DOCSLIB.ORG

Decommissioning in the UK

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Decommissioning in the UK OPRED Wendy Kennedy Vision and Objectives EUOAG 22 Offshore Petroleum Regulator for Environment & Decommissioning Chief Executive - Wendy Kennedy Based in Aberdeen OPRED’s aims are to regulate the offshore oil and gas industries in the context of sustainable development; to achieve improved regulatory compliance without imposing an undue burden on the industry but nevertheless ensuring that it limits taxpayer liability. OPRED is responsible for: • Developing, administering and enforcing the offshore oil and gas environmental regime (including offshore gas unloading and storage and carbon dioxide storage). • handling domestic and international policy relating to developing the environmental regulatory framework for offshore oil and gas. • the Department’s Strategic Environmental Assessment for offshore energy projects, which allows the Oil & Gas Authority (OGA) to conduct offshore licensing rounds and facilitates offshore renewable energy developments. • the oil and gas decommissioning regime and ensuring that the liability for such activity stays with the oil companies and does not transfer to the Department (total estimated cost currently sitting at £59 billion). What infrastructure is in the UKCS 470 Installations - 58 Licensed Operators • 10% floating • 30% subsea • 50% small steel • 10% large steel or concrete – potential derogations for abandonment Approximately 35,000 km pipelines • 10,000 km major pipelines International Rules Internationally, the UK has a number of obligations concerning the decommissioning of offshore installations. Geneva Convention 1958 1958 Geneva Convention on the Continental Shelf. which determined that “any installations which are abandoned or disused must be entirely removed”. Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter 1972 The "London Convention" for short, is one of the first global conventions to protect the marine environment from human activities and has been in force since 1975. In 1996, the "London Protocol" was agreed to further modernize the Convention and, eventually, replace it. Under the Protocol all dumping is prohibited United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) ratified by the UK in 1997. - Any installations or structures which are abandoned or disused shall be removed to ensure safety of navigation. UNCLOS(1982) What are the OSPAR 98/3 requirements The OSPAR decision in 1998 came about following the Brent Spar decommissioning where there was a European wide reaction to the proposed dumping of the platform in the Atlantic – we still see some reaction to this now, with correspondence and NGOs press releases. The presumption is for decommissioning, that installations will be fully removed and the seabed returned to its natural state, as much as possible. There should be no dumping or leaving in place of installations in the marine environment – it must be brought ashore for re-use, recycling or final disposal. – There was also a UK Government moratorium on Dumping in 1999 All installation topsides have to be removed to shore. The exception to complete removal is for the types of structures below, where a derogation from full removal can be applied for; • large concrete substructures; • footings of heavy steel jackets >10,000 tonnes; • concrete anchor bases; • damaged structures; What does OSPAR cover? GBS - 8 Platform name Jacket Weight Topside weight Beryl A 200,000 32,500 Brent B 165,664 23,424– in consultation Brent C 287,542 29,846– in consultation Brent D 177,809 23,125 – now removed Cormorant A 294,655 25,600 Dunlin A 228,611 19,350 – under discussion Ninian Central 384,000 39,000 Ravenspurn 38,500 62,250 Heavy Steel jackets - 31 Platform name Jacket Weight Topside Weight Britannia 20,000 18,500 Cormorant North 20,052 15,290 Magnus 37,057 34,600 Murchison 44,300 24,000 – in execution Piper B 22,555 28,000 Tern 20,500 19,300 Thistle A 31,500 25,200 Alba Northern 17,000 25,534 Alwyn North NAA 18,500 21,400 Alwyn North NAB 14,500 15,000 Beryl B 13,250 21,800 Brae A 18,600 38,000– in consultation Brae B 18,900 42,000– in consultation Brent A 14,225 15,998– in consultation Claymore A (CPP) 17,000 18,000 Clyde 10,400 17,900 Eider 17,100 11,200 Forties FA 12,310 10,551 Forties FB 14,152 10,551 Forties FC 14,152 10,551 Forties FD 14,152 10,551 Fulmar 12,400 24,000 Heather A 18,700 12,200 Miller 14,830 28,600 – Programme approved but platform not yet removed Morecambe South CPP1 11,754 12,933 Ninian Northern 31,500 17,400 - In consultation Ninian Southern 43,700 25,500 Saltire A 15,000 14,744 Scott JD 16,130 20,839 Tartan A 14,090 14,400 Tiffany 17,500 20,000 OSPAR Derogation candidates • 9 – Gravity based concrete structures in total, 8 remaining ( MCP 01 having been decommissioned and the concrete jacket remaining in situ) • 32 – Heavy steel jackets over 10,000 tonnes, 31 remaining, (with North West Hutton already removed). • Miller platform has been approved and is about to be removed in the next couple of years • Murchison topside removed and the jacket about to be removed in the next year. • The Brent A, B, C and D jacket programmes are up for consultation at the moment and likely to go to OSPAR derogation consultation in late 2017, early 2018. • Brent Delta topside already approved and removed to shore for dismantlement. • Ninian North finished UK consultation and is about to go to OSPAR derogation in late 2017, early 2018 • Brae Alpha and Bravo, and up for consultation with Derogation consultation likely 2018. • Dunlin field Decommissioning programme currently in discussion and likely to go to UK consultation in 2018. Decommissioning in practice What we ask operators to do: • The Process and expectations are explained in published guidance – being updated to reflect learning and experience. • We use a comparative assessment process to consider options using a set of criteria (safety, environment, technical feasibility, other users of the sea and economics) to determine the decommissioning solution, in respect of potential OSPAR derogation candidates • Pipelines, many pipelines can be safely removed and but some are trenched at the time of installation and these are likely to remain. • We also use the robust comparative assessment process detailed in OSPAR to consider how any Pipelines or related stabilisation features will be decommissioned • Subsea infrastructure can be complex to remove and decisions consider the level of fishing activity, condition and burial as well as environmental conditions Comparative Assessment Process – Considerations Complying with OSPAR 98/3 to remove all infrastructure. • Views of other users of the sea –fishermen, work with both Solution for Scottish and National fishermen’s associations removal or leave in situ is taken on consideration of • Views of the BEIS Environmental managers on the solutions the impact on: and methods of execution • Environment • Safety, • Views of the Environmental NGOs – special areas of • Technical environmental concern, protected sandbanks feasibility, • Other users of • Views of the HSE, methods of execution and what impact the sea • Cost these have on safety. Considerations of use of divers for subsea removals • Views of Industry, costs and methods Who are the stakeholders and consultees to Decommissioning programmes Energy Bill 2016 • It enacts the powers of the Oil and Gas Authority, and Imposes certain duties in regards to decommissioning cost efficiency. • In regard to BEIS, It places a duty on the Secretary of state to consult with the Oil and Gas authority who will provide them with an assessment of arrangements in the decommissioning programme to: Ensure the programme is framed by means of timing of the measures or the inclusion of a provision for collaboration that the cost of carrying it out is kept to the minimum that is reasonably practicable in the circumstances And consider alternatives to abandoning or decommissioning the installation or pipeline, such as re-using or preserving it. • As part of their preparation of the decommissioning programme there is a duty on operators to consult the OGA and they must frame the programme so as to ensure (whether by timing of the measures proposed, the inclusion of provision for collaboration, or otherwise) that the cost of carrying the programme out is kept to the minimum that is reasonably practicable in the circumstances. ODU & OGA Remits OPRED – ODU OGA Decommissioning in practice (1) How is cost considered? • Cost is a key consideration, but not the only or main one • OGA provide us with a view on costs as a consultee • Decommissioning in situ may not be the “cheapest” solution in all cases - e.g. Camelot field Liability and risk assessment • Operators decision’s on decommissioning are influenced by their appetite for risk • Liability in perpetuity and the need for ongoing monitoring have a cost. • Liability is hard to quantify, we are at the early stages in regard to the integrity of anything that has remained in situ or on P & Ad Wells. Decommissioning in practice (2) Liability for decommissioning rests with industry • Principle of “polluter pays” • Wide ranging regulatory powers to serve legal notices on those who have benefitted from the production of hydrocarbons – Petroleum Act 1998 • Potential to serve, withdraw and serve S34 notices to ensure that industry takes responsibility for decommissioning. Action must be proportionate – s29 and s34 of 1998 Act • S29 and S34 are key tools in our financial risk mitigation processes OSPAR principles underpin the decommissioning process • Policy starting point is the expectation that operators will aim to restore the sea bed, described as a “clear sea bed” Guidance Notes • Principle behind our reassessment of the guidance notes is to ensure there is no unnecessary cost being added through unintended consequences.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Shell U.K. Limited Brent Remote Flare Decommissioning Programme and Revision to the Brent Spar Decommissioning Programme (Anchor
    Shell U.K. Limited May 2004 Brent Remote Flare Decommissioning Programme and Revision to the Brent Spar Decommissioning Programme (Anchor Blocks) SUBMISSION TO DTI & THE SECRETARY OF STATE, MINISTRY OF TRADE & INDUSTRY Keywords: Decommissioning, Remote Flare, Anchor Blocks, Brent This document is the property of Shell U.K. Limited, and the copyright therein is vested in Shell U.K. Limited. All rights reserved. Neither the whole nor any part of this document may be disclosed to others or reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form by any means (electronic, mechanical, reprographic recording or otherwise) without prior written consent of the copyright owner. Brent Remote Flare Decommissioning Programme & Revision to the Brent Spar Decommissioning Programme (Anchor Blocks) Page i 1 Contents 1 Contents ........................................................................................................................................................i 2 Introduction..................................................................................................................................................1 3 Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................3 4 Items To Be Decommissioned ...................................................................................................................4 4.1Remote Flare............................................................................................................................................4
    [Show full text]
  • 4. Embedding Human Rights Mechanisms Within Shell Headquarters
    4. Embedding within Shell Headquarters 4. Embedding human rights mechanisms within Shell Headquarters This first empirical chapter describes and analyses the process of embedding (implementation and internalisation) of the human rights mechanisms within the Headquarters of Shell1. This way, an answer is provided to the first research question (identifying the mechanisms of embedding human rights) by providing an analysis about the mechanisms through which Shell Headquarters embeds human rights in its policies and procedures. In addition, the degree of implementation and internalisation of human rights is also determined at Shell Headquarters level (second research question). Finally, by describing the process of implementation and internalisation, this chapter also provides more insight in explaining the degree of implementation and internalisation of these human rights mechanisms within Shell Headquarters (third research question). The chapter starts with explaining the use of data (section 4.1), after which the overall policy and objectives of the company (section 4.2) and the company’s approaches to embed human rights (section 4.3). Section 4.4 will introduce the Shell Group’s management system, after which sections 4.5 to 4.10 will then analyse how human rights is embedded according to Shell’s spheres of influence: employees (section 4.5), contractors (section 4.6), security forces (section 4.7), communities (section 4.8), government (section 4.9) and the international society (section 4.10). Section 4.11 continues the analysis with determining the degree of internalisation of human rights in Shell Headquarters. The chapter ends with a short summary and initial conclusion in section 4.12.
    [Show full text]
  • Power & Politics
    POWER & POLITICS Langone (Draft) MGMT-GB.3366.10 Fall 2017 Professor R. Kabaliswaran Office: KMC 7-56 Class: KMC 4-80 E-mail: [email protected] (best way to reach me) Class Hours: W 6:00:9:00. Dates: 9/27-12/20. Office Hours: Usually an hour before class and by appointment Deliverables: My Constituency Map due session 7. One individual midterm case report due session 9. Class Reflection Journal: Do each session on previous session’s case/s and discussion. Put it all together , broken by session, and post as ONE word document before last class session. No need for journal write up on content of midterm case session and the last session. One take-home final due last session. Welcome to the elective course in Power & Politics! Course Theme Politics is not a dirty word! We just got to learn how to play good politics and keep out bad politics. By the same logic, power by itself does not necessarily corrupt though absolute power may corrupt absolutely. In other words, this course is about how to conquer the world, or at least survive the corporate jungle, without losing our soul. Even if you don’t want to play politics, good or bad, you still need the skills from this course to ensure that you don’t become a victim of politics. Course Objectives • Understanding what power is: People often have a misperception of what power, the basis of political behavior, really means. By the end of this course you should be able to have not only a conceptual understanding of what power is within an organizational context but a practical grasp of what the actual sources of power are.
    [Show full text]
  • Coral Growing on North Sea Oil Rigs These Installations Are Home to Thriving Colonies of an Endangered Cold-Water Coral
    brief communications Coral growing on North Sea oil rigs These installations are home to thriving colonies of an endangered cold-water coral. his summer the coral Lophelia pertusa The occurrence of the coral raises ques- was found growing on oil platforms in tions about how to deal with this species, Tthe North Sea and on the Brent Spar which is listed under the Convention on oil-storage buoy during its decommission- International Trade in Endangered Species ing. The findings indicate that Lophelia has a (CITES), when platforms are decommis- wider distribution and a more rapid rate of sioned. At a meeting in Sintra in 1998 of growth than previously believed. The dis- countries belonging to the Oslo–Paris covery also has implications for the debate (Ospar) convention on protecting the over oil exploration in the Atlantic Ocean marine environment, Ospar decision 98/3 and the perceived benefits of onshore dis- indicated that the ‘footings’ of large plat- mantling of deep-water platforms. forms (jacket weight of more than 10,000 When Brent Spar was raised out of the tonnes) might be left in place. Such an sea in stages for dismantling (Fig. 1), option would preserve existing colonies colonies of Lophelia of up to 20 cm linear Figure 1 The top of Brent Spar being removed from the Heerema and might allow Lophelia to spread in the growth were found on the sides and bot- heavy-lift barge during its dismantling in Yrkefjorden, Norway. North Sea. tom, which had been at depths of 60–109 Niall Bell, Jan Smith m.
    [Show full text]
  • Official Journal C 326 Volume 38 of the European Communities 6 December 1995
    ISSN 0378-6986 Official Journal C 326 Volume 38 of the European Communities 6 December 1995 English edition Information and Notices Notice No Contents Page I Information European Parliament Written Questions with answer 95/C 326/01 E-l 69/95 by Jean-Pierre Raffarin to the Council Subject : The European transport infrastructure scheme 1 95/C 326/02 E-375/95 by Nel van Dijk to the Council Subject : Regulation of the growing and distribution of cannabis in the Netherlands 1 95/C 326/03 E-452/95 by Pat Gallagher to the Council Subject : Audio-visual productions for minority languages 2 95/C 326/04 P-977/95 by Olli Rehn to the Council Subject : Combined/joint funding of projects in the case of Tacis and Interreg 2 95/C 326/05 E-1237/95 by Jose Valverde Lopez to the Council Subject : The European dimension in higher education 3 95/C 326/06 E-1533/95 by David Martin to the Council Subject : Council Presidency appearances at European Parliament 3 95/C 326/07 E-1618/95 by Gerard Deprez to the Council Subject : Double charge for private parcels from Alaska 3 95/C 326/08 E-1684/95 by Anita Pollack to the Council Subject : EU/Asia Summit 4 95/C 326/09 E-1697/95 by Christiane Taubira-Delannon to the Commission Subject : Environmental pollution by mercury and mercury poisoning of humans 5 95/C 326/10 E-1701/95 by Jacques Donnay to the Council Subject : Differences between Member States concerning the implementation of Community Directives 6 EN 2 ( Continued overleaf ) Notice No Contents ( continued ) Page 95/C 326/11 E-l 708/95 by Josu Imaz San Miguel
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction to Petroleum Engineering Introduction to Petroleum Engineering
    INTRODUCTION To PetrOLEUM ENGINEERING INTRODUCTION TO PETROLEUM ENGINEERING JOHN R. FANCHI and RICHARD L. CHRISTIANSEN Copyright © 2017 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All rights reserved Published by John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, New Jersey Published simultaneously in Canada No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning, or otherwise, except as permitted under Section 107 or 108 of the 1976 United States Copyright Act, without either the prior written permission of the Publisher, or authorization through payment of the appropriate per‐copy fee to the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc., 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, (978) 750‐8400, fax (978) 750‐4470, or on the web at www.copyright.com. Requests to the Publisher for permission should be addressed to the Permissions Department, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030, (201) 748‐6011, fax (201) 748‐6008, or online at http://www.wiley.com/go/permissions. Limit of Liability/Disclaimer of Warranty: While the publisher and author have used their best efforts in preparing this book, they make no representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy or completeness of the contents of this book and specifically disclaim any implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. No warranty may be created or extended by sales representatives or written sales materials. The advice and strategies contained herein may not be suitable for your situation. You should consult with a professional where appropriate. Neither the publisher nor author shall be liable for any loss of profit or any other commercial damages, including but not limited to special, incidental, consequential, or other damages.
    [Show full text]
  • Measuring the Oil Vulnerability of Canadian Cities
    MEASURING THE OIL VULNERABILITY OF CANADIAN CITIES Ruby Socorro M. Arico M. Sc. in Industrial Engineering and Operations Research University of the Philippines, 1997 RESEARCH PROJECT SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF URBAN STUDIES In the Urban Studies Program of Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences O Ruby Socorro M. Arico 2007 SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY Spring 2007 All rights reserved. This work may not be reproduced in whole or in part, by photocopy or other means, without permission of the author. APPROVAL Name: Ruby Socorro M. Arico Degree: Master of Urban Studies Title of Research Project: Measuring the Oil Vulnerability of Canadian Cities Examining Committee: Chair: Dr. Karen Ferguson Dr. Anthony Perl Professor and Director, Urban Studies Program Simon Fraser University Vancouver, British Columbia Senior Supervisor Dr. Meg C. Holden Assistant Professor, Urban Studies Program and Department of Geography Simon Fraser University Vancouver, British Columbia Supervisor Dr. Aprodicio Laquian, Member Professor Emeritus, Community and Regional Planning University of British Columbia Vancouver, British Columbia External Examiner Date DefendedIApproved: DECLARATION OF PARTIAL COPYRIGHT LICENCE The author, whose copyright is declared on the title page of this work, has granted to Simon Fraser University the right to lend this thesis, project or extended essay to users of the Simon Fraser University Library, and to make partial or single copies only for such users or in response to a request from the
    [Show full text]
  • Megacities & Climate Change
    LEAD INTERNATIONAL SESSION WORKBOOK Megacities & Climate Change Sustainable Cities in a Changing World Mexico City 16 - 22 November 2008 Name: Inspiring leadership for a sustainable world Contents Introduction LEAD International Training Sessions 1 Overall Schedule 3 Welcome Letter: Boris Graizbord 5 Welcome Letter: Simon Lyster 9 Learning Journey 11 Mapping Your Learning Journey 13 Step By Step Guide to the International Session 23 Module Overview 29 Ways of Working 33 Thematic Learning Units 35 Adapting to Climate Change in Urban Areas 43 Sustainable Cities and the Millennium Development Goals 49 Re-engineering Cities: A Framework for Adaptation to Global Change 53 Mexico City: Growth at the Limit 63 Background Reading/Viewing List 65 Day 1 Session 1: Welcome and Keynote Address 71 Session 2: Megacities and Climate Change: Global, Regional and National Perspectives 73 World City Network: Studying Inter-City Flows Within Contemporary Globalisation 77 The Urban Revolution of the Twenty-first Century 89 New Approaches to Urban Governance in Latin America 93 Session 3: Getting To Know Each Other 103 Session 4: Introduction to the Working Groups and Tasks 107 Listening and Questioning Skills 109 Working Across Cultures 119 Day 2 Session 5: Introduction to the Thematic Panels 121 Water and Sanitation 123 The Urban Water Challenge 125 Mexico City Water Management Example 127 Transport and Urban Mobility 129 Sustainable Cities, Sustainable Transportation 131 Moving People - Making City 135 LEAD Associate Networking Fair 139 Contents Day 3 Session
    [Show full text]
  • Rethinking the Foundations of Global Corporate Success
    Corporate environmental sustainability costs). In the context of formal management systems and procedures, the firm may adopt externally developed tools where possible (e.g., the climate change impact measurement tools, developed by reputable audit companies, or the standardized trading processes introduced by intermediaries as in the case of carbon emission trading schemes). Finally, in the realm of strategic planning, senior management may monitor external developments on environmental mitigation policies and competitor strategies, but outsource all non-crisis environmental stakeholder management where possible (e.g., lobbying with industry associations). Especially given the sometimes high country and regional specificity of government environmental policies, the above strategy of outsourcing, while not a conventional FSA, will give the MNE flexibility, thereby reduc- ing bounded rationality and bounded reliability challenges in the environ- mental strategy sphere. It is indeed sometimes difficult to anticipate correctly when and how vote-needing politicians in several countries around the world will introduce specific, new environmental regulations, and what these regulations might entail substantively. In the face of this high political uncertainty, environmental complexity, and the substantial risk associated with making non-redeployable resource investments in the envi- ronmental sphere, reliance on external markets may be a wise strategy to pursue. Case 15B.1 Shell’s environmental management strategy CASE Since the early 1990s, Shell’s reputation has been battered by corporate social responsibility problems such as the Brent Spar controversy and the Ken Saro- Wiwa trial in Nigeria. (Ken Saro-Wiwa was the environmentalist who was hanged and whose death some attributed in part to Shell.) Shell gradually realized that dismissing environmental and social issues could seriously hurt its business.
    [Show full text]
  • The Brent Spar Syndrome
    SUBJECT: COUNTERSTRATEGIES AGAINST ONLINE ACTIVISM: THE BRENT SPAR SYNDROME FROM: EVELINE LUBBERS <[email protected]> DATE: TUE, 29 SEP 1998 08:43:16 +0200 (MET DST) Shell is not going to forget lightly its misadventures beaten in the new-media war. The Brent Spar with the Brent Spar. The Oil Major was taken by affair was one, but the Nigeria situation has also complete surprise when the Greenpeace campaign prompted a “massive on-line bombardment” of against sinking that former drill platform achieved criticism. To quote May: “There has been a shift in its goals. What happened to Shell can in fact hap- the balance of power, activists are no longer entire- pen to any corporation. Loosing control of the sit- ly dependent of the existing media. Shell learned it uation as result of the activities of a pressure group the hard way with the Brent Spar, when a lot of has become a nightmare scenario for the modern information was disseminated outside the regular multinational enterprise. channels.” The Brent Spar affair has brought quite some SHELL DID TOO LITTLE TOO LATE change of attitude to Shell. Ten years ago the The Oil Major’s first reactive measures have Multinational could afford to blatantly ignore cam- meanwhile become the perfect example of how paigns against the South African Apartheid not to do it. But Shell has learned a lot as well. A regime. Although concerns were brewing in-house, comprehensive review of what has become known to the outside world Shell maintained that the as the PR disaster of the century indicates that campaigns against Apartheid were not significant- Shell had it all wrong about its own influence on ly damaging the company.
    [Show full text]
  • Worldwide Oil and Gas Platform Decommissioning: a Review of Practices and T Reefing Options ∗ Ann Scarborough Bull , Milton S
    Ocean and Coastal Management 168 (2019) 274–306 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Ocean and Coastal Management journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ocecoaman Worldwide oil and gas platform decommissioning: A review of practices and T reefing options ∗ Ann Scarborough Bull , Milton S. Love Marine Science Institute, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA, 93016, USA ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT Keywords: Consideration of whether to completely remove an oil and gas production platform from the seafloor or to leave Decommissioning the submerged jacket as a reef is an imminent decision for California, as a number of offshore platforms in both Offshore platforms state and federal waters are in the early stages of decommissioning. Laws require that a platform at the end of its Rigs-to-reefs production life be totally removed unless the submerged jacket section continues as a reef under state spon- Artificial reefs sorship. Consideration of the eventual fate of the populations of fishes and invertebrates beneath platforms has led to global reefing of the jacket portion of platforms instead of removal at the time of decommissioning. The construction and use of artificial reefs are centuries old and global in nature using a great variety ofmaterials. The history that led to the reefing option for platforms begins in the mid-20th century in an effort forgeneral artificial reefs to provide both fishing opportunities and increase fisheries production for a burgeoning U.S. population. The trend toward reefing platforms at end of their lives followed after the oil and gas industry installed thousands of standing platforms in the Gulf of Mexico where they had become popular fishing desti- nations.
    [Show full text]
  • When Values Meet: Recent European Experiences
    + IO + When Values Meet: Recent European Experiences BrnNHeno Sr,rnr SINCE THE BrcrNNrNG of modern social sciences, values have been at the very center in terms of understanding human behavior. The notion behind most definitions of values is the evaluation o{ what is good and desirable and what is believed to be bad orundesirable (Reich and Adcock r976, chap. z). Another characteristic of values is their invisibility; as mental constructs they can be referred to only by in- terpreting human behavior (Harding, Phl11ips, and Fogarty r986, 2). Whereas values refer to rather abstract, global phenomena, attitudes are more specific, referring to situations, objects, orpeople. By contrast, the widely used term beliefs implies a cognitive element, the {ocus lying more on thoughts and ideas than on emotions ardfeelings (Hard- ing, Phi11ips, and Fogarty r986,4-5). It has become increasingly clear that values, once merely linked to societal phenomena, are generated by groups in general. Individual behavior is strongly influenced by values. Individuals "have values"; they are able to change their values and are socialized by values. To put this di{ferently, values are internalizedby individuals and institu- tionalized by groups and societies (Meulemann ry96, 48). Values are transcendent norms, standards of behavior, and morals generated by groups. They are passed on from generation to generation, gradually being modi{ied. So people undergo changes of attitudes and behavior, as in the "silent revolution," a certain Americanization of liiestyle (Inglehart r 99o). The reception of values in international relations literature is somewhat difficult and troublesome.' This is so for various reasons. 28o EUROPE + 28I For example, values play no role in the theory that has dominated in- ternational relations for a long time, namely, realism.
    [Show full text]