Reducing regulatory burden on the upstream petroleum sector

2010 ◽  
Vol 50 (2) ◽  
pp. 687
Author(s):  
Peter Livingston ◽  
Rhys Hunt
Keyword(s):  
Best Practice ◽  
Institutional Arrangements ◽  
Regulatory Burden ◽  
Regulatory Processes ◽  
Compliance Requirements ◽  
Productivity Commission ◽  
Petroleum Sector ◽  
Offshore Petroleum

On 30 April 2009, the Productivity Commission released its Review of Regulatory Burden on the Upstream Petroleum Sector. The report identified significant unnecessary costs from delays and uncertainties in obtaining approvals, duplication of compliance requirements and inconsistent administration of regulatory processes. The commission found that these burdens could be reduced through new institutional arrangements—principally the establishment of a national offshore regulator—as well as implementation of best practice regulatory principles in all jurisdictions. On 5 August 2009, the Commonwealth Minister for Resources and Energy, the Hon Martin Ferguson AM MP, announced the Australian Government’s intention to establish a national offshore petroleum regulator in Commonwealth offshore areas, from 1 January 2012. The Council of Australian Governments is scheduled to consider an all-of-governments’ response to the commission’s recommendations in early 2010. The paper will discuss the policy rationale for reform, the proposed reforms and how they will be implemented.

Towards Best Practice in Measuring Regulatory Burdens: A Case Study of Environmental Regulation in the Australian Rail Industry

2012 ◽  
Vol 13 (4) ◽  
pp. 389-414 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jian Wang ◽  
Tania von der Heidt ◽  
Michael B. Charles
Keyword(s):  
Environmental Regulation ◽  
Best Practice ◽  
Regulatory Burden ◽  
Rail Industry

This article presents a methodology for quantifying the costs of dysfunctional environmental regulation faced by the Australian rail industry and derives indicative lessons for best practice with respect to measuring regulatory burden. By drawing on results from a recent benchmarking analysis, the suitability of the methodology is assessed. The study suggests that the methodology presented could be applied to other industries seeking to measure the policy-inefficient government regulatory burden. Further methodological improvements are also recommended.

Liabilities of industry stakeholders for pollution caused in Australian waters

2011 ◽  
Vol 51 (2) ◽  
pp. 719
Author(s):  
Simon Ball
Keyword(s):  
Oil Spills ◽  
Oil Pollution ◽  
Gas Production ◽  
Exploration And Production ◽  
Productivity Commission ◽  
Commission Report ◽  
Pollution Event ◽  
The Cost ◽  
International Conventions ◽  
Offshore Petroleum

There is no doubt that the recent Montara and Deepwater Horizon oil spills were catastrophic; the clean up continues and litigation is likely to drag on for several years. Who is held liable for the cost and clean up of an oil pollution event? Are these spills likely to change the field—if so, in what ways? Will the present contracting and insurance practices of Australian industry players be sufficient to protect them in the future? Offshore petroleum and gas production activities are covered by a range of sometimes confusing international, federal and state or territory laws. Operators, directors, contractors, financiers, co-venturers and other stakeholders may all have legal responsibilities in relation to pollution and other environmental impacts of offshore exploration and production activities. The Montara Commission of Inquiry has not yet been released, but the 2009 Productivity Commission Report has already focused attention on these issues. With reference to contracting practices in the Australian offshore petroleum and gas production industry—in particular indemnities and provisions purporting to limit or exclude liability—this paper outlines the potential extent of stakeholders’ liabilities under relevant international conventions, federal and state or territory legislation, and the common law. It considers the effect of anticipated changes to the operating environment in Australia and lessons to be learned after Montara. This paper will be of interest to any prudent investors, operators or others involved in the industry.

Learnings from recent offshore project proposal submissions

2020 ◽  
Vol 60 (2) ◽  
pp. 461
Author(s):  
Naomi L. Kerp ◽  
Claire Weller
Keyword(s):  
Environmental Impacts ◽  
Performance Outcomes ◽  
Public Consultation ◽  
Assessment Process ◽  
Project Proposal ◽  
The Public ◽  
Regulatory Processes ◽  
Project Lifecycle ◽  
Made In ◽  
Offshore Petroleum

The offshore project proposal (OPP) process was introduced in 2014 as part of the streamlining of regulatory processes under the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006 and Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 to provide for offshore petroleum developments to be assessed early in the project lifecycle. The OPP process involves the assessment of environmental impacts and risks of petroleum activities conducted over the life of an offshore project by the National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority (NOPSEMA). An OPP for an offshore project must be accepted by NOPSEMA before a titleholder can submit environment plans for activities that make up the offshore project. Although the OPP process is not new, it has proven complex to navigate, with four revisions to the OPP contents requirements guideline published by NOPSEMA since inception, and only three OPPs reaching the public consultation stage to date. An OPP is required to describe the offshore project; describe the environment that may be affected by the project; set out environmental performance outcomes for the project; describe feasible alternatives to the project or its activities; and evaluate environmental impacts and risks of the project. This paper provides insight to the OPP drafting, submission and assessment process, with shared key learnings based on actual examples of OPP submissions made. In particular, we will focus on the crucial elements that haven proven to make an OPP submission effective, including project aspect scoping, understanding relationships between aspects and receptors, building flexibility within set project boundaries and demonstrating acceptability.

scholarly journals Publication Categories in Toxicologic Pathology

2021 ◽  
pp. 019262332199230
Author(s):  
Molly H. Boyle ◽  
Bindu Bennet ◽  
Karyn Colman ◽  
Anna-Lena Frisk ◽  
Begonya Garcia ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Best Practice ◽  
Clinical Pathology ◽  
British Society ◽  
Official Journal ◽  
Letters To The Editor ◽  
Regulatory Processes ◽  
Biomarker Research ◽  
Expert Workshop ◽  
Toxicological Pathology

Toxicologic Pathology is the official journal of the Society of Toxicologic Pathology (STP), the British Society of Toxicological Pathology, and the European STP (ESTP). Toxicologic Pathology publishes articles related to topics in various aspects of toxicologic pathology such as anatomic pathology, clinical pathology, experimental pathology, and biomarker research. Publications include society-endorsed Best Practice/Position and Points to Consider publications and ESTP Expert Workshop articles that are relevant to toxicologic pathology and scientific regulatory processes, Opinion articles under the banner of the STP Toxicologic Pathology Forum, Original Articles, Review Articles (unsolicited/contributed, mini, and invited), Brief Communications, Letters to the Editor, Meeting Reports, and Book Reviews. This article provides details on the various publication categories in Toxicologic Pathology and will serve as a reference for authors and readers.

Domesday Economy: Analysis of the English Economy Early in the Second Millennium

2000 ◽  
Vol 172 ◽  
pp. 105-114
Author(s):  
John McDonald
Keyword(s):  
Agricultural Production ◽  
Best Practice ◽  
Eleventh Century ◽  
Institutional Arrangements ◽  
Primary Industry ◽  
High Quality ◽  
Frontier Analysis ◽  
Average Efficiency ◽  
Production Output ◽  
The Impact

The Domesday Survey of 1086 provides high quality and detailed information on the outputs, inputs and tax assessments of most English manors. These data can be used to reconstruct the eleventh century Domesday economy. This article describes the Survey, the contemporary institutional arrangements, and the main features of Domesday agricultural production. It shows how frontier methods can be used to assess the efficiency of production and the impact of the feudal and manorial systems on input productivities and production output. The frontier analysis suggests that the average efficiency level of Domesday estates relative to the best practice of the time was similar to, or more favourable than, that of production units in more modern primary industry. Also, input rigidities induced by feudalism and manorialism resulted in widely differing input productivities across estates, and a very significant reduction in overall output.

Rationality in Context: Regulatory Science and the Best Scientific Method

2021 ◽  
pp. 016224392110276
Author(s):  
Oliver Todt ◽  
José Luis Luján
Keyword(s):  
Scientific Method ◽  
Best Practice ◽  
Wide Spectrum ◽  
Regulatory Science ◽  
Academic Science ◽  
Scientific Methodology ◽  
Data Generation ◽  
Regulatory Decision ◽  
Methodological Choices ◽  
Regulatory Processes

Is there such a thing as a “best scientific methodology” in regulatory (decision-oriented) science? By examining cases from varying regulatory processes, we argue that there is no best scientific method for generating decision-relevant data. In addition, in regulatory science, the most suitable methodologies often differ from what is considered best practice in knowledge-oriented (academic) science. In data generation for regulatory purposes, we are faced with a wide spectrum of preferred methodologies as well as controversy as to methodological choice. What goes by the most adequate scientific method can and will—justifiably and rationally—vary significantly according to context and use. In order to make this argument, we analyze four case studies, two from risk assessment and two from benefit assessment. Our analysis shows that it is the noncognitive objectives of a particular regulatory process that determine what counts as the most appropriate scientific method. We use the concept of bounded rationality to indicate that those methodological choices, despite being context-dependent, can be interpreted as rational.

scholarly journals Special economic zones and transnational zones as tools for Southern Africa’s growth: Lessons from international best practices

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roseline T. Karambakuwa ◽  
Ronney M. Ncwadi ◽  
Weliswa Matekenya ◽  
Leward Jeke ◽  
Syden Mishi
Keyword(s):  
Best Practices ◽  
Southern Africa ◽  
Best Practice ◽  
Institutional Arrangements ◽  
Special Economic Zones ◽  
African Countries ◽  
Sustainability Strategy ◽  
The World ◽  
Practice Framework ◽  
Economic Zones

The paper evaluates strategies for developing successful special economic zones and transnational zones for Southern African countries to spur growth and employment. Most special economic zones implemented in Southern Africa have largely failed to bring adequate growth and employment due to numerous constraints. Globally, selected countries have successfully implemented export-oriented industries through such spatial industrial policy. We review case studies across the world by comparing different regions on selected indicators related to the best-practice framework developed through this study. The framework represents the five key components of successful special enterprise zones, namely: institutional arrangements; running (operational) framework; expansion framework; attaining/achieving framework; and reflection/review mechanisms. We identify best practice and review the implications for implementation and sustainability strategy in Southern Africa. The main findings point to unique lessons from international best practice on the establishment and operational strategy for zones and opportunities for transnational zones.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document