FabSwingers.com mobile

Join us FREE, we're FREE to use

Web's largest swingers site since 2006.

Already registered?
Login here

Back to forum list
Back to Politics

Shell Decomissioning Clean-up

Jump to newest
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

Will this set a president for all oil companies to leave their mess behind?

A spokesperson for the oil giant said: "As part of this plan, Shell will recommend that the gravity base structures of three of the Brent platforms should be left in place.

"Work is continuing to prepare the Brent Delta platform ahead of its topsides being removed in a single lift operation, which is expected to take place in 2017."

WWF Scotland director Lang Banks said removing, or leaving at sea, oil industry structures was "not without environmental risk".

He added: "Given the potential impacts on the marine environment and other sea users, we will be carefully examining the final proposals that go out for consultation.

"The industry pushed the boundaries of science and engineering to access North Sea oil and gas.

"Having made massive profits over the last few decades, it's only right that it should push those limits once again to clean up their potentially hazardous legacy and protect the marine environment."

Scottish Green MSP Mark Ruskell said Shell has the "money, manpower and ingenuity" to come up with a safe method of removing the legs.

He said: "Unless there is an overwhelming environmental case for retaining some structures on the sea bed then they should be removed in their entirety."

So what do you think? Should Shell be allowed to leave them in place? or remove and return the seabed to what it once was?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

They put them there they should take them away again

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"They put them there they should take them away again"

yes but its not that simple they are huge volumes & mass of concrete contaminated with radiation (LSA)

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"They put them there they should take them away again

yes but its not that simple they are huge volumes & mass of concrete contaminated with radiation (LSA)"
.

That's the "hidden" profit of capitalism!.

It's entirely possible to remove them as safely as possible but the cost is a different matter, it's just like nuclear power plants!.

Who's gonna pay

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I think it should be a stipulation of the drilling rights that it is put back to its original condition at the company's expense.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"They put them there they should take them away again

yes but its not that simple they are huge volumes & mass of concrete contaminated with radiation (LSA).

That's the "hidden" profit of capitalism!.

It's entirely possible to remove them as safely as possible but the cost is a different matter, it's just like nuclear power plants!.

Who's gonna pay"

Indeed it is feasible to remove but as you say, cost is huge, I suspect many do not realise how large these legs are, I worked down the utility leg for 7 years, there is a lift in there to get you down to the 77 meter level. I cant remember if there is also 13 or 22 cells on the sea bad also, these store all the crude until it is pumped to a tanker, these cells will be contaminated with crude, sludge, sand and radiation, they must remain full or sea bed pressure would crush them

I also remember all drilling cuttings were dumped to seabed for the duration of time I spent there as well as many other materials being seabed to the seabed floor

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"They put them there they should take them away again

yes but its not that simple they are huge volumes & mass of concrete contaminated with radiation (LSA).

That's the "hidden" profit of capitalism!.

It's entirely possible to remove them as safely as possible but the cost is a different matter, it's just like nuclear power plants!.

Who's gonna pay

Indeed it is feasible to remove but as you say, cost is huge, I suspect many do not realise how large these legs are, I worked down the utility leg for 7 years, there is a lift in there to get you down to the 77 meter level. I cant remember if there is also 13 or 22 cells on the sea bad also, these store all the crude until it is pumped to a tanker, these cells will be contaminated with crude, sludge, sand and radiation, they must remain full or sea bed pressure would crush them

I also remember all drilling cuttings were dumped to seabed for the duration of time I spent there as well as many other materials being seabed to the seabed floor"

But the oil companies are quite happy to make billions of dollars for years then not spend a couple of billion to decommission the rigs proporely

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"They put them there they should take them away again

yes but its not that simple they are huge volumes & mass of concrete contaminated with radiation (LSA).

That's the "hidden" profit of capitalism!.

It's entirely possible to remove them as safely as possible but the cost is a different matter, it's just like nuclear power plants!.

Who's gonna pay

Indeed it is feasible to remove but as you say, cost is huge, I suspect many do not realise how large these legs are, I worked down the utility leg for 7 years, there is a lift in there to get you down to the 77 meter level. I cant remember if there is also 13 or 22 cells on the sea bad also, these store all the crude until it is pumped to a tanker, these cells will be contaminated with crude, sludge, sand and radiation, they must remain full or sea bed pressure would crush them

I also remember all drilling cuttings were dumped to seabed for the duration of time I spent there as well as many other materials being seabed to the seabed floor

But the oil companies are quite happy to make billions of dollars for years then not spend a couple of billion to decommission the rigs proporely "

It is only a proposal being put forward from Shell at this moment; it is not definite.

Remember the Spar has already been abandoned to the seabed many years back

I suspect Greenpeace will be on top of this as we speak and it is also up to the public individuals to forward their views on this as public consideration is taken into account.

Heck this is bringing back many memories of the Brent delta, good and bad memories, lost many good friends on that platform, many good friends

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
Post new Message to Thread
back to top