Decommissioning and abandonment

10

Decommissioning and abandonment

IMAGE AND PUBLIC PERCEPTION

ƒ Political need ƒ International guidelines and common approach ƒ Installation reviewed for best solution ƒ Public opinion ƒ Pressure groups ƒ Media sensationalism ƒ Local politicians ƒ Exxon Valdez, Alaska ƒ Erica and Prestige, Biscay and Spain ƒ Fishing and tourism ƒ Macondo, GoM Prestige

Political need/public opinion Legislation and guidelines Each installation to be viewed on its own merits Operators being persuaded to take action

Public now more aware of issues. However, pressure groups do not always reach a considered opinion (for example, the Brent Spar situation). They are sometimes heavily influenced by the press or local politicians It was right that huge amounts of money were spent cleaning up long lengths of the formerly pristine Alaskan coastline following the leaks from the Valdez in 1988. The sinking of the tankers Erica and Prestige in the Atlantic off south-western Europe in 1999 and 2002 caused an outrage. Local holiday and fishing industries had just recovered from the first incident when the Prestige sank with some of her cargo remaining sealed on board. Though there was no financial gain to be made for heavy oil remaining in the tanks, public outcry demanded that it be recovered from a depth of 3800 m (12 500 ft) to prevent it gradually seeping for decades to come. It is unclear how much of a threat this might have been, given the viscosity of the heavy oil and the low rate of corrosion at that depth. The fuel had to be pumped out of holes drilled into the hold through a 150 mm (6 in) bore hose. The Macondo blowout and explosion in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010 resulted in 11 people loosing their lives and considerable environmental pollution. The consequences of this disaster have had a major impact on deepwater operations in the GoM and elsewhere.

BENEFITSANDCOSTEFFECTIVENESS