Offshore decommissioning horizon scan:  Research priorities to support decision-making activities for oil and gas infrastructure

Sarah M. Watson; Dianne L. McLean; Brian J. Balcom; Silvana N.R. Birchenough; Alison M. Brand; Elodie C.M. Camprasse; Jeremy T. Claisse; Joop W.P. Coolen; Tom Cresswell; Bert Fokkema; Susan Gourvenec; Lea-Anne Henry; Chad L. Hewitt; Milton S. Love; Amy E. MacIntosh; Michael Marnane; Emma McKinley; Shannon Micallef; Deborah Morgan; Joseph Nicolette; Kristen Ounanian; John Patterson; Karen Seath; Allison G.L. Selman; Iain M. Suthers; Victoria L.G. Todd; Aaron Tung; Peter I. Macreadie

doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.163015

Offshore decommissioning horizon scan: Research priorities to support decision-making activities for oil and gas infrastructure

Sarah M. Watson, Dianne L. McLean^* (Corresponding Author), Brian J. Balcom, Silvana N.R. Birchenough, Alison M. Brand, Elodie C.M. Camprasse, Jeremy T. Claisse, Joop W.P. Coolen, Tom Cresswell, Bert Fokkema, Susan Gourvenec, Lea-Anne Henry, Chad L. Hewitt, Milton S. Love, Amy E. MacIntosh, Michael Marnane, Emma McKinley, Shannon Micallef, Deborah Morgan, Joseph NicoletteKristen Ounanian, John Patterson, Karen Seath, Allison G.L. Selman, Iain M. Suthers, Victoria L.G. Todd, Aaron Tung, Peter I. Macreadie

^*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

8 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Thousands of oil and gas structures have been installed in the world's oceans over the past 70 years to meet the population's reliance on hydrocarbons. Over the last decade, there has been increased concern over how to handle decommissioning of this infrastructure when it reaches the end of its operational life. Complete or partial removal may or may not present the best option when considering potential impacts on the environment, society, technical feasibility, economy, and future asset liability. Re-purposing of offshore structures may also be a valid legal option under international maritime law where robust evidence exists to support this option. Given the complex nature of decommissioning offshore infrastructure, a global horizon scan was undertaken, eliciting input from an interdisciplinary cohort of 35 global experts to develop the top ten priority research needs to further inform decommissioning decisions and advance our understanding of their potential impacts. The highest research priorities included: (1) an assessment of impacts of contaminants and their acceptable environmental limits to reduce potential for ecological harm; (2) defining risk and acceptability thresholds in policy/governance; (3) characterising liability issues of ongoing costs and responsibility; and (4) quantification of impacts to ecosystem services. The remaining top ten priorities included: (5) quantifying ecological connectivity; (6) assessing marine life productivity; (7) determining feasibility of infrastructure re-use; (8) identification of stakeholder views and values; (9) quantification of greenhouse gas emissions; and (10) developing a transdisciplinary decommissioning decision-making process. Addressing these priorities will help inform policy development and governance frameworks to provide industry and stakeholders with a clearer path forward for offshore decommissioning. The principles and framework developed in this paper are equally applicable for informing responsible decommissioning of offshore renewable energy infrastructure, in particular wind turbines, a field that is accelerating rapidly.

Original language	English
Article number	163015
Number of pages	15
Journal	Science of the Total Environment
Volume	878
Early online date	1 Apr 2023
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.163015
Publication status	Published - 20 Jun 2023
Externally published	Yes

Bibliographical note

Funding Information:
This project is supported with funding from the Australian Government under the National Environmental Science Program, and Deakin University . We really appreciate the input of all the experts that attended the workshops and provided votes. As for co-authors, S.G. is supported by the Royal Academy of Engineering under the Chairs in Emerging Technologies Scheme. A.M. was supported by an Australian Government Research Training Program scholarship and a New South Wales FutureNow Scholarship . M.L. was funded by the United States Department of the Interior , Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) Environmental Studies Program (ESP) through Award M15AC00014 and by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Biodiversity and Ecological Forecasting program (NASA Grant NNX14AR62A ) and the BOEM ESP (Award M15AC00006) in support of the Santa Barbara Channel Biodiversity Observation Network. S.N.R.B (Cefas) was funded by Cefas and the UK INSITE North Sea programme https://insitenorthsea.org/ . C.H. was supported with funding from the National Decommissioning Research Initiative (NDRI). We thank Dean Tysdale for his graphical design skills. All authors acknowledge the additional organisations who supported their involvement in this work.

Data Availability Statement

Data will be made available on request.

Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.163015.

Keywords

Decommissioning
Offshore
Subsea
Infrastructure
Oil and gas
Decision-making, evidence-based

UN SDGs

This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

Access to Document

10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.163015Licence: CC BY

Watson_etal_SOTE_Offshore_Decomissioning_Horizon_VOR
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/).
Final published version, 3.48 MBLicence: CC BY

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969723016339

Cite this

Watson, S. M., McLean, D. L., Balcom, B. J., Birchenough, S. N. R., Brand, A. M., Camprasse, E. C. M., Claisse, J. T., Coolen, J. W. P., Cresswell, T., Fokkema, B., Gourvenec, S., Henry, L.-A., Hewitt, C. L., Love, M. S., MacIntosh, A. E., Marnane, M., McKinley, E., Micallef, S., Morgan, D., ... Macreadie, P. I. (2023). Offshore decommissioning horizon scan: Research priorities to support decision-making activities for oil and gas infrastructure. Science of the Total Environment, 878, Article 163015. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.163015

Watson, SM, McLean, DL, Balcom, BJ, Birchenough, SNR, Brand, AM, Camprasse, ECM, Claisse, JT, Coolen, JWP, Cresswell, T, Fokkema, B, Gourvenec, S, Henry, L-A, Hewitt, CL, Love, MS, MacIntosh, AE, Marnane, M, McKinley, E, Micallef, S, Morgan, D, Nicolette, J, Ounanian, K, Patterson, J, Seath, K, Selman, AGL, Suthers, IM, Todd, VLG, Tung, A & Macreadie, PI 2023, 'Offshore decommissioning horizon scan: Research priorities to support decision-making activities for oil and gas infrastructure', Science of the Total Environment, vol. 878, 163015. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.163015

@article{2b0e4bebab544cec81869cdb3ff0ed98,

title = "Offshore decommissioning horizon scan: Research priorities to support decision-making activities for oil and gas infrastructure",

abstract = "Thousands of oil and gas structures have been installed in the world's oceans over the past 70 years to meet the population's reliance on hydrocarbons. Over the last decade, there has been increased concern over how to handle decommissioning of this infrastructure when it reaches the end of its operational life. Complete or partial removal may or may not present the best option when considering potential impacts on the environment, society, technical feasibility, economy, and future asset liability. Re-purposing of offshore structures may also be a valid legal option under international maritime law where robust evidence exists to support this option. Given the complex nature of decommissioning offshore infrastructure, a global horizon scan was undertaken, eliciting input from an interdisciplinary cohort of 35 global experts to develop the top ten priority research needs to further inform decommissioning decisions and advance our understanding of their potential impacts. The highest research priorities included: (1) an assessment of impacts of contaminants and their acceptable environmental limits to reduce potential for ecological harm; (2) defining risk and acceptability thresholds in policy/governance; (3) characterising liability issues of ongoing costs and responsibility; and (4) quantification of impacts to ecosystem services. The remaining top ten priorities included: (5) quantifying ecological connectivity; (6) assessing marine life productivity; (7) determining feasibility of infrastructure re-use; (8) identification of stakeholder views and values; (9) quantification of greenhouse gas emissions; and (10) developing a transdisciplinary decommissioning decision-making process. Addressing these priorities will help inform policy development and governance frameworks to provide industry and stakeholders with a clearer path forward for offshore decommissioning. The principles and framework developed in this paper are equally applicable for informing responsible decommissioning of offshore renewable energy infrastructure, in particular wind turbines, a field that is accelerating rapidly.",

keywords = "Decommissioning, Offshore, Subsea, Infrastructure, Oil and gas, Decision-making, evidence-based",

author = "Watson, {Sarah M.} and McLean, {Dianne L.} and Balcom, {Brian J.} and Birchenough, {Silvana N.R.} and Brand, {Alison M.} and Camprasse, {Elodie C.M.} and Claisse, {Jeremy T.} and Coolen, {Joop W.P.} and Tom Cresswell and Bert Fokkema and Susan Gourvenec and Lea-Anne Henry and Hewitt, {Chad L.} and Love, {Milton S.} and MacIntosh, {Amy E.} and Michael Marnane and Emma McKinley and Shannon Micallef and Deborah Morgan and Joseph Nicolette and Kristen Ounanian and John Patterson and Karen Seath and Selman, {Allison G.L.} and Suthers, {Iain M.} and Todd, {Victoria L.G.} and Aaron Tung and Macreadie, {Peter I.}",

note = "Funding Information: This project is supported with funding from the Australian Government under the National Environmental Science Program, and Deakin University . We really appreciate the input of all the experts that attended the workshops and provided votes. As for co-authors, S.G. is supported by the Royal Academy of Engineering under the Chairs in Emerging Technologies Scheme. A.M. was supported by an Australian Government Research Training Program scholarship and a New South Wales FutureNow Scholarship . M.L. was funded by the United States Department of the Interior , Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) Environmental Studies Program (ESP) through Award M15AC00014 and by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Biodiversity and Ecological Forecasting program (NASA Grant NNX14AR62A ) and the BOEM ESP (Award M15AC00006) in support of the Santa Barbara Channel Biodiversity Observation Network. S.N.R.B (Cefas) was funded by Cefas and the UK INSITE North Sea programme https://insitenorthsea.org/ . C.H. was supported with funding from the National Decommissioning Research Initiative (NDRI). We thank Dean Tysdale for his graphical design skills. All authors acknowledge the additional organisations who supported their involvement in this work. ",

year = "2023",

month = jun,

day = "20",

doi = "10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.163015",

language = "English",

volume = "878",

journal = "Science of the Total Environment",

issn = "0048-9697",

publisher = "Elsevier",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Offshore decommissioning horizon scan

T2 - Research priorities to support decision-making activities for oil and gas infrastructure

AU - Watson, Sarah M.

AU - McLean, Dianne L.

AU - Balcom, Brian J.

AU - Birchenough, Silvana N.R.

AU - Brand, Alison M.

AU - Camprasse, Elodie C.M.

AU - Claisse, Jeremy T.

AU - Coolen, Joop W.P.

AU - Cresswell, Tom

AU - Fokkema, Bert

AU - Gourvenec, Susan

AU - Henry, Lea-Anne

AU - Hewitt, Chad L.

AU - Love, Milton S.

AU - MacIntosh, Amy E.

AU - Marnane, Michael

AU - McKinley, Emma

AU - Micallef, Shannon

AU - Morgan, Deborah

AU - Nicolette, Joseph

AU - Ounanian, Kristen

AU - Patterson, John

AU - Seath, Karen

AU - Selman, Allison G.L.

AU - Suthers, Iain M.

AU - Todd, Victoria L.G.

AU - Tung, Aaron

AU - Macreadie, Peter I.

N1 - Funding Information: This project is supported with funding from the Australian Government under the National Environmental Science Program, and Deakin University . We really appreciate the input of all the experts that attended the workshops and provided votes. As for co-authors, S.G. is supported by the Royal Academy of Engineering under the Chairs in Emerging Technologies Scheme. A.M. was supported by an Australian Government Research Training Program scholarship and a New South Wales FutureNow Scholarship . M.L. was funded by the United States Department of the Interior , Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) Environmental Studies Program (ESP) through Award M15AC00014 and by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Biodiversity and Ecological Forecasting program (NASA Grant NNX14AR62A ) and the BOEM ESP (Award M15AC00006) in support of the Santa Barbara Channel Biodiversity Observation Network. S.N.R.B (Cefas) was funded by Cefas and the UK INSITE North Sea programme https://insitenorthsea.org/ . C.H. was supported with funding from the National Decommissioning Research Initiative (NDRI). We thank Dean Tysdale for his graphical design skills. All authors acknowledge the additional organisations who supported their involvement in this work.

PY - 2023/6/20

Y1 - 2023/6/20

N2 - Thousands of oil and gas structures have been installed in the world's oceans over the past 70 years to meet the population's reliance on hydrocarbons. Over the last decade, there has been increased concern over how to handle decommissioning of this infrastructure when it reaches the end of its operational life. Complete or partial removal may or may not present the best option when considering potential impacts on the environment, society, technical feasibility, economy, and future asset liability. Re-purposing of offshore structures may also be a valid legal option under international maritime law where robust evidence exists to support this option. Given the complex nature of decommissioning offshore infrastructure, a global horizon scan was undertaken, eliciting input from an interdisciplinary cohort of 35 global experts to develop the top ten priority research needs to further inform decommissioning decisions and advance our understanding of their potential impacts. The highest research priorities included: (1) an assessment of impacts of contaminants and their acceptable environmental limits to reduce potential for ecological harm; (2) defining risk and acceptability thresholds in policy/governance; (3) characterising liability issues of ongoing costs and responsibility; and (4) quantification of impacts to ecosystem services. The remaining top ten priorities included: (5) quantifying ecological connectivity; (6) assessing marine life productivity; (7) determining feasibility of infrastructure re-use; (8) identification of stakeholder views and values; (9) quantification of greenhouse gas emissions; and (10) developing a transdisciplinary decommissioning decision-making process. Addressing these priorities will help inform policy development and governance frameworks to provide industry and stakeholders with a clearer path forward for offshore decommissioning. The principles and framework developed in this paper are equally applicable for informing responsible decommissioning of offshore renewable energy infrastructure, in particular wind turbines, a field that is accelerating rapidly.

AB - Thousands of oil and gas structures have been installed in the world's oceans over the past 70 years to meet the population's reliance on hydrocarbons. Over the last decade, there has been increased concern over how to handle decommissioning of this infrastructure when it reaches the end of its operational life. Complete or partial removal may or may not present the best option when considering potential impacts on the environment, society, technical feasibility, economy, and future asset liability. Re-purposing of offshore structures may also be a valid legal option under international maritime law where robust evidence exists to support this option. Given the complex nature of decommissioning offshore infrastructure, a global horizon scan was undertaken, eliciting input from an interdisciplinary cohort of 35 global experts to develop the top ten priority research needs to further inform decommissioning decisions and advance our understanding of their potential impacts. The highest research priorities included: (1) an assessment of impacts of contaminants and their acceptable environmental limits to reduce potential for ecological harm; (2) defining risk and acceptability thresholds in policy/governance; (3) characterising liability issues of ongoing costs and responsibility; and (4) quantification of impacts to ecosystem services. The remaining top ten priorities included: (5) quantifying ecological connectivity; (6) assessing marine life productivity; (7) determining feasibility of infrastructure re-use; (8) identification of stakeholder views and values; (9) quantification of greenhouse gas emissions; and (10) developing a transdisciplinary decommissioning decision-making process. Addressing these priorities will help inform policy development and governance frameworks to provide industry and stakeholders with a clearer path forward for offshore decommissioning. The principles and framework developed in this paper are equally applicable for informing responsible decommissioning of offshore renewable energy infrastructure, in particular wind turbines, a field that is accelerating rapidly.

KW - Decommissioning

KW - Offshore

KW - Subsea

KW - Infrastructure

KW - Oil and gas

KW - Decision-making, evidence-based

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85151312223&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.163015

DO - 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.163015

M3 - Article

SN - 0048-9697

VL - 878

JO - Science of the Total Environment

JF - Science of the Total Environment

M1 - 163015

ER -