Around The Web

Artists, poets, film directors and musicians call on Brazilian government and European companies to recognise the rights of the Munduruku people

Some 48 musicians, poets, chefs, artists, film directors and other celebrities including Sir Paul McCartney, Sir Ranulph Fiennes and Mark Rylance have called on the Brazilian government and European companies to recognise the rights of an Amazonian group whose territory is threatened by a large complex of dams.

In a letter to the Guardian, the group says Brazil’s plan to build four large and many smaller dams on the Tapajós river and its tributaries could destroy thousands of square miles of forest and imperil the Munduruku indigenous people.

Continue reading...

Despite having the world’s highest per-capita penetration of rooftop solar – only a tiny percentage of those PV systems are being monitored for performance. So what are Australian consumers missing? And how can they get out of the shade?

Wenlock Edge These tiny creature spend 30% of their energy producing slime so they can travel on a film of lubricant

At first sight, the brown-lipped snails look like buttons stitched on fence posts and nettle stems in a corner of the field. They appear passive and inanimate, yet they are quietly doing what they’ve done for millions of years – adapting.

The rain has brought them out. Although snails have adapted to dry land and to breathing air, they are still creatures of water. Much of their lives are spent conserving water and they spend 30% of their energy producing slime – a mucus membrane that is hygroscopic; it attracts water, allows them to wear a wetsuit and helps them travel on a film of lubricant.

Continue reading...

Sunverge, the US-based company supplying the “brains” for AGL’s virtual power plant, explains how the project will benefit consumers.

AGL sees potential for more solar and battery storage-based "virtual power plants" across its network in Australia. But its enthusiasm for new technologies is still tempered by its need to protect its incumbent business.

AGL's results were surprisingly soft, but the key for investors this year will be the future of the Portland smelter and the rival Halewood generator.

Partnership extends reach of BuildingIQ predictive control to individual rooms and enables data aggregation at an unprecedented level

Energy market shifting to renewables, why not the workforce? US study finds solar industry could easily absorb coal-industry layoffs over next 15 years.

BatPacC – all you want to know about making EV battery packs

Mark Twidell, Director at Tesla Energy Products & Programs, talks about the present and future of Australia’s renewable energy industry.

With 91 days to go, Trump and Clinton sharpen focus on economic policy in bid to sway voters in battleground states.

AGL finally picks new head of division leading its push into solar, battery storage, electric vehicles and "virtual power plants."

Scientists confirm that wild crows from New Caledonia in the South Pacific can craft tools.

Why scientists are watching killer whales in an effort to understand the mysterious biology behind the menopause.

Can undersea oil rigs become homes? US Bureau of Ocean Energy Management

The global offshore oil and gas industry has installed a wide variety of infrastructure throughout our oceans, including tens of thousands of wells, thousands of platforms and many thousands of kilometres of seabed pipelines.

Many of these structures have been in service for several decades and are approaching retirement. The North Sea, for example, has more than 550 platforms and undersea production facilities, virtually all of which are set to be decommissioned in the next 30 years.

In Southeast Asia, the issue is even bigger: almost half of the region’s 1,700 offshore installations are more than 20 years old and approaching retirement.

What happens to old offshore oil and gas infrastructure?

After decommissioning and cleaning a platform, seabed structure or pipeline, its operators are faced with a choice: dismantle and remove it completely; leave it in place; or remove some of it while leaving the rest behind.

The choice depends largely on what is technically feasible, as well as what is desirable from an environmental, economic and societal perspective, and of course what is legally allowed.

The earliest relevant international law, the 1958 Geneva Convention on the Continental Shelf, requires the complete removal of disused marine infrastructure. But the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, which has largely superseded it, is more lenient. It states that decisions should take into account “generally accepted international standards established … by the competent international organisation” – in this case the International Maritime Organisation (IMO).

The IMO’s 1989 guidelines allow structures to be left in place on a case-by-case basis. Due consideration must have been given to safety of navigation, rate of deterioration, risk of structural movement, environmental effects, costs, technical feasibility and risks of injury associated with removal.

The guidelines also refer to the possibility of “new use or other reasonable justification” for in situ disposal. This opens up some possibilities for how offshore platforms might take on a new life without being removed.

Is complete removal worthwhile?

Europe has so far tended to favour complete removal of offshore infrastructure, in line with international law. Safely recovering these ageing and vast structures from harsh environments is technically challenging, and the industry has developed some impressive technology such as the Pioneering Spirit, a specialised vessel constructed to lift steel platforms from the North Sea.

Impressive… but also expensive. kees torn/Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA

Complete removal is expensive, both to oil and gas companies and the taxpayer. It also leaves operators facing the problem of what to do with the recovered material. While some parts of the topsides of platforms can be refurbished if structurally sound, most of the material is not reusable. Some elements can be recycled, but much of it will inevitably end up in landfill.

From an environmental perspective, the notion of returning the seabed to its original state is undoubtedly born of the right intentions. But when engineered structures have been part of the marine environment for several decades, might it do more harm than good to remove them?

A new life for platforms

Artificial reefs are often deliberately placed in our oceans to provide habitat for marine life or sites for recreational diving. But many offshore oil and gas structures also fulfil these functions – for instance, by providing breeding sites for fisheries. Removing them might therefore harm these ecosystems.

Despite this, European law only allows artificial reefs to be created from new materials, rather than decommissioned infrastructure.

The United States, which has national laws that allow offshore infrastructure to be left in place, has an established a “rigs to reefs” program administered through the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement. Under this program, more than 400 decommissioned rigs have been converted to permanent reefs since 1986.

Rigs cannot simply be left to rust in the ocean; projects like this require rigorous assessment before being approved. But the assessment criteria are different and typically less stringent than for the earlier production phase of the rig’s life, largely because there is no longer a risk of spills after decommissioning.

During their initial operating life, marine structures and pipelines must meet strict criteria that limit movement or deformation. This is to ensure that machinery operates correctly and containment systems do not release hydrocarbons into the marine environment. Strict regulations also apply to the removal of hydrocarbons and residues from the system during decommissioning and cleanup.

But once decommissioned, all that is required is that the structure is sufficiently stable on the seabed and will not break apart in ways that would harm the environment or pose a danger to shipping.

Leaving disused infrastructure in the ocean also raises the critical question of who bears ultimate responsibility for it. Should ownership stay with the original operator, or be transferred to the government? This raises issues of liability for any damage that might occur in the future, and who should bear that risk remains a live question for debate and discussion.

Will it have a role after retirement? CSIRO, CC BY-NC-SA What should Australia do?

Australia’s offshore oil and gas industry is less mature than those in Europe and the United States. As a result, the fate of decommissioned offshore infrastructure is still an emerging issue.

Australia’s current regulations favour complete removal. But the National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority is exploring the possibility of supporting an in situ decommissioning policy.

This would involve amending the law to allow certain new uses, as well as to resolve issues of decommissioning standards, safety and risk, liability and ownership. The lack of any established practice gives Australia a unique chance to show innovative leadership on this issue.

Developing an Australian version of the “rigs to reefs” policy would require input from engineers, natural scientists, environmental managers, oil and gas economists, lawyers and others, to work out precisely what is possible and preferable in different locations.

There is little doubt that pressures on the ocean environment will only increase. Growing populations will increase demand on fisheries and probably lead to the development of large offshore aquaculture projects, as well as escalation of shipping and ocean-based transport. Similarly, the demand for energy may drive broad implementation of wave energy and other marine renewables.

With the growing variety of industries set to use the oceans in future, now is the right time to take a wide-ranging look at how best to handle the structures that are already there.

Susan Gourvenec works for a research centre that receives funding from the State and Federal governments as well from as a range of oil and gas operators and contractors through joint research projects or contract testing.

Erika Techera receives funding from the Australian Research Council for a joint project related to marine species and oceans governance. She is a member of the Oceans Science Council of Australia (OSCA).

‘If you want to paint something, paint a rock,’ Florida officials implore after shells of a threatened tortoise species were found daubed with paint

Wildlife officials in Florida have urged people to not illustrate the shells of a threatened tortoise species after several animals were found daubed with paint.

The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) has released photos of gopher tortoises that were painted red and a shade of turquoise. The FWC said the “illegally painted” tortoises were at risk from paint fumes and from toxins that could be absorbed into the bloodstream via the shell.

Continue reading...

A deep-sea expedition discovers a remarkable array of life on the UK's tallest underwater mountains.

Scientists from Plymouth University have visited the UK's tallest mountains - over 100 metres under the sea.

Controversial proposals ahead of this year’s global wildlife trade summit threaten to fuel a divisive debate and divert attention away from the real measures needed to tackle the illegal ivory trade

Anyone paying even cursory attention to wildlife stories in recent years would have heard all about Africa’s elephant poaching crisis. And with good reason. An estimated 30,000 animals are being killed for their ivory every year, a shockingly high figure that threatens the survival of central Africa’s forest elephants as well as some elephant populations in east Africa.

They also would have read about the international community’s response to the poaching crisis, with governments around the globe promising action and conservation organisations scaling up efforts to tackle elephant poaching and the illegal ivory trade.

Continue reading...

International scientists are calling for action to "future proof" the insects, birds and mammals that pollinate crops and wild plants.