Facing the Challenge of the Safety of Offshore Oil and Gas Activities

Transcription

1 Facing the Challenge of the Safety of Offshore Oil and Gas Activities European Commission initiative to improve safety and environmental protection against major accidents in EU offshore oil and gas operations Eero Ailio Deputy Head of Unit Directorate General for Brussels, 20 September 2012 Courtesy of Wintershall

2 EU action following Macondo, Montara Commission Communication of October 2011 Policy initiative 2011 (ongoing): Public consultation (March-May 2011) Further stakeholder consultations, incl. EU- NSOAF workshops Impact Assessment study Proposal for EU Regulation (October 2011) Commission Decision establishing EU Offshore Authorities Group (January 2012) 2

3 Offshore in Europe & neighbourhood 3

4 Fragmentation and transboundary dimension 4

5 Objectives of EU action Problem part General objectives Specific objectives 1. Risks can be lowered (i.e. too high to accept) 1. To prevent a major incident from occurring 1. Attain best industry practices; feed raise of global standards 2. Implement best regulatory practices throughout the EU 2. Response measures need improvement 3. Liability provisions incomplete 2. To deal with a major emergency should preventive measures fail 3. Implement better emergency preparedness and response in all EU offshore regions 4. Improve and clarify existing EU liability and compensation provisions 5

6 Measures to implement objectives Black measures considered separately, red measures not taken further Specific objectives 1. Attain best industry practices; feed raise in global standards Measures Considered (incl. suggestions from stakeholders) Establishing a goal-setting ( major hazard report ) regime Extending EU standards overseas Establishing a dynamic best practice model for industry 2. Implement best regulatory practices throughout the EU 3. Implement measures for better emergency preparedness and response in all EU offshore regions Verifying technical capacity during licensing Establishing an inspections and penalties regime Establishing EU-wide cooperation for offshore regulators Ensuring information sharing & transparency at EU level Establishing EU regulatory body Achieving consistency of product safety standards across EU Ensuring cross border availability of compatible assets Ensuring effective response to major offshore incidents Establishing EU intervention response capacity Ensuring financial capacity of operators to cover liability 4. Improve and clarify existing EU liability and compensation provisions Clarifying scope for environmental liability Establishing compensation regimes for traditional damage 6

7 Key points of "Lex Offshore" proposal General measures to prevent major accidents: Risk-based planning and operations: goal-setting approach ( SHE case ) Irrevocable responsibility of licensees/operators Independence of competent authority and of verifiers Obligations and framework for operator & regulator best practices Transparency/sharing of comparable information EU-wide Co-ordination and co-operation amongst regulators, incl. non-eu Compatible and complete emergency preparedness and response, incl. cross-border Enforcement by Member States, not EU 7

8 Reaction of stakeholders Member States generally supportive of substance European Parliament constructive, ambitious Debate on legal, organisational Industry associations vocal critics (legal form, risk), focus away from substance. Companies differentiated Trade unions position evolving NGO's strongly in favour 8

9 EU Timetable (provisional/as at June 2012) 3rd revised draft by Council's Working Party For CY Pres Lex Offshore high priority In EP, File divided between: ITRE (most) Rapporteur MEP Ivo Belet ENVI (quite a lot) JURI (little) Votes in JURI 17 Sept, in ENVI 19 Sept, in ITRE 9 Oct Trilogues Aim: agreement in first reading 9

10 EUOAG Work Plan 2013 Two basic lines of activity Implementation of the new Union legislation General issues Development of common format for sharing and publication of information Monitoring of implementation in MS Development of best practices and guidelines national CAs content of MHR evaluation of MHRs Cooperation projects guidelines twinning projects Development of technical standards CEN, CENELES mandates Position of MS Union vs US standards

11 Thank You! Contact: 11