Cost and environmental impact estimation methodology and potential impact factors in offshore oil and gas platform decommissioning: A review
Introduction
Offshore oil and gas platforms (OOGPs) are large structures with functional modules for drilling, extracting, and processing oil and natural gas, and for temporarily storing products before shipping to shore for refining and marketing. Over 7000 offshore oil and gas installations and platforms are located on continental shelves around the world (Parente et al., 2006, USEPA, 2009). The North Sea, Gulf of Mexico (GOM), Western Coast of Australia, and West Coast of the US are the main areas where OOGPs are installed. For example, there are around 4000 structures used for oil and gas production located at the federally regulated Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) of the GOM (Kaiser, 2006; Kaiser and Pulsipher, 2003). Each OOGP usually has a lifetime of 30 to 40 years, and once the income from the hydrocarbons being produced by an OOGP cannot cover the cost of operation, the OOGP becomes a liability instead of an asset and is then considered as a candidate target for decommissioning.
Around the world, some OOGPs have been decommissioned, some are under decommissioning, and others are to be decommissioned. For example, southern California has twenty-seven OOGPs to be decommissioned by 2030 (Henrion et al., 2015). Between 2010 and 2014, the OOGP decommissioning cost in the Gulf of Mexico was around USD $9 billion, regularly exceeding USD $1.5 billion per year. Most of the 470 offshore installations in the North Sea's UK Continental Shelf, including offshore platforms, require decommissioning over the next 30 years as mentioned in the Oil and Gas Economic Report (2013). Malaysia has approximately 300 oil platforms, many of which need to be decommissioned (Zawawi et al., 2012). Since there will be a significant trend in OOGP decommissioning in the coming decades, the market for OOGP decommissioning is huge, and estimating the cost and environmental impact of OOGP decommissioning is meaningful and necessary.
OOGP decommissioning trends, including platform types and regions where platforms are located, were studied by Anthony et al. (2000), and they found that the offshore infrastructures in Australia were developed later compared to the GOM and the North Sea (Chandler et al., 2017). It was also found that each region had its own preferred OOGP decommissioning option. For example, the rig-to-reef (RTR) option is common in the GOM while in the North Sea, a complete removal is the preferred option. Athanassopoulos et al. (1999) also found the same result showing differences of OOGP decommissioning in different regions. Although OOGP decommissioning options may vary by region, the general decommissioning processes are similar, and a well-developed program is required to decommission an OOGP. Additionally, OOGP decommissioning involves hazardous factors in a series of operational activities related to various equipment, facilities, materials, workpieces and organizational measures. As accidents happen, e.g. Piper Alpha accident in the North Sea in 1988 (Paté-Cornell, 1993), the overall risk assessment of general processes, including the possibility analysis of risk, possible injuries after accidents and the severity of their injuries, have been conducted by the stakeholders. According to the OOGP decommissioning plan in CFD1-6 oilfield, the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) was applied to analyze and evaluate the safety status, which reduces the arbitrariness in evaluations and avoids the occurrence of accidents (Tian, 2015). However, due to the complexity and diversity of the safety evaluation of the decommissioning process, the assessment could be a combination of multiple methods (Paté-Cornell, 1990).
OOGP decommissioning projects are usually complicated and high-cost. Therefore, well-developed decommissioning programs are needed. A decommissioning program usually sets out plans for uninstallations, and describes the detailed methodologies to undertake the work (2013). Accurate estimation of cost can provide good case studies for OOGP decommissioning program development. Although research has been conducted to quantify the decommissioning cost of OOGPs throughout the decommissioning processes, the results showed a big discrepancy between the estimated and actual situations. A cost summary of a number of OOGP decommissioning projects in the North Sea is presented in Table 1. The average actual cost is about 76% more than the estimated cost. The cost of the MCP-01 Decommissioning Programme (2008) installation and the Indefatigable (UKL, 2007) decommissioning projects even exceeded the budget by 189% and 153%, respectively.
In addition to cost estimation, estimation of potential environmental impact is also important to OOGP decommissioning program development because inaccuracy would reduce energy efficiency and increase environmental pollution (TOTAL EPNA, 2003), given that OOGP decommissioning projects usually involve significant amounts of fuel. For example, about 40,000 tons of fuel was consumed in the disposal of the Frigg field facilities (TOTAL EPNA, 2003). Anifowose et al. (2016) defined that “Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is a proactive methodical process that investigates and predicts the potential direct, indirect and cumulative impacts of proposed project activities on environmental receptors, ideally from project initiation to decommissioning, and offers mitigation strategies.”. According to this definition, decommissioning is an important stage of EIA for oil and gas projects. Furthermore, Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) from an EIA process is used for reporting of potential environmental impacts and mitigation and management plans. According to Anifowose et al. (2016), the EIA process is a prerequisite for project permits and approvals required by authorities in most countries. A detailed EIS is required for project financing by international financial institutions such as the World Bank and European Bank for Reconstruction, as the environmental due diligence of the stakeholders. Moreover, there are discrepancies often found between estimated and actual environmental impacts. According to Frigg decommissioning program, the energy consumption was 43% higher than the predecited (2250 103GJ vs 1577 103GJ), and the total energy impact was 39% higher than initially estimated in the decommissioning program (3306 103GJ vs 2377 103GJ) (Total E&P Norge AS, 2011), as listed in Table 2 below. To improve the accuracy of estimation, the prediction could be compared and re-evaluated against the actual perforemnce through Environmental Management Plan (EMP), which was proposed by Anifowose et al. (2016) and Perdicoulis et al. (2012).
Due to the information deviation, inaccurate estimation of the OOGP decommissioning cost and environmental impact affect the OOGP decommissioning option selection. Therefore, it is necessary to study the current estimation methodologies of the OOGP decommissioning cost and environmental impact and try to identify their limitations in order to improve them for better control of both cost and environmental impact. This study reviews decommissioning related factors in current estimation methodologies on both OOGP decommissioning cost and environmental impact, identifies the shortcomings of the current estimation methods, and proposes some recommendations for the estimation improvement.
The outline of this paper is as follows. The collected publications are summarized in Section 2. Section 3 reviews the OOGP decommissioning factors. The estimation methodologies of OOGP decommissioning cost and environmental impact are reviewed and described in Section 4 and in Section 5, respectively. Section 6 then identifies the limitations of current estimation methodologies and related recommendations are proposed. Conclusions are included in Section 7.
Section snippets
Summary of the collected publications
Review of the distribution of the publications by type in this study is presented in Fig. 1. As can be seen, the reviewed publications include 37 journal papers, 21 conference papers, 74 reports (e.g., technical reports and decommissioning programs), 5 related books, and others such as related web pages. The total number of reviewed publications from the academic field is relatively small compared to other review papers, indicating that more research should be conducted on OOGP processes to
OOGP decommissioning factors
In an OOGP decommissioning project, its cost and potential environmental impact are usually influenced by multiple factors, which can be generally divided into six categories: (1) OOGP types and complexity, (2) OOGP decommissioning option, (3) technical approach to implement the selected option, (4) circumstance around platform, (5) legislation and regulations, and (6) strategy. More details of each factor are introduced as follows.
Cost estimation methodologies
Cost estimation is an important aspect of OOGP decommissioning, since engineers, project managers, and stakeholders of platforms frequently perform cost estimation to evaluate decommissioning alternatives, divestiture opportunities, and liability assessment (Kaiser, 2006). The OOGP decommissioning cost usually not only includes the cost of execution (e.g., costs for cleaning, lifting, and cutting) but also includes costs such as insurance, inspection, and monitoring of the decommissioning work (
Environmental impact estimation methodologies
In addition to decommissioning cost, environmental impact is another important criterion considered in OOGP decommissioning option selection. The development of environmental best industrial practice was reviewed by Garland (2011). Although it was concluded that the structure-removal activities on GOM would not significantly affect the quality of the human environment (MMS, 2005), estimation of the environmental impact is still necessary when there is more than one potential OOGP
OOGP decommissioning database setup and update
By reviewing the current methodologies for the decommissioning cost and environmental impact estimation, the data used in the estimation is usually from the databases of professional OOGP decommissioning companies. However, current databases are error-prone and incomplete. In addition, since the most commonly used methodology for estimating decommissioning cost is descriptive statistics, which heavily depends on historical decommissioning data, the cost estimation based on the current database
Conclusions
This paper has reviewed decommissioning factors and the current estimation methodologies of OOGP decommissioning costs and environmental impact. Six general decommissioning factors, including (1) offshore platform type and complexity, (2) decommissioning options, (3) technical approaches, (4) circumstances, (5) regulations, and (6) strategies, were summarized and discussed. Descriptive statistics based on historical decommissioning data is commonly used for cost estimation, and OOGP
Funding
This study was funded by the Start-Up Grant at Shenzhen University, Shenzhen, Guangdong, China (No.2019092) and Australian Research Council Discovery Project (Project No. #DP170104613) by the Australian Government.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Acknowledgement
The authors would like to thank the partial support for this research that was provided by the Start-Up Grant at Shenzhen University, Shenzhen, Guangdong, China (No.2019092) and the Australian Research Council Discovery Project (Project No. #DP170104613) by the Australian Government.
References (86)
- et al.
A systematic quality assessment of environmental impact statements in the oil and gas industry
Sci. Total Environ.
(2016) - et al.
Integration of life cycle assessment in a BIM environment
Proc. Eng.
(2014) - et al.
Life cycle assessment of onshore and offshore wind energy-from theory to application
Appl. Energy
(2016) - et al.
Engineering and legal considerations for decommissioning of offshore oil and gas infrastructure in Australia
Ocean Eng.
(2017) - et al.
Open BIM-based quantity take-off system for schematic estimation of building frame in early design stage
J. Comput. Des. Eng.
(2015) - et al.
A multi-criteria decision approach to decommissioning of offshore oil and gas infrastructure
Ocean Coast. Manag.
(2014) - et al.
Decommissioning cost estimation in the deepwater U.S. Gulf of Mexico – Fixed platforms and compliant towers
Mar. Struct.
(2014) - et al.
An update on the cost of net-trawling operations in the Gulf of Mexico
Mar. Policy
(2009) - et al.
The cost of explosive severance operations in the Gulf of Mexico
Ocean Coast. Manag.
(2003) - et al.
An “Olympic” framework for a green decommissioning of an offshore oil platform
Ocean Coast. Manag.
(2009)
A financial decision making framework for construction projects based on 5D Building Information Modeling (BIM)
Int. J. Proj. Manag.
BIM-based intelligent acquisition of construction information for cost estimation of building projects
Proc. Eng.
Offshore decommissioning issues: deductibility and transferability
Energy Policy
A BIM-based framework for lift planning in topsides disassembly of offshore oil and gas platforms
Autom. Constr.
Offshore Platform Decommissioning: The need for a Cost Index for Malaysian Waters. Australasia and South-East Asia Structural Engineering and Construction Conference
Decommissioning of Belmont Island, an Offshore Oil Platform. SPE Western Regional/AAPG Pacific Section Joint Meeting: Society of Petroleum Engineers
Platform Decommissioning Trends. SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition: Society of Petroleum Engineers
Off Shore Oil Platform Decommissioning: A Comparative Study of Strategies and the Ecological, Regulatory, Political and Economic Issues Involoved in Decommissioning Planning
Offshore Rig Types. Drilling Engineering Handbook
Autodesk Plant 3D
Evaluating alternatives for decommissioning California’s oil and gas platforms: a technical analysis to inform state policy
California Ocean Sci. Trust.
A costing model for offshore decommissioning in California
Integr. Environ. Assess. Manag.
Preparation for Cost Effective Decommissioning and Abandonment of Subsea Pipelines. SPE Offshore Europe Conference and Exhibition
Cost Estimating for Offshore Oil & Gas Facility Decommissioning. AACE®, International Technical Paper
Air emissions associated with decommissioning California’s offshore oil and gas platforms
Integr. Environ. Assess. Manag.
Application of 4D BIM for evaluating different options of offshore oil and gas platform decommissioning
A semi-automated approach to generate 4D/5D BIM models for evaluating different offshore oil and gas platform decommissioning options
Visual. Eng.
Environmental Issues Affecting Deepwater Gulf of Mexico Development. SPE/EPA/DOE Exploration and Production Environmental Conference
Decommissioning of Offshore Oil and Gas Installations
98/3 on the Disposal of Disused Offshore Installations. Ministerial Meeting of the OSPAR Commission, OSPAR Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic
The Development of Environmental Best Practices by the Industry. International Petroleum Technology Conference: International Petroleum Technology Conference
Offshore Facility Decommissioning Costs Pacific OCS Region. Programmatic Environmental Assessment (PEA) Report Prepared by Minerals Management Service, US Department of Interior, No OCS EIS/EA MMS
Guidance: Oil and Gas-Decommissioning of Offshore Installations and pipelines
Decommissioning & removal options: Which choice?
Offshore Oil and Gas Decommissioning Decision-making Guidelines
Comparative environmental life cycle assessment of conventional and electric vehicles
J. Ind. Ecol.
A multi-attribute decision analysis for decommissioning offshore oil and gas platforms
Integr. Environ. Assess. Manag.
Life Cycle Assessment
SmartPlant® Enterprise
Cited by (19)
Decommissioning offshore oil and gas facilities in China: Process and environmental impacts
2024, Ocean EngineeringEstimation of thermal input in thermite reaction for innovative wellbore plugging & abandonment techniques
2023, International Communications in Heat and Mass TransferDynamic modeling of global fossil fuel infrastructure and materials needs: Overcoming a lack of available data
2022, Applied EnergyCitation Excerpt :Many strategies can be adopted depending on the technology (e.g. removal, partial removal, left in place, reefing or left in place and repurposed) and will impact the EOL-RR. The removal process of the infrastructures could generate substantial energy consumption and environmental impacts [105], which-if recycled-could be compared to the savings from avoiding the extraction of primary materials at a global scale in future studies. The dynamic modeling of the hydrocarbon production and supply infrastructure stock proposed in this study represents a simple global approach to the sector, focusing on the main infrastructures.
Current understanding of the ecological risk of mercury from subsea oil and gas infrastructure to marine ecosystems
2022, Journal of Hazardous MaterialsFormulations for automatic optimization of decommissioning timing in offshore oil and gas field development planning
2022, Computers and Chemical EngineeringCitation Excerpt :Increasing focus on environmental issues in ageing installations with high production costs and production energy per barrel. Most works in the literature within the decommissioning domain deal with the decommissioning methodology (Fowler et al., 2014; Martins et al., 2020), cost (Abdo et al., 2018; Tan et al., 2021), impact on the environment (Chandler et al., 2017; Sommer et al., 2019), policy (Techera and Chandler, 2015; Torabi and Nejad, 2021), socio-economic issues (Parente et al., 2006; Tan et al., 2021), and the feasibility of using the existing platforms to facilitate and stimulate the well-being of the marine ecosystem (Ekins et al., 2006; Chandler et al., 2017). Only a few papers discuss the abandonment strategy in a long-term perspective during the early stages of field development.