EUROPEAN COMMISSION DIRECTORATE GENERAL FOR ENERGY Directorate B - Security of supply, Energy markets & Networks B.3 - Internal Market III: Retail markets Coal & Oil

EU OFFSHORE OIL AND GAS AUTHORITIES GROUP (EUOAG)

FOURTH MEETING BRUSSELS, CONFERENCE CENTRE ALBERT BORSCHETTE

3RD JULY 2013

DRAFT

RECORD OF MEETING

1. Welcome and introduction

The 4th meeting of the EU Offshore Oil and Gas Authorities Group (EUOAG) took

place in Brussels, from 9.30 till 17.00 of the 3rd of July, 2013. The meeting was

organized in two parts, i.e. one Ordinary Session where the Regulatory Authorities

and the Commission officials participated, and one Plenary Session, which also

saw the participation of the representatives of Stakeholders (industry, trade unions

and other stakeholders). The complete list of participants is attached (see Annex 1).

The meeting was co-chaired by the Commission (Mr. Jan Panek,JP, Head of Unit

ENER-B.3, replaced for part of the meeting by Mr. Joerg Koehli, JK, Offshore

Team Coordinator in ENER-B.3) and by Mr. Steve Walker (SW, Head of

Strategic Interventions, Energy Division, HSE, UK) as the elected national

authorities representative. Mr. Michalis Christou (MC, COM – DG JRC) acted as

the technical secretary of the Group.

The Chair [JP] opened the meeting and welcomed the participants. He informed

the Group that Directive 2013/30/EU (Offshore Safety Directive – OSD) has

officially been published in the Official Journal of the EU (OJ L 178, 28.6.2013,

pp. 66-106). He then referred to the importance of the meeting as the first one after

the adoption of the Directive. The Co-chair [SW] also welcomed the participants

and stressed that today's is a milestone meeting, taking place shortly after the

publication of Directive 2013/30/EU.

The agenda was adopted without changes (Annex 2). The Draft Record of the 3rd

meeting, which had previously been distributed to the Group, has been accepted

with the correction requested by a UK representative on their presentation

(Cormorant A). The Draft Record will be published on the EUOAG site and

become available to the public.

2. Adoption of the Offshore Safety Directive: first steps requiring MS input

2.1 Use of correlation tables

2

The Commission gives high priority to the accurate and timely transposition of the

Directive into national law. During the transposition process, the MS need to notify

to the Commission the measures taken. In doing so, the use of correlation tables,

which are tables that indicate the correspondence (one-to-one) between provisions

in the national law and provisions in the EU Directive is recommended, because

they facilitate the communication between the MS and the Commission and they

also serve as a means for sharing best practice (MS can see how other MS are

dealing with a particular issue).

The Commission is preparing and will soon send formal letters to the MS inviting

them to prepare the correlation tables for the transposition of the Directive. Given

the importance of the topic, the Chair [JP] suggested putting the issue of

transposition on the agenda of future EUOAG meetings.

2.2 Report of MS resources for carrying out its functions

According to Article 27(4), the Commission has to prepare by 19 July 2014 a

report on the adequacy of national expert resources for complying with the

regulatory functions of the Directive, together, if necessary, with proposals for

ensuring all Member States have access to adequate expert resources. The

Commission is currently doing some preparatory work on the technical capacity

issue. The resources in question apply to the regulatory functions of the competent

authorities as they are described in Article 8, and the information systems

necessary for these functions as well as expertise in stakeholders handling. Any

proposals for capacity building schemes/mechanisms must take account of the

established players in the field and emerging jurisdictions. The report on MS

resources will not only be a source of information on the adequacy of national

expert resources, but, at the same time, a means to help Member States’ consider

this topic by providing detailed information on the technical requirements

necessary to comply with the directive on which a number of MS will be

unfamiliar.

Some participants flagged that in some MS it may be difficult or sensitive to

provide detailed information on the authorities’ resources, but at the same time it

would be extremely helpful for the COM report to identify what kind of expertise

is considered necessary. Again this issue will be in the Agenda of next meetings

and Joerg Koehli (COM-ENER-B.3) will be the central contact person for this

report.

2.3. Report on criminal liability for environmental damage

Concerning criminal liability for environmental damage, existing EU legislation

(Directive 2008/99/EC on the protection of the environment through criminal law)

does address this issue but the transposition requirements vary between MS.

Article 37(3) of the Offshore Safety Directive requires the Commission to examine

the appropriateness of bringing certain conduct leading to a major accident within

the scope of Directive 2008/99/EC and to submit a report on its findings by 31

December 2014. This is one of the three reports on liability (others are on financial

security and compensation schemes) foreseen in Art.39. Work on this topic is in-

hand. Corina Mocanu (COM-ENER-B.3) is the main contact person for this issue.

3

2.4. Civil liability and financial security mechanisms

Liability and financial security is one of the key issues, where further work is

needed and, indeed, Art. 37 sub 1 of Directive 2013/30/EC requires the

Commission to examine civil liability and financial security and submit a report by

19 July 2014. The Commission has funded a study, carried out by the University of

Maastricht (the Netherlands) and currently at the stage of completion (foreseen for

mid-July), which is expected to provide scientific input on this topic. The material

and the conclusions of the study will be used by the Commission as scientific

input, together with other information and political considerations, for the

preparation of Commission’s report. The financial security/liability aspects of the

Directive are addressed mainly to MS' economic regulators and not to competent

authorities but EUOAG members will be kept informed. The main contact person

for the study is Arthur van Dalen (COM-ENER-B.3).

2.5. Implementing Act on Common Reporting Format

According to Art.23 and Annex IX, the Implementing Act on the Common

Reporting Format (CRF) must be completed by December 2014. A COM expert

committee will be established following the preparatory work of an informal group

led by Jan de Jong, Inspector General of SSM.

The Commission intends to evaluate costs and benefits of the concrete provisions

considered for inclusion in the implementing act and will formulate a proposal on

the Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA) in the final quarter of 2013 Pursuant to this, the

Commission will request feedback from the Members of the Group, with Xavier

Goulay (COM-ENER-B.3) being the main contact person.

3. Recent activities and work planning of the Group

3.1 Feedback from the JRC Workshop in Stresa (4-5 June 2013)

The Workshop organized by JRC on 4-5 June aimed at giving the members of the

Group the opportunity to address technical issues related with the OSD and to

exchange information with experts from the industry and stakeholders. The

Workshop was attended by 40 experts from 12 MS, industrial organisations, trade

unions and independent rapporteurs. The 2nd day was restricted to members of the

EUOAG and devoted to discussions on accident reporting and the CRF. The

proceedings will be published in paper form and on the web site. Some of the main

conclusions were the following:

Highlighted the need for capacity building, especially in areas such as the

content and assessment of RoMHs;

The inclusion of environmental issues represents a challenge;

Standardization - or at least consistency - on how the various articles are

meant to be transposed, would be appreciated;

Industry has been activated significantly after Macondo with activities on

well integrity, response and incident reporting.

The inclusion of the workforce is important;

The role of research was also discussed.

4

The Co-chair [SW], speaking on behalf of the members of the Group, expressed

the appreciation of Group to the organization of the event and stressed the

importance of having in the future more informal events that help addressing

certain topics. He invited the JRC to investigate how these workshops could be

organized annually, and to provide more scope to technical discussions for

EUOAG (i.e. not jointly with external delegates).

3.2 Reporting from MS of accidents/challenges/developments

Representatives of The Netherlands affirmed that in 2012 they had the lowest lost

time incident (LTI) rate in their history; still major accidents happen and an

accident with 2 fatalities and 1 injury had happened in June. A description of the

accident was given. The accident is currently under investigation and is being

treated as a process safety incident (rather than occupational).

A representative of Denmark reported that Denmark published their yearly

statistics on accidents and releases of hydrocarbons. There was a decreasing trend

in the number of incidents, but an increasing trend in the number of significant

(avoidable) HC releases, which is now a concern. These trends will be discussed

with the operators. Commenting on this trend, the Co-chair [SW] said that UK had

a similar trend a few years ago. The UK Authority had previously challenged the

industry on this topic and agreed a target of 50% decrease, which has been

substantially achieved. Further work is still to be done.

A representative of Norway described a major gas leak in the Northern N Sea on

which NO has just launched a major accident investigation. NO also reported a

diving incident during manned subsea operations where the bell deploying 3 divers

was dropped and pressure was lost. No one was injured and the incident was

terminated by manual intervention.

Both accidents were potentially fatal. Investigation is on-going and when

completed, reports will be available at PSA web site.

A representative of UK also reported a significant gas release from a flange in a

gas compression plant on a floating production installation. The installation had

returned from refit in port during which a gas plant flange had been incorrectly

assembled, and pressure tested to only a low level - considerably below the

operational pressure rating. No one was injured and the emergency response was

effective. Nonetheless generic defect were noted both on- and offshore, and an

improvement notice issued.

4. Follow up of related activities

4.1 1st meeting of Working Group on Barcelona Convention Offshore Protocol

A representative of the Commission from DG ENV had attended the REMPEC

workshop for the preparation of the Action Plan to implement the Barcelona

Convention Offshore Protocol meeting, which took place in Malta on June 13th -

14th. He reported as follows:

5

- A "progress report" is planned for December 2013 and the Action Plan will

be ready by mid 2014;

- The Mediterranean accounts for a low percentage in the global offshore oil

production but is expected to play an increasingly important role, in

particular for gas; prospection/production is moving to deep waters;

- Exchanges with OSPAR (which has a lot of experience and technical

competence) are very useful and the specific institutional context in the

Mediterranean (legally binding character of Protocol) as well as the

ecological objectives and indicators agreed under the Convention must be

fully respected;

- Coordination with EMSA, including for contingency planning, must be

promoted and organized.

Moreover, the national reports (from Milieu study) are available for IT and FR;

EUOAG should be able to receive all 7 reports (from EU Med MS, except

Slovenia).

The co-Chair (who had attended the MT meeting) observed that the Barcelona

Convention was drafted many years ago and in some respects does not reflect the

current best practices and knowledge which have been incorporated into directive

2013/30/EU.

4.2 IMO meeting papers on liability

A representative of the UK informed the Group on the discussions at the IMO

meeting of April 15th with regards to a paper, which had been submitted prior to

the meeting by Indonesia, on “Liability and compensation issues connected with

transboundary damage from offshore activities”. IMO had taken note of

Indonesia’s paper, but no further action is expected by IMO. Indonesia was

encouraged to further investigate this issue.

5. Common data reporting format

The representative of the Netherlands and Chair of the ad-hoc group for the

development of a Common Reporting Format informed the Group on the

conclusions of a preparatory meeting held in The Hague on June 17th and presented

a proposal on the structure and criteria of the CRF. The following are to be noted:

It is important to clarify what is expected from the company, the MS and

the Commission.

The main purpose of sharing information is to learn lessons from past

accidents.

The opinion of the industry should be requested with regards to the

practicality of certain release thresholds.

The MS were invited to provide comments on the proposal that came out of the

preparatory meeting, according to an agreed timetable, as follows:

Member States provide comments/suggestions on the proposed format/criteria:

End of August

Amending the first version: beginning of September

Comments by industry / trade unions: end of September

6

Meeting of ad-hoc group with the industry and trade unions: beginning of

October.

This timetable seemed ambitious to some participants, but the Chair [JP] was of

the opinion that it is nevertheless necessary and he urged the members of the

Group to follow it. The participation in the ad hoc group of representatives from all

marine regions of the EU was considered extremely important.

Detailed discussions followed on the data that needs reporting for the 10 types of

incidents listed in Annex IX. The following general points emerged:

The format needs to determine not only what events have to be reported but

also what information has to be reported.

MS are invited to compare own approaches with the proposed criteria

For category “d. structural integrity” points (3) and (4), there may be the

need for more specific criteria [GR].

Thresholds for hazardous substances releases should respect the different

sensitivity of different EU regions; therefore, different thresholds should

apply for different environmental conditions and ecological systems [CY].

Environmental reporting thresholds are different between the North Sea,

the Barcelona Convention area, and the Arctic. This presents potential

challenges for reporting where, e.g. NGOs decide to take an interest in the

data.

The environmental purpose of the CRF is to report major environmental

accidents that arise from major accidents (as defined in Article 2.1) and not

long-term (occupational/day-to-day) pollution; the employed thresholds

should reflect that difference

COM (TP) clarified in response to IT, that the drafting of Article 2(1)

implied any permutation of fatal or serious injuries that affected 5 or more

people in a single incident. Nonetheless, Annex IX still requires single

fatalities to be reported as a specific item, whether or not resulting from a

major accident.

The Co-chair [SW] then closed the Ordinary Session by stating the following:

MS to respect the proposed timetable;

By the next EUOAG meeting - scheduled for November 2013 – significant

progress and advanced decisions are expected;

The industry and Trades Union views should be sought;

MS representation in the ad-hoc group should be as wide as possible.

PLENARY SESSION – AUTHORITIES AND STAKEHOLDERS

6. Common Data Reporting Format

The Chair [JP] opened the Plenary Session and welcomed the external

stakeholders. He introduced the first item in the Agenda, which was the Common

Data Reporting Format, and he referred to the provisions of Chapter V of the

Directive and the obligation for the Commission to determine a CRF by means of

an implementing act. He then passed the floor to the Chair of the ad-hoc group

7

for development of Common Reporting Format who gave an overview of the

preparatory work and the proposed structure and criteria.

The Session continued with a presentation from the OGP on Safety Performance

Reporting (which began 26 years ago). Four elements contribute to the reporting:

1. Safety performance indicators, containing mainly occupational safety

indicators;

2. Environmental performance indicators (since 1998);

3. Well control incident database, launched in 2012 and restricted to WEC

(Wells Experts Committee) members, to improve lessons learning; its main

purpose is to capture alerts;

4. Process safety events, based on loss of primary containment thresholds as

specified at Tier 1 and Tier 2 in the OGP report 456 (publicly available).

OGP use their conventional 'OHS' structure for reports of LOPC.

In the discussion that followed OGP’s presentation, the next remarks were made:

OGP is collecting incident data from both offshore and onshore sectors;

49 out of the 63 members of OGP actually report (2011)

Although the well control incident database is currently in place, the

amount of data collected at the moment is insufficient (11 incidents

captured);

Narrative reports on fatal accidents are publicly available. They contain the

description of incidents, causal factors and lessons learned;

Reports on causal effects of high potential incidents are published on a

voluntary basis.

Identification and dissemination of lessons from past accidents is not an

easy process, in view of confidentiality issues. OGP is looking at causal

factors, whose identification and dissemination contributes to lessons

learning. For example, by analyzing past accidents, OGP had come out

with life-lessons, giving guidance on the actions necessary by the personnel

during events with high probability of fatality/injury. OGP alerts and trends

reports tend to focus on major lessons.

Onshore data skews offshore data when studied at a high level but offshore

data can be distinguished at lower levels.

There are on-going discussions and specific guidance is required on

whether a well “kick” should be considered a reportable incident. The

representative of IndustriAll said that all kicks should be reported.

OGP has not addressed itself to Annex IX of the OSD and accept their

incident categories may need refinement/alignment

The Chair of the ad hoc group pointed out that EU categories are more

comprehensive than OGP, and avoid ambiguities – e.g. do not refer to

'kicks'.

OGP was invited to provide comments to the Chair of the ad-hoc group on the

thresholds/criteria of the CRF proposal by end of September 2013.

7. The Tripartite Approach: Experiences from the past, insights to the future

8

The discussion continued with experiences of the MS and the Trade Unions on the

tripartite approach. Presentations were made by Norway, Germany, Denmark, The

Netherlands and IndustriAll, while comments were given by UK.

A representative of Norway presented the Norwegian tripartite approach, allowing

both employers and employees to feel ownership of the safety-related issues and

contribute to improvements. The established procedures include the safety forum,

aiming to encourage collaboration and increase knowledge, and the regulatory

forum, with the participation of authorities and stakeholders, aiming to discuss

development and implementation of regulations. The regulatory forum gives

advice to the authorities. There are 5 criteria used by NO to assess effectiveness of

tripartite forums.

The Co-Chair [SW] also commented that similar arrangements are made for

tripartite consultation in the UK, although not an identical structure. Indeed, two

different tripartite systems operate in UK, Step Change and the Offshore Industry

Advisory Committee.

A representative of Germany then gave a presentation on the German tripartite

approach, based on the Works Constitution Act. He pointed out that tripartite

consultation refers to both onshore and offshore sectors. The main focus is

occupational health, but environmental issues are also considered. According to

existing legislation, the workers council has the right to participate in the

discussions in all activities, including accident investigations, complaints, etc.

Tripartite consultation is always applied to work on new legislation in DE.

A representative of Denmark also described the Danish tripartite approach. The

main forum is the Offshore Safety Council, under the chairing of DEA, with equal

representation of trade unions and operators and with the participation of

authorities. Focus is mainly on regulations, technical aspects and safety-related

developments, and decisions are as much as possible taken by consensus. New

legislation is always subject to tripartite consultation. Experience has shown that

this approach is very successful. Amongst the strengths is the ownership of the

problems and solutions felt by all involved parties and the support to the solutions,

while weaknesses include the long time it sometimes take to reach a decision and

the need for similar level of resources and expertise contributed by the two parties

to the process. The process also tends to skew outcomes towards worker interests.

Finally, for The Netherlands described the Dutch approach, which uses similar

structure as the ones presented above. It addresses issues such as incidents and

accidents, complaints, safety-related initiatives, etc., using both tripartite and

bilateral discussions. The works council receives copies of letters sent by SSM to

companies.

The representative of IndustriAll welcomed the chance to talk to the Authorities

Group. He stated that participation of all involved stakeholders is necessary in a

democratic society and he stressed that organization of the workforce is of

paramount importance to have the workers’ voice heard. He gave the positive

experience of the trade unions from the participation in tripartite consultations and

affirmed that the main benefit is the ownership of the problems and solutions,

9

which leads to their better implementation. Focusing on environmental issues, he

said that a safe workplace is the safest way to protect the environment. He also

affirmed that the focus in tripartite consultations is not only on severe occupational

incidents, but also on prevention of major accidents. He pointed to the success of

the helicopter forum that he believed was a factor in the low level of accidents – a

frequency of 0.3%/10 years. In his opinion NO treated tripartite consultation as a

benefit to the economy, and also that environmental protection was well served by

the NO high levels of safety.

The Co-chair [SW] then closed the session by thanking the presenters, summing

up the main points and noting that experience of the MS and organisations who

made presentations is very positive, their experience should be very helpful to

those MS who need to establish tripartite approaches as requested by the Directive

and it should be checked whether all requirements of the Directive are fulfilled

with the existing approaches.

8. Technical Items

8.1 IADC – EOF meeting: Insights on a safety – related issue

A representative of IADC gave a briefing on the IADC-EOF meeting planned for

4th July in Brussels. He made a brief description of the topics that would be

discussed, especially regarding the challenges and opportunities of drilling

contractors working in Europe.

8.2 Presentation of the HSE inspection project on ageing infrastructure

For the UK, [SW] made a presentation on the inspection “Key Programme 4”

(KP4) on ageing infrastructure and life extension of offshore platforms.

Many platforms in the North Sea, which had been designed for a life of 20-25

years, were well-past or approaching this point. A previous inspection programme

(KP3), consisting of the inspection of over 100 installations, had identified

significant critical asset integrity issues were identified, but UK industry reacted

well to the initiative and many changes were made. However, it became clear that

there was much more to be done now in order to extend life of the platforms and

ensure asset integrity in the future.

This gave birth to project KP4, which was launched in 2010. It is a “priority

inspection” program that focuses on the issue of ageing and life extension (ALE).

The industry has reacted well to this initiative, with the majority of dutyholders

positively engaging with the ALE concepts and undertaking independent reviews

of their integrity management practices in preparation for extending the life of their

offshore assets. The “thorough review of the Safety Case” – similar to the

requirement of Directive 2013/30/EU for review of the RoMH – is a key issue in

ALE management. Initial priority was given to fixed platforms, but since last year

pipelines and floating installations have come into focus. An interim report of the

programme describing its progress was published in November 2012 at

http://www.hse.gov.uk/offshore/ageing/kp4-interim-report.pdf .

10. Discussion on Agenda items for the Next meeting

10

JK took the Chair at this point and summarized the main topics to be included in

the Agenda of the next plenary meeting, scheduled for November. These include:

Common Reporting Format and the Implementing Acts;

Capacity building, which includes stocktaking of what resources exist and how

can the Group help the MS in building appropriate capacity; it also includes the

issue of the organization of the Competent Authorities, which is considered

very important by many participants;

For the next meeting it is foreseen the invitation of the Advisory Committee on

Safety and Health responsible for Directive 92/91/EC;

The Commission is considering, when appropriate, to invite authorities from

selected non-EU countries (e.g. USA, Australia) to attend part of the EUOAG

meeting.

The Group considered it worthwhile to invite USA and/or Australian Authorities,

but they felt it is better to wait until urgent and crucial work at MS level related to

the implementation of the Directive is accomplished. Amongst the topics for

discussion in the next meetings, the following ones were identified:

Verification schemes (e.g. invite verification bodies);

Emergency response plans;

Safety and Environmental Critical Elements (SECEs);

The Co-Chair [SW] mentioned the topic of involvement and collaboration of

Mediterranean countries (presentation by Italy - tbc)

He also referred to the experience and problems encountered by an emerging

jurisdiction (presentation by Cyprus - tbc)

Poland agreed to give a short presentation on the situation and existing

regulations related to both onshore and offshore sector.

The Co-Chairs of the Group will take the above items into consideration when

preparing the Agenda for the next meeting.

10. Next meeting

The next plenary meeting will take place on 21st November 2013 in Brussels, at

the Conference Centre Albert Borschette (CCAB).

A meeting of the ad-hoc group dealing with the development of the Common

Reporting Format will take place in early October in The Hague.

10. LIST OF ACTIONS

No WHO ACTION

1 Co-Chairs Include the issue of transposition of the Directive in the

Agenda of future EUOAG meetings as a standing item

2 COM Make available to the MS the conclusions/report of the

Maastricht study on civil liability and financial security when

the report is finalised.

3 ALL By end of August 2013:

- Provide comments / suggestions / own practices on the

proposed Common Reporting Format;

- Nominate representatives in the ad-hoc group;

11

- Give numbers of incidents occurred in 2012 that fall in the

proposed categories

4 Chair of CRF

ad-hoc group

Amend first version of the proposed CRF according to

comments received, liaise with stakeholders and select a date

for the meeting of the ad-hoc group in early October 2013.

(Determined 10 October)

5 OGP Provide feedback to the proposed Common Reporting

Format criteria by end of September 2013.

6 PL; IT; CY Inform the Group at the next meeting on developments in

their countries/regions:

- PL: On developments/regulations in Poland;

- IT: Experience from collaboration in Mediterranean (tbc);

- CY: On experiences as emerging jurisdiction (tbc)

11. Closure of the meeting

The Chairman thanked the participants for their attendance and valuable

contributions and closed the meeting.

Report prepared by: S.Contini, M. Christou (COM-JRC)

Report approved by: Jan Panek, Joerg Koehli (COM-ENER)

Steve Walker (HSE, EUOAG Co-Chair)

Annexes: 1. List of participants

2. Agenda of the meeting

12

Annex 1

List of Participants at the 4th Meeting of EUOAG held on July 3rd, 2013 in Brussels (CCAB)

Energy Service, Ministry of Commerce, Industry and Tourism, Cyprus

Danish Energy Agency, Denmark

Danish Environmental Protection Agency, Denmark

Ministry of Ecology, France

Landesamt für Bergbau, Energie und Geology, Niedersachsen, Germany

Ministry of Environment, Energy and Climate Change, Greece

Commission for Energy Regulation, Ireland

Ministry of Economic Development, Italy

Ministry for Transport and Infrastructure, Malta

State Supervision of Mines, Ministry of Economic Affairs, The Netherlands

Petroleum Safety Authority, Norway

Ministry of Economy, Oil and Gas Department, Poland

Ministry of Environment, Poland Direccao Geral de Energia e Geologia (DGEG), Portugal

Ministry of Industry, Energy and Tourism, Spain

Department for Energy and Climate Change, UK

Health and Safety Executive – Energy Division, UK

Steve WALKER Health and Safety Executive – Energy Division, UK Co-Chair of EUOAG

Jan PANEK European Commission, DG ENER, B3

Chair of EUOAG

Joerg KOEHLI European Commission, DG ENER, B3

Chair of EUOAG

Eero AILIO, Taf POWELL, Arthur VAN DALEN, Corina MOCANU, Xavier GOULAY

European Commission, DG ENER, B3

Michalis CHRISTOU European Commission, DG JRC, F.3 Technical Secretary of EUOAG

Stefania CONTINI European Commission, DG JRC, F3 (invited)

OGP

IADC

IndustriAll

IMCA

13

Annex 2

EUROPEAN COMMISSION DIRECTORATE GENERAL FOR ENERGY Directorate B - Security of supply, Energy markets & Networks B.3 - Internal Market III: Retail markets Coal & Oil

EU OFFSHORE OIL AND GAS AUTHORITIES GROUP (EUOAG)

FOURTH MEETING BRUSSELS, CONFERENCE CENTRE ALBERT BORSCHETTE

3RD JULY 2013

AGENDA

Time Item Lead

9:00 Registration

PART 1: ORDINARY SESSION – REGULATORY AUTHORITIES 9:30 Welcome and Introduction Chair/Co-chair

J.Panek; J.Koehli

/ S.Walker

9:40-10:40 Adoption of the Offshore Safety Directive first steps

requiring MS input

- Use of correlation tables

- Report of MS resources for carrying out its

functions (COM to EP/CiL by June 2014)

- Report on criminal liability for environmental

damage (COM to EP/CiL by December 2014)

- Implementing Act on common reporting format

(Completed by December 2014)

- Arrangements for common reporting format (MS

and COM by June 2015)

- Liability and financial security mechanisms

Round-table feedback from the Member States on

undertaken/planned activities for the implementation

COM

All

10:40-11:00 Coffee/Tea Break

14

11:00-12:00

Issues of governance and work planning of the Group

- Summary Record of 3rd EUOAG meeting

- Feedback from the JRC Workshop

- Reporting from MS of accidents/challenges/

developments

- Work planning (All)

Follow up of related activities

- 1st meeting of Working Group on Barcelona

Convention Offshore Protocol (ENV)

- IMO meeting; papers on liability (UK-DECC)

Chair/ Co-Chair

12:00–12:30 Common data reporting format

- Feedback from pre-meeting (the Hague)

- Setting up the EUOAG sub-group

JdJ

12:30–12:45 Look ahead to November plenary meeting Chair

AOB

12:45-13:45 Lunch Break

(Restaurant facility on Level 5 of Conference Centre)

PART 2: PLENARY SESSION –AUTHORITIES AND STAKEHOLDERS 13:45-14:45 Common Data Reporting Format

(i) Information Sharing and Transparency

Requirements in the Offshore Safety Directive

(COM)

(ii) Proposed input from the MS (NL)

(iii) OGP Presentation on Safety Performance

Reporting (OGP)

(iv) Discussion (All)

(v) Workplan for the Subgroup

NL

14: 45-

16:00

The tripartite approach: Experiences from the past,

insights to the future

(i) Tripartite consultation provisions in OSD (COM)

(ii) Experience from MS in the tripartite approach

(DE, DK, NL, NO)

(iii) Experiences and views of the Trade Unions

(IndustriAll)

Chair / Co-Chair

16:00-16:10 Coffee/Tea Break

16:15-17:00 Technical items Chair / Co-Chair

15

(i) IADC-EOF meeting: Insights on a safety-related

issue (IADC )

(ii) Presentation of the HSE inspection project on

ageing infrastructure (UK-HSE)

17:00 Summary of the afternoon

Closing remarks

Chair / Co-Chair /

End of the Meeting