IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v35y2015i8p1562-1590.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Asset Decommissioning Risk Metrics for Floating Structures in the Gulf of Mexico

Author

Listed:
  • Mark J. Kaiser

Abstract

Public companies in the United States are required to report standardized values of their proved reserves and asset retirement obligations on an annual basis. When compared, these two measures provide an aggregate indicator of corporate decommissioning risk but, because of their consolidated nature, cannot readily be decomposed at a more granular level. The purpose of this article is to introduce a decommissioning risk metric defined in terms of the ratio of the expected value of an asset's reserves to its expected cost of decommissioning. Asset decommissioning risk (ADR) is more difficult to compute than a consolidated corporate risk measure, but can be used to quantify the decommissioning risk of structures and to perform regional comparisons, and also provides market signals of future decommissioning activity. We formalize two risk metrics for decommissioning and apply the ADR metric to the deepwater Gulf of Mexico (GOM) floater inventory. Deepwater oil and gas structures are expensive to construct, and at the end of their useful life, will be expensive to decommission. The value of proved reserves for the 42 floating structures in the GOM circa January 2013 is estimated to range between $37 and $80 billion for future oil prices between 60 and 120 $/bbl, which is about 10 to 20 times greater than the estimated $4.3 billion to decommission the inventory. Eni's Allegheny and MC Offshore's Jolliet tension leg platforms have ADR metrics less than one and are approaching the end of their useful life. Application of the proposed metrics in the regulatory review of supplemental bonding requirements in the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf is suggested to complement the current suite of financial metrics employed.

Suggested Citation

  • Mark J. Kaiser, 2015. "Asset Decommissioning Risk Metrics for Floating Structures in the Gulf of Mexico," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(8), pages 1562-1590, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:35:y:2015:i:8:p:1562-1590
    DOI: 10.1111/risa.12349
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12349
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/risa.12349?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Osmundsen, Petter & Tveteras, Ragnar, 2003. "Decommissioning of petroleum installations--major policy issues," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(15), pages 1579-1588, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Adkins, Roger & Paxson, Dean, 2019. "Rescaling-contraction with a lower cost technology when revenue declines," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 277(2), pages 574-586.
    2. Parente, Virginia & Ferreira, Doneivan & Moutinho dos Santos, Edmilson & Luczynski, Estanislau, 2006. "Offshore decommissioning issues: Deductibility and transferability," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(15), pages 1992-2001, October.
    3. Vincenzo Basile & Roberto Vona, 2023. "Sustainable and Circular Business Model for Oil & Gas Offshore Platform Decommissioning," International Journal of Business and Management, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 16(10), pages 1-1, February.
    4. Huyen Thi Le & Janet Xuanli Liao & Christopher J. Spray, 2021. "Decommissioning Planning of Offshore Oil and Gas Fields in Vietnam: What Can be Learnt from Mine Closure Planning in Scotland?," International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, Econjournals, vol. 11(4), pages 162-174.
    5. Petter Osmundsen & Ragnar Tveterås, 2000. "Disposal of Petroleum Installations - Major Policy Issues," CESifo Working Paper Series 280, CESifo.
    6. Vincenzo Basile & Nunzia Capobianco & Roberto Vona, 2021. "The usefulness of sustainable business models: Analysis from oil and gas industry," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(6), pages 1801-1821, November.
    7. Aad Correljé & Lucia van Geuns, 2011. "The Oil Industry: A Dynamic Patchwork of Approaches?," Chapters, in: Matthias Finger & Rolf W. Künneke (ed.), International Handbook of Network Industries, chapter 12, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    8. Nikolay Didenko & Djamilia Skripnuk & Viktor Merkulov & Kseniia N. Kikkas & Konstantin Skripniuk, 2023. "Methodology for the Formation of a Digital Model of the Life Cycle of an Offshore Oil and Gas Platform," Resources, MDPI, vol. 12(8), pages 1-21, July.
    9. Hooper, Tara & Ashley, Matthew & Austen, Melanie, 2015. "Perceptions of fishers and developers on the co-location of offshore wind farms and decapod fisheries in the UK," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 16-22.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:35:y:2015:i:8:p:1562-1590. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1539-6924 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.