Industry-wide learnings from the independent review of Australia’s most complex decommissioning program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2019, the Minister for Resources and Northern Australia issued a Statement of Expectations to the National Offshore Petroleum and Safety Environmental Management Authority (NOPSEMA) establishing heightened expectations for duty holder compliance with their decommissioning obligations. In response, NOPSEMA increased compliance monitoring and enforcement activities to assess adequacy of the level of decommissioning planning and implementation by duty holders. On 20 May 2021, NOPSEMA issued a general direction to Esso Australia relating to their Bass Strait decommissioning program, likely one of Australia’s most significant and complex decommissioning projects. The direction included a requirement to undertake an independent review of Esso’s engineering and project management approach and consider if there were opportunities for reducing the timeframe to commence and subsequently complete all necessary decommissioning activities. This review was subsequently awarded to Xodus, in partnership with Labrador and focussed on core disciplines such as project management, regulatory approvals, stakeholder engagement, well plugging and abandonment, contracting, topsides and subsea facilities and waste management. Australia is at a pivotal stage in the context of decommissioning oil and gas infrastructure. With heightened regulatory oversight alongside recent and continuing changes to legislation, ensuring supply chain is ready to deliver against this backdrop will be critical to the future success of regional decommissioning and ensure all parties bearing the cost of this work are satisfied. This paper will discuss the independent review process of Esso’s decommissioning program and outline key challenges and opportunities the industry faces in realising improved decommissioning efficiency in the region.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.179 | 0.293 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".