See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/318209624

Subsea Pipelines and Flowlines Decommissioning – What We Should Know for a

Rational Approach

Conference Paper · June 2017

DOI: 10.1115/OMAE2017-61239

CITATIONS READS
4 7,688

1 author:

Soheil Manouchehri

10 PUBLICATIONS   42 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Canapu View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Soheil Manouchehri on 05 July 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Proceedings of the ASME 2017 36th International Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering
SUBSEA PIPELINES AND FLOWLINES DECOMMISSIONING – WHAT WE SHOULD
KNOW FOR A RATIONAL APPROACH
Soheil Manouchehri
Cyrus Oil and Gas Resources (CyrusOGR) Ltd., London, United Kingdom
ABSTRACT
Offshore and subsea decommissioning will increase in the
next five years or so as many producing fields are matured and
cease production while the oil price continues to remain low.
This emphasizes the need for a thorough decommissioning plan
to ensure a safe and technically feasible solution while it is
economically viable and safeguards the environment.
Offshore and subsea decommissioning is commonly
considered on a case-by-case basis using the Comparative
Assessment (CA) process in which the best decommissioning
solution is obtained. Health, Safety and Environmental (HSE)
considerations are always paramount in any decommissioning
process. The aim is to significantly reduce the long term risks to
other benefactors of the sea while the associated short term
risks to those responsible for decommissioning operations are
minimized.
A major part of any decommissioning project is subsea
pipelines decommissioning (by “pipelines”, it is meant to
include flowlines, trunklines and flexible too). There are a
number of techniques available for decommissioning of subsea
pipelines ranging from preservation for potential future use to
full recovery or leaving in-situ. However, each subsea pipeline
decommissioning technique should be considered on its own
merit. Selection of each decommissioning technique depends
on many parameters, inter alia, size of pipeline, type of pipeline
(e.g. single pipe, pipe-in-pipe, piggyback), type of conveying
fluid, operational environment (location), production history,
Inspection, Repair and Maintenance (IRM) records, HSE
considerations, connection to other facilities, technical
feasibility (including potential use of advanced technologies),
regulatory authorities requirements and socio-economic
considerations.
This paper will look at specifics of subsea pipelines
decommissioning. It will examine the procedures to be
undertaken from desk top activities (e.g. planning and CA) up
to operational activities (e.g. pigging, flushing, cleaning,
removal or leaving in-situ). Different scenarios are discussed
and potential advantages and disadvantages of each scenario
are presented. In addition, a guide is proposed for future
1 Copyright © 2017 ASME
OMAE2017
June 25-30, 2017, Trondheim, Norway
OMAE2017-61239
pipelines decommissioning projects to follow a rational
approach.
INTRODUCTION
It is expected that the number of offshore decommissioning
projects to be noticeably increased in the next five years or so
as oil price is expected to remain low and the cost of production
outweighs the benefits in many aging facilities, making them
even not commercially viable for life extension or preservation
for future use (e.g. in Carbon Capture and Storage – CCS –
scheme). It is expected that more than 600 projects to be
disposed of during the next five years alone [1], increasing to
total of 2000 projects in 2040. Europe will be expected to
absorb approximately 50% of this market. Therefore, spending
will rise significantly; from approximately US$2.4 billion in
2015 to US$13 billion by 2040 especially in the UK, Norway,
US, Indonesia and Australia [1]. An important part of this
market is the offshore pipeline decommissioning.
Offshore and subsea pipeline decommissioning should be
treated on a case-by-case basis using the CA process. There is
no “one-size-fits-all” approach and the options are influenced
by a wide variety of factors including – in no particular order –
the regulatory and political framework, water depth, pipeline
size, engineering limitations, safety concerns, environmental
implications, effect on other marine users, cost and stakeholder
interests. It requires a great deal of preparation and thorough
planning, years before Cessation of Production (CoP). HSE
considerations are always paramount and all attempts shall be
made to minimize the long term risks to other / future
benefactors of the sea together with lowering the short term
risks to those responsible for the decommissioning activities.
GOVERNING RULES AND LEGISLATIONS
There exists a number of international treaties that govern
the disposal of general waste at sea but with no particular
attention to the pipelines. United Nations Convention on the
Law of the Sea (UNCLOS [2]) – came into force in 1994 – and
Article 60(3) of UNCLOS in particular, permits “structures” to
be left in place or partially removed so long as the end result
complies with the International Maritime Organization (IMO
[3]) request for 55m of clear water above any obstructions. The
IMO Guidelines, setting out the minimum global standards for
the removal of offshore installations, were adopted in 1989.
There is no universal statutory requirement, standard or
recommendation practice worldwide to fully address the
pipeline decommissioning activities. As stated above, pipeline
decommissioning has not been included in the UNCLOS, IMO
Guidelines or the London Convention (Convention on the
Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and
Other Matter, 1972 [4]). In addition, the OSPAR Convention
[5] (Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment
of the North-East Atlantic, Annex III) contains limited clauses
related to abandonment of pipelines and applied by member
states as “general principle”. Thus, the decommissioning of
offshore pipelines is governed by the relevant national
legislations and whatever good practice applied elsewhere
internationally.
Countries with more established offshore industry (e.g. the
UK, Norway and the US); however, have developed local
legislations and practices over time which has been
implemented in their respective jurisdictions.
UK Legislations
In the UK, the Petroleum Act (1998 [6]) sets out the
requirements for a formal decommissioning program which
must be approved by the UK government before the owners of
the pipeline commence decommissioning. The program should
contain details of cost and proposals for preservation, removal
and disposal. There is also a Guidance Note under the
Petroleum Act stating that any decommissioning program must
be supported by an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA).
This is also required under the Marine and Coastal Access Act
(2009 [7]) and the Scottish Marine Act (2010 [8]). Furthermore,
the requirements of the Coast Protection Act (Section 34 Part II,
1949), HSE Regulation 22 (Pipeline Safety Regulations, 1996
[9]) and disposal of material onshore shall be satisfied.
Notwithstanding that, the pipeline decommissioning may
be deferred by the UK government, e.g. if the particular field
has not reached the end of its life, the particular pipeline can be
considered as a part of future field developments, the particular
pipeline has strategic importance to the UK or it can be used as
part of future CCS scheme.
Norwegian Legislations
In Norway, the Norwegian Petroleum Act (1996 [10]),
enforced by Ministry of Petroleum and Energy, regulates the
shutdown and disposal of offshore facilities but there is no
explicit reference to the pipelines. However, a white paper
entitled “Disposal of Disused Pipelines and Cables on the
Norwegian Continental Shelf” (Report No. 47, 1999–2000
[11]) prepared by a group of industry experts exists. It discusses
the best practice for pipeline decommissioning and assesses,
inter alia, disposal options, environmental impact, impact on
fisheries and cost.
2 Copyright © 2017 ASME
US Legislations
In the US, decommissioning activities is covered under
CFR (Code of Federal Regulation) Title 30, Chapter II,
Subchapter B, Part 250, Subpart Q [12] with the Bureau of
Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) as an
administrator. It ensures that pipeline decommissioning
activities and removal are properly performed to meet statutory
and regulatory requirements and do not conflict with other
users of the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). The “general
requirements” for pipeline decommissioning under the CFR is
to clear the seabed of all obstructions created by the offshore
block lease and pipeline right-of-way operation.
In addition, CFR requires that pipelines that are out of
service for less than one year (out of service pipeline is defined
as a pipeline that has not been used for more than 30
consecutive days) should be isolated with a blind flange or a
closed block valve at each end. For pipelines that are out of
service between one to five years, they should be flushed and
filled with inhibited seawater. After five years, the pipeline
should be decommissioned.
Australian Legislations
In the Australian water, the Offshore Petroleum and
Greenhouse Gas Storage Act-2006 (OPGGSA [13]) states that
the owner must remove “all structures, all equipment and other
property” that are used in connection with offshore petroleum
operations. However, there are other provisions within the
OPGGSA which allow the possibility of partial removal or even
abandonment in-situ provided that the associated impacts and
risks are acceptable and remain as low as practically possible.
PIPELINE DECOMMISSIONING OPTIONS
When initial decision is taken to decommission a pipeline,
there are a number of options available to the pipeline owner.
Beforehand, pipeline shall be pigged, cleaned and purged to the
level agreed with relevant legislations and standards (to be
discussed later). Then, further detailed assessments shall be
carried out to select the best option. The main pipeline
decommissioning options are as follows:
a) Leaving in-situ with minor corrective measures
b) Leaving in-situ with major corrective measures
c) Remove fully, reinstate the seabed and take to the
shore for reuse / scrapping
Leaving In-Situ with Minor Corrective Measures
Some pipelines may be suitable candidates for in-situ
decommissioning with minimal corrective measures which is
case dependent but generally mean rockdumping of the
exposed section, filling freespans, etc. Typical pipelines
suitable for this option are:
 Buried or trenched pipelines, including partially buried
pipelines
 Large diameter pipelines (mainly trunklines) which
likely to self-bury over time
  Pipelines that, if removed, may cause significant Figure 2) to accelerate pipeline self burial in sandy seabed or jet
safety and environmental concerns due to poor trenching in the clay seabed. These novelties can reduce the
structural integrity cost significantly and ensure pipeline safety.
 Pipelines that a suitable method of recovery cannot be
employed safely due to lack of technology or
significant cost
 Pipelines which EIA results indicate that, if removed,
they pose higher risks to the environment, assets or
personnel involved (offshore and / or onshore)

When a pipeline is considered for in-situ decommissioning,

it is important to have access to the detailed survey, operational
data and inspection / maintenance logbooks during its lifetime.
This will enable the pipeline owner to have a reliable prediction Figure 2: Schematic of pipeline spoiler to accelerate self burial in
of pipeline future behavior. sandy seabed
Pipelines that are left on the seabed without any
Full Pipeline Recovery and Removal
preservation measures would slowly corrode. Apart from
An alternative for decommissioning in-situ is to remove
environmental concerns, a corroded pipeline is more vulnerable
the entire pipeline and reinstating the seabed. This option is
to any damage associated with a third party (e.g. fishing).
probably the most desirable from environmental point of view
Therefore, to minimize the rate of corrosion, pipelines shall be
and other benefactors of the sea but it is not commercially
preserved and filled with treated water. Thus, following
attractive for the pipeline owner. However, in some cases, such
implementation of these measures, pipeline ends are plugged
as shore approaching pipelines, this may need to be pursued
and free ends are secured. If pipeline is concrete weight coated,
regardless of the cost.
it is possible to remove the concrete coating (if required) from
Removal of the exposed sections of the pipelines is
pipeline in-situ in order to plug the ends (see Figure 1). Survey
technically feasible especially for flexible and smaller size
shall be performed at regular intervals to check the status of
pipelines but it would be very difficult for larger diameter
pipelines. There should be an ability to replace the corrosion
pipelines. It will involve significant offshore operations
inhibitor every few years based on engineering evidence.
attributed to cutting the pipeline, lifting the pipeline sections
from the seabed and finally transporting pipeline sections to
shore (see Figure 3).

Figure 1: In-situ pipeline coating / concrete coating removal tool

(courtesy of Subsea7)

Leaving In-Situ with Major Corrective Measures

This option is similar to what mentioned above with an
exception that major corrective measures are necessary to be
carried out. This is to reduce the risk to the environment and
other benefactors of the sea.
The corrective measures could include rectifying the
freespans that may cause hazard (e.g. to the fishers), pipeline
trenching / burial for relatively long section, measures to ensure Figure 3: Pipeline removal by cutting (courtesy of Subsea7)
on-bottom stability, etc. The pipeline owner, under the
Currently, pipeline cutting can be carried out using water
regulatory authority’s guidance, may also install monitoring
jet, diamond wire cutter, hydraulic shears or guillotine saw (see
devices on the pipeline to check its condition after corrective
Figure 4).
measures are implemented.
Other options include reverse reel lay (see [14] and Figure
Use of novel technologies can become attractive in this
5) or reverse S-lay, even though it has not been used. Each have
scenario as it is likely to overweigh the cost of full pipeline
their own challenges regarding size, lifting capacity and seabed
recovery. Examples are specifically designed spoilers (see
/ environmental disturbance. Reverse reel lay can be attractive

3 Copyright © 2017 ASME

for smaller pipe sizes without concrete weight coating. Reverse
S-lay, however, is more complex but feasible by converting the
welding stations of the vessel to cutting stations.
Figure 4: Different pipe cutters (clockwise from top; water jet,
diamond wire cutter, guillotine saw and hydraulic shears; see [15])
Figure 5: Pipeline recovery using reverse reel lay (courtesy of
Subsea7 and [14])
Hence, it can be noted that, removal of the pipelines would
have some temporary impacts similar to activities required for
pipeline installation. In addition, the safe and environmentally
appropriate treatment of the removed pipes and associated
wastes must be ensured as they would have some
environmental impacts. Appropriate recycling of the pipeline
material should be considered when at shore.
Comparison of Available Decommissioning Options
As noted above, selection of pipeline decommissioning
method is dependent upon many factors ranging from pipe size,
pipe material and coating to seabed condition, burial and
waterdepth.
Recovery of large diameter pipelines (small diameter
pipelines are generally less difficult to remove) clears the
4 Copyright © 2017 ASME
seabed and conserves marine resources, but with some
environmental impacts, and probably some safety risks, and
involves considerable cost. The main beneficiaries of this
expenditure would be the fishing industry. Covering the
pipelines (i.e. trenching and rockdumping) is even more
expensive and could have little environmental justification over
removal. Leaving pipelines in-situ, with remedial actions to
make them safe would be the preferred scenario, unless it is
mandatory to clear the seabed.
Minor corrective measures can be employed to make the
pipeline safe and use of novel technologies could enhance the
chance of success (e.g. spoilers). Pipeline is cleaned and
flushed in this case and flooded with treated water making it
heavy to overcome forces of nature. The pipeline monitoring
technology is ever expanding and improving, enabling the
pipeline owner to carefully study the pipeline behavior over
time and react to any unforeseen circumstances. It could also
have an advantage of not disturbing the seabed habitat and self
adapting environment which has been developed over the years
of production and eliminates the potential contamination
onshore.
In addition, recent studies (see [16]) has shown that since
there is a high level of biodiversity in seabed (particularly in
deep waters; >1000m), leaving properly cleaned and flushed
subsea equipment, pipelines, etc. in-situ provides extra habitat
(substrate) for reef like animals, allowing other deep sea marine
life to accumulate around these reef-like organisms and
eliminating potential damages caused by man-made
disturbance. Hence, leaving pipeline in-situ could have
significant ecological benefit over the long term. Pipelines
would likely create in-situ deep sea habitat, increase
colonization and species connectivity and sustain deep sea
biodiversity.
PIPELINE DECOMMISSIONING PROCESS
A typical pipeline decommissioning process involves a
number of engineering disciplines and activities. This, inter
alia, includes:
 Gather the pipeline data (e.g. size, type, environment,
waterdepth, connecting facilities, crossings)
 Carry out engineering desktop studies and planning
including analyzing the production history,
chronological survey data and IRM records
 Carry out EIA (see later)
 Carry out CA of all possible options
 Prepare a detailed cost assessment
 Survey the pipeline and neighboring facilities (if
existing survey is not up-to-date)
 Carry out pipeline pigging, cleaning and flushing
 Carry out pipeline ends disconnection
 Remove subsea structures connected to the pipeline
(e.g. PLET, PLEM, SSIV, ILT)
 If required, apply corrective measures to the pipeline
(e.g. rockdumping, jetting, burial)
  If required, remove and recover the pipeline
 Perform post decommissioning survey
 Develop the strategy and operational handbook for
pipeline monitoring (if left in-situ)
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT (EIA)
The EIA process is a process in which the environmental
impacts of the proposed decommissioning method are
identified and it is aimed to prevent, reduce and offset any
adverse impact to the environment (see [17]). For the EIA,
example, biological value might be adversely impacted if
pipelines are totally removed, due to the loss of habitat that has
become established during the operational period of the field
(see Figure 7 and Figure 8). Another example is related to
pipeline coatings. Removing protective coating can release
hazardous gas to the sea or mercury and cadmium (from
aluminum and zinc anodes, respectively) believed to have a
potential for negatively impacting the environment.
Consequ-

Residual Frequency / Probability

Residual Impact / Significance
ence
activities that are likely to have an impact on the environment

Frequency / Probability

Residual Consequence
Final (Highest Rating)
Planned / Unplanned
or other benefactors of the sea as well as potential cumulative

Significance
and trans-boundary impacts are first identified. When

Environmental
Stakeholder
Mitigation and

Regulatory
Activity Aspect
identified, these activities are assessed to define the level of Comment

potential risk they can present to the environment so that, where

necessary, such risks can be removed or reduced through design
or the adaptation of operational measures.
The significance of any potential impact is determined Discharges
using a robust risk assessment approach. The significance of to sea
resulting
potential risk is then assessed against three drivers: Permitted
Shutting of from the
under Offshore
pipeline release of P 1 1 1 1 3 3 1 3 3
Chemicals
valves small
 Regulatory compliance (R): considering current and volumes of
Regulations
content
anticipated future legislative requirements and also fluid.
corporate policies Emissions
 Environmental impact (E): considering environmental to air from
generators P 1 1 1 1 1 1
No mitigation
measures 1 1 1
sensitivities and scientifically established measures of used to identified.
inject MEG.
the risk as well as perceived risk or concern Risks are
MEG
(precautionary principle) injection to
Discharges assessed and
to sea: permitted
 Stakeholder concern (S): considering other benefactors manage
hydrate
some under Offshore
of the sea (potential conflict / concern resolution), discharge of Chemicals
risk
MEG to sea P 2 1 1 2 1 2 Regulations. 2 1 2
interest groups and general public (perceptions and will occur Installation
when isolate procedures /
concerns) subsea work packs
facilities. will be in
place.
Defining what constitutes unacceptable harm to the natural Existing guard
environment ultimately depends upon what value society places vessel activity
will be in place
on ecosystem integrity and biodiversity. For example, in during field
addressing the environmental impact driver (E), broad scientific suspension.
In addition,
criteria will apply whereas in rating the factors represented designated
under stakeholder concern (S), wider concerns might be 500m
exclusion
applicable. For every aspect identified, the potential risk is zones and an
evaluated by combining the likelihood of occurrence Discharges
offshore
development
(frequency / probability) with the magnitude of the to sea
area are in
resulting
consequences for each of the three drivers indicated above. The place. These
from loss of
serve to keep
highest consequence rating score in any of the driver categories containment
Accidental other sea users
due to U 5 4 5 5 1 5 5 1 5
are then used (rated positive to severe). The overall significance events out of the area.
dropped
Increased
object and
of any potential risk is then determined from the risk matrix. possible
vessel activity
associated with
Once overall impact significance has been assessed, fishing gear
field
interaction.
appropriate corrective measures should be applied to each area suspension
could
of impact with the aim of reducing its significance. Once contribute to
mitigation measures have been applied, issues are reassessed to greater risk of
dropped
see if overall impact significance has been reduced. The objects.
outcomes for each of the potential issues identified are then However, it
will also deter
presented in the EIA matrix (see Figure 6). other sea users
Special attention should be made to the potential impact of entering the
area.
each decommissioning option when it is carried out. For Figure 6: An example of EIA matrix (Courtesy of BP; see [17])

5 Copyright © 2017 ASME

 Once the impact of each item has been rated as per
Quantitative Impact Matrix, the confidence in that rating is also
categorized as shown in Figure 10.

IMPACT

Criteria 0 1 2 3 4

Minor Serious Major Critical Catastrophic

Modified
First work or Lost Permanent
Safety: Risks to aid medical time disability
Fatality
offshore personnel injury / treatment injury / injury /
illness injury / illness illness
illness

Figure 9: Example of quantitative impact matrix

CONFIDENCE RATING

Figure 7: Marine growth around a pipeline (courtesy of Subsea7) Very Low 4

Limited definition and understanding of methodology, hazards
or equipment. Very high level of uncertainty.

Basic definition and understanding of methodology, hazards or

Low 3
equipment. High level of uncertainty.

General definition and understanding of methodology, hazards

Medium 2
or equipment. Moderate level of uncertainty.

High level definition and understanding of methodology, hazards

High 1
or equipment. Low level of uncertainty.

Detailed definition and understanding of methodology, hazards

Very High 0
and equipment. Very low level of uncertainty.

Figure 10: An example of confidence rating matrix

A matrix is then prepared and used to combine the impact

and the confidence rating, in order to arrive at an overall CA
rating for the criterion being considered (see Figure 11).
Each assessment criteria is then rated for each
decommissioning option, with the results recorded and
presented on an option-specific CA record sheet and a CA
Figure 8: Recovery of a flexible jumper covered with marine
summary sheet. The option with the lowest score is considered
growth (courtesy of Subsea7)
to be the preferred decommissioning option.
Other sources of contamination may also exist. Polycyclic
Impact Confidence Rating
Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH) can be formed from corrosion-
protective coatings made from asphalt or coal tar (typically Value Rating
4 3 2 1 0

found in older pipelines). Infield flowlines may have a Very Low Low Medium High Very High
protective and / or an insulating polymer based layer which 4 Catastrophic 24 22 20 18 16
may biodegrade in aerobic conditions over time due to creep
3 Critical 20 18 16 14 12
and water ingress. All of these pipeline specific issues shall be
thoroughly considered in EIA. 2 Major 16 14 12 10 8

1 Serious 12 10 8 6 4
COMPARATIVE ASSESSMENT (CA) 0 Minor 8 6 4 2 0
In order to compare different pipeline decommissioning
scenarios, each option needs to be scored against a set of Figure 11: An example of combined impact and confidence rating
matrix
assessment criteria (to be discussed later). The CA matrices are
then developed for each criterion. The application of the matrix Assessment Criteria
is considered as a solid method for comparing the relative As noted before, each option needs to be scored against a
advantages and disadvantages of the identified options. In order set of assessment criteria for decommissioning. These are
to accurately categorize the impact of each decommissioning discussed below in more detail.
option, a Quantitative Impact Matrix is used. An example of
such matrix is presented in Figure 9. Safety: The safety risks of different options must be
compared and assessed assuming that all tasks are being carried
out by competent personnel, fully risk assessed and all relevant

6 Copyright © 2017 ASME

mitigating measures are in place. These can include risks to
personnel, other users of the sea, third parties as well as
operational risks.
Environmental: The assessment and comparison of the
environmental impacts of each option will be based on the EIA.
Technical: The technical feasibility of each option needs to
be independently assessed. In order to baseline this criterion, it
should be considered whether all required technologies are
proven and in place (with suitable track record) and also
whether or not the complexity of proposed tasks are well
understood.
Societal: The impact of the decommissioning options on
the society (e.g. fishing, amenities and communities) need to be
considered. This is usually based on the outcome of a public
consultation.
Ongoing Liability: The ongoing liability must be
considered when evaluating the available options. If everything
is recovered from the seabed, then the liability will be almost
zero, which in turn will be classified as low. For any other
alternative, the liability must be compared with the option of
total removal as it will involve routine survey and put in place a
monitoring program that need to be agreed in advance with
regulatory authorities.
Economic: The economic impact of the decommissioning
options should also be assessed against the cost classifications
of the Quantitative Impact Matrix.
Cost: A detailed cost study of all available options should
be carried out in order to guide the pipeline owner to make the
most advantageous decision.
PIPELINE FLUSHING AND CLEANING
Before decommissioning of any pipeline, it is important
that its content is removed and pipeline is purged, cleaned and
flushed in accordance with the environmental requirements and
modern industry practice. This is carried out by mechanical
pigging and in multiple times. For small size pipelines that
pigging is not possible, cleaning and neutralizing agents should
be used to clean the pipeline and flush it through. The pipeline
content can be disposed via the host facility, re-injected to the
reservoir or recovered offshore via flexible hoses.
It is important to design the pig train by considering the
pipeline production history and previous IRM and pigging
records. Careful planning and preparation is required,
especially if the history of the pipeline is not well known. In
addition, special attention should be made to the type of
pipeline residue as it could block the pipeline during cleaning
and affect the pig train design and the choice of chemicals to be
used.
After cleaning, pipelines should be flushed with treated sea
water or filled with inert fluid. The cleaned and flushed pipeline
should contain less than 30ppm oil, sealed and left in place
[18].
A study commissioned by BOEE suggests that the current
industry practice for the flushing of out-of-service pipelines,
removes contaminates from the pipelines to the same level or
lower than that of seawater. Flushing volumes of 1.5-2 times
7 Copyright © 2017 ASME
the pipeline volume at a rate of 100gpm (circa 23m3/h) appears
adequate [19].
In addition, further studies by BOSE [20] suggest that for
sour service pipelines, flushing should occur within six months
after CoP. If pipeline is not sour service, flushing can happen
within 1-2 years of CoP.
POST DECOMMISSIONING ACTIVITIES
When pipeline is decommissioned, depending on whether
is left in-situ or removed, it has to be monitored. If pipeline is
fully recovered, the level of monitoring is minimal and is
limited to a survey after decommissioning.
If pipeline is left in situ, routine monitoring is required
based on pipeline condition and local regulatory requirements.
Therefore, the financial and (typically small) environmental
impacts of monitoring system(s) should be considered in cost
and planning studies. However, the very existence of
monitoring program could provide an opportunity of being
combined with the marine monitoring for other purposes (e.g.
seabed monitoring, endangered species monitoring), which in
turn broadens the scope of consideration beyond
decommissioning.
In addition, for pipelines left in-situ, the corrosion rate
should be monitored using non intrusive techniques (e.g. by
sampling the treated fluid via prepositioned ports). Monitoring
of the seabed (e.g. seabed movement or subsidence) especially
after a known event (e.g. after an earthquake) is also required.
Pipeline freespans, burial and scouring should also be
monitored.
USE OF NOVEL TECHNOLOGIES
Pipeline decommissioning could benefit from the novel
technologies as there is potential for added safety and reducing
the cost. Such novelties and new technologies that would be on
demand in the following years and could enhance the execution
of offshore pipeline decommissioning include (but not limited
to):
 Development of new tools and equipments for cutting
the pipeline such as laser cutting or explosive cutting
in order to minimize the risk and reduce the time
required offshore (see [21])
 Development of more cost effective, more accurate
and more reliable survey methods
 Further development of reverse S-lay concept
 Development of the method(s) to employ spoilers on
the pipeline resting on the seabed for accelerated self
burial
 Development of improved techniques, new materials
and tools to be used in cleaning of the pipelines
 Development of subsea cutting and lifting tool (similar
to Versabar VB10000 Claw that is used for
decommissioning of offshore structures)
  Development of advanced pigging equipments that
requires less hardware with increased efficiency and
control
 Development of more advanced and more reliable
monitoring and sampling techniques (i.e. no touch
systems) that require less operational time and will
result in more reliable data
STEP BY STEP GUIDE (ROAD MAP)
When proceeding with a pipeline decommissioning
project, a thorough and step by step procedure shall be
followed. The preceding step(s) may have a significant impact
on the subsequent step(s) to be taken which will finally
dominate the selected method and cost. As a general approach,
pipeline decommissioning should take into account the
following:
Pre-Decommissioning
1. Carry out desk top study and gather data regarding
production history, operational philosophy and
relevant geometrical, burial and crossing data
2. Review recent survey(s) and IRMs
3. Review recent pigging results including intelligent
pigging
4. Study the relevant regulations and governing
legislations in detail
5. Where possible, carry out a site visit to verify the
information obtained during the desktop study
6. Carry out a detailed EIA
7. Examine the availability of the waste disposal
facilities and methodology to be used
8. Study and document any potential effect on the marine
environment, inter alia, water quality, geological and
hydrographical characteristics, presence of endangered
species, existing habitat types, local fishery resources,
contamination potential
9. Prepare a detailed cost assessment for all potential
decommissioning scenarios
10. Carry out CA for all possible decommissioning
scenarios
11. Prepare methodology for pipeline pigging, cleaning
and flushing
12. If necessary, carry out a dedicated survey
13. Inform the regulatory authorities of the planned
decommissioning and date for CoP
14. Prepare offshore pipeline decommissioning study and
hand over to the regulatory authorities
15. Prepare detailed offshore action plan including the
disconnecting method, cutting method, plugging, and
type of vessels to be used, etc.
Decommissioning
1. Clean and flush the pipeline based on the local
legislative requirements and best industry practice
with special emphasis on protecting the environment
8 Copyright © 2017 ASME
2. Gather all waste and carry out waste disposal as
planned (during pre-decommissioning) in accordance
with the governing regulations and in an
environmentally friendly manner
3. Carry out removal, or partial removal, of the pipeline
in such a way that it causes no significant adverse
effects upon the marine environment
4. Ensure pipeline on-bottom stability if it is left on the
seabed
5. Rectify any pipeline freespan or any obstruction
created by the pipeline, if left on the seabed, so that
risk to other benefactors of the sea is minimized /
eliminated
6. Ensure the safety of the personnel and equipment at all
times
7. Prepare a decommissioning report and state the status
of the pipeline / seabed after decommissioning
8. Remove, clear or retrieve any large pieces of
equipment and material that have been accidentally
dropped on the seabed during the decommissioning
activities
9. If left in-situ, set in place / install monitoring
equipments, tools or systems to assess long term
behavior of the pipeline
Post-Decommissioning
1. Plan a pipeline survey and inspection regime over
time, if it is decommissioned in-situ, including a
suitable study to addresses the degree of past and
likely future burial / exposure of the pipeline
2. Plan a pipeline condition survey including the
corrosion rate, anode condition and protection coating
condition
3. Plan to survey the pipeline after a known event (e.g. an
earthquake)
4. Plan a post decommissioning environmental survey to
monitor the sea water quality at different locations
CONCLUSIONS
Offshore and subsea pipeline decommissioning market is
expected to significantly grow over next few years or so as
many producing fields will reach the end of their lives or not
commercially viable for life extension at present oil price.
Pipeline decommissioning will require detailed planning
before CoP and start of decommissioning operations. It
involves, inter alia, feasibility study of all potential scenarios,
HSE consideration, EIA, cost analysis, planning of offshore
operations, waste disposal and post decommissioning survey
and monitoring. In addition, there is no universal statutory
requirement, standard or recommendation practice worldwide
to fully address the pipeline decommissioning activities.
Therefore, the adopted method strongly depends on the local
legislation requirements, the pipeline owner approach and best
industry practice available at the time. Subsea pipeline
decommissioning is an evolving subject.
 Different options of decommissioning are discussed and it [3]. IMO – International Maritime Organization, URL:
can be noted that the best option is to leave the pipeline in-situ http://www.imo.org/en/Pages/Default.aspx , (last viewed,
with corrective measures. However, selecting this option comes Feb. 2017).
with additional obligation in terms of inspection and [4]. London Convention – Convention on the Prevention of
monitoring. Removing of the pipeline from seabed may not be Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter
feasible when it has been buried or its removal has more (1974), URL: http://www.imo.org/en/About/Conventions/
detrimental effect to the environment or when requires listofconventions/pages/convention-on-the-prevention-of-
technology / equipments which are costly. These considerations marine-pollution-by-dumping-of-wastes-and-other-
should be accounted for when deciding a decommissioning matter.aspx , (last viewed, Feb. 2017).
option. [5]. OSPAR – Oslo/Paris convention for the Protection of the
A “road map” and detailed “step by step guide” has been Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic, URL:
presented in this paper enabling future subsea pipeline http://www.ospar.org/convention/text , (last viewed, Feb.
decommissioning projects to follow a rational approach with an 2017).
aim of finding an optimized solution from safety, [6]. UK Petroleum Act (1998) – URL:
environmental, technical and cost perspectives. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/17/part/IV , (last
viewed, Feb. 2017).
NOMENCLATURE [7]. Marine and Coastal Access Act (2009) – URL:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2009/23/pdfs/ukpga_2
BSEE Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement 0090023_en.pdf , (last viewed, Feb. 2017).
CA Comparative Assessment [8]. Scottish Marine Act (2010) – URL:
CCS Carbon Capture and Storage http://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2010/5/contents , (last
CFR Code of Federal Regulation viewed, Feb. 2017).
CoP Cessation of Production [9]. UK HSE Regulation No. 22 – A Guide to the Pipelines
EIA Environmental Impact Assessment Safety Regulations (1996) – URL:
HSE Health, Safety and Environment http://www.hse.gov.uk/pUbns/priced/l82.pdf , (last viewed,
ILT Inline Tee Feb. 2017).
IMO International Maritime Organization [10]. Norwegian Petroleum Act (1996) – URL:
IRM Inspection, Repair and Maintenance http://www.npd.no/en/Regulations/Acts/Petroleum-
MEG Mono Ethylene Glycol activities-act/ (last viewed, Feb. 2017).
OCS Outer Continental Shelves [11]. “Disposal of Disused Pipelines and Cables on the
OPGGSA Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act Norwegian Continental Shelf” (Report No. 47, 1999–
OSPAR Oslo/Paris convention 2000), URL: http://odin.dep.no/oed/html/rapporter/14/ (last
PAH Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons viewed, Dec. 2016).
PLEM Pipeline End Manifold [12]. Code of Federal Regulation – CFR (2016) – URL:
PLET Pipeline End Termination https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/30/chapter-
SSIV Subsea Isolation Valve II/subchapter-B , (last viewed, Feb. 2017).
UNCLOS United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea [13]. Australian Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas
Storage Act – OPGGSA (2006) – URL:
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2013A00011 ,
The author would like to thank the management of Cyrus (last viewed, Feb. 2017).
Oil and Gas Resources Limited (CyrusOGR) for the financial [14]. Subsea7 presentation to Subsea UK,
support and allowing this paper to be published. http://www.subseauk.com/documents/michael%20odonnell
The views and opinions expressed in this paper are those of y.pdf (last viewed Feb. 2012).
the author and do not necessarily imply endorsements by the [15]. OGP Report No. 469 (2014); “Options for
company to which acknowledgements is given. Decommissioning Subsea Bundles”, www.ogp.org.uk.
[16]. Caulfield, K. (2016); “Joint Industry Project Seeks to
REFERENCES Advance Subsea Decommissioning”, Offshore, pp. 50-52,
December issue.
[1]. URL: http://subseaworldnews.com/2016/11/30/offshore- [17]. BP Exploration Operating Company Limited (2012);
decom-spending-set-for-growth-ihs-markit-says/ (last “Schiehallion and Loyal Decommissioning Program
viewed, Dec. 2016). Phase I, Environmental and Socio-Economic Impact
[2]. UNCLOS – United Nations Convention on the Law of the Assessment”, URL: http://www.bp.com/en_gb/united-
Sea, URL: http://www.un.org/depts/los/convention kingdom/where-we-operate/north-sea/north-sea-
_agreements/texts/unclos/UNCLOS-TOC.htm , (last decommissioning/schiehallion-and-loyal-fields.html (last
viewed, Feb. 2017). viewed, Dec. 2016).

9 Copyright © 2017 ASME

[18]. Smith, R.W. (2002); “An Assessment of Current U.S.
Pipeline Flushing Practices and Decommissioning
Requirements: How Clean Is Clean?”, 21st International
Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering
(OMAE2002-28036), Oslo, Norway.
[19]. Winmar Consulting Services (2002); “Assessment of
Current Pipeline Flushing and Decommissioning
Requirements – Research and Field Testing”, prepared for
BSEE (URL: https://www.bsee.gov/research-record/tap-
352-assessment-current-pipeline-flushing-and-
decommissioning-requirements , last viewed, Feb. 2017).
[20]. F101 Consulting (2012); “Timeframe for Flush and
Fill of Out Of Service Pipelines Based on Service”,
prepared for BSEE (URL: https://www.bsee.gov/tap-
technical-assessment-program/tap-692aa , last viewed,
Feb. 2017).
[21]. Burke, J. and Stokes, A. (2015); “Preparation for Cost
Effective Decommissioning and Abandonment of Subsea
Pipelines”, SPE Offshore Europe Conference and
Exhibition (SPE-175426-MS), Aberdeen, Scotland.

10 Copyright © 2017 ASME

View publication stats