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.

Opinion: No easy answer to decommissioning costs question

Tom Leeson, interim chief executive of Decom North Sea.
Tom Leeson, interim chief executive of Decom North Sea.

At the end of a week when Aberdeen academic Tom Baxter argued the case for leaving oil and gas platforms in the North Sea to save taxpayer money, Tom Leeson, interim chief executive officer of industry body Decom North Sea, says the solution may not be so simple.

Decommissioning offshore structures is an emerging activity with all elements of the industry recognising that there is much to learn and opportunities for improvement.

What’s more, I am convinced that all parts of the industry community are committed to ‘doing the right thing’.

It is well recognised and accepted that decommissioning costs are an essential and integral part of oil and gas extraction; an activity which the whole community benefits from in numerous ways, from useful materials, through chemical feedstocks to versatile energy sources.

‘Doing the right thing’ includes managing the impact on the environment of both the decommissioning activity, and of any legacy facilities remaining in-situ, and ensuring that the hazards posed by any such legacy facilities is minimised for other users of the sea. The current suite of international and national legislation is aimed at ensuring these outcomes.

There is room for a debate regarding minimising the cost of decommissioning through reducing scope, as some propose, but only when the impacts from that potential scope reduction are also fully factored for. Leaving steel structures in place across the North Sea – what would the legacy be?

Do we know what the impact of the loss of habitat is when we remove these structures? It could be argued that the answers to such key questions are not yet clear.

In addition, the possible uses of any saved costs from any changes are also open for debate. Investment in green energy has been suggested, but others might propose that the money is spent in a number of different ways.

Such a multi-faceted debate is not easy to undertake, as there are many parties, with differing perspectives, who all deserve a voice. Furthermore, if this debate had a clear, straightforward answer I believe we would already be doing it, and so would other countries. Yes, there is a potential prize, but let’s not kid ourselves that we are ignoring an easy solution that is just waiting to be implemented.

Recommended for you

More from Energy Voice

Latest Posts