![]() ![]() Man-made structures provide a hard substrate that is colonised by anemones, hydroids, bryozoans, sponges, mussels, barnacles, and soft and hard corals. A very good review of the topic, “Environmental benefits of leaving offshore infrastructure in the ocean ”, by Fowler et al, appears in Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. Let’s look for the benefit by asking how does the removal of offshore architecture benefit the environment? There is an ever-growing marine ecologist evidence base that man-made structures in the sea are an environmental positive. To do that we have to test the pillars of sustainability: the environment, economy and society. I’m suggesting we leave inert, oil and gas architecture in place and reduce removal and recycling costs. So here I am, a taxpayer with a keen interest in the cost of decommissioning. However, as I’ve reasoned previously, if we could reduce decommissioning cost by scope reduction from not removing and leaving architecture in place the taxpayer would benefit. To prevent loss of containment it is clear that for any decommissioning option, the wells must be properly plugged and abandoned. Indeed, a Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy (BEIS) spokesman’s letter to me stated “taxpayers have a keen interest in ensuring that is delivered in a cost-effective manner." ![]() The National Audit Office estimates that taxpayers will contribute £24bn (US$31.1bn) to the cost of decommissioning through tax reliefs. THE recent issue of the Oil and Gas Authority’s (OGA) estimated cost for UKCS (UK Continental Shelf) decommissioning is a reminder of the role of the UK taxpayer. Shouldn't we just leave the UK’s inert oil and gas architecture in place, rather than paying a hefty price for decommissioning? ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |