Stakeholder Engagement &

Decommissioning

Searching for Win-Win Solutions
The 13th NPF North Sea Decommissioning Conference
Solstrand, February 12th, 2013

Anne-Mette Jrgensen
Director Projects
LNSF320
2
IMSA AMSTERDAM
Some clients:
Independent sustainability think tank and consultancy since 1985
1. Stakeholder mapping and engagement processes:
Develop win-win solutions for people, planet & profit
Independent facilitator, with full mandate and own
hypothesis
2. Prepare companies for a hot, flat and crowded world:
Strategies for Sustainable Development towards a
Circular Economy
Long term trends & scenarios based on World3 model
3. Special events on sustainability
Our mission is to build shared value for business and society
and to bring industry, science and civil society together in
pursuing a long-term sustainable course.
3
KEY MESSAGES
North Sea stakeholder community: complex, diverse, strong interrelations & growing
competition.
Decommissioning is currently a non-issue for most stakeholders, but that could change with
increasing knowledge, experience & activities.
Stakeholders traditional concerns about decommissioning relate to pollution & waste and
cumulative, spatial impacts. Very few stakeholders have a clue about the societal costs.
Growing awareness of value of man-made hard substrate & new challenges to North Sea region
(climate change, unsustainable fisheries, demand for renewable energy) could effect attitude
towards decommissioning.
Stakeholder engagement by industry primarily focuses on individual fields and technical aspects.
Effective stakeholder engagement needs a win-win opportunity:
Reuse of offshore materials for ecosystem purposes (building with nature), offshore mari-
culture, coastal protection?
Coordination between decommissioning activities & renewable energy construction to avoid
competition?
Increased societal benefits through decreased decommissioning costs?
4
OUTLINE OF THE PRESENTATION
1. Who are stakeholders & why should we bother
about them? - Key principles of stakeholder
engagement

2. Stakeholders in the North Sea & their relationship
to decommissioning

3. Lessons learnt: opportunities for win-win
solutions?
5
STAKEHOLDERS INFORM AND INFLUENCE: THEY FORM A FILTER
BETWEEN YOU AND PUBLIC OPINION
Key stakeholders inform and influence the public opinion and political decisions
Understanding the concerns of the key stakeholders is understanding potential issues

Facts are facts but perception is reality (Einstein)
Green NGOs
Fisheries
National governments
International regulators
Scientists
Shipping industry
Renewable energy sector
Local communities
Public
opinion
Oil and gas
industry
Stakeholder
Individuals, groups or organizations who are, in one way or another, interested, involved
or affected (positively or negatively) by a particular project or action towards an issue
6
ISSUE LIFE CYCLE: STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT SERVES TO
PREVENT DECOMMISSIONING FROM BECOMING AN ISSUE
Publicity / Exposure
Time
Birth Growth Development Maturity
Triggering
event
Concern with
opinion leaders
Media attention
Societal unrest
Public outrage &
mobilisation
Public actions &
pressure on regulators
Reactively managed
Proactively managed
Issue fatigue
(Self-) regulation
Reincarnation
Post-maturity
Governments/society being
surprised by decom costs
Decom incident (collision,
pollution, safety)
Ecosystem damage
7
GUIDING PRINCIPLES FOR STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT:
TRANSPARENCY, RESPECT, CREDIBILITY & WIN-WIN
7
Mutual respect: willingness to listen &
understand
Willingness to share dilemmas
Full transparency
Science-based analysis & hypothesis based
research
Stakeholder involvement:
Participation in fact-finding process
Formulation of research question(s)
Access to intermediate and final results
Independent management/facilitation,
providing integer advice to all stakeholders
Potential for a win-win solution: whats in
it for them? Why should stakeholders
participate in decommissioning dialogue?
8
STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT IN DECOMMISSIONING
PROJECTS: TIMING & CLARITY ON SCOPE &
OBJECTIVES
Start up engagement in early stages of programme development:
there still must be room for change!
Be clear about objectives & scope of engagement:
Why do you want stakeholders input?
What is the scope of the engagement; structure, field, several
fields, wider ecosystem, ...?
How far are you willing/able to go in meeting their needs?
What could be needs that you will be unable to meet & why?
Help stakeholders understand the consequences of their
choices/requests: technical aspects, costs (incl. Government costs!),
environmental trade-offs, societal impacts, safety aspects.
Do not forget that most stakeholders are entirely dependent on you
when it comes to technical aspects: building trust is key!
Ask yourself why you would want to participate if you were the
stakeholder: look for a win-win & make sure you address their
concerns, not just your own.
Beware that stakeholders expectations towards you are formed by
their expectations/confidence in government and other stakeholders
9
THE NORTH SEA IS ONE OF THE MOST INTENSIVELY USED SEAS IN
THE WORLD: COMPLEX STAKEHOLDER COMMUNITY

International setting ->
complex regulatory framework ->
influence of key stakeholders high
10
KEY ISSUES DOMINATING THE NORTH SEA DEBATE
Most North Sea stakeholders are concerned with other issues
than O&G operators & contractors:
Spatial stress: industries, Marine Protected Areas, need
for planning and coordination
Cumulative effects of human impacts (knowledge gaps &
policy failures)
Unsustainable fishing practices
Effects of climate change: acidification, sea-level rise,
biodiversity loss, extreme weather conditions
Pollution: chemical discharges, produced water, oil spills,
marine litter, noise
Nature conservation (MPAs & restoration)
Stakeholder communities develop around key issues; O&G
operators & contractors are often perceived to be absent
Decommissioning is currently a non-issue for most
stakeholders, but it does have an impact on key issues
11
LESSONS LEARNT: CLEAN SEABED IS THE ANSWER,
BUT WHAT WAS THE QUESTION?
Most stakeholder engagement on decommissioning focuses
on individual fields & specific (technical) challenges;
creating win-win opportunities is extremely difficult at this
level
Discussions hardly move out of OSPAR 98/3 frame:
Clean Seabed principle = Holy Grail
Environmental assessments focus on pollution effects
rather than biodiversity value
Little room for discussions about cumulative effects of
decommissioning activities
Concerns about safety for fisheries & shipping dominate
over safety for decommissioning personnel
Only in Norway discussion about environmental impact of
decommissioning on coastal communities (e.g. aqua-culture)
Isolated discussion: no link with key North Sea issues or
processes (Marine Strategy Framework Directive, OSPAR
Ecosystems Approach, Marine Spatial Planning, etc.)
Stakeholders assume that Operators pay the bill: then high
costs are OK. Little awareness of government costs
Renewable energy: It
is good if parties
clean up their own
rubbish
International regulator:
Taking part in marine spatial
planning may even enhance
the process of derogations
Offshore service industry: It is
tremendously costly to remove
gravity-based structures. Is it
worth it? 70% of the costs are
spent by the government
Fisheries: These pipes
are everywhere. You
cant get away from
them
12 12
SO HOW COULD WE TURN DECOMMISSIONING INTO A WIN-WIN
PROCESS?
Decommissioning
costs: 50 -100
billion
Offshore
installations =
biodiversity
hotspots
Need for
protection of
marine habitats
Most heavily
used sea in the
world
ecosystem not in
good shape &
high competition
for space
Unsustainable
fishing practices
Demand for
renewable
energy
Toxic waste that
is nobodys
responsibility
13
NEED TO RECONSIDER DECOMMISSIONING IN A BROADER CONTEXT
Bottom line:
Everyone has to clean up his garbage, but what if garbage has turned into valuable habitats???
Pollution (risks) need to be minimized
Safety is key for both decommissioning personnel, shipping & fisheries. But who is responsible
for what and who pays?
In the past, chemical pollution was a key issue. In the future, we are facing new challenges:
Sea-level rise & extreme weather conditions resulting from climate change -> huge
investments needed in coastal protection
Growing need for protein production in the light of declining fish stocks: need for creative,
sustainable fisheries solutions
Temperature increase & acidification increase pressure on vulnerable key species & habitats:
need for additional protection & nature building to ensure robust ecosystem
Transition to renewable energy production, CO2 storage, etc. while O&G production
continues: need for spatial combinations & synergy
Societal cost-benefit analysis of decommissioning approaches needed, in broader context: what do
we want the North Sea to look like in the future & how can ensure maximum ROI on each spent
on realizing that vision?
Thank you!
For more information, please visit www.imsa.nl or contact me at
anne-mette.jorgensen@imsa.nl