Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
MCDA APPLIED TO DECOMMISSIONING IN BRAZIL
Prof. MARCELO IGOR LOURENÇO DE SOUZA
CURRENT SCENARIO - DECOMMISSIONING
Source: Adapted from ANP
CURRENT SCENARIO - DECOMMISSIONING
Approved programs
Programs under review• 458Km of Flexible Pipes• 53Km of Rigid Pipelines• 14 Manifolds
P-07Bicudo
P-12Linguado
P-15Piraúna
PLET/PLEM
Risers
Manifolds
FlowlinesUmbilicais
Pipelines
TYPICAL INFRASTRUCTURE IN BRAZIL
SUBSEA PRODUCTION SYSTEMS
Well Plug & Abandonment
Platform Removal
Manifolds, PLETs, PLEMs, Xmas trees, flowlines, pipelines
PROJECT
DECOMISSIONING PHASES
R&D INVESTIMENTS IN BRAZIL
Volume of bonds generated per year (up to the 2ndquarter of 2019)
0,0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1,0
1,2
1,4
1,6
1,8
2,0
2,21
99
8
19
99
20
00
20
01
20
02
20
03
20
04
20
05
20
06
20
07
20
08
20
09
20
10
20
11
20
12
20
13
20
14
20
15
20
16
20
17
20
18
20
19
(Em
bilh
õe
s)
Petrobras Demais empresasANP(2019)
US$ 0.5 billions
• Law No. 9,478: In concessioncontracts: 1% (one percent) of thegross revenue from field productionthat pay Special Participation
• 18 oil companies that have interests inthe oil and natural gas producing fields
RIGID PIPES
ClassCarbon (%)
(máx)
Manganese
(%) (máx)
Phosphor
(%) (máx)
Sulfur (%)
(máx)
Titanium
(%) (máx)
X42 0.28 1.30 0.030 0.030 0.04
X46, X52, X56 0.28 1.40 0.030 0.030 0.04
X60 0.28 1.40 0.030 0.030 0.04
X65, X70 0.28 1.40 0.030 0.030 0.06
FLEXIBLE PIPES
Layer Metallic Material
Carcass
Carbon steel, ferritic stainless steels (AISI 409 and
AISI 430), austenitic steels (AISI 304, AISI 304L,
AISI 316, AISI 316L) or duplex (UNS S31803),
nickel alloys (UNS N08825).
Pressure ArmorLow, medium or high carbon steel with tensile
strength between 700-900 MPa.
Tension ArmorLow, medium or high carbon steel, depending on
service conditions.
Layer Polymeric Material
Pressure Barrier PEAD, XLPE, PA-11, PA-12, PVDF
External Barrier PEAD, PA-11, PA-12
Insulation PP, PVC, PU
DECISION MAKING PROCESS – 5 CRITERIA
Source: Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) – Guidance Notes
Technical
Environmental
Societal
Safety
EconomicLa
ws a
nd
Sta
nd
ard
s
How to consider UNCERTAINTIES?
How to determine the influence of the CRITERIA WEIGHTS ?
COMPARATIVE ASSESSMENT (CA) AND MCDA
ComparativeAssessment MCDA
Easy to implement
Simpler and effective
Complex to implement
Considers
• The perception of each decision maker
• Weights• Preference functions
HOW TO IDENTIFY THE DECISION MAKER PREFERENCES
WITHIN EACH CRITERIA ?
Diference
0
1
Sco
re
Absolut
Cut and Lift
Reverse Reeling
US$ 1.000.000,00
US$ 1.000.001,00
Diference
0
1
Sco
re
Relative
100.000US$
CASE STUDY – CAÇÃO FIELD❑ Rigid Pipe❑ Water Depth: 19 meters❑ Distance from shore: 7.000 meters❑ 9.000 meters – subsea pipes❑ Diameter: 6 inches
CONSIDERED ALTERNATIVES
PIP
ES
Full Recovery
Reverse S-Lay / J-Lay
Cutting and Lifting ofSections
Reverse Reeling
Leave in-situNo intervention
Partial Recovery
Recovery of exposedsections and bury of the
pipe-ends
Recovery of exposedsections and rock-dump
pipe-ends
SUBCRITERIA – ACCORDING TO DNV’S GUIDELINE FOR BRAZIL
• Risks to personnel offshore
• Risks to other users of the sea
• Risks to personnel onshore
• Risks to public onshore
1. Safety
• Impacts on marine environment
• Impacts to onshore environment
• Risks of dissemination of invasive species
• Generation of waste
• Emissions
• Risks of oil spill
• Risks of legacy (left in situ)
2. Environmental
• Societal impacts onshore
• Impacts on fisheries
• Impacts on employment
3. Societal
• Technical feasibility of the projects4. Technical
• Cost of the Project 5. Economic
DNV
SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
Expert 1 Expert 2 Expert 3
Safety 29,8 31,4 19,9
Environmental 29,8 36,4 47,5
Societal 5,3 15,9 19,9
Technical 24,9 10,8 8,3
Economic 10,2 5,6 4,4
Sum 100 100 100
Average
Safety 27,0
Environmental 37,9
Societal 13,7
Technical 14,6
Economic 6,7
Safety 20,0
Environmental 20,0
Societal 20,0
Technical 20,0
Economic 20,0
Sum 100,0
SIMOS METHOD
SAME WEIGHT BETWEEN
SUBCRITERIA
SAME WEIGHT
BETWEEN CRITERIA
Subcriteria Weight
Risk to offshore personnel 6,25
Risk to other users of the sea 6,25
Risk to onshore personnel 6,25
Risk to onshore public 6,25
Impacts to marine environment 6,25
Impacts to onshore environment 6,25
Risk of invasive species dissemination 6,25
Waste 6,25
GHG emissions 6,25
Risk of spills to marine environment 6,25
Risk to marine environment from insitu legacy6,25
Social impacts on land 6,25
Impacts on fishing 6,25
Impacts on employment 6,25
Impacts to project technical feasibility 6,25
Cost of the project 6,25
Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4
Criteria Sub-criteria Unit Minimum Most likely Maximum MinimumMost likely
Maximum Minimum Most likely Maximum Minimum Most likely Maximum
Safety
Risk to offshore personnel
Potencial loss of life (PLL)
1.28E-04 5.08E-04 9.66E-04 1.81E-04 6.82E-04 1.38E-03 1.64E-03 5.97E-03 1.70E-02 1.57E-03 5.35E-03 8.31E-03
Risk to other users of the sea
Potencial loss of life (PLL)
0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 4.22E-04 1.69E-03 3.80E-03 6.79E-05 3.19E-04 9.57E-04 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00
Risk to onshore personnel
Potencial loss of life (PLL)
2.10E-04 8.79E-04 1.62E-03 3.26E-04 1.37E-03 2.84E-03 1.02E-03 3.71E-03 9.81E-03 7.56E-04 2.73E-03 4.10E-03
Risk to onshore publicPotencial loss of life
(PLL)0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 5.89E-04 1.65E-03 4.57E-03 6.48E-05 2.07E-04 3.51E-04
Environmental
Impacts to marine environment
Qualitative impact scores
7.5 13.7 29.2 11.5 24.2 49.3 18.0 36.5 73.2 15.3 32.7 73.2
Impacts to onshore environment
Qualitative impact scores
1.0 2.0 5.8 1.0 2.7 7.0 2.3 4.6 9.3 2.0 4.2 9.3
WasteAmount of generated
waste (ton)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 256.5 342.0 513.0 256.5 342.0 513.0
GHG emissionsAmount of GHG
emissions (ton of CO2-eq)
10,411.2 13,881.7 20,822.5 14,055.2 18,740.2 28,110.3 20,822.5 27,763.3 41,645.0 18,219.7 24,292.9 36,439.3
Risk of invasive species dissemination
Qualitative risk scores 4.9 6.6 10.0 4.9 6.6 10.0 5.3 7.3 10.5 5.3 7.3 10.5
Risk of spills to marine environment
Quelitative risks score 6.0 9.0 12.0 6.0 9.0 12.0 9.0 12.0 12.0 9.0 12.0 12.0
Risk to marine environment from
insitu legacyQualitative risk scores 2.0 4.0 8.0 2.0 4.0 8.0 1.0 2.0 4.0 1.0 2.0 4.0
Social
Social impacts on landQualitative impact
scores2.9 5.3 13.8 3.3 8.0 18.0 11.4 24.7 41.5 7.7 17.5 37.5
Impacts on fishing
Fishing grounds interference x duration
of interference x number of disturbed
fisherman (Km2-years-fishermen)
220.0 720.0 2,560.0 241,600.01,008,000.
03,880,960.0 5,253,500.0
26,020,800.0
144,153,600.0
3,752,500.0
20,016,000.0
120,128,000.0
Impacts on employment
Number of employment x years
140.4 110.6 112.3 68.1 70.8 81.1 52.1 53.7 52.1 76.0 77.1 81.1
TechnicalImpacts to project technical feasibility
Numerical score 8 9 16 17 23 28 21 28 35 20 27 32
Economic Cost Cost value ($) 904,500 1,715,000 4,230,000 1,028,250 2,155,000 5,467,500 10,304,500 19,790,000 44,355,000 4,320,000 9,540,000 25,650,000
UNCERTAINTIES - MAX, MIN AND MOST LIKELY
RESULTS
SIMOS METHOD SAME WEIGHT BETWEEN
SUBCRITERIA
SAME WEIGHT BETWEEN CRITERIA
Which improvements to the subcriteria can be suggested for the Brazilian scenario?
STAKEHOLDERS ENGAGEMENT
Stakeholders from the following segments were invited:
• Government;
• National and International environmental and social NGOs;
• Operators and Service Providers;
• Universities and research centers;
• Employees representatives;
• Artisanal and industrial fisheries and tourism.
FormsCritical Points
Groups Subcriteria
EXAMPLE: ENVIRONMENTAL SUBCRITERIA
ENVIRONMENTAL SUBCRITERIA
Hard bottom communities (HB)
Soft bottom communities (SB)
Demersal nekton (DN)
Pelagic nekton (PN)
Plankton (PL)
Marine Protected Areas (PA)
Demersal Nekton
PelagicNekton
DECOMMISSIONING ACTIVITIES LEAD TO ENVIRONMENTAL PRESSURES
IMPACT IMPORTANCE
IMPACT IMPORTANCE PER SUBCRITERIA AND
DECOMISSIONING ALTERNATIVE
MATRICES
X DECOM OPTION.
ENVIRONMENTAL PRESSURE
ENV
IRO
NM
ENTA
L P
RESSU
RES
OPTIONS/ DESCOM ACTIVITIES
SUB
CR
ITER
IA3
SUB
CR
ITER
IA2
SUB
CR
ITER
IA1
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M
M
M
MMM
SENSITIVITYPER SUBCRITERIA
AND DECOMISSIONING
ALTERNATIVE
MULTICRITERIAMETHOD
MAGNITUDE
Qualitative Method
Qunatitative methodMagnitude
Calculations
PER SUBCRITERIA AND
DECOMISSIONING ALTERNATIVE
ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS
• Quantify legacy with regard to the different materials (polymers, metals)
• On-shore impacts also considered:
Life-cycle analysis (LCA)
Recycling as base caseSavings from avoiding
new materials production
CONCLUSION
• Key Stakeholder Contribution
• International Colaboration
• Search for Consensus
• Problem Definition in an explicit and transparent way
• Visualization of the critical points and conflict strength
• Ranking of alternatives based on Brazilian reality
