EN    EN EN 
 
EN    EN  EUROPEAN COMMISSION 
Brussels, 12.10.2010 
SEC(2010) 1193 final 
  
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 
 
 
Accompanying document to the 
  
COMMUNICATION FROM THE CO MMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN 
PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL 
 
Facing the challenge of the safety of offshore oil and gas activities 
  
{COM(2010) 560 final}  
 
EN 2   EN TABLE OF CONTENT 
1. O FFSHORE EXPLORATION AND PRODUCTION ACTIVITIES IN EUROPE   
Indigenous oil and gas production in Europe   
Number of off-shore installations 
Depth of operations 
Age of installations 
Safety record 
2. R EGULATORY ENVIRONMENT  
2.1. EU legislation 
EU treaties 
EU legislation on the authoriz ation of offshore activities 
EU legislation on equipment EU legislation on the safety and health of workers EU legislation on environmental protection EU legislation on waste and on environmental liability EU legislation on emergency intervention 
2.2. International conventions 
3. S
UMMARY OF THE REPLIES TO THE QUESTIONNAIRE CIRCULATED TO COMPANIES ON 11 
MAY 2010 
ANNEX  – EU legislation applicable to offshore oil and gas operations 
 
EN 3   EN 1. O FFSHORE EXPLORATION AND PRODUCTION ACTIVITIES IN EUROPE  
Indigenous oil and gas production in Europe While the European Union (EU) is heavily and increasingly reliant on the imports of both oil 
and gas, indigenous production still makes an important contribution to our energy 
consumption. This is particularly true if the production of Norway, a member of the European 
Economic Area (EEA), is also taken into ac count. In 2009, oil production in the EU + 
Norway amounted to 196 million tons, while ga s production totalled 269 million tons of oil 
equivalent. In 2008, the production of oil an d natural gas was 220 million tons and 255 
million tons of oil equivalent, respectively (see Table 1). 
Table 1 - Primary production of oil and gas in Europe 
Country Crude oil and feedstocks 
(million tons) Natural gas (million 
tons of oil equivalent) 
BE 0.0 0.0 
BG 0.0 0.0 
CZ 0.3 0.2 
DK 12.9 8.3 
DE 4.5 12.2 
EE 0.0 0.0 
IE 0.0 0.4 
EL 0.1 0.0 
ES 0.2 0.0 
FR 1.0 0.8 
IT 5.4 7.4 
CY 0.0 0.0 
LV 0.0 0.0 
LT 0.1 0.0 
LU 0.0 0.0 
HU 0.9 2.2 
MT 0.0 0.0 
 
EN 4   EN NL 1.7 63.3 
AT 1.0 1.6 
PL 0.6 4.1 
PT 0.0 0.0 
RO 4.5 10.3 
SI 0.0 0.0 
SK 0.0 0.1 
FI 0.0 0.0 
SE 0.0 0.0 
UK 64.5 59.0 
EU-27 97.6 169.9 
NO 98.3 98.8 
EU-27 + NO 195.9 268.7 
Source: Statistical Aspects of the Oil Economy in 2009 (Eurostat), Statistical aspects of the natural gas economy 
in 2009 (Eurostat) 
In the EU + Norway, over 90% of  oil and over 60% of gas produ ced is coming from off-shore 
operations, mostly in the North Sea and the No rwegian Sea. In the North Sea, there is 
hydrocarbon production in the Danish, Dutch, German, Norwegian and UK sections. At a 
much lower scale, off-shore production is also taking place in the Mediterranean (mainly in 
Italian waters) and the Black Sea (mainly in Romanian waters). 
Number of off-shore installations 
The offshore oil and gas industry uses various t ypes of installations. Some of these are fixed 
to the seabed (e.g. platforms), others are mobile  (e.g. rigs, drilling vessels). In Europe, mobile 
units are usually but not exclusively used for drilling new wells. Many of the installations are located fully under sea leve l (subsea installations). 
As there is no universally accepted definition for off-shore installations, it is difficult to find 
comparable statistics across the world and ev en across Europe. Mobile  units can be easily 
moved from one country or region to another,  making it difficult to find up-to-date figures. 
Nevertheless, the available figures clearly re flect the predominance of the North Sea in 
European oil production. 
 
EN 5   EN The database of the OSPAR Commission1 lists 1,340 offshore installations operating in the 
North-East Atlantic region; from th ese, 1,170 are indicated as operational. 
According to data from national regulators, th ere are 486 off-shore inst allations in the UK, 
345 in Norway, 181 in the Netherlands, 61 in Denmark, 2 in Germany, 2 in Ireland. The 
majority of installations in the North Sea are fi xed platforms or subsea installations; less than 
8% of them are mobile (see Table 2).  
Table 2 - Existing installations in the North Sea and surroundings 
Installations Denmark Faroes Germany Netherlands Norway UK Total 
Fixed 55 0 2 154 66 270 547
Mobile 3 0 0 7 31 43 84
Subsea 3 0 0 20 248 173 444
Total 61 0 2 181 345 486 1 075
Source: national authorities 
In addition, a further 96 installa tions are planned; most of thes e are subsea installations (see 
Table 3).  
Table 3 - Planned installations in the North Sea and surroundings 
Installations Denmark Faroes Germany Netherlands Norway UK Total 
Fixed 5 0 0 0 3 1 9
Mobile 4 1 0 0 3 3 11
Subsea 0 0 0 0 57 19 76
Total 9 1 0 0 63 23 96
Source: national authorities 
In the Mediterranean, Italy has the most off-s hore installations, 123. Thes e are located in the 
Adriatic Sea, in the Ionian Sea and in the Sic ily Channel. The majority of these produce gas. 
Spain has 2 installations in th e Mediterranean, one of which is  currently under construction. 
(Spain has another 2 installations in the Atlan tic Ocean.) There are 2 installations in Greek 
waters, in the North Aegean Sea, close to the island of Thassos. No operating installations are 
reported in the Cypriot, Frenc h, Maltese and Slovenian sectors but some of these countries 
had drilling activities in the past (France) or plan  to start drilling activities in the near future 
(Cyprus and Malta). 
                                                 
1 http://www.ospar.org/zip/SZ20100902-124151-6993/download.zip 
 
EN 6   EN Off-shore activities are also taking place in th e Mediterranean in the waters of non-Member 
States, including Croatia, Egypt, Israel, Libya and Tunisia. Howe ver, it is difficult to find 
comprehensive data on the installations located in these waters. Production in the waters of 
these countries is modest but there is significan t exploration activity, part icularly in Egypt and 
Libya. A number of European and US co mpanies, including BG Group, BP, ENI, 
ExxonMobil, GDF Suez, RWE Dea, Shell, Statoil and Total are active in  this region. BP's 
plans to drill five wells in Libyan waters ha s received much publicity recently; according to 
press reports the company decided to delay the start of the work (originally planned for the 
summer of 2010) to later this ye ar in order to make sure all precautionary measures are in 
place. 
In the Black Sea, exploration and production acti vities have been conducted for more than 30 
years. At present, Romania is the only si zable producer. In this country, OMV Petrom 
operates 7 platforms and from time to time contracts a drilling rig. Recently, other companies have been also awarded licenses in Romanian waters. Explorati on is also planned or carried 
out in Bulgarian, Georgian, Russian, Turkish a nd Ukrainian waters. Companies active in the 
region include ExxonMobil, Lukoil and Petrobras. The Bulgarian government has recently opened the tender for granting a license for expl oration and production in the "Silistar" bloc. 
Depth of operations 
There is no direct correlation between the sea dept h and the risk of drilli ng; the latter is also 
influenced inter alia by the temperature and the pressure in the reservoir. Nevertheless, it is 
certainly true that the deeper the sea is, the mo re difficult it becomes to intervene in case of a 
critical event like a blow-out. While in rela tively shallow waters human intervention is 
feasible (divers can operate safe ly in a maximum depth of 200- 250 metres), in deeper waters 
the operators have to resort to remotely opera ted underwater vehicles. In  shallow waters it is 
also possible to fix the installations to the sea bottom, thereby eliminating the risk of sinking. 
In contrast, deepwater installations like the ill-fated Deepwater Hori zon rig are typically 
floating. 
Most off-shore operations in European waters  take place at relatively small sea depth, 
especially when comparing with the Gulf of Mexico. According to the OSPAR database, in 
the North-East Atlantic region, which includes  the North Sea and the Norwegian Sea, over 
half of the wells (including all wells in the Da nish, Dutch and German sections of the North 
Sea) are at a water depth of le ss then 100 metres and over 80% of them are at sea depth of less 
then 200 metres. Orman Lange (in Norway) is th e well operating in the largest sea depth, at 
850 meters (see Figure 1).  
Figure 1 -  Water depth of wells in the North-East Atlantic  (in metres) 
 
EN 7   EN 
0
100200300
400
500600700
800
900
Water
depth
(m)
Ormen Lange, Norway (850m)Foinaven, West of Shetland (450m)Nome, Norway (390m)
Data adapted from OSPAR Offshore Database - Inventory of offshore installations 
Source: OGP 
From the 1 075 installations reported by nationa l authorities in and ar ound the North Sea, 191 
are located in water depth exceeding 250 metres , mostly in Norway where over half of the 
facilities operate in such depth (see Table 4). According to data from the Norwegian 
regulator, offshore activities are taking place in water depths of up to 1,300 metres. In 
Denmark, Germany and the Netherlands the maximum attainable sea depth is 50-70 metres. 
Table 4 - Water depth of existing installati ons in the North Sea and surroundings 
Water depth Denmark Faroes Germany Netherlands Norway UK Total 
< 250 m 61 0 2 181 161 479 884
250 m + 0 0 0 0 184 7 191
Total 61 0 2 181 345 486 1 075
Source: national authorities 
From the 96 planned installations, 56 are to be  located in water depth exceeding 250 metres 
(see Table 5). 
Table 5 -  Water depth of planned installation s in the North Sea and surroundings 
Installations Denmark Faroes Germany Netherlands Norway UK Total 
< 250 m 9 0 0 0 10 21 40
250 m + 0 1 0 0 53 2 56
 
EN 8   EN Total 9 1 0 0 63 23 96
Source: national authorities 
While in most of the North Sea the water is sh allow, the environment is considered hostile 
with frequent storms and high waves. In addition,  there is a tendency in this region to move to 
deeper waters. For example, expl oration activities are planned in the UK, west of Shetlands at 
sea depths of up to 1,600 metres, near the Faro e Islands at sea depths of 1,100 metres and in 
Norway at up to 1,700 metres.  
In the Mediterranean, existing operations in Ital y and Spain take place at sea depth of less 
than 200 metres. However, there had been drillings in deeper waters. The Aquila oil field in the Otranto Channel, in Italy, is located under about 800 meters of sea level, but operations 
are currently suspended. In Spain, two new wells were drill ed in 2009 at a depth of about 600-
700 metres but these are not yet operational. In France, two wells were drilled in the 1980s at 
water depths of 1,700 and 1,250 metres, respectively. 
Exploration activities are planned in several areas with higher water depths. For example, 
drilling is planned in waters of  up to 400 metres in Maltese wate rs. In the count ries of North 
Africa, exploration is taking place and planned in both shallow and deep waters. In Libya, 
ExxonMobil drilled two wells over the pa st 12 months at 1,488 and 1,934 metres, 
respectively, while BP's planned operations w ould take place in water depths of 300 to 2,200 
metres. In Egypt, operations are planned in even deeper waters: for example, Statoil plans to 
drill a well in about 2,700 metres water depth. 
In the Black Sea, off-shore ac tivities (mostly in Romania) ha ve traditionally been conducted 
in water depths of less than  100 meters but in recent year s exploration was extended to 
deepwater areas. In Romania, a licence has been awarded to a consortium  for exploration in 
water depth of 1,000 metres but no drilling activity is planned in  the next 18 month in this 
sector. In the Turkish section of  the Black Sea, the first deep -sea well was drilled in 2005 at 
1,500 metres and licenses were awarded in blocks with over 2,000 metres water depth. 
While activities in the Mediterranean, the Black Sea and the Baltic Sea are at a relatively low 
scale and conditions in these regions – at least in  terms of weather – are not as harsh as in the 
North Sea, for geographical reasons these seas are considered more vulnerable to a potential 
spill (closed seas with limited natural change of water). Moreover, exploration in these areas is on the rise, particularly in waters of non-Member States.  
Age of installations 
The North Sea is a mature production area which is reflected in the age of installations. In 
Norway, roughly half of the offshore structures  have already exceeded their original design 
life
2 while in the UK more than half of the fixe d platforms have exceeded their original design 
life or will do shortly3. This raises concerns regarding, on the one hand, about the safety of 
operations of these installations and, on the other hand, about the environmentally acceptable 
way of their decommissioning.  
                                                 
2 Source: http://www.ptil.no/ageing-and-life-extension/category626.html 
3 Source: http://www.offshore-mag.com/index/artic le-display/9114015229/articles/offshore/equipment-
engineering/north-sea-northwest-europe/2010/08/hse-launches_uk_platform.html 
 
EN 9   EN In the questionnaire submitted to the industry the Commission raised the issue and asked 
whether the age of installations poses particul ar kinds of risks. In their reply, companies 
stressed their full commitment to safety, regard less of the location and the age of installations 
and reported on large investments made in the No rth Sea area in recent years to maintain the 
integrity of the mature assets. 
This issue of asset integrity is of equally major concern to regulators. Some national 
authorities have already been taking concrete steps in this area. In the UK a three year 
"Ageing & Life Extension Inspection Program me" has been recently launched to review 
company policies in relation to old installa tions. The issue of d ecommissioning is also 
addressed in the OSPAR Convention (see Section 2). 
Safety record 
Offshore oil and gas operations (extraction of volatile substances sometimes under extreme 
pressure and in a hostile envi ronment) naturally entail risk s. Yet, the European offshore 
industry boasts an improving safety record whic h is comparable e.g. to agriculture or the 
construction industry.  
In the past, the European offshore industry has seen some serious accid ents. In July 1988, 167 
people died when Occidental Petroleum's Pi per Alpha offshore production platform, on the 
Piper field in the UK sector of the North Sea, exploded after a ga s leak. This incident led to 
major changes of the UK offshore safety policy and had repercussions in  other countries as 
well.  
Continuous efforts to effectively manage the ri sks resulted in a signif icant reduction of the 
number of incidents. According to the survey of the International Association of Oil and Gas 
Producers (OGP), 99 fatalities we re recorded globally in the exploration and production sector 
in 2009 (compared to 103 in 2008). The Fatal Accident Rate was the same offshore and 
onshore: 2.8 deaths per 100 million hours worked. 22 of the fatalities occurred in the offshore 
sector (2 of which in Europe); the most comm on single cause was relate d to air transport (8 
fatalities)4. Serious incidents in the industry (resulti ng in fatalities and/or environmental or 
other material damage) are usually not related to rigs/platforms but rather to tankers and 
pipelines. 
For example, in the UK no fatalities were re ported in the last 3 years (2007/2008, 2008/2009 
and 2009/10). 50 major injuries were reported in  2009/2010 which is slightly more than the 
average over the previous five years. Most major injuries were related to slips/trips/falls. The 
combined fatal and major injury rate was 187.0 per 100,000 workers in 2009/2010 compared to 177.4 over the previous five years. In  2009/2010, 85 major and si gnificant hydrocarbon 
releases were reported; this compares to an a nnual average of 73 over the previous five years
5. 
In the Norwegian Continental Shelf, one fata lity was reported in 2009. 329 cases of injury 
were registered; this corresponds to an inju ry frequency of 8.5 per million man-hours. For 
                                                 
4 Source: Safety performance indicators – 2009 data, OGP Report No. 439  
(http://www.ogp.org.uk/pubs/439.pdf) 
5 Source: HSE Offshore safety statistics bulletin 2009/10  
(http://www.hse.gov.uk/offshore/statistics/stat0910.htm) 
 
EN 10   EN serious injuries the frequency is 0.77 per milli on men-hours; this is significantly lower than 
the average for the preceding ten-year period6.  
2. R EGULATORY ENVIRONMENT  
Offshore oil and gas operations in European waters are regulated by a complex regulatory 
framework. In addition to EU legislation and the national legislation of individual Member 
States, the United Nations C onvention on the Law of the S ea and other international 
conventions also play an important role. Most EU  legislation in the field is in the form of 
directives which have to be transposed into  the national legislati on of Member States. 
2.1. EU legislation 
In addition to describing the relevant primary and secondary legislation, this section also 
investigates to what extent the EU legislation is app licable to the offshore oil and gas industry 
and what improvements seem desirable in order to  ensure a high level of safety in European 
waters.  
EU treaties 
The Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union  (TFEU) establishes a new provision on 
energy policy7. The Treaty contains provisions for th e protection of workers' safety and 
health, allowing the adoption of minimum requirements in this field8 and for the protection of 
the environment, including the precautionary principle and the polluter pays principle9. 
EU legislation on the authoriz ation of offshore activities 
In line with the provision of th e TFEU about Member States’ right to determine the conditions 
for exploiting their energy resources, their choice between different energy sources and the general structure of their energy supply, it is up to each Member State to issue licences and 
other approvals necessary for the explorati on and production of hydrocarbon resources within 
its territory and in waters fa lling under its jurisdiction. Each Member States sets its own 
conditions and requirements to  be met for license awards. Directive 94/22/EC of the 
European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 1994 on the conditions for granting and 
using authorizations for the prospection, exploration and producti on of hydrocarbons
10 deals 
only with competitive aspects of Member States' licensing procedures, ensuring equal access to national bidding rounds for entities from all of the EU. 
At the same time, it is clear that decisions of  individual Member States in approving activities 
off their shores can have a direct and significant  impact on other Member States. First, it is 
clear that oil spills resulting from offshore acc idents do not recognize pol itical or geographical 
borders and can equally affect the shores of more than one state. Second, and perhaps even 
                                                
 
6 Source: PSA Summary Report 2009 – Norwegian Continental Shelf – Trends in risk level in the 
petroleum activity  
(http://www.ptil.no/getfile.php/PDF/RNNP%20 2009/Trends%20in%20risk%20levels%20-
%20Summary%20Report%202009.pdf) 
7 Article 194(2). 
8 Article 153(1) and (2). 
9 Article 191(2), first indent. 
10 References to the EU legislation mentioned in this document can be found in the Annex. 
 
EN 11   EN more importantly, the experience from the recent events in the Gulf of Mexico shows that 
offshore accidents can affect more than just  coastal areas and th eir local economies.  
Major accidents resulting in massive oil spills can bring not only environmental but also 
economic and social damage. They risk puttin g in doubt the very public acceptance of the 
offshore hydrocarbon industry, something no deve loped country today can afford without 
serious implications for its energy security and ultimately its economic and social situation. In 
addition, the proper functioning of the intern al market may require setting licensing 
conditions to ensure that safety, hea lth or environment are not compromised. 
Although most investigations of the causes of the accident in the Gulf of Mexico are still 
ongoing, some early lessons can already be draw n. First, each offshore operation in the oil 
and gas industry should be carried out only if its  conditions and the capacities of the operator 
allow for effective and quick intervention in cas e of a critical event in any part of the 
operation.  
Second, it is equally important th at the operators have the fina ncial capability to handle the 
consequences of unexpected events. The acciden t in the Gulf of Mexico has demonstrated 
how extensive the financial consequences can be  in case of really serious accidents. The EU 
has to ensure that all operators active in its  waters could assume their potential financial 
obligations. On the other hand, EU waters shou ld not remain open only to a handful of the 
largest global companies. Appropriate instrument s or regulatory provisio ns may be needed to 
ensure that European offshore remains an area  of vibrant competition and at the same time 
guarantees the unequivocal responsibility of operators.  
EU legislation on equipment 
EU product safety legislation has been ma king already for many years an important 
contribution to the safety of equipment used in  the oil and gas sector. Several product safety 
directives have a beari ng on the sector, namely Directive 2006/42/EC of the European 
Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2006 on machinery, and amending Directive 
95/16/EC  (Machinery Directive), Directive 97/23/EC of the Eu ropean Parliament and of the 
Council of 29 May 1997 on the approximation of the laws of the Memb er States concerning 
pressure equipment  (Pressure Equipment Directive) and Directive 94/9/EC of the European 
Parliament and the Council of 23 March 1994 on the approximation of  the laws of the 
Member States concerning equipment and protec tive systems intended for use in potentially 
explosive atmospheres  (ATEX Directive). 
The legislation sets out the essential requireme nts applicable to the equipment concerned and 
the conformity assessment procedures to be followed by manufacturers before the equipment 
in placed on the market and put into service. De tailed technical specifications are provided by 
harmonized European standards developed by the European Committee for Standardization 
(CEN) and the European Committee for Electro technical Standardization (CENELEC). In 
addition to general stan dards, there is currently a harmonized standard for some specific 
equipment (offshore cranes) and other specific standards are being deve loped for drill casing 
elevators and other offshor e drilling equipment.  
It should be noted that this EU legislation ex cludes from its scope mobile offshore units and 
equipment installed thereon. Mobile offshore un its are considered as seagoing vessels and 
their safety is subject to rules established by the International Maritime Organization (IMO) in 
 
EN 12   EN the IMO Code for the Construction and Equi pment of Mobile Offshore Drilling Units 
(MODU Code). However, the MODU Code  does not cover drilling operations. 
Some of the EU and EEA Coastal States cons ider that it would be useful to apply EU 
legislation to equipment installed and used on mobile offshore units. The distinction between 
mobile and fixed units has indeed been overt aken by current technolo gy, since mobile units 
nowadays frequently remain in place for the lifetime of a well and the equipment of these 
units is often the same as that used on fixed offshore units. 
Further action may be appropriate as regards the standards for well control equipment. 
Although the causes of the explosion on the Deepwa ter Horizon rig are no t yet fully known, it 
is clear that the accident involved the fail ure of its well control equipment, including the 
blow-out preventer (BOP)11. At present, the Pressure Equipment Directive excludes BOPs 
from its scope as its provisions are not consid ered appropriate or adequate for equipment 
designed for specific a pplications in particul arly severe environmen ts, including undersea 
wells.  
Consequently, the design, construction, use and inspections of well co ntrol equipments are 
currently covered by the national regulations  of EU and EEA Coastal States. These 
regulations are generally perfor mance based, requiring operators to provide proof of safety 
before drilling or production operations are authorized.  
Consultations with competent national authorities of the coastal states of the North Sea 
indicate that the rules applied by them with re spect to well control and blow-out prevention 
are more stringent than those applied in non- European jurisdictions and may be adequate. 
However, this needs to be confirmed by further an alyses, particularly in the light of the results 
of inquiries into the causes of the Deepwater Ho rizon accident; it has to be also confirmed for 
rules applied by national authorities in other European offshore areas. 
EU legislation on the health and safety of workers 
As regards the protection of the health and sa fety of workers in the sector, the Framework 
Council Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on th e introduction of measures to encourage 
improvements in the safety and health of workers at work is complemented by the sector-
specific individual Council Directive 92/91/EEC of 3 November 1992 concerning the 
minimum requirements for improv ing the safety and health pr otection of workers in the 
mineral-extracting indus tries through drilling . Specific provisions regarding work equipment 
used at work are laid down in Directive 2009/104/EC of the Eu ropean Parliament and of the 
Council of 16 September 2009 con cerning the minimum safety and health requirements for 
the use of work equipment by workers at work . Other specific directives are also relevant to 
workers in the off-shore extr action industry such as thos e addressing noise, vibration, 
electromagnetic fields, manual handling of loads,  safety signs, personal protective equipment 
etc. This comprehensive and va st regulatory framework was dr awn up to provide assurances 
that the workers, inter alia those working on offshore installations, have optimal conditions 
for ensuring safe operations of oil production faci lities. The directives in  the field of health 
                                                 
11 A blowout preventer is a large, specialized valve used to seal, control and monitor oil and gas wells. It 
has to cope with extreme erratic pressures and uncontrolled flow emanating from a well reservoir 
during drilling. 
 
EN 13   EN and safety at work contain minimum requirement s and Member States ar e allowed to adopt or 
maintain more stringent protective measures. 
A review on the implementation of Directive 92/ 91/EEC last year concluded that there was no 
need for changes at that time12. Once the causes of the Deepwater Horizon accident are 
known, a further review will be undertaken to confirm if the conclusions of the 
implementation report are still valid and these conclusions will be submitted to the tripartite Advisory Committee on Safety and Health. 
It is also noted that competent national author ities in some Member States and EEA countries 
have been taking initiative within the No rth Sea Offshore Authorities Forum (NSOAF)
13 to 
explore the need for amendments to Directive 92/91/EEC in light of any new information. A 
dedicated working group has been set up within  NSOAF and intends to  identify by April 2011 
the common areas where NSOAF members ag ree improvements are necessary, while 
reflecting on the Commission’s report on the prac tical implementation of  Directive 92/91/EC. 
EU legislation on environmental protection 
Although technical or working condition standards are important for minimizing operating 
risks a strong, comprehensive and clear enviro nmental legislation also  reinforces, including 
through economic incentives, the compliance of ope rators with applicable technical rules. 
Clear provisions on the responsibility for clean-u p operations and on the ultimate liability for 
any caused damage discourage the operators from  underestimating the risks or compromising 
on safety measures. Sustainability criteria a nd environmental protecti on obligations can limit 
the risks to manageable levels.  
There is at present a whole system of legisl ative measures within the EU environmental 
legislation aimed at pollution prevention. Built on  the precautionary principle enshrined in the 
primary legislation, it consists of Directive 2008/1/EC of the European Parliament and of the 
Council of 15 January 2008 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control (IPPC 
Directive) and Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June  1985 on the assessment of the effects 
of certain public and private projects on the environment  (Environmental Impact Assessment 
Directive), as amended by Direct ive 97/11/EC, 2003/35/EC and 2009/31/EC. 
The IPPC Directive requires i ndustrial and agricultural activities with a high pollution 
potential to have a permit. This permit can only be issued if certain environmental conditions 
are met, so that the companies themselves bear responsibility for preventing and reducing the pollution they may cause through their industria l operations. Under the Environmental Impact 
Assessment Directive, proposed projects' likely significant effects on the environment have to 
be assessed and the necessary measures to prev ent, reduce and – where possible – offset any 
significant adverse effects identified prior to authorisation. The extrac tion of petroleum and 
natural gas falls under the scope of the dire ctive. The EMAS Regulation implements EMAS 
(Eco-Management and Audit Scheme) which is a voluntary environmental management 
                                                
 
12 Report from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and 
Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the practical implementation of Health and 
Safety at Work Directives 92/91/EEC (mineral extraction through drilling) and 92/104/EEC (surface 
and underground mineral extraction) - COM(2009) 449. 
13 NSOAF brings together the competent regulatory and supervisory authorities of North Sea coastal states 
dealing with offshore oil and gas operations. 
 
EN 14   EN system, under which companies and other pub lic organisations evaluate, manage and 
continuously improve their environmental performance. 
In addition, Directive 2008/56/EC of the European Pa rliament and of the Council of 17 June 
2008 establishing a framework for community acti on in the field of marine environmental 
policy  (Marine Strategy Framework Directive) es tablishes a process through which Member 
States have to develop strategies to reach th e objective of Good Environmental Status in 2020. 
The assessment of the present situation by each Member State is required in 2012; the 
necessary measures for reaching the objectiv e must be in place by 2015. Measures are 
expected to address the cumulative impacts of specific sectors offshore (including fisheries, 
shipping, dredging, offshore renewables, bio-pr ospecting) and land-b ased (agriculture, 
industry, waste management, wastewater treatmen t) that may have an impact on the marine 
environment. 
EU legislation on waste and on environmental liability 
As regards the responsibility for the clean-up of any oil spill and the liability for damages 
caused by it, EU legislation is based on the "polluter pays" principle14. This principle is 
reflected in secondary legislation that ma y apply to offshore accidents, mainly in Directive 
2006/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2006 on waste  (the 
Waste Framework Directive) which is replaced by Directive 2008/98/EC of the European 
Parliament and of the Council of 19 No vember 2008 on waste and repealing certain 
Directives , to be transposed by 12 December 2010, and in Directive 2004/35/EC of the 
European Parliament and of the Council of 21  April 2004 on environm ental liability with 
regard to the prevention and remedying of environmental damage  (Environmental Liability 
Directive). 
The Waste Framework Directive provides that EU  waste legislation applies fully to offshore 
rigs and platforms operating not only within the territorial waters of any Member State but 
also their Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZ)15 and, where appropriate, to  the continental shelf 
as coastal states have jurisdiction on installati ons located on the continental shelf. Directive 
2008/98 does not modify this legal situation. Fu rthermore, oil escaping from an offshore 
installation is covered by the EU definition of waste and the qualification of oil spilled into sea as waste suffices for imposing the obligation to the polluter of clea ning up (Article 15 of 
the Directive). No demonstration of fault is needed; the mere fact that oil has been released into the marine environment may lead to impos ing obligations on the producer of the waste. 
In case of oil escaping from offshore installa tions, the operator would be regarded as the 
producer or holder of waste and would, in accordance with the po lluter pays principle, bear 
                                                
 
14 The "polluter pays" principle is spelled out in Article 191(2) of the TFEU  stating that "Community 
policy on the environment shall aim at a high level of protection taking into account the diversity of 
situations in the various regions of the Community. It shall be based on the precautionary principle and 
on the principles that preventive action should be taken, that environmental damage should as a priority be rectified at source and that the polluter should pa y." An obligation to apply the principle directly in 
individual cases without intermediate secondary EU legislation implementing it cannot be derived from 
the Treaty. Cf. ECJ judgement of 9 March 2010 in the case C-378/08, Augusta roadstead  (paragraphs 
45, 46). 
15 While its territorial waters extend to maximum 12 na utical miles from the coast of a Member State, the 
Exclusive Economic Zone covers the area of up to 200 nautical miles. To th e extent that a Member 
State claims such zone, it is obliged to apply in it all EU legislation unless it is specified otherwise in 
individual cases. 
 
EN 15   EN the costs of waste management. The clean-up ob ligation follows clearly from European Court 
of Justice (ECJ) case law16. The legal qualification of "producer  of waste or holder of waste" 
also relates to mother companies: in this le gal framework, subcontracting would not constitute 
a mean to escape liability17. 
Besides the obligations of waste management , including the clean-up of oil spills, EU 
environmental legislation also addresses the issu e of liability for dama ges to the environment 
that can result from an accident or other critic al events in offshore activities. The basic legal 
instrument governing environmental liability at  EU level is the Environmental Liability 
Directive. 
The main objective of the Environmental Liabilit y Directive is the prevention and remediation 
of environmental damage. As such, it aims at  restoring the environmental damage to the 
baseline conditions which would have existe d had the damage to the environment not 
occurred. The scope of environmental damage unde r the directive is defined as (a) damage to 
protected species and natural hab itats (under the Habitat and Bird Directives), (b) damage to 
water (under the Water Framework Di rective), and (c) damage to land.  
The Environmental Liability Directive contains a scope of strict liab ility for operators who 
carry out specific activities (listed in Annex III of the directive) and a scope of fault-based 
liability (i.e. requiring a proof of intent or ne gligence) for damage caused to protected species 
and natural habitats (but not for damage to  water or to land) by any other occupational 
activity. The regime which will apply to offshore hydrocarbon installations and rigs in case of an accident is the strict liability regime, i.e.  without the need of the proof of fault.  
Strict liability for offshore oil drilling ope rators is derived from Annex III.7 of the 
Environmental Liability Directive referri ng to the "Manufactur e (…) of dangerous 
substances"
18. 
Furthermore, while the Environmental Liability Directive applies to all the marine waters 
under the jurisdiction of Member States for th e specific purpose of environmental damage to 
the "protected species and natural habitats" under Directive 2009/147/EC of the European 
Parliament and of the Council of 30 Novembe r 2009 on the conservation of wild birds  (Birds 
Directive) and Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural 
habitats and of wi ld fauna and flora  (Habitats Directive), its cove rage of the damage to water 
only applies to the waters in the coastal strip covered by Directive 2000/60/EC of the 
European Parliament and of the Council of 23  October 2000 establishing a framework for 
Community action in the field of water policy (Water Framework Directive). This gap in the 
                                                 
16 ECJ case C-188/07 (Commune de Mesquer v Total France SA and Total International Ltd.) provides 
important jurisprudence. The ECJ in the abovementioned case concerning maritime transport (Erika 
tanker accident) came to the conclusion that oil acci dentally spilled at sea following a shipwreck, mixed 
with water and sediment and drifting along or being washed at the coast of a Member States constitutes 
waste within the meaning of th e Waste Framework Directive. 
17 See for instance the Van de Walle case (C-1/03) with  Texaco being considered as holder of waste or 
Mesquer case (C-187/03) with Total being potential holder of waste. 
18 As regards the provisions on "Manufacture of dangerous substances" (Annex III.7), reference needs to 
be made to Regulation 1272/2008 on classification, packaging and labelling of substances and mixtures, which contains definitions of "substance
" and "manufacture " which can be principally applied from 1 
December 2010 also to oil spills through drilling activities at offshore facilities. The Regulation 
includes in addition "oil" in several index numbers  in its Annex VI.  
 
EN 16   EN applicability in the Environmenta l Liability Directive as regards damage to water is worrying 
in light of the recent experience in the Gulf  of Mexico, where environmental damage to 
marine waters was clearly not limited to the coastal strip and the te rritorial sea. The gap 
should hence be closed to address all the mari ne waters as defined in the Marine Strategy 
Framework Directive. 
EU legislation on emergency intervention 
The EU disposes of various instruments to  complement the emergency response/civil 
protection mechanisms of Member States and industry. The Commun ity Civil Protection 
Mechanism was established by Council Decision  2001/792/EC of 23 October 2001 
establishing a Community mechani sm to facilitate reinforced cooperation in civil protection 
assistance interventions . It provides support, on request, in the event of a major emergency 
and facilitates improved co-ord ination of assistan ce intervention. It covers both civil 
protection and marine pollution and allows re sponding to any major di saster inside and 
outside the EU.  
The Civil Protection Mechanism's Monitoring a nd Information Centre (MIC) is operated by 
the European Commission and is available on a 24/7 basis. The MIC has 24/7 contact points 
in both the civil protection and the marine polluti on authorities in all the Participating States 
and coordinates requests and offers for assist ance from 31 Participating States: the EU 27, 
Croatia and the three European Economic Ar ea (EEA) countries - Norway, Iceland and 
Liechtenstein19.  
The Mechanism has been activated for important marine pollution emergencies in third 
countries such as in Lebanon (2006), Ukraine, S outh Korea (2007), and also  in EU waters, as 
in Spain and Ireland in early 2009. During such  emergencies the MIC coordinates national 
marine pollution and civil prot ection authorities and cooperate s with the European Maritime 
Safety Agency (EMSA). 
The European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA) was established in the aftermath of the Erika 
(1999) and Prestige (2002)  tanker disasters by Regulation 1406/2002/EC of the European 
Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2002 establishing a European Maritime Safety 
Agency for the purpose of ensuring a high, uniform and effective level of maritime safety, 
maritime security, prevention of pollution and response to pollution by ships. 
EMSA focuses on marine pollution and emergenc y preparedness activities related to vessels. 
EMSA can already meaningfully intervene in case of oil spills from o ffshore oil facilities as 
its capacities can cope with an oi l spill irrespective of its source.  
EMSA operates a state-of-the-a rt maritime transport monitoring centre around the clock. The 
agency's CleanSeaNet service is a satellite based monitoring system for marine oil spill 
detection and surveillance in European waters. EMSA has also built a network of stand-by oil 
pollution response vessels th at covers the whole of the European coastline. 
                                                 
19 When, following a marine pollution incident, a reque st for assistance is received from an affected 
country, the MIC can quickly mobilise the oil recove ry capacity from the Participating States and the 
European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA) and facilitate coordination of the deployment of those 
assets. 
 
EN 17   EN Some of EMSA's pollution response capabili ties are applicable to the offshore industry 
without major adjustments (such as the response vessels or the satellite systems). However, 
operating response vessels close to platforms with spills of oil a nd gas mixture require 
additional safety conditions fo r crew and equipment. The location of response vessels in 
Europe may have to be reconsidered or extend ed in view of reaching the location of offshore 
installations in time for response operations. Other activities would necessitate significant 
changes for EMSA as they would require a ne w legal basis as well as additional staff, 
expertise, procedures and equipment. These increased requirements concern especially any 
potential expansion of EMSA's preventive act ivities to offshore oi l and gas activities. 
2.2. International conventions 
International conventions are formal multilate ral treaties. Once adopt ed, the international 
conventions are enforced by the individual nati ons which are signatories. Some conventions 
are also signed by the EU in which case the convention is implemented through EU legislation. 
The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea  (UNCLOS) of 1982 gi ves coastal states 
"sovereign rights for the purpose of exploring and exploiting, conserving and managing the 
natural resources" in  their exclusive economic zone (EEZ), i. e. within 200 nautical miles from 
the coast. It also imposes the obligation to take necessary measures to "ensure effective 
protection for the marine environment", with "par ticular attention being paid to the need for 
protection from harmful effects of such activi ties as drilling". Oil platforms as "artificial 
islands, installations and structur es" are under the jurisdiction of the coastal state according to 
article 60 (Exclusive Economi c Area) and article 80 (contin ental shelf) of UNCLOS.  
The OSPAR Convention
20 concerns the protection of the marine environment in the North-
East Atlantic. This convention, signed in 1992, ha s 16 contracting parties: Belgium, Denmark, 
Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, Luxe mbourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, 
Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom and the EU.  
According to the OSPAR Conventi on, the Contracting Parties shal l "take all possible steps to 
prevent and eliminate pollution and shall take th e necessary measures to protect the maritime 
area against the adverse effects of human activiti es so as to safeguard human health and to 
conserve marine ecosystems and, when practicable, restore marine areas which have been adversely 
affected."  It also states that the C ontracting Parties sha ll apply the precauti onary principle and 
the polluter pays principle and use best availa ble techniques and best environmental practice. 
Further to Article 5 of the C onvention, Annex III imposes furthe r specific obligations related 
to the prevention and elimination of polluti on from offshore sources, including the way of 
decommissioning of offshore installations. 
The EU became a contracting party to the OSPAR Convention through Council Decision 
98/249/EC of 7 October 1997 on the conclusion of  the Convention for th e protection of the 
marine environment of the north-east Atlantic . 
The Barcelona Convention21 concerns the protection of the marine environment in the 
Mediterranean Sea. The original convention wa s signed in 1976 and it has 22 parties: Albania, 
                                                 
20 Full name: Convention for the Protection of the marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic. 
21 Full name: Convention for the Protection of the Mediterranean Sea Against Pollution. 
 
EN 18   EN Algeria, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, C yprus, Egypt, France, Gr eece, Israel, Italy, 
Lebanon, Libya, Malta, Monaco, Morocco, Serbia and Montenegro, Slovenia, Spain, Syria, 
Tunisia, Turkey and the EU.  
According to the Barcelona Convention, the Cont racting Parties shall take all appropriate 
measures "to prevent, abate and combat polluti on of the Mediterranean Sea area and to protect 
and enhance the marine environment in that area. " More explicitly, Arti cle 7 requires that the 
"Contracting Parties shall take  all appropriate measures to prevent, abate and combat 
pollution of the Mediterranean Sea area resulti ng from exploration and exploitation of the 
continental shelf and the seabed and its subsoil." 
The EU became a contracting party to the Barcelona Convention through Council Decision 
77/585/EEC of 25 July 1977 co ncluding the Convention for the protection of the 
Mediterranean Sea against pollution and the Protoc ol for the prevention of the pollution of 
the Mediterranean Sea by dum ping from ships and aircraft .  
The Barcelona Convention has a number of Protocols. The Protocol setting out  provisions for 
protecting the Mediterranean from pollution re sulting from exploration and exploitation of 
the continental shelf and the seabed and subsoil  (also known as th e Offshore Protocol) 
specifies that the Parties shall take "all approp riate measures to prevent, abate, combat and 
control pollution in the Protocol Area resulting from activities [ concerning exploration and/or 
exploitation of the resources] , inter alia by ensuring that the best available techniques, 
environmentally effective and economically appr opriate, are used for this purpose" and they 
"ensure that all necessary measures are taken so that activities [ concerning exploration and/or 
exploitation of the resources]  do not cause pollution". This pr otocol was adopted in 1994 but 
still needs to be ratified by one fu rther contracting party to enter in to force. So far it has been 
ratified by Albania, Libya, Morocco, Tunisia an d a single EU Member State, Cyprus. France, 
Greece, Italy, Malta, Slovenia and Spain have not  yet ratified the protocol. The EU did not 
sign the protocol before the closing date in 1995. 
The HELCOM (also known as Helsinki) Convention22 concerns the protection of the marine 
environment in the Baltic Sea. It was originally  signed in 1974; a new, revised text was signed 
in 1992. The present contracting parties are De nmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Latvia, 
Lithuania, Poland, the Russian Federation, Sweden and the EU.  
According to the HELCOM convention, the Cont racting Parties shall "take all appropriate 
legislative, administrative or other relevant measures to pr event and eliminate pollution in 
order to promote the ecological restoration of the Baltic Sea Area and the preservation of its ecological balance". It also embraces the precau tionary principle, the polluter pays principle 
and the promotion of the use of Best Envir onmental Practice and Best Available Technology. 
Annex VI of the convention specifically deals with the prevention of pollution from offshore 
activities. Inter alia, it requires that an 
environmental impact assessment shall be made before an 
offshore activity is permitted to start and that each offshore unit shall have a pollution emergency plan.  
The EU became a contracting party to the revised HELCOM Convention through Council 
Decision 94/157/EC of 21 February 1994 on the c onclusion, on behalf of the Community, of 
the Convention on the Protection of the Marine En vironment of the Baltic Sea Area (Helsinki 
Convention as revised in 1992) . 
                                                 
22 Full name: Convention on the Protection of th e Marine Environment of the Baltic Sea Area. 
 
EN 19   EN The Bucharest Convention23 concerns the protection of the marine environment in the Black 
Sea. It was signed in 1992 by all six Black Sea nations: Bulg aria, Georgia, Romania, the 
Russian Federation, Turkey and Ukraine. 
According to the Bucharest Convention, contracti ng parties "shall take individually or jointly, 
as appropriate, all necessary measures consiste nt with international law and in accordance 
with the provisions of this C onvention to prevent, reduce a nd control pollution thereof in 
order to protect and preserve th e marine environment of the Black  Sea". It also requires them 
to "adopt laws and regulations and take measur es to prevent, reduce and control pollution of 
the marine environment of the Black Sea ca used by or connected with activities on its 
continental shelf, including the exploration and exploitation of  the natural resources of the 
continental shelf". Its Protocol on cooperatio n in combating polluti on of the Black Sea 
Marine Environment by oil and other harmf ul substances in emergency situations  covers 
pollution due to oil spills and other accidental discharges of hazardous substances; it requires 
members to the convention to establish guideli nes to responding to such emergencies.  
Parties to the International Convention on Oil Pollution Preparedness, Response and 
Cooperation  (the OPRC Convention), adopted in 1990, ar e required to establish measures for 
dealing with pollution incidents, either nationally or in co-opera tion with other countries. The 
Convention is designed to facilitate interna tional co-operation and mu tual assistance in 
preparing for and responding to a major oil po llution incident and to encourage States to 
develop and maintain an adequate capability to deal with oil pollution emergencies. The 
Convention became international law in May 1995. The EU is not a signatory to this Convention, which was developed in the framew ork of the IMO, but the majority of its 
Member States are contracting parties to the Convention and most of its protocols. 
The Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context  (the 
Espoo Convention) is a United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) 
convention signed in 1991 that entered into force in 1997. The Convention sets out the 
obligations of Parties to carry out an environm ental impact assessment of certain activities at 
an early stage of planning. It also lays down the general obligation of States to notify and 
consult each other on all majo r projects under c onsideration that ar e likely to have a 
significant adverse environmen tal impact across boundaries. 
Offshore hydrocarbon production 
is one of the activities explicitly mentioned in the convention. The EU is a contracting party to the 
Espoo Convention through Council Decision 2008/871/EC of 20 October 2008 on the approval, 
on behalf of the European Community, of the Protocol on Strategic Environmental Assessment to 
the 1991 UN/ECE Espoo Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary 
Context .  
3. S UMMARY OF THE REPLIES TO THE QUESTIONNAIRE CIRCULATED TO COMPANIES ON 11 
MAY 2010 
Shortly after the accident in the Gulf of Me xico, Commissioner Oettinger convened a meeting 
with the largest oil and gas companies active in European waters, asking them to provide assurances that risks are assessed and manage d on continuous and comp lete basis. In this 
high-level meeting on 11 May 20 10, where Commissioner Georgi eva was also present, a 
questionnaire was circulated requesting more detailed information on the industry's view on 
certain key questions related to offshore opera tions in Europe. In addition to the reply 
                                                
 
23 Full name: Convention on the Protection of the Black Sea Against Pollution. 
 
EN 20   EN provided by OGP on behalf of its memb ers, a number of companies (Chevron, 
ConocoPhillips, DONG, ENI, ExxonMobil, GDF Suez Maersk Oil, Nexen, Petrom, RWE Dea, Shell, Statoil, Suncor and Wintersha ll) submitted individual replies. Some other 
companies (including BG Group, BP and Total) also provided useful information on their 
offshore activities and the actions taken in  the wake of the accident in the US.  
In their submissions, companies stressed their full commitment to safety and claimed that the 
industry already follows the highest  standards and what is curren tly accepted as best practice, 
based on the latest technology a nd experience. A strong safety cu lture focusing on prevention 
is present in the companies, with protection of the employees as a top priority, regardless of 
the location and the age of th e installations. Risk manageme nt is seen as a continuous 
improvement process and many companies have as  a goal to exceed stan dards and regulations 
rather than just meet them. 
It was highlighted that the risk management in  the industry is closely related and adapted to 
each individual installation and focuses on the prevention of major acci dents. Operators are 
required to identify and assess the major risk s case by case and demonstrate to the national 
authorities how these risks would be managed. Th is approach, which is applied in the main 
producing countries of Europe, is  referred to goal-setting or performance-based regulation. 
The goal-setting approach places the responsi bility for safe and environmentally sound 
operations on the operator, while allowing flexib ility and adaptability. On  the other hand, it is 
complemented by regular audits and inspections. In some national jurisdictions there is an 
additional requirement for an independe nt review of contingency plans.  
One of the questions raised the possibility of a repository of c ontingency plans that is being 
considered by the Commission. In their reply, OGP and individual companies expressed no 
fundamental reservation, provided that any commercially sensitive data are removed. As 
concerns operations in Norwa y, the industry has developed common contingency plans and 
works together through the Norwegian Clean  Sea Association for Operating Companies 
(NOFO) which publishes the regional contingency plans on its website.  
When answering a specific question on aging installations, companies stressed their full 
commitment to safety regardless of the age of installations and reported on regular 
maintenance and large investments made in the North Sea area in recent years to maintain the integrity of the mature assets. OGP referred to the industry's activit y to develop a set of 
criteria for assessing the state of offshore inst allation that are appro aching the end of their 
designed life time.  
Several companies highlighted the role of national regulators which were characterized as 
competent and technically knowledgeable. Theref ore, it is important to involve them in 
reflections on possible improvements to risk le vels in European ope rations. The important 
role of regional cooperation both at the regu lators' level (Internati onal Regulators Forum, 
NSOAF) and at industry level (OGP, Intern ational Petroleum Industry Environmental 
Conservation Association, Oil Spill Response Lt d, etc.) was also highlighted. The industry 
expressed readiness to cooperate closely with EMSA, e.g. through exercises, if the agency's 
mandate is extended to offshore oil and gas operations. 
Companies reported on extensive training pr ogrammes for their personnel and regular 
emergency response exercises, testing th e response to a po tential o il spill. 
 
EN 21   EN It was also emphasized that opera tions in the EU significantly diffe r from those in the Gulf of 
Mexico, mainly in terms of operating depths, but also because most activit ies in the EU relate 
to production, not drilling. On the other hand, de spite lower operational depths in Europe, the 
risks are often comparable as a number of re servoirs are characteri zed by high pressure/high 
temperature conditions. 
Companies fully accept their legal responsib ility under the relevant national and EU 
legislation and the licenses in case of environmental or other damage resulting from their 
operations. To complement the liability of indi vidual companies, the i ndustry established the 
voluntary Offshore Pollution Liability Associ ation Limited (OPOL) which deals with 
compensation claims arising from offshore oil pollution incidents. Some companies reported 
on additional, comprehensive insurance coverage  for accidents, including oil spills, placed on 
the international insurance market.  
It is the general view of the industry that the current legislative framework covering the sector 
is robust and sound and the focus should be on th e efficient implementation of existing rules. 
Nevertheless, one respondent proposed conc rete areas for improving the EU regulatory 
framework, such as standards for blow-out prev enters or rules for well abandonment. The idea 
of a harmonization of any new regulations ac ross jurisdictions was also promoted; this 
requires close cooperation among regulators.  
Several companies reiterated that the cause of the accident is not yet kno wn, that lessons from 
the accident and any regulatory response should come only with the knowledge of what went 
wrong. Nevertheless, any relevant lessons will be  incorporated into their risk management 
processes and policies. 
 
EN 22   EN ANNEX 
EU legislation applicable to offshore oil and gas operations 
Authorization 
Title Directive 94/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 
1994 on the conditions for granting and using authorizations for the prospection, exploration and production of hydrocarbons 
Reference OJ L 164, 30.6.1994, p. 3–8 
Website http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUri Serv.do?uri=CELEX:31994L0022:EN:HTML  
Equipment 
Title Directive 2006/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 
May 2006 on machinery, and amending  Directive 95/16/EC (Machinery 
Directive) 
Reference OJ L 157, 9.6.2006, p. 24–86 
Website http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriSe rv.do?uri=OJ:L:2006:157:0024:0086:EN:PDF
Title Directive 97/23/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 May 
1997 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States concerning 
pressure equipment (Pressure Equipment Directive) 
Reference OJ L 181, 9.7.1997, p. 1–55 
Website http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUri Serv.do?uri=CELEX:31997L0023:EN:HTML  
Title Directive 94/9/EC of the European Par liament and the Council of 23 March 
1994 on the approximation of the laws  of the Member States concerning 
equipment and protective systems intende d for use in potentially explosive 
atmospheres (ATEX Directive) 
Reference OJ L 100, 19.4.1994, p. 1–29 
Website http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUri Serv.do?uri=CELEX:31994L0009:EN:HTML  
Safety and health of workers  
Title Council Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June  1989 on the introduction of 
measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at 
work  as amended by Directive 2007/30/EC 
 
EN 23   EN Reference OJ L 183, 29.6.1989, p. 1–8 
Website http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUri Serv.do?uri=CELEX:31989L0391:EN:HTML  
Title Council Directive 92/91/EEC of 3 November 1992 concerning the minimum 
requirements for improving the safety and health protection of workers in the mineral-extracting industries through drilling 
Reference OJ L 348, 28.11.1992, p. 9–24 
Website http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUri Serv.do?uri=CELEX:31992L0091:EN:HTML  
Title Directive 2009/104/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 
September 2009 concerning the minimum safety and health requirements for 
the use of work equipment by workers at work 
Reference OJ L 260, 3.10.2009, p. 5–19 
Website http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriSe rv.do?uri=OJ:L:2009:260:0005:0019:EN:PDF
Title Council Directive 89/656/EEC of 30 November 1989 on the minimum health 
and safety requirements for the use by  workers of personal protective 
equipment at the workplace 
Reference OJ L 393, 30.12.1989, p. 18–28 
Website http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUri Serv.do?uri=CELEX:31989L0656:EN:HTML  
Title Council Directive 90/269/EEC of 29 M ay 1990 on the minimum health and 
safety requirements for the manual hand ling of loads where there is a risk 
particularly of back injury to workers 
Reference OJ L 156, 21.6.1990, p. 9–13 
Website http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUri Serv.do?uri=CELEX:31990L0269:EN:HTML  
Title Council Directive 90/270/EEC of 29 May 1990 on the minimum safety and 
health requirements for work wi th display screen equipment 
Reference OJ L 156, 21.6.1990, p. 14–18 
Website http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUri Serv.do?uri=CELEX:31990L0270:EN:HTML  
Title Directive 2004/37/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 
April 2004 on the protection of workers fr om the risks related to exposure to 
 
EN 24   EN carcinogens or mutagens at work 
Reference OJ L 158, 30.4.2004, p. 50–76 
Website http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriSe rv.do?uri=OJ:L:2004:158:0050:0076:EN:PDF
Title Directive 2000/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 
September 2000 on the protection of work ers from risks related to exposure 
to biological agents at work 
Reference OJ L 262, 17.10.2000, p. 21–45 
Website http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriSe rv.do?uri=OJ:L:2000:262:0021:0045:EN:PDF
Title Council Directive 92/58/EEC of 24 J une 1992 on the minimum requirements 
for the provision of safety a nd/or health signs at work 
Reference OJ L 245, 26.8.1992, p. 23–42 
Website http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUri Serv.do?uri=CELEX:31992L0058:EN:HTML  
Title Council Directive 98/24/EC of 7 April 1998 on the protection of the health 
and safety of workers from the risks related to chemical agents at work 
Reference OJ L 131, 5.5.1998, p. 11–23 
Website http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriSe rv.do?uri=OJ:L:1998:131:0011:0023:EN:PDF
Title Commission Directive 91/322/EEC of 29 M ay 1991 on establishing indicative 
limit values by implementing Council Directive 80/1107/EEC on the 
protection of workers from the risks rela ted to exposure to chemical, physical 
and biological agents at work 
Reference OJ L 177, 5.7.1991, p. 22–24 
Website http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUri Serv.do?uri=CELEX:31991L0322:EN:HTML  
Title Commission Directive 2000/39/EC of 8 June 2000 establishing a first list of 
indicative occupational exposure limit  values in implementation of Council 
Directive 98/24/EC on the protection of the health and safety of workers from 
the risks related to chemical agents at work 
Reference OJ L 142, 16.6.2000, p. 47–50 
Website http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriSe rv.do?uri=OJ:L:2000:142:0047:0050:EN:PDF
 
EN 25   EN Title Commission Directive 2006/15/EC of 7 February 2006 establishing a second 
list of indicative occupational exposu re limit values in implementation of 
Council Directive 98/24/EC and amending Directives 91/322/EEC and 2000/39/EC 
Reference OJ L 38, 9.2.2006, p. 36–39 (ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, 
NL, PL, PT, SK, SL, FI, SV), OJ L 330M, 28.11.2006, p. 158–161 (MT) 
Website http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriSe rv.do?uri=OJ:L:2006:038:0036:0039:EN:PDF
Title Commission Directive 2009/161/EU of 17 De cember 2009 establishing a third 
list of indicative occupational exposu re limit values in implementation of 
Council Directive 98/24/EC and amending  Commission Directive 2000/39/EC 
Reference OJ L 338, 19.12.2009, p. 87–89 
Website http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriSe rv.do?uri=OJ:L:2009:338:0087:0089:EN:PDF
Title Directive 2002/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 
June 2002 on the minimum health and safety requirements regarding the 
exposure of workers to the risks aris ing from physical agents (vibration) 
Reference OJ L 177, 6.7.2002, p. 13–20 
Website http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriSe rv.do?uri=OJ:L:2002:177:0013:0019:EN:PDF
Title Directive 2003/10/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 
February 2003 on the minimum health and safety requirements regarding 
the exposure of workers to the risks arising from physical agents (noise) 
Reference OJ L 42, 15.2.2003, p. 38–44 
Website http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriSe rv.do?uri=OJ:L:2003:042:0038:0044:EN:PDF
Title Directive 2004/40/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 
April 2004 on the minimum health and safety requirements regarding the exposure of workers to the risks arising from physical agents (electromagnetic fields) 
Reference OJ L 159, 30.4.2004, p. 1–26 
Website http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriSe rv.do?uri=OJ:L:2004:159:0001:0026:EN:PDF
Title Directive 2006/25/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 
April 2006 on the minimum health and safety requirements regarding the exposure of workers to risks arising fr om physical agents (artificial optical 
 
EN 26   EN radiation) 
Reference OJ L 114, 27.4.2006, p. 38–59 
Website http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriSe rv.do?uri=OJ:L:2006:114:0038:0059:EN:PDF
Title Directive 2009/148/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 
November 2009 on the protection of wo rkers from the risks related to 
exposure to asbestos at work 
Reference OJ L 330, 16.12.2009, p. 28–36 
Website http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriSe rv.do?uri=OJ:L:2009:330:0028:0036:EN:PDF
Environment 
Title Directive 2008/1/EC of the European Pa rliament and of the Council of 15 
January 2008 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control (IPPC Directive) 
Reference OJ L 24, 29.1.2008, p. 8–29 
Website http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriSe rv.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:024:0008:0029:EN:PDF
Title Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June  1985 on the assessment of the 
effects of certain public and privat e projects on the environment 
(Environmental Impact Assessment Directive) as amended by Directive 
97/11/EC, 2003/35/EC and 2009/31/EC  
Reference OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40–48 
Website http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUri Serv.do?uri=CELEX:31985L0337:EN:HTML  
Title Directive 2008/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 
June 2008 establishing a framework for community action in the field of 
marine environmental policy (Marin e Strategy Framework Directive) 
Reference OJ L 164, 25.6.2008, p. 19–40 
Website http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriSe rv.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:164:0019:0040:EN:PDF
Title Directive 2006/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 
April 2006 on waste (the Waste Framework Directive) 
Reference OJ L 114, 27.4.2006, p. 9–21  
 
EN 27   EN Website http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriSe rv.do?uri=OJ:L:2006:114:0009:0021:EN:PDF
Title Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 
November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives 
Reference OJ L 312, 22.11.2008, p. 3–30  
Website http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriSe rv.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:312:0003:0030:EN:PDF
Title Directive 2004/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 
April 2004 on environmental liability with regard to the prevention and 
remedying of environmental damage (Environmental Liability Directive) 
Reference OJ L 143, 30.4.2004, p. 56–75  
Website http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriSe rv.do?uri=OJ:L:2004:143:0056:0075:EN:PDF
Title Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 
October 2000 establishing a framework fo r Community action in the field of 
water policy (Water Framework Directive) 
Reference OJ L 327, 22.12.2000, p. 1–73 
Website http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriSe rv.do?uri=OJ:L:2000:327:0001:0072:EN:PDF
Emergency intervention  
Title Council Decision 2001/792/EC of 23 Octo ber 2001 establishing a Community 
mechanism to facilitate re inforced cooperation in civi l protection assistance 
interventions 
Reference OJ L 297, 15.11.2001, p. 7–11 
Website http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriSe rv.do?uri=OJ:L:2001:297:0007:0011:EN:PDF
Title Regulation 1406/2002/EC of the European  Parliament and of the Council of 
27 June 2002 establishing a European Ma ritime Safety Agency as amended 
Reference OJ L 208, 5.8.2002, p. 1–9 
Website Consolidated version: http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexU riServ.do?uri=CONSLEG:2002R1406:20061231:
EN:PDF  
Title Regulation 1891/2006/EC of the European  Parliament and of the Council of 
18 December 2006 on multiannual funding for the action of the European 
 
EN 28   EN Maritime Safety Agency in the field of  response to pollution  caused by ships 
and amending Regulation 1406/2002/EC  
Reference OJ L 394, 30.12.2006, p. 1–4 
Website http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriSe rv.do?uri=OJ:L:2006:394:0001:0004:EN:PDF