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.