Oil companies evade the question of abandoned platforms by invoking renewable energies

When we think of the North Sea , we think more of the oil platforms that inhabit it than of the magnificent fine sandy beaches of Ostend. Many rigs, similar to the FSO Safer , now lie derelict, but neither the oil companies nor the countries that own them seem in a rush to dismantle them and clean up the region.

The owners of these installations prefer to leave them as they are, thus responding to their immense financial and strategic interest in having a presence in the North Sea in the era of energy transition .

The north of Mars does not present itself as a vast expanse of water without human activity. In reality, it is home to 615 oil (or gas) platforms accompanied by 23,000 small structures nearby. There is also a network of oil and gas pipelines totaling 43,000 km, as well as approximately 27,000 oil or gas wells.

However, according to data collected by the international research team led by 'Follow the Money', it is important to note that 10% of platforms are currently out of service , as are 8,500 km of oil and gas pipelines. In addition, 85% of wells have been abandoned .

No one really knows what's going on with oil rigs

According to the provisions of the OSPAR treaty, to which Spain is a party and which aims to protect the fauna and flora of the North Sea, it is stipulated that when an offshore platform ends its operation, it must be dismantled, the well plugged and the pipes either buried or removed.

North Sea, a corner of Europe where there are 615 oil (or gas) platforms with 23,000 small infrastructures around them, 43,000 km of oil and gas pipelines and some 27,000 oil or gas wells.

The problem is that very few people do it. According to the research team, about a third of pipelines and about 10% of rigs have stopped working, and that figure could be even higher, as many pipelines that are recorded as retired are actually simply out of service. In addition, the criteria defining what is considered obsolete vary from one company, organization or country to another.

To make matters worse, it was not mandatory to register cables and pipes laid on the seabed until 20 years ago . In the Dutch part of the North Sea, for example, cables have been installed since the middle of the 19th century, but not all of them have been recorded. It is therefore sometimes difficult to know precisely where they are and to whom they belong, as explains Jip van Zoonen, consultant and project manager on North Sea permits at the Rijkswaterstaat (executive agency of the Ministry of Infrastructure and water management).

Ultimately, no one has precise knowledge of what is actually in the North Sea, which structures need to be dismantled and when. What we do know for sure, however, is that the amount of abandoned infrastructure will increase over time . For example, Denmark announced in 2020 that it would cease extracting oil and gas from its fields in the North Sea by 2050 due to the depletion of its reserves, and it does not seem no longer profitable to exploit the remaining resources.

A game of finance and strategy

Why aren't companies and countries eager to dismantle idle or abandoned infrastructure? Apart from the obvious cost this entails, there is also a strategic reason for this.

The European Commission has estimated that the financial cost of cleaning up infrastructure in the North Sea will amount to at least €30 billion from 2020 to 2030. The cost associated with each platform and all surrounding infrastructure is also beyond the understanding of the General public.

To illustrate this, the hire and use of the largest crane vessels on the continent required to retrieve debris from the seabed costs the considerable sum of two million euros per day per vessel .

In cases where an installation is dismantled, most of the bill is usually borne by the country where the oil company installed the platform. For example, Norway pays 78% of the total cost, while the United Kingdom pays between 40% and 70%, depending on the agreement reached with the oil company. Thus, neither the oil company nor the state is in a hurry to dismantle these facilities.

From a strategic point of view , decommissioned infrastructure at sea is a crucial advantage in the energy transition, as it has the potential to generate significant revenue for its owners in the short term. Some companies are therefore using a legal derogation to delay the dismantling of their platforms and pipelines, as these could be reused for CO₂ storage.

The reuse of these infrastructures would make it possible to achieve substantial savings. According to the North Sea Transition Authority (NSTA), if just 50 of these pipelines were used for CO₂ storage , up to £7,000 million (€8,060 million) could be saved.

Additionally, with the growing demand for renewable energy sources for clean power generation, particularly if the hydrogen economy develops further, having abandoned offshore infrastructure provides oil companies with a new business model .

The more infrastructure available for reuse, the greater the role of the owner of this infrastructure in the deployment of new forms of energy, such as the installation of wind farms at sea or the storage and transport of hydrogen , becomes crucial. In fact, Europe plans to convert the North Sea into a green hydrogen production area, even by building artificial islands.

Regarding the ecological risk associated with these infrastructures, most participants seek to minimize it. They underline the importance of not disturbing the current balance of the ecosystem, which the industry has already altered during the first drillings. Additionally, many structures still contain thousands of tons of crude oil , and their lifespans remain unknown.

Most interested countries prefer to leave the facilities as they are. Only Belgium and Germany support the depollution of the area, but they are also the countries with the least infrastructure in the region.

In the end, the oil industry, like the banks, always comes out on top . The collective reminds that they do not have to bear the costs of depollution and that they play an important role in the energy transition at sea. This could bring them billions in profits and subsidies in the future.