Full Removal Is the Default. The Hard Part Is Arguing Anything Else.

In May, the Australian Government published its guidance on removing offshore oil and gas property and the sea dumping of infrastructure in Commonwealth waters — developed jointly by DISR, DCCEEW and NOPSEMA. Much of the sector read it as long-awaited clarity. It is. But read it properly and it tells you something less comfortable: the alternative to full removal is a narrow door, and getting through it is an evidence problem most operators are not yet equipped to solve.

Start with the base case

Under section 572(3) of the OPGGS Act, titleholders must remove all property and infrastructure from the title area. Full removal is not a starting position for negotiation. It is the default decommissioning requirement, grounded in Australia's obligations under the London Protocol, UNCLOS and IMO Resolution A.672(16).

Titleholders must plan and provide for removing everything — including the cost estimate and the financial provisioning — unless and until an alternative is approved. Removal must also be complete before a title can be surrendered.

So the question is never "can we leave it?" The question is "can we build a case strong enough to justify an exception?"

Two categories, and the first one is closed

The guidance draws a hard line. Some things simply cannot be left in the sea. Floating infrastructure. Platform topsides. Subsea umbilicals, risers and flowlines. Anything buoyant. Anything structurally unstable or liable to move. Anything that threatens navigation. Anything releasing unacceptable contaminants — mercury, persistent organic pollutants. Anything radioactive above de minimis levels.

That list is not a matter of judgment. It closes off the argument before it starts.

The second category — what may be assessed — is where the real work sits: pipelines, mooring components, fixed stabilisation structures like jackets and gravity bases, and wellheads. These can be considered. None of them are approved by default.

The test is higher than most people think

Here is the part worth reading twice. To leave something in the sea, a titleholder must demonstrate that environmental impacts and risks are reduced to as low as reasonably practicable, are at an acceptable level, and are consistent with the principles of ecologically sustainable development.

Then one more thing: the proposal must demonstrate that beneficial environmental outcomes can be achieved — enhancing marine ecosystems over the long term, conserving habitat and biological diversity, maintaining or enhancing economic, social and cultural benefit to communities.

That is not "no worse than removal." It is a positive case. You are not arguing that leaving the structure is tolerable; you are arguing it is good — and proving it.

There is also a gate that sits before all of this, stated plainly in the guidance: the government will not consider a proposal to leave property in the sea until the titleholder has addressed the scientific and technical uncertainty around the outcomes. Uncertainty is not a risk to be managed later. It is a threshold to clear first.

Two Acts, two regulators, one asset

An alternative proposal doesn't go to one regulator. It goes to two, under different laws, against different tests.

NOPSEMA, under the OPGGS Act, assesses an environment plan against the Environment Regulations. DCCEEW, under the Sea Dumping Act, assesses a sea dumping permit application against Annex 2 of the London Protocol — a comprehensive environmental impact assessment covering the physical, chemical and biological properties of what's being left, the receiving location, waste-reduction alternatives, and the impacts on human health, living resources and other users of the sea. The final decision on the permit rests with the Minister for the Environment.

Underneath sits a jurisdictional seam that catches people out. "Australian waters" under the Sea Dumping Act and "Commonwealth waters" under the OPGGS Act are not the same area — the Sea Dumping Act's reach is broader. While NOPSEMA's environment plan process is accredited under Part 10 of the EPBC Act — meaning on-title decommissioning activities generally don't need a separate referral — off-title activities not covered by that arrangement may still require one.

Two Acts. Two regulators. Different thresholds. One asset.

The considerations are broader than engineering

Look at what an application has to address: safety of workers and other users of the sea. Environmental impacts, direct, indirect and facilitated. Contamination as the structure degrades over decades. Cultural heritage — including intangible spiritual connection under the laws and customs of a people. Long-term liability. Navigation. Structural stability under extreme weather. Technical feasibility of removal. Potential for reuse. Scientific evidence supporting the whole claim.

Then there's consultation — with relevant persons under the Environment Regulations, and, for a sea dumping permit, with advisory bodies, local stakeholders and First Nations peoples.

Almost none of that is a steel-cutting problem.

The gap the guidance itself points at

The guidance is candid about its own limits. It states that it does not give advice on legal requirements, third-party liability exposure, occupational health and safety, or marine engineering — and that titleholders should seek independent advice on those.

That is the honest shape of the situation. The Commonwealth has told the industry what the tests are. It has not, and will not, tell any individual titleholder how to pass them.

Meanwhile, the operational reality doesn't pause. A facility needs a registered operator and a safety case in force until decommissioning is complete. Vessels doing the work may need their own. Whatever gets approved on paper has to survive contact with a deck, a crew, weather and schedule pressure.

The capability Australia hasn't built

The steel-cutting capacity exists. The vessels exist. What Australia is short of is the discipline in between: the people who can assemble a defensible, evidence-led case across two regulatory regimes, address scientific uncertainty before it becomes a refusal, and then make sure the commitments made in that case actually hold on the deck.

That work is regulatory literacy, environmental evidence and field verification, in the same pair of hands. It barely existed here a decade ago, and the sector is building it now, in real time, on live assets, under scrutiny.

The new guidance made the requirements legible. It didn't make the path short.

The paperwork was never the point. The judgment behind it is.

ROC Advice is a partner of the Centre of Decommissioning Australia. We work on the regulatory navigation and the operational HSE delivery that sits either side of an approval — because what gets approved has to be what actually happens offshore.