Layer | Fill | Outline |
---|
Map layers
Theme | Visible | Selectable | Appearance | Zoom Range (now: 0) |
---|
Fill | Stroke |
---|---|
Collaborating Authors
Abstract The main objective of this paper is to provide an approach and valid mechanism for the decommissioning studies throughout the entire plant life cycle from Development Phase up to Asset end life. Decommissioning activities and related issues shall be considered from the early project phase in order to have a full knowledge of the criticalities and associated costs to be managed when the facilities will be decommissioned. This approach can be applied to different types of Oil & Gas plants and involves several technical competencies with a dedicated process for On-shore and Off-shore assets covering all main phases of decommissioning process from the development steps up to the decommissioning execution. An appropriate implementation of this decommissioning approach is important to identify the best Decommissioning Option with lower Environmental Impact, provide Cost Estimates Study properly detailed, approvable, traceable, demonstrable and upgradable and practical solutions for optimizing activities duration and related costs. A Decommissioning Standardization with a consolidated process handbook can provide supportive guidance for the Decommissioning activities, thus falling within development and operational domain defining also dedicated level of decommissioning costs estimate accuracy during the asset lifecycle. Cost estimates prepared and periodically updated provide valuable contribution for field economics analysis. In this way, company is fully aware of all decommissioning issues from the early project stages till the Cessation of Production phase when decommissioning execution will start.
In its Western Europe Decommissioning Market Forecast 2017-2040, Douglas-Westwood forecasts that between 2017 and 2040, USD 105 billion will be spent on decommissioning in Western Europe, as the region becomes the first area outside the US Gulf of Mexico to see large-scale decommissioning activity. The countries included are Croatia, Denmark, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, The Netherlands, Norway, Spain, and UK. Well decommissioning is forecast to account for the majority of decommissioning expenditure, representing 65% of the total market over the period, which will be particularly high in more established areas with large numbers of subsea wells, such as Norway and the UK. Substructure and topside removal will represent a combined 20% of expenditure, with the majority of platforms being removed using reverse installation methods. Single-lift vessels are becoming established technology and have the potential to significantly impact the cost and time for decommissioning operations.
- Europe > Western Europe (0.86)
- Europe > Norway (0.53)
President's column From 2007โ2010, I was president of Chevronโs Environmental Management Company. We were responsible for managing end-of-life activities and environmental liabilities for the entire corporation. We removed platforms and pipelines in the Gulf of Mexico, remediated old industrial sites (including refineries, chemical plants, and service stations), and managed Chevronโs Superfund liabilities. Chevron spent several hundred million dollars a year on these activities, all with zero return, which made for uncomfortable discussions when it was time to present my budget. โDecommissioning yields no return on investment or revenue and carries significant environmental and regulatory liabilities. The effective decommissioning of offshore platforms, subsea wells and related assets is one of the most important challenges facing the oil and gas industry today and in the future. Decommissioning decisions can no longer be avoided by the operators and the industry as a whole.โโIHS Markit Offshore Decommissioning Study Report Decommissioning and abandonment. That was a Technology Focus topic in the January JPT, and I loved the featured quote: โUnlike a capital project, decommissioning is not something that you can choose to do or not to do.โ Like death and taxes, decommissioning eventually comes for every project. The question is: Are we operationally and financially prepared for the inevitable? The offshore decommissioning problem is huge and gets bigger every year as more platforms reach the end of their productive life. North Sea decommissioning is leading the way as fields developed in the 1970s and 1980s reach their end of life. Created 7 years ago, Decom North Sea (www.decomnorthsea.com) is an industry association that specifically addresses the decommissioning issues in the North Sea and works cooperatively among operators, regulators, and decommissioning contractors. The North Sea regulators, especially UK and Norway, recognize the growing liability. Decommissioning Gulf of Mexico facilities got much more urgent following hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005; they swept right through the heart of the aging continental shelf fields of offshore Louisiana. Katrina and Rita destroyed more than 100 offshore platforms, many of which were โidle iron,โ not in service pending decommissioning. Following those massive storms, US and state regulators stepped up monitoring of shut-in platforms and began pushing operators to decommission and remove idle iron before the next major hurricane.
- North America > United States (1.00)
- Europe > United Kingdom > North Sea (0.98)
- Europe > Norway > North Sea (0.88)
- (2 more...)
- Energy > Oil & Gas > Upstream (1.00)
- Government > Regional Government > North America Government > United States Government (0.55)
- Europe > United Kingdom > North Sea > Northern North Sea > East Shetland Basin > Block 211/7a > Magnus Field > Kimmeridge Formation > Magnus Formation (0.99)
- Europe > United Kingdom > North Sea > Northern North Sea > East Shetland Basin > Block 211/7a > Magnus Field > Kimmeridge Formation > Lower Kimmeridge Clay Formation (0.99)
- Europe > United Kingdom > North Sea > Northern North Sea > East Shetland Basin > Block 211/12a > Magnus Field > Kimmeridge Formation > Magnus Formation (0.99)
- Europe > United Kingdom > North Sea > Northern North Sea > East Shetland Basin > Block 211/12a > Magnus Field > Kimmeridge Formation > Lower Kimmeridge Clay Formation (0.99)
Abstract This paper will discuss further on the recent decommissioning project of fields which has been completed on November 2017. These two platforms had been totally removed and became an artificial reef at Sarawak water in Malaysia. This paper will show the activities and best practices; the team had gone through from early stage until completion of the process based on the decommissioning phases. The decommissioning framework consists of five phases starting from Late Life Planning and Preparation; Regulatory, Compliance and Permitting; Facilities Hook-down and wells make safe; Removal and Remediation and lastly, Post Remediation. In baseline inspection, the underwater inspection had provided some information to the contractor on the scope and revealed some of the uncertainties about the decommissioning project. On an important note, an engineering study is critical to ensure safe operation. After our observation, we noted that actual operation is similar to the engineering's simulation where the team had to follow the engineering accordingly. Reefing engineering crucially needed to be performed to ensure the facilities been placed at the right location and position. During offshore execution removal of facilities, there were challenges we faced such as malfunction of the cutting/dredge equipment which led to a back up plan and innovative solution. We had to utilize other available equipments available onboard (Diamond wire cutter, abrasive waterjet internal cutter, dredger, soil plug removal, airlift, cutting torch etc.). Selection of cutting tools also needed to be considered to minimize the pinch effect of the facilities. Finally, Post decommissioning survey had been carried during the Post Remediation phase to assess the successful of the project. The post-decommissioning/reefing survey had been carried out and the result observed new marine growth and numbers of fishes at the reefed platform. It had been concluded that this decommissioning reefing project was successful. This paper should be an interest to those who will be exploring abandonment and decommissioning project which includes reefing as one of the decommissioning options. This paper will also show on decommissioning process through Engineering, Preparation, Removal and Disposal (EPRD) approach contract. The novelty in this paper is on the assurance that had been made by Company via baseline and post reefing survey to ensure environment aspect had been considered.
- Facilities Design, Construction and Operation > Facilities Decommissioning and Site Remediation (1.00)
- Management > Professionalism, Training, and Education > Communities of practice (0.34)
- Data Science & Engineering Analytics > Information Management and Systems > Knowledge management (0.34)
- Facilities Design, Construction and Operation > Offshore Facilities and Subsea Systems > Platform design (0.34)
In the last 10 years the Oil & Gas Industries have begun tackling the complex issues related to the end-of-life of Upstream Assets Decommissioning. Theses are especially relevant for offshore activities due to their environmental impact and the elevated costs. The introduction of the SFAS 143 principle in the United States, which defines the criteria for Decommissioning and Abandonment costs of production assets allocation and establishment, for companies listed on the New York Stock Exchange, requires such companies to report Abandonment funds. In Eni E&P a tool for decommissioning cost estimating (property of Eni E&P Division) was required in order to evaluate the abandonment fund quickly and with a good accuracy. The work to be performed was: to inspect all the techniques for topside total removal, abandonment and removal of substructure and sealines, taking into account local and international legal constraints, then to evaluate cost-estimate key drivers. A unique cost breakdown structure has been defined for all methodologies in order to guarantee the congruity of the estimate: vessel, personnel and equipment are the three cost parameters used to evaluate the main cost elements such as Mobilization/Demobilization, Survey Pre/Post Removal, Flushing and Clean Up, Equipment and Personnel for Removal, Engineering & Management and Onshore Final Disposal. Information about techniques, field of operation, advantages/disadvantages and unit costs have been gathered by analyzing Eni's experiences, through a benchmarking of the most important international competitors, and through experts' opinion. 2 SPE 127412
- Africa (0.46)
- North America > United States > New York (0.25)
- Production and Well Operations (1.00)
- Management > Strategic Planning and Management > Project management (1.00)
- Health, Safety, Environment & Sustainability > Environment (1.00)
- Facilities Design, Construction and Operation > Facilities Decommissioning and Site Remediation > Offshore facility decommissioning (0.67)