authority under the authority of the then Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act 1967 (the precursor
to the OPPGS Act). The WOMP was conceived to specify acceptable methods of conducting well
operations in accordance with sound engineering principles and good oilfield practice. It
requires a company to identify potential hazards and risks to the integrity of its well activities
and consequently implement measures to remove or control those hazards and reduce the risks
as consistent with international best practice for petroleum regulation.6
On 29 April 2011, several legislative instruments, including the Petroleum (Submerged Lands)
(Management of Well Operations) Regulations 2004 and remaining active aspects of the
Schedule of Specific Requirements were consolidated to make Part 5 of the Offshore Petroleum
6
Petroleum (Submerged Lands) (Management of Well Operations) Regulations 2004; Statutory Rules
2004 No. 244, Explanatory Statement
Issues Paper: Review of Part 5 of the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage
(Resource Management and Administration) Regulations 2011 (January 2014) Page 12 of 47
and Greenhouse Gas Storage (Resource Management and Administration) Regulations 2011
(RMAR). The placement of these wells regulations in the RMAR may have given rise to some
misconceptions. Part 5 has no resource management content and the regulator, NOPSEMA, has
no resource management functions. The wells regulations were located in the RMAR for reasons
of administrative convenience, not because of any similarity of content.
Part 5 of the RMAR
The RMAR currently has three primary objectives (set out in full in regulation 1.04 of RMAR Part
1):
1. Ensure that operations in an offshore area are carried out in accordance with good
oilfield practice and compatible with the optimum long-term recovery of petroleum and
long-term safe storage of greenhouse gas;
2. Ensure that administrators of the OPGGS Act are informed in a timely and consistent
manner of exploration for petroleum and greenhouse gas storage formations; discovery
of petroleum and potential storage formations; the appraisal of discoveries;
development and production operations in relation to petroleum, and injection
operations in relation to greenhouse gas substances; and the result of those operations,
and
3. Provide for various matters in relation to data collection and management.
Currently the first of these objectives relates to Part 5 of the RMAR and provides for the
regulation of ‘well activities’, where a well activity includes all drilling activities, testing a well,
wireline and workover operations, completion or recompletion of a well, maintenance of a well,
and abandonment or suspension of a well.
Part 5 of the RMAR require titleholders7 who want to conduct a well activity in Commonwealth
waters to both prepare and implement an adequate WOMP for the period of the activity, and
also to seek further ‘activity approvals’ for specified individual well activities.
Under Part 5 of the RMAR, it is an offence to conduct well activities without an accepted WOMP
in force for undertaking those well activities (Regulation 5.04).8 The RMAR provides for the
process of submitting a WOMP (including contents requirements), acceptance of a WOMP, the
requirement and process for variations of a WOMP, and withdrawal and termination of a
WOMP.
The Regulator must assess and make a decision to accept or reject a WOMP that has been
submitted by the titleholder, and must also decide whether to approve or reject a submitted
individual activity approval. The required content of a WOMP is detailed in Part 5 and the
WOMP must address all elements specified.
Part 5 also requires that the titleholder ‘control hazards or risks’, in particular ‘well integrity
hazards’. The outcome is the application of a risk-based approach for management of wells and
well activities through the WOMP regime.
Historically the RMAR were regulated by the Designated Authorities in each state and the
Northern Territory regulated the RMAR as the administrators of resource
development/management and titles administrators. With the separation of offshore regulation
7
See regulation 5.01 for the exact listing of titleholders to whom Part 5 applies.
Subject to an exception in the event of an emergency in which there is a likelihood of injury, significant
discharge of fluids or damage to a natural resource (regulation 5.05(3)).
8
Issues Paper: Review of Part 5 of the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage
(Resource Management and Administration) Regulations 2011 (January 2014) Page 13 of 47
from resource development/management and titles administration, the regulatory landscape
has changed significantly and the continuation of Part 5 within the RMAR is an anachronism. As
an example, the words in Objective 1 of the RMAR: “compatible with the optimum long-term
recovery of petroleum and long-term safe storage of greenhouse gas” are appropriate to
resource management, not the regulation of well integrity.
Regulation of wells for greenhouse gas storage operations
As mentioned above, the responsible Commonwealth Minister is the regulator of greenhouse
gas storage-related well operations in Commonwealth waters and of greenhouse gas storage
WOMPs under Part 5 of the RMAR.
Risks to the structural integrity of a well or well-related equipment for the offshore greenhouse
gas injection and storage industry will be very similar to those for petroleum operations. There
may be scope, therefore, for NOPSEMA to become the regulator of well integrity for greenhouse
gas injection wells, as it is for petroleum wells.
Issues Paper: Review of Part 5 of the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage
(Resource Management and Administration) Regulations 2011 (January 2014) Page 14 of 47
Chapter 3: Objectives
Objectives of the RMAR
The Australian Government supports the objective-based regulation of offshore petroleum and
greenhouse gas storage activities and notes that an objective-based regime sets out objectives
and requires the duty-holder to demonstrate the means by which the duty-holder proposes to
meet those objectives. For example, under Schedule 3 to the OPGGS Act, clause 9 requires that
the operator of a facility take all reasonably practicable steps to ensure that the facility is safe
and without risk to the health of any person at or near the facility. It also requires that all work
and other activities carried out on the facility are carried out in a manner that is safe and
without risk to the health of any person at or near the facility. The actual obligation here is ‘to
take all reasonably practicable steps’. The safety case, which is accepted by NOPSEMA under
the Safety Regulations must provide for the reduction of the risks of harm to persons at or near
a facility to ALARP. Similarly, in order to accept an environment plan under the Environment
Regulations (as per impending amendments), NOPSEMA must be reasonably satisfied that
amongst other things, the plan demonstrates that the environmental impacts and risks of the
petroleum activity are reduced to ALARP.
As noted in Chapter 2, the current objects of the RMAR are listed in regulation 1.04. Relevant to
Part 5 of the RMAR, subregulation 1.04(1) states that:
An object of these Regulations is to ensure that operations in an offshore area are:
a) Carried out in accordance with good oilfield practice; and
b) Compatible with the optimum long-term recovery of petroleum and safe storage
of GHG.
What is an appropriate objective for the regulation of wells and well activities?
There are several considerations in relation to an appropriate objective for the regulation of
wells and well activities.
The current objective of Part 5 focuses on resource management with reference to the ‘optimal
long-term recovery of the resource’ (and long-term greenhouse gas storage storage). However,
the entities who are responsible for resource management are the Joint Authority and NOPTA
(who advises the joint Authority). Resource management in respect of a title area is initially
dealt with in a Field Development Plan, which is accepted by the Joint Authority under Part 4 of
the RMAR. Reporting requirements and data management for well activities are also
contemplated elsewhere in the RMAR, including daily drilling reports under Part 7 (and Part 9
for greenhouse gas storage) of the RMAR. The matters contained within Parts 4 and 7 of the
RMAR require reporting to NOPTA.
These reporting requirements arise in the context of well activities, and it is possible that the
reporting might trigger the giving of a direction by NOPTA to the titleholder requiring, for
example, the carrying out of a test or provision of further information. However, the resource
management objective of Part 5 pre-dates the provision of well integrity functions to NOPSEMA,
when the Designated Authorities were regulators of well integrity and resource
development/management. There is now a clear institutional separation between the structural
integrity objectives of a WOMP as accepted by NOPSEMA, and the resource management
activities and responsibilities of NOPTA and the Joint Authority. NOPSEMA does not have any
obligation to take resource management considerations into account in deciding whether to
accept a WOMP. (Note, however, that in the event that a direction given by NOPTA was to be
Issues Paper: Review of Part 5 of the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage
(Resource Management and Administration) Regulations 2011 (January 2014) Page 15 of 47
inconsistent with an approved WOMP, the titleholder would have to vary the WOMP and
submit the variation to NOPSEMA for acceptance.)
The Explanatory Statement for the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) (Management of Well
Operations) Regulations 2004 provides a statement of the original intent behind the regulation
of well activities. The Explanatory Statement specifies that the aim of the regulations is to
“ensure that offshore petroleum well activities are performed in a way that maintains well
integrity over the operational life of wells”.
NOPSEMA’s statutory function in relation to wells is set out in paragraph 646(ga) of the OPGGS
Act as follows:
(ga)
the functions conferred on (NOPSEMA) by or under this Act in relation to the
structural integrity of:
(i)
facilities (within the meaning of Schedule 3); or
(ii)
wells; or
(iii)
well-related equipment;
located in Commonwealth waters.
‘Structural integrity’ is defined in section 7 of the OPGGS Act, in so far as it relates to wells, as
follows:
structural integrity includes the following:
(a)
structural soundness;
(b)
structural strength;
(c)
stability;
(d)
fitness for purpose;
(e)
mechanical integrity;
(f)
systems integrity;
in connection with:
(g)
the containment of:
(i)
petroleum; or
(ii)
a greenhouse gas substance; or
(iii)
any other substance.
As such, NOPSEMA’s function in relation to wells is to be the regulator of well integrity, with
‘integrity’ referring to the containment of fluids in the well. While the conferral of that function
is incomplete without the making of the regulations, the regulations are required to confer the
functions and powers that the OPGGS Act envisages. The core purpose of the regulations in
Part 5 RMAR is therefore to ensure that structural integrity of wells is maintained over the
period during which the regulations apply to the wells. (This period is not necessarily limited to
the productive life of a well.)
There is a question whether the objectives of the wells regulations should also include both
safety and environmental management.
Issues Paper: Review of Part 5 of the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage
(Resource Management and Administration) Regulations 2011 (January 2014) Page 16 of 47
Maintenance of well integrity is crucial to the safety of all persons in the vicinity when well
operations are taking place, and also of the workforce on board a production facility whether
well operations are taking place or not. For this reason, the regulations in Part 5 RMAR are a
‘listed OHS law’ under section 638 of the OPGGS Act, ‘to the extent to which that Part relates to
occupational health and safety matters’. There is accordingly a strong argument for including
occupational health and safety in the objects of the wells regulations.
Maintenance of well integrity is also essential for the prevention of the release of fluids from the
well into the environment. Therefore, this would also be an appropriate objective for the wells
regulations. Note that the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage (Environment)
Regulations 2009 include ‘natural and physical resources’ in the definition of ‘environment’.
Both petroleum and the storage capacity of a greenhouse gas storage formation are ‘physical
resources’ in this sense. In the case of greenhouse gas storage capacity in particular, the
physical state of pre-existing and new petroleum wells is an important factor in assessing the
storage capacity of a geological formation. Section 586 of the Act, for example, requires that in
deciding whether to give a direction to remediate the seabed, NOPSEMA may or must have
regard to the principle:
that plugging or closing off of wells should be carried out in a way that restores or
maintains the suitability of a part of a geological formation for the permanent storage of
greenhouse gas substances.
Should the ALARP principle be applied as an objective for the regulation of well
activities?
The Australian Government’s Final Response to the Report of the Montara Commission of Inquiry
commented on the Australian objective-based regime, recognising that the onus is placed “on
industry to ensure and demonstrate to regulators that the risks of an incident relating to oil and
gas operations are reduced to ‘as low as reasonably practicable’.“9 ALARP is consistent with the
objectives in the Act and has received significant legal consideration in higher courts. It is used
internationally in a number of other occupational health and safety and high-hazard regulatory
systems, including international leading practice petroleum regulatory regimes in the United
Kingdom and Norway. It is also used by global petroleum industry bodies such as the
International Association of Drilling Contractors and the International Association of Oil and Gas
Producers. As a result it is a well-known and widely used concept and is understood legally and
in practice, including in Australia.
The RMAR currently does not include the concept of reducing risks to ALARP in relation to the
regulation of wells, other than in the definition of “integrity” in regulation 5.02. Consistent with
the objective-based approach to offshore petroleum and greenhouse gas storage operations in
Australia, it may be appropriate to amend Part 5 to include this concept as an objective for the
regulation of wells.
Should ‘good oilfield practice’ continue as an objective for the regulation of well
activities?
9
Final Government Response to the Report of the Montara Commission of Inquiry, Commonwealth of
Australia, 2011 p.2
Issues Paper: Review of Part 5 of the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage
(Resource Management and Administration) Regulations 2011 (January 2014) Page 17 of 47
In implementing the final Australian Government Response to the Report of the Montara
Commission of Inquiry (recommendation 68), the Government agreed to retain the definition of
good oilfield practice in the OPGGS Act. In April 2013, additional guidance was published to
assist the upstream petroleum industry to understand the meaning associated with ‘good
oilfield practice’ as used in the Act and its associated regulations. The Good Oilfield Practice
guidelines can be found on NOPTA's website.
Good oilfield practice is defined in section 7 of the OPGGS Act:
Good oilfield practice means all those things that are generally accepted as good and safe
in:
(a) the carrying on of exploration for petroleum; or
(b) petroleum recovery operations.
The assumption in referring to ‘good oilfield practice’ in the context of the RMAR is that if
activities are carried out in accordance with ‘good oilfield practice’, good and safe operations
will result and serious adverse events will be avoided. This includes maintaining isolation and
integrity, where appropriate, between individual petroleum pools and aquifers, and during well
construction, suspension and abandonment. However conducting operations in accordance with
“good oilfield practice” does not necessarily require that everything reasonably practicable is
done to reduce the risks that are relevant to well operations under Part 5 of the RMAR. The
‘good’ and ‘safe’ practices to which it refers relate, rather, to economically efficient and
effective recovery of resources and preservation of resources. There is therefore a strong
argument that ‘good oilfield practice’ has no place either as an objective or as a requirement in
Part 5 RMAR
Submissions to this Issues Paper may wish to consider and comment on the
following:
3.1
What is an appropriate objective for the regulation of well operations?
3.2
Should the regulation of well operations have the same standard as the remainder
of the regulatory system, namely reducing risks to ALARP?
3.3
If ALARP were not chosen what alternatives could be used?
Regulatory Impact Considerations
The intent of clarifying the objective of Part 5 of the RMAR should not present a new or
additional regulatory burden, and will assist industry to understand the overarching purpose of
the regulation of well operations.
Issues Paper: Review of Part 5 of the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage
(Resource Management and Administration) Regulations 2011 (January 2014) Page 18 of 47
Chapter 4: The Framework for the Regulation of Wells
This chapter discusses the duties and requirements on titleholders in relation to wells, as well as
a framework for the regulation of wells. That framework reflects the requirement on
titleholders to submit a WOMP to NOPSEMA prior to carrying out well activities (Regulation
5.04), unless there is an emergency which could injure people, damage a natural resource, or
result in a discharge of fluids. As such, this Chapter discusses:

What are the appropriate contents for a WOMP?

What is the appropriate process for submitting and assessing a WOMP?

When should a WOMP be revised and what would trigger a variation?

When should a WOMP be terminated, or acceptance withdrawn?
What are the appropriate duties and requirements for titleholders?
The duties and requirements imposed on titleholders in relation to wells help determine the
framework for the regulation of wells.
Clause 13A and 13B of Schedule 3 to the Act impose an occupational health and safety duty on
the petroleum titleholder/greenhouse gas titleholder in respect of wells. These state that the
titleholder must ensure that the risks to the health and safety of persons at or near a facility
from a well are as low as reasonably practicable.
In addition, Regulation 5.26 of the RMAR imposes a requirement on titleholders to “control well
integrity hazards or risk”:
A titleholder commits an offence if:
a. the titleholder is operating a well in a title area; and
b. either:
i. a well integrity hazard has been identified for the well; or
ii. there has been a significant increase in an existing risk for the
well; and
c. the titleholder has not controlled the well integrity hazard or risk.
Penalty: 80 penalty units
As noted above, titleholders are subject to an occupational health and safety duty under
Schedule 3 to the OPGGS Act. This duty does not need to be repeated in Part 5 of the RMAR,
although an option may be to reference the duty in relation to acceptance criteria for a WOMP
and the possible application of the ALARP principle to the regulation of well operations.
An additional consideration is the relationship between the titleholder and the drilling
contractor or other contractors who are undertaking well activities. As discussed above, Clause
13A and 13B of Schedule 3 to the Act impose an occupational health and safety duty on the
petroleum titleholder/greenhouse gas titleholder in respect of wells. This duty means that
titleholders are subject to the obligation to ensure that wells are designed, maintained and
operated so that risks to health and safety are reduced to as low as reasonably practicable.
Under the Part 5 of the RMAR titleholders must, in order to undertake a well activity, apply to
the regulator for acceptance of a WOMP and seek approval from NOPSEMA for specific well
Issues Paper: Review of Part 5 of the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage
(Resource Management and Administration) Regulations 2011 (January 2014) Page 19 of 47
activities. However, it is not necessarily only the titleholder who will be involved well activities.
Other parties typically involved include drilling contractors and other “third party” contractors.
As such, the policy question remains as to whether there is a need for a general duty of care for
wells in the OPGGS Act and whether such a duty should be an occupational health and safety
duty (which are largely covered by Schedule 3, clauses 10 and 11) or a duty to ensure that well
integrity is maintained.
Submissions to this Issues Paper may wish to consider and comment on the
following:
4.1
What are the appropriate duties and requirements for titleholders in relation to
the management of well operations?
4.2
Should titleholder requirements be extended to include inactive wells?
4.3
Should there be a general duty of care requirement in relation to wells in the
OPGGS Act?
Are the definitions of “well” and “well activity” appropriate?
Before considering the scope and purpose of the framework for regulating wells, it is necessary
to understand the meaning of “well” and “well activity” as they currently apply under the
OPGGS Act and Part 5 of the RMAR.
The word “well” is defined in the OPGGS Act (section 7) to mean “a hole in the seabed or subsoil
made by drilling, boring or any other means” in connection with a range of petroleum and
greenhouse gas storage activities, but not including a seismic shot hole. For the purposes of Part
5 of the RMAR, “well” is defined to include “all equipment located downhole from a well”
(regulation 5.02).
While the definition of “well” includes abandoned or suspended wells, the provisions of Part 5
of the RMAR focus on well activities or the operation of a well. Wells that have been abandoned
or suspended are therefore not currently covered by the requirements of Part 5. For example,
the current Part 5 of the RMAR provides that a titleholder must have an accepted WOMP in
order to conduct a well activity (regulation 5.04), and that it must conduct the activity in line
with the accepted WOMP (regulation 5.05). A “well activity” is defined (regulation 5.02) as “an
activity relating to a well that is carried out during the life of the well.” A list of examples
accompanies this definition:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Exploratory drilling
Production drilling
Appraisal drilling
Testing a well
Well drilling
A wireline operation
A workover operation
A well completion or re-completion
Maintenance of a well
Issues Paper: Review of Part 5 of the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage
(Resource Management and Administration) Regulations 2011 (January 2014) Page 20 of 47
10. Abandonment or suspension of a well
As such, a WOMP is not currently required for wells that have been abandoned or suspended.
Further discussion on abandoned and suspended (known as inactive) wells follows in Chapter 6.
Although this list of examples is included, the definition of well activity itself is vague and, in
practice, substantially similar to the list of well activities that currently require specific activity
approvals under regulation 5.22, if the activity would lead to a physical change to the well bore.
These are:
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.
well drilling
well testing
well completion
abandonment or suspension of a well
well intervention
The similarity of the definition of “well activity” and the list of activities currently requiring
specific activity approvals has created some confusion. A discussion on specific activity
approvals is in Chapter 5, however it is worth noting that the Government is considering
removing the requirement for specific well activity approvals.
Submissions to this Issues Paper may wish to consider and comment on the
following:
4.4
Are the definitions of “well” and “well activity” appropriate?
4.5
If not, what would be an appropriate alternative definition?
4.6
Is it useful to have a separate term “well-related equipment” in the definition in
the OPGGS Act, or should this be part of the well definition?
Is the scope and purpose of the framework for the regulation of wells appropriate?
Recommendation 2 of the Montara Commission of Inquiry is that WOMPs should continue to be
the “primary framework document” for achieving well integrity, and recommendation 3 is that
WOMPs should be comprehensive and freestanding rather than cross-reference many other
documents.
As a ‘primary framework document’, a WOMP would be an overarching, permissioning
document which, when accepted, would allow the titleholder to undertake a range of activities
according to the scope of the plan. These activities may span several weeks or several years, and
several stages of an offshore petroleum project. This reflects the approach taken in the Safety
Regulations with respect to safety cases.
Requiring a WOMP in relation to wells, rather than well activities, would also remove the
regulatory burden on titleholders and also on NOPSEMA associated with the requirement for
specific well activity approvals in regulation 5.22. It would also mean that a WOMP would be
required to be in force whether or not there was any specific well activity taking place.
Issues Paper: Review of Part 5 of the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage
(Resource Management and Administration) Regulations 2011 (January 2014) Page 21 of 47
If WOMPs are to continue to be required for undertaking “well activities”, the scope of the
WOMP remains unclear; for example, how many well activities, across how many wells and/or
how many title areas should appropriately be covered by a WOMP? Part 5 does not specify that
a well activity must only be covered by one WOMP however logic implies that a well activity
undertaken for a specific well would be included in a single WOMP. Indeed the Regulator could
not approve a WOMP for an activity if there is not sufficient detail to meet all content
requirements, which is likely to be the case if the plans for the well activity are spread across
more than one WOMP. In addition, Part 5 implies that there should be one WOMP per title, as
paragraph 5.04(1) (b) refers to “an accepted well operations management plan in force for
undertaking the well activity in the title area.”
As a starting point, a well activity should not be subject to more than one WOMP, as this could
create ambiguity as to which WOMP is the prevailing plan for a well. From that premise, the
scope may consider the inclusion in WOMPS of wells that have similar hazards and risks and a
similar purpose or basis of design and construction as an appropriate approach to managing
wells. Consideration may be given as to whether the acceptance criterion in regulation
5.08(1)(a) that “the plan is appropriate for the nature and scale of the well activity” gives
NOPSEMA sufficient ability to refuse to accept a WOMP that purports to cover too many wells,
or wells that are too disparate in their characteristics or location, with the result that there is
insufficient detail or analysis of any individual well operation.
Stages of the activity
The RMAR provide that a titleholder may submit a WOMP “in parts for particular stages of the
activity” (5.06(3)c). The concept is similar to a concept in the Safety Regulations regarding
“stages” in the life of a facility, but the application of the idea to a WOMP has caused confusion.
In particular, while identifying stages in the life of a facility may be possible, identifying stages in
a well activity is less obvious. It may provide greater clarity to refer to stages in the life of the
well, which could refer to particular well activities or types of well activities. Allowing a
titleholder to submit a WOMP for stages in the life of the well may provide flexibility for a
titleholder who wishes to prepare a WOMP that only provides for a limited number of activities.
In practice, however, this flexibility already exists because the titleholder decides how many or
few activities to describe in its WOMP. Stakeholder views on the concept of ‘stages’ is welcome.
Submissions to this Issues Paper may wish to consider and comment on the
following:
4.7
What is the most appropriate scope for WOMPs and how should the scope be
determined?
4.8
Should the WOMP be the sole permissioning document in relation to well
activities, retaining the linkage between a WOMP and the conduct of well
activities?
4.9
Should there be no more than one WOMP in relation to each well?
4.10
What clarification would be appropriate for provisions in relation to ‘stages’ of
activities or ‘parts’ of a WOMP? Is the concept of ‘stages’ of well activities useful?
Issues Paper: Review of Part 5 of the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage
(Resource Management and Administration) Regulations 2011 (January 2014) Page 22 of 47
What are the appropriate content requirements for a WOMP?
Currently, the minimum contents requirements for a WOMP are described in sub-regulation
5.09(1) with acceptance criteria under Regulation 5.08. Regulation 5.07 also provides that the
Regulator may impose conditions on an acceptance.
As discussed, the WOMP should be a permissioning document recognising its equivalence to a
safety case for well operations. As such, a WOMP would be subject to the same conceptual
considerations regarding content, detail, referencing of other documents and the acceptance
process as a safety case.
The content requirements for a WOMP should provide clear parameters of the information
necessary to be provided by the titleholder to the Regulator to enable it to make an informed
decision about acceptance, and provide assurance to the Australian Government and the
community that well activities will be undertaken appropriately and in line with the identified
objectives.
Following on from this concept, the requirements for a WOMP should include:

The intended purpose of the well

A description of the hazards and risks throughout the lifecycle of the well

The basis of design of the well to address the hazards and risks, with a view to suspension
and abandonment, and

The arrangements for managing the hazards and risks, including the parties involved in
managing them.
The contents of a WOMP should provide an adequate context and level of detail for the
Regulator to understand the well activities covered by the WOMP and judge the credibility of
the demonstration that risks will be reduced to ALARP. The contents may include descriptions of
the wells and equipment, the management of the wells and the well activities themselves
(including the proposed schedule of activities and operational work). The contents may identify
the hazards that have the potential to cause a well accident, and include an assessment of the
risk associated with each of these hazards. This could include the likelihood and consequences
of each potential accident, the risks that could lead to foreseeable unplanned events and well
accidents, and controls that will reduce the risks to ALARP.
The requirements for WOMP contents should be objective based and flexible, and avoid
prescriptive elements as far as possible. This allows the titleholder to prepare a WOMP that is
tailored and fit for purpose for the well activities covered in that WOMP, and that will
demonstrate that risks are reduced to ALARP. That being said, there may be some matters in
relation to wells and well activities that will be universally required, and it may be appropriate to
include them in the contents requirements. For example, a WOMP should include details of the
titleholder’s organisation, a description of critical tasks for the well activities, competence
assurance, systems of work (including work planning/review and procedures) and change
management.
Part 5 of the RMAR provides that the Regulator may give the titleholder permission not to
include certain matters in the WOMP on the grounds that those matters “are regulated in the
title”. In the past, where the Designated Authorities regulated wells and also performed some
Issues Paper: Review of Part 5 of the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage
(Resource Management and Administration) Regulations 2011 (January 2014) Page 23 of 47
title administration functions, this provision would have allowed for some streamlining in
regulation of wells. However, since 1 January 2012 these functions have been performed by
separate agencies. As such, it is no longer appropriate to allow for an exemption of this type.
Basis of design
In terms of the basis of design of the well or wells described in the WOMP, the current wording
in regulation 5.09(b) is somewhat convoluted:
an explanation of:
(i)
the philosophy of, and criteria for, the design, construction, operational
activity and management of the well; and
(ii)
the possible production or injection activities of the well;
showing that the well activity, and all associated operational work, will be carried out in
accordance with good oilfield practice…”
Given the nature of the basis of design of the well as a key component of the WOMP, a more
appropriate approach may be to require the titleholder to describe the:

intended purpose of the well

the basis of the design to achieve the purpose, and

how the design and the well activities will be carried out to ensure the risks to people and
the environment are as made as low as is reasonably practicable (ALARP).
In this respect, there may be scope to require an independent review of the well design, noting
the essential nature of appropriate design for the future safe drilling, completion, operation and
abandonment or suspension of the well. In some cases, the capacity to restore the geological
formation to its original state may also require that the well have certain construction features
from the outset. Third party verification is discussed later in this chapter.
Notification, reporting and record-keeping
Currently, Part 5 of the RMAR provides that the WOMP contents include in regulation 5.09
details of when and how the titleholder will notify the Regulator, and give reports and
information and an explanation of the way that the titleholder will keep information required by
the well operations management plan.
The effect of these requirements is that notification, reporting and record keeping may be
determined on a case by case basis. This is not very transparent or consistent, and it would be
more appropriate to have clear requirements for notification and reporting to the Regulator,
especially in the event of a well accident. Notification and reporting is discussed further in
Chapter 7 in relation to well accidents and later in this chapter and in Chapter 5 in relation to
reporting on the status of a well. It is worth noting however that currently the initial and final
well completion reports and daily drilling reports go to NOPTA and not NOPSEMA.
In relation to record keeping, the details of the documents to be kept may differ between
WOMPs depending on the nature of the well activity. However the Safety Regulations require
the operator of a facility to keep documents required by the safety case in force for the facility
Issues Paper: Review of Part 5 of the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage
(Resource Management and Administration) Regulations 2011 (January 2014) Page 24 of 47
in the manner set out in the safety case. It seems appropriate to reflect this approach in relation
to WOMPs.
Contractor relationships
As discussed earlier, an additional consideration is the relationship between the titleholder and
the drilling contractor or other contractors who are undertaking well activities, recognising it is
not only the titleholder who will be involved in well activities. Other parties typically involved
include drilling contractors and other “third party” contractors. These relationships are often
managed through bridging documents or agreements between the titleholder and contractor in
control of day-to-day activities. These documents are relevant to the arrangements the
titleholder has in place for managing hazards and risks where other parties are undertaking the
activities. An option may be to include in the WOMP a description of the titleholder’s systems
for managing contractors, particularly where a contractor is in control of day-to-day activities.
Submissions to this Issues Paper may wish to consider and comment on the
following:
4.11
What are the appropriate content requirements for a WOMP?
4.12
What elements of the WOMP content should be prescriptive, if any?
4.13
Should the regulations provide that the WOMP include a description of the
titleholder’s systems for managing contractors?
What are the appropriate control measures in relation to a well activity?
Recognising that a well is a pressure-containing envelope, the question at the heart of
appropriate control measures is how well safety is maintained. Well control requires an
effective pressure containment system that includes cement plugs, the casing, cement between
the casing and the open hole, packers and other elements, as well as the pressure containing
equipment on the top of the well such as blow out preventers.
Barriers, defined as something that comes between the hazards and the surface, and as
articulated in the Montara Commission of Inquiry’s recommendation for a two-barrier policy,
are one part of the pressure containing system. The necessary pre-condition for barriers to be
effective is a competent pressure containing system. As such, legislating a prescriptive
requirement for a minimum of two barriers may not of itself ensure appropriate controls
measures are in place to maintain well safety. It may however be appropriate to propose a
guideline to articulate a two-barrier policy.
Key to determining appropriate control measures is the responsibility on titleholders to manage
risks to ALARP. As such, there should be a requirement on titleholders for sufficient and suitable
barriers in place, as part of an effective pressure containment system, to prevent an unplanned
release of fluids. If fewer than two barriers are in place, careful consideration, risk assessment,
mitigation and approval to deviate from a proposed guideline of two barriers is needed. A
possible example of where two barriers may not be needed is during top hole drilling. In this
instance, the requirement to demonstrate that risks are ALARP remains.
In this respect, the approach described above allows industry to come up with different
solutions to meet the objective of the regulations whilst setting a high bar without the need for
prescribing particular control measures. The oil and gas industry has seen rapid technological
Issues Paper: Review of Part 5 of the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage
(Resource Management and Administration) Regulations 2011 (January 2014) Page 25 of 47
change and a key reason for having a goal setting approach is the historic inability for
prescriptive legislation to keep up with changing standards.
Third party involvement in the regulation of wells
Drilling and well operations are characterised by considerable complexity. In line with the
requirements for a safety case, it may be appropriate to consider the incorporation of third
parties in the regulation of well operations. This approach was adopted in the United Kingdom
in 1996 with the introduction of the 1996 Offshore Installations and Wells (Design and
Construction, etc.) Regulations. These regulations introduced a requirement on the well
operator (titleholder in Australian law) to appoint an independent and competent person to
examine a well and to make reports and recommendations. The intent was to require the well
operators to assure themselves that a well was designed and constructed properly. Furthermore
the regulation requires that this examination should be done by a person with sufficient
independence and competence.
Third-party examination may apply to well barriers, including blow-out preventers, other well
control equipment and/or down-hole pressure containing equipment. Generally this type of
examination utilises expertise external to the company.
Submissions to this Issues Paper may wish to consider and comment on the
following:
4.14
What are the appropriate control measures in relation to a well activity?
4.15
Should third-party assurance be incorporated into the regulation of well operations
and if so, to what extent and in relation to which safety critical elements?
What is the most appropriate submission and assessment process for a WOMP?
Regulations 5.06 and 5.07 of the RMAR outline the process of submission and assessment of a
WOMP. These regulations require that the titleholder submit a proposed WOMP at least 30 days
prior to the proposed commencement of the activities included in that WOMP. The Regulator
must then, within 30 days, accept the WOMP, reject the WOMP, or notify the titleholder (in
writing) that the Regulator is unable to make a decision without further assessment of the
WOMP. A notification requiring further assessment also presumes that the Regulator may
request further information from the titleholder, and outlines the timeframes for that process.
Timing and decision making process
The requirement for a titleholder to submit a WOMP for acceptance at least 30 days before the
commencement of any planned well activities included in the WOMP is consistent with the
requirements under the Environment Regulations for the submission of an environment plan.
The requirement is also consistent with the provision in Regulation 5.04, that it is an offence to
conduct a well activity without an accepted WOMP for that activity.
The provisions in relation to the decision-making process by the Regulator, and the Regulator’s
ability to request more information, however, are less clear. Under paragraph 5.07(1)(c), the
Regulator is able to advise the titleholder within 30 days of receiving the WOMP that it is
“unable to make a decision without further assessment of the plan.” Subregulation 5.07(3) then
Issues Paper: Review of Part 5 of the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage
(Resource Management and Administration) Regulations 2011 (January 2014) Page 26 of 47
specifies that the notice to the titleholder must include “a description of any further information
the Regulator requires to be included in the plan”. An option may be to provide for separate
mechanisms in relation to (a) the need for further assessment prior to making a decision, and (b)
a requirement for more information prior to making a decision. Similar considerations maybe
applied with respect to a WOMP variation submitted to the Regulator.
A specific provision for the Regulator to request, or receive, additional information as part of its
assessment is applied in the Safety Regulations and will be applied to the Environment
Regulations on completion of amendments following the review of the Environment
Regulations. Creating this consistency with the Safety and Environment Regulations will improve
the efficiency of regulatory processes for industry. As such, a new regulation, similar to
regulation 2.25 of the Safety Regulations, may be applied. This would enable the Regulator to
request additional information at its discretion on occasions where clarification is required in
order for an acceptance decision to be made. The information will be required to be provided
within a reasonable period and will be considered as part of the submitted plan. This will, where
appropriate, enable the Regulator to avoid taking steps to seek a modification and resubmission
of the WOMP, avoiding potential delays in the timeframe to accept the plan.
‘In force’ vs. date of commencement
The current RMAR include a provision for the Regulator to specify a date on which the accepted
WOMP commences (paragraph 5.07(7) (c)). That is, a plan can be accepted but not in force for a
time. In practice, it is not clear what is meant by the terms ‘in force’ and ‘accepted’, and what
either of them means for the titleholder (e.g. Regulation 5.04 makes it an offence to undertake a
well activity without an “accepted” WOMP “in force” for undertaking the well activity). It may
be simpler to define the term ‘in force’ by providing that a WOMP is in force from the date that
the Regulator advises the titleholder that it is accepted.
Submissions to this Issues Paper may wish to consider and comment on the
following:
4.16
What is the most appropriate submission and assessment process?
4.17
Should the regulations provide for the Regulator to request or receive additional
information in respect of its assessment of a WOMP in order to make a decision, and
to request that information, separately from the provision in relation to being ‘unable’
to make a decision?
4.18
Should the regulations provide that a WOMP is in force on the date it is accepted, such
that ‘in force’ and ‘accepted’ have the same meaning in the regulations?
What are appropriate acceptance requirements for a WOMP?
The acceptance requirements for a WOMP should, in part, reflect the contents requirements for
a WOMP. There are four key factors relevant to WOMP acceptance: whether the plan addresses
the contents requirements, whether the plan and the description of activities is appropriate,
whether the plan demonstrates that risks are reduced to ALARP, and whether the Regulator is
satisfied the titleholder will meet its duties and the requirements of the OPGGS Act and
regulations.
Issues Paper: Review of Part 5 of the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage
(Resource Management and Administration) Regulations 2011 (January 2014) Page 27 of 47
Accepted WOMPs in the past have been high-level documents, often including references to
other, more specific documents that are not in the WOMP or that are only incorporated by
reference, and do not relate to any particular well or particular well operations. This approach is
unlikely to meet ALARP requirements. It is important that a WOMP fully demonstrates that it
meets regulatory requirements and the Regulator is able to make a reasonable decision on the
basis of the information submitted to it.
There may be scope to refer to some form of assurance that the WOMP is in line with other
legislative and regulatory requirements in relation to the extraction of the resource, such as the
Field Development Plan. However as discussed in Chapter 3, there is a clear delineation in the
intent and objectives of a Field Development Plan and a WOMP and an equally clear delineation
between the role of the Titles Administrator and the Regulator.
Finally, Part 5 of the RMAR currently allows the Regulator to impose conditions when accepting
a WOMP. This ability is not consistent with the requirement that the Regulator only accept the
WOMP if it is satisfied that the plan is appropriate and risks will be reduced to ALARP. If the
Regulator feels the need to impose conditions on acceptance, then it infers that it is not
satisfied. Currently this provision is consistent with regulatory powers under the Safety and
Environment Regulations, which allows the Regulator to impose limitations and conditions on
acceptance. Stakeholder views on implications across the safety, environment and RMA
regulations are welcome.
Submissions to this Issues Paper may wish to consider and comment on the
following:
4.19
What are appropriate acceptance requirements for a WOMP?
What are appropriate reporting requirements for Part 5 of the RMAR?
Part 7 of the RMAR requires daily drilling, initial well completion and final well completion
reports to be provided to the Titles Administrator. There is no requirement under Part 7 or Part
5 of the RMAR to provide these reports to the Regulator. Part 5 of the RMAR does require the
titleholder to also give copies of documents provided to the Regulator under that Part or in
relation to an accepted WOMP, to the Titles Administrator. The exception is in relation to the
reporting of emergency events.
A number of the Montara Commission of Inquiry recommendations related to reporting,
including recommendations 9, 14, 17 and 19. The recommendations focussed on reporting as a
means to providing a status of those barriers or controls critical to preventing major accident
events. That is, reporting on things that are precursors to more serious incidents. From a
regulatory perspective, reports such as Daily Drilling Reports are not reliable as a predictor of
potential problems. In a leading practice-objective-based regime the onus remains on the
titleholder to manage risks to ALARP. The analysis required to identify an issue from a Daily
Drilling Report is highly specialised and forensic in nature and the provision of these to the
Regulator and the resulting need for regulatory scrutiny would introduce an increase in the work
of the Regulator, without necessarily resulting in an improvement in regulatory outcomes. Daily
Drilling Reports remain essential for the company undertaking the well activity and for the Titles
Administrator in managing the resource. Reporting and notification of potential incident
precursors is addressed further in Chapter 5.
Issues Paper: Review of Part 5 of the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage
(Resource Management and Administration) Regulations 2011 (January 2014) Page 28 of 47
There remains a potential information gap in relation to the type and intensity of monitoring of
well operations, the level of assurance sought and the associated efficient and effective use of
the regulator's resources. In this respect, it may be useful to require a report or notification to
the Regulator on the state of the well at the completion of each well activity. This could include
when no work is underway, in the case of a well that is suspended pending further work in the
future or is permanently abandoned. This is discussed further in Chapter 5.
Is a variation or revision of a WOMP more appropriate? What would trigger this
process?
A titleholder may apply to the Regulator for acceptance of a variation of an approved WOMP on
its own initiative (Regulation 5.11). The RMAR also requires that the titleholder must apply to
the Regulator for a variation of the WOMP if:




there is a change in the understanding about characteristics of the geology or reservoir that
may have significant impact on a well activity
a significant new or increased detrimental risk or effect to a well activity occurs or has the
potential to occur (Regulation 5.12)
the Regulator or the Responsible Commonwealth Minister issues a direction under the
OPGGS Act that is inconsistent with the accepted WOMP (Regulations 5.30 and 5.30A)
or the Regulator requires a variation (Regulation 5.14).
The RMAR also provide that a titleholder may object to a requirement to vary the WOMP that is
given by the Regulator under Regulation 5.14, and set out a process for the Regulator’s
consideration of that objection (Regulations 5.15 and 5.16). Once the titleholder has submitted
the WOMP variation, the process for consideration and acceptance/rejection by the Regulator is
similar to that for a new WOMP (Regulation 5.13).
Part 5 of the RMAR currently only provides for the variation of a WOMP (Part 5 Division 4). In
practice, a ‘variation’ is taken to mean a submission that can be appended to the existing
document while a ‘revision’ would require a re-submission of the entire document. A ‘revision’
process may help ensure that all impacts of any changes are considered. Applying a ‘revision’
process may also mean there is reduced possibility of an accepted WOMP containing
contradictory information. An option may be to expand the grounds for requiring a variation to
include revision of a WOMP in certain circumstances. For example, a variation may be triggered:




Where the WOMP no longer accurately describes the well activity or systems in place to
reduce risks to ALARP, even if the risk hasn’t changed (i.e. through error or omission,
where there has been a change in titleholder, or where unexpected conditions are
encountered in a drilling campaign);
Where there is a new or increased risk to the well;
Where the titleholder intends to make a change in respect of the well activity described
in the WOMP that would add or increase risk to the integrity of that well;
Where the Regulator or the Responsible Commonwealth Minister has issued a direction
in relation to a well activity that is in contradiction with the WOMP.
However, a revision may be triggered:


Where the Regulator requires the titleholder to revise the WOMP;
Where the Regulator becomes aware of factors such as a significant change to oversight
systems.
Issues Paper: Review of Part 5 of the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage
(Resource Management and Administration) Regulations 2011 (January 2014) Page 29 of 47
Like the current regulations, where the Regulator requires the titleholder to vary the WOMP,
the Regulator should inform the titleholder of the reasons for the imposition of this requirement
and an appropriate timeframe for the submission of the revised WOMP.
The current regulations provide for the titleholder to object to a notice from the Regulator
requiring a variation to the WOMP. This provision is consistent with similar provisions in the
OPGGS Safety and Environment regulations, although the language is different.
Part 5 of the RMAR (5.13) provides that if a titleholder gives a variation to the Regulator, the
Regulator must within 30 days accept or reject the variation or notify the titleholder that the
Regulator is unable to make a decision without further assessment. As with the assessment
process for WOMPS discussed above, Part 5 does not provide for information to be given to
proponents to clarify the specific aspects of the WOMP that require further assessment. An
option is to provide a specific provision consistent with that proposed for assessment of
WOMPS, for the Regulator to request, or receive, additional information as part of its
assessment prior to making a decision.
Submissions to this Issues Paper may wish to consider and comment on the
following:
4.20
Should the variation of a WOMP be expanded to include circumstances where the
Regulator may require a revision? What would trigger a revision?
4.21
Should the regulations provide for the Regulator to request or receive additional
information in respect of its assessment of a WOMP revision in order to make a
decision, and to request that information, separately from the provision in relation to
being ‘unable’ to make a decision?
When should a WOMP be terminated, or acceptance of the WOMP withdrawn?
Terminating a WOMP
Part 5 of the RMAR provides for the termination of a WOMP (Regulation 5.17):
(a) when the titleholder withdraws the well operations management plan; and
(b) when the Regulator accepts another well operations management plan that replaces
the well operations management plan; and
(c) when the Regulator withdraws its acceptance of the well operations management
plan under Division 6 [i.e. the process for withdrawal outlined above]; and
(d) the end of the period of 5 years starting when the well operations management plan
was accepted, whether or not the well operations management plan has been varied
since being accepted.
Termination of a WOMP should be an automatic process in certain specific situations, such as
where the titleholder withdraws the WOMP or where that WOMP is superseded by a new
WOMP. It could also be argued that a WOMP be terminated, suspended or require variation in
the event that there is a change in the composition of the titleholder/titleholder group in
relation to a particular title. This is because a WOMP describes many things that are specific to
the titleholder such as the titleholder’s organisation and management systems. Generally, the
Issues Paper: Review of Part 5 of the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage
(Resource Management and Administration) Regulations 2011 (January 2014) Page 30 of 47
WOMP is a demonstration that the titleholder has developed a fit-for-purpose document for its
project. However, in practice there are often multiple titleholders for projects and there may be
changes in the exact title arrangements from time to time. An option may be to require revision
of a WOMP as soon as practicable in this circumstance, while allowing the existing WOMP to
continue during the revision process. In this circumstance the titleholder will need to conduct
well activities in accordance with the existing WOMP until a revised WOMP has been submitted
and accepted.
Currently, Part 5 of the RMAR provides that a WOMP is terminated after five years from the
date it is accepted – whether or not it has been varied since the date of original acceptance. This
may not be necessary, as the variation requirements for a WOMP should ensure that it is always
up to date, and it is likely that a titleholder will have revised its WOMP in this five year
timeframe. One option may be to provide for a five-yearly revision of a WOMP, but only if it has
not been comprehensively revised in the previous five years. This would, however, bring with it
substantial difficulties in determining what constitutes a ‘comprehensive revision’ in the context
of a particular WOMP. An alternative option may include expiry of the WOMP when all well
activities covered by the WOMP in question have been completed. Both these options will need
to consider monitoring requirements for abandoned or suspended wells which is addressed in
Chapter 6.
Withdrawing acceptance of a WOMP
Part 5 of the RMAR provides that the Regulator may withdraw acceptance of a WOMP.
Regulation 5.18 outlines the reasons the Regulator may withdraw its acceptance; if:
(a) the titleholder has not complied with the Act [i.e. the OPGGSA], this Part [i.e. Part 5
Regulations] or a direction given under section 574, 574A, 580, 586 or 586A of the
Act; or
(b) the titleholder has not complied with the accepted well operations management
plan; or
(c) the Regulator is satisfied for any other reason that its acceptance of the well
operations management plan should be withdrawn.
Regulations 5.19 and 5.20 of the RMAR provide that the Regulator must notify the titleholder of
its intent to withdraw acceptance of a WOMP at least 30 days before it proposes to take this
action, and allows for the titleholder to provide additional information for the Regulator to take
into account before making its final decision.
The provisions for the Regulator to withdraw acceptance of the WOMP focus on compliance
with the WOMP, Part 5 of the RMAR and the OPGGS Act. There may also be scope to require
compliance with other regulations under the OPGGS Act, in a similar way that the OPGGS
Environment Regulations includes that an Environment Plan must comply with the Act and
regulations (paragraph 11(1)(g) of the Environment Regulations).
Sub-regulation 5.18 (c) provides a very broad power whereby the Regulator may withdraw
acceptance for a WOMP for almost any reason. It may be more reasonable to provide instead
that the Regulator may withdraw acceptance of a WOMP where it believes there is a new or
increased risk to the well. This would prompt a requirement to revise the WOMP in light of the
new or increased risk.
Given the serious consequence of withdrawing acceptance of a WOMP, it is appropriate that
there is a process whereby the Regulator gives the titleholder notice of its intentions, and the
titleholder is able to provide additional information that the Regulator must consider before
reaching its final decision. It may also be appropriate that, where the Regulator makes a final
Issues Paper: Review of Part 5 of the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage
(Resource Management and Administration) Regulations 2011 (January 2014) Page 31 of 47
decision to withdraw acceptance, it issues a statement of reasons with the decision. This is the
situation currently under regulation 5.19 and 5.20 of Part 5 of the RMAR.
It is also appropriate that withdrawal of a WOMP is not impacted by, nor does it impact,
decisions in a court (current regulation 5.21 refers).
Finally, the current Regulations (regulation 5.19) provide that the Regulator may provide a copy
of its notice that it is considering withdrawal of the WOMP to a third party if it considers this
appropriate, and if “the titleholder agrees in writing”. It seems unlikely that the titleholder
would agree to such information being provided to a third party, even if that third party is a
legitimate stakeholder such as the Australian Government. The Regulations should allow, in
particular, for provision of information and documents by NOPSEMA to NOPTA in relation to
well activities, WOMPs, and any other matters as appropriate under Part 5.
Stakeholders should note that the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment
(Compliance Measures) Act 2013 received Royal Assent on 14 March 2013. The amendments
include enabling offshore petroleum regulators, and other relevant Commonwealth, State and
Northern Territory agencies to share regulatory information obtained during the exercise of
powers and functions under the Act and regulations under appropriate circumstances. The
circumstances under which the information sharing provisions may apply include for the
purposes of a joint investigation to comprehensively investigate an incident and pursue a
successful prosecution of companies at fault, or to educate other regulators about potential
operational risks that have been discovered during the course of compliance monitoring or
investigations.
Relevant agencies include NOPSEMA, NOPTA, the responsible Commonwealth Minister, and the
members of the Joint Authority and their delegates. In addition, the NOPSEMA CEO has the
ability to share information with other appropriate Commonwealth and State/Northern
Territory agencies where the information will assist those agencies to exercise their powers or
functions under legislation.
Issues Paper: Review of Part 5 of the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage
(Resource Management and Administration) Regulations 2011 (January 2014) Page 32 of 47
Submissions to this Issues Paper may wish to consider and comment on the
following:
4.22
When should a WOMP be terminated, or acceptance of the WOMP withdrawn?
4.23
Should Part 5 of the RMAR provide for a five-yearly revision of a WOMP, but only if it
has not been comprehensively revised in the previous five years?
4.24
Should Part 5 of the RMAR include terminating the WOMP when all well activities
have been completed?
4.25
Should Part 5 of the RMAR require compliance with other regulations under the
OPGGS Act?
4.26
Under what conditions should the Regulator be able to withdraw a WOMP?
4.27
In what circumstances should the Regulator be allowed to provide notice that it is
considering withdrawing a WOMP to a third party without the titleholder’s consent?
Should third parties be specified?
Regulatory Impact Considerations
The proposed actions in this chapter are designed to provide greater transparency, clarity and
consistency in the regulation of wells (e.g. providing for the same assessment and acceptance
process for WOMPs and varied WOMPs).
The introduction of the ALARP principle in respect of WOMP contents requirements and
acceptance criteria would not create an additional burden for industry as this principle is wellknown in relation to safety and environment matters.
Possible inclusion of ‘revision’ of a WOMP may result in increased effort on the part of the
titleholder, given that a revision will need to take into account how changes will affect the
WOMP as a whole. However, this may be necessary in order to ensure any variation or revisions
of a WOMP fully meets the acceptance criteria at all times and provides assurance that the
management of well activities is appropriate and comprehensive.
The requirement to have a WOMP and prepare information for the Regulator would not change
and in fact may result in a reduced regulatory burden for industry with respect to assessment
processes. The possibility of an additional requirement to advise the Regulator of the status of a
well at the end of each well activity would be new.
A requirement for third-party validation may result in an additional cost to industry as systems
are established to meet this requirement. However, these costs may be offset by the removal of
other regulatory requirements, such as the requirement for specific activity approvals discussed
in Chapter 5. This requirement may also result in improved risk management and, particularly,
improved planned maintenance systems and practices which implicitly indicate an improved
level of safety.
Issues Paper: Review of Part 5 of the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage
(Resource Management and Administration) Regulations 2011 (January 2014) Page 33 of 47
Chapter 5: Approval for Specific Well Activities
Under the current RMAR, it is an offence to conduct certain specific well activities without the
necessary additional “activity approval” (regulation 5.22). These specific well activities are well
drilling, testing, well completion, abandonment or suspension of a well, and well intervention
where the well activity leads to the physical change of a well bore. Regulation 5.23 provides that
a titleholder may apply to the regulator for an activity approval for these specified activities. The
application must include a description of the well activity and the titleholder’s proposed
timetable for carrying out the well activity. The assessment and decision-making process for the
regulator is set out in regulations 5.24 and 5.25.
As discussed in Chapter 1, international best practice in objective-based regulatory regimes
apply duties of care on those creating the risk to manage those risks to ALARP. In doing so the
regulations for safety, environment and wells require a comprehensive and integrated risk
management system describing how the duty holder will fulfil their obligations. As such,
facilities require a safety case, petroleum activities require an environment plan and it is entirely
consistent that the drilling of a well should be subject to a similar requirement.
In the case of WOMPs however, this approach has not been fully implemented in the wells
regulations. One of the anachronisms is the requirement for specific well activity approvals. As
discussed in Chapter 4, the WOMP should be the “primary framework document” for achieving
well integrity, and should be a comprehensive, freestanding, overarching, permissioning
document which, when accepted, would allow the titleholder to undertake a range of activities
according to the scope of the plan. In that context, the titleholder must manage all risks from all
activities to ALARP. As such, additional approvals for specific well activities does not meet the
policy intent of implementing an objective-based regime or of establishing the WOMP as the
primary framework document for well operations.
The rationale for specific well activities has been that there are certain well activities that pose
greater risks than others, and that oversight is prudent for these activities to ensure the integrity
of the well. The Explanatory Memorandum for the WOMP Regulations of 2004 says that: ‘As the
specified activities would lead to the physical change of a well bore they could alter the well
configuration. Given that, it would be undesirable to conduct these activities without the
Designated Authority’s approval.’ This reflects the historic objective of the regulations in relation
to resource management prior to the establishment of NOPSA when there was a schedule of
specific requirements and ‘approval’ was the norm.
Recognising that a WOMP may contain a number of activities over the lifecycle of the well, there
remains a potential information gap in relation to the type and intensity of monitoring of well
operations, the level of assurance sought and the associated efficient and effective use of the
regulator's resources. An alternative approach to approvals therefore may be that notification at
least is required. It may be useful to require a report or notification to the Regulator on the state
of the well at the completion of each well activity. This could include when no work is underway,
in the case of a well that is suspended pending further work in the future or is permanently
abandoned. In this context, a case can be made for notifications to help the regulator plan and
time its regulatory activities effectively.
Notifications are required as part of the UK safety case based regulatory system Information to
be provided could be similar to that provided in the UK Offshore Installations and Wells (Design
and Construction etc.) Regulations 1996 (see the text box below).
Issues Paper: Review of Part 5 of the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage
(Resource Management and Administration) Regulations 2011 (January 2014) Page 34 of 47
UK Offshore Installations and Wells (Design and Construction etc.) Regulations 1996
An approach that may be considered as a model is the oil and gas wells notifications
administered by the UK Health and Safety Executive. In the UK, the HSE requires notification
of specified well operations, either 21 or 10 days in advance, depending on the nature of
the operation. The purpose of the notification is to inform HSE of the forthcoming operation
and demonstrate that the planned operation will be carried out safely. Notifications include
detail on the well and site specific hazards.
Key to this approach is that well notifications do not form part of the consent process. As
such, consent from HSE is not provided for notified well operations to commence. HSE will
acknowledge receipt of the notification and the well operator may commence operations
after the notification period has passed, unless HSE has taken enforcement action to
prevent commencement. The onus remains on the well operator to proceed only if it is safe
to do so.
While there is not consent required to commence notified operations, well notifications are
inspected by the HSE, as are supporting reports including weekly well operations reports,
thorough review summaries, and combined operation notifications.
In the UK well notifications are a subset of the safety case. However, the approach may
provide a model that could be adapted to the Australian regulatory regime.
Regulation 19 requires the well-operator to report the following information to the UK
Health and Safety Executive.
Provision of drilling etc. information
19. (1) Where an operation to which this paragraph applies is being carried out on a well,
the well-operator shall cause to be sent to the Executive, at such intervals as may be agreed
or, failing agreement, at intervals of one week calculated from its commencement, a report
comprising the following information:
(a) the identifying number, and any slot number of the well;
(b) the name of any installation or vessel involved;
(c) a summary of the activity in the course of the operation since its
commencement, or the previous report;
(d) the diameter and true vertical and measured depths of –
(i) any hole drilled; and
(ii) any casing installed;
(e) the drilling fluid density immediately before making the report; and
(f) in the case of an existing well, its current operational state.
(2) Paragraph (1) applies to –
(a) a drilling operation;
(b) a workover operation;
(c) an abandonment operation;
(d) an operation consisting in the completion of a well;
(e) any other operation of a kind involving substantial risk of an unplanned escape
of fluids from a well.
Issues Paper: Review of Part 5 of the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage
(Resource Management and Administration) Regulations 2011 (January 2014) Page 35 of 47
Submissions to this Issues Paper may wish to consider and comment on the
following:
5.1
Is there an information gap in relation to providing advice to the Regulator regarding
the status of the well at the completion of each well activity?
5.2
Should the requirement for additional oversight of specified planned well activities,
contemplated in an accepted WOMP, be maintained or should the well regulations
move to a notification regime for certain activities?
5.3
Should the current definition of ‘specific’ well activities in regulation 5.22 be used as a
basis of the general definition of ‘well activities’?
5.4
What would be an appropriate process and timeframe for specific activity approvals or
an activity notification?
5.5
What would be the appropriate process for notifications where the nature of planned
activity changes?
NOPSEMA’s Responsibilities under the OPGGS Act
Quite apart from the question of the regulatory model that should be adopted in Australia (eg
notification versus approval of well activities), the OPGGS Act imposes certain responsibilities on
NOPSEMA in relation to wells that relate to the rights and obligations of titleholders that stand
outside the WOMP process. For example, the Joint Authority can only give consent to the
surrender of a title under section 270 if the titleholder has:


to the satisfaction of NOPSEMA, plugged or closed off all wells made in the surrender area
by any person engaged or concerned in the operations authorised by the [title]; and
to the satisfaction of NOPSEMA, made good any damage to the seabed or subsoil in the
surrender area caused by any person engaged or concerned in the operations authorised
by the [titleholder].
There are various other provisions of the Act that require NOPSEMA to have the means of
ascertaining whether the titleholder has complied with regulations under the OPGGS Act,
including Part 5 of the RMAR. NOPSEMA simply writing to the titleholder seeking an assurance
that, in the titleholder’s estimation, the titleholder has complied with the regulations cannot be
supported in relation to the period since NOPSEMA became the responsible regulator in relation
to the particular matter. NOPSEMA therefore needs to have the means of ascertaining from its
own records whether the titleholder has acted in a way that constitutes a significant and
unremediated breach of the wells regulations. Consideration therefore needs to be given to
whether the various reporting requirements that are proposed will yield the kind of information
that NOPSEMA needs to fulfil its responsibilities under the Act.
Regulatory Impact Considerations
The requirement for specific activity approvals currently exists in Part 5 of the RMAR. Removing
specific activity approvals and moving to a notification approach would remove some burden on
industry and the Regulator. The intent of a notifications approach would address a potential
information gap in relation to the status of the well at the completion of each well activity.
Issues Paper: Review of Part 5 of the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage
(Resource Management and Administration) Regulations 2011 (January 2014) Page 36 of 47
Chapter 6: Inactive Wells
There are currently no requirements under Part 5 of the RMAR in relation to wells that are not
in use by the titleholder and for which there is no immediate likelihood of being worked on. This
Paper refers to these wells as ‘inactive’. However, it is not unknown for such wells to leak
recognising that the risk is generally low. Wells that are suspended or temporarily abandoned
are currently included in the regulatory regime through the requirements for the approval of the
activity to abandon or suspend the well.
WOMPs are currently required for the undertaking of “well activities”, which means that a
WOMP is not required in relation to wells that have been suspended or abandoned, even
though there may be risks to the integrity of such wells. One option is to broaden the
requirement for a WOMP to “wells” generally to ensure that, abandoned suspended and
inactive wells must continue to be monitored and maintained in accordance with the accepted
WOMP, with consideration of timeframes for this approach if appropriate.
It should be noted that the Regulator has wide powers to direct titleholders and former
titleholders under the OPGGS Act. In particular, Part 6.4 of the OPGGS Act (Restoration of the
Environment) includes provisions that may be relevant to inactive wells. The simplified outline
of that part explains the provisions:
NOPSEMA may give remedial directions to petroleum titleholders or former petroleum
titleholders about the following matters:
1. The removal of property;
2. The plugging or closing off of wells;
3. The conservation and protection of natural resources;
4. The making good of damage to the seabed or subsoil.
What is the most appropriate way to manage inactive wells?
As noted above, inactive wells do not require a WOMP as there is no “well activity”. A key
reason for this is that much of the content requirements for a WOMP may not be relevant for an
inactive well. In particular, much of the management in relation to an inactive well is in the form
of ongoing monitoring and, where necessary, maintenance to reduce the risk of loss of
containment to ALARP. The management of an active well is much more involved as it includes
physical changes to the well which requires a heightened level of focus and regulatory scrutiny.
This is not to say, however, that inactive wells should not be subject to regulation. In light of the
reduced risk of loss of containment of a well, the level of regulatory oversight required is likely
to be much less than for a WOMP. Options may include introducing a new regulatory tool for
the management of inactive wells or in WOMP content requirements. Both these options would
provide greater assurance regarding the integrity of abandoned, suspended and inactive wells.
If the requirements of a WOMP were extended to cover inactive wells, and the definition of a
WOMP was altered to cover this situation, a titleholder would then be required to provide
sufficient information to the regulator on whether or not the titleholder had left the well in a
safe condition. This would require the following sort of information:

What method was used to render the well in such a condition that the risks to the safety
of people and the environment were reduced to as low a level as was reasonably
practicable (ALARP)? This would require information on:
Issues Paper: Review of Part 5 of the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage
(Resource Management and Administration) Regulations 2011 (January 2014) Page 37 of 47
o
the basis of design of the chosen method of suspension or abandonment
o
how the well was plugged
o
what the well was plugged with, e.g. plugs, caps, packers etc.


for example if cement plugs were set, how many, where are they, how was the
effectiveness of the cementing job verified etc.
What ongoing monitoring for leaks was deemed appropriate and the rationale for this?

What method of surveillance was planned to be used? e.g. cameras on remotely
operated vehicles, and at what frequency.
Given the nature of the plan, an option may be to have one general plan per title, which
includes all the inactive wells in that title.
Where there is a change of title, a new titleholder would be expected to continue to implement
the existing well maintenance plan, with a requirement to review it and confirm or submit
revisions to the Regulator within a reasonable timeframe, such as 30 days.
Providing for the monitoring and maintenance of inactive wells in a titled area does not address
the monitoring and maintenance requirements of inactive wells where there is no title or
titleholder (i.e. where the title may have been relinquished). Within reason, it may be possible
and desirable to require a management plan of a former titleholder, in line with NOPSEMA’s
powers under Part 6.4 of the OPGGS Act in certain cases. For example, NOPSEMA may give
remedial directions to former titleholders in relation to restoration of the environment where
that title has been cancelled or has expired (section 587), but it is doubtful that this section
would provide the necessary power for the Regulator to require an on-going well maintenance
plan from a former titleholder.
There may also be situations where the former titleholder no longer exists as a body corporate,
in which case the Regulator would not be able to exercise its power under Part 6.4 of the OPGGS
Act.
Regulatory Impact Considerations
If implemented, this would be a new requirement of the petroleum industry and may extend to
former titleholders as well as current titleholders. However, this requirement is consistent with
Australian Government policy to hold the titleholder responsible for the potential impacts of its
activities. Furthermore, although this is a new requirement it is a lesser burden than requiring a
full WOMP for all wells.
Submissions to this Issues Paper may wish to consider and comment on the following:
6.1
What is the most appropriate way to manage abandoned, suspended and inactive wells?



6.2
Should a new regulatory tool be introduced for the management of inactive wells?
In both titled and untitled areas?
Should ‘monitoring of inactive wells’ be included in the definition of a well activity?
Who is responsible for managing inactive wells?
Issues Paper: Review of Part 5 of the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage
(Resource Management and Administration) Regulations 2011 (January 2014) Page 38 of 47
Chapter 7: Well Accidents
The current RMAR do not outline specific requirements for the notification or reporting of
unplanned events, incidents or accidents. Instead, paragraphs 5.09(1)(e) and (f) in relation to
the contents of a WOMP require a description of arrangements for notifying the Regulator and
providing the Regulator with information about ‘well integrity hazards’, significant increases in
risks, and other matters.
A well integrity hazard is defined (regulation 5.02) as:
(a) an event that:
i. may compromise the integrity of a well; and
ii. would, if it occurred, have the consequence of a significant threat to the safety of
individuals; or
(b) an event that may involve a risk of significant damage to the environment or the well
reservoir of a well
In the absence of a clear set of requirements, there is scope for each titleholder to create
different notification and reporting obligations in each WOMP, or even to omit such details from
their proposed WOMP. In addition to this, where there is not a well activity there may not be a
WOMP in force. In the absence of a set of requirements independent of the WOMP, there
would be no way to ensure adequate notification or reporting of unplanned events, incidents or
accidents in relation to that well.
Definitions
Well accident
A ‘well accident’ has a place in the proposed regulations equivalent to that of ‘accident’ in the
Safety Regulations. Such a definition is required in order to inform the timely and appropriate
reporting of such accidents to the Regulator. A definition of ‘well accident’ would replace the
existing ‘well integrity hazard’ definition. A well accident is a notifiable event but distinct from
all other notifiable events because it involves a significant actual threat to a person or risk of
damage to the environment. Notifiable events are of regulatory interest because they may
indicate that control of risk was inadequate or degraded without it having failed completely.
The definition is required in a regulatory regime that imposes a duty to take measures to control
the risks of the events described in the definition; to underpin the definition of performance
standard in relation to critical elements; and as an event requiring notification to the Regulator
so that the Regulator can respond appropriately.
The definition of well accident should capture any unplanned loss of containment including a
release of well fluids to the environment. A deliberate release into the environment would not
be considered an accident as it would either be an activity described in the accepted WOMP –
and so presumably acceptable to the Regulator – or it would be an activity not described in the
plan, which makes it both a notifiable event and possibly an offence.
The definition should incorporate any failure of containment (i.e. unplanned events), and risks
of and actual deaths, serious injuries and serious illnesses connected with the well or wellrelated equipment. It is important in this respect not to include harm arising from any activity
related to the well where this would create duplication of the Safety Regulation requirements
regarding notification of accidents and dangerous occurrences by facility operators.
Issues Paper: Review of Part 5 of the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage
(Resource Management and Administration) Regulations 2011 (January 2014) Page 39 of 47
An example definition of a well accident could include any of the following:


a failure of containment in any part of the well or well-related equipment resulting in a
release into the environment of more than:
o
one kilogram of gas; or
o
one kilogram of two-phase fluids; or
o
40 kilograms of liquid; or
any death, serious injury or serious illness to any person caused in whole or part by, or
which may reasonably be believed or suspected to be caused in part or whole by:
o
the well or well-related equipment; or
o
fluids released from the well into the environment; or
o
any other notifiable event concerning the well.
Notifiable event
A definition of ‘notifiable event’ would be analogous to ‘accidents and dangerous occurrences’
used in the Safety Regulations and the Act for provisions concerned with notification and
reporting of such events on facilities. A proposed definition is below.
The notifiable event categories should ensure the Regulator is made aware of any event that
could require regulatory intervention leading to possible enforcement. For that reason it should
avoid requiring any notification of failures of critical elements that are part of normal operations
and have been predicted so that the risks are addressed by the WOMP and are being dealt with
by control measures in an acceptable way. This would include activities such as routine
examination, testing, maintenance and repair of critical elements.
The quantities proposed below are identical to the quantities used in the proposed definition of
‘well accident’ and are those used for categorising hydrocarbon releases by the International
Regulators Forum. It will remain up to the titleholder to specify monitoring systems for wells
and containment that are appropriate to the risks. The point of the quantified limits is simply to
distinguish between uncontrolled flows which are notifiable once they are discovered and those
which are not notifiable.
This definition, and the related ‘well accident’ definition, should include specific references to
well kicks. Under the Safety Regulations a facility operator must notify NOPSEMA of a well kick
exceeding 50 barrels or 8 cubic metres as a ‘dangerous occurrence’. For the wells regulations
such well kicks would be also notifiable by a titleholder in addition to a range of smaller well
kicks notifiable by the titleholder only.
The proposed definition also takes account of a recent suggestion from the International
Regulators Forum that regulators should be notified when a blow-out prevention or diverter
system is operated under particular circumstances. However, in reality this may relate to an
event that is notifiable under other categories in the proposed definition.
The proposed definition does not include a fire or explosion as a notifiable event in its own right
because such an event must involve a loss of containment that would be notified anyway.
Issues Paper: Review of Part 5 of the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage
(Resource Management and Administration) Regulations 2011 (January 2014) Page 40 of 47
That notifiable event, in relation to a well and well-related equipment, be defined as any of:

a well accident; or

an event that did not cause, but could reasonably have caused, a well accident; or

a failure of containment, including a well kick, in any part of the well or well-related
equipment resulting in a release into another part of the well or well-related equipment
of more than:

o
one kilogram of gas; or
o
one kilogram of two-phase fluids; or
o
forty kilograms of liquid; or
a failure of a primary barrier of fluid hydrostatic pressure leading to
o
a pressure build-up; or
o
a positive flow check;
and the operation of a blow-out prevention or diversion system; or

a failure of a critical element to meet its performance standard in any way other than a
failure identified by a planned test or planned maintenance undertaken for the purpose
of detecting and rectifying such a failure and so described in the well operations
management plan.
Exemptions
Three requirements under the current Part 5 of the RMAR, the requirement to have an accepted
WOMP, to comply with an accepted WOMP, and to have approval for an activity, do not apply in
an emergency (subregulation 5.04(3)) if:
(a) there is an emergency in which there is a likelihood of any of the following:
 injury;
 significant discharge of fluids from the well;
 damage to a natural resource; and
(b) the titleholder undertakes an activity to avoid the injury, discharge or damage; and
(c) as soon as practicable, the titleholder gives the Regulator notice of the emergency; and
(d) as soon as practicable, but within 3 days, the titleholder gives written notice to the
Regulator about the activity undertaken.
It is reasonable to exempt the titleholder from certain requirements in the event of an
emergency, as is currently the case under subregulation 5.04(3). A clear and transparent way to
do so would be to link these exemptions to the concept of a ‘well accident’, or ‘notifiable event’
rather than the more imprecise emergency. In addition, the impact should be reconsidered in
the context of risks to people or the environment.
What are the options for notifying and reporting unplanned events, incidents or
accidents?
For a well accident or a notifiable event a report should be provided to the Regulator outlining
the nature of the event. For a notifiable event, a report should be provided to the regulator, in
writing, within 3 days of the event occurring, and should include all material details relevant to
the event, and the titleholder’s planned response to the event.
Issues Paper: Review of Part 5 of the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage
(Resource Management and Administration) Regulations 2011 (January 2014) Page 41 of 47
Well accidents should be reported to the Regulator, as soon as possible. Consistent with the
Environment and Safety Regulations, well accidents should be reported to the Regulator verbally
within two hours of the accident taking place, and should include all material information
reasonably available at the time to the titleholder.
In the case of a well accident, the report to the Regulator would provide further information
following the initial verbal notification. It would also be appropriate to provide that the
Regulator may request additional or periodic reports in the event of a well accident. Regular and
periodic reporting during and beyond the Montara incident response phase, while not required
by the RMAR or OPGGS Act, were essential for public and Ministerial awareness of the ongoing
response effort.
Submissions to this Issues Paper may wish to consider and comment on the
following:
7.1
What definitions of ‘well accident’ or a ‘notifiable event’, are appropriate?
7.2
What are the appropriate reporting requirements in terms of timing and
responsibility?
7.3
What exemptions are appropriate as a result of an emergency?
Regulatory Impact Considerations
The options proposed are consistent with the Safety and Environment Regulations, providing
transparency in reporting which will reduce the overall regulatory impact.
Issues Paper: Review of Part 5 of the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage
(Resource Management and Administration) Regulations 2011 (January 2014) Page 42 of 47
Chapter 8: Compliance, Enforcement and Penalties
Australian Government Review of Compliance and Enforcement Measures
It is important that compliance and enforcement measures are adequate and effective to
prevent or deter parties from breaching their legislative obligations, potentially resulting in the
occurrence of incidents with substantial and widespread implications. It is also important that
the Regulator has appropriate powers to enable them to adequately fulfil their compliance,
monitoring and enforcement functions under the offshore petroleum legislative regime.
The Government Review of Compliance and Enforcement Measures that apply in the existing
offshore petroleum legislative regime, including regulations, considered whether these
measures are adequate and effective enough to prevent or deter parties from breaching their
legislative obligations, potentially resulting in the occurrence of incidents with substantial and
widespread implications for health, safety and the environment.
The Review was an outcome of the Government Response to the Report of the Montara
Commission of Inquiry. It commenced with the release of the Offshore Petroleum and Marine
Environment Legislative Review Issues Paper: A rigorous compliance and enforcement regime for
offshore petroleum activities in Australia for comment in October 2011 (submissions closed on
16 December 2011). The Issues Paper identified and proposed matters for consideration which
may assist in the development of a more appropriate and effective civil penalties regime for the
OPGGS Act.
The compliance and enforcement review was completed in mid-2012, with the Australian
Government agreeing in June 2012 to improve compliance and enforcement in offshore
petroleum regulation by providing a broader range of compliance and enforcement tools for the
Regulator, by:
i.
increasing the current criminal penalty levels under the OPGGS Act and associated
regulations, consistent with major hazard industry legislation;
ii.
introducing to the OPGGS Act a range of alternative enforcement mechanisms,
such as infringement notices, enforceable undertakings, civil penalties, adverse
publicity orders, injunctions, and orders for restoration, broadly consistent with
those provided for in like legislative regimes, as a supplement to existing criminal
penalties;
iii.
amending the penalties, including custodial penalties, for OHS offences under the
OPGGS Act to be consistent with the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (Cth) or
greater, as appropriate, consistent with a major hazard industry;
iv.
amending the OPGGS Act to allow for continuing penalties, for appropriate strict
liability offences; and
v.
redrafting NOPSEMA’s inspectorate powers to provide greater clarity and
consistency between the inspectorial powers and roles and removing
unnecessary procedural requirements that are likely to impede NOPSEMA’s ability
to effectively perform its enforcement functions.
Legislative amendments
The Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment (Compliance Measures) Bill
(Spring 2012 Bill) received Royal Assent on 14 March 2013. The Spring 2012 Bill measures
included streamlining NOPSEMA monitoring and investigation arrangements, introducing civil
Issues Paper: Review of Part 5 of the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage
(Resource Management and Administration) Regulations 2011 (January 2014) Page 43 of 47
penalties, increasing some criminal penalties, and enabling the sharing of regulatory information
between authorities within the regime.
The Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment (Compliance Measures No.
2) Bill 2013 (Autumn 2013 Bill) received Royal Assent on 28 May 2013. The Autumn 2013 Bill
includes measures to:
 Implement a range of alternative enforcement mechanisms to implement the findings
of the review of compliance and enforcement mechanisms conducted as part of the
Government Response to the Report of the Montara Commission of Inquiry;
 Implement the agreed recommendations in the whole-of-Government ‘polluter pays’
report developed as part of the Government Response to the Report of the Montara
Commission of Inquiry, including an express polluter pays obligation in the OPGGSA and
a third party cost recovery mechanism;
 Clarify insurance requirements in the OPGGSA to ensure that maintenance of sufficient
financial assurance is compulsory and to clarify the compliance role of the regulator;
 Enable NOPSEMA inspectors to issue environmental prohibition notices and
environmental improvement notices to require petroleum titleholders to take action
where required to remove significant threats to the environment;
 Require NOPSEMA to publish OH&S and environment improvement notices and
prohibition notices on its website; and
 Implement multiple titleholder arrangements in the regulations
The Australian Government has agreed to update the compliance tools available under the
OPGGS Act. The Review of Compliance and Enforcement Measures has been completed and
changes, accepted by the Government, are being implemented. Noting this, penalty and
offence offence provisions in relation to the regulation of well operations will be consistent
with the legislative amendments from the two OPGGS Compliance Measures Bills.
Regulatory Impact Considerations
Changes to the compliance and enforcement regime should not result in a change from current
practice.
Issues Paper: Review of Part 5 of the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage
(Resource Management and Administration) Regulations 2011 (January 2014) Page 44 of 47
Chapter 9: Next Steps
The Department of Industry will draw upon submissions to prepare a report for Australian
Government consideration. The Department plans to make its recommendations to the
Government in the second quarter 2014, with any amendments to legislation or regulations to
proceed thereafter in accordance with applicable Parliamentary or Executive Council timetables.
Issues Paper: Review of Part 5 of the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage
(Resource Management and Administration) Regulations 2011 (January 2014) Page 45 of 47
APPENDIX 1: Abbreviations and Acronyms
ALARP
As Low As Reasonably Practicable
CoI
Commission of Inquiry
Cth
Commonwealth
DA
Designated Authority
EP
Environment Plan
FDP
Field Development Plan
GA
Geoscience Australia
HSE
Health Safety and Environment
IRF
International Regulators’ Forum
JA
Joint Authority
MODU
Mobile Offshore Drilling Unit
non-OHS
non-Occupational Health and Safety
NOPSEMA
National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority
NOPSA
National Offshore Petroleum Safety Authority
NOPTA
National Offshore Petroleum Titles Administrator
NT
Northern Territory
OHS
Occupational Health and Safety
OPGGS Act
Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006
RCM
Responsible Commonwealth Minister
RMAR
Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage (Resource Management and
Administration) Regulations 2011
UK
United Kingdom
WOMP
Well Operations Management Plan
Issues Paper: Review of Part 5 of the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage
(Resource Management and Administration) Regulations 2011 (January 2014) Page 46 of 47
Copyright Notice
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 Australia licence. To the extent
that copyright subsists in third party quotes and diagrams it remains with the original owner and
permission may be required to reuse the material.
This work should be attributed as: Issues Paper: Review of Part 5 of the Offshore Petroleum and
Greenhouse Gas Storage (Resource Management and Administration) Regulations 2011 (January
2014).
Inquiries regarding the licence and any use of this Issues Paper are welcome at:
Manager
Environment, Safety and Security Section
Offshore Resources Branch
Resources Division
Department of Industry
GPO Box 1564
CANBERRA ACT 2601
Email: offshoreregulations@industry.gov.au
Issues Paper: Review of Part 5 of the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage
(Resource Management and Administration) Regulations 2011 (January 2014) Page 47 of 47