Knights, Antony and Lemasson, Anaelle and Firth, Louise and Beaumont, Nicola and Birchenough, Silvana and Claisse, Jeremy and Copping, Andrea and Coolen, Joop and De Dominicis, Michela and Degraer, Steven and Elliott, Michael and Fernandes, Paul and Fowler, Ashley and Frost, Matthew and Henry, Lea-Anne and Hicks, Natalie and Hyder, Kieran and Jagerroos, Sylvia and Love, Milton and Lynam, Chris and Macreadie, Peter and McLean, Dianne and Marlow, Joseph and Mavraki, Ninon and Montagna, Paul and Paterson, David M and Perrow, Martin and Porter, Joanne and Scarborough Bull, Anne and Schratzberger, Michaela and Shipley, Brooke and van Elden, Sean and Vanaverbeke, Jan and Want, Andrew and Watson, Stephen CL and Wilding, Thomas A and Somerfield, Paul J (2024) To what extent can decommissioning options for marine artificial structures move us toward environmental targets? Journal of Environmental Management, 350. p. 119644. DOI https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2023.119644
Knights, Antony and Lemasson, Anaelle and Firth, Louise and Beaumont, Nicola and Birchenough, Silvana and Claisse, Jeremy and Copping, Andrea and Coolen, Joop and De Dominicis, Michela and Degraer, Steven and Elliott, Michael and Fernandes, Paul and Fowler, Ashley and Frost, Matthew and Henry, Lea-Anne and Hicks, Natalie and Hyder, Kieran and Jagerroos, Sylvia and Love, Milton and Lynam, Chris and Macreadie, Peter and McLean, Dianne and Marlow, Joseph and Mavraki, Ninon and Montagna, Paul and Paterson, David M and Perrow, Martin and Porter, Joanne and Scarborough Bull, Anne and Schratzberger, Michaela and Shipley, Brooke and van Elden, Sean and Vanaverbeke, Jan and Want, Andrew and Watson, Stephen CL and Wilding, Thomas A and Somerfield, Paul J (2024) To what extent can decommissioning options for marine artificial structures move us toward environmental targets? Journal of Environmental Management, 350. p. 119644. DOI https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2023.119644
Knights, Antony and Lemasson, Anaelle and Firth, Louise and Beaumont, Nicola and Birchenough, Silvana and Claisse, Jeremy and Copping, Andrea and Coolen, Joop and De Dominicis, Michela and Degraer, Steven and Elliott, Michael and Fernandes, Paul and Fowler, Ashley and Frost, Matthew and Henry, Lea-Anne and Hicks, Natalie and Hyder, Kieran and Jagerroos, Sylvia and Love, Milton and Lynam, Chris and Macreadie, Peter and McLean, Dianne and Marlow, Joseph and Mavraki, Ninon and Montagna, Paul and Paterson, David M and Perrow, Martin and Porter, Joanne and Scarborough Bull, Anne and Schratzberger, Michaela and Shipley, Brooke and van Elden, Sean and Vanaverbeke, Jan and Want, Andrew and Watson, Stephen CL and Wilding, Thomas A and Somerfield, Paul J (2024) To what extent can decommissioning options for marine artificial structures move us toward environmental targets? Journal of Environmental Management, 350. p. 119644. DOI https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2023.119644
Abstract
Switching from fossil fuels to renewable energy is key to international energy transition efforts and the move toward net zero. For many nations, this requires decommissioning of hundreds of oil and gas infrastructure in the marine environment. Current international, regional and national legislation largely dictates that structures must be completely removed at end-of-life although, increasingly, alternative decommissioning options are being promoted and implemented. Yet, a paucity of real-world case studies describing the impacts of decommissioning on the environment make decision-making with respect to which option(s) might be optimal for meeting international and regional strategic environmental targets challenging. To address this gap, we draw together international expertise and judgment from marine environmental scientists on marine artificial structures as an alternative source of evidence that explores how different decommissioning options might ameliorate pressures that drive environmental status toward (or away) from environmental objectives. Synthesis reveals that for 37 United Nations and Oslo-Paris Commissions (OSPAR) global and regional environmental targets, experts consider repurposing or abandoning individual structures, or abandoning multiple structures across a region, as the options that would most strongly contribute toward targets. This collective view suggests complete removal may not be best for the environment or society. However, different decommissioning options act in different ways and make variable contributions toward environmental targets, such that policy makers and managers would likely need to prioritise some targets over others considering political, social, economic, and ecological contexts. Current policy may not result in optimal outcomes for the environment or society.
Item Type: | Article |
---|---|
Uncontrolled Keywords: | Oil and gas platforms; Offshore wind; Artificial structures; Impact assessment; Environmental management; Expert judgement |
Divisions: | Faculty of Science and Health Faculty of Science and Health > Life Sciences, School of |
SWORD Depositor: | Unnamed user with email elements@essex.ac.uk |
Depositing User: | Unnamed user with email elements@essex.ac.uk |
Date Deposited: | 02 Jan 2024 12:23 |
Last Modified: | 16 May 2024 22:08 |
URI: | http://repository.essex.ac.uk/id/eprint/36935 |
Available files
Filename: Knights et al Decommissioning options JEM 2024.pdf
Licence: Creative Commons: Attribution 4.0