A Danish Field Platforms and Pipelines Decommissioning Programmes PDF

A Danish Field
Platforms and Pipelines

Decommissioning Programmes

A Danish Field Platforms and Pipelines
APPENDIX A: Environmentally sound recycling and scrapping of offshore platforms
A1 Offshore Deconstruction
A2 Removal of platforms
A3 Transportation of platforms
A4 Onshore decommissioning
APPENDIX B: Environmental challenges associated with decommissioning
APPENDIX C: Decommissioning in the North Sea, Weather Windows, (this report is not attach)
Participating Companies
Offshoreenergy.dk www.offshoreenergy.dk
Ramboll Oil & Gas, www.ramboll.com
Semco Maritime www.semcomaritime.com
Blue Water Shipping www.bws.dk
Stena Recycling A/S www.stenarecycling.com

Page 1 of 56

A Danish Field
Platforms and Pipelines

June 2013

Page 2 of 56

Table of Contents
1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................7
1.1 Decommissioning Programmes for a Danish Field ..............................................................................7
1.2 Document Sections Comprising the Two Decommissioning Programmes ........................................9
2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .....................................................................................................................................9
2.1 Removals ................................................................................................................................................ 10
2.2 Pipelines ............................................................................................................................................... 10
2.3 Time schedule ....................................................................................................................................... 11
3 BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................................... 12
3.1 Decommissioning of the Field Facilities ........................................................................................... 12
3.2 Environmental Conditions ................................................................................................................. 12
3.2.1 Biological Assessment ............................................................................................................... 12
3.2.2. Commercial fisheries ........................................................................................................................... 17
3.2.3.. Shipping .............................................................................................................................................. 18
3.2.5. Environmental issues to assess .......................................................................................................... 19
4 ITEMS TO BE DECOMMISSIONED .................................................................................................................. 20
4.1 Platforms (Programme 1) ................................................................................................................... 20
4.1.1 Description .................................................................................................................................. 20
4.1.2 History .......................................................................................................................................... 21
4.1.3 Condition ..................................................................................................................................... 21
4.2 Pipelines (Programme 2) ....................................................................................................................... 21
4.2.1 Description .................................................................................................................................. 21
4.2.2 History .......................................................................................................................................... 22
4.2.3 Condition ..................................................................................................................................... 22
5 INVENTORY OF MATERIALS .......................................................................................................................... 22
5.1 Major Platform Materials ..................................................................................................................... 22
5.2 Platform Hazardous Materials ............................................................................................................. 25
5.3 Pipeline Materials .................................................................................................................................. 26
6 POTENTIAL RE‐USE OPPORTUNITIES ............................................................................................................. 26
6.1 Topsides and Jackets ........................................................................................................................... 26
6.2 Pipelines ................................................................................................................................................ 27
7 LONG LIST OF DECOMMISSIONING OPTIONS, AND SELECTION OF A SHORT LIST ....................................... 27
7.1 Option Identification Process ............................................................................................................ 27
7.2 Decommissioning Options for the Platform Topsides ....................................................................... 27
7.2.1 Leave in‐situ ................................................................................................................................. 27
Page 3 of 56

7.2.2 Re‐use in‐situ ............................................................................................................................... 28
7.2.3 Re‐use in another location ......................................................................................................... 28
7.2.4 Remove and recycle..................................................................................................................... 28
7.2.5 Rigs to reefs disposal .................................................................................................................. 28
7.2.6 Deep sea disposal ........................................................................................................................ 28
7.2.7 Delay decommissioning awaiting novel new technology ....................................................... 28
7.3 Possible Topside Removal Methods ................................................................................................... 29
7.3.1 Installation reversal using heavy lift vessel (HLV) ................................................................... 29
7.3.2 Topside integrated removal using semi‐submersible crane vessel (SSCV) ........................... 29
7.3.3 Topside integrated removal using novel new technology ..................................................... 29
7.3.4 Piece small topsides removal....................................................................................................... 29
7.3.5 Shear‐leg and grab ....................................................................................................................... 30
7.3.6 Removal using drilling jack‐up rig ............................................................................................. 30
7.4 Decommissioning Options for the Platform Jackets ......................................................................... 30
7.4.1 Leave in place ............................................................................................................................... 30
7.4.2 Re‐use in‐situ ............................................................................................................................... 30
7.4.3 Re‐use in another location ......................................................................................................... 30
7.4.4 Remove and recycle..................................................................................................................... 31
7.4.5 Rigs to reefs disposal .................................................................................................................. 31
7.4.6 Deep sea disposal ........................................................................................................................ 31
7.4.7 Delay decommissioning awaiting novel new technology ....................................................... 31
7.5 Possible Jacket Removal Methods ...................................................................................................... 31
7.5.1 Installation reversal using heavy lift vessel (HLV) ................................................................... 31
7.5.2 Jacket removal using novel technology ................................................................................... 32
7.5.3 Piece small jacket removal ......................................................................................................... 32
7.5.4 Direct lift of jacket ......................................................................................................................... 32
7.5.5 Shear‐leg and grab ....................................................................................................................... 32
7.5.6 Further Development of the Versa‐truss Principle .................................................................... 32
7.6 Decommissioning Options for the Pipelines ...................................................................................... 33
7.6.1 Decommission and leave in‐situ ................................................................................................ 33
7.6.2 Re‐use in‐situ ............................................................................................................................... 33
7.6.3 Re‐use in other locations ............................................................................................................ 33
7.6.4 Remove and recycle or dispose in landfill ..................................................................................... 33
7.7 Pipeline Removal Methods ................................................................................................................. 33
7.7.1 Reverse S‐lay ................................................................................................................................. 33
Page 4 of 56

7.7.2 Cut and lift ................................................................................................................................... 34
7.7.3 Surface tow .................................................................................................................................. 34
7.7.4 Controlled depth tow ................................................................................................................. 34
8 COMPARATIVE ASSESSMENT OF SHORT LIST OF OPTIONS AND SELECTION OF PREFERRED OPTION ........ 34
8.1 Option Selection Methodology ........................................................................................................... 34
8.2 Comparative Assessment and Selection of Preferred Option for Topsides .................................. 35
8.2.1 Description of Topsides Removal Options ................................................................................ 35
8.2.2 Comparative Assessment and cost of Topsides Removal Options ........................................ 37
8.2.3 Summary of Selected Topsides Decommissioning Options ................................................... 37
8.3 Comparative Assessment and Selection of Preferred Option for Jackets ...................................... 38
8.3.1 Description of Jacket Removal Options .................................................................................... 38
8.3.2 Comparative Assessment of Jacket Removal Options ............................................................ 41
8.3.3 Summary of Selected Jacket Decommissioning Options ........................................................ 41
8.4 Comparative Assessment and Selection of Preferred Option for Pipelines .................................. 42
8.4.1 Description of Pipeline Decommissioning Options ................................................................ 42
8.4.2 Comparative Assessment of Pipeline Decommissioning Options ......................................... 44
8.4.4 Summary of Selected Pipeline Decommissioning Option ............................................................. 45
8.5 Disposal of Decommissioned Material .............................................................................................. 45
9 WELL DECOMMISSIONING ............................................................................................................................ 46
9.1 Description .......................................................................................................................................... 46
9.2 Drill Cuttings ........................................................................................................................................ 46
9.3 Well Decommissioning Plan ............................................................................................................... 47
10 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT ................................................................................................. 47
10.1 Introduction and method .................................................................................................................. 47
10.2 Results of the environmental assessment ....................................................................................... 47
10.2.1 Expected results .............................................................................................................................. 47
11 COSTS ........................................................................................................................................................ 48
12 SCHEDULE .................................................................................................................................................. 49
13 PERMITS AND CONSENTS .......................................................................................................................... 50
14 MONITORING AND MAINTENANCE .......................................................................................................... 50
14.1 Platforms .............................................................................................................................................. 50
14.1.1 I n t e r i m safety management ...................................................................................................... 50
14.1.2 P o s t ‐decommissioning survey and debris removal .................................................................. 50
14.2 Pipelines ................................................................................................................................................ 50
14.2.1 I n t e r i m safety management ...................................................................................................... 50
Page 5 of 56

14.2.2 P o s t ‐decommissioning survey and debris removal .................................................................. 51
14.3 Post‐decommissioning Environmental Survey ................................................................................ 51
15 PROJECT MANAGEMENT .......................................................................................................................... 51
15.1 Project management ........................................................................................................................... 51
16 REFERENCES .............................................................................................................................................. 52
17 GLOSSARY OF TERMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ............................................................................................ 53

Page 6 of 56

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Decommissioning Programmes for a Danish Field

A typical Danish Field
A typical Danish Field comprises five wellhead platforms, A, B, C, D and E, a combined wellhead and
processing platform, F, a processing platform, G, two processing and accommodation platforms, B and
C, and two gas flare stacks, G and F.
The A, B, C and D platform complex is located about 3 km from the F platforms, while E is an
unmanned satellite platform ½ km from F.

At the Field, there are receiving facilities for the production from the adjacent K and R satellite fields.
The Field installations also provide the H Field with injection water.

After final processing, the oil is via the riser platform, GE transported to shore. The gas is at platform F
pre‐processed and for final processing transported to T.
Treated production water from central platform and its satellite fields is into the sea discharged.

In the Field, there are accommodation facilities for about 100 persons on the C platform and 5 persons
on the B platform.

In 1966 was the Field discovered and was on stream brought in 1971 and lies some 250km off the west
coast of Jutland. It has been subjected to various upgrades to improve and maximize production
during its lifetime, including additional platforms F in the 1980’s, upgrade, demanding and compressor
reconfiguration in mid‐1990’s. Production from the Field is near future expected to cease within a. At
Cessation of Production, it is estimated that the operator will have produced 101, 8 million m3 of oil
and 22723 Nm 3 of gas at the entire Field

Page 7 of 56

Figure 1.1.1 Location of the Field

As the Field facilities are expected no longer to serve their intended purpose within the next 5 to
10 years, a group of Esbjerg companies (Offshoreenergy.dk, Semco, Stena, Blue Water Shipping and
Ramboll) have, as an exercise for coming decommissioning of offshore facilities in the North
Sea, prepared the Decommissioning Programmes covering the elements of a typical Field
facilities corresponding to separate Notices (Section 29 of Petroleum Act 1998) as detailed below:

Decommissioning Programme 1 covers the four Field platforms A, B, C and D

Decommissioning Programme 2 covers the infield pipelines 3 km 16" and 12" from D to F and
the 2 km 10"pipelinfrom B to E.

In order to present the background and the inter‐related activities involved for the facilities covered
in these Decommissioning Programmes, they are as one document presented.

These Decommissioning Programmes are prepared in accordance with the requirements of the
OSPAR convention 1998.

Page 8 of 56

1.2 Document Sections Comprising the Two Decommissioning Programmes

For ease of reference, the following Table 1.2.1 identifies the sections in this document covering
the three Decommissioning Programmes.

Document Heading Decommissioning Decommissioning
Programme 1 Programme 2
Description Fixed Steel Platforms Infield Pipelines
Reference A, B, C and D 3 km 16" D-F

3 km 12" D-F
2 km 10" B-E

Introduction 1 1

Executive Summary 2 2
Background 3 3

Items to be 4.1 4.2
Decommissioned
Inventory of Materials 5.1 & 5.2 5.3
Potential Re-use 6.1 6.2
Opportunities
Short List of 7.1 – 7.5 7.6 – 7.7
Decommissioning
Options
Comparative 8 8
assessment of Short List Gl
& Selected Options o
Well decommissioning 9 -
Environmental Impact 10 10
Assessment
Costs 11 11
Schedule 12 12
Permits and Consents 13 13
Monitoring and 14.1 14.2
Maintenance

Project Management 15 15
References 16 16
Glossary, Terms & Abbr. 17 17

Table 1.2.1 – Document Sections Comprising the Two Decommissioning Programmes
2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This document presents an assessment of the potential decommissioning options for the Field
facilities and pipelines and the process adopted to select the preferred options.

In 1966 was the field discovered and was on stream brought in 1971 and lies some 250km off the west
coast of Jutland. It has been subjected to various upgrades to improve and maximize production
during its lifetime, including additional platforms F in the 1980’s, upgrade, demanding and compressor
reconfiguration in mid‐1990’s. Production from the Dan Field is near future expected to cease within a.
Page 9 of 56

At Cessation of Production, it is estimated that the operator will have produced 101, 8 million m3 of oil
and 22723 Nm 3 of gas at the entire Field

The decommissioning programmes present plans for the total removal of the A, B, C and D
platforms from the site and their return to shore for re‐use, recycling or disposal as appropriate.
They also present plans for the decommissioning of the three pipelines by in‐situ decommissioning
or by removal to shore for re‐use, recycling or disposal as appropriate.

This document describes how Offshoreenergy.dk, Semco, Stena, Blue Water
Shipping and Ramboll, have:

Reviewed a range of potential options for decommissioning the wells, platforms and
pipelines.
Examined the advantages and disadvantages in terms of safety, technical feasibility,
environmental impact, effect on other users of the sea, and cost;
Selected a short list of options that would achieve the desired outcome for the
decommissioning;
Considered the environmental impact for the recommended options;
Developed an appropriate consolidated programme for the
implementation.

The studies and programmes support the conclusion that the following options represent
acceptable methods of decommissioning the wells and facilities in terms of safety,
environmental and social impact, and economic value:

2.1 Removals

Following the permanent plugging, d e c o m m i s s i o n i n g o f w e l l s , and preparing the

facilities, the platform topsides will be completely removed to shore for dismantling by any of the
following methods:
Installation reversal using heavy lift vessels (HLVs); or
Integrated removal using large semi‐submersible crane vessels (SSCVs); or
Integrated removal using novel single lift technology; or
Piece small removal.

Jackets will be completely removed to shore for dismantling by:
Installation reversal using HLV; or
Removal using added buoyancy and or direct lifting.

Due to the age and condition of the structures and equipment, it is unlikely considered that re‐use
opportunities will be forthcoming, recycling rather than disposal will be maximised.

This is in accordance with the presumption of removal for offshore installations contained in
OSPAR decision 98/3

2.2 Pipelines

The pipelines have a history of stable burial demonstrated by survey records. Using a comparative
assessment of the technical, safety, environmental and societal impacts it is recommended that
pipelines will be decommissioned by:

In‐situ decommissioning, with appropriate remedial work at pipe ends and crossings by Re‐
Page 10 of 56

trenching, burying or cutting out offending sections where practical.

The area will be subject to a post decommissioning environmental survey, and the pipelines
will remain the operator responsibility and will be subject to an agreed monitoring programme
to ensure the lines remain free of hazards to other sea users.

2.3 Time schedule

Cessation of Production 2015
Clean & Make-safe
Well Decommissioning
Module Segregation and Pre-Lifting
Pipeline Cleaning
Platform Removal (Window)
Pipeline Decommissioning (Window)
Onshore Disposal (Window)
Debris Clearance & Final Survey

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2020
Figure 2.3.1 – The Field Decommissioning Overall Project Plan
Page 11 of 56

3 BACKGROUND

3.1 Decommissioning of the Field Facilities

It is proposed that the decommissioning of the Operator‐operated platforms facilities will be
performed in a phased manner following the permanent abandonment of the platform wells,
isolation and making the facilities hydrocarbon‐free. The planned phases of the
decommissioning are as follows:

 Pre‐decommissioning inspections, surveys and engineering development studies.
 Plugging and permanent abandonment of the wells.
 Removal of residual hydrocarbons from the platform facilities and associated pipelines.
 Removal to shore of the platform structures and equipment.
 In‐situ decommissioning of the pipelines.
 Post decommissioning seabed clearance and surveys.
 Onshore dismantling and disposal.

3.2 Environmental Conditions

This section presents information on commercial activities and biological features characteristic of
the North Sea, focusing at the location around the field. The subjects described in the following
chapters include:
 Biological assessment
 Commercial fisheries
 Shipping
Overview of typical environmental concerns within decommissioning projects is in Appendix B given,
prepared in support of this decommissioning report.
3.2.1 Biological Assessment

The report "Scientific basis for a management plan for the North Sea and Skagerrak, 2010" /1/
describe Natural resources and environment in the North Sea. Areas of particular value and
vulnerability are also in the report described. This report is as basis documentation for describing the
state of the North Sea area in general used and the surrounding area of the field.
In shallow areas in the North Sea, e.g. at the field, the processes at the sea bottom and in the
upper water column is closely connected. The plankton production is during the winter limited
by low temperature and reduced light conditions. Factors such as increased nutrients supply
from land and vertical mixing of the water is contributing to an increase nutrient content within
the upper water column. Increased light conditions and reduced vertical mixing of the water
during the autumn creates an ideal condition for growth of phytoplankton, which forms the
nutrient basis for the marine food chain. Figure 3.2.1 illustrates the ecosystem of the North Sea.
Page 12 of 56

Figure 3.2.1 The pelagic and benthic ecosystem in the North Sea /1/.
The benthic fauna in the North Sea consists of species that varies with sediment composition,
water depth, temperature and oceanic currents. In addition to be of significance for consuming
organic matter within the sediments, the benthic fauna also constitute important nutrient
source for fish such as cod, haddock and flatfish. The seabed of the Dan field consist primary of
silty sand and the area is dominated by species such as polychaetes (worms) and ophiuroids
(brittle stars) that typical thrive in silt sediment. There is not expected benthic species of
particular sensitivity in the area around the field.
The North Sea constitute habitat for many fish species, of which the commercial fish species
consists of herring, mackerel, horse mackerel, sprat, Norwegian pout, cod, haddock and sand eel.
In the central North Sea the fully‐grown herrings are by young herrings replaced, there is
occurrence of sprat and the dominant cod species includes whiting and haddock. The central
North Sea is by primary production characterized and consists generally of less amount fish
compared to the areas further north. The east North Sea constitutes the main habitat for flatfish,
important areas for sand eel and habitat for herring and cod.
The field lies within extensive areas used as spawning grounds by sprat, horse mackerel, sand eel
and mackerel, see Figure 3.2.2. Spawning seasons for sprat in the North Sea typically takes place
from the spring to the late autumn. The spawning season for sand eel is the winter period
December and January, while both the horse mackerels and mackerel are spawning between the
middle of May and throughout July, with a maximum in the middle of June.
Page 13 of 56

Figure 3.2.2 Distribution and spawning grounds within the location of the field. Upper left: sprat, upper right:
sand eel, lower left: horse mackerel and lower right: mackerel.
The North Sea constitutes generally an unsuitable habitat for mammals due to the thorough
shallow water depth. However, some of the smaller species cross the North Sea during migration
and in the search for food. The species dominating the area around the field include porpoise,
minke whale and white‐nosed dolphin. The general distribution of porpoise and minke whale, and
observations of the white‐nosed dolphin is presented in Figure 3.2.3.
Page 14 of 56

Figure 3.2.3Upper left and right: distribution of minke whale and porpoise respectively. Lower: observation of
white‐nosed dolphin.
The numbers and distribution of the species varies between different years due to the variation of
pray. Furthermore, whales in general migrate over large areas and can therefore not be regarded as
restricted to isolated zones. However, Figure 3.2.3 shows that porpoises have a high density within
the area around the field.
The common seals species, grey seal and harbour seal, are present in the North Sea. Both
species typical occur close to shore, but the grey seals have been known to cross the North Sea
in the search for food. None of these two species is of particular concern with regards to
sensitivity, and as their presence primarily are close to shore, decommissioning work is not
expected to be of high concern with respect to grey seals and harbour seals as
In addition to constituting an important area for fish and mammals, the North Sea is also of great
Page 15 of 56

value for the seabirds. More than 10 million seabirds are present in the area each year. Nesting
seabirds found in the North Sea include the following:
 Arctic petrel (Polarkjove)
 Great Cormorant (Storskarv)
 Eider duck (Edderfugl)
 Mew Gull (Stormmåge)
 Lesser Black‐backed Gull (Sildemåge)
 Herring gull (Sølvmåge)
 Great Black‐backed Gull (Svartbak)
 Kittiwake (Ride)
 Common Tern (Fjordterne)
 Arctic Tern (Havterne)
 Guillemot (Lomvi)
 Puffin (Søpapegøje)
 Razor‐bill auk (Alk)
 Black Guillemot (Teist)
The field is located offshore relative far from the coast and the geographic distribution of seabird
within this area depends primarily on nourishment basis as the birds follow the fish stock. The
central part of the North Sea is not of critical importance with respect to the seabirds. However,
the periods of which the seabirds have high vulnerability should be into consideration taken with
respect to removal of an installation. Seabirds have in general high vulnerability during the
breeding and moulting period as well as during wintering. Table 3.2.1 presents an overview of key
periods within the life cycle of seabirds. These periods can be as a general guideline seen for
periods of which the seabirds can be of particular vulnerability for interference.
Table 3.2.1 Key periods for the seabirds.
Activity Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. Jun Jul. Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec.
Breed Coastal zone
Swimming Offshore banker/deep

(Migration) basins
Moulting Coastal zone/sub coastal

zone
Flying migration All zones
Overwintering Sub coastal zone Sub coastal zone
Possible impacts associated with decommissioning activities offshore are generally time‐limited and
on local scale. Areas of high relevance with respect to vulnerability include the areas of mammals and
seabirds occurrence in addition to the spawning areas. Natural resources distributed along the coast
are not considered as actual risk potential. Impacts on benthic fauna or possible vulnerable seabed
Page 16 of 56

habitats are expected to be limited as the activities are generally taking place in restricted zones.
3.2.2. Commercial fisheries

Applied the statistics of the fishing activity within the area of relevance of a specific decommissioning
project as a basis documentation for assessments of possible impacts on the fishing industry. The
installation is located within area of the North Sea, which has an average biological production, which
is also given in the statistic of the fishing industry.
The fishing activity in the North Sea constitutes a large economical industry. Danish fishing vessels had
a gross income of approximately DKK 1.9 milliard in 2011 /2/. Species of large economic value in the
North Sea in general include sand eel, herring, plaice, mackerel and cod. Distribution of some of the
fish species with the most economical value is presented in Figure 3.2.2.1. The red square represents
the location of the Field.
Page 17 of 56

Figure 3.2.2.1 Distribution of in the North Sea, 2000‐2004.The maps shown the average rate of catch /3/.
Figure 3.2.2.1 shows that the area around the Field is of a relative high important commercial fishing
value compared to surrounding areas. Oil and gas installations have a safety zone established around
each specific field, where fishing is not permitted. During the work of removal of an installation,
temporary fishing restriction can be given due to occupation of areas. However, after the installation
is the zones removed of temporary fishing restriction and the safety zones can be reopened, which
will have a long‐term positive impact with respect to the fishing industry. Both the execution phase
and the long‐term perspective with respect to possible impacts on the fishing activities are to be as
part assessed of a decommissioning project.
3.2.3.. Shipping
The North Sea is in general an area with high shipping activity. The field is located in an area of
moderately high shipping activity, with common shipping routes nearby, see Figure 3.2.3.1. The
white point represents the location of the Field.
The Field
Figure 3.2.3.1 The distribution of shipping activity around the field (Data from August 2009 to July 2010).
Seen from the figure above there is a markedly high ship activity nearby the field, however there are
no major long distance routes in vicinity. The nearby activity is due to the presence of the
installations, thus no major ship routes will be affected by vessels used for the removal operation.

During the removal of an oil and gas installation possible conflicts with the shipping activity can be an
issue with respect to occupation of a larger area around the installation. From this, the
Page 18 of 56

decommissioning activities need to be notified. In addition, updating of chart data and alternative
routes for the shipping activities may be necessary during the removal of an installation.

The decommissioning activities itself will have a time limited effect on the shipping activity during the
removal of the installation. Nevertheless, the removal of the platforms will have a long‐term
positive impact when completed, as restricted zones within the location of a specific installation can
be reopened.

Risk related to ship collisions during removal of the installations is to be quantified. The risk varies
mainly with the extent of shipping activity in the area, the duration of the removal and the operations
needed to be performed. The shipping activity around the area of the field can be described based on
e.g. Automatic Identification System (AIS) data and available literature of relevance e.g. RKU‐
Nordsjøen (OLF, 2006, RKU‐Nordsjøen. Oppdatering av regional konsekvensutredning for
petroleumsvirksomhet i Nordsjøen) and available management plan (Kystverket og
Sjøfartsdirektoratet 2010. Helhetlig forvaltningsplan for Nordsjøen og Skagerrak. Statusbeskrivelse for
skipstrafikk. TA‐2666/2010).
3.2.5. Environmental issues to assess

Decommissioning of oil and gas installation can potentially cause environmental impacts. Possible
environmental impacts both in the short and long term, including the execution phase and end
disposal, is to be addressed for the specific installation. Issues that should be addressed include the
following:
 Energy consumption
 Emissions to air (NOx, CO2, SOx)
 Planned and unplanned discharge of contaminants (metals, organic pollutants including oil
components) to sea, water or ground
 Impacts on habitats and protected species
 Drill cuttings pile material at the seabed
 Aesthetic impacts (noise, odour, visual impacts)
 Waste management and resource utilisation
 Littering
 Marine traffic
 Other unexpected accidents.
A specific installation could have various disposal alternatives. For the relevant disposal options
environmental impact assessment should be addressed in line with the specific installation and
disposal option. Natural resources and environmental conditions within the relevant area of influence
for decommissioning activities are to be as key basis documentations applied for assessments of
possible environmental impacts. Environmental assessments and technical feasibility constitute the
basis for selection of a decommissioning option.
Page 19 of 56

4 ITEMS TO BE DECOMMISSIONED

This section provides a description of the platforms and pipelines to be decommissioned
and their layout in the Dan field.

4.1 Platforms (Programme 1)

4.1.1 Description

The target for the decommissioning in the Field is the four oldest platforms, named A, B, C and D.
)
Figure 4.1.1 Photograph illustrating a t y p i c a l o l d platforms

The old platform complex consists of a four‐leg fixed steel platform, which is by bridges linked to
two four‐legged fixed steel platform supporting six and ten wells respectively and one flare platform.

The larger four‐legged platform called B has accommodation and some utility equipment with a
helideck on top. The accommodation facilities have been reduced to emergency overnight
facilities but the helideck remains in use. The boat‐landing platform and access, has been from the
sea removed.

The B and D platforms are small four‐legged platforms installed as a minimal facilities
wellhead platform. They support six and ten conductors respectively. The topside contains
wellheads and manifolds. A crane is also present at each platform.

The C platform is a three‐leg platform with flare facilities and a flare tower.

The overall weights of the old platforms are in presented Table 4.1.1.1.

Page 20 of 56

Platform B A D C
Topside weight 1,694 236 524 137
(tonnes)
Jacket weight * 1,150 950 965 450
(tonnes)
Total (tonnes) 2,844 1,186 1,489 587

Table 4.1.1.1 – Overall Weights of Platforms

Note: * Only the weight of pile sections, which are to be together with the jacket removed, is included.

4.1.2 History

The platforms in the old field were over a period installed from 1970 to 1972. They were originally
manned platforms that were converted in the 1980’s to “normally unmanned installations” (NUIs)
with limited accommodation facilities.

4.1.3 Condition

In general, the primary structures, wells and process facilities of all the platforms are to be in good
condition considered for their age. The condition should be monitored and maintained to allow safe
operation and decommissioning. However, some redundant parts of the platforms, including all
walkways at the top of the jackets have not been maintained and have been cordoned off. These
areas should not be relied upon for safe access. Detailed consideration will be given to safe access
for decommissioning.

4.2 Pipelines (Programme 2)

4.2.1 Description

There are three pipelines to be decommissioned in the field. T hese are inter‐ platform
pipelines from D to F and B to E.

Summary details of all three pipelines are in Table 4.2.1.1 shown.

Page 21 of 56

Pipeline No. D-F D-F B-E
Route D-F F-D B-E
Length (km) 3.0 3.0 1.884
Year Installed 1971 1977 1977
Nominal diameter (in) 16 12 10.25
Wall thickness (mm) 18.3 17.5 12.7
Material API5LX42 API5LX52 API5LX52
External wall coating Coal tar enamel Coal tar enamel Coal tar enamel
Concrete coating 1.5 1.5 1.5

thickness (in)
Anode material Zinc Zinc Zinc
Service Wet gas Oil/condensate Oil/condensate
Trenched Yes Yes Yes
Self- burial status (in 100% 100% 100%
2004)
Crossing Crossed by FA-K Crossed by FA-K 10" None
10" pipeline pipeline
Crossed by FA-R 6" Crossed by FA-R 6"
pipeline pipeline
Table 4.2.1.1 – Pipeline Details

4.2.2 History

The pipelines in the field are all trenched and naturally, backfilled and no mattresses were adjacent
installed to any of the platforms in the field. Regular surveys have indicated that the burial depth
of the lines has remained generally stable over this period.

Refer to Appendix E for details of the burial history of the pipelines.

4.2.3 Condition

Little information is available regarding the external condition. It is assumed that the 1.5” thick
external concrete coating (reinforced with small‐diameter chicken wire mesh) of the three pipelines
installed in the 1970s will, having exceeded their design life by now, be experiencing some
deterioration and that the concrete outer coating may be subject to spalling if the pipelines are
extracted from the seabed.

5 INVENTORY OF MATERIALS

5.1 Major Platform Materials

The inventory of the various materials on each of the platforms is presented in the tables below:

Page 22 of 56

Item No. Description Weight (tonnes) Material
1 Structural steel 712 Carbon steel

2 Piping 460 Carbon steel
3 Vessels 237 Carbon steel
4 Mechanical equipment 156 Carbon steel
5 Electrical & instrument cables 5 Plastic coated copper
6 Cable trays 24 Galvanized steel
7 Electrical cabinets & equipment 14 Miscellaneous
8 HVAC/Architectural 1 Miscellaneous
9 Safety (includes fire water piping) 61 Carbon steel
10 Decking 24 Timber
Total 1694

Table 5.1.1 – Inventory of B Platform Topsides

1 Jacket structure 945 Carbon steel
2 Piles (see Note 1 below) 190 Carbon steel
3 Risers 0 Carbon steel
4 Risers 0 SS Duplex
5 Anodes (see Note 2 below) 15 Aluminium alloy
Total 1150

Table 5.1.2 – Inventory of B Platform Jacket


6 Cable trays 1 Galvanised steel
9 Safety 2 Carbon steel
Total 236

Table 5.1.3 – Inventory of A Platform Topsides (estimated values, see Note 3 below)
Page 23 of 56

Total 950

Table 5.1.4 – Inventory of A Platform Jacket

6 Cable trays 8 Galvanized steel
9 Safety (includes fire water piping) 15 Carbon steel
10 Decking 6 Timber
Total 524

Table 5.1.5 – Inventory of D Platform Topsides


3 Riser 15 Carbon steel
Total 965

Table 5.1.6 – Inventory of D Platform Jacket

3 Mechanical equipment & vessels 2 Carbon steel
5 Cable trays 3 Galvanised steel
8 Decking 0 Timber
Total 137
Page 24 of 56

Table 5.1.7 – Inventory of C Platform Flare

3 Riser 0
0 Carbon steel
Total 450

Table 5.1.8 – Inventory of C Platform Jacket

Note 1: The pile weight included in the above tables is the weight of the piles to be removed from
3m below seabed level.
Note 2: The anode weight included in the above tables is the original weight with no allowance
for degradation of the anodes.
Note 3: Estimated values have been presented. Documented values have not been available.
These values will be if necessary checked and updated when the data become available.

5.2 Platform Hazardous Materials

The following hazardous materials have been as being either identified present or potentially
present on the platform topsides and will require appropriate handling:

Hazardous Description
Material
Asbestos The corrugated wind walls on the platforms are from material constructed likely to
contain asbestos in the coating.
Asbestos is also to be in solid form assumed present in pipe gasket material.
All material will be transported onshore and handled and disposed of by
approved methods.
Paint The original paint used on the platforms is to contain lead assumed that might
give off toxic fumes if flame cutting is used.
LSA LSA has not been in any pipework detected or vessels; however, its absence is
to be by on-site confirmed testing.
Heavy Metals Heavy metals such as Mercury and Lead are to be present expected inside
instruments, batteries and the like. This equipment will be to shore transported
intact and disposed of onshore by appropriate approved methods.
Radioactive Minute amounts of radioactive isotopes may be present in smoke detectors.
Isotopes These detectors will be to shore transported intact and disposed of onshore by
appropriate approved methods.

Table 5.2.1 – Hazardous Materials in the Field
Page 25 of 56

5.3 Pipeline Materials

The inventory of the various materials on each of the pipelines is presented in the table below:

Pipeline No. D-F D-F B-E

Material Unit
Carbon steel Tonnes 747.1 2331.7 491.7
Duplex stainless steel Tonnes - - -
Coal tar enamel Tonnes 32.2 145.9 33.0
Neoprene Tonnes - - -
Bitumen enamel Tonnes - - -
Zinc/Aluminium anodes Tonnes 3.4 12.1 3.7
Reinforced concrete Tonnes 782.5 2197.8 506.8

Table 5.3.1.1 – Inventory of the Field Pipelines

6 POTENTIAL RE‐USE OPPORTUNITIES

There is a desire to treat decommissioned facilities in accordance with the Waste Hierarchy, which
stipulates that re‐use is preferred to recycle, and recycle preferred to disposal. A study of
the potential re‐use of the field facilities has determined some possible re‐use
opportunities. These possibilities are presented in this section.

6.1 Topsides and Jackets

Reference is made to Appendix 1, Part A1. There is no known potential for re‐use of any of the
topsides and jackets in their current locations. Considering the depleted Dan reservoir, for the
topsides and jackets to be re‐used in‐situ, a re‐use of the field would have to be found. A
possibility c ould be to the use of the field for CO2 sequestration or gas storage. This has
however, not been considered seriously to do:

― CO2 sequestration is not yet a mature technical or commercial opportunity. The industry
estimate is that it is at least 5 years away from reality;
― The reservoir is mainly an oil reservoir.
― It is unlikely that the existing wells could be re‐usable for injection due to their design
and condition;
― It is not economical considered, or desirable from a safety point of view, to retain the Dan
facilities in a dormant state for at least 5 years pending an opportunity.

There is little potential for re‐use of the A, B, C and D topsides, flare tower and jackets in new
locations because of their age and condition.

Possible re‐use options require the facilities to be recovered to shore for detailed inspection,
cleaning and refurbishment. This makes the re‐use of whole platforms economically less attractive
than modern cost‐efficient platforms. Platform components may be however, recovered to shore,
refurbished and re‐used. Although re‐use is unlikely considered for the platforms discounted.
Page 26 of 56

6.2 Pipelines

As for the platforms, there is no known potential for re‐use of any of the pipelines in their current
locations.

Potential options for re‐use elsewhere require the pipelines to first be recovered to shore for
detailed inspection, cleaning, refurbishment and r e‐certification. This m a k e s t h e r e ‐use o f
p i p e l i n e s technically and economically unfeasible.
7 LONG LIST OF DECOMMISSIONING OPTIONS, AND SELECTION OF A

SHORT LIST

This section presents the potential decommissioning options for the old Fields facilities identified by
Offshoreenergy.dk, Semco, Blue Water Shipping and Ramboll Oil & Gas

Note that in preparation for any of the following decommissioning options, the facilities should be
inspected for safe access, and, where necessary, remedial work should be to ensure carried out, that
the facilities are safe for the access required by the decommissioning project. This work should be
part of the overall decommissioning project scope.

As well as ensuring safe access, the facilities and pipelines should be de‐pressurized and
hydrocarbon‐ freed prior to decommissioning. In the case of the pipelines, this might involve the
installation of temporary pig launchers and receivers at the platform topsides for pigging with
sphere pigs to clear the bulk of the pipeline contents. The pipelines will then be flushed with
seawater and sampled to meet a specified target, hydrocarbon cleanliness level of no worse than
produced water discharge of 30mg/l. The fluids generated from all of the hydrocarbon freeing will
be contained and disposed of appropriately according to legislative requirements.

7.1 Option Identification Process

A number of study‐projects have been carried out to generate a list of possible generic options
for decommissioning the Danish oil and gas field facilities. Reference is made to Appendix 1, part
A1.

The generated list included different options, but no attempt was made to rate them with regard to
practicality, cost, safety or environmental impact.

This ‘long list’ of decommissioning options that resulted is from these projects described and
briefly assessed for legislative compliance below. Some options were as part rejected of this
process, leaving a short list for further assessment in Section 8.0.

7.2 Decommissioning Options for the Platform Topsides

7.2.1 Leave in‐situ

This is not a legally or environmentally acceptable option, regardless of whether the facilities
are maintained, and therefore it was rejected.

Page 27 of 56

7.2.2 Re‐use in‐situ

The possible in‐situ re‐uses for the topsides include using them as:
Renewable energy hub
Fish farm
Prison
Military applications
Navigation beacon
Communications hub
CO2 sequestration or gas storage

All these options are opportunity driven and can only be considered if the opportunity arises
within the right time frame. There would be significant issues that would have to be resolved
about ownership and responsibility of removal at the ultimate end of their useful life. This
option was rejected.

7.2.3 Re‐use in another location

This option requires the topsides to first be to shore removed, cleaned and revamped. Based on
the cost implications, the option was rejected.

7.2.4 Remove and recycle
This is one of the most likely futures for the topsides because of the low probability of finding
a suitable re‐use opportunity. Various removal methods were reviewed and are described later in
this section.

7.2.5 Rigs to reefs disposal

This might have been a practical option for the jackets. However, the permits necessary for this
method of disposal are not likely to be forthcoming foreseeable. This option was rejected.

7.2.6 Deep sea disposal

This method of disposal is not legally acceptable in North East Atlantic waters under OSPAR
obligations. This option was rejected.

7.2.7 Delay decommissioning awaiting novel new technology

Reference is made to Appendix 1, part A2. A number of marine contractors are known to be in the
process of producing novel concept designs for offshore equipment that are specifically tailored to
meet the offshore platform decommissioning market. The concepts include jack‐up platforms
and floating barges. Initial research indicates that the equipment, if developed, is not likely to be
available within a suitable timeframe to be acceptable for the field decommissioning schedule.
This option was therefore rejected.

Page 28 of 56

Decommissioning Option Status

Leave in-situ Rejected
Re-use in-situ Rejected
Re-use in other location Rejected
Remove and recycle Further consideration
Rigs to reefs disposal Rejected
Deep sea disposal Rejected
Await new technology Rejected

Table 7.2 – Summary of Topsides Decommissioning Options

7.3 Possible Topside Removal Methods

From the review of the topside decommissioning options, the only viable options involve removal
of the topsides to shore. The following possible removal methods were considered.

7.3.1 Installation reversal using heavy lift vessel (HLV)

This removal method is simply the reverse of the installation sequence for each of the platform
topsides. The work can be undertaken using an HLV of approximately 1,600 tonne lifting capacity.
Prior to the major lifting operations, preparation works are required to disconnect and isolate
topside packages, attach lifting points and riggings, internally sea‐fasten loose items on the topsides
and cut the topsides from the jackets.

7.3.2 Topside integrated removal using semi‐submersible crane vessel (SSCV)

This method is applicable to the B topsides that were installed by HLV employing many major
lifts. The SSCV concept involves removing the entire topside (lift weight 2,400 – 2,800 tonnes) in a
single lift. Substantial preparation work would be necessary to connect, strengthen the decks and
install lifting beams for an integrated lift. This method is not applicable for the smaller topsides
as they are already for single major lift removal considered under the HLV option.

7.3.3 Topside integrated removal using novel new technology

A number of potential novel methods of removing the topside were in a single piece
considered. They each involve high marine work content.

Versa‐truss is a proprietary hinged framing arrangement that, when attached to two barges and the
barges pulled together, will lift the load attached to the top of the framing. This method has
been for installing successfully used and removing topsides in the Gulf of Mexico. See Appendix A,
part A2. It is, however, technically more challenging in the North Sea environment. Substantial
preparation work would be necessary to strengthen the decks and install lifting beams and lower
tie members.

7.3.4 Piece small topsides removal

A marine work vessel, most probably a jack‐up barge set up next to the platform, would support
this topside removal method. The labour force from the vessel would dismantle the topsides
Page 29 of 56

into sections that can be easily handled by the available platform and vessel cranes. The
individual pieces will be loaded onto supply boats for transport to shore.
Another advantage is to utilize the same jack‐up for plugging of the wells. While the plugging takes
place, the dismantling of modules and equipment can by the crew on board be performed.

7.3.5 Shear‐leg and grab

The shear‐leg and grab method is a method that is sometimes in salvage operations employed. It
involves the use of hydraulic guillotines and grabs to break up facilities in a crude manner and dump
the pieces in barges for transport to shore.
The shear‐leg option used as an alternative lifting method might be feasible.

However, it is unlikely to be an acceptable method for decommissioning platforms because of
safety issues, hazardous material handling issues and the likelihood of debris falling into the sea.
This method was rejected.

7.3.6 Removal using drilling jack‐up rig

The use of a jack‐up to install small platforms such as Dagmar and Valdemar in the Danish North
Sea was by Ramboll Oil & Gas and Maersk Oil initially developed. This reverse method is of
topside removal considered, to be the best option for the Dan topsides.

Removal Method Status
HLV Too expensive
SSCV Too expensive
Novel technology Not feasible
Piece small Further consideration
Shear-leg and grab Rejected
Jack-up Rig Further consideration

Table 7.3 – Summary of Topsides Removal Methods

7.4 Decommissioning Options for the Platform Jackets

7.4.1 Leave in place

As for the topsides, this is not a legally or environmentally acceptable option, regardless of
whether, the structures are maintained and is therefore rejected.


As the in‐situ re‐use of the jackets is reliant upon the re‐use of the topsides, this option was
similarly rejected. See section 7.2.2 above.

7.4.3 Re‐use in another location

Page 30 of 56

It is technically possible that the jackets may be re‐usable in new locations. However, the jackets are
of such an age that re‐use is not feasible.

7.4.4 Remove and recycle

This is one of the most likely futures for the jackets because of the low probability of finding
a suitable re‐use opportunity. Various removal methods were reviewed and are described later in
this section.

7.4.5 Rigs to reefs disposal

This might be a practical option for the jackets in the North Sea and might have some
environmental benefits. The permits necessary for this method of disposal are not likely to be
forthcoming in the future. Nevertheless, in the Gulf of Mexico, this is an accepted method of
disposing of the jackets. It also has a positive effect on the fishing possibilities in the vicinity. Japan is
constructing similar jackets for fishing purposes. However, because of the environmental problems,
this option was rejected.

7.4.6 Deep sea disposal

As for the topsides, this method of disposal is not legally acceptable in North East Atlantic waters
was under OSPAR obligations and rejected.
7.4.7 Delay decommissioning awaiting novel new technology

As for the topsides, initial research of novel new concepts indicates that the equipment, if
developed, is not likely to be available within a suitable timeframe to be acceptable schedule for
the Dan field decommissioning. Therefore, this option was rejected.

Leave in-situ Rejected
Remove and recycle Further consideration
Rigs to reefs disposal Rejected
Deep sea disposal Rejected
Await new technology Rejected

Table 7.4 – Summary of Jackets Decommissioning Options

7.5 Possible Jacket Removal Methods

From the review of the jacket decommissioning options, the only viable methods involve removal
of the jackets to shore. The following were possible removal methods considered.

7.5.1 Installation reversal using heavy lift vessel (HLV)

As described earlier, this removal method is simply the reverse of the installation sequence. The
Page 31 of 56

work can be undertaken using an HLV of approximately 1600 tonnes lifting capacity. Prior to
the major lifting operations, preparation works are required to separate the risers and J‐tube
connections from pipelines and hose bundles, clear any debris on the jackets, install lifting
points and cut the piles below seabed level.

7.5.2 Jacket removal using novel technology

A novel removal method entails floating the jacket by adding buoyancies below the waterline and
towing it to a deep‐water quayside where it can be lifted onshore by an in‐shore crane barge.
Once onshore, the jacket could be refurbished for re‐use or broken up for recycling.

It is only practical deemed to float the jackets vertically because the bottom of jacket dimensions is
not compatible with rotating them for floating and towing in the horizontal position.

7.5.3 Piece small jacket removal

This jacket removal method would be supported by a diving support vessel (DSV). Using remotely
operated vehicles (ROVs) and divers operating from the DSV, the jacket would be into sections that
can be by the vessel cranes handled. The individual pieces will be loaded onto supply boats divided
for transport to shore. This method was rejected, because of the risks associated with the
excessive diving content in the operations and the potential instability of a sectioned jacket.

7.5.4 Direct lift of jacket

This method is developed by Ramboll Oil & Gas and is in essence a direct off lifting of the jacket from
the sea bottom to the barge by using a system of cables and winches. See Appendix A, A2
7.5.5 Shear‐leg and grab

As for the topsides, this is unlikely to be an acceptable method for decommissioning jackets because
of safety issues and the likelihood of debris falling into the sea. This method was rejected.

7.5.6 Further Development of the Versa‐truss Principle

This method for jacket removal is also by Ramboll Oil & Gas developed based on the well‐known Versa‐
truss principle. The principle is described in chapter 8.3.1.2 and in details in Appendix A, A2

HLV Further consideration
Novel technology (buoyancy) Further consideration
Piece small Rejected
Shear-leg and grab Rejected
Direct off lifting of jacket Further consideration
Developed Versa-truss id Consideration
Further i

Table 7.5 – Summary of Jackets Removal Methods
Page 32 of 56

7.6 Decommissioning Options for the Pipelines

7.6.1 Decommission and leave in‐situ

This is an acceptable decommissioning option for subsea lines when certain criteria such as
cleanliness, stability and safety for other uses are of the sea met particularly when the lines are
trenched and buried. This option was considered as being worthy of further consideration.


Such an option is closely reliant upon the in‐situ re‐use of the platforms. See section 7.2.2. It is only
practical if an opportunity for re‐use arises within the right period. This not being the case, the
option was rejected.

7.6.3 Re‐use in other locations

It is technically possible that relatively new pipelines will be reusable in new locations. The
pipelines, however, are past their design life and are of such an age that re‐use is not a feasible
solution. This option was rejected.
7.6.4 Remove and recycle or dispose in landfill

This is a possible option and various removal methods were reviewed and are described later in this
section.

Leave in-situ Further consideration

Remove and dispose in landfill Further consideration

Table 7.6 – Summary of Pipelines Decommissioning Option

Recycling of the pipeline sections is not likely to be practical due to the difficulties of removing the
coatings and material contamination. Disposal in landfill is therefore the most likely disposal
method for the pipelines in the event that they are to shore recovered.

7.7 Pipeline Removal Methods

From the review of the pipeline decommissioning options, one of the viable options involve
removal of the pipelines to shore. The following were possible removal methods considered.

7.7.1 Reverse S‐lay

This method involves using a pipeline lay‐barge vessel to pull the pipeline onto the vessel deck
where it will be cut into sections for transport to shore. This method has been used to
Page 33 of 56

recover sections of unburied pipeline during installation operations, due to weather or logistical
interruptions, or sections damaged during installation. This is an acceptable methodology for new
pipelines but is not preferred and highly risky for pipelines close to or past their design lives due to
the deterioration of the coatings and the general uncertainty of pipeline integrity.

7.7.2 Cut and lift

This method requires the pipeline to be fully uncovered before it is cut into sections on the seabed
using a special cutting tool attached to an ROV. The sections would then be to the water
surface lifted and transported to shore. This methodology has a high safety risk exposure but is
practical considered for short pipeline sections that are not buried.

7.7.3 Surface tow

In this option, the pipeline would be uncovered and have buoyancy units attached along its length
such that it floats to the surface of the sea. It could then be towed to shore or to a re‐use location.
The practical difficulties involved with this methodology combined with the safety considerations
associated with the large diving content, however, exclude this method from further consideration.

7.7.4 Controlled depth tow

This method is similar to the surface tow except that chains are to the lines attached to make them
float at a controlled depth off the seabed. This method was for the same reasons rejected as for
the surface tow method.

Reverse S-lay Further consideration
Cut and lift Further consideration
Surface tow Rejected
Controlled depth tow Rejected

Table 7.7 – Summary of Pipelines Removal Methods

8 COMPARATIVE ASSESSMENT OF SHORT LIST OF OPTIONS AND

SELECTION OF PREFERRED OPTION

This section presents the short list assessment and selection process of the decommissioning
options for the Field facilities & pipelines. The short‐listed options are first briefly described (more
detail is available in Appendix A), and then a comparative assessment is carried out for each option
– leading to a preferred option.

8.1 Option Selection Methodology

Offshoreenergy.dk, Semco, Blue Water Shipping and Ramboll Oil & Gas carried out a brief
assessment and selection of options from the feasible short‐list identified in the previous section.
Each of the options was with regard examined to the following:
Page 34 of 56

Technical risk and complexity;
Personnel safety.
Environmental and social impact. A detailed environmental impact assessment for each
option is given in Appendix C, with a summary presented in this section:
Energy consumption.
Cost. A high‐level cost estimate has been for each option made.

This section presents a summary of the above assessments, along with a summary of the preferred
decommissioning options for the Field facilities.

Any option that was considered ‘not acceptable’ in any of the categories was from further
consideration rejected unless constraints could be to mitigate the ‘not acceptable’ rating placed.
Because of the above process, were the preferred decommissioning methods derived.

8.2 Comparative Assessment and Selection of Preferred Option for Topsides

All of the short‐listed decommissioning options for the Field platforms topsides require them to be
removed to shore. The comparative assessments were therefore on the removal methods carried
out.

8.2.1 Description of Topsides Removal Options

The Field platform topsides were in single lifts installed with the maximum lift weight of
approximately 1400 tonnes.

The selected topside removal methods are described in greater detail in Appendix A and
summarized below. Some of the topside removal methods are dependent upon the platform
involved.

8.2.1.1 Installation reversal using HLV

This method of topside removal is simple for the topsides that were as a single lift installed, i.e. A, C
and D. A slightly more complicated methodology is required for the larger platform B, which
were with multiple topside lifts installed.

Prior to lifting off these topsides, it is necessary to carry out preparation or reverse hook‐up
work. The preparatory work includes separating the risers, caissons and J‐tubes from the jacket;
rigging the conductors (if not removed during well plugging and abandonment) and topside for lift;
preparing the leg cuts and internal sea fastening.

Once the preparation work is complete, an HLV will arrive to prepare to remove the topsides
modules.

After anchoring and mooring a cargo barge alongside, the HLV will attach the lift rigging to the
crane hook, cut the deck legs and lift the platform topsides modules onto the cargo barge. The
modules will then be sea‐fastened to the barge and the barge will be towed to shore. The
conductors may be lifted and removed when the cargo barge is being prepared.

Page 35 of 56

8.2.1.2 Topside removal using SSCV

This method involves lifting the topsides of the platforms in one single lift using a twin crane semi‐
submersible crane vessel of lift capacity in excess of 3,000 tonnes. This method is only applicable to
the B topsides as the others are within the single lift capability of an HLV.

In order to lift the B topsides in a single piece, it will be necessary to install lifting beams under the
deck and to undertake deck strengthening.

The SSCV will arrive at location once all the preparatory work is complete. After attaching the
lift rigging and cutting the deck legs, the topside will be as a single unit lifted and placed on a cargo
barge.

8.2.1.3 Topsides removal using novel technology (Versa‐truss)

Versa‐truss is a proprietary arrangement for lifting platform decks and the like without the use
of conventional cranage or jacks. The picture (Fig 8.2.1.1) below demonstrates how the system
works.

Figure 8.2.1.1

The Versa‐truss option is applicable to the removal of three Field platform topsides.
The flare tower has to be lifted by a HVL in one piece.

In order to remove the topsides in this manner, it will be necessary to strengthen and install lifting
lower tie members between the deck legs. The Versa‐truss equipment will be fitted out inshore
on barges and towed to site, where the barges will be anchored out. The system will be fitted up
to the prepared decks and the deck legs cut. The barges will then be winched together and the
deck will lift off the jacket. The deck and the barges will then move forward and lower the
deck onto a transport barge for transit to shore.

8.2.1.4 Piece small removal of topsides

This topside removal method will be undertaken by a marine work vessel, most probably a jack‐up
barge that will break the platforms up into sections that can be easily handled by the
available cranes. The individual pieces will be loaded onto supply boats for transport to shore.

It is envisaged that a large crawler or ringer crane might be on the deck of the jack‐up, which would
Page 36 of 56

be able to handle 100 tonnes lifts at most parts of the platforms.

8.2.2 Comparative Assessment and cost of Topsides Removal Options

All of the options are technically feasible. The reverse installation and SSCV options are similar in
terms of technical risk but the novel lift technologies carry a higher technical risk due to the
difficulties of operating in the shallow water and high tide/currents of the SNS. The piece‐
small option also carries higher technical risk due to the longer offshore deconstruction duration.

For the four platforms, the costs for the HLV and SSCV options are likely to be similar.

For the smaller platforms (A, D and C), the piece‐small options are similar, with the use of Jack‐up
options the solution is likely to be significantly cheaper.

8.2.3 Summary of Selected Topsides Decommissioning Options

Based on the comparative assessment, the method of removal for all the Field topsides might be
the installation reversal using HLV. This is a technically proven method and is simply the reverse
of the original installation sequence. The operation is subject to standard offshore construction
personnel safety risk and environmental risk exposures that can be managed. There are a number
of contractors, who can offer this removal service in the North Sea.

For the larger topsides (B), a feasible alternative to the HLV removal option might be a single lift
removal using SSCV. The topsides would first have to be structurally linked and strengthened,
such that the multiple packages can be lifted in one piece. This would require a significant amount
of offshore preparatory work but it avoids the need to isolate and individually rig the packages for
separate lifts. This method is rated similar in terms of technical, personnel safety and
environmental risks to the HLV option. However, this alternative removal method limits the
number of contractors who can perform the offshore as well as the onshore work.

For the smaller topsides (A, D and C), a feasible alternative to the HLV removal option is piece
small removal using a Jack‐up. This option has an increased offshore scope and duration. As
such, it has higher technical, personnel safety and environmental risks when compared to the HLV
option. These risks would have to be properly managed during execution.

There can be other acceptable removal methods for the topsides and jackets using novel
technologies commensurate with contractors’ experience and resources as described in Section 7.
These cannot be discounted and ought to be assessed on a case‐by‐case basis at the contracting
stage of the project.

Although a number of removal were methods identified, none of the short‐listed topsides was
removal methods rejected outright. As such, notwithstanding the above assessment, contractors
tendering for the decommissioning work will not be excluded from offering other
decommissioning methods that are commensurate with their experience and resources. However,
any alternative method proposed by a contractor would be reviewed to ensure that it meets or
exceeds all of the assessment criteria.

Platform Component Selected Preferred Possible
Decommissioning Option Removal Option Alternatives
Larger Topsides Remove to shore for re-use, HLV SSCV;
(B) recycling or disposal Novel technology
Page 37 of 56

Smaller Topsides Remove to shore for re-use, HLV Piece small;

(A, D and C) recycling or disposal Novel technology

Table 8.2.4 – Summary of Selected Topsides Decommissioning Options
8.3 Comparative Assessment and Selection of Preferred Option for Jackets

All of the short‐listed decommissioning options for the Field platform jackets require them to be
removed to shore. The comparative assessments were therefore carried out on the removal
methods.

8.3.1 Description of Jacket Removal Options

Only three methods of jacket removal were deemed feasible after the review of the long list of
options. These methods are:

 Installation reversal using HLV
 Jacket removal using added buoyancy
 Novel direct off‐lifting of the jacket

8.3.1.1 Installation reversal using HLV

As with the topsides, it is necessary to carry out some preparation works prior to lifting the jacket.
This involves removal of the connections between the pipelines and the risers and J‐tubes and the
cutting of the piles below mud‐line. The connection of the lift rigging for the jacket will also be
carried out in the preparation phase to save the more expensive HLV time.

The subsea work of cutting the lines and clearing the seabed will be by a diving support vessel
(DSV) supported. It is that most of the work envisaged may be by ROVs accomplished however,
some manual diving is also to be necessary expected. The other preparation work involves cutting
the piles and installing the lift rigging.

When the preparation work is complete the HLV will arrive and anchor in position. The jacket will
be on a cargo barge lifted and placed where it will be sea fastened and transported to shore.

8.3.1.2 Jacket removal using novel technology

Added buoyancy tanks.
This method of removing the jackets might involve adding buoyancy in the form of tanks to the
jackets in order that they will float clear of the seabed are after the piles cut. This will enable them
to be towed to a deep‐water inshore location where they can be lifted clear of the sea by a shear‐
leg barge. The shear‐leg will then moves to a nearby quayside and place the jackets on land.

The preparation works necessary for this operation include those required for the HLV removal
method plus the attachment and de‐ballasting of the buoyancy tanks.

Novel direct off lifting.
However, dealing with relatively small jackets, an innovative removal system as outlined at the
figures 8.3.1 to 8.3.6 below is invented by Ramboll. It gives a diagrammatic representation of the
jacket removal method in which the jacket is pulled in a vertical position to the barge. When the
"turning point has been reached, the jacket is pulled into a horizontal position and transported to
shore.
Page 38 of 56

Figure 8.3.1 Figure 8.3.2
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

Page 39 of 56

Versa‐truss principle, further developed

As described in Appendix 2, the Versa‐truss principle can be used for removal of the jacket as well.
Nevertheless, the method has before not been used and is therefore in a conceptual study phase.
The principle is below roughly outlined:

The principle is to align two barges alongside the jacket. A‐frames on the barges are attached to the top of the
jacket and the barges are by the use of winches together pulled and cables. When the jacket is sufficiently
lifted free of the sea‐bottom a set of supporting beams are from one barge pushed to the other. Finally, the
jacket is lifted to a horizontal position and safely sea‐fastened for transportation to shore.
Page 40 of 56

8.3.2 Comparative Assessment of Jacket Removal Options
8.3.2.1 Technical risk and complexity

All the options are technically feasible. The reverse installation carries the lowest risk, as it is a well
technique proven which can be by a number of contractors carried out. The added buoyancy
technology carries a higher technical risk due to the difficulties of operating in the North Sea.
However, the direct off lifting of the jacket by the use of winches on‐board the transportation barge
seems to represent an economical advantageous feasible solution.
The Further developed Versa‐truss principle represents a viable solution containing known
technologies.
8.3.2.2 Costs

The cost of the HLV option is likely to be 50‐75% of the cost of the buoyancy option due to the high
cost of fabricating the buoyancy tanks and the amount of marine activity.
However, the direct lifting of the jacket is estimated to approximately 80% of the HLV option. Thus,
the direct lifting of the jacket as described above seems to be a cheap solution.
The Further developed Versa‐truss principle contains relatively cheap elements to implement and
thus might be the cheapest solution.
8.3.3 Summary of Selected Jacket Decommissioning Options

Based on the comparative assessment considering the above criteria, the preferred methods of
removal for all the old Field jackets are the novel direct lifting method and the Further developed
Versa‐truss principle. These are technically simple methods and are s i m p l e a n d f a i r l y
e a s y . The operations are subject to standard offshore construction personnel safety risk and
environmental risk exposures that can be managed. There are a number of contractors, who can
offer this removal service in the North Sea.

Although two preferred removal methods were identified, the alternative buoyancy option is not
rejected outright. As such, notwithstanding the above assessment, contractors tendering for the
decommissioning work will not be excluded from offering other decommissioning methods that
are commensurate with their experience and resources. However, any alternative method
proposed by a contractor would be reviewed to ensure that it meets or exceeds all of the
assessment criteria.

Platform Component Selected Preferred Possible
Decommissioning Option Removal Option Alternatives
Jackets Remove to shore for re-use, HLV Novel technology
(All) recycling or disposal (buoyancy)

Table 8.3.4 – Summary of Selected Jacket Decommissioning Options

Page 41 of 56

8.4 Comparative Assessment and Selection of Preferred Option for Pipelines

8.4.1 Description of Pipeline Decommissioning Options

The possible decommissioning options for pipelines are decommission in‐situ, or remove to shore
for disposal in landfill.

8.4.1.1 Decommission in‐situ

Decommissioning pipelines in‐situ require their ends to be cut from the platforms at the base of
the risers and made safe from being a potential snagging hazard for other users of the sea once
the platforms are removed. Any exposed sections or spans along their lengths that may pose a
snagging hazard would have to be similarly remedied.

Such remedy can be achieved by:
‐ Re‐trenching and burying of any exposed sections;
‐ Recovery of mattresses where their condition allows safe lifting;
‐ Cutting out the offending sections for recovery to shore for disposal and remedying the cut
ends as above.

In addition, where there are mitigating reasons
achieved by:
‐ Dumping rock over the exposed sections;
‐ Covering the exposed sections with mattresses;

As the pipelines would be flushed clean of contaminants at this stage, the ends can be open to the
sea left. The pipelines would become more stable in the seabed when seawater filled than they
were when oil/gas‐filled during their service lives.

A leave in situ solution will require remedial works to ends, crossings and significant spans as part of
the scope.

8.4.1.2 Remove pipelines by reverse S‐lay for on‐shore disposal

This pipeline decommissioning method removes the pipelines by a reversal of the method used
to lay the line. It involves pulling the pipe back up the stinger on the lay‐barge and cutting it into
suitable lengths to enable it to be shipped to shore on a cargo barge.

The sequence of initiating the pipeline recovery is shown in Figure 8.4.1 below.

Page 42 of 56

Page 43 of 56

Figure 8.4.1 – Pipeline Removal b y Reverse S‐Lay

8.4.1.3 Remove pipelines by subsea cut and lift for on‐shore disposal

This method entails the decommissioning of the pipelines by exposing the lines, cutting them into
short lengths on the seabed, lifting them above water and transporting them to shore for disposal.

In order to cut and lift the pipelines it would be necessary to unbury them along their entire length.
This could be by either done jetting the soil away from the pipes or by ploughing a trench along the
pipes. Because of the relatively loose sand on the seabed, the jetting method is more suitable.

The pipeline cutting and removal could be undertaken with a diving support vessel. The majority
of the pipe cutting and rigging work could be undertaken by purpose adapted ROV however a crew
of divers would be on‐board the vessel to undertake specific tasks and in particular
intervention for unplanned events.

8.4.2 Comparative Assessment of Pipeline Decommissioning Options

8.4.2.1 Technical risk and complexity

The activities required for decommissioning in‐situ and the required remedial operations are
considered routine operations and do not have significant technical risk. Removing new pipelines
by reverse S‐lay is within the technical capability of existing purpose‐built pipe‐lay vessels. Diving
preparatory work will be required to install the pulling head for the pipe‐lay vessel to pick the
pipeline up at one end and to install an anchor pile at the other pipeline end. The removal
operation would be increasingly more complex if the burial depth is significant and if the integrity
of the pipe or the coating is poor. This removal method is therefore to be technically risky
considered for the Dan pipelines as they are to have experienced expected some deterioration
having passed their design lives by the time of decommissioning.

The cut and lift removal method requires the pipeline to be unburied and an automated and
repetitive subsea pipeline cutting technique to be developed. Uncovering can be achieved by the
conventional remotely operated methods of using either a pipeline plough or ROV‐operated mass
flow equipment. The cutting techniques would require development from those used for
subsea conductor and jacket leg cuts. The cut lengths would have to be recovered to the surface
efficiently using specially adapted lifting bars. There would be uncertainty regarding the
reliability of this specially designed equipment.

Page 44 of 56

8.4.2.2 Costs
Due to the minimum activities and resources required, decommissioning in‐situ is the lowest cost
option, with an order of magnitude lower cost. There is, however, a long‐term cost commitment
for on‐going monitoring. The frequency of such monitoring should be based on a risk analysis.

8.4.4 Summary of Selected Pipeline Decommissioning Option

From the foregoing comparative assessment, decommissioning the pipelines by leaving them in‐situ
in a flushed, water‐filled and stably buried condition is the recommended option. The
environmental and energy consumption impacts of this option are mitigated by the limited
remediation work required to make them safe from being a snagging risk due to their substantially
buried and stable status.

The trenched pipelines are naturally back‐filled. Filling the pipelines with seawater will increase the
lines weight/buoyancy ratio by a factor of between 1.4 and 1.8 further improving their buried
stability.

Remedial work will be carried out at pipeline ends and crossings to mitigate any risk to other sea
users. The final selection of these measures will be subject of detailed design and further
engagement with stakeholders.

These lines will continue to be monitored as indicated in section 15.
The removal options are not preferred as the pipelines are unlikely to be fully recycled or re‐used
elsewhere and therefore would be to landfill sites only to be re‐buried sent on land. In addition, the
removal options incur greater exposures to personnel safety, are technically higher risk, and much
higher cost due to the pipelines being mostly buried.

Component Selected Decommissioning Option
Pipelines Leave in-situ, flood and remedy exposed ends, crossings
and significant spans

Table 8.4.5 – Summary of Selected Pipeline Decommissioning Option

8.5 Disposal of Decommissioned Material

Disposal preference is by the Waste Hierarchy governed, w h i c h states that re‐use is preferred
to recycle and recycle preferred to scrap as described in Section 6. Although there is no known re‐
use opportunity for any of the Field facilities, it is not discounted and will be pursued with the on‐
shore disposal contractor within a period that is yet to be specified. All hazardous materials will be
appropriately handled, and disposed of in accordance with the relevant legislations. The bulk of
the recovered platform material is expected to be recycled, with possibly some residues that
are difficult to separate out scrapped and sent to approved landfill sites.

Once removed from the field the topsides, jackets, and pipelines will be transported to an onshore
decommissioning facility. This facility will be licensed for the decommissioning activities including
the handling and disposal of any hazardous materials that may be present. As such, the facility
will have appropriate quarantine.

The hierarchy of how the platform and pipeline components are disposed of is as follows:
 Refurbishment for re‐use as unit
 Removal of equipment for reuse
Page 45 of 56

 Segregation of pipes for reuse (recovered end sections and hose bundles) Segregation of
steelwork and other materials for re‐use
 Segregation of materials for re‐cycling
 Segregation of materials (including hazardous materials) for disposal

Platform components, pipelines, etc. arriving at the quayside of the disposal facility on cargo barges
or vessel decks will be offloaded by appropriate means. This may be by crane however; larger deck
sections are more likely to be offloaded using multi wheeled bogies.

Once on the quayside, any components will be cleaned with marine fouling off and the
fouling material is either as feed stock material reused for the cement industry or disposed of and
sent to landfill sites approved.

Any large component scheduled for re‐use, possible re‐use will be stored in a designated area of
the facility for refurbishment, or preservation until its future is determined.

Other components that are not viable for re‐use as a single unit will be stripped out and any
equipment and/or materials suitable for re‐use piece small will be stored and preserved in suitable
warehouses or designated storage areas.

Any recovered concrete coated pipeline sections will have their anodes removed and collected for
recycling. Where it is deemed practical will the concrete coating be on the pipelines stripped off
and collected for use as hard‐core leaving the steel pipes in a condition suitable for re‐cycling in
smelters.

Other materials will collected be by type and stored in separate areas for transhipment to smelters
or other recycling facilities.

Materials not suitable for any of the above treatment (including hazardous materials such as
asbestos, LSA contaminated materials, heavy metals and the like) will be collected and transported
off site for disposal in landfill and/or other approved disposal facilities.
All wastes will be in accordance dealt with the appropriate legislation

9 WELL DECOMMISSIONING

9.1 Description

There are 16 oil producing wells in the old Field. The first well was in 1969 drilled prior to platform
installation and the last drilling activity in the field was in 1982.

9.2 Drill Cuttings

A 1986 seabed survey completed after the majority of wells had been drilled indicated that
there were no harmful impacts on the local biota. From regular ROV seabed surveys carried out
since at all the Dan platforms, it has been determined that no visible drill cuttings exist at any of
the platforms (refer Appendix C6). The lack of any drill cuttings is due to the seabed erosion that
exists at the platform locations combined with the fact that no drilling activities have been
undertaken at any of the platforms since 1982.

Page 46 of 56

9.3 Well Decommissioning Plan

The platforms in the old Field are likely to cease production from July 2015. A programme of
well decommissioning should commence in d u e t i m e b e f o r e 2015. This will involve flushing
and cleaning the wells before setting permanent plugs at appropriate depths according to the
specific features of the reservoirs, in order to abandon the wells. The fluids generated from the
flushing will be contained and disposed of in compliance with applicable legislations.

10 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

A detailed assessment of the environmental impact for the decommissioning of the old Field should
be prepared in due time before 2015.
In Appendix B of this report an extensive Environmental, assessment report is included.

10.1 Introduction and method

The environmental risks associated with each of the preferred options for decommissioning the
Field platforms and pipelines should be assessed using a methodology based on the following
principles:

The assessment could be broken down into a number of steps:

Each of the short‐listed options to be reviewed to identify the potential causes of
environmental risks in each of the activities involved in these options.
The potential “receiving environment”, including natural and social aspects would be
assessed in order to identify and characterize any sensitive elements.
The risks identified and the relevant environmental sensitivities to be brought together
in order to describe and quantify the effects of each decommissioning option. The risks to
be quantified in accordance with pre‐defined consequence and probability criteria. The
assessment would be based on experience and the knowledge of outcomes of similar
events, published information or expert judgment. Any control or mitigation measures that
may be in effect when the activity is carried out are also taken into account.
An overall risk rating to be assigned to each aspect of the decommissioning option
under consideration using a two‐dimensional Risk Assessment Matrix based on the
principle that risk is a product of the two factors: probability and consequence

10.2 Results of the environmental assessment

The environmental impact assessment might provide a method of:

Assessing the relative environmental “performance” of each option;
Determining if any of the options offered a significantly “better” or “worse”
environmental performance than others, and
Evaluating if any apparent differences in environmental “performance” were real
and significant.

10.2.1 Expected results

All of the preferred decommissioning options have the potential to cause environmental impact,
both because of planned activities and because of possible emergency or accidental events.
Page 47 of 56

None of the options is to have any risks expected in the ‘highly significant’ category, i.e. risks that
would be intolerable and would represent a major constraint for the option. All of the options
have a small number of risks that could be rated as ‘significant’ (i.e. the project should seek to
incorporate further risk‐reduction measures and/or demonstrate that the risk will be ALARP). All of
the options also have a large number of risks that are ‘not significant‘ rated (i.e. indicating that the
risk is acceptable but should be managed to achieve continuous improvement).

Many of the risks might arise because of activities and operations that are offshore commonly
performed in the Danish North Sea. These activities and their consequences are well understood,
and may be subject to a range of potential mitigation measures depending on regulatory
requirements and project‐ and site‐specific circumstances. Other risks arise from accidental
events and, again, there is a range of mitigation measures that is applied subject to regulatory
requirements and the project‐specific level of risk.
11 COSTS

This section summarizes the process to derive the overall cost estimates of the proposed activities
for the decommissioning of the old Field facilities.

Each of the short‐listed decommissioning options was progressed to an initial conceptual work
execution plan and a conceptual cost‐estimate phase. The platform removals could be executed in
a number of ways depending on the vessels available and the detailed programme offered by
the selected contractor. The ultimate cost will be subject to a number of decisions to be made
during the project development phases. Excluding the well decommissioning costs, the initial
estimate of the total costs for the removal of the Field platforms (topsides and jackets) covering
the activities identified below is approximately DKK 500 million, being split as follows
Million DKK:

Programme One – Topside and Jacket removal (B, A, D and C): 450

Programme Two – Interfield Pipelines (D‐F 12" + 16" and B‐E 10"): 50

Future Pipeline Survey costs (cost per field survey) 3

The work scope covered by this overall cost includes:

 Conceptual engineering studies and offshore surveys
 Engineering design for pipelines and topsides cleaning
 Procurement
 Pipelines cleaning
 Topsides cleaning and equipment isolation
 Offshore surveys
 Maintenance activities to ensure safe access
 Engineering design for removal
 Preparation for removal and disposal
 Offshore removal of facilities and hose bundles
 Remediation of pipeline ends and exposures Seabed debris clearance
 Transportation to shore
 Onshore dismantling and disposal
 Project management
Page 48 of 56

Where possible, execution synergy opportunities with other on‐going work in the area are being
pursued to help reduce the decommissioning costs. Cost‐savings may be possible by combining
offshore activities to create a campaign scenario leading to:

 Benefits of scale in contracts for the hire of vessels and the disposal of waste;
 Efficient use of accommodation vessels and barge time;
 A reduction in the relative costs for mobilisation and demobilisation;
 The greatest possible use of any temporary grillage, temporary steel, slings, or lifting aids
that would have to be used;
 A reduction in the design and project management cost for decommissioning in a
combined campaign
12 SCHEDULE

Well decommissioning on the Field is expected to commence in the spring of 2015. A schedule
has been developed which balances the following drivers:

 Avoid prolonged delay, which would extend safety exposure and incur operational costs;
 Allow contractors maximum flexibility over timing in order to optimize costs.

Current expectations are that well decommissioning activities will continue through 2015/16
before removal operations begin in 2017. It is the intent that schedule flexibility will be given to the
removal contractor to allow operations to be between 2016 and 2020 carried out to assist resource
availability.

Final timing will depend on availability of equipment for decommissioning of the wells and
marine vessel spread for removal of the platforms. The proposed is schedule of activity shown
below. At this stage, these are indicative timings and durations. The indicative programme provides
relatively wide windows for offshore activities, which are not necessarily continuous, but indicate
timely removal.

Cessation of Production 2015
Clean & Make-safe
Well Decommissioning
Module Segregation and Pre-Lifting
Pipeline Cleaning
Platform Removal (Window)
Pipeline Decommissioning (Window)
Onshore Disposal (Window)
Debris Clearance & Final Survey

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Figure 13.1 –Field Decommissioning Overall Project Plan
Page 49 of 56

13 PERMITS AND CONSENTS

The proposed programmes for the decommissioning of the Field platforms and pipelines will fully
comply with all applicable Danish and international legislations covering activities offshore and
onshore. The programmes are principally governed by the OSPAR 1998.

14 MONITORING AND MAINTENANCE

This section describes the planned monitoring and maintenance activities in the Field for the
offshore removal operations and after their completion.

14.1 Platforms

14.1.1 I n t e r i m safety management

It is possible that, due to the flexible execution schedule that will be offered to the
decommissioning contractors, the offshore removal operations could be over a number of discrete
operations undertaken. The topsides of certain platforms may be prepared for removal in one
offshore campaign but the preparation and removal of other topsides may take place at a separate
time. This is similar for the jackets. Limitations will be placed on the contract schedule to ensure
that agreed completion dates are within basic safety guidelines achieved.

In the event of gaps in the decommissioning operations, appropriate interim measures as are
deemed necessary, such as temporary navigational aids, will be put in place to ensure that there is
safe access to the facilities, and that the facilities do not present a hazard to other users of the sea.
A final decision on what safety measures will be used will be taken in discussion with the
contractor taking into consideration the decommissioning methods and schedules.

14.1.2 P o s t ‐decommissioning survey and debris removal

A post decommissioning side scan sonar survey of the areas up to 500m around the platforms
could be undertaken to identify any debris. Any unexplained anomalies could be visually surveyed,
and any man‐made objects which could present a risk to other users of the sea, should be removed
to shore for disposal. Evidence that the seabed is free of such obstructions, detailing the survey
plots and recovery logs of items should be provided to the authorities upon completion of the
decommissioning work as part of the project close out report.

14.2 Pipelines

14.2.1 I n t e r i m safety management

As for the platforms, the offshore operations relating to the pipelines could be undertaken over
a number of discrete operations. Appropriate interim safety measures as are deemed necessary,
such as temporary navigational aids, should therefore be put in place to ensure that the pipelines
do not present a hazard to other users of the sea. A final decision on which safety measures will
be used will be taken in discussion with the contractor, taking into consideration the

decommissioning methods and schedules.

For decommissioning the pipelines in‐situ, any interim snagging hazards before decommissioning of
the line is finalised should be buoyed and guarded.

14.2.2 P o s t ‐decommissioning survey and debris removal

A post decommissioning side scan sonar survey along a 100m corridor each side of the pipeline
routes should be undertaken to identify any debris for removal to shore for disposal. Evidence that
the seabed conditions do not present a hazard to other users of the sea should be provided to the
authorities upon completion of the decommissioning work as part of the project close out report.

A longer‐term monitoring programme should be carried out for the pipelines that are to be
decommissioned in‐situ to ensure stability and safety for other users of the sea. These pipelines
should be retained in the Operator’s North Sea pipeline survey programme.

14.3 Post‐decommissioning Environmental Survey

Following platform removal, the area should be subject to an environmental survey, including
representative sediment sampling for chemical and biological analysis. The post‐decommissioning
environmental survey scope will be agreed with the Danish authorities, and survey results will be
supplied.

15 PROJECT MANAGEMENT

This section provides information on the planned management process for the decommissioning of
the Dan field platforms and pipelines.

15.1 Project management

The old Field decommissioning project will follow the internal project management rules and
guidelines with special emphasize on the following:

Engineering design
Preparation for removal and disposal
Offshore removal
Offshore remedy operations
Transportation to shore
Onshore dismantling and disposal

If appropriate, a company representative will be posted to the contractor’s offices and sites at key
stages of the work to ensure compliance with procedures and principles.

16 REFERENCES

/1/ Ottersen, G, Postmyr, E and Irgens, M (eds.), 2010. Faglig grunnlag for en forvaltningsplan for
Nordsjøen og Skagerrak: Arealrapport. KLIF. TA‐nummer 2681/2010.
/2/ Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Fisheries, The Danish AgriFish Agency, 2012,
http://www.statistikbanken.dk/statbank5a/SelectVarVal/Define.asp?MainTable=FISK2&PLanguage=0
&PXSId=0
/3/ ICES, 2008, "ICES‐FishMap", http://www.ices.dk/marineworld/fishmap/ices/.

17 GLOSSARY OF TERMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

A
ALARP As Low as Reasonably Practical
Anthropogenic The term for a substance or impact that arises from human activity.
Anodes Blocks of alloy (aluminium & zinc) that protect steel against corrosion.

B
Benthic communities The assemblages of plants and animals that live on and in the seabed.
Benthos The bed of the sea and the water column immediately above it.
BPEO Best Practicable Environmental Option
Biodiversity A measure of the variety of living organisms found at a site.
Biogenic reefs Reefs comprising the living or dead parts of marine organisms.

C
Caissons Caissons are vertical steel pipes attached to the legs of the jacket,
running from the topsides down into the water column. They are
used to import seawater and discharge permitted aqueous waste
to the sea.
Cetaceans’ Collective name for the group of marine mammals comprising whales,
dolphins, and porpoises.
CO2 (te) Carbon dioxide tonnes equivalent, a measure of total greenhouse gas
emissions.
Cold cutting A cold method of cutting that does not require hot gas, i.e. hacksaw,
diamond wire, abrasive water jet etc.
Conductors Steel tubes running from the wells on the seabed to the topsides.
Cuttings The fragments of rock generated during the process of drilling a well.

D
Demersal The term for organisms that live on or close to the seabed
DSV Diving Support Vessel

E
EA Environmental Act
EC European Commission
EIA Environmental Impact Assessment. A formal process, which assesses the
potential environmental impacts from a proposed activity.
EU European Union

F
Fauna The collective term for all animals.
FAR Fatal Accident Rate
Fish Safe Fish Safe is a computer‐based early warning system developed by UKOOA
for the fishing industry to warn of the presence of underwater
equipment and pipelines.
Flora The collective term for all plants.

G
GJ Gigajoule, a unit of energy equal to 1,000,000,000 joules.
Grillage A welded framework of beams and plates several metres high
built on a vessel or barge to support the weight of a load.

H
HAZID Hazard Identification
HSE Health and Safety Executive
HLV Heavy Lift Vessels, used to install or remove offshore facilities.
Hook‐up The process of connecting all the pipework and other
utilities in the topsides so that offshore production can
begin.
Hot Cutting Method of cutting using hot gas i.e. oxy‐acetylene.
Hydrocarbons Any compound containing only hydrogen and carbon.

I
ICES International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, an
organisation that coordinates and promotes marine research in
the North Atlantic.
ICP Independent Competent Party
IRPA Individual Risk Per Annum.

J
Jacket The steel structure that supports the topsides. The lower section, or
“legs” of an offshore platform.

K
Km Kilometre
kp Key Point

L
LSA scale Low Specific Activity scale, derived from naturally occurring
radioactive minerals in the rock strata.

M
M Metre (a unit of length).
m/s Metre per second.
Mattresses Heavy mats used to protect and stabilise facilities on the seabed.
MARPOL International Convention regarding pollution from shipping
Modules Structural units, which are which are assembled to form the
platform topsides.

N
NGO non‐governmental organization.

O
OSPAR Oslo and Paris Convention

P
Pelagic Organisms living in the water column.
PEP Project Execution Plan.
Phytoplankton The collective term for the microscopic plants that drift or float in the water
column. Phytoplankton consists mainly of microscopic algae. They are the
primary producers in the sea and form the basis of food for all other forms of
aquatic life.
Pig A device with blades or brushes inserted in a pipeline for cleaning purposes.
The pressure of the stream of fluid behind the pig pushes the pig along the
pipeline to clean out rust, wax, scale and debris. These devices are also called
scrapers. An instrumented pig is a device made of rubber or polyurethane
that has electronic devices. An instrumented pig is run through a pipeline to
record irregularities that could represent corrosion. An instrumented pig is
also called a smart pig.
Pigging The act of forcing a device called a pig through a pipeline for the
purposes of displacing or separating fluids and cleaning or inspecting
pipelines.
Piles Heavy beam of concrete or steel driven into the seabed as a foundation
or support for the jacket structure.
Pinnipeds Collective name for the group of marine mammals comprising seals, sea
lions and walruses.
Plug Rubber or cement fitting, filling the well to seal it.
PLL Potential for Loss of Life ‐ is one of the prime outputs of a QRA. It
provides a simple long term total measure of societal risk to all personnel
from an activity and is expressed as the number of fatalities per specified
time period. Though not an
absolute measure, it can however be used to compare societal risk
between activities.
Polychaete The class of annelid worms which possess distinct segments.

Q
QRA Quantitative Risk Assessment

R
ROV Remotely Operated Vehicle
Riser A steel conduit connecting a pipeline to the production installation.

S
SAC Special Area of Conservation. Areas considered to be important for
certain habitats and non‐bird species of interest in a European
context.
Shear‐leg Heavy Lift Crane Barge
Span A stretch of pipeline, which has become unsupported.
SSCV Semi‐Submersible Crane Vessel (also Heavy Crane Vessel)

T
Te Tonne, a metric unit of mass equal to 1,000 kilogrammes.
Topsides The term used to describe all the decks, accommodation and
process modules that are located on top of the jacket.
Trench A long deep furrow or ditch in the seabed.
Trenched Placed in a trench.

U
Umbilical Cable and tubing‐like structure that provides utilities and
communication to sub‐sea equipment to allow it to be operated.
Units The units throughout the document are imperial and
metric, used appropriately as within the oil and gas
industry.

V
Vessel spread The fleet of vessels used for any particular activity or operation.

VOC Volatile Organic Compound.

W
Wellhead The system of spools, valves and assorted adapters that provide pressure
control of a production well.
X
X‐mas Tree Christmas Tree. The set of valves, spools and fittings connected to the
top of a well to direct and control the flow of formation fluids from the
well.

Z
Zooplankton The collective term for the animals that float/drift in the water column.

Appendix A
A1

Environmentally sound recycling and scrapping of offshore

platforms

Offshore Deconstruction

June 2013

Table of contents
1 Introduction..................................................................................................................................................... 3
1.1 Dan Field Complex ................................................................................................................................... 3
2 Dan B Platform ................................................................................................................................................ 3
2.1 Dan B Topside ‐ dimensions and weight ................................................................................................. 4
3 References ....................................................................................................................................................... 5
3. Drawings ...................................................................................................................................................... 5
3.2 Documents .............................................................................................................................................. 5
4 Preparatory work for removal of topside ....................................................................................................... 6
5 Removal ........................................................................................................................................................... 8
5.1 Offshore Deconstruction in smaller pieces ............................................................................................. 8
5.2 Lifting ....................................................................................................................................................... 8
5.3 Removal Schedule ................................................................................................................................... 8
6 Safety ............................................................................................................................................................... 8
7 WIV Layout ...................................................................................................................................................... 9
7.1 Dimensions of WIV .................................................................................................................................. 9
7.2 Crane Reach at Large Area ...................................................................................................................... 9
7.3 Crane Reach at Small Area .................................................................................................................... 10
8 Crane Capacity ............................................................................................................................................... 12
8.1 Large Area ‐ R = 35 m ............................................................................................................................ 12
8.2 Small Area ‐ R = 75 m ............................................................................................................................ 13
9 Geometric constraints ................................................................................................................................... 13
9.1 Removal directly to WIV ........................................................................................................................ 13
9.2 Removal to Barge .................................................................................................................................. 14
10 Sea fastening ............................................................................................................................................. 15
11 Load‐in/Lift‐in ............................................................................................................................................ 16
12 Manpower ................................................................................................................................................. 16
12.1 Hook Down at the site ........................................................................................................................... 16
12.2 Engineering ............................................................................................................................................ 16
12.3 Thrid Party approval .............................................................................................................................. 16
13 Unit Prices ................................................................................................................................................. 16
14 Risk assessment ......................................................................................................................................... 17
14.1 Risk Register .......................................................................................................................................... 17
14.2 Risk Matrix ............................................................................................................................................. 18

1 Introduction
With reference to the OSPAR (Oslo‐Paris Commission) convention, all topsides and jackets weighing
less than 10,000 Tonnes, must be dismantled and transported to shore within a year after the
production ceases.

This document contains the presentation concerning the disposal of a typical Danish North Sea Topside
by a Wind farm Installation Vessel (WIV).

For the purpose of describing the method, the Field B Topside has been chosen to represent a typical
topside.

1.1 Dan Field Complex

The production system in the Field Complex was originally to receive high‐pressure crude oil designed
from the wellhead platforms and to separate gas, oil and water in three stages.
The separated gas was to the flare system piped, where it was burnt, while the oil was pumped
through the pipeline to the GC tanker loading buoy's facilities originally via the Field SBM, which was
later transferred to GC.

After completion of the Field Two Phase Flow Project in 1984, the flow of gas and oil from the first
stage separator was measured. The two streams were then combined downstream of their respective
flow metering devices for two‐phase transportation via the subsea pipeline to GC's separation
facilities.

On completion of the Field Modification Project (1987), the separation facilities on B, with the
exception of the test separator, were redundant made. The crude/water/gas production was piped to
F via E and via the existing 10" E ‐ B line and a new 10" pipeline from E to F.

After installation of F, in 1995 Development, the flow in the pipeline from E was reversed. E production
joined the A production on B. From B, fluid from A, E and the test separator is routed to D for export to
F via the new 16” pipeline.

2 The Field B Platform

The B Platform is the main platform in the Field Complex and is a four legged production platform with
dimensions at the stabbing point levels of 14.6 m x 14.6 m. The B Platform has three deck levels, Lower
Deck EL.(+) 21,200 m which supports the three bridges leading to Platform A, Platform C and Platform
D, Main Deck in EL.(+) 29,200 m containing process equipment, power and accommodation facilities
and Heli Deck in El.(+) 37,600 m.

The B
platform
Figure 1: The Field Complex

2.1 Field B Topside ‐ dimensions and weight
The total expected dry weight of the Field B topside is 1050 Tonnes, with Helideck weighing approx. 150
Tonnes and Topside Module incl. equipment etc. weighing approx. 900 Tonnes, ref. /doc1/.
The outline of the platform is approx. 30 x 30m including the Helideck, and approx. 25 x 25m without the
Helideck ref. /dwg1‐3/.

Ref. the layout depicted in Figure 1, the platform can be approached from north. However, in that area,
pipelines to other platforms must be into account taken when positioning the WIV.

Approx . 150 Tonnes
Approx. 900 Tonnes
incl. Bridge Landings

Figure 2 : Fiel B Weights

3 References
3. Drawings
Ref. No.: No.: Title: Date: Rev.:
/dwg. 1/ x‐01‐01039‐0000 Elevations of Trusses 1 & 2 05.01.1984 0
/dwg. 2/ x‐01‐01040‐0000 Elevations of Trusses A & B 05.01.1984 0
/dwg. 3/ x‐01‐01002‐0001 Helideck Framing Plan 30.04.1992 1
/dwg. 4/ x‐01‐01041‐0000 Jacket and Deck Elevation 05.01.1984 0

Table 1: Reference drawings
3.2 Documents
Ref. No.: No.: Title: Date: Rev.:
Dan Field Platform 14.11.2003
/doc. 1/ 02489‐R‐001 B
Weight Report

Table 2: Reference documents

4 Preparatory work for removal of topside

Before any dismantling or removal option operations begin, it will be necessary to prepare the topside
to ensure that all safety and environmental risks are minimized.

This process involves topside cleaning and engineering.
The cleaning programme is to remove chemicals designed and hydrocarbons, and major steps involved
in the cleaning operation would be:

1. Removing all hydrocarbons, chemicals and residues from the production systems by purging
and flushing.
2. Isolating equipment from all power and production inputs and outputs.
3. Opening systems and removing any remaining production residues, chemicals and other
materials using specialised cleaning equipment and personnel, where required. Ensuring that
all materials/residues are stored correctly and disposed of via the appropriate and approved
disposal route
4. On completion of the cleaning operation, tagging all systems and clearly identifying the plant
condition. Third party to confirm systems are cleaned and where identified as non‐hazardous
possible.
5. Engineering of all plant equipment and systems, including positive isolation of electrical,
instrumentation and process systems to prevent possible injury to personnel during
dismantling.
6. Assessment of the structural integrity of the topside. This will among other things include: 3D
scans, UT of primary joints and thickness testing of primary structural elements
7. Structural engineering of existing structures including re‐calculation of existing pad eyes for
lifting, design of new pad eyes for lifting if none exists, design of reinforcements and re‐
analysis of structures for sea‐transportation.
8. Procedures for the cut off phase must be established
9. Procedures for the lifting phase must be established
10. Once cleaning and engineering is complete, the topside module is prepared for removal.
Depending on the type of removal is method that adopted, this scope of work could include
some, or all of the following steps: disconnecting piping, electrical wiring and other services,
removing or cutting the pipeline risers and caissons.
11. Separating the structural connections, walkways and stairs between the module and the
jacket.
12. Adding additional strengthening or temporary reinforcement to modules, as required.
13. Removing or securing any loose equipment.

14. Installing or reinstating lifting points on modules, as required.

5 Removal
5.1 Offshore Deconstruction in smaller pieces
Offshore Deconstruction of topside modules is a proven method of dismantling topside structures. The
module and its components can be into smaller manageable pieces cut, using hydraulic shears and
other cutting techniques. These pieces can be using the WIV “Pacific Orca” removed and transported
to shore on its deck.
Overall, topside structural integrity is on the integrity dependant of individual module, so a progressive
dismantling programme would require careful planning to ensure the overall structural integrity and
safety of personnel since progressive deconstruction could render large portions of the remnant
structure unstable
5.2 Lifting
The removal of a number of ancillary items such as the crane, boom, adjoining bridges, heli deck etc.
should be before removal of the topside undertaken.
It is considered possible to remove the topside as a single lift, but it will also be possible to remove the
helideck before lifting of the topside.

Lifting can be using the WIV “Pacific Orca” undertaken and the topside sections can be to shore
transported either on cargo barges or on the deck of the WIV barge itself.
5.3 Removal Schedule
The removal schedule is in principle shown in Figure 3 below:

Activities
Stop for
Production
Well

Abandonment

Cleaning
Phase

Concept
Selection
Engineering
Hook Down

Removal of
Topside
Figure 3: Removal Schedule
6 Safety
Safety plans must be established, but since the wells are shut down and all equipment is
decommissioned and emptied, the platform will be “cold” and hazardous events are not very likely to
occur, thereby minimizing the need for precautionary measures.

7 WIV Layout
The capacity of the WIV deck is to 15T/m2 given, which is well above the demands.
7.1 Dimensions of WIV
Capacity of
WIV Deck:
15T/m2
Approx. area
for storage ~
45 x 24 m

Approx. area
for storage ~
45 x 34 m

7.2 Crane Reach at Large Area

Figure 5: Crane capacity at large loading area

R = 35 m Crane Capacity =
1050 T

At R = 35
Crane is able to reach the
centre of the large loading
area

7.3 Crane Reach at Small Area

At R = 75
Crane is able to reach the
centre of the large loading

area
R = 75 m

Crane capacity = 200 T
Figure 6 : Crane capacity at small loading area

8 Crane Capacity
8.1 Large Area ‐ R = 35 m

1050 T

Figure 7: Crane Capacity at Large Area

8.2 Small Area ‐ R = 75 m

200 T

Figure 8: Crane Capacity at Small Area

9 Geometric constraints
The crane must be able to reach the platform while keeping a safe distance. The necessary
minimum distance between WIV and platform is set to 20 m.

9.1 Removal directly to WIV

20 m
R = 35 m
Outline of
platform

Figure 9: Removal directly to WIV

9.2 Removal to Barge

Removal directly to barge will impose another restriction, since the barge has to be located at the
end of the WIV. The safe distance from WIV to Barge is set at approx.
10m which gives a distance to the centre of the barge of 55 m.

Crane Capacity at 55 m is 500 Tonnes, i.e. the Field B Topside Module will have to be offshore in
smaller pieces deconstructed in order for the WIV crane to be able to place.
10 Sea fastening
Sea fastening at the deck will have to be to allow for easy stabbing/fastening designed to minimize
the risk and later easy removal once the WIV is at shore with the structures.

The sea fastening must be by a Marine Warranty Surveyor certified.

The parts on the barge.
R = 55m
Crane Capacity = 500 T
Outline of
platform

R = 55 m

Figure 10 : Removal to Barge

Barge

11 Load‐in/Lift‐in
When arriving to shore, the topside module must be lifted either onto the quay or loaded in with the
use of multi‐wheel trailers.

12 Manpower
12.1 Hook Down at the site
Resources needed for the hook down phase of the Field B Topside is estimated to be:

• 120 pers. (60 pers in day/night shift) in 4 months ~172,800 hours

12.2 Engineering
Resources needed for the engineering phase of the Field B Topside is estimated to be:

• ~10 pers in 360 days ~ 20,000 hours

12.3 Third Party approval

• ~1 pers in 360 days ~ 1,500 hours

13 Unit Prices
This section contains unit prices for central parts of the hook down job:

• Cleaning of piping 900 DKK/m
• Pad eyes : 10‐50 mm thickness 50 DKK/kg
• Pad eyes : 50‐100 mm thickness 70 DKK/kg
• Scaffolding 130 DKK/Ton
• Generator 150 kVA ( 15 – 20 pers ) 35,000 DKK/month
• Sea fastening 40 DKK/kg

14 Risk assessment
14.1 Risk Register

14.2 Risk Matrix

Appendix A
A2

platforms

Removal of platforms

June 2013

Table of contents
1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................ 2
2 Planned decommissioning vessels. ............................................................................................................ 2
2.1 Summary of planned lifting vessels. ........................................................................................................... 2
3 Decommissioning alternatives valid for the harbour of Esbjerg ................................................................ 2
3.1 Dismantling of topsides using. Jack‐up. ..................................................................................................... 2
3.1.1 Alternative 1 ........................................................................................................................................... 3
3.1.2 Alternative 2 ........................................................................................................................................... 3
3.1.3 Summary of possible modifications ....................................................................................................... 4
3.2 Disassembly of jacket's ............................................................................................................................... 4
3.2.1 Alternative 1 ........................................................................................................................................... 4
3.2.2 Alternative 2 ........................................................................................................................................... 5
3.2.3 Alternative 3 ........................................................................................................................................... 5
Annex 1 Drawings to illustrate the lifting procedures ............................................................................................ i
Annex 2 Description of the selected alternative planned decommissioning projects ........................................... ix

1

1 Introduction

The present document contains a brief description of existing or planned decommissioning vessels as
well as a review of alternatives drawn up in connection with the current project.

2 Planned decommissioning vessels.
As described elsewhere, dismantling of platforms is a budding market, which is to experience a
tremendous growth expected in the coming years, where many of the existing offshore platforms, also
in the North Sea area, will be decommissioned. In relation to the OSPAR (Oslo‐Paris Commission)
convention, all topsides and jackets, that weighs less than 10,000 Tonnes, be dismantled and
transported to shore within a year after the production ceases. It is thus not currently for North Sea
area allowed to dump platforms for the creation of fishing reefs, a procedure which has been used
extensively in the Gulf of Mexico.

An immediate obvious possibility of dismantling would be a reversible use of the very same crane
vessels, which have been in connection with the initial installation used. These have, however,
because of the large demand and a high degree of monopoly, for a number of years been very
expensive. Consequently, a part of the larger consortiums has developed new ideas of vessels
designed for disassembly of large platforms. Annex 4 provides a very brief description of some of the
methods/vessels, which seems most advanced/most serious. This is included to give an idea of the
market and must therefore not be as a complete review of possible disassembly principles regarded.

2.1 Summary of planned lifting vessels.

It appears to all listed projects in annex 4 that the focus is primarily on dismantling of the major
platforms. Also that they all require access to a dry dock to deliver the jacket whereas a topside will be
able to be transported on a standard barge and then delivered on the quay via traditionally used
methods.

The mentioned alternatives would probably be too costly to use in dismantling of smaller platforms.
However, the "Versa truss" system seems so flexible that it should be into consideration taken.
Likewise, the traditional lifting vessels should be, already on the market, considered.

3 Decommissioning alternatives valid for the harbour of Esbjerg
It is elsewhere in the project concluded that the establishment of a dry dock in Esbjerg would be too
expensive. This means that for jacket disassembly it is necessary to establish alternatives to the
methods listed in annex 4. For topsides the listed alternative might be possible solutions, but probably
too expensive, as they are designed for larger modules. Hence, alternatives are also here required.

3.1 Dismantling of topsides using. Jack‐up.

On the topsides, the project focused on the use of jack‐ups, which most likely is available on the site
for the decommissioning of wells. By the use of an existing jack‐up, there might be restrictions on both
the lifting capacity and working radius.
Based on the above the following describes the subsequent possible jack‐up modifications to increase
lifting capacity, working radius and flexibility in the dismantling process.

Jack‐ups have been successfully on numerous occasions used for the installation of small topsides and
jacket's and therefore it is of course possible to reverse this process. The limitations lie mainly in the
2

lifting capacity and reach. For a typical jack‐up the lifting capacity (draw works) will be in the order of
680 mT (rotary load + setback load), while the skidding capacity typically will be significantly less. The
target weight of this project is to 1000 mT defined. Typical sizes for the working area (the distance a
cantilever can be skidded) is approximately 14 m along the cantilever and 3.5 m to 4.0 m laterally.

3.1.1 Alternative 1

Modification 1

The limited working radius restricts the number of platforms which could be directly lifted by the jack‐
up, skidded and lowered it onto a barge. For disassembly of the topsides, it would therefore be
tempting to mount a for example a 300 mT revolving crane near a jack‐up leg. It will thus be possible
to move topsides in smaller parts (piece small) for temporary storage on the jack‐up deck. The
installation of the aforementioned crane will be required as a minimum to utilize the jack‐up for
disassembly. In this connection, there should be a focus on the safety of the individual "un‐handy"
lifts. In addition, the cost of the extensive offshore work for shielding of welding and cutting
operations, from possible gas leaks and establishment of various scaffolding, should be assessed. The
key, however, will be to establish environmentally sound measures to ensure against oil, chemicals
and paint scrap to the sea.

Modification 2

With the limitations on the working area of the cantilever with the current project, it will not be
possible to skid modules or parts thereof free of jacket for subsequent lowering onto a barge. If the
draw works of jack‐up should be in connection with the disassembly used, the cantilever arm needs to
be to approximately 14 m extended.

The lifting capacity is on the assumption based that the moment of the cantilever beam and the
reaction on the edge of the hull must not exceed the similar sizes from the drilling operation. The
derrick weight is set at 420 mT. This gives a capacity of 282 mT (if the moment in the cantilever is
critical size) and 428 mT (if the reaction to hull edge is critical). Both values are significantly below the
target value of 1000 mT.

Modification 3

It is estimated that an increase of cantilever capacity (same moment capacity + ca. 5000 tm) is
achieved by a moderate intervention. For example, cantilever beams are with 2 x 2 plates 40x5100
mm2 reinforced.

3.1.2 Alternative 2

Modification 1

300 mT rotating crane installed near a jack‐up leg.

Modification 2

Cantilever beams extended with 14.0.

Modification 3

3

The supports for the drilling Tower to be in order for the Tower modified to be skidded toward the
centre of the jack‐up during a lift. This increases the moment capacity to approximately 6000 tm.

Based on the above the lift capacity is to 457 mT (if the cantilever moment is critical size) calculated
and 692 mT (if the reaction to hull is the critical size). Hence the same capacity are achieved as for the
modification 2 (alt 1) without the cantilever being reinforced.

However, this requires a relatively large interference, because all the electricity cables, tubes and mud
hoses, etc. must be disengaged during each operation.
Modification 4

If chosen to perform the modification it is natural to reinforce the cantilever beams at the same time
so that the reaction by hull edge is the critical size and lifting capacities can thus be 692 mT. The
bending moment in the cantilever is by approximately 7500 tm increased. The gain can be performed
with the equivalent of 2 x 2 40x5100 mm2 plates as by modification 2 (alt 1). In a detailed design, it
should be documented that the increased torque of after approx. 7500 tm can be absorbed by the
jack‐up ´ in a global context.

Modification 5

A lifting capacity of 1000 mT will require a more comprehensive reinforcement of the cantilever and
supports. On the other hand, a requirement for a lifting weight of 1000 mT gives rise to a moment
increase of 120% equivalent to 18000 tm. Such an increase could only be through a detailed study
documented.

3.1.3 Summary of possible modifications

It is concluded that as a minimum the installation of a revolving crane with a lifting capacity of about
300 mT is required. By using this crane, appropriate sizes of the modules can be stored on jacket‐up
until the parts can be onto a barge lifted.

The cantilevers current capacity of approximately 680 mT cannot immediately be used as the range is
not sufficient to modules to be lifted free of the jacket and subsequently lowered onto the barge.

An extension in the order of 14 m is required. The capacity is in relation to the starting point reduced.
With a moderate modification, which involves the cantilever beams to be strengthened, lifting
capacity can be documented to approximately 428 mT, which is below 50% of target value of 1000 mT.

A further increase in capacity for the target value of 1000 mT will only be through detailed studies
documented.

The selected solution must be on an assessment based of the costs of increased offshore work and risk
of environmental impact by using existing jack‐up versus the cost of the proposed jack‐up conversions.

3.2 Disassembly of jacket's

3.2.1 Alternative 1

Disassembly of jacket is using a jack‐up rig

Disassembly of the jacket by the use of a jack‐up rig is simple by lifting smaller parts weighing less than
jack‐up's lifting capacity, where the jacket is parted by using, for example, "abrasive water‐cutting".
4

The current part is lifted a couple of metres above the water surface, then a barge can be placed
below the lifting point, and thus either sailing directly to port or mounted temporarily until the barge
is full.

3.2.2 Alternative 2

Disassembly of jacket is using a converted barge

This method can be a reversible launching considered, as the jacket is at the end of a converted barge
pulled up. Principles of the method shown in the drawings 1600‐01‐01 to 1600‐01‐03 attached in
annex 1, and the following description should be together with the drawings read.

Indicative calculations show that a large barge without problems will be able to ballast to withstand
the current load at the end. Calculations indicates further that there will be wire forces in the order of
a few thousand tonnes, which through use of blocks will have reasonable dimensions.

The dominating uncertainty in the preliminary calculations is in the dynamic amplification factors
used, and thus it is important through model experiments or detailed calculations of the dynamic
behaviour of the system clarified hence to assess whether the limitations in the weather window are
acceptable. In this context, it is important to assess the safety against that platform because of, for
example, slamming forces on jacket bottom combined with accelerations from movements of the
barge. Theoretically a quiet immersion by constantly keeping the platform's gravity enough behind the
turning point. By the use of "hold back" wires, connected to the top of the MSF, it is ensured that, the
wire pulling down on the barge is not also dragging the jacket too far forward. Statically, it is possible
via measurements of the wires to determine the forces of gravity location continuously, but dynamics
and wave/slamming forces will cause an uncertainty in the estimate.

3.2.3 Alternative 3

Disassembly of the jackets using buoyancy elements

The use of buoyancy elements have considered been. The method, however, is not appropriate
considered and sufficiently attractive in the current situation. The method is considered to be
primarily associated with too much uncertainty regarding the stability of the jacket construction. From
the moment the jacket is from the piles released, there is no counter force from i.e. a crane and hence
the whole operation is entirely dependent on the interaction between the individual buoyancy centres
functioning satisfactorily.
Thus, detailed analyses of the system are required before the method's applicability can be confirmed.

Although no further reflections on this method presently are made, the method represents a potential
opportunity, which might be included in the considerations for a specific project.

5

Annex 1 Drawings to illustrate the lifting procedures

Disassembly of topsides using a jack‐up rig.

1600‐02‐01 Rev. A Demontering af topside, – Fase 1
1600‐02‐02 Rev. A Demontering af topside, – Fase 2

Disassembly of jacket's using. converted barge:

1600‐01‐01 Rev. A Jacket demontering vha. ombygget pram, fase 1‐2.
i

ii

iii

iv

v

vi

vii

viii

Annex 2 Description of the selected alternative planned
decommissioning projects

 Versa truss
 MPU Heavy Lifter
 Pieter Shelte Catamaran
 Offshore Shuttle

ix

”Versa truss”

x

”MPU Heavy Lifter”

xi

”Pieter Schelte Catamaran”

xii

”Offshore Shuttle”

xiii

xiv

Appendix A
A3

Environmentally sound recycling and scrapping of

offshore platforms

Transportation

June 2013

Table of Contents
1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................... 2
2 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................. 3
3 Transportation ........................................................................................................................................... 3
3.1 Installation vessel .............................................................................................................................. 3
3.2 Selection of barge .............................................................................................................................. 5
4 Fastening of Structures ............................................................................................................................. 7
4.1 Topsides ............................................................................................................................................. 7
4.1.1 Method 1‐Chain hoists .................................................................................................................. 7
4.1.2 Method 2‐Tension stays ................................................................................................................ 8
4.2 Jacket ................................................................................................................................................. 8
4.3 Method 1‐Chain hoist .............................................................................................................................. 9
4.4 Metode 2‐Tension rods ........................................................................................................................... 9
4.5 Annex 1 Transport arrangement drawings ................................................................................................ x
4.6 BILAG 2 Accelerations of barge and topside .......................................................................................... xi
4.7 Annex 3 Accelerations of barge and jacket ................................................................................................xii
4.8 Annex 4 the calculation of the anchoring forces ....................................................................................... xiv
4.8.1 Topsides .......................................................................................................................................... xiv
4.8.2 Jacket ............................................................................................................................................... xv

1

1 Introduction
In connection with the project "environmentally sound recycling and decommissioning of
offshore platforms", it became at an early stage clear, the choice of methods for
dismantling of platforms will be a strong competition parameter, in which the
transportation method must be in alignment with the disassembly method.

This document describes the conditions related to the choice of an appropriate transport
barge, as well as the design of a sea fastening principle, which aims to minimize offshore
work as much as possible. The latter should be seen in the light of the facilities being at the
open sea, when attachment to the barge is being performed.
The present document takes as its starting point a 1000 tonnes topsides and an 1800
tonnes jacket.

2

2 Conclusion
By using, a large and strong barge flexibility with, regard to transportation sea fastening, is
achieved. By choosing a large barge, reduced the transportation loads significantly, as the
barge will be calmer in the sea compared to smaller barges.

”Giant 2 – Ocean‐Going Deck barge” is an example of a barge, which comply with the requirements
with regard to the carrying capacity and size.

However, the enclosed calculations are on the Noble Denton’s load criteria based, which
normally provide conservative loading. A detailed analysis should be of the transportation
carried out.

The structures are directly on mattresses of wood placed, which in stiffness and area is
sufficient to distribute the loads to the strong points of the barge. Two types of fastening
devices – 1) air chain pulleys, 2) drag bars are highlighted, both possible solutions either
separately or in combination.

The topsides module will need only mattresses of wood and the devices mentioned, whereas
the supports of jacket design must be by load distributing beams supplemented.

3 Transportation
The transport is analysed according to the Noble Denton ´ s criterion "General guidelines for
Marine Transportations".
However, in connection with a detailed project, it should be assessed whether the Noble Denton ´ s
requirements can be reduced:
1. As the structures are without any significant value damage due to poor fastening is in principle
negligible. However, the safety should be at the highest level and no damage to the barge,
should be seen.
2. Normally a construction is transported in not quite tranquil weather conditions in order to
frame a favourable weather window for installation a day or two later. Missing this weather
window, you have the choice between staying on site, or to return to the safe haven until the
next favourable weather window appears. The structures, during tranquil weather are lifted
onto the barge, fastened and barged to port. This means a transportation time approximately
11/2 day.
3.1 Installation vessel

The last years have several installation vessels been built with focus on the increasing offshore
wind activities mainly in Northern European waters. Crane lifting capacity up to 1200 tons,
Dynamic Positioning System 2, cargo area of 4,300m2 with a deck loading of 15 ton/m2. Attached
is the vessel’s technical specifications as well as the crane diagram. The vessel has recently proved
its ability lifting and transporting a no longer useable gas platform in German waters to a shore
facility.
Advantages:
3

The vessel can be close to the construction positioned. With the six sets of 3‐Chord truss type legs
and the DP2 system as well as various thrusters ‐ a very steady operation is possible. The large and
strong cargo area mean that quite some heavy volumes of cargo can be loaded and transported
with a strong and safe sea fastening equipment.
MOB:
PoE ‐ Remember that we MUST be able to pre‐load and jack up to the operating air gap in PoE, as it
will ensure faster and safe operation when to be unloaded. PoE has procedure for permission to
jack up ‐ but who probably know this can be a challenge.

There must be some flexibility in sea fastening as it can be a challenge to cut e.g. jacket underwater
accurately and therefore it must be possible to adjust slightly on site. All other equipment will be
mobilised to have fixed space, remember to fill empty baskets and backloads on site so requires a
good management and deck plane. There must bunkers Fuel so hot work shall be planned in the
project.

All ROV equipment must be "wet" tested in port.

Transit:
DEP. PoE to Site.
Transit Plan for the site, weather criteria (Hs) compared to sailing, jacking, and sea fastening
(especially back to PoE).

SITE:
The position should be calculated carefully compared lifting tasks and loading on deck, walkway
with water flow from VIW must be installed.

Location assessment must always be with penetration study, risks, etc.

VIW arrive and set up DP approx. 500 meters from the location. Once permission from the owner is
given, manoeuvred VIW in on location. The ship lowers the legs when it is close to the final position
for approx. 1‐2 meters above the sea floor, according to the cables and pipelines.

When the position is reached, within the tolerances (the smaller the tolerance the longer it takes),
final position approved by the responsible.

VIW preloaded and jacks‐up for surgery air gap.

From here, it is many crane lifts in small and large pieces, small in baskets and backloads
continuously, the large pieces loaded on deck and taken back to the PoE.
The ship's deck is made clear to large lift either leg or between the legs, the easiest but not too
time possible. Between the legs used bumpers, all lift out fed with tag lines and lifting supervisor.
On deck are there painted safety routes (emergency), making a promise corridor where no work
should be done on deck. Remember marine fouling on the jacket and hand ring / approvals shells
mm.

Demob:
All components are unloaded in PoE, cooked‐level on the quay facility for which the large modules
to be landed.

General:
Remember to handled environmental considerations on site and PoE, e.g. oil in pipes, asbestos.

4

3.2 Selection of barge
A large barge to transport the different modules is for the following reasons selected:
1. A large barge provides small movements and thus smaller forces from the structure.
2. A strong barge (deck capacity 15 tons/m2) enables a fastening system, which the barge or the
construction not be should tailored.
The selected barge is the Giant 2. See barge information on the following two pages.
5

6

7

4 Fastening of Structures
As the construction is situated in the open sea, it is important that the fastening system is designed
to minimize offshore work (annex 1).

In order to achieve a system that is independent of the choice of barge, the barge deck is
with a 100‐200 mm thick "mattresses of wood" covered. This compensates for
unevenness in the deck and ensures a sufficient load distribution on the barge.

For securing the jacket design, it will be necessary, however, to supplement with load distributing
beams.

The structure placed directly on mattresses of wood and attached by means of straps. There are
two types of straps:

1. Chain hoists, which snaps to the strong points of the barge and structure. Chain
hoists are tensioned one after another to all chain hoists are tense.

2. HEB‐profiles or tubular with gusset plates or equivalent is butt welded to the
structure and to the strong points of the barge. Tension stays are fabricated with an
over‐length and shortened to the right length when the module is placed. Welding
inspection prior to transportation is carried out.

4.1 Topsides

The modules shall be from all equipment released situated under the deck such that the main‐deck
bars forming a frame on which the module can rest.

4.1.1 Method 1‐Chain hoists

When the module is set down on mattresses of wood, it is important that the loads are sufficiently
distributed in order not to damage the barge.

The following table specifies the required number of air chain hoists based on a topside weight
of 1,000 tonnes and a total "mattresses of wood" ‐area equivalent to 210 m2. Accelerations are
in annex 2 shown

Acceleration Factual Fcapacity Chain

hoists

2
m/s x g tons ton/m tons ton/m Number1)
2 2

Heave 1,796 8,55 15,0
Roll 0,592 600 640 12 (3+3)x2, top + bottom
either side
Pitch 0,375 380 426 8 (2+2)x2, top + bottom
either side
Total 20
1)
”75” t SWL Chain hoist with reduced safety, i.e. SWL 5/3x75=125 t.

The above results have been analysed in annex 4.
8

4.1.2 Method 2‐Tension stays

The tension bars are with 4 rods in top and bottom arranged respectively under an angle of
45o relative to the length direction of the barge. Top rods arranged further with a slope of
45o in relation to the vertical.

The horizontal force from the topside is 600 tonnes (roll), as described in method 1.

Factual Tension bars

tons Number Dimension
Bottom 212 4 HEB300/Ø508x9.5
Top 300 4 HEB400/Ø508x12.7

Forces from the pitch accelerations will also be taken by the same bars as above. The
above results have been analysed in annex 4.

4.2 Jacket

Its construction shall be released from all obstacles, so that the legs are forming 2 runners, on
which the construction can rest.

The jacket has a weight of approximately 1500 tons exclusive of fouling, piles bits, grout and the
like. It is that the total weight of the jacket is 1800 tonnes assumed.

Heave‐accelerations in ANNEX 3, is analysed to be 1,887. The load of the barge is consequently:
1800*1.9 tons = 3420 tons

With a deck capacity of 15 t/m2 the following last distribution area is required:
UAREA = 3420 / 15 M2 = 228 M2

It means the load‐width under each leg should be:
Uwidth = 228 / 2 * 51 m = 2.24 m

However, this is unrealistic, as the mattresses of wood, where appropriate, should be very
thick.
The mattresses of wood should be with steel beams over the strong points of the barge
supplemented.

9

4.3 Method 1‐Chain hoist

Acceleration Factual Fcapacity Chain hoist

m/s2 x g tons tons number1)

Roll 0,735 1323 1493 28
(7+7)x2,
top+bottom in
either side
Pitch 0,465 837 854 16 (4+4)x2,
top+bottom in
either side
Total 44
1)
”75” t SWL chain hoist with reduced safety, ie. SWL 5/3x75=125 t.

4.4 Metode 2‐Tension rods

The tension rods are arranged with an even number of rods in top and bottom respectively. Top
rods are arranged with a slope of 45o in relation to the vertical.

Factual Tension rods

tons Number Dimension
Roll 1323 16 HEB300/Ø508x9.5
Pitch 837 8 HEB300/Ø508x9.5
Total 24 HEB300/Ø508x9.5

10

4.5 Annex 1 Transport arrangement drawings
1700‐01‐01 Jacket hoist fixation
1700‐01‐02 Topside hoist fixation
1700‐01‐03 Jacket drawbar hoist fixation
1700‐01‐04 Topside drawbar hoist fixation

xi

4.6 BILAG 2 Accelerations of barge and topside

SEATRANSPORT ACCELERATIONS
It is assumed that the Roll and Pitch axes passes through the centre of floatation (C.O.F.)
Roll cyclical angular motion of barge/ship about a longitudinal axis
Pitch: Cyclical angular motion of barge/ship about a transverse axis
Heave: Cyclical vertical motion of barge/ship
DESCRIPTION:
Topside Transportation
POINT: (C.O.F. BARGE (0,0,0))
X_0 50.00 [m] Distance to C.O.F. (longitudinal)
Y_0 1.00 [m] Distance to C.O.F. (transverse)
Z_0 9.00 [m] Height above C.O.F. (vertical)
ROLL:
THETA_R 20.00 [deg] Roll angle (+/‐)
T_R 10.00 [sec] Roll period (full cycle)
PITCH:
THETA_P 12.50 [deg] Pitch angle (+/‐)
T_P 10.00 [sec] Pitch period (full cycle)
HEAVE:
X_G 0.20 [g] Heave acceleration (+/‐)
PARTIAL COEFFICIENT:
Wave load 1.30

Help formulas:
G 9.81 GRAVITY [m/sec^2]

RR 9.055 ARM‐ROLL [m]
RP 50.804 ARM‐PITCH [m]
AR 3.097 AMPLITUDE‐ROLL [m]
AP 10.996 AMPLITUDE‐PITCH [m]
ATR 1.223 ACC‐TOTAL‐ROLL [m/sec^2]
ATP 4.341 ACC‐TOTAL‐PITCH [m/sec^2]
ALPHA‐R 1.460 ALPHA‐ROLL [RAD]
ALPHA‐P 0.178 ALPHA‐PITCH [RAD]
AVR 0.135 ACC‐VER‐ROLL [m/sec^2]
AVP 4.272 ACC‐VER‐PITCH [m/sec^2]
AHR 1.215 ACC‐HOR‐ROLL [m/sec^2]
AHP 0.769 ACC‐HOR‐PITCH [m/sec^2]
AVR / G 0.014 ACC‐VER‐ROLL / G [g]
AVP / G 0.436 ACC‐VER‐PITCH / G [g]
AHR / G 0.124 ACC‐HOR‐ROLL / G [g]
AHP / G 0.078 ACC‐HOR‐PITCH / G [g]
HEAVE AVH _R/ G 0.188 ACC‐VER‐HEAVE_ROLL/ G [g]
AVH _P/ G 0.195 ACC‐VER‐HEAVE_PITCH/ G [g]
AHH _R/ G 0.068 ACC‐HOR‐HEAVE_ROLL/ G [g]
AHH _P/ G 0.043 ACC‐HOR‐HEAVE_PITCH/ G [g]
GRAVITY AVH _R/ G 0.940 ACC‐VER‐GRAVITY_ROLL/ G [g]
AVH _P/ G 0.976 ACC‐VER‐GRAVITY_PITCH/ G [g]
AHH _R/ G 0.342 ACC‐HOR‐GRAVITY_ROLL/ G [g]
AHH _P/ G 0.216 ACC‐HOR‐GRAVITY_PITCH/ G [g]

xii

TOTAL ACCELERATIONS WITHOUT AND WITH PARTIAL COEFFICIENTS:
ACTION COMBINATION
1.0 x DEAD + 1.0 x WAVE 1.0 x DEAD + 1.3 x WAVE
HORIZONTAL VERTICAL HORIZONTAL VERTICAL
[g] [g] [g] [g]

+ ROLL + HEAVE + GRAVITY 0.534 1.141 0.592 1.202
+ ROLL - HEAVE + GRAVITY 0.397 0.766 0.414 0.713
- ROLL + HEAVE + GRAVITY 0.287 1.114 0.270 1.166
- ROLL - HEAVE + GRAVITY 0.150 0.738 0.092 0.677

+ PITCH + HEAVE + GRAVITY 0.338 1.607 0.375 1.796
+ PITCH - HEAVE + GRAVITY 0.252 1.217 0.262 1.289
- PITCH + HEAVE + GRAVITY 0.181 0.736 0.171 0.664
- PITCH - HEAVE + GRAVITY 0.095 0.346 0.058 0.156

4.7 Annex 3 Accelerations of barge and jacket
SEATRANSPORT ACCELERATIONS
It is assumed that the Roll and Pitch axes passes through the centre of floatation (C.O.F.)
Roll cyclical angular motion of barge/ship about a longitudinal axis
Pitch: Cyclical angular motion of barge/ship about a transverse axis
Heave: Cyclical vertical motion of barge/ship
DESCRIPTION:
Topside Transportation
POINT: (C.O.F. BARGE (0,0,0))
X_0 58.00 [m] Distance to C.O.F. (longitudinal)
Y_0 1.00 [m] Distance to C.O.F. (transverse)
Z_0 17.00 [m] Height above C.O.F. (vertical)
ROLL:
THETA_R 20.00 [deg] Roll angle (+/‐)
T_R 10.00 [sec] Roll period (full cycle)
PITCH:
THETA_P 12.50 [deg] Pitch angle (+/‐)
T_P 10.00 [sec] Pitch period (full cycle)
HEAVE:
X_G 0.20 [g] Heave acceleration (+/‐)
PARTIAL COEFFICIENT:
Wave load 1.30

xiii

Help formulas:
G 9.81 GRAVITY [m/sec^2]
RR RP 17.029 ARM‐ROLL ARM‐PITCH [m]
60.440 [m]
AR AP 5.824 AMPLITUDE‐ROLL AMPLITUDE‐ [m]

13.082 PITCH [m]
ATR ATP 2.299 ACC‐TOTAL‐ROLL ACC‐TOTAL‐ [m/sec^2]
5.164 PITCH [m/sec^2]
ALPHA‐R 1.512 ALPHA‐ROLL ALPHA‐PITCH [RAD]

ALPHA‐P 0.285 [RAD]
AVR AVP 0.135 ACC‐VER‐ROLL ACC‐VER‐PITCH [m/sec^2]

4.956 [m/sec^2]
AHR 2.295 ACC‐HOR‐ROLL [m/sec^2]

AHP 1.453 ACC‐HOR‐PITCH [m/sec^2]
AVR / G 0.014 ACC‐VER‐ROLL / G [g]
AVP / G 0.505 ACC‐VER‐PITCH / G [g]
AHR / G 0.234 ACC‐HOR‐ROLL / G [g]

AHP / G 0.148 ACC‐HOR‐PITCH / G [g]
HEAVE AVH _R/ G 0.188 ACC‐VER‐HEAVE_ROLL/ G [g]
AVH _P/ G 0.195 ACC‐VER‐HEAVE_PITCH/ G [g]
AHH _R/ G 0.068 ACC‐HOR‐HEAVE_ROLL/ G [g]

AHH _P/ G 0.043 ACC‐HOR‐HEAVE_PITCH/ G [g]
GRAVITY AVH _R/ G 0.940 ACC‐VER‐GRAVITY_ROLL/ G [g]
AVH _P/ G 0.976 ACC‐VER‐GRAVITY_PITCH/ G [g]
AHH _R/ G 0.342 ACC‐HOR‐GRAVITY_ROLL/ G [g]

AHH _P/ G 0.216 ACC‐HOR‐GRAVITY_PITCH/ G [g]

TOTAL ACCELERATIONS WITHOUT AND WITH PARTIAL COEFFICIENTS:
ACTION COMBINATION
1.0 x DEAD + 1.0 x WAVE 1.0 x DEAD + 1.3 x WAVE
HORIZONTAL VERTICAL HORIZONTAL VERTICAL

[g] [g] [g] [g]
+ ROLL + HEAVE + GRAVITY 0.644 1.141 0.735 1.202
+ ROLL - HEAVE + GRAVITY 0.508 0.766 0.557 0.713
- ROLL + HEAVE + GRAVITY 0.176 1.114 0.127 1.166
- ROLL - HEAVE + GRAVITY 0.040 0.738 -0.051 0.677

+ PITCH + HEAVE + GRAVITY 0.408 1.677 0.465 1.887
+ PITCH - HEAVE + GRAVITY 0.321 1.286 0.353 1.379
- PITCH + HEAVE + GRAVITY 0.112 0.666 0.080 0.573
- PITCH - HEAVE + GRAVITY 0.025 0.276 -0.032 0.066
xiv

4.8 Annex 4 the calculation of the anchoring forces
4.8.1 Topsides

When the module is set down on the barge, it should be fastened:

Method 1‐Chain hoists

The module is approximately 10 high, assuming that C.O.G. is approximately 5 meters above the barge deck.
Also assuming that both the crane and the de‐aerator have been from the module removed.

The accelerations of the barge, along with the topsides are over estimated in annex 2, and the horizontal roll‐
acceleration for the topsides is calculated to 0.6 * g.

The horizontal force from the topsides is 600 tonnes.

The 6 x 75 tonnes SWL chain hoists with three chain hoists connected to at the top of the topsides and three
chain hoists connected to the bottom of the topsides, are the following:

The Chain hoists have a safety factor of five, used during the lift, whereas a safety factor of three is
acceptable in the current situation. This means a 75 tonnes hoist can be to maintain used a force of 125
tonnes. It is assumed that the three chain hoists connected to the top of the topsides, have an inclination of
45 degrees, the following capacity is calculated:

PMAX = 3*125 + 3*125*COS.(45) TONS = 640 Tons > 600 Tons

This indicates that the roll‐movement requires 12 sets of 75 tonnes SWL chain hoists.

The horizontal pitch‐acceleration for the topsides is calculated to 0.31 * g.

The horizontal force from the topsides is thus 380 tonnes.

If 4 x 75 tonnes SWL chain hoists are with two chain hoists used connected to at the top of the topsides and
two chain hoists connected to the bottom of the topsides, we have the following:

It is assumed that the two chain hoists connected to the top of the top side have an inclination of 45 degrees,
the following capacity is calculated:

PMAX = 2*125 + 2*125*COS.(45) TONS = 426 Tons > 380 Tons

That is to say, that the pitch movement requires 8 x 75 tonnes SWL chain hoists.

A total of 20 required 75 tonnes SWL air chain hoists.

Method 2‐Tension rods

The horizontal force from the topsides is 600 tonnes as above.

Used four tension rods with 2 rods linked to at the top of the topsides and 2 rods connected to the bottom of
the topsides.
xv

It is assumed that the 2 rods connected to the top of the topside have an inclination of 45 degrees with the
horizontal, and that all 4 bars have an inclination of 45 degrees in the barge longitudinal direction, the
following capacity can be calculated:

Lower rod:
300 Tons = 2 * cos. (45) * x => x = 212 Tons or 2120 kN

Upper rod
300 Tons = 2 * cos2 (45) * y => y = 300 Tons or 3000 kN

For the roll‐movement the lower supports a drawbar corresponding to a HEB300 or a tube Ø508 x 9.5 is
required, in which the shear force connection is a 2.9 m long 5 mm fillet weld on both ends of the drag bar.

For the upper supports a drawbar corresponding to a HEB400 or a tube Ø508 x 12.7 is required, in which the
shear force connection is a 4 m long 5 mm fillet weld on both ends of the drag bar.

Forces from the pitch accelerations will also be taken by the same bars as above.

4.8.2 Jacket

Check of barge deck

When the jacket is resting in a horizontal position on the mattresses of wood, it is important that the
load on the barge is evenly distributed in order not to damage the barge.

The jacket weighs approximately 1500 tons of exclusive of marine fouling, pile pieces, grout and similar.
We assume a total weight of 1800 tonnes. Due to the movements of the barge, the jacket will cause a
loading on the barge with substantial horizontal and vertical forces. According to Noble Denton, the
loads will be as shown in the table in annex 3. The vertical load from jacket will increase according to the
table by a factor of 1.9. Therefore the load on the barge is:

1800*1.9 Tons = 3420 Tons

The total support area of the barge must be:

UAREA = 3420 / 15 M2 = 228 M2

It means the effective load width under each leg must be:

Uwidth = 228 / 2 * 51 m = 2.24 m

, which is unrealistic, since the mattresses of wood, where appropriate, should be very thick.

It may be necessary to combine the mattresses of wood with steel beams over the strong points of the
barge, in order to get a combination of evenly distributed loads and point loads.

Method 1‐Chain hoists

Roll‐accelerations are 0,735 g according to Annex 3. Thus the current force is 1800x0.735=1323 tons.

xvi

PMAX = 7*125 + 7*125*COS. (45) TONS = 1493 tons > 1323 tons

Pitch‐accelerations are 0,465 g. Thus, the current force is 1800 x 0,465=837 tons.

PMAX = 4*125 + 4*125*COS. (45) TONS = 854 tons > 837 tons

Method 2‐Tension rods

Roll‐accelerations are 0,735 g

PMAX= 1493 tons

Selected a total of 8 bars with 4 rods in top and bottom respectively.

1493 = 4*x +4* cos. (45) * x => x = 219 tons

Selected HEB300 or tubular Ø508x 9.5.

Pitch‐accelerations are 0,465

PMAX= 837 tons

Selected a total of 4 rods with 2 rods in top and bottom respectively.

837 = 2*x +2* cos. (45) * x => x = 245 tons

Selected HEB300 or tubular Ø508x 9.5.
xvii

Appendix A
A4

platforms

Onshore decommissioning of installations

June 2013
Table of contents
1 Introduction ‐ onshore recycling in Denmark ....................................................................... 3
1.2 Introduction – purpose ......................................................................................................... 3
1.3 Harbour facilities for decommissioning of offshore installations in Denmark ........................ 3
2 Environment and safety onshore in Denmark ................................................................... 4
2.1 General regulations pertaining to waste in Denmark ............................................................ 4
2.1.1 Challenges when handling decommissioning waste ............................................................................... 4
2.1.2 Hazardous materials on offshore installations ........................................................................................ 5
2.1.3 Handling of hazardous materials onshore ............................................................................................... 6

1 Introduction ‐ onshore recycling in Denmark
1.2 Introduction – purpose
The purpose of this description is to determine if final processing of decommissioned parts of
offshore installations from the Danish sector could take place in Denmark.
There is no legislative requirement that a country must decommission materials that stem from
that country’s own sector. Denmark is subject to EU regulations and a range of international
agreements that regulate trade and entrepreneurial assignments.
1.3 Harbour facilities for decommissioning of offshore installations in

Denmark
Decommissioning will involve legislative authorities and it will attract special attention from
public authorities, not least in terms of environmental requirements when installations are
handled.
Entrepreneurs in the field of waste will be responsible for the onshore treatment, and they
might perform tasks through the establishment of consortiums, if necessary.
So far, the Danish harbor in Esbjerg has been mentioned in connection with decommissioning
assignments. Furthermore, Frederikshavn, Grenaa and Odense/the Lindø terminal in
combination with Lindø dock 3 have expressed interest. These 5 harbours already function as
ship scrapping locations.
Historically, the renovation of rigs has been performed in Esbjerg.

2 Environment and safety onshore in Denmark
2.1 General regulations pertaining to waste in Denmark
Decommissioning of offshore structures on site must be performed in a safe and responsible
manner and under circumstances that are fully satisfactory in terms of protecting the
environment.
Especially chemical waste materials that may be contained in individual, dismantled parts should
be handled very carefully. This should only be handled by companies that possess the required
resources and knowhow. An example of such a company in Denmark is Nordgroup in Nyborg.
The most significant piece of legislation in Denmark in this field is the most recent executive
order on waste from 2012, no. 1309. This executive order is exhaustive in that it applies to all
areas that are not regulated by other legislation. Definitions and classifications of waste are
described in the executive order.
One of the most important elements is the fact that the Danish municipalities are responsible
for waste treatment. The responsibility includes determining if a substance or an object is to be
regarded as waste and ensuring that all waste handling takes place in accordance with the legal
requirements of the executive order. The Danish municipalities must also respect the intentions
to minimize the amount of waste. The waste hierarchy is the fundamental idea behind and a
prerequisite of this minimization.
The executive order contains the ‘List of Waste’ ‐ the so‐called EAK codes that are based on the
European Council’s directives. In English, the list is called ‘The European Waste Catalogue’ (EAK).
The section that classifies and regulates the treatment of substances from the oil and gas sector
plus all classifications of environmentally hazardous waste is particularly interesting. In section
2.2, it is described how this is handled in practice through quality control systems that identify
and determine how all types of environmentally hazardous waste should be treated.
2.1.1 Challenges when handling decommissioning waste

It should be stressed that there are no types of waste resulting from decommissioning of
offshore constructions which are not already being handled in Denmark. Section 2.2 contains an
example of how the classification may be built up and how it may be controlled by a quality
control system that identifies all types of environmentally hazardous waste and determine how
they should be treated.
In the Danish sector, most of the waste from the North Sea sector is handled via the harbour in
Esbjerg. The individual types of waste are therefore already known, including environmentally
hazardous waste. However, we are talking about small amounts of manageable sizes, which can
usually be collected in special, closed containers and transported from a rig to the end receiver.
The challenge lies in the amount of waste and the conditions under which it exists. From a HSE
perspective, it is essential that the risk is transferred from offshore locations to onshore
locations as quickly as possible.
This is described in section on dismantling and transport in the main report. Apart from the
engineering interest in handling as large units as possible, these activities also involve a
significant element of risk: it is necessary to make sure that environmentally hazardous
substances do not end in the sea or are released at the onshore location.
2.1.2 Hazardous materials on offshore installations

The following hazardous materials are either present or potentially present on the platform
topside and require appropriate handling.
Table 5.2.1/hazardous materials in the Dan Field (ref. the “old” Dan Field Platforms and Pipelines
Decommissioning Programs, p. 26)
Currently, it is not possible to estimate the total cost of the above as the amount is not known.
This should not be seen as a problem because specific tender documents and surveys prior to
bidding will answer this question.

2.1.3 Handling of hazardous materials onshore
In connection with handling and transportation of hazardous materials onshore, the onshore
scrapping company will ensure that all parties, both the environment as well as personnel, will
not be contaminated. The scrapping company will also ensure that hazardous material is
handled in accordance with local regulations, thus to ensure safe and proper handling. The
above mentioned materials are, and expected quantified as:
Table 4.3 Selected group of organic compounds in produced water per year (ref. Environmental
Challenges – Decommissioning B0‐01ER0, p. 25)

Organic Norwegian shelf (kg)/10/ The Danish field (kg)

Compounds 2003 2011 2003 2011
BTEX 861,160 1,675,059 45.9 144
Alkyl phenols C1‐C3 281,116 289,324 15.0 24.9
Alkyl phenols C4‐C5 10,104 14,360 0.54 1.24
Alkyl phenols C6‐C9 401 219 0.02 0.02
Phenols 184,168 179,546 9.82 15.4
Oil in water 1,698,382 1,23,608 90.5 106
Organic acids 33,576,880 22,251,835 1,790 1.914
APA‐PAH 45,176 1,863 2.41 0.16
Sum PAH 99,456 155,915 5.30 13.4

Table 4.4 Amount (kg) heavy metals within produced water per year (ref. Environmental
Challenges – Decommissioning B0‐01ER0, p. 26

ENVIRONMENTAL
CHALLENGES ASSOCIATED
WITH DECOMMISSIONING
September 2012

Table of contents
1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................... 3
1.1 Abbreviations ....................................................................................................................................... 3
2 REGULATIONS ................................................................................................................................. 4
3 ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS ......................................................................................................... 7
3.1 Major decommissioning activities ....................................................................................................... 7
3.1.1 Working steps .................................................................................................................................. 8
3.1.2 Activities offshore ............................................................................................................................ 9
3.1.3 Waste handling .............................................................................................................................. 10
3.2 Typical waste residues ....................................................................................................................... 11
3.2.1 Production chemicals ..................................................................................................................... 13
3.2.2 Residual oil materials ..................................................................................................................... 14
3.2.3 Heavy metals .................................................................................................................................. 16
3.2.4 NORM ............................................................................................................................................. 18
3.2.5 Asbestos ......................................................................................................................................... 20
3.2.6 Paints and other coatings .............................................................................................................. 21
3.3 Other considerations ......................................................................................................................... 21
3.3.1 Hydrogen sulphide (H2S) ................................................................................................................ 21
4 DANISH SECTOR TEST CASE ............................................................................................................ 23
4.1 Chemicals ........................................................................................................................................... 24
4.2 Organic compounds ........................................................................................................................... 25
4.3 Heavy metals ...................................................................................................................................... 26
4.4 NORM ................................................................................................................................................. 27
5 SUMMARY AND CONLUSIONS ........................................................................................................ 29
6 REFERENCE .................................................................................................................................... 32

1 INTRODUCTION
Offshore oil and gas installations that have reached end of production (EoP) have to be
decommissioned. Disused installations must normally be removed and disposed on land according
to the OSPAR Decision 98/3. The OSPAR Decision requires, with few exceptions, completely
removal of any offshore oil and gas installation, when they are no longer in use.

The focus of this report is to establish an overview of typical environmental concerns in relation to
decommissioning projects. Focus will be on decommissioning of production facilities, and in
particular the typical waste of concern generated during these operations. Conditions concerning
well plugging and abandonment as well as energy consumption and emissions to air during
decommissioning operations are not part of the scope for the report and will not be included.
However, since well plugging and abandonment is considered a relative large issue with respect to
decommissioning, the topic will briefly be described.

The environmental challenges may vary markedly between different installations as offshore oil
and gas production units are varying. Therefore, the validity of generalising environmental
concerns connected to decommissioning is questionable. However, some similarities are found
between decommissioning projects and the purpose of this report is to give a general overview of
typical environmental challenges.

Public available information from completed decommissioning projects is relatively limited. Some
general descriptions of topics of environmental concerns are however; in the UK,
decommissioning programmes described /33/. In addition, some Norwegian decommissioning
programmes are available, e.g. Huldra from April 2012 /27/ and the Norwegian OLF
environmental reports /10/, /11/, /12/.

No relevant information has been from the Danish oil and gas sector found. Nevertheless, the
Field at the Danish continental shelf is as a test case used in this report. The environmental
concerns in relation to the decommissioning of the Field are thus described based on available
information (primarily from the Norwegian sector) correlated to the sizes of production at the
Field. It is important to stress that the actual environmental concerns related to the Field
cessation is not known.

1.1 Abbreviations

ALARP As Low As Reasonably Practicable
CoP Cease of production
DEPA Danish Environmental Protection Agency
HOCNF Harmonised Offshore Chemical Notification Format
IMO International maritime organization
Kd Distribution coefficient
Klif Norwegian Climate and Pollution Agency
LSA Low specific activity
MEG Monoethylene glycol
NPD Norwegian Petroleum Directorate
3

NPD Naphthalene, phenatrene, antracene and benzothiophene and their
C1‐, C2‐ and C3 alkyl substituted derivates
OLF Oil Industry Association
OSPAR Oslo and Paris commission for the protection of the marine environment of the
north East Atlantic
P&A Plug and abandonment
PAHs polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
PCB Polychlorinated biphenyl
PPE Personal protective equipment
PFOS Perfluorooctyl sulphonate
PVC Polyvinyl chloride
SIS National Institute of Radiation Protection
SRB Sulphate reducing bacteria
TBT Tributyltin
WEEE Waste electrical and electronic equipment

2 REGULATIONS
There are international, regional and national legislation intended to conserve the marine
environment and safeguard human health with respect to the process of decommissioning. Both
the removal process of installation (primarily concerned with safety of navigation and other users
of the sea) and the disposal process (primarily aimed at pollution prevention) are by these
legislations regulated.

The requirements of disposal of disused offshore installation are regulated by the Offshore Safety
Act /1/ in the Danish sector. The central international framework is by the OSPAR Convention
covered /7/. The international treaty Guidelines of 1989 are by the International Maritime
Organization (IMO) established /6/. All briefly described in the following.

The OSPAR Decision 98/3, which came into force in February 1999, gives the criteria for
acceptable disposal alternatives with respect to various kinds of installations /7/. The decision
combines and updates the 1972 Oslo Convention on dumping waste at sea, and the 1974 Paris
Convention on land‐based sources of marine pollution. The provisions of disposal of disused
offshore installation given in the OSPAR conversion require description of the installation, the
proposed disposal site and the proposed disposal method /8/. The OSPAR Decision 98/3 includes
the following key requirements:

• The topside off all installations, irrespective of size, should be removed to shore

• All sub‐structures or jackets weighing less than 10,000 tonnes should be to shore removed
for reuse, recycle or disposal on land.

If removal of structures involves high safety risks or is technically not feasible, it is possible to seek
exemption to the OSPAR Decision 98/3 requirement. Based on a case‐by‐case basis, exemption is
by the national government given if an international consultation process has assessed that
leaving the structures in place is justifiable. The decision for granting derogation of leaving
offshore structures wholly or partly in place in the marine sea ultimately lies with the Danish
4

Government, following justification and consultation with other OSPAR Contracting Parties. The
exceptions can be for the whole or part given of the installation and according to OSPAR includes
the following:

• The footings of large steel platforms weighing over 10,000 tonnes put in place before
February 1999

• The concrete gravity‐based platform sub‐structures

• Floating concrete installations

• Concrete anchor bases

• Structures with significant damage or deterioration where there may be practical
difficulties in removing installations

The derogations do however only apply to installations installed prior to nine of February 1999,
meaning that all installations put in place must be after this date removed completely.

The OSPAR Decision includes complete removal of any redundant offshore installation and state
that "no disused offshore installation or disused offshore pipeline shall be dumped and no
disused offshore installation shall be left wholly or partly in place in the marine sea". However,
the decision does not comprise the following:

• Facilities placed under the seabed
• Concrete anchor bases
• Drill cuttings
• Pipelines

As OSPAR Decision 98/3 does not address the above categories of installations these are currently
by national requirements controlled. This, together with a generally low level of experience to
date causes the standards required difficult to predict. In Denmark specific requirements for
pipeline decommissioning are not formulated. However, decommissioning of pipelines typically
involves pigging, flushing, filling and plugging of lines, followed by removal or in‐situ
abandonment. In UK the pipeline decommissioning is relatively well described in their guidance
note from 2009 /3/. According to the UK Guideline, pipeline decommissioning will have to
consider:

• Decisions will be considering the individual circumstances taken. All feasible
decommissioning options should be considered and compared. Pipelines can be placed on
top of the seabed, trenched or buried and this may also influence the required
decommissioning programme. In general, if the pipeline is of a small diameter (less than
12”) it is likely that it will have to be removed or fully buried. This applies to all in‐field
flow‐lines and control bundles.

5

Other framework worth mentioned with respect to decommissioning is The Petroleum Act in
Norway, /4/ The Petroleum Act 1998 (UK) /5/ and the international treaty Guidelines of 1989
established by IMO /6/. The IMO international standards and guidelines are not formally binding,
but used as advisory for removal of offshore installations. Some of the ones not superseded by the
OSPAR 98/3 are the following:

• All abandoned or disused installations or structures standing in less than 75 m of water
and weighing less than 4,000 tonnes in air, excluding the deck and superstructure, should
be entirely removed.

• In cases of partial removal referred an unobstructed water column sufficient to ensure
safety of navigation, but not less than 55 m, should be provided above any partially
removed installation or structure which does not project above the surface of the sea.

• The position, surveyed depth and dimensions of any installation not entirely removed
should be indicated on nautical charts and any remains, where necessary, properly
marked with aids to navigation.

• The person responsible for maintaining the aids to navigation and for monitoring the
condition of any remaining material should be identified.

Internationally Denmark has signed the "IMO convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by
Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter 1972" the "London Convention" and 1996 Protocol Thereto
"London Protocol". Nationally, the most important legislative act in Denmark with respect to
decommissioning is currently the Offshore Safety Act which requires the following /1/:

• § 56 Abandonment of a fixed offshore installation shall be planned and executed in a way
that the health and safety risks at work are identified, assessed and reduced as much as is
reasonably practicable.
• § 57 The Minister of Transport and Energy may lay down rules on decommissioning of
fixed offshore installations.

Finally, the Marine Environmental Law (Havmiljøloven /2/) which regulates the general waste
handling in the Danish sector is mentioned. The Marine Environmental Law has the purpose of
preventing marine pollution from dumping of wastes and other matter. The main wording of the
law in respect to the subject of this report is the following:

• Dumping § 25: "Discharges of substances or materials shall not take place, apart from the
dumping of seabed material included".

In summary, the principal terms for the decommissioning and disposal of disused offshore
installations follows international agreements and conventions. Nevertheless, the regional
authority is in many cases in a better position than a national one to make overall, crosssectional
assessments. Regulating decommissioning projects requires special expertise and close
coordination between international, national and regional legislation.

6

3 ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS
The focus in this chapter is to establish an overview of typical environmental concerns within
decommissioning projects no matter the type of installation and decommissioning solution
selected.

A major challenge of decommissioning is the limited information available. In general, the oil and
gas companies prefer to keep detailed data regarding the specific decommissioning project on a
certain level of confidentiality. In the public available decommissioning programmes and in the
few available cessation closeout reports information of major waste issues are described in a very
general level.

The environmental concerns of decommissioning of a specific installation are largely by the design
affected of the installation, the production history and operation. Therefore, planning,
engineering and method selection require case‐by‐case studies where chemicals and waste must
be identified, documented and mapped. Furthermore, the specific decommissioning project needs
to assess design and production history for the specific installation.

Identifying environmental and safety risks is vital for selecting the decommissioning solution.
During cessation of an installation the focus should be on minimising environmental impacts.

An overview of the environmental challenges in general is given, with the following descriptions:

 Major decommissioning activities:
o the working steps, section 3.1.1
o activities offshore, section 3.1.2
o waste handling, section 3.1.3
 The typical waste residues:
o Production chemicals, section 3.2.1
o Residual oil materials, section 3.2.2
o Heavy metals, section 3.2.3
o NORM, section 3.2.4
o Asbestos, section 3.2.5
o Paint and other coatings, section 3.2.6
 Other considerations:
o Hydrogen sulphide, section 3.3.1

3.1 Major decommissioning activities

The issues of relevance vary between the different offshore fields and the environmental concerns
have to be assessed as an individual matter. However, the major principle of preparations and

7

working flow involve the same key areas. In the two following sections, these elements
considered of utmost importance within the scope of this report are briefly descried.

3.1.1 Working steps

Decommissioning of an installation is a complex process that involve environmental and safety
challenges. Identification of possible environmental and safety risks involve inspection, sampling
programmes, laboratory testing and even in some cases pilot scale testing. Expertise guidance is
needed to be able to deal with and assess associated environmental and safety risks, which will
constitute the basis for the decision making process. Furthermore, the complex process of
decommissioning should be assessed thoroughly to ensure that the large number of uncertainties
is addressed. The phases of decommissioning can roughly be described by the steps in Figure 3.1.

Inspection
Decommissioning programme and studies
Authority Management
Survey/safety inspection
Environmental and Risk Assessment
Engineering Design
Securing module
Offshore work before removal:
‐ Cleaning topside and flushing of process units
‐ Making the facilities hydrocarbon ‐ free
‐ Removal of residual hydrocarbons
‐ Prepare installation for removal/lift operation
Plugging and abandoment of wells
Documentation
Dismantling and disposal

Figure 3.1 Work steps in a decommissioning project /25/

A solid multidisciplinary planning of the working steps illustrated in Figure 3.1 is necessary to
address the safety and environmental challenges. Furthermore, thorough and detailed
operational planning based on in‐depth knowledge and understanding of all technical and

8

operational aspects of the structure and its history is a key success factor for safe and controlled
decommissioning.

3.1.2 Activities offshore

The major activities offshore besides the preparation activities are the following:

• P&A
• Removal

After CoP a water injection well and water producer can beneficial be kept operational. The water
injector may be needed during P&A work for the injection of flushing water. Water will be used
for the internal flushing operations of topside equipment after oil production has ended. The
water injector may in some occasions also be used as waste well.

After CoP internal flushing of flow lines, process module equipment and export risers will be
executed as well as vessel entries for manual cleaning and inspections. All separators, coalescers
etc. will typically be cleaned manually after flushing to remove residual fractions of bottom sludge
and potential scale residues. Waste from the cleaning can be collected in slop tanks and brought
to shore for disposal.

Minor waste masses generated by the activities performed offshore during decommissioning
activities may be discharged offshore, as long it is within the levels specified in the discharge
permit. Minimising the emissions in general should be of high priority for protecting the
environment and human health with respect to the process of decommissioning. Emissions to sea
could be minimised by the following means:

o All water used for deck and wellhead cleaning should be collected via drains.
o All water used for flushing of topside should be exported to neighbouring active
installation, in vessels or slop tanks. The water should be cleaned according to the
required legislative regulated levels. o Sludge and P&A related waste should be
collected in slop tanks or similar and transported to shore for required treatment.
o Chemical usage:
• For topside cessation the focus should be on only using environmental friendly
degreasing agents and soap. All wash water should be collected via drains.
• In some cases biocides or MEG (Monoethylene glycol) may be added to the oil and
gas riser/pipelines. Environmental impact should in such cases be assessed.

Decommissioning involve permanent abandonment of the platform wells, isolation and limiting
the possible release of pollution. The cessation activities at the specific installation may often be
controlled by the plans and procedures for P&A execution, as the P&A activity is a very costly and

9

time consuming element of decommissioning oil and gas installations. The P&A activities generally
include plugging and securing of wells and subsequent preparation for abandonment of the wells.

The offshore installations must be dismantled and removed to shore, if they are not abandoned
and left in place. The offshore dismantling is normally performed by cutting the platform into
small sections or by removing whole modules in the reverse of the installation. Another option is
to remove the topsides and/or jacket in one piece, but this is rarely performed. Many factors can
influence the removal of offshore installations, e.g. availability of heavy lift vessels, development
and use of new technology for removing installations, capacity of decommissioning yards, and
weather conditions. The complexity of the removing process could cause the facilities to be left in
place to long after cease of production. Over time the installation will deteriorate and the
cessation project will become more costly as unmaintained installations require substantial
modifications to fulfil safety requirements /15/.

The removal method chosen can influence the types of waste transported to land. Offshore
installations removed to shore are typically delivered to approved demolition and waste
treatment plant or reused directly (e.g. signal buoys, wind turbines). Although reuse of
installations and equipment is desirable, experiences have shown that the reuse of offshore
installations or part of equipment is difficult, primarily due to strict requirements in this business
sector. The reuse is in general environmental friendly, but it is more economic to purchase new
rather than repair old equipment. There are however some examples of successful reuse of
installations e.g. the steel column from the Frigg platform re‐used as a breakwater at Tau, the
topside has been used as a training centre for offshore personnel and the Brent Spar concrete
substructure that is used as material for building a pier in Stavanger /15/, /34/.

3.1.3 Waste handling

Waste generated during decommissioning has to be identified and handled in accordance with
international and national legislation, in addition to following company requirements and criteria.
Precautions concerning oil residues, heavy metals, NORM etc. have to be taken into consideration.
Furthermore, decommissioning facilities need to be designed to allow safe handling of identified
waste, including hazardous substances, e.g. have an effective collection system and an on‐site
treatment plant. The waste handling involves a large number of steps and a simplified illustration
of the recommended waste handling in general is given in Figure 3.2.

Hazardous
Safety Securing Material
waste Saleable Metal reuse
Inspection module inspection
removal

Figure 3.2 Principles of work flow

Each step in Figure 3.2 is briefly described in the following:

• Safety Inspection: The installation is inspected by expert teams that secure the
module for later work.
10

• Securing: Based on safety inspection observations, all acute issues, in relation to
contamination and general risk of personnel, are taken care in this phase.

• Material inspection: Establish overview of hazardous waste.

• Hazardous waste removal: Removal of hazardous waste including further handling
of waste.

• Saleable: The most valuable equipment such as cranes, process unit etc. are removed and
this equipment could be sold for direct reuse.

• Metal reuse: The different modules at the installation can be handed for metal scraping
after the hazardous waste is removed.

3.2 Typical waste residues

Waste from the petroleum industry may be present in many physical and chemical forms. For
example as produced water, sludge deposits in the process system removed during maintenance,
drill cuttings, chemicals used during production, or scale/sludge removed at routine maintenance
of valves and tubular. Waste from offshore activities include many different types of waste and
some examples, ranging from ordinary household waste to various hazardous waste fractions,
generated from oil and gas activities are given below:

• Asbestos
• Zinc anodes
• Batteries
• Flame retardants, for example brominated flame retardants
• Diesel
• Waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE)
• Phthalates (plasticisers in flooring and cables)
• Hydraulic oil, grease and lubricants
• Isocyanates from polyurethane paints
• CFC and HCFC gases released from cooling agents
• Chloroparaffins
• Mercury
• Low specific activity (LSA) material
• PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls)
• PFOS (perfluorooctyl sulphonate)
• PVC (polyvinyl chloride)
• Organotin compounds from anti‐fouling systems
• Heavy metals
• Various other chemicals

11

The possible release of pollutants and generation of waste of possible environmental concern
generated by the decommissioning of the specific facility, needs to be described in the
decommissioning programmes and in the environmental impact assessment. Based on this
documentation individual permits for the planned cessation project is given /15/.

Both amounts and treatment of hazardous and industrial waste is typically reported by the
offshore sector. From offshore activities at the Norwegian sector about 315,772 tons of hazardous
waste and 27,070 tons of non‐hazardous waste was taken ashore in 2011. The major fraction of
the hazardous waste was drilling waste, as illustrated in Table 3.1 /12/.

Table 3.1 Hazardous waste from offshore activities on Norwegian shelf in 2010 /12/
Hazardous waste 2003 2011

Rock cuttings and other 70,664 308,456
Batteries 77 50.3
Blasting sand 47.4 72.5
Chemical mix w/halogen 6,661 5,084
Chemical mix w/metal 10.1 0.3
Chemical mix w.o./halogen ‐
139 30
w.o./heavy metals
Lightbulbs 36.9 5.6
Paint 350 83
Oil‐contaminated waste 1,673 1,966
Pure chemicals w/halogen 0.6 0
Pure chemicals w/heavy metals 1.3 2.8
Pure chemicals w.o./halogen ‐
94.8 17
w.o./heavy metals
Spray cans 5.5 5.2

Offshore petroleum operation is known to include usage of hazardous materials and production of
residues of chemicals, oil and other substances. These materials are expected to be found at the
installation to be decommissioned. Based on this, information regarding operational waste
handled offshore can give indication of challenges that could be of environmental concern and
constitute a safety issue. The main parts of pollutants are removed as part of closing down the
installation offshore. Cleaning will be executed by high‐pressure water jetting and mechanical
scraping or scrubbing, while in some cases chemical cleaning methods or sandblasting may be
used. Even though the installation is cleaned, it is expected to be polluted to some extent due to
the long term contact with oil or other chemicals. Possible residues of concern are presented in
Table 3.2

Table 3.2 Possible residues materials of environmental concern. Input from ref. /18/
Waste Location
Residual hydrocarbon sludge Separators, piping, pipelines, oil storage
LSA/NORM scale Piping, valves, tanks
Heavy metals Within oil residues, scale or bound to metal surfaces
12

Inorganic scale Piping, valves, tanks
Production and drilling chemicals Tanks/pumps
Hydraulic oil Compressor etc.
Attic oil Oil storage
Sediment Oil storage
H2S Enclosed tanks/compartments

The table shows that residues of various substances should be expected. All of which require
appropriate handling, typical collected and delivered to approved waste treatment plant. Large
uncertainty exists however regarding the properties and the amount of possible residues of
concern, particular in the subsea structures due to the difficulty of access to carry out
investigations. The properties of the residues can partly depend on the age of the installation, e.g.
old installation (30‐40 years) can contain more hazardous substances and materials with
undesirable properties than the recently built installations which must meet other requirements.
An example on this could be the previous widely usage of asbestos.

Discharged or accidental leaks/spills of residual substances during decommissioning will have
consequences for the surrounding environment. Any possible impact depends on the properties
and amount of the residue substance in question. The typical residues of concern that can remain
in offshore facilities are briefly described in the following sections.

3.2.1 Production chemicals

The offshore sector is in generally obligated to perform yearly reports of the usage and release of
hazardous waste. The use of chemicals offshore is regulated based on the environmental
properties of the chemical in question. As Denmark constitute one of the contracting parties with
respect to the OSPAR commission, the oil and gas activity on Danish shelf have to follow the
OSPAR regulations. The oil and gas companies operating on the Danish shelf have to apply to the
Danish Environmental Protection Agency (DEPA) for permission for use and discharge of offshore
chemicals. Pre‐screenings have to be done by the operators and every single product has to be
included in the application, which is controlled against the information in the Product Register by
DEPA. This information is treated confidentially in Denmark. The Harmonised Offshore Chemical
Notification Format (HOCNF), given in Table 3.3, forms the basis for the information in the Product
Register.

Table 3.3 The requirements under the HOCNF /26/

Classification Category Description
Water Considered to pose Little or No
Green Risk to the Environment
Chemicals on the PLONOR List
(PLONOR list)
Hormone‐disruptive substances Black No discharge is basically
13

Chemicals on the priority list in White Paper No. permitted, but in special cases
permits are given
Biodegradability < 20% and low Pow ≥ 5
Biodegradability <20% and toxicity EC50 or
LC50≤10 mg/l
Two of three categories: biodegradability < 60%, log Pose an environmental hazard
Pow≥3, EC50 or LC50≤10 mg/l and should be replaced.
Inorganic and EC50 or LC50≤1 mg/l Permits can be given, but the
Red chemical is normally placed on
a phase‐out plan, which
Biodegradability<20%
means that alternatives must
be identified.
Chemicals not included in any
of the other categories.
Other chemicals Yellow
Normally permitted without
specific conditions

Based on the properties, chemicals are divided into four OSPAR categories; green, yellow, red and
black, as illustrated in Table 3.3. The form is used to regulate the chemicals used by the offshore
industry in the OSPAR sector.

The use of chemicals will vary from one platform to another and during the fields' life time. Hence,
the environmental evaluation regarding the chemicals has to be assessed as an individual matter.
The increased focus directed to the use of environmental friendly chemicals can increase the
fraction in the water phase as these chemicals are often water‐soluble. From this, it can be
implied that the amount of chemical residues present at offshore platforms might have been
reduced.

Possible chemical residues present after CoP may to some degree be reflected by the chemicals
used during production. Nevertheless, the majority of the chemicals used follows the production
streams or will be removed offshore by flushing and cleaning of the system during cessation of the
installation. From this, the chemicals is primary an environmental concern during production
rather than decommissioning.

3.2.2 Residual oil materials

Crude oil is a very complex mixture of thousands of chemical components with different toxicity
and the composition of the hydrocarbon residues depend on the composition of the specific crude
oil.

The PAHs (polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons) commonly found in heavy oil fractions are among
the most persistent pollutants in the environment /20/. NPD is a PAH subgroup and consists of
Naphthalene, phenanthrene, dibenzothiophene and theirs alkylated derivates. These compounds
are of concern because they have potential to bioaccumulate and some of them are carcinogenic,
therefore an issue for human health /21/. In general, the toxicity of the PAH's increases with
increasing molecular weight and substitution.
14

It should be pointed out that transformation of some compounds can give origin to more
bioavailable and toxic metabolites. For example benzene is transformed to phenol which again is
further degraded /19/.

Oil residues together with a water phase remaining in e.g. separators or storage compartments
could result in biological activity where bacteria are using hydrocarbons as substrate. The
bacterial growth based on the bioavailable hydrocarbon can cause H2S challenges for the
decommissioning project, as explained in section 3.3.1. Bioavailability and degradability varies
between the different hydrocarbons. In general, substances with higher water solubility are more
bioavailable and hence relatively rapidly degraded. Compounds with high number of carbons are
less water soluble and hence biodegrades more slowly. An increased fraction of heavier
hydrocarbons, which are difficult to degrade, are thus expected with time.

The oil compounds with relatively low water solubility including higher paraffins and olefins,
asphalthenes, waxes and PAH compounds. The low solubility of these compounds continues to
decrease with increasing chain length. A limited concentration of these compounds is expected in
the water phase of the flushed enclosed systems as these compounds have a high tendency to
absorb to particulate material. The adsorption to particles results in precipitation at the internal
walls and the bottom where they will accumulate.

Residuals of hydrocarbon sludge that is not removed by the flushing/cleaning process, is assumed
to be the main contamination in the installations to be removed. As previous described, the
process system is typical flushed and cleaned offshore prior to the removal of the installations.

Topside units can be opened and manual cleaned offshore before transported to land, but
nonaccessible units such as subsea storages might be difficult to clean properly. Units and
structures containing residues not possible to remove offshore are normally removed onshore by
additional cleaning during dismantling. Any structures left in place may to a certain extent contain
hydrocarbon residues. Pipes can contain scale and hard deposits which is not feasible to remove
offshore. These deposits can be both inorganic and hydrocarbon based. In storage facilities
hydrocarbons can also be present as bottom sludge or as floating oil emulsion material with a
nature as illustrated in Figure 3.3. The emulsion could be of environmental concern for facility
units such as storage cells which are typical difficult to clean. Removal of oil and other residues
from storage facilities may be difficult to accomplish as the installation typical is not designed with
the purpose of supporting a cleaning operation.

15

Figure 3.3 Oil/water emulsion materials /25/

In general, it is expected that the remaining oil residues consists mainly of heavy oil components
as the lighter water soluble hydrocarbons are most likely removed by flushing, normally
performed after CoP.

Both the properties and the amount of hydrocarbons will affect any possible impact of oil
residues. High concentration of oil compounds can promote toxic effects. Heavy oil compounds
can have chronic impact due the persistency in the environment while light hydrocarbons
normally have acute effect as this fraction is relatively soluble, dissolve easily and can be quite
volatile. Discharged or accidental leaks/spills of the heavy oil residues can have long term effects
on the environment due to the relative low degradability caused by the low solubility and thereby
low bioavailability.

3.2.3 Heavy metals

Heavy metals include both essential and toxic elements and the concentration of these elements
is decisive for an environmental evaluation. In environmental science the primary heavy metals of
note are considered to be Arsenic (As), Lead (Pb), Cadmium (Cd), Cobalt (Co), Copper (Cu),
Chromium (Cr), Mercury (Hg), Nickel (Ni), Tin (Sn), Vanadium (V) and Zinc (Zn).

Many metals are common elements in offshore installations, e.g. Cr, Zn, Al, Mg and Ni are used in
alloys while Mn and Fe are common elements in steel. From this, the design of the modules and
equipment used is of environmental relevance in the process of decommissioning. The metals
used in installations vary between the different components and installations. In general, new
installations contain less material with undesirable properties due to stricter requirements /15/.
Whole modules or smaller sections of the installation are transported to land, where the waste is
registered and weighted. During dismantling of offshore structures the steel waste flow could be
as in Figure 3.4. Steel of which is 98 % recyclable is a major component in offshore installations
today /15/.

16

Figure 3.4 Metal flow at decommissioning facilities /15/

In addition to the presence of common elements in offshore structure materials, metals are also
natural occurring elements that can be transported from the reservoir to the topside with the
production fluids. Furthermore, experience has shown that production liquid is also contaminated
with various metals originated from the installation, e.g. Fe, Mn, Cr and Ni. Throughout the
production life, scale and deposits are accumulated in separators, storages, pipes, valves etc.
These deposits can partly be removed during shutdown operations and entirely during
dismantling of the installations. The deposits include a complex mixture of calcium (carbonate,
oxalate, sulphate, silicates), aluminium (silicates, hydroxides, phosphates), barium sulphate,
mercury etc.

Mercury is present in many gas fields in varying concentrations, as the vaporised mercury follows
the gas stream. In some cases the mercury is even found as elementary liquid in e.g. dewpoint
units. Mercury is a metal that have been identified to be of particular concern and the toxic metal
can be present as scale deposits in pipelines and other equipment, where it is mainly present as
mercury disulphide. Mercury is of high environmental interest as heavy metal pollutant because
of its toxicity. Furthermore, its effect can be chronic even in low concentrations. Nevertheless, the
toxic effects of metals, including mercury, depend on its chemical form. The organic form of
mercury is generally considered to be of larger environmental concern because of its resistance to
degradation and higher toxicity compared to the inorganic forms. In water the major form of
mercury is elemental‐, organic‐ (particular methyl mercury) and ionic mercury (bound to chloride,
sulphide or organic acids) /22/. Materials containing mercury are handled as hazardous waste and
due to its toxicity it should be identified before the demolition of the platform /15/.

The properties of mercury are challenging the waste handling as it absorbs to steel surfaces and
may form mercury amalgams. The amount of mercury adsorbed to the steel varies as the
mechanism is a function of metallurgical and physical/chemical factors. The mechanism is not
currently completely understood, but it is important to point out that the process is reversible.
Therefore, mercury adsorbed by the steel components can re‐dissolved into liquids or
reevaporated into gas, which can cause exposure of workers and leaches to the surrounding
environment during decommissioning projects /15/, /28/.

17

In summary, the heavy metals present will vary from one platform to another depending on the
reservoir properties and the condition in the process system. The toxicity and features of a
specific metal in question varies with its speciation, defined as the physical and chemical form in
which an element exists in. The toxic forms of the elements are the primary of interest in
environmental chemistry. Both the abundance and the biological availability of an element are
controlling the toxic affect. The dissolved fraction contains the majority of bioavailable species
and this fraction of metals is therefore considered as greater importance. Quantification and
identification of species present by speciation studies is necessary for an understanding of the
toxicity, bioavailability, bioaccumulation and transport of a particular metal /30/

3.2.4 NORM

NORM – Naturally Occurring Radioactive Material originates from the reservoir and is transported
to the surface, mainly dissolved or suspended in the water produced together with the oil. In the
context of decommissioning the radioactive substances of primary relevance are radium isotope
(Ra‐226 and Ra‐228), lead isotope (Pb‐210) and polonium isotope Po‐210. These radionuclides are
accompanied with produced water and form radioactive scale during the oil and gas operations
/14/,/15/ /23/.

During production NORM can deposit in pipe work and tanks due to pressure and temperature
drops and/or due to mixing of different types of water /13/. Radioactive scale is often deposited
together with barium sulphate originating from seawater that precipitates out from produced
water. Therefore, larger quantities of NORM material in installations from oil fields is expected
compared to those from gas fields.

The activity level of the NORM deposits produced in the various steps in the oil and gas
production differs within different types of activities. A broad ranking of the activity level in
NORM, of which occur in different types of activities, is illustrated in Figure 3.5.

Figure 3.5 Ranking of radioactivity level in NORM from different types of activities /17/
The environmental concern of NORM is the ionizing radiation that can cause radiation damage,
primarily if inhaled/swallowed or in direct contact with the surface of organisms. This is also an
important aspect regarding safe working environment during decommissioning. Workers can be
exposed by external and internal radiation through NORM dust if swallowed or inhaled. When
assessing the environmental fate and impact of NORM it is important to take the affinity towards
particulate matter into consideration, see Table 3.4 below.

18

Table 3.4 Open ocean distribution coefficients between particulate phase and water phase /24/
Element Distribution coefficient, Kd
Radium (Ra) 4 x103
Lead (Pb) 1x107
Polonium (Po) 2x107

The table shows that Pb and Po is very strongly associated to particulate matter, whereas Ra has a
smaller affinity to particulate matter. High distribution coefficient illustrates high degree of
association to organic or inorganic particulate matter and will typically accumulate in the seabed
/23/, /24/.

NORM is classified as hazardous waste and must be handled thereafter by approved facilities.
Radioactive waste is controlled by national requirements, and in Denmark the requirements is
established by the National Institute of Radiation Protection (SIS) /16/. Environmental impacts of
the various disposal methods are shown in Table 3.5.

Table 3.5 NORM disposal options, ranked relative to health and safety risks (part of table in
/17/)

Occupational Hazard to
Technology Comment
hazard public
Exposure risk for:
Sea disposal • offshore workers
discharge Low (acceptable) Minimum • fishermen (fishing)
(offshore) • public through consumption
of fish/seafood
Exposure risk for:
Sea disposal • workers
Low (acceptable) Low (acceptable)
near shore • public (near shore
environment)
Exposure risk for offshore
Re-injection Low (acceptable) Minimum workers
NORM encapsulated
In situ Isolation in subsurface (minimum
downhole Minimum Minimum exposure)
abandonment
Encapsulation Exposure risk for offshore
and Low (acceptable) Minimum workers
downhole Isolation in subsurface (minimum
19

disposal exposure to public)
Exposure risk for:
Onshore built • offshore workers
disposal Low (acceptable) Low (acceptable) • onshore workers
facility Exposure risk for public
(transport/leakage)
Exposure risk for:
Onshore • offshore workers
Low (acceptable) Low (acceptable)
landfill • onshore workers
• public (transport/leakage)

The disposal method relevant for the Danish sector includes re‐injection, which has to be
permitted by the national authority SIS. Disposal in an onshore built disposal facility is also a
Danish disposal optioning, but such a facility does not currently exist and NORM waste is
therefore stored temporary in Esbjerg. Work is however ongoing with respect to establishing an
onshore disposal facility, where three alternative places are assessed as possible storage
locations.

There is no data available on the content of radioactive substances in waste from
decommissioning projects at the Danish shelf. In a Norwegian publications the experience is
stated as: "about four tonnes of radioactive waste (scale, sludge and sediments) with an activity
concentration of 10 Bq/g or more has been found in each offshore installation decommissioned"
/15/. Based on this, some NORM waste is expected present and need to be handle in most
decommissioning projects. The NORM handling is assessed mostly as a waste handling issue
during dismantling and cleaning of pipes etc.

3.2.5 Asbestos

The largest challenge associated with asbestos is the working environment during removal. There
are very high demands to make the removal safe for the personnel involved. This includes
establishment of sanitation zones and use of special personal protective equipment (PPE).

Asbestos can be present in many parts of the offshore structure, e.g. insulation, gaskets, cables for
emergency systems and hard wall plates. Asbestos have been widely used because of its unique
properties: it is hard‐wearing and chemically inert (resistant to corrosion by acids and bases), and
stable at high temperatures. Documentation and materials inventories from the construction
period of the installation in question contain information on the use of asbestos.

Health risks are associated with asbestos and the use has been prohibited in Denmark since 1986
/32/. The issue is restricted to decommissioning of old facilities. Inhalation is the main way that
asbestos enters the body and even small amounts of certain types of asbestos inhaled can cause
serious health problems such as asbestosis and cancer.

20

During the demolition works materials that contain asbestos is removed and handled as other
materials classified as hazardous, including packaging and labeling in accordance with the
asbestos regulations and delivered to an approved landfill /15/.

3.2.6 Paints and other coatings

A wide variety of paint and coatings is used on the structures of offshore facilities for inhibition of
corrosion and preventing marine fouling. Different types of toxic components can be present in
the paint and coatings, e.g. PCBs, tributyltin (TBT), heavy metals (for example lead, barium,
cadmium, chromium, copper, zinc) and pesticides. These compounds can have properties that
require precautions during decommissioning. It can be necessary to remove paint and coatings in
cutting zones to secure safe working environment, as paint can release toxic gases during heating
or combustion. Toxic components are typical dealt with at smelting facilities as paint on large
metal surfaces is not normally removed before the metal is delivered for remelting /15/.

3.3 Other considerations

Decommissioning facilities must be equipped to deal with many different types of challenges. In
addition to waste handling, a decommissioning plan must include other issues such as:

• Interference with neighbours
• Noise
• Light
• Air emission
• Emission to sea
• Dust
• Hydrogen sulphide (H2S)

Among the issues above listed, Hydrogen sulphide (H2S) is considered of utmost importance
within the scope of this report and is therefore described in the following.

3.3.1 Hydrogen sulphide (H2S)

H2S can accumulate in systems that are enclosed after CoP. These systems include in particular the
top side separator tanks and the substructure storage cells. It is important to specify that H2S is a
concern with respect to the working environment and is not an environmental issue. H2S is
however included in this report as the very toxic H2S gas can be an overlooked challenge in
decommissioning projects. The toxic gas may escape to the working environment during
decommission and it can result in immediate deaths offshore when it reaches high concentrations
(>700 ppm) /25/.

21

Sources of residue hydrocarbons will act as substrate for microorganisms in the production fluids,
where both water from the reservoir and seawater containing bacterial fauna enters the system.
Experience shows that it takes a long time to restore a good decommissioning solution and
therefore the systems might be closed for a long time after CoP. The environment within the
closed system will with time shift to anaerobic, which is favourable for sulphate reducing bacteria
(SRB). The SRB’s will take over as the major driver in the anaerobic environment and H2S is
produced by reduction of sulphate as shown below:

SO42‐ + organic matter → CO2 + H2O + H2S

From this, it is assessed that inhibition of H2S is important to ensure safe working environment
during decommissioning work. Inhibition of H2S can be executed by the use of H2S scavengers
which is commonly used by the industry for pH increase during production. The chemical
treatment can however be toxic and will produce residues that may require further treatment or
handling. Based on this, H2S scavengers is of environmental concern and requires appropriate
handling as it could have hazard impact by killing microorganisms present in the surrounding
environment if discharged to sea.

22

4 DANISH SECTOR TEST CASE

All producing fields in Denmark are located offshore in the North Sea. In 2011, total 19 fields were
producing from 278 active production wells of which 199 were oil wells and 79 were gas wells.
The production that began in 1972 has been increasing until 2004, while it has been declining
from 2004 until 2011 . The decline is assessed to primary be due to many old facilities that have
produced the bulk of the anticipated recordable oil. The oldest field from which the first Danish oil
was produced is called Dan. The Field is in this chapter as test case used and is to as the Danish
field referred. The Field is only used as reference with respect to production data, thus the
possible environmental and waste issues described is not direct valid for the Dan field itself /9/.

Oil and gas production results in some impact to the surrounding environment. Drill cuttings may
be left at the seabed from drilling operations, chemicals used during production and produced
water will be discharged to the sea. Produced water originates from the reservoirs and from the
water injected to enhance the oil production. Produced water is in process system separated from
the well fluid, and is finally discharged to the surrounding sea. Challenges associated with drill
cutting will not be in this report covered.

The activities on the Danish shelf are to the authorities reported. With the exception of amount of
produced oil and gas, the data on production chemical usage and waste handling is confidentially
in Denmark treated. Hence, it is not possible to neither assess the environmental trends nor
appoint components of environmental concern. Since no Danish environmental data are available,
published data from the Norwegian sector is as basis used for describing the environmental
challenges as part of production and decommissioning in the Danish sector.

Activities on the Norwegian continental shelf are compiled in the so called EnvironmentWeb,
which is a joint database for the Norwegian Climate and Pollution Agency (Klif), and the
Norwegian Petroleum Directorate (NPD). Based on these data obtained, the Norwegian Oil
Industry Association (OLF) provides yearly a public environmental report that includes discharges
to sea and waste produced in connection with the activities on the Norwegian Continental Shelf.
The reviewed Norwegian data reported by OLF in 2011 are to the sizes correlated of production at
the Field /9/, /10/, /12/. Based on this, an overview of possible environmental concerns
associated with a typical Danish field is in this chapter given. Composition of the produced water
discharged in the Norwegian sector is the basis given for environmental evaluations and mapping
of trends. This can provide some indication of the environmental challenges with respect to
decommissioning of the installations.

The volume of produced water discharged on the Norwegian shelf and from the Field is in Table
4.1 presented. Data from the year 2011 and 2003 is included in this report. The latest reported
data available is from 2011, while 2003 is the oldest data found covering all parameters described
in the following.

23

Table 4.1 Discharged volume (m3) of produced water per year
Norwegian shelf The field /9/

Parameters
2003 /11/ 2011 2003 2011
/10/
Produced water (m3) 134,729,541 128,550,571 7,183 11,059

Seen from the table the trend of Dan is opposite compared to the Norwegian shelf. The decreased
amount of produced water is primarily due to an overall reduced production on the Norwegian
shelf /10/. The increase of produced water at the Field installation is due to increased water
content of total liquid production. This trend is normally seen in the late life of oil and gas fields as
the reservoir pressure decreases and injection of water increases. In general, the production of
produced water is typical increasing over the field lifespan and normally constitutes a very high
fraction of the production liquid during the last phase of the oil production.
4.1 Chemicals

The use of chemicals during production varies between different installations, as highlighted in
section 3.2.1. Nevertheless, the amount of consumption and discharged in Norway is correlated to
the produced water at the Danish field, which is given in Table 4.2. It is important to highlight that
the validity of this correlation involves major uncertainties, however it provides some indication
on levels of consumption based on the large Norwegian data basis.

Table 4.2Consumption and discharge og chemicals per year

The table shows that the amount consumed is larger than the amount discharged. The reason for
this is that not all chemicals used will be released, as some of the chemicals follow the water
injected into reservoirs and/or the oil exported.

Seen from Table 4.2 the consumption of red chemicals decreases, while both the green and yellow
chemicals increase. The decrease in the use of red chemicals is assumed due to efforts in avoiding
the usage and especial discharge of the most harmful chemicals. The usage of black chemicals has
increased in the period, however the discharge has at the same time been significant lowered. The
increase in use of green and yellow chemicals may be due to the reason that these chemicals are
less effective than the red and black ones.
24

Based on the trend illustrated in the table, a smaller risk of finding harmful chemical residue at the
installation to be decommissioned is expected. The increase in usage of black chemicals is
expected to be a temporary situation as large effort is done to phase out this category of
chemicals.

The red and black chemicals with hazardous properties require waste handling thereafter. In
relevance to decommissioning less use of red and black chemicals will cause less accumulation of
problematic residues in the process system and finally requires less need of specialised waste
treatment.

4.2 Organic compounds

Produced water contains different inorganic salts and organic substances as it has been in contact
with geological formation for millions of years. Furthermore, various chemicals and oil compounds
is present within the water. Selected organic compounds discharged to sea are given in Table 4.3,
which also include the correlated amount discharged from the Danish field.

Table 4.3 Selected group of organic compounds in produced water per year
Organic Norwegian shelf (kg)/10/ The Danish field (kg)

compounds
2003 2011 2003 2011
BTEX 861,160 1,675,059 45.9 144
Alkyl phenols C1‐C3 281,116 289,324 15.0 24.9
Alkyl phenols C4‐C5 10,104 14,360 0.54 1.24
Alkyl phenols C6‐C9 401 219 0.02 0.02
Phenols 184,168 179,546 9.82 15.4
Oil in water 1,698,382 1,235,608 90.5 106
Organic acids 33,576,880 22,251,835 1,790 1,914
EPA‐PAH 45,176 1,863 2.41 0.16
sum PAH 99,456 155,915 5.30 13.4

The overall trend at the Danish Field is an increased amount of organic compounds, where 7 of
the 9 compounds have been increasing from 2003 to 2011. This trend is as expected, based on the
increased amount of produced water. The amount of some compounds has also increased on the
Norwegian shelf, meaning that the concentration of these compounds in produced water has
been increased, as the water production has simultaneously been slightly decreasing. These
compounds found in increased concentrations includes BTEX, alkyl phenols (C1‐C3 and C4‐C5) and
sum PAH.

The oil compounds BTEX and PAH both increased some. However, as mentioned in chapter 3.2.2
the majority of the lighter organic compounds such as BTEX and C1‐C8 are expected to be
removed by the offshore cleaning process performed during the decommissioning projects. The
25

increase of PAH is an important trend with respect to parameters of environmental concern;
however the amount estimated for the Danish field is relative low. This group of organic
compound have showed to constitute to a large fraction of the persistent oil residues remaining in
the installations. PAH is of environmental interest because they have potential to bioaccumulate
and some are known to have toxic effects, and is therefore an issue regarding environmental
evaluation.

4.3 Heavy metals

A range of metals can be found in deposits and water phases in the installation to be removed. As
explained in section 3.2.3 the pronounced metals various from platform to platform. Table 4.4
presents the amount of metals found in produced water discharged on the Norwegian shelf and
then correlated amount from the Danish field.
Table 4.4 Amount (kg) heavy metals within produced water per year
Norwegian shelf The Dani sh field

Parameters
2003 2011 2003 2011
Arsenic 471 656 0.03 0.06
Barium 1,925,471 7,639,584 103 657
Lead 527 428 0.03 0.04
Iron 714,214 959,698 38.1 82.6
Cadmium 32 32 0.003 0.002
Copper 3,991 162 0.21 0.01

Chrome 117 221 0.01 0.02
Mercury 7 15 0.001 0.0004
Nickel 407 223 0.02 0.02
Zinc 11,211 10,108 0.60 0.87

26

There is no clear trend to appoint on the Norwegian shelf, except for the increased amount of
barium. The amount of metals in general increased from 2003 to 2011 at the Danish field, as the
amount of produced water is increasing. Barium is the dominant metal followed by iron and zinc.
In general, barium and iron are metals most often found in increased concentrations compared to
seawater. Barium occur naturally in reservoirs and the concentrations of the metal in produced
water are commonly found to exceed those in seawater by a factor of 1,000. The metal is a
common problem in the offshore industry, as it accumulates as scale deposits when it forms
complexes with sulphate (barite). Although barium has the potential to accumulate in aquatic
organisms, the metal pose in general little environmental risk as its forms insoluble salts, of which
has limited bioavailability /29/. The relative high amount of iron and zinc is assumed to be primary
caused by contamination from the process system. It is important to highlight that the
concentration in the water phase indicates relative low levels of the most problematic metals,
such as Mercury and Cadmium. These components are typical strong bound to deposits and
therefore water phase concentrations does not well describe the challenges possible arising from
residues of these components.

4.4 NORM

The oil and gas companies should report the total discharge of radioactive substances to both SIS
and OSPAR. The OSPAR convention requires that radioactive substances estimated discharged
with produced water, and in the context of the activities of descaling and decommissioning
operations, and from tracer experiments is reported. For all installations discharging should report
the total amount. The radioactive discharge from installations located at Danish sector is
presented in Table 4.5.

Table 4.5 Discharges from the offshore oil and gas industry in Denmark in 2009, terabecquerel
(TBq) /31/
Offshore oil and gas activities Pb-210 Ra-226 Ra-228

Discharged with produced
water 1.17E‐02 1.02E‐02 6.40E‐03
Radioactivity in suspended solids
arising from water‐jet descaling N.D N.D N.D
Descaling operations, both offshore
and onshore, from normal
production that leads to discharges Radioactivity in solution as a result
of using acids or scale dissolvers 9.75E‐08 2.37E‐07 7.83E‐08
Radioactivity in suspended solids
arising from water‐jet descaling N.D N.D N.D
Descaling operations, both offshore
and onshore, from
decommissioning of oil and gas Radioactivity in solution as a result
installations that leads to discharges of descaling using acids or scale

dissolvers
27

Table 4.5 shows that produced water is the major contributor to radioactive substance
discharged. Pb‐210 is the dominant substance in produced water followed by Ra‐226 and Ra‐228
respectively. Discharge during descaling operations under normal production is significant lower,
and contain Ra‐226 as the dominant substance followed by Pb‐210 and Ra‐228.

Currently there have been no decommissioning projects at the Danish shelf and hence there are
no data regarding radioactive waste discharged during these operations. In general, the trend is
that high concentration of NORM present in produced water causes larger quantity of NORM
material in scale and residue deposits present within the process system of offshore facilities. The
content and amount of radioactive waste discharged during decommissioning varies between the
different offshore facilities. From this, it is not possible to neither generalize nor appoint any trend
of radioactive waste at the Danish sector.

28

5 SUMMARY AND CONLUSIONS

The purpose of this report is to provide an overview of possible issues of environmental concern
involved in future decommissioning projects in the Danish oil and gas sector.

The decommissioning processes and extent of activities differ widely from installation to
installation as the complexity of the installations is very variable. In all cases the decommissioning
project needs to follow international, regional and national legislation. As part of the obligation
before starting of removal, the plans for handling of the installation and the environmental
impacts needs to be described in detail. The authorities shall approve the decommissioning
programme and the environmental impact assessment report prior to the decommissioning. The
decommissioning method selected and approved will often be the one involving the lowest
possible environmental impacts.

There are many environmental concerns to be taken into account throughout the process of
decommissioning, e.g. planning, shutdown of operations, cleaning and preparation offshore,
removal from offshore and waste handling onshore. It is important to establish routines that
ensure satisfactory and appropriate waste handling, in addition to follow‐up environmental
inspections to ensure that the environmental and safety risks are as low as reasonably practicable.
The activities should be incorporated in a permanent plan for procedures relating to
decommissioning assignments.

Identifying the waste generated in the process of decommissioning is considered to be of utmost
importance. Although it is assumed that the majority of residues are removed offshore by
cleaning, it is highly likely that some residues will remain as sludge or scale in the facilities. As
both residues and offshore structures typically are transported ashore, the waste is primary an
onshore challenge with respect to environmental concerns. The main offshore environmental
concern during decommissioning projects is assessed to be the substructures possible left in
place. A proper cleaning of these structures can reduce any possible future environmental impact
significantly. However, selecting the proper cleaning method can be difficult as identification of
the possible residues is considered to be the major challenge due to often very difficult access. In
most cases all parts of the structure will be removed and in such cases the major offshore
environmental risks are assessed to be risk of spillage or leakage during the cleaning of the
installations. It should also be mentioned that removal of substructures can cause physical
disturbance of the seabed, which pose a risk of resuspension and spreading of contaminated
sediment.

At present no decommissioning projects have been executed in the Danish sector. In addition no
approved reception facilities for handling of offshore installations is established in Denmark,
hence there is no experiences that can directly appoint specific environmental concerns at the
Danish sector. To examine possible environmental issues related to decommissioning the
following topics have been reviewed:

• Hazardous waste generated during production
29

• Hazardous waste described in decommissioning programmes
• Usage of production chemicals

During installation and production the largest fraction of hazardous wastes is from rock cuttings,
followed in amount by waste categories as “chemicals with halogen” and “oil‐contaminated”.
However based on the information reviewed in this study, hazardous waste of major challenges
for the decommissioning project is assessed to be:

• Residual hydrocarbon sludge: Separators, piping, pipelines, compressors, oil storage

• Scale/Residues with content of NORM and Heavy metals: Piping, valves, tanks, metals
surfaces

• Production and drilling chemicals: Tanks, pumps
• Asbestos: Insulation, fire protected cables

To obtain more detailed information on the specific chemical components of concern, the usage
of production chemicals and the discharge of components with produced water have been
reviewed. Published data from the Norwegian sector have been towards the sizes correlated of
production at the Field. Although the correlations between the Norwegian shelf and a typical
platform at the Danish sector provide some indication of the environmental challenges, it includes
large uncertainties. The environmental challenges are specific for the individual decommissioning
project and a generalization of environmental issues based on the correlation is questionable.

In summary, the more specific chemical component of concern will vary between the different
offshore installations, however based on data from production at the Norwegian shelf the
following have been with implication concluded for decommissioning of facilities:

• Production chemical residues: In the period from 2003 to 2011, the combined used of the
most harmful chemicals have declined and the trend is to continue expected. Therefore,
there is as part of decommissioning project expected to be relative small amount found of
problematic chemical residues.

• Heavy oil compounds: The component of special environmental interest is assessed being:
PAH and NPD components.

• Heavy metals: Cadmium, lead, mercury and nickel are assessed being of largest concern.

Safe working environment is a very important aspect regarding decommissioning, as workers can
be exposed to various hazards. The following issues should be of high priority to ensure safe
working environment:

30

• NORM. The low‐radioactive scale is containing typical the isotopes: Ra‐226, Ra‐228, Pb210
and Po‐210. NORM is mainly a waste issue; however prevention against dust inhalation
shall be taken.

• Paint and coatings. The possible hazard depends on the types of toxic components
present in the different paint and coatings. Especially cutting operation can results in
release of toxic gasses.

• Asbestos. This can be very challenging issue on old facilities, having sever impact on the
execution of demolition. Removal of asbestos needs to well planned with high level of PPE
protection.

• H2S. The toxic gas shall also be taken into account, before entering enclosed systems. Use
of personnel H2S monitors and PPE can be needed in some occasions.

For each decommissioning project thoroughly studies and mapping surveys is required to describe
the possible environmental impacts. For evaluation of the possible environmental impacts it is of
outmost importance to collect representative samples. However, collecting representative
samples can be a major challenge in decommissioning projects due to the very difficult access,
particular to substructures e.g. pipes, storage cells etc. The transport and fate of the residues is
also considered to be a key issue. The transport pathways in the physical environment, and the
possible uptake of organisms, bioaccumulation and fate in the food web should be taken in
consideration. Overall, this depends on the property of the specific residue in question which will
vary between the different installations.

31

6 REFERENCE

/1/ Lov om sikkerhed m.v. for offshoreanlæg til efterforskning, produktion og transport af
kulbrinter (offshoresikkerhedslov), LOV nr 1424 af 21/12/2005.
/2/ Marine Environmental Law (2009), LBK 929, 24‐9‐2009 (erstatter tidligere LBK 1073, 20‐
10‐2008), Havmiljøloven: https://www.retsinformation.dk/Forms/R0710.aspx?id=127090
/3/ DECC (2009) Guidance Notes, Decommissioning of Offshore Oil and Gas Installations and
Pipelines under the Petroleum Act 1998, Version 4, August 2009,
https://www.og.decc.gov.uk/regulation/guidance/decommission.htm
/4/ LOV 1996‐11‐29 nr 72: Lov om petroleumsvirksomhet
http://www.lovdata.no/cgihttp://www.lovdata.no/cgi‐wift/ldles?doc=/all/nl‐19961129‐
072.html ‐ map005wift/ldles?doc=/all/nl‐19961129‐072.html#map005
/5/ The petroleum act 1998
http://www.england‐legislation.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1998/ukpga_19980017_en_1
/6/ IMO (1989), Guidelines and standards for the removal of offshore installations and structures
on the continental shelf and in the exclusive economic zone. Guideline from the International
Maritime Organization (IMO), 19. October 1989.
http://www.imo.org/Newsroom/contents.asp?doc_id=628&topic_id=227
/7/ OSPAR Decision 98/3 on the Disposal of Disused Offshore Installations,
http://www.ospar.org. Last updated 17.08 2012.
/8/ Offshore centre Denmark, 39 Danish sustainable offshore decommissioning project
/9/ Danish energy agency, 2011, Oil and Gas Production – and Subsoil Use, oil and gas production
in Denmark,

32

/10/ OLF, 2011, Environmental report
/13/ Institute for energy technology (IFE), 2008, The new Norwegian repository for LSA scale from
the petroleum industry
/14/ Radioaktivt avfall fra petroleumsindustrien (Radioactive waste from the petroleum industry),
May 2010, draft report from a working group headed by the Ministry of the Environment
/15/ Climate and pollution agency, 2011, decommissioning of offshore installations, TA‐2761
/16/ Sundhedsstyrelsen Statens institut for strålehygiejne 2005, Vejledning om håndtering af
NORM fra olje og gas industrien, accessed from
http://www.sst.dk/publ/Publ2005/SIS/Vejl_NORM/Vejl_NORM_2udg_SIS.pdf on 26/6/20102
/17/ Sniffer (2004), Phase I, Technical report, Identification and assessment of alternative disposal
options for radioactive oilfield wastes UKRSR07, Dated September 2004.
/18/ British Petroleum (BP), 2006, North west Hutton decommissioning programme
/19/ Skadsheim, A., et al. (2002). Konsekvenser av regulære utslipp til sjø‐ RKU Norskehavet
Rogalandsforskning, SINTEF.
/20/ Seo, J.‐S., et al. (2009). "Bacterial Degradation of Aromatic Compounds." International Journal
of Environmental Research and Public Health 6(1): 278‐309.
/21/ Kanaly, R. A. and S. Harayama (2000). "Biodegradation of High‐Molecular‐Weight Polycyclic
Aromatic Hydrocarbons by Bacteria." J. Bacteriol. 182(8): 2059‐2067.
/22/ Morel, F.M.M., (2001), Redox transformation and bioavailability of mercury,
http://www.envirofacs.org/Preprints/Vol%2041%20No%201/Award%203/p138.PDF,
retrieved 20.1.2012
/23/ NORSEDECOM, 2003. Naturlige radionuklider i det marine miljø – en oversikt over
eksisterende kunnskap med vekt på Nordsjø‐området. Report No. ND/E‐17/03 for Norges
Forskningsråd. Strålberg, E., Varskog, A.T.S, Raaum, A. & Varskog, P., 27 November 2003.
/24/ OSPAR, 2006. Report on the relationship between Pb‐210 and Po‐210 concentrations in
produced water discharges and in the environment – proposals regarding future monitoring
and assessment. OSPAR RSC 06/3/2‐E. By IFE / Institute for Energy Technology:
Discharges of Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materials (NORM) to Sea – Considerations in
relation to the OSPAR Convention’s objective of reduced discharges (Elisabeth Strålberg,
Rajdeep S. Sidhu, 1 June 2006)
/25/ Søren Knudsen. 2011, Decommissioning concrete structures‐environmental and safety
challenges, SPE international 140866.
/26/ HELCOM Baltic Sea Action Plan, Helsinki commission, Baltic Marine Environment Protection
Commission 29th Meeting, Helcom 29/2008.
/27/ Statoil, 2012, Avslutning av virksomheten og disponering av innretninger på Huldra‐feltet
Konsekvensutredning,
/28/ Mercury Technology Services, 2008, mercury in steel
/29/ Lee K. and Neff J., 2011, produced water, environmental risks and advances in mitigation
technologies, springer , ISBN‐10: 1461400457
33

/30/ Stumm, W. and Morgan, J.J. ,1997, Aquatic Chemistry, chemical equilibria and rates in natural
waters (3th edn., New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc) 1022
/31/ OSPAR commission, 2011, Discharges of radioactive substances from the non‐nuclear sectors
in 2009, Radioactive Substances Series,
http://www.ospar.org/documents/dbase/publications/p00544_discharges%20from%20non
%20nuclear%20sectors%202009.pdf
/32/ The Danish Confederation of Trade Unions, 2005, Asbestos in Denmark and the global level,
The international health & safety day on 28 April 2005, "Safe and healthy work for all –
prevention and responsibility"
/33/ Department of energy and climate change, Table of decommissioning programmes,
http://og.decc.gov.uk/en/olgs/cms/explorationpro/decommissionin/table_decomm/table_d
ecomm.aspx
/34/ Rice T. and Owen P., 1999, Decommissioning the Brent Spar, ISBN 0‐419‐24090‐x

34

A Danish Field Platforms and Pipelines Decommissioning Programmes PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Danish Field Platforms and Pipelines Decommissioning Programmes PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Danish Field

Platforms and Pipelines

APPENDIX A: Environmentally sound recycling and scrapping of offshore platforms

APPENDIX B: Environmental challenges associated with decommissioning

Ramboll Oil & Gas, www.ramboll.com

Semco Maritime www.semcomaritime.com

Blue Water Shipping www.bws.dk

Stena Recycling A/S www.stenarecycling.com

Figure 1.1.1 Location of the Field

1.2 Document Sections Comprising the Two Decommissioning Programmes

Reference A, B, C and D 3 km 16" D-F

Following the permanent plugging, d e c o m m i s s i o n i n g o f w e l l s , and preparing the

2.3 Time schedule

Figure 2.3.1 – The Field Decommissioning Overall Project Plan

3.2 Environmental Conditions

3.2.1 Biological Assessment

Breed Coastal zone

Swimming Offshore banker/deep

Moulting Coastal zone/sub coastal

Flying migration All zones

Overwintering Sub coastal zone Sub coastal zone

3.2.2. Commercial fisheries

3.2.5. Environmental issues to assess

Figure 4.1.1 Photograph illustrating a t y p i c a l o l d platforms

4.2 Pipelines (Programme 2)

Concrete coating 1.5 1.5 1.5

1 Structural steel 712 Carbon steel

1 Structural steel 150 Carbon steel

1 Jacket structure 750 Carbon steel

6 POTENTIAL RE‐USE OPPORTUNITIES

6.1 Topsides and Jackets

7 LONG LIST OF DECOMMISSIONING OPTIONS, AND SELECTION OF A

7.1 Option Identification Process

7.2 Decommissioning Options for the Platform Topsides

7.2.2 Re‐use in‐situ

7.2.3 Re‐use in another location

7.2.4 Remove and recycle

7.2.5 Rigs to reefs disposal

7.2.6 Deep sea disposal

7.2.7 Delay decommissioning awaiting novel new technology

Decommissioning Option Status

7.3 Possible Topside Removal Methods

7.3.1 Installation reversal using heavy lift vessel (HLV)

7.3.2 Topside integrated removal using semi‐submersible crane vessel (SSCV)

7.3.3 Topside integrated removal using novel new technology

7.3.4 Piece small topsides removal

7.3.5 Shear‐leg and grab

7.3.6 Removal using drilling jack‐up rig

7.4.1 Leave in place

7.4.2 Re‐use in‐situ

7.4.3 Re‐use in another location

7.4.4 Remove and recycle

7.4.5 Rigs to reefs disposal

7.4.6 Deep sea disposal

7.4.7 Delay decommissioning awaiting novel new technology

7.5.1 Installation reversal using heavy lift vessel (HLV)

7.5.2 Jacket removal using novel technology

7.5.3 Piece small jacket removal

7.5.4 Direct lift of jacket

7.5.5 Shear‐leg and grab

7.5.6 Further Development of the Versa‐truss Principle

7.6.1 Decommission and leave in‐situ

7.6.2 Re‐use in‐situ