In producing countries with more experience in offshore production, default cases involving decommissioning operations have already been reported. Cameron (2014), for example, cites two default cases in the United Kingdom, one in Ardmore in 2005 and another in Emerald in 1996. The decommissioning costs of these two fields totaled nearly £5 million. Regarding the Ardmore field, the UK government arranged for the drilling company hired by the insolvent company, Tuscan Energy North Sea Ltd. (TESL), to bear all expenses. The UK government was required to pay for all costs associated with the Emerald Field, which amounted to approximately £1 million. Wells are drilled paths that connect oil reservoirs to the production system. These are drilled to extract oil and gas or to inject other substances such as water and CO2 (Ruivo 2001).
Analyzes facility characteristics and available technologies to evaluate alternatives.
Assesses environmental impact of each alternative in various media for installation transit. Social: assesses impact on communities and users, including jobs, fishing, and tourism. - Safety: evaluates risk to workers and safe navigation. - Economic: estimates cost of each decommissioning alternative. The analysis of all of these criteria together contributes to the decision-making process in selecting the best alternative for the decommissioning scenario in question (FGV, 2021). Hammerson and Antonas (2016) classify feasible methods for removing jackets and topsides into three core techniques: Modular facilities can be transported onshore using a heavy-lift vessel, ensuring structural integrity. Small structures can be transported all at once using a single-lift vessel (SLV).Demolition in situ involves a team of specialists staying on the platform to disable it for an extended period. Industrial demolition machines and hydraulic shears are utilized. These authors emphasize that, in addition to the possibility of demolition, which requires divers and remotely operated vehicle (ROV) systems, the jacket can also be cut into pieces and transported in parts. This method is known as cut and lift. Developing a CO2 sequestration project at the Sleipner West Field in Norway's North Sea. However, because this is a production field, similar projects could be carried out on existing platforms in abandoned fields. The US Energy Policy Act of 2005 also includes examples of how abandoned platforms can be repurposed, such as aquaculture, research, education, recreation, support for other offshore operations, and communication.
Disposal
The disposal of facilities brought to an onshore base is one of the final stages of the decommissioning procedure. As a result, the disposal process must meet environmental standards, operational safety, waste regulation, industry practices, and the concept of savings (Hammerson and Antonas, 2016). Given the large size of these structures, it is critical to carefully select a site for receiving decommissioned facilities. It is necessary to assess the processing capacity, material handling, pier lifting resistance, draft, and waste processing. Ports, docks, and shipyards are regarded as critical elements at this stage due to a lack of experience with decommissioning processes (FGV, 2021). Another issue concerns waste disposal. For example, in Brazil, sun coral (coral-sol) can be found on platforms. This coral is an invasive species that spreads rapidly and easily, interfering with the development of other species. Another source of concern is naturally occurring radioactive material (NORM), which accumulates primarily in production risers, storage tanks, and production facilities. These materials require proper disposal because they can last up to 16,000 years. As an alternative to disposal, they can be stored in decommissioned mines, salt caves, or injected into
Monitoring
Monitoring will always be required if any installation is left in place after the decommissioning process is completed. As a result, continuous monitoring of the site will be required to ensure that no problems are caused by the installations left on the seafloor. Furthermore, signs must be kept visible on in-place equipment to ensure safe navigation and do not interfere with fishing activities (Anderson et al., 2020). Offshore field decommissioning presents significant financial challenges. High costs and risk of default. According to Cameron (2014), the costs of offshore decommissioning "are likely to prove daunting to many foreign and domestic investors, and the risk of default on decommissioning obligations must be taken seriously by governments and co-venturers alike."Brazil is expected to spend approximately US $4.91 billion between 2021 and 2025 (FGV, 2021). The Oil and Gas Authority (OGA, 2021) estimates a cost of £ 39 billion by 2022. Figure 11 depicts FGV's (2021) estimate for the costs of decommissioning activities in the major producing countries with offshore activities after 2025: rock formations (FGV, 2021). When possible, businesses should try to recycle decommissioned installations. Hammerson and Antonas (2016) argue that reuse in repair or remanufacturing saves money and helps with waste management.
Comments
Post a Comment