Decision on marine consent application for exploration ... · iii. OMV lodged an application for marine consent on 17 August 2018. The application seeks authorisation to undertake

Decision on marine consent application for exploration drilling

OMV New Zealand Limited

EEZ200010

JANUARY 2019

EEZ200010 OMV New Zealand Limited Marine Consent Page ii

EEZ200010 OMV New Zealand Limited Marine Consent Page iii

EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE AND CONTINENTAL SHELF (ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS) ACT 2012

OMV New Zealand Limited: EEZ200010

Marine Consent for restricted section 20 activities

Reasons for decision on application for marine consent

EEZ200010 OMV New Zealand Limited Marine Consent Page iv

Executive Summary

i. Pursuant to section 62(1)(a) of the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental

Effects) Act 2012 (EEZ Act), the application for marine consent lodged by OMV New Zealand Limited

(OMV) to undertake restricted activities (listed in Schedule 1 of the Consent document) is GRANTED

subject to conditions (listed in Schedule 2 of the Consent document).

ii. The reasons for granting the application are set out in this decision as required by section 69 of the EEZ

Act. In making our decision on these applications, we have acted as an independent decision-maker under

delegated authority from the Environmental Protection Authority. We have applied the decision-making

criteria set out in sections 59 and 60 the EEZ Act and we have also applied the information principles set

out in section 61 of the EEZ Act.

iii. OMV lodged an application for marine consent on 17 August 2018. The application seeks authorisation

to undertake various restricted activities associated with an exploration and appraisal drilling programme

involving the drilling of nine exploration wells and two appraisal wells in the Taranaki Basin. OMV would

be operating a mobile offshore drilling unit (MODU) which may either be a jack-up or semi-submersible

MODU (or both).

iv. We find that all the potential effects of the proposed activities, including cumulative effects, on the biological

environment are either temporary or involve small areas (or low proportions) of habitat, and, therefore, are

not significant. We find the environmental risk associated with the planned activities for which consent is

sought is, at worst, low and the adverse environmental effects will, at worst, be minor.

v. The existing interests within the area where the activities are proposed to take place are Māori interests,

commercial fisheries (including Māori interests in commercial fishing), recreational fishing, and marine

traffic (shipping).

vi. The primary commercial fishery in the Taranaki Basin where the drilling is proposed is a mid-water trawl

fishery targeting jack mackerel. We find that there will be spatial displacement effects on commercial

fisheries (including Māori interests in commercial fishing) but these effects, including cumulative effects,

will be negligible.

vii. Māori customary fishing interests are sometimes exercised using commercial fishing vessels. We find that

if this occurs in the vicinity of the proposed well locations, Māori customary fishing interests will be affected

in the same way as commercial fishing interests, that is, the effects will be negligible. However, we consider

that cultural values associated with customary fishing may be affected. Other customary fishing occurs

around the Taranaki coastline, remote from the area where the activities are proposed, and we find there

to be no adverse effects on such fishing.

viii. We have taken into account potential effects of low probability but high potential impact – such as

unplanned oil spills. Based on the information provided by OMV, we accept that the probability of a major

oil spill is rare (may occur in exceptional circumstances). We are satisfied that the drilling programme will

be undertaken in accordance with industry best practice. We are also satisfied that other requirements

that OMV must comply with under other legislation and regulations, in particular the Safety Case that

EEZ200010 OMV New Zealand Limited Marine Consent Page v

needs to be approved by WorkSafe New Zealand before drilling commences, will minimise the risks of an

oil spill occurring due to loss of well control to as low as reasonably practicable (ALARP). Further, we are

satisfied that Maritime New Zealand and other agencies have the plans, structures, processes, access to

equipment, and financial resources to respond to an oil spill event should one occur. We accept that the

overall environmental effects on the biological environment, existing interests, and cultural values from an

oil spill event could be catastrophic.

ix. We have taken into account the nature and effect of other marine management regimes pursuant to section

59(2)(h) of the EEZ Act. The relevant marine management regimes have different purposes to the EEZ

Act and do not have safeguarding the life-supporting capacity of the environment as a key focus. They all,

however, impose standards and requirements that are relevant to the environmental matters that we must

consider under section 59 of the EEZ Act. We have taken care not to impose conditions that conflict with

measures required by other marine management regimes or the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015.

x. After considering all the information provided by OMV and taking into account the matters listed in sections

59 and 61 of the EEZ Act, we consider that granting the marine consent will accord with the purpose set

out in section 10 of the EEZ Act.

xi. In making our decision on this application we have been mindful of the fact that Parliament has, in

categorising exploration drilling as a non-notified activity under section 29D of the EEZ Act, determined

that such activities have a low probability of significant adverse effects on the environment or existing

interests, are routine or exploratory in nature, or are of brief duration. We agree that is the case here.

xii. We acknowledge that the application will generate adverse effects, but consider that they can be

appropriately avoided, remedied, or mitigated through the conditions we have imposed pursuant to section

63 of the EEZ Act (and the requirements of other marine management regimes).

xiii. We find the conditions proffered by OMV to be generally appropriate. However, we have amended some,

deleted some where they duplicate other marine management regime requirements, and added new

conditions, some of which were informed by feedback from various parties.

xiv. Finally, having considered the requirements of sections 59, 61, and 73 of the EEZ Act, and in light of the

purpose of the EEZ Act, we consider that the duration of the marine consent should expire on 31 December

2025, this being the same expiry date as was recently imposed on OMV’s associated marine discharge

consent (EEZ100017) to discharge trace amounts of harmful substances (offshore processing drainage)

into the sea through the deck drains of the MODU(s).

EEZ200010 OMV New Zealand Limited Marine Consent Page vi

Table of Contents

Glossary of Abbreviations and Terms ix

Chapter 1. BACKGROUND 1

1. The Decision-making Committee 1

2. The Applicant and the Application 1

2.1 The Applicant ................................................................................................................................. 1

2.2 The Application............................................................................................................................... 1

2.3 Notification and Processing Pathway ............................................................................................. 4

3. Decision-making Process and Procedural Matters 5

3.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 5

3.2 Commissioned reports ................................................................................................................... 5

3.3 Requests for Information from OMV .............................................................................................. 7

3.4 Deliberations .................................................................................................................................. 8

3.5 Procedural Matters ......................................................................................................................... 8

Chapter 2. EEZ ACT AND REGULATIONS 13

4. Duties of the EPA and DMC 13

4.1 Purpose of the EEZ Act ................................................................................................................ 13

4.2 International Obligations .............................................................................................................. 13

4.3 Treaty of Waitangi ........................................................................................................................ 14

4.4 Information Principles ................................................................................................................... 15

4.5 Matters to be Taken into Account ................................................................................................ 17

4.6 Adoption and Cross-referencing of Material ................................................................................ 17

5. Activities Subject to EEZ Act Authorisation 18

5.1 Marine Consent ............................................................................................................................ 18

5.2 Other Activities Associated with the Application .......................................................................... 19

Chapter 3. PROJECT AND CONTEXT 21

6. Description of the Activities 21

6.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 21

6.2 Planned activities ......................................................................................................................... 21

6.3 Unplanned Events ........................................................................................................................ 25

7. Description of the Physical Environment 25

Chapter 4. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 27

EEZ200010 OMV New Zealand Limited Marine Consent Page vii

8. Introduction 27

9. Biological Environment 28

9.1 Existing Biological Environment ................................................................................................... 28

9.2 Effects on the Biological Environment ......................................................................................... 29

9.3 Cumulative Effects ....................................................................................................................... 34

9.4 Findings on Biological Environment Effects ................................................................................. 34

10. Existing Interests 35

10.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 35

10.2 Effects on Existing Interests ......................................................................................................... 36

10.3 Cumulative Effects ....................................................................................................................... 42

10.4 Findings on Effects on Existing Interests ..................................................................................... 43

11. Unplanned Events 46

11.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 46

11.2 Environmental Risks .................................................................................................................... 46

11.3 Findings on Unplanned Events .................................................................................................... 49

Chapter 5. OVERALL ASSESSMENT 50

12. Section 59 Summary and Analysis 50

12.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 50

12.2 Section 59(2)(a) – Effects ............................................................................................................ 50

12.3 Section 59(2)(a)(i) – Cumulative Effects ...................................................................................... 50

12.4 Section 59(2)(b) – Other Activities ............................................................................................... 51

12.5 Section 59(2)(c) – Human Health................................................................................................. 51

12.6 Section 59(2)(d) – Biodiversity ..................................................................................................... 51

12.7 Section 59(2)(e) – Effects on Rare and Vulnerable Species ....................................................... 51

12.8 Section 59(2)(f) – Economic Benefit ............................................................................................ 52

12.9 Section 59(2)(g) – Natural Resources ......................................................................................... 52

12.10 Section 59(2)(h) – Marine Management Regimes ....................................................................... 52

12.11 Section 59(2)(i) – Best Practice ................................................................................................... 54

12.12 Section 59(2)(j) – Conditions ........................................................................................................ 55

12.13 Section 59(2)(k) – Regulations ..................................................................................................... 55

12.14 Section 59(2)(l) – Other Law ........................................................................................................ 55

12.15 Section 59(2)(m) – Any Other Matter ........................................................................................... 56

12.16 Section 59(3) – Submissions and Evidence ................................................................................ 56

13. Overall Determination and Reasons for Decision 57

Chapter 6. CONDITIONS AND DURATION 58

EEZ200010 OMV New Zealand Limited Marine Consent Page viii

14. Conditions 58

14.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 58

14.2 OMV Proffered Conditions ........................................................................................................... 59

14.3 Commentary and Findings on Conditions .................................................................................... 59

15. Duration 65

Tables and Figures

Figure 1: Location of proposed well locations and AOIs in offshore Taranaki ...................................... 2 Figure 2: OMV’s proposed decision-making process and actions in respect of sensitive

environments ........................................................................................................................ 31 Table 1: DMC commissioned reviews and advice sought under section 56 of the EEZ Act ............... 6 Table 2: Further information requested from OMV under section 54 of the EEZ Act .......................... 7 Table 3: Marine Consent Requirements ............................................................................................. 18 Table 4: Risk Rankings used for Environmental Risk Assessment by OMV ..................................... 27 Table 5: Relevant Marine Management Regimes .............................................................................. 52

Appendices

Appendix 1. Procedural History ........................................................................................................ 67

EEZ200010 OMV New Zealand Limited Marine Consent Page ix

Glossary of Abbreviations and Terms

ALARP As Low As Reasonably Practicable

AOI Area of Interest

BOP Blow Out Preventer

CIA Cultural Impact Assessment

CMA Coastal marine area

D&D Regs Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects – Discharge and

Regulations Dumping) Regulations 2015

DMC Decision-Making Committee

DST Drill Stem Testing

EAD Exploration and Appraisal Drilling

EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone

EEZ Act Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act 2012

EPA Environmental Protection Authority

ERA Environmental Risk Assessment

ESRP Emergency Spill Response Plan

IA Impact Assessment

MMR Marine Management Regime

MODU Mobile Offshore Drilling Unit

NKTT Ngā Kaihautū Tikanga Taiao

OMV OMV New Zealand Limited

OSCP Oil Spill Contingency Plan

OTEMP Offshore Taranaki Environmental Monitoring Protocol

PEP Petroleum Exploration Permit

RMA Resource Management Act 1991

ROV Remotely Operated Vehicle

TKONT Te Korowai o Ngāruahine Trust

TKOT Te Kāhui o Taranaki

TSS Total Suspended Sediment

WFT Wireline Formation Tester

WorkSafe WorkSafe New Zealand

Chapter 1. Background

EEZ200010 OMV New Zealand Limited Marine Consent Page 1

Chapter 1. BACKGROUND

1. The Decision-making Committee

1. The Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) is the consent authority for certain activities that are

restricted within New Zealand’s exclusive economic zone (EEZ) and in or on the continental shelf. One

of the EPA’s functions, pursuant to section 13(1) of the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental

Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act 2012 (the EEZ Act), is to decide applications for marine consent.

2. On 12 July 2018, the EPA Board appointed us as a Decision-making Committee (DMC) to exercise

powers and functions under the EEZ Act related to the application for marine consent lodged by OMV

New Zealand Limited (OMV). The EPA Board also delegated all the functions and powers of the EPA

related to the processing, hearing, and deciding of the application under the EEZ Act to us. Members

of the DMC were David McMahon (Chair), Elena Trout (Deputy Chair), and Dayle Hunia. This is our

written record of decision pursuant to section 69 of the EEZ Act.

3. In considering and deciding the OMV’s application, we have exercised independent judgment within

the statutory framework for determining applications under the EEZ Act.

2. The Applicant and the Application

2.1 The Applicant

4. OMV has been operating in New Zealand since 1999 when it became the operator of the Maari Field

following the acquisition of Cultus Petroleum of Australia, resulting in a 30% share in that field.

5. Since OMV began operating in New Zealand it has expanded through acquisitions. According to the

application, OMV has a 10% share in the Māui Field and a 26% share in the Pohokura gas field and

onshore production station. From the Maari Field (oil), Pohokura (gas), and Māui (gas), OMV is the

largest producer of liquid hydrocarbons and the third largest natural gas producer in New Zealand.

OMV New Zealand is a subsidiary of OMV Upstream, which is part of the OMV Group, one of Austria’s

largest listed industrial companies.

2.2 The Application

6. OMV is proposing to undertake an exploration and appraisal drilling (EAD) programme commencing

in 2019 that would involve the drilling of up to nine exploration wells and two appraisal wells within five

of its petroleum exploration permit (PEP) areas within the Taranaki Basin. The location of the proposed

wells is shown in Figure 1. OMV has identified three areas of interest (AOIs) within which the wells

are located, namely North (containing wells A-D), Central (containing wells E-I), and South (containing

wells J and L) as shown in Figure 1.



7. OMV has obligations under the Crown Minerals Act 1991 in relation to its PEPs. OMV must undertake

a range of activities within specified timeframes, including seismic surveys and drilling of exploration

wells, or it risks forfeiting the permits. This EAD programme forms part of these commitments.

Figure 1: Location of proposed well locations1 and AOIs in offshore Taranaki

1 This figure identifies 12 wells, however one of the wells (Well K) has been removed from the EAD programme.



8. On 17 August 2018 OMV lodged application EEZ200010 with the EPA. This seeks authorisation to

undertake various activities restricted by the EEZ Act associated with its proposed EAD programme.

9. The drilling of the 11 wells would be undertaken by a mobile offshore drilling unit (MODU), however

OMV has not yet contracted a MODU for the EAD programme and, as such, the details of the MODU(s)

that will be used are currently unknown. Despite this, the Impact Assessment (IA) stated that either,

or both, a jack-up MODU or a semi-submersible MODU will be used.

10. A jack-up MODU comprises a buoyant hull (which holds the drilling equipment) and has three or four

moveable legs which are jacked down to the seabed to raise the hull out of the water. On the base of

each leg is a ‘spud can’ (inverted cones) that provide stability to the MODU.

11. A semi-submersible MODU comprises a hull supported by columns attached to pontoons that float in

the water. Ballasting is used to raise and lower the main deck and to maintain MODU stability. Semi-

submersible MODUs are held in position using a series of up to 12 anchors, chains, and wires.

12. Various activities associated with the installation of the MODU, and the drilling, require marine consent

under sections 20(2) and 20(4) of the EEZ Act.

13. The activities for which marine consent are sought relate to the following planned activities:

Pre-installation works (including seabed surveys and site clearance);

Installation of a MODU;

Drilling (including drilling, installation of subsea wellhead system and sidetrack drilling);

Installation of well casing;

Deposition of drilling cuttings;

Formation evaluation, including Wireline Formation Tester (WFT) and Drill Stem Testing (DST);

Remote Operated Vehicle (ROV) works and placement of transponders;

Well abandonment;

Removal of a MODU;

Environmental monitoring; and

Contingent activities (including pilot hole drilling, re-spudding and cement disposal).

14. Further details of the proposed activities are presented in Section 6 of this decision.

15. Section 2.3 of the IA stated that that OMV had already lodged an application for a marine discharge

consent to authorise the discharge of harmful substances into the sea from deck drains. That

application was required to be publicly notified, and a hearing has been held, and the decision was

made on 4 October 20182 - we discuss that application and decision in greater detail in Section 3.5.2

of this decision.

2 Marine discharge consent EEZ100017.



16. Section 2.3 of the IA also noted that an application for marine discharge consent for the discharge of

harmful substances contained in drilling fluids and other mining activities would be lodged by OMV, if

required, with the EPA after the MODU is selected. There are other activities associated with the EAD

programme and described in the application that either do not require marine consent under the EEZ

Act, or need to comply with various regulations, and we discuss these later in this decision.

2.3 Notification and Processing Pathway

17. Section 29D of the EEZ Act provides for regulations to be promulgated which may describe any

discretionary activity as non-notified, or provide that an application for a marine consent for an activity

to not be publicly notified.

18. The DMC notes that any such regulations may only be promulgated if the Minister is of the opinion

that:

(a) the activity has a low probability of significant adverse effects on the environment or

existing interests; and

(b) the activity is—

(i) routine or exploratory in nature; or

(ii) an activity of brief duration; or

(iii) a dumping activity.

19. In 2014 the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects—Non-notified

Activities) Regulations 2014 came into force and Regulations 5 and 6 state:

5. Activities described in section 20(2) or (4) of the Act that are involved in exploration drilling for

petroleum in the exclusive economic zone or in or on the continental shelf are classified as

non-notified activities and an application for a marine consent for any of those activities is not

to be publicly notified if the applicant complies with regulation 6.

6. Regulation 5 applies subject to the condition that—

(a) the geographical area covered by the application for a marine consent is the same

or part of the same geographical area covered by a permit or adjacent permits under

the Crown Minerals Act 1991; or

(b) the activity is authorised by an existing privilege held by the applicant that is

preserved by clause 12 of Schedule 1 of the Crown Minerals Act 1991.

20. OMV’s proposed activities are proposed within a geographical area covered by its PEPs issued under

the Crown Minerals Act 1991 and therefore comply with Regulation 6(a). As such, Regulation 5

confirms that those activities which are regulated by section 20(2) or (4) of the EEZ Act are classified

as non-notified, and an application for such activities is not to be publicly notified.



21. Despite the fact that the activities are classified as non-notified and the application is not to be publicly

notified, section 45 of the EEZ Act requires the EPA to serve a copy of non-notified application (and

IA) on specified parties. There is no ability for any of the parties to lodge a submission regarding the

application. Despite this, the EPA received letters from two of the parties who were served copies of

the application, and a letter from another party who was not served a copy of the application. We

discuss those letters in Section 3.5.5 of this decision.

22. EPA staff advised us that letters were sent to 396 parties advising them that OMV had lodged its

application. The letter provided links to the EPA website to access the application, IA, and supporting

documents. The 396 parties served were made up of:

a) 71 Māori organisations or groups (being iwi authorities and applicant groups for customary marine

title or protected customary rights);

b) Seven regional councils;

c) Seven government ministries, departments, and crown entities (including Maritime New Zealand)

and;

d) 311 other persons having existing interests that may be affected by the application.

3. Decision-making Process and Procedural Matters

3.1 Introduction

23. The DMC followed a comprehensive and robust decision-making process which involved

commissioning various reports from the EPA, its external expert reviewers, and Ngā Kaihautū Tikanga

Taiao (NKTT), being the EPA’s Māori Advisory Committee. In addition, the DMC issued requests for

further information from OMV and invited comment from OMV on other matters. We are satisfied that

we have fulfilled our duty under section 61 of the EEZ Act to ensure we have the best available

information on which to base our decision.

24. The following sections provide a summary of the reports we commissioned, the requests for further

information issued to OMV, and various procedural matters which arose during the decision-making

process.

25. A detailed procedural history timeline for the application is presented in Appendix 1.

3.2 Commissioned reports



26. We commissioned four independent reviews under section 56(1)(a) of the EEZ Act. In addition, we

sought advice from NKTT in accordance with section 56(1)(b) of the EEZ Act, and commissioned EPA

staff to prepare a report on the key issues associated with the application under section 56(1)(d) of the

EEZ Act. Details of the reports commissioned and advice sought by us under section 56 of the EEZ

Act are outlined in Table 1.

Table 1: DMC commissioned reviews and advice sought under section 56 of the EEZ Act

Report From Topic Date Report Received

Independent Reviews

Oil and Gas Solutions

(OGS)

Technical review and analysis of operational

activities (authored by Mr Broomhead)

27 September 2018

(updated 24 October 2018)

Seapen Marine

Services (Seapen)

Review of marine environment impact assessment

(authored by Mr Baxter)

22 September 2018

Coffey Services (NZ)

Ltd (Coffey)

Technical review of oil spill modelling (authored by Mr

Rogers and Mr Hospital)

8 October 2018

Coffey Technical review of drill cuttings dispersion modelling

(authored by Mr Rogers and Mr Potts)

9 October 2018

Seapen (email) Comments on sensitive environments 20 November 2018

Advice from Māori Advisory Committee

NKTT Māori perspective of the potential impacts of the

application

19 October 2018

NKTT Addendum report 7 December 2018

Key Issues Report

EPA staff Key Issues Report 8 October 2018

EPA staff Addendum to the Key Issues Report 15 November 2018

27. The Key Issues Report identified the ‘key’ issues associated with the project as determined by EPA

staff. We have had regard to the contents and recommendations of the Key Issues Report as part of

our decision-making process. The Key Issues Report, which was completed was prior to receipt of the

EPA’s external experts’ reports3, outlined three main issues:

a) The impacts of the loss of well control in an unplanned event;

b) Uncertainty regarding the exact MODU to be used; and

c) The impacts of the disposal of drill cuttings.

28. There are of course other issues associated with the project and their absence from the Key Issues

Report does not mean that we have ignored them. The Key Issues Report did not provide an

assessment of effects, or a conclusion about whether the application should be granted or refused. Its

main purpose was to provide us with a ‘roadmap’ of the major issues and guidance on where to find

relevant information on these issues within the application documents. The Key Issues Report has

3 The Key Issues Report Addendum did, however, consider the EPA’s external experts’ reports.



simply been one of our starting points for consideration, and we have reached our own conclusions

on all matters.

29. The report from NKTT expressed concern regarding what it considered to be OMV’s inadequate

engagement with Māori and the lack of cultural values and assessment of interests, and the impact on

these included in OMV’s IA. NKTT also considered that the DMC did not have the best available

information to assess the effects of the proposed activities on cultural values because no Cultural

Impact Assessment (CIA) had been prepared. We discuss this matter in greater detail in Section

10.2.4 of this decision.

3.3 Requests for Information from OMV

30. We requested further information from OMV, under section 54(1) of the EEZ Act, on four occasions as

outlined in Table 2.

Table 2: Further information requested from OMV under section 54 of the EEZ Act

Request Number Date of Request Date Information Received

1 24 September 2018 1 October 2018

2 19 October 2018 2 November 2018

3 16 November 2018 28 November 2018 (Part A)

7 December 2018 (Part B)

4 26 November 2018 7 December 2018

31. The information requested from OMV covered many different aspects of the application and IA

including:

rationale behind the environmental risk assessments (ERAs) contained in the IA;

MODU(s) operational effects and risks;

cement use and disposal;

good oil field practice and blow out preventer (BOP) redundancy;

cetaceans;

volume of drill cuttings and modelling of their dispersion;

re-spudding of wells;

history of oil spills;

sensitive environments and actions to be taken should such environments be identified during pre-

installation monitoring;

engagement with iwi and Department of Conservation;

statutory acknowledgements; and

cumulative effects.

32. We record here that OMV provided all the information that we requested, and that information has

been essential for us to make a decision on this application.



33. In addition to the formal requests for further information, we offered OMV the opportunity to comment

on the NKTT report, the two letters the EPA received from iwi organisations (which we discuss in

Section 3.5.5), Seapen’s email comments on sensitive environments, and the draft conditions.

3.4 Deliberations

34. In addition to an initial induction meeting, the DMC held seven meetings to consider the application

and to formulate this decision.

35. During these meetings we applied the decision-making requirements outlined in the EEZ Act. These

are discussed in greater detail in Section 4 of this report.

3.5 Procedural Matters

36. There were several procedural matters which the EPA and DMC dealt with during the processing and

consideration of OMV’s application. These are discussed below.

3.5.1 Completeness of Application and Impact Assessment

37. Section 40 of the EEZ Act requires the EPA to determine whether an application is complete in terms

of section 38 of the EEZ Act. Section 38 of the EEZ Act outlines the minimum requirements that an

application and IA must meet before it is deemed to be complete.

38. The DMC records that the EPA decided the application as being complete on 14 September 2018.

3.5.2 Joint Hearing of Applications

39. On 27 March 2018 OMV lodged application EEZ100017 for a publicly notified marine discharge

consent to discharge trace amounts of harmful substances (offshore processing drainage) through the

deck drains of any MODU to the sea as part of its EAD programme.

40. Section 44(1) of the EEZ Act provides the EPA with the discretion to decide whether related

applications should be heard at the same time and place and if decisions on related applications should

be made on the same date. Section 44(2) provides the EPA with the power to extend a time period to

ensure that the related applications are heard at the same time and place or to ensure that decisions

on the related applications are made on the same date.

41. As both applications relate to the OMV’s EAD programme, and the application for marine discharge

consent was publicly notified, both sections 44(1)(a) and (b) are satisfied and the applications were

eligible to be decided (and heard) at the same time.

42. The DMC records that the matter relating to the joint processing was decided by the EPA on 2 October

2018.. The EPA determined that OMV’s application for marine discharge consent, and its application

for marine consent (that which is in front of us), would be heard and decided separately.



3.5.3 Need for a Hearing

43. Section 50 of the EEZ Act provides that the EPA may conduct a hearing for a non-notified consent if

it considers it necessary or desirable, even if the applicant does not request one.

44. The DMC resolved, at its meeting held on 21 November 2018, that a hearing was not necessary in

this case as we did not consider it would provide any additional value to our consideration of this

application.

45. In making its decision not to hold a hearing, the DMC recorded (in Minute 2) that it was conscious of

both its obligation under section 61 of the EEZ Act to base its decision on the best available information

and the time, cost, and effort considerations involved in holding a hearing.

3.5.4 Extension of Time

46. On 21 November 2018 the DMC resolved that an extension of the statutory time period specified in

section 68(2) of the EEZ Act4, being the time period by which this decision must be issued, was

considered necessary. An extension of the statutory time period may be made under section 159 of

the EEZ Act provided the DMC has taken into account the matters provided for in section 160, including

the interests of any person who, in the EPA’s opinion, may be directly affected by the extension and

the interests of the community in being able to achieve an adequate assessment of the potential effects

of a proposal.

47. The DMC issued Minute 1 on 23 November 2018 which confirmed that an extension of time of up to

20 working days had been made, including the reasons for the extension.

3.5.5 Letters from Third Parties

48. On 10 October 2018 the EPA received a letter from Te Kāhui o Taranaki (TKOT) which outlined three

issues relating to the application for marine consent, as follows:

a) TKOT had not been part of OMV’s assessment of cultural values, sites of significance, or

customary fishing and iwi fishing interests;

b) OMV had not, for its earlier marine discharge consent application, asked TKOT for permission to

use or fully understand its mauri based cultural values impact assessment methodology; and

c) OMV had not referred to, or taken into account in its IA, the Iwi Environmental Management Plan

Taiao Taiora which was launched in July 2018.

49. The TKOT letter also raised concerns regarding the lack of a CIA and OMV’s reasons for not having

one prepared. TKOT’s letter also extended an offer to prepare and provide a CIA.

4 Section 68(2) of the EEZ Act states that the EPA must make its decision on an application for a marine consent for a non-

notified activity as soon as is reasonably practicable and no later than 50 working days after the date on which the EPA is

satisfied that the application is complete.



50. On 12 October 2018 the EPA received a letter from Te Korowai o Ngāruahine Trust (TKONT) which

expressed disappointment that the marine consent application was a non-notified activity under the

EEZ Act. The letter included comments regarding the application, summarised as follows:

a) TKONT disagreed with OMV’s comments in its IA that several of the iwi did not have mana

whenua over the well locations;

b) TKONT expressed concerns regarding the extent of consultation undertaken by OMV and the

short period of time given to provide comments on the application and IA;

c) TKONT noted that OMV’s IA did not present an assessment of cultural effects, nor did the IA

mention Ngāruahine’s area in Table 45, and that the IA must include a list of all existing interests;

d) TKONT questioned the degree to which OMV could conclude that risks to cultural values are

minor in the absence of a CIA or Cultural Values Statement – TKONT stated that only iwi and

hapū can advise and guide on this matter; and

e) TKONT considered that the application cannot be viewed as complete without a CIA.

51. EPA staff responded separately to TKOT and TKONT by way of letters dated 18 October 2018. The

EPA letters acknowledged the concerns expressed in the letters regarding the importance of cultural

values, and the relevant and respective positions held by iwi in and around the Taranaki rohe moana.

The EPA letters confirmed that there is no provision under the EEZ Act for submissions on non-notified

applications. Lastly, the EPA letters suggested that a meeting(s) between EPA staff and TKOT and

TKONT should be arranged to progress the issues raised in the letter.

52. On 5 October 2018 the EPA received a letter from Climate Justice Taranaki (CJT) regarding the EPA’s

“Record of consideration and decision on joint processing and decision making” (dated 27 September

2018. and discussed earlier in paragraph 42). The CJT letter included a number of requests for

information and documents from the EPA in relation to the application of section 44 of the EEZ Act,

and a request for hearings to be held in public for OMVs non-notified marine consent application.

53. The EPA treated the information requested by CJT as a request for official information under the

Official Information Act 1982. The EPA responded on 5 November 2018 advising CJT that three of

the documents requested were being withheld under section 9(2)(h) of the Official Information Act

1982 in order to maintain legal professional privilege.

54. The EPA letter also advised that as the DMC had been given delegated authority to make a decision

on the application, including whether or not to hold a hearing, the request would be passed to the DMC

for its consideration

55. As discussed earlier in this decision, on 21 November 2018 the DMC determined that a hearing was

not needed for this application, and the EPA sent a copy of the DMC Minute to CJT on 27 November

2018 advising it of the decision to not conduct a hearing (public or otherwise) for OMVs non-notified

marine consent application.

56. The DMC received legal advice on whether the letters from third parties were relevant in our

consideration of the application. The legal advice confirmed that any information which was provided

to us, or requested by us, is able to be considered by us, however the relevance and weighting afforded



to the contents of the letters was up to us to determine5. We agreed with this assessment and we

discuss the relevance of the letters from TKONT and TKOT in Section 10.4.2 of this decision.

57. The DMC invited comment from OMV regarding the contents of the letters from TKONT and TKOT.

OMV provided a response on 14 December 2018.

58. There was nothing in the CJT letter which we considered to be relevant to our consideration and

determination of OMV’s application.

3.5.6 Marine Discharge Consent Decision (EEZ100017)

59. OMV’s IA confirmed that it had already lodged an application for a marine discharge consent for the

discharge of trace amounts of harmful substances from the deck drain of a MODU under Regulation

16(1) of the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects – Discharge and

Dumping) Regulations 2015 (D&D Regulations). That application, which was notified and a hearing

held on 4 and 5 September 2018, was determined by a separate DMC which made its decision to

grant consent on 4 October 2018.

60. The NKTT report made references to the marine discharge consent application, including four

submissions that were received from iwi and hapū, and one submission received from Te Ohu

Kaimoana Trustee Limited. The NKTT report acknowledged that, although these submissions related

to a different consent application, these submissions could provide the DMC with further information

to assist in its decision making on the current application.

61. On 23 October 2018 the EPA provided a copy of the NKTT Report to OMV. In a letter dated 2

November 2018 regarding the contents of the NKTT report, OMV stated that, while the submissions

referred to by NKTT are a matter of public record, in its view they were irrelevant for the purposes of

the present application because they were the subject of an entirely separate notified application

process. Further, OMV considered that having regard to those submissions would run counter to the

EPA’s own decision of 27 September 2018 to consider and determine the marine discharge consent

application and marine consent applications separately.

62. We questioned whether OMV’s view that the above-mentioned submissions were irrelevant was

correct and sought advice from EPA counsel. EPA counsel disagreed with the position taken by OMV

in respect of the submissions and having given this matter further consideration we agree with EPA

counsel. We consider that given the “best available information” principle in section 61 of the EEZ Act,

OMV’s notified marine discharge consent application, submissions, and the subsequent decision,

could well contain information relevant to our decision. The discharge consent forms part of the

‘existing environment’ and relates to the same EAD programme and the discharges would occur from

the MODU(s) which are the subject of the current application. In the same manner as any other

information before us, it would be for us to determine what weight we placed on the information that

we received.

5 This advice replaced earlier (September 2018) contrary advice.



63. In terms of the above, and under section 56 of the Act, the DMC requested from EPA staff, and was

provided with, a copy of the marine discharge consent decision document (marine discharge consent

EEZ100017). We did not request copies of submissions lodged on that application or transcripts,

however we did read the five submissions referred to in the NKTT report.

Chapter 2. EEZ Act and Regulations


Chapter 2. EEZ ACT AND REGULATIONS

4. Duties of the EPA and DMC

4.1 Purpose of the EEZ Act

64. Section 10 of the EEZ Act states that its purpose is to promote the sustainable management of natural

resources in the EEZ. In making a decision on this application we must determine whether granting

or refusing consent best achieves the purpose of the EEZ Act. Section 10 of the EEZ Act states:

“10 Purpose

(1) The purpose of this Act is—

(a) to promote the sustainable management of the natural resources of the exclusive

economic zone and the continental shelf; and

(b) in relation to the exclusive economic zone, the continental shelf, and the waters above

the continental shelf beyond the outer limits of the exclusive economic zone, to protect

the environment from pollution by regulating or prohibiting the discharge of harmful

substances and the dumping or incineration of waste or other matter.

(2) In this Act, sustainable management means managing the use, development, and protection

of natural resources in a way, or at a rate, that enables people to provide for their economic

well-being while—

(a) sustaining the potential of natural resources (excluding minerals) to meet the

reasonably foreseeable needs of future generations; and

(b) safeguarding the life-supporting capacity of the environment; and

(c) avoiding, remedying, or mitigating any adverse effects of activities on the environment.

(3) In order to achieve the purpose, decision-makers must—

(a) take into account decision-making criteria specified in relation to particular decisions;

and

(b) apply the information principles to the development of regulations and the consideration

of applications for marine consent.”

4.2 International Obligations

65. We considered the extent to which international provisions6 are relevant to the proposed activities,

including various treaties, declarations, and conventions. For instance, we reviewed the extent to

which the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973 as modified by the

6 Provisions which are not ‘law’ in the sense envisaged by section 59(2)(l) of the EEZ Act.



Protocol of 1978 (MARPOL) and the regulatory role of the International Maritime Organization were

relevant. Section 11 of the EEZ Act states:

“This Act continues or enables the implementation of New Zealand’s obligations under various

international conventions relating to the marine environment, including—

(a) the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982;

(b) the Convention on Biological Diversity 1992;

(c) the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973 (MARPOL)

(d) the Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping Wastes and Other Matter,

1972 (the London Convention).”

66. Section 11 confirms that New Zealand’s major international obligations are implicit in the EEZ Act.

4.3 Treaty of Waitangi

67. Section 12 of the EEZ Act states:

“In order to recognise and respect the Crown’s responsibility to give effect to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi for the purposes of this Act,—

(a) section 18 (which relates to the function of the Māori Advisory Committee) provides for the

Māori Advisory Committee to advise marine consent authorities so that decisions made

under this Act may be informed by a Māori perspective; and

(b) section 32 requires the Minister to establish and use a process that gives iwi adequate time

and opportunity to comment on the subject matter of proposed regulations; and

(c) sections 33 and 59, respectively, require the Minister and a marine consent authority

to take into account the effects of activities on existing interests; and

(d) section 46 requires the Environmental Protection Authority to notify iwi authorities,

customary marine title groups, and protected customary rights groups directly of consent

applications that may affect them.”

68. We note that section 12 of the EEZ Act outlines the specific actions that the EPA (and this DMC) must

undertake in order to recognise and respect the Crown’s responsibility to give effect to the principles

of the Treaty of Waitangi. In this case clauses (a) and (c) are relevant. Clause (b) is not relevant in

this case as it relates to development of proposed regulations. Clause (d) is not directly relevant in

this case as it relates to serving copies of applications for publicly notified activities. The DMC notes

that the EPA served notice of OMV’s application on 71 Māori organisations or groups (being iwi

authorities and or applicant groups for customary marine title or protected customary rights) under

section 45 of the EEZ Act as discussed in Section 2.3 of this decision.

69. NKTT, being the EPA’s Māori Advisory Committee, provided a report to us, including an Addendum

Report, which we have had regard to as required by section 59(3)(c) of the EEZ Act. We discuss the

advice provided to us by NKTT later in this decision.



70. In terms of clause (c) of section 12 of the EEZ Act, the DMC has taken into account effects of the

proposed activities on existing interests and we discuss these in Section 10 of this decision.

4.4 Information Principles

4.4.1 Introduction

71. Section 61 of the EEZ Act sets out our obligations to request and analyse information from the

applicant and obtain advice for marine consents.

“61 Information principles

(1) When considering an application for a marine consent, the Environmental Protection Authority

must—

(a) make full use of its powers to request information from the applicant, obtain advice, and

commission a review or a report; and

(b) base decisions on the best available information; and

(c) take into account any uncertainty or inadequacy in the information available.

(2) If, in relation to making a decision under this Act, the information available is uncertain or

inadequate, the EPA must favour caution and environmental protection.

(3) If favouring caution and environmental protection means that an activity is likely to be refused,

the EPA must first consider whether taking an adaptive management approach would allow

the activity to be undertaken.

(4) Subsection (3) does not:

(a) apply to an application for—

(i) a marine dumping consent; or

(ii) a marine discharge consent; or

(iii) a marine consent in relation to an activity referred to in section 20(2)(ba); or

(b) limit section 63 or 64.

(5) In this section, best available information means the best information that, in the particular

circumstances, is available without unreasonable cost, effort, or time.”

4.4.2 Full Use of Powers

72. We are required to make full use of our powers to seek out information, base our decisions on the best

available information and consider any uncertainty or inadequacy in the information available. The

concept of best available information is defined by the EEZ Act. It means the best information that, in

the circumstances, is available without unreasonable cost, effort, or time. We discuss this concept

further in the next section of this decision.



73. In addition to the information lodged with the application, the EPA and DMC requested information

from OMV, and we commissioned reports and sought information from EPA, NKTT, and external

independent experts. We discussed these requests and commissioned reports in Section 3 of this

decision.

74. We are satisfied we have made full use of our powers to request and access information and consider

we have met our responsibilities under section 61(1)(a) of the EEZ Act.

4.4.3 Best Available Information

75. It is important to note that best available information is not necessarily ‘all information’. Rather, under

section 61 of the EEZ Act it is defined as “the best information that in the particular circumstances, is

available without unreasonable cost, effort or time”. We have sought additional advice and information

where we considered this necessary. We have exercised our judgment about what information is the

best available information for this application, having regard to issues of cost, effort and time.

76. We record here that we have had the benefit of:

a) The application by OMV and the IA, including the supporting documents;

b) Additional information supplied by OMV in response to further information requests;

c) Additional comments provided by OMV where we invited such comments;

d) Legal advice from EPA in-house and external counsel;

e) The EPA Key Issues Report, including the Addendum Report;

f) The NKTT report, including its Addendum Report;

g) The EPA’s decision on OMV’s marine discharge consent (EEZ100017) and the five submissions

from those proceedings referred to in the NKTT report;

h) Expert advice (independent reviews commissioned under section 56 of the EEZ Act) provided by

OGS, Seapen, and Coffey, including further answers to questions; and

i) The letters from TKONT and TKOT are discussed in Section 3.5.5 of this decision.

77. Based on the above, we are satisfied that we have made our decision based on the best available

information in accordance with section 61(1)(b) of the EEZ Act.

4.4.4 Certainty and caution

78. Section 61(2) of the EEZ Act requires us firstly to consider whether the information put before us is

uncertain or inadequate. If we consider that it is uncertain, then the same section requires us to favour

caution and environmental protection in making our decision.

79. In deciding to grant consent, we consider that the consent conditions reflect the appropriate degree of

caution. In making that judgment we have followed section 61(2) of the EEZ Act by favouring caution

and applying environmental protection to the extent we consider necessary.



80. There is no requirement on the DMC to apply a precautionary approach. When faced with uncertainty

we are required to favour caution. We have done that. The consent holder will have to undertake its

proposed activities in such a way that it avoids, remedies, or mitigates adverse effects. We have

imposed conditions which manage the potential for effects on the environment in each of these three

ways.

81. Section 61(2) of the EEZ Act requires us to favour environmental protection in addition to caution if the

information we receive is uncertain or inadequate. We have done so.

82. Our decision acknowledges that there will be effects related to the proposed EAD programme. We

recognise that the effects will be short-term and will not be permanent. Our consideration of this point

also acknowledges recovery, and that recovery may not be an exact replication of the environment

that existed before the commencement of the activities.

83. Some of the information we received does have uncertainties. It is in that context, for the purpose of

environmental protection, that we have imposed a suite of conditions designed to avoid, remedy or

mitigate adverse effects.

4.5 Matters to be Taken into Account

84. Section 59 of the EEZ Act sets out matters which we must take into account in making our decision.

Underlying our consideration of those matters, section 61 of the EEZ Act sets out the need for the

DMC to base its decisions on the best available information which we discuss in Section 4.4.3 of this

decision. The matters covered by sections 59 to 61 of the EEZ Act are the basis of our analysis as

detailed in Section 12 of this decision.

85. Section 59(2) of the EEZ Act sets out matters we “must take into account”, and section 59(3) of the

EEZ Act sets out matters we “must have regard to”, which in this case were any advice, reports or

information sought by us, and any advice we received from NKTT (the EPA’s Māori Advisory

Committee) and EPA staff.

86. The EEZ Act establishes no hierarchy in the matters that must be taken into account and those that

we must have regard to under section 59 of the EEZ Act. The importance of all of the matters listed in

all of the subsections depends on the specifics of the proposed activities.

4.6 Adoption and Cross-referencing of Material

87. The EEZ Act does not contain any specific directions regarding the contents of a decision on an

application for marine consent except that section 69 states it must be in writing and contain the

reasons for the decision. In this case we do not consider it necessary or appropriate to repeat material

that is contained in the IA and the various reports prepared by EPA staff, its external experts, and

NKTT in this decision. Instead, where relevant, in this decision we cross-reference and/or adopt all or

parts of the IA and the other reports in front of us.



88. We take this approach to avoid unnecessary duplication. This approach aligns with decisions made

on resource consents under the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA)7 and we consider this

approach to be entirely appropriate for this non-notified marine consent application.

89. By taking the approach of cross-referencing and/or adopting material from the IA and reports does not

mean that we have glossed over or ignored any matters. We record here that we have carefully

reviewed and considered all the documentation in front of us.

5. Activities Subject to EEZ Act Authorisation

5.1 Marine Consent

90. Details of the activities for which OMV is applying for authorisation under section 20 of the EEZ Act

are set out in Table 3.

Table 3: Marine Consent Requirements

Section 20(2) Restricted Activity Applicable Activity

(a) the construction, placement, alteration,

extension, removal, or demolition of a structure

on or under the seabed:

The construction, placement, alteration and removal of

temporary structures associated with:





Remote Operated Vehicle (ROV) works and placement of transponders;

Well abandonment;

Removal of a MODU;



(d) the removal of non-living natural material

from the seabed or subsoil

The removal of non-living material from the seabed and

subsoil associated with:


Drilling (including drilling and sidetrack drilling);

Formation evaluation (including Wireline Formation Tester (WFT) and Drill Stem Testing (DST));



(e) the disturbance of the seabed or subsoil in a

manner that is likely to have an adverse effect

on the seabed or subsoil

The disturbance of the seabed or subsoil associated with:




Removal of a MODU;


7 Section 113(3) of the RMA states that a decision made on a resource consent application may cross-refer and/or adopt all or

part of the assessment of environmental effect and/or any report prepared for the decision maker.



Contingent activities (including pilot hole drilling and re-spudding).

(f) the deposit of anything or organism in, on or

under the seabed

The deposition in, on or under the seabed of:



Drilling (including installation of subsea wellhead system and drilling fluids);



ROV works and placement of transponders;

Well abandonment;



(g) the destruction, damage, or disturbance of

the seabed or subsoil in a manner that is likely

to have an adverse effect on marine species or

their habitat




Removal of a MODU;



Section 20(4) Restricted Activity Applicable Activity

(a) the construction, mooring or anchoring long-

term, placement, alteration, extension, removal,

or demolition of a structure, part of a structure,

or a ship used in connection with a structure

The construction, mooring and anchoring long-term,

placement, alteration and removal of structures or part of a

structure associated with:



ROV works and placement of transponders;

Well abandonment;

Removal of a MODU; and


(b) the causing of vibrations (other than

vibrations caused by the propulsion of a ship) in

a manner that is likely to have an adverse effect

on marine life

The causing of vibrations associated with:

Drilling (including drilling and sidetrack drilling);

Formation evaluation (including WFT and DST);

Contingent activities (including pilot hole drilling and re-spudding); and

Well abandonment – cutting of drill casing.

(c) the causing of an explosion

The causing of an explosion associated with:

Contingent activities (including use of explosives).

5.2 Other Activities Associated with the Application

91. There are several activities associated with the EAD programme and described in the application that

do not require marine consent under the EEZ Act, but the effects of which need to be considered as

part of the overall assessment of the effects of the restricted activities under section 59(2) of the EEZ

Act. These ancillary activities include:



a) discharges of oil mixed with water from machinery spaces

b) discharge of ballast water

c) navigational safety

d) unplanned events, including loss of well control and oil spills

e) operational safety.

92. Some of the above matters are regulated under other marine management regimes (MMRs), which

are matters we must take into account in accordance with section 59(2)(h) of the EEZ Act. We address

MMRs in Section 12.10 of this decision.

93. As noted earlier in this decision, OMV advised that an application for marine discharge consent for the

discharge of harmful substances contained in drilling fluids and other mining activities will be lodged,

if required, with the EPA after the MODU is selected.

Chapter 3. Project and Context


Chapter 3. PROJECT AND CONTEXT

6. Description of the Activities

6.1 Introduction

94. The activities associated with the EAD programme are divided into those which are planned to occur,

which includes a number of contingency activities, and also those activities which are unplanned (but

could occur). For the avoidance of doubt, OMV’s application only covers those planned and

contingency activities which are restricted by section 20 of the EEZ Act.

95. While OMV has not applied for any consent for unplanned events (such as loss of well control), such

events and their associated effects arise directly from the restricted activities for which marine consent

is being sought. That is, it would be incorrect of us to consider the effects of the restricted activities ‘in

a vacuum’ – it is the installing of a well that creates a risk of an adverse effect such as unplanned

release of oil8. We also note that some of the unplanned events, in particular releases of oil as a result

of loss of well control, are likely to qualify as an effect (as defined in section 6 of the EEZ Act) as it is

an adverse effect of low probability that has a high potential impact.

96. These activities are summarised in the following sections.

6.2 Planned activities

6.2.1 Pre-Installation Works

97. Section 3.3 of the IA described the works that are proposed to be undertaken before the installation of

a MODU. These works are necessary to ensure that the seabed is suitable for the installation of the

MODU.

98. The IA stated that several of the pre-installation activities such as multi-beam sonar, side-scan

surveys, and shallow seismic surveys could be undertaken under the Exclusive Economic Zone and

Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects - Permitted Activities) Regulations 2013. These activities do

not form part of the marine consent application.

99. The pre-installation works that require marine consent include:

a) Physical surveys of the seabed to determine the nature of the sediment – this work may include

coring or cone penetration testing and would be undertaken from a vessel that does not require

anchoring (excluding emergency situations); and

b) Site clearance should there be anything that needs to be removed – this would be undertaken

using a ROV and involves moving the object(s) to another location on the seabed.

8 We note that OMV’s IA uses the terms ‘hydrocarbon’ and ‘oil’ interchangeably - in this decision we only use the term ‘oil’.



6.2.2 Installation of MODU

100. Section 3.4 of the IA described how a jack-up rig and semi-submersible MODU would be installed and

how much of the of seabed would be disturbed.

101. The IA identified that the area of seabed disturbed as a result of the installation of a semi-submersible

MODU can be up to 16,236 m2, based on 12 anchors being needed, and 10,824 m2 if eight anchors

are needed. This compares with 800 m2 of seabed disturbance for a four-legged jack-up rig and 600

m2 for a three-legged jack-up rig.

102. The IA stated that the shortest duration the MODU could be at any one location would be approximately

25 days and most wells would be completed within 50 days, however longer periods may be necessary

if additional formation evaluation activities are required.

6.2.3 Drilling, Casing Installation, and Drill Cutting Management

103. Section 3.5 of the IA described how drilling of the wells will occur, and Section 3.6 described how well

casing is installed. We do not repeat that information here; however key features are summarised as

follows:

Drilling may be to a depth of 4,500 m true vertical depth (TVD) with the shallowest expected to be

around 3,050 m TVD.

A large diameter hole (up to 1.07 m) is drilled to desired depth into which a conductor is installed

and a permanent guide base (PGB) is installed on top of the conductor.

A blow out preventer (BOP) and lower marine riser package (LMRP) is installed on top of the

wellhead and a riser then connects the wellhead to the MODU.

Drilling mud is pumped down the drill pipe into the drill bit and back up the annulus between the

drill pipe and drilling riser. The drilling mud serves a number of purposes including transporting

drill cuttings to the surface.

Water based mud will be used wherever possible, however at times synthetic based mud may

need to be used – the IA states that where synthetic based mud is used these cuttings would be

collected and transported to shore for disposal at an approved facility.

Water based mud is a mixture of water and clay (bentonite) together with small quantities of

minerals and chemicals that optimise drilling performance and safety. Barium (as barite) is the

most abundant metal constituent within water based mud.

Drill cuttings are separated from the drilling muds on the MODU, however small amounts of drilling

fluids may remain adhered to the cuttings which are discharged into the sea. Any discharge of

harmful substances associated with drilling fluids will be included in a future application for marine

discharge consent under the D&D Regulations.

The volume of drill cuttings produced will vary depending on the length and depth of the well, but

the maximum anticipated volume of cuttings is 1,543 m3 if drilling extends to 4,500 m TVD. When

drilling commences cuttings are deposited directly on the seabed adjacent to the hole but once

the BOP, LMRP, and riser are installed the cuttings (except those kept for laboratory testing) are

discharged overboard from a pipe located at least 5 m below the lowest astronomical tide.



A casing or liner is installed and cemented into place as each section of the well is completed to

prevent hole collapse. The cement is pumped to the bottom of the casing and is pushed up the

outside of it into any fractures in the surrounding rock. In some situations, small amounts (up to

3.2 m3) of cement from the cement tanks on the MODU may need to be pumped overboard before

it hardens.

6.2.4 Remote Operated Vehicle Works and Transponder Placement

104. ROVs would be used to support the drilling activities and would result in small areas of seabed being

disturbed, including by placement of ROV baskets which contain tools, clump weights and sandbags.

Up to four transponders may also be placed on the seabed to mark the “top hole” location at each well,

each transponder being held on the seabed by a small clump weight.

105. The transponders, clump weights, and ROV work baskets would be removed when clearing the site

as part of moving the MODU to a new location.

6.2.5 Formation Evaluation

106. The IA stated that a range of formation evaluation techniques would be undertaken on each well to

provide geological information to assess the presence of ‘moveable product’ within the targeted

reservoir sections of the wells, the quality of reservoirs encountered, and petrophysical properties of

the drilled succession. This evaluation process has the potential to run for several hours or days

depending on the productivity information required. Not all the formation evaluation activities require

marine consent. Those that do are:

a) Wireline formation testing (WFT) which involves collecting samples of formation fluids,

b) Drill stem test (DST) which is a procedure for isolating and testing the pressure, permeability, and

productive capacity of a geological formation once the well has been drilled.

6.2.6 Well Abandonment

107. The IA stated that, following the conclusion of the formation evaluation programme, each well would

be permanently plugged and abandoned in compliance with Regulation 61(1)(b) of the Health and

Safety at Work (Petroleum Exploration and Extraction) Regulations 2016, which involves:

a) Pumping heavy mud and cement plugs inside the well to ensure no unplanned escape of oils or

fluids from the well;

b) Cutting the surface casing approximately 1.5 m below the seabed;

c) Retrieving the wellhead and PGB to the MODU; and

d) A ROV surveying the seabed to assess effectiveness of hazard removal from the well location.

6.2.7 Removal of MODU

108. Following the completion of the well abandonment at each well location the MODU would be removed

from the site. This activity would vary depending on the type of MODU contracted to the EAD



programme. During the removal activity, for either type of MODU, the support vessels would maintain

tow lines on the MODU to ensure stability and control is maintained throughout the process.

109. Section 3.11.1 and 3.11.2 of the IA described the actions that would be followed to remove a jack-up

MODU, and semi-submersible MODU, respectively.

6.2.8 Environmental Monitoring

110. Pre-and post-drill benthic monitoring would be undertaken as part of the EAD programme to monitor

for effects from the drilling activity on the benthic marine environment and the subsequent monitoring

of recovery.

111. Benthic monitoring would involve disturbance of the seabed using towed video sleds, and the removal

of non-living material using benthic grab samplers. Each grab sampler would disturb approximately

0.21 m2 of seabed, and would remove approximately 0.026 m3 of material – the total seabed

disturbance per well, taking into account replicates, would be approximately 13.23 m2 with removal of

approximately 1.62 m3 of sediment. Ninety percent of the material removed is not retained and would

be deposited back to the sea from the survey vessel. When using a video sled the total area disturbed

would be less than 92 m2 per well site.

112. Pre-drill monitoring would be undertaken within 12 months of commencement of drilling operations

and post-drill monitoring would occur for up to three years following well abandonment.

6.2.9 Contingent Activities

113. Section 3.14 of the IA stated that it is necessary for OMV to have the ability to adapt to the conditions

present at the well sites at the time of drilling and a number of ‘contingent’ activities may also be

required to be implemented in exceptional circumstances. Pilot hole drilling, re-spudding, re-

positioning of the MODU, the use of explosives and cement disposal are not planned as a part of the

EAD programme but may need to be used as a last resort response to unavoidable complications

relating to the drilling of any particular well. For the avoidance of doubt, OMV is seeking authorisation

to undertake these contingency activities.

114. The IA stated that pilot hole drilling involves drilling a smaller-diameter hole through a zone of

interpreted elevated risk – this smaller hole is easier to control. Once the risk is managed, the pilot

hole is opened up to the required hole size before drilling on.

115. In the event that any of the wells have to be abandoned before they reach their targets, the well may

have to be re-drilled. This is referred to as a “re-spud”. Re-spudding involves the re-drilling of a well in

close proximity to the original well location. The re-spud would be approximately the same well design

as the initial well, but would take into account all factors that led to the original site being abandoned.

Re-spudding generally occurs within 100 m of the initial well location. The detailed pre-installation

surveying would cover a sufficiently broad area around a drilling location to allow for potential re-

spudding, even though the likelihood of such re-spudding being required is low. OMV confirmed that

if a semi-submersible MODU is used then re-laying of the anchors will not be required should a re-



spud be needed; however if a jack up rig is used then a re-spud would entail moving the feet of the rig

to the new location with additional seabed disturbance as the legs are again placed on the seabed.

116. The IA stated that explosives (such as directional charges) may be required for various sub-surface

applications such as:

a) To free the drill string in the event that it gets stuck;

b) To perforate to allow the placement of remedial cement if the cement behind the casing is lost; or

c) To assist in the removal of the wellhead in the event it cannot be removed as planned.

117. On very rare occasions cement batches may be prepared but are unsuitable for use (e.g. the cement

is not weighted or setting correctly) and the full batch of approximately 10 m³ of cement must be

discarded. Unused or faulty cement is required to be immediately pumped out of the tanks and sent

overboard to prevent it from hardening within tanks, pumps and pipelines. The disposal of cement

would result in it being deposited on the seabed.

6.3 Unplanned Events

118. Unplanned activities are those that are non-routine (not expected to occur) and do not constitute

activities for which OMV is seeking marine consent. These are activities that are not covered under

section 20 of the EEZ Act. The IA identified unplanned activities as including:

a) Oil spill from loss of well control (discussed in Section 7.7.2 of the IA);

b) Fuel spill from refueling operations (discussed in Section 7.7.3 of the IA);

c) Vessel collision (discussed in Section 7.7.4 of the IA);

d) Biosecurity incursions (discussed in Section 7.7.5 of the IA); and

e) Dropped objects (discussed in Section 7.7.6 of the IA).

7. Description of the Physical Environment

119. Section 5.1 of the IA summarised the physical environment of the three AOIs in the Taranaki Basin in

terms of their meteorology, air quality, currents/waves, sea temperatures, water quality,

bathymetry/geology, noise, and seafloor sediment characteristics. We adopt that assessment for the

purposes of our decision and do not repeat that material accordingly. However, key summary points

of Section 5.1 of the IA are:

a) The AOIs are located in the ‘South-west North Island’ climate zone – weather in this zone is often

quite windy but with few climatic extremes. Average wind speeds are around 8 to 8.6 m/s.

b) Mean annual rainfall is between 1,054 mm (southern AOI) to 1,389 mm (central AOI) with winter

months being the wettest.

c) Coastal currents are dominated by wind-driven flows, low-frequency flows, and tidal flows. The

currents that traverse across the three AOIs are predominantly influenced by the D’Urville and

Westland currents in the south, and the West Auckland current in the north.



d) The Taranaki Bight is a high energy wave environment with wave heights peaking in late winter

and being lowest in late summer. Annual average wave heights across the three AOIs range

between 2.4 and 2.9 m, with maximum wave heights ranging between 8.5 and 10.5 m.

e) All three AOIs are located on the continental shelf which is a relatively flat gently sloping surface

that extends from the coastline to a water depth of between 100 and 160 m. Water depths at the

proposed drilling locations range between 106.3 and 142.6 m.

f) The nature of seafloor sediments varies across the Taranaki Bight but particle size distributions

across the well locations show two distinct traits. The northern AOI is dominated by muddy sand,

being notably coarser than the central and southern AOIs which are dominated by sandy mud

sediments.

Chapter 4. Environmental Impacts


Chapter 4. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

8. Introduction

120. This section outlines the actual and potential effects of the activities for which marine consent is being

sought. The effects associated with unplanned events, for which no consents are being sought, are

dealt with separately in Section 11 of this decision.

121. Section 7 of the IA presented an environmental risk assessment (ERA) which assessed the likelihood

of any particular effect occurring (ranked/scored from ‘remote’ (1) through to ‘certain’ (6)) and also the

consequence should such an effect occur (ranked/scored from ‘negligible’ (0) through to ‘catastrophic’

(5)). A single resultant risk ranking (over all three AOIs) is calculated by multiplying the likelihood and

consequence scores. The risk rankings that were used by OMV are set out in Table 4.

Table 4: Risk Rankings used for Environmental Risk Assessment by OMV

122. The EPA’s external expert on the biological environment (Mr Baxter of Seapen Marine Services)

stated9 that he considers that the impact assessment had been conducted in a sufficiently robust

manner that conforms to ‘best industry practice’. Also, he stated that a single ERA score calculated

across all three AOIs was appropriate in this case despite differences in abundances of biota.

9 Paragraph 28. Seapen report entitled ‘Review of marine environmental impact assessment’ (dated 22 September 2018)



9. Biological Environment

9.1 Existing Biological Environment

123. Sections 5.2 of the IA summarised the existing biological environment of the three AOIs in the Taranaki

Basin, including information on benthic invertebrates, cetaceans, pinnipeds, seabirds, marine reptiles,

fish, cephalopods, plankton and primary production. Section 5.3 of the IA outlined the coastal

environment, marine protected areas, marine environmental classification, and sensitive environments

present. We adopt the assessment presented in Sections 5.2 and 5.3 of the IA for the purposes of

our decision and do not repeat that material accordingly. However, key summary points of these

sections of the IA are:

a) The offshore Taranaki benthic ecosystem is characterised by soft sediment habitats, hard rock

habitats, and mudstone habitats. Benthic communities are characterised by low species

abundance and low species diversity. The northern, central and southern AOIs consist mostly of

Class 60 and 64 characteristics, with minor intrusion of Class 63 at some extremities, under the

New Zealand Marine Environment Classification10.

b) The fish populations within the three AOIs are represented by various demersal and pelagic

species. The AOIs lie largely within the neritic zone11 of the ocean. The fish found in this zone are

highly mobile, with no fixed territories and are often found in schools.

c) A total of 48 species of cetaceans (toothed and baleen whales) have been recorded in New

Zealand waters, of which 23 species have been determined to have either ‘likely’ or ‘possible’

presence with the three AOIs. Some of these are considered to be ‘threatened’ species. The

West Coast Marine Mammal Sanctuary is located to the east of the northern AOI.

d) Nine species of pinniped are known in New Zealand waters, and only the New Zealand fur seal

is likely to occur within the AOIs.

e) New Zealand’s marine waters support the most diverse seabird collection worldwide. There are

over 86 different species utilising New Zealand’s marine environment, 41 of which are potentially

present within the AOIs, some of which have a ‘threatened’ classification. Foraging seabirds can

often use MODU(s) as perching opportunities.

f) Marine reptiles are only occasional visitors to the south-western coast of the North Island. It is

normally during summer months when warmer currents are present. Leatherback turtles and

yellow-bellied sea snakes have been observed in Taranaki waters, however these are rare and

are not routinely present as far south as the AOIs.

g) The AOIs are not considered to be important habitats for octopuses but squid are found across

the continental shelf in water depths up to 500 m.

10 The reader is referred to Section 5.3.3 of the IA for explanations on these classes. 11 Relating to or denoting the shallow part of the sea near a coast and overlying the continental shelf.



h) Although the baseline monitoring programme did not identify any sensitive environments as

defined within Schedule 6 of the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental

Effects - Permitted Activities) Regulations 2013, and MacDiarmid et al. (2013), the monitoring did

encounter some individuals representing some of the characteristic species of sensitive

environments at some of the well locations in the northern AOI.

124. The EPA’s external expert on the biological environment stated12 that he considered the descriptions

of the biological environment in the three AOIs “…are based upon best available information, as

defined in section 61 of the EEZ Act, are at a level of detail that is appropriate for the purposes of the

risk assessment, and can be considered to have been prepared in accordance with ‘best industry

practice’.”

9.2 Effects on the Biological Environment

9.2.1 Introduction

125. The effects of the proposed activities on the biological environment are discussed in the following

sections. The biological environment includes fish species, some of which are caught by persons with

existing interests. Effects on commercial fisheries are considered separately in Section 10.2.1 of this

decision.

9.2.2 Effects

126. Section 7 of the IA assessed the risks of the various planned activities on the various biological

environments that may be affected. We adopt that assessment for the purposes of our decision.

However, key summary points of these sections of the IA are:

a) All activities which result in physical disturbance of the seabed or removal of seabed material

have the potential to disturb, or result in mortality of, organisms living in or on the seabed, with

such effects more likely for sessile species as mobile organisms can move away. In addition,

such activities are likely to result in some resuspension of sediment which can increase the

turbidity and suspended sediment concentration in the water column.

b) When the MODU enters New Zealand waters it will arrive clean of any biofouling organisms and

will be inspected by the Ministry for Primary Industries prior to entering New Zealand – as such

no invasive species will be present.

c) The physical presence of the MODU will mean that marine mammals will be displaced from the

relatively small area of water column that the MODU occupies. In addition, such structures have

the potential to result in ‘ship strike’ where marine mammals collide with the structure.

d) Seabirds are attracted to offshore structures, including MODU, due to structural stimuli, increased

concentration of food, lights, and flares. Effects can be either positive or adverse – positive effects

12 Paragraph 26. Seapen report entitled ‘Review of marine environmental impact assessment’ (dated 22 September 2018)



include concentration of prey and provision of roosting refuge at sea. Adverse effects include

disorientation and collision, particularly at night.

e) Marine reptiles can be displaced from feeding habitat and potential entanglement in mooring lines

can occur if a semi-submersible MODU is used.

f) Structures can act as fish attracting devices (FADs).

g) Noise and vibration can affect marine mammals which use echolocation to communicate and

detect prey. Noise can also affect fish.

h) The discharge of drill cuttings will result in increased turbidity and suspended sediment

concentrations in the water column as the sediment falls to the seabed. OMV has predicted the

increase in total suspended sediment (TSS) concentrations in the water column from four wells

and this work suggests that concentrations will return to ambient concentrations around 250 m

from the point of discharge.

i) As the cuttings deposit on the seabed they can result in smothering effects on organisms that live

in or on the seabed. OMV has predicted the depositional thickness of the discharged drill cutting

sediments from four wells and this work13 suggests accumulations of up to 10.6 mm may occur

within 50 m of the well, with depositional thicknesses decreasing rapidly with distance.

Depositional thicknesses of up to 1 mm may extend out to 308 m.

j) Recovery timescales for benthic communities that may be smothered can vary widely but

generally return to baseline conditions within one year after cessation of drilling, however

colonisation may be by a different community assemblage.

k) In terms of sensitive environments, (defined within Schedule 6 of the Exclusive Economic Zone

and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects - Permitted Activities) Regulations 2013) OMV

advised 14 (in response to one of our requests for further information) that it proposes to undertake

pre-installation surveys to confirm, or otherwise, the presence of such environments in and around

the well site. OMV considers that such surveys should be undertaken within 12 months (and no

less than 6 months) of the proposed installation of the MODU. Further, if a sensitive environment

is found OMV proposes to follow the decision-making process and implement the actions outlined

in Figure 2.

13 These figures are from the IA, however OMV re-ran the model which resulted in slightly different results and we discuss the

revised results later in this decision. 14 Response to DMC Question 10 contained in Enclosure 1 Response to further information (Part B) provided by OMV to the EPA on 7 December 2018



Figure 2: OMV’s proposed decision-making process and actions in respect of sensitive environments

127. Section 7 of the IA assessed the risks associated with the various planned activities on the various

components of the biological environment as generally being ‘negligible’ and, at worst, ‘low’.

128. The EPA’s external expert on the biological environment (Mr Baxter) generally concurred with OMV’s

assessments but he did not agree with some of the likelihoods and consequences that OMV had

ascribed for some of the effects. However, for those matters where he disagreed the resultant risk



ranking remained, at worst, ‘low’. Mr Baxter noted that OMV’s risk assessments were predicated upon

there being no sensitive environments in the vicinity of the works.

129. Mr Baxter recommended that, should consent be granted, pre-installation surveys should be

undertaken to confirm, or otherwise, that no sensitive environments exist in and around the well

locations. He recommended that the maximum time between the pre-installation monitoring and

placement of the MODU should not exceed one month because:

a) Most of the organisms indicative of sensitive environments have planktonic larval stages and, as

such, they have the potential to colonise areas of seabed where they have not previously been

recorded. He stated it is important to recognise that seabed communities are dynamic in their

composition and distribution, both temporally and spatially; and

b) As the reproductive cycles of some (if not all) of the organisms with planktonic larval stages may

have an element of seasonality, he believes that a shorter period of time between the pre-

installation surveys and the commencement of drilling activities is warranted. In his view this

approach will reduce the risk of a sensitive environment becoming established within this time

period and not being detected prior to the commencement of drilling activities.

130. OMV was invited to comment on Mr Baxter’s recommendation on timing of the pre-installation

monitoring. In its response OMV considered the recommendations made by Mr Baxter to be overly

precautionary. OMV stated that in 2014 the Offshore Taranaki Environmental Monitoring Protocol

(OTEMP), which was developed through consultation with industry regulators, Maritime New Zealand,

and the EPA, was finalised and it had been used effectively since this date. In addition, OMV noted

that sensitive environments had never been found in any OTEMP related monitoring conducted in the

Taranaki Basin to date, including the baseline monitoring conducted for the current application.

131. OMV considered that limiting monitoring to less than a month prior to drilling as recommended by Mr

Baxter was not feasible for a number of reasons including:

a) operational constraints related to limited weather windows;

b) limited availability of specialist personnel;

c) limited availability of vessels and crew; and

d) the time required to process samples and finalise reports.

For these reasons, OMV recommended that all environmental monitoring for the EAD programme

should align with the framework proposed by OTEMP – namely that post‐drill surveys should to be

completed within 3‐6 months following the cessation of the drilling programme. This means that the

pre‐drill monitoring programme needs to be conducted no less than six months prior to the

commencement of drilling to allow enough time for the pre‐and post-drill surveys to be undertaken

within similar seasons (i.e. ~12 months apart).

132. The EPA Key Issues Report mentioned that the author (Dr Mohan) was unable to fully reconstruct the

risk assessments presented by OMV. Following receipt of further information from OMV on how it

undertook its ERA, Dr Mohan, in his Addendum to the Key Issues Report, stated that the response



had not explained how all the risk assessments were carried out, but he concluded that the rationale

provided did satisfactorily explain the risk assessment conclusions.

133. The DMC requested further information from OMV on whether the ‘worst-case’ volume of material had

been modelled in terms of predicted TSS and depositional thickness as a result of disposal of drill

cuttings. The modelling included in the IA was based on 1,543 m3 of material being discharged,

however in its initial proffered conditions OMV sought a limit of 2,000 m3 per well, this being greater

than that modelled. Further, the IA identified that, in the event that the well had to be re-spudded there

could be an additional 932 m3 discharged at any well location – meaning that the total volume of drill

cuttings discharged could be 2,475 m3 at any one well location (i.e. 1,543 m3 plus 932 m3), this too

being in excess of the 2,000 m3 limit specified in OMV’s proffered conditions and also well in excess

of the 1,543 m3 used in the IA modelling exercise.

134. In its response OMV confirmed that, while re-spudding is unlikely to be required (only nine of the over

200 wells drilled in the Taranaki Basin have needed to be re-spudded), the worst-case combined

volume of drilling cuttings that would be produced at any well location would be 2,475 m3. OMV

subsequently engaged Metocean to re-run the model for this worst-case drill cutting volume and this

was undertaken for “Well L”, which is located in the Southern AOI, as Well L had the largest modelled

depositional footprint during the initial modelling exercise.

135. In the re-run modelling scenario, the additional 932 m3 of cuttings was discharged at the seabed to

simulate the re-spudding scenario. The new modelling results suggested that:

a) the footprint of the deposition mound (as defined by the 0.01 mm depth threshold) associated

with re-spudding increased by approximately 100-200 m in the salient direction of the dispersal

mound;

b) the maximum thickness within 50 m of the discharge point increased by approximately 5 mm to a

total thickness of 12-15 mm;

c) at 1,000 m from the discharge point the depositional thickness increased by a maximum of

approximately 0.1 mm; and

d) for TSS, the near-bed plume effects were similar to those activities in the initial original drill cutting

modelling scenario.

136. In summary, the re-running of the dispersal and deposition model to incorporate a re-spud scenario

resulted in a small increase in the overall footprint and depositional thickness of drill cuttings. OMV

stated that the updated modelling results were very similar to those results associated with the

modelling provided in the IA.

137. OMV stated that, given that there are small increases to the overall depositional footprint (extent and

thickness), and that the near-bed plume effects are not significant, the ERAs presented in Section 7

of the IA were, in its view, still valid and did not need to be updated because the increases predicted

were small.



9.3 Cumulative Effects

138. Section 7.10 of the IA assessed the cumulative effects associated with the deposition of drill cuttings

and, because of the large geographical spread among the well sites the likelihood of any overlap of

deposition of cuttings was unlikely. Overall the risk associated with cumulative effects of the drill

cutting discharges was assessed as ‘negligible’.

139. The DMC requested further information from OMV on other cumulative effects that may occur,

including as a result of other activities that were not part of this application but still part of the EAD

programme (e.g. discharge of harmful substances as offshore processing drainage, and/or discharges

of harmful substances contained in drilling fluids). In addition, information was requested on

cumulative effects of other activities within the EEZ undertaken by OMV and/or others. OMV provided

further information on cumulative effects and assessed the environmental risks on the biological

environment as ‘negligible’.

9.4 Findings on Biological Environment Effects

140. We find that the risks on the biological environment associated with activities for which marine consent

is sought, including cumulative effects, are, at worst, ‘low’. The scale of adverse effects on various

elements of the biological environment are, at worst ‘minor’ and for many of the elements the scale is

‘negligible’. Adverse effects are generally localised, and will occur for a short duration, and recovery

of benthic environments directly and indirectly affected will recover within 12 months of cessation of

the activities.

141. Whilst there were some areas of disagreement between the EPA’s external expert on the biological

environment (Mr Baxter) and OMV in respect to some of the likelihoods and consequences of effects

on the biological environment, even if we were to prefer Mr Baxter’s view, that would not change the

overall risk category to anything more than ‘low’.

142. The greatest potential risk in respect of significant effects on the biological environment could occur if

the activities adversely affect any sensitive environments. While the baseline monitoring suggests that

no sensitive environments are likely to be present or to be affected, their occurrence in and around the

11 well sites cannot be completely dismissed. OMV proposes to undertake pre-installation surveys to

determine if any such environments exist and, if they are present, OMV will implement measures to

ensure effects on them are avoided or mitigated. We are satisfied that the proposed pre-installation

survey work, and proposed actions should sensitive environments be found, are appropriate to avoid

significant adverse effects on any sensitive environments that may be present. We have imposed

Conditions 22-26 to address this issue.

143. There was disagreement between OMV and Mr Baxter as to the maximum length of time that should

be allowed between the pre-installation surveys to determine whether sensitive environments exist.

We prefer OMV’s position on this matter because it aligns with the OTEMP, which was developed

through consultation with industry regulators, Maritime New Zealand, and the EPA. The main

purposes of the OTEMP is to provide a robust, standardised approach to monitoring, inter alia, effects



on soft-bottom seabed habitats. We are satisfied that OTEMP constitutes current best practice for

such monitoring.

10. Existing Interests

10.1 Introduction

144. Section 4 of the EEZ Act defines ‘existing interest’ as being the interest a person has in:

(a) any lawfully established existing activity, whether or not authorised by or under any Act or

regulations, including rights of access, navigation, and fishing:

(b) any activity that may be undertaken under the authority of an existing marine consent granted

under section 62:

(c) any activity that may be undertaken under the authority of an existing resource consent granted

under the Resource Management Act 1991:

(d) the settlement of a historical claim under the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975:

(e) the settlement of a contemporary claim under the Treaty of Waitangi as provided for in an Act,

including the Treaty of Waitangi (Fisheries Claims) Settlement Act 1992:

(f) a protected customary right or customary marine title recognised under the Marine and Coastal

Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011.

145. Section 4.1 of the IA outlined those persons and organisations which have existing interests in relation

to the planned activities for which marine consent is sought.

146. In terms of clause (a) of the EEZ Act definition of existing interest, the IA identified the following existing

interests:

a) commercial fishers who hold quota and use the area as part of their fishing activity;

b) recreational fishing (though not identified in Table 11 of the IA, effects on recreational fishing are

assessed in Section 7.6 of the IA under the heading of ‘Existing Interests’); and

c) maritime traffic (shipping).

147. The IA stated that, while there were a number of marine consents granted within the three AOIs, none

had been granted for the area immediately surrounding the proposed wells and therefore there were

no persons with existing interests in respect of clause (b) of the EEZ Act definition of existing interest.

148. The IA stated that the well locations are situated beyond the jurisdiction of the RMA and therefore

there were no persons with existing interests in respect of clause (c) of the EEZ Act definition of existing

interest.

149. The IA stated that there are a number of statutory acknowledgement areas that have been established

through the settlement of historic claims under the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975, however these cover

the coastal marine area (CMA) and do not extend into any of the three AOIs. As such, the IA stated



there were no persons with existing interests in respect of clause (d) of the EEZ Act definition of

existing interest.

150. In terms of clause (e) of the EEZ Act definition of existing interest, the IA stated that iwi hold customary

fishing rights under the Fisheries (Kaimoana Customary Fishing) Regulations 1998 which stem from

the Treaty of Waitangi (Fisheries Claim) Settlement Act 1992. Further, under the Māori Fisheries Act

2004 recognised iwi were allocated fishery assets such as fishing quota and shares in Aotearoa

Fisheries Limited which is managed and overseen by Te Ohu Kaimoana (the Māori Fisheries

Commission).

151. The IA stated that, while there have been a large number of applications for protected customary rights

and customary marine titles, no such rights have been issued and therefore there were no persons

with existing interests in respect of clause (f) of the EEZ Act definition of existing interest.

152. OMV stated that a number of iwi groups, located inshore of the three AOIs, hold special interest in

those AOIs arising from the cultural significance to them of the offshore area through their exercise of

mana whenua and mana moana. However, the IA noted that some of these iwi groups were not within

the scope of the EEZ Act definition of existing interest but OMV had undertaken to engage with these

groups as if they had an existing interest. The IA assessed the potential effects of the activities on

‘cultural values’.

153. OMV has assessed the effects on the identified existing interests and cultural values using the same

ERA that it used for the biological environment (i.e. based on consequence and likelihood of an effect

occurring). These assessments were presented in Section 7.6 of the IA.

154. The following sections present the effects on persons with existing interests. Because Māori have

existing interests across a number of the categories, we have included a separate section on ‘Māori

Existing Interests’, which includes effects on cultural values.

10.2 Effects on Existing Interests

10.2.1 Commercial fishers

155. The IA stated that commercial fishers who hold quota and use the area as part of their fishing activity

had an existing interest in the application. Most of the commercial catch in the areas surrounding the

well sites was jack mackerel which makes up approximately 90% of the catch. Jack mackerel are a

highly mobile pelagic species with a wide distribution across the Taranaki Basin.

156. The MODU would have a 500 m non-interference zone in place once it enters New Zealand waters

which would restrict the passage of vessels within a 500 m radius of the MODU. Fishing effort for jack

mackerel was largely undertaken by mid-water trawlers which have the ability to navigate around the

non-interference zone. OMV noted that the commercial fishing industry in Taranaki had worked

around oil and gas installations for many years and could plan their operations around the EAD

programme as they would be given advance notice of the works.

157. OMV had assessed the risks to, and effects on, commercial fishing as ‘negligible’.



10.2.2 Recreational Fishing

158. OMV noted that some recreational fishing vessels could fish in the areas of the well locations,

particularly over summer months. Game fishing from recreational boats was undertaken through

trolling lures, which means the vessels are always moving so could easily navigate out of the way of

the MODU and the associated 500 m non-interference zone. The well locations are not over any areas

of reef so no boats would be trying to bottom-fish in these areas. There were a number of recreational

fishing and boating clubs in the general area of the three AOIs. These clubs would be notified of the

presence of the MODU, particularly over the summer months ahead of large fishing competitions

chasing game fish.

159. OMV has assessed the risks to, and effects on, recreational fishing interests as ‘negligible’.

10.2.3 Maritime Traffic

160. The IA stated that there are no dedicated shipping channels into/out of, or between, the ports of New

Zealand, and as a result, vessels travelling to/from or between ports would generally take the most

direct or shortest route possible, providing it is safe to do so.

161. Of the 11 well sites, three are within the offshore Taranaki Precautionary Area, which was established

in the offshore Taranaki area by the International Maritime Organisation in 2007. All ships passing

through this area must navigate with particular caution in order to reduce the risk of a maritime incident,

and the possible resulting marine pollution, given the high level of offshore petroleum activity within

this area. The Taranaki Precautionary Area is a standing notice in the Notice to Mariners issued by

Land Information New Zealand (LINZ) each year in the New Zealand Nautical Almanac.

162. As discussed in the previous sections, a 500 m non-interference zone would be in place around the

MODU which prevents any vessels from entering the zone without reasonable excuse, or they will face

prosecution. The details of the non-interference zone around the MODU would be published in the

New Zealand Notice to Mariners.

163. OMV has assessed the risks to, and effects on, maritime traffic interests as ‘negligible’.

10.2.4 Māori Existing Interests

164. Section 5.4 of the IA listed an extensive set of iwi and hapū interests and described their rohe (area of

interest) and marine attributes of particular cultural interest including:

Sites of cultural significance

Statutory acknowledgement areas

Customary fishing interests

Iwi fisheries interests

Rohe moana (traditional food gathering areas)

Mātaitai Reserves (non-commercial fishing areas managed by tangata whenua)

Taiāpure (involvement of iwi in the management of commercial and non-commercial fishing in their

area)



Applications that have been made under the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011

for customary marine title and protected customary rights.

165. We adopt the contents of Section 5.4 of the IA for the purposes of our decision and do not repeat that

material accordingly.

166. The DMC requested further information from OMV in respect of whether there were any additional

statutory acknowledgements that may be in existence because the earlier decision on OMV’s marine

discharge consent (EEZ100017) highlighted that there had been omissions in it, and the current IA

appeared to also miss some (e.g. Te Atiawa). In response OMV advised that, while other Deeds of

Settlement (including the Te Atiawa settlement) could have also been referred to in the IA, Table 11

of the IA only made specific mention of the Taranaki Settlement because the areas it covers are in

closest proximity to any of the proposed well locations and therefore would be more likely than any

other settlement areas to be affected by the proposed activities. OMV stated that not listing all

settlements does not affect its conclusion that no settlements of historical claim under clause (d) of the

EEZ definition of existing interest would be affected by the activities. This is because, as discussed in

paragraph 149 of this decision, OMV considered that the existence of statutory acknowledgement

areas is not directly relevant to this application as they apply to the CMA and did not extend out into

the AOIs.

167. The DMC notes that the majority of the Māori interests outlined in the IA fall into one or more of the

definitions of ‘existing interest’ under the EEZ Act. However, there are cultural, spiritual, and

metaphysical values that underpin many of these interests, including cultural values and associations

of those iwi which do not necessarily have interests that fall directly within any of the definitions of

existing interests under the EEZ Act. These matters are addressed later in this decision report.

168. The following sections discuss the effects of the planned activities on the various interests that Māori

have in and around the AOIs.

Commercial Fishing

169. Under the Māori Fisheries Act 2004, recognised iwi were allocated fisheries assets such as fishing

quota. The effects on these interests have been considered under the commercial fishers section

above and OMV has assessed the risks to, and effects on, commercial fishing as ‘negligible’.

Customary Fishing

170. Section 5.4.3 of the IA stated that kaimoana:

a) provides sustenance for tangata whenua;

b) is an important food source for whānau (family); and

c) is vital for provision of hospitality to manuhiri (guests).

The IA noted that traditional management of the marine environment entails a whole body of

knowledge on the sea’s natural resources, their seasonality and the manner in which they can be

harvested.



171. The IA stated that, in addition to commercial fisheries assets provided under the Māori Fisheries Act

2004, iwi held customary fishing rights and there were three types of recognised customary fishing

rights: rohe moana, mātaitai, and taiāpure.

172. Rohe moana may be established under the Fisheries (Kaimoana Customary Fishing) Regulations

1998 as recognised traditional food gathering areas for which kaitiaki (customary managers) can be

appointed to manage kaimoana collection in accordance with traditional Māori principles. These

regulations stem from the Treaty of Waitangi (Fisheries Claims) Settlement Act 1992 and allow for the

establishment of management controls, the issuing of permits for customary take, the enforcement of

penalties for management breaches, and for restrictions to be established over fisheries areas in order

to prevent stock depletion or overexploitation. There are various rohe moana that exist near the three

AOIs as shown in Figure 40 of the IA – however the only rohe moana which exists within any of the

AOIs is that of Ngati Kinohaku within the northern part of the Northern AOI.

173. The IA noted that an additional rohe moana, the ‘Deepwater Customary Pataka’ has been proposed.

This pataka (food supply) represents an agreement between 16 iwi groups, Sealord Fishing, and Te

Ohu Kaimoana to facilitate customary fishing in deeper waters of the South Taranaki Bight. Within this

rohe moana the Sealord Fishing fleet will be able to take fish for customary purposes and supply the

customary catch to relevant iwi groups for customary events. The IA states the Deepwater Customary

Pataka is of relevance to the Central and Southern AOIs.

174. Mātaitai reserves, which can be declared under the Fisheries (Kaimoana Customary Fishing)

Regulations 1998, are areas where tangata whenua manage all non-commercial fishing through the

establishment of bylaws. Such areas recognise traditional fishing grounds and are established in order

to provide for customary practices and food gathering. There are no gazetted mātaitai reserves within

any of the AOIs but four exist at coastal locations (two of which are on the west coast of the northern

part of the South Island).

175. The taiāpure mechanism was created under the Māori Fisheries Act 1989. The intent of that legislation

was to make better provisions for tangata whenua to exercise rangitiratanga (chieftainship) and their

rights associated with fisheries management, as stated in Article 2 of the Treaty of Waitangi. A primary

objective of taiāpure is to ensure access to abundant and safe kaimoana, but often have more general

objectives to protect mauri and wairua. These can be established in an area that has customarily been

of significance to an iwi or hapū as either a food source, or for cultural or spiritual reasons. A taiāpure

allows tangata whenua to be involved in the management of both commercial and non-commercial

fishing in their area but does not stop all fishing. There are two taiāpure in the vicinity of the AOIs

(Kawhia Aotea and Whakapuaka), however these are located in inner coastal waters.

176. The IA noted that customary fishing rights are in addition to recreational fishing rights and do not

remove the right of Māori to catch their recreational limits under the Fisheries Amateur Fishing

Regulations 2013.



Customary Marine Title and Protected Customary Rights

177. Iwi, hapū, or whānau groups may be granted recognition of two types of customary interest under the

Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011:

a) customary marine title; and

b) protected customary rights.

The IA stated that customary marine title recognises the relationship of an iwi, hapū, or whānau with

a part of the common marine and coastal area. The IA stated that protected customary rights may be

granted to allow for customary activities such as the collection of hāngi stones or launching of waka.

178. Table 46 of the IA listed the applications that have been lodged under the Marine and Coastal Area

(Takutai Moana) Act 2011 in the vicinity of the AOIs. None of these applications have been processed

to a stage where decisions have been made and, as such, there are currently no recognised protected

customary rights or customary marine titles.

Cultural Values

179. As discussed in paragraph 167, there are cultural, spiritual, and metaphysical values that underpin

many of the Māori interests discussed in the previous sections. Further, other iwi who do not fit into

any of the definitions of ‘existing interest’ under the EEZ Act may hold such values within the coastal

environment.

180. The IA stated that consultation with iwi had occurred as outlined in Appendix E of the IA, and this

consultation had demonstrated that the marine and coastal environment is highly valued by all Māori

communities and has an important role in historic and present-day culture.

181. The IA stated that OMV proposed to continue consultation with iwi who are considered to be adversely

affected by the EAD programme. The DMC requested further information from OMV on how it

proposed to undertake this continued consultation. OMV’s response stated that ongoing consultation

with iwi would occur as follows:

a) Proffered Condition 12 would require ongoing consultation with iwi entities;

b) Preparation of the Environmental Monitoring Plan (EMP) would require consultation with iwi;

c) The EEZ Act, and Maritime Transport Act 1994 respectively, required OMV to consult with

affected parties in the development of the Emergency Spill Response Plan (ESRP), and Oil Spill

Contingency Plan (OSCP) for the EAD programme. Regulation 24(6) of the D&D Regulations

requires that, before an ESRP is submitted for approval, the owner of an offshore installation

consult any person with an interest in the vicinity of the installation that is likely to be affected by

a spill into the sea of any harmful substances. Similarly, Part 131.23 of the Maritime Protection

Rules required consultation with, inter alia, tangata whenua before an OSCP is submitted to

Maritime New Zealand for approval; and

d) Any drilling campaign would also require a marine discharge consent for the discharge of harmful

substances under section 20B of the EEZ Act and regulations 20 and 21 of the D&D Regulations.



As has occurred for the current application, consultation would occur to support the development

of the marine discharge consent application.

182. Given the above regulatory framework, and the consultation that will take place before the lodgment

of the ESRP, OSCP and marine discharge consent, OMV considered that additional conditions

requiring ongoing consultation were not necessary or appropriate. Despite this, OMV had suggested

a new condition to replace its initially proffered Condition 12. The new condition would require OMV to

create a Kaitiaki Forum to assist with engagement for the EAD programme. We provide additional

comments on this new proffered condition in Section 14 of our decision.

183. Section 7.6.4 of the IA stated that, given the commitment to ongoing consultation, the temporary nature

of the activity, the minor potential effects on the environment, and the proffered conditions, OMV

considered the risks to cultural values from the EAD programme to be ‘low’ and the potential effects

to be ‘minor’.

184. The letter from TKONT questioned the degree to which OMV has the authority to make an assessment

of effects on cultural values given that no cultural impact statement or cultural values statement has

been prepared. The letter from TKOT stated that OMV had assessed the risks to cultural values without

any consultation with TKOT.

185. The NKTT report stated that consultation had been inadequate, and the letters sent to the EPA by

TKOT and TKONT, stated that consultation had not occurred. OMV advised us that it did not accept

the conclusion(s) in the NKTT report, or in the letters from TKONT and TKOT, that inadequate

engagement had resulted in a lack of cultural values and assessment of interests being included in

the IA. OMV stated that the NKTT report itself acknowledged that OMV has engaged with an extensive

list of iwi and hapū since December 2017, opportunities to meet have been offered, and OMV had

made an on-going engagement commitment.

186. The IA stated that, while a number of iwi who were consulted had requested that a cultural impact

assessment (CIA) be prepared, OMV considered that a CIA was not appropriate in this case because:

a) the number of iwi and hapū considered as having existing interests;

b) the diversity of cultural values expressed by iwi consulted with to date;

c) the temporary nature of the activity; and

d) the distances offshore of the proposed well locations.

187. NKTT considered that the DMC did not have the best available information to assess the effects of the

proposed activities on cultural values because no CIA had been prepared. NKTT considered that CIAs

were the best way to identify cultural impacts and impacts on existing Māori interests, and it disagreed

with OMV’s reasons why a CIA was not appropriate in this case. NKTT acknowledged that there was

a limited statutory timeframe for decision-making available for a non-notified marine consent and that

it may not be a viable approach for OMV to resource iwi to prepare a CIA within the available

timeframes. NKTT recommended to us that we request OMV to provide further information and

assessment of the potential impacts of the proposed activities on the cultural values of iwi and hapū

identified as existing interests before we made a decision on the application.



188. OMV was invited to comment on NKTT’s report. In response, OMV stated it has been advised by

several iwi and hapū that if OMV was to commission an independent CIA to cover multiple interests

this would be considered offensive by many iwi and hapū groups due to their conflicting interests.

Further, OMV stated that if it worked with some groups and not others to produce multiple CIAs then

any groups left out (based on the definition of existing interests in the EEZ Act) would be equally

offended.

189. OMV advised us that, because of the likely prejudice to OMV regarding its established relationships

with stakeholders, if the DMC considered that it required the information identified in the NKTT report

in order to assess the application, it would be more appropriate in the circumstances for the DMC to

itself seek information directly under section 56(1)(c) of the EEZ Act rather than seeking that OMV

provide the information. Further, OMV advised us that, alternatively, we could commission an

independent report under section 56(1)(d) of the EEZ Act regarding cultural impacts on Māori existing

interests.

190. The NKTT report recommended that the following condition should be imposed (should consent be

granted) to address the effects of the relationship of iwi with the marine environment under the EEZ

Act:

The consent holder (OMV) shall, prior to the works required for the nine exploration wells and two

appraisal wells, provide an opportunity for iwi and hapū identified in the Impact Assessment as

having existing interests to develop a monitoring programme based on a Te Ao Māori perspective

for the proposed activities and provide opportunities for iwi and/or hapū representatives to execute

that programme.

191. We asked NKTT for further information regarding this condition and it advised us in its Addendum

report that an alternative wording of a condition could be:

The consent holder shall develop an Environmental Monitoring Programme in collaboration with

all iwi entities considered to have existing interests. The Programme will include a general scope

of the planned activities under this marine consent, including the pre-installation, installation,

operation, and removal of any MODU authorised by this marine consent. The Environmental

Monitoring Programme shall be initiated within 6 months of commencement of the activity, and

the Programme finalised for implementation within 18 months from commencement of the activity.

Advice note: The consent holder may seek advice from the EPA as to who the relevant iwi entities

are.

192. We provide additional comments on this suggested condition in Section 14 of this decision.

10.3 Cumulative Effects

193. The DMC requested further information from OMV on cumulative effects. In its response it presented

an ERA of cumulative effects on, inter alia, fishing (both commercial and recreational), shipping,

marine farming, existing oil and gas activities, and seabed mining.



194. OMV has assessed the environmental risk of cumulative effects on fishing as ‘negligible’, and ‘low’ for

shipping. OMV considered there was no scope for any cumulative effects on marine farming, existing

oil and gas activities, and seabed mining, namely due to the large distances between the proposed

well sites and these activities.

195. OMV did not provide any specific information on the cumulative effects on cultural values, however in

a summary statement it considered the environmental risk of ‘any’ cumulative effects as a result of the

EAD programme to be ‘negligible’ .

10.4 Findings on Effects on Existing Interests

196. Before recording our findings on each of the defined categories of existing interest, we consider it

appropriate, for contextual purposes, to record our position on the basis for the findings that follow.

197. In this respect, we note that OMV’s IA makes a number of statements that suggest a person does not

hold an existing interest because the interest is not located in the EEZ, or is not in the immediate

proximity of the activities. For completeness, we record that we do not agree with this approach to the

identification of who holds an existing interest. Our view is that the controlling factor is whether a person

may be affected by the effects of the activity in the marine environment from planned or unplanned

events (such as an oil spill). However, we note that this does not change our findings on existing

interests.

10.4.1 Commercial Fishing, Recreational Fishing, and Marine Traffic

198. We find that the risks of the planned activities on commercial fishing, recreational fishing, and marine

traffic (shipping), including any cumulative effects to be ‘negligible’ for the reasons discussed in the IA

and in Sections 10.2.1, 10.2.2, and 10.2.3 of this decision.

10.4.2 Māori Existing Interests

199. Under section 59(2) of the EEZ Act we must take into account any effects on existing interests of

allowing the activity. We questioned whether this requires or enables us to take into account Māori

perspectives on the cultural impacts on existing interests and sought advice from EPA counsel. EPA

counsel advised that we could take into account Māori perspectives on the effects on existing interests,

including cultural, spiritual, and metaphysical values in such interests and that this could include

information about the values that Māori hold in the natural environment, such as values in taonga

species or in the mauri of land, water, or other elements of environment. We agree with this

assessment.

200. Accordingly, we have taken into account the Māori interests, both in respect of those that fall under

the EEZ definition(s) of ‘existing interest’, as well as Māori perspectives on the cultural impacts of the

proposed activities for which marine consent is sought.

201. While concerns have been raised by NKTT, TKOT, and TKONT that consultation has been inadequate,

we note that consultation is not ‘required’ under the EEZ Act – that is, consultation is not mandatory.



What section 39 of the EEZ requires is that an IA must include identification of all those persons whose

existing interests are likely to be adversely affected by the activity, to describe any consultation

undertaken with those persons, and to identify the effects on existing interests. Whilst consultation is

not explicitly required by the EEZ Act, it is somewhat implicit in that to identify the persons with existing

interests and to identify how the proposed activities will affect those interests will require, in most

cases, consultation to occur.

202. OMV has outlined the consultation it has undertaken with various parties, many of which are existing

interests. We note that OMV has stated that it has also consulted with iwi in respect to effects on

cultural values, and this consultation has been with wider iwi who may not strictly have existing

interests as defined by section 4 in the EEZ Act. OMV has outlined the consultation that it proposes

to undertake following any grant of consent, including proffering a replacement for its Condition 12

which specifically relates to iwi and would require OMV to set up a Kaitiaki Forum. We discuss

conditions in greater detail in Section 14 of this decision.

203. NKTT considered CIAs to be the best way to identify cultural impacts and impacts on existing Māori

interests and it disagreed with OMV’s reasons why a CIA was not appropriate in this case. NKTT

acknowledged that there is a limited statutory timeframe for decision-making available for a non-

notified marine consent and that it may not be a viable approach for OMV resource iwi at this stage in

the process to prepare CIA. NKTT recommended to us that we request OMV to provide further

information and assessment of the potential impacts of the proposed activities on the cultural values

of iwi and hapū identified as existing interests before we make a decision on the application.

204. In terms of NKTT’s assertion that we do not have the best available information to assess the effects

of the proposed activities on cultural values because no CIA has been prepared, the EPA (by way of

Memorandum dated 20 November 2018) directed us to the recent High Court decision on the Trans-

Tasman Resources Limited application [[2018] NZHC 2217]. In that decision Churchman J observed

that (at para [215]) “I conclude that Mr Cooke’s submission that the obtaining of a cultural impact

assessment from the tangata whenua, is a mandatory requirement flowing from s 39(1) and (2), and s

12, overstates the legal obligation. There is no reference at all in s 39 to a cultural impact assessment

prepared by tangata whenua”. The High Court decision also confirms (at para [216]) “The DMC was

not obliged to follow Ngā Kaihautū’s recommendation that they obtain a Cultural Impact

Assessment…”.

205. We agree that it would have been useful and ideal if a CIA(s) had been prepared, however OMV is not

required to provide one. We turned our minds to whether we should commission either a CIA or a

report on effects on cultural values as recommended to us by NKTT and, in making a decision on that

question, we took into account the following matters:

a) the limited statutory timeframe imposed on us for decision-making on a non-notified marine

consent;

b) the diversity of cultural values expressed by different iwi consulted with to date;

c) the temporary nature of the activity;

d) the distances offshore of the proposed well locations; and



e) the fact that the EEZ Act does not allow for submissions from external parties.

206. Further we are mindful that Parliament has, in categorising exploration drilling as a non-notified activity

under section 29D of the EEZ Act, determined that such activities have a low probability of significant

adverse effects on the environment or existing interests, are routine or exploratory in nature, or are of

brief duration. This fact is, in our view, relevant but not solely determinative of the nature and level of

information needed to meet our section 61 obligations, and to determine the application.

207. Having taken into consideration the matters outlined above, we decided not to commission a CIA or a

report on the effects of the activities on cultural values.

208. In making an assessment on whether we have the best available information in respect of cultural

effects we have done so mindful of the non-notified activity status for activities for which marine

consent is being sought. We also note that our duty to obtain the best available information is not an

open-ended requirement, rather we need to be mindful of issues of time, cost, and effort in obtaining

information – the “best available” is not the same as all possible information.

209. Having considered all the relevant matters, we have determined that we are able make our decision

without a CIA because we consider we have, in the round (and contrary to NKTT’s assertion), the best

available information on cultural effects having taken into account:

a) the nature of the activity before the DMC in terms of extent of activity, its location and duration;

b) the low sensitivity of the receiving environment as confirmed by expert advice, including in terms

of existing interests; and

c) the risk of significant adverse effects occurring from the planned events that are part of the

application.

210. We find that the potential risks to Māori interests, including on cultural values in or associated with

those interests, of the planned activities for which marine consent is being sought will be ‘low’ and any

adverse effects ‘minor’. Despite this finding, we consider it appropriate that OMV continue to engage

with iwi with existing interests and note that OMV’s proffered conditions include such a commitment.

We discuss conditions in greater detail in Section 14 of this decision.



11. Unplanned Events

11.1 Introduction

211. Section 7.7 of the IA identified a number of unplanned events that could potentially occur, namely:

a) Oil spill from loss of well control;

b) Fuel spill from refuelling operations;

c) Vessel collision;

d) Biosecurity incursions; and

e) Dropped objects.

11.2 Environmental Risks

212. Section 7.7 of the IA presented an assessment of the environmental risks of unplanned events using

the same ERA as was used for the planned events (i.e. likelihood and consequence which are used

to assess the risk). We adopt that assessment for the purposes of our decision.

213. Of all the unplanned events it was an oil spill from loss of well control which posed the greatest risk.

OMV has assessed this as a ‘moderate’ risk in respect of effects on marine mammals, seabirds,

coastal sites, fishers, tourism, and recreation. This was based on a likelihood of such an event

happening as being ‘rare’ but the consequence as being ‘catastrophic’, namely because such an event

could affect a large geographical area and many receptors could be affected. The potential impact on

existing interests and the environment would be significant.

214. OMV stated that spills from exploration and appraisal activities were rare in New Zealand’s petroleum

exploration history and, to its knowledge, there had been no loss of well control events which had

resulted in significant volumes of oils being spilled to the sea in the history of oil and gas exploration

in New Zealand. In a response to one of our requests for further information OMV advised that there

had been over 200 wells drilled offshore in New Zealand, and there had been no loss of well control

incidents which had resulted in the release of oil to the sea from any of these wells.

215. OMV stated it had been the operator for four exploration and appraisal wells in New Zealand waters

(Moana-1, drilled in 2007; Manaia-2 and Matuku-1, drilled in 2013; and Whio, drilled in 2014). OMV

conducted a review based on the Well Completion Reports, OMV’s Health, Safety, and Environment

Reporting Tool, and the recollection of previous exploration managers for these drilling campaigns.

That review identified that there had been only three spills (one consisting of two litres of water

contaminated with drilling fluid, oil, and grease; one of four litres of hydraulic fluid; and one of two litres

of hydraulic oil). All these spills were from hoses, tank overflows, or maintenance tasks.

216. OMV undertook oil spill trajectory modelling for four well sites, the outputs and findings of which are

summarised in Sections 7.7.2.1 of the IA and not repeated here.

217. The EPA’s external expert on the biological environment (Mr Baxter) disagreed with OMV’s likelihood

of an oil spill from loss of well control being ‘rare’ and he considered that such events were ‘unlikely’.



Using Mr Baxter’s likelihood of ‘unlikely’ would result in an environmental risk of ‘high’. Mr Baxter

noted that Table 52 of the IA (which we present above as Table 4), identified a ‘high’ risk ranking as

being unacceptable.

218. OMV provided further information15 (in response to one of our requests) on the rationale why it had

determined the likelihood of loss of well control as being either ‘remote’ or ‘rare’ rather than the

‘unlikely’ designation that Mr Baxter contended. OMV stated that there had been over 200 wells drilled

offshore in New Zealand and there had been no loss of well control incidents that had resulted in the

release of oil to the sea. Further, OMV stated:

“A masters thesis was undertaken on a number of drilling programmes following the Gulf of

Mexico blowout in 2012. From the investigations of a number of deep-water and shallow-water

wells drilled, it was concluded that geological conditions determined whether a blowout was more

likely to occur, not water depth. The Taranaki Basin is a low-pressure basin in general, and there

are no indications of abnormal pressures within the geology at the proposed well locations in the

Application. This further lowers the risk of any loss-of-well-control incident.”

219. OMV stated that it had a proven track record with health and safety (nationally and globally) and would

be operating in accordance with good oilfield practice, including extensive operational procedures and

control measures that would be implemented. OMV considered that designating a likelihood of

‘unlikely’ as contended by Mr Baxter would be overstating the risk of an unplanned activity and that

the likelihood of loss of well control had been accurately assessed in the IA as ‘rare’.

220. Section 7.7.2.5 of the IA presented information on the measures OMV would implement and comply

with in order to reduce the likelihood of a well blow-out or loss of well control occurring. The key

mitigation measures are:

a) All operations will be undertaken in accordance with Good Oilfield Practice;

b) A vessel-specific Safety Case will be prepared by the MODU operator and submitted to WorkSafe

for approval prior to the commencement of operations of the MODU;

c) Prior to the drilling of each well associated with the EAD programme, OMV will commission oil

spill modelling at any well which has not already been modelled, in order to predict potential

dispersal and beaching associated with an accidental oil spill;

d) An approved Oil Spill Contingency Plan (OSCP) and a Well Control Contingency Plan (WCCP)

will be in place before the commencement of drilling operations as required by the Maritime

Protection Rules Part 131;

e) An Emergency Spill Response Plan (ESRP) will be in place before the commencement of drilling

operations as required by Regulation 24 of the D&D Regulations;

f) A pressure-tested BOP attached to the subsea wellhead system will be used to shut in the well

in case of any well control situation;

15 Response to DMC Question 13 contained in Enclosure 1 Response to further information (Part B) provided by OMV to the EPA on 7 December 2018



g) OMV has a global contract with Oil Spill Response Limited to assist in the response to a large

spill. In addition, OMV also has a global contract with Wild Well Control Incorporated for the

provision of specialist well control and source control personnel and equipment. In the unlikely

event of a large spill or loss of well control event, both companies are on standby for mobilisation

to New Zealand 24 hours a day, 365 days a year;

h) A relief well location will be surveyed as part of the site survey, and a shallow hazard drilling

analysis will also be completed for each relief well location; and

i) All vessels (including the MODU) involved in the EAD programme will have an approved and

certified Shipboard Marine Pollution Emergency Plan and an International Oil Pollution Prevention

Certificate (as per MARPOL and Marine Protection Rules Part 130A and 123A).

221. The DMC requested (as recommended to us by OGS16) further information from OMV on the level of

redundancy of the valves and control systems in the BOP stack. In its response OMV advised that all

BOP stacks would be compliant with the American Petroleum Industry’s Standard 53 “Blowout

Prevention Equipment Systems for Drilling Wells” (API STD 53). OMV advised that an API STD 53

compliant control system consisted of two independent and fully functioning control units which

provided for 100% redundancy. Each control unit must have the capability to control all of the BOP

stack functions (including pressure regulation and monitoring of system pressures) from at least two

separate locations (control stations). One control station location must provide accessibility for the drill

crew and the other control station must be placed away from the rig floor to provide safe access for

functioning the BOPs during an emergency or a well control event.

222. OMV stated that API STD 53 was recognised as industry best practice and it would ensure that all

practicable steps are taken to ensure the risks of oil spills were as low as reasonably practicable

(ALARP).

223. The EPA’s external expert on oil and gas operational activities (Mr Broomhead from OGS) noted that

OMV was committed to following industry best practice by adopting the ‘Environmental Best Practice

Guidelines for the Offshore Petroleum Industry’ produced jointly by the Ministry for the Environment

and Maritime New Zealand. Mr Broomhead confirmed that a Safety Case for the MODU would need

to be submitted to WorkSafe New Zealand (WorkSafe) for approval prior to commencing drilling, and

that this Safety Case ensured the operators identified and evaluated all hazards with the potential to

cause a major accident, and to identify suitable control measures.

224. Mr Broomhead concluded that there were no residual risks that cannot be mitigated or managed that

the DMC should be aware of. He stated that OMV clearly showed the threats and the associated

mitigation measures that would be put in place to manage the hazards associated with the EAD

programme.

225. The EPA Key Issues Report identified loss of well control as being a key issue because of the potential

scale of the consequences. The Key Issues Report confirmed that the principal mechanism that

16 Clarification point #18, Appendix 9 of OGS report entitled ‘Technical Review and Analysis of Operational Activities associated

with Marine Consent Application – Exploration & Appraisal Drilling’ (Rev 3 dated 24 October 2018)



reduces the likelihood of a loss of well control is the Safety Case that had to first be approved by

WorkSafe before drilling commences. The Key Issues Report also noted that OMV would need to

submit an OSCP to Maritime New Zealand for approval, and this plan would detail the procedures that

would be followed in the event of a spill.

226. The Key Issues Report highlighted a number of concerns that were raised in the EPA’s external

expert’s report on the oil spill trajectory modelling (Coffey), including how the travel and beaching times

were calculated in the IA. However, the Key Issues Report stated that, given that a well blow out is

an unplanned event, the probability of shoreline arrival was not a key issue in terms of making a

decision whether to grant or refuse the marine consent.

227. OMV assessed the environmental risk of the other unplanned events as being ‘low’ except for

biosecurity incursion which was assessed as ‘moderate’ as the consequence of such an incursion

would be ‘major’ and the likelihood ‘rare’ – while this resulted in the same ‘moderate’ risk ranking as

an oil spill from loss of well control, the actual score number was less (8 for biosecurity incursion and

10 for an oil spill from the loss of well control) with the lower score being due to the lower consequence

ranking (i.e. major for biosecurity incursion compared to catastrophic for the oil spill).

11.3 Findings on Unplanned Events

228. Of all the unplanned events, we find that the potential effects of an oil spill from loss of well control to

have the greatest potential to cause adverse effects on the environment and existing interests. The

environmental effects on existing interests and the environment, including cultural effects, could be

significant if an oil spill occurred.

229. We accept that the likelihood of an oil spill is ‘rare’ given the proposed mitigation measures and the

operational standards and procedures that will be in place and the track record provided to us by OMV.

230. We are also satisfied that other requirements that OMV must comply with under other legislation and

regulations, in particular the Safety Case that needs to be approved by WorkSafe before drilling

commenced, will minimise the risks of an oil spill occurring due to loss of well control to ALARP.

231. The evidence in front of us gives us confidence that the proposed activities will be undertaken in

accordance with industry best practice and good oilfield practices, including compliance with API STD

53.

232. Further, we are satisfied that Maritime New Zealand and other agencies have the plans, structures,

processes, access to equipment, and financial resources to respond to an oil spill event should one

occur.

Chapter 5. Overall Assessment


Chapter 5. OVERALL ASSESSMENT

12. Section 59 Summary and Analysis

12.1 Introduction

233. We must take into account the decision-making criteria and information principles set out in the EEZ

Act. Specifically, this requires us to apply section 59 – which sets out a decision-making framework;

section 60 – which lists matters to be considered in determining the extent of effects on existing

interests; and section 61 – which establish certain information principles. These matters are set out in

Section 4.4 of this decision.

234. We record here that, pursuant to section 59(5) of the EEZ Act, we have not given regard to:

a) trade competition or the effects of trade competition;

b) the effects on climate change of discharging greenhouse gases into the air; and

c) any effects on a person’s existing interest if the person has given written approval to the proposed

activity.

12.2 Section 59(2)(a) – Effects

235. Section 59(2)(a) of the EEZ Act requires us to take into account the adverse effects of allowing the

activity on the environment and/or existing interests. This includes cumulative effects and any effects

that may extend beyond the boundaries of the EEZ.

236. In considering “effects” we have applied the definition in section 6 of the EEZ Act and considered

potential effects of low probability but high potential impact – these include the effects of unplanned

events for which consent is not sought.

237. Chapter 4 of this decision sets out our understanding of the key potential effects of allowing the activity

on the environment and existing interests. Our principal findings on these matters are set out in that

chapter.

12.3 Section 59(2)(a)(i) – Cumulative Effects

238. Cumulative effects may arise as a result of the effects of past, current, and future activities undertaken

in an area. Where the effects of past activities are on-going, these will be relevant to our assessment

of cumulative effects. As such, if past activities in the application area (undertaken by OMV or by

others) have given rise to on-going effects that contribute to cumulative effects, then we must take

these into account. Where past effects are no longer experienced, they are not relevant to the

assessment.

239. We find that the cumulative effects have been adequately assessed by OMV to the extent that we are

able to consider such effects.



240. We provided our findings on cumulative effects as they relate to the biological environment, existing

interests, and human health in other sections of this decision and we do not repeat those findings here,

save to say that we find the effects to be, at worst, minor.

12.4 Section 59(2)(b) – Other Activities

241. Section 59(2)(b) of the EEZ Act requires us to take into account the effects on the environment or

existing interests of other activities undertaken in the area covered by the application or in its vicinity.

242. The other activities that occur include those activities undertaken by OMV associated with the EAD

programme, other oil, gas, and mining operators, commercial shipping, commercial fishing, support

vessels, cruise ships, and helicopter transport.

243. We have considered the effects of these activities in our deliberations of the current application.

12.5 Section 59(2)(c) – Human Health

244. Under section 59(2)(c) we must take into account the effects on human health that may arise from

effects on the environment.

245. Section 7.8 of the IA assessed the effects on human health and we adopt that assessment for the

purposes of our decision. That assessment concluded that the environmental risk and associated

effects on human health as a result of the EAD programme would be negligible. We agree.

246. We accept that OMV has considered risks associated with oil spills, and that procedures approved

under other regulatory regimes will adequately manage that risk.

12.6 Section 59(2)(d) – Biodiversity

247. Section 59(2)(d) of the EEZ Act requires us to take into account the need to protect biological diversity

and integrity. We have considered the potential for effects on the biological environment and we cover

those matters in Section 9.2 of this decision.

248. The evidence in front of us has not identified any effect of activities that are likely to compromise the

biological diversity and integrity of marine species, ecosystems and processes.

12.7 Section 59(2)(e) – Effects on Rare and Vulnerable Species

249. Section 59(2)(e) builds on the matters under 59(2)(d) by requiring us to specifically consider rare and

vulnerable species, and the habitats of threatened species. These two sections are therefore relevant

to our consideration of potential effects on those marine mammals and seabirds that have a threatened

classification (that is they may be rare or vulnerable species) and may be present in the AOIs.

250. While some rare or vulnerable species may be present, we find that the proposed activities pose, at

worst, a low risk to these species.



12.8 Section 59(2)(f) – Economic Benefit

251. Economic benefit to New Zealand is the focus of section 59(2)(f) of the EEZ Act.

252. Section 6 of the IA presented an assessment of the economic benefits associated with the EAD

programme. We adopt that assessment for the purposes of our decision.

253. For the entire EAD programme, OMV estimated that the total regional economic impacts could equal

an increased GDP of $209 million, employment for 1,720 FTE-years17, and household incomes of more

than $105 million.

254. In addition to the economic benefits of the EAD programme, there are potential future economic

benefits should it be successful and develop over time into production activities.

12.9 Section 59(2)(g) – Natural Resources

255. Section 59(2)(g) of the EEZ Act requires us to take into account the efficient use and development of

natural resources. Natural resources include the natural gas resource itself, as well as commercial and

customary fisheries resources.

256. OMV stated that each of its PEPs has conditions that include a number of obligations to drill at least

one well by a certain date or surrender the permit. The EAD programme would ensure that these

commitments to the New Zealand Government are met, which OMV stated is key to the continued

efficient use and development of natural resources within these permit areas.

257. We accept OMV’s evidence on these matters.

258. We have considered the effects of the proposed activities on commercial, recreational and customary

fishing resources. We find that the effects on the efficient use and development of these natural

resources by the proposed activities for which consent is sought is negligible.

12.10 Section 59(2)(h) – Marine Management Regimes

259. Section 59(2)(h) of the EEZ Act requires us to take into account the nature and effect of other MMRs.

The MMRs of most relevance to our assessment are set out in Table 5.

Table 5: Relevant Marine Management Regimes

Agency Legislation Agency Responsibilities

Department of

Conservation

Conservation Act 1987

Wildlife Act 1953

Marine Mammals Protection

Act 1978

Responsible for protected species and marine

mammals.

Responsibility for non-mammal species,

including seabirds.

17 An FTE-year is the number of people employed full-time multiplied by the duration of that employment. For example, 10 FTE-

years could mean two people employed full-time for five years, or 20 people employed full-time for half a year.




Maritime New Zealand Maritime Transport Act 1994

International Regulations for

Preventing Collisions at Sea

1972

Health and Safety at Work

Act 2015

Holds a designation under the Health and Safety

at Work Act 2015 for regulating health and safety

on New Zealand flagged ships or any ships used

as workplaces. This would apply to the MODU

while it is not anchored or attached to the seabed

and also to support vessels.

Responsible for ensuring operators have

approved plans in place to manage wastes from

their activities, as well as Emergency Response

Plans if that work causes a leak or spill into the

sea.

Assists the Minister of Transport in setting marine

protection rules for managing discharges and oil

spills and maritime rules preventing the collision

of vessels at sea.

Requires operators to have an international oil

pollution prevention certificate (IOPPC) and a

shipboard oil pollution emergency plan (SOPEP),

as well has holding certificates of insurance.

The Maritime Transport Act gives effect to New

Zealand’s international obligations, including

MARPOL18 and OPRC19.

Ministry for Primary

Industries

Biosecurity Act 1993

Fisheries Act 1996

Māori Fisheries Act 2004

Responsible for managing New Zealand’s

fisheries within the EEZ and its territorial waters,

which includes commercial, recreational and

Māori customary fisheries.

Responsible for biosecurity at New Zealand’s

boundaries and within the EEZ. It administers

biofouling and ballast water guidelines for vessels

entering New Zealand waters.

Ministry of Justice (Office

of Treaty Settlements)

Marine and Coastal Area

(Takutai Moana) Act 2011

Responsible for guaranteeing public access over

the marine area to the outer limits of the territorial

sea and providing for the recognition of

customary rights of whānau, hapū, and iwi.

WorkSafe New Zealand Health and Safety at Work

Act 2015

Responsible for performing functions relating to

health and safety in the workplace. This function

applies to offshore installations which would

include the MODU while it is fixed to the seabed.

The Ministry of Business,

Innovation and

Employment (MBIE)

Crown Minerals Act 1991 Responsible for Issuing of minerals programmes

for the allocation of rights to prospect, explore or

mine Crown-owned mineral resources.

18 International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships 1973/78 19 International Convention on Oil Pollution Preparedness, Response and Cooperation 1990




Ministry for the

Environment, Regional

Councils, Department of

Conservation

Resource Management Act

1991

The Ministry for the Environment: overview of

documents prepared under the Act, including

most National Policy Statements.

The Minister of Conservation: responsible for

developing the New Zealand Coastal Policy

Statement.

Regional Councils: develop Regional policy

Statements, and Regional Coastal plans for

managing activities out to the 12 nautical mile

boundary in coastal waters.

Environmental Protection

Authority

Hazardous Substances and

New Organisms Act 1996

The Health and Safety at

Work (Hazardous

Substances) Regulations

2017

The HSNO Act controls the use of chemicals and

flammable materials. This excludes those used in

the motive power of a ship, which are subject to

regulation by Maritime New Zealand.

Controls on the use and storage of chemicals in

workplaces.

260. We have taken the MMRs listed in Table 5 into account when considering activities relevant to this

application. Based on the information we have received, we are satisfied that we are aware of the

relevant issues. As explained in Section 14 of this decision, we have imposed conditions only where

necessary and we are satisfied there will be no conflict or unnecessary duplication of requirements

with any measure required by these other MMRs.

261. We also gave thought to how MMRs regulate existing interests (such as fisheries) and whether that is

relevant to the management of effects and the imposition of consent conditions.

12.11 Section 59(2)(i) – Best Practice

262. Section 59(2)(i) of the EEZ Act requires us to take into account industry or activity best practice. We

have had regard to industry best practice.

263. Section 7.2 of the IA outlined the various measures and requirements under other legislation that OMV

would implement or be required to comply with that contribute to it undertaking the EAD programme

according to ‘good oilfield practice’. Good oilfield practice is defined in the IA as “the practices,

methods and acts engaged in by professional and experienced producers of oil and natural gas in

established producing regions internationally, that would be expected to accomplish the desired result

in a manner consistent with law, regulation, reliability, safety, environmental protection, economy and

expedition”.

264. The EPA’s external expert on oil and gas operational activities (Mr Broomhead from OGS) confirmed

that OMV was committed to following industry best practice by adopting the ‘Environmental Best

Practice Guidelines for the Offshore Petroleum Industry’ produced jointly by the Ministry for the

Environment and Maritime New Zealand.



265. OMV proposed to undertake its monitoring in accordance with OTEMP which also constitutes best

practice.

12.12 Section 59(2)(j) – Conditions

266. We have considered whether conditions can avoid, remedy, or mitigate the adverse effects of the

activities. We considered the effects outlined in the IA, and the conditions proffered by OMV to address

those effects contained in Appendix 1 of the IA. In some instances, we have determined that conditions

should be amended or strengthened, and we have added conditions where we consider them

appropriate to address specific effects or to achieve desired outcomes. We have also deleted a

number of the proffered conditions, particularly where they relate to (and thus duplicate) obligations

under other MMRs.

267. We circulated a set of draft conditions to OMV on 19 November 2018 (hereafter referred to as the

‘draft conditions’). OMV provided comments on those changes and we have considered those

comments in setting the final conditions of consent.

268. We believe that the conditions imposed will avoid, remedy, or mitigate adverse effects to the extent

required to achieve the EEZ Act’s purpose. We discuss the conditions in greater detail in Section 14

of this decision.

12.13 Section 59(2)(k) – Regulations

269. Section 59(2)(k) of the EEZ Act requires us to take into account relevant regulations. Regulations are

defined in section 4 of the EEZ Act to mean regulations made under the EEZ Act (not any other Act).

270. We have taken into account the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental

Effects – Permitted Activities) Regulations 2013. These regulations state which activities are permitted

activities for the purpose of the EEZ Act and the conditions for undertaking those activities without a

marine consent.

271. As discussed in Section 2.3 of this report, we have taken into account the Exclusive Economic Zone

and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects—Non-notified Activities) Regulations 2014 which

confirm that the activities which are the subject of this application are classified as non-notified and

are not to be publicly notified.

272. We also took into account the D&D Regulations, through reviewing the recent decision issued by the

EPA on OMV’s application to discharge harmful substances from deck drains of the MODU(s).

12.14 Section 59(2)(l) – Other Law

273. Section 59(2)(l) of the EEZ Act requires us to take account of any other applicable law. We have

considered other MMRs as required by section 59(2)(h) and discussed these earlier in this decision.

274. We have considered the need to avoid duplicating regulations and conditions that will be imposed by

regulators under other MMRs.



275. We made reference to the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011 in some of the previous

sections of this decision. It is relevant in a similar way to the RMA. That is, the marine and coastal area

subject to the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011 directly abuts the EEZ and the AOIs.

There are several applications (claims) for Crown engagement in the Taranaki region. The interests of

some of those applicants will be potentially affected by the effects of any unplanned events. We note

that the claims have not yet been resolved. Despite that fact, we recognise that the claims exist and

have taken that into account in our decision.

12.15 Section 59(2)(m) – Any Other Matter

276. Section 59(m) of the EEZ Act is commonly referred to as the ‘catch-all’ provision. It provides the

potential for us to consider anything that we consider relevant and which is not otherwise covered by

the other matters referenced in section 59 of the EEZ Act.

277. Section 59(2)(m) of the EEZ Act does not provide us with unlimited scope. We cannot expand on (or

take a different approach to) a specific requirement that Parliament has chosen to confine or regulate

in a particular way. We have therefore considered section 59(2)(m) of the EEZ Act in the context of

the specific matters required to be taken into account by section 59(2) of the EEZ Act, and related

matters which have a bearing on our decision. Importantly, we have been careful to consider whether

a matter has been expressly addressed by another section of the EEZ Act – before it could be capable

of consideration under section 59(2)(m) of the EEZ Act.

278. We cannot identify any other matters that may be relevant to determining this application. For

completeness we record we have considered the contents of the letters from TKONT and TKOT and

Māori perspectives on the cultural impacts under our assessment of section 59(2)(a) of the EEZ Act.

12.16 Section 59(3) – Submissions and Evidence

279. Section 59(3) of the EEZ Act requires us to have regard to any submissions made, evidence, advice,

reports and information sought and received by us. In this case there were no submissions as this is

a non-notified consent, but we have had regard to the evidence, reports, and information sought by us

during the consideration process.

280. In meeting that requirement we have had regard to advice sought from counsel assisting the DMC,

and from experts and NKTT by way of section 56 of the EEZ Act, as well further information obtained

from OMV under section 54 of the EEZ Act.

281. All the matters put before us, and requested by us, have been considered.



13. Overall Determination and Reasons for Decision

282. Pursuant to section 10(3) of the EEZ Act, we have taken into account decision-making criteria in

section 59, 60, and 61 of the EEZ Act and have turned our minds to whether granting or refusing

consent best achieves the purpose of the EEZ Act, as set out earlier in this decision.

283. Overall, we find that the assessment of the activity against section 59 matters was adequately set out

in the Applicant’s IA. In summary, we find:

a) The actual and potential adverse effects on the biological environment, including cumulative

effects, of the activities associated with EAD programme will be, at worst, minor.

b) The actual and potential adverse effects on existing interests (which are dispersed throughout the

Taranaki Basin), including the potential effects on commercial fishing activities, will be negligible.

c) Any adverse effects will be confined to the immediate vicinity of each well location and any

adverse effects will be temporary. The proposed operational procedures, mitigation measures

and conditions will ensure that the biological diversity of marine species, ecosystems and

processes in the Taranaki Basin will be protected.

284. While it is acknowledged that this application is for an activity that sits within the wider scope of the

EAD programme, OMV is required to comply with a number of other legislative regimes that relate to

health and safety and environmental protection. While we acknowledge that not all of these

legislative requirements are relevant to this application, these additional measures and approval

requirements provide further environmental protections and minimise potential for unplanned events

to occur.

285. OMV has stated that that it will follow industry best practice in relation to undertaking the EAD

programme. Conditions of consent will assist in ensuring this occurs.

286. After considering all the information in front of us, and taking into account the matters listed in sections

59, 60, and 61 of the EEZ Act, we find that, subject to the conditions of consent we have imposed,

granting a marine discharge consent for this activity meets the purpose of the EEZ Act.

Chapter 6. Conditions and Duration


Chapter 6. CONDITIONS AND DURATION

14. Conditions

14.1 Introduction

287. Section 62(3) of the EEZ Act states that a marine consent may be issued subject to conditions. The

ability to impose conditions on a marine consent is governed primarily by sections 63 to 67 of the EEZ

Act.

288. Section 63(1) of the EEZ Act states:

A marine consent authority may grant a marine consent on any condition that it considers

appropriate to deal with adverse effects of the activity authorised by the consent on the

environment or existing interests.

289. While the wording of section 63(1) appears to provide the DMC with a very wide scope in terms of

conditions it may impose on marine consents, there are two restrictions specified in sections 63(3) and

63(4) which prohibit:

a) the imposition of conditions which are inconsistent with the EEZ Act or any regulations (section

63(3)); and

b) the imposition of a condition to deal with an effect if the condition would conflict with a measure

required in relation to the activity by another marine management regime (MMR), or the Health

and Safety at Work Act 2015 (section 63(4)).

290. Section 63(4) does not prevent us imposing conditions which duplicate requirements in relation to the

activity by another MMR where such a condition relates to a matter (including environmental effects

or effects on existing interests) that we must take into account under section 59 of the EEZ Act.

However, the imposition of conditions which duplicate other MMR requirements should generally be

avoided provided we have satisfied ourselves that the processes and approvals under those MMRs

are robust and adequately deal with the relevant environmental effects or effects on existing interests.

In such situations, requiring the EPA to provide an additional approval/certification is in our view

unnecessary.

291. Sections 63(2)(a)(i) and (ii) allows us to impose a condition which requires the consent holder to

provide a bond for the performance of any one or more conditions of the consent and to obtain and

maintain public liability insurance of a specified value, respectively. Section 65 provides additional

guidance on bond conditions. In this case we do not consider it necessary to impose a bond for

performance of any condition, or for OMV to obtain public liability insurance.

292. Section 63(2)(a)(iii) and (v) allows us to impose conditions that require a consent holder to undertake

monitoring, and to provide records to the EPA for audit, respectively. Section 66 provides additional



guidance on monitoring conditions. We consider it appropriate to include conditions that require

monitoring and note that OMV’s proffered conditions include such conditions.

293. Section 63(2)(a)(iv) allows us to impose conditions that require a consent holder to appoint an observer

to monitor the activity and the effects on the environment. Section 67 provides additional guidance on

observer conditions and requires that any such condition must specify in detail the observer’s duties

in relation to the activity. Any observer must be ‘approved’ by the EPA for that purpose. Section 67

outlines the circumstances under which such approval must be given by the EPA. In this case we do

not consider it necessary to impose any such condition.

14.2 OMV Proffered Conditions

294. OMV proffered conditions and included these in Appendix A of its IA.

295. We reviewed OMV’s proffered conditions and prepared a set of draft conditions which were provided

to OMV for comment on 19 November 2018. The draft conditions included a number changes to

OMV’s proffered conditions in terms of:

a) Standardisation of conditions in terms of the consents the EPA has issued and the conditions

imposed on those consents;

b) Deletion of conditions which unnecessarily duplicated other MMR requirements – some of these

requirements were recommended to be included as Advice Notes rather than conditions;

c) Amendments to OMV’s proffered conditions to improve enforceability and interpretation of intent

of the condition(s); and

d) New conditions in respect of the proposed pre-installation monitoring programme and addressing

steps to be taken should this pre-installation monitoring identify sensitive environments being

present in and around the proposed well sites.

296. OMV provided comments on the draft conditions and we have considered those comments in setting

the final conditions of consent. In addition, OMV made changes to some of its proffered conditions

and proffered additional conditions in its responses to the further information that we requested under

section 54 of the EEZ Act.

14.3 Commentary and Findings on Conditions

14.3.1 Introduction

297. We have reviewed the conditions proffered by OMV and have used these as our starting point in terms

of the final conditions that we have imposed. The following sections provide commentary on the more

substantive changes that we made.

298. Where we refer to ‘our set of conditions’ it means the conditions of consent outlined in Schedule 2 of

the Marine Consent document. It should be noted that our numbering of conditions differs to OMV’s

proffered set because we have deleted some conditions and added new conditions. We refer to both



OMV proffered conditions numbering, and our final numbering, in the following sections where we

consider this necessary.

14.3.2 Provision of Copy of Oil Spill Contingency Plan to the EPA

299. OMV’s proffered Condition 8 required that an approved Oil Spill Contingency Plan (OSCP) and Well

Control Contingency Plan (WCCP) be in place before commencing any drilling. The draft conditions

that we provided to OMV changed this condition so that OMV would only be required to provide a copy

of the OSCP (to be approved by Maritime New Zealand), which is required to include a WCCP, to the

EPA. In response OMV stated that it considered that the condition in its entirety (both the draft wording

and OMV’s initial proffered condition) were now unnecessary as the OSCP and WCCP were regulatory

requirements under a separate regulatory framework.

300. While approval of the OSCP by Maritime New Zealand is part of a different regulatory framework, we

consider that confirmation of this acceptance should be provided to the EPA and have required this in

Condition 10 of our set of conditions. We do not see this requirement as being at all onerous on OMV

to comply with, and such a condition does not conflict with a measure required in relation to the activity

by another MMR.

14.3.3 Ongoing Engagement with Iwi and Hapū

301. We discuss the matter of ongoing engagement with iwi and hapū in Section 10.2.4 of this decision.

While OMV considered that additional conditions requiring ongoing consultation were not necessary

or appropriate, it has suggested a new condition to replace its initially proffered Condition 12 which

would require OMV to create a Kaitiaki Forum to assist with engagement for the EAD programme. The

Kaitiaki Forum would meet at least quarterly, and OMV would invite a representative of the iwi and

hapū listed in Section 4.2 of the IA to be part of the Forum.

302. OMV stated that the objective of the Kaitiaki Forum is to facilitate the ongoing engagement between

OMV and mana whenua and mana moana in relation to the activities and to provide information to

support mana whenua and mana moana to fulfil their role as kaitiaki. We agree and consider the

establishment of the Kaitiaki Forum as adequately providing for ongoing engagement with the iwi and

hapū listed in Section 4.2 of the IA.

303. OMV also stated that it would prepare its Environmental Monitoring Plan (EMP) “in consultation” with

the Kaitiaki Forum. In Section 10.2.4 of this decision we outlined that NKTT had recommended a

condition which, if imposed, would require OMV to develop an Environmental Monitoring Programme

“in collaboration” with all iwi entities considered to have existing interests.

304. We have considered both OMV’s revised proffered condition and NKTT’s recommendation and find

that they essentially have the same intent. Whilst there is a subtle difference between the terms

collaborate20 and consult21, we prefer OMV’s wording in this regard given that there are 26 iwi and

20 According to the Collins Dictionary means “To work with another or others on a joint project”. 21 According to the Collins Dictionary means “To ask advice from someone”



hapū listed in Section 4.2 of the IA, and developing an EMP as a joint project with this many parties

involved may become unwieldy. We consider that development of the EMP in consultation with the

Kaitiaki Forum will provide the iwi and hapū the ability to fulfil their role as kaitiaki. We have therefore

included OMV’s suggested condition (as Condition 14 in our set of conditions) albeit with some minor

changes which do not alter the intent of the condition proffered by OMV – this includes additional text

which confirms that one of the purposes of the Kaitiaki Forum is to have input into the Environmental

Monitoring Plan required to be prepared by OMV under Condition 22.

14.3.4 Ongoing Engagement with Other Stakeholders

305. OMV’s proffered Condition 11 required it to inform, and seek to engage with, all fisheries groups

considered to be existing interests on the general timing of the EAD programme, including providing

updates around the scheduling and location of the MODU.

306. We have amended the wording of OMV’s condition to require it to provide all persons with existing

interests (not just fisheries groups) identified in its IA with up to date information on the authorised

activities, including the scheduling and location of the MODU anticipated for the EAD programme, and

environmental monitoring undertaken in accordance with the conditions of this marine consent.

307. We consider that this condition should be imposed in addition to the Kaitiaki Forum condition

(discussed in the previous section of this decision) as some iwi or hapū may not be able to participate

in the Forum (or decide not to participate) but we consider that these groups should still be provided

with up to date information on the EAD programme and monitoring undertaken. This condition appears

as Condition 13 in our set of conditions.

14.3.5 Volume of Seabed Removed

308. OMV’s proffered conditions included a maximum per well volume of seabed (strata) that may be

removed of 2,000 m3. We sought further information from OMV regarding this volume and also

whether the drill cutting dispersion modelling had been based on the correct worst-case volume of

material that could be removed in the event that a well had to be re-spudded. We discussed this in

paragraphs 133 to 137 of this decision.

309. OMV confirmed that in the event that the well had to be re-spudded there could be up to 2,475 m3 of

seabed (strata) removed at any one well location (i.e. 1,543 m3 plus 932 m3). OMV therefore requested

a change to its proffered condition to reflect the possibility of additional volumes of material needing to

be removed should any well need to be re-spudded. The amended proffered condition specified a

1,543 m3 limit for any well plus an additional 932 m3 if re-spudding is necessary.

310. We consider OMV’s amended condition to be appropriate as it reflects the maximum (worst-case)

volume of seabed (strata) that may be removed at any one well location. We note that the drill cutting

dispersal and deposition modelling was re-run to incorporate a re-spud scenario and it resulted in only

a small increase in the overall footprint and depositional thickness of drill cuttings. These results do

not change the ERA conclusions presented in the IA.



311. We have therefore included OMV’s amended condition (as Condition 19 in our set of conditions) albeit

with some minor changes which do not alter the intent of the condition.

14.3.6 EPA Certification of the Environmental Monitoring Plan

312. The draft conditions that were circulated to OMV included a process whereby the Environmental

Monitoring Plan (EMP) that is required to be prepared must be submitted to the EPA ‘for certification’.

The proposed condition stated that if the EPA had not certified the EMP, or advised the consent holder

that it has not yet been certified, within 20 days of its lodgment then it will be deemed to have been so

certified. The condition included an Advice Note which stated (our emphasis added):

The EPA may request further information/clarification from the consent holder after it submits the

EMP for certification and this condition also enables the EPA to seek the advice of external

experts as part of its certification process. In both such cases the EPA will advise the consent

holder that it has not yet certified the EMP and the timeframe in clause (a) (the "deemed to have

been so certified") will not apply.

313. In its response to the draft conditions OMV advised us that, while it is not opposed to requiring the

EMP to be certified by the EPA, it is “…very concerned about the uncertainty that will result from the

EPA advising that it has not yet certified an EMP, given that there are no applicable timeframes for

certifying in this case, and the consent holder will be unable to commence any activities until

certification”. OMV requested that we change the conditions so that the EPA must either certify the

EMP or refuse to certify the EMP within 20 working days.

314. We have considered OMV’s comments and concerns but have determined that the wording should

remain as was included in the draft conditions. Our reasons for this are that the EPA may need to

engage external experts to assist it in determining whether the EMP meets the requirements of the

condition which outlines what the EMP must contain. Engaging external experts and allowing them

adequate time to review the submitted EMP could take longer than 20 working days, so we consider

that the EPA should be able to advise OMV that it has not yet certified the EMP during this period.

315. We are also aware that the certification process is often iterative whereby the EPA may consider

changes are necessary to the EMP and exchanges of correspondence with the consent holder occurs

to resolve outstanding issues, and this process too can take time. However, we see this approach as

being preferred to the alternative of the EPA formally refusing to certify the EMP. We also remind

OMV of the second part of the Advice Note which states:

Because the EMP may need to be amended by the consent holder and resubmitted before the

EPA certifies it, the consent holder should ensure that it provides adequate time in its works

programme and should submit the EMP for certification well in advance of the proposed MODU

installation date.

316. We are confident that the certification process we have imposed will not create an undue level of

uncertainty for OMV. We also note that the same certification process (and wording) is required for



various plans in the conditions imposed on the marine consents issued by the EPA to Trans-Tasman

Resources Limited to extract and process iron sand within the South Taranaki Bight (EEZ000011).

317. The certification condition is included as Condition 24 in our set of conditions.

14.3.7 Sensitive Environments

318. In paragraphs 129 to 131 of this decision we discussed the issue of the pre-installation monitoring to

determine whether any sensitive environments exist in and around each well location. There was

disagreement between OMV and Mr Baxter as to the maximum length of time that should be allowed

between the pre-installation surveys to determine whether sensitive environments exist. As discussed

in paragraph 143 of this decision, we prefer OMV’s position on this matter because it aligns with the

OTEMP, which constitutes current best practice for such monitoring.

319. Further, OMV provided a decision-making framework (shown in Figure 2 of this decision) in respect of

identification of sensitive environments and the actions that would be taken to avoid effects on such

environments should they be found during the pre-installation surveys. OMV proffered a new condition

which outlined these actions. We agree with OMV’s proffered condition but we have made some minor

changes to it, none of which change its intent.

320. The timeframe for pre-installation monitoring is included as Condition 26 and the steps to be taken

should any sensitive environment(s) be found during that monitoring are included as Condition 27 in

our set of conditions. Further, we have defined ‘sensitive environment’ in the definitions section of the

conditions (rather than in the conditions). The definition references Schedule 6 of the Exclusive

Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects—Permitted Activities) Regulations 2013

which outlines the habitats that are deemed to constitute sensitive environments.

14.3.8 Compliance Report

321. OMV’s proffered Condition 24 required it to prepare and provide to the EPA a ‘Compliance Report’ for

each drilling campaign within six months of the completion of each campaign. The basis of the drilling

campaign concept is explained in the IA as groups of wells to be drilled within the overall EAD Project.

The draft conditions which were circulated to OMV included this proffered condition, albeit with some

minor additional text.

322. In OMV’s response to the draft conditions it questioned whether the drilling campaign definition

included all post drilling activities, such as post-drilling monitoring which can occur for up to three years

after well plugging and abandonment. OMV then asked if the Compliance Report is therefore due to

be provided to the EPA six months after all monitoring is completed.

323. We reviewed the condition again and noted there are two distinct aspects of each drilling campaign

that were intended to be included in the Compliance Report:

a) details of the drilling activities as documented in OMV’s proffered condition 14 (clause c) i) of the

condition); and



b) the results of the environmental monitoring programme undertaken as required by the EMP

(clauses c) ii) and iii) of the condition).

These two aspects have different timeframes associated with them which forms the basis of OMV’s

interpretation questions on this condition.

324. To overcome potential issues with the timing of the provision of the Compliance Report, we have

amended the condition so that the report only needs to cover the results of the environmental

monitoring programme for each drilling campaign. The Compliance Report must be provided within

six months of the completion of the environmental monitoring programme for each drilling campaign.

The Compliance Report condition is included as Condition 28 in our set of conditions.

325. In respect of OMV providing details of the drilling activities outlined in its proffered Condition 14 to the

EPA, we have added text to that condition which requires OMV to provide this information to the EPA

within six months of completion of the drilling campaign. The amended condition is included as

Condition 17 in our set of conditions.

14.3.9 Suitably Qualified and Experienced Person

326. There are three conditions which require a ‘suitably qualified and experienced person’ to prepare plans

or reports, namely the MODU Installation and Removal Plan (MIRP), the Environmental Monitoring

Plan (EMP), and the Compliance Report. OMV’s proffered conditions included this term but did not

define it, however the draft conditions sent to OMV did include the following definition:

“where any condition refers to "a suitably qualified and experienced person" it shall mean a person

who:

(a) holds a degree qualification in the relevant subject matter or holds professional certification

from a professional body that includes a requirement to provide evidence of continuing

professional development; and

(b) has at least 10 years relevant experience”

327. In its comments on the draft conditions OMV stated “We object to this definition being included in the

conditions. While this term is commonly used in the industry it is seldom specifically defined as it is

impossible to quantify. Under this definition very few people in New Zealand would be considered

“suitably qualified and experienced”. As such, the current definition is overly restrictive. In particular,

the requirements for evidence of continued professional development and the ten year experience limit

are somewhat arbitrary”.

328. We disagree with OMV that very few people in New Zealand would be considered suitably qualified

and experienced according to this definition. It appears that OMV may have misinterpreted clause (a)

in respect of the requirement to provide evidence of continuing professional development (CPD) – that

requirement would only apply to those persons who do not have a degree qualification but hold

professional certification from a professional body – those that hold a degree would not need to provide

evidence of CPD. However, having considered this matter further we consider that clause (a) should



be amended to remove any requirement for evidence of CPD meaning that a person who holds a

relevant degree or holds professional certification from a professional body would be deemed to be

‘suitably qualified’.

329. While we agree with OMV that the 10 year relevant experience in clause (b) is somewhat arbitrary, we

do consider that a timeframe needs to be specified, because if no timeframe is specified then a person

who has recently graduated would meet the definition but such a person is clearly not “experienced”.

Having considered this matter further we consider that clause (b) should be retained but that a

timeframe of eight years22 of relevant experience is sufficient for a person to be considered

‘experienced’ for the purposes of these conditions.

330. We have amended the definition of suitably qualified and experienced person accordingly and it is

included in the Definitions section of our conditions.

15. Duration

331. OMV has sought that the expiration date for the marine consent be 31 December 2025 to provide

sufficient time for the EAD programme to be completed. This date also coincides with the expiry date

on the recently granted marine discharge consent to discharge residual amounts of harmful

substances from the MODU (EEZ100017).

332. In considering the duration of consent the DMC has considered the requirements under section 73 of

the EEZ Act.

(1) The duration of a marine consent (other than a marine discharge consent or a marine dumping

consent) is—

(a) 35 years after the date of the granting of the consent; or

(b) a period less than 35 years that is specified in the consent.

(2) When determining the duration of the consent, a marine consent authority must—

(a) comply with sections 59 and 61; and

(b) take into account the duration sought by the applicant; and (c) take into account the duration of any other legislative authorisations granted or required

for the activity that is the subject of the application for consent. MIRP means MODU

Installation and Removal Plan.

22 There is no standard timeframe for someone to qualify as a suitably qualified and experienced person (sometimes referred to

as a SQEP)’. We note that the Ministry for the Environment’s Users’ Guide National Environmental Standard for Assessing and

Managing Contaminants in Soil to Protect Human Health states that the SQEP certifying any investigation report would be

expected to be a senior or principal scientist/engineer with a relevant tertiary education and with at least 10 years of related

experience.



333. The DMC is aware that there are timeframes included within the OMV Petroleum Exploration Permits

but considers the requested expiry date of 31 December 2025 to be appropriate for this marine

consent. This will provide a common expiry date with the related marine discharge consent

(EEZ100017) recently issued to OMV.

Appendices


Appendix 1. Procedural History

Timeline for Application

12 July 2018 DMC appointed

17 August 2018 OMV lodged application for marine consent

4 September 2018 EPA commissioned external expert report from Seapen

6 September 2018 DMC received legal memorandum regarding unsolicited information

7 September 2018 EPA commissioned external expert report from Oil & Gas Solutions (OGS)

7 September 2018 DMC Meeting 1 held

11 September 2018 EPA commissioned external expert report from Coffey.

13 September 2018 DMC Meeting 2 held

14 September 2018 EPA accepted application as complete

19 September 2018 DMC commissioned a report from Ngā Kaihautū Tikanga Taiao

19 September 2018 DMC requested further information from experts

22 September 2018 EPA received Seapen’s analysis of effects on the marine environment report

(Revision A) – Revision B of report provided to the DMC on 1 October 2018

24 September 2018 DMC requested further information from OMV (Request 1)

27 September 2018 EPA received OGS technical review report (Revision 1) – provided to the DMC

on 1 October 2018

1 October 2018 EPA received OMV response to DMC Request 1 – provided to the DMC on 2

October 2018

2 October 2018 Record of EPA consideration and decision on joint processing and decision

making– provided to the DMC on 9 October 2018

3 October 2018 EPA served copies of the application on parties in accordance with section 45

of the EEZ Act

5 October 2018 EPA received letter from Climate Justice Taranaki – provided to the DMC on

16 November 2018

8 October 2018 EPA’s Key Issues Report prepared – provided to the DMC on 8 October 2018

8 October 2018 EPA received Coffey report oil spill modelling - provided to the DMC on 9

October 2018

9 October 2018 EPA received Coffey report on drill cuttings dispersion modelling - provided to

the DMC on 10 October 2018

10 October 2018 EPA received letter from TKOT – provided to the DMC on 19 October 2018

11 October 2018 DMC Meeting 3 held

12 October 2018 EPA received letter from TKONT – provided to the DMC on 19 October 2018

Appendices


18 October 2018 EPA sent response letter to TKOT – copy provided to the DMC on 19 October

2018

18 October 2018 EPA sent response letter to TKONT – copy provided to the DMC on 19

October 2018

19 October 2018 EPA received Ngā Kaihautū Tikanga Taiao Report – provided to the DMC on

23 October 2018

19 October 2018 DMC requested further information from OMV (Request 2)

24 October 2018 EPA received Revision 2 of OGS technical review report – provided to the

DMC on 25 October 2018

2 November 2018 EPA received OMV response to DMC Request 2 – copy provided to the DMC

on 2 November 2018

2 November 2018 EPA received OMV comments on Ngā Kaihautū Tikanga Taiao Report – copy

provided to the DMC on 2 November 2018

5 November 2018 EPA sent response letter to Climate Justice Taranaki – copy provided to the

DMC on 16 November 2018

8 November 2018 DMC Meeting 4 held

15 November 2018 EPA’s Addendum to Key Issues Report prepared – provided to the DMC on

15 November 2018

16 November 2018 DMC request further information from OMV (Request 3)

19 November 2018 DMC sent draft consent conditions to OMV for comment

19 November 2018 DMC requested further advice from Seapen on sensitive environments

20 November 2018 DMC requested copy of OMV marine discharge consent and decision from

EPA

20 November 2018 DMC received copy of OMV marine discharge consent and decision from the

EPA

20 November 2018 EPA received email from Seapen regarding sensitive environments – provided

to the DMC on same day

20 November 2018 DMC received memorandum of counsel assisting the DMC

20 November 2018 DMC received memorandum from Manager EEZ Applications regarding CIAs


22 November 2018 EPA received letter from OMV seeking clarification on DMC Request 3

23 November 2018 DMC issued Minute 1 - Extension of Date for Decision

23 November 2018 EPA sent letter of clarification on DMC Request 3 to OMV


26 November 2018 DMC issued Minute 2 – Decision Not to Hold Hearing

26 November 2018 DMC requested further information from OMV (Request 4)

Appendices


26 November 2018 DMC requested further information from Ngā Kaihautū Tikanga Taiao

28 November 2018 EPA received OMV response to DMC Request 3 (Part A) – copy provided to

the DMC on 3 December 2018

3 December 2018 DMC received second legal memorandum regarding unsolicited information

5 December 2018 DMC Meeting 7 held

7 December 2018 EPA received OMV response to DMC Request 3 (Part B) and Request 4, and

comments on draft conditions

7 December 2018 DMC received NKTT Addendum Report

14 December 2018 DMC received OMV response to third party iwi letter

17 December 2018 DMC Meeting 8 held

19 December 2018 Draft decision finalised

Documents

Decision on marine consent application for exploration ... · iii. OMV lodged an application for marine consent on 17 August 2018. The application seeks authorisation to undertake