Casino-5 Well Intervention and Workover: EP Summary
Casino-5 Well Intervention and Workover: EP Summary
Intervention and
Workover
EP Summary
CONTROLLED DOCUMENT
CHN-EN-EMP-0004
Casino-5 Well Intervention and Workover
EP Summary
Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 6
1.1 Titleholder Nominated Liaison Person ........................................................................................ 6
10.0 References............................................................................................................................... 86
List of Figures
Figure 1-1 Location of Vic/L24 and VIC/L30 ........................................................................................... 6
Figure 2-1 Casino-5 Field Layout Drawing ............................................................................................. 7
Figure 4-1 Conceptual Model of the Geomorphology and Benthic Habitats of the Otway Shelf .......... 12
Figure 4-2 Seabed Habitats at Casino wells and along the Casino Pipeline route .............................. 13
Figure 4-3 Casino-5 Well Intervention and Workover - EMBA ............................................................. 14
Figure 5-1 AS/NZS ISO 31000 – Risk Management Methodology ....................................................... 27
Figure 5-2 ALARP Decision Support Framework.................................................................................. 30
List of Tables
Table 2-1 Casino-5 Well Coordinates (Surface Locations) (GDA94) ...................................................... 7
Table 2-2 Physical Characteristics of Netherby Condensate .................................................................. 8
Table 4-1 Presence of Ecological Receptors within the Operational Area and the EMBA ................... 15
Table 4-2 Presence of Social Receptors within the Operational Area and the EMBA .......................... 21
Table 4-3 Summary of conservation values and sensitivities within the EMBA .................................... 26
Table 5-1 Definition of Consequence .................................................................................................... 28
Table 5-2 Definition of Likelihood .......................................................................................................... 30
Table 5-3 Cooper Energy Qualitative Risk Matrix ................................................................................. 31
Table 5-4 Cooper Energy Acceptability Evaluation ............................................................................... 31
Table 6-1 Physical Interaction (Collision with Marine Fauna) EIA / ERA .............................................. 33
Table 6-2 Physical Interaction (Other Marine Users) EIA / ERA ........................................................... 34
Table 6-3 Light Emissions EIA / ERA .................................................................................................... 34
Table 6-4 Underwater Sound Emissions EIA / ERA .............................................................................. 36
Table 6-5 Physical Presence – Seabed Disturbance EIA / ERA ........................................................... 37
Table 6-6 Atmospheric Emissions EIA / ERA ........................................................................................ 38
Table 6-7 Planned Discharge – Cooling Water and Brine EIA / ERA ................................................... 39
Table 6-8 Planned Discharge - Treated Bilge EIA / ERA ...................................................................... 41
Table 6-9 Planned Discharge – Sewage and Food Waste EIA / ERA .................................................. 42
Table 6-10 Planned Discharge - Ballast Water EIA / ERA .................................................................... 43
Table 6-11 Operational Discharges – Subsea EIA / ERA ..................................................................... 44
Table 6-12 Operational Discharges – Surface EIA / ERA ..................................................................... 45
Table 6-13 Accidental Release – Waste EIA / ERA .............................................................................. 46
Table 6-14 Accidental Release – Loss of Containment (Minor) EIA / ERA ........................................... 47
Table 6-15 Accidental Release - LOC (Vessel Collision) EIA/ERA ....................................................... 48
Table 6-16 Accidental Release - LOC (Loss of Well Control Event) EIA / ERA .................................... 54
Table 8-1 Suitability of Response Options for MDO and CHN Condensates Spills.............................. 59
Document Control
Ownership of this document remains within the Cooper Energy Pty Ltd Drilling and Completions
department. Any updates, technical and /or errata, and the subsequent re-distribution of this
document remains the responsibility of its author.
Document Revision and Amendment
Distribution List
1.0 Introduction
Cooper Energy Pty Ltd (Cooper Energy), as the titleholder, proposed to undertake well
intervention and workover activities at the Casino-5 well in Production Licence VIC/L24 (Figure
1-1).
This Environment Plan (EP) Summary has been prepared to meet Regulation 11(4) of the
Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage (Environment) Regulations 2009
(OPGGSER) and summarises the information provided in the Casino-5 Well Intervention and
Workover EP accepted by the National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental
Management Authority (NOPSEMA).
2.1 Location
The Casino wells, which includes Casino-5, are located in Production Licence VIC/L24, in water
depths ranging from 60-70 m, approximately 30 km southwest of Port Campbell, Victoria
(Figure 1-1). The field layout is showing in Figure 2-1 below.
The coordinates for the Casino-5 well is provided in Table 2-1.
Table 2-1 Casino-5 Well Coordinates (Surface Locations) (GDA94)
into the environment, with a zero percent estimated residual (persistent) component. Physical
characteristics of the Netherby condensate is provided in Table 2-2.
Table 2-2 Physical Characteristics of Netherby Condensate
Rm Netherby Condensate
Volatiles (<180oC) 84
Semi-volatile (180-265oC) 14
(% mass)
Residual (>380oC) -
Group I
• Running and testing of a reservoir plug to isolate the well from the reservoir prior to well
workover activities. Once the reservoir plug is set, gas (approximately 48 Mscf
(1360m3)) within well tubing above the plug will be vented to atmosphere. During the gas
bleed off process, approximately 30m3 of brine will be pumped into the production tubing
from surface down to the reservoir plug. The brine above the reservoir plug is monitored
for well control verification;
• Cut tubing above the production packer and recover the upper completion string to the
MODU. This will result in the recovery of fluids, including brine, Mono-ethylene glycol
(MEG), corrosion inhibitor and biocide, aquifer fluids and reservoir gas to the MODU via
a bleed down package. An oil in water (OIW) separator will be used to reduce oil content
of the recovered fluids to <15ppm prior to the discharge. Components recovered with the
upper completion string will be returned to shore where they may either be subject to
diagnostics, inspection or disposal. There are no naturally occurring radioactive materials
(NORMS) expected in the tubing.
Figure 4-1 Conceptual Model of the Geomorphology and Benthic Habitats of the Otway Shelf
Surveys along the Casino pipeline route between the HDD exit point (18 m depth) and
approximately 60 m water depth, indicated primarily open sand habitat with infauna
communities of bivalves, polychaetes and crustaceans, and with little or no epifauna present
(Figure 4-2) (Santos, 2004). A side-scan survey of the Otway gas pipeline (adjacent to the
Casino pipeline) undertaken by Woodside (2003) showed similar results with soft seabed
characterised by coarse sand and containing mega-ripples. It was reported that given the
nature of the highly mobile sand, there is likely to be an inherent temporal and spatial variability
of infauna and epibiota.
An area along the pipeline corridor at KP19.5 (i.e. beyond the operational area), was
characterised by a localised and isolated sponge reef habitat. The area had a diverse range of
epifauna, including sponges, hydrozoans, bryozoans and algae; as well as demersal fish
species. This sponge reef habitat also represents the only potential abalone and rock lobster
habitat along the pipeline route (Santos, 2004).
Sponges and epifauna may also occur, albeit in reduced density and diversity, intermittently
along the pipeline alignment between KP19.5 and the well sites. Kelp-dominated reef (known to
occur elsewhere in the region) do not appear to be a feature along the pipeline alignment as
covered by the acoustic survey (Santos, 2004).
Beyond 60 m water depth and out to the well sites (i.e. approximately 70 m water depth), the
seabed is characterised by outcrops of hard substrate with low relief and structural complexity,
separated by gullies of sand or gravel (Santos, 2004). Survey footage in the vicinity of the
Casino wells (e.g. locations 1 and 2 from the 2002 survey (see Figure 4-2)) show a sparse
cover of epifauna, typically dominated by sponges. The presence of some small fish species
were also recorded in the vicinity of the wells (Santos, 2004).
Therefore, based on the above survey information, it is expected that the benthic habitat
around the Casion-5 well site, and within the operational area, is typically soft sediment, with
some outcropping of hard substrate, and a sparse coverage of epifauna (e.g. sponges or
bryozoans).
Figure 4-2 Seabed Habitats at Casino wells and along the Casino Pipeline route
Table 4-1 Presence of Ecological Receptors within the Operational Area and the EMBA
Habitat Shoreline Rocky Foraging habitat – Not present. ✓ The coastal environment in the Otway
(e.g. birds) region is a mixture of sandy beaches
and rocky coasts, including the well
Nesting or known limestone and sandstone cliffs
Breeding habitat and rock formations of the Great Ocean
(e.g. birds, Road.
pinnipeds,
Sandy turtles) – ✓ Each of these shoreline types has the
Haul-out sites potential to support different flora and
(e.g. pinnipeds) fauna assemblage due to the different
physical factors (e.g. waves, tides, light
etc.) influencing the habitat; for
example:
Australian Fur-seals are known to
use rocky shores for haul-out
and/breeding;
Gravel/Cobble – ✓
Birds species may use sandy, rocky
or cliff areas for roosting and
breeding sites; and
Cliff and rocky coasts can provide a
hard substrate for sessile
invertebrate species (e.g. barnacles,
sponges etc.) to attach to.
Saltmarsh Saltmarsh Nursery habitat – Not present. ✓ Saltmarshes are widespread along the
(e.g. Victorian coast, typically within
ecosystem
crustaceans, estuaries and coastal embayments. The
fish) ‘Subtropical and Temperate Coastal
Saltmarsh’ is listed as a vulnerable TEC
Threatened – ✓ under the EPBC Act, and it’s known
Ecological distribution includes the southern and
Community eastern coasts of Australia. Known
areas of saltmarsh within the EMBA
include Merri River (Warrnambool, Port
Soft Sediment Unvegetated soft Key habitat (e.g. ✓ Sediment is ubiquitous on the open ✓ Sediment is ubiquitous on the open
sediment benthic ocean floor. The Otway Shelf is ocean floor, throughout both intertidal
invertebrates)
substrates comprised of Miocene limestone and subtidal areas. The Otway Shelf is
beneath a thin veneer of sediments. comprised of Miocene limestone
The seabed within the operational area beneath a thin veneer of sediments.
is expected to be typically soft Shallow water (<20 m) water depth is
sediment, with some outcropping of typically open sand with intermittent
hard substrate, and a sparse coverage patch reefs with algae coverage.
of epifauna (e.g. sponges or Deeper water depths (>20 m) is
bryozoans). dominated by open sandy habitat with
sparse coverage of epifauna (e.g.
sponges or byrozoans). Small, isolated
patches of sponge reef may also occur.
Seagrass Seagrass Nursery habitat – Not present. ✓ Seagrass generally grows in soft
meadows (e.g. sediments within intertidal and shallow
crustaceans,
subtidal waters where there is sufficient
fish)
light. Known seagrass areas include
Food source
(e.g. dugong, offshore from Warrnambool, extending
turtles) east from Port Campbell (including
within the Twelve Apostles Marine
Park).
Algae Benthic Food source – Not present. ✓ Benthic microalgae are ubiquitous in
microalgae (e.g. gastropods) aquatic areas where sunlight reaches
the sediment surface. Macroalgae
communities are generally found on
intertidal and shallow subtidal rocky
substrates. Intermittent patch reefs
Macroalgae Nursery habitat – ✓ dominated by the brown alga, Ecklonia
(e.g. sp., with red algae and coralline algae
crustaceans, also present, have been recorded in
fish)
shallow (<20 m) water depths).
Food source
(e.g. birds, fish) The ‘Giant Kelp Marine Forests of
South East Australia’ is listed as an
endangered TEC under the EPBC Act.
Threatened – ✓
Ecological The ecological community is
Community characterised by a closed to semi-
closed surface or subsurface canopy of
Macrocystis pyrifera. This ecological
community predominantly occurs in
Tasmania; however small areas of
Giant Kelp have been identified within
the EMBA within the Merri Marine
Sanctuary.
Coral Hard and soft Nursery habitat – Not present. ✓ Soft corals can be found at most depths
coral (e.g. throughout the continental shelf, slope
crustaceans,
communities and offslope regions, to well below the
fish)
limit of light penetration. Soft corals
Breeding habitat
(e.g. fish) (e.g. sea fans, sea whips) may occur as
Marine Plankton Phytoplankton Food Source ✓ Phytoplankton and zooplankton are ✓ Phytoplankton and zooplankton are
Fauna and zooplankton (e.g. whales, widespread throughout oceanic widespread throughout oceanic
turtles)
environments. No defined area of environments; however increased
upwelling occurs within the operational abundance and productivity can occur
area. in areas of upwelling (e.g. Bonney
Coast Upwelling).
Seabirds and Listed Marine ✓ 30 seabird and shorebird species (or ✓ 77 seabird and shorebird species (or
Shorebirds Species species habitat) may occur within the species habitat) may occur within the
Threatened ✓ operational area; with foraging ✓ EMBA; with breeding, foraging and
Species behaviours identified for some albatross roosting behaviours identified for many
Migratory ✓ and tern species. The operational area ✓ species. The EMBA intersects foraging
Species intersects foraging BIAs for: Antipodean BIAs for: Antipodean Albatross,
BIA – –
Albatross, Wandering Albatross, ✓ Wandering Albatross, Buller’s
Aggregation Buller’s Albatross, Shy Albatross, Albatross, Shy Albatross, Campbell
Campbell Albatross, Black-browed Albatross, Black-browed Albatross,
BIA – Breeding – ✓
Albatross, and the Common Diving- Common Diving-Petrel, Short-tailed
BIA – Foraging ✓ Petrel. ✓ Shearwater, and the Australasian
Gannet. There is also an aggregation
Behaviour – – ✓
Breeding BIA for the Australasian Gannet at the
eastern end of the EMBA, at Point
Behaviour – ✓ ✓
Danger and Lawrence Rocks (south of
Foraging
Portland). A breeding BIA for the
Behaviour – – ✓ Common Diving-Petre also exists for
Roosting
Lady Julia Percy Island.
Marine Benthic and Food Source ✓ A variety of invertebrate species may ✓ A variety of invertebrate species may
Invertebrates pelagic (e.g. whales, occur within the operational, including occur within the EMBA, including
turtles)
invertebrates sponges and bryozoans. Infauna may sponges, bryozoans and arthropods.
Commercial ✓ also be present within the sediment ✓ Infauna studies along the Victorian
Value profile. coast showed high species diversity,
Given the lack of suitable habitat, that increased with water depth;
commercially important species (e.g. crustacean were the dominant taxa in
rock lobster, Giant Crab) are unlikely to each depth class.
occur in significant numbers within the Commercially important species (e.g.
operational area. abalone, rock lobster, and Giant Crab)
may occur within the EMBA.
Fish Fish Threatened ✓ One threatened fish species (or species ✓ One threatened fish species (or species
Species habitat) may occur within the habitat) may occur within the
operational area, the Australian operational area, the Australian
Grayling. Note, this species is typically Grayling. Note, this species is typically
found in freshwater streams; however, found in freshwater streams; however,
Commercial ✓ may spend part of its lifecycle in coastal ✓ may spend part of its lifecycle in coastal
Value waters. waters.
Commercial fish species may occur Commercial fish species may occur
within the operational area, including within the EMBA, including species of
species of wrasse (e.g. Bluethroat wrasse, flathead, and warehou,
Wrasse).
Sharks and Rays Threatened ✓ Three shark species (or species habitat) ✓ Three shark species (or species habitat)
Species may occur within the operational area. may occur within the EMBA; with
Migratory ✓ No important behaviours or BIAs have ✓ foraging behaviours identified for the
Species been identified. Great White Shark. There is also a
BIA – Distribution ✓ ✓ foraging BIA at the eastern end of
Syngnathids Listed Marine ✓ 27 syngnathid species (or species ✓ 29 syngnathid species (or species
Species habitat) may occur within the habitat) may occur within the EMBA. No
operational area. No important important behaviours of BIAs have been
behaviours of BIAs have been identified.
identified.
Marine Reptiles Turtles Listed Marine ✓ Three marine turtle species (or species ✓ Three marine turtle species (or species
Species habitat) may occur within the habitat) may occur within the EMBA,
Threatened ✓ operational area. No important ✓ with breeding behaviours identified for
Species behaviours of BIAs have been the Leatherback Turtle. No BIAs have
Migratory ✓ identified. ✓ been identified within the vicinity.
Species
Behaviour – – ✓
Breeding
Marine Mammals Pinnipeds Listed Marine ✓ Two pinniped species (or species ✓ Two pinniped species (or species
Species habitat) may occur within the habitat) may occur within the EMBA;
Behaviour – – operational area. No important ✓ with breeding behaviours identified for
Breeding behaviours of BIAs have been the Australian Fur-seal. One of the main
identified. breeding colonies for the Australian Fur-
seal is located on Lady Julia Percy
Island. No BIAs have been identified
within the vicinity.
Threatened ✓ 6 whale species (or species habitat) ✓ 7 whale species (or species habitat)
Species may occur within the operational area, may occur within the EMBA, with
Migratory ✓ with foraging behaviours identified for ✓ foraging and breeding behaviours
Species some species. The EMBA intersects a identified for some species. The EMBA
BIA – – distribution and forging BIA for the ✓ intersects a distribution and forging BIA
Aggregation Pygmy Blue Whale, and a distribution for the Pygmy Blue Whale, and an
BIA – Foraging ✓ BIA for the Southern Right Whale. ✓ aggregation, distribution and migration
BIA for the Southern Right Whale.
BIA – Migration – ✓
Behaviour – – ✓
Breeding
Behaviour – ✓ ✓
Foraging
Dolphins Listed Marine ✓ 6 dolphin species (or species habitat) ✓ 7 dolphin species (or species habitat)
Species may occur within the operational area. may occur within the EMBA. No
Migratory ✓ No important behaviours of BIAs have ✓ important behaviours of BIAs have been
Species been identified. identified.
Table 4-2 Presence of Social Receptors within the Operational Area and the EMBA
Natural Commonwealth Key Ecological High productivity – Not present. ✓ One KEF, Bonney Coast Upwelling,
System Areas, Parks and Features Aggregations of intersects with the eastern extent of the
Reserves marine life EMBA. The Bonney Coast Upwelling is
a seasonal upwelling feature, that
supports regionally high productivity
State Parks and Marine Protected Various; e.g. – Not present. ✓ There are four State marine protected
Reserves Areas foraging or areas intersect with the EMBA:
breeding areas
Merri Marine Sanctuary
The Arches Marine Sanctuary
Twelve Apostles Marine Park
Marengo Reefs Marine Sanctuary
Eagle Rock Marine Sanctuary
Terrestrial Various; e.g. – Not present. ✓ A number of State terrestrial protected
Protected Areas shorelines areas have a coastal boundary that
intersects with the EMBA, including:
Discovery Bay Coastal Park
Lawrence Rocks Wildlife Reserve
Lady Julia Percy Island Wildlife
Reserve
Bay of Islands Coastal Park
Port Campbell National Park
Cape Otway National Park
Human Commercial Commonwealth- Economic benefit ✓ While a number of Commonwealth- ✓ A number of Commonwealth-managed
System Fisheries managed managed fisheries have management fisheries have management areas that
areas that intersect with the operational intersect with the EMBA. Fishing
Recreational Community ✓ Recreational fishing may occur within ✓ Most recreational fishing typically
Fisheries engagement the operational area, but activity is occurs in nearshore coastal waters, and
expected to be minimal given its within bays and estuaries; offshore
location >20 km offshore. (>5 km) fishing only accounts for
approximately 4% of recreational
fishing activity in Australia. The Otway
coastal waters have a moderate fishing
intensity (relative to other areas within
the South-East Marine Region).
Recreation and Community ✓ Marine-based recreation and tourism ✓ The Australian coast provides a diverse
Tourism engagement may occur within the operational area, range of recreation and tourism
Economic benefit but activity is expected to be minimal opportunities, including scuba diving,
given its location >20 km offshore. charter boat cruises, and surfing. The
Great Ocean Road is a popular tourism
attraction in eastern Victoria.
Industry Shipping Community ✓ The south-eastern coast is one of ✓ The south-eastern coast is one of
engagement Australia’s busiest in terms of shipping Australia’s busiest in terms of shipping
Economic benefit activity and volumes. The Casino-5 well activity and volumes. There are no
does not coincide with major shipping major ports within the EMBA, but minor
routes. ports do exist (e.g. Portland) that
support commercial and recreational
fishing industries.
Oil and Gas Economic benefit ✓ Petroleum activity within the operational ✓ Petroleum infrastructure in Otway Basin
Exploration area includes other Cooper operated is well developed, with a network of
and/or assets. pipelines transporting hydrocarbons
Operations produced offshore to onshore facilities.
Current offshore production in the
Otway Basin includes the Minerva,
Thylacine, Geographe, Casino, Henry
(including Netherby) fields, and the
Halladale/Speculant gas project.
Receptor Type Value and Sensitivities Features present within the EMBA
Commonwealth Key Ecological Features Bonney Coast Upwelling
Areas, Parks and
Reserves Shelf Rocky Reefs and Hard Substrates
5. Critical Severe long-term impact on highly-valued Critical impact on business reputation &/or
ecosystems, species populations or international media exposure.
habitats. High-level regulatory intervention.
Significant remedial/recovery work to Potential revocation of License/Permit.
land/water systems over decades (if
Operations ceased.
possible at all).
5.1.3 Determine the ALARP decision context and identify control measures
In alignment with NOPSEMA’s ALARP Guidance Note (N-04300-GN0166, Rev 6, June 2015),
Cooper Energy have adapted the approach developed by Oil and Gas UK (OGUK) (formerly
UKOOA; OGUK, 2014) for use in an environmental context to determine the assessment
technique required to demonstrate that potential impacts and risks are ALARP (Figure 5-2).
Specifically, the framework considers impact severity and several guiding factors:
• activity type
• risk and uncertainty
• stakeholder influence.
A Type A decision is made if the risk is relatively well understood, the potential impacts are low,
activities are well practised, and there are no conflicts with company values, no partner
interests and no significant media interests. However, if good practice is not sufficiently well-
defined, additional assessment may be required.
A Type B decision is made if there is greater uncertainty or complexity around the activity
and/or risk, the potential impact is moderate, and there are no conflict with company values,
although there may be some partner interest, some persons may object, and it may attract local
media attention. In this instance, established good practice is not considered sufficient and
further assessment is required to support the decision and ensure the risk is ALARP.
A Type C decision typically involves sufficient complexity, high potential impact, uncertainty, or
stakeholder influence to require a precautionary approach. In this case, relevant good practice
still must be met, additional assessment is required, and the precautionary approach applied for
those controls that only have a marginal cost benefit.
In accordance with the regulatory requirement to demonstrate that environmental impacts and
risks are ALARP, Cooper Energy has considered the above decision context in determining the
level of assessment required. This is applied to each aspect described in Section 6.0.
The assessment techniques considered include:
• good practice
• engineering risk assessment
• precautionary approach.
5.1.4 Evaluate the likelihood of the impact (consequence) occurring
The likelihood of a defined consequence occurring was determined, considering the control
measures that have been previously identified. Likelihood levels are determined according to
the Cooper Energy qualitative risk matrix (Table 5-3). Likelihood definitions are provided in
Table 5-2.
Table 5-2 Definition of Likelihood
Descriptor Description
A. Almost certain Common event, expected to occur in most circumstances within Cooper Energy
operations (i.e., several times a year).
B. Likely Event likely to occur once or more during a campaign, ongoing operations or
equipment design life.
C. Possible Infrequent event that may occur during a campaign, ongoing operations or
equipment design life.
Descriptor Description
D. Unlikely Unlikely event, but could occur at sometime within Cooper Energy operations (has
occurred previously in similar industry).
E. Remote Rare event. May occur in exceptional circumstances of Cooper Energy operations
(not heard of in recent similar industry history).
CONSEQUENCE
1.Negligible 2.Minor 3.Moderate 4.Major 5.Critical
Almost Certain M M H H H
Likely M M M H H
LIKELIHOOD
Possible L M M H H
Unlikely L L M M H
Remote L L L M M
Cooper Energy Risk Process • Is the level of risk High? (if so, it is considered unacceptable)
Principles of Ecologically • Is there the potential to affect biological diversity and ecological
Sustainable Development integrity? (Consequence Level Major [4] and Critical [5])
(ESD) [See below]
• Do activities have the potential to result in serious or irreversible
environmental damage?
o If yes: Is there significant scientific uncertainty associated with
aspect?
o If yes: Has the precautionary principle been applied to the aspect?
Legislative and Other • Confirm that all good practice control measures have been identified for
Requirements the aspect including those identified in relevant EPBC listed species
recovery plans or approved conservation advices.
Internal Context • Confirm that all Cooper Energy HSEC MS Standards and Risk Control
Processes have been identified for this aspect
External Context • What objections and claims regarding this aspect have been made, and
how have they been considered / addressed?
Megafauna Several marine mammals (whale, dolphin) and turtle species, including those listed as
either threatened and/or migratory under the EPBC Act have the potential to occur within
the operational area. The operational area is located within a foraging BIA for the Pygmy
Blue Whale, and a distribution BIA for the Southern Right Whale and Great White Shark.
Cetaceans are naturally inquisitive marine mammals that are often attracted to offshore
vessels and facilities. The reaction of whales to the approach of a vessel is quite
variable. Some species remain motionless when in the vicinity of a vessel, while others
are curious and often approach ships that have stopped or are slow moving, although
they generally do not approach, and sometimes avoid, faster-moving ships (Richardson et
al.1995).
Collisions between larger vessels with reduced manoeuvrability and large, slow-moving
cetaceans occur more frequently where high vessel traffic and cetacean habitat occurs
(Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society, 2006). Laist et al. (2001) identifies that larger
vessels with reduced manoeuvrability moving in excess of 10 knots may cause fatal or
severe injuries to cetaceans, with the most severe injuries caused by vessels travelling
faster than 14 knots. Vessels typically used to support workover activities do not have the
same limitations on manoeuvrability and would not be moving at these speeds when
conducting activities within the scope of this EP, inside the operational area.
The duration of fauna exposure to vessel strike is limited to the duration of this activity
which is expected to be approximately 25 days. If a fauna strike occurred and resulted in
death, it is not expected that it would have a detrimental effect on the overall population.
Consequently, the potential impacts and risks from fauna strike are considered to be
Minor (2) as this type of event may result in a localised short-term impact to species of
recognised conservation value but is not expected to affect the population or local
ecosystem function.
ALARP Decision A
Context
Adherence to EPBC Regulations 2000 – Part 8 Division 8.1 interacting with cetaceans – The Australian
Guidelines for Whale and Dolphin Watching describes strategies to ensure whales and dolphins are not
harmed during offshore interactions with people.
Vessel strike reporting
Likelihood Unlikely (D) Residual Risk Low
Commercial Several commercial fisheries have management areas that overlap the operational area
Fisheries associated with the EP; however, fishing activity in the area is low. The MODU will be
Other marine users located within an existing exclusion zone (the PSZ for Casino-2 wellhead).
Stakeholder engagement, along with annual fishing records, indicates that that the
proposed activities are not expected to result in an impact to commercial operations (via
loss of catches or damage to fishing equipment.)
The operational area is located to the northern extremity of commercial shipping routes.
The well intervention and workover activities for the EP is expected to take approximately
25 days. Consequently, any impacts would be Negligible (1), with little to no potential
impacts to, or concerns from, affected external stakeholders.
ALARP Decision A
Context
Pre-start notifications
Petroleum Safety Zone
Likelihood Remote (E) Residual Risk Low
Seabirds, squid and Localised light glow that may act as an attractant to light sensitive species
zooplankton High levels of marine lighting can attract and disorient seabird species resulting in species
behavioural changes (e.g. circling light sources leading to exhaustion or disrupted
foraging), injury or mortality near the light source (e.g. Marquenie et al. 2008; Weise et al.
2001). These studies indicate that migratory birds are attracted to lights on offshore
platforms when travelling within a radius of 5 km from the light source, but their migratory
paths are unaffected outside this zone (Shell, 2010).
Other marine life may also be attracted to the MODU or support vessels (e.g., fish, squid
and plankton) that can aggregate directly under downward facing lights. These are prey
species to many species of marine fauna and given the nature of the activity, any impacts
arising from light emissions will be localised and temporary.
Consequently, the potential impacts and risks from light emissions are considered to be
Negligible (1) as this type of event may result in temporary localised impacts or
disturbance to animals but is not expected to affect the population or local ecosystem
function.
Turtles, seabirds Alteration of behaviour from light-sensitive species during breeding periods
Turtles
Light pollution can be an issue along, or adjacent to, turtle nesting beaches where
emerging hatchlings orient to, and head towards, the low light of the horizon unless
distracted by other lights which disorient and affect their passage from the beach to the
sea (EA, 2003). Given the absence of known turtle nesting in Victoria, impacts to turtle
hatchlings are not expected.
Seabirds
Artificial light can cause significant impacts on burrow-nesting petrels and shearwaters.
The operational area is approximately 30 km from the closest shoreline. Given the
distance offshore, changes to ambient light levels in seabird breeding areas are not
expected to occur, thus impacts to breeding periods from light emissions are not
expected.
ALARP Decision A
Context
Lighting will be limited to that required for safe work and navigation.
Commercial Using the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) guidance for sounds such as vessel
Fisheries noise, behavioural disturbance may occur within 4km of the MODU / vessel. The
operational area is located within a foraging BIA for the Pygmy Blue Whale, and a
distribution BIA for the Southern Right Whale; both species typically occur as individuals
or in small (2–3 individuals) groups. Therefore, within the open water environment of the
operational area, it is anticipated that cetacean numbers would be low, and so it is not
expected that exposure to these sound levels would result in a significant change to
foraging behaviours or natural movement that would result in further impact at either the
individual or local population levels. Consequently, the potential impacts and risks from
noise emissions are considered to be Minor (2).
Fish and sharks
Sound levels are expected to be below the Popper et al. (2014) threshold for injury in fish
with a high or medium hearing sensitivity.
For some fish, a strong ‘startle’ response has been observed at lower sound levels, with
fish shown to move away from the noise source. Using a conservative approach, Cooper
Energy has estimated that fish may exhibit a behavioural response to expected sound
levels within 3km of the sound source (well location). Any behavioural impacts would be
temporary. Consequently, the potential impacts and risks from noise emissions are
Negligible (1) as this type of event may result in temporary localised impact or
disturbance to animals.
Commercial fisheries
The EMBA is located within an important commercial fishing area. Localised and
temporary behaviour changes in fish have the potential to adversely affect commercial
fishing operations.
During stakeholder consultation, concern was raised by South East Trawl Fishing Industry
Associate (SETFIA) regarding the potential impact of seismic survey on marine
invertebrates and fish. Cooper Energy provided sufficient information to show that, as
seismic survey will not be undertaken, impacts from the activities are unlikely to result in
impacts to fish and will not affect commercial fishing.
As potential impacts and risks from noise emissions to fish and sharks is determined to
have a negligible consequence, impacts and risks to commercial fisheries from noise
emissions are also considered to be Negligible (1).
Fish and sharks As the sound levels generated by MODU/vessel operations associated with the activities
will be below the thresholds suggested by Southall et al., (2007) (cetaceans) and Popper
et al., (2014) (fish), no further assessment is required.
ALARP Decision A
Context
turbidity is likely to be a very small area localized around the disturbance points where
anchors or weights sit on the seabed.
The location of the wells within a homogenous seabed area, and lack of sensitive benthic
features, means that turbidity resulting from the described activities is not expected to
result in any environmental impacts.
ALARP Decision A
Context
Seabirds Localised and temporary decrease in air quality from diesel combustion
Marine megafauna The use of fuel (specifically marine-grade diesel) to power engines, generators and
that surface for air mobile and fixed plant (e.g., ROV, back-deck crane, generator), will result in gaseous
(e.g. cetaceans and emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG).
marine turtles) The quantities of atmospheric emissions and related impacts will be similar to other
vessels and helicopters operating in the region. Emissions from engines, generators and
deck equipment may be toxic, odoriferous or aesthetically unpleasing, and will result in a
localised, temporary reduction in air quality.
Modelling of nitrogen dioxide (NO2) emissions from MODU power generation for an
offshore project (BP, 2013) indicates that, although emissions will result in a temporary
increase in ambient NO2 concentration, any exposure from these operations would be
expected to be below Australian Ambient Air Quality National Environmental Protection
(Air Quality) Measures (NEPM) standards.
Emissions will be small in quantity and will dissipate quickly into the surrounding
atmosphere, therefore any reduction in air quality will be localised and impacts would be
limited. No impacts are anticipated on a population scale, and consequence is therefore
considered to be Negligible (1).
Contribution to the global GHG effect
While these emissions add to the GHG load in the atmosphere, which adds to global
warming potential, they are relatively small on a global scale, and temporary, representing
an insignificant contribution to overall GHG emissions (DoEE, 2017).
Any exposure from these operations would be expected to be insignificant, therefore no
further evaluation of this aspect has been undertaken.
ALARP Decision A
Context
Marine mammals and fish passing through the area will be able to actively avoid
entrainment in any heated plume (Langford, 1990), and reptiles and sharks would be
expected to behave similarly. Studies of organisms at 15, 20 and 25°C allowed them to
tolerate temperature increments of 8-9°C without damage (UNEP, 1983).
Given the open nature of the receiving environment, the short duration of the activity, and
the lack of sensitive environmental receptors, the impact of increased temperature is
expected to be Negligible (1).
Potential Chemical Toxicity
Scale inhibitors and biocide used in the heat exchange and desalination process to avoid
fouling of pipework are inherently safe at the low dosages used; they are usually
consumed in the inhibition process, so there is little or no residual chemical concentration
remaining upon discharge.
Larger pelagic species are mobile; at worst, it is expected that they would be subjected to
very low levels of chemicals for a very short time as they swim near the discharge plume.
As transient species, they are not expected to experience any chronic or acute effects.
Any impacts from chemical discharge will be localised and short-term. Given the open
nature of the receiving environment, the intermittent nature of the activity, and the lack of
sensitive environmental receptors, the impact of potential chemical toxicity is expected to
be Minor (2).
Plankton Brine water will sink through the water column where it will be rapidly mixed with receiving
waters and dispersed by ocean currents. As such, any potential impacts are expected to
be limited to the source of the discharge where concentrations are highest.
Changes in salinity can affect the ecophysiology of marine organisms. Most marine
species are able to tolerate short-term fluctuations in salinity in the order of 20% to 30%
(Walker and McComb, 1990). However, larval stages, which are crucial transition periods
for marine species, are known to be more susceptible to impacts of increased salinity
(Neuparth, Costa & Costa 2002). Pelagic species are mobile; it is expected that at worst,
they would be subjected to slightly elevated salinity levels (~10-15% higher than
seawater) for a very short period which they are expected to be able to tolerate. As such,
transient species are not expected to experience chronic or acute effects.
Given the open nature of the receiving environment, the short duration of the activity, and
the lack of sensitive environmental receptors, the impact of increased salinity is expected
to be Negligible (1).
ALARP Decision A
Context
Fish embryo, OSPAR (2014) indicates that the predicted no effect concentration (PNEC) for marine
larvae, and other organisms exposed to dispersed oil is 70.5 ppb.
plankton A discharge of treated bilge is non-continuous and infrequent. Modelling by Shell (2009)
Species which rely indicates that upon discharge, hydrocarbon and other chemical concentrations are rapidly
on plankton as a diluted and expected to be below PNEC within a relatively short period of time. Given the
food source nature of this discharge, marine fauna most susceptible to toxic impacts are mainly limited
to less mobile fish embryo, larvae, and other plankton.
There is potential for short-term impacts to species that rely on plankton as a food source.
Any impact to prey species would be temporary as the duration of exposure would be
limited, and fish larvae and other plankton are expected to rapidly recover as they are
known to have high levels of natural mortality and a rapid replacement rate (UNEP,
1985).
Consequently, the potential impacts and risks from planned discharge of treated bilge are
considered to be localised and short-term, and have been rated as Minor (2).
ALARP Decision A
Context
Bilge discharges from vessels comply with MARPOL Annex I bilge discharge requirements
MARPOL-approved oil water separator
Planned Maintenance Schedule
Likelihood Remote (E). Residual Risk Low
Transient marine Temporary and localised reduction in water quality (nutrients and biological
oxygen demand [BOD])
fauna, including
whales, sharks, fish Monitoring of sewage discharges for another offshore project (WEL, 2014), determined
and reptiles that a 10 m3 sewage discharge (over the course of an activity) reduced to ~1% of its
original concentration within 50 m of the discharge location.
Studies into the effects of nutrient enrichment from offshore sewage discharges indicate
that the influence of nutrients in open marine areas is much less significant than that
experienced in enclosed areas (McIntyre and Johnson, 1975) and suggest that
zooplankton composition and distribution in areas associated with sewage dumping
grounds are not affected. In addition, regardless of receptor sensitivity to BOD, Black et
al. (1994) state that BOD of treated effluent is not expected to lead to oxygen depletion in
the receiving waters.
Due to the rapid rate of mixing and dispersion identified during modelling of sewage
releases (WEL, 2014), no receptors are expected to be impacted by this activity and
consequently this hazard has not been evaluated further.
Large pelagic fauna The overboard discharge of sewage and macerated food waste creates a localised and
(e.g. marine temporary food source for scavenging marine fauna or seabirds whose numbers may
mammals, fish and temporarily increase as a result, thus increasing the food source for predatory species.
seabirds) The rapid consumption of this food waste by scavenging fauna, and physical and
microbial breakdown, ensures that the impacts of food waste discharges are insignificant
and temporary, and receptors that may potentially be in the water column are not
impacted.
Plankton are not affected by sewage discharges, and thus impacts to food source and
any predator-prey dynamics is not expected to occur.
Consequently, the potential impacts and risks from the planned discharge of sewage and
greywater have been evaluated as Minor (2), given this type of event may result in
localised short-term impacts to a species of conservation value (seabirds) through
impacting their foraging habitat.
ALARP Decision A
Context
Benthic Habitat IMP are likely to have little or no natural competition or predators, thus potentially
outcompeting native species for food or space, preying on native species, or changing the
nature of the environment. Marine pest species can also deplete fishing grounds and
aquaculture stock, with between 10% and 40% of Australia’s fishing industry being
potentially vulnerable to marine pest incursion. Marine pests can damage marine and
industrial infrastructure, such as encrusting jetties and marinas or blocking industrial
water intake pipes. By building up on vessel hulls, they can slow the vessels down and
increase fuel consumption.
The benthic habitat within the operational area is expected to comprise soft sediment with
the occasional hard substrate outcrop, infauna communities, and sparse epibiotic
communities (typically sponges). Areas of higher value or sensitivity are located further
afield (e.g. it is approximately 75 km to the closest AMP (Apollo)).
Once established, some pests can be difficult to eradicate (Hewitt et al., 2002) and
therefore there is the potential for a long-term or persistent change in habitat structure.
Successful colonisation in the recipient region would be difficult given the nature of the
benthic habitats near the operational area, and lack of light due to deep waters. If an IMP
was introduced, and if it did colonise an area, it is expected that any colony would remain
fragmented and isolated, and only within the vicinity of the wells. Therefore, there is the
potential for a localised, but irreversible, impact to habitat resulting in a Moderate (4)
consequence.
ALARP Decision B
Context
Additional control measures considered but not adopted:
Only use vessels / MODUs that are currently operating in Commonwealth Waters to
reduce the potential for introducing IMPs.
This control measure is considered to have costs (limited vessel availability leading to
delays in schedule and incurring additional expenses) which outweigh the benefits.
toxicity of the chemicals, the low frequency and short-term nature of the exposure,
Negligible (1) impacts are expected.
For mobile demersal and pelagic species which may be present at the wellheads during
the activity, given the localised and short-term nature of the discharge, the low toxicity
and low-frequency nature of the discharge and the species mobility which limits exposure,
the environmental impact is expected to have a Negligible (1) impact to these species.
Gas
The main concern regarding a gas (methane) release is the possibility that the action of
methane-consuming microbes (methanotrophic bacteria) could exhaust oxygen in the
water column.
As gas is positively buoyant, upon release it will rise through the water column causing
the small volume to rapidly disperse and dilute. Consequently, receptors exposed would
be limited to transient marine fauna. Based upon the expected volumes (in the order of
0.0001 m3), exposure to transient marine fauna is not expected to occur at concentrations
that could feasibly result in an impact. Thus, this release has not been discussed further.
ALARP Decision A
Context
Whales, sharks, fish All chemicals used and discharged will be assessed using Cooper Energy’s Offshore
and plankton Environmental Chemical Assessment Process which uses the CHARM OCNS ranking in
conjunction with toxicity, biodegradation and bioaccumulation data to determine potential
impacts to the environment and acceptability of planned discharges.
Based upon the offshore location of the activity with no identified obstructions and open
ocean currents, potential exposures are expected to be limited to the operational area.
Given the infrequent nature of the discharge, it is expected that any exposure will be
limited in duration with rapid dilution and dispersion experienced.
Impacts from toxicity are most likely to be limited to those organisms that would get
entrained in the plume (such as plankton and fish larvae). Consequently, the potential
impacts and risks from the operational discharges at the surface are considered to be
Negligible (1).
ALARP Decision A
Context
Seabirds Discharged overboard, non-hazardous wastes can cause smothering of benthic habitats
as well as injury or death to marine fauna or seabirds through ingestion or entanglement
Benthic Habitats
(e.g., plastics caught around the necks of seals or ingested by seabirds and fish).
If dropped objects such as bins are not retrievable by ROV, these items may permanently
smother very small areas of seabed, resulting in the loss of benthic habitat. However, as
with most subsea infrastructure, the items themselves are likely to become colonised by
benthic fauna over time (e.g., sponges) and become a focal area for sea life, so the net
environmental impact is likely to be neutral. This would affect extremely localised areas
of seabed and would be unlikely to contribute to the loss of benthic habitat or species
diversity.
Given the restricted exposures and limited quantity of marine pollution expected from this
program, it is expected that any impacts from marine pollution may have a Minor (2)
impact resulting from a localised short-term impact to species/habitats of recognised
conservation value but not affecting local ecosystem functioning.
ALARP Decision A
Context
Marine Fauna A loss of 50 m3 of diesel or chemicals upon release would be expected to result in
Pelagic species changes to water quality in both surface waters and the pelagic environment. As
evaluated in Section 6.15, the potential impacts associated with a larger loss of diesel fuel
were determined to be Minor (2), thus impacts from these types of events are not
expected to be any larger (and thus have not been considered further).
ALARP Decision A
Context
Shoreline Shoreline hydrocarbon exposure has the potential to concentrate as it strands ashore,
resulting in follow-on impacts to marine fauna that may use the habitat. Habitat types
within the area of exposure include rocky, sandy and gravel shores. As MDO rapidly
weathers, is highly evaporative, and any oil that does percolate into penetrable substrate
will get reworked via tidal and wave action, accumulation on the shoreline surfaces is not
expected. As such, it is unlikely that toxicity, smothering or directed oiling to exposed
marine fauna will occur. Consequently, the potential impacts and risks to coastal habitats
from shoreline exposure are considered to be Minor (2) as they could be expected to
result in localised short-term impacts to species/habitats of recognised conservation value
but not affecting local ecosystem functioning.
Soft Sediment Shoreline hydrocarbon exposure has the potential to expose intertidal areas of soft
sediment to concentrations above the impact threshold. Given the characteristics of MDO
and is residues, which due to their viscosity are likely to evaporate or percolate into the
sand, it is not considered likely to accumulate on the surface. The constant wave action
and tidal movements will naturally wash and further degrade MDO residues which remain
in the inter-tidal area. Consequently, the potential impacts and risks to soft sediments in
the intertidal zone from shoreline hydrocarbon exposure are considered to be Minor (2)
as they could be expected to result in localised short-term impacts to species/habitats of
recognised conservation value but not affecting local ecosystem functioning
Coral In-water (entrained) hydrocarbon exposure has the potential to cause lethal or sublethal
(e.g. reduced growth rates, tissue decomposition etc) impacts to corals. However, the
area predicted to be exposed to in-water concentrations above the impact threshold is
patchy and has a low probability of occurrence. Given the lack of hard coral reef
formations, and the sporadic cover of soft corals in mixed reef communities, any potential
impacts will likely be limited to isolated corals. Consequently, the potential impacts to
corals from in-water hydrocarbon exposure are considered to be Minor (2), as they could
be expected to result in localised short-term impacts to species/habitats of recognised
conservation value, but not affecting local ecosystem functioning.
Macroalgae In-water (entrained) hydrocarbon exposure has the potential to cause physiological
changes (e.g. changes to enzyme systems, rates of photosynthesis etc) to macroalgae,
but are typically able to recover rapidly, even from heavy oiling. Macroalgae, including the
Giant Kelp TEC, may be present within reef and hard substrate areas within the area
predicted to be exposed; noting however, that the area predicted to be exposed to in-
water concentrations above the impact threshold is patchy and has a low probability of
occurrence. Consequently, the potential impacts to macroalgae from in-water
hydrocarbon exposure are considered to be Minor (2), as they could be expected to
result in localised short-term impacts to species/habitats of recognised conservation
value, but not affecting local ecosystem functioning
Seagrass In-water (entrained) hydrocarbon exposure has the potential to cause sub-lethal impacts
to seagrass. Seagrass may be present within the area predicted to be exposed; noting
however, that the area predicted to be exposed to in-water concentrations above the
impact threshold is patchy and has a low probability of occurrence. Consequently, the
potential impacts to seagrass from in-water hydrocarbon exposure are considered to be
Minor (2), as they could be expected to result in localised short-term impacts to
species/habitats of recognised conservation value, but not affecting local ecosystem
functioning
Plankton In-water (entrained) hydrocarbon exposure has the potential to result in toxic effects to
plankton; plankton risk exposure via ingestion, inhalation and dermal contact. The area
predicted to be exposed to in-water concentrations above the impact threshold is patchy
and has a low probability of occurrence; but does occur within the 0-10 m surface layer
where plankton are generally more abundant. Higher abundance of plankton may also
occur within the Bonney Coast Upwelling KEF. However, MDO weathers rapidly with the
entrained component naturally biodegrading. Once background water quality conditions
have re-established, the plankton community is expected to recover. Consequently, the
potential impacts to plankton from in-water hydrocarbon exposure are considered to be
Minor (2), as they could be expected to cause short-term and localised impacts, but not
affecting local ecosystem functioning.
Marine In-water (entrained) hydrocarbon exposure has the potential to result in acute and chronic
Invertebrates effects to marine invertebrates. No exposure to benthic invertebrates was predicted from
oil spill modelling; however pelagic species may be exposed as temporary patches of
entrained MDO may be present within 0-10m depth layers. Consequently, the potential
impacts and risks to marine invertebrates from in-water hydrocarbon exposure are
considered to be Minor (2), as they could be expected to result in localised short-term
impacts to species/habitats of recognised conservation value but not affecting local
ecosystem functioning.
Shoreline hydrocarbon exposure has the potential to expose intertidal areas to
concentrations above the impact threshold. Given the characteristics of MDO and is
residues, which due to their viscosity are likely to evaporate or percolate into the sand, it
is not considered likely to accumulate on the surface. Where oil does penetrate into the
sediment profile, smothering of exposed infauna may occur, reducing reproductive
capacity or causing death. However, tidal washing rapidly degrades MDO residues, and
reworks the upper sediment profile. Consequently, the potential impacts and risks to
marine invertebrates in the intertidal zone from shoreline hydrocarbon exposure are
considered to be Minor (2) as they could be expected to result in localised short-term
impacts to species/habitats of recognised conservation value but not affecting local
ecosystem functioning.
Seabirds and Surface hydrocarbon exposure has the potential to expose birds that come into contact
Shorebirds with the water surface, causing acute or chronic toxicity. There are foraging BIAs for
some species of petrel, shearwater and albatross that occur within the area predicted to
exposed. However, the extent of area predicted to be exposed to surface concentrations
>10 mg/m2 is localised (<18 km) and temporary (1-2 days); therefore, contact with
considered unlikely. Consequently, the potential impacts and risks to seabirds and
shorebirds from surface exposure are considered to be Minor (2), as they could be
expected to result in localised short-term impacts to species/habitats of recognised
conservation value but not affecting local ecosystem functioning.
Shoreline hydrocarbon exposure has the potential to expose birds that come into contact
with the shoreline via direct impacts (i.e. contamination, or direct oiling) and indirectly via
reduction in available prey items. There are foraging BIAs for a number of species that
overlap the shoreline area potentially exposed; and a breeding BIA around Lady Julia
Percy Island. However, the probability of shoreline exposure above the impact threshold
(>100 g/m2) is low, typically <10%. Consequently, the potential impacts and risks to
seabirds and shorebirds from shoreline exposure are considered to be Minor (2) as they
could be expected to result in localised short-term impacts to species/habitats of
recognised conservation value but not affecting local ecosystem functioning.
Fish and Sharks In-water (entrained) hydrocarbon exposure has the potential to physically affect fish
exposed for an extended duration. No exposure to demersal species is likely, however
those pelagic species using the surface waters may be exposed as temporary patches of
entrained MDO were predicted within the 0-10m depth layers. Impacts on eggs and
larvae in the upper water column are not expected to be significant given the temporary
period of water quality impairment, and the limited areal extent of the spill. Consequently,
the potential impacts and risks to fish and sharks from in-water hydrocarbon exposure are
considered to be Minor (2), as they could be expected to result in localised short-term
impacts to species/habitats of recognised conservation value but not affecting local
ecosystem functioning.
Marine Turtles Surface hydrocarbon exposure has the potential to expose marine turtles that come into
contact with the water surface; ingested oil can harm internal organs and digestive
function, and oil on their bodies can cause skin irritation and affect breathing. No areas
identified as critical habitat or BIAs are present within the area predicted to be exposed;
therefore, presence in the area is expected to be minimal. Consequently, the potential
impacts and risks to marine turtles from surface exposure are considered to be
Negligible (1), as they could be expected to result in localised short-term impacts to
species/habitats of recognised conservation value but not affecting local ecosystem
functioning.
Shoreline hydrocarbon exposure has the potential to expose marine turtles nesting on
shorelines via direct contact with skin/body. There are no areas identified as critical
habitat, and no BIAs or known nesting locations within the area that may be exposed.
Vicinity. Consequently, the potential impacts and risks to marine turtles from shoreline
exposure are considered to be Negligible (1), as they could be expected to result in
localised short-term impacts to species/habitats of recognised conservation value but not
affecting local ecosystem functioning.
Pinnipeds Surface hydrocarbon exposure has the potential to expose pinnipeds that come into
contact with the water surface; oils can result in skin and eye irritations and disruption
thermal regulation for pinnipeds. No areas identified as critical habitat or BIAs are present
within the area predicted to be exposed; therefore, presence in the area is expected to be
minimal. Consequently, the potential impacts and risks to pinnipeds from surface
exposure are considered to be Negligible (1), as they could be expected to result in
localised short-term impacts to species/habitats of recognised conservation value but not
affecting local ecosystem functioning.
In-water (entrained) hydrocarbon exposure has the potential to result in sub-lethal
impacts to pinnipeds via ingestion of the oil or oil-affected prey. However, given the
patchy and temporary exposure to in-water hydrocarbons above the impact level, this is
considered unlikely to occur.
Shoreline hydrocarbon exposure has the potential to expose pinnipeds using the
shoreline as haul-out or breeding sites, via direct contact with skin/body; oils can result in
skin and eye irritations and disruptions to thermal regulation. Given the rocky nature of
haul-out and breeding sites, any MDO is expected to rapidly weather through repeated
wave action against the rocks; therefore, exposure is expected to be of short duration.
Consequently, the potential impacts and risks to pinnipeds from exposure from an MDO
spill event are considered to be Minor (2) as they could be expected to result in localised
short-term impacts to species/habitats of recognised conservation value but not affecting
local ecosystem functioning.
Cetaceans Surface hydrocarbon exposure has the potential to expose cetaceans that come into
contact with the water surface; however, physical contact with MDO is unlikely to lead to
any long-term impacts. A foraging BIA for the Pygmy Blue Whale and aggregation and
migration BIA for the Southern Right Whale occurs within the area predicted to be
exposed. However, the extent of area predicted to be exposed to surface concentrations
>10 mg/m2 is localised (<18 km) and temporary (1-2 days); therefore, contact with
considered unlikely. Consequently, the potential impacts and risks to pinnipeds from
surface exposure are considered to be Negligible (1), as they could be expected to result
in localised short-term impacts to species/habitats of recognised conservation value but
not affecting local ecosystem functioning.
In-water (entrained) hydrocarbon exposure has the potential to result in toxicity effects
(e.g. via ingestion of the oil or oil-affected prey); however, this is typically associated with
’fresh’ hydrocarbon and the risk of impact declines with the MDO weathering. Given the
patchy and temporary exposure to in-water hydrocarbons above the impact level, these
toxicity effects are considered unlikely to occur. Consequently, the potential impacts and
risks to cetaceans from in-water exposure are considered to be Negligible (1), as they
could be expected to result in localised short-term impacts to species/habitats of
recognised conservation value but not affecting local ecosystem functioning.
Commonwealth In-water (entrained) hydrocarbon exposure may occur within the vicinity of the Bonney
Areas, Parks and Coast Upwelling KEF. While the oil will not affect the upwelling process itself, if the spill
Reserves occurs at the time of an upwelling event, it may result in krill being exposed to entrained
phase MDO. This may have subsequent effects further up the food chain (i.e. from
reduced prey); however, these impacts are expected to the localised and temporary. No
Australian Marine Parks are predicted to be exposed. Consequently, the potential impacts
and risks to Commonwealth Areas, Parks and Reserves from in-water hydrocarbon
exposure are considered to be Minor (2), as they could be expected to cause short-term
and localised impacts, but not affecting local ecosystem functioning.
State Parks and In-water (entrained) hydrocarbon exposure may occur within the vicinity of the Twelve
Reserves Apostles Marine Park and the Merrie Marine Sanctuary. Major conservation values for
these marine protected areas include breeding areas for seabirds and migration route for
whales. Any impact is expected to the localised and temporary, given the patchy
exposure of in-water hydrocarbons predicted. Consequently, the potential impacts and
risks to State Parks and Reserves from in-water hydrocarbon exposure are considered to
be Minor (2), as they could be expected to cause short-term and localised impacts, but
not affecting local ecosystem functioning.
Shoreline hydrocarbon exposure has the potential to expose a number of terrestrial
protected areas; noting that the probability of exposure is <10%. Oil ashore would
typically concentrate at or below high tide mark; the seaward boundary of most terrestrial
parks does not extend past this. Visible surface hydrocarbons have the potential to
reduce the visual amenity of the area for tourism, and discourage recreational activities.
Given the characteristics of MDO and is residues, which due to their viscosity are likely to
evaporate or percolate into the sand, it is not considered likely to accumulate on the
surface. Consequently, the potential impacts and risks to terrestrial protected areas from
shoreline exposure are considered to be Minor (2) as they could be expected to result in
localised short-term impacts to species/habitats of recognised conservation value but not
affecting local ecosystem functioning
Commercial and In-water (entrained) hydrocarbon exposure may potentially result in the contamination or
Recreational acute impacts to fish species; nothing acute impacts are expected to eb limited to small
Fishing numbers of juvenile fish, larvae, and planktonic organisms, which are not expected to
affect population viability or recruitment. Actual or potential contamination of seafood can
impact seafood markets long after any actual risk to seafood from a spill has subsided
which can have economic impacts to the industry. However exposure is expected to
minimal given the predicted patchy in-water hydrocarbons above an impact threshold.
Consequently, the potential impacts and risks are considered to be Minor (2) as this type
of event may result in a localised short-term impact, with no significant impact to third-
parties.
Coastal Settlements Visible surface hydrocarbon exposure (e.g. a rainbow sheen) and shoreline hydrocarbon
exposure has the potential to reduce the visual amenity of nearshore areas around
coastal settlements. However, due to rapid weathering of the MDO, visible sheens on the
water surface are only predicted to occur for 1-2 days after release; and accumulate on
the surface at the shoreline is also considered unlikely due to the behaviour of the MDO.
Consequently, the potential impacts and risks to coastal settlements from surface and
shoreline hydrocarbon exposure are considered to be Minor (2) as this type of event may
result in a localised short-term impact, with no significant impact to third-parties.
Recreation and Visible surface hydrocarbon exposure (e.g. a rainbow sheen) and shoreline hydrocarbon
Tourism exposure has the potential to reduce the visual amenity of an area, and therefore impact
marine-based recreation and tourism activities. However, due to rapid weathering of the
MDO, visible sheens on the water surface are only predicted to occur for 1-2 days after
release; and accumulate on the surface at the shoreline is also considered unlikely due to
the behaviour of the MDO. Consequently, the potential impacts and risks to recreation
and tourism from surface and shoreline hydrocarbon exposure are considered to be
Minor (2) as this type of event may result in a localised short-term impact, with no
significant impact to third-parties.
In-water (entrained) hydrocarbon exposure may potentially impact recreation and tourism
industry indirectly via any related impacts to presence of marine fauna (e.g. whales),
particular habitats, and recreational fishing. Given the assessment for other receptors, the
potential impacts and risks to recreation and tourism from in-water hydrocarbon exposure
is considered to be Negligible (1).
Heritage Visible surface hydrocarbon exposure (e.g. a rainbow sheen) and shoreline hydrocarbon
exposure has the potential to reduce the visual amenity of an area, and therefore impact
areas of cultural heritage along the coast. However, due to rapid weathering of the MDO,
visible sheens on the water surface are only predicted to occur for 1-2 days after release;
and accumulate on the surface at the shoreline is also considered unlikely due to the
behaviour of the MDO. Consequently, the potential impacts and risks to heritage values
from surface and shoreline hydrocarbon exposure are considered to be Minor (2) as this
type of event may result in a localised short-term impact, with no significant impact to
third-parties.
ALARP Decision A
Context
Recreation and Visible surface hydrocarbon exposure (e.g. a rainbow sheen) has the potential to reduce
Tourism the visual amenity of an area, and therefore impact marine-based recreation and tourism
activities. The extent of visible surface sheens was predicted to occur predominantly
within the vicinity of the well, but may extend (<5% probability) up to 120 km east-
southeast; however, due to the rapid weathering of the condensate, visible surface
exposures were only predicted for 1-2 days after the release. Marine-based recreation
and tourism in the vicinity of the well is expected to be minimal given its location >20 km
offshore.
Consequently, the potential impacts and risks are considered to be Minor (2) as this type
of event may result in a localised short-term impact, with no significant impact to third-
parties.
Heritage Visible surface hydrocarbon exposure (e.g. a rainbow sheen) has the potential to reduce
the visual amenity of an area, and therefore impact areas of cultural heritage along the
coast. Visible surface sheens within nearshore coastal waters were predicted to the
patchy and isolated. Therefore, any impact to coastal cultural heritage areas is expected
to be for a short-period and of small spatial extent.
Consequently, the potential impacts and risks are considered to be Minor (2) as this type
of event may result in a localised short-term impact, with no significant impact to third-
parties.
ALARP Decision B
Context
Adherence to the Cooper Energy Well Engineering Standards and Well Management System
Adherence to the Cooper Energy WOMP
Development and adherence to the Cooper Energy well program
Planned Maintenance Schedule
Development and adherence to the Cooper Energy OPEP and FSP
Development and adherence to the Cooper Energy OSMP
Likelihood Unlikely (D) Residual Risk Medium
require that where there is a significant modification or new stage of the activity (that is, change
to the spatial or temporal extent of the activity) a proposed revision of the EP will be submitted
to NOPSEMA.
Adopted (✓ / X)
Response Option LOC – Vessel Collision (MDO) LOC – LOWC (Casion-5
Condensate spill)
Source Control ✓ ✓
Dispersant Application X X
Shoreline Clean-up Possible (certain areas where Possible (certain areas where
access is possible) access is possible)
Source control relies heavily upon the activation of the vessels SOPEP / SMPEP (or
equivalent).
Well-related source control activities may range from:
• ROV intervention utilising specialist ROV tooling; and/or
• Well capping and/or
• Relief well installation.
8.1.2 Spill Response: Monitor and Evaluate
Ongoing monitoring and evaluation of the oil spill is a key strategy and critical for maintaining
situational awareness and to complement and support the success of other response activities.
In some situations, monitoring and evaluation may be the primary response strategy. Monitor
and evaluate will apply to all marine spills.
It is the responsibility of the Control Agency to undertake operational monitoring during the spill
event to inform the operational response. Operational monitoring includes the following:
• Aerial observation;
• Vessel-based observation;
• Computer-based tools:
o Oil spill trajectory modelling;
o Vector analysis (manual calculation); and
o Automated Data Inquiry for Oil Spills (ADIOS) (a spill weathering model).
• Utilisation of satellite tracking drifter buoys.
8.1.3 Spill Response: Protect and Deflect
Shoreline protection includes use of a boom or sand berm to create a physical barrier to
separate hydrocarbons from sensitive resources, to deflect hydrocarbons to other areas for
recovery or towards an area where there will be reduced impact (compared to more sensitive
sites).
8.1.4 Spill Response: Shoreline Assessment and Clean-up
Shoreline clean-up consists of different manual and mechanical recovery techniques to remove
oil and contaminated debris from the shoreline to reduce ongoing environmental contamination
and impact. It may include the following techniques:
• Natural recovery – allowing the shoreline to self-clean (no intervention undertaken);
• Manual collection of oil and debris – the use of people power to collect oil from the
shoreline;
• Mechanical collection – use of machinery to collect and remove stranded oil and
contaminated material;
• Sorbents – use of sorbent padding to absorb oil;
• Vacuum recovery, flushing, washing – the use of high volumes of low-pressure water,
pumping and/or vacuuming to remove floating oil accumulated at the shoreline;
• Sediment reworking – move sediment to the surf to allow oil to be removed from the
sediment and move sand by heavy machinery;
• Vegetation cutting – removing oiled vegetation; and
• Cleaning agents – application of chemicals such as dispersants to remove oil.
Any shoreline operations will be undertaken in consultation with, and under the control of
DEDJTR EMD, the Control Agency for Victoria, and the appropriate land managers of the
shoreline affected.
8.1.5 Spill Response: Oiled Wildlife Response
Oiled wildlife response consists of a three-tiered approach involving:
• Primary: Situational understanding of the species/populations potentially affected
(ground-truth species presence and distribution by foot, boat or aerial observations);
• Secondary: Deterrence or displacement strategies (e.g., hazing by auditory bird scarers,
visual flags or balloons, barricade fences; or pre-emptive capture); and
• Tertiary: Recovery, field stabilisation, transport, veterinary examination, triage,
stabilisation, cleaning, rehabilitation, release.
In the event of a Level 2 or 3 hydrocarbon spill, the impacts on wildlife are determined by the
types of fauna present, the type of oil spilled and the extent of exposure.
Cause of Aspect Vessel-based source control options (ROV Intervention and capping deployment) are
vessel-based and the impacts and risks associated with those activities relate to:
Vessel discharges and emissions (sound, air emissions, bilge, etc.);
Vessel risks (discharges of deck drainage, IMS introduction, megafauna strikes,
equipment loss to the environment, etc.); and
Seabed disturbance.
MODU-based source control activities have common impacts and risks from MODU
based workover activities described in Section 6.0, however also include the following:
Drill muds and cuttings discharge impacts; and
Cementing operations and cement residue discharges;
Loss of well control risk (dry gas impact).
Summary of All known and potential impacts from vessel-based activities have been identified within
impact(s)
Section 6. Based upon the nature and scale of those described in Section 6, the risk
evaluation is considered appropriate and thus has not been duplicated here. The control
measures in Section 6 considered appropriate for vessel based source control activities
will apply to this activity. Thus, vessel based risks have not been discussed further.
A planned discharge of drill fluid, cuttings and cementing fluids and residue has the
potential result in chronic and acute impacts to marine fauna via:
Potential toxicity.
A planned discharge of drill fluid, cuttings and cementing fluids and residue has the
potential to impact on receptors through:
Smothering and alteration of benthic habitats
Consequence Evaluation
any relief wells will be located at least 30 km from shore, visual amenity impacts at
adjacent shorelines are not expected. Plume discharges will be temporary and localised
(negligible consequence).
WBM chemicals discharged to the sea have the potential to impact to marine life.
Cooper Energy utilises the UK Offshore Chemical Notification System (OCNS) standard
to assess the environmental performance of chemicals during the well planning phase
to ensure high environmental performance chemicals are selected which meet the
technical requirements for drilling. Additives assessed as low toxicity, biodegradable
and having no bioaccumulation potential are utilised. Accordingly, WBM discharges
have a low toxicity footprint in the environment. Given the localised nature of the
discharge, impacts to water quality and secondary impacts to marine fauna are
assessed as having a negligible consequence.
Cement used in the drilling program guarantees well integrity. Cement additives used in
the program are selected in accordance with the Cooper Energy chemical management
standards and have a CHARM rating of Gold or Silver, non-CHARM rating of “D” or “E”
or are classified as posing little to no risk to the environment (PLONOR).
During drilling operations, small volumes of excess cement per well section are
disposed to the marine environment. Given the low environmental hazard presented by
this discharge and the small volume, any impacts would be Negligible (1).
ALARP Decision A
Context
Summary of Control Measures
Marine mammals The potential impacts associated with aircraft and vessel activities have been evaluated
Marine reptiles in Section 6.4 of this EP Summary. Based upon the nature and scale of the activities,
the evaluation is considered appropriate for any aerial or marine surveillance
Fish
undertaken and thus has not been considered further.
Commercial fisheries
ALARP Decision A
Context
Summary of Control Measures
Suitability of MDO has persistent components and has the potential to reach shorelines. Protection
response for
and deflection may be effective in protecting open estuaries that have environmental
• LOC – Vessel sensitivities (aquatic vegetation, recreational users).
Collision (MDO)
Shoreline booming (i.e. sea booming) is not considered viable due to the high energy
environment of the Otway coast and the hazards of deploying and maintaining in such
an environment.
Considered to be a viable option, with a net benefit
Suitability of Casino-5 condensates have no persistent hydrocarbon fractions and will weather
response for
rapidly within a few hours and spread into thin layers rapidly due to its viscosity.
• LOC – LOWC
Predictive modelling identifies that no sensitive estuary systems are threatened by
(Casino-5
condensate surface oiling.
spill) Accordingly, the application of shoreline protect and deflect is not considered a viable
response option.
Cause of Aspect The following hazards are associated with protection and deflection activities:
Boom deployment and management (especially anchored boom); and
Waste collection.
Summary of The known and potential impacts of booming activities are:
impact(s)
Loss of seabed vegetation and impacts to associated fauna habitats while deploying
boom;
Disturbance to estuarine habitats from boom anchors;
Restricting access to the area for recreational activities.
Consequence Evaluation
Nearshore habitats Potential impacts of protect and deflect vary, depending on the method used and the
(such as seagrass) nearshore / shoreline habitat.
Shoreline habitats The consequence of these shoreline activities may potentially result in short-term and
(sandy beach localised incidental damage to or alteration of habitats and ecological communities, and
habitats). are ranked as Minor (2).
ALARP Decision A
Context
Summary of Control Measures
Maintain protect and deflect capability as described in the Source Control Plan
As requested by relevant CA, Cooper Energy implements or supplies resources for protect and deflect
operations (Level 2 or 3 spill), appropriate to the nature and scale of predicted shoreline impacts.
Consultation In the event of a spill will ensure that relevant government agencies support the protect and
deflect strategy
Utilising existing tracks and paths where possible
Waste facilities are appropriately facilitated and managed
Collected waste is disposed of in accordance with waste disposal requirements.
Likelihood Remote (E) Residual Risk Low
Suitability of Shoreline contact by MDO may occur at low levels from an MDO spill. Stochastic
response for
modelling indicates a there is only 13% probability of shoreline concentrations occurring
• LOC – Vessel greater than 25 g/m2, with loading above 100 g/m2 not expected to occur.
Collision (MDO)
Much of the shoreline affected by MDO residues is rock platform and backing cliffs
where shoreline clean-up is hazardous and due to the nature of the shoreline habitat
remediates rapidly. Access to these areas is limited along the Otway coastline.
MDO residue reaching accessible sand shorelines is likely to infiltrate sand where it will
be susceptible to remobilisation by wave action (reworking) until naturally degraded.
Due to the light nature of the product and its dispersion in the environment prior to
reaching shorelines it is possible that there would be insufficient quantities for manual
clean-up. MDO does not discolour shoreline as much as other hydrocarbon types.
Manual collection techniques likely to have limited effectiveness. Use of sediment
reworking is possible.
However, the potential for shoreline assessment and clean-up will be considered as
part of the NEBA in the event of a spill incident. Response strategy offers net benefit to
shoreline species which are sensitive to oil spill residues (e.g. birds).
Suitability of Although no shoreline residues are predicted from a LOWC event, this response
response for
technique has been selected as being possibly viable as it would be considered as part
• LOC – LOWC of any NEBA in the event of a spill incident.
(Casino-5
condensate
spill)
Cause of Aspect The following hazards are associated with shoreline clean-up activities and may
interfere with environmental sensitivities:
Personnel and equipment access to beaches;
Shoreline clean-up; and
Waste collection and disposal.
Summary of The known and potential impacts of these activities are:
impact(s)
Damage to or loss of vegetation;
Disturbance to fauna habitat and fauna from noise, air and light emissions from
response activities;
Disturbance to Aboriginal cultural heritage (e.g., shell middens);
Temporary exclusion of the public from amenity beaches.
Consequence Evaluation
Shoreline fauna and The noise and general disturbance created by shoreline clean-up activities could
habitats potentially disturb the feeding, breeding, nesting or resting activities of resident and
Cultural heritage migratory fauna species that may be present (such as hooded plovers). Any erosion
caused by responder access to sandy beaches, or the removal of sand, may also bury
Recreation
nests. In isolated instances, this is unlikely to have impacts at the population level.
The movement of people, vehicles and equipment through backshore and dune areas
may disturb cultural heritage artefacts that occur at the surface or are buried.
Disturbance or damage to such sites will be minimised by fencing off such areas and
reporting its presence to the relevant state regulatory agency.
The vertical infiltration of oil into shoreline sediments caused by heavy machinery and
equipment can expose fauna to oil that would not otherwise have been exposed. This
exposes the base of the food-web to contamination that may bioaccumulate up through
the food chain. It also results in the need for the increased removal of contaminated
substrate, exacerbating risks such as beach erosion.
The very presence of stranded oil and clean-up operations will necessitate temporary
beach closures (likely to be weeks but depends on the degree of oiling and nature of
the shoreline). This means recreational activities (such as swimming, walking, fishing,
boating) in affected areas will be excluded until access is again granted by local
authorities. Given the prevalence of rocky shorelines in the region, this is unlikely to
represent a significant social or tourism drawback.
Consequently, the potential impacts and risks from these activities are considered to be
Minor (2).
ALARP Decision A
Context
Summary of Control Measures
Maintain shoreline assessment and clean-up capability as described in the Source Control Plan
Consultation In the event of a spill will ensure that relevant government agencies support the shoreline
assessment and clean-up strategy
Utilising existing tracks and paths where possible
Likelihood Remote (E) Residual Risk Low
Suitability of Given limited size and rapid spreading of the MDO spill, large scale wildlife response is
response for
not expected. However, there is the potential that individual birds could become oiled
• LOC – Vessel near the spill.
Collision (MDO)
OWR is both a viable and prudent response option for this spill type.
Suitability of OWR may offer net benefits to both seabirds which come into contact and area affected
response for
by minor residues.
• LOC – LOWC
OWR is both a viable and prudent response option for this spill type.
(Casino-5
condensate
spill)
Cause of Aspect The hazards associated with OWR are:
Hazing of target fauna may deter non-target species from their normal activities
(resting, feeding, breeding, etc.);
Distress, injury or death of target fauna from inappropriate handling and treatment;
Euthanasia of target individual animals that cannot be treated or have no chance of
rehabilitation.
Summary of The potential impacts of this activity are disturbance, injury or death of fauna.
impact(s)
Consequence Evaluation
Marine fauna Untrained resources capturing and handling native fauna may cause distress, injury and
death of the fauna. To prevent these impacts, only DELWP-trained oiled wildlife
responders will approach and handle fauna.
It is preferable to have oil-affected animals that have no prospect of surviving or being
successfully rehabilitated and released to the environment humanely euthanized than to
allow prolonged suffering. The removal of these individuals from the environment has
Cooper Energy maintains Cooper Energy maintains the following agreements (or
capability to implement its contractor pre-qualifications) to maintain source control
Offshore VSCP (VIC-DC- capabilities:
EMP-0001) Well Control Specialist (including capping stack
capability).
ROV Contractors.
Subsea Engineering Company.
Well Engineering Contractor.
APPEA Mutual Assistance Agreement
Cooper Energy conducts an annual source control
desktop exercise.
2 Level 2/3 Spill 1. Alert and call-out of response Test communication systems Annual
Response teams to respective incident Availability of personnel This will be tested on CHN infrastructure
(Desktop) control centres (ICC). Ability to transmit information quickly
(Infrastructure) and accurately
Confirm ICC suitability
2. Cooper Energy Emergency Test Cooper Energy EMT knowledge
Management Team (EMT) to and capability
activate first-strike response Ensure personnel are familiar with
roles
operation (desk-top only);
confirm external support Ensure that support arrangements
meet required timeframes within
resources are available to OPEP.
respond; and develop and
implement an Incident Action
Plan (IAP) for the next
operational period
3 Level 2/3 Spill 1. Covered by Exercise 2, On IMR Inspection (if IMR activity occurs at a
Response Objective 1 & 2 frequency greater than one year)
(Desktop) (IMR
2. For vessel-based inspection, Test notification protocols and
Vessel) information/ documentation transfer
maintenance and repair (IMR)
with State and Commonwealth
scenarios, test interface
Regulators
between the vessel SMPEP,
OPEP, NATPLAN and Victorian
Maritime Emergency (non-
search and Rescue) Plan.
4 Discussion 1. Ensure consistent, effective Align Cooper Energy and State Every 2 years
Exercise approach to managing Regulator response management.
emergencies between Cooper
Energy and State authorities
Department or agency of the Commonwealth to which the activities to be carried out under the EP may
be relevant
Each Department or agency of a State or the Northern Territory to which the activities to be carried out
under the EP may be relevant
The Department of the responsible State Minister, or the responsible Northern Territory Minister
A person or organisation whose functions, interests or activities may be affected by the activities to be
carried out under the EP
Fisheries:
Eastern Zone Abalone Industry Association Port Campbell Professional Fisherman’s Association
Victorian Recreational Fishers Association (VRFish) Victorian Rock Lobster Association (VRLA)
Australian Marine Oil Spill Centre (AMOSC) DEDJTR – Marine Pollution Branch
Other entities:
Community interests:
impacts, and provides contact details should stakeholders wish to seek further information or
have an objection.
Distribution of Survey Information via Fishing Associations
To ensure broader communications with new and existing commercial fishers; entities or
individuals holding commercial fishing licences have been informed of the activities via
government and private associations such as AFMA, SIV, VFA and SETFIA.
Cooper Energy Website
The 2018 Offshore Campaign Stakeholder Information Brochure has been made available on the
Cooper website (http://www.cooperenergy.com.au/) for all interested members of the public to
access. Information prepared for future project milestones will also be made available on the
website.
9.1.2 Summary of Stakeholder Consultation
Stakeholder engagement has involved a combination of email exchanges and phone
conversations.
A summary of stakeholder responses, Cooper Energy’s assessment of any objections or claims
and response or proposed response, are provided in Table 9-2. It should be noted that most of
responses are generic and relate equally to other activities that may occur as part of Cooper
Energy’s 2018 Offshore Campaign. Only two (2) responses (AMOSC and AMSA) refer directly
to the Casino activities.
Stakeholder Relevance to Information provided Summary of Response Assessment of Merits to Operators Response to each Claim /
Activity (Date, Method, Record, Adverse Claim / Objection Objection
Number)
Aboriginal Responsible for 19/9/2017– emailed Your message was received. Thank You. No assessment required Not applicable
Affairs Victoria the implementation 2018 Offshore
of the Aboriginal Campaign Stakeholder
Heritage Act 2006 Information brochure.
and the Aboriginal Thanked COE for the information and that
Lands Act 1970. it will be passed on to major projects senior Responded with thanks and offer of further
Determines RAPs. No assessment required
officer for consideration. If he determines a information if required.
cause for response he will get back to you.
Australian Management of 19/9/2017– emailed Replied with thanks Not Applicable Not Applicable
Fisheries Commonwealth 2018 Offshore Campaign
Management Commercial Stakeholder Information
Authority Fisheries from brochure.
3nm to 200nm Requested that all correspondence be via No claims or objection to be COE confirmed that the information was sent to
(EEZ) the generic [email protected] assessed. the appropriate fishing industry contacts as
address and it will then be disseminated to outlined in the link. requested confirmation then
relevant managers. All emails to only go via that any information about upcoming activities
generic petroleum email only be emailed to the ‘petroleum’ address and
address. not to individual fishery managers.
Australian Commonwealth 19/9/2017– emailed Requested to provide finalised information No claims or objections to be COE confirmed information would be provided
Hydrographic Agency 2018 Offshore Campaign at least three weeks prior to assessed. to AHS at least 3 weeks prior to activities
Services responsible for Stakeholder Information commencement of any commencing
Hydrographic brochure. works to allow for publication of notices to
Services such as mariners.
Notice to Mariners
Details of
infrastructure
placed on
Navigation Charts
Charting and
Information
Management
Stakeholder Relevance to Information provided Summary of Response Assessment of Merits to Operators Response to each Claim /
Activity (Date, Method, Record, Adverse Claim / Objection Objection
Number)
Australian Safety Regulator 19/9/2017– emailed 22/9/2017: Thanked COE for providing 22/9/2017: No claims or 23/9/2017: COE acknowledged increased traffic
Maritime Safety for Marine Safety 2018 Offshore information on PSZ, NtM and AUSCOAST objections to be assessed. in the areas and that the TSS slightly
Authority and Vessel-based Campaign Stakeholder warnings. COE acknowledge increased encroaches on BMG and Sole. COE
Oil Spill Response Information brochure. Provided updated data traffic plots for traffic in areas acknowledge the timeframes and requirements
in Commonwealth Otway and Gippsland basins. Identified for notification to AMSA in relation to the
Waters where greater traffic may be encountered. Auscoast warnings and NtM as well as any
Noted that vessels entering and exiting the petroleum safety zones.
Impacts on Traffic Separation Scheme (TSS) slightly This information will be carried through into EP
Shipping Routes & encroach on BMG and Sole. and future correspondence requirements.
Navigation Requested JRCC be contacted 24-48
Warnings hours before activity commences with
Marine Pollution vessel details etc to promulgate
Controller in AUSCOAST warning.
Commonwealth Requested AHS be contacted at least 4
Waters for Vessels weeks prior to activities for NtM (vis hyrdo
email) and to update charts (via datacentre
email).
Stakeholder Relevance to Information provided Summary of Response Assessment of Merits to Operators Response to each Claim /
Activity (Date, Method, Record, Adverse Claim / Objection Objection
Number)
AMOSC Oil Spill Response 19/9/2017– emailed Responded stating that OPEP is being finalised
20/9/2017: Cooper
Organisation 2018 Offshore 19/9/2017: AMOSC does not distribute and will be forwarded to AMOSC for review in
apologized for not removing
Campaign Stakeholder member information amongst the the near future.
Review and the sentence regarding
Information brochure. membership group. We will however, be
comment on distribution from the covering OPEP was supplied to AMOSC for review.
Cooper Energy Cooper Energy very interested in receiving a draft copy of email. Comments were received and incorporated as
Offshore Victorian maintains an Associate the OPEP to confirm with Cooper appropriate.
Oil Pollution Membership with AMOSC’s resources and processes and
comment on the same. No issue with comments
Emergency Plan AMOSC
provided
(OPEP) reviewer
Stakeholder Relevance to Information provided Summary of Response Assessment of Merits to Operators Response to each Claim /
Activity (Date, Method, Record, Adverse Claim / Objection Objection
Number)
Stakeholder Relevance to Information provided Summary of Response Assessment of Merits to Operators Response to each Claim /
Activity (Date, Method, Record, Adverse Claim / Objection Objection
Number)
Stakeholder Relevance to Information provided Summary of Response Assessment of Merits to Operators Response to each Claim /
Activity (Date, Method, Record, Adverse Claim / Objection Objection
Number)
South-East Peak Industry 19/9/2017– emailed 28/9/2017: COE acknowledged the email stating
Trawl Fishing Group for Trawl 2018 Offshore that an official response was being drafted.
Industry Fishermen in the Campaign Stakeholder Requested confirmation of meeting date for the
Association SE Region Information brochure. Mon or Tues
Interests: 30/9/2017: Meeting invite sent
Activity
Notifications 5/10/2017: Official response addressing claims
No response received in relation to and objections emailed. COE acknowledged:
Increased impacts
emailed brochure importance of FIS and potential impacts of
that may affect
upcoming FIS seismic, but that our activities are not seismic
26/9/2017: Generic email sent to all O&G and that any noise emissions would be similar to
Assessment of claims and
stakeholders outlining the upcoming Fish those currently generated by existing O&G
objections is required as the
Survey and request to not undertake any operations or transiting vessels in the region.
activity will be within the 6
activities between Feb and mid-Sept 2018 Provided supporting information on likely
months prior to the FIS and in
and then again between Feb and mid-Sept produced sound levels of the activities and that
close proximity. Initial notice
2018. Noted that an earlier request was the noise from the vessels is greater than from
only asked that seismic not be
sent out asking that no seismic be drilling itself. Based on studies it is likely
undertaken. COE are not
undertaken but that SETFIA has received 2 received levels will be less than 120dB within
undertaking seismic activities.
notices re non-seismic activities only 2-4 km from the activity, while seismic may
Cooper have assessed that
the offshore activities will not only reach such levels 35 km away. As such, the
28/9/2017: Confirmed may be available activities cannot be compared to each other as
negatively impact the FIS.
stated in the SETFIA letter. It is anticipated that
9/10/2017: SETFIA stated the outcome the drilling program will be completed before the
was not what they were after. They will FIS commences in August and pipelay activities
decide whether to proceed with the FIS will commence in nearshore waters adjacent to
shot(s) in question for that survey, but the Orbost Gas Plant between September and
suspect not. November 2018, and so likely not impact the
FIS.
Stakeholder Relevance to Information provided Summary of Response Assessment of Merits to Operators Response to each Claim /
Activity (Date, Method, Record, Adverse Claim / Objection Objection
Number)
Seafood Peak Industry 19/9/2017– emailed Email was already also sent to
Industry Victoria Body for Victorian 2018 Offshore 19/9/2017: Out of office reply. Alternate alternative email address and No action required
seafood and Campaign Stakeholder email address provided. so not further action is
fisheries Information brochure. required.
Stakeholder Relevance to Information provided Summary of Response Assessment of Merits to Operators Response to each Claim /
Activity (Date, Method, Record, Adverse Claim / Objection Objection
Number)
10.0 References
APASA. 2013. Quantitative Hydrocarbon Spill Modelling for the Patricia Baleen Asset.
Prepared for Santos Ltd.
Black, K.P., Brand, G.W., Grynberg, H., Gwyther, D., Hammond, L.S., Mourtikas, S.,
Richardson, B.J. and Wardrop, J.A. 1994. Production facilities. In: Environmental implications of
offshore oil and gas development in Australia – the findings of an independent scientific review.
Swan, J.M., Neff, J.M. and Young, P.C. (eds) Australian Petroleum Exploration Association.
Sydney. pp 209–407
BP. 2013. Shah Deniz 2 Project. Environmental & Socio-Economic Impact Assessment. BP
Development Pty Ltd.
DAWR, 2017. Australian Ballast Water Requirements. Department of Agriculture and Water
Resources, version 7.
http://www.agriculture.gov.au/SiteCollectionDocuments/biosecurity/avm/vessels/ballast/australia
n-ballast-water-management-requirements.pdf [Accessed November 2017]
DoEE, 2017. Conservation Values atlas. Search for HDD activity area Undertaken on the 6th of
January 201 at http://www.environment.gov.au/webgis-framework/apps/ncva/ncva.jsf
Environment Australia (EA). 2003. Recovery Plan for Marine Turtles in Australia, Prepared by
the Marine Species Section Approvals and Wildlife Division, Environment Australian. Available
online at: http://www.environment.gov.au/coasts/publications/turtle-recovery/pubs/marine-
turtles.pdf [Accessed 21 February 2017]
Hewitt, C.L., Martin, R.B., Sliwa, C., McEnnulty, F.R., Murphy, N.E., Jones, T. and Cooper, S.
(eds). 2002. National introduced marine pest information system. Available online
http://www.marinepests.gov.au/Pages/default.aspx Accessed 04 May 2017
Laist, D.W., Knowlton, A.R., Mead, J.G., Collet, A.S., & Podesta, M. 2001. Collisions between
Ships and Whales. Marine Mammal Science, Vol. 17, Issue 1, pp 35-75.
Langford, T.E.L. 1990. Ecological effects of thermal discharges, xi, 468p. Elsevier.
Marquenie, J., Donners, M., Poot, H., Steckel, W. and de Wit, B. (2008). Adapting the spectral
composition of artificial lighting to safeguard the environment. Petroleum and Chemical Industry
Conference Europe -Electrical and Instrumentation Applications, pp 1-6.
McIntyre, A.D. and Johnson, R. 1975. Effects of nutrient enrichment from sewage in the sea. In:
ALH Gameson, ed. Discharge of sewage from sea outfalls. New York, Pergamon Press.
pp. 131–141
Neuparth, T., Costa, F. O., & Costa, M. H. (2002). Effects of temperature and salinity on life
history of the marine amphipod Gammarus locusta. Implications for ecotoxicological testing.
Ecotoxicology, 11, 61–73.
OGUK. 2014. Guidance on Risk Related Decision Making. Available online at:
http://oilandgasuk.co.uk/product/guidance-on-risk-related-decision-making-issue-2-july-2014/
[Accessed 7 January 2017]
OSPAR. 2014. Establishment of a list of Predicted No Effect Concentrations (PNECs) for
naturally occurring substances in produced water. OSPAR Commission. OSPAR Agreement:
2014–05
Popper, A. N., Hawkins, A. D., Fay, R. R., Mann, D., Bartol, S., Carlson, T., Coombs, S., Ellison,
W. T., Gentry, R., Halvorsen, M. B., Løkkeborg, S., Rogers, P., Southall, B. L., Zeddies, D., and
Tavolga, W. N. (2014). “Sound Exposure Guidelines for Fishes and Sea Turtles: A Technical
Report,” ASA S3/SC1.4 TR-2014 prepared by ANSI Accredited Standards Committee
Richardson, W. J., Greene, C. R., Maime, C. I. and Thomson, D. H. 1995. Marine
Mammals and Noise. Academic Press, San Diego, California.
RPS-APASA. 2017. BMG Well Abandonment Program, Gippsland Basin – Quantitative Oil Spill
Modelling Study. Prepared for Cooper Energy. RPS Australia West Pty Ltd.
Santos. 2004. Casino Gas Field Development Environment Report. Prepared by Enesar
Consulting Pty Ltd, for Santos Ltd.
Shell. 2010. Prelude Floating LNG Project EIS Supplement-Response to Submissions
Southall, B.L., Bowles, A.E., Ellison, W.T., Finneran, J.J., Gentry, R.L., Greene Jr C.R., Kastak,
D., Ketten, D.R., Miller, J.H., Nachtigall, P.E., Richardson, W.J., Thomas, J.A and Tyack, P.L.
2007. Marine Mammal Noise Exposure Criteria: Initial Scientific Recommendations. Aquatic
Mammals. 33 (4):411–414.
United Nations Environment Programme, (UNEP). 1985. GESAMP: Thermal discharges in the
marine environment. UNEP Regional Seas Reports and Studies No. 45.
Walker, D.I. and McComb, A.J. 1990. Salinity response of the seagrass Amphibolis antarctica
(Labill.) Sonder et Aschers: an experimental validation of field results. Aquat Bot. 36:359–366.
WEL (Woodside Energy Ltd.) 2014. Browse FLNG Development, Draft Environmental Impact
Statement. EPBC 2013/7079. November 2014. Woodside Energy, Perth WA.
Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society (WDCS), 2003 - Oceans of Noise. [Online].
Available from: http://ww.wdcs.org/stop/pollution/index.php
Wiese, F. K., Montevecci, W. A., Davoren, G. K., Huettmann, F., Diamond, A. W. and Linke, J.
2001. Seabirds at risk around off shore oil platforms in the northwest Atlantic. Marine Pollution
Bulletin. 42:1285-1290.
Woodside. 2003. Otway Gas Project Environmental Impact Statement/Environment Effects
Statement (EIS/EES). Prepared by Woodside Energy Ltd.
11.1 Acronyms
Acronym Description
CAMBA Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the People’s
Republic of China for the Protection of Migratory Birds and their Environment
CITES Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora
Acronym Description
EP Environment Plan
IC Incident Controller
Acronym Description
JAMBA Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of Japan for the
Protection of Migratory Birds and Birds in Danger of Extinction and their Environment
MC Measurement Criteria
MO Marine Orders
Acronym Description
NP National Park
OPGGS(E)R) Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage (Environment) Regulations 2009
RO Reverse Osmosis
Acronym Description
11.2 Units
Unit Description
‘ Minutes
“ Seconds
cP Centipoise
dB Decibel
hrs Hours
Unit Description
kHz Kilohertz
km Kilometres
L Litres
m metres
m2 Metres Squared
m3 Metres Cubed