Offshore Structures: Disposal (Hansard, 12 June 1995)

§ Lord Inglewood
My Lords, the disposal of offshore oil and gas installations will be considered on a case-by-case basis, in line with our international commitments. If deep-sea disposal is an option, the presence of potentially hazardous substances and their implications for human health and the environment, together with the practicable steps proposed for their removal, would be an essential element of any assessment.

§ Lord Rea
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer, the first part of which was predictable. I found the second part helpful and useful. Does the noble Lord not believe that dismantling onshore is a perfectly feasible option and no more costly, even for the Brent Spar, which is currently in the news, with the possible exception of a few concrete structures? Does he not recognise that, as well as avoiding the unpredictable effects of possible contaminants in the open sea, the option of dismantling ashore provides orders for a declining industry and thus 1537 saves unemployment benefit, and provides large amounts of material, such as structural steel, which is highly suitable for recycling?

§ Lord Inglewood
My Lords, the manner in which any particular structure might be dismantled obviously depends on its inherent characteristics. That in turn will determine what the cost might be. I understand that in the case of the Brent Spar, to which reference has been made, the cost of horizontal dismantling on shore would be of the order of £45 million, while deep water disposal would be of the order of £11 million.

Lord Campbell of Croy
My Lords, does my noble friend recall that the decommissioning of offshore structures was fully discussed in this House during the passage, as a Bill, of the Petroleum Act 1987, which did provide for each to be considered individually in accordance with the policy of the International Maritime Organisation? Has he noted that marine scientists suggest that the deep ocean is the most suitable place for disposal, in certain circumstances; for example, in a letter in The Times on 22nd May?

§ Lord Inglewood
I am very grateful to my noble friend for his two comments. As regards the first part of his comments relating to the Petroleum Act 1987, I myself was not a Member of your Lordships' House in those days, but the Government have a collective memory. He is absolutely right, in that these provisions determine our policy as regards these matters in accordance with our international obligations. As far as the disposal of structures is concerned, my noble friend is absolutely right. There are certain circumstances when the clear, scientific view appears to be that the most environmentally benign way of dealing with the problem is the way which my noble friend has described.

§ Lord Dean of Beswick
My Lords, can the Minister tell us under whose authority we can give permission for someone to sink an installation of this kind into the Atlantic, bearing in mind that no more than any other country do we own those waters? Is there some international agreement? Is the Minister aware that on the news this morning, when reference was made to the protestations of Greenpeace, a spokesman on behalf of the company which is to sink this oil installation said that the adverse effects would be negligible? Cannot that word be much misused? Is it negligible to the public in general? It is certainly negligible to the oil company, which will save a great deal of money. Is the Minister aware that everyone agreed with the view taken?

§ Lord Inglewood
My Lords, I did not see the matter to which the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, refers. From the statement it is not clear what everybody agrees with. The legal position as regards this kind of matter is complicated, but, once it has been unravelled, it is relatively straightforward. Under international law, the London Convention applies, together with the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. As regards the North East Atlantic, the provisions of the London Convention are supplemented by the Oslo and Paris Conventions, which in turn are being subsumed in another convention which this country has ratified but not yet implemented in domestic law. I refer to the OSPAR Convention.
1538 As far as this particular proposal is concerned, three permits were required before the structure can be lawfully sunk in the manner proposed. First, approval is needed under an abandonment programme. This is granted under the Petroleum Act 1987, to which my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy referred. Secondly, a licence is necessary under the Food and Environment Protection Act, which implements our obligations under international law. Finally, in this instance, a licence is needed under the Radioactive Substances Act 1993.

§ Baroness Nicol
My Lords, can the noble Lord explain something about the amount and type of hazardous substances that are present in such structures? In the event of disposal at sea, who is responsible for checking that the hazardous substances have been disposed of and who will monitor the situation thereafter?

§ Lord Inglewood
My Lords, we are talking about a generalised description of offshore installations. Clearly, what is required will be decided on case-by-case basis. The detail of what is proposed to be done in taking off all the bits of the structure that can be removed before any sinking might take place is described in the abandonment programme and then becomes a legal obligation. I understand that the Brent Spar installation contains about 100 tonnes of toxic sludge, of which about 90 per cent. is sand. The rest comprises heavy, stable oil residues somewhat similar to bitumen. I understand that within that bitumen is a very small proportion of heavy metals which are not significantly different from those found in a similar weight of plankton or marine sediment. In addition, something like 30 tonnes of scaling, of a very low level of radioactivity, derive from the oil which comes through the terminal. In terms of its power, that amounts to about the same as would emanate from a group of granite houses in Aberdeen and is many orders of magnitude within international standards. In addition, there is paint on the structure, as well as some sacrificial anodes which are zinc-corrosion preventers. Everything on the structure is being removed—down to the last lightbulb.

§ Lord Rea
My Lords, with regard to the cost of onshore dismantling of the Brent Spar, is the Minister aware of the detailed engineering feasibility report by Schmidt Engineering of Rotterdam which was given to Shell in 1992 and which stated that the installation could be dismantled at a cost of less than £10 million, which is less than one-quarter of the sum which has been quoted by Shell? Is not that another reason for putting on hold the decision to dump the Brent Spar in the Atlantic?

§ Lord Inglewood
My Lords, I am not aware of the report to which the noble Lord refers. However, the proposals which were considered in the abandonment programme were checked by Her Majesty's Government when forming a view on the merits of the prospective options of either dismantling onshore or using deep-water disposal. Another point that I believe to be relevant is that it is estimated that in terms of human safety, it is likely to be six times more dangerous to dismantle onshore than to have deep-sea disposal.

§ Lord Skelmersdale
My Lords, will my noble friend accept my congratulations on both the volume and quality of the information that he has given to the House this afternoon?

§ Lord Inglewood
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend, but of course it depends on the quality of the briefing.

§ Baroness Nicol
My Lords, in his otherwise very clear answer to me, the noble Lord did not mention monitoring. Will be now answer my question about who will be responsible for monitoring, since presumably we are talking about international waters?

§ Lord Inglewood
My Lords, I know that it is monitored, but I cannot recall whether by the British Government or the Oslo Commission. However, I assure the House that the company is liable for any results that may arise from the material that is disposed of in the sea.

§ Lord Clinton-Davis
My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that when he said, "This is a complicated issue but once unravelled is relatively straightforward", he should have used the adjective "confused"? Is it not a fact that decommissioning onshore is more expensive, but that that cost can be offset against tax, so that the taxpayer picks up 60 per cent. of the burden under relief that was afforded by Mr. John Major when he was either Chancellor or Chief Secretary to the Treasury? Has not this decision rather more to do with cost than with the environment?

§ Lord Inglewood
My Lords, the answer to the noble Lord's first question is "yes", and to the second, it is "no". This matter was dealt with in accordance with the provisions laid down by Parliament and our international obligations.

§ Lord Brougham and Vaux
My Lords, does not my noble friend agree that, when dismantling one of these objects, the cost of human life cannot be offset against tax?

§ Lord Inglewood
My Lords, of course.