Comments from Victoria about the Review of the Offshore petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage
(Environment) Regulations 2009
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the current review of the regulations. Please find our suggestions
below:
Terms of Reference (TOR) 1: Objects of the regulations
In practice, the objects are not applied in any measurable way and do not result in approaches demonstrating
Ecologically Sustainable Development. For this reason, Victoria supports option 1.3 with significant additional
wording. Cumulative impact assessment must consider:
1. the time element of cumulative impact over the life of the activity and the life of the tenement in all its
phases (exploration, production or retention and decommissioning)
2. the location element of cumulative impact over a given relevant area that may already have or may have in
the future other activities contributing to environmental degradation in addition to that caused by upstream
petroleum activities and
3. the combination element of cumulative impact resulting from activities that have multiple chemical and oil
discharges, heated water discharges, freshwater discharges, foodscrap and sewage discharges all occurring
simultaneously.
These impacts must be assessed for not only their acute impacts, but for the subacute and chronic impacts that are
more insidious and require well organised environmental monitoring.
TOR2: Best practice and continuous improvement
Much of the current practice and technology of the upstream petroleum industry is well out of date when compared
to onshore sister industries. Further, there is strong reliance by the industry on an entirely unacceptable patter of
using dilution by the ocean as an appropriate treatment option for the billions of litres of multiple chemicals,
freshwater, heat and miscellaneous other things that are discharged every year. This situation does not meet the
ALARP test, but is allowed to continue because regulators are put in the position of having to argue benefit per cost
in the absence of real environmental monitoring and research into sub-acute and chronic impacts.
More rigorous requirements for real and demonstrable continuous improvement in both practice and technology
must be incorporated into the regulations to ensure that regulators have a strong policy base from which to make a
case when faced with the inevitable argument over the cost of implementation. Cost is given undue emphasis by
industry in order for projects to avoid equipment upgrades and advanced technology implementation when a
discussion of what risk mitigation meets the as low as reasonably ALARP practicable test.
Victoria supports both options 1 and 2, but these do not address the real question posed by the TOR. None of the
options put forward actually address continuous improvement and only mildly approach best practice. Some
options with more rigorous requirements and transparency are necessary.
TOR 3 and 5: Consultation and notification – representation of interest groups and stakeholders
These two terms of reference must be addressed together.
According to the Act. There is not requirement to consult with other stakeholders and users of the ocean prior to the
allocation of acreage and issuing of tenements in the offshore area . While it is true that this may happen as a
courtesy, without a requirement to undertake appropriate consultation and a further requirement to consider the
results of the consultation, there are numerous case studies in which other ocean users have been significantly
impacted without any consultation and recourse. Additionally, because the consultation associated with these
regulations happens post the conferral of rights, consultation is really only notification. When a conflict arises, other
ocean users and stakeholders lack to sophistication of understanding about the upstream petroleum industry and
government processes to adequately negotiate for their rights. The Act is also disproportionately punishing on
interference with petroleum activities when compared to petroleum activities interfering with other users. In the
case of terrorism and the like, this is understandable, but in the case of fishers or recreation boaters, this is out of
balance.
None of the options provided in TOR 3 actually address the effectiveness of consultation. Option 3.5 is supported for
notification purposes, but significantly more review is required to find some options for effective consultation.
Option 5.1 is supported with the addition of compulsory consultation and consideration of results at the acreage
release and tenement issuing stages of petroleum activities.
TOR 4: Reporting arrangements
Victoria supports the review assessment of this TOR and agrees with a combination of the options 4.3, 4.4 and 4.5.
TOR 6: Duties and responsibilities
Victoria fully supports the review assessment of this TOR and agrees with option 6.2.
TOR 7: Transparency of current arrangements and publication of information
Victoria supports the review assessment of this TOR and agrees with a combination of the options 7.2, 7.3, 7.5 and
7.6.
TOR 8: Effectiveness and completeness of Oil Spill Contingency Plan (OSCP)
Victoria supports the review assessment of this TOR and agrees with a combination of the options 8.5, 8.6, 8.7, 8.8
8.9 and 8.12.
TOR 9: Alignment of Terminology
Victoria supports the review assessment of this TOR and agrees with a combination of the options 9.3 and 9.4.
TOR 10: The effectiveness and completeness of monitoring provisions
The options provided do not offer a real change to the current regime that only requires operational monitoring.
Operational monitoring is not evidence that the risk management measures have been successful or not. This
situation is also decades out of step with inshore and onshore sister industries that must have environmental
evidence of compliance, not just operational evidence. As regulators we constantly find non-compliances with the
operational requirements of the EP during audits and inspections. The impacts of these non-compliances on the
environment are never measured or reported.
Only real time environmental monitoring can demonstrate, as evidence, that the operational practices, procedures,
technology and equipment are meeting the ALARP test. Environmental monitoring must include assessment of
subacute and chronic impacts as well as acute impacts in order to be credible and for completeness.
Victoria supports option 10.4, but it must be augmented as outlined above to appropriately address the whole issue.
TOR 11: Decisions across the offshore petroleum development life
Victoria supports the review assessment of this TOR and agrees with option 11.1.
TOR: 12: Effectiveness of compliance and enforcement framework, including penalties
Compliance and enforcement work of regulators relies on the limited access to petroleum facilities and activities
entirely controlled by the tenement holders. This inefficiency has not been dealt with in this section, but is worth
noting.
Victoria supports the review assessment of this TOR and agrees with the implementation of the points i, ii, and iii
made in the body of the review. Point ii addressing additional lower level legislative tools is absolutely necessary
and the absence of these is decades out of date with inshore and onshore sister industry legislation. Also, this would
allow a “pyramid” model of enforcement policy to be implemented, consistent with objective legislation in Australia
and around the world. That is, a large set of tools in the advice and guidance category at the bottom used frequently,
some mid- level tools with mid-level penalties in the middle to be used occasionally and prosecution and tenement
cancelation at the peak of the pyramid to be used rarely. It is not clear that this would be an outcome of the options
offered. On the bases that this would be the result, Victoria supports option 12.1.
TOR 13: Other changes
Victoria believes that the objective of this TOR is well meaning , but the option needs more work. The option offered
takes away a great deal of certainty for community and stakeholders about opportunities for input to particular
aspects of petroleum activity, appropriate assessment of issues each time an activity is proposed that will consider
emerging and new information and a loss of independent assessment for particular aspects from organisations that
are also vested with business development responsibilities in the industry.
TOR 14: Any other matters
Not addressed at this time.