activity 12 months overview - nopsema...2012/12/04 · a formal risk assessment and justification...

12 month reflection

1A260980 4 December 2012

Activity 12 months overview

Staffing 104 staff in NOPSEMA, 26 in Environment Division

Assessment of EP submissions

89 EP submissions49 acceptances6 refusals70 day average to completion of submission

Environmental compliance inspections

7 initial compliance inspections complete as part of 2012/13 programNew policy issued

Environmental compliance investigations

100% minor incidents reported reviewed31 reportable incidents since 1 Jan 2012 (3 open, 29closed)

Environmental enforcement 8 enforcements

Operator liaison 130+ liaison meetings (most notification clarification)

Advisory: workshops 11 workshops, >320 operator representatives

Advisory: publications 17 documents published (policies, guidance etc.)15 environment-focussed articles in The Regulator

Data as at 28 November 2012

Welcome and introduction

Jane CutlerCEO

Workshop objectives

Three objectives for today:• Receive your feedback on the first 12 months of

NOPSEMA’s operations• Discuss several key environmental management

issues – OSMP– Spill response– advice & guidance

• Look forward – transitioned EPs– Ongoing communication & engagement

3A260980 4 December 2012

NOPSEMA’s Vision and Mission

Our Vision Safe and environmentally responsible Australian offshore petroleum and

greenhouse gas storage industries.

Our Mission To independently and professionally regulate offshore safety, well integrity

and environmental management.

Our Values• Professional – we will at all times be objective, accountable and maintain

a high degree of professionalism in our interaction with our stakeholders• Ethical – we will demonstrate leadership, respect and integrity in all we

do• Independent – we will make our decisions impartially, efficiently and in

accordance with the law.

4A260980 4 December 2012

Workshop Context

Cameron GrebeGeneral Manager Environment

Workshop structure

Workshop approach

• Going well• Opportunities• Threats to vision

6A260980 4 December 2012

Context• Going well:

– Transition from DAs to single regulator: resources, assessment notifications, consistency

– Ongoing dialogue between operators and NOPSEMA– Operators respecting independence and due process– Publishing policies and adopting transparent regulatory decision making

• Opportunities:– Advancing streamlining opportunities– Collaboration on strategic issues to proactively address issues– Improved effectiveness of operator communication

• Threats to the Vision:– Regulatory burden /duplication takes effort from delivering better

environmental outcomes

7A260980 4 December 2012

An environmentally responsible offshore petroleum industry

Assessments & inspections commenceSecuring minimum evidence to justify acceptance

Regulatory focus areasImprovements in OSCP/OSMP arrangementsRevision to Transitioned EP

Inspections program national focus topicsAdditional advice / guidance Financial responsibilityCommencement of amended regulationsEPBC Act streamlining

Increased focus on improvements –continuous improvement, monitoring etc.Promote strategic approaches

Comprehensive challenge to operators – ‘could even more be done?’

Impr

ovem

ent i

n en

viro

nmen

tal

outc

omes

1 January 2012 1 January 2013

Reducing unnecessary regulatory burden

• Progress– Removed artificial regulatory approvals and reporting

requirements– Publishing policies and adopting more transparent

regulatory decision making– Streamlined notification and reporting combined OHS and

environmental incidents

• Still to come– Accreditation– Other agency streamlining (National Plan)

9A260980 4 December 2012

Changing the way it is

10A260980 4 December 2012

• More effective advice and engagement

“Learn by notification”

• Space for scoping & planning strategic approaches

“Deadline pressure”

• Holistic assessment and linkages explained, guidelines

“Assessment roulette”

Questions?

Regulatory advice

Karl HeidenEnvironment ManagerImplementation and Regulatory Guidance

Regulatory advice

• Going well:– 17 documents published (including policies, guidance and forms)– Extensive feedback to operators

• Opportunities:– Further advice for key areas/challenges– Consistent terminology in NOPSEMA communications– More considered preparation for engagement with NOPSEMA on

regulatory requirements

• Threats to vision:– Operators must first and foremost meet the requirements of the Act

and Regulations - NOPSEMA Advice publications provide assistance to meet regulatory requirements

13A260980 4 December 2012

Guidance document hierarchy

14A260980 4 December 2012

OPGGS ActOPGGS Act

OPGGS (Environment) RegulationsOPGGS (Environment) Regulations

PolicyPolicy

GuidelinesGuidelines

Guidance NoteGuidance Note

Information Information PaperPaper

Document hierarchy

LAW• OPGGS Act & Regulations are the legal requirements

that NOPSEMA and operators must comply with at all times.– NOPSEMA decision making must be based on the requirements under

law.

ADVICE• Policies provide the objectives and guiding principles on how

NOPSEMA administers OPGGSA• Guidelines propose the approach, expectation or criteria that

NOPSEMA uses in applying statutory discretion– However an operator can choose not to comply with a guideline but

provide good justification.

15A260980 4 December 2012

Document hierarchy

ADVICE• Guidance Notes provide interpretation on regulatory

requirements, enable consistency for NOPSEMA and operators, useful instruction. – Not authoritative and other interpretations may be valid.

• Information Papers provide general advice and encourage better practice consistent with the principles of the Act and Regulations– However, decisions are based on the OPGGSA and Regulations only.

16A260980 4 December 2012

Regulatory advice

• Advice is provided at a range of levels to:– Communicate NOPSEMA objectives, interpretations and

processes – Improve consistency and encourage continual

improvement in industry.

• Two clear messages: – Operators are required to prepare EPs that comply with

the Act and Regulations– NOPSEMA decision making will be based on the Act and

Regulations.

17A260980 4 December 2012

NOPSEMA Advice

18A260980 4 December 2012

OPGGS ActOPGGS Act


PolicyPolicy

GuidelinesGuidelines



• NOPSEMA Assessment Policy• EP Assessment Policy

• EP Content Requirements • Petroleum Activity

• OSCP • OSMP

• ALARP• Consultation• Env Performance

Objectives• Env Performance

Standards• Reasonable Grounds• Appropriate… • Acceptable level

Questions?

EP submissions update

Sonya KrishnanAlice TurnbullAssessment and Compliance

EP submissions update

• Going well:– Plans are being assessed in a timely manner– Operators are implementing feedback and improving the

quality of plans

• Opportunities:– Greater clarity with environmental performance

objectives and environmental performance standards– Capacity to determine compliance

• Threats to vision:– Inappropriate environmental performance objectives and

environmental performance standards

21A260980 4 December 2012

Regulations

22A260980 4 December 201

Objectives and

Standards

14(3) identify the specific systems, practices and

procedures to be used to ensure that

the…environmental performance objectives

and standards in the environment plan are

met.

Recordable incident [4(1)]:

‘an incident arising from the activity that

breaches a performance objective or standard in the EP…’

14(7): quantitative record of emissions

and discharges…that is accurate and can be

monitored and audited against the

environmental performance

standards and measurement criteria.

15(1)(a): The EP must include arrangements for recording, monitoring and reporting information on the activity…sufficient to

enable to Regulator to determine whether the

environmental performance objectives and standards in the EP

are met

14(2) The EP must include measures to

ensure that the environmental performance

objectives and standards in the EP are

met

3(b) The object of the Regs is to ensure that any petroleum

activity…is carried out in accordance with an EP that

has appropriate environmental performance

objectives and standards; and measurement criteria for determining whether the

objectives and standards have been met.

Environmental performance [4(1)]

means the performance of an operator in relation

to the environmental performance objectives

and standards mentioned in an EP

accepted under these Regulations

11(1)(d) The Regulator must accept the EP if there are reasonable grounds for believing

that the plan provides for appropriate

environmental performance objectives,

standards and measurement criteria.

13(4)(b) define the objectives, and set

that standards, against which

performance by the operator in

protecting the environment is to be

measured

13(4)(a) address

legislative and other controls

Practice

23A260980 4 December 2012

Objectives and

Standards

Systems, practices and procedures

Incident Reporting

Records of emissions

and discharges

Environment performance

reporting

Measures

Object of the Regulations

Performance of controls

Acceptance Criteria

Measuring Performance

Reporting

Measure Performance

Regulatory Compliance

Controls & Implementation

Practice

24A260980 4 December 2012

Objectives and

Standards


Incident Reporting


and discharges


reporting

Measures



Acceptance Criteria


Reporting

Measure Performance



Practice

25A260980 4 December 2012

Objectives and

Standards


Incident Reporting


and discharges


reporting

Measures



Acceptance Criteria


Reporting

Measure Performance



Practice

26A260980 4 December 2012

Objectives and

Standards


Incident Reporting


and discharges


reporting

Measures



Acceptance Criteria


Reporting

Measure Performance



Case studyAn example to illustrate thought processes

27A260980 4 December 2012

Objective Standard Measurement Criteria

Drilling Fluid Selection Process will be used to select products that have the least environmental impact

Drilling Fluid Selection Process (Figure 6)Definitive List of Registered products (OCNS)

Drilling Fluid Selection Process will be used in chemical selection to select products that have the least environmental impact.A formal risk assessment and justification process is documented if OCNS ranked products* cannot be usedDocumented formal risk assessment

*The EP specified that chemicals must be ranked Gold or Silver using the Offshore Chemical Notification Scheme (OCNS) CHARM model or non-CHARM E and D to be considered acceptable

Case study

28A260980 4 December 2012




Drilling Fluid Selection Process will be used in chemical selection to select products that have the least environmental impact.A formal risk assessment and justification process is documented if OCNS ranked products cannot be usedDocumented formal risk assessment

Regulation 13(4)(b) requires objectives to enable measurement

of environmental performance

This objective isn’t a goal of environmental performance of the operator.

Case study

29A260980 4 December 2012




Drilling Fluid Selection Process will be used in chemical selection to select products that have the least environmental impact.A formal risk assessment and justification process is documented if OCNS Gold/Silver/E/D ranked products cannot be used.Documented formal risk assessment.

The measurement criteria repeats the objective – what records or evidence will prove that the selection process

was used?Commitment to document the formal risk assessment is good – although it

is not clear which objective or standard this is measuring

Regulation 13(4)(c) requires measurement criteria for determining whether the objectives

have been met

Case Study

30A260980 4 December 2012




Drilling Fluid Selection Process will be used in chemical selection to select products that have the least environmental impact.A formal risk assessment and justification process is documented if OCNS Gold/Silver/E/D ranked products cannot be usedDocumented formal risk assessment

None of these meet the definition of a performance standard.

What level of performance is the selection process supposed to meet to be effective?

What is the list of OCNS registered products supposed to do? How do you measure performance

against this?

Regulation 13(4)(b) requires the EP to set the standards against which performance

is to be measuredRegulation 4 defines them

as a statement of performance required of a

system, an item of equipment, a person or a procedure (i.e., a control)

Case study

31A260980 4 December 2012





These read more like a standard – what records or other evidence will show that the standard has

been met for all chemicals? What will NOPSEMA inspect, what will the operator audit?

Regulation 13(4)(c) requires measurement

criteria for determining whether

the standards have been met

Case study

32A260980 4 December 2012





Are all of the controls discussed in the risk assessment and other parts of the EP addressed

in the standards or objectives? Checking for CONSISTENCY

Are legislative requirements (particularly conditions set by other approvals) implemented

through standards or objectives?

Regulation

and standards.

Regulation 13(4)(a) requires

legislative and other controls to be addressed by

the objectives and standards.

Case studyAn example alternative for objectives

standards and criteria

33A260980 4 December 2012

Objective Standards Measurement Criteria

Select the lowest toxicity drilling fluid able to meet technical specifications.

Where Gold/Silver/E/D OCNS rated chemicals are selected – no further control required.If other rated or non-rated chemicals are required– Drill Fluid Selection Procedures will be followed.Drilling engineer signs off drill fluid selection process to verify that risk assessment is completed in accordance with Drill Fluid Selection Procedure.

Daily Report and End Of Well Report record actual chemicals used.Drill fluid selection form completed and signed off by drilling engineer for drill fluids used that were not Gold/Silver/E/D OCNS rated.

Key Assumptions: The EP had already justified why the risk of drill fluid discharge was both acceptable and ALARP, the EP had defined “lowest toxicity” and the EP described the drill fluid selection procedure.

Goal that directly relates to environmental protection. Relies on the EP explaining

‘lowest toxicity’. And justifying ALARP

Standards provide the performance required of

the controls.

Criteria that measure the objective and measure

the standards. Accounts for both the procedure and verification of the

chemicals used on the rig.

Questions?

OSCP submissions and National Plan update

Matt SmithEnvironment ManagerSpill Assessment

OSCP submission update

• Going well:– Exponential improvement in consideration of managing

hydrocarbon spill impacts– Operators revisiting capability assumptions

• Opportunities:– Reduce duplication between OSCP & EP in submissions– Challenge the status quo and improve capability and

capacity– Applying global industry initiatives– Continue collaborative culture for a range of risk controls

36A260980 4 December 2012

OSCP advice and update

• EP – Assess and plan to implement– What was my thought process to arrive at these response

arrangements?– What environmental performance objectives and

standards do I have for these arrangements?– How do I measure to ensure these objectives and

standards are met?– How do I ensure I can deliver according to my plan?

• OSCP – Emergency response arrangements– How am I going to respond?– How will I test the arrangements to ensure I can deliver?

37A260980 4 December 2012

OSCP assessment process

38A260980 4 December 2012

Input provided to Lead Assessor for notification

Assessment findings tested and recorded

Detailed topic based assessment of EP & OSCP

EP & OSCP assessment scope determined

EP & OSCP sent to Spill Assessment team

Submission made to NOPSEMA

Threats to vision

39A260980 4 December 2012

Executable plan – visibility of the scale of testing

Response capability and ALARP

Financial responsibility

Silent on new technologies in submissions

Industry and government response interaction

National Plan update

• Going well:– New governance arrangements have rejuvenated the NP– Joint exercises with industry and government

• Opportunities:– Strategic consultation [National Plan & OSPRF]– Leverage state and federal response arrangements

• Threats to vision:– Competitive default of operators– Absence of challenge to status quo

40A260980 4 December 2012

National Plan update

41A260980 4 December 2012

Australian Government National Plan

Committee- AMSA- DIT- RET- NOPSEMA- SEWPAC

Australian Government National Plan

Committee- AMSA- DIT- RET- NOPSEMA- SEWPAC

National Plan Strategic Coordination

Committee- DIT- AMSA- DRET/NOPSEMA- NPIAC Rep

National Plan Strategic Coordination

Committee- DIT- AMSA- DRET/NOPSEMA- NPIAC Rep

National Plan Industry Advisory

Committee- APPEA- AIP (AMOSC)

National Plan Industry Advisory

Committee- APPEA- AIP (AMOSC)

Technical GroupsPreparedness & Response / Recovery

- AMOSC- NOPSEMA- AMSA- SEWPAC

Technical GroupsPreparedness & Response / Recovery

- AMOSC- NOPSEMA- AMSA- SEWPAC

Questions?

OSMP Information Paper

Dr Christine LamontEnvironment ManagerMonitoring and Analysis

Oil spill monitoring

• Going well:

– Studies to identify sensitive receptors– Incorporation of assessment feedback– Stakeholder consultation– Description of activities– Applying environmental practices from State waters– NOPSEMA collaborating with other government agencies

to implement Montara Commission of Inquiry government response

44A260980 4 December 2012


• Opportunities:

– Appropriate environmental performance objectives– Engagement with service providers– Planning survey locations and survey scope– Demonstrated understanding of cause – effect pathways– Relevant monitoring programs– Collaboration between operators

45A260980 4 December 2012


• Threats to vision:

– Few changes in approach since Montara– Planning largely for reactive baselines– Limited focus on environmental outcomes– Potential major effects on sensitive receptors proposed– Lack of demonstrated readiness – No consideration of cumulative impacts– Requests for minimum standards, prescription

46A260980 4 December 2012

Montara Commission of Inquiry

47A260980

21 Aug 2009

• Montara well blowout

3 Nov 2009

• Relief well in place

24 Nov 2010

• Montara Commission of Inquiry Report and draft recommendations

25 May 2011

• Final Government Response to Montara Commission of Inquiry and implementation

01 Jan 2012

• NOPSEMA established

31 Dec2012

• OSMP guidance released

4 December 2012


48A260980

• Implementation for Report Recommendation 90

“Under the EPBC Act, all new approved offshore production facilities will include requirements to obtain sufficient baseline information to enable an assessment of any impacts and implement an agreed monitoring program in the event of a spill resulting from offshore petroleum activity(ies).

“The development of the “off the shelf” monitoring programs will be led by the primary regulator of the operation of offshore production facilities, in consultation with DSEWPaC on matters of National Environmental Significance as defined under the EPBC Act.”

• “A review of the Montara Long Term Scientific Monitoring Program will be undertaken for the specific purpose of informing the development of “off the shelf” monitoring programs for use in future incidents”.

SEWPaC

NOPSEMA and operators

SEWPaC and NOPSEMA

4 December 2012


• The Montara Commission of Inquiry Recommendation 90 recommended the development of ‘off the shelf’ monitoring programs that can be implemented quickly following a future incident in Commonwealth waters.

• Within the bounds of its environmental management functions, as provided for in the OPGGS Act, NOPSEMA, in consultation with the Department of Sustainability, Water, Environment, Population and Communities (DSEWPaC), is leading the development of ’off the shelf’ monitoring guidance which will detail how operators could meet their current and future obligations under the OPGGS Act.

• NOPSEMA is leading the development of ‘off the shelf’ monitoring tools as it is relevant to its environmental management functions.

49A260980 4 December 2012

Government visionfor monitoring programs?

• ‘…operational and scientific monitoring programs that provide evidence to demonstrate that ecologically sustainable development is achieved…’

– Demonstrated ability to detect change – Fit-for-purpose OSMPs– Coverage of environments that may be affected by oil spills

including sensitive environments– Adequate baseline– Cumulative impacts considered– Demonstrated readiness

50A260980 4 December 2012

Non co-ordinated approach

51

Regional monitoring program vision?

52

Browse Kimberley

Carnarvon Pilbara

Exmouth North West Cape

Otway

NOTIONAL CONCEPT -AUSTRALIAN OFFSHORE PETROLEUMINDUSTRY OIL SPILL MONITORING PROGRAMS

Objective-based regime

53

Regulatory driven – enforced prescription irrespective of nature

and scale of activities

Industry driven change – voluntary improvement of programs, flexibility

in regulations remains

Stakeholder (including researchers) driven – social licence to operate

Flexibility

A260980 4 December 2012

Monitoring and the Regulations

• “Object of the Environment Regulations is to ensure that any petroleum activity… carried out in an offshore area is carried out in a manner consistent with the principles of ecologically sustainable development” OPGGS (Environment) Regulations 2009

• The OPGGS Regulations do not prescribe how environmental monitoring is to be designed and implemented

• This affords flexibility for industry to innovate and continually improve

544 December 2012A260980

Monitoring in the Regulations

• Monitoring to demonstrate that environmental performance objectives and environmental performance standards were met

• Management monitoring

55A260980

ObjectiveObjective

StandardStandard

MC 1MC 1

MC 2MC 2

MC 3MC 3

MC 4MC 4Control Control MeasuresMeasures

Evaluate & Evaluate & DemonstrateDemonstrate

Acceptable Acceptable LevelLevel

4 December 2012

NOPSEMA advice

OPGGS ActOPGGS Act


PolicyPolicy

GuidelineGuideline



EP Content Requirements

OSMP Information Paper

A260980 4 December 2012

OSMP Information Paper• Overarching intent of the OSMP information paper is to:

– Give effect to the Government’s directive regarding OSMPs from Montara COI

– offer practical advice to assist operators to prepare high standard and fit-for-purpose OSMPs that can be rapidly implemented in the event of a spill

– complement and expand on other Government guidance on oil spill monitoring (e.g. AMSA handbook) – focus on scientific monitoring

– provide sufficient information on planning, design and implementation of a monitoring program to also meet regulatory requirements

57A260980 4 December 2012

OSMP Information Paper –contents

• Three main components

58A260980

Introductory and background information and discussion of key concepts (i.e. the 'why')

Advice to assist operators to develop fit-for-purpose OSMPs (i.e. the ‘what’, ‘when’ and ‘where’)

Advice on preparedness and readiness to rapidly implement the OSMP (the ‘who’ and ‘how’)

4 December 2012

OSMP Information Paper –content

59A260980

• Interface with EP and OSCP’s• Overview of Australia’s marine

environment• Reference to Montara• Key principles of

environmental management• Magnitude of effects and

uncertainty

© PTTEP

© GEOSCIENCE AUSTRALIA

4 December 2012


60A260980

• Monitoring goals• Monitoring areas• Potential environmental

receptors• Oil-associated stressors• Cause and effect

relationships• Potential impacts of oil• What monitoring is

required?

4 December 2012


61A260980

• Monitoring design considerations• An adequate environmental

baseline• Interface between operational and

scientific• Initiation and termination triggers

for monitoring• Personnel, logistics and

infrastructure• Ensuring readiness• Reporting and performance

monitoring• Challenges and opportunities

© APASA

© Chuck Fisher and Timothy Shank4 December 2012

OSMP Information Paper –development and review

62A260980

Q2 2012

• Preliminary drafting• Consultation with industry groups + Government agencies

Q3 2012• Internal review of Draft OSMP guidance

Q4 2012• Technical and Commonwealth Government Review (SEWPaC – Marine, Assessment, Offshore Petroleum , RET, AMSA, CSIRO, AIMS, GA)

Q4 2012• Issued for use and industry comment – December 2012

Q1 2013• Open for feedback for a three month period, send comments to

[email protected]

4 December 2012

OSMP Information Paper –implementation by industry

63A260980

OSMPs written by operators appropriate to nature and scale and location and to meet EPBC Conditions

Submitted to NOPSEMA for assessment as part of EP and OSCP package

Assessed by skilled group of specialist marine scientists, oil spill experts and environmental scientists (~ 20 people)

Compliance with EPs secured by NOPSEMA as part of routine inspection schedule

4 December 2012

Questions?

Transitioned EP Project

Karl HeidenEnvironment ManagerImplementation and Regulatory Guidance


• Going well:– EPs received from DAs in Jan 2012– Established assessment process– Communication on upcoming Transitioned EP Project

• Opportunities:– Proactive revision and submission of inherited EP proposed revisions

• Threats to vision:– Transitioned EPs may not manage the risks and deliver appropriate

environmental outcomes (ALARP and acceptable)– NOPSEMA enforcing compliance– Operator needs to ensure adequate arrangements in place

66A260980 4 December 2012


• On 1 January 2012 EPs in force and accepted by the Designated Authorities (DAs) for ongoing petroleum activities were transitioned to NOPSEMA

• These EPs remain in force and NOPSEMA is now the Regulator for these activities

• The Regulations provide that NOPSEMA may request proposed revisions of EPs accepted by another Regulator.

67A260980 4 December 2012

What is it?

68A260980 4 December 2012

NOPSEMA is undertaking a review of transitioned EPs to determine their acceptability against the Regulations as they

were at the time of acceptance

To ensure environmental performance of the offshore petroleum industry is compliant with the requirements of

environmental management law

To apply a consistent approach to regulation across the Commonwealth offshore area.

What’s been done to date

69A260980 4 December 2012

Transitioned EPs screened and ranked against environmental risk criteria and the content requirements of the Regulations

Internal assessment processes and procedures established Raised at workshops & operator liaison

Petroleum titleholders and activity operators contacted with further information on the process

What next – review stage

• Review of all transitioned EPs against the acceptance criteria of Regulation 11(1) at 1 January 2012

• If not reasonably satisfied that requirements are met, NOPSEMA will request submission of a proposed revision of the EP– A timeframe for submission of a proposed revision will be

provided– Operator has 21 days in which to submit evidence that

the plan complies

• Other regulatory action may follow (inspection, enforcement) depending on issues identified

70A260980 4 December 2012

Implications for submission and assessment

Environment plan levies will apply on submission of proposed revision

The process of revision and submission will require operator resources

Revised EPs will be assessed against regulations at time of submission

The “EP in force” remains in force, including once proposed revision is submittedission

71A260980 4 December 2012

Opportunities

• Operators may submit a proposed revision of an EP at any stage

• NOPSEMA is aware that many operators have commenced a process of internal review for EPs in force and encourages engagement to discuss forward plans

• Timeframes put forward by operators may be considered when determining a schedule for proposed revisions

72A260980 4 December 2012

Questions?

Communication andengagement

Cameron GrebeGeneral Manager Environment

Engagement program 2013

75A260980

Exte

rnal

Opp

ortu

nitie

s

Non

Reg

ulat

ory

Regu

lato

ry

Operator liaison meetings

Operator regulatory clarification meetings

Operator liaison on decisions

Ad-hoc advice requests (email and phone)

Policies and Guidance Notes

NOPSEMA decisions feedback

Industry performance reporting

Industry briefings

Other stakeholder briefings

Industry event mgt workshop program

APPEA committees and quarterly liaison

High level operator /APPEA liaison

CEO delegation briefings

The Regulator newsletter

Alerts

NOPSEMA feedback/ complaints

Regulators fora (APRF, IRF, IOPER and AELERT)

Conference and seminar participation

Present/meeting with APPEA committees and Board

Communication and engagement

• Going well:– Amount of engagement

• 11 industry workshops in 2012• >130 operator liaison meetings• APPEA committee and working group efforts

• Opportunities:– Deliver greater returns from engagement effort

• Deliver on meeting objectives– Greater collaboration / use of multi-party forums

76A260980 4 December 2012

Communication and engagement

• Threats to vision:– Important messages not being delivered / having an effect– Little space for “roundtable” solutions to deliver more

efficient/effective outcomes

77A260980 4 December 2012

44

33

22

11

How we need to talk – tailored meetings to suit

78A260980 4 December 2012

Clarification - NOPSEMA decisions and basis in law

Broader advice - interpretation of environmental management law

Strategic planning - time to discuss scoping and timing of submissions

Collaboration - forums with broader range of industry and government stakeholders

Questions?

Thank you

activity 12 months overview - nopsema...2012/12/04 · a formal risk assessment and justification...

Documents