Royal Dutch Shell Plc  .com Rotating Header Image

EnergyVoice.com: Brent decom debate: Evidence vs Emotive

by Tom Baxter: 21 Oct 2019

As someone with a keen interest in decommissioning decision making, I have followed the Brent decommissioning saga with that same keen interest.

A question that keeps coming up for me is why did Shell present such an open goal to Greenpeace, the press and others?

Bearing in mind Shell’s previous experience and reputation hit with Brent Spar, the decision to recommend leaving the concrete cells and their contents is, on the face of it, very perplexing.

Greenpeace’s actions and ensuing headlines were completely predictable.

Shell leave ticking time bomb

Shell ignore international regulations

Shell should clean up its mess

Come on Shell what were you thinking about, why did you make that decision?

Most decisions are made against a common set of assessment criteria:

Safety

Environmental

Technical

Societal

Economic

Shell used these criteria and presented their decision making case in the document BRENT GBS CONTENTS DECOMMISSIONING TECHNICAL DOCUMENT.  This work concluded that the best outcome was to leave the cell contents. You might argue that the outcome was biased due to the weightings used for the criteria but credit to Shell for being so open.

Shell has made a decision based upon the evidence gathered during an extensive Brent decommissioning project. Evidence though does not cut it when dealing with Greenpeace and the constraints of Marine legislation. As an engineer who passionately cares about the environment, I find the emotive, non-pragmatic, non-evidence based side of Greenpeace very troubling.

Greenpeace should also reflect on the public cost of decommissioning – with the PRT legacy of Brent the majority of the decommissioning costs will be borne by the taxpayer. Would it not be better if those public costs were directed at the climate emergency rather than the disputed environmental benefits of many decommissioning activities?

As a footnote I would like like to give credit to the hundreds of professional engineers I have had the pleasure to work with over a 40 plus year career – the vast majority of whom put safety and the environment above all else.

Tom Baxter is a former senior lecturer in chemical engineering at Aberdeen University.

SOURCE

royaldutchshellplc.com and its sister websites royaldutchshellgroup.com, shellenergy.website, shellnazihistory.com, royaldutchshell.website, johndonovan.website, shellnews.net and shell2004.com are all owned by John Donovan. There is also a Wikipedia article.

1 Comment on “EnergyVoice.com: Brent decom debate: Evidence vs Emotive”

  1. #1 Z Man
    on Oct 21st, 2019 at 13:32

    Tom has always been a great engineer who looks at problems from all sides. He has no skin in this game other than to lobby for the best science and solution in the common good of our people.

    He is widely published and speaks on the topic of decommissioning, and in my mind one of the adults in the room making a clear objective assessment of all the options.

    I tend to share his views on the CONDEEP structures, just leave them as a hard bottom and a landing spot for birds.

Leave a Comment

%d bloggers like this: