Leading Scottish entrepreneur Sir Ian Wood said last night that there would be less damage to the environment if large oil and gas steel platforms being taken out of use were left in the North Sea to become reefs.
The chairman of energy service provider Wood Group was speaking as he accepted the Energy Institute’s Cadman Memorial Medal for outstanding service to the petroleum industry during the Aberdeen, Highlands and Islands branch of the group’s annual dinner, in the Marcliffe Hotel.
Sir Ian’s speech covered a variety of topics, including decommissioning and how former prime minister Margaret Thatcher helped Aberdeen to become the oil capital of Europe.
He told the audience there would be reduced environmental damage if large steel platforms to be decommissioned were left in the North Sea to become reefs.
The industry leader was also critical of the Ospar (Oslo and Paris Convention) decision in 1998, which he said largely required the removal of steel installations of less than 10,000 tonnes and of the larger part of steel installations above that weight.
Sir Ian said this was “frankly a hugely costly and dangerous obligation with questionable environmental benefit, driven by perceived political correctness”.
The Wood Group chairman added: “Many professional environmentalists, focused on science and not dogma, believe there would be less environmental impact by cleaning up and toppling offshore installations in situ or in deeper water to create an offshore reef, rather than dismantling and cutting them up offshore and onshore.
“Taking this line would produce huge gains to the UK taxpayer who, under the present regime of environmental dogma, will foot about half the £20-£30billion bill.
“Reducing the decommissioning cost would facilitate asset deals which would undoubtedly enhance (oil) recovery, but most importantly, there would be less damage to the environment.
“And, just in case the media think these comments are made in self interest; of course they’re not, because the contracting and service sector will benefit greatly from the £20-£30billion to be spent on decommissioning. But why on Earth follow the line which actually causes more environmental damage apparently in the name of saving the environment?”
Sir Ian also spoke of the role Mrs Thatcher played in the late 1980s when he was involved in trying to establish an oil and gas industry critical mass in the north-east.
He was chairman of an organisation called Brit (British Indigenous Technology), which was fighting hard to attract some Department of Energy activities to Aberdeen.
Sir Ian thought they had lost the battle, but then received a phone call from Mrs Thatcher’s office urging him not to give up.
He added: “It appears the rationale of building up the UK’s oil and gas critical mass had struck a chord with her. Eventually, we did win some jobs to Aberdeen; not a lot, but frankly it was an important symbolic move which influenced a number of the operators to transfer more of their decision-making functions and activities to our city.”
Sir Ian also said there was huge potential for the north-east oil service sector to contribute to the development of renewable energy sources and in particular offshore wind and carbon-capture and sequestration.
“However, a recent draft report commissioned by the Scottish Government didn’t even rate Aberdeen as an operations and maintenance centre for renewables, but focused just on Dundee.
“Although, after strong intervention, this has been corrected, there’s a clear view elsewhere in Scotland, and within the new energy industries, that Aberdeen is too busy with oil and gas and doesn’t really have any space, capacity or time for renewables.”
Sir Ian said Edinburgh was setting out to be the centre of excellence for carbon-capture and storage and Glasgow for onshore and offshore wind and marine, adding: “The fact is a lot of the so called new research and development programmes at both Edinburgh and Glasgow are only catching up on our oil and gas technology and know-how.”