Towards the sustainable decommissioning of fixed platforms by aligning ecosystem services and wind generation: a Brazilian case

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-1988154/v1

Download PDF

Research Article

Towards the sustainable decommissioning of fixed platforms by aligning ecosystem services and wind generation: a Brazilian case

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-1988154/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

Brazilian legislation, as well as others around the world, determines that oil platforms, mainly fixed, must be decommissioned at the end of the feasibility of exploring the oil field, however, it is not common to consider the loss of ecosystem services that sustain life, the biodiversity and make resources available to humans. Considering the importance of the ecosystems that developed in the substructures of platforms, this work proposes a solution to maintain ecosystem services together with the development of clean, economically viable wind energy generation. For this, a proposal is built based on climatological, geographic, and wind power generation market data that seeks to demonstrate the financial viability of the specific case of the Robalo 1 Platform, which is located about 50 kilometers from other platforms to be decommissioned, in the Sergipe-Alagoas Basin, Brazil. It was found that when minimally valuing ecosystem services such as artificial reefs and integrating wind generation for the sustainable decommissioning of the fixed platform substructure. From the point of view of net present value, the project proves to be viable.

Descommissioning

Offshore Wind Energy

Environmental Services

Oil Platform

Reuse

Sustainable Technologies

According to the Brazilian Ministry of the Environment - MMA (2020), ecosystem services are about the benefits that nature brings to people, being vital for human well-being and economic activities. Thus, they can be classified into ecosystem services of provision, regulation, cultural and support.

Decommissioning is the final phase of the life cycle of an offshore oil and gas exploration structure, when it is no longer viable to continue exploring, so all wells are plugged and abandoned (Kaiser and Liu 2014).

For Sommer et al. (2019), the knowledge regarding the environmental impacts with the strategies used in the decommissioning of platforms is still incomplete, since the simple removal of structures that have already been installed for decades, integrates the habitat of marine life and its total removal means the almost complete loss of associated biota.

Thus, it is necessary that decommissioning be planned within an ecosystem approach, and the valuation of ecosystem services considering the permanence of oil platforms is considerably relevant to demonstrate its importance.

This work aims to test the applicability of an ecosystem services approach for the project of non-decommissioning of fixed platforms’ substructure, considering the insertion of wind turbines that still allow energy production, partially taking advantage of these structures.

For the methodological development of this work, in addition to an in-depth bibliographic review, data are also collected from a climatological database and a geographic database, which allowed defining the allocation for the case study and the technical, financial and environmental analyzes to test the proposal from a commercial wind turbine model.

2.1 Legal Basis of Decommissioning

The first provisions that dealt with technical guidelines for the decommissioning of oil platforms in Brazil were resolutions of the National Agency of Petroleum, Natural Gas and Biofuels (ANP), which is responsible for regulating the sector, and therefore published Ordinance No. 25 of 2002 that “Approves the Regulation for Abandonment of Wells drilled with a view to the exploration or production of oil and/or gas" (ANP 2002) and Resolution No. 27 of 2006 that "Approves the Technical Regulation that defines the procedures to be adopted in the Deactivation of Installations and specifies conditions for the Return of Concession Areas in the Production Phase” (ANP 2006). However, without any mention of the environmental dimensions.

Ordinance No. 25 was revoked by ANP (2016) Resolution No. 46 OF 11/01/2016, which “approves the Operational Safety Regime for the Integrity of Oil and Natural Gas Wells”, and No. 27 was revoked by ANP Resolution No. 817 DE 24 /04/2020 which “provides for the decommissioning of oil and natural gas exploration and production facilities, the inclusion of land area under contract in the bidding process, the disposal and reversal of assets, the fulfillment of remaining obligations, the return of the area and other measures” (ANP 2020). There is also Resolution No. 41/2015 that guides the decommissioning of pipelines and subsea systems (ANP 2015).

Resolution No. 817 defines the decommissioning of facilities as the “set of activities associated with the definitive interruption of the operation of the facilities, the permanent abandonment and razing of wells, the removal of facilities, the proper disposal of materials, residues and tailing and the environmental recovery of the area”, that is, there is some concern with environmental preservation. The same resolution considers environmental recovery as “interventions that aim to restore its natural characteristics to the environment, such as the stability and balance of the processes originally operating in it or their suitability for the planned use of the degraded area”.

Following the technical regulation for the decommissioning of exploration and production facilities set out in Annex I of Res. No. 817, the facilities removed from operation, the equipment necessary to carry out the decommissioning, and the area where the facilities are located must be maintained by the contractor in safety conditions, to mitigate the risks to human life, environment, and other users, until the decommissioning process is completed.

Thus, it allows offshore platforms to be maintained as long as they are duly justified and meet applicable regulations, enabling the comparison of decommissioning alternatives, whose analyzes must adopt, at least, the technical, environmental, social, safety, and economic criteria.

Another point is that the installations that are partially removed or that remain in situ must not interfere with navigation, the marine environment, and other users of sea resources, and the person in charge of the Production Unit must present a semi-annual report and letter of the flag that the unit is is in satisfactory condition.

Resolution No. 854 published in September 2021, which “regulates the procedures for presenting financial guarantees and terms that ensure the financial resources for the decommissioning of production facilities in the oil and natural gas fields”, establishes that the parties involved in the process of decommissioning comply with and ensure compliance with the National Policy on the Environment and Environmental Crimes, being responsible for complying with the applicable environmental and socio-environmental protection legislation, including concerning its employees (ANP 2021).

The National Environmental Policy (PNMA), established by Law No. 6938, of August 31, 1981, and regulated by Decree No. 99,274/90, was constituted, among others, of the following instruments: environmental quality standards, zoning, environmental impact assessment, and environmental licensing. IBAMA was established, as an autonomous entity linked to the Ministry of the Environment, the executive body of the National Environmental Policy, with the main attribution of the execution of the policy of preservation, conservation, and sustainable use of natural resources, is responsible for conducting the processes environmental licensing at the federal level. (BRAZIL 1981).

IBAMA requires, as a condition of the environmental license (Operation License) of an oil field, the delivery of a Deactivation Project as one of the environmental projects that make up the Environmental Impact Study (EIA) (Teixeira and Machado 2012).

According to Luczynski (2002) the legislation on abandonment should contemplate, at least, the following aspects:

Protection of marine fauna throughout the process;

In case of transformation of the structure into a reef, define its depth, as well as the continuity and safety of navigation in the surroundings;

Ensuring monitoring, by a multidisciplinary team, of the deactivation process and maintenance of habitat conditions.

In Brazil, decommissioning activities are subject to the requirements of Resolution No. 001/86 of the National Environmental Council - CONAMA/IBAMA, which regulate the environmental impact analysis and the licensing process by the agency, and Law 12,305/ 2010 that governs the National Solid Waste Policy. By these regulations, IBAMA prohibits the on-site abandonment of subsea platform structures and equipment, in addition to launching into deeper waters and removal and disposal on land, requiring that such waste have an appropriate destination.

The main option to be considered for the decommissioning of platforms in Brazil contemplates the evaluation of the complete removal of the entire structure of oil production, however, the analysis of alternatives and comparative evaluation are contemplated by IBAMA, and options that prove to be superior considering criteria may be accepted. environmental, social and economic, however alternatives to total removal have not yet been employed (Oliveira 2017).

2.2 Ecosystem Services in Artificial Reefs

Unlike what happens in Brazil, Suzdaleva and Beznosov (2021) argue that the legs of offshore platforms can be used as artificial reefs to maintain the quality of the environment, bio productivity, and biodiversity of marine ecosystems.

According to the Brazilian Institute for the Environment and Renewable Natural Resources (IBAMA 2020) in its normative instruction nº 28 November 2020, an artificial reef is understood as a submerged structure, deliberately built or placed on the seabed to emulate the ecosystem functions of reefs and other natural substrates, such as protection of biodiversity, regeneration of degraded habitats, enhancement of marine biological resources and others.

Considering that emulating can be understood as the act of doing one's best to equal or exceed something (Cambridge Dictionary 2022), we can assume that the ecosystem services provided by an artificial reef are of equal value to those offered by a natural reef.

Bloung et al. (2021) show that by creating artificial reefs as new habitats, the expectation is that fish assemblages will settle there and that, at least, they will become similar to natural reefs, if not more diverse and abundant.

As exposed by Hylkema et al. (2021) when studying artificial reefs in the Caribbean, the main reasons for creating such structures are to create new dive sites, develop research, and support the restoration of ecosystems that encourage diversity. However, it must be considered that, regardless of its purposes, this new location must not negatively affect the surrounding habitat.

2.3 Offshore Wind Energy

Raymundo and Santos (2015) say that wind energy comes from the air masses that are used due to their movement to rotate the blades of a wind turbine, converting the kinetic energy of the winds into mechanical energy in the blades, which will travel through a multiplier, within the structure of the wind turbine, increasing the speed of rotation and transmitting the energy to a generator, which will transform it into electricity, which will be distributed to the grid.

Offshore wind energy is the use of equipment to capture the potential of air masses at sea, and although the operation of this system is similar to that described above, there are some particularities related to treatments due to the corrosive environment, installation costs, costs operation and maintenance, among others. Compared to onshore wind energy, offshore wind generation allows to produce more electricity, as the winds tend to flow at higher speeds than the winds on land, and large investments in offshore plants are expected in the coming decades, still considering the scarcity of land for onshore generation (Bilgili et al 2011).

Cavazzi and Dutton (2016) state that in terms of structural reliability, it is recommended that for generation in shallow water (up to 30 m depth) the foundation is of the single-pillar type; for intermediate waters (between 30 and 60 m) of the jacket type; and for deep water (deeper than 60 m), the ideal are floating structures.

According to Christófaro et al. (2013) the jackets that wind turbines can be installed on are lattice structures similar to a high voltage electrical tower, which has four piles to commonly attach to sandy ocean floors, such a structure is similar to that used in fixed jacket oil platforms.

According to Morthorst and Awerbuch (2009), wind conditions at sea have less turbulence than on land, and offshore installations are certified to operate between 25 and 30 years. In view of substantially higher installation costs at sea, service life extension is a possibility, but there are still no significant discussions on the topic.

Although there is great expectation regarding the exploration of offshore wind potential in Brazil, and some projects have already applied for Environmental licensing to operationalize, the Regulatory Framework to regulate the granting of authorizations for the use of offshore energy potential is still in the form of the legislative bill 576, of 2021 and awaits approval (BRAZIL 2021). The current text does not present restrictions on the reuse of jacket structures from the decommissioning of oil exploration to achieve exploration of wind potential.

For the economic valuation of the ecosystem services of the platform facilities, the values of the hectare per year of conservation in 1994 were used as a reference based on Constanza (1997), this value was corrected to July 2022 through the inflation simulator available from the US government at U.S. bureau of labor statistics (2022).

In this way, the addition of annual recurring revenue (ARR) from ecosystem services should be applied:

$$ARR=area x service value$$

3.1 Study Area

The Sergipe-Alagoas Basin was selected to develop a specific case because, according to Barboza et al. (2020), when compared to other offshore oil basins, has better characteristics to enable the installation of a wind farm. It could take advantage of the infrastructure of oil platforms, as it has a set of oil fields and exploratory blocks close to the coast, and a percentage of fixed oil platforms higher than other basins with offshore wind attractiveness. Such structures have low water depths and are permanently connected to the mainland by a duct (production flow pipe).

Within the Sergipe-Alagoas Basin, the Robalo Platform 1 (PRB-1) was selected, which had its decommissioning and request for the decommissioning process in 2021, located at latitude − 10.65353 and longitude − 36.63528, With a water depth of approximately 12 m. It is further away from the other platforms in this Basin, according to the Nautica Charter 22300 of the Brazilian Navy (Marinha do Brasil 2021), and which could make its allocation in a joint wind farm with the other platforms to be decommissioned in this Basin unfeasible.

This platform is located 4.7 km from the coast of the Santa Isabel Biological Reserve, between the Sergipe municipalities of Pacatuba and Pirambu, as can be seen in Fig. 1.

3.2 Wind Turbine Selection

For this scenario, was chosen the machine V164-8.0 MW, produced by Vestas Offshore, because it is one of the largest turbines in terms of generation commercially installed in the world and with a consolidated position, having obtained representative expression in European facilities since 2016. This is also the turbine considered by Barboza et al. (2020) which presents the worst scenario to enable the insertion of wind turbines as an alternative to the decommissioning of fixed oil platforms in Brazil.

The power curve of this turbine that operates with a cube at 118 meters high, represented in Fig. 2, was used to obtain the values related to power and energy generation with the implementation of this equipment in the study area selected for offshore wind exploration.

3.3 Determination of Wind Potential

For characterization and assessment of wind intensity in the selected study area, the average wind speed for the period from 1981 to 2010 was considered, using data from the Reanalysis Project, a comprehensive database with a vast period of information collected from radiosonde, buoys, ships, aircraft, satellites, and meteorological stations, with data compiled and that went through a quality control process, generating a preliminary product with input data for the data assimilation model (JENNE et al. 1993).

With the data obtained with the help of the GrADS software, considering the Law of the Wall, the interpolation was performed, changing the height (z) according to the height of the selected wind turbine hub. The average value of surface friction velocity (u_τ) obtained by the program was used, the von Kármán constant approximating to 0.4 and the estimated roughness length value (z₀) was 0.0002 meters, as it is considered a typical roughness value for calm seas (Picolo et al. 2014). For this purpose, the following equation was used:

$${u}_{\left(z\right)}=\frac{{u}_{\tau }}{k}\text{ln}\left(\frac{z}{{z}_{0}}\right)$$

To determine the production profile throughout the year, the Weibull distribution was adopted for the application of the probability density function (f(u)), which demonstrate the fraction of time that the wind is at certain speeds from the following equation (Mathew, 2006):

$$f\left(u\right)=\frac{k}{c}\text{ln}{\left(\frac{u}{c}\right)}^{k-1}{e}^{{-\left(\frac{u}{c}\right)}^{k}}$$

Based on UNIDO (2015), the form factor (k) was defined with a value equal to 4, the scale factor (c) was determined by dividing the annual average wind by 0.89, and also considering the amount of wind and its probability (u).

Associating the wind turbine power curve (P(u)) with the probability density function (f(u)) obtained by the operating time (t) it became possible to determine the Annual Average Energy Production (E) (Ko et al., 2015):

$$E= \sum (P\left(u\right)xf\left(u\right))*t$$

At the end of this step, the capacity factor (Cp) of the selected wind turbine was calculated, which is the ratio between the energy effectively generated (E) for the selected location and the nominal energy (En) da of the turbine that would be produced if it operated at its power 100% of the time:

$$Cp= \frac{E}{En}*100$$

3.4 Financial Viability

The methodology used to determine the economic analysis takes into account the average price of the A-4 new energy auction of 2022, as well as the exchange rate was considered at 5.1961 using the reference date of August 19, 2022, obtained from the Brazilian central bank (BACEN, 2022) and the US 10 year treasure rate with reference in the same date define the Minimum Rate of Attractiveness (MRA). These values were defined as they refer to the date of the most recent new energy auction in Brazil on the date of submission of this work.

In order to calculate the net monetary gain, discounting all expected future inflows and disbursements for the present date, and consequently assess the feasibility of the project considering a 25-year cash flow, the calculation of the Net Present Value was performed, which is mathematically expressed by (Horngren et al. 2000):

$$PV= \sum _{t=0}^{n}\frac{{F}_{t}}{{(1+i)}^{t}}$$

The NPV calculation made it possible, through the knowledge of the expected flow of future benefits (Ft), the period (t) in years and the defined minimum rate of attractiveness (i), to determine the Internal Rate of Return by equating the NPV to zero.

The basic technical characteristics of this wind turbine are shown in Table 1.

Table 1

Technical characteristics of the V164-8.0 MW wind turbine (Vestas, n.d.)
Item	Value	Units
Rated power	8000	kW
Rated wind speed	13	m/s
Cut-in Wind Speed	4	m/s
Cut-out Wind Speed	25	m/s
Rotor Diameter	164	m
Hub Height	118	M
Swept area	21164	m²

The average annual wind speed at 118 meters, considering the cube height of the turbine, is 6.07 m/s, but another relevant point is the low variability in wind averages throughout the year, as can be seen in Fig. 3.

The lower variability in wind speeds compared to winds in other oil basins, as can be seen in Barboza et al. (2020), can ensure better forecasts in the allocation of resources and guarantee of generation throughout the year, avoiding the underutilization of resources.

After calculating the average wind speeds at a height of 118 meters, the Weibull distribution was performed to estimate the probability of occurrence at a given wind speed in the area of the platform. The variations in wind speed used in the probability density function (f(u)), indicated that the portion of time that the wind is at a speed between 6 and 7 m/s is the highest, as can be seen in the Fig. 4.

By considering the average monthly wind speeds and the wind probability with the Weibull distribution, it was possible to calculate the potential energy production for each month, over which the positive and negative standard deviation was considered, as can be seen in Fig. 5.

It is noticed that the months in which there is a greater possibility of generating energy are October and November, with an average of 1895 MWh and 1982 MWh, respectively, while the months with the lowest potential are the months of April and May with a monthly average of 577 and 587 MWh, respectively.

According to Banigo (2010) typical dimensions of the marine surface area occupied by the oil platform jackets are 400 by 500 feet, that is, approximately 18581 square meters or 1.8581 hectares. Considering that the artificial reefs that are already found in these structures and restricting ecosystem services only to these areas, although according to Constanza (2020) they are broader, the ARR for this space would be US$ 22875.18 in July 2022.

To estimate Capital Expenditure (CAPEX) and Operational Expenditure (OPEX), the technical report produced by Valpy et al. (2017), considering an installation that is less than 40 km from the coast, a depth of less than 25 m and with an 8 MW wind turbine, so these values are presented in Table 2 in euros and converted to dollars.

Table 2

Expenditures by the comparative approach

(adapted from Valpy et al., 2017).
	Parameter	€/MW	US$/MW	Total (US$)
CAPEX	Development	92000	99016	9858544
	Turbine	1003000	1079489
	Array electrical	50000	53813
OPEX	Operations and planned maintenance	33000	35517	81796
OPEX	Unplanned service and other OPEX	43000	46279	81796

Support substructure and commissioning costs were disregarded, due to the proposal to reuse the facilities already used for oil production. The average price of the 2022 A-4 new energy auction was R$ 258.16, or through conversion on August 19, 2022, US$ 49.68.

In Table 3 it is possible to observe the most relevant results, which demonstrate the viability of this model of this model of “non-decommissioning” of oil platforms.

Table 3

Summary of Scenario Results
Power generation	14004	MWh/year
Maximum power	0.42	MW
Average power obtained	1.60	MW
Annual Average Capacity Factor	20.0	%
ARR Ecosystem Services	22 875.18	US$/year
Income	695 766.33	US$/MWh/year
NPV	1 508 446.42	US$
IRR	2.846	%

When analyzing the table, it is possible to see that the NPV is positive, representing that the investment in this project returns higher revenues than the expenses, and therefore, it would be feasible, however, the IRR is lower than the MRA, indicating that, under the assumptions of this case, the rate of return obtained would be lower than the minimum rate considered attractive by the investor, however, it is necessary to test other alternatives and point out that the gain with intangible assets, such as the image of the organizations involved before stakeholders, was not considered.

The generated energy is also attractive to collaborate with the mix of renewable energies in the Brazilian national energy matrix, although it was calculated only for a single wind turbine.

The meteorological data used indicate that the offshore wind generation, 118 m from the surface, has adequate speed for the operation of wind turbines, so even for a c wind turbine, in terms of energy generation, the use of wind turbines as an alternative to decommissioning of platforms proves to be viable, as it allows reducing dependence on other energy sources, especially if we think of a distribution structure for the municipalities of Pacatuba and Pirambu, which are very close to the lease and could benefit directly from the public energy network.

It should be remembered that the premises tested here assess the generation of a single isolated platform, and the financial additional for ecosystem services was restricted only to the artificial reef in the dimensions of the Platform, without considering the adjacent areas that integrate the coastal ecosystem services and that, if the extraction of the Platform occurs, its biological relationships may have a negative impact. Even so, without considering image gains, the permanence of the structure proved to be economically viable, since from an economic point of view, it is necessary to consider more than the positive NPV, but also the social and environmental impacts.

As this work presents some restrictions, it is expected that in future works, the analysis of a wind farm will be developed that integrates the platforms that are close in the Sergipe-Alagoas Basin, that the technical, economic and environmental viability will be tested, that others aspects will be evaluated of ecosystem services and that a more detailed cash flow is developed by proposing a minimum value for offshore wind auctions observing the model of other countries.

ANP (2002) Ordinance no. 25, of March 6, 2002. Aprova o Regulamento que trata do Abandono de Poços perfurados com vistas a exploração ou produção de petróleo e/ou gás. https://atosoficiais.com.br/anp/portaria-anp-n-25-2002-. Acessed 20 Aug 2022
ANP (2006) Resolution no. 27, of October 18, 2006. Aprova o Regulamento Técnico que define os procedimentos a serem adotados na Desativação de Instalações e especifica condições para Devolução de Áreas de Concessão na Fase de Produção. https://atosoficiais.com.br/anp/resolucao-n-27-2006-2006-10-18-versao-original?origin=instituicao. Acessed 20 Aug 2022
ANP (2015) Resolution no. 41, of October 9, 2015. Aprova o Regulamento Técnico do Sistema de Gerenciamento de Segurança Operacional de Sistemas Submarinos - SGSS. https://atosoficiais.com.br/anp/resolucao-n-41-2015-. Acessed 21 Aug 2022
ANP (2016) Resolution no. 46, of November 1, 2016. Aprova o Regime de Segurança Operacional para Integridade de Poços de Petróleo e Gás Natural. https://atosoficiais.com.br/anp/resolucao-n-46-2016-. Acessed 21 Aug 2022
ANP (2020) Resolution no. 817, of April 24, 2020. Dispõe sobre o descomissionamento de instalações de exploração e de produção de petróleo e gás natural, a inclusão de área terrestre sob contrato em processo de licitação, a alienação e a reversão de bens, o cumprimento de obrigações remanescentes, a devolução de área e dá outras providências. https://www.in.gov.br/en/web/dou/-/resolucao-n-817-de-24-de-abril-de-2020-254001378. Acessed 21 Aug 2022
ANP (2021) Resolution no. 854, of November 27, 2021. Regulamenta os procedimentos para apresentação de garantias financeiras e termo que assegurem os recursos financeiros para o descomissionamento de instalações de produção em campos de petróleo e gás natural. https://www.in.gov.br/en/web/dou/-/resolucao-anp-n-854-de-27-de-setembro-de-2021-348273146. Acessed 21 Aug 2022
BACEN (2022) Banco Central do Brasil. https://www.bcb.gov.br/?bc=, 2021. Accessed on 21 Aug 2022
Banigo PA (2010) Modern offshore technology and impacts on the oil industry. Dissertation, University of Port Harcourt
Barboza DV, Teixeira MA, Cataldi M, Meiriño MJ (2020) Evaluation of wind generation as alternative to the decommissioning of fixed petroleum platforms in the Brazilian seas. Anuario do Instituto de Geociencias, 43:455–466. http://doi.org/10.11137/2020_3_455_466
Bilgili M, Yasar A, Simsek E (2011) Offshore wind power development in Europe and its comparison with onshore counterpart. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 15:905–915. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2010.11.006
Blount et al (2021) Using ecological evidence to refine approaches to deploying offshore artificial reefs for recreational fisheries. Bulletin of Marine Science 97:665–698. https://doi.org/10.5343/bms.2020.0059
Brazil (1981). Política Nacional do Meio Ambiente. http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/leis/l6938.htm. Accessed 30 May 2022.
Brazil. Legislative Bill n° 576, de 2021. Disciplina a outorga de autorizações para aproveitamento de potencial energético offshore. https://www25.senado.leg.br/web/atividade/materias/-/materia/146793. Acessed 17 Aug 2021.
Cambride Dictionary. Available: http://dictionary.cambridge.org/pt/dicionario/ingles/emulate, Accessed 22 Jun 2022.
Cavazzi S, Dutton AG (2016) An Offshore Wind Energy Geographic Information System (OWE-GIS) for assessment of the UK's offshore wind energy potential. Renewable Energy 87:212–228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2015.09.021
Costanza R et al (1997) The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387:253–260. https://doi.org/10.1038/387253a0.
Costanza R (2020) Valuing natural capital and ecosystem services toward the goals of efficiency, fairness, and sustainability. Ecosystem Services 43:101096. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2020.101096
Christófaro BR, Nadal CA, Soares CR (2013) Study and Propositions for the Installation of Wind Turbines Foundations on the Coast of Paraná. Espaço Energia 18:1–11.
Hylkema A, Hakkaart QC, Reid CB, Osinga R, Murk AJ, Debrot AO (2021) Artificial reefs in the Caribbean: a need for comprehensive monitoring and integration into marine management plans. Ocean & Coastal Management 209: 105672. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2021.105672
Horngren CT et al (2000) Contabilidade de custos. LTC, Rio de Janeiro
IBAMA (2020). Normative Instruction No. 28, of December 24, 2020. Estabelecer procedimentos a serem observados no licenciamento ambiental para instalação de recifes artificiais, no âmbito das competências atribuídas à União. https://www.in.gov.br/web/dou/-/instrucao-normativa-n-28-de-24-de-dezembro-de-2020-296444001. Acessed 24 Jul 2022.
Jenne R et al (1993) The NMC/NCAR CDAS/ Reanalysis Project. College Park, NOAA.
Kaiser MJ, Liu M (2014) Decommissioning cost estimation in the deepwater U.S. Gulf of Mexico – Fixed platforms and compliant towers. Marine Structures 37:1–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marstruc.2014.02.004
Morthorst PE, Awerbuch S (2009). The Economics of Wind Energy: A Report by the European Wind Energy Association. European Wind Energy Association
Luczynski E (2002) Os condicionantes para o abandono das plataformas offshore após o encerramento da produção. Dissertation, University of Sao Paulo.
Mathew S (2006) Wind energy: fundamentals, resource analysis and economics. Springer, Berlin
MMA (2020) Serviços Ecossistêmicos. https://antigo.mma.gov.br/component/k2/item/15320-serviços-ecossistêmicos.html. Accessed 30 Jul 2022.
Marinha do Brasil (2021) Carta 22300: De Maceió a Aracaju. https://www.marinha.mil.br/chm/dados-do-segnav-cartas-raster/de-maceio-aracaju. Accessed 10 Aug 2022.
Oliveira BG (2017) Desfazendo Mitos Sobre a Atuação do Órgão Ambiental. Ciclo de Debates sobre Petróleo e Economia. https://www.ibp.org.br/personalizado/uploads/2017/08/03_IBAMA_Ciclo-de-Debates-sobre-Petr%C3%B3leo-e-Economia.pdf. Acessed 10 Aug 2022.
Pandit R, Kolios A (2020) SCADA data-based support vector machine wind turbine power curve uncertainty estimation and its comparative studies. Applied Sciences 10:8685. https://doi.org/10.3390/app10238685
Picolo AP, Rühler AJ, Rampinelli GA (2014) Uma abordagem sobre a energia eólica como alternativa de ensino de tópicos de física clássica. Revista brasileira de ensino de física 36:01–13. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1806-11172014000400007
Sommer B, Fowler AM, Macreadie PI, Palandro DA, Aziz AC, Booth DJ (2019). Decommissioning of offshore oil and gas structures–Environmental opportunities and challenges. Science of the total environment 658: 973–981. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.12.193
Suzdaleva AL, Beznosov VN (2021) Artificial Reef: Status, Life Cycle, and Environmental Impact Assessment. Power Technol Eng 55:558–561. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10749-021-01397-x
Teixeira BM, Machado CJS (2012) Marco regulatório brasileiro do processo de descomissionamento ambiental da indústria do petróleo. Revista de Informação Legislativa 196:183–203.
UNIDO - United Nations Industrial Development Organization. Renewable Energy Training Program. http://www.renenergyobservatory.org/br/programa-de-capacitacao/energia-mini-eolica.html. Accessed 25 May 2022.
U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS (2022). CPI Inflation Calculator. https://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm. Acessed 21 Aug 2022.
Valpy B, Hundleby G, Freeman K, Roberts A, Logan A (2017) Future renewable energy costs: 57 technology inovations that will have great impact on reducing the cost of electricity from European offshore wind farms. UK: InnoEnergy & BVG Associates
Vestas (n.d.) V164-8.0MW. https://www.vestas.com/en/products/offshore/V164-8-0-MW. Accessed 25 May 2022.

No competing interests reported.

Download PDF

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

Towards the sustainable decommissioning of fixed platforms by aligning ecosystem services and wind generation: a Brazilian case

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

1 Introduction

2 Theorical Support

2.1 Legal Basis of Decommissioning

2.2 Ecosystem Services in Artificial Reefs

2.3 Offshore Wind Energy

3 Research methodology

3.1 Study Area

3.2 Wind Turbine Selection

3.3 Determination of Wind Potential

3.4 Financial Viability

4 Analysis and discussion of results

5 Conclusions

References

Additional Declarations

Status:

Version 1