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.
Subject(s)
Environmental Monitoring , Oil and Gas Fields , Renewable Energy , Fossil FuelsABSTRACT
Thousands of artificial ('human-made') structures are present in the marine environment, many at or approaching end-of-life and requiring urgent decisions regarding their decommissioning. No consensus has been reached on which decommissioning option(s) result in optimal environmental and societal outcomes, in part, owing to a paucity of evidence from real-world decommissioning case studies. To address this significant challenge, we asked a worldwide panel of scientists to provide their expert opinion. They were asked to identify and characterise the ecosystem effects of artificial structures in the sea, their causes and consequences, and to identify which, if any, should be retained following decommissioning. Experts considered that most of the pressures driving ecological and societal effects from marine artificial structures (MAS) were of medium severity, occur frequently, and are dependent on spatial scale with local-scale effects of greater magnitude than regional effects. The duration of many effects following decommissioning were considered to be relatively short, in the order of days. Overall, environmental effects of structures were considered marginally undesirable, while societal effects marginally desirable. Experts therefore indicated that any decision to leave MAS in place at end-of-life to be more beneficial to society than the natural environment. However, some individual environmental effects were considered desirable and worthy of retention, especially in certain geographic locations, where structures can support improved trophic linkages, increases in tourism, habitat provision, and population size, and provide stability in population dynamics. The expert analysis consensus that the effects of MAS are both negative and positive for the environment and society, gives no strong support for policy change whether removal or retention is favoured until further empirical evidence is available to justify change to the status quo. The combination of desirable and undesirable effects associated with MAS present a significant challenge for policy- and decision-makers in their justification to implement decommissioning options. Decisions may need to be decided on a case-by-case basis accounting for the trade-off in costs and benefits at a local level.
Subject(s)
Ecosystem , Oil and Gas Fields , Humans , Consensus , Environment , ClimateABSTRACT
Scroby Sands offshore wind farm was built close to a haul-out and breeding site for harbour seal, a species of conservation concern. An aerial survey programme conducted during a five-year period spanning wind farm construction, revealed a significant post-construction decline in haul-out counts. Multivariate model selection suggested that the decline was not related to the environmental factors considered, nor did it mirror wider population trends. Although cause and effect could not be unequivocally established, the theoretical basis of hearing in pinnipeds and previous studies suggested that extreme noise (to 257 dB re 1 µ Pa(pp) @ 1m) generated by pile-driving of turbine bases led to displacement of seals. A lack of full recovery of harbour seal during the study was also linked to their sensitivity to vessel activity and/or rapid colonisation of competing grey seal. Any impact of offshore wind farm development upon pinnipeds would be much reduced without pile-driving.
Subject(s)
Phoca/physiology , Power Plants , Seals, Earless/physiology , Wind , Animals , Biodiversity , Noise , Population Density , Population Dynamics , SeasonsABSTRACT
Despite widespread interest in the impacts of wind farms upon birds, few researchers have examined the potential for indirect or trophic (predator-prey) effects. Using surface trawls, we monitored prey abundance before and after construction of a 30 turbine offshore wind farm sited close to an internationally important colony of Little terns. Observations confirmed that young-of-the-year clupeids dominated chick diet, which trawl samples suggested were mainly herring. Multivariate modelling indicated a significant reduction in herring abundance from 2004 onwards that could not be explained by environmental factors. Intensely noisy monopile installation during the winter spawning period was suggested to be responsible. Reduced prey abundance corresponded with a significant decline in Little tern foraging success. Unprecedented egg abandonment and lack of chick hatching tentatively suggested a colony-scale response in some years. We urge a precautionary approach to the timing and duration of pile-driving activity supported with long-term targeted monitoring of sensitive receptors.