Calendar An icon of a desk calendar. Cancel An icon of a circle with a diagonal line across. Caret An icon of a block arrow pointing to the right. Email An icon of a paper envelope. Facebook An icon of the Facebook "f" mark. Google An icon of the Google "G" mark. Linked In An icon of the Linked In "in" mark. Logout An icon representing logout. Profile An icon that resembles human head and shoulders. Telephone An icon of a traditional telephone receiver. Tick An icon of a tick mark. Is Public An icon of a human eye and eyelashes. Is Not Public An icon of a human eye and eyelashes with a diagonal line through it. Pause Icon A two-lined pause icon for stopping interactions. Quote Mark A opening quote mark. Quote Mark A closing quote mark. Arrow An icon of an arrow. Folder An icon of a paper folder. Breaking An icon of an exclamation mark on a circular background. Camera An icon of a digital camera. Caret An icon of a caret arrow. Clock An icon of a clock face. Close An icon of the an X shape. Close Icon An icon used to represent where to interact to collapse or dismiss a component Comment An icon of a speech bubble. Comments An icon of a speech bubble, denoting user comments. Ellipsis An icon of 3 horizontal dots. Envelope An icon of a paper envelope. Facebook An icon of a facebook f logo. Camera An icon of a digital camera. Home An icon of a house. Instagram An icon of the Instagram logo. LinkedIn An icon of the LinkedIn logo. Magnifying Glass An icon of a magnifying glass. Search Icon A magnifying glass icon that is used to represent the function of searching. Menu An icon of 3 horizontal lines. Hamburger Menu Icon An icon used to represent a collapsed menu. Next An icon of an arrow pointing to the right. Notice An explanation mark centred inside a circle. Previous An icon of an arrow pointing to the left. Rating An icon of a star. Tag An icon of a tag. Twitter An icon of the Twitter logo. Video Camera An icon of a video camera shape. Speech Bubble Icon A icon displaying a speech bubble WhatsApp An icon of the WhatsApp logo. Information An icon of an information logo. Plus A mathematical 'plus' symbol. Duration An icon indicating Time. Success Tick An icon of a green tick. Success Tick Timeout An icon of a greyed out success tick. Loading Spinner An icon of a loading spinner.

Shell questioned over Brent Bravo ‘attic oil’ removal

Shell Brent legs
Greenpeace protestors at the Brent field in 2019.

Work is being carried out to remove “attic oil” from the Brent Bravo installation – which has been the subject of widespread environmental concerns – after Shell estimated none was there.

Shell said in documents published in 2017 and 2018 it believed Bravo had “zero” volumes of the free-flowing oil in its legs, however Enpro Subsea has now been carrying out work to remove it.

Shell’s Brent field has been the subject of environmental protests over its plans to leave the huge legs of Bravo, Charlie and Delta – and their estimated 11,200 tonnes of oil sediment contents – in place.

Now the news of the Bravo attic oil, which is a separate liquid substance higher up the legs but in much smaller volumes than the sediment, has rekindled concerns over the sampling and testing process of what lies within the structures.

Shell expected attic oil within legs of other Brent installations but not Bravo, according to the 2018 “derogation assessment”.

Campaigners welcomed the move but said the attic oil was not the “major issue” on Brent’s decom plans.

David Santillo, a research fellow at Exeter University and senior scientist at Greenpeace, said it was “interesting” that this work was being carried out given “Bravo was not expected to contain any attic oil, according to Shell’s figures”.

He said: “It would be interesting to ask how much attic oil was removed from Bravo in the end, and, if a significant amount, why Shell’s estimates on this were so wide of the mark.”

A Shell spokesperson said: “These figures were estimates, as the document clearly states.

“Where we thought volumes could be higher on Bravo’s sister platforms, we submitted those figures too.”

Shell said its commitment to enter the storage cells and “completely remove the attic oil” has not changed, adding, “this is what we’re doing, using for the first time a groundbreaking technology which will allow the safe and environmentally sound removal of attic oil at platforms like Brent Bravo across the industry”.

However Shell has not disclosed how much was removed or how much remains, with the final volume not known until it is taken to shore and treated.

Greenpeace, who have staged two protests at Brent in the last year, said the oil sediment at the bottom of the legs remains its “focus”.

Objectors have said that leaving the legs in place would be acceptable so long as they are adequately cleaned, with the substance removed.

From Shell’s 2018 Brent Derogation Assessment. The firm estimated there was no attic oil in the Bravo legs.

Shell, who is seeking permission from the UK Government to leave the legs in place, argues the safety risk and cost of removing these giant structures would outweigh any environmental benefit.

The Ospar convention requires the removal of oil and gas infrastructure from the seabed, although exemptions may be granted through derogations, which is what Shell is applying for.

However, Ospar members Germany and the Netherlands have made objections.

Enpro, bought by Hunting earlier this year, said it has now completed its fourth project for Shell to remove the attic oil at Brent Bravo and Delta using Enpro’s F-Decom technology on the cells at 140metres depth.

Rather than be deployed from the platform itself, this time a DeepOcean construction vessel was used, reducing the time and cost.

Shell Brent Bravo © Enpro
Enpro deployed its F-Decom tooling system

The F-Decom system is “the only field proven system for securely accessing fluids within gravity-based structures (GBS) concrete cells”, Enpro said.

The firm added it is “assisting operators to safely meet their decommissioning regulatory obligations to protect Europe’s marine environment”.

Jim Rae, an independent decommissioning consultant who has worked for a number of North Sea operators, said “the nature of the substance has not been satisfactorily defined” within the legs.

He added: “Removal of the attic oil complies with the international regulations, however it is not the major issue with regard to the concrete structures on the Brent field”.

Another specialist, who did not wish to be named, said the work comes “nowhere near” meeting Shell’s removal obligations under Ospar.

However, on the Enpro project, Friends of the Earth Scotland just transition campaigner Ryan Morrison said: “It is welcome to see companies working hard to reduce the toxic legacy of oil platforms in the North Sea.”

Recommended for you

More from Energy Voice

Latest Posts