RIASSUNTO
Summary
This paper discusses the evolution of the global and regional Regulatory Regime for the decommissioning of disused oil and gas production platforms and other installations. The last part of this paper puts the regulatory aspects of the issue discussed into context.
Introduction
In June 1995 the Brent Spar incident brought world attention to decommissioning of offshore installations. The attention was enhanced through numerous misconceptions, which moved the public to outrage in certain countries in Continental Europe. One misconception was that a regulatory regime was not in place. To the contrary, world regulators and authorities had begun developing requirements for decommission some 37 years earlier and by the time of the Brent Spar, there were strict and competent global and regional Regulatory Regimes in place.
In bringing world attention to decommission, the Brent Spar will be remembered as a symbol of industry's failure to demonstrate a real desire to communicate openly with the public and put across credible messages. It is a powerful reminder that a technically and scientifically sound solution which complies with all regulations is not in itself enough to secure public confidence and support. The industry has learned much from the incident, but still faces public, technical, and regulatory challenges. If government authorities and industry do not understand the Regulatory Regime or the physical consequences of their decisions, and the public's reaction to their decisions is not considered, then the process of decommissioning will be difficult. Industry must recognize and accept that public outrage could reoccur.
Since 1995 special interest groups have been attempting to change global and regional Regulatory Regimes by eliminating the case-by-case approach and requiring total removal to shore. If all factors are considered and balanced, not all structures should be totally removed and taken to shore. Yes, the sea bed would be clean but the atmosphere and land may not be. The material would be recycled, but at a cost that would not always be in balance with sustainability rationale.
The author is an engineer/manager with a major oil company with global interests in oil and gas. He has been following the decommissioning issue since 1972, served as industry advisor to the U.S. Delegation during the negotiations of the IMO Removal Guidelines and, since the summer of 1995, has served as the International Regulatory Consultant to the industry's Offshore Decommissioning Communications Project (ODCP).
Global Regulations
The global Regulatory Regime has evolved over the last 40 years. Its development has established a balance between the need to protect the environment, navigation, fishing, and other users of the sea on the one hand, and to take into account the safety, technical feasibility, and cost of decommissioning on the other. Current regulation reflects a balanced and informed recognition by states of both the concerns and the difficulties involved.
The global Regulatory Regime consists of the 1958 Geneva Convention, 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), the 1989 International Maritime Organization (IMO) Guidelines and Standards, the 1972 London Convention (LC), and the 1996 Protocol to the 1972 London Convention. A discussion of each follows.
1958 Geneva Convention on the Continental Shelf.1
The first international removal standard may be found in the 1958 Geneva Convention on the Continental Shelf, which provides in Article 5 that: ""Any installations which are abandoned or disused must be entirely removed.""
This unequivocal standard was formulated when the offshore oil and gas industry was in its infancy. In 1958 the United States was the only country with offshore production. Production was limited to very shallow water small platforms that were comparatively easy and inexpensive to remove. Even though many current offshore producing countries are parties to the 1958 Convention, only 2 or 3 states practice removal under this convention, one of which is the United States. The U.S. Department of Interior's OCS Order Number 32 promulgated in 1969 requires entire removal to 15 feet below the mudline. It should be noted that the rule gives the District Supervisor of the United States (U.S.) Minerals Management Service (MMS) descretion to permit exceptions.
Perhaps it is important to explain how decisions reached in international conventions are implemented. The general practice is that once countries become parties to Conventions they modify their national law(s) to reflect the intent of the international agreement. The U.S. modified their national requirements to reflect total removal but they did give the District Supervisor discretion to permit exceptions.
As offshore oil and gas production moved into deeper water and more hostile environments during the 1960s and 1970s, it became apparent that the absolute entire removal standard of the 1958 Convention would become unreasonably burdensome in the future. The massive deep-water platforms being built, some weighing more that 1,000,000 tonnes and standing more than 1,500 feet tall, would be extremely costly and dangerous to totally remove. Some may be impossible to remove. The question of harm to the environment (sea, land, and air) by requiring total removal also was raised.
The 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).3
UNCLOS 1982 entered into force on 16 November 1994. It is a multilateral convention and article 60 provides that in the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), the coastal state shall have the exclusive right to construct and to authorize and regulate the construction of artificial islands and installations.
Certain states have yet to ratify UNCLOS 1982, which includes the United States. Regardless, its provisions in relation to Article 60 have been accepted as representing customary international law by most states with offshore production.