COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER Results of the public consultation on Improving offshore safety, health and environment
Date: 2011-10-27
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU waters, administrative supervision, environmental risk prevention, marine pollution, offshore drilling, offshore oil structure, petroleum exploration, petroleum production, prevention of pollution, safety standard

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Brussels, 27.10.2011 
SEC(2011) 1292 final 

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER 

Results of the public consultation on  
Improving offshore safety, health and environment 

Accompanying the Commission's proposal for a 

REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL 

On safety of offshore oil and gas prospection, exploration and production activities 

{COM(2011) 688 final} 
{SEC(2011) 1293 final} 
{SEC(2011) 1294 final} 

 
 
 
 
  
 
In spring 2011, between 16 March and 20 May 2011, the Commission organised an on-line 
public  consultation  on  the  possible  improvement  of  offshore  safety  in  Europe,  providing 
stakeholders with the opportunity to submit their views before the Commission develops any 
legislative  or  non-legislative  proposals  in  the  various  policy  fields.  The  consultation  was 
based  on  a  document  that  gave  the  background  to  the  regulatory  framework  for  offshore 
safety  in  the  EU.  The  consultation  outlined  the  key  issues  that  need  to  be  addressed  and 
included 18 open questions, arranged in the following five topics: 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

Authorisations. 
Under this topic, the public was requested to give their views on the authorisation 
practices and conditions for offshore prospection, exploration or production 
activities. 

Prevention of accidents. 
This section requested the public's opinion on prevention of accidents, affecting both 
the health and safety of workers as well as damage to the environment. 

Verification of compliance and liability for damages. 
In this section the public was presented with questions regarding compliance by 
industry with applicable offshore legislation, regarding the supervision and 
compliance verification of the industry by competent authorities and on liability for 
environmental and traditional damage caused by offshore accidents. 

Transparency, sharing of information and state-of-the-art practices. 
This section requested the public's opinion on what information on offshore oil and 
gas activities should be made available to the public, what information should be 
shared amongst the industry and amongst regulators and on the use of state of the art 
practices to protect health and safety of offshore oil and gas operations and damage 
to the environment cause by these operations. 

Emergency response and international activities. 
This section presented questions on emergency response to offshore oil and gas 
accidents, cooperation with non-EU countries regarding oil and gas operations and 
on the application of EU standards by oil and gas companies in their activities 
outside the EU. 

In  total,  64  contributions  were  received  from  all  segments  of  the  stakeholder  community: 
Member State authorities, industry, NGOs, insurers and citizens. In addition to the oil and gas 
industry,  companies  and  industry  associations  from  other,  related  sectors  (e.g.  shipping, 
classification  societies)  also  submitted  replies.  Taking  into  account  the  member  companies 
that  each  industry  body/association  represents,  the  Commission  has  received  well  over  350 
disaggregated replies from stakeholders. The table below shows the composition of the direct 
respondents. 

Oil and gas industry 

Other industry 

17 

11 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
 
Public authorities 

NGOs 

Insurers 

Citizens 

Others 

11 

14 

4 

5 

2 

In  the  following  paragraphs,  an  analysis  is  provided  of  the  contributions  received.  All 
responses  were  carefully  reviewed  by  the  Commission,  which  included  an  assessment 
whether the content of the responses reflected the actual questions and/or had a bearing on the 
policy topic of the question. During this process, similar responses were combined and some 
of the responses – although valuable in a broader context – were regarded as having limited 
bearing on the specific policy topic; these responses were either re-allocated to the appropriate 
policy  topic  and  combined  with  other  responses  or  otherwise  set  aside.  The  analysis  below 
shows the responses for each of the policy topic listed in the consultation document, for each 
of  the  respondents  category  listed  above.  If  a  category  of  respondents  did  not  have  any 
comments on one of the policy topics, these respondents are not included under the specific 
policy topic.   

Authorisations 

Oil and gas industry 

The  industry  is  of  the  opinion  that  the  authorisation  processes  currently  applied  in  certain 
Member  States  are  considered  to  be  sound,  ensuring  the  application  of  state-of-the-art 
technology  and  procedures.  It  was  mentioned  that  Directive  94/22/EC  already  requires  the 
demonstration  of  technical  and  financial  capability  before  a  licence  can  be  obtained.  Most 
respondents  in  this  category  do  not  recommend  any  changes  to  the  authorisation  conditions 
for  offshore  prospection,  exploration  and  production  activities,  citing  stringent  licensing 
procedures  and  safety  case  legislation  in  place  in  most  member  states.  The  safety  case 
approach  must  however  be  combined  with  robust  inspections  and  auditing  of  those  cases, 
combined with an independent review by an external party or independent function within the 
company. It is however recognised that in countries with less experience in offshore oil and 
gas operations, there could be less solid safety case regulations in place. The EU should work 
with  those  countries  individually,  to  bring  standards  up  to  those  of  the  best  performing 
countries. Most respondents also agree that the EU should promote setting up a consultative 
and  advisory  body  of  national  regulators,  e.g.  modelled  on  NSOAF,  in  which  best  practises 
are shared and to ensure MS with less experience in offshore oil and gas activities apply same 
high  standards  as  more  experienced  ones.  An  industry  association  stated  that,  while 
authorisation  should  account  for  full  liability  for  damages,  it  should  also  balance  particular 
MS needs e.g. to not discourage smaller players. It as also emphasised as essential to secure 
independence  of  expert  safety  regulation  from  the  licensing  function.  Whilst  in  favour  of 
financial capability criteria, industry and industry associations stated emphatically that these 
should not preclude companies of different sizes from entering the market. There is also broad 
agreement  amongst  industry  respondents  that  neighbouring  Member  States  should  be 
informed  of  any  authorisation  decisions,  however  there  is  no  need  to  actively  consult  those 
countries during the authorisation process. It is also felt that most legislation is best placed at 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
the  national  level,  as  national  authorities  are  best  placed  to  judge  applications  for  permits 
based on local conditions. 

There were two industry respondents that mentioned areas where current legislation/ practises 
could be improved: 1) some national licensing systems are extremely cumbersome and should 
be simplified, 2) there is a benefit in a more standardised approach in the EU which should be 
promoted,  i.e.  the  harmonisation  of  procedures  and  standards  and  equipment  taking  into 
account  current  best  practises.  For  example  a  drilling  contractor  should  then  be  granted  a 
certificate  to  operate  in  all  EU  waters.  There  are  also  still  different  local  certification  and 
authorisation processes for use of equipment and machineries, making it difficult to employ 
them cross border. The definition of a general EU framework could be useful to assess and 
ensure  both  technically  and  organisationally  relevant  HSE  standards.  Another  company 
highlighted  that  a  licensing  process  that  separates  responsibility  for  authorising  drilling 
permits from rig safety and well operations oversight should be viewed as best practise and 
where not yet the case, separate regulators for licensing and safety should be established. 

Other industry 

There  is  a  general  view,  that  the  current  system  for  licensing  is  adequate,  with  sufficient 
information  publicly  available  on  operational  techniques.  Respondents  were  of  the  opinion 
that other criteria of the technical assessment of a licensee were e.g. the implementation of a 
safety  management  system,  the  field  development  plan,  contingency  measures,  primary 
measures on accident prevention and asset integrity and environmental assessments. Another 
respondent recommended considering other parameters in the licensing process, e.g. location 
(of the installation), lifecycle stage (prospection/ exploration/ production), type of company/ 
operation/  asset.  The  respondent  also  suggested  considering  limitations  on  license,  e.g. 
duration  and  scope  of  the  license,  options  to  revoke  a  license  and  options  for  a  temporary 
license.  

On the consultation of other MS during the licensing process, opinions in this category varied. 
Some  respondents  felt  that  with  consistent  high  standards  applied  in  the  authorisation 
processes, there was limited benefit of international consultations on authorisations with such 
a  requirement  introducing  additional  bureaucratic  burden.  Another  respondent  was  of  the 
opinion  that  existing  arrangements  and  contacts  between  neighbouring  states  would  already 
ensure effective authorisation structures. 

Public authorities 

Two regulators state that more information is available once programmes have started than at 
the  time  of  applying  for  exploration  licences,  so  it  would  be  best  to  assess  information  at  a 
later  stage  too.  In  addition,  companies  should  undergo  regulator  checks  (including  financial 
provisions)  before  key  activities  start  at  each  stage  of  the  operation.  These  checks  should 
include safety, environmental control, and technical and financial capability. Two regulators 
feel that authorisations should be approved by two different regulators e.g. environment and 
health. One regulator requested that there should not be an additional layer of EU regulation 
as this could divert scarce human resources away from core tasks. A blanket approach to all 
MS  is  not  advisable  due  to  different  national  circumstances  e.g.  cultural,  legal  and  geological. 
National  regulators  especially  argued  that  the  international  global  framework  which  is 
applicable now and any new EU legislation must be compatible. There is concern that the EU, 
through its actions, might inadvertently undermine the effectiveness of the existing regulatory 
and  supervisory  regimes  in  the  oil-producing  countries,  especially  around  the  North  Sea. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
Their view is that safety regulations will continue to be handled most effectively on a national 
state level.  

For  technical  capacity,  the  main  comments  concerned  staff  qualifications  and  experience 
(especially that of management), lines of responsibility, company experience, management of 
contractors,  and  staff  audits.  Additionally,  health  and  safety,  equipment  certificates,  and 
environmental  protection  were  mentioned.  For  financial  capability,  balance  sheets  for  three 
years should be provided, along with guarantees, warranties, and proof of sufficient funds or 
indemnity  provisions  to  meet  any  kind  of  incident.  With  regard  to  state-of-the-art 
authorisation practices, best practice, health and safety, and environmental concerns should be 
advised  to  the  EU  with  a  view  to  modifying  legislation.  Many  regulators  stated  that 
neighbouring MS should be informed but not involved in authorisation decisions. Regulators 
expressed concern with respect to Member States that are just beginning to develop offshore 
oil and gas activities. A permanent working group of national regulators could be established, 
based on the North Sea Offshore Authorities Forum (NSOAF).   

NGOs 

Several NGOs commented that loopholes in regulatory regimes need to be closed. Whilst UK 
legislation is held up as a good example, it is considered by some that it is not robust enough. 
Authorisation  processes  should  be  transparent,  including  environmental  impact  assessment 
with  possibility  of  public  consultation.  One  NGO  specifically  stated  that  adoption  of  safety 
case  legislation  as  a  possible  minimum  standard  for  the  EU  is  in  itself  not  sufficient,  citing 
various  incidents  in  the  UK  sector  of  the  North  Sea.  One  NGO  requested  that  the  regulator 
should be separate from any authority that handles energy development/security of supply. All 
NGOs  requested  that  companies  be  required  to  cover  all  accident  costs,  without  which  no 
licence would be given. The majority of NGOs respondents would only like authorisations to 
go  to  companies  that  can  carry  full  financial  liability  for  any  incident,  including  future 
decommissioning  of  systems.  Failing  that,  there  were  suggestions  to  replicate  the  Offshore 
Pollution  Liability  Association  (OPOL)  agreement,  or  to  have  an  industry-led  mutualisation 
scheme  or  an  EU-wide  compensation  fund.  Licences  should  comply  with  EU-monitored 
minimum binding standards; it was suggested by many that the remit of European Maritime 
Safety  Agency  (EMSA)  could  be  extended  in  this  respect.  Several  NGOs  felt  that 
neighbouring countries should be consulted and should also be involved in the authorisation. 
Some  NGOs  requested  the  implementation  of  best  available  techniques  (BAT)  e.g.  regular 
maintenance including requirements for upgrading installations as technology evolves. 

Citizens 

Citizens in general felt that if a company can't afford to clean up after an accident, it shouldn't 
be drilling. All citizen respondents would only like authorisations to go to companies that can 
carry full financial liability for any incident. Strong legislation should ensure that companies 
are  held  liable,  with  mandatory  requirements  to  provide  necessary  financial  security  in  the 
event  of  an  accident.  One  respondent  felt  that  on  granting  authorisations,  a  company's  past 
record  on  health  and  safety  and  environmental  impacts,  both  within  and  outside  the  EU, 
should  be  taken  into  account.  Oil  and  gas  projects  should  follow  public  deliberations  on 
permit  application.  Citizen  stakeholders  generally  suggested  that  there  is  a  need  to  involve 
other countries in authorisation, where cross-border issues are at stake.  

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
Others 

One respondent urged that there should be a clear separation between the authority that grants 
and  issues  granting  instruments  and  the  authority  that  regulates  the  operations  of  those 
instruments,  in  view  of  conflicting  demands  on  officials  charged  with  those  separate  tasks. 
However,  the  respondent  cautions  that  there  should  not  be  multiple  separations  of  those 
authorities. On the issue of the financial capability, the respondent felt that the current system 
is functioning well, albeit guidance from the Commission could be appropriate and useful on 
criteria for assessment of financial capability. The respondent also feels that any consultation 
provisions of other neighbouring MS on authorisations would require careful consideration.  

Prevention of accidents 

Oil and gas industry 

The  good  historical  record  of  the  sector  was  highlighted  in  this  respect;  nevertheless,  even 
industry  stakeholders  admit  that  there  is  a  need  to  challenge  the  industry  to  do  better. 
Companies  in  general  support  the  Commission's  review  of  the  current  EU  framework 
governing  offshore  operations.  They  are  equally  supportive  of 
the  Commission's 
recommendations  for  reviews  of  current  safety  cases  by  operators  and  MS  and  updates  as 
necessary.  Most  companies  agree  that  for  the  protection  of  the  environment  a  robust  and 
interlocking network of international, EU and national rules is in place, e.g. SEA Directive, 
EIA  Directive,  ESPOO  Convention,  Barcelona  Convention,  Black  Sea  convention  etc.  Any 
changes  to  this  system  risk  being  sub-optimal  and  creating  a  gap  in  currently  applied 
legislation. Furthermore, such a change should not result in reduced safety standards in those 
Member  States  which  already  have  a  strong  offshore  regulatory  regime.  Most  respondents 
urge  the  Commission  to  avoid  adopting  detailed  prescriptive  legislation  or  regulation  at  EU 
level,  but  instead  promote  the  implementation  of  a  goal-setting  regime,  including 
dissemination of relevant international standards. One industry association suggested a 'safety 
case' regime that is goal-setting and includes formal acceptance by the regulator. On product 
safety,  industry  is  of  the  opinion  that  any  proposals  for  action  need  to  be  done  in  close 
cooperation  between  the  Commission,  individual  MS/national  regulators,  industry  and  the 
relevant  standardisation  bodies.  Most  respondents  are  against  setting-up  a  centralised  EU 
enforcement/control  authority.  In  order  to  make  improvements  in  this  area  at  least  2 
companies  clearly  stated  that  this  will  not  be  achieved  by  new  regulations,  but  by  better 
application  of  existing  standards  and  best  practise.  It  is  felt  by  most  operators  that  the 
‘ALARP’1  concept  represents  a  robust  regulatory  tool  to  ensure  that  adequate  prevention 
measures  are  in  place.  One  suggestion  made  was  that  drilling  equipment  and  other  safety 
critical  infrastructure  be  inspected  by  insurance  providers.  Also,  the  performance  of  the 
national regulator should in turn be assessed by another national auditing body.  

1 ALARP refers to 'risks as low as reasonably practicable'. It is at the centre of UK health and safety law and as 
such is referred to by a number of respondents. For a risk to be ALARP it must be demonstrated that the cost 
involved  in  reducing  the  risk  further  would  be  grossly  disproportionate  to  the  benefit  gained.  In  its  most 
general  (European  wide)  sense  it  is  a  best  common  practice  of  judgement  of  the  balance  between  risk  in 
absolute terms, and societal benefit - deciding at which point further expenditure to reduce the residual risk is 
unreasonable  

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Other Industry 

Some  respondents  recommended  the  application  of  goal-setting  regulations  combined  with 
the Safety Case regime (including third party verification), identical to the one used in the UK 
and Norway, to all jurisdictions. This would include approval or acceptance of the safety case 
by the regulator. Respondents are of the opinion that the Safety Case approach can provide a 
useful tool in addressing  some  of  the areas of weakness in offshore regulation identified by 
the Commission. In this context it was recommended that future European regulations should 
require  all  offshore  installations  (including  rigs)  to  develop  and  have  approved  an  EU 
compliant integrated Safety & Environment Case (which would include IPPC requirements) 
prior to commencing operations in EU waters. On approval of a safety & environmental case, 
the  respondent  suggested  that  strict  regulator  guidance  should  be  made  available,  aiming  to 
deliver harmonisation between regulators so that a safety & environmental case approved in 
one  state  would  likely  receive  approval  in  another  MS,  should  the  installation  move  across 
borders. Respondents highlighted the requirement for awareness structures and for training in 
all levels in organisations, to focus on prevention of accidents. Health and safety issues should 
become  a  natural  element  of  the  offshore  industry  and  must  not  be  perceived  as  being 
overbearing  or  unnecessary.  One  respondent  mentioned  the  requirement  that  not  only 
companies  that  purchase  and  apply  equipment  to  ensure  that  environmental  damage  is 
prevented  (e.g.  BOP  systems)  is  subject  to  a  regulatory  framework,  but  also  the  companies 
that  are  manufacturing  and  selling  the  components  are  subject  to  a  similar  framework.  This 
should  prevent  companies  from  buying  cheaper  and  more  unsafe  components.  Another 
respondent suggested that the EU may enhance or propose directives which the industry can 
use as basis of their performance standards, on pressure equipment, electrical devices used in 
explosive environments, lifting equipment and well control equipment. 

Public authorities 

For health or safety of workers, there should be a rigorous safety culture with robust training 
for  disaster  management  involving  all  staff/subcontractors.  It  was  recommended  that 
legislation  proposals  should  include  elements  on  well  design,  well  construction  well  and 
control,  as  these  issues  are  not  or  only  very  limited  addressed  in  Directive  92/91/EC.  In 
addition, it was suggested to introduce goal-setting elements on safety culture in legislation. 
EU  legislation  should  be  based  on  best  practice  in  NSOAF  countries.  Others  expressed  the 
view that there is a need to take steps to improve the safety culture offshore and ensure that 
the knowledge and experience of the offshore workforce is effectively used by operators when 
addressing  health  and  safety.  One  stakeholder  cautioned  against  a  rush  to  adopt  new 
legislation before lessons emerge from the investigations into the Deepwater Horizon incident 
that  indicate  a  need  for  change.  Another  stated  that  using  worldwide  standards  in  the  EU 
would make it easier for multinationals. With regard to the equipment, this should be certified 
by  the  manufacturer  or  another  body,  as  should  safety  systems.  The  UK  system  includes 
Safety  Cases  which  are  submitted  before  operations  start,  and  Notifications  are  sent  to  the 
regulator  at  various  operational  stages.  Finally,  there  was  a  request  to  implement  ILO 
guidelines  on  occupational  safety  and  health  management  systems  (OSH).  In  terms  of  the 
natural  environment,  best  practice,  incident  reporting  and  lessons  learned  in  other  industrial 
activities could be replicated.  

NGO's 

Additional  training  is  considered  necessary  by  several  NGOs,  and  worker  rights  should  be 
strengthened to avoid harassment in the event of whistle blowing. Respondent mentioned the 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
need to raise standards in the EU, with the highest safety and environmental standards applied 
to industrial activities. One respondent feels that industry should invest more on research and 
development for preventing oil spills. Sanctions could be taken by competent authorities were 
worker rights are not respected. There could also be an independent regulator to examine and 
approve  well  design  etc,  while  some  NGOs  recommended  stress  tests  of  installations, 
equipment and procedures. Ratification of the Barcelona Convention was mentioned by a few 
NGOs,  as  was  the  extension  of  Seveso  II  and  the  Industrial  Emissions  Directive  (IED)  to 
cover offshore drilling. Two NGOs requested specific funding for R&D, and the EU should 
monitor abandoned wells.  

Citizens 

Citizens  commented  that  existing  regulations  should  be  strengthened  and  extended  to  cover 
all drilling operations in EU waters. A respondent mentioned that the track record of industry 
on incidents did not show any improvement in recent years and felt that EU standards should 
be  established  to  prevent  environmental  disasters  like  Deepwater  Horizon.  Respondents  felt 
that the use of highest standards for equipment should be made mandatory in EU legislation. 
Old  platforms  must  be  updated  to  the  best  environmental  standards  or  stop  production.  A 
respondent recommended that when drilling a well, a back-up rig should be available within 1 
– 2 days travel of the exploration time, should a relief well be required. The respondent also 
suggested  that  abandoned  wells  should  be  regularly  monitored  by  national  and/or  EU 
regulators,  and  that  companies  be  required  to  reduce  their  discharges  and  spills  of 
hydrocarbons.  

Others 

One respondent is of the opinion that the most appropriate approach for the offshore industry 
is a goal-setting approach and the safety case. It is precisely this approach that makes best use 
of  the  expertise  within  the  industry  and  that  significantly  frees  up  the  regulator  to  see  the 
bigger  picture  and  emerging  problems.  Based  on  experiences  in  the  UK,  the  respondent 
cautions  for  any  move  toward  greater  prescription  in  either  EC  Directive  92/91/EEC  or  in 
entirely new EU legislation. Any greater specificity driven by the Deepwater Horizon disaster 
may  be  solely  applicable  to  that  incident  and  thus  reduce  the  openness  of  the  industry  and 
regulators  to  the  need  for  vigilance  with  respect  to  other  scenarios.  On  the  prevention  of 
damage to the environment, the respondent feels that the best approach is to continue to work 
to reduce accidents on a safety case basis. 

Verification of compliance and liability for damages 

Oil and gas industry 

Industry  representatives  argued  that  compliance  is  an  issue  to  which  companies  devote 
significant efforts and resources and constantly strive to improve. They are also of the opinion 
that the current system of inspections is working well. Any proposed changes to the current 
system  should  demonstrate  how  they  would  ensure  the  necessary  competence  and 
coordination to the rigorous and proven systems that are in place today. Industry cites strong, 
expert  regulators  with  adequate  resources  as  essential  for  securing  compliance.  Regarding 
potential liability, most respondents do not support a mandated industry-wide pre-loss mutual 
fund, but rather allow companies to make their own differentiated decisions how to meet their 
financial  obligations.  Voluntary  compensation  schemes  like  OPOL  should  be  taken  as  a 
model. This and similar schemes should be promoted by the Commission. Any EU initiative 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
seeking  to  improve  on  national  verification  systems  must  demonstrate  thoroughly  how  this 
would be achieved. The industry stresses that a voluntary financial security scheme is more 
appropriate  for  the  development  of  market-driven  solutions  in  which  a  certain  level  of 
insurance  capacity  can  be  maintained  and  developed.  The  industry  also  pointed  out  that  the 
creation  of  a  further  liability  regime  could  create  unnecessary  duplication  and  legal 
uncertainty  over  which  regime  is  immediately  applicable.  It  was  highlighted  by  one 
respondent  that  in  order  to  assess  any  damage  caused  by  an  oil  spill  incident,  a  baseline 
condition  must  first  be  established  against  which  changes  can  then  be  measured.  Such 
baseline metrics are currently not available to all marine waters. Any extension of the current 
ELD  is  thus  difficult  to  envisage.  One  of  the  companies  suggested  that  a  supranational  EU 
safety  agency  with  directive  functions,  similar  to  EMSA,  could  be  a  useful  step  forward.  A 
very  useful  measure  would  be  to  ensure  there  are  consistent  methods  for  calculating 
compensation awards across Europe. 

Other industry 

Respondents are of the opinion that the current goal-setting regime including the safety case 
mechanism, as is the current practice in the UK, is the desired framework and best suited for 
the  future.  Respondents  further  mention  that  the  framework  should  be  supported  by 
inspections and assessments by regulators and by third party verification against performance 
standards, and recommend that the EU establish such a process incorporating the fundamental 
elements  of  the  UK  process  for  major  accident  hazards  and  extends  this  to  health  and 
environmental issues. One respondent felt there should also be a qualification process in place 
for the independent third parties. In the context of performance standards, one respondent felt 
that these should also include standards on behavioural aspects; this would require additional 
competencies of the independent verification bodies in human factors, management of change 
and organisational behaviour. It was also suggested that the verification process included the 
possibility for direct feedback from the verification body to the regulator, in stead of only to 
the owner / operator of the installation. One respondent is in favour of one regulatory body for 
offshore oil and gas activities in MS; in countries where more regulatory bodies are involved 
the  respondent  feels  that  a  single  'umbrella'  body  for  offshore  E&P  activities  should  be 
established, which would draw on expertise from the existing regulatory bodies. Respondents 
further  urge  that  regulators  have  adequate  enforcement  methods  and  authority  to  ensure 
compliance of legislation or permit conditions.  

Respondents feel that responsible parties should be able to meet the costs of an incident, as 
part  of  their  initial  license  application.  Some  respondents  commented  that  the  current 
application  of  the  ELD  (in  the  UK)  is  appropriate  to  its  intended  role  and  should  only  be 
extended  if  robustly  justified;  others  felt  that  environmental  liability  should  cover 
environmental damage to all marine waters. Some respondents in this category cautioned that, 
when extending the ELD, the current exceptions in this Directive on pollution damage arising 
from  ships  should  remain  unchanged,  as  it  would  otherwise  cause  serious  disruption  in  the 
international  regime  and  create  legal  uncertainty.  On  liability  for  traditional  damage,  one 
respondent  is  of  the  opinion  that  a  more  stringent  legal  framework  is  required  owing  to  the 
increased  risk  (in  the  UK)  as  a  result  of  smaller  operators  with  limited  financial  strength 
buying  and  operating  mature  assets  than  the  larger  operators.  In  this  context,  it  was 
recommended that a system like OPOL is developed within the EU to ensure that operators 
have  access  to  adequate  funds  to  cover  remedial  damages  as  a  result  of  an  accident.  Other 
suggestions  included  establishing  an  EU  Emergency  Response  Fund,  in  which  all  operators 
should contribute.  

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
Public authorities 

With regard to compliance, minimum standards and best practice should be shared in the EU 
with  strong  cooperation  between  trade  associations  and  operators.  There  are  requests  for 
greater  sharing  of  information  between  the  different  stakeholder  groups  (regulators, 
companies,  works  councils).  Respondents  mentioned  the  need  to  improve  safety  culture 
offshore and ensure that worker knowledge and experience of health and safety must be used 
by  the  companies,  while  internal  audits  and  reporting  should  be  part  of  an  environmental 
management  system.  One  MS  requires  companies  to  provide  annual  public  statements  on 
operations and environmental performance. Respondents also stressed the need to ensure that 
an appropriate regulator is in place, with sufficient resources, well trained and competent staff 
and  with  adequate  powers  to  intervene.  Key  measures  proposed  to  monitor  compliance 
include  an  independent,  regular  inspection  system  with  sharing  of  well-educated  inspectors 
between  MS.  One  respondent  mentioned  that  regulators  should  also  focus  on  a  company's 
implementation  and  adherence  to  its  own  management  system.  It  was  also  suggested  that 
there  could  be  a  dedicated  and  qualified  company  employee  working  on  site  with  close 
supervision  from  the  authorities.  One  regulator  suggested  that  individual  MS  regulators 
should  be  introduced  that  would  share  information  with  the  EU.  MS  with  considerable 
experience of offshore operations should support those that are now starting to develop these 
activities.  

One respondent suggested that costs for environmental assessments and inspections could be 
borne  by  the  applicants.  If  environmental  liability  legislation  is  to  be  extended  to  cover  all 
marine waters under EU jurisdiction, the polluter pays principle could be extended to offshore 
oil and gas industry. Yet this might encourage some companies to move away from the EU. 
With  regard  to  handling  claims  for  traditional  damage,  the  legislative  framework  could  be 
improved according to one regulator, while another says that it is sufficient. It is important, 
however, to ensure that small companies with a skilled workforce are not discouraged from 
operating in the market. Costs for covering the environmental damages of an oil spill should 
include mandatory insurance linked to risk of operation. There could also be a communal fund 
like the Offshore Pollution Liability Organisation (OPOL), which could be extended to cover 
other seas.  

NGO's 

On  compliance  with  regulations,  one  respondent  suggested  that  MS  consider  adopting  of 
strengthening  disincentives  for  negligence  such  as  fines,  removal  of  licenses  and  individual 
criminal  liability.  Respondents  felt  that  companies  must  be  liable  for  all  damages,  both 
environmental  and  traditional  damages.  EU-wide  compliance  should  be  mandatory,  and  the 
Environmental Liability Directive should be extended to cover environmental damage to all 
marine waters under MS' jurisdiction. One respondent recommended exploring arrangements 
for  compulsory  third  party  insurance,  to  ensure  financial  guarantees.  In  this  context,  the 
respondent expressed doubts if the current insurance level under OPOL would be sufficient to 
compensate  for  the  full  range  of  environmental  damage  and  remediation  costs.  Some 
respondents  recommended  a  supra-national  regulator  to  oversee  national  regulators,  with 
powers  to  ban  operators  temporarily.  Inspections  should  be  regular  and  unannounced.  In 
terms of individuals, criminal liability is considered essential, as is the need to strengthen the 
rights of victims impacted by an incident. Finally, finances should be mobilised quickly after 
a disaster to assist those affected. 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
Insurers 

One respondent felt that when extending the scope of the Environmental Liability Directive 
(ELD),  the  current  exceptions  with  respect  to  maritime  transport/shipping  should  not  be 
affected in any way, and that the proposed extension of the ELD to cover all marine waters 
under jurisdiction of EU Member States should be concerned only with the offshore oil and 
gas  sector.  The  insurance  industry  further  stated  that  oil  and  gas  companies  are  in  the  best 
position to assess their own needs for insurance. The insurers alone cannot provide the sole 
solution to protect the EU against offshore oil spills. Insurance companies do not feel that the 
Environmental  Liability  Directive  should  be  modified  to  cover  all  EU  waters.  Instead,  the 
geographical  scope  of  the  guarantee  system  for  offshore  oil  spills  should  be  worldwide  and 
not  resolved  through  EU  law.  Respondents  point  out  that  several  international  liability 
regimes  are  already  in  place  for  losses  caused  by  oil  pollution.  It  is  considered  more 
appropriate to focus on these existing treaties and international legislation before introducing 
an  EU-wide  mandatory  insurance  scheme  or  revising  the  ELD.  One  respondent  pointed  out 
that  European  insurance  solvency  law  requires  insurance  companies  to  charge  adequate 
premiums to build up sufficient capital reserves. In the context of offshore oil/gas insurance, a 
small  and  specialised  insurance  market,  it  is  very  difficult  for  the  industry  to  build  up 
sufficient capital reserves. This is already very challenging to achieve in a worldwide context, 
and  even  more  so  if  the  geographical  scope  is  Europe  only.  Moreover,  many  offshore  oil 
companies have as much, if not more, financial capacity than insurers due to the amount of 
capital they regularly generate through their businesses. Their own ability to cover these risks 
independently of any financial security instruments should be one of the options considered. 
In this context, respondents refer to OPOL developed by the industry, from which claims for 
pollution damage are met and the cost of remedial measures are reimbursed.  

Citizens 

A respondent felt that regulators should be adequate resourced and staffed, to ensure adequate 
monitoring to guarantee compliance with health, safety and environmental rules by industry. 
If  EU  countries  cannot  ensure  this,  EU  monitors  should  assist.  Citizens  feel  that  legislation 
should cover all EU waters, not only within the 12 mile zone as most platforms are outside 
this zone, thus including all platforms and pipelines. Polluters should also pay for (methane) 
gas  leaks  which  might  occur  when  a  well  is  not  properly  abandoned.  To  compensate  for 
traditional  damages,  a  respondent  suggested  that  industry  be  required  to  make  contributions 
and commitments to a Joint Fund as a condition for drilling in the region. Additional costs for 
recovery  and  compensation  beyond  the  financial  capability  of  the  responsible  party  should 
then be covered by the Fund. The joint Fund should encourage the collective improvement of 
best practice and efforts to minimise damage.  

Others 

One  respondent  feels  that  regulatory  regimes  should  provide  for  both  the  reward  and  the 
punishment of operators in the offshore environment. This would encourage good operators to 
continually  implement  best  practices  and  would  discourage  bad  operators  from  unsafe 
practices.  Operators  should  be  required  to  demonstrate  that  it  is  implementing  industry  best 
practices in conjunction with an on-going inspection regime administered by the regulator. It 
should be done on a safety case basis rather than use a prescriptive formula. The respondent 
also  feels  that  consistent  environmental  liability  is  required  in  all  marine  waters  under  the 
jurisdiction  of  EU  Member  States,  so  that  operators  have  clear  standards  to  meet.  The 
respondent cautions against a strict liability system which would only allow companies with 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
the balance sheets to pay for any potential risk. Smaller and less financially strong companies 
should  still  be  allowed  to  operate  in  existing  areas  of  operation  where  the  risks  are  well 
known and more easily managed.  

Transparency, sharing of information and state-of-the-art practices 

Oil and gas industry 

Industry  feels  it  is  not  in  their remit  to  judge  what  information  would  be  most  important  to 
citizens. However, the majority of respondents from the oil and gas industry have expressed 
an interest to work with national authorities and the EU to examine the most appropriate ways 
of  sharing  information  provided  that  this  does  not  impose  requirements  on  companies  to 
disclose  commercially  sensitive  information.  Industry  is  pointing  to  the  exchange  of 
information that is currently taking place in forums like NSOAF and IRF. Via SEA and EIA 
Directives, Espoo etc. a lot of data is already shared today. One respondent mentioned that the 
information  most  relevant  to  be  shared  is  standards  applied  by  operators  to  prevent  major 
accidents  and  lessons  learned  from  previous  accidents  and  near  misses.  One  respondent 
believed  the  reporting  should  also  include  positive  aspects,  e.g.  industry's  contribution  to 
research, technology and economy in the EU. Industry supports establishing an advisory body 
of national experts, to exchange information between regulators and to promote the state-of-
the-art practices across all MS to protect health and safety of workers and the environment. 

Other industry 

Respondents  suggested  that  information  like  incident  statistics,  near  misses  and  hazardous 
observations  should  become  public.  One  respondent  suggested  that  operators  should  be 
obliged to produce an annual HSE Public Statement which should communicate key elements 
of an operator's activities to the public in clear layman's terms. Complete transparency should 
be particularly the case in the event of an environmental disaster or a genuine public fear of 
one. Respondents from the UK pointed out that an industry network for sharing statistics and 
best  practices  was  already  in  place.  Respondents  also  referred  to  NSOAF  and  IRF  as  good 
platforms  for  sharing  information  to  improve  safety  across  the  EU  and  worldwide,  which 
could also be useful for countries with an emerging oil and gas sector. Others recommended 
that  there  should  also  be  cross-referencing  between  the  oil  and  gas  industry  and  other 
lifting  equipment  etc.)  and 
industries,  on  safety 
environmental issues (usage of chemical and effect on water etc.). Respondents are also of the 
opinion  that  national  regulators  should  share  the  emergency  response  plans,  to  enable 
coordination of international response plans. One respondent suggested establishing industry 
state-of  the-art  practices  in  a  publicly  available  register.  On  environmental  protection,  one 
respondent  recommended  that  EMSA's  role  should  be  extended  to  cover  water  pollution  in 
general, air pollution, soil pollution and utilisation of chemicals. 

issues  (e.g.  pressure  equipment, 

Public authorities 

Citizens  should  be  provided  with  information  including,  inter  alia,  pollution  detection, 
emergency  plans,  risks,  common  indicators,  operators,  and  timing.  Views  were  split  as  to 
whether  these  data  should  be  published  by  the  EU  or  by  individual  MS.  One  respondent 
suggested the EU should take the initiative to define a common set of indicators, to be used by 
all MS, giving information on the outcome of safety and environmental effort in a particular 
MS. It was suggested that companies should be sharing information on, inter alia, emergency 
operating technologies, occurrence of H2S, best practice, lessons learned from incidents and 

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
equipment  failure.  This  information  should  also  be  shared  with  regulators  and  trade  and 
industry  associations  to  encourage  industry  buy-in.  Workers  should  have  access  to 
occupational  and  safety-related  documentation  (OSH,  responsibilities,  hazards,  risks,  work-
related  injuries,  health,  incidents  etc.).  In  addition,  regulators  should  share  best  practice 
(regulation, standards, procedures and incidents), company-related HSE statistics and critical 
equipment  failure.  Forums  like  NSOAF,  the  International  Regulators  Forum,  OSPAR,  the 
Offshore Industries Committee and those that exist for Baltic and Mediterranean states could 
be used for sharing details of accidents, incidents, updates, national legislation etc.  

For protecting occupational health and safety, best practice (regulation, standards, procedures, 
incidents)  should  be  introduced,  and  information  shared  via  a  web-based  EU  database.  
Forums like NSOAF could be used, but its scope would need widening to allow new entrants. 

Goal-setting regimes are best suited to state-of-the-art practices, while an effective regulator 
should support a robust regulatory framework. Comments on protecting the environment are 
identical  to  those  for  health  and  safety;  in  addition  the  Regional  Seas  Conventions  could 
collect data etc. as currently done by OSPAR. 

NGOs 

NGOs  requested  that  citizens  be  advised  of,  inter  alia,  all  offshore  rig  incidents, 
environmental  impact  assessments  (EIA),  inspection  reports,  payments  to  governments  and 
officials,  and  accident  records.  Companies  should  share  information  on  accidents,  safety 
measures, equipment, and conduct affecting health and safety. Regulators are asked to share 
details  of  EIA  criteria,  inspection  processes,  regulatory  initiatives,  training,  sanctions, 
accidents,  risks  etc.  Health  and  safety  recommendations  included  comparison  with  other 
sectors, while environmental support included, inter alia, monitoring of the sea-bed and sub-
surface waters. 

Citizens 

A respondent suggested that a wide variety of information be made available to the public by 
oil  and  gas  companies,  e.g.  plans  for  any  offshore  infrastructure,  volume  of  oil  and  gas 
extracted, reports on environmental monitoring, health and safety records, accident statistics, 
number  of  wells  (active  and  abandoned),  emergency  response  plans,  demonstration  of  the 
companies technical ability etc. The respondent was also of the opinion that offshore workers 
should be able to raise concerns about dangerous practices or safety failures, without fear of 
intimidation.  

Others 

A respondent cautions that the need of the public to access information needs to be balanced 
against the need to ensure security of the facilities. Public information should thus focus on 
knowing  what  developments  will  impact  the  public  and  what  measures  have  been  taken  to 
ensure  the  safety  and  protection  of  the  environment,  the  workers  and  the  public.  The 
respondent  is  of  the  opinion  that  companies  should  share  information  in  on  on-going, 
consistent  and  uniform  manner,  on  e.g.  safety-related  incidents,  measures  taken  to  prevent 
recurrence and best practice developed by companies. In the context the respondents refers to 
current  practice  of  sharing  information  by  OGP,  on  sharing  of  information  in  industry,  and 
IRF and OSPAR, on sharing of information between regulators.  

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
Emergency response and international activities 

Oil and gas industry 

Industry  responded  by  highlighting  that  the  Operators  Co-operative  Emergency  Services 
(OCES) Agreement is the organisational framework employed in the North Sea and adjacent 
waters and that it works very well. Together with the Global Response Network (GRN), the 
OPRC convention of 1990, and the capping device currently being developed by OSPRAG, 
all  critical  elements  are  being  covered  by  industry.  Most  respondents  feel  that  rather  than 
fundamentally  changing  the  scope  of  EMSA,  the  EU  could  focus  on  strengthening  the 
existing  network  of  Regional  Seas  Conventions,  to  which  non-EU  countries  are  also 
contracting  parties.  Two  companies  stated  that  what  is  missing  currently  at  EU  level  is  a 
coordinated  EU  emergency  response  strategy  that  integrates  different  technologies  and 
strategies adopted by individual countries. In this process it would be important to harmonise 
the authorisation procedures for use of product and technologies required to combat oil spills 
(especially for use of dispersants and in-situ burning). One  respondent saw  value in  the EU 
promoting the creation of an integrated Emergency Agency at EU level, making participation 
of oil and gas companies mandatory. An industry association agreed that EMSA could help 
clean up but that its remit should not be formally extended. 

On  the  issue  of  international  activities,  numerous  operators  in  the  oil  and  gas  industry 
highlighted  that  they  use  the  same  high  standards  of  safety  and  accident  prevention 
worldwide.  However,  it  is  important  to  note  that  host  governments  may  require  changes  in 
line  with  natural,  legal  or  other  local  circumstances.  One  respondent  saw  this  as  an 
unattainable goal of the EU. 

Other industry 

Some respondents felt that emergency response is the primary responsibility of operators and 
national  governments.  Local  knowledge  and  expertise,  as  well  as  understanding  response 
capabilities are most relevant at this level and will be far more conducive to swift, decisive 
and effective mitigation of the consequences of an incident. Others suggested that initiatives 
like OSPRAG in the UK are extended to other areas in the EU. On transboundary response, 
some respondent feel that joint working and coordination arrangement between neighbouring 
countries already exist. Other respondents were of the opinion that the EU should have a more 
active role on emergency response e.g. on planning, coordination and funding for managing 
emergency  responses,  and  have  agreements  in  place  with  EU  countries  and  also  non-EU 
countries. In this context it was also suggested to extend the remit for EMSA to also include 
offshore  installations.  Some  recommend  that  EU  response  arrangements  are  reviewed 
(including  onshore  response)  to  ensure  that  they  are  adequate  to  protect  to  environment  in 
light of a serious environmental incident.  

Some respondents are of the opinion that the oil and gas industry already apply EU standards 
elsewhere in the world. They stress that any fiscal or punitive measure which might seek to 
ensure this would disadvantage EU-based companies when attempting to operate outside the 
EU. A more appropriate approach would be to ensure the existence of high quality standards 
within Europe, the core principle of these are then likely to be taken up by operators where 
possible without the need for coercion. Others feel that when a company applies for a license 
in the EU, that company's worldwide experience, asset integrity management and track record 
in safety and environmental protection should be taken into account. 

EN 

14 

   EN 

 
Public authorities 

EMSA was mentioned by various regulators for (i) keeping inventories of response resources 
in  each  EU  sea  area,  and  (ii)  helping  to  clean  up  pollution  if  asked  for  help  by  a  MS.  One 
regulator  considers  that  emergency  response  is  the  responsibility  of  the  operator  and  MS 
concerned. An emergency response centre could be financed by MS and companies working 
in  EU  waters;  neighbouring  countries  could  be  invited  to  participate.  For  cooperation  with 
non-EU  countries,  forums  such  as  NSOAF  would  be  useful,  especially  for  MS  with  limited 
offshore  experience.  The  International  Regulators  Forum  was  also  mentioned  as  good  for 
sharing experience. One comment was that EU law should promote exchange of best practice 
on offshore health and safety with international organisations, especially the ILO. Legislation 
should be standardised using best practice from MS that have robust regulatory regimes e.g. 
North Sea area. Any new EU legislation must be compatible with United Nations Convention 
on the Law of the Sea. For companies operating worldwide, it will be difficult but advisable 
to make  them apply  EU  offshore  safety standards and practices  elsewhere, but perhaps API 
standards could be used. Alternatively global state-of-the-art standards could be introduced. 

NGOs 

One  NGO  requested  that  there  should  be  economic  incentives  to  operators  to  act  rationally 
with  regard  to  emergency  response,  and  another  requested  that  the  EU  should  have  a  co-
ordinating  role.  One  respondent  was  of  the  opinion,  that  the  public  should  be  given  the 
opportunity  to  participate  in  the  decision-making  process  concerning  prevention  and 
preparedness  measures.  The  respondent  also  cautioned  against  the  use  of  dispersants  for  oil 
spills  and  urged  that  more  study  on  their  environment  and  health  impacts  should  be  done. 
NGOs see potential in the significant experience of EMSA for also dealing with prevention. 
Most  NGOs  require  that  EU  standards  be  applied  wherever  a  company  operates  outside  the 
EU, in transgression of which the EU could take sanctions e.g. revoking of  licences.  NGOs 
often mentioned that company structure should be changed so parent companies are liable for 
activities  of  subsidiaries  and/or  subcontractors.  One  NGO  stresses  the  role  of  the  Regional 
Seas  Convention  to  foster  cooperation  emergency  situations,  in  particular  OSPAR  which  is 
well advanced in this regard. 

Citizens 

A  respondent  felt  that  oil  and  gas  companies  should  be  compelled  to  produce  site-specific 
response plans to deal with oil spills and other major incident, taking specific local conditions 
into account (temperature, winds, sea state etc.), in stead of the current generic response plans. 
Some citizens expressed the view that EU should sign agreements ensuring that no oil and gas 
operations are conducted at weaker-than-EU standards in bodies of water shared with non-EU 
countries. Oil and gas companies registered in the EU should apply EU standards when they 
operate  abroad.  Any  party  should  be  able  to  raise  violations  of  EU  standards  by  such 
companies in EU courts. Companies that do not adhere to EU standards outside the EU should 
not be awarded exploration or extraction licences within the EU. In other words, companies 
that apply one set of principles extra-EU and another set within the EU are not implementing 
comprehensive best practice. 

Others 

A  respondent  mentioned  that  oil  and  gas  companies  must  first  comply  with  laws  and 
regulations in which they operate. The respondent feels that when companies have operations 

EN 

15 

   EN 

 
in another jurisdiction, they will naturally gravitate to applying the standards and practices of 
their  originating  jurisdiction  since  this  are  the  one  with  which  they  are  most  familiar. 
However,  in  the  event  of  a  conflict  between  the  standards  and  practices  in  their  originating 
jurisdiction and their operating jurisdiction, the companies are obliged to apply the latter. The 
respondent urges that offshore jurisdiction should harmonise as much of their standards and 
practices as possible.  

EN 

16 

   EN