DECOMMISSIONING
Dr Joe Ferris and Johnny Tjea discuss using comparative assessment methods to determine preferred options in pipeline and jacket decommissioning
ASSESSINGthe situation T
he relationship between decommissioning costs, potential environmental and societal impacts, and safety is often complicated. T is is particularly
true if the infrastructure of an off shore oil and gas development is not to be entirely removed. Consequently, various options need to be considered. In this situation, comparative assessment is a powerful tool that can help evaluate relevant decommissioning options against a defi ned set of criteria and sub-criteria. Here, we provide an introduction to comparative assessment and discuss the wide range of assessment processes and methods, ranging from qualitative, narrative-based assessments to quantitative and detailed assessments that have been adopted. Comparative assessment is a well-
The UK’s decommissioning sector is embracing comparative assessment as a highly useful planning tool
respected planning tool that is used across multiple industries and has been adopted by the decommissioning sector, particularly in the UK. It works by helping to narrow down the alternatives
and choices for a given scenario by using a number of criteria and sub-criteria that the options are assessed against. T is planning methodology allows options to be assessed and scored using a range of parameters, taking into account the full range of contributory factors, including environmental, safety, technical, societal and economic. T e outcome provides a clear and transparent ranking of the alternatives that is robust, while being accessible to all stakeholders and regulatory bodies. In the UK, comparative assessment is a mandatory requirement for any decommissioning activity where derogation from current legislation is required, although its value can be far greater than to ensure regulatory compliance. Unless all infrastructure is to be removed, an understanding is needed as to the relationship between potential environmental and societal impacts, safety considerations and costs. Subsequently, various options are considered.
46
www.engineerlive.com
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52