To what extent can decommissioning options for marine artificial structures move us toward environmental targets?

Bottom-up formulations for the multi-criteria decision analysis of oil and gas pipeline decommissioning in the North Sea: Brent field case study

Many Oil and Gas (O&G) fields in the North Sea have produced their economically recoverable reserves and have entered the decommissioning phase or are close to cessation of production. The subsequent O&G decommissioning process involves a range of stakeholders with specific interests and priorities. This range of inputs to the process highlights the necessity for the development of multi-criteria decision frameworks to help guide the decision-making process. This study presents bottom-up formulations for the economic, environmental, and safety risk criteria to support the multi-criteria decision analysis within the Comparative Assessment (CA) of O&G pipeline decommissioning projects in the North Sea. The approach adapts current guidelines in the O&G industry and considers a range of parameters to provide estimations for the costs, energy usage, greenhouse gas emissions, and safety risks. To verify the effectiveness of the proposed bottom-up formulations, the longest oil export pipeline in the Brent field, PL001/N0501 is selected as a case study. The numerical results revealed the consistency of the results obtained from the proposed approach with those reported in the technical documents by industry. In most cases, the formulations provide estimates with less than 10% differences for the costs, energy usage, emissions, and safety risks. Based on the proposed multi-criteria formulations, the study also presents the use of an immersive decision-making environment within a marine simulator system to help inform the decision-making process by stakeholders.

Developing expert scientific consensus on the environmental and societal effects of marine artificial structures prior to decommissioning

Thousands of artificial ('human-made') structures are present in the marine environment, many at or approaching end-of-life and requiring urgent decisions regarding their decommissioning. No consensus has been reached on which decommissioning option(s) result in optimal environmental and societal outcomes, in part, owing to a paucity of evidence from real-world decommissioning case studies. To address this significant challenge, we asked a worldwide panel of scientists to provide their expert opinion. They were asked to identify and characterise the ecosystem effects of artificial structures in the sea, their causes and consequences, and to identify which, if any, should be retained following decommissioning. Experts considered that most of the pressures driving ecological and societal effects from marine artificial structures (MAS) were of medium severity, occur frequently, and are dependent on spatial scale with local-scale effects of greater magnitude than regional effects. The duration of many effects following decommissioning were considered to be relatively short, in the order of days. Overall, environmental effects of structures were considered marginally undesirable, while societal effects marginally desirable. Experts therefore indicated that any decision to leave MAS in place at end-of-life to be more beneficial to society than the natural environment. However, some individual environmental effects were considered desirable and worthy of retention, especially in certain geographic locations, where structures can support improved trophic linkages, increases in tourism, habitat provision, and population size, and provide stability in population dynamics. The expert analysis consensus that the effects of MAS are both negative and positive for the environment and society, gives no strong support for policy change whether removal or retention is favoured until further empirical evidence is available to justify change to the status quo. The combination of desirable and undesirable effects associated with MAS present a significant challenge for policy- and decision-makers in their justification to implement decommissioning options. Decisions may need to be decided on a case-by-case basis accounting for the trade-off in costs and benefits at a local level.