Discussing Decommissioning Offshore Production Installations

F. M. Ruivo, State University of Campinas UNICAMP, Brazil; C. K. Morooka, State University of Campinas UNICAMP, Brazil.

Abstract
Decommissioning offshore oil and gas production installations have been progressively increasing the concern of the industry, government and other interest groups through the last years. There are at least two reasons for this sudden regard. First, it is the maturing of several oil and gas fields around the world in recent years. Second, it is the growing impact of environmental concerns in international affairs. Despite several works published address to some techniques and to potential problems and risks related to decommissioning offshore oil and gas production installations its procedures are in some extent an innovative issue, especially in Brazil. Therefore, the motivation of this paper is subject novelty in Brazil, since national industry is just beginning to deal with the end-of-leasing obligations, which involve decommissioning operations. The main ambition is to stimulate debate about appropriate issues.

Introduction
Decommissioning refers to the dismantling, decontamination and removal of process equipment and facility structures. It may be described as the best way to shut down production operation at the end of 1 a fields life [ ]. This involves a multidisciplinary process, which requires a delicate balance among environmental, health & safety risks and social-economic considerations. In the late 90s, this balance was disturbed by a turning point fact on decommissioning history: the experience of UK operator [2] with its spar buoy in Brent (UK sector in North Sea). Although UK Government were in full agreement and support deep sea dumping option proposed, the European consumer perception forced the operator to seek another solution: cut its Brent Spar in pieces and use it in a quay extension in Norway. Despite this solution had been more expensive, less safe to the workforce, had consumed a large amount of energy and had entailed risks to coastal navigation routes and environments; it had full European public opinion agreement. Since then, every stage in a decommissioning process should be informed to the society. Even if their approval will never be fully measured, quite certainly their disapproval will have major economic consequences for any operator who fails in his communication plans [3]. Therefore, the current paper has as proposal the improvement of decommissioning debate in Brazil rather than to propose specific solutions. For so, this paper realizes concise review of decommissioning offshore oil and gas production activities worldwide. Then, it assets which may be the methodology to achieve the best decommissioning option regarding environmental issues.

Brazilian Importance on Decommissioning

According to the international literature, U.S. Gulf of Mexico and North of Sea regions presents the biggest decommissioning challenges due to its quantity of large platforms presented at medium and deep depths. That is truth just in absolute terms. In relative terms, the decommissioning of large platforms is a problem of others regions such as Brazil, which has proportions at least three times larger than those presented in U.S. Gulf of Mexico [4].

Brazil is characterized by the presence of large platforms. However, observing international literature, it is verified that the main debates on the decommissioning issue are almost exclusively referred to those regions of the Gulf of Mexico, USA and North Sea (United Kingdom and Norway). Former important due to the great amount of structures, and later for the magnitude of its installations. These statements take place by the use of absolute values of geographic distribution of the main platforms [i]. However, to if observing it intently, one perceives that this is not indicative of the distribution of great platforms offshore, that is, platforms weighing more than 10000 tonne(t) and located upper to 75 ii meters(m) bellow water line (BWL) [ ]. Therefore, a more efficient evaluation would be to observe the relative importance of the large platforms in each region, i.e., the participation of large platforms by the total. In Figure 1 are presented twelve main worldwide regions according to its capacity of oil production and gas [5]. The regions of North Sea, Indian Subcontinent, Brazil, Australia/New Zealand, and the Far East present ratios relatively at least three times upper to those finding in the region of Gulf of Mexico. Beyond these, also others four: Asian Southeast regions, Occidental Africa, Central America and of the South (except Brazil), and the Black Seas / Mediterranean also present upper values to the one of the Gulf of Mexico. In relative terms, decommissioning of large platforms is not a problem only of the regions of Gulf of the Mexico and North Sea.
Australia / NZ / Far East Brazil
33% 36%

C&S America wo Brazil Europe / North Sea Indian Subcont Med / Black Seas Mexico Persian Gulf Red Sea / G. Suez Southeast Asia USA West Africa
0% 5% 10% 2% 3%

13% 39% 43% 16% 1 6%

14% 11% 12%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

Figure 1: Large platforms as a percentage of all platforms by major producing region 4 [adapted from Ref. ]. Deepiii and ultra-deepiv water structures have serious technological, political and economical challenges to current decommissioning strategies. Firstly, because decommissioning costs increase as a function of depth. Secondly, because the lack of industry experiences, which provides incentives for oil and gas industry and government regulators to debate alternative methods of decommissioning [6]. The most recent decommissioning technologies have removed structures only as depth nearly to 140m [7]. However, offshore structures have been installed at bigger and bigger depths. Brazil already has installation moored at water depth superior to 1400m FPSO II located at Campos Basis Marlin 8 South field [ ].
i

Major structures are those that have at least 06 wells and 02 pieces of equipment. This excludes caissons, FPSO, satellite 4 platforms and well protectors as well as some small platforms. [ ]. According to International Maritime Organization (IMO). iii Structures located in deep water (water depth 401-1000 meters). iv Structures located in depth water beyond 1001 meters.
ii

Besides Brazil has some offshore fields reaching the end of its economic life, final destination of the installations of these fields has barely known about. Brazilian industry has just initiated studies about this theme [9].

Brazilian Regulatory Framework

The perspective of environmental damage sharpening and the conscience about it demand a development of procedures capable to reduce or even avoid this viewpoint in special the pollution originated from productive activities, which have great contribution on environment degeneracy. At the beginning of 80s, Brazil incorporated this concerns developing a public environmental management (Governments procedures to conduct environmental issues). Concerning to Exploration and Production (E&P) petroleum activity, there is the National Environmental Policy [10], which created the National System of Environmental Information (SINAMA) and National Council of Environment (CONAMA). One of the most important devices of CONAMA were the establishment of Environmental Licenses, which are an administrative procedure that authorizes localization, installation, expansion and operations of activities potentially harmful to the environment, which includes E&P petroleum. In general, Brazilian Institute of Environment and Renewable Natural Resources (IBAMA) is the competent organization to proceed these licenses in E&P petroleum activities occurred at sea (offshore) and those whose impacts of the activity developed exceed a federation state borders. When impacts are restricted to a federation state territory, the competency bends over state environment department. At the beginning of 2000, National Petroleum Agency (ANP) and IBAMA initiated a review of the procedures regarding environmental licenses in E&P petroleum activities. This review is necessary to turn possible an effective environmental control over E&P activities, for doing these activities in harmony with the environmental and aiming a sustainable development of petroleum industry. Despite Brazil already has a law [11], about end-of-leasing obligations, stating operators responsibility over installations removal procedures, eventually repairs caused by damages from his activity; the law does not specify which should be a feasible decommissioning methodology. Thus, one of the most important points of that review will be the development of Decommissioning Licenses. Those licenses should be proceeding based on methodologies presented by those engaged in preparing programs for the decommissioning offshore installations. These methodologies should embrace Best Practicable Decommissioning Option.

Best Practicable Option BPO

Planning offshore production installations decommissioning ahead of time (at least two years before production ceases) is key to a safe, environmentally conscious, and efficient decommissioning project 12 [ ]. The European regulatory framework [13], states that the Best Practicable Environmental Option (BPEO) is the model for accepting a decommissioning strategy based on environmental aspects. BPEO process requires the selection of the option having the least environmental impact. However, a Best Practicable Option (BPO) should involves other perspectives but environmental: Financial; Health and Safety; Political. For oil and gas operators a decommissioning process represents losing money. Operators will try to put off decommissioning process as later as possible [14]. Besides although contemporary international 13, 15 ] generally requires complete removal and total site clearance, petroleum regulatory framework [

operators states that decommissioning technology has not advanced sufficiently to make those requirements cost-effective compared to others, such as, partial removal. Therefore, they are torn between lower cost solutions, such as partial removal or toppling, which would leave them with a continuing liability, and complete removal which would cost them, and the government, more, but would end their liability. Contractors, particularly marine ones, take decommissioning as a business opportunity. It is in their interests to promote a total removal to maximize their workloads and profits. Environmental groups are concerned about environment impacts, thus are lobbying in favor of total removal and onshore dismantling. Fishermen's organizations are lobbying for those options, which maximize fishing and minimize debris-damaging incident in their equipment. A method to merge different interests in a long-term period should be preceding a Decommissioning 16 Long Term Study (DLTS) [ ]. DLTS prepares an independent and objective review of feasible decommissioning options for a particular or group of installations. It is best characterized as a process of negotiation, where stakeholders perform a mutually beneficial exchange. This performance is well illustrated in the case of the U.S. Gulf of Mexico with the creation of the artificial reef program. In this case, oil companies exchange financial concessions and services for a number of decommissioning strategies that are more cost-effective than a default requirement. The services that the oil companies offer are indirectly provided through the donation of the decommissioned platform for use as an artificial reef. This reef in turn may act increasing fishing and enhances ocean recreational experiences for both fishermen and divers. The artificial reef will be discussed later. Therefore an integrated solution emerges as the accomplishment of the unification, namely, the delicate balance among these different interests: BPEngO Best Practicable Engineered Option [3]. Most of decommissioning case studies indicates that political pressure can be exerted to alter regulations and thus available decommissioning strategies [7]. Even if the public influence is small, it comes from those, which are truly interested in it: activists. Figure 2 demonstrates how stakeholders and public should interact to produce a BPEngO and an adequate regulatory framework [17]
Public Perception Technical Feasibility Political Financial Public Perception

Heath & Environmental Safety

Regulatory Framework
Public Perception Public Perception

Figure 2: Finding the right balance for a Best Practicable Engineering Option (BPEngO) [adapted from Ref.17]. Objectively, BPEngO should come out based on thorough and comprehensive assessments of the relevant options, balancing following selection criteria for each installation: Costs and economics; Environmental impacts; Impacts on other users of the sea (mainly, shipping and fishing); Safety for those involved; Technical feasibility, complexity and technical risks.

Operators knowledge background usually has divided BPEngO process into two steps [18, 19]: 1. A long-list for each main facility compiled of all feasible decommissioning options. As the decommissioning studies progress and more information gets available, long-list may be reduced to a short-list; 2. Using the selection criteria described above, each decommissioning option is ranked 1 to 5 (5 being most desirable). Then, the ranking for each method is multiplied with a weighted value for each task. After that, the overall score and ranking is generated by summation. Finally, the resulting numbers are added to determine the total score. The decommissioning option with the highest values is considered the desirable one (BPEngO), which should always be regarded to some general guideline, for example, OSPARv Decision 98/3. Ranking decommissioning options has as advantage simplicity, but it presents possibility of becoming mechanist and, thus, masking absolute differences between the options. Ranking must be an auxiliary in the making-decision process, never the main tool [20].

Installations and its Options

The selection of a BPEngO should be based on comprehensive assessments of the relevant decommissioning options for each installation. Concisely, offshore decommissioning issue may be described in six basic classes of installations: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Fixed platforms, Topsides; Floating, moored or tethered platforms, Sub-sea structures; Pipelines; Wells.

Fixed platforms Steel Jacket

Steel jackets are by far the most common type of offshore platform with over 6000 platforms currently located on the continental shelf in over 50 countries [21]. The majority of steel jackets are small to medium-size platforms in water depths less than 75m and with weights less than 10000t. Brazil has 69 steel jackets, mostly presented in water depth of 75m or more. Several options for decommissioning of steel jackets exist in order to meet regulatory requirements (Figure 3). Leave-in-situ The leave-in-place option entails cleaning the installation and making it safe. This option is often not feasible because of international and national laws that require removing structures no longer having ongoing operations. Also, maintenance costs, accident liability, collisions, and other potential navigational hazards complicate this option. It is possible only if alternative uses are associated. Partial removal In partial removal, the part of the structure between 55m BWL is removed. The removed top section may be either placed on or toppled to the seabed near the remaining structure. Another option is to tow and dispose of the cleaned structure in a licensed deep-water site. The top portion of a structure can be cut using non-explosive methods or with small explosive charges. Partial removals are easier than total removals. However, this option is only applicable if economic and safety considerations override environmental concerns. Topple-in-place Toppling a structure in place is similar to complete removal. This option involves cutting the structure near the seabed and pulling it over on its side so that it lies on the sea floor. Once transportation costs are eliminated, this option is less expensive than complete removal.
v

The Commission for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Northeast Atlantic OSPARs members are: Germany, Belgium, Denmark, Spain, France, Finland, Ireland, Iceland, Netherlands, Luxembourg, Norway, United Kingdom, Portugal, Switzerland and Sweden.

Complete removal Completely removing a structure is essentially the installation process in reverse order. This option requires cutting a structure at a sufficient depth below the seabed. This option is the most expensive, but it is the preferred one by international regulations.
Sub-structure

Complete Removal

Partial removal

Leave-in-situ

To shore for recycling or disposal as w aste

To shore for recycling or disposal as w aste

Abandon with nav markings Alternative use

Deep water disposal Toppling on site

Deep water disposal Toppling on site

Toppling on site

Artificial reefs

Artificial reefs

Reuses/other uses

Reuses/other uses

Figure 3: Decommissioning options for fixed platform steel jacket [adapted from Ref. 22].

Fixed platforms Concrete Gravity Structures (CGSs)

The CGS, that has large use in the North Sea, approximately 83% of North Sea CGSs are in water depths over 100m, had its utilization in the Brazilian offshore area limited to small water depth. In 1975, for the development of the fields of Ubarana and Agulha, in Rio Grande do Norte Brazil, beyond the conventional steel platforms, it was decided for the use of CGS: three platforms, two at Ubarana and one at Agulha. The total height of the platform was of 25m, installed in water depth of 13m [23]. Although several options have been considered including toppling in-situ or cutting. They pose an environmental risk due to the possibility of release residual oil or sludgevi from storage cells. A best option should be complete removal by reversing the installation process and refloating the CGS with topsides in place. The refloating procedure involves deballasting the structure to induce buoyancy uplift and injecting water into foundation compartments to disengage from soil penetration. The feasibility and practicality of such a process highly dependent on the structural integrity of the platform and control of the excess buoyancy to prevent rapid rise through the water column [24].

Topsides
Topsides, topside facilities or deck is the terminology used, sometimes interchangeably, for the facilities, which include the plant for processing oil & gas and accommodation. The configuration or arrangement of topsides is typically established by the capacity of available lift vessels used for installation. Topsides weight range from several hundred to a few thousand tonnes [25]. In Brazil, the topsides weight range from 3000t to 15000t [23].
26 Figure 4 summarized the primary decommissioning options for topsides [ ].

vi

An oleo-like substance caused by the oxidation of oil or by contamination with other material. It is a thick and heavy emulsion containing water, carbon and oxidized oil.

REFURBISHED & REUSED

OIL & GAS PROCESSING EQUIPMENT & PIPING OFFSHORE OIL & GAS FACILITY DECOMMISSIONING

SEND TO SHORE

MOVED TO NEW LOCATION & REINSTALLED DECK STRUCTURE DISPOSED OF IN DEEP WATER

CONVERT TO AN ARTIFICIAL REEF

SINGLE PIECE PLACEMENT OFF-SITE MULTI-PIECE PLACEMENT OFF-SITE

SOA OS LRP DC FR WLF AOI SA TN ED TL REL ES CT YE CE L PLO ARA REL TM I V A TEA OP PL LC IE N

26

Figure 4: Decommissioning options for topsides [modified from Ref. ]. As fixed structures, the decision about the decommissioning option will need to be made as part of an overall assessment. According to the Petroleum Act 1998[13], the topsides of all installations must be returned to shore for reuse or recycling or final disposal on land. However, the mobilization and operating costs for needed heavy lifting, plus the additional cost of placing on transportation barge or on a deck of a vessels for retro-transport to an onshore decommissioning site would be marginal. Nevertheless, one option which had been discussed by a number of international operators and which was acceptable under European regulatory framework is, in some circumstances, to clean up certain modules to be lifted and placed on the seabed immediately adjacent to a partially removed or toppledin-place. That could perfectly occur in BCS as well.

Floating, Moored or Tethered Platforms

This class of installation consists primarily of: Floating Production Facilities (FPFs) or Floating Production Systems (FPSs); Floating Production Storage and Off-load Systems (FPSOs); Floating Storage Units (FSUs); Single Buoy Mooring Facilities (SBMs); Tension Leg Platforms (TLPs) and Articulated Towers.

These types of production installation are technically easy and financially low-cost to decommission, when compared to fixed platforms, due to inherent buoyancy and mobility. Operational safety and maintenance requirements result in all mooring lines and tethers being relatively easily switched off both from the vessels and from seabed anchor points. At timing of decommissioning, such facilities will be floated off location and reuse else where as a production or storage facility, once reuse is a natural evolution from their beginnings as conversions from existing tankers and drilling rigs. In those cases where reuse does not prove feasible, it will be necessary to return the facility to shore for storage or dismantling in line with hierarchy of waste disposal option [27]. BCS has 23 floating installations in operation all placed in Campos Basis, Rio de Janeiro [28]. It is important to notice that in spite of TLPs and SBMs are somewhat similar to FPSOs and semisubmersibles due to floating and mobility features, they are relatively new concepts and to date there has been fewer experiences in decommissioning such facilities. The complexity in decommissioning TLPs and Spars is expected to lie between floating and fixed platforms. As the Brent Spar case demonstrated decommissioning SBMs may not be trivial. TLPs have tensioned tethers; thus, disconnection from the vessel and the seabed anchor points becomes a little more difficult. Furthermore, both types of facilities generally use rigid risers as opposed to the flexible risers used in FPSOs and semi-submersibles.

Sub-Sea Structures
Besides platforms and topsides, oil and gas operators have to decommissioning sub-sea well completion equipment. Sub-sea structures primarily consist of: Anchor blocks (concrete); Anchor chains / cables; Anchor points (piled); Drilling template (platform and satellite); Production manifold (small to medium and large); Protective structure; Riser (rigid and flexible); Riser basis (piled); Well heads; Xmas trees.

It is desirable that all installations in shallow to medium water depth should be completely removed for reuse or recycling or final disposal on land. The removal of these elements can be achieved entirely with existing cutting technology and relatively small lifting vessels (i.e. derrick barges or even deck cranes on semi-submersible support vessels) [3]. In deeper water (i.e. beyond direct diver intervention), most of Brazilians fields, the design of sub-sea units necessarily means that installation process is mechanically reversible under remote operation by specialized equipment such as remotely operated vehicle (ROV) units. However, if a seabed installation due to its difficulty of removal (e.g. because of the unresolved presence of cuttings piles) would be left in situ, if it results no interference in sea environment [13].

Pipelines
There is no international legislation specifically governing the decommissioning of pipelines. According 13 to the Petroleum Act 1998 [ ], decommissioning proposals for pipelines should be contained within a separate program from that for installations. This program should: Account other uses of the sea; Assess all feasible decommissioning options (Figure 5); Be performed in such a way to cause no significant adverse effects upon the marine environment; Regard to the likely deterioration of the material involved and its present and possible future effect on the marine environment, if pipeline were left in place; Take decisions in the light of individual circumstances.
Pipelines

Removal

Burrial or Trenching to Adequate Depths

Leaving in place

Figure 5: Decommissioning option for pipelines [13]. When it is proposed a disposal in-situ, a suitable study should be supported, either wholly or in part. The study may address the degree of past and likely future burial/exposure of the pipeline and any potential effect on the marine environment and other uses of the sea. The study should also include the survey history of the pipeline with appropriate data to confirm the status of the line including the extent and depth of burial, trenching, spanning and exposure.

Wells
Decommissioning wells has an immediate and contemporary importance in Brazil. Since the breakdown of monopoly in 1997, each year 60-70 exploratory wells are drilled [29]. This results, taking account a success rate 5:1, in a decommissioning rate of 40-50 wells/year. Therefore, ANP published at late 1999 [ ], a regulation for decommissioning wells based on European and US regulatory framework, it establishes the environment and necessary procedures for preservation Brazilian aquifers and to avoid irresponsible abandonment of exploratory or production wells. Among others proceedings, it requires a previous authorization from ANP for it occurs.
30

Environmental Issues
Based on the fact that under water installations, i.e., platforms sub-structure and pipelines may act as artificial substrates, resulting in a potential habitat for undersea communities development, one important environmental concerns is: "is it better to leave a structure and the associated biota in-place or return the area to the way it was before placement?" [31]. Even when considering partial removal option, the near surface areas (25 30 meters) normally support the largest attached biomassvii per unit area and it is the mussel community. Removal of these upper portions of the structure would eliminate this important community. No matter how much of the sub sea portions of the structures are removed, the attached benthosviii will be removed also [31].

Environmental Impacts
When assessing environmental impacts of a specific decommissioning option, these may be observed through a global perspective not focusing just in the immediate impacts, but also in its future consequences. Therefore, the assessment contemplates: Intense impacts: resulted by decommissioning operations execution. For instance, toppled in situ of a steel jacket; Chronic impacts: resulted by the decommissioning operations well developed. In the case of toppled in situ option, it would be those associated with the corrosion structure presence at sea bottom. An assessing method for environmental impacts of decommissioning options is presented in Figure 6. Identify the main events in each option that could cause impact

Identify the possible impacts that may result from each event

Quantify if possible the physical extent and duration of each impact

Assign a severity rating to each identified impact

Summarize the individual rated impacts of the operations and end-points, which together constitute one option for the structure under consideration Figure 6: Assessing method for environmental impacts of decommissioning options [32]. Environmental impacts evaluation should observe its effects on air, water and sediments, birds, pelagic organisms, fishes and seabed organisms; marine soil topography; oceans activities; earth utilization; structures and equipment reutilization; disposal sites of structures and equipment materials.
vii viii

The total quantity or weight of living creatures in a given area or volume. Animals, which live on or in the seabed.

Therefore concerning severity ratings, environmental impacts may be classified according Table 1. Table 1: Definitions of severity ratings [adapted from Ref. 32]. RATING Positive [1] Negligible [2] Small [3] Moderate [4] Major [5] DEFINITION Increases abundance or distribution, or, provides material benefit to a user Affects localized part of population over the short term, in a way similar to natural changes in the population, or, has no discernible effect and is not noticed by users of the resource Affects local group of individuals, over short time scale, or, may be noticed by users, but has no effects on their well-being, or use of the resources Changes the abundance and/or distribution of a part of the population, over several generations, or, affects the well-being of users of the resources over the short term Affects the whole population or species and causes changes in abundance/distribution that persist for several generations, or, affects the commercial use of a resource and impacts on the well-being of users over the long-term.

Conjointly to the severity rating determination, it should be observed: relative use of energy and emission of CO2, requirements for the disposal of LSA scale, requirement for new dumping licenses and requirements for the long-term monitoring [32]. Important to notice that sorting results of different impacts inside one given option can, in such way, also be kept without no balance attribute in sharp impacts as well as in chronic ones. This allows later data reviewed and evaluated, on which options presenting the highest and the lowest impacts, forming a base for future conclusions. Finally, after quantitative result evaluations, the options can be classified according to different criteria and measures, for example, total amount of impacts, or sharp impacts, or chronic impacts, or any combination of these. Environmental impact mitigation would come by the mechanism of artificial reefs.

Artificial Reefs
An artificial reef may be described as any structure placed by man in the marine environment could simulate a natural reef. Artificial reefs range, in both size and material, from simple wooden constructions, to engineered steel and concrete structures, as well as materials of opportunity such as car tires, old cars and, in recent times, decommissioned offshore installations. An artificial reef area can be composed of single reef units, groups of units, or a larger reef complex comprising several groups of reef units [33]. For centuries, artificial reefs have been used by coastal communities and have become popular fisheries management tools with distinct proposes, such as [33]: Increasing the carrying capacity of the natural environment, increase the overall productivity; Provision of spawning areas, and protected juvenile fishes habitats, which improves fishing catches and quality; Restricting fishermen from shipping lanes, e.g., preventing trawlers from using certain areas; Scientific experimental grounds and SCUBA sites; Shore protection and control of beach erosion (breakwaters); Waste disposal option (non-toxic materials). Japan has been one of the leading countries that have used artificial reefs as fisheries management tools, dedicating at least 10% of its coastline to marine enhancement devices. Japan has invested

considerable effort into the optimization of reef layouts and construction. Australian and Mediterranean coasts have several artificial reefs. Those in the latter region have, to date, been used mostly for scientific purposes. USA has also appreciated the opportunities of fishery enhancement derived from artificial reefs and has initiated several artificial reef programs, using both engineered reefs and materials of opportunity. Brazil began to deal with artificial reefs in 1994. The first experience occurred in south BCS coast (Paran State)ix employing as reef material concrete blocks reef balls. In 2000, began a pioneer x experience in building an artificial reef using engineered steel, in case an old vessel: VICTORY 8B . The artificial reef was placed 20m BWL. Besides scientific experimental grounds, the main goal is to develop SCUBA sites for sport fishing. In the next few years, three more vessels will be used as 34 artificial reefs [ ].

Rigs to reefs Program (RTR)

The rigs-to-reefs (RTR) is generally understood as the use of decommissioned offshore oil and gas platforms, which have been totally or partially submerged in-situ, or at another selected location, for the specific purpose of creating an artificial habitat. RTR programs first arose at U.S. Gulf of Mexico, in 1987, applying materials of opportunity from offshore oil platforms. Since then, they have proved highly successful and cost-effective [35]. An oil and gas offshore substructure produces satisfactory artificial reefs due to [ ]: A large surface area, which in conjunction with structural openness that permits adequate circulation of water inside, encourages abundant benthicxi species; A range of habitats throughout the water column allowing different species to remain at their most favorable depth and increase their range vertically; An abundant food supply from attached and movable species; Physical design complexity providing shelter from strong currents and predators, besides hard bottom habitats. It is a visual, tactile or auditory reference point in an otherwise unstructured environment; Provide the basis for a substantial food chain; Spawning and nursery grounds. After an offshore facility is severed, with appropriate legal permits and economics, three methods are commonly used by industry in a RTR process (Les Dauterive, 2000) [36]: Platform Tow and Place (Figure 7 (a)); Platform Toppled in Place (Figure 7 (b)); Platform Partial Removal (Figure 7 (c)).
33

(a)

(b)

(c)

Figure 7: Reefing methods: (a) Tow and place; (b) Toppled in place; (c) Partial removal [36]. As long as most international environmentalists, government agencies, and fisherman support artificial reefs as a reasonable decommissioning option for offshore structures [12], this could be a feasible and cost-effective option for those fixed installations located in BCS northeast area.

ix x

Project developed by Federal University of Paran. Project developed by Federal University of Esprito Santo and State Secretary of Environment. xi Associated with the seabed.

Concluding Remarks
Besides technological and operational issues, involving both international and national regulatory critical studies, the importance of open relationship with the public and other interest groups may not be neglected. Therefore, it may emerge a necessity of assessment decommissioning options using both science and reason, which by others means: minimize environmental impacts, adopting health and safe engineering procedures with reduced cost: ensuring BPO becoming a BPEngO. On the other hand, industry may feel the necessity of developing a suitable strategy to optimize overall field revenue and profitability. Firstly, trying to maximize reservoir performance, delaying as much as possible decommissioning timing, minimizing also its costs, demanding, for instance, a scheme development that ensure decommissioning activities being correctly phased with offshore removal operations. The Brazilians decommissioning offshore petroleum fields is relatively new to Brazil and presents a formidable challenge in the near future. There is an expectation that the review proposed by ANP and IBAMA follow a settled strategy, which should provide to the operators the possibility of taking on the most appropriate decommissioning methodology and technology.

Acknowledges
The authors would like to thanks financial support of Brazilian National Petroleum Agency ANP and Brazilian Financier of Studies and Projects FINEP, thorough the ANP Human Resource Program for Petroleum and Natural Gas Sector PRH-ANP/MME/MCT.

References
1. THORNTON, W., The Cost Denial, Oil and Gas Journal, vol.: 58, issue: 11, 1998; 2. SHELL UK, Brent Spar Dossier: the Story, Photographic Record, Feature Stories, Press Releases and Technical Data. [On-line], Site: www.shell.com/uken/directory/0,4010,25268,00.html [01/2001]; 3. MEENAN, P., Technical Aspects of Decommissioning Offshore Structures, article from Decommissioning Offshore Structures, SPRINGER-VERLAG, London, Great Britain, 1998. IBSN 3-540-76213-2; 4. PULSIPHER, A. G., DANIEL IV, W. B., Onshore Disposition of Offshore Oil and Gas Platforms: Western Politics and International Standards, Center for Energy Studies, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, USA, 1999, 39pp. This article is based on a presentation at the APEC (Asia Pacific Economic Commission) workshop on platform decommissioning held in Jakarta Indonesia in October 1998; 5. BP-AMOCO, British Petroleum, Statistical Review World Energy, United Kingdom, London, June 2000. 40 p, [On-line], Site: www.bp.com/worldenergy [01/2001]; 6. CRAIG, M., Oil and Gas Industry View and Concerns, paper presented in Proceedings: An International Workshop on Offshore Lease Abandonment and Platform Disposal: Technology, Regulation and Environmental Effects, Center for Energy Studies, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge Louisiana, April 1996, (MMS Contract No. 14-35-0001-30794); 7. MANAGO, F., WILLIAMSON, B. (eds.), Proceedings: Public Workshop, Decommissioning and Removal of Oil & Gas Facilities Offshore California: Recent Experiences and Future Deepwater Challenges, MMS OCS Study 98-0023, 1997; 8. WORLD OIL, FPSOs (Floating Production Storage and Off loading), October 1999; 9. ANP, Brazilian National Petroleum Agency, 2000. [On-line], site: www.anp.gov.br [11/2000]; 10. MMA, Brazilian Ministry of Environmental, Law n 6,938, August 31st, 1981;

11. ANP, Brazilian National Petroleum Agency, Law n 9,478, August 6th, 1997; 12. TWACHTMAN, R. J., Offshore Platforms Decommissioning Perceptions Change, Oil and Gas Journal, vol.: 95, issue: 49, 1997; 13. DTI, Department of Trade and Industry, Guidance Notes for Industry: Decommissioning of Offshore Installations and Pipelines under the Petroleum Act 1998, 2000; 14. ALBAUGH, E. K., Deep-water Abandonment Focus on Gulf of Mexico Contractors, Oil and Gas Journal, vol.: 58, issue:11, November 1998; 15. OSPAR, The Commission for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Northeast Atlantic. Decision 98/3 on the Disposal of Disused Offshore Installations, Reference number: B-9.6, 1998; 16. HUGHES, N., FISH, P., Decommissioning: Addressing The Issues - When? What? How? And How Much?, Foster Wheeler Consulting, 2000; 17. GRIFFIN, W. S., Managing the Platform Decommissioning Process, SPE International Conference and Exhibition, Beijing, China, 1998, (SPE 48892); 18. PHILLIPS PETROLEUM COMPANY, Maureen Decommissioning Program, 1999. [On-line] Site: www.phillips66.com/maureen/ [11/2000]; 19. TWACHTMAN SNYDER & BYRD INC, State of Art of Removing Large Platforms Located in Deep Water Final Report, Presented to: MMS - U. S. Department of the Interior - Minerals Management Service, November 2000; 20. LINZI, P., HARLEY, L., PICKEN, G., Decommissioning of the Balmoral Installation (UK North Sea): BPEO Case Study, SPE International Conference on Health, Safety and Environment in Oil & Gas Exploration & Production, Stavanger, Norway, 26-28 June 2000, (SPE 61120); 21. MORITIS, G., Industry Tackles Offshore Decommissioning, Oil and Gas Journal, vol. 95, issue: 49; 22. PITTARD, A., Technology Field Abandonment Costs Vary Widely Worldwide, Oil and Gas Journal, vol. 95, issue:11, 1997Pittard, 1997; 23. PETROBRS, 2000. [On-line], site: www.petrobras.com.br [02/2001]; 24. PENNEY, W., Stabilization Elements to Consider in Re-Floating Concrete Gravity Platforms, Offshore Magazine, January 2001 25. GRAFF, W., Introduction to Offshore Structures, Gulf Publishing Company, Houston, Texas, 1981. IBSN 0-87201-694-3; 26. PRASTHOFER, P. H., Offshore Production Facilities: Decommissioning of Topsides Production Equipment, Proceedings: Public Workshop, Decommissioning and Removal of Oil and Gas Facilities Offshore California: Recent Experiences and Future Deep-water Challenges, Ventura, California, 1997, (MMS OCS Study 98-0023); 27. ANTHONY, N. R., RONALDS, B. F., FAKAS, E., Platform Decommissioning Trends, SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition, Brisbane, Australia, 2000, (SPE 64446); 28. PETROBRAS, Annual Report, 1999; 29. ANP, Brazilian National Petroleum Agency, Annual Statistical Report of Brazilian Petroleum Industry, 2000. 30. ANP, Brazilian National Petroleum Agency, Drilled Wells Abandonment Regulation, Regulation n 176, 1999; 31. DE WIT, L. A., Effects of Decommissioning Activities on marine Benthos, paper presented in Proceedings: Public Workshop, Decommissioning and Removal of Oil & Gas Facilities Offshore California: Recent Experiences and Future Deep-water Challenges, MMS OCS Study 98-0023, 1997;

32. UKOOA, U.K. Offshore Operators Association, The AURIS Report Executive Summary, June 1995. [On-line], Site: www.ukooa.co.uk/issues/index.cfm?page=/issues/decommissioning/v0000158.htm [11/2000]; 33. AABEL, J. P., CRIPPS, S. J., HOVDA, J., Optimal Configuration of a Large Scale Artificial Reef from Decommissioned Oil and Gas Platform Jackets - A Case Study, European Artificial Reef Research. Proceedings of the 1st EARRN Conference., Ancona, Italy, March 1996 34. COUTINHO, A. K., Projeto Recifes Artificiais Marinhos do Esprito Santo, Universidade Federal do Esprito Santo e Secretaria Estadual do Meio Ambiente, 2000; 35. THORNTON Jr., W. L., QUIGEL, J. C., Case History for Rigs-to-Reefs: a Cost Effective Alternative for Platform Abandonment, 20th Annual OTC, Houston, Texas, 2-5 May 1988, (OTC 5876); 36. LES DAUTERIVE, Rigs-to-reefs Policy, Progress and Perspective, Presented to MMS - U. S. Department of the Interior - Minerals Management Service, New Orleans, Louisiana, October 2000, 12p. (OCS Report MMS 2000-073).