6.5.1 Generate Alternatives
The process of generating alternatives started with qualitative assessments and considerations. Different options were proposed, their feasibility was assessed and the realistic options were concluded. These were the options that were subjected to the formal assessment process in defining the disposal options to be selected. The following options were considered in the formal decision-making process:
x 5 platform topsides: Removal only option considered x Steel jacket structures
y 1 structure exceeding 10,000 tons: Removal only option considered y 1 structure not exceeding 10,000
tons:
Removal only option considered x 3 concrete gravity base structures: Options considered:
y Leave intact in situ y Alternative use in situ y Topple over in situ y Refloat and removal x Drill cuttings (subsea storage): Options considered:
y Leave undisturbed in situ y Removal
x Infield pipelines: Options considered:
y Leave water-filled in situ y Removal
x Export pipelines: Reuse only option considered
6.5.2 Selection of Method
A coarse assessment of the decision problem was performed in line with the approach in Chapter 3 in order to determine the analysis approach. Clearly in this case the expected consequences are very large (for example related to very high costs of some alternatives, the environment and safety), and the uncertainties are very large (for example due to long time horizon), and the problem needs to be classified under the “Complex decision” category.
6.5.3 Assess Alternatives
Classification of consequences, uncertainties and manageability factors are discussed in the following.
Table 6.1 and Table 6.2. at the end of the section summarise the most extreme solutions, the removal of all concrete structures and the leave in situ option, and the main performance measures used, as well as the main uncertainty factors.
Consequences
Below we summarise important aspects of the consequences of the decision pro- blem, following the check list in Section 3.3.3:
(a) Potential consequences
Extensive societal costs incurred by disposal operations, possible fatalities and environmental impact if operation fails.
(b) Ubiquity Both UK and Norway affected by costs, as well as possible fatal accidents. Environmental impact may affect parts of central North Sea.
(c) Persistency Disposal options may have environmental effects for virtually an unforeseen period, extending a few hundred years into the future.
(d) Delay effect Effects of some of the disposal options may not be visible until many years after the disposal project is completed.
(e) Reversibility In the present case there will be no possibility of restoring the situation to the state before the effect of a particular disposal option.
(f) Violation of equity There should be no or little violation in the present case: both UK and Norwegian societies and national economies have benefited from gas production on Frigg for more than 25 years, and have had substan- tial tax incomes. If severe environmental consequen- ces occur, both countries may be affected on a national level. See also (g).
(g) Potential of mobilisation
It is possible to anticipate some concern in the fishing community that long-term effects may expose certain
fishing activities severely, in disproportion to any perceived benefits from the gas production. However, experience has shown no such concerns.
(h) Performance measures
Performance measures for consequences that may develop over a few hundred years are not easy to establish.
Uncertainty Factors
The following list summarises some main aspects of the uncertainty factors asso- ciated with the decision problem:
(a) Insight into phenomena and systems:
Long-term effects of leaving in situ are not known at all.
(b) Complexity of technology:
The complexity of the technology being used is considered moderate.
(c) The ability to describe system performance:
System performance is adequately described for the phenomena that are well known.
(d) The level of predictability:
Moderate level of predictability applies, as the uncertainties related to the environmental impacts are relatively large.
(e) Experts’
competence:
Competence of experts is good for phenomena that are well known.
(f) Experience data: Limited experience data available for removal and leavein situ options for large offshore structures.
(g) Time frame: Leave in situ options have several hundred years as the applicable time frame, implying substantial uncertainties.
(h) Vulnerability of system:
The system is, at least initially, not vulnerable at all to weather conditions, etc. However, this may change when the structure has been left for a long period.
(i) Flexibility: The degree of flexibility is low, once the decision to leave in situ has been taken. All efforts will then be focused on implementing this option, and some irreversible decisions will be taken with respect to the state that the structure is left in.
(j) Level of detail: The disposal options were analysed over a period of 4–5 years, including very detailed studies of all potential options.
Manageability Factors
If we concentrate on the disposal of the three concrete gravity base structures, the options considered for decision-making were as noted above:
x leave intact in situ x alternative use in situ x topple over in situ x refloat and removal.
From a management of risk point of view, the alternative use in situ may be claimed to be the best alternative, at least in a short-term perspective. In this case, the facilities will be operated for alternative purposes, but with practices that are based on current knowledge and thus well known. The leave in situ alternative is the second best, except when considered in a very long perspective (several hun- dred years), because the structure will eventually disintegrate at some point in time.
The last two alternatives, topple over and refloat/remove are the least favou- rable from a management of risk point of view, the former due to unknown hazards and mechanisms, the latter due to critical systems and capabilities not being available for inspection and verification prior to commencement of hazardous operations.
Toppling over such a large structure has never been done, and will therefore be subject to large uncertainties. For the refloat alternative, vital systems (such as ballast system piping) could not be inspected, due to being installed within the water filled concrete structure at seabed level and thus not accessible after installation of the structure.
Especially for the refloat and removal option, the uncertainty relating to control of the outcome is virtually unmanageable. As indicated above, the systems requi- red during refloat cannot be inspected and the capabilities needed during refloat and removal cannot be verified before the operations are initiated.
The decision support provided in the case with choice of disposal options may be characterised as follows:
x The decision-making process was managed and documented, including the involvement of stakeholders, rigorously and traceable.
x Ranking of alternatives was based on analysis results, and sensitivity studies were performed in order to rule out the possibility that minor changes to assumptions and/or data would alter conclusions.
x Stakeholder consultations were conducted in both countries in order to identify possible factors that had been overlooked.
x The conclusions could not be altered through minor change of weights or preferences.
Table 6.1 and Table 6.2. below summarise some of the key performance measures used and uncertainty factors for two decommissioning options, with reference to Table 3.1 in Section 3.3.3.
For the leave in situ option, there is one remaining hazard for the marine traffic in the vicinity, namely the chance of hitting one of the installations due to navigational failure. Table 6.3 presents the calculated probability of collision with concrete structures, if they are left in place indefinitely.
Table 6.1. Overview of main performance measures used for two decommissioning options for three concrete structures
Risk to personnel Environmental effects Alterna-
tive E(fatalities) P(fatal accident)
E(energy) (mill GJ)
Impact on fisheries
Mission failure proba-
bility
E(cost) (mill GBP)
Remove
structures 1.1 67% 4 Moderate
negative 40% 862
Leave in
situ 0.30 26% 1 Moderate
positive 0% 266
Table 6.2. Overview of classification of uncertainty factors for two decommissioning options for three concrete structures
Alternative Complexity of technology
Complexity of organisation
Availability of information
Time frame
Reversi ble
Remove structures
Medium (Cat 2)
Low (Cat 1)
Low (Cat 3)
Short (Cat 1)
No (Cat 3) Leave in
situ
Low (Cat 1)
Low (Cat 1)
Medium (Cat 2)
Long (Cat 3)
Some (Cat 2) Table 6.3. Probability of collision by fishing vessels and passing vessels with concrete structures left in place
Parameter Collision by passing vessel Collision by fishing vessel Annual frequency of collision
with one of three Frigg installations left in place
1.8x 10-4 per year 4.2 x 10-5 per year
It should be noted that the effects on the environment are characterised by several parameters, some of which are quantitative, and some are qualitative. Only two of these are shown in Table 6.1 above. It could be added that virtually all the qualita- tive parameters for the environment favour the removal of the structures, whereas the quantitative environment parameters are limited to energy consumption and emissions, and obviously favour the leave in place option.
It could further be noted that one of the three structures accounted for about 85% of the total mission failure probability, due to its uncertainties with respect to the technical state of systems and aspects that would be essential during refloat and transportation to shore.
According to the rules of Section 3.3.3, the total uncertainty ranking of the removal option would be Category 3, which will also apply to the leave in situ option. It could be argued though that the leave in situ option has a marginally lower uncertainty than the removal option, based on comparison for each uncertainty factor in Table 6.2. This indicates that the manageability of uncertainty would be slightly easier for the leave in situ option, compared to the refloat and remove option.
In regard to the probability of mission failure (unsuccessful removal of at least one of the concrete structures), it is noted that there is a substantial probability of such failure – the assignment is 40%. There was actually an acceptance limit stated equal to 0.1% failure probability, implying that the calculated value was more than two orders of magnitude higher. The acceptance limit itself was therefore not relevant for the decision-making.
It should further be observed from Table 6.3 that the collision frequencies are quite low. Even if we consider a period of 100 years, there is only a 2% chance of a collision occurring.