Decommissioning offshore petroleum infrastructure in Commonwealth waters: discussion paper

What organisation do you represent? - Organisation

Provide a public written submission - Submission

Should the property removal obligation be amended to specifically require titleholders to either remove property or make other arrangements that are satisfactory to NOPSEMA? - Q1 - Y/N

Should timeframes for property removal be mandated? - Q2 - Y/N

Should a new standalone decommissioning obligation be included within the regime? - Q3 - Y/N

Should titleholders be required to inform government of their overarching plans for decommissioning? - Q4 - Y/N

Should titleholders be required to periodically update government about decommissioning-related information, including an inventory of infrastructure and its status, and a progress report on decommissioning items of infrastructure? - Q5 - Y/N

Should titleholders be required to submit ‘close-out’ reporting after decommissioning? - Q6 - Y/N

Should current titleholders be made expressly (in the OPGGS Act) liable for the costs of carrying out their decommissioning obligations? - Q7 - Y/N

Should alternative liability arrangements be included in a revised framework, providing government with the ability to pursue previous titleholders in the chain of ownership if the current titleholder is unwilling or unable to decommission? - Q8 - Y/N

Should titleholders be released from liability in appropriate circumstances? - Q8 - Y/N

Should titleholders ever be released from liability for infrastructure left in the marine environment? - Q10 - Y/N

Should government be able to conduct assessments of a titleholder’s capacity to fulfil its obligations at any time? - Q11 - Y/N

Should industry be required to hold and demonstrate sufficient financial security to meet its decommissioning costs? - Q12 - Y/N

Should a former titleholder operating under a remedial direction be subject to all the duties and responsibilities as if it were operating under their previous title? - Q13 - Y/N

Should a former titleholder be permitted to submit risk management plans? - Q14 - Y/N

Should a ‘person’ (or another entity other than a former titleholder) be permitted to submit risk management plans? - Q15 - Y/N

Should a new category of title be established to enable a former titleholder to have a current title under which to undertake relevant decommissioning and remediation activities with relevant regulatory approvals? - Q16 - Y/N

Should NOPSEMA and the Minister be permitted to issue remedial directions to all former titleholders?

- Q17 - Y/N

Is there additional research (and/or development) being undertaken relevant to decommissioning that government should be aware of? - Q18 - Y/N

Is there additional research that should be undertaken on decommissioning, and in particular on environmental standards? - Q19 - Y/N

Should more be done to encourage industry collaboration to help ensure that options for the continued use of offshore petroleum infrastructure in Commonwealth waters are explored prior to its decommissioning? - Q20 - Y/N

Is there interest and merit in creating an Australian offshore petroleum decommissioning industry? - Q21 - Y/N

Are there other issues relating to decommissioning that are not covered in this discussion paper and you think it is appropriate for government to be involved in?

- Q22 - Y/N

Unique ID