1
|
Knights AM, Lemasson AJ, Firth LB, Beaumont N, Birchenough S, Claisse J, Coolen JWP, Copping A, De Dominicis M, Degraer S, Elliott M, Fernandes PG, Fowler AM, Frost M, Henry LA, Hicks N, Hyder K, Jagerroos S, Love M, Lynam C, Macreadie PI, McLean D, Marlow J, Mavraki N, Montagna PA, Paterson DM, Perrow MR, Porter J, Bull AS, Schratzberger M, Shipley B, van Elden S, Vanaverbeke J, Want A, Watson SCL, Wilding TA, Somerfield PJ. To what extent can decommissioning options for marine artificial structures move us toward environmental targets? JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT 2024; 350:119644. [PMID: 38000275 DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2023.119644] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/31/2023] [Revised: 10/20/2023] [Accepted: 11/15/2023] [Indexed: 11/26/2023]
Abstract
Switching from fossil fuels to renewable energy is key to international energy transition efforts and the move toward net zero. For many nations, this requires decommissioning of hundreds of oil and gas infrastructure in the marine environment. Current international, regional and national legislation largely dictates that structures must be completely removed at end-of-life although, increasingly, alternative decommissioning options are being promoted and implemented. Yet, a paucity of real-world case studies describing the impacts of decommissioning on the environment make decision-making with respect to which option(s) might be optimal for meeting international and regional strategic environmental targets challenging. To address this gap, we draw together international expertise and judgment from marine environmental scientists on marine artificial structures as an alternative source of evidence that explores how different decommissioning options might ameliorate pressures that drive environmental status toward (or away) from environmental objectives. Synthesis reveals that for 37 United Nations and Oslo-Paris Commissions (OSPAR) global and regional environmental targets, experts consider repurposing or abandoning individual structures, or abandoning multiple structures across a region, as the options that would most strongly contribute toward targets. This collective view suggests complete removal may not be best for the environment or society. However, different decommissioning options act in different ways and make variable contributions toward environmental targets, such that policy makers and managers would likely need to prioritise some targets over others considering political, social, economic, and ecological contexts. Current policy may not result in optimal outcomes for the environment or society.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Antony M Knights
- University of Plymouth, School of Biological and Marine Sciences, Drake Circus, Plymouth, PL4 8AA, UK.
| | - Anaëlle J Lemasson
- University of Plymouth, School of Biological and Marine Sciences, Drake Circus, Plymouth, PL4 8AA, UK
| | - Louise B Firth
- University of Plymouth, School of Biological and Marine Sciences, Drake Circus, Plymouth, PL4 8AA, UK
| | - Nicola Beaumont
- Plymouth Marine Laboratory, Prospect Place, Devon, PL1 3DH, UK
| | - Silvana Birchenough
- Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (Cefas), Lowestoft, Suffolk, NR33 0HT, UK
| | - Jeremy Claisse
- Department of Biological Sciences, California State Polytechnic University, Pomona, CA, 91768, USA; Vantuna Research Group, Occidental College, Los Angeles, CA, 90041, USA
| | - Joop W P Coolen
- Wageningen Marine Research, Ankerpark 27, 1781, AG, Den Helder, the Netherlands
| | - Andrea Copping
- Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and University of Washington, Seattle, USA
| | | | - Steven Degraer
- Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences, Operational Directory Natural Environment, Marine Ecology and Management, Brussels, Belgium
| | - Michael Elliott
- School of Environmental Sciences, University of Hull, HU6 7RX, UK; International Estuarine & Coastal Specialists (IECS) Ltd., Leven, HU17 5LQ, UK
| | - Paul G Fernandes
- Heriot-Watt University, The Lyell Centre, Research Avenue South, Edinburgh, EH14 4AP, UK
| | - Ashley M Fowler
- New South Wales Department of Primary Industries, Sydney Institute of Marine Science, Mosman, NSW, 2088, Australia
| | - Matthew Frost
- Plymouth Marine Laboratory, Prospect Place, Devon, PL1 3DH, UK
| | - Lea-Anne Henry
- School of GeoSciences, University of Edinburgh, King's Buildings Campus, James Hutton Road, EH9 3FE, Edinburgh, UK
| | - Natalie Hicks
- School of Life Sciences, University of Essex, Colchester, Essex, UK
| | - Kieran Hyder
- Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (Cefas), Lowestoft, Suffolk, NR33 0HT, UK; School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK
| | - Sylvia Jagerroos
- King Abdullah University of Science & Technology (KAUST), Thuwal, 23955, Saudi Arabia
| | - Milton Love
- Marine Science Institute, University of California Santa Barbara, USA
| | - Chris Lynam
- Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (Cefas), Lowestoft, Suffolk, NR33 0HT, UK
| | - Peter I Macreadie
- Deakin University, School of Life and Environmental Sciences, Burwood, Australia
| | - Dianne McLean
- Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS), Perth, Australia; The UWA Oceans Institute, The University of Western Australia, Perth, Western Australia, 6009, Australia
| | - Joseph Marlow
- Scottish Association for Marine Science (SAMS), Oban, UK
| | - Ninon Mavraki
- Wageningen Marine Research, Ankerpark 27, 1781, AG, Den Helder, the Netherlands
| | - Paul A Montagna
- Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi, Corpus Christi, TX, USA
| | - David M Paterson
- School of Biology, University of St Andrews, St Andrews, KY16 8LB, UK
| | - Martin R Perrow
- Department of Geography, University College London, Gower Street, London, WC1E 6BT, UK
| | - Joanne Porter
- International Centre Island Technology, Heriot-Watt University, Orkney Campus, Stromness, Orkney, UK
| | | | - Michaela Schratzberger
- Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (Cefas), Lowestoft, Suffolk, NR33 0HT, UK
| | - Brooke Shipley
- Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Coastal Fisheries - Artificial Reef Program, USA
| | - Sean van Elden
- School of Biological Sciences, The University of Western Australia, Perth, Western Australia, 6009, Australia
| | - Jan Vanaverbeke
- Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences, Operational Directory Natural Environment, Marine Ecology and Management, Brussels, Belgium
| | - Andrew Want
- Energy and Environment Institute, University of Hull, HU6 7RX, UK
| | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
2
|
McLean DL, Ferreira LC, Benthuysen JA, Miller KJ, Schläppy M, Ajemian MJ, Berry O, Birchenough SNR, Bond T, Boschetti F, Bull AS, Claisse JT, Condie SA, Consoli P, Coolen JWP, Elliott M, Fortune IS, Fowler AM, Gillanders BM, Harrison HB, Hart KM, Henry L, Hewitt CL, Hicks N, Hock K, Hyder K, Love M, Macreadie PI, Miller RJ, Montevecchi WA, Nishimoto MM, Page HM, Paterson DM, Pattiaratchi CB, Pecl GT, Porter JS, Reeves DB, Riginos C, Rouse S, Russell DJF, Sherman CDH, Teilmann J, Todd VLG, Treml EA, Williamson DH, Thums M. Influence of offshore oil and gas structures on seascape ecological connectivity. GLOBAL CHANGE BIOLOGY 2022; 28:3515-3536. [PMID: 35293658 PMCID: PMC9311298 DOI: 10.1111/gcb.16134] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/18/2021] [Revised: 01/17/2022] [Accepted: 01/19/2022] [Indexed: 05/05/2023]
Abstract
Offshore platforms, subsea pipelines, wells and related fixed structures supporting the oil and gas (O&G) industry are prevalent in oceans across the globe, with many approaching the end of their operational life and requiring decommissioning. Although structures can possess high ecological diversity and productivity, information on how they interact with broader ecological processes remains unclear. Here, we review the current state of knowledge on the role of O&G infrastructure in maintaining, altering or enhancing ecological connectivity with natural marine habitats. There is a paucity of studies on the subject with only 33 papers specifically targeting connectivity and O&G structures, although other studies provide important related information. Evidence for O&G structures facilitating vertical and horizontal seascape connectivity exists for larvae and mobile adult invertebrates, fish and megafauna; including threatened and commercially important species. The degree to which these structures represent a beneficial or detrimental net impact remains unclear, is complex and ultimately needs more research to determine the extent to which natural connectivity networks are conserved, enhanced or disrupted. We discuss the potential impacts of different decommissioning approaches on seascape connectivity and identify, through expert elicitation, critical knowledge gaps that, if addressed, may further inform decision making for the life cycle of O&G infrastructure, with relevance for other industries (e.g. renewables). The most highly ranked critical knowledge gap was a need to understand how O&G structures modify and influence the movement patterns of mobile species and dispersal stages of sessile marine species. Understanding how different decommissioning options affect species survival and movement was also highly ranked, as was understanding the extent to which O&G structures contribute to extending species distributions by providing rest stops, foraging habitat, and stepping stones. These questions could be addressed with further dedicated studies of animal movement in relation to structures using telemetry, molecular techniques and movement models. Our review and these priority questions provide a roadmap for advancing research needed to support evidence-based decision making for decommissioning O&G infrastructure.
Collapse
|
3
|
Wood LE, Silva TAM, Heal R, Kennerley A, Stebbing P, Fernand L, Tidbury HJ. Unaided dispersal risk of Magallana gigas into and around the UK: combining particle tracking modelling and environmental suitability scoring. Biol Invasions 2021. [DOI: 10.1007/s10530-021-02467-x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/28/2022]
Abstract
AbstractMarine non-indigenous species are a significant threat to marine ecosystems with prevention of introduction and early detection considered to be the only effective management strategy. Knowledge of the unaided pathway has received relatively little attention, despite being integral to the implementation of robust monitoring and surveillance. Here, particle tracking modelling is combined with spatial analysis of environmental suitability, to highlight UK coastal areas at risk of introduction and spread of Magallana gigas by the unaided pathway. ‘Introduction into UK’ scenarios were based on spawning from the continental coast, Republic of Ireland, Channel Islands and Isle of Man and ‘spread within UK’ scenarios were based on spawning from known UK wild populations and aquaculture sites. Artificial structures were included as spawning sites in an introduction scenario. The UK coast was scored, based on parameters influencing larval settlement, to reflect environmental suitability. Risk maps were produced to highlight areas of the UK coast at elevated risk of introduction and spread of M. gigas by the unaided pathway. This study highlights that introduction of M. gigas into UK waters via the unaided pathway is possible, with offshore structures increasing the potential geographical extent of introduction. Further, there is potential for substantial secondary spread from aquaculture sites and wild populations in the UK. The results of the study are considered in the context of national M. gigas management, whilst the approach is contextualised more broadly as a tool to further understanding of a little-known, yet significant pathway.
Collapse
|
4
|
Tidbury HJ, Ryder D, Thrush MA, Pearce F, Peeler EJ, Taylor NGH. Comparative assessment of live cyprinid and salmonid movement networks in England and Wales. Prev Vet Med 2020; 185:105200. [PMID: 33234335 DOI: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2020.105200] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/19/2020] [Revised: 10/21/2020] [Accepted: 11/01/2020] [Indexed: 10/23/2022]
Abstract
Disease poses a significant threat to aquaculture. While there are a number of factors contributing to pathogen transmission risk, movement of live fish is considered the most important. Understanding live fish movement patterns for different aquaculture sectors is therefore crucial to predicting disease occurrence and necessary for the development of effective, risk-based biosecurity, surveillance and containment policies. However, despite this, our understanding of live movement patterns of key aquaculture species, namely salmonids and cyprinids, within England and Wales remains limited. In this study, networks reflecting live fish movements associated with the cyprinid and salmonid sectors in England and Wales were constructed. The structure, composition and key attributes of each network were examined and compared to provide insight into the nature of trading patterns and connectedness, as well as highlight sites at a high risk of spreading disease. Connectivity at both site and catchment level was considered to facilitate understanding at different resolutions, providing further insight into disease outbreaks, with industry wide implications. The study highlighted that connectivity through live fish movements was extensive for both industries. The salmonid and cyprinid networks comprised 2533 and 3645 nodes, with a network density of 5.81 × 10-4 and 4.2 × 10-4, respectively. The maximum network reach of 2392 in the salmonid network was higher, both in absolute terms and as a proportion of the overall network, compared to maximum network reach of 2085 in the cyprinid network. However, in contrast, the number of sites in the cyprinid network with a network reach greater than one was 513, compared to 171 in the salmonid network. Patterns of connectivity indicated potential for more frequent yet smaller scale disease outbreaks in the cyprinid industry and less frequent but larger scale outbreaks in the salmonid industry. Further, high connectivity between river catchments within both networks was shown, posing challenges for zoning at the catchment level for the purpose of disease management. In addition to providing insight into pathogen transmission and epidemic potential within the salmonid and cyprinid networks, the study highlights the utility of network analysis, and the value of accessible, accurate live fish movement data in this context. The application of outputs from this study, and network analysis methodology, to inform future disease surveillance and control policies, both within England and Wales and more broadly, is discussed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- H J Tidbury
- Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science, Weymouth, DT4 8UB, UK.
| | - D Ryder
- Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science, Weymouth, DT4 8UB, UK
| | - M A Thrush
- Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science, Weymouth, DT4 8UB, UK
| | - F Pearce
- Southern Water, Southern House, Yeoman Road, Worthing, BN13 3NX, UK
| | - E J Peeler
- Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science, Weymouth, DT4 8UB, UK
| | - N G H Taylor
- Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science, Weymouth, DT4 8UB, UK
| |
Collapse
|