Case Study : Decommissioning The Brent Spar

Prelude

The North Sea has long been a rich source of oil

and natural gas. Over the years, oil companies
have established various storage & processing
resources for streamlining operations and
managing the logistical challenges of seabed
exploration. The Brent Spar was one such facility
installed by Shell in 1976 – an oil storage buoy
located in the Brent oilfield with the capacity to
store 50,000 tonnes (300,000 barrels) of crude oil.

In 1991 Shell felt that the facility had fulfilled its

The Brent Spar with Greenpeace’s message on
purpose and decided to close it down. the helipad. © Greenpeace

The company examined several options for disposing of the Spar, finally narrowing down to
two alternatives.

The first option was to tow the Spar to a shallow water harbour, decontaminate it and reuse
the materials. Unusable waste was to be disposed of on land. This option was considered
complex and dangerous to workers. Apart from costing GBP 41 M, there was concern that
the facility would disintegrate in shallow water, resulting in serious environmental damage.

The second option was to tow the Spar into deep water in the North Atlantic and sink it in
an area with limited flora, fauna and resources. The facility was expected to fall to the
seabed and spread its contents over a limited area. Since explosives were to be used -
which entailed risks - several scenarios were considered. First, the structure could fall to the
seabed in one piece, releasing its contaminants slowly and affecting the seabed for around
500 m ‘down-current’. Second, the structure might disintegrate as it fell through the water,
releasing contaminants continuously, affecting 1000 m ‘down current’ of the final resting
place. Third, the Spar could fall apart when detonated, contaminating the surface water and
impacting local birds as well as the fishing industry. It was believed that the first two
outcomes were more likely than the third. The cost of sinking the Spar in deep sea was
projected to cost about GBP 20 M.

Shell concluded that deep sea disposal was the best option for the Spar, based on their
analysis and risk management principles. They cited the lower threat to the workforce with
deep sea disposal and held that environmentally, sinking would have only a localised
impact in a remote deep sea region.

In selecting the disposal site they had conducted several surveys through Fisheries
Research Services (FRS) to confirm the topography in each area and estimating the
numbers of animals living in the sediment of the seabed. On the basis of FRS data, there
was little to choose between the three disposal sites and Shell finalised a site on the North
Feni Ridge.

In late 1994 Shell applied to the British government for permission to dispose the buoy in
the Atlantic waters at North Feni Ridge, off the west coast of Scotland. After review, the
authorities supported the plan and approved its execution in early 1995.

Page 1 of 3
Case Study : Decommissioning The Brent Spar

Action

Greenpeace soon became aware of the plan to sink the Brent Spar at sea. Having been
campaigning against ocean dumping in the North Sea since the early ‘80s - in some cases
physically preventing the dumping of radioactive waste and titanium dioxide - and lobbying
for a ban on ocean dumping through the Convention for the Protection of the Marine
Environment of the North-East Atlantic (OSPAR), they objected to the Brent Spar disposal
plan on several counts :
• They said that understanding of the deep sea environment was poor and consequently
the effects of the proposed disposal on deep sea ecosystems could not be predicted.
• The documents which supported Shell's application were ‘highly conjectural’, contained
unsubstantiated assumptions, limited data and extrapolations from unnamed studies.
• A precedent would be set, resulting in more contaminated structures being dumped and
undermining international agreements.
• Dismantling the Brent Spar was feasible, facilities were already in use and
decommissioning of other oil installations had been carried out elsewhere in the world.
• To protect the environment, waste should be minimised and harmful materials should
always recycled, treated or contained.
• Greenpeace also alleged that the scientific arguments for ocean dumping were being
used as a way of disguising Shell's aim to cut costs.

Four Greenpeace activists occupied the Brent Spar in April 1995. They collected a sample
of its stored contents and sent it for testing to establish its toxicity and volume. This sample
was however collected incorrectly, resulting in mistaken estimates of the volumes stored in
the facility. Although Greenpeace accepted Shell's estimate of the amount of heavy metals
and chemicals on board, they claimed there were more than 5,500 tonnes of oil left on the
Spar, significantly higher than Shell's estimate of 50 tonnes.

Greenpeace mounted a media campaign against Shell's plan. Disputing Shell's estimates,
they said that there were more contaminants than initially estimated. Their campaign was
so successful that in May the German government formally objected to the plan to the
British government. Holding out against the pressure, in May ’95 Shell finally obtained legal
permission to evict the Greenpeace protesters from the Brent Spar. They were taken by
helicopter to Scotland, where they held a press conference.

Continuing with their plan, Shell began towing the platform to its final position. By now, the
call for a boycott of Shell products was being heard across Europe, seriously damaging
Shell's profitability and image. Further, support from within the industry itself was not
unanimous. While oil companies supported Shell's position, offshore construction firms
would profit from onshore dismantling and consequently supported Greenpeace.

By end-June, with steeply falling sales and share prices, Shell decided that their position
was precarious and withdrew their plan to sink the Brent Spar. They accepted that :
‘Shell's position as a major European enterprise has become untenable. The Spar had gained
a symbolic significance out of all proportion to its environmental impact. In consequence, Shell
companies were faced with increasingly intense public criticism, mostly in Continental northern
Europe. Many politicians and ministers were openly hostile and several called for consumer
boycotts. There was violence against Shell service stations, accompanied by threats to Shell
staff.’

Page 2 of 3
Case Study : Decommissioning The Brent Spar

Aftermath

In early July 1995, the Norwegian government gave Shell permission to temporarily hold the
Brent Spar in Erfjord while evaluating alternate methods of disposal. At this stage Shell
commissioned Det Norske Veritas (DNV) to conduct an audit of Spar's contents and
investigate Greenpeace's allegations. Even before DNV submitted its report, Greenpeace
admitted that the Spar did not contain 5,000 tonnes of oil and apologized to Shell.
Subsequently, DNV’s report endorsed Shell's initial estimates for many of the stored
contaminants. Greenpeace clarified that its opposition to the dumping was not solely based
on the oil, but an integral part of a larger campaign opposing the dumping of any waste in
the North Sea.

Shell received over 200 suggestions about what was could be done with the Spar. One of
these, from the Stavanger Port Authority in Norway, suggested using it for their quay
extension at Mekjarvik. Using the Spar's hull would save money on new steel. In January
1998 Shell agreed to reuse much of the main Spar structure in the new harbour facilities
being constructed.

During the decommissioning process, Shell went by its estimates of the quantities of
various pollutants – Polychlorinated Bipheyls (PCBs), oil, heavy metals and scale (mildly
radioactive by-product of extraction) - which it had calculated based on the routine
operating cycle of the platform, and the quantity of metal that would remain in the structure
after decommissioning was completed. These estimates were critical to balance risk and
determine the optimal method to be used for dismantling the Spar.

The process of lifting the Spar, cutting it into pieces and transporting them to the site was
complex and time-consuming. While echoes of the environmental debate continued in the
background, the decommissioning process was finally completed in July 1999.

Your assignment

What are the key learnings from this Incident? List at least 5 and explain your reasons
(Each reason not more than 50 words).

Page 3 of 3