Converting Offshore Oil and Gas Infrastructures into Renewable Energy Generation Plants: An Economic and Technical Analysis of the Decommissioning Delay in the Brazilian Case

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript is an economic and technical feasibility study for converting offshore oil and gas facilities into wind power generation facilities in Brazil, but it is not like a scientific paper. Therefore, it should be rejected according to the following problems

 

1. In line 78,there are traces of modification.

 

2. In lines 171 and 172,there is an error in the presentation of the numbers.

 

3. The paper should reduce the description of wind energy use benefits and offshore oil and gas status in places other than the introduction section, and should focus more on the analysis of economic and technical feasibility.

 

4. The cost analysis section of discussion can be introduced together with the cost analysis in Chapter 3.

 

5. The conclusion could be more simplified.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We greatly appreciate every single comment on the manuscript. Based on all suggestions, we have revised the relevant sections and carried out substantial English review. Additionally, we will apply for MDPI Language Editing Services soon as we finish the article to ensure a better English level. We gently present our answers to each remarks below in red.

As will become clear after reading the new version of the article, it has been dramatically changed to accommodate each comment of the 4 reviewers. Indeed, there were not a few recommendations and questions to consider, but all have been answered in detail below.

Finally, we inform that the new structure of the article allowed the research, its innovative character, and its main results to clarify the particularities and potentialities of the Brazilian case. Once again, we thank you for your valuable comments, which have contributed so much to the richness and clarity of this new version.

The authors.

 

The manuscript is an economic and technical feasibility study for converting offshore oil and gas facilities into wind power generation facilities in Brazil, but it is not like a scientific paper. Therefore, it should be rejected according to the following problems.

 

1. In line 78, there are traces of

Thank you for this valuable comment. The modification was a grammatical correction (from “an” to “a” on the figure 1 caption) and was done before we uploaded the file for your evaluation.

 

2. In lines 171 and 172, there is an error in the presentation of the

Thanks for this suggestion. We have corrected the data: instead of $ 381.8 “billion”, it is actually $ 381.8     “million”.

 

3. The paper should reduce the description of wind energy use benefits and offshore oil and gas status in places other than the introduction section and should focus more on the analysis of economic and technical

Thank you for this comment. The description of wind energy use benefits (most of section 3.3) was reduced and moved to introduction as well as offshore oil and gas status. As you can now see, section named “Introduction” now concentrates all the historical and descriptive approach.

 

4. The cost analysis section of discussion can be introduced together with the cost analysis in Chapter

Many thanks for this proposal. The introduction of both cost analysis was placed together in the very beginning of     section 3.

 

5. The conclusion could be more

Thank you for this valuable comment. The new version is now more simply and straight to the main conclusion points.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This manuscript draft is main about technical and economic aspects of abandonment in Brazil by focusing on conversion of fixed oil rigs for generation of energy from renewable sources at sea as an alternative to removal & disposal of structures, aligned with environmental conservation policies and the de-carbonization trend of the industry, in accordance with national and international regulatory mechanisms. There are some mistakes needing to amend：

1.       The second chapter, “Materials and Methods” should be deleted for concision.

2.       The word “gather” in the line 179 should be a right format “gathered”.

3.       The word “energies” in the line 232 should be replaced by “energy”.

4.       The authors are suggested that the manuscript needs major revision before publishing. My concerns are as follows: generation of energy from renewable sources are inseparable from high-performance materials. The following latest references may be considered for citation in this paper.

5.       (i).(2021). Strength Enhancement in Fused Filament Fabrication via the Isotropy Toolpath. Applied Sciences, 11(13), 6100.

6.       (ii).(2020). Process planning for five-axis support free additive manufacturing. Additive Manufacturing, 36, 101569.

7.       (iii).(2021). Critical assessment of Shape Retrieval Tools (SRTs). The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 116(11), 3431-3446.

8.       (iv). (2022). Quality Prediction and Control in Wire Arc Additive Manufacturing via Novel Machine Learning Framework. Micromachines, 13(1), 137.

9.       (v). (2022). Porosity management and control in powder bed fusion process through process-quality interactions, CIRP Journal of Manufacturing Science and Technology,  38:120-128.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We greatly appreciate every single comment on the manuscript. Based on all suggestions, we have revised the relevant sections and carried out substantial English review. Additionally, we will apply for MDPI Language Editing Services soon as we finish the article to ensure a better English level. We gently present our answers to each remarks below in red.

 

As will become clear after reading the new version of the article, it has been dramatically changed to accommodate each comment of the 4 reviewers. Indeed, there were not a few recommendations and questions to consider, but all have been answered in detail below.

 

Finally, we inform that the new structure of the article allowed the research, its innovative character, and its main results to clarify the particularities and potentialities of the Brazilian case. Once again, we thank you for your valuable comments, which have contributed so much to the richness and clarity of this new version.

The authors.

 

 

This manuscript draft is main about technical and economic aspects of abandonment in Brazil by focusing on conversion of fixed oil rigs for generation of energy from renewable sources at sea as an alternative to removal & disposal of structures, aligned with environmental conservation policies and the de-carbonization trend of the industry, in accordance with national and international regulatory mechanisms. There are some mistakes needing to amend：

 

 

1. The second chapter, “Materials and Methods” should be deleted for

 

Thank you for this valuable comment. The chapter was deleted and adapted to the new structure of the article.

 

2. The word “gather” in the line 179 should be a right format “gathered”.

 

Many thanks. The word was changed, and we are committed to sending the final version of the paper to be reviewed by a native English speaker in order to solve possible language issues.

 

3. The word “energies” in the line 232 should be replaced by “energy”.

 

We appreciated your comment here. Same as last comment.

 

4. The authors are suggested that the manuscript needs major revision before My concerns are as follows: generation of energy from renewable sources are inseparable from high-performance materials. The following latest references may be considered for citation in this paper.

 

Thank you for this valuable comment. This is indeed a very important topic related to the renewable sector, among many other industrial activities. All the outstanding references suggested are now included and cited in our manuscript as a delimitation of the important aspect of high-performance materials (lines 99 to 107), which can be even better covered into future studies, keeping our manuscript focus on the economic aspects of decommissioning and renewable energy at sea. See below the paragraph added to our manuscript, as well as the respective references.

“The manufacture of equipment for the offshore wind power industry requires high performance materials so that they can face many years of service in extreme conditions, flawless. Among the many important studies of materials engineering and manufacturing processes, we highlight the process of deposition of thermoplastic material layer by layer known as Fused Filament Fabrication (FFF) which expands the manufacturing capacity [14], the use of five-axis deposition machine avoiding costs with removal of support of steel structures [15], techniques known as Laser Powder Bed Fusion (L-PBF) for manufacture of high precision metal components [16], Shape Retrieval Tools (SRT) for searching and identifying 3D models [17], and methods of additive wire arc manufacturing for rapid deposition of metallic mate-rials [18]. Despite the relevance of engineering manufacture of steel structures, this subject is spared to further studies in order to focus on economic aspects of decommissioning and wind power at sea in Brazil.”

“14.          Xiao, X.; Roh, B.-M.; Zhu, F. Strength Enhancement in Fused Filament Fabrication via the Isotropy Toolpath. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 6100. Available online: https://doi.org/10.3390/app11136100 (accesses on 28 August 2022).

15. Xinyi X.; Sanjay J. Process planning for five-axis support free additive manufacturing. Additive Manufacturing, Volume 36. 2020. 101569. ISSN 2214-8604. Available online: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addma.2020.101569 (accessed on 28 August 2022).
16. Xinyi X.; Byeong-Min R.; Carter H. Porosity management and control in powder bed fusion process through process-quality interactions, CIRP Journal of Manufacturing Science and Technology, Volume 38, 2022, Pages 120-128, ISSN 1755-5817. Available online: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cirpj.2022.04.005 (accessed on 28 August 2022).
17. Xiao, X., Joshi, S. & Cecil, J. Critical assessment of Shape Retrieval Tools (SRTs). Int J Adv Manuf Technol 116, 3431–3446 (2021). Available online: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-021-07681-4 (accessed on 28 August 2022).
18. Xiao, X.; Waddell, C.; Hamilton, C.; Xiao, H. Quality Prediction and Control in Wire Arc Additive Manufacturing via Novel Machine Learning Framework. Micromachines 2022, 13, 137. Available online: https://doi.org/10.3390/mi13010137 (accessed on 28 August 2022).”

 

5. (i).(2021). Strength Enhancement in Fused Filament Fabrication via the Isotropy Toolpath. Applied Sciences, 11(13),

 

6. (ii).(2020). Process planning for five-axis support free additive Additive Manufacturing, 36, 101569.

 

7. (iii).(2021). Critical assessment of Shape Retrieval Tools (SRTs). The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 116(11), 3431-3446.

 

8. (iv). (2022). Quality Prediction and Control in Wire Arc Additive Manufacturing via Novel Machine Learning Micromachines, 13(1), 137.

 

9. (v). (2022). Porosity management and control in powder bed fusion process through process-quality interactions, CIRP Journal of Manufacturing Science and Technology, 38:120-128.

 

 

 

 

01 August 2022

 

20 Aug 2022 16:08:47

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

 

1. Most of the references are not from journals and published articles. Please include journal articles and compare your contributions.

 

2. Decommissioning process and decom are the same. Be consistent in all places.

 

3. In Table 1, is it possible to mention 2020, 2021, and 2022 status?

 

4. Environmental impacts can be elaborated in terms of Marine life, sea life, or ocean life.

 

5. Why only horizontal axis wind turbines are considered? 

 

6. In Figure 4 suffix, the prefix can be corrected as H20, H2, CO.

 

7. Graphic 2. Offshore wind and marine power generation by scenario, 2016-2040 [10]. Please mention how and on what basis this scenario is created till 2040.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We greatly appreciate every single comment on the manuscript. Based on all suggestions, we have revised the relevant sections and carried out substantial English review. Additionally, we will apply for MDPI Language Editing Services soon as we finish the article to ensure a better English level. We gently present our answers to each remarks below in red.

As will become clear after reading the new version of the article, it has been dramatically changed to accommodate each comment of the 4 reviewers. Indeed, there were not a few recommendations and questions to consider, but all have been answered in detail below.

Finally, we inform that the new structure of the article allowed the research, its innovative character, and its main results to clarify the particularities and potentialities of the Brazilian case. Once again, we thank you for your valuable comments, which have contributed so much to the richness and clarity of this new version.

The authors.

 

1. Most of the references are not from journals and published Please include journal articles and compare your contributions.

 

Thank you for this valuable comment. We have included many new references of well-know and highly qualified journals. Please see below some of the added references.

 

14. Xiao, X.; Roh, B.-M.; Zhu, F. Strength Enhancement in Fused Filament Fabrication via the Isotropy Toolpath. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 6100. Available online: https://doi.org/10.3390/app11136100 (accesses on 28 August 2022).
15. Xinyi X.; Sanjay J. Process planning for five-axis support free additive manufacturing. Additive Manufacturing, Volume 36. 2020. 101569. ISSN 2214-8604. Available online: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addma.2020.101569 (accessed on 28 August 2022).
16. GUILBERT, D.; VITALE, G. Hydrogen as a Clean and Sustainable Energy Vector for Global Transition from Fossil-Based to Zero-Carbon. Clean Technol. 2021, 3, 881-909. https://doi.org/10.3390/cleantechnol3040051.
17. GONZALEZ-RODRIGUEZ, A. G. Review of offshore wind farm cost components. Energy for Sustainable Development, 37, 10-19. 2017.

 

2. Decommissioning process and decom are the Be consistent in all places.

 

Many thanks for this suggestion. We have changed all “decom” for “decommissioning” in the manuscript.

 

3. In Table 1, is it possible to mention 2020, 2021, and 2022 status?

 

The table was built over many thrustable sources which unfortunately are not all entirely updated since 2019. In order to ensure data integrity on this article, we rely on the official data only, reason why we did not include recent years mentioned in this question.

 

4. Environmental impacts can be elaborated in terms of Marine life, sea life, or ocean

 

Thank you for this valuable comment. We have included in our manuscript the observation (lines 61 and 62) of research delimitation about marine, sea, and ocean life: we agree that this topic is important, requiring specific knowledge and dedicated research in order to adequately fully cover such important matter.

 

5. Why only horizontal axis wind turbines are considered?

 

The reason to limit the manuscript to HAWT is since it is the only turbine model identified in Brazil wind power sector up.

 

6. In Figure 4 suffix, the prefix can be corrected as H20, H2, CO.

 

Thank you for this valuable comment. The figure 4 suffix has been changed according to your suggestion.

 

7. Graphic Offshore wind and marine power generation by scenario, 2016-2040 [10]. Please mention how and on what basis this scenario is created till 2040.

 

This scenario was created by the International Energy Agency (IEA) back in 2018 and it basically addresses all aspects of offshore energy production, how they are today and how they might evolve in various scenarios in the future. It highlights not only the individual components of the offshore picture, but also the synergies between them, and underscores the strengths of the IEA’s all-of-energy approach. The limit of 2040 was chosen by the IEA due to their internal assessments and it is a key milestone in different international policies, related with UN Sustainable Development Goals and Paris Agreement, for reduction of GHG emissions. We can find more about this report at https://www.iea.org/reports/offshore-energy-outlook-2018.

 

 

 

01 August 2022

 

20 Aug 2022 09:10:35

 

? Não faz sentido PICTURE aqui

 

Neste caso, seria 2030, não?

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Dear authors,

The general topic of your manuscript “The conversion of offshore oil and gas infrastructures into renewable generation plants: economic and technical analysis of Brazilian case “is interesting and relevant.

However, the manuscript does not convey adequately the relevance of the topic and the scientific contribution of the research.  I have several specific comments,

The structure of the manuscript is not adequate. The abstract needs to be completely rewritten, highlighting the scientific contribution, novelty, methods and most significant results of your research.

The introduction section is low level and does not contain recent research. It does not contain the research contribution or novelty of the research.  

The methods and material section indicate that “The Materials and Methods are detailed described at methodology section”. This is very confusing. Directing the reader to a different section is not the right structure and format for a research paper. Furthermore, methods are different from methodology and in this case the authors are describing methods. Methods should be before the results in the manuscript to allow the reader to understand how the results were developed.

The results section is mostly material that should be in the introduction section. I was unable to find proper results from the research in this section.

The discussion section provides some potential results from the research. However, the results are very general and don’t provide specific insights into the novelty and scientific contribution of the research.

The main criteria to consider when evaluating feasibility of wind or solar farms development is the potential power output and benchmarking it with industry standards. Comparing power output with other locations is also possible. In this case I did not find power output results, benchmark analysis or comparison with other potential locations. This is critical to assess the economic and technical feasibility of renewable energy facilities.

The authors need to highlight the scientific contribution and novelty of the research.  I was unable to find it in the manuscript. 

It is mentioned that power from offshore renewable energy facilities may not need to be connected to the shore. What would be the use of this energy if not used in onshore locations?

What is the synergy between offshore oil/gas facilities that are being decommissioned with renewable energy future facilities? Is there any infrastructure from these oil & gas facilities that can be repurposed to be used by renewable energy? It will be very important to list specific savings and synergies that can be obtained from this reutilization.

It is not clear what is the advantage of repurposing oil & gas offshore rigs for renewable energy or even if it is feasible. Has any of these locations feasible wind speeds or solar radiation to make the facility profitable?

I was unable to find original results generated by the research and therefore it looks like a literature review. However, the data being reviewed is very general and disorganized, not allowing to get a good perspective on the scientific contribution or novelty of the research.

The English grammar and construction of the manuscript is not adequate. There are many very long sentences, which should be split into two or three independent sentences. There are many typos (for example, just in the first sentence of the introduction it says Brazilian “cost” when it should be Brazilian “coast”). In the first paragraph of the introduction there are some textual citation which would be better represented if the ideas were paraphrased instead of copied. The track changes of the manuscript were incompletely corrected. Figure 1 label has a “n” crossed over in red. All changes need to be accepted in the manuscript before the final submission.

When the final version of the manuscript is developed it should be proofread by an English language native speaker. There is significant improvement needed in the English grammar and construction.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We greatly appreciate every single comment on the manuscript. Based on all suggestions, we have revised the relevant sections and carried out substantial English review. Additionally, we will apply for MDPI Language Editing Services soon as we finish the article to ensure a better English level. We gently present our answers to each remarks below in red.

As will become clear after reading the new version of the article, it has been dramatically changed to accommodate each comment of the 4 reviewers. Indeed, there were not a few recommendations and questions to consider, but all have been answered in detail below.

Finally,we inform that the new structure of the article allowed the research, its innovative character, and its main results to clarify the particularities and potentialities of the Brazilian case. Once again, we thank you for your valuable comments, which have contributed so much to the richness and clarity of this new version.

The authors.

 

Dear authors,

 

The general topic of your manuscript “The conversion of offshore oil and gas infrastructures into renewable generation plants: economic and technical analysis of Brazilian case “is interesting and relevant.

 

We highly appreciate your comment about our field of research and the selected topic for our article.

 

However, the manuscript does not convey adequately the relevance of the topic and the scientific contribution of the research. I have several specific comments,

 

Thank you for this valuable comment. Based on your comments, the discussion section and the conclusion were rewritten in the way to accommodate your suggestions by making more visible the novelty and the contribution of the research innovative approach.

 

The structure of the manuscript is not adequate. The abstract needs to be completely rewritten, highlighting the scientific contribution, novelty, methods and most significant results of your research.

 

Based on your suggestions, the abstract was entirely rewritten following your points.

 

The introduction section is low level and does not contain recent research. It does not contain the research contribution or novelty of the research.

 

Thank you for this important observation. As it is now clear in the new version of the article, the introduction was amended with relevant and recent research of renewables high performance materials. Other sections were changed to address the same comment.

 

The methods and material section indicate that “The Materials and Methods are detailed described at methodology section”. This is very confusing. Directing the reader to a different section is not the right structure and format for a research paper. Furthermore, methods are different from methodology and in this case the authors are describing methods. Methods should be before the results in the manuscript to allow the reader to understand how the results were developed.

 

Thank you for this valuable comment. The section “materials and methods” were removed from the article based on your suggestion. Following the previous comment, the structure of the article was completely changed based in both suggestions.

 

The results section is mostly material that should be in the introduction section. I was unable to find proper results from the research in this section.

 

The result section was changed aiming at covering the main results of this research. Besides, the abstract and the conclusion were modified to reflect the results of the research in a better way.

 

The discussion section provides some potential results from the research. However, the results are very general and don’t provide specific insights into the novelty and scientific contribution of the research.

 

Following the previous question, the discussion section and the conclusion were rewritten in the way to accommodate your suggestions by making more visible the novelty and the contribution of the research innovative approach.

 

The main criteria to consider when evaluating feasibility of wind or solar farms development is the potential power output and benchmarking it with industry standards. Comparing power output with other locations is also possible. In this case I did not find power output results, benchmark analysis or comparison with other potential locations. This is critical to assess the economic and technical feasibility of renewable energy facilities.

 

Thank you for this valuable comment. The authors acknowledge and recognize your important suggestion. The research aims to address the decommissioning problem in Brazil, where there are basically two clusters of oil and gas projects (i.e. Potiguar basin and Campos basing) whose number of oil and gas facilities wait for decommissioning while the structures are getting old and abandoned at sea. Having that start point into account, the analysis of an investment offset was restricted to wind power projects viability in these two regions. In the development of our research, two comparisons with other potential locations and the inclusion of solar energy will takes place. The power output benchmarking, another very valuable observation, will be part of our next article, as this is one of the focus of our ongoing research. At this moment the author’s suggestion is to limit article to economic viability of conversation, leaving power output comparisons to a more dedicated article.

 

The authors need to highlight the scientific contribution and novelty of the research. I was unable to find it in the manuscript.

 

The novelty was included in the new abstract, as well as in the introduction. In the discussion section we add content to make the novelty clearer, base in your good observation.

 

It is mentioned that power from offshore renewable energy facilities may not need to be connected to the shore. What would be the use of this energy if not used in onshore locations?

 

Thanks for your comment. Mostly to produce hydrogen fuel cell, Fresh water, and Synthetic Natural Gas  (methane), which may be transferred to the land by vessels. We express that idea on the figure 4.

 

What is the synergy between offshore oil/gas facilities that are being decommissioned with renewable energy future facilities? Is there any infrastructure from these oil & gas facilities that can be repurposed to be used by renewable energy? It will be very important to list specific savings and synergies that can be obtained from this reutilization.

 

The main synergy relays on the field concession contracts, where the government can permit the transfer of the offshore area from an O&G operator to another renewable power operator, who proves to have an energy-related viable project to be develop at same area. The decommissioning of structures is only an obligation since the offshore area is no longer productive. In that sense, and O&G operator can cease the area to a wind power operator and get freed from decommissioning obligation at a cost: being partner of a renewable project or direct payment for the cession of the area, in both ways it’s a win-win game, economic speaking. The infrastructure synergies rely on platform utilization, subsea cabling and piping and the expensive environment studies of the sea bottom, since the renewable energy operation (who receives an area from and O&G operator) also get all permits and subsea bottom studies performed for O&G field installation (huge cost and time saving). These sea bottom studies, and environment authority permit takes years of development and investment prior to final approval. In short: there are many gains for an offshore renewable operator who takes over a former O&G field area and there are gains for an O&G operator who cease the areas for a renewable operator and avoid decommissioning cost and time.

 

It is not clear what is the advantage of repurposing oil & gas offshore rigs for renewable energy or even if it is feasible. Has any of these locations feasible wind speeds or solar radiation to make the facility profitable?

 

We believe that previous comments address this valuable question partially. The O&G areas are mostly large free areas with one or two rigs attached to subsea wells and pipes. Wind power plant can take advantage of the free area in an offshore area concession. Better Average Wind Speed (AWS) leads to a more attractive Annual Energy Production (AEP): having that said the O&G cluster selected for our article analysis, the Potiguar Basin on Northeast of Brazil, has AWS between (8.29m/s to 8.97m/s), the highest among all Brazilian offshore O&G sites under decommissioning process, meaning this was a great potential for wind power production. Solar radiation was not part of our analysis since among authors we have wind power, decommissioning, economic, engineering and maritime specialists.

 

I was unable to find original results generated by the research and therefore it looks like a literature review. However, the data being reviewed is very general and disorganized, not allowing to get a good perspective on the scientific contribution or novelty of the research.

 

Thank you for this valuable comment. An extensive article reorganization took place based on your suggestion and one the another 3 reviewers valuable contributions as well.

 

The English grammar and construction of the manuscript is not adequate. There are many very long sentences, which should be split into two or three independent sentences. There are many typos (for example, just in the first sentence of the introduction it says Brazilian “cost” when it should be Brazilian “coast”). In the first paragraph of the introduction there are some textual citations which would be better represented if the ideas were paraphrased instead of copied. The track changes of the manuscript were incompletely corrected. Figure 1 label has a “n” crossed over in red. All changes need to be accepted in the manuscript before the final submission.

 

All suggestions were used as guidance for our article, and we thank you very much for this contribution.

 

When the final version of the manuscript is developed it should be proofread by an English language native speaker. There is significant improvement needed in the English grammar and construction.

 

Many thanks for your comment. We have revised the relevant sections and carried out moderated English review. Additionally, we will apply for MDPI Language Editing Services soon as we finish the article to ensure better English level possible as per your valuable comment.

 

 

 

01 August 2022

 

15 Aug 2022 19:39:49

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The revised manuscript has been improved according to the raised suggestions and comments. I have no other questions.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We greatly appreciate every single comment on the manuscript. Based on all suggestions, we have revised the relevant sections and carried out substantial English review. Additionally, we will apply for MDPI Language Editing Services soon as we finish the article to ensure a better English level. We gently present our answers to each remarks below in red.

Once again, we thank you for your valuable comments, which have contributed so much to the richness and clarity of this new version.

The authors.

 

The revised manuscript has been improved according to the raised suggestions and comments. I have no other questions.

ANSWER - Thank you for your time and mainly for your valuable contribution for our article.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Dear authors,

Many of the review comments were addressed. I still have the following comments,

Figures and tables need to be improved. The font size and organization needs to be improved because they look too crowded and are difficult to read.

Authors provided this response to one of the review comments,

“Thank you for this valuable comment. The authors acknowledge and recognize your important suggestion. The research aims to address the decommissioning problem in Brazil, where there are basically two clusters of oil and gas projects (i.e. Potiguar basin and Campos basing) whose number of oil and gas facilities wait for decommissioning while the structures are getting old and abandoned at sea. Having that start point into account, the analysis of an investment offset was restricted to wind power projects viability in these two regions. In the development of our research, two comparisons with other potential locations and the inclusion of solar energy will takes place. The power output benchmarking, another very valuable observation, will be part of our next article, as this is one of the focus of our ongoing research. At this moment the author’s suggestion is to limit article to economic viability of conversation, leaving power output comparisons to a more dedicated article.”

I would suggest incorporating and highlighting the content of this response to the research justification paragraph and into the discussion. I would also suggest to indicate in the conclusion that future research will include developing assessment models for wind and solar energy to optimize placement locations.

Author Response

All answers in red below:

Dear Reviewer,

We greatly appreciate every single comment on the manuscript. Based on all suggestions, we have revised the relevant sections and carried out substantial English review. Additionally, we will apply for MDPI Language Editing Services soon as we finish the article to ensure a better English level. We gently present our answers to each remarks below in red.

 

Finally, we inform that the new structure of the article allowed the research, its innovative character, and its main results to clarify the particularities and potentialities of the Brazilian case. Once again, we thank you for your valuable comments, which have contributed so much to the richness and clarity of this new version.

 

The authors.

 

Dear authors,

Many of the review comments were addressed. I still have the following comments,

Figures and tables need to be improved. The font size and organization needs to be improved because they look too crowded and are difficult to read.

Thanks for your valuable observation: we have improved Figures 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 as per your comments, font size changed from 12 to 20 keeping the same figure size on the text.
Tables 1, 2 and 3 font size are as per Journal requirements.

Authors provided this response to one of the review comments,

“Thank you for this valuable comment. The authors acknowledge and recognize your important suggestion. The research aims to address the decommissioning problem in Brazil, where there are basically two clusters of oil and gas projects (i.e. Potiguar basin and Campos basing) whose number of oil and gas facilities wait for decommissioning while the structures are getting old and abandoned at sea. Having that start point into account, the analysis of an investment offset was restricted to wind power projects viability in these two regions. In the development of our research, two comparisons with other potential locations and the inclusion of solar energy will takes place. The power output benchmarking, another very valuable observation, will be part of our next article, as this is one of the focus of our ongoing research. At this moment the author’s suggestion is to limit article to economic viability of conversation, leaving power output comparisons to a more dedicated article.”

 

I would suggest incorporating and highlighting the content of this response to the research justification paragraph and into the discussion. I would also suggest to indicate in the conclusion that future research will include developing assessment models for wind and solar energy to optimize placement locations.

Thank you again for one more valuable comment. The research justification paragraph was included in the final text (lines 122 to 126) as per your observation, addressing the very relevant matter of power output benchmarking and the inclusion of solar energy assessments as well (lines 506 to 510 on the conclusion).

Author Response File: Author Response.docx