COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Accompanying document to the   COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL  Facing the challenge of the safety of offshore oil and gas activities   {COM(2010) 560 final}
Date: 2010-10-12
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: corporate social responsibility, environmental protection, gas industry, harmonisation of standards, oil industry, oil pollution, public safety, trade licence

EN 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Brussels, 12.10.2010 
SEC(2010) 1193 final 

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 

Accompanying document to the 

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN 
PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL 

Facing the challenge of the safety of offshore oil and gas activities 

{COM(2010) 560 final} 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1. OFFSHORE EXPLORATION AND PRODUCTION ACTIVITIES IN EUROPE  

TABLE OF CONTENT 

Indigenous oil and gas production in Europe  

Number of off-shore installations 

Depth of operations 

Age of installations 

Safety record 

2. REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT 

2.1. EU legislation 

EU treaties 

EU legislation on the authorization 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. SUMMARY  OF  THE  REPLIES  TO  THE  QUESTIONNAIRE  CIRCULATED  TO  COMPANIES  ON 11 
MAY 2010 

ANNEX – EU legislation applicable to offshore oil and gas operations 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
1. OFFSHORE 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  account.  In  2009,  oil  production  in  the  EU  + 
Norway amounted to 196 million tons, while gas production totalled 269 million tons of oil 
equivalent.  In  2008,  the  production  of  oil  and  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 

Natural gas (million 

(million tons) 

tons of oil equivalent) 

BE 

BG 

CZ 

DK 

DE 

EE 

IE 

EL 

ES 

FR 

IT 

CY 

LV 

LT 

LU 

HU 

MT 

0.0 

0.0 

0.3 

12.9 

4.5 

0.0 

0.0 

0.1 

0.2 

1.0 

5.4 

0.0 

0.0 

0.1 

0.0 

0.9 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.2 

8.3 

12.2 

0.0 

0.4 

0.0 

0.0 

0.8 

7.4 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

2.2 

0.0 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
NL 

AT 

PL 

PT 

RO 

SI 

SK 

FI 

SE 

UK 

EU-27 

NO 

1.7 

1.0 

0.6 

0.0 

4.5 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

64.5 

97.6 

98.3 

EU-27 + NO 

195.9 

63.3 

1.6 

4.1 

0.0 

10.3 

0.0 

0.1 

0.0 

0.0 

59.0 

169.9 

98.8 

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 produced is coming from off-shore 
operations,  mostly  in  the  North  Sea  and  the  Norwegian  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 types 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 level (subsea installations). 

As there is no universally accepted definition for off-shore installations, it is difficult to find 
comparable  statistics  across  the  world  and  even  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  reflect  the  predominance  of  the  North  Sea  in 
European oil production. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
The  database  of  the  OSPAR  Commission1  lists  1,340  offshore  installations  operating  in  the 
North-East Atlantic region; from these, 1,170 are indicated as operational. 

According  to  data  from  national  regulators,  there  are  486  off-shore  installations  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 fixed 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 

Mobile 

Subsea 

Total 

55 

3 

3 

61 

0 

0 

0 

0 

2

0

0

2

154

7

20

181

66 

31 

248 

345 

270 

43 

173 

547

84

444

486 

1 075

Source: national authorities 

In addition, a further 96 installations are planned; most of these 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 

Mobile 

Subsea 

Total 

5 

4 

0 

9 

0 

1 

0 

1 

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

3 

3 

57 

63 

1 

3 

19 

23 

9

11

76

96

Source: national authorities 

In the Mediterranean, Italy has the most off-shore installations, 123. These are located in the 
Adriatic Sea, in the Ionian Sea and in the Sicily Channel. The majority of these produce gas. 
Spain has 2 installations in the Mediterranean, one of which is currently under construction. 
(Spain  has  another  2  installations  in  the  Atlantic  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,  French,  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 

5 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Off-shore activities are also taking place in the Mediterranean in the waters of non-Member 
States,  including  Croatia,  Egypt,  Israel,  Libya  and  Tunisia.  However,  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 significant exploration activity, particularly in Egypt and 
Libya.  A  number  of  European  and  US  companies,  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 has 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  year  in  order  to  make  sure  all  precautionary  measures  are  in 
place. 

In the Black Sea, exploration and production activities have been conducted for more than 30 
years.  At  present,  Romania  is  the  only  sizable  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. Exploration is also planned or carried 
out in Bulgarian, Georgian, Russian, Turkish and 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 exploration and production in the "Silistar" bloc. 

Depth of operations 

There is no direct correlation between the sea depth and the risk of drilling; 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 more difficult it becomes to intervene in case of a 
critical  event  like  a  blow-out.  While  in  relatively  shallow  waters  human  intervention  is 
feasible (divers can operate safely in a maximum depth of 200-250 metres), in deeper waters 
the operators have to resort to remotely operated 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  Horizon  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 Danish, Dutch and German sections of the North 
Sea) are at a water depth of less then 100 metres and over 80% of them are at sea depth of less 
then 200 metres. Orman Lange (in Norway) is the 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 

6 

   EN 

 
0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

Nome, Norway (390m)

Foinaven, West of Shetland (450m)

Water
depth
(m)

Ormen Lange, Norway (850m)

Data adapted from OSPAR Offshore Database - Inventory of offshore installations

Source: OGP 

From the 1 075 installations reported by national authorities in and around 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 installations in the North Sea and surroundings 

Water depth  Denmark  Faroes  Germany  Netherlands  Norway 

UK 

Total 

< 250 m 

250 m + 

Total 

61 

0 

61 

0 

0 

0 

2

0

2

181

0

181

161 

479 

184 

7 

884

191

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 installations in the North Sea and surroundings 

Installations  Denmark 

Faroes  Germany  Netherlands Norway 

UK 

Total 

< 250 m 

250 m + 

9 

0 

0 

1 

EN 

0

0

7 

0

0

10 

53 

21 

2 

40

56

   EN 

 
 
Total 

9 

1 

0

0

63 

23 

96

Source: national authorities 

While  in  most  of  the  North  Sea  the  water  is  shallow,  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, exploration activities are planned in the UK, west of Shetlands at 
sea depths of up to 1,600 metres, near the Faroe Islands at sea depths of 1,100 metres and in 
Norway at up to 1,700 metres.  

In  the  Mediterranean,  existing  operations  in  Italy  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 drilled 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 waters. In the countries of North 
Africa,  exploration  is  taking  place  and  planned  in  both  shallow  and  deep  waters.  In  Libya, 
ExxonMobil  drilled  two  wells  over  the  past  12  months  at  1,488  and  1,934  metres, 
respectively, while BP's planned operations would 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 activities (mostly in Romania) have traditionally been conducted 
in  water  depths  of  less  than  100  meters  but  in  recent  years  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 
life2 while in the UK more than half of the fixed 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 
3 

Source: http://www.ptil.no/ageing-and-life-extension/category626.html 
Source:  http://www.offshore-mag.com/index/article-display/9114015229/articles/offshore/equipment-
engineering/north-sea-northwest-europe/2010/08/hse-launches_uk_platform.html 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
                                                 
In  the  questionnaire  submitted  to  the  industry  the  Commission  raised  the  issue  and  asked 
whether  the  age  of  installations  poses  particular  kinds  of  risks.  In  their  reply,  companies 
stressed their full commitment to safety, regardless of the location and the age of installations 
and reported on large investments made in the North 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  Programme"  has  been  recently  launched  to  review 
company  policies  in  relation  to  old  installations.  The  issue  of  decommissioning  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  environment)  naturally  entail  risks.  Yet,  the  European  offshore 
industry  boasts  an  improving  safety  record  which  is  comparable  e.g.  to  agriculture  or  the 
construction industry.  

In the past, the European offshore industry has seen some serious accidents. In July 1988, 167 
people  died  when  Occidental  Petroleum's  Piper  Alpha  offshore  production  platform,  on  the 
Piper field in the UK sector of the North Sea, exploded after a gas 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  risks  resulted  in  a  significant  reduction  of  the 
number of incidents. According to the survey of the International Association of Oil and Gas 
Producers (OGP), 99 fatalities were 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 common single cause was related to air transport (8 
fatalities)4.  Serious  incidents  in  the  industry  (resulting  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 reported 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  significant  hydrocarbon 
releases were reported; this compares to an annual average of 73 over the previous five years5. 

In  the  Norwegian  Continental  Shelf,  one  fatality  was  reported  in  2009.  329  cases  of  injury 
were  registered;  this  corresponds  to  an  injury  frequency  of  8.5  per  million  man-hours.  For 

4 

5 

Source: Safety performance indicators – 2009 data, OGP Report No. 439 
(http://www.ogp.org.uk/pubs/439.pdf) 
Source: HSE Offshore safety statistics bulletin 2009/10 
(http://www.hse.gov.uk/offshore/statistics/stat0910.htm) 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
                                                 
 
 
serious injuries the frequency is 0.77 per million men-hours; this is significantly lower than 
the average for the preceding ten-year period6.  

2. REGULATORY 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  Convention  on  the  Law  of  the  Sea  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 legislation 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 applicable 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  the  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 authorization of offshore activities 

In line with the provision of the 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 exploration and production of hydrocarbon resources within 
its  territory  and  in  waters  falling  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 production of hydrocarbons10 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 accidents do not recognize political or geographical 
borders and can equally affect the shores of  more than one state. Second, and perhaps even 

6 

7 
8 
9 
10 

Source:  PSA  Summary  Report  2009  –  Norwegian  Continental  Shelf  –  Trends  in  risk  level  in  the 
petroleum activity 
(http://www.ptil.no/getfile.php/PDF/RNNP%202009/Trends%20in%20risk%20levels%20-
%20Summary%20Report%202009.pdf) 
Article 194(2). 
Article 153(1) and (2). 
Article 191(2), first indent. 
References to the EU legislation mentioned in this document can be found in the Annex. 

EN 

10 

   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 their local economies.  

Major  accidents  resulting  in  massive  oil  spills  can  bring  not  only  environmental  but  also 
economic  and  social  damage.  They  risk  putting  in  doubt  the  very  public  acceptance  of  the 
offshore  hydrocarbon  industry,  something  no  developed  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  internal  market  may  require  setting  licensing 
conditions to ensure that safety, health 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  drawn.  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  case  of  a  critical  event  in  any  part  of  the 
operation.  

Second, it is equally important that the operators have the financial capability to handle the 
consequences  of  unexpected  events.  The  accident  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  should  not  remain  open  only  to  a  handful  of  the 
largest global companies. Appropriate instruments or regulatory provisions 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  making  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  bearing  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 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)  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  protective systems  intended  for  use in potentially 
explosive atmospheres (ATEX Directive). 

The legislation sets out the essential requirements 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. Detailed technical specifications are provided by 
harmonized  European  standards  developed  by  the  European  Committee  for  Standardization 
(CEN)  and  the  European  Committee  for  Electrotechnical  Standardization  (CENELEC).  In 
addition  to  general  standards,  there  is  currently  a  harmonized  standard  for  some  specific 
equipment (offshore cranes) and other specific standards are being developed for drill casing 
elevators and other offshore drilling equipment.  

It should be noted that this EU legislation excludes from its scope mobile offshore units and 
equipment  installed  thereon.  Mobile  offshore  units  are  considered  as  seagoing  vessels  and 
their safety is subject to rules established by the International Maritime Organization (IMO) in 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
the  IMO  Code  for  the  Construction  and  Equipment  of  Mobile  Offshore  Drilling  Units 
(MODU Code). However, the MODU Code does not cover drilling operations. 

Some  of  the  EU  and  EEA  Coastal  States  consider  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 overtaken by current technology, 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 Deepwater Horizon rig are not yet fully known, it 
is  clear  that  the  accident  involved  the  failure  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  considered  appropriate  or  adequate  for  equipment 
designed  for  specific  applications  in  particularly  severe  environments,  including  undersea 
wells.  

Consequently,  the  design,  construction,  use  and  inspections  of  well  control  equipments  are 
currently  covered  by  the  national  regulations  of  EU  and  EEA  Coastal  States.  These 
regulations  are  generally  performance  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 respect 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 analyses, particularly in the light of the results 
of inquiries into the causes of the Deepwater Horizon 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  safety  of  workers  in  the  sector,  the  Framework 
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  is  complemented  by  the  sector-
specific  individual  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. Specific provisions regarding work equipment 
used at work are laid down in 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. Other specific directives are also relevant to 
workers  in  the  off-shore  extraction  industry  such  as  those  addressing  noise,  vibration, 
electromagnetic fields, manual handling of loads, safety signs, personal protective equipment 
etc. This comprehensive and vast regulatory framework was drawn up to provide assurances 
that  the  workers,  inter  alia  those  working  on  offshore  installations,  have  optimal  conditions 
for  ensuring  safe  operations  of  oil  production  facilities.  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 

12 

   EN 

 
                                                 
and safety at work contain minimum requirements and Member States are 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 authorities in some Member States and EEA countries 
have  been  taking  initiative  within  the  North  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  agree  improvements  are  necessary,  while 
reflecting on the Commission’s report on the practical 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  environmental  legislation  also  reinforces,  including 
through  economic  incentives,  the  compliance  of  operators  with  applicable  technical  rules. 
Clear provisions on the responsibility for clean-up operations and on the ultimate liability for 
any caused damage discourage the operators from underestimating the risks or compromising 
on safety measures. Sustainability criteria and environmental protection obligations can limit 
the risks to manageable levels.  

There  is  at  present  a  whole  system  of  legislative  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 Directive 97/11/EC, 2003/35/EC and 2009/31/EC. 

The  IPPC  Directive  requires  industrial  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 industrial operations. Under the Environmental Impact 
Assessment Directive, proposed projects' likely significant effects on the environment have to 
be assessed and the necessary measures to prevent, reduce and – where possible – offset any 
significant  adverse  effects  identified  prior  to  authorisation.  The  extraction  of  petroleum  and 
natural gas falls under the scope of the directive. The EMAS Regulation implements EMAS 
(Eco-Management  and  Audit  Scheme)  which  is  a  voluntary  environmental  management 

12 

13 

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. 
NSOAF brings together the competent regulatory and supervisory authorities of North Sea coastal states 
dealing with offshore oil and gas operations. 

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
                                                 
system,  under  which  companies  and  other  public  organisations  evaluate,  manage  and 
continuously improve their environmental performance. 

In addition, 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 (Marine Strategy Framework Directive) establishes a process through which Member 
States have to develop strategies to reach the 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  objective  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-prospecting)  and  land-based  (agriculture, 
industry,  waste  management,  wastewater  treatment)  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  may  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  November  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  environmental  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  installations located on the  continental shelf. Directive 
2008/98  does  not  modify  this  legal  situation.  Furthermore,  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 cleaning 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 imposing obligations on the producer of the waste. 
In  case  of  oil  escaping  from  offshore  installations,  the  operator  would  be  regarded  as  the 
producer or holder of waste and would, in accordance with the polluter pays principle, bear 

14 

15 

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 pay." 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). 
While its territorial waters extend to maximum 12 nautical miles from the coast of a Member State, the 
Exclusive  Economic  Zone  covers  the  area  of  up  to  200  nautical  miles.  To  the  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 

14 

   EN 

 
                                                 
the costs of waste management. The clean-up obligation 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 legal 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 issue of liability for damages to the environment 
that can result from an accident or other critical 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 Liability 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  existed  had  the  damage  to  the  environment  not 
occurred. The scope of environmental damage under the directive is defined as (a) damage to 
protected species and natural habitats (under the Habitat and Bird Directives), (b) damage to 
water (under the Water Framework Directive), and (c) damage to land.  

The  Environmental  Liability  Directive  contains  a  scope  of  strict  liability  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 negligence) 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  operators  is  derived  from  Annex  III.7  of  the 
Environmental  Liability  Directive  referring  to  the  "Manufacture  (…)  of  dangerous 
substances"18. 

Furthermore,  while  the  Environmental  Liability  Directive  applies  to  all  the  marine  waters 
under the jurisdiction of Member States for the 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 November 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 wild fauna and flora (Habitats Directive), its coverage 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 

17 

18 

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 accidentally 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 the Waste Framework Directive. 
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. 
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 

15 

   EN 

 
                                                 
applicability in the Environmental 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  territorial  sea.  The  gap 
should  hence  be  closed  to  address  all  the  marine  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  Community  Civil  Protection 
Mechanism  was  established  by  Council  Decision  2001/792/EC  of  23  October  2001 
establishing a Community mechanism 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-ordination  of  assistance  intervention.  It  covers  both  civil 
protection  and  marine  pollution  and  allows  responding  to  any  major  disaster  inside  and 
outside the EU.  

The Civil Protection Mechanism's Monitoring and 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 pollution authorities in all the Participating States 
and  coordinates  requests  and  offers  for  assistance  from  31  Participating  States:  the  EU  27, 
Croatia  and  the  three  European  Economic  Area  (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, South 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 protection authorities and cooperates 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 emergency preparedness activities related to vessels. 
EMSA can already meaningfully intervene in case of oil spills from offshore oil facilities as 
its capacities can cope with an oil spill irrespective of its source.  

EMSA operates a state-of-the-art 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 that covers the whole of the European coastline. 

19 

When,  following  a  marine  pollution  incident,  a  request  for  assistance  is  received  from  an  affected 
country, the MIC can quickly mobilise the oil recovery capacity from the Participating States and the 
European  Maritime  Safety  Agency  (EMSA)  and  facilitate  coordination  of  the  deployment  of  those 
assets. 

EN 

16 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Some  of  EMSA's  pollution  response  capabilities  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  and  gas  mixture  require 
additional  safety  conditions  for  crew  and  equipment.  The  location  of  response  vessels  in 
Europe may have to be reconsidered or extended 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  new  legal  basis  as  well  as  additional  staff, 
expertise,  procedures  and  equipment.  These  increased  requirements  concern  especially  any 
potential expansion of EMSA's preventive activities to offshore oil and gas activities. 

2.2. International conventions 

International  conventions  are  formal  multilateral  treaties.  Once  adopted,  the  international 
conventions are enforced by the individual nations 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 gives 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 "particular attention being paid to the need for 
protection  from  harmful  effects  of  such  activities  as  drilling".  Oil  platforms  as  "artificial 
islands, installations and structures" are under the jurisdiction of the coastal state according to 
article 60 (Exclusive Economic Area) and article 80 (continental shelf) of UNCLOS.  

The  OSPAR  Convention20  concerns  the  protection  of  the  marine  environment  in  the  North-
East Atlantic. This convention, signed in 1992, has 16 contracting parties: Belgium, Denmark, 
Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, 
Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom and the EU.  

According to the OSPAR Convention, the Contracting Parties shall "take all possible steps to 
prevent and eliminate pollution and shall take the necessary measures to protect the maritime 
area  against  the  adverse  effects  of  human  activities  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 Contracting Parties shall apply the precautionary principle and 
the polluter pays principle and use best available techniques and best environmental practice. 
Further to Article 5 of the Convention, Annex III imposes further specific obligations related 
to  the  prevention  and  elimination  of  pollution  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 the 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 was signed in 1976 and it has 22 parties: Albania, 

20 
21 

Full name: Convention for the Protection of the marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic. 
Full name: Convention for the Protection of the Mediterranean Sea Against Pollution. 

EN 

17 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Algeria,  Bosnia  and  Herzegovina,  Croatia,  Cyprus,  Egypt,  France,  Greece,  Israel,  Italy, 
Lebanon,  Libya,  Malta,  Monaco,  Morocco,  Serbia  and  Montenegro,  Slovenia,  Spain,  Syria, 
Tunisia, Turkey and the EU.  

According  to  the  Barcelona  Convention,  the  Contracting  Parties  shall  take  all  appropriate 
measures "to prevent, abate and combat pollution of the Mediterranean Sea area and to protect 
and enhance the marine environment in that area." More explicitly, Article 7 requires that the 
"Contracting  Parties  shall  take  all  appropriate  measures  to  prevent,  abate  and  combat 
pollution  of  the  Mediterranean  Sea  area  resulting  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  concluding  the  Convention  for  the  protection  of  the 
Mediterranean Sea against pollution  and the Protocol for the prevention of the pollution of 
the Mediterranean Sea by dumping from ships and aircraft.  

The Barcelona Convention has a number of Protocols. The Protocol setting out provisions for 
protecting  the  Mediterranean  from  pollution  resulting  from  exploration  and  exploitation  of 
the  continental  shelf  and  the  seabed  and  subsoil  (also  known  as  the  Offshore  Protocol) 
specifies  that  the  Parties  shall  take  "all  appropriate  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 appropriate, 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  protocol  was  adopted  in  1994  but 
still needs to be ratified by one further contracting party to enter into force. So far it has been 
ratified by Albania, Libya, Morocco, Tunisia and 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  Denmark,  Estonia,  Finland,  Germany,  Latvia, 
Lithuania, Poland, the Russian Federation, Sweden and the EU.  

According  to  the  HELCOM  convention,  the  Contracting  Parties  shall  "take  all  appropriate 
legislative,  administrative  or  other  relevant  measures  to  prevent  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 precautionary principle, the polluter pays principle 
and the promotion of the use of Best Environmental 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 conclusion, on behalf of the Community, of 
the Convention on the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Baltic Sea Area (Helsinki 
Convention as revised in 1992). 

22 

Full name: Convention on the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Baltic Sea Area. 

EN 

18 

   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:  Bulgaria,  Georgia,  Romania,  the 
Russian Federation, Turkey and Ukraine. 

According to the Bucharest Convention, contracting parties "shall take individually or jointly, 
as  appropriate,  all  necessary  measures  consistent  with  international  law  and  in  accordance 
with  the  provisions  of  this  Convention  to  prevent,  reduce  and  control  pollution  thereof  in 
order to protect and preserve the marine environment of the Black Sea". It also requires them 
to "adopt laws and regulations and take measures to prevent, reduce and control pollution of 
the  marine  environment  of  the  Black  Sea  caused  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  cooperation  in  combating  pollution  of  the  Black  Sea 
Marine  Environment  by  oil  and  other  harmful  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 guidelines to responding to such emergencies.  

Parties  to  the  International  Convention  on  Oil  Pollution  Preparedness,  Response  and 
Cooperation (the OPRC Convention), adopted in 1990, are required to establish measures for 
dealing with pollution incidents, either nationally or in co-operation with other countries. The 
Convention  is  designed  to  facilitate  international  co-operation  and  mutual  assistance  in 
preparing  for  and  responding  to  a  major  oil  pollution  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  framework  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 environmental 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  major  projects  under  consideration  that  are  likely  to  have  a 
significant adverse environmental 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. SUMMARY  OF  THE  REPLIES  TO  THE  QUESTIONNAIRE  CIRCULATED  TO  COMPANIES  ON 11 
MAY 2010 

Shortly after the accident in the Gulf of Mexico, 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  managed  on  continuous  and  complete  basis.  In  this 
high-level  meeting  on  11  May  2010,  where  Commissioner  Georgieva  was  also  present,  a 
questionnaire was circulated requesting more detailed information on the industry's view on 
certain  key  questions  related  to  offshore  operations  in  Europe.  In  addition  to  the  reply 

23 

Full name: Convention on the Protection of the Black Sea Against Pollution. 

EN 

19 

   EN 

 
                                                 
provided  by  OGP  on  behalf  of  its  members,  a  number  of  companies  (Chevron, 
ConocoPhillips,  DONG,  ENI,  ExxonMobil,  GDF  Suez  Maersk  Oil,  Nexen,  Petrom,  RWE 
Dea,  Shell,  Statoil,  Suncor  and  Wintershall)  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 currently accepted as best practice, 
based on the latest technology and experience. A strong safety culture 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  the  installations.  Risk  management  is  seen  as  a  continuous 
improvement process and many companies have as a goal to exceed standards 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  accidents.  Operators are 
required to identify and assess the major risks case by case and demonstrate to the national 
authorities how these risks would be managed. This 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  responsibility  for  safe  and  environmentally  sound 
operations on the operator, while allowing flexibility 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 independent review of contingency plans.  

One of the questions raised the possibility of a repository of contingency 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  Norway,  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  activity  to  develop  a  set  of 
criteria  for  assessing  the  state  of  offshore  installation  that  are  approaching  the  end  of  their 
designed life time.  

Several  companies  highlighted  the  role  of  national  regulators  which  were  characterized  as 
competent  and  technically  knowledgeable.  Therefore,  it  is  important  to  involve  them  in 
reflections  on  possible  improvements  to  risk  levels  in  European  operations.  The  important 
role  of  regional  cooperation  both  at  the  regulators'  level  (International  Regulators  Forum, 
NSOAF)  and  at  industry  level  (OGP,  International  Petroleum  Industry  Environmental 
Conservation  Association,  Oil  Spill  Response  Ltd,  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  programmes  for  their  personnel  and  regular 
emergency response exercises, testing the response to a potential oil spill. 

EN 

20 

   EN 

 
It was also emphasized that operations in the EU significantly differ from those in the Gulf of 
Mexico, mainly in terms of operating depths, but also because most activities in the EU relate 
to production, not drilling. On the other hand, despite lower operational depths in Europe, the 
risks are often comparable as a number of reservoirs are characterized by high pressure/high 
temperature conditions. 

Companies  fully  accept  their  legal  responsibility  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 individual companies, the industry established the 
voluntary  Offshore  Pollution  Liability  Association  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 the efficient implementation of existing rules. 
Nevertheless,  one  respondent  proposed  concrete  areas  for  improving  the  EU  regulatory 
framework, such as standards for blow-out preventers or rules for well abandonment. The idea 
of  a  harmonization  of  any  new  regulations  across  jurisdictions  was  also  promoted;  this 
requires close cooperation among regulators.  

Several companies reiterated that the cause of the accident is not yet known, 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 

21 

   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/LexUriServ.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/LexUriServ.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/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31997L0023:EN:HTML 

Title 

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  protective  systems  intended  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/LexUriServ.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 

22 

   EN 

 
Reference  OJ L 183, 29.6.1989, p. 1–8 

Website 

http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.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/LexUriServ.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/LexUriServ.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/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31989L0656:EN:HTML 

Title 

Council  Directive  90/269/EEC  of  29  May  1990  on  the  minimum  health  and 
safety  requirements  for  the  manual  handling  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/LexUriServ.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 with display screen equipment 

Reference  OJ L 156, 21.6.1990, p. 14–18 

Website 

http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.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 from the risks related to exposure to 

EN 

23 

   EN 

 
carcinogens or mutagens at work 

Reference  OJ L 158, 30.4.2004, p. 50–76 

Website 

http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.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 workers 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/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2000:262:0021:0045:EN:PDF

Title 

Council Directive 92/58/EEC of 24 June 1992 on the minimum requirements 
for the provision of safety and/or health signs at work 

Reference  OJ L 245, 26.8.1992, p. 23–42 

Website 

http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.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/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:1998:131:0011:0023:EN:PDF

Title 

Commission Directive 91/322/EEC of 29 May 1991 on establishing indicative 
limit  values  by  implementing  Council  Directive  80/1107/EEC  on  the 
protection of workers from the risks related 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/LexUriServ.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/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2000:142:0047:0050:EN:PDF

EN 

24 

   EN 

 
Title 

Commission  Directive 2006/15/EC of 7 February 2006 establishing a second 
list  of  indicative  occupational  exposure  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/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2006:038:0036:0039:EN:PDF

Title 

Commission Directive 2009/161/EU of 17 December 2009 establishing a third 
list  of  indicative  occupational  exposure  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/LexUriServ.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 arising from physical agents (vibration) 

Reference  OJ L 177, 6.7.2002, p. 13–20 

Website 

http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.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/LexUriServ.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 
from  physical  agents 
(electromagnetic fields) 

the  risks  arising 

to 

Reference  OJ L 159, 30.4.2004, p. 1–26 

Website 

http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.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  from  physical  agents  (artificial  optical 

EN 

25 

   EN 

 
radiation) 

Reference  OJ L 114, 27.4.2006, p. 38–59 

Website 

http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.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  workers  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/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2009:330:0028:0036:EN:PDF

Environment 

Title 

Directive  2008/1/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  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/LexUriServ.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  private  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/LexUriServ.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 (Marine Strategy Framework Directive) 

Reference  OJ L 164, 25.6.2008, p. 19–40 

Website 

http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.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 

26 

   EN 

 
Website 

http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.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/LexUriServ.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/LexUriServ.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 for 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/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2000:327:0001:0072:EN:PDF

Emergency intervention 

Title 

Council Decision 2001/792/EC of 23 October 2001 establishing a Community 
mechanism  to  facilitate  reinforced  cooperation  in  civil  protection  assistance 
interventions 

Reference  OJ L 297, 15.11.2001, p. 7–11 

Website 

http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.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 Maritime Safety Agency as amended 

Reference  OJ L 208, 5.8.2002, p. 1–9 

Website 

http://eur-
Consolidated 
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CONSLEG:2002R1406:20061231:
EN:PDF 

version: 

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 

27 

   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/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2006:394:0001:0004:EN:PDF

EN 

28 

   EN