The OPGGSA has as its objects the provision of an effective regulatory framework for both petroleum exploration and recovery and the injection and storage of greenhouse gas substances in offshore areas,34 and so regulates both the decommissioning of offshore oil and gas structures and the implementation of offshore CCS. [...] Fragmentation as a Disincentive to Use of CCS or in situ Decommissioning The issue of fragmentation in the Australian petroleum sector is not new, and was the subject of review by the Australian Productivity Commission in 2008.54 The Council of Australian Governments directed the Productivity Commission to review the overlapping and potentially inconsistent regulations affecting the upstream petro. [...] For instance, both the risk and cost of a planned decommissioning process may be increased by the inclusion of a CCS project, because it in fact expands the scope of work and the immediate risk of harm to humans or the environment whilst being implemented, reducing the plan's ability to comply with the ALARP principle, whereas the contribution of such a project to reducing global atmospheric carbo. [...] The UK and Norway are both parties to the Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic,67 which has been flagged as substantially restricting the options for decommissioning of offshore petroleum structures to complete removal.68 However, under Norwegian law, titleholders must submit a decommissioning plan between two and five years before the end of productio. [...] This is achieved through the establishment of a number of assessment criteria against which the desirability of decommissioning options are measured, which specifically include the impact of the activity in terms of energy consumption, air emissions and ecology, and the secondary impact of the activity on public health.
- Pages
- 17
- Published in
- Australia
