Stakeholder Consultation and Environmental Implications for the Offshore Petroleum Industry: An Australian Perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Stakeholder Consultation and Environmental Implications for the Offshore Petroleum Industry: An Australian Perspective Steve Tantala Steve Tantala Australian Government, Department of Industry, Tourism & Resources Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Scholar Paper presented at the SPE International Conference on Health, Safety, and Environment in Oil and Gas Exploration and Production, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, March 2004. Paper Number: SPE-86618-MS https://doi.org/10.2118/86618-MS Published: March 29 2004 Cite View This Citation Add to Citation Manager Share Icon Share Twitter LinkedIn Get Permissions Search Site Citation Tantala, Steve. "Stakeholder Consultation and Environmental Implications for the Offshore Petroleum Industry: An Australian Perspective." Paper presented at the SPE International Conference on Health, Safety, and Environment in Oil and Gas Exploration and Production, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, March 2004. doi: https://doi.org/10.2118/86618-MS Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex Search Dropdown Menu nav search search input Search input auto suggest search filter All ContentAll ProceedingsSociety of Petroleum Engineers (SPE)SPE International Conference and Exhibition on Health, Safety, Environment, and Sustainability Search Advanced Search IntroductionThe paper broadly outlines the importance of consultation as a vehicle to assist both industry and regulators. It then examines some practical applications of the consultation process. The paper commences with a brief overview of the petroleum industry in Australia.BackgroundUnder the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, Australia has rights and responsibilities over some 16 million square kilometers of oceans - more than twice the area of the Australian continent. Around continential Australia, sole Australian Government jurisdiction stretches from the external boundaries of the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) and the continental shelf to three nautical miles from the coastal baseline. The inshore area, that is, within the three nautical mile zone, falls within the primary jurisdiction of State and Territory Governments. Local Governments also play a significant role in the planning and management of the coasts and coastal waters.Australia's marine industries which include: fisheries; shipping; mineral and petroleum activities; aquaculture; tourism; and recreation, have been growing strongly over recent years. They are major providers of jobs and are important to the economy, contributing around $30 billion a year or eight percent of gross domestic product. At the last major review it was estimated that our marine industries are valued annually at around $50 billion and are projected to be valued at around $85 billion by the year 2020. 1The increasing pressure from these competing uses can give rise to potential conflicts. In addition, the interest of communities in marine activities and their potential social, environmental and economic impacts has grown steadily in recent years. These two factors have resulted in public pressure on marine industries to become more accountable. Stakeholder consultation can play a key role in addressing community concerns by improving collaboration between industry, government and the community.Australia's Oceans PolicyActivities in Australia's oceans and the adjacent foreshores vary enormously. Until recently, management and decision-making have not been integrated across the various sectoral interests. In developing Australia's Oceans Policy from 1998, the Australian Government recognised the importance of integrating planning and management for multiple-use of the oceans. This includes pursuing improved co-ordination between the States and the Australian Government to ensure jurisdictional boundaries do not hinder effective planning and management.2Our Jurisdictional BoundariesAustralia's oceans are divided into Commmonwealth and State/Territory jurisdicitions. The history stems back to the 1970's, when the Australian Government enacted the Seas and Submerged Lands Act 1973 which purported to vest all of the territorial sea in the Commonwealth. The States disputed the legality of the legislation. The High Court decision in New South Wales v the Commonwealth3 however, confirmed its validity. However, to give the states a greater role in offshore areas, particularly in matters which history and practicalities mark out for state jurisdiction eg port facilities, in the late 1970's, the Commonwealth Government entered into negotiations with the States and Territories on the administration of offshore areas. These negotiations resulted in the Offshore Constitutional Settlement. The Settlement confirmed that sovereignty in offshore areas is vested in the Commonwealth, but provides jurisdiction to the States over the sea and seabed out to three nautical miles. Keywords: woodside, australia, seismic survey, government, petroleum industry, communication, stakeholder, petroleum activity, operation, knowledge management Subjects: Reservoir Characterization, Environment, Information Management and Systems, Seismic processing and interpretation, Knowledge management This content is only available via PDF. 2004. Society of Petroleum Engineers You can access this article if you purchase or spend a download.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".