Upstream oil & gas sector commonly generate oily sludge wastes. This waste can be treated with many methods according to the technical-economic assessment. Recently, co-processing technology usually being chooses in Indonesia. Therefore we need to evaluate co-processing in the legality, technique and economic aspects as the treatment option in Indonesia. The use of co-processing technology as Alternative Fuel and Raw Materials AFR) in cement industry can be implemented into 3 categories, i.e. co-processing of waste, alternative raw materials and mineral components. According to the legality assessment, co-processing comply with Ministry of Environment (MOE) requirements in utilization license because there are three cement industry licensed by MOE, minimal waste heating value 3,000-7,000 kKal/kg (above 2,500 kKal/kg or 4,500 BTU per lb) and controllable emission quality. At the technical aspect, co-processing can be execute easily, fast, practically and total solution (no slag and bottom ash) with no long term liability for the generator. Oily sludge wastes only need to be handling/packing and then transport to the Collector/Profiteer, treatment less than one month for a thousand ton of wastes and wastes actually destroyed without any residue. At the economic aspect, co-processing approximately costs about U$ 80-170 per ton. This cost is more competitive than other methods. Beside that aspects, co-processing give ecological benefits as a waste recovery and decrease the cement industry emission rate. Finally, co-processing is decent to be considered as the main option for oily sludge treatment according this study.

Oil & gas block operatorship may change as the block's agreement contract changes. The changing executions expected to have smooth transition between current operator to the upcoming operator since it may interfere performance of safety, environment, health, efficiency, reliability, production, and workforce. Focusing in environmental issues, there are some steps that called ‘SAFE’, i.e. consist of Scoping, Assessment, Follow up action, and Ensure. ‘SAFE’ is risk-based liabilities approach that involve both operators (current & the upcoming) and may assisted by Government agency. Scoping is to define petroleum agreement requirement, the areas/locations, production facilities status, environmental related facilities, supporting facilities, environmental audit result, environmental performance, permitting & reporting requirements, allegation of contamination records, and enforcement documents. Scoping conducted by desktop documents review and field visit if necessary. Result of the scoping is more precise high-level list of concern items to focus on for further Assessment. On Assessment step, all identified concern items assessed further with methods, liability, Role & Responsibility, and budget to have more reliable and accurate of risk calculation (risk revalidation). Methods describe how to conduct the assessment such as workshop, coordination meeting, site visit, aerial photography analysis etc. Liability of selected item to understand whether closure of past and present liabilities have been performed and also mitigation for identified potential future liabilities have been secured to avoid future potential conflict of liability between operators. Liability cover of compliance, remediation, fines & penalties, compensation, punitive damages, and natural resource damages. Role & responsibility to define who does what and how on when and who is responsible for the closure actions. Budget to quantify the environmental risk. All the items under the Assessment step considered to perform risk revalidation. Result of the assessment (recommendation) then follow up by actions to mitigate the potential risk. It may need physical activities such as facilities decommissioning and clean up, further environmental study, government bureaucracy approval, agreement of environmental procedure sharing etc. Follow up action require regular tracking progress status in serial times. At the last step, ensure all identified high and medium risk mitigated as low as reasonably practicable (ALARP) remaining risk. Finally, conducting ‘SAFE’ thoroughly for all identified risks, both operators may have clear role & responsibility, focus utilizing the resources, compete with the deadline time, avoid dispute liabilities post the transition date, and ensure continuity of environmental compliance.

Awareness to consider HSSE in business operations becomes one of the approaches in sustaining the business of the integrated marine logistics sector. It is because the impact of unmanaged HSSE risk could have significant direct consequences for business in terms of financial & reputation loss. Thus, most companies believe, a proper HSSE management would drive the company's performance and sustain the business. Unfortunately, integrating HSSE into business is not an easy task. There are so many HSSE standards that need to be covered besides other standards that need to be also implemented from many disciplinary aspects. Therefore, the research conducted to identify an HSSE management system that aligns with business sustainability as an integrated management system to provide simplicity, eliminate redundancies, reduce documentation, establish consistency, reduce bureaucracy, cost reduction, streamline processes, optimize resources, consistency objectives across multiple systems, deliver a better result, and gain competitive advantage in supporting to be lean enterprise in driving company to be world-class level. The framework used is ESG by Sustainalytics, which consider three main items, e.g., corporate governance, materiality issues, and idiosyncratic issues. Corporate governance refers to the worldwide standard such as standalone management systems (ISO 14001, ISO 45001, ISM, ISPS, and ANZI Z10) and integrated management systems (PAS 99, ISRS 9, OEMS, and SUPREME). Materiality issues refer to the Sustainalytics and SASB list out. Meanwhile, the idiosyncratic refers to GISIS, IMO data of incidents in the last 5 years. In addition to that, research enriched with a causal effect model in enhancing HSSE excellence. The result of the assessment is a proposed integrated management system categorized into four pillars, i.e., People, Process, Plant, and Performance (4Ps). People consist of Leadership commitment and Training & competency assurance. Process consists of Occupational Health, Safe operation, Security for personnel & asset, Environment management, Hazard & risk management, Compliance, Emergency Management, Contractor & supplier management, Project management, Communication & promotion, and Learning from the event. Plant consists of Reliability & integrity management and Management of change. Performance consists of Result & reviews.