Assessment Model for the Social Impact of Decommissioning Subsea Oil and Gas Systems

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In April 2020, the ANP (National Petroleum Agency), it should be changed to In April 2020, the National Petroleum Agency (ANP)

ABNT (Brazilian Association of Technical Stand- 105 ards) , it should be changed to Brazilian Association of Technical Standards  (ABNT)

Line 108 mentions "Sustainable Development Goals (SDG)". Line 95 must also mention "Sustainable Development Goals (SDG)", and the abbreviation can be used on line 108.

Installations Decommissioning Programs (PDI)  , it should be changed to PDI (Installations Decommissioning Programs).

 

Please review the use of capital letters in the references starting from line 135.

Please review the use of capital letters in table 1

Improve the technical writing of the title 4. Source: Work of the Author (2022) Social Impact Assessment Model for Decommissioning Sub-Sea Oil and Gas System

What is the meaning of title 4? Has this information already been published in another document? This source is also mentioned in the figures. If it has already been published in another document, it should be in the bibliographical references.

If a methodological proposal has not been published in any previous document, it is assumed to be the central part of the authors' contribution. Therefore, I am unclear on the meaning of the phrase 'Source: work of the author (2022).

There is no discusión. Some sections of the conclusions could be in a discussion section.

The authors do not discuss the results from the perspective of previous studies and the result of the applied method. The results obtained through this method can be compared to other methods currently used with similar characteristics.

The conclusions and prospects presented should be more precise.. The most important quantitative and qualitative values ​​​​obtained from this research could be included in the conclusions. What are the main results of the proposed methodological proposal? It would be useful if you could specify the novelty in the conclusions.

It would be helpful if you could specify the efficiency of the method in the conclusions.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor English language editing required.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files.

 

• Comments and suggestions: “In April 2020, the ANP (National Petroleum Agency), it should be changed toIn April 2020, the National Petroleum Agency (ANP)”
• Response to reviewer: Thanks for pointing this out. We agree with this comment.

 

• Comments and suggestions: “ABNT (Brazilian Association of Technical Stand- 105 ards), it should be changed toBrazilian Association of Technical Standards (ABNT)”
• Response to reviewer: Thanks for pointing this out. We agree with this comment.

 

• Comments and suggestions: “Line 108 mentions "Sustainable Development Goals (SDG)". Line 95 must also mention "Sustainable Development Goals (SDG)", and the abbreviation can be used on line 108.”
• Response to reviewer: Thanks for pointing this out. We agree with this comment.

 

• Comments and suggestions: “Installations Decommissioning Programs (PDI), it should be changed toPDI (Installations Decommissioning Programs).”
• Response to reviewer: Thanks for pointing this out. We agree with this comment.

 

• Comments and suggestions: “Please review the use of capital letters in the references starting from line 135.”
• Response to reviewer: Thanks for pointing this out. We agree with this comment.

 

• Comments and suggestions: “Please review the use of capital letters in table 1”
• Response to reviewer: Thanks for pointing this out. We agree with this comment.

 

• Comments and suggestions: “Improve the technical writing of the title 4. Source: Work of the Author (2022) Social Impact Assessment Model for Decommissioning Sub-Sea Oil and Gas System”
• Response to reviewer: Thanks for pointing this out. We agree with this comment.

 

• Comments and suggestions: “What is the meaning of title 4? Has this information already been published in another document? This source is also mentioned in the figures. If it has already been published in another document, it should be in the bibliographical references.”
• Response to reviewer: All tables, and some figures, from these sources are original. All have already been corrected.

 

• Comments and suggestions: “If a methodological proposal has not been published in any previous document, it is assumed to be the central part of the authors' contribution. Therefore, I am unclear on the meaning of the phrase 'Source: work of the author (2022).”
• Response to reviewer: The aim of this article is a methodological proposal. Thanks for the suggestion. The error has been corrected.

 

• Comments and suggestions: “There is no discusión. Some sections of the conclusions could be in a discussion section.”
• Response to reviewer: We agree with the suggestion. A discussion section was added according to the request.

 

• Comments and suggestions: “The authors do not discuss the results from the perspective of previous studies and the result of the applied method. The results obtained through this method can be compared to other methods currently used with similar characteristics.”
• Response to reviewer: We agree with the suggestion. We have reformulated the results by adding a discussion section to make them clearer. We have also made a comparison with the methods used in the literature review section to which we refer.

 

• Comments and suggestions: “The conclusions and prospects presented should be more precise. The most important quantitative and qualitative values ​​​​obtained from this research could be included in the conclusions. What are the main results of the proposed methodological proposal? It would be useful if you could specify the novelty in the conclusions.”
• Response to reviewer: We agree with the suggestion. We have reformulated the article by including a discussion section in which the main results of the methodological proposal are presented. The new features that can be achieved by applying the model have also been included in the conclusions section.

 

• Comments and suggestions: “It would be helpful if you could specify the efficiency of the method in the conclusions.”
• Response to reviewer: We agree with the suggestion. As suggested, the specifications were inserted in the conclusions section

 

Kind regards

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript aims to analyze the social impact of offshore oil and gas platform decommissioning work under the sea level.

 

1. The title of the manuscript needs to be changed. It can be confused to the submarine’s decommissioning. It is better to include ‘Offshore Oil’ or ‘Subsea Decommissioning of Offshore Platform

 

2.The reference citation did not satisfy the form of the Sustainability. Please check and revise it

 

3.In line 222, the contribution of the manuscript is weak. The authors need to strengthen the contribution and the difference of the proposed method.

 

4. Section 2.1 (line 232) should elaborate on the subject of this manuscript in detail—the decommissioning process of offshore oil and gas facilities.

 

5. In line 392, the result of the workshop is not quantified. The detailed data from the workshop is necessary to support the results.

in line 585, the future works should be included in the conclusion section.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files.

• Comments and suggestions: “The title of the manuscript needs to be changed. It can be confused to the submarine’s decommissioning. It is better to include ‘Offshore Oil’ or ‘Subsea Decommissioning of Offshore Platform”
• Response to reviewer: We agree with the suggestion. We present a new title suggestion

 

• Comments and suggestions: “The reference citation did not satisfy the form of the Sustainability. Please check and revise it”
• Response to reviewer: We agree with the suggestion. Thanks for the comment. The citations were reviewed and adapted in accordance with the publication rules.

 

• Comments and suggestions: “In line 222, the contribution of the manuscript is weak. The authors need to strengthen the contribution and the difference of the proposed method.”
• Response to reviewer: We agree with the suggestion. The contribution and differential of the method was reinforced. 2 paragraphs were inserted on this issue.

 

• Comments and suggestions: “Section 2.1 (line 232) should elaborate on the subject of this manuscript in detail—the decommissioning process of offshore oil and gas facilities.”
• Response to reviewer: We agree with the suggestion. In section 2.1, new paragraphs were inserted detailing the decommissioning process.

 

• Comments and suggestions: “In line 392, the result of the workshop is not quantified. The detailed data from the workshop is necessary to support the results.”
• Response to reviewer: We agree with the suggestion. Unfortunately, the results of the workshop are qualitative and are described in table 2 of the article.

 

• Comments and suggestions: “in line 585, the future works should be included in the conclusion section.”
• Response to reviewer: We agree with the suggestion. As requested, proposals for future work were included in the conclusion section.

 

Kind regards

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to read a manuscript entitled “Assessment Model for the Social Impact of Decommissioning Submarine Systems”. The topic is interesting and raises important contemporary issues, also, it is well-positioned in the journal aim and scope. The paper is promising, but there are several issues that, in my opinion, authors should necessarily address.

 1) The abstract should be an objective representation of the article, focus more on the relevance and novelty of the work. Please, describe briefly the main methods applied and then present main results.

2) The introduction part could be better structured and strengthened. The authors could be more convincing that the subject is crucial, in what elements and why. The current state of the research field should be reviewed carefully and key publications cited. The emphasis on the distribution map of fields managed by the operator (figure 1) in the introduction is very questionable.

3) The theoretical part lacks of recent publications (within the last 5 years) analysis. I would suggest strengthening the results of the literature review using newest relevant publications.

4) The Methodology section should be presented in better quality, there is lack the arguments in a solid and critical way why these methods were chosen, and how the study was conducted, how the data were analyzed, also sample size adequacy in order to present the key findings. A distinction should be made between the presentation of the methods used in the study and the results obtained.

5) The conclusion section should be improved better underlining theoretical and practical implications. I suggest to add discussion part, where some associated literature must be added to compare and contrast the key findings with the existing studies. Conclusions should focus mainly on the paper originality.

6) Limitations and future research directions should be highlighted.

7) Citation of authors as well as list of references have to be made according to journals requirements.

8) The text (e.g., line 78, 191, 486) must be reviewed and corrections made.

9) In Table 1, the first column is called "REPORTS AND ARTICLES ", but here is presented authors. I suggest to rethink it.

Good luck with the revision!

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files.

• Comments and suggestions: “The abstract should be an objective representation of the article, focus more on the relevance and novelty of the work. Please, describe briefly the main methods applied and then present main results.”
• Response to reviewer: We agree with the suggestion. The corrections suggested in the abstract were made. Thanks for the comment.

 

• Comments and suggestions: “The introduction part could be better structured and strengthened. The authors could be more convincing that the subject is crucial, in what elements and why. The current state of the research field should be reviewed carefully and key publications cited. The emphasis on the distribution map of fields managed by the operator (figure 1) in the introduction is very questionable.”
• Response to reviewer: We agree with the suggestion. The introduction section has been revised and to legitimize the subject the following references have been added:

 

• Balogun, T., Davar, M., & Chicco, R. (2023). Decommissioning Disputes–The Sustainability Gap. Journal of Sustainable Development Law and Policy (The), 14(1), 56-81.
• Gourvenec,S.,2022a.Safer decommissioning of offshore energy infrastructure. 3rd International Conference on the Decommissioning of Offshore & Subsea Structures: 21-22 February 2022, Aberdeen UK. ISBN:978-1-8383226-5-6.
• Elrick-Barr,C.E., Zimmerhackel,J.S., Hill,G., Clifton,J., Ackermann,F., Burton,M., Harvey, E.S., 2022.Man-made structures in the marine environment: a review of stakeholders' social and economic values and perceptions. Environ. Sci. Pol. 129, 12–18. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.envsci.2021.12.006.
• Knights, A. M., Lemasson, A. J., Firth, L. B., Bond, T., Claisse, J., Coolen, J. W., ... & Somerfield, P. (2024). Developing expert scientific consensus on the environmental and societal effects of marine artificial structures prior to decommissioning. Journal of Environmental Management, 352, 119897.
• Shams, S., Prasad, D. R., Imteaz, M. A., Khan, M. M. H., Ahsan, A., & Karim, M. R. (2023). An Assessment of Environmental Impact on Offshore Decommissioning of Oil and Gas Pipelines. Environments, 10(6), 104.

 

• In order to reinforce the current state of research, the following references were added to the literature review section:

 

• Nicolette,J.P., Goldsmith,B.J., Wenning,R.J., Barber,T.R., Colombo,F., 2013. Experience with restoration of environmental damage. In:Bergkamp,L., Goldsmith,B.(Eds.), The E.U. Liability Directive: A Commentary. Oxford University Press, pp.181–219ISBN: 9780199670017.
• Janjua, S. Y., & Khan, M. R. (2023). Environmental implications of offshore oil and gas decommissioning options: an eco-efficiency assessment approach. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 25(11), 12915-12944.
• Shams, S., Prasad, D. R., Imteaz, M. A., Khan, M. M. H., Ahsan, A., & Karim, M. R. (2023). An Assessment of Environmental Impact on Offshore Decommissioning of Oil and Gas Pipelines. Environments, 10(6), 104.
• Kaiser, M. J. (2023). Worldwide oil and gas asset retirement obligations circa 2021. The Extractive Industries and Society, 14, 101229.

 

• The map was removed and the text was adapted. Thanks for suggestions.

 

• Comments and suggestions: “The theoretical part lacks of recent publications (within the last 5 years) analysis. I would suggest strengthening the results of the literature review using newest relevant publications.”
• Response to reviewer: We agree with the suggestion. Thanks for the comment. We have expanded the table where references are listed from recent publications (in the last 5 years), as requested. Below is the list of included articles:

 

• Khalidov, I., Milovidov, K., & Stepin, Y. (2023). Models for the Multicriteria Selection of Options for Decommissioning Projects for Offshore Oil and Gas Structures. Energies, 16(5), 2253.
• Vidal, P. D. C. J., González, M. O. A., de Vasconcelos, R. M., de Melo, D. C., de Oliveira Ferreira, P., Sampaio, P. G. V., & da Silva, D. R. (2022). Decommissioning of offshore oil and gas platforms: A systematic literature review of factors involved in the process. Ocean Engineering, 255, 111428.
• Capobianco, N., Basile, V., Loia, F., & Vona, R. (2021). Toward a sustainable decommissioning of offshore platforms in the oil and gas industry: A PESTLE analysis. Sustainability, 13(11), 6266.
• Melbourne-Thomas, J., Hayes, K. R., Hobday, A. J., Little, L. R., Strzelecki, J., Thomson, D. P., ... & Hook, S. E. (2021). Decommissioning research needs for offshore oil and gas infrastructure in Australia. Frontiers in Marine Science, 8, 711151
• Moraes, F. F., Filho, V. J. M. F., Infante, C. E. D. D. C., Santos, L., & Arruda, E. F. (2022). A Markov Chain Approach to Multicriteria Decision Analysis with an Application to Offshore Decommissioning. Sustainability, 14(19), 12019.

 

• Comments and suggestions: “The Methodology section should be presented in better quality, there is lack the arguments in a solid and critical way why these methods were chosen, and how the study was conducted, how the data were analyzed, also sample size adequacy in order to present the key findings. A distinction should be made between the presentation of the methods used in the study and the results obtained.”
• Response to reviewer: We agree with the suggestion. The purpose of the article is to present an impact assessment model that was built from a literature review and a workshop held with stakeholders. References were added to provide consistent critical arguments to the proposal presented. A discussions section has also been added. The aim of the article is to present a social impact assessment model that can be used in the process of decommissioning subsea installations by companies in the oil and gas sector. Therefore, the gaps in the article are presented in the discussion and conclusion section. I hope that the changes made can meet the suggestions offered. Thanks for the comment.

 

 

• Comments and suggestions: “The conclusion section should be improved better underlining theoretical and practical implications. I suggest to add discussion part, where some associated literature must be added to compare and contrast the key findings with the existing studies. Conclusions should focus mainly on the paper originality.”
• Response to reviewer: We agree with the suggestion. Thanks for the comment. A discussion section was added according to the suggestion, as well as a review of the conclusion.

 

• Comments and suggestions: “Limitations and future research directions should be highlighted.”
• Response to reviewer: We agree with the suggestion. As requested, limitations and proposals for future work were included and highlighted in the conclusions section.

 

• Comments and suggestions: “Citation of authors as well as list of references have to be made according to journals requirements.”
• Response to reviewer: We agree with the suggestion. Thanks for the comment. The citations were reviewed and adapted in accordance with the publication rules.

 

• Comments and suggestions: “The text (e.g., line 78, 191, 486) must be reviewed and corrections made.”
• Response to reviewer: We agree with the suggestion. Adjusted

 

• Comments and suggestions: “In Table 1, the first column is called "REPORTS AND ARTICLES ", but here is presented authors. I suggest to rethink it.”
• Response to reviewer: We agree with the suggestion. Thanks for the comment. The correction has been made.

 

Kind regards

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

The authors revised most of the reviewer's comments. The manuscript is the proper form to be published.