The Associations support modernizing and streamlining the regulations for onshore and offshore oil and gas exploration and development in Canada. We understand that the Boards will continue to be responsible for the management and implementation of regulation of oil and gas activities. However, individual Boards’ interpretation of regulations may not align with the policy intent of FORRI, especially where the initiative’s intent is not specific, but ambiguous.
The Associations commend NOAA for the long-term planning, transparency and agency coordination principles underlying development and publication of the ONS Roadmap. The Associations further commend and strongly support advancement of science-based coordinated programs such as envisioned in the ONS Roadmap.
While publication of the Final Approved Environment Plan for an Offshore Activity may be of value, IAGC is of the opinion that publication of a Full Draft Environmental Plan as part of the consultation process would significantly extend project approval lead-times with no environmental benefit.
21 April, 2016 IAGC Comments on Administrative Provisions of a General Nature on the Social Impact Assessment in the Energy Sector
IAGC submitted a second set of comments to CNH in Mexico regarding the draft Administrative Provisions on the Social Impact Assessment in the Energy Sector. The draft provisions pertain generally to the energy sector but also have potential impacts on G&G activities. IAGC’s comments, in general, suggest that any activity should be exempted from presenting the Social Management Plan if the Social Impact Assessment proves that the project will have no direct interaction with human settlements or have low social significance, and therefore no need to present social prevention and mitigation measures.
The Associations’ members have significant interest in ensuring that future opportunities for offshore oil and natural gas exploration and development in the Gulf of Mexico (“GOM”) are not unduly restricted by expanding the FGBNMS to include new geographic areas for which expansion is not appropriate or with boundaries in excess of those needed to protect appropriate areas.
We find it would be premature to apply the acoustic thresholds in forthcoming regulations and authorizations and urge NMFS to undertake additional review and revision of the Guidance that includes additional input from relevant user groups/stakeholders.
The Associations have been fully engaged in this process and have spent substantial amounts of time and resources evaluating both versions of the Draft Guidance and preparing comments to constructively inform this important process. Our position has been, and continues to be, that we will support a process that is comprehensive, transparent, consistent with the best available science, and fully informed by the public.
IAGC, among many trade groups submitted comments in response to the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management’s Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (DPEIS). Our comments generally support Alternative A as the Preferred Alternative provided no additional areas are removed for consideration from future leasing. We strongly encourage BOEM to reconsider the range of alternatives analyzed and the rationale for eliminating certain alternatives from full analysis under NEPA and specifically recommend that a less restrictive alternative be analyzed and that reconsiders the decision regarding potential Atlantic leasing.
IAGC submitted comments on April 4th to the Northern Territory Government in Australia responding to draft environmental regulations for the petroleum industry. Our comments focus on the draft’s definition of ‘stakeholder’ among reiterating the temporary and transitory nature of seismic operations. Specifically, we commented that the definition of ‘stakeholder’ was too broad and should be narrowed to include only those with material interests in the specific regulated activity.
4 December, 2015 IAGC Comments on regulations in Columbia