Environmental Sustainability and Efficiency of Offshore Platform Decommissioning: A Review
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This manuscript provides a comprehensive review of the use of vacuum-sealed piles in platform decommissioning. It introduces the principles and history of the decommissioning of offshore platforms and the impact of using vacuum-sealed piles on the environment. Research on decommissioning methods for platforms is valuable and necessary to take full account of environmental impacts.
However, the manuscript is not detailed enough on the main subject, the vacuum-sealed pile. The main content is on the decommissioning of the platform and its environmental impact, lacking the introduction of the structure of the vacuum-sealed piles or how to arrange it in the platform.
A major revision is needed to strengthen the structure of the manuscript and highlight the main subject, the vacuum-sealed piles.
1. Line 18-20, Page 1. Statistics using data from the year ‘2002’, which is a bit too long from now. If possible, find some new data to introduce.
2. Line 28-29, Page 1. The use of ‘Therefore’ in this sentence is redundant, considering that ‘Therefore’ has been used before this sentence. Please rewrite this sentence.
3. Line 29-30, Page 1. This sentence is too brief. The description could be taken a step further, in which aspects is the recommendation given. Please rewrite this sentence and make it more meaningful.
4. Line 36-37, Page 1. ‘Decommissioning as a word can be represented by words such as abandonment, removal, or disposal’.
Line 109-110, Page 3. ‘It was argued that the two words should not be used interchangeably’.
Line 194, Page 5. ‘There are three major phases of decommissioning or abandonment’.
The opinion in the manuscript is not consistent about the relationship between the words ‘decommissioning’ and ‘abandonment’. It is necessary to unify the opinion on these two words in the manuscript.
5. Figure 1, Page 3. In section 2, Please briefly describe the process of data selection in Figure 1.
6. The relationship of the keywords used in the selection criteria is ‘AND’. Some references introduced the use of vacuum-sealed piles in the decommissioning of offshore platforms may not consider environmental impacts. Why not use ‘OR’ for the first screening? Using ‘OR’ for the first-time screening may lead to more comprehensive search results.
7. The use of vacuum-sealed piles is an important aspect of this manuscript. However, there is no obvious description of the vacuum-sealed pile structure, or how it is arranged on the platform.
8. Section 5, Page 10. There is only one second-level title in section 5. Please strengthen the structure of section 5. Summarize the content before the previous 5.1 as the new 5.1 and change the previous 5.1 to the new 5.2.
Minor editing of English language required.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 1;
Thank you very much for your time and kind review. We have revised the manuscript as requested. Please, see the attached document.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper is a state of the art about the decommissioning techniques of offshore platforms and the effect on the environment and marine life. In this respect, aspects of the legislation in the field are presented and various decommissioning methods are analyzed from the point of view of costs and environmental effect and the advantages of the highly vacuumed sealed pile method for the explosion to control and reduce the wave shock propagation are highlighted.
According to the bibliography and data analyzed and synthesized in the paper, the work rises to a good level.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 2;
Thank you very much for your time and kind review. We have revised the manuscript as requested. Please, see the attached document.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Concerning offshore platforms decommissioning authors collected 81 papers related to the method by using vacuum sealed pile. The papers are listed in the after the paper as references, and the process to collect the papers are given in Figure 1. There are many problems related to that kind of decommissioning. The article well reviewed these papers. Knowledge emerging from this review article is useful to this area of decommissioning. Organization of the article and summarization of the collected papers are fine. I would like to suggest the authors to pay another attention to the three items below.
1. In line 131, ‘in-itu’ might be ‘in-situ’.
2. In line 148, ‘organization. [20].’ be ‘organization [20].’.
3. In line 178, ‘ï¿¡1.1bn’ be ‘1.1 billion’, like in other places, such as in line 180, line 297.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 3;
Thank you very much for your time and kind review. We have revised the manuscript as requested. Please, see the attached document.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
The manuscript required revision, based on the following comments:
1. The title needs to be revised to illustrate the primary content of the paper appropriately. The abstract should be revised highlighting the fundamental subject matter as well as the main review findings.
2. The literature review needs to be updated, since several important and recent contributions are missing, for example:
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su13116266
https://doi.org/10.3390/su142113783
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clet.2022.100489
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su141912666
3. The research gap of the existing knowledge and the basic research objective and methodology are required to be clearer.
4. Figure 2 is fade. Figure 5 & 6 must be suitably labeled.
5. Discuss about the basic difference between conventional piles and vacuum sealed piles.
6. The significance and importance of the work are required to be included, preferably under separate heading. The novelty and limitations of the work should as well be included.
7. The conclusions should be more specific, focused on the primary review findings.
English language must be improved preferably with the assistance of a professional English writer.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 4;
Thank you very much for your time and kind review. We have revised the manuscript as requested. Please, see the attached document.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The issues in the manuscript have been carefully revised based on the comments. The research direction of the manuscript is interesting and meaningful. The revised manuscript meets the requirements for publication.
1. The structure of the manuscript becomes more complete.
2. The old data in the abstract is replaced with the new data.
3. Contradictory expressions of ‘decommissioning’ and ‘abandonment’ have been modified. The meaning of each of these two words and whether they can be used interchangeably is very important.
4. The relationship of the keywords used in the selection criteria is modified. It still needs attention in the subsequent work.
In summary, the revised manuscript has been significantly improved and is acceptable for publication.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 1;
We really appreciate the time you spent reviewing our paper critically.
We have attached the paper herewith.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
The paper is acceptable.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 4;
We really appreciate the time you spent reviewing our paper critically.
We have attached the paper herewith.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
