Got approval from EHP for my CSG development, whew! Hang on, what on Earth am I going to do with these oddball conditions? This was the conundrum that Katestone’s Principal Consultant Air Quality, Natalie Shaw, explored with gas industry participants at the firm’s seminar, ‘CSG and the Air Environment – from Approval to Compliance’ held July 31, 2013. Nat shared what she had learned from meeting with Environment and Heritage Protection (EHP) department representatives in preparing her talk. “Under the new Greentape Reduction regime, if a company indicates that it can meet a draft condition, EHP will accept a company’s word and will not challenge the company’s ability to meet the condition,” Natalie said. The rapid growth of the gas industry hasn’t made it easy for the regulations to keep up. The onus rests with proponents to negotiate viable and reasonable conditions. “What’s more, there are no standard conditions yet for activities that release emissions to air for the petroleum industry under Greentape Reduction”, Natalie said. Some of the vexing requirements that Nat dug up in her research included: Monitoring stack emissions apparently for the sake of monitoring, with no release limits for comparison Having to redo modelling if monitoring shows that original modelling under-predicted actual concentrations, even by a negligible amount Annual monitoring of an auxiliary generator, that is not intended to be used Unclear actions like applying “pro-active and reactive” mitigation and management measures “Not only are some conditions nonsensical, but the number and complexity of recent conditions is inconsistent among similar facilities,” Natalie said. Nat’s research found that three similar, recently approved CSG plants received 13, 23 and 36 air conditions respectively. “We’ve estimated that the cost for these facilities to comply with their air conditions would range from $6000 a year for one facility, to as much as $455,000 up front and $80,000 per year for another,” Natalie said. The research suggests that companies can de-risk projects and remove recurrent costs if they have the nous to attend to the detail of environmental conditions and, in some cases, partly renegotiate them.

1. Approvals to Operation
Seminar @ Katestone
July 31, 2013

2. Why are we here?
Condition:
Water truck must be
located on site at all
times
Compliance with
condition?
Check!

3. Changes to Regulations
Environmental Protection (Greentape
Reduction) and Other Legislation
Amendment Act 2012
(the Greentape Reduction Act)
Aim: Introduce an integrated approval
process for ERAs that is proportional to
environmental risk

4. Regulatory Strategy
• Improved application process by developing
eligibility criteria and standard conditions for:
– Petroleum exploration
– Petroleum pipeline
– Petroleum survey
• Streamlined approvals process
• Focus is on
– Outcomes, not process
– Compliance and enforcement

5. “We will take you at your word”
Greentape Reduction Training by EHP
“We will no longer hold your
hand”
“EHP will no longer be
challenging ability to comply with
a particular condition”
Rachel Burgess-Dean
Director Energy Regulation and Implementation
Energy Resources and Enforcement Branch
Environmental Services and Regulation

6. Applications
Source: Department of Environment and Heritage Protection’s Regulatory Strategy

7. Applications
Pre-lodgement
meeting
Do not rely on,
At discretion of EHP
Write application
Lodge application
with Department
“Good” application
Approved
Conditions
“Poor” application
Refused
“Nearly there” application
Request for
information
Approved
OR

8. Conditions
Set based on:
Approach
based on
risk
Outcome
focused
• Application type
(standard application =
standard conditions)
• Information supplied in
the application
Responsibility EA holder to work
out how to meet condition
(if management of risk not
demonstrated conditions
may be onerous)

9. Conditions may be influenced
by the person setting them
Reasonable
conditions
Onerous
conditions
Random

10. Why not just accept conditions?
•
•
•
•
•
•
Thirty party audits
Plan of operations
EHP’s compliance strategy
Enforcement tools
Non-compliance register
Effort

11. Public perception
P
U
B
L
I
C
I
T
Y
R
E
P
U
T
A
T
I
O
N

12. Let’s look at some
conditions

13. Case studies
Facility 1
Facility 2
Facility 3
Petroleum
lease
Petroleum
lease
Petroleum
lease
Pipeline
licence
Pipeline
licence
Petroleum
facility licence
ERA 9
ERA 15
ERA 14
ERA 15
ERA 10
ERA 14
ERA 15
Authority took
effect May
2013
Authority took
effect June
2013
Authority took
effect April
2013

14. Facility 1

16. Facility 2

31. Complaints
monitoring

32. Facility 3

33. What is the monitoring
being compared to?
If no outcome, why
monitor?

34. Complaints
monitoring

35. Summary of conditions
Facility 1
Facility 2
ERA 9
ERA 15
ERA 14
ERA 15
13 conditions
36 conditions
Facility 3
ERA 10
ERA 14
ERA 15
23 conditions
Cost =
$12,000
(every 2 years)
Cost =
Every year $80,000
One off $400,000
Verification $55,000
Additional stacks $600
Cost =
Every year $18,000
Verification $55,000
Additional stacks $600
Effort = Low
Effort = high
Effort = medium to high