Many offshore Oil and Gas facilities are contaminated with Mercury. The FDDV concept is a possible solution to solve this grave envirinmental health hazard in situe - at the beginning of the pipeline and not when it has landed somewher on a yard or beach in SE Asia

1. Solving Mercury issues onboard FPSO,
pipelines, Platforms, seabed, process facilities

2. •High content of Mercury (+ other hazardous materials)
•No funds for decommissioning
•Notion of Duty of Care
• DOE Competent Authority
•Definition of Waste
•No waste surveys available
•Import –export of Haz. Waste
•Basel Convention - TFS
•No yards with WM License
•No planning permission
•Competent person
•Yard require large investment
•Absence of waste Infrastructure
•Best Practical Economic Option
•Sustainability issues
•PR issues
APAC issues ?
Act A1441

3. Regulations ?
• Int’l Regulations state that you have to remove platforms
• Regional Regulations (Ascope) state that you have to remove Platforms
• Local Regulations (Malaysian) state that you have to remove Platforms
• Production License state that you have to remove Platforms
• Industry Practice state that you have to remove Platforms
• Other users of the Sea state that you have to remove Platforms
• IFRS and FAS (Accountants) state that you must the funds for removal
• Environmental Law state how you have to do it.
• Geneva, UNCLOS, Basel Convention, COBSEA Regional Seas to be Considered
• Duty of Care principles to be considered
• Sarbanes Oxley Act state; use decommissioning funds for decommissioning

4. Contaminated North Sea oil production and storage tanker ends up on the beach in
Bangladesh October 2016.
Source: NGO Shipbreaking Platform - Maersk owned FPSO North Sea Producer
Otapan
Clemeceau
Brent Spar

5. The greatest proportion of by humans produced
mercury emissions to the atmosphere comes from
Asia, which contributes about 50% of the global total.

6. Mercury Monitoring
in the Gulf of Thailand
Section 5
Since 1997, mercury monitoring in the Gulf has proceeded annually under the auspices of the department in conjunction
with the Center of Excellence for Marine Biotechnology, Department of Marine Science, Faculty of Science, Chulalongkorn
University, which has studied and analyzed mercury in the tissues of fish found around petroleum production platforms.
The work done in 2009 showed that the average contamination of mercury in fish tissues was below the 0.5
microgram/gram standard set by the Ministry of Public Health and below the average mercury level in fish tissues obtained
from domestic markets. Still, the department will continue to monitor mercury contamination in the Gulf, with a project on
monitoring seawater quality in the Gulf lined up for 2011. This effort will focus on the quality of seawater around
production platforms to support the department’s effort in closely monitoring the impacts of mercury on the ecology of the
Gulf, and its defining of proper measures to prevent and mitigate environmental impacts.
Source: DMF annual report 2009

7. Stand point on the subject from Singapore
National Environmental Agency
Quote
The wastes containing heavy metal elemental mercury and its compounds found
onboard the ship are classified as hazardous wastes and Singapore does not allow the
import of hazardous wastes for disposal. Currently, there are also no facilities that can
recover mercury in Singapore.
Hence, we are unable to support your request to bring into Singapore the FSO with the
metal rust scales containing heavy metals (mercury and its compounds) for
decontamination and disposal.
Unquote

8. Is Mercury important if it is mentioned in 787 Int’l ISO standards and in
752 UNEP documents ?

9. CONTENTS of PBConsultants report
0. REVISION RECORD
1. SUMMARY
2. INTRODUCTION
2.1 Introduction and study objective
2.2 List of abbreviations
3. PROVEN MERCURY DECONTAMINATION TECHNOLOGIES
3.1 Introduction
3.2 Vacuum Distillation
3.3 Chemical cleaning
3.4 Removal of contaminated piping and equipment
3.5 Melting of contaminated steel at Siempelkamp
4. FUTURE MERCURY DECONTAMINATION TECHNOLOGIES
4.1 Onshore Vacuum Distillation Large Scale
4.2 Offshore vacuum distillation
5. ONSHORE TREATMENT OF MERCURY CONTAMINATED TOPSIDES
5.1 Yard requirements
5.2 Risk of mercury pollution of yard and personnel
6. DOMESTIC TREATMENT OR EXPORTING OF MERCURY WASTE
6.1 General
6.2 Injection into deep well
6.3 Temporary storage of mercury contaminated waste
6.4 Permanent Storage
7. EVALUATION OF DIFFERENT METHODS
8. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
9. REFERENCES
10. APPENDICES

10. •Vacuum distillation
•Chemical Cleaning
•Chemical Oxidation
•Melting at Siempelkamp
•Onshore Vacuum distillation
•Offshore vacuum distillation
•Injection into deep well
•Temporary storage
•Permanent Storage

11. Vacuum Distillation.
Acid cleaning
Chemical decontamination

15. Mercury storage cost:
An EU consultancy report published in 2010 concluded that salt mines were the most cost-
effective location for the permanent storage of mercury waste.
To permanently store 10 to 20000 Tons of Mercury waste cost US$ 36M.
Source: Swedish EPA report
The Swedish EPA report estimated the cost of a deep bedrock repository having a capacity of
about 1,000 – 20,000 tonnes of high-level mercury waste to be about SEK 200 – 300 million.
This represents a cost of approximately US$ 27K – 70K. per tonne of “pure mercury”.
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/chemicals/mercury/pdf/hg_flows_safe_storage.pdf

16. Floating Decontamination and Disposal Vessel concept
Lessons learned ?
Convert hazardous waste into green waste

17. FDDV stands for Floating Decontamination and Decommissioning Vessel a solution invented
by Thor Sterker

18. The “IDEA”

20. Vessel cost US$ 30 – 150M. ?
Competitive priced at $32 M. only

21. “FDDV” (Floating Decontamination and Dismantling Vessel)
• Solves practical issues HSE problems, Permitting and Licensing
headaches – Maritieme law
• Classed and certified to decontaminate platforms, FPSO’s, pipelines,
seabed, deep draft ships & vessels
• Tackle the Haz-Mat problem in situ, at the beginning of the pipeline
not at the end.
• All hazardous operation under Owners Safety Management System
• Containment - process facilities are kept intact and can be
decontaminated as one complete system
• No need to train Onshore Yard personnel how to deal with Hazardous
Materials

22. “FDDV” (Floating Decontamination and Dismantling Vessel)
• Only need to train a select group of skilled laborers / engineers
working on the FDDV
• Decontaminated platforms classed as Green waste.
• No need to worry about Trans Frontier Shipment Reg’s (Basel & Hong
Kong Convention)
• No need for dedicated onshore Decontamination, Dismantling,
Disposal Yard.
• No special planning permission issues for the onshore
decontamination facilities.
• More (any) yards would now be able to accept an platform which is
certified “free from..” – less congestion

23. “FDDV” (Floating Decontamination and Dismantling Vessel)
• Re-use of topsides and equipment becomes more feasible as there is
no liability issue with handing over a Clean Platform / equipment
• No Risk to Health, Safety & Environment as a result of the presence
of Mercury (and other contaminants)
• ZERO emissions (other than emissions from FDDV engines)
• No Reputation Damage
• Use FDDV to prepare platform prior to HLV arriving in field – thus
reducing risks of delay to high value asset
• Pre-cutting of Topsides and jacket foundation piles
• Pre cleaning / removal of contaminated drill cutting piles on seabed
• More reasons spring to mind

24. Funding to perform feasibility study
Because of its efficiency and its capability to operate in international waters it can work
continuously in waters from ASCOPE members, therefore Co-funding of the FDDV Feasibility
study by Operators of the eight (8) ASCOPE member States eases the financial burden
Together with Universiti Technologi Petronas (and others to be identified) we intent to perform a
feasibility study to prove the concept and to be able to estimate the cost efficiency and HSE
benefits. This feasibility study would take approx 12 months with as small dedicated team of
4 to 6 fulltime Scientists / Naval Architect, Process – Facilities Engineers / Chemist /
Environmental engineer.
At this moment and time we estimate that the budget for the entire feasibility study to be around
US$ 400k. to prove the FDDV concept.
Plan is to circulate a definitive concept study proposal in Q1 2017, describing deliverables,
schedule and finish date of the study and resources required to perform the study.
Per Ascope members that would be around US 75,000= (plus or minus 15%)

25. Conclusion & Recommendation
This feasibility study is timely given that the price of oil is low, means day-rates will be low as well. The amount may not be
enough to cover decommissioning costs for all platform, which continuously increasing due to various drivers ie
regulators, operators, industry dynamics.
1. The potential decommissioning market with regards to mercury decontamination will greatly benefit from FDDV because
it resolves a lot of practical issues, HSE problems and Permitting & Licensing issues for respective APAC countries.
2. The economy of scale for all platform owners and government in APAC countries – more platform can be removed with
reduced cost and in environmentally feasible options, in line with owners’ sustainability goals
3. Create new industry which can compete with Malaysia, Vietnam, Indonesia, China, India and Turkey
4. Development of local content i.e skilled laborers, local capabilities and technology
5. Reduced risks of HSE as a result of presence of mercury, and platform is prepared prior to HLV arriving in the field thus
reducing risks of delay to high value assets
6. Reduce hazardous waste
7. No need for temporary storage only permanent underground storage facilities for Metallic Mercury and NORM
6. Turn a cash out flow into a cash inflow.

26. Opportunities continued
• Maintain skilled labor in lean times by re deployment
• Create new Industry which can compete with China, India, Turkey
• Export Decommissioning expertise to Ascope members
• Owners then comply also with their SUSTAINABILITY goals
Decommissioning is teamwork

27. Deliverables
The research sets out to perform a feasibility study to prove the concept of FDDV, and to be able
to estimate the cost efficiency and HSE benefits. This feasibility study would take
approximately 12 months with a small dedicated team of 4-6 fulltime research scientists,
Naval architect, process facilities engineers/ chemist/ environmental engineers.
The economy of scale (removal of a group of platforms instead of individual) is highly likely.
The offshore platforms can be pre-cleaned and decontaminated in-situ with this FDDV concept.
This study embarks on the following objectives:
1. To prove the concept of FDDV
2. To estimate the cost efficiency of the FDDV business model
3. To estimate the HSE benefits of FDDV

28. Work scope and Methodology
Stage 1: Prove FDDV concept – Bankability/ cost efficiency
1. Engagement with platform owners on decommissioning outlook – to explore the financial commitment of potential
investors in order to determine the financial feasibility of the project locally (Malaysia, Thailand) and regionally (APAC)
2. Engagement with key engineering consultants on service providers’ requirements with regards to mercury
decontamination
3. Benchmark study on critical parameters required for mercury decontamination in decommissioning
4. Benchmark study on cost elements in FDDV
5. Study on weightage of the cost elements
Stage 2: Prove FDDV concept – Implement ability / business efficiency
1. Evaluation on technical competency locally and external outsourcing and technology transfer to undertake FDDV in APAC
2. Engagement with owners on end-user technical requirement
3. Engagement with key engineering consultants on service providers’ requirements
4. Benchmark study on critical parameters on FDDV
Stage 3: Compliance to standards and regulations (HSE)
1. Benchmarking on engineering criteria based on standards and regulations
2. Development of engineering criteria based on standards and regulations
Stage 4: Conclusion of feasibility study
1. Consolidation of Phase 1 findings and engagement with owners/governments
2. Benchmark and field verification of tool
3. Rollout and engagement with owners/ service providers/governments

29. Technical & Commercial evaluation
Technical Evaluation
Highlight the value of the project and the differences or strength of the project compared to the one available in the market
1. Currently there is no similar facility in the market. This is the first business model for floating mercury decontamination
facilities.
2. The FDDV will provide a solution to the dilemma of costly decommissioning
Commercial Evaluation
Highlight the potential of the project to be commercialized in the current market)
1. FDDV provides a solution to practical issues, HSE problems, Permitting & Licensing headaches
2. Cost savings due to elimination of onshore facilities at respective countries to decontaminate decommissioned platform,
the FDDV will service all countries in APAC region. Its efficiency and capability to operate in international waters means
it can work continuously in APAC waters.
3. The feasibility study will establish and prove the concept and estimate the cost efficiency and HSE benefits.

30. Benefit to both Malaysia and Thailand
1. The economy of scale for all platform owners and government in APAC countries – more platform can
be removed with reduced cost and in environmentally feasible options, in line with owners’ sustainability goals
2. Create new industry which can compete with China, India and Turkey
3. Development of local content ie skilled labors, local capabilities and technology
4. Reduced risks of HSE as a result of presence of mercury, and platform is prepared prior to HLV
arriving in the field thus reducing risks of delay to high value assets
5. Reduce the need to train onshore yard personnel on how to deal with hazardous waste materials
6. Solves a lot of practical issues, HSE problems, permit and licensing headaches

31. Cost comparison
Comparison of the project output / process with the output / process available in the market if available
A UN Environmental Program (UNEP) provided a cost estimate for a land fill facility for comparison purposes:
a. A land disposal facility of tonnage capability between 25,000 tonnes to 100,000 tonnes had a cost estimate of anywhere
in between USD 11.1m to USD 30.4m
b. Such a solution would be very geographically rigid and would not provide logistical advantage for facilities which are far
away from the disposal site
c. In addition, a land facility would be subject to local authority regulations and levees as opposed to a disposal vessel
operating in international waters

32. IKIMP report (mercury knowledge exchange)
5. Release of mercury during transportation
Many smelters set a 2000 μg/kg limit on mercury in scrap steel to avoid damage to the off-gas
clean-up filters – with higher concentrations requiring disposal as hazardous waste (9).
The difficulties in disposing of material classified as hazardous waste means that some natural
gas pipelines set entry specifications that limit mercury content (e.g. the Frigg pipeline, 38).
This requires the installation of a mercury removal process prior to gas entering the pipeline,
upstream of the refinery process.
As an approximate calculation to establish an upper bound on the mercury retained within the
pipeline network, if one assumes 2000 μg/kg mercury absorbed up to a 1mm depth across the
whole pipeline system, an average pipeline diameter of 0.27 m (37) and density of 8
tonnes/m3, this would suggest that up to 207 kg (5) of mercury could be absorbed on UK
pipeline walls.