Optimising processes and policy to minimise business and operational impacts of seismic surveys on the fishing industry and oil and gas industry
Seafood Industry Victoria Inc
Authors: Ian Knuckey, Chris Calogeras and Johnathon Davey
Key words: Seismic, petroleum industry, fishing industry
Around Australia the fishing industry and the petroleum industry (also referred to as oil and gas industry) operate their respective businesses in the marine environment. Sometimes there is a degree of spatial and/or temporal overlap between these operations that has the potential to negatively impact one, or both, of these industries. To minimise these impacts, a high level of understanding, respect, cooperation, communication, and compromise is required between the industries. The benefits of this approach would be felt by both the fishing and petroleum industries through improved relationships and a shared understanding of potential impacts (financial, operational, logistical), and the ways they can be minimised. The aim of this project is to improve processes to achieve this end, specifically in relation to seismic operations. Improved operations would lead to the savings of many millions of dollars through reductions in lost time and improved operational efficiencies.
It is important to point out that this project was not about investigating the potential impact of seismic activity on the behaviour, or mortality, of fishery resources. There have been numerous studies in this area, and many such studies are continuing in Australia and around the world.
It should be noted that even during this project there have been significant improvements in consultation between the petroleum and fishing industries. The establishment of National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Agency (NOPSEMA) saw the regulatory requirement for petroleum companies to demonstrate in an Environment Plan (EP) that they have consulted with potentially affected parties in the vicinity of their operations.
However in some instances this improved engagement has led to consultation fatigue or apathy.
Case studies identified opportunities to improve relationships between industries by recognising areas of negative impact, but more importantly, highlighting examples of best practice. Specific case study areas that had overlapping high levels of fishing and seismic activity were initially identified by the Project Advisory Group (PAG), and later through the Cross-sector Roundtable Group (Roundtable).
The three regions identified were Bass Strait, Northern Territory and North-West Western Australia. Interviews with stakeholders in the petroleum industry and the fishing industry in each of these regions covered all phases of seismic operations. Issues discussed were compiled and then categorised into six major areas:
It is believed there are four overarching processes by which these issues can be addressed:
The Roundtable has endorsed this approach and NOPSEMA has been provided with this information as part of the review of their current operations.
1. Review legislative consultation, notification and response processes and policies regarding interactions between fishers and seismic exploration activities
2. Use case studies to assess interactions and impacts between seismic exploration activities and the fishing industry
3. From case studies outline key areas and types of impacts experienced by businesses
4. Highlight key pathways within current legislative framework for both sectors to effectively raise and address concerns
5. Recommend improvements to current practices for both stakeholders to improve consultation and minimise impacts on both stakeholders
6. Identify key information needs from both sectors to aid consultation and minimise two-way impacts.