Drifting Opinions:
Shell’s Abandoned Oil Platforms in the North
Sea
Julia Eshuis - 11895721 Lotte Zandbergen - 11886862 Sacha van Dijk - 11715790 Wanda Puijk - 11283300
Date: 22 december 2019 University of Amsterdam Wordcount: 7036
Course: Interdisciplinary Project Supervisor: Mieke van Vemden
Table of Contents
Table of Contents 1 Abstract 2 Introduction 3 Theoretical Framework 5 Interdisciplinary Integration 11Selected methods and data 13
Results 15
Conclusion , Discussion and Recommendations 19
Abstract
This paper provides an interdisciplinary view on Shell’s abandoned oil platforms located at the Brent oilfield in the North Sea. Discussed is whether or not the entire platforms should be decommissioned or if part of the structure should remain. This research uses an interdisciplinary approach by
combining the knowledge of three different disciplines; biology, earth sciences and business administration. The aim of this research is to give an advice to Shell on this issue. This was done by making an cost-benefit analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of removing or leaving the platforms. In which is focused on artificial reefs, which can provide for ecological connectivity. In addition, the spread of toxins into the abiotic environment and the effects which are associated with this process negatively affects marine organisms are investigated. Further, the organizational structure plays a large role in the decision making of Shell, which can be explained by the internal and external environment.
Introduction
The North Sea is one of the largest areas of offshore oil and gas exploitation. But now it is closing down. Many of the oil rigs have reached their expire
date and the wells are not able to exploit profitably. Focussed in this research is on the abandoned oil rigs, owned by Shell. Specifically the Bravo, Delta and Charlie structures located in the Brent oil field. These structures are estimated to hold 11.000 tonnes of oil and toxins mixed with sediment (Cockburn, 2019). The discussion around the oil rigs concerns the question whether or not these oil rigs should be completely decommissioned or if the legs should remain in the North Sea. Multiple European countries are involved, the United Kingdom, Germany, Sweden, Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands. The countries are involved because they are connected to the marine protected areas in the OSPAR region (figure 1). The
different actors don’t see eye to eye on the future of the platforms. Shell prefers to leave the concrete legs in the North Sea, considering the costs of decommissioning (Shell U.K. Limited, 2017). The United Kingdom supports this, while the other countries firmly disagree with this decision. They align with the OSPAR agreement, which states that the non-functioning oil platforms should be removed entirely. This, for protection of the marine environment and out of feare on how other oil platforms will be handled in the future (Cockburn, 2019) (Molenaar, & Elferink, 2009). The protected areas that are covered within the OSPAR agreement are seen in figure 1. Besides the different countries also environmental organisations, such as Greenpeace, showed concern about the local marine
environment. Fearing for oil pollution in the Brent area, as well about the effect of possible release of toxins and other harmful substances (Gilblom, K. 2019, October 14). Despite all the concerns, the platforms became habitats for many species. Uncertain is whether the total North Sea ecosystem will be affected when the platforms are removed (Wolfson et al., 1979).
The controversy around this issue makes it hard for companies like Shell to make decisions. It is important for Shell to focus on their market position. Sustainability is a rising trend due to the consumer demand, many companies are thus forced to anticipate on this trend (Amran & Ooi, 2014). It’s necessary for Shell to know which decision would be the most sustainable before incorporating it. Eventually, Shell needs to strive to a more sustainable future to keep a long-term relevant and healthy organisation (Sluyterman, 2010). On the other hand, the corporate culture of Shell strongly influences their decision making. This can make it harder to incorporate more sustainable and less profitable strategies in their management (Schoemaker & van der Heijden, 1992).
An interdisciplinary approach is integrated to discuss this issue. Interdisciplinary research aims to answer a question or solving a problem that is too complex to to be dealt with on a
disciplinary level, instead multiple disciplines are addressed (Klein & Newell, 1997). By the integration of interdisciplinary concepts, theories and techniques a clearer overview of the complex problem, the potential solutions and intervening points can be determined. The disciplines used in the proposal, Earth Sciences, Biology and Business Administration, are suited because they cover most aspects of the issue. To help organizations like Shell in their decision making the following research question will be investigated: ‘What are the environmental and business related motivations for decommissioning (or leaving) the oil platforms in the North Sea?’. The different disciplines, which are encountered in this problem, will each be individually investigated. The objective is to link these different findings and provide an interdisciplinary overview of all the theories. Detected will be whether the removal of the oil platforms is the most sustainable action to implement and how such an action will influence Shell.
Theoretical Framework
Spreading of chemical contamination in the environment
An important source of pollutants is drill waste, which consists of two concepts: drilling fluids and drill cuttings. For oil extraction, drill fluids, also called drilling muds, are used as counter pressure against the deep sea pressures and are released into the sea water. This way, no high concentrations of oil can be released into the sea (Rose, 2009). But, these fluids can contain small amounts of
hydrocarbons and petroleum, which are brought to the surface. Furthermore, it can contain several metals, like arsenic, barium, chromium, cadmium, copper, iron, lead, mercury, nickel, and zinc. With high concentrations these metals can become toxic to benthos (Tornero & Hanke, 2016).
The drill cuttings are rock fragments, produced by the drill penetrating into the seabed. As these drill cuttings accumulate over time, they cause widespread of sediment contamination beneath and around the platforms, which will also negatively affect benthos as they live on the seabed (Tornero & Hanke, 2016) (McFarlane & Nguyen, 1991).These accumulated drill cuttings are called cutting piles and contain concentrations of hydrocarbons, heavy metals, dispersed oil, and to a lesser degree
radionuclide. According to the studies of Davies et al. (1984) and Grant & Briggs (2002), that looked at several sediment samples in the North Sea, the smaller the distance from the platform, the higher the concentration of oil and heavy metals was found in the sediments.
Another high pollutant of the abiotic environment is produced water. It is the largest waste stream that comes from offshore oil and gas industries (Fakhru’l-Razi et al., 2009). Produced water is separated from the oil, a part is injected into a well and the remaining is released into the sea water (Utvik, 1999). The major compounds that are found in produced water are dissolved and dispersed oil compounds, dissolved formation minerals, chemical compounds, solids and dissolved gasses. Polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) that are present in oil, have a low solubility in water, and
therefore the dispersed oil consists of small droplets suspended in the produced water. Further, PAHs can be persistent in the environment and accumulate in biota (Fakhru’l-Razi et al., 2009) (Utvik, 1999).
When offshore oil rig platforms are being removed, it is likely that the accumulated drill cuttings, also called cutting piles, will be released into the sea water, due to physical disturbance, including storms and trawling. Further, biodegradation and other diagenetic processes that might occur in the piles over the years, can produce other potentially pollutants, like organic acids.Therefore, the longer it takes before the platforms will be decommissioned, the more pollutants will enter the sea (Bakke et al., 2013). What is more, cutting piles disturbances will cause benthic disruption. In cases when removing the lower part of the platforms is not possible or too dangerous, these remaining parts can form artificial reefs (Tornero, & Hanke, 2016) (Breuer et al., 2004).
Once the underwater frameworks of the platforms stay, the steel of the structure will eventually corrode. Typical steel frameworks consist out of 90% steel, 2% aluminium and 0.3% copper, and can due to corrosion, leach contaminants such as PCBs, residual oil, iron, lead, cadmium and mercury into the sea water. These contaminants will pollute the marine environment and can accumulate within in fish and other organisms (Adedayo, 2011). The steel corrosion rate depends on the depth beneath sea level. The highest corrosion rate occurs in the splash zone, which has a maximum of 16 mils per year (which is the same as 0.406 mm per year). The lowest corrosion rate is seen at the sea bottom, which has a minimum of about 2.5 mils per year (same as 0.064 mm per year) (Ault, 2006). However, according to Li et al. (2004), sea water with sand can also cause for erosion of the steel below the tide levels. As a large area of the North Sea contains sand at the sea bottom, the corrosion might also take place at the bottom of many platforms in the North Sea.
In addition to the cutting piles that have formed because of drilling waste, most contaminants that were generated during the drilling practices were stored in underwater tanks near the oil platforms. These tanks are stored in the concrete structures of the platforms and they were used for the refining and cleaning of the produced water that has been in contact with oil particles (appendix 2). The storage tanks contain produced water, sand and clay particles and crude oil. Depending on the materials of the tanks, they can have a life spend differing from 1 to 30 years. If the tanks are treated with corrosion resistant paint, the life spend can be extended slightly (Anderson, 1968). If the tanks have the be removed in case of decommissioning, then firstly the tanks need to be emptied. This is done by drilling a hole in the walls of the suburged storage tank. The liquid is then pumped out through a pipeline (Kruger & Rossitto, 1974). The drilling of the hole in the tank needs to be executed carefully to avoid spills. Operations such as these are risky since there is a change of leakage of the insides to the environment. In addition, these tanks contain large amounts of contaminants and if released all at once could cause serious harm to the organisms surrounding the submerged tanks (appendix 2).
Effects of chemical contamination on biota
The effect of metals released in the environment on biota depends on whether they are biologically essential for organisms or not. Nonessential metals do not have a biological function in organisms, and their toxicity increases with rising concentrations. The essential metals, that are entering the abiotic environment are necessary for biological processes in organisms and can cause serious
problems in case of too high or too little concentrations. Toxicity of essential metals can occur at high concentrations or in case of metabolic deficiencies (Sfakianakis et al., 2016).
If in a polluted area the transfer of heavy metals in high concentrations can lead to tissue damage in a higher food chain level, this relationship is called the food chain effect (Dallinger, Prosi, Segner & Back, 1987). Accumulation of metals is either due to the uptake through contaminated water of sediment, or by eating contaminated food sources.
Algae are positioned at the bottom of the food chain. It is known that algae can absorb heavy metals, this process is known as biosorption. Biosorption is described as the passive uptake of surrounding metals. Biosorption is a metabolically passive way of metal uptake, meaning no energy is needed to be able to take up ions. Since the process is passive, there is no selection for specific metals. Also, biosorption of metals can occur in dead biomass, continuing to take up metals due to the
concentrations difference between the cell and the environment. Since the metals do not enter the cell but stay in the cell structure, biosorption does not cause toxicity of the algal cells.
Bioaccumulation differs slightly from biosorption. Bioaccumulations is the build-up of substances in a cell, due to active uptake of the substance. Active uptake means that energy is needed from the
organism to be able to take up the metal. Bioaccumulation leads to an increase of metal concentration inside the cell, when concentrations run too high risk of toxicity is present. Heavy metals, such as copper zinc and cobalt, can have adverse effects on the cell growth, metabolism and photosynthesis efficiency of the algal species.According to Dallinger et al., (1987) there are three main ways in which heavy metals can enter the biological system of fish. The first one being entry through the gills, the second way is through the digestive system and the third, although in lesser extend is absorption through the skin surface.
Nevertheless, recently researchers have discovered that the biosorption and bioaccumulation processes of algae can in fact help clean up contaminated sites (Chojnacka, 2010), (Jahan, Mosto, Mattson, Frey & Derchak, 2004). The idea behind this is that the algal biomass, either dead or alive, will take up metals due to the high concentrations of metals outside the cell. When surrounding metal concentrations increase, the cell will absorb and retain the metals, reducing the concentrations in the environment. Looking at it from this perspective, algae can actually be used to reduce the amount of contamination in a specific area. In theory these algae can be used to clean up the contaminated sites at the abandoned oil rigs in the North Sea. However, the studies conducted on algal removal of toxins has only been performed in laboratory settings and no conclusions can be drawn about if the metal removal by algae can be released in natural marine environments
Fish take up metals mainly through the gills and digestive system. Whether the substance becomes toxic depends on the concentration, metal form, distribution and fish species. Gills of fish are the primary organs of gas exchange, they play an important role in the uptake of essential metal ions from the environment. Through the gills the metals are dispersed throughout the different organs, some organs accumulating more metals than others (Dallinger et al., 1987).
According to Sfakianakis et al. (2016) heavy metals have been associated with a number of fish deformities in natural populations. Multiple physiological systems in fish are affected by metals and this can lead to destructive effects on the survival, growth rate and welfare of fish. According to Dallinger et al., (1987) metal contaminated food sources pose a much higher risk to fish than the absorption of metals through contaminated water. A reason for this is that contaminated water holds a much lower concentration of metals than contaminated algae or fish, which is eaten by other fish.
Dallinger et al., (1987) showed that marine ecosystem contamination is mostly related to elevated metals levels in sediments macrophytes and benthic animals rather than high concentrations of metals in water. Since microalgae such as Chlorella vulgaris are benthic organisms, meaning they live in the sediment of the seafloor, these algae can be exposed to and take up high concentrations of heavy metals. These metals can be transferred to higher trophic levels and if concentrations reach high enough, the tissues of marine animals can become damaged. Nevertheless, as Dallinger et al, (1987) mentions, the experiments done to prove this were done in an experimental setting, where all food sources for the observed fish were injected with high metal concentrations. Since in natural
environments not all food sources are necessarily contaminated with high metal concentrations and the fish can choose their prey, the result may be invalid and not representative for natural ecosystems.
In a study conducted by Sankhla & et al. (2016) showed that fish that have been subjected to chemical pollution could contain of high concentrations of cadmium and lead. This may lead to health
complications in humans if ingested and accumulated over time. Complications include renal failure, damage to the brain, nervous system, and kidneys (USGAO, 2000).
Artificial reefs
The Rigs to Reefs program is developed to turn non-functioning gas and oil rigs into artificial reefs (Baine, 2002). Artificial reefs are men made structures mimicking characteristics of natural reefs and placed on the bottom of the sea (Sayer, 2002). Most of the North Sea bottom is covered with mud and sand, 20% coverage consists of hard substrate such as coarse sands, gravels and rocks. Rigs can provide a hard substrate within intertidal zones that normally lack these, on which coral populations can develop (Coolen, 2017). The programs goal is to provide a “win-win” situation for both the environment as for oil and gas companies. The artificial reefs should support conservation of the benthic habitat and they should provide cost savings for the oil and gas industry (Macreadie, Fowler & Booth, 2011).
Furthermore, artificial reefs can function as stepping stones within the matrix of soft sediment in the North Sea and thus stimulate ecological connectivity (Macreadie, Fowler & Booth, 2011). Organisms may use the structures to spread to new areas, which normally wouldn’t be reached in a single generation (Coolen, 2017). Populations persistence normally depends on the ecological connectivity between different natural reefs. Ecological connectivity is of great importance because it stimulates many ecological and evolutionary processes. It provides a possibility for ecosystem recovery after a disturbance, it helps to maintain genetic diversity, it retains species diversity and it creates population replenishment (Foley et al., 2010). But, recent anthropogenic actions and environmental processes have caused an increase in the spatial distances between reefs (Cowen & Spongaugle, 2009). This makes it harder for species to migrate around, and thus for gene flow to occur. The formation of artificial reefs might thus form a solution for these complications (Foley et al., 2010).
The decommissioned oil rigs are used as fishery enhancement devices by stimulating the total fish species biomass. They are implemented to help localized fishery management, fishery protection, aquaculture and recreational needs (Sayer, 2002). Questioned by Bohnsack (1989) and Sayer (2002) is if artificial reefs really stimulate the production of new fish biomass or that fish are just aggregated towards the artificial reefs from the surrounding areas by instinctive orientation responses or current and thigmotropic responses. According to Bohnsack (1989) artificial habitats can only add to an increase in population biomass when fish populations are limited by the availability of habitat (‘the production theory’). When the amount of available habitat is limited also the risk of predation, food availability and reproductive output is affected (Macreadie, Fowler & Booth, 2011). So, for reef dependent fish species, who live isolated on artificial reefs can be more important. When population growth or other life stages aren’t dependent on reefs, artificial reefs are unlikely to increase the total biomass (Bohnsack 1989; Aabel et al, 1997).
Shell’s perspective
The organizational structure explains how the company operates and what guidelines they follow regarding the structural layout of the company and how this affects their decision making (Volberda et al., 2011). In Shell’s case they started of with a functional structure. A functional structure is defined by having vertical linkages in each department and a key point in such a structure is hierarchy (Grant, 2002). Advantages of this structure is that it creates economies of scale and in-depth knowledge and skill development (Volberda et al., 2011). After this structure they moved towards a more complex matrix structure. However, as the industry Shell is in development they found these structures to be less profitable and fitting so they slowly transitioned to a divisional structure. A divisional structure is characterised by having different division within a company, each with the ability to make their own choices. This creates more independence and can help speed up the decision making process
(Volberda et al., 2011). Another concept is greenwashing. Shell claims to have entered the renewable energy sources market, however there are doubt whether the actually focus on these sources or just claim to for better PR (Dahl, 2010). The organizational structure can help explains Shell’s decision making regarding the oil-platforms.
The internal environment focuses on all the aspects of the company that are within the company. Some concepts here are the Strengths and Weaknesses, from the SWOT-analysis, and their resources, capabilities and core competencies. These concepts can help show where Shell’s strong and weak points are, and how these can be influenced to then influence their decision making regarding the oil platforms. Moreover, this theory gives more insight into the internal aspects that influence and move the company (Sluyterman, 2010) (Volberda et al., 2011).
The external environment looks at all aspects that influence a company that are not influences from the company itself, the influence comes from outside. The external environment is challenging and complex and it affects a firm’s strategic actions (Volberda et al., 2011). Concepts within this theory are Opportunities and Threats, from the SWOT-analysis, competition and Porter’s Five Forces model,
which analysis the industry’s competitive forces and judges how attractive a certain industry is. By looking at the external environment Shell motivation for exploiting this industry can be explained and external factors that could influence Shell to be more environmentally conscious can be sought out (Eketah et al., 2011)
In conclusion, the organizational structure plays a large role in how Shell makes their decisions and the internal and external environment largely explain why Shell makes certain decisions. The
divisional structure provides Shell with a division dedicated to the abandoned oil platforms, which can speed up the decision making process since the division does all the research and all the decision-making regarding the decommissioning process (Appendix 1). The internal and external environment can largely explain why Shell would decide to leave the legs of the platforms in place, which is discussed in the results (Appendix 1)
Interdisciplinary Integration
To determine the interdisciplinary integration of this research, two techniques were addressed: the redefinition technique and the organisation technique. Further, with help of these techniques, an integration framework (see fig. 1) was made to visualize the connections between the concepts and theories of the different disciplines. The redefinition technique redefines related concepts in different disciplines to bring out a common meaning. In this research the common meaning is the effects that would happen when the platforms will be removed or not. All disciplines will be affected in these two scenarios, these effects however do differ between disciplines and are different per scenario. The organisation technique defines commonality between concepts, redefines them, organises them and maps the causal links between them. The commonality between the concepts is that they will all be consequences of the removal of the platforms or the remaining of the platforms. Between these concepts, causal links were made, which is seen in the integration framework.
The framework consists of two sub frameworks: one of the consequences of when the platforms will stay and one of when the platforms will be removed entirely. Every concepts per discipline is indicated in a colour, earth sciences in green, biology in red and business administration in yellow. Between these concepts the causal links are indicated with black arrows. The starts of both
frameworks are indicated in purple.
Sub framework of the platforms that stay in place
When the platforms stay in the North Sea, the spreading of chemical contamination will continue due to corrosion of the underwater frameworks, which will continue for a long period of time. The pollutants will accumulate in fish, microorganisms and algae. Due to the food chain, these chemicals will also accumulate in humans. All this will cause societal upheaval, which will give Shell a bad reputation and will be put in an uncertain position. However, the platforms can form artificial reefs, which can provide for conservation of endangered species and increase ecological connectivity in the North-Sea environment. When leaving the platforms in the North sea, Shell does earn more profit than when the platforms would be decommissioned. Due to this, there is more money for innovation and changes in the future.
Sub framework of decommissioning of the platforms
When the platforms will be decommissioned, there is a chance that cutting piles on the seabed will be disturbed. When the cutting piles will be disturbed, contaminants will leach into the environment for a short period of time. Consequently, there will be accumulation of contaminants in fish,
microorganism and algae and due to the food chain, they will accumulate in humans. However, when no disturbance of the cutting piles occurs, there will be no further leaking of contaminants into the environment. As a result, there will be less societal upheaval against Shell, which will give Shell a better reputation. However, the removal of the platforms causes a lot of effort and money, which
results in a lower profit for Shell. Therefore, Shell will have less money for innovation and changes in the future.
Figure 2. Integration framework of two scenarios: when the platforms will stay in place and when they will be removed entirely
Selected methods and data
This research uses an interdisciplinary approach to the research question. The issue discussed in this paper is a complex and interlinked issue that needs to be addressed in an overreaching manner. The point of interdisciplinary research is to cross the boundaries of an academic discipline to find a middle ground that overbridges the gaps between disciplines. This research will integrate the theories and methods of all disciplines involved to give a overarching and insightful viewpoint of the issue.
A complex problem can be researched by investigating the relationship between different institutes. This is what is implemented during an interdisciplinary research. A complex problem is defined as a multi-level phenomena involving a mutually interacting actors and factors, and their functions cannot be localised in any specific component (Tromp, 2018). The issue that is addressed in this paper can be divided into the social, economic, technical and science system. Society is asking for efficient, cheap fuel in high quantities. To answer to these demands the technical system created the oil platforms, which had far reaching consequences for aquatic ecosystems. The platforms are now becoming redundant and need to be removed. But the current sustainability trend in society pressures the removal to not be harmful for the environment. At last, the economic sector, in this case Shell, is directed to be maximum efficient, while winning the most profit at the same time. The removal of the platforms will bring massive costs, which are preferably avoided. All these multi layered
organisational structures contain different interconnected actors which not act in linear ways and thus make this problem a complex problem.
When implementing interdisciplinary research boundaries between the different disciplines are crossed and interactions of the disciplines are searched. Theories, results and insights are integrated (Menken & Keenstra, 2016). The integration of the different theories can help to bridge the
knowledge gap in this investigation. The total effect of the removal of platforms will be investigated, instead of looking at the individual effects each theory describes.
Furthermore, this research will consist of a literature review. Therefore, the data used will mostly be secondary data. It’s important that both the negative and positive effects about leaving or
decommissioning the oil rigs will be obtained per discipline by investigating the peer reviewed papers. These will eventually be weighed against each other to form an advice for Shell. Further, in this research no experiments will be set up, but experiments from other scientists will be analysed. This is done because there is simply a lack in time and money to investigate certain rigs ourselves. In addition, for background information on the disciplines, several academic school books and online articles will be used as reference.
To obtain more up to date information, an interview will be done to complete the research. This will form the primary data for our research. The interview is conducted with Mathijs Smit, who is an ecotoxicologist for Shell (Appendix 1) (Appendix 2). The interview is held over Skype, on the 4th of
december. During the interview we will ask Mathijs about the effects of the platforms on marine organisms and his idea on artificial reefs. Further, we will discuss the important factors that obtain the perspectives for Shell on this issue. The goal is to gain more insight in how Shell deals with
interdisciplinary problems, like the abandoning of the oil platforms.
Once the data is collected, important theories and their concepts will be analysed from the literature and will be described into a data management table (see Theoretical framework). With this theoretical framework an integrated framework will be made with the help of Draw.io (https://www.draw.io), which is a program that helps designing diagrams. These the theoretical and integrated frameworks will help to answer the sub questions of the different disciplines, and they will help to draw a conclusion to answer the main research question.
Concluding, with help of the literature review, the interview and the frameworks, a cost-benefit analysis will be made. This will help give a clear overview of the negative and positive effects of leaving or decommissioning the platforms. Further, it will help to give answer on the main research question and it helps to provide advice for Shell whether the platforms should stay in the North Sea or should be decommissioned.
Results
Motivations for leaving the platforms
Benefits of leaving the platforms ✓ Restore reef habitats
✓ Increase of local biodiversity ✓ Protection for overfished stocks ✓ Stimulate ecological connectivity ✓ Less toxicity in food chain ✓ Less initial costs for Shell
Costs of leaving the platforms
⨯ Increase Homogeneity
⨯ Infiltration of exotic species / diseases ⨯ Pollutants will continue to leach into the environment
⨯ Shell’s reputation damage, loss of long-term profitability of the company
Table 1. Cost-Benefit analysis for leaving the oil platforms in the North Sea.
Benefits of leaving the platforms
Natural reefs are observed to occur on trawling grounds (Fosså, Mortensen & Furevik, 2002). Trawling is a fishing method, which can cause damage to the ecosystems observed on the bottom of the ocean (Bergmark & Jørgensen, 2014). The natural occurring reefs support a high diversity in benthos, but already between 30% and 50% of the natural reefs is damaged by this method of fishing (Fosså, Mortensen & Furevik, 2002). The artificial reefs that are now developed by the Rigs to Reefs program restrict access for trawls and thus form a trawling free-zone (Macreadie, Fowler & Booth, 2011). This can stimulate the growth of corals that would otherwise be lost due to human practices, and provide protection for overfished stocks. Artificial reefs in the North-Sea might thus compensate for the loss of this habitat, which can increase the ecological connectivity as well. 90% Of the species that live on the artificial reefs are not observed to be present in the soft bottomed surroundings. So, Artificial reefs will have a strong effect on the local biodiversity (Coolen, 2017). However, the solution is not that straightforward. Communities living on artificial reefs can differ noticeably from communities living on natural reefs. Researched is that hard coral covers on artificial structures are significantly lower than on natural patches, and that artificial reefs contain a lower diversity in coral species. One of the explanations for this is that artificial reefs are relatively young compared to natural reefs (Burt et al., 2009). Researched should be how species composition on artificial reefs will
develop over time. And, if other aspects such as higher sedimentation rates on natural reefs and the differences in habitat characteristics don’t play to much of a role in determining the reef composition (Burt et al., 2009).
The abandoned oil rigs still contain tanks filled with liquid waste from the drilling practices. As long as the tanks remain under water and undisturbed chances of leakage are rather small. However, if the
liquid inside the tanks needs to be removed in case of total decommissioning, the chances of leaking are much bigger. Therefore, if the tanks have to be removed it could be a big and risky operation. So, leaving the tanks in place would be a safe option to avoid large spills of drilling waste in the
environment. Also, there will be no disturbance of the cutting piles in case of leaving the platforms in place.
Shell now has a divisional structure, which allows divisions to have their own decision making power. A divisional structure combined with the vertical linkages the company still has can explain how the decision around the platforms can be made rather quickly and only involves the people relevant for this problem. This makes the decision fast, but not necessary democratic, given that not the whole company can decide on the future of the platforms (Schoemaker, 1993). The internal and external environment both show the company is in a highly competitive and fast moving industry industry (Hokroh, 2014), which also explains why Shell would want the least expensive solution for the platforms, which is leaving the legs (Shell U.K. Limited, 2017). Because, when they save costs then can use this money to remain relevant and profitable as a company within the oil industry. This is why having less initial cost is seen as a benefit by Shell.
Costs of leaving the platforms
Ecological connectivity can be increased by creating artificial reefs, this because they function as stepping stones. But, this increase in ecological connectivity can also have less positive consequences for the North-Sea environment. First, genetic homogeneity can be increased when it’s easier for individuals to migrate around a larger area. This makes species more vulnerable to all sorts of events. Secondly, there will be a reduced change in the occurrence of allopatric speciation (Macreadie, Fowler & Booth, 2011). And thirdly, it will be become easier for exotic species to access the North-Sea environment (Page et al., 2006). Also, When Shell decides to let the platforms stay, it can lead to an increase of chemical contamination. Because the frameworks of the structure will erode
(theoretical framework). Lastly, a cost for Shell can be reputation damage, which can long-term result in loss of profitability for the company. The decision to leave the platforms let to a lot of protesting by activists and OSPAR countries that are not in agreement with the decision, which can lead to
profitability loss for Shell (McLean, 2019) (Appendix 2).
Motivations for removing the platforms
Benefits of total removal of the platforms ✓ Shell’s reputation✓ Alignment with OSPAR Agreement
Cost of total removal of the platforms
⨯ Risks/ costs of removing the entire platforms ⨯ Risk of cutting piles disturbances
Benefits of removing the platforms
The question rises how long the oil industry will remain profitable, given that oil is a finite resource and will run out (Patin, 1999) (Odell & Rosin, 1980). This also forces Shell to focus on the future and how to keep a relevant and profitable industry in a future where there may be no more oil left. This future perspective could force Shell to make more sustainable choices regarding future platforms to be removed (Millett, 2003).
When Shell decides to remove the platforms entirely, this would be in alignment with the OSPAR agreement, which states all abandoned oil platforms should be totally decommissioned. This would remove the discussion between Shell’s decommissioning team and OSPAR, because their decisions would aligned (Appendix 2).
Costs of removing the platforms
The decommissioning team of Shell performed extensive research, called an comparative assessment (Appendix 2), on this topic and according to them the risks and costs of total decommissioning are both high (Appendix 2). This research involved both internal and external factors of the Company (Appendix 2). Because of this research Shell decided to apply to the United Kingdom Regulator, the final decision maker, to be an exception on the OSPAR agreement and to leave the steel legs of the platforms in the sea (Appendix 2).
If Shell decides to remove the platforms, it can lead to high consequences for the environment. It can for example lead to cutting piles disturbances. The high polluted cutting piles are extended as far as 600 m from the platforms. About 100 to 300 m from the platform, the toxicity in the sediment can cause a mortality of benthos, such as amphipods
(
Lakhal et al., 2009).
The concentrations hardly change over time and are likely to remain within the cutting piles. However, when physical disturbance from instance platform activities, storms and trawling occurs, there is a chance that the cutting piles surrounding the platforms might be disturbed and will release contaminants into the sea water (Tornero, & Hanke, 2016) (Breuer et al., 2004). Also, there is a high risk of chemical leaking from the tanks (Appendix 2).Since the toxic contaminants in the cutting piles can spread throughout the water if disturbed by human practices, best would be to leave the cutting piles in place. If these toxins do spread it can cause a number of complications in the local marine food chain, by transference from lower trophic levels and eventually these contaminants can reach the human food system. In this case it would be best for the surrounding organisms and environment to leave the cutting piles and underwater structures in place and let the toxins stay on the groundbed.
Advice
We would recommend to decommission the oil rigs.The pollutants descent from the tanks form a higher risk for the biotic environment and food chain than the pollution caused by erosion of the
platforms or disturbance of cutting piles.The tanks will only stay intact for a limited amount of years. Meaning, that the tanks will need to be removed anyway in the future, leaving the platforms standing is only a form of procrastination. Why take the risk of letting a natural disaster disturb the cutting piles and tanks. Especially, with the expected increase of natural disasters arising because of global warming. Thereby, we find it inequitable if only Shell would be aloud to form an exception on the OSPAR agreement. If all the other oil and gas companies are able to remove their platforms safely, why not Shell?
Thereby, the benefits arising from artificial reefs have a short term relevance and a high uncertainty. Artificial reefs don’t deal with overfishing and other environmentally harmful human activities, they are thus not seen as a long term sustainable solution. In our opinion artificial reefs can be seen as a temporary way to restore the lost natural reef environment. And, thus be appropriate for mitigating resource losses or enhancing fish populations because of habitat limitations, until saturation occurs when reef resources no longer limit populations.
Form a business perspective, this solution would also be the best in the long run, given the depletion of the oil resources and the reputation of the company.
Conclusion , Discussion and Recommendations
In conclusion, the results that are established in this interdisciplinary research are broad, contradicting and hence display the complexity of this problem. It is a difficult problem to approach due to the conflicting results owing to the complex marine ecosystem and Shells corporate culture. In short, the oil rigs that have been used extensively for oil drilling have leaked heavy chemical around the platforms over the years. If shell decides to remove the lower parts of the platforms, this may cause the contaminants to spread further than 600 m around the oil platforms. The release of contaminants will occur in a short period of time. The pollutants could be harmful for the organisms living in the benthos or higher organisms that eat the primary producers. Further, the total removal of the structures will be a high risk operation due to technical problems that may arise when removing the tanks. Which form the biggest concern, when looking into possible ways of pollution.
Nevertheless, the total removal of the oil structures will benefit Shells reputation and the future of the company due to the sustainable decision.
When Shell decides to let the platforms stay, it can lead to an increase of chemical contamination as well. Once the underwater frameworks of the platforms stay, the steel of the structure will eventually corrode and keep on releasing polluting materials. The releasing of pollutants, due to corrosion, will go on for years. In addition, the leaving of the platforms will benefit Shell financially, because leaving the structures is the least expensive solution for Shell.
Leaving the platforms in place can provide a habitat for the species that are unable to establish populations on sandy bottoms. To be clear, this can only be seen as a benefit if it would help the biodiversity in the North Sea to increase to the level that would have existed when natural reefs wouldn’t have been destroyed. So, artificial reefs can be seen as a temporary way to restore the lost natural reef environment. And, thus be appropriate for mitigating resource losses or enhancing fish populations because of habitat limitations. This, until saturation occurs when the reef resources no longer limit populations.
More research is needed on several topics to provide an informed decision about the dilemma of leaving or decommissioning the oil rigs. Firstly, within this interdisciplinary research biology, earth sciences and business administration have been implemented, however the input of other disciplines can provide a broader perspective on the issue. For instance the political side of the issue, concerning the laws and regulations of the decommissioning of the platforms, could add to this research being more complete, given the political nature of the conflict between OSPAR and Shell.
In addition, this research has not included exact calculations or any field work, all conclusions that have been made were influenced by literature. Artificial reefs are still relatively young compared to natural reefs. More research is needed to conclude to what extent the species assemblage present on artificial reefs is similar to those on natural reefs. And, if the mitigating function of the reefs will actually provide the wanted outcome. Also, the exact concentration and effects of contaminants that will be released into the environment in both scenarios (decommissioning or leaving) are unknown, as it they are location- and time-dependent. It is of high importance to make correct comparisons
between the pollution rates, caused by erosion, disturbance of cutting piles or the leaking of the tanks. Furthermore, the complex problem does not only concern a scientific viewpoint, but also a societal and ethical aspect. Since the wellbeing of marine life is involved, and indirectly the health of humans, it is important to consider the opinions of the people that may be subjected to the negative effects of the removal or leaving of the oil platforms. More research on the subjects mentioned above should be conducted to tackle the issue in a more informative and educated approach.
Despite the shortcomings of this research, an advice is given to Shell. When looking at the costs and benefits of leaving or decommission of the platform, it can be concluded that to ensure as less damage as possible, the platforms should be decommissioned. Leaving the platforms standing is only a way of procrastination, as the tanks will not stay intact permanently. What is more, due to climate change, disasters, as storms, are expected to rise, which will lead to cutting piles disturbances even so. Further, artificial reefs are not seen as a long term sustainable solution, due to short term relevance and a high uncertainty. Form a business perspective, this solution would be the best in the long run as well, given the depletion of the oil resources and the reputation of the company, by accepting the OSPAR agreement.
References
Aabel, J. P., Cripps, S. J., Jensen, A. C., & Picken, G. (1997). Creating artificial reefs from decommissioned platforms in the North Sea: Review of knowledge and proposed programme of research. Stavanger, Norway: Rogaland Research.
Adedayo, A. M. (2011). Environmental risk and decommissioning of offshore oil platforms in Nigeria. NIALS J. Environ. Law, 1, 1-30.
Amran, A., & Ooi, S. K. (2014). Sustainability reporting: meeting stakeholder demands. Strategic Direction.
Anderson, R. (1968). Undergroud liquid storage system. Chicago: Oil Company Chicago.
Ault, J. P. (2006). The use of coatings for corrosion control on offshore oil structures. Journal of protective coatings & linings, 23(4), 42-46.
Baine, M. (2002). The North Sea rigs-to-reefs debate. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 59(suppl), S277-S280.
Bakke, T., Klungsøyr, J., & Sanni, S. (2013). Environmental impacts of produced water and drilling waste discharges from the Norwegian offshore petroleum industry. Marine environmental research, 92, 154-169.
Bergmark, P., & Jørgensen, D. (2014). Lophelia pertusa conservation in the North Sea using obsolete offshore structures as artificial reefs. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 516, 275-280
Bohnsack, J. A. (1989). Are high densities of fishes at artificial reefs the result of habitat limitation or behavioral preference?. Bulletin of Marine Science, 44(2), 631-645.
Breuer, E., Stevenson, A. G., Howe, J. A., Carroll, J., & Shimmield, G. B. (2004). Drill cutting accumulations in the Northern and Central North Sea: a review of environmental interactions and chemical fate. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 48(1-2), 12-25.
Burt, J., Bartholomew, A., Usseglio, P., Bauman, A., & Sale, P. F. (2009). Are artificial reefs surrogates of natural habitats for corals and fish in Dubai, United Arab Emirates?. Coral Reefs, 28(3), 663-675.
Chojnacka, K. (2010). Biosorption and bioaccumulation – the prospects for practical applications. Environment International, 36(3), 299–307. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2009.12.001
Cockburn, H. (2019). North Sea oil rigs set to be abandoned while still full of crude oil and chemicals. Retrieved september 18, 2019, from https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/north-sea-oil-rigs-abandoned-shell-environment-climate-pollution-greenpeace-a9091651.html\
Coolen, J. W. P. (2017). North Sea reefs: benthic biodiversity of artificial and rocky reefs in the southern North Sea (Doctoral dissertation, Wageningen University).
Cowen, R. K., & Sponaugle, S. (2009). Larval dispersal and marine population connectivity. Annual review of marine science, 1, 443-466.
Dahl, R. (2010). Green washing: do you know what you’re buying?.
Dallinger, R., Prosi, F., Segner, H., & Back, H. (1987). Contaminated food and uptake of heavy metals by fish: a review and a proposal for further research. Oecologia, 73(1), 91–98. doi: 10.1007/bf00376982
Davies, J. M., Addy, J. M., Blackman, R. A., Blanchard, J. R., Ferbrache, J. E., Moore, D. C., ... & Wilkinson, T. (1984). Environmental effects of the use of oil-based drilling muds in the North Sea. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 15(10), 363-370.
Fakhru’l-Razi, A., Pendashteh, A., Abdullah, L. C., Biak, D. R. A., Madaeni, S. S., & Abidin, Z. Z. (2009). Review of technologies for oil and gas produced water treatment. Journal of hazardous materials, 170(2-3), 530-551.
Fosså, J. H., Mortensen, P. B., & Furevik, D. M. (2002). The deep-water coral Lophelia pertusa in Norwegian waters: distribution and fishery impacts. Hydrobiologia, 471(1-3), 1-12.
Foley, M. M., Halpern, B. S., Micheli, F., Armsby, M. H., Caldwell, M. R., Crain, C. M., ... & Carr, M. H. (2010). Guiding ecological principles for marine spatial planning. Marine Policy, 34(5), 955-966.
Gilblom, K. (2019, October 14). Greenpeace Scales Shell’s Offshore Brent Platform in Protest. Retrieved December 1, 2019, from
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-10-14/greenpeace-scales-shell-s-offshore-brent-platforms-for-protest.
Grant, A., & Briggs, A. D. (2002). Toxicity of sediments from around a North Sea oil platform: are metals or hydrocarbons responsible for ecological impacts?. Marine Environmental Research, 53(1), 95-116.
Jahan, K., Mosto, P., Mattson, C., Frey, E. & Derchak, L. (2004) Metal uptake by algae. Waste
management and the environment II. 224-232
Klein, J. T., & Newell, W. H. (1997). Advancing interdisciplinary studies. Handbook of the
undergraduate curriculum: A comprehensive guide to purposes, structures, practices, and change, 393-415.
Kruger, J., & Rossitto, V. (1974). Method and apparatus for removing liquid contaminants from a submerged tank. New York: West Islip, N.Y
Lakhal, S. Y., Khan, M. I., & Islam, M. R. (2009). An “Olympic” framework for a green decommissioning of an offshore oil platform. Ocean & Coastal Management, 52(2), 113-123.
Li, Y., Hou, B., Li, H., & Zhang, J. (2004). Corrosion behavior of steel in Chengdao offshore oil exploitation area. Materials and Corrosion, 55(4), 305-310.
Macreadie, P. I., Fowler, A. M., & Booth, D. J. (2011). Rigs‐to‐reefs: will the deep sea benefit from artificial habitat?. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 9(8), 455-461.
McFarlane, K., & Nguyen, V. T. (1991, January). The deposition of drill cuttings on the seabed. In SPE Health, Safety and Environment in Oil and Gas Exploration and Production Conference. Society of Petroleum Engineers.
McLean, D. (2019, 14 oktober). Greenpeace activists climb North Sea oil rigs to protest “unacceptable” decommissioning plans. Geraadpleegd op 21 december 2019, van
https://www.scotsman.com/news/environment/greenpeace-activists-climb-north-sea-oil-rigs-to-protest-unacceptable-decommissioning-plans-1-5023080
Millett, S. M. (2003). The future of scenarios: challenges and opportunities. Strategy & Leadership, 31(2), 16-24.
Molenaar, E. J., & Elferink, A. G. O. (2009). Marine protected areas in areas beyond national jurisdiction-the pioneering efforts under the OSPAR convention. Utrecht L. Rev., 5, 5.
Odell, P. R., & Rosing, K. E. (1980). Future of oil.
OSPAR Commission (z.d.). Mariene Protected Areas. [Illustration]. Consulted from https://www.ospar.org/work-areas/bdc/marine-protected-areas
Page, H. M., Dugan, J. E., Culver, C. S., & Hoesterey, J. C. (2006). Exotic invertebrate species on offshore oil platforms. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 325, 101-107.
Patin, S. A. (1999). Environmental impact of the offshore oil and gas industry (Vol. 1). East Nortport, NY: EcoMonitor Pub.
Rose, M. A. (2009). The environmental impacts of offshore oil drilling. Technology and Engineering Teacher, 68(5), 27
Sankhla, M. S., Kumari, M., Nandan, M., Kumar, R., & Agrawal, P. (2016). Heavy Metals
Contamination in Water and Their Hazardous Effect on Human Health-A Review. SSRN Electronic Journal. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.3428216
Sayer, M. D. J., & Baine, M. S. P. (2002). Rigs to reefs: a critical evaluation of the potential for reef development using decommissioned rigs. Underwater Technology, 25(2), 93-98.
Schoemaker, P. J., & van der Heijden, C. A. (1992). Integrating scenarios into strategic planning at Royal Dutch/Shell. Planning Review, 20(3), 41-46.
Sfakianakis, D., Renieri, E., Kentouri, M., & Tsatsakis, A. (2015). Effect of heavy metals on fish larvae deformities: A review. Environmental Research, 137, 246–255. doi:
10.1016/j.envres.2014.12.014
Shell U.K. Limited . (2017). BRENT BRAVO, CHARLIE AND DELTA GBS DECOMMISSIONING TECHNICAL DOCUMENT (BDE-F-GBS-BA-5801-00001). Geraadpleegd van
https://www.shell.co.uk/sustainability/decommissioning/brent-field-decommissioning/brent-field-
decommissioning-programme/_jcr_content/par/tabbedcontent/tab_1385449832/textimage.stream/1486502129278/afeb
af0d673b1d8c54d269f93603a210c208cb54/gbs-decommissioning-td-february2017.pdf
Sluyterman, K. (2010). Royal Dutch Shell: company strategies for dealing with environmental issues. Business History Review, 84(2), 203-226.
USGAO, 2000. Health Effect of lead in drinking water. U.S. General Accounting Office reports. Utvik, T. I. R. (1999). Chemical characterisation of produced water from four offshore oil production platforms in the North Sea. Chemosphere, 39(15), 2593-2606.
Volberda, H.W., Morgan, R.E., Reinmoeller, P., Hitt, M.A., Ireland, R.D., Hosikkon, R.E (2011). Strategic Management Concepts and Cases Competitiveness and Globalization. Cengage Learning Emea.
