EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 52011SC1292
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER Results of the public consultation on Improving offshore safety, health and environment
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER Results of the public consultation on Improving offshore safety, health and environment
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER Results of the public consultation on Improving offshore safety, health and environment
/* SEC/2011/1292final */
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER Results of the public consultation on Improving offshore safety, health and environment /* SEC/2011/1292final */
In spring 2011, between
16 March and 20 May 2011, the Commission organised an on-line public
consultation on the possible improvement of offshore safety in Europe,
providing stakeholders with the opportunity to submit their views before the
Commission develops any legislative or non-legislative proposals in the various
policy fields. The consultation was based on a document that gave the
background to the regulatory framework for offshore safety in the EU. The
consultation outlined the key issues that need to be addressed and included 18
open questions, arranged in the following five topics: 1.
Authorisations.
Under this topic, the public was requested to give
their views on the authorisation practices and conditions for offshore
prospection, exploration or production activities. 2.
Prevention of accidents.
This section requested the public's opinion on prevention of accidents,
affecting both the health and safety of workers as well as damage to the
environment. 3.
Verification of compliance and liability for
damages.
In this section the public was presented with
questions regarding compliance by industry with applicable offshore
legislation, regarding the supervision and compliance verification of the
industry by competent authorities and on liability for environmental and
traditional damage caused by offshore accidents. 4.
Transparency, sharing of information and
state-of-the-art practices.
This section requested the public's opinion on what
information on offshore oil and gas activities should be made available to the
public, what information should be shared amongst the industry and amongst
regulators and on the use of state of the art practices to protect health and
safety of offshore oil and gas operations and damage to the environment cause
by these operations. 5.
Emergency response and international
activities.
This section presented questions on emergency
response to offshore oil and gas accidents, cooperation with non-EU countries
regarding oil and gas operations and on the application of EU standards by oil
and gas companies in their activities outside the EU. In total, 64 contributions were received
from all segments of the stakeholder community: Member State authorities,
industry, NGOs, insurers and citizens. In addition to the oil and gas industry,
companies and industry associations from other, related sectors (e.g. shipping,
classification societies) also submitted replies. Taking into account the
member companies that each industry body/association represents, the Commission
has received well over 350 disaggregated replies from stakeholders. The table
below shows the composition of the direct respondents. Oil and gas industry || 17 Other industry || 11 Public authorities || 11 NGOs || 14 Insurers || 4 Citizens || 5 Others || 2 In the following paragraphs, an analysis is
provided of the contributions received. All responses were carefully reviewed
by the Commission, which included an assessment whether the content of the responses
reflected the actual questions and/or had a bearing on the policy topic of the
question. During this process, similar responses were combined and some of the
responses – although valuable in a broader context – were regarded as having limited
bearing on the specific policy topic; these responses were either re-allocated
to the appropriate policy topic and combined with other responses or otherwise set
aside. The analysis below shows the responses for each of the policy topic
listed in the consultation document, for each of the respondents category listed
above. If a category of respondents did not have any comments on one of the
policy topics, these respondents are not included under the specific policy
topic. Authorisations Oil and
gas industry The industry is of the opinion that the authorisation
processes currently applied in certain Member States are considered to be
sound, ensuring the application of state-of-the-art technology and procedures. It
was mentioned that Directive 94/22/EC already requires the demonstration of
technical and financial capability before a licence can be obtained. Most respondents
in this category do not recommend any changes to the authorisation conditions
for offshore prospection, exploration and production activities, citing
stringent licensing procedures and safety case legislation in place in most
member states. The safety case approach must however be combined with robust
inspections and auditing of those cases, combined with an independent review by
an external party or independent function within the company. It is however
recognised that in countries with less experience in offshore oil and gas
operations, there could be less solid safety case regulations in place. The EU
should work with those countries individually, to bring standards up to those
of the best performing countries. Most respondents also agree that the EU
should promote setting up a consultative and advisory body of national
regulators, e.g. modelled on NSOAF, in which best practises are shared and to
ensure MS with less experience in offshore oil and gas activities apply same
high standards as more experienced ones. An industry association stated that,
while authorisation should account for full liability for damages, it should
also balance particular MS needs e.g. to not discourage smaller players. It as
also emphasised as essential to secure independence of expert safety regulation
from the licensing function. Whilst in favour of financial capability criteria,
industry and industry associations stated emphatically that these should not
preclude companies of different sizes from entering the market. There is also
broad agreement amongst industry respondents that neighbouring Member States
should be informed of any authorisation decisions, however there is no need to
actively consult those countries during the authorisation process. It is also
felt that most legislation is best placed at the national level, as national
authorities are best placed to judge applications for permits based on local
conditions. There were two industry respondents that
mentioned areas where current legislation/ practises could be improved: 1) some
national licensing systems are extremely cumbersome and should be simplified,
2) there is a benefit in a more standardised approach in the EU which should be
promoted, i.e. the harmonisation of procedures and standards and equipment taking
into account current best practises. For example a drilling contractor should
then be granted a certificate to operate in all EU waters. There are also still
different local certification and authorisation processes for use of equipment
and machineries, making it difficult to employ them cross border. The
definition of a general EU framework could be useful to assess and ensure both
technically and organisationally relevant HSE standards. Another company
highlighted that a licensing process that separates responsibility for
authorising drilling permits from rig safety and well operations oversight
should be viewed as best practise and where not yet the case, separate
regulators for licensing and safety should be established. Other
industry There is a general view, that the current
system for licensing is adequate, with sufficient information publicly
available on operational techniques. Respondents were of the opinion that other
criteria of the technical assessment of a licensee were e.g. the implementation
of a safety management system, the field development plan, contingency
measures, primary measures on accident prevention and asset integrity and
environmental assessments. Another respondent recommended considering other
parameters in the licensing process, e.g. location (of the installation), lifecycle
stage (prospection/ exploration/ production), type of company/ operation/
asset. The respondent also suggested considering limitations on license, e.g.
duration and scope of the license, options to revoke a license and options for
a temporary license. On the consultation of other MS during the
licensing process, opinions in this category varied. Some respondents felt that
with consistent high standards applied in the authorisation processes, there
was limited benefit of international consultations on authorisations with such
a requirement introducing additional bureaucratic burden. Another respondent
was of the opinion that existing arrangements and contacts between neighbouring
states would already ensure effective authorisation structures. Public
authorities Two regulators state that more information
is available once programmes have started than at the time of applying for
exploration licences, so it would be best to assess information at a later
stage too. In addition, companies should undergo regulator checks (including
financial provisions) before key activities start at each stage of the
operation. These checks should include safety, environmental control, and
technical and financial capability. Two regulators feel that authorisations
should be approved by two different regulators e.g. environment and health. One
regulator requested that there should not be an additional layer of EU
regulation as this could divert scarce human resources away from core tasks. A
blanket approach to all MS is not advisable due to different national circumstances e.g. cultural, legal
and geological. National regulators especially argued
that the international global framework which is applicable now and any new EU
legislation must be compatible. There is concern that the EU, through its
actions, might inadvertently undermine the effectiveness of the existing
regulatory and supervisory regimes in the oil-producing countries, especially
around the North Sea. Their view is that safety regulations will continue to be
handled most effectively on a national state level. For technical capacity, the main comments
concerned staff qualifications and experience (especially that of management),
lines of responsibility, company experience, management of contractors, and
staff audits. Additionally, health and safety, equipment certificates, and
environmental protection were mentioned. For financial capability, balance
sheets for three years should be provided, along with guarantees, warranties,
and proof of sufficient funds or indemnity provisions to meet any kind of
incident. With regard to state-of-the-art authorisation practices, best
practice, health and safety, and environmental concerns should be advised to
the EU with a view to modifying legislation. Many regulators stated that
neighbouring MS should be informed but not involved in authorisation decisions.
Regulators expressed concern with respect to Member States that are just
beginning to develop offshore oil and gas activities. A permanent working group
of national regulators could be established, based on the North Sea Offshore
Authorities Forum (NSOAF). NGOs Several NGOs commented that loopholes in
regulatory regimes need to be closed. Whilst UK legislation is held up as a good
example, it is considered by some that it is not robust enough. Authorisation
processes should be transparent, including environmental impact assessment with
possibility of public consultation. One NGO specifically stated that adoption
of safety case legislation as a possible minimum standard for the EU is in
itself not sufficient, citing various incidents in the UK sector of the North
Sea. One NGO requested that the regulator should be separate from any authority
that handles energy development/security of supply. All NGOs requested that
companies be required to cover all accident costs, without which no licence
would be given. The majority of NGOs respondents would only like authorisations
to go to companies that can carry full financial liability for any incident,
including future decommissioning of systems. Failing that, there were
suggestions to replicate the Offshore Pollution Liability Association (OPOL)
agreement, or to have an industry-led mutualisation scheme or an EU-wide
compensation fund. Licences should comply with EU-monitored minimum binding
standards; it was suggested by many that the remit of European Maritime Safety
Agency (EMSA) could be extended in this respect. Several NGOs felt that
neighbouring countries should be consulted and should also be involved in the
authorisation. Some NGOs requested the implementation of best available
techniques (BAT) e.g. regular maintenance including requirements for upgrading
installations as technology evolves. Citizens Citizens in general felt that if a company
can't afford to clean up after an accident, it shouldn't be drilling. All
citizen respondents would only like authorisations to go to companies that can
carry full financial liability for any incident. Strong legislation should
ensure that companies are held liable, with mandatory requirements to provide
necessary financial security in the event of an accident. One respondent felt
that on granting authorisations, a company's past record on health and safety
and environmental impacts, both within and outside the EU, should be taken into
account. Oil and gas projects should follow public deliberations on permit
application. Citizen stakeholders generally suggested that there is a need to
involve other countries in authorisation, where cross-border issues are at
stake. Others One respondent urged that there should be a
clear separation between the authority that grants and issues granting
instruments and the authority that regulates the operations of those
instruments, in view of conflicting demands on officials charged with those
separate tasks. However, the respondent cautions that there should not be
multiple separations of those authorities. On the issue of the financial
capability, the respondent felt that the current system is functioning well, albeit
guidance from the Commission could be appropriate and useful on criteria for
assessment of financial capability. The respondent also feels that any
consultation provisions of other neighbouring MS on authorisations would
require careful consideration. Prevention
of accidents Oil and
gas industry The good historical record of the sector
was highlighted in this respect; nevertheless, even industry stakeholders admit
that there is a need to challenge the industry to do better. Companies in
general support the Commission's review of the current EU framework governing
offshore operations. They are equally supportive of the Commission's
recommendations for reviews of current safety cases by operators and MS and
updates as necessary. Most companies agree that for the protection of the
environment a robust and interlocking network of international, EU and national
rules is in place, e.g. SEA Directive, EIA Directive, ESPOO Convention,
Barcelona Convention, Black Sea convention etc. Any changes to this system risk
being sub-optimal and creating a gap in currently applied legislation. Furthermore,
such a change should not result in reduced safety standards in those Member
States which already have a strong offshore regulatory regime. Most respondents
urge the Commission to avoid adopting detailed prescriptive legislation or
regulation at EU level, but instead promote the implementation of a
goal-setting regime, including dissemination of relevant international
standards. One industry association suggested a 'safety case' regime that is
goal-setting and includes formal acceptance by the regulator. On product
safety, industry is of the opinion that any proposals for action need to be
done in close cooperation between the Commission, individual MS/national
regulators, industry and the relevant standardisation bodies. Most respondents
are against setting-up a centralised EU enforcement/control authority. In order
to make improvements in this area at least 2 companies clearly stated that this
will not be achieved by new regulations, but by better application of existing
standards and best practise. It is felt by most operators that the ‘ALARP’[1] concept represents a robust
regulatory tool to ensure that adequate prevention measures are in place. One
suggestion made was that drilling equipment and other safety critical
infrastructure be inspected by insurance providers. Also, the performance of
the national regulator should in turn be assessed by another national auditing
body. Other
Industry Some respondents recommended the
application of goal-setting regulations combined with the Safety Case regime
(including third party verification), identical to the one used in the UK and
Norway, to all jurisdictions. This would include approval or acceptance of the
safety case by the regulator. Respondents are of the opinion that the Safety
Case approach can provide a useful tool in addressing some of the areas of
weakness in offshore regulation identified by the Commission. In this context
it was recommended that future European regulations should require all offshore
installations (including rigs) to develop and have approved an EU compliant
integrated Safety & Environment Case (which would include IPPC
requirements) prior to commencing operations in EU waters. On approval of a
safety & environmental case, the respondent suggested that strict regulator
guidance should be made available, aiming to deliver harmonisation between
regulators so that a safety & environmental case approved in one state
would likely receive approval in another MS, should the installation move
across borders. Respondents highlighted the requirement for awareness
structures and for training in all levels in organisations, to focus on
prevention of accidents. Health and safety issues should become a natural
element of the offshore industry and must not be perceived as being overbearing
or unnecessary. One respondent mentioned the requirement that not only
companies that purchase and apply equipment to ensure that environmental damage
is prevented (e.g. BOP systems) is subject to a regulatory framework, but also
the companies that are manufacturing and selling the components are subject to
a similar framework. This should prevent companies from buying cheaper and more
unsafe components. Another respondent suggested that the EU may enhance or
propose directives which the industry can use as basis of their performance
standards, on pressure equipment, electrical devices used in explosive
environments, lifting equipment and well control equipment. Public
authorities For health or safety of workers, there
should be a rigorous safety culture with robust training for disaster
management involving all staff/subcontractors. It was recommended that legislation
proposals should include elements on well design, well construction well and
control, as these issues are not or only very limited addressed in Directive
92/91/EC. In addition, it was suggested to introduce goal-setting elements on
safety culture in legislation. EU legislation should be based on best practice
in NSOAF countries. Others expressed the view that there is a need to take
steps to improve the safety culture offshore and ensure that the knowledge and
experience of the offshore workforce is effectively used by operators when
addressing health and safety. One stakeholder cautioned against a rush to adopt
new legislation before lessons emerge from the investigations into the
Deepwater Horizon incident that indicate a need for change. Another stated that
using worldwide standards in the EU would make it easier for multinationals.
With regard to the equipment, this should be certified by the manufacturer or
another body, as should safety systems. The UK system includes Safety Cases
which are submitted before operations start, and Notifications are sent to the
regulator at various operational stages. Finally, there was a request to
implement ILO guidelines on occupational safety and health management systems
(OSH). In terms of the natural environment, best practice, incident reporting
and lessons learned in other industrial activities could be replicated. NGO's Additional training is considered necessary
by several NGOs, and worker rights should be strengthened to avoid harassment
in the event of whistle blowing. Respondent mentioned the need to raise
standards in the EU, with the highest safety and environmental standards
applied to industrial activities. One respondent feels that industry should
invest more on research and development for preventing oil spills. Sanctions
could be taken by competent authorities were worker rights are not respected.
There could also be an independent regulator to examine and approve well design
etc, while some NGOs recommended stress tests of installations, equipment and
procedures. Ratification of the Barcelona Convention was mentioned by a few
NGOs, as was the extension of Seveso II and the Industrial Emissions Directive
(IED) to cover offshore drilling. Two NGOs requested specific funding for
R&D, and the EU should monitor abandoned wells. Citizens Citizens commented that existing regulations
should be strengthened and extended to cover all drilling operations in EU
waters. A respondent mentioned that the track record of industry on incidents
did not show any improvement in recent years and felt that EU standards should
be established to prevent environmental disasters like Deepwater Horizon.
Respondents felt that the use of highest standards for equipment should be made
mandatory in EU legislation. Old platforms must be updated to the best
environmental standards or stop production. A respondent recommended that when
drilling a well, a back-up rig should be available within 1 – 2 days travel of
the exploration time, should a relief well be required. The respondent also
suggested that abandoned wells should be regularly monitored by national and/or
EU regulators, and that companies be required to reduce their discharges and
spills of hydrocarbons. Others One respondent is of the opinion that the
most appropriate approach for the offshore industry is a goal-setting approach
and the safety case. It is precisely this approach that makes best use of the
expertise within the industry and that significantly frees up the regulator to
see the bigger picture and emerging problems. Based on experiences in the UK,
the respondent cautions for any move toward greater prescription in either EC
Directive 92/91/EEC or in entirely new EU legislation. Any greater specificity driven
by the Deepwater Horizon disaster may be solely applicable to that incident and
thus reduce the openness of the industry and regulators to the need for
vigilance with respect to other scenarios. On the prevention of damage to the
environment, the respondent feels that the best approach is to continue to work
to reduce accidents on a safety case basis. Verification
of compliance and liability for damages Oil and
gas industry Industry representatives argued that
compliance is an issue to which companies devote significant efforts and
resources and constantly strive to improve. They are also of the opinion that
the current system of inspections is working well. Any proposed changes to the
current system should demonstrate how they would ensure the necessary
competence and coordination to the rigorous and proven systems that are in
place today. Industry cites strong, expert regulators with adequate resources
as essential for securing compliance. Regarding potential liability, most
respondents do not support a mandated industry-wide pre-loss mutual fund, but
rather allow companies to make their own differentiated decisions how to meet
their financial obligations. Voluntary compensation schemes like OPOL should be
taken as a model. This and similar schemes should be promoted by the
Commission. Any EU initiative seeking to improve on national verification
systems must demonstrate thoroughly how this would be achieved. The industry
stresses that a voluntary financial security scheme is more appropriate for the
development of market-driven solutions in which a certain level of insurance
capacity can be maintained and developed. The industry also pointed out that
the creation of a further liability regime could create unnecessary duplication
and legal uncertainty over which regime is immediately applicable. It was highlighted
by one respondent that in order to assess any damage caused by an oil spill incident,
a baseline condition must first be established against which changes can then
be measured. Such baseline metrics are currently not available to all marine
waters. Any extension of the current ELD is thus difficult to envisage. One of
the companies suggested that a supranational EU safety agency with directive
functions, similar to EMSA, could be a useful step forward. A very useful
measure would be to ensure there are consistent methods for calculating
compensation awards across Europe. Other
industry Respondents are of the opinion that the
current goal-setting regime including the safety case mechanism, as is the
current practice in the UK, is the desired framework and best suited for the
future. Respondents further mention that the framework should be supported by
inspections and assessments by regulators and by third party verification
against performance standards, and recommend that the EU establish such a
process incorporating the fundamental elements of the UK process for major
accident hazards and extends this to health and environmental issues. One
respondent felt there should also be a qualification process in place for the
independent third parties. In the context of performance standards, one
respondent felt that these should also include standards on behavioural
aspects; this would require additional competencies of the independent
verification bodies in human factors, management of change and organisational
behaviour. It was also suggested that the verification process included the
possibility for direct feedback from the verification body to the regulator, in
stead of only to the owner / operator of the installation. One respondent is in
favour of one regulatory body for offshore oil and gas activities in MS; in
countries where more regulatory bodies are involved the respondent feels that a
single 'umbrella' body for offshore E&P activities should be established,
which would draw on expertise from the existing regulatory bodies. Respondents
further urge that regulators have adequate enforcement methods and authority to
ensure compliance of legislation or permit conditions. Respondents feel that responsible parties
should be able to meet the costs of an incident, as part of their initial
license application. Some respondents commented that the current application of
the ELD (in the UK) is appropriate to its intended role and should only be
extended if robustly justified; others felt that environmental liability should
cover environmental damage to all marine waters. Some respondents in this category
cautioned that, when extending the ELD, the current exceptions in this
Directive on pollution damage arising from ships should remain unchanged, as it
would otherwise cause serious disruption in the international regime and create
legal uncertainty. On liability for traditional damage, one respondent is of
the opinion that a more stringent legal framework is required owing to the
increased risk (in the UK) as a result of smaller operators with limited
financial strength buying and operating mature assets than the larger
operators. In this context, it was recommended that a system like OPOL is
developed within the EU to ensure that operators have access to adequate funds
to cover remedial damages as a result of an accident. Other suggestions
included establishing an EU Emergency Response Fund, in which all operators
should contribute. Public
authorities With regard to compliance, minimum
standards and best practice should be shared in the EU with strong cooperation
between trade associations and operators. There are requests for greater
sharing of information between the different stakeholder groups (regulators,
companies, works councils). Respondents mentioned the need to improve safety
culture offshore and ensure that worker knowledge and experience of health and
safety must be used by the companies, while internal audits and reporting
should be part of an environmental management system. One MS requires companies
to provide annual public statements on operations and environmental
performance. Respondents also stressed the need to ensure that an appropriate
regulator is in place, with sufficient resources, well trained and competent
staff and with adequate powers to intervene. Key measures proposed to monitor
compliance include an independent, regular inspection system with sharing of
well-educated inspectors between MS. One respondent mentioned that regulators
should also focus on a company's implementation and adherence to its own
management system. It was also suggested that there could be a dedicated and
qualified company employee working on site with close supervision from the
authorities. One regulator suggested that individual MS regulators should be
introduced that would share information with the EU. MS with considerable
experience of offshore operations should support those that are now starting to
develop these activities. One respondent suggested that costs for
environmental assessments and inspections could be borne by the applicants. If
environmental liability legislation is to be extended to cover all marine
waters under EU jurisdiction, the polluter pays principle could be extended to
offshore oil and gas industry. Yet this might encourage some companies to move
away from the EU. With regard to handling claims for traditional damage, the legislative
framework could be improved according to one regulator, while another says that
it is sufficient. It is important, however, to ensure that small companies with
a skilled workforce are not discouraged from operating in the market. Costs for
covering the environmental damages of an oil spill should include mandatory
insurance linked to risk of operation. There could also be a communal fund like
the Offshore Pollution Liability Organisation (OPOL), which could be extended
to cover other seas. NGO's On compliance with regulations, one
respondent suggested that MS consider adopting of strengthening disincentives
for negligence such as fines, removal of licenses and individual criminal
liability. Respondents felt that companies must be liable for all damages, both
environmental and traditional damages. EU-wide compliance should be mandatory,
and the Environmental Liability Directive should be extended to cover
environmental damage to all marine waters under MS' jurisdiction. One
respondent recommended exploring arrangements for compulsory third party
insurance, to ensure financial guarantees. In this context, the respondent
expressed doubts if the current insurance level under OPOL would be sufficient
to compensate for the full range of environmental damage and remediation costs.
Some respondents recommended a supra-national regulator to oversee national
regulators, with powers to ban operators temporarily. Inspections should be
regular and unannounced. In terms of individuals, criminal liability is considered
essential, as is the need to strengthen the rights of victims impacted by an
incident. Finally, finances should be mobilised quickly after a disaster to
assist those affected. Insurers One respondent felt that when extending the
scope of the Environmental Liability Directive (ELD), the current exceptions
with respect to maritime transport/shipping should not be affected in any way,
and that the proposed extension of the ELD to cover all marine waters under
jurisdiction of EU Member States should be concerned only with the offshore oil
and gas sector. The insurance industry further stated that oil and gas
companies are in the best position to assess their own needs for insurance. The
insurers alone cannot provide the sole solution to protect the EU against
offshore oil spills. Insurance companies do not feel that the Environmental
Liability Directive should be modified to cover all EU waters. Instead, the
geographical scope of the guarantee system for offshore oil spills should be
worldwide and not resolved through EU law. Respondents point out that several
international liability regimes are already in place for losses caused by oil
pollution. It is considered more appropriate to focus on these existing
treaties and international legislation before introducing an EU-wide mandatory
insurance scheme or revising the ELD. One respondent pointed out that European
insurance solvency law requires insurance companies to charge adequate premiums
to build up sufficient capital reserves. In the context of offshore oil/gas
insurance, a small and specialised insurance market, it is very difficult for
the industry to build up sufficient capital reserves. This is already very
challenging to achieve in a worldwide context, and even more so if the
geographical scope is Europe only. Moreover, many offshore oil companies have
as much, if not more, financial capacity than insurers due to the amount of
capital they regularly generate through their businesses. Their own ability to
cover these risks independently of any financial security instruments should be
one of the options considered. In this context, respondents refer to OPOL developed
by the industry, from which claims for pollution damage are met and the cost of
remedial measures are reimbursed. Citizens A respondent felt that regulators should be
adequate resourced and staffed, to ensure adequate monitoring to guarantee
compliance with health, safety and environmental rules by industry. If EU
countries cannot ensure this, EU monitors should assist. Citizens feel that legislation
should cover all EU waters, not only within the 12 mile zone as most platforms
are outside this zone, thus including all platforms and pipelines. Polluters
should also pay for (methane) gas leaks which might occur when a well is not
properly abandoned. To compensate for traditional damages, a respondent
suggested that industry be required to make contributions and commitments to a
Joint Fund as a condition for drilling in the region. Additional costs for
recovery and compensation beyond the financial capability of the responsible
party should then be covered by the Fund. The joint Fund should encourage the
collective improvement of best practice and efforts to minimise damage. Others One respondent feels that regulatory
regimes should provide for both the reward and the punishment of operators in
the offshore environment. This would encourage good operators to continually
implement best practices and would discourage bad operators from unsafe
practices. Operators should be required to demonstrate that it is implementing
industry best practices in conjunction with an on-going inspection regime
administered by the regulator. It should be done on a safety case basis rather
than use a prescriptive formula. The respondent also feels that consistent
environmental liability is required in all marine waters under the jurisdiction
of EU Member States, so that operators have clear standards to meet. The
respondent cautions against a strict liability system which would only allow
companies with the balance sheets to pay for any potential risk. Smaller and
less financially strong companies should still be allowed to operate in
existing areas of operation where the risks are well known and more easily
managed. Transparency,
sharing of information and state-of-the-art practices Oil and
gas industry Industry feels it is not in their remit to
judge what information would be most important to citizens. However, the
majority of respondents from the oil and gas industry have expressed an
interest to work with national authorities and the EU to examine the most
appropriate ways of sharing information provided that this does not impose
requirements on companies to disclose commercially sensitive information.
Industry is pointing to the exchange of information that is currently taking
place in forums like NSOAF and IRF. Via SEA and EIA Directives, Espoo etc. a
lot of data is already shared today. One respondent mentioned that the
information most relevant to be shared is standards applied by operators to
prevent major accidents and lessons learned from previous accidents and near
misses. One respondent believed the reporting should also include positive
aspects, e.g. industry's contribution to research, technology and economy in
the EU. Industry supports establishing an advisory body of national experts, to
exchange information between regulators and to promote the state-of-the-art
practices across all MS to protect health and safety of workers and the
environment. Other
industry Respondents suggested that information like
incident statistics, near misses and hazardous observations should become
public. One respondent suggested that operators should be obliged to produce an
annual HSE Public Statement which should communicate key elements of an
operator's activities to the public in clear layman's terms. Complete
transparency should be particularly the case in the event of an environmental
disaster or a genuine public fear of one. Respondents from the UK pointed out
that an industry network for sharing statistics and best practices was already
in place. Respondents also referred to NSOAF and IRF as good platforms for
sharing information to improve safety across the EU and worldwide, which could
also be useful for countries with an emerging oil and gas sector. Others
recommended that there should also be cross-referencing between the oil and gas
industry and other industries, on safety issues (e.g. pressure equipment,
lifting equipment etc.) and environmental issues (usage of chemical and effect
on water etc.). Respondents are also of the opinion that national regulators
should share the emergency response plans, to enable coordination of
international response plans. One respondent suggested establishing industry
state-of the-art practices in a publicly available register. On environmental
protection, one respondent recommended that EMSA's role should be extended to
cover water pollution in general, air pollution, soil pollution and utilisation
of chemicals. Public
authorities Citizens should be provided with
information including, inter alia, pollution detection, emergency plans, risks,
common indicators, operators, and timing. Views were split as to whether these
data should be published by the EU or by individual MS. One respondent
suggested the EU should take the initiative to define a common set of
indicators, to be used by all MS, giving information on the outcome of safety
and environmental effort in a particular MS. It was suggested that companies
should be sharing information on, inter alia, emergency operating technologies,
occurrence of H2S, best practice, lessons learned from incidents and equipment
failure. This information should also be shared with regulators and trade and
industry associations to encourage industry buy-in. Workers should have access
to occupational and safety-related documentation (OSH, responsibilities,
hazards, risks, work-related injuries, health, incidents etc.). In addition,
regulators should share best practice (regulation, standards, procedures and
incidents), company-related HSE statistics and critical equipment failure.
Forums like NSOAF, the International Regulators Forum, OSPAR, the Offshore
Industries Committee and those that exist for Baltic and Mediterranean states
could be used for sharing details of accidents, incidents, updates, national legislation
etc. For protecting occupational health and
safety, best practice (regulation, standards, procedures, incidents) should be
introduced, and information shared via a web-based EU database. Forums like
NSOAF could be used, but its scope would need widening to allow new entrants. Goal-setting regimes are best suited to
state-of-the-art practices, while an effective regulator should support a
robust regulatory framework. Comments on protecting the environment are
identical to those for health and safety; in addition the Regional Seas
Conventions could collect data etc. as currently done by OSPAR. NGOs NGOs requested that citizens be advised of,
inter alia, all offshore rig incidents, environmental impact assessments (EIA),
inspection reports, payments to governments and officials, and accident
records. Companies should share information on accidents, safety measures,
equipment, and conduct affecting health and safety. Regulators are asked to
share details of EIA criteria, inspection processes, regulatory initiatives, training,
sanctions, accidents, risks etc. Health and safety recommendations included
comparison with other sectors, while environmental support included, inter
alia, monitoring of the sea-bed and sub-surface waters. Citizens A respondent suggested that a wide variety
of information be made available to the public by oil and gas companies, e.g.
plans for any offshore infrastructure, volume of oil and gas extracted, reports
on environmental monitoring, health and safety records, accident statistics,
number of wells (active and abandoned), emergency response plans, demonstration
of the companies technical ability etc. The respondent was also of the opinion
that offshore workers should be able to raise concerns about dangerous
practices or safety failures, without fear of intimidation. Others A respondent cautions that the need of the
public to access information needs to be balanced against the need to ensure
security of the facilities. Public information should thus focus on knowing
what developments will impact the public and what measures have been taken to
ensure the safety and protection of the environment, the workers and the
public. The respondent is of the opinion that companies should share
information in on on-going, consistent and uniform manner, on e.g.
safety-related incidents, measures taken to prevent recurrence and best
practice developed by companies. In the context the respondents refers to
current practice of sharing information by OGP, on sharing of information in
industry, and IRF and OSPAR, on sharing of information between regulators. Emergency
response and international activities Oil and
gas industry Industry responded by highlighting that the
Operators Co-operative Emergency Services (OCES) Agreement is the organisational
framework employed in the North Sea and adjacent waters and that it works very
well. Together with the Global Response Network (GRN), the OPRC convention of
1990, and the capping device currently being developed by OSPRAG, all critical
elements are being covered by industry. Most respondents feel that rather than
fundamentally changing the scope of EMSA, the EU could focus on strengthening
the existing network of Regional Seas Conventions, to which non-EU countries
are also contracting parties. Two companies stated that what is missing
currently at EU level is a coordinated EU emergency response strategy that
integrates different technologies and strategies adopted by individual
countries. In this process it would be important to harmonise the authorisation
procedures for use of product and technologies required to combat oil spills
(especially for use of dispersants and in-situ burning). One respondent saw
value in the EU promoting the creation of an integrated Emergency Agency at EU
level, making participation of oil and gas companies mandatory. An industry
association agreed that EMSA could help clean up but that its remit should not
be formally extended. On the issue of international activities,
numerous operators in the oil and gas industry highlighted that they use the
same high standards of safety and accident prevention worldwide. However, it is
important to note that host governments may require changes in line with
natural, legal or other local circumstances. One respondent saw this as an
unattainable goal of the EU. Other
industry Some respondents felt that emergency
response is the primary responsibility of operators and national governments. Local
knowledge and expertise, as well as understanding response capabilities are
most relevant at this level and will be far more conducive to swift, decisive
and effective mitigation of the consequences of an incident. Others suggested
that initiatives like OSPRAG in the UK are extended to other areas in the EU.
On transboundary response, some respondent feel that joint working and
coordination arrangement between neighbouring countries already exist. Other
respondents were of the opinion that the EU should have a more active role on
emergency response e.g. on planning, coordination and funding for managing emergency
responses, and have agreements in place with EU countries and also non-EU
countries. In this context it was also suggested to extend the remit for EMSA
to also include offshore installations. Some recommend that EU response
arrangements are reviewed (including onshore response) to ensure that they are
adequate to protect to environment in light of a serious environmental
incident. Some respondents are of the opinion that
the oil and gas industry already apply EU standards elsewhere in the world. They
stress that any fiscal or punitive measure which might seek to ensure this
would disadvantage EU-based companies when attempting to operate outside the
EU. A more appropriate approach would be to ensure the existence of high
quality standards within Europe, the core principle of these are then likely to
be taken up by operators where possible without the need for coercion. Others
feel that when a company applies for a license in the EU, that company's
worldwide experience, asset integrity management and track record in safety and
environmental protection should be taken into account. Public
authorities EMSA was mentioned by various regulators
for (i) keeping inventories of response resources in each EU sea area, and (ii)
helping to clean up pollution if asked for help by a MS. One regulator
considers that emergency response is the responsibility of the operator and MS
concerned. An emergency response centre could be financed by MS and companies
working in EU waters; neighbouring countries could be invited to participate.
For cooperation with non-EU countries, forums such as NSOAF would be useful,
especially for MS with limited offshore experience. The International
Regulators Forum was also mentioned as good for sharing experience. One comment
was that EU law should promote exchange of best practice on offshore health and
safety with international organisations, especially the ILO. Legislation should
be standardised using best practice from MS that have robust regulatory regimes
e.g. North Sea area. Any new EU legislation must be compatible with United
Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. For companies operating worldwide, it
will be difficult but advisable to make them apply EU offshore safety standards
and practices elsewhere, but perhaps API standards could be used. Alternatively
global state-of-the-art standards could be introduced. NGOs One NGO requested that there should be
economic incentives to operators to act rationally with regard to emergency
response, and another requested that the EU should have a co-ordinating role. One
respondent was of the opinion, that the public should be given the opportunity
to participate in the decision-making process concerning prevention and
preparedness measures. The respondent also cautioned against the use of dispersants
for oil spills and urged that more study on their environment and health
impacts should be done. NGOs see potential in the significant experience of
EMSA for also dealing with prevention. Most NGOs require that EU standards be
applied wherever a company operates outside the EU, in transgression of which
the EU could take sanctions e.g. revoking of licences. NGOs often mentioned
that company structure should be changed so parent companies are liable for
activities of subsidiaries and/or subcontractors. One NGO stresses the role of the Regional Seas Convention
to foster cooperation emergency situations, in particular OSPAR which is well
advanced in this regard. Citizens A respondent felt that oil and gas
companies should be compelled to produce site-specific response plans to deal
with oil spills and other major incident, taking specific local conditions into
account (temperature, winds, sea state etc.), in stead of the current generic
response plans. Some citizens expressed the view that EU should sign agreements
ensuring that no oil and gas operations are conducted at weaker-than-EU
standards in bodies of water shared with non-EU countries. Oil and gas
companies registered in the EU should apply EU standards when they operate
abroad. Any party should be able to raise violations of EU standards by such
companies in EU courts. Companies that do not adhere to EU standards outside
the EU should not be awarded exploration or extraction licences within the EU.
In other words, companies that apply one set of principles extra-EU and another
set within the EU are not implementing comprehensive best practice. Others A respondent mentioned that oil and gas
companies must first comply with laws and regulations in which they operate.
The respondent feels that when companies have operations in another
jurisdiction, they will naturally gravitate to applying the standards and
practices of their originating jurisdiction since this are the one with which
they are most familiar. However, in the event of a conflict between the
standards and practices in their originating jurisdiction and their operating
jurisdiction, the companies are obliged to apply the latter. The respondent
urges that offshore jurisdiction should harmonise as much of their standards
and practices as possible. [1] ALARP refers to 'risks as low as reasonably
practicable'. It is at the centre of UK health and safety law and as such is
referred to by a number of respondents. For a risk to be ALARP it
must be demonstrated that the cost involved in reducing the risk further would
be grossly disproportionate to the benefit gained. In its most general
(European wide) sense it is a best common practice of judgement of the balance
between risk in absolute terms, and societal benefit - deciding at which point
further expenditure to reduce the residual risk is unreasonable