Providing some advice on high level considerations in establishing a process for a reefing programme (for steel jackets)

I thought I'd share a recent communication I provided advice on the above subject. After looking at a few rigs to reef programmes and advising on establishing programmes, I can share (off the top of my head) the key considerations. Someone out there, may find this interesting! If it helps the global industry, am happy to share. cheers (Andy) 

When considering the inputs and drivers required to justify establishing a reefing programme.

Background

Programmes exist in various countries, with the impetus to establish usually being initially driven by key parties (stakeholders) ie fishing bodies (regenerate stocks), recreational/tourism (fishing, diving) , oil funds and sometimes in reaction to force majeure issues such as damage due to extreme weather.

We provide process to establish a reef programme i.e. process for compliance with national and international law/conventions, liabilities and stakeholder requirements (environment, economy, society, users of the sea etc).

Also how to align the strategic parties, as stakeholders needs to be aligned that this is beneficial to all/most. And those benefits vary depending on the type of reef (see options below).

I can provide an overview of Gulf of Mexico, Brunei, Malaysian etc rigs to reef and also look at non-oil related reefing. Also test cases that are ongoing around the globe using test sites and also an overview of supporting data generated by various academics etc.

And then of course key is to assess the success of these reefs, for the environment, fishing, recreational etc. I’ve attached a pretty picture of diving on a reef but the extent of recreational benefit is apparently difficult to accurately assess, without records i.e. diving permits etc. Feedback is conflicting on the scale of benefit to fish stocks.

Inputs

In essence before moving forward with developing a process for a reefing programme, you need to understand the benefits.

But inevitably inputs will be required in developing a process (and also instigating that process) for a reefing programme from legal/governmental regulators, industry bodies etc then assessments of the benefits (we subcontracted this overview) regarding fishing, societal, users of sea (Navy key), environment etc depending on the specific needs.

Typical Concerns

·         Law and regulation (obviously)

·         Marine logistics

·         Navy movements and general collisions

·         Liability and maintenance/monitoring costs

·         Impact to environment

Some things to think about below regarding cost/benefits and other pro’s and cons.

Reefing economics.

Assumptions;- to move a jacket, it obviously is required to be cut free and sized to suit available lifting spread. Whether barge transferred, carried on hook, topple then lifted etc is detail that is not part of this very high level cost considerations.

Reefing fee should be a one off payment similar to GoM.

licensee/Tax/fund… cost potentials start at the lowest (1) and increase (although I would assume that societal benefits will be higher at the lower numbers).

1. Coastal reefing for community benefit. Moving jackets to a reef site, is not always economically justifiable and is dependent on length of tow (and reefing fees). For example, jackets have been taken to the beach for recycling in GoM because it a shorter tow, than transporting to reef site. Key is therefore to understand benefits to the coastal society, environment and fishing, to justify such a programme.
2. Creating a reef site around a central complex large field infrastructure by toppling and/or placement of jackets (they may be anything from circa 10 to 70 jackets). Societal benefits are influenced by water depth ie for recreational (fishing, diving etc) and regeneration of fish stocks. Although potentially economically beneficial, savings are eroded, in some cases, if disposal yards are within a short transport distances. Note:- If the site is in Deep water, ie +80 metres, then the benefit to the environment and fishing would need to be assessed. Toppling jackets to create a circa 55 metre water column above them, but in deep water, reduces/removes collision potential but may not then function effectively as a biodiverse reef. I’ve just a read a report that in warm waters it’s still beneficial, but we’d need to look at this in more detail.
3. Cut and Toppling in-situ can utilise low cost marine spreads. Again depth of water is key for recreational, fishing and environmental benefits.
4. In-situ. Various assessments of leaving jackets upright   in-situ usually move towards removing sufficient steel from the splash zone to avoid collision damage, while allowing easy access to divers and recreational fishing. As the jacket deteriorates, monitoring would be key and I would assume nav-aids would be required to reduce risk of collision (and a raft of other issues). Hence why I would assume a section of the jacket would require to be removed around the splash zone. Same conclusion was arrived at west of US and Gulf. In a past project, wellhead platforms were being used by fisherman as a safe anchor to fish the area from. And they wanted to keep this access, so understanding the local issues is key!

As discussed, Evolved solutions provide a step by step guide to creating a reefing programme depending on national, inter-national and stakeholder requirements, with socio-economic and environmental impacts. I would advise developing this with the national oil and gas industry body and regulators.

Owners of assets obviously need assurances of relief of liability, regardless of proposed reef scheme .

I’m typing this from memory and apologies it’s just a quick brain dump, but let’s discuss framing this more formally.

FYI I’ve quickly copied some notes from GoM Reefing programme, (and 2 from asia pacaific) which appear to mimic my own thoughts, that may be of interest. This is public data. Also I would advise you review the process they use (and others) and look for transferability.