new technologies for eastern mediterranean offshore gas ...€¦ · : these technologies help to...

STUDY Panel for the Future of Science and Technology

EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service Scientific Foresight Unit (STOA)

PE 634.419 – April 2019 EN

New technologies for Eastern

Mediterranean offshore gas exploration

New technologies for Eastern

Mediterranean offshore gas exploration

Environmental risks and policies for their mitigation

This study examines the evolution of technologies in the offshore exploration and production of hydrocarbons in the Eastern Mediterranean, and their future environmental impact on the region. It reviews the existing literature and draws upon the expert opinion of various business, policy and academic insiders, and finds that the main risks come from accidental discharges at sea from well blowouts, chemical releases and the associated greenhouse gas emissions. It also finds that new technologies propel this stage of natural gas development towards increasing digitalisation, better designs for safety equipment, and increased automation.

The study then proposes a number of policy measures on collaboration, data sharing, environmental baseline surveys, open digital platforms, and better monitoring for leaked greenhouse gas emissions. All these will help to improve the environmental credentials of offshore operations, but must be accompanied by closer cooperation and collaboration amongst the countries that surround the East Mediterranean Sea.

STOA | Panel for the Future of Science and Technology

II

AUTHORS

This study has been written by Nestor Fylaktos and Costas N. Papanicolas of the Cyprus Institute, at the request of the Panel for the Future of Science and Technology (STOA) and managed by the Scientific Foresight Unit, within the Directorate-General for Parliamentary Research Services (EPRS) of the Secretariat of the European Parliament.

ADMINISTRATOR RESPONSIBLE

Mihalis Kritikos, Scientific Foresight Unit (STOA)

To contact the publisher, please e-mail [email protected]

LINGUISTIC VERSION

Original: EN

Manuscript completed in April 2019.

DISCLAIMER AND COPYRIGHT

This document is prepared for, and addressed to, the Members and staff of the European Parliament as background material to assist them in their parliamentary work. The content of the document is the sole responsibility of its author(s) and any opinions expressed herein should not be taken to represent an official position of the Parliament.

Reproduction and translation for non-commercial purposes are authorised, provided the source is acknowledged and the European Parliament is given prior notice and sent a copy.

Brussels © European Union, 2019.

PE 634.419 ISBN: 978-92-846-4623-4 doi: 10.2861/617596 QA-02-19-170-EN-N

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/stoa (STOA website) http://www.eprs.ep.parl.union.eu (intranet) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank (internet) http://epthinktank.eu (blog)

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/stoa

http://www.eprs.ep.parl.union.eu/

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank

http://epthinktank.eu/

New technologies for Eastern Mediterranean offshore gas exploration

III

Executive summary

The advent of new technologies in the field of offshore natural gas exploration, and in the oil and gas industry in general has received increasing amounts of attention in recent years. This is becoming particularly relevant due to the environmental, health and safety (EHS) record of offshore exploration throughout the world, which is now even more pertinent in the Eastern Mediterranean, where significant deposits of natural gas have been discovered in the last 10 years.

Research design

This study assesses the role of technology in the evolution of the natural gas industry, focusing on technologies for upstream offshore operations, alongside an overview of the main environmental risks associated with these activities in the Eastern Mediterranean. The study uses a combination of methods for data collection, drawing from the steps taken during a systematic review process, compounded by observations and expert accounts, mostly from industry, policy and academia related to the study's scope. The literature used throughout the report mainly uses primary sources, as well as secondary and tertiary sources where necessary when that adds context to the arguments.

Offshore gas in the Eastern Mediterranean

A number of significant hydrocarbon discoveries have recently taken place in the Eastern Mediterranean, when Israel made the first noteworthy find, Tamar, in January 2009. This was followed by Leviathan, another Israeli discovery; and Aphrodite, a gas field belonging to the Cypriot Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). The latest gas field find was the Zohr field, off Egyptian waters, discovered in 2014. Overall, the region is estimated to hold large amounts of recoverable gas, but the extent to which they will be developed is dependent not only on the availability of gas, but also on geopolitical and commercial factors, since there is an abundant supply of cheap gas at a global scale.

Environmental profile of the Eastern Mediterranean

The Eastern Mediterranean is one of the most oligotrophic seas in the world, characterised by low nutrient availability. It is also characterised by high temperatures, evaporation and salinity, since the inflow of fresh water is very limited due to the absence of large rivers, which limits the supply of coastal waters with debris and nutrients. However, despite its low productivity compared to other seas, the Eastern Mediterranean demonstrates very high biodiversity of flora and fauna species. However, this is threatened by the introduction of invasive species, frequent oil spills, marine litter and heavy marine transport. The area exhibits a very high population density along the coast, exacerbated by the presence of ports, power stations and other industrial infrastructure.

Environmental risks

There are four broad categories of environmental risks: Releases to air (including greenhouse gases – GHG), disturbance of marine life, seabed disturbance, and discharges at sea. Of these, and given the profile of the Eastern Mediterranean, the most critical risks are discharges at sea and releases to air, especially concerning their global warming potential. Discharges at sea may come from a variety of sources during the different phases of operation, but accidental releases of hydrocarbons due to well blowouts, and discharges of chemicals during one of the production processes are particularly


IV

risky. On the other hand, GHG emissions are significant during operations, but are also important to the role of industry, both in the region and globally.

Significant technologies now and for the future

Many technological developments are happening at the same time in the upstream portion of the oil and gas (O&G) industry, from a number of technology developers (O&G service companies, research centres, O&G exploration companies, national research and development (R&D) centres etc.) on a multitude of fronts. These encompass drilling and completion equipment, subsea equipment, infrastructure above sea level, and all other infrastructure necessary for exploring, finding, extracting and delivering gas to the next phase of operations.

The main technological trends identified are the following:

- New developments in critical safety equipment: The DeepWater Horizon (DWH) disaster was attributed mainly to the faulty operation of the Blowout Preventer (BOP), which has prompted the industry to respond by promoting new designs. Due to the relatively challenging underwater environment of the Eastern Mediterranean (mainly due to depth), new designs for BOPs and capping stacks that can withstand high throughputs and pressures, which will be as close as possible to 100 % failsafe, are necessary.

- New seismic surveying equipment: These technologies help to identify natural gas prospects more easily; place wells more effectively, reduce the number of dry holes drilled, reduce drilling costs, and cut exploration time. Surveys (3D and 4D) are now commonplace, but these can be done faster, cheaper and producing a lot more information than before. They also allow for much richer environmental baseline surveys.

- New trends in robotics: Remote Operating Vehicles and other autonomous undersea rovers have been used for some time in the O&G industry. They are now cheaper to produce and operate, go deeper, last longer, provide better information and are more reliable. They are also deployed aerially (e.g. industrial drones) and are about to revolutionise the safety maintenance of infrastructure, the monitoring of leaks, and the gradual move towards upstream processes of automation, minimising human error.

- Widespread digitalisation: The gradual process of moving all business activities onto digital platforms is also sweeping through the O&G industry. This allows for new techniques such as machine learning and big data to be employed in almost all operation phases of exploration and production. This in turn reduces cost, minimises exploration time, allows for the use of data-sharing platforms, and will fundamentally transform the industry, ushering in new generations of employees.

Policy options

The policy options are presented in three main groups:

1. Policies targeting environmental, health and safety issues directly; 2. Policies targeting data sharing and collaboration; and 3. Policies targeting the reduction of GHG emissions.

The first group focuses on better legislation and measures around the safe deployment of critical safety equipment, the devices that were ineffectual during the 2010 British Petroleum DWH disaster. It is argued that a concerted effort between the countries of the Eastern Mediterranean rim can lead to better test protocols, in line with the articles of Directive 2013/30/EU of the European Parliament


V

and of the Council of 12 June 2013 on safety of offshore oil and gas operations (hereafter 2013/30/EU Directive). In addition, the role of baseline environmental survey and strategic environmental assessments should be elevated, to reduce costs, exploration time and safeguard the profile of the region.

The second group advocates for better standardisation and open-access platforms for environmental and safety data. This will bring the relevant countries towards a path of convergence, and could culminate in the creation of a policy and technology research centre based in the region, which could coordinate these efforts and be the first stop for all these assessments.

The third group aims to promote the interconnectedness of energy systems due to the very high potential for efficiency gains throughout the gas upstream chain. Special efforts should be made through a policy framework for the monitoring, controlling and eventual reduction of leaked methane emissions, a very potent GHG. It is also argued that the industry should take the lead in investigating the feasibility of carbon capture and storage for the area, because of the enormous potential for GHG reductions in the future.


VI

Table of Contents

1. Introduction _________________________________________________________________________ 1

1.1. Purpose of study ___________________________________________________________________ 1

1.2. General Objectives of the study _______________________________________________________ 1

2. Methodology and resources used ________________________________________________________ 2

2.1. Data sources and collection __________________________________________________________ 2

2.2. Boundary conditions ________________________________________________________________ 3

2.3. Study limitations ___________________________________________________________________ 4

3. Synthesis of the research work and findings ________________________________________________ 5

3.1. Lifecycle stages of upstream activities __________________________________________________ 5

3.2. Offshore gas development in the Easter Mediterranean ____________________________________ 7

3.3. Environmental profile of the Eastern Med Sea ____________________________________________ 9

3.4. Environmental and safety risks in global offshore gas exploration ___________________________ 12

3.5. Assessment of risk _________________________________________________________________ 13

3.6. Overview of health and safety risks for offshore gas extraction operations ____________________ 14

3.7. Relevant present and future technologies for offshore gas operations in the Eastern Med _______ 17

3.7.1. Blowout Preventers (BOP) ________________________________________________________ 19

3.7.2. Seismic surveying_______________________________________________________________ 20

3.7.3. Robotics ______________________________________________________________________ 21

3.7.4. Widespread Digitalisation ________________________________________________________ 23

3.7.5. Other technologies/trends _______________________________________________________ 26

3.8. Limitations, challenges and opportunities in the application of technologies _________________ 26

4. Policy options and discussion __________________________________________________________ 28

4.1. Policy and working groups landscape _________________________________________________ 28

4.1.1. The 2013/30/EU Directive ________________________________________________________ 28

4.1.2. The EUOAG group ______________________________________________________________ 30


VII

4.1.3. The BREF document _____________________________________________________________ 30

4.1.4. The SCHEER document __________________________________________________________ 30

4.1.5. Other existing policies ___________________________________________________________ 31

4.2. Policy proposals targeting EHS directly ________________________________________________ 31

4.2.1. Critical equipment safety testing protocols __________________________________________ 31

4.2.2. Environmental baseline surveys and continuous monitoring ____________________________ 32

4.2.3. Strategic Environmental Assessments (SEAs) _________________________________________ 33

4.3. Policies targeting improved data sharing and collaboration _______________________________ 34

4.3.1. Open-access platforms for environmental data _______________________________________ 34

4.3.2. Develop standards and regulations for robotics and digital platforms _____________________ 35

4.3.3. Create Eastern Med technology policy and research centre _____________________________ 36

4.4. Policies targeting gaseous GHG emissions _____________________________________________ 37

4.4.1. Promote interconnectedness _____________________________________________________ 37

4.4.2. Reduce fugitive methane emissions ________________________________________________ 39

4.4.3. Investigate offshore exploration with Carbon Capture and Storage _______________________ 40

4.5. Difficulties and hurdles _____________________________________________________________ 42

5. Conclusions ________________________________________________________________________ 43

References ___________________________________________________________________________ 45


VIII

Table of Figures

Figure 2.1: Systematic research steps, according to Piper (3) ____________________________________ 2

Figure 2.2: Study scope __________________________________________________________________ 4

Figure 3.1: Typical stages of hydrocarbons offshore exploration. Source: (7) ________________________ 6

Figure 3.2: Map of the Eastern Mediterranean showing the major confirmed gas discoveries as of 2016. Source:

(8) ___________________________________________________________________________________ 7

Figure 3.3: Eastern Med bathymetry map. Source: (9) __________________________________________ 8

Figure 3.4: Sea surface temperature of the Mediterranean. Source: European Environmental Agency ____ 9

Figure 3.5: Bathymetric data for the Eastern Mediterranean showing: (a) slope gradients and (b) aspects. Image

and zonal distinction by Alves et al. (19). Bathymetric data from the open database EMODnet ________ 10

Figure 3.6: General map of the study area showing the location of environmentally significant areas, Natura

2000 sites in Cyprus, areas of restricted fishing, ports, power plants and recorded oil spill incidents, East of

29oE, from 1977 to 2013. Drawing from Alves et al. (19). Data for oil spills from MEDGIS-MAR (21) _____ 11

Figure 3.7: Typical impacts from deep-sea drilling. Source: (22) _________________________________ 15

Figure 3.8: Change in world primary energy demand by fuel, according to IEA (35) _________________ 18

Figure 3.9: Various types of ram-type BOPs: Blind ram (a), pipe ram (b) and shear ram (c) Source: (38) __ 19

Figure 3.10: Cyprus' exploration blocks 10, 11, 12 2D PSTM seismic image. Source: (47) ______________ 20

Figure 3.11: Different types of ROVs and AUVs. Source: (55) ____________________________________ 22

Figure 3.12: The O&G smart field of the future. Source: Shell ____________________________________ 25

Figure 4.1: Progression for incentive policies for CSS, according to IEA (101) _______________________ 41

https://cyisites-my.sharepoint.com/personal/n_fylaktos_cyi_ac_cy/Documents/NG%20for%20EU%20Parliament/Templates/STOA%20study%20final%20(templated)v2.docx#_Toc532998991


IX

Table of Tables

Table 3.1: Main gas discoveries in the Eastern Med. Source: Ellinas et al. (8) _________________________ 8

Table 3.2: Risk matrix used in the report ____________________________________________________ 13

Table 3.3: Headline risks identified ________________________________________________________ 15

Table 3.4: Summary of technological trends _________________________________________________ 26

Table 4.1: Critical safety Equipment safety testing protocol ____________________________________ 32

Table 4.2: Summary of environmental baseline surveys policy measure___________________________ 33

Table 4.3: Summary of Strategic Environmental Assessments surveys policy measure _______________ 34

Table 4.4: Summary for implementing open-access platforms for environmental data _______________ 35

Table 4.5: Summary for agreeing on Standards and regulations for robotics and digital platforms _____ 36

Table 4.6: Summary for the creation of an Eastern Med technology and policy and research Centre ____ 37

Table 4.7: Summary of promoting interconnectedness ________________________________________ 38

Table 4.8: Summary for the reduction of methane fugitive emissions ____________________________ 39

Table 4.9: Investigate offshore exploration with Carbon Capture and Storage ______________________ 40


X

List of abbreviations

AI Artificial Intelligence

AUV Automated Underwater Vehicle

BAT Best Available Techniques

BOP Blowout Preventer

BREF Hydrocarbon Best Available Techniques Reference document

BSEE Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement of the US government

CCS Carbon Capture and Storage

CyI the Cyprus Institute

DoI Department of Interior of the US Government

DWH DeepWater Horizon

EAC Electricity Authority of Cyprus

EC European Commission

EOI Enhanced Oil Recovery

EU European Union

EUOAG EU Offshore Authorities Group

EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone

EHS Environment, Health and Safety

EIA Environmental Impact Assessment

EMME Eastern Mediterranean and Middle East

FP7 Seventh Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development

FPSO Floating Production Storage and Offloading

GHG Greenhouse Gas

H&S Health and Safety

HOV Human Operated Vehicles

HVDC High Voltage Direct Current

IEA International Energy Agency

IIoT Industrial Internet of Things

IMR Inspection, maintenance and repair

IP Intellectual Property

LNG Liquefied Natural Gas

MECIT Ministry of Energy, Commerce, Industry and Tourism

MIT Massachusetts Institute of Technology

MWD Measurement While Drilling


XI

NG Natural Gas

NOC National Oil Company

O&G Oil & Gas

OSD Offshore Safety Directive

R&D Research and Development

ROC Remote Operation Centre

ROV Remotely Operated Vehicle

SCHEER Scientific Committee on Health, Environmental and Emerging Risks

SEA Strategic Environmental Assessment

SNR Signal-to-Noise Ratio

STOA Scientific and Technological Options Assessment unit of the EU parliament

TRL Technology Readiness Level

TWG Technical Working Group


1

1. Introduction

1.1. Purpose of study The study on 'New technologies for Eastern Mediterranean offshore gas exploration' will assess the role of technology in the evolution of the natural gas industry, focusing on technologies for upstream offshore operations, as well as on selected key innovations that had a profound effect on the potential for extracting natural gas. This report presents an overview of the main environmental and safety risks associated with upstream activities in the Eastern Mediterranean, and the role current technologies and innovations play, or will play, to address them. The study is bound by the examination of conventional offshore plays only, as those found lately across the Eastern Mediterranean.

1.2. General Objectives of the study

The study's main objective is to offer an analysis of technological developments in the upstream offshore gas domain, with special considerations for the environment, health and safety (EHS) in the Eastern Med, operating in an area of rapid developments on multitude of fronts, including technological, geographic and geopolitical.

This will be accomplished by assessing as accurately as possible the main environmental and safety risks of offshore gas exploration and extraction in the waters in the area through the construction of an appropriate risk assessment framework. This will aid the development for technological options and the formulation of realistic policy proposals in a short-to-medium term time horizon.

The study will therefore focus on the following topics:

• Overview of the potential health and safety risks related to offshore gas extraction operations with a focus on risks for the environment, the local population and the health and safety of workers involved in the relevant operations;

• Propose a risk assessment framework for environmental and health and safety risks for offshore gas exploration and production;

• Stocktaking of technologies that are or may become relevant during the entire life cycle of offshore gas operations in the area of Eastern Mediterranean that can contribute to their environmentally sound and safe implementation. This will be performed by scrutinising peer-review literature and information gathered from industry experts and academia in the Eastern Med, the EU and experts in the United States;

• Identify processes and technologies used for the conventional offshore exploration and production of hydrocarbons and determine their potential risks and environmental impacts;

• Analysis of the main limitations, challenges and opportunities in up scaling and making use of the abovementioned technologies and scientific trends in an actual operational environment.

• Identification of policy options focused on technologies that can help reduce environmental and health risks. These options will be listed and assessed based on the gaps, benefits, opportunities and challenges identified throughout the report.


2

2. Methodology and resources used

2.1. Data sources and collection The study for technological innovations in the field of offshore gas operations in the Eastern Mediterranean is, as defined in the introduction, aiming to provide an overview of the technological trends and their potential for improvements in the environmental and safety credentials of said exploration. It is, therefore, a review body of work, which, while not offering primary results in any of the fields it review, is best structured according to established methodological rules for scientific reviews. It is also limited by the confines of time allocation and resources devoted to it, and should be read as such.

Recent years have recognised that the typical timescale of a rigorous review study is not in accord with the demands of policy and modern academia, Hence, a multitude of different review methodologies have emerged, most of them spouting from the systematic literature review. Grant and Booth (1) have compiled an extensive list of review types that have been used in scientific literature, of which the most relevant to this study are the following:

The traditional (or narrative) literature review takes the shape of a 'state-of-the-art' review, which focuses on more recent research, without necessarily presenting the body of knowledge that has preceded it. This type of review generally lacks an intent to maximise the scope or analyse the data it has collected, and usually lacks the rigorous treatment of a systematic review.

A critical review employs the same principles as a traditional one, but the authors critically evaluate its quality. The main strong point is the 'critical' component, but it still lacks the methodological steps required to be classified as systematic.

A systematic review is the best known type, seeks to systematically search for, appraise and synthesis research evidence (1). According to Lockwood and Oh (2) such a review should include a structured question and objective a detailed inclusion and exclusion criteria, a comprehensive search to identify all relevant studies (published and unpublished), their critical appraisal and a relevant presentation of the findings. While there is universal agreement on the superiority of such reviews, the scope of the research question can make them sometimes overly complex and time-consuming. Figure 2.1 shows the criteria progression of a systematic review. Such a design may be preceded by a scoping review, which provides a preliminary assessment of the available resources, usually to guide the reviewing strategy.

In contrast, a systematized review follows the same design principles as a systematic one, but with less emphasis on following the rigorous steps outlined above. Perhaps similarly, a new method emerging is the rapid review that employs systematic review methods, but

confined to a restricted period designed to adhere to an external deadline.

A mixed methods approach is essentially any combination of methods where at least one of the components is a literature (usually systematic) review. Essentially this is the proposed methodological approach for this study, which will combine the characteristics of a systematic

Figure 2.1: Systematic research steps, according to Piper (3)


3

review of the literature, but trying to present a more rounded picture that does not only rely on published material, but also qualitative opinions from industry insiders and policy makers that give shape to overall study.

The literature review itself was made using the following criteria:

• The source of literature is online material for any primary, secondary, tertiary or grey sources1 used.

• Specifically for primary and secondary material, Google scholar was used extensively, as well as bibliographical search within publisher's web pages (e.g. Science Direct, Wilier library etc.). More emphasis was given to material published after 2012, but no exclusion date was used. The reason is that some background information was found in earlier publications, the aided understanding and clarity. In addition, the timeframes of technological developments in the O&G industry generally do not demand excluding studies that are before say, 2014, given how long it takes to conceive, develop and test them.

• Efforts were made to exclude tertiary publications as much as possible. However many technological advances are locked behind IP protection or in opaque contracts between companies, and may not surface in the traditional academic literature early enough. When there is information online about them and deemed worthwhile (though internal and external expert judgment), they were included in the references list.

Verbal interviews were also conducted, mainly in two domains: Experts working in the O&G domain in Cyprus, and experts working in the field in the US, through connections of the Cyprus Institute with the MIT Energy Initiative. These were compounded by industry insider interviews. A list of people giving their consent to be acknowledged can be found at the end of the document, or referenced where appropriate.

Because of the very large spectrum of parallel technologies being actively developed at the same time, the decision on which to include in this report was based on a combination of availability of data, prominence in the literature (with appearances in high impact publications preferred), and external expert guidance.

2.2. Boundary conditions The current treatment of the risks of offshore exploration and the policy recommendations thereof are constrained by the correct formulation of the boundary conditions that govern the study. Conceptually, these are formed around the characteristics of the Eastern Med, the development lifecycle of offshore activities, and the characterisation of the hydrocarbons fields.

First, this study will examine conventional fields only. This characterisation refers to the conventional (to the oil & gas industry) means of production and extraction (see Figure 2.2), as opposed to unconventional fields that have been mostly developed in the last 20 years. Unconventional plays are typically tight gas formations, methane clathrates, coalbed methane and shale gas, but it is worth noting that a few decades ago the gas fields in the Eastern Med would have been considered unconventional due to the depth of drilling. As deepwater drilling has become commonplace, the gas fields of the area are considered conventional.

1 Primary literature refers to accounts of research published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. The secondary literature consists of publications that rely on primary sources for information, and includes review journals, monographic books and textbooks, handbooks and manuals. The tertiary literature consists of published works that are based on primary or secondary sources and that are aimed at scientists who work in different areas from the subject matter of the publication, or towards an interested but lay audience. Grey literature stands for manifold document types produced on all levels of government, academia, business and industry in print and electronic formats.


4

Figure 2.2: Study scope

Second, the study is dealing with offshore plays only. There is very limited onshore extraction taking place in the countries around the Eastern Med rim (with the exception of a few discoveries in Egypt), and the sole focus here is on the offshore fields of the area.

Third, there is also emphasis on gas fields. This distinction is sometimes arbitrary and artificial as oil is often found in gas fields as well, but gas fields are generally richer in gaseous hydrocarbons. Oil fields in contrast usually have associated gas that has to be separated, and either reinjected in the reservoir, transported onshore, or flared. All the fields of interest in the Eastern Med are gas fields.

2.3. Study limitations The gamut of technologies developed in the upstream offshore gas exploration in the world is vast; there is certainly a large variability amongst them in terms of readiness for market deployment and who is developing them. These are usually oil & gas service companies, but also oil & gas exploration and production companies, national R&D programmes and universities and research centres. Variability also exists on the magnitude of the impact they can have and the timescale for their introduction to upstream activities and their time horizon of their relevance to the industry. It is not possible to control all these variables with certainly.

The sources used for the analysis of the risks, technologies and measures rely on a combination of available published, peer-reviewed literature, interviews with experts, and internal judgement. The degree of independent verification of non-peer-reviewed data is generally not known, and in some cases certain activities of the O&G industry is lacking in substantial supportive academic literature. The evidence therefore provided in this report should not be read as comprehensive, but rather as indicative, and to the best ability and intentions of the authors.

The risks discussed in this study are also examined in isolation, and any cumulative effects they may have due to physical proximity, ambient conditions, geology etc. are not evaluated in this report.

An additional threat to the value of this study is the availability of high quality data. Access to the latest technological developments in the areas of offshore conventional gas upstream is often restricted to proprietary ownership of Intellectual Property (IP) from commercial entities that work on a contractual basis with the exploration companies. These advances often do not appear on scientific publications, and are not always easy to access from a desk environment. The interviews and the access provided by external experts, internal judgement and corroboration with published material are be the main methods of addressing this potential shortcoming.


5

3. Synthesis of the research work and findings

3.1. Lifecycle stages of upstream activities The oil and gas sector comprise three main activities - upstream (exploration and production), midstream (transportation and processing) and downstream (distribution and sale to end users/consumers) (3). In fact, the exact taxonomy used in the industry is not 100% defined, but this is a general, generic guide employed for any international oil & gas company. Despite this, the 2013 EU directive on safety of offshore operations (4, article 2, paragraphs 2 & 3) states the following:

'Offshore' means situated in the territorial sea, the Exclusive Economic Zone or the continental shelf of a Member State within the meaning of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. 'Offshore oil and gas operations' means all activities associated with an installation or connected infrastructure, including design, planning, construction, operation and decommissioning thereof, relating to exploration and production of oil or gas, but excluding conveyance of oil and gas from one coast to another;

This study is focused on the environmental and safety risks and the technologies therein, of the upstream portion of the offshore gas development lifecycle, defined by ISO 20815 as the 'business category of the petroleum industry involving exploration and production' (5). This definition differentiates upstream from midstream in the fact that it does not include processing and transportation. Practically this means that for a gas field in the eastern Med, upstream would cover all the activities down to the production of gas ready to be piped to the shore (or shipped in any other way) but not the transportation itself.

Since this study is confined in the upstream portion only, any midstream activities that may have environmental and/or safety connotations are not examined. An example would be the offshore storage of Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG), which would be excluded, as it is not within the confines of either exploration or extraction. Figure 3.1 shows the typical stages of offshore exploration. In broad terms, these steps are exploration, appraisal, development, production, and abandonment. The following passages analyse these terms in more detail.

The purpose of exploration activity is to identify commercially viable reserves of oil and gas (6). In this, typically a government seeks investment for own exploration or grants access for firms to explore, through direct negotiation or bidding processes. Concessions may be awarded to international companies to explore in a particular geographical area, with contracts governing the rights to any oil or gas discovered agreed. The activities in this phase include desk studies to establish geological conditions, all the licencing work required, gravity, magnetic and seismic surveys, and some exploratory drilling.


6

Figure 3.1: Typical stages of hydrocarbons offshore exploration. Source: (7)

In the appraisal phase, the sites identified as potentially containing viable oil/gas sources are examined in more detail. More extensive site drilling is planned and exploratory wells are drilled to seek to discover and map oil/gas reserves. These initial findings will also determine whether companies will abandon or further develop the field based on these findings, trying to minimise as much their commercial risk.

In the development phase, the site is prepared for production. Limited infrastructure and site development will already be in place as part of the exploratory and initial drilling phase, but now activity will dramatically increase and first oil/gas will be produced towards the end of this phase. Many sub-activities here include the transportation of rigs, the positioning of drilling apparatus, the cementing and casing of wells, and well completion.

During the production phase, hydrocarbons reserves are being extracted and transported for processing and distribution. The volume of production which will naturally fluctuate across this phase, with the rate of extraction typically rising to a peak and tapering off towards the end of the field's commercial lifetime (6). Here the drilling rig is positioned and the normal operation of production take place. These include the injection of chemicals to the wellbore, the separation of oil, water and gas from the extracted material, the management of water and sand from the extraction process, as well as system management activities such a flaring.

Once it is no longer cost-effective to extract remaining reserves, production ceases, well closure and abandonment take place, the site is decommissioned and the operating companies are typically responsible for returning the site to as close to original state as possible.


7

3.2. Offshore gas development in the Easter Mediterranean The Eastern Mediterranean (Med) denotes geographically the sea surrounded by the countries located in the eastern part of the Mediterranean. These typically are

• Greece • Turkey • Cyprus • Syria • Israel • Areas controlled by the Palestine authorities • Lebanon and • Egypt

The term Eastern Med also coincides with the sea located in the historical Levant area, and hence the 'Levantine Sea' name, which refers to the same sea area of the Med. The seabed geography consists mainly of three basins: The Levant basin off the shores of Israel, Lebanon and Syria, the Nile Delta Basin to its west, and the Herodotus Basin further west still.

Figure 3.2: Map of the Eastern Mediterranean showing the major confirmed gas discoveries as of 2016. Source: (8)

The main three players in the gas exploration front as of the time of writing are Egypt, Israel and Cyprus, with Lebanon, Turkey and perhaps Greece entering the fore in the future. It is assumed that significant reserves are also present in Syrian-controlled waters, but their development road plan is unknown.


8

Figure 3.3: Eastern Med bathymetry map. Source: (9)

A number of significant discoveries have recently happened in the area, when Israel made the first noteworthy find, Tamar, in January 2009 (10). This was followed up by Leviathan, another Israeli discovery, and Aphrodite, a gas field belonging to the Cypriot EEZ. The latest, and so far biggest, gas field find has been the Zohr field off Egyptian waters discovered in 2014, and a tentative (at the time of writing) find at the Cyprus' Calypso field in its exploration block 10. Overall, the region is estimated to hold large amounts of recoverable gas, but the extent that they will be developed is dependent not only on the availability of gas, but also on geopolitical and commercial factors, since there is abundant supply of cheap gas at a global scale. The following table summarises the main gas discoveries:

Table 3.1: Main gas discoveries in the Eastern Med. Source: Ellinas et al. (8)

Field Probable reserves (bcm) Discovery date Status

Tamar - Israel 280 2009 Producing

Leviathan - Israel 620 2010 Negotiating sales

Aphrodite - Cyprus 128 2011 Negotiating sales

Zohr - Egypt 845 2015 Producing

Out of these, the Egyptian Zohr is the most straightforward case, because its size made monetisation an easy choice. ENI, the Italian national supermajor that has the development rights for the field, managed to ramp up production in record time and will continue to do so until it hits a more stable plateau in 2019 (11). Egypt itself is still teetering between exporting and domestic consumption, a complex decision based on internal demand, global LNG prices and internal political dynamics. Israel has long debated whether policies geared towards energy security or commercialisation are the best options for the country, with their own giant field (Leviathan) still not developed,


9

something that may soon change. Cyprus has long announced its willingness to export its finds, but the relatively small size, and the depth and distance from the shore of the single (for the time being) field have put plans on hold (see a discussion on this from a 2013 report prepared by the authors, 12). There are tentative results for additional fields in the Cypriot EEZ, but their discovery is complicated by the objections of Turkey on the right of Cyprus to explore. This is an area of intense activity, and the outlook presented in these paragraphs may soon become outdated with new data revealed from the various exploration blocks.

3.3. Environmental profile of the Eastern Med Sea The Eastern Mediterranean is one of the most oligotrophic seas in the world, characterized by very low nutrient availability and hence very low primary production (13,14). It is also characterized by high temperatures ranging yearly from 16 °C in winter and up to 26 °C in summer (see Figure 3.4), also projected to markedly increase due to climate change. Moreover, the evaporation and salinity are high since the inflow of fresh water is very limited due to the absence of large rivers, which limits the supply of coastal waters with debris and nutrients. In addition, the coastal reflux (upwelling) in the Levant Sea is in general weak and as a result of that the nutrients, which are in the bottom of the sea, are unavailable to be at the euphotic zone for primary production (13,15).

Figure 3.4: Sea surface temperature of the Mediterranean. Source: European Environmental Agency

The special hydrological conditions of Levant Sea and the small width of the continental shelf in combination with low concentrations of available nutrients (in particular phosphorus), have as a result a very low concentration of chlorophyll / phytoplankton in seawater. The quantities therefore of zooplankton and the larger organisms (e.g. fish) that rely on it for their diet is also limited compared to other regions.

However, despite its low productivity compared to other seas, the Mediterranean as a whole demonstrates very high biodiversity of flora and fauna species (13). In fact, the Mediterranean hosts 4-18 % of all, until now, known marine species worldwide (16). The basin is characterized by strong environmental gradients, in which the eastern end has lower nutrient availability than the western. The biological production decreases from north to south and west to east and is inversely related to the increase in temperature and salinity (16), and also changes with water depth (17).


10

The whole of the Mediterranean is a deep sea, with an average depth at 1,500m (18). The Eastern Med continues this trend with depths varying considerably between coastal waters and 4,000m in parts, and is a relatively deep sea for the purposes of offshore drilling. All the major exploration blocks of the countries involved are situated in depths in the 1,450-1,700m range2, with only older finds off the shores of Israel and Egypt closer to the shore at shallower depths.

Figure 3.5: Bathymetric data for the Eastern Mediterranean showing: (a) slope gradients and (b) aspects. Image and zonal distinction by Alves et al. (19). Bathymetric data from the open database EMODnet

The seabed of the area in the area encompassed between Cyprus, Egypt and Israel is characterised by deep waters and a few prominent formations, such as the Eratosthenes seamount (Figure 3.6). As already mentioned, the Eastern Med exhibits reduced availability of fisheries, and a very high population density along the coast, which hosts a number of medium to very large cities. It is also threatened by the introduction of invasive species, frequent oil spills (albeit of small magnitude, except the 2006 Lebanese spill), marine litter and heavy marine transport. The presence of ports, power stations and other industrial infrastructure along the coast is also contributing towards increased urban wastewater, industrial mining and coastal alterations (20). There is also increased risk for elevated pollution from occasional military hostility among the nations of the area, which was the prime reason behind the 2006 Lebanese oil spill.

2 The Aphrodite field lies at around 1,700m, Leviathan at around 1,500m, Tamar at 1,700m and Zohr at 1,450m below sea level.


11

Figure 3.6: General map of the study area showing the location of environmentally significant areas, Natura 2000 sites in Cyprus, areas of restricted fishing, ports, power plants and recorded oil spill incidents, East of 29oE, from 1977 to 2013. Drawing from Alves et al. (19). Data for oil spills from MEDGIS-MAR (21)


12

3.4. Environmental and safety risks in global offshore gas exploration

Industrial exploration of oil and gas reserves in marine areas has been happening since the end of the 19th century, albeit in very shallow waters (22). It took the industry several decades to expand to deeper marine environments, mainly due to large hydrocarbons fields serving the global energy demand from easy to reach reserves, and because the technology had not matured enough. Currently operations in deepwater (>200m) is routine in all the major exploration areas in the world, but ultra-deepwater (>1000) is less common. Offshore plays as deep as 3,000m however are being assessed, and may come into production in the future.

The majority of oil and gas production in Europe takes place offshore. In fact, the North Sea offshore fields currently have the largest concentration of rigs in the world (23) reflecting the longstanding history of the area. The Mediterranean on the other hand – and especially the East Med - is a relatively young area of offshore exploration, mostly down to the challenging conditions of deep sea drilling and the contentious geopolitical climate of the area.

Accidents such as the 2010 Deepwater Horizon (DWH) disaster in the Gulf of Mexico have markedly illustrated the need for comprehensive safety measures for offshore development. While safety is the primary responsibility of operators and individual countries, EU and national rules are important because an accident in one country can cause environmental and economic damage to its neighbours as well. Under the Safety of Offshore Oil and Gas Operations Directive (see par. 4.1), the EU has put in place a set of rules to help prevent accidents, as well as respond promptly and effectively.

The offshore industry in different EU Member States however operates to different environmental, health and safety standards. Despite action by some Member States to reform their systems after disasters in the North Sea in the 1980s there is still a significant risk of severe accidents in the EU, and the Eastern Med in particular, which is at the forefront of development, but poses different challenges to the established operations in the North Sea.

Currently, there is increasing pressure placed upon the oil and gas industry to demonstrate best practices in the field of oil and gas exploration, development and production (24). Previous incidents have highlighted the need for thorough risk assessment and management to operators and regulators around the world. Major oil disasters are well documented, and frequently quite catastrophic, such as the aforementioned DWH in 2010 (25,26), but also older incidents such as the Ixtoc I Oil Spill (1979), the Fergana Valley oil spill (1992) or the Nowruz Oil Field spill (1992). These incidents' immediate and most recognisable impact is the spillage of crude oil in the water body above and the subsequent damage thereof.

Examining the data from past incidents reveals that accidental releases of hydrocarbons, as well as the likelihood of accidental spills or blowouts increase with the depth of operations (27). In a recent 2016 update of work done in various points between 1983 and 2012, the US Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (28) have found that, while the spill rate per barrel of oil produced has decreased, there have still been 163 offshore spills over 1,000 bbl since 1974 from worldwide tanker operations, 40 of which released more than 100,000 bbl. This corresponds to one every 3.2 months for spills >1,000 bbl, and roughly one every year for the larger spills. The biggest risk from hydrocarbon releases however comes from blowouts, and Eckle et al. (29) have estimated that a disaster of the magnitude of DWH can statistically reoccur (through risk modelling) every 17 years, with low and high confidence intervals at 8 and 91 years respectively.

Incidents related to gas fields however are not as frequently reported, and the damage is not as visible, and perhaps less severe. Traditional belief holds that gas releases to the atmosphere and does not spill into the sea (28), but this is an area not well researched, with recent work (e.g. 30)


13

indicating that methane oxidisation is taking place from gas well blowouts, even 50 years after the original incident. The uncontrolled release of methane (CH4), the main constituent of Natural Gas, is of course a major concern, as it is a potent Greenhouse Gas (GHG).

3.5. Assessment of risk There are a multitude of risks associated with offshore gas exploration for the environment, the workforce and local populations, collectively referred to as Environment, Health and Safety (EHS). Because of the numerous layers of operations that involve a large number of diverse actors, speaking of risk in qualitative terms is not conducive to its systematic mapping. This study however will not attempt to register every possible risk associated with offshore activities, but proposes a mapping methodology, which assesses the major ones based on risk matrices adopted and employed by (31,32). The core principle is that risk is the product of likelihood and severity of any given incident.

Whereas a lot of the literature cited throughout the document has been used to assess this level of risk and adapt it to the methodology used, a lot of information had to be supplanted using contacts with experts in the field though interviews and other information exchange. The normalisation process of presenting all risks in a singular matrix has been done by the authors in collaboration with these external experts.

Table 3.2: Risk matrix used in the report

Consequence

Negligible Marginal Critical Catastrophic

Like

lihoo

d

Rare 1 2 3 4

Seldom 2 4 6 8

Possible 3 6 9 12

Likely 4 8 12 16

Definite 5 10 15 20

The quantitative assessment of risks shown in Table 3.2 is derived from standard matrices used in risk management guidelines, standards and textbooks worldwide, and shows simply the product of the values in the 'likelihood' rows to the values in 'consequence' columns. This linear illustration may be useful for characterising and sorting the risks, but should be used as supportive to the data presented in this report only, and not a definitive risk guideline for NG offshore operations.

As before, the exact description of each category in the table above is following international practice, but also a degree of critical assessment has been exercised to reflect the realities of offshore gas exploration. Hence, the likelihood of an incident can be classified as follows:

• Rare implies that an incident has either never happened or has happened at a very low frequency, to the authors' best knowledge.

• Seldom denotes an unlikely event with a low probability of occurrence, but still one that cannot be ruled out completely.

• Possible refers to incidents that should not normally be expected in the offshore industry, but tend to be more commonplace.

• Likely increases the likelihood compared to the previous category, even though it is not trivial to place a quantitative value on the probability. Denotes events that have happened


14

in the past with some frequency in different environments and/or under different companies.

• Definite is an event that will happen with a high degree of probability, and has happened on numerous documented incidences in the past.

In similar fashion, the severity of an incident is analysed as follows:

• Negligible are incidents whose consequences are of very low significance, and/or those effects can be minimised or nullified using routine procedures.

• Marginal refers to incidents that have a more widespread effect on both environment and H&S, but do not have a lasting or profound impact.

• Critical incidents require immediate action and have a long-lasting effect on either the environment or the H&S of workers and/or local populations. These effects however can be mitigated by a timely response, both in magnitude and in duration.

• Catastrophic are events that have a long-lasting and often irreversible effect on the environment, and/or equal effects on the health and safety of workers and local populations, including fatalities.

3.6. Overview of health and safety risks for offshore gas extraction operations

Broadly speaking, the environmental impacts of exploration can be grouped into the following categories (adapted from 32):

• Releases to air: This may refer to local air quality deterioration from the normal operation of vessels and platforms, in the case of accidents, or to Greenhouse Gas (GHG) discharges to the atmosphere, mainly methane (CH4), but also carbon dioxide (CO2).

• Disturbance of marine life from offshore operations, including the exploration phase (seismic surveys etc.) from noise, vibrations etc. Also foreign species invasion may be an issue.

• Seabed disturbance: Seabed disturbance from the placing of equipment on the seabed, anchorage of drilling vessels and discharges of drill cuttings. Cold-water coral reefs and sponge communities are particularly sensitive to these aspects.

• Discharges to sea: This is a broad category that includes planned and non-planned discharges of chemicals and other substances (mainly hydrocarbons) used in the exploration and production phases, which may affect the water body itself, the marine ecosystems, seabed fouling and impacts to coastal environments. The most severe impacts come as a result of accidents, and can range from mild to catastrophic, with effects ranging from short-term to nearing permanent damage.


15

Figure 3.7: Typical impacts from deep-sea drilling. Source: (22)

It is apparent that it is not possible to cover the whole gamut of these risks and impacts in this document. Three main stages of upstream operations are identified in this report, and grouped together for simplicity and clarity: The identification and preparations stage, the well design and construction, and the productions stage. Since these paragraphs are aimed at presenting the main risks identified in other bodies of work, there is no need for a deeply analytical assessment of each individual stage and process, which is beyond the scope of this document.

Table 3.3 offers an overview of the headline risks identified, and the associated quantification thereof.

Table 3.3: Headline risks identified

Process / Tech Sub-process Risk

Li

kelih

ood

Risk

co

nseq

uenc

e

Ove

rall

Risk

le

vel

Site

iden

tifi

c.

& p

repa

rati

on

Identification desk studies Desk studies Licensing

Exploratory surveys Gravity and magnetic surveys Seismic surveys

Wel

l des

ign

&

cons

truc

tion

Transport of drilling rig Rig transport

Well drilling

Positioning of drilling apparatus

Drilling of vertical or deviated wells

Drill Cuttings Management

Cementing and Casing


16

There are therefore three main categories of risks identified: Accidental discharges (mainly the risk of blowouts), other discharges to sea (mainly chemical) and releases of Greenhouse Gas Emissions, associated with exploration, chiefly through carbon dioxide release due to marine transportation, and methane fugitive emissions from platform drilling (33).

Further discussion on these will be presented in section 4, where the policy implications of those risks are elaborated.

Well completion Well bore clean-up

Introduction of completion fluids

Prod

ucti

on

Platform installation

Platform design & construction

Platform Transport

Piling for anchor point Rock dumping Hydrostatic testing Subsea infrastructure Pre-commissioning

Platform operations / Production

Chemical injection Subsea production systems Oil/gas processing and handling Produced water management Produced sand management Off-gas management – flaring Enhanced recovery (water flooding) Enhanced recovery (miscible gas injection)

Platform operations / Export systems

Power generation and combustion equipment Hydrocarbon and chemical Storage Diesel/chemical deliveries/loading Open loop sea water cooling HVAC systems Topside drainage systems Waste management Off-take – vessels Gas/oil export pipelines


17

3.7. Relevant present and future technologies for offshore gas operations in the Eastern Med

As is normal in any industry that borrows from a multitude of scientific and engineering disciplines, technological progress happens in parallel branches and in an intertwined fashion, and is present at a number of different fronts. Despite the variable pace of development and adoption of new technologies, the last years have resulted in the emergence of some overarching trends that are having an impact to the offshore gas exploration and production. The US DoE (34) cites the following:

• The geologic environment is now modelled more accurately to allow industry to recognize and respond to geologic hazards earlier. The main field of development is in advanced gravimetric and seismic surveys.

• Drilling and completion equipment, including well materials, best practices, sensors, and other technologies used in drilling and completing an offshore are now more heavily optimized to reduce the risk of drilling in complex conditions.

• Subsea equipment is developed to reliably handle seafloor conditions, operate independently, have high resolution, be monitored and repaired quickly. Improvements in the performance and inspection of this equipment can help operators identify and respond to damage, corrosion, and other issues.

• Equipment at the surface is increasingly able to withstand challenging conditions, including hurricane force winds, currents, and waves, and fires or explosions. Offshore facilities and systems need to be designed so that they can handle these conditions and minimize the impacts of any worst-case incidents.

All these need to be juxtaposed to the magnitude of the environmental and safety risks, as discussed in paragraph 3.6. An important distinction also needs to be made between technological progress with the aim of improving safety and environmental levels, and progress that has efficiency gains in mind, with the associated benefits in safety as a welcome addition. Often however these two are intertwined; for example, advances in seismic surveys reduce the time required for accurate 3D mapping and thus reducing costs, but by doing so they also decrease the exposure of marine mammals to the noise and vibrations related to these surveys.

Overall it is true that the O&G industry is moving forward at an accelerated pace after the DWH disaster. It is also in a peculiar place, since its long-term future is not guaranteed, given the gradual switch to renewable for electricity generation and the trend towards electrification of transportation. While the industry has found ways to address issues with supply with lower costs, improved technologies that have given it access to otherwise untenable reserves and improved efficiency in its operations, demand for oil is projected to increase at a decreased pace in the long term, but remain strong for gas, according to the IEA's 'new policies scenario3' used in its World Energy Outlook for 2017 (35). In fact, gas consumption is poised to increase by 45% until 2040, according to the same study.

3 The ‘New Policies Scenario’ of the World Energy Outlook broadly serves as the IEA baseline scenario. It takes account of broad policy commitments and plans that have been announced by countries, including national pledges to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions and plans to phase out fossil-energy subsidies, even if the measures to implement these commitments have yet to be identified or announced.


18

Figure 3.8: Change in world primary energy demand by fuel, according to IEA (35)

Natural gas is seen as an important 'bridge fuel' during the energy transition to a low-emissions future, as it taps into the existing, or very similar, engineering and corporate infrastructure as oil, but produces less GHG for every unit of energy produced compared to oil and coal. It is however a fact that some of the important existing reserves are entering into their twilight years – as e.g. in the North Sea – and this makes extraction progressively harder and more expensive, and is one of the reasons behind the increased interest of international O&G companies to diversify their reserves, including those in the Eastern Med.

Another driver is the gradual transformation of global gas markets to obeying rules closer to the ones governing traditional commodities markets, instead of trading mostly indexed to the price of oil. This is becoming possible chiefly by the proliferation of LNG, which is tradeable and transportable in the same manner as crude oil, in contrast to gas moved around in pipelines. LNG infrastructure (liquefaction and/or gasification) is always situated close to, or even on the sea, something that favours offshore reserves.

Commercial pressures however will ultimately determine the extent of exploration in the Easter Med – for the time being gas produced in the region is expensive, and the global price of gas does not favour exploration in costlier locales, such as deepwater reserves. On the other hand, countries situated at the rim of the Eastern Med may prefer to exploit their reserves for internal consumption and not exporting, for reasons beyond technoeconomic, such as security of supply, geopolitics etc. On a macro scale, the major driver for the switch away from hydrocarbons is climate change, but also environmental and geopolitical considerations. Overall, it is safe to assume that a high degree of exploration and production activities will take place in the Easter Med in the short to medium term.

Despite the fact that O&G industry's future depends on continuous technological improvement, international oil and gas companies (apart perhaps from oilfield service companies) are slow to adopt new technologies (36). Probably the main reason for this is the potential risk associated with their activities, and the subsequent aversion to it. Large O&G exploration companies are also demonstrating signs of company inertia due to their complex structure and rather successful business model that has served them for a long time. Some smaller exploration companies and almost all service companies have been more aggressive. Leading service companies have established and expanded their own research centres, linked closely to their potential business in particular geographic areas or technical specialties. Despite this, the whole sector has been shaken up by the DWH disaster, which has spurred the development of new tech, or the accelerated development of existing ideas.


19

This section of the document will present an overview of the current technological status and future trends towards safeguarding safe operations and the environment, but also the industry's strive for efficiency, which more often than not also augments it safety and environmental credentials. These will be headline technological trends related to the risks outlined in the previous paragraphs, and will be augmented by a framework around their relevance to the study, indications for emerging directions, and their possible importance. Given the huge variety of tech in development now, the ones presented here were chosen based on their importance of the industry, their probable sustainability in the future and their relevance to the study goals.

3.7.1. Blowout Preventers (BOP)

Status The DWH disaster was attributed mainly to the faulty operation of the BOP (26), which has prompted the industry to respond by promoting new designs. A BOP is essentially the last line of defence if hydrocarbons unexpectedly flow into the well during drilling or other operations, despite the use of primary barriers in the well. BOPs are deployed and attached to the wellhead to seal an open wellbore, close the annular portion of the well around the drill pipe or casing, or cut through the drill pipe with steel shearing blades to seal the well. Alongside this primary function, a typical BOP can also perform more routine operations such as enabling certain well pressure tests and injecting and removing fluid from the well through its 'choke' and 'kill' lines (37).

There are two main types of BOPs, the 'annular' type BOP and the 'Ram' type. The former is essentially a large valve used to control wellbore fluids. In this type of valve, the sealing element resembles a large rubber doughnut that is mechanically squeezed inward to seal on either pipe (drill collar, drillpipe, casing, or tubing) or the openhole. Most BOP stacks contain at least one annular BOP at the top of the BOP stack, and one or more ram-type preventers below; annular BOPs are not used for high pressure or deepwater wells. The ram-type BOPs on the other hand are the main line of defence in a BOP stack, and are designed to completely cut the flow of the well, or at least severely restrict it. There are three main types of rams (see Figure 3.9) and several sub-types under the 'blind', 'pipe' and 'shear' ram BOPs, according to their cause. The most extreme of solutions is the shear type, where the BOP is designed to cut through the wellpipe entirely, acting akin to the shearing action of a pair of scissors.

Figure 3.9: Various types of ram-type BOPs: Blind ram (a), pipe ram (b) and shear ram (c) Source: (38)


20

What was found during the forensic analysis that took place after the DWH disaster was that the force of the ram BOP installed was not enough to stop the flow of a blowout that already had developed enough upward pressure. (ref. 26 provides an engineering overview of what took place and what should have been done to prevent it). The annular BOP on top of the stack was closed, but failed to operate properly, prevented by corrosion that had developed earlier. The blind shear operated against a buckled pipe and failed to cut it and seal the well (25).

BOP failure was also recently reported (39) for a gas well blowout, where again the shearing force of the ram BOP was proven insufficient, indicating that the failure rate of BOP is still relatively large. Deepwater operations required larger shearing forces, which require larger hydraulic pressures at the pistons, which in return demand more complex, larger and heavier equipment (40).

Emerging trends With this being the environment the industry is operating in, new designs have come to the fore, mainly to address the suitability of BOPs to operate in deeper waters, the ability to control the BOP in a better way, and other novel methods for preventing a blowout. Examples include the new generation BOPs from established oil & gas service companies such as GE (41), which are iterations of older designs made to work in more extreme environments; other companies offer a more distinctive proposition that reduced the stack size, increases the shearing force and allows safe operation in deeper waters, such as the one from BOP Technologies (42,43). Other companies have come up with methods to assist the BOP in case it needs to intervene to close a wellbore such as the one proposed by Raptors Design Inc. (44). And there is yet more R&D happening at the BOP control level, with systems coming to the market the promise better, clearer and failsafe control of the BOP (45).

3.7.2. Seismic surveying

Status These technologies help to easily identify hydrocarbon prospects; place wells more effectively, reduce the number of dry holes drilled, reduce drilling costs, and cut exploration time. Seismic surveys have been used for a long time, at least since the 1970s when the science and technology of geophysics became relevant to offshore exploration. The data acquired then suffered, among others, from low precision of the instrumentation, low depth of analysis and high signal-to-noise (SNR) ratios, and were recorded on two dimensions (46). There are efforts to use these datasets and bring them up-to-date (46), but the much greater insight can be acquired from 3D seismic mapping, that came to the fore in the 1990s and has largely replaced 2D techniques. 3D seismic data acquisition allows data processing to migrate reflections to their correct image coordinates in 3D space, improving readability and chances of successful finds.

Figure 3.10: Cyprus' exploration blocks 10, 11, 12 2D PSTM seismic image. Source: (47)


21

Even within the 3D space however, several challenges remain. Chiefly amongst them is the available bandwidth on the frequency domain, which can allow for a much wider spectrum of waves sent to the reservoir, which returns much more detailed images (32).

Emerging trends Several major O&G service companies are attempting to propose new tech that will simplify the procedure, reduce the costs, and improve the legibility of output. Examples are the IsoMetrix Seismic Technologies (48), the NETL advanced seismic tech (49) and the iDAS technology (50). The IsoMetrix technique, developed by Schlumberger, manages to provide extremely detailed images using a multi-sensor streamer, which, if used properly, can reduce the exploration costs significantly. The NETL technologies is actually a bouquet of solutions that enhance the usability of 3D imaging, while the iDAS uses Rayleigh scattering through optic fibres to acquire detailed images of rock formations, using existing seismic surveying infrastructure.

Other initiatives coming from smaller industrial or academic groups are also worth noting. Some are aiming at improving the interpretation of 4D imagery is also of importance (51,52), while another approach is the insertion of a very long seismic array in deep-shore subsalt development plays that claims reduced costs, reproducibility, much shorter timeframe for acquiring 3D and 4D data, and no need to move expensive platforms to perform the surveying (53).

The industry is therefore destined to continue using 3D and 4D seismic data as it much improves the success ration of exploratory wells (32). The direct environmental and safety impact from these technologies is low to medium, and mostly related to the disturbance of marine mammals, but a much larger potential reduction lies in the fact that advanced seismic techniques can reduce exploration time, improve dramatically the success rate of exploratory wells, reduced surface movement of vessels, and reduce manpower and time spent on platforms. These are all quite significant.

3.7.3. Robotics

Status The emergence of robotics in the O&G industry has been a trend that has been identified as one of the dominant future technologies for a long time, and has pushed closer to the mainstream steadily in the last 20 or so years. A very visible application of robotics has been the use of Remotely Operated Vehicles (ROVs) during the operations for closing the wellhead at the DWH disaster in 2010. Robotics however is one area of the larger umbrella of automation in the O&G industry. Fast growing challenges such as lower recovery rate, exploration of unconventional reserves, operation in extreme environmental conditions and profitability of overall business model, has put the need for raising the level of automation high on their agenda (54).

Shukla and Karki (55) succinctly recount the numerous subsection of automation such as human–machine interface, data-signal transmission, resource allocation and task scheduling, navigation technologies, localization of the mobile robots and workspace-objects, localization of Automated Underwater Vehicles (AUVs) in underwater conditions, inspection technologies and teleoperation, as well as integration of all these subsystems.

As already mentioned, there are two main sources of motivation for moving towards automation of operations in a gas field; the first motivation is to increase productivity while simultaneously improving cost efficiency, the second is the necessity of effectively dealing with environmental, health & safety challenges (56,55). Increases in efficiency should not be however seen as auxiliary to the preservation of the environment or human life, since efficiency gains usually mean less operating time, fewer movements and a faster route from exploration to production, all of which can lead to improved safety and environmental standards.


22

One generally accepted aspect of automation and robotics however is that newer technologies will gradually replace human working hours all across the operations spectrum (57). There are numerous examples involving the traditional posts in the O&G industry, like drones replacing human pipe inspectors, automated robotic drills replacing operators on rig decks, etc.; this of course, as experienced in other industries, also creates opportunities for retraining staff, hiring personnel with different skillsets (e.g. computer programmers), or simply passing the savings made to the general economy though lower prices, which in turn may create jobs in other sectors. These issues however are beyond the scope of this study.

A few important established robotic technologies are presented below, with a few emerging trends following.

ROVs and AUVs

The ROVs are, by some distance, the most important robotic technology to be used in offshore exploration, and the one that profoundly changed the operational style of production (55, 58). The main benefit that they have brought is the gradual phasing out of human divers and Human Operated Vehicles (HOVs) that were in widespread use for most of the 20th century. Human divers have been used for maintenance and corrective operations in underwater infrastructure for a long time, but ROVs became indispensable to the O&G industry when deepwater offshore exploration became commonplace, since using human in deep water was not possible anymore.

Figure 3.11: Different types of ROVs and AUVs. Source: (55)

ROVs are essentially submersible vehicles tooled up for underwater repair, maintenance or inspections tasks. There are many types, characterised mainly by the depth of water they are intended to operate in, with deeper-diving ones being more sophisticated and expensive to acquire and maintain. They are connected to the surface by an umbilical cord carrying electrical power for the ROV's operations, as well as carrying the data signals for the on-board instruments, such as cameras, robotic arms, etc. AUVs on the other hand are completely, or almost completely autonomous submersible vehicles and are not deigned to compete with ROVs. Whereas ROVs are mostly replacing the tasks human divers and HOVs used to do, AUVs require no human direct operator, preforming predefined tasks.


23

Both are used extensively for the following tasks:

• Site surveying at the exploration phase. While underwater seismic surveys used to be done only with surface vessels, ROVs and AUVs are now used that can produce much more meaningful results (59).

• Drilling assistance: ROVs have emerged as expert companions in the process of drilling, especially in the realm of explorations wells. They are used for various tasks, as correcting the anchor torque, measuring alignments, attaching-detaching different vessels to umbilical cords, carrying inspection cameras etc. (55).

• Inspection, maintenance and repair (IMR): This perhaps consist the bulk of the operations of ROVs, crucial to the safe operation of infrastructure. They are responsible for the underwater inspection of rigs (permanent or floating), FPSOs (which are usually revamped older vessels like oil tankers etc.), underwater welding (60), photography and video recording (55), cleaning, management of spills, and a variety of other different tasks.

Emerging trends A significant reduction in operating time and costs is coming from the operation of ROVs in the installation of offshore windfarms, which has greatly accelerated their deployment in remote offshore environments. This, combined with continued development of subsea sensor technologies, will expand the role of ROV/AUVs over the next years to accurately map both the seabed and subsea structures and create very accurate real-time 3D models from point cloud data streamed to the surface.

The latest developments in hybrid ROV/AUV technology appear to offer some major benefits for the subsea industry mainly relating to operational costs by having AUV systems permanently docked in subsea 'stations' ready for deployment at a moment's issues of long-term reliability however still remain.

Entirely autonomous vehicles performing all offshore operations is a possibility for the future, where the required skillsets will move from on-site to remote operators, shifting employees' necessary qualifications toward more technology/scientific oriented jobs, but also most probably fewer in number. The general trend nonetheless is squarely aimed at efficiency improvements and the benefits thereof, as seen in the previous paragraphs.

3.7.4. Widespread Digitalisation

Status The O&G industry operating now is a very close relative to the one operating a few decades ago. While technology and regulation have steered all stakeholders towards new directions, the core business model of the industry value chain has fundamentally remained the same. This is acutely evident in the low adoption of digital technologies that have made a large impression on other fields (e.g. aviation or the automotive industry), but something which is beginning to change. According to a recent report by the World Economic Forum (61), there are four themes central to the digital transformation of the O&G industry:

1. Digital asset life cycle management, referring to digital technologies and new ways of inferring data-driven insights;

2. Circular collaborative ecosystems, made possible by new integrated digital platforms where data can be shared that can drive down costs and increase transparency;

3. Innovative customer engagement models, which offer flexibility and a personalized experience, essentially placing O&G companies closer to consumer, and;

4. Movement towards new energies helped by digitalisation, in order to remain relevant in the 'energy transition' period, something experienced across the energy industries (62).


24

The same source reports that these upcoming changes carry a value between 1.6 and 1.9 trillion US dollars ($tn), via a combination of high and low maturity tech, depending on the rate of adoption by the industry. These will materialise through a complex web of initiatives and end goals, and mapping them all is not possible in this study, but the following passages attempt to summarise the most important trends. Chui et al. put the figure of potential incremental value from AI (Artificial Intelligence) for the Oil & Gas industry at 79% compared to non-AI techniques (63).

So far, the O&G industry has been increasingly able to produce large amounts of data from various nodes within the upstream chain, but there has not been a systematised way of extracting data trends from all these, apart from a few key domains, such as maintenance of equipment. Harnessing all this will lead to great advances in autonomous operations and robots. Robotics were discussed above, but digitalisation can also offer the opportunity to bridge the 'generation gap' the O&G industry is facing, with many seasoned industry employees now close to retirement age. The new generation is not perceived to be able to absorb the accumulated knowledge quickly enough (64), and putting in place automation for tasks requiring skills developed though a long career, will make this a smoother transition process.

Perhaps the most prevalent trend in contemporary discussions about digitalisation is the application of 'big data' and 'machine learning', terms that are frequently misunderstood (65). Modern computer science techniques and increased access to computing power (through lower costs and modern architectures) have allowed experts to analyse and identify patterns and trends in data sets that are either very large or disparate, or frequently, both. This is in contrast to other model-based analytics derived from static data collected from fit-for purpose data collection points (e.g. from sensors), because data patterns are not predetermined. A drilling rig for example can have sensors in hundreds of locations taking samples many times per second, creating non-streamlined batches of data. A drilling procedure using this drill that lasts days can generate vast amounts of information, the analysis of which has been beyond the capabilities of human operators or computer systems of the recent past. It is now possible to find trends, correlations and make statistical predictions from these sets without looking for a specific effect. To take this further, these predictions can be used in recursive algorithms that adapt with every new input, effectively improving the algorithm's capabilities with every iteration of analysis. This is the essence of machine learning.

Emerging Trends It is common to portray the O&G industry as slow to adopt new tech and sticking to traditional methods, and while this generally holds true overall, the upstream portion has always been the most forward-looking and willing to experiment with new ideas. One of the headlining properties of digitalisation for the O&G industry is enhanced recovery of gas, especially in tight or shale formations (64), but this may actually be detrimental to EHS for the Eastern Med, as it will prolong the extraction period, and may tempt exploration companies to seek offshore plays in locations previously inaccessible.


25

Figure 3.12: The O&G smart field of the future. Source: Shell

Nonetheless, there are significant trends that are projected to have a positive correlation with EHS improvements, summarised here:

i. Monitoring of methane emissions: Methane emissions have emerged as one of the major contributors of GHG emission of the upstream industry, and can occur in any stage during production, processing and transportation of gas. The need here is to provide for actual monitoring and quantification of emission sources, either by using robotics not available in the past at low cost (e.g. drones), or by predictive analysis of leaks, and their subsequent management.

ii. A very important emerging area of research are the exploitation of methane hydrates, of which there are huge deposits all over the world, but the interaction between the disassociation and climate change is not yet clear (66). Monitoring of these resources will require new digital and automation technologies.

iii. Industrial Internet of Things (IIoT): A wealth of lower costs sensors are now available to exploration companies and their supply chains (67). These can help in a range of issues, such a predicative maintenance using big data and machine learning techniques, and engineering fields such as Measurement While Drilling (MWD), a type of well logging that incorporates the measurement tools into the drillstring and provides real-time information to help with steering the drill.

iv. Wearables for employees to improve safety: This is a trend towards the development of wearables for employees on drilling platforms that will collect data in real time on environmental conditions, as well as personal data related to awareness and alertness of the employee. This development has the potential to avert accidents, and protect the employees themselves, the infrastructure and the environment.


26

3.7.5. Other technologies/trends

Capping devices Similarly to the BOPs discussed in par. 3.7.1, a capping device is used to cover the well in the case of a leak or blowout, in order to prevent further spillage in the surround marine environment. While this is more relevant to oil spills, it is of equal importance for any well, as liquid hydrocarbons may be present in the drilling, and because many gas fields do contain quantities of oil. If sufficient, these can become oil plays. In addition, the current exploration taking place in the Eastern Med may turn up oil reserves, in which case the right policy measure for capping devices will be as important as the ones for BOPs.

Nanotechnologies Nanotechnologies employed in various areas of the exploration phases, potentially useful for a range of activities, such as monitoring of drilling wells and pipelines for leakages and cracks, preventing the need to deplete valuable resources such as water, etc. They also allow effective treatment of impurities and emissions in a more controlled environment, and is an effective aid in CO2 sequestration. However, very little is known about what happens to synthetic nanomaterials in the environment and the likely impacts such as ecotoxicity (68).

3.8. Limitations, challenges and opportunities in the application of technologies

The following table attempts to synthesise the brief presentation of technologies found in this chapter. The aim is to consolidate the information using simple indicators that augments readability; the emphasis is referring to the any technology's focus, between environmental safety, H&S, or process efficiency. The Technology Readiness Level (TRL) refers to the state of maturity of each tech presented here, and is conveyed on a linear 1-9 scale, with 1 being still a theoretical concept, and 9 representing a mature, ready for the market technology 4 . The following two columns make a reference to the impacts on the environment for each technology, and the last indicates the implementation horizon, in short (1-5 years), medium (5-15 years) or long timeframes (>15 years).

Table 3.4: Summary of technological trends

TECH Emphasis Tech Status TRL (1-9)

Emerging tech TRL (1-9)

Potential environmental impact Time horizon

BOPs Environm. Safety

9 3-5 High Short to medium

Seismic Surveys Efficiency, environm.

9 4-6 Low to Medium

Short to medium

Robotics Efficiency 9 3-6 Low to medium

Short to medium

Digitalisation Efficiency 8 1-6 Low to high Short

4 The TRL concept is used widely in a number of international originations, with slightly deviating definitions, but the same core principles. The European Commission refers to TLR 1 as ‘Basic principles observed’, and TRL 9 as ‘actual system proven in operational environment’. More info in in (69).


27

It is apparent form the above that the biggest reductions in risk lie with critical safety equipment, such as BOPs and capping devices due to the role they play in preventing the most catastrophic of impacts.


28

4. Policy options and discussion So far, the discussion has been on outlining the EHS risks, and presenting some of the latest technological findings that have the potential for a profound short, medium and long-term impact. While all these have been useful for pinpointing the environment in which the O&G industry operates, the following passages attempt to contextualise these findings in relation to the existing policy landscape in Europe, relevant to the region.

The issue of whether there will be development of hydrocarbons in the region, in the face of the energy transition in Europe and the rest of the world (70) is not the main topic of this study; however, it is assumed here that hydrocarbons will continue to play an important role in the global energy mix for the foreseeable future, and certainly a central one until the 2040-2050 bracket, when fundamental changes the way primary energy is supplied are expected to become widespread, under the optimistic scenarios of the Paris Agreement.

There are many ways to promote a safer, more environmentally friendly mode of operations for the offshore Eastern Med; three patterns have emerged from the risk analysis and technological review of the previous chapters:

• The O&G industry is introducing systems that can greatly improve EHS directly; • The whole industry is moving towards increased automation and digitalisation. There are

enormous opportunities for EHS improvements from the multitude of processes impacted, and

• New frontiers and opportunities are appearing for tacking GHG emissions and climate change.

The recommendations here therefore follow these distinct lines, which tie to the analysis outlined in chapter 3. Section 4.1 is an overview of the policy landscape that will assist in putting the recommendations in context, while the rest of the chapter outlines specific measures. The policy options presented here are an outcome of three converging streams: i. Recommendations from the literature, which is cited where necessary, ii. Conclusions derived from the analysis of the previous chapters, and iii. The expert qualitative opinion of contacts made through the preparation of the study, who are cited appropriately at the end of the document.

4.1. Policy and working groups landscape A major push towards harmonisation of legislative measures for protection of the environment, equipment and personnel has happened across Europe and the Eastern Med countries in the last 25 or so years (staring with the Barcelona convention), but has intensified greatly since the DWH disaster in 2010. There has therefore been a push towards communication and dissemination of technological advances in the offshore exploration area from governments and companies alike, to make sure all risks are minimised and such a disaster will not happen again.

The regulations governing the exploration and licencing in the EEZ, continental shelf and territorial waters of any EU nations of the Eastern Med are governed by national legislation that incorporates the 94/22/EC Directive on exploration of hydrocarbons (71). This directive refers to the safety of installations, workers and the environment, but leaves it to the national authorities to determine how to implement these.

4.1.1. The 2013/30/EU Directive The European Union brought important legislation in 2013 with the 2013/30/EU Directive (4) which was largely a reaction to the DWH oil disaster. The directive (also called the Offshore Safety Directive, OSD) aimed to improve the national member states' legislation to prevent similar disasters in the


29

seas where EU countries operate, including the Mediterranean. The main points proposed are the following (adapted from 72):

• Licensees must prepare a Major Hazard Report for their offshore installation • when granting licenses, EU countries must ensure that companies are well financed and

have the necessary technical expertise • Technical solutions, which are critical for the safety of operators' installations, must be

independently verified. This must be done prior to the installation going into operation • National authorities must verify safety provisions, environmental protection measures, and

the emergency preparedness of rigs and platforms • Licensees will be fully liable for environmental damages caused to protected marine species

and natural habitats. For damage to marine habitats, the geographical zone will cover all EU marine waters including exclusive economic zones and continental shelves.

• Elect a clearly identifiable responsible party

Among other articles, the Directive states 'Operators should reduce the risk of a major accident as low as reasonably practicable (...). The reasonable practicability of risk reduction measures should be kept under review in the light of new knowledge and technology developments' (4). It is evident form the above that many of the important provisions of the directive are not related to technical or technological solutions, but legislate around the rights and obligations of licensees, the steps national authorities should take etc.

Overall, the Directive is a comprehensive document that attempts to bridge the gap among the disparate national legislations that were in effect up to that point, and to consolidate the current legislative thinking around offshore exploration in one single document. Under the 'prevention of major accident' chapter, there is a clear mandate for operators or licences to carry the full financial burden of any accident caused by offshore operations, a point which will become relevant in the next paragraph.

In addition, under 'preparing and carrying out oil and gas operations' there are clear provisions for operators to report on major hazards of production and non-production installations (articles 12 and 13). These are complemented by the internal emergency response plans (article 14) taking into account major accident risk assessments (see par. 3.5).

The directive gives particular emphasis on the use of independent verification of production and non-production installations (article 17), and that this is the responsibility of the Member States, which will, in turn, make sure that the operators and owners establish the right schemes for such verification. This article in effect adds an external layer of accountability for the operators and makes sure that they will proceed with operations only after their equipment is verified. In the case of production infrastructure, verification should take place at the design stage, i.e. before installation.

In terms of O&G operations taking place outside the Union, which is of particular importance to the Eastern Med, the directive stipulates that Member States shall ask for reporting from companies registered in their jurisdiction for any major accident happening outside waters controlled by any Union member. This adds accountability to EU companies operating in Eastern Med waters (such as ENI and Total). The directive also states that the Commission shall 'promote cooperation with third countries that undertake offshore oil and gas operations in the same marine regions as Member States'. This is, again, especially relevant to the Eastern Med, and while the directive pledges its members to communicate data on major risks or accidents to third countries, it does not go as far as proposing a framework for cooperation with them. This has been the subject of a subsequent regulation (73), and is an ongoing theme of the work covered by the EU Offshore Authorities Group (EUOAG), see par. 4.1.2.


30

Another Directive provision is on transparency and sharing of information. The type of information shared is mostly on the characteristics of accidents, fatalities, discharges to sea etc. that have happened during operation. Some additional data are also requested on a common reporting format on the location of installations, their characteristics etc. Data related to environmental and seismic surveys are not explicitly mentioned, a point discussed later.

The OSD is in the process of evaluation, and the consultation process has opened in the summer of 2018, in which stakeholders could provide comments to the Commission on issues relating to the success or otherwise of OSD implementation, including areas to improve. Two preliminary consultations took place within 2018, one of which is still open at the time of writing5.

4.1.2. The EUOAG group The competent authorities have the ability to exchange knowledge and information on risk management, accident prevention, verification of compliance and emergency response relating to offshore operation, through the European Union Offshore Oil and Gas Authorities Group (EUOAG)6. This provision's extension to third countries is potentially a challenging task, but it is one worth pursuing, as discussed further in this document. The EUOAG was established under the OSD, to bring together national regulators (and industry and trade unions) to share best practice in offshore safety and environmental performance, as well as share perspectives on challenges and successes relating to implementation of the OSD. This body also has a lot of responsibility for assessing and proposing potential changes to the OSD.

4.1.3. The BREF document A Technical Working Group (TWG) is tasked by the EU Commission to draft a guidance document on Hydrocarbons Best Available Techniques (BAT) intended for regulators, an initiative headed by DG Environment. The document is the Hydrocarbon Best Available Techniques Reference document (BREF)7. This Guidance will seek to consolidate and, where necessary, develop BATs across a wide range of offshore and onshore environmental issues relating to E&P, e.g., drill cutting discharge, methane emissions, spill response planning, produced water discharge, emissions monitoring, decommissioning, etc. The TWG is composed of all relevant oil and gas E&P stakeholders in Europe, including regulators, industry, unions, NGOs and the supply chain. The Guidance is currently non-binding, but regulators will need to take 'special consideration' of it during the permitting and licensing processes in the Member States. The final BREF document is expected within 2019.

4.1.4. The SCHEER document Towards the end of 2018, the EU commission published its final opinion on the public health impacts and risks resulting from onshore oil and gas exploration and exploitation in the EU (74). The Scientific Committee on Health, Environmental and Emerging Risks (SCHEER) has found that although more than 1,300 different chemicals – some of which are known carcinogens - may be released in the environment as a result of oil and gas operations, to date there has been very limited scientific assessment of the possible health effects in the EU. It has concluded that the existing epidemiological studies provide weak to moderate evidence that oil and gas exploration and exploitation entails health risks for the general population. They also indicate that the risk of some cancers and/or adverse birth outcomes may be increased in populations living around onshore oil and gas exploration and exploitation sites. It also recommended establishing the following:

5 https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/initiatives/ares-2018-2361494_en 6 https://euoag.jrc.ec.europa.eu/ 7 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/integration/energy/hc_bref_en.htm

https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/initiatives/ares-2018-2361494_en

https://euoag.jrc.ec.europa.eu/

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/integration/energy/hc_bref_en.htm


31

• A centralised and harmonised well-based inventory of all oil and gas exploration and exploitation sites in the EU;

• Analytical and modelling studies that identify, quantify and characterise exposure mixtures and their levels in the vicinity of these sites;

• Targeted biomonitoring and exposure assessments studies of populations potentially at risk;

• Large-scale epidemiological studies with accurate exposure assessment, and • Quantitative risk assessment studies.

4.1.5. Other existing policies An additional EU Directive that should be mentioned is the 2001/42/EC (75) on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment. The objective of this Directive is to provide for a high level of protection of the environment and by ensuring that an environmental assessment is carried out of certain plans and programmes, which are likely to have significant effects on the environment. This, if followed properly, has the power to reduce costs and simplify the issuing of Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) for each drilling project individually (see also par. 4.2.2 and 4.2.3).

Most of the countries situated at the rim of the Eastern Med are also specifically covered from the provisions of the Offshore Protocol of the Barcelona convention (76) for the protection of marine environments, which goes into much more detail on the potential environmental impacts of offshore oil and gas exploration. 22 countries of the Mediterranean have signed the treaty (77), with all of the countries around the eastern med being signatories; with Cyprus being the only country amongst the signatories8 from the EU to fully ratify the protocol (78). There are potentially many synergies between the flagship 2013/30/EU Directive and the Barcelona convention, explored in a number of recent publications (e.g. 79,80). Technologies again are not explicitly covered in the Barcelona convention text; this study should be read as a supplement to existing legislation, and as suggestive only, useful as a tool for discussion for policy and legislation updates in the future.

4.2. Policy proposals targeting EHS directly The previous chapters have outlined the environmental and safety risks of offshore exploration, as well as some of the technological trends relevant to the abatement of these risks. This section will make a number of proposals with a grand aim of reducing the risk of incidents directly; i.e. policy measures that relate to technological developments in the EHS domain.

4.2.1. Critical equipment safety testing protocols As mentioned in the previous chapter, the integrity and operational readiness of the BOP and capping stacks are essential for the safe operations of offshore facilities, which has been unfortunately demonstrated in the DWH disaster. The current EU directive (2013/30/EU, see par. 4.1.1) takes the approach of relying on external independent verification for all equipment used in the production and non-production facilities (including the BOP), something that the operators and licensees are responsible for.

A different approach has been taken by the competent US authorities, with regulations passed by the US DoI and the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) to ensure the proper operation of BOPs and other critical safety equipment. Under this, a testing protocol is put in place that ensures the proper operation and readiness of all related equipment. If this were to be applied within the EU jurisdiction, it would contravene the independent verification provision of the OSD,

8 Full list of signatory counties can be found here: http://bit.ly/2Gs8VnL

http://bit.ly/2Gs8VnL


32

and could effectively shift the responsibility away from the operators and into the hands of the authority overseeing the protocol implementation. The policy proposal here therefore is to agree on minimum provisions for a testing protocol that will be drafted and implemented within the Eastern Med countries, which would be compatible with the independent verification system for EU countries.

Table 4.1: Critical safety Equipment safety testing protocol

Critical Safety Equipment safety testing protocols Policy issue Critical Safety Equipment not thoroughly tested

Policy proposal Devising an agreed baseline test protocol for all BOP stacks installed on the offshore facilities of the Eastern Med compatible with the OSD

Relevant technological innovations New stack designs, digitalisation and data sharing, robotics

Potential cost High

Potential Benefits Very high

Probability of implementation Medium

Time horizon Short to medium

Risks, uncertainties and limitations Difficulty in agreeing the protocol among countries in the Eastern Med; high costs for drillers since they have to stop operations in regular intervals

Coherence with EU objectives Should be engineered for compatibility with the 2013/30/EU Directive

Ethical, social, regulatory impacts None

Many technological developments have a role to play in the possible implementation of this policy. First, new stack designs that can take into account this regulation can be engineered to reduce the time required for the tests, thus reducing costs. New designs can also allow the stacks to pass the protocol's test in deep waters, where there is still significant uncertainly on the applicability of current solutions. Third, automation, AUVs or ROVs can be retrofitted to speed up the test, increase the clarity of results, and significantly reduce human error. Digitalisation and data sharing play a horizontal role in management of the test, speedy analysis and replicability.

4.2.2. Environmental baseline surveys and continuous monitoring Prior to the DWH accident, and largely still today in jurisdictions of nations with reduced experience in offshore exploration, there is a marked lack of baseline environmental data (81). In a recent review of environmental practices in a UK deep-water oil spill, Turrell et al. (82) have found that many key components for the ecosystem were lacking, and there was a need for 'robust physical, chemical, and biological baselines'. In the context of EIAs, baseline surveys should be carried out first at a regional level if no historical data are available, and comprehensive surveys should be carried out within the planning area in, and outside of the influence of typical impacts. These baseline surveys should include high-resolution mapping, seafloor imagery, and physical samples to characterise the faunal community and ensure proper species identification (22).


33

Table 4.2: Summary of environmental baseline surveys policy measure

Environmental baseline surveys (EIA) and continuous monitoring Policy issue Offshore drilling taking place without proper background

knowledge of environmental issues of the area, and no data collection to assess environmental indicators takes place

Policy proposal Perform high-resolution comprehensive surveys prior to any drilling operation, and continue monitoring the East Med on continuous basis

Relevant technological innovations Advanced seismic surveys, digitalisation, big data, biological mapping, monitoring of chemical compounds, PH, salinity etc.

Potential cost Low

Potential Benefits Low

Probability of implementation High

Time horizon Short to medium (following developments in seismic tech)

Risks, uncertainties and limitations Advanced seismic equipment not available to all exploration companies; costlier and longer licensing procedure; project-specific actions, reduced value for other areas

Coherence with EU objectives Very high


In addition to the above, environmental monitoring should not stop at the baseline stage. Taking a similar approach to the way climate scientists monitor the atmosphere for changes, similar monitoring equipment should be installed across the region to assess the environmental health of the Easter Med. The sea basin suffers from low circulation (see par. 3.3), and a disaster of similar proportions to the DWH in the Gulf of Mexico would be catastrophic. The gamut of indicators is long, and relevant not only due to the exploration activities, but also due to the impending climate change: Sea coral bleaching, PH, salinity, traces of various chemicals are just but a few examples of indicators that should be monitored.

The presence of such datasets is only valuable if there is a baseline to compare them with, and there is continuous, consistent data collection in regular time intervals. This is work that should be carried by a properly equipped research centre, which would have the right mandate from all the countries of the region, such as the centre proposed in par. 4.3.3.

In addition, all the data collected should be stored, sorted and hared in open-access platforms for the benefit of all researchers in the region, see par. 4.3.1.

It should be mentioned here that the EU 2001/42/EC Directive stipulates for widespread environmental assessments, which could use the technologies mentioned above for better effect, and if used as designed can reduce the need for EIAs. This is in similar vein to the proposal here, but spreading it to the rest of the countries of the Eastern Med.

4.2.3. Strategic Environmental Assessments (SEAs) In addition to the EIAs, which are project-specific, Strategic Environmental Assessments (SEA) can also be undertaken. These type of studies are now starting to have a broader application base in offshore exploration, but they can be extremely valuable as national/regional tools to identify development options that can achieve sustainable use and national/regional conservation goals. There are a few isolated examples of such studies for offshore O&G development, such as the one undertaken by the Republic of Cyprus (83), the Canadian Atlantic Waters (84), the Norwegian Barents Sea (85), the UK offshore area (86) and the gulf of Mexico (87). Such an assessment could be


34

carried out of the whole of the Eastern Med, with the coordination of all – if possible – countries involved and their respective governmental departments.

Table 4.3: Summary of Strategic Environmental Assessments surveys policy measure

Strategic Environmental Assessments (SEA) Policy issue No systematic environmental assessment ever conducted in the

Eastern Med targeted to offshore Policy proposal Undertake SEAs in a concerted manner than covers preferably

the whole Eastern Med area Relevant technological innovations Advanced seismic surveys, digitalisation and shared data

platforms, big data mining, physical and chemical pollution monitoring, biological markings

Potential cost Low Potential Benefits Medium

Probability of implementation High Time horizon Short to medium, depending on maturity of technologies

Risks, uncertainties and limitations Coordination of all Eastern Med rim countries desirable Coherence with EU objectives Very high (5/5)

Ethical, social, regulatory impacts Common regulations for conducting the surveys in the Eastern Med would be desirable

As above, relevant technologies are the ones that will be most prominent in assisting data collection for environmental indicators, as well as advances in collecting, sharing, storing and analysing large databases.

The SEAs should follow the same approach as the EIA in the previous policy proposal, i.e. emphasis should be given on the continuous nature of environmental monitoring, and the use of open-access platforms for scientific data and observations.

4.3. Policies targeting improved data sharing and collaboration The widespread penetration of digitalisation and automation in nearly all industries is gradually starting to influence O&G as well, an industry that is widely seen as adhering to traditional practices. This of course does not mean that the pace of technological innovation within the R&D departments of government, research institutions, and the industry itself is slow; on the contrary, as seen in paragraph 3.7 there is intense activity on all fronts, with the dual purpose of lowering costs and efficiency gains, and improvements to the EHS performance, which takes place both for regulatory compliance and for the commercial viability of all production stakeholders.

A major obstacle is the low rate of adoption on the one hand, and the lack of coherent sharing platforms, standards and common regulations on the other. The industry has long been very protective of the data it generates for its own exploration purposes, and it is logical to an extent given the amount of money being spent, but the emergence of sharing platforms for parts of the data generated will be beneficial to all involved stakeholders: O&G companies, regulators, licence issuers, but above else employees, local populations and the environment.

4.3.1. Open-access platforms for environmental data Management of environmental impacts for offshore exploration requires detailed data about the seabed and the undersea formations, data available from seismic surveys, among others. While it is difficult to imagine that the proprietary imaging O&G service companies produce would be easy to


35

acquire, it would be of great benefit if these images, or parts of them, would be shared via an open-access platform. The recipients could be scientists, managers and environmental services within governments. This would reduce costs considerably and simplify the process of environmental mapping. The new technologies discussed in par. 3.7 can create data sets that would not be so sensitive to their clients, but would be beneficial to these maps.

Table 4.4: Summary for implementing open-access platforms for environmental data

Open-access platforms for environmental data Policy issue Environmental data collected from seismic and other surveys

remain locked in proprietary databases of O&G companies and national archives.

Policy proposal Establish open-access platforms for data sharing

Relevant technological innovations Digitalisation; Modern seismic survey techniques, data sharing, digitalisation

Potential cost Low

Potential Benefits Medium

Probability of implementation Low

Time horizon Short

Risks & uncertainties Finding platform specifications everyone agrees on challenging; convincing exploration companies to part with data difficult

Coherence with EU objectives Unknown


This proposal can run into difficulties however, with the explorers unwilling to disclose information about the fields they are involved in. In addition, finding the correct platform to share digital maps and environmental data neds a degree of cooperation between O&G exploration companies and the countries licencing the fields; in the Eastern Med this can prove challenging as there are disparate interests and levels of readiness amongst them. The technologies involved range from seismic data, to data mining and machine learning, in order to identify patterns in different databases, perhaps collected using different methodologies and techniques.

An additional aspect to consider is the threat from cyber-attacks in such open-access platforms. The NIS Directive 2016/1148/EU (88) and the NIS Cooperation Group established by its provisions, strive to create a common high level of network and information system security across the EU. This came in effect in May 2018. The directive lists the essential services the information networks must employ, which will have to apply fully to these open-access platforms.

4.3.2. Develop standards and regulations for robotics and digital platforms As an extension to the above, the melding of operational technology with information technology calls for a common set of standards that meets stringent operational rules but also allows for information sharing across organisations. Despite the fact that the industry has a long history of sharing data for industry-wide improvements of safety standards (89), it is still lacking in showing the same degrees of cooperation in robotics and digital platforms.


36

Table 4.5: Summary for agreeing on Standards and regulations for robotics and digital platforms

Standards and regulations for robotics and digital platforms Policy issue Lack of standards in the robotics and digital platforms make for a

fragmented, inaccessible technical playing field.

Policy proposal Create industry standards that all current and future industrial stakeholders can leverage for exploration in the Eastern Med

Relevant technological innovations Big data, common digital standards, machine learning, robotics & automation

Potential cost Medium

Potential Benefits Medium

Probability of implementation High

Time horizon Short to medium, depending on external pressures/needs for implementation

Risks & uncertainties Data trust, data accessibility by parties developing standards, security, convergence on technological systems



Complimentary to the above, these common platforms will assist companies to create and deploy end-to-end digital technologies (90), given that mergers and acquisitions are not so common anymore. This will also drive companies to focus on developing in-house solutions that adhere to the new standards instead of relying on outsourced, off-the-shelf incongruent solutions. This, in turn, will allow assets to become increasingly connected to data networks, allowing companies to monitor threats, identify vulnerabilities, deploy robust controls, and promoting a culture of security awareness.

4.3.3. Create Eastern Med technology policy and research centre Given the diverse background of stakeholders connected to offshore gas exploration, another platform of cooperation should be through a research centre that is run / financed by licence issuer nations, licence holders and universities and R&D departments in the adjacent countries. There is considerable expertise in similar collaborations across the world, but especially in the US, the UK and Norway, countries connected to offshore exploration due to their own particular interests. This R&D centre can be attached to an existing institution in the area, which would be acting as a knowledge hub, and would be the first stop for every offshore gas development in the area.

In summary, the centre would have broadly the following duties:

• Conduct high quality research on matters of environmental monitoring and impact assessment for the Eastern Med, in collaboration with other centres in the region

• Share research findings and disseminate them through the right channels, including workshops, conferences and public lectures

• Maintain open-access databases using data from environmental monitoring, as described in pars. 4.2.2, 4.2.3 and 4.3.1

• Advise smaller countries with limited technical expertise as to how to manage their reserves and their relationship with O&G exploration companies (usually through their NOCs) with an emphasis on environmental protection

• Coordinate between national R&D centres, academia and private companies through frequent technology review documents and case-by-case consulting, joint workshops and conferences


37

• Conduct studies on EHS issues relevant to the area, without the need for regulatory approval by each country.

• Forge regional alliances for conducting and disseminating research of common interest • Maintain close relationships to local, regional, national and international legislators and

policy makers.

A very good parallel of how this could work can be found in the nature of the collaboration between academic institutions and O&G companies in some US universities: The MIT Energy Initiative for example maintains permanent offices of oil companies on the campus that conduct research related to exploration activities, the environment, and a smooth transition to cleaner fuels, while also being intimately connected to local, national and international legislators (91).

Table 4.6: Summary for the creation of an Eastern Med technology and policy and research Centre

Create Eastern Med technology policy and research centre

Policy issue R&D on environmental and safety issues takes place in isolation and uncoordinated

Policy proposal Creation of a multidisciplinary policy and R&D centre based in the region, specialising (among others) in EHS issues

Relevant technological innovations Horizontal

Potential cost Low

Potential Benefits Very High

Probability of implementation Medium


Risks & uncertainties Coordination effort a challenge, source of funding uncertain, as well as methodology for funding. Current interface of academia, government & industry needs developing further

Coherence with EU objectives High


4.4. Policies targeting gaseous GHG emissions There is no question that the biggest environmental challenge of our times is climate change, for which energy production and consumption is the prime driver (92). This third category of policy options is devoted to solutions that target the reduction of GHG emission directly, or - in the case of CCS - the recycling of CO2 back into offshore reservoirs. Climate change's risk characteristics are fundamentally different to the other risks already discussed (see par. 3.6) because it is a global phenomenon that will not be decided one way or another from what happens in the Eastern Med; despite this, it is of such paramount importance with so many potential implications (see e.g. the projections made for the region calculated in 93) that merit its own treatment in this document. Three major policy proposal are discussed here, energy systems interconnectedness together with deeper renewable penetration, the reduction of methane fugitive emissions and the promotion of Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS).

4.4.1. Promote interconnectedness The concept of interconnectedness of energy systems has been on the radar of energy policy makers for a long time, and Europe has taken a positive and proactive stance towards it. It is considered 'a


38

fundamental prerequisite to achieve the EU energy and climate objectives in a cost-effective way' (94), as it will allow for market integration, security of supply, provide a platform for competitiveness and innovation, and adhere to the general European project of convergence towards integration. Above all else however, it can provide with ample room for efficiency improvements of the connected energy system though balance loading, and especially through allowing the absorption of larger percentages of stochastic energy sources, such as mainstream renewables (solar, wind etc.).

There is already an electricity interconnection plan in place that foresees to link Israel, Cyprus and Greece though an underwater HVDC cable; the project is called EuroAsia interconnector9 and is envisaged to be completed by 2021, with the first stage ready by 2020. There are also plans for NG pipeline projects that bring Asian gas to European markets that may or may not use the Eastern Med as a conduit; it is still unclear. A network that consists of EU countries of the central and Eastern Med, as well as some countries of the former Eastern Bloc have formed a consortium to promote gas regional cooperation called CESEC, with interconnections as the main topic of study. Another example is the Baltic Energy Market Interconnection Plan (BEMIP) that has resulted in various projects of interconnection of electricity and gas networks of neighbouring countries, including the gas interconnector of Poland and Lithuania (GIPL) (95).

Table 4.7: Summary of promoting interconnectedness

Promote interconnectedness

Policy issue Energy systems of countries on the Eastern Med rim are mostly isolated, reducing the efficiencies, and missing on opportunities for substantial GHG reductions

Policy proposal Levy a charge on O&G exploration and production consortia to fund gas interconnection infrastructure

Relevant technological innovations Digitalisation, automation and robotics for laying new underwater infrastructure

Potential cost High

Potential Benefits Medium. A lot will depend on the extent of interconnection – benefits can range from small to very large

Probability of implementation Interconnection taking place high; assistance by O&G stakeholders lower

Time horizon Medium to long

Risks & uncertainties Disparate regulation and legislative regimes can make market rules and convergence a challenge; exploration and production companies may see this as punishment if they do not have enough stakes in an interconnected system



The proposal here is to levy a charge on the exploration consortia based on the production agreement and actual exploration quantities that will contribute towards a fund that will aid the gas interconnection (including any relevant infrastructure) in the Eastern Med. This can have multiple benefits, such as:

• Help towards the creation of a regional gas market • Improve the export economics for all countries involved • Share technical knowhow to minimise EHS risks

9 More info here: https://www.euroasia-interconnector.com/


39

• Improve regional cooperation • Reduce retail prices for consumers in the area through more efficient distribution and

market economics

In addition, the CESEC network could be expanded to include more countries, also outside the EU. This would benefit the Eastern Med gas developments, as it would tie in to an existing network.

4.4.2. Reduce fugitive methane emissions Despite huge advances, large gaps in methane emissions inventories remain. The magnitude of leaks from oil and gas infrastructure remains disputed and insufficiently measured in all countries of the world, and scientists are just now beginning to grapple with the magnitude of the issue (96), and subsequently develop the right monitoring and measurement tool and infrastructure necessary to measure them (33). There also are many discrepancies in how methane emissions are measured from place to place. There are inconsistent reporting requirements among countries, applying different thresholds over which facilities must report emissions. And there are unexplained differences between facility-level estimates of methane coming out of leaky valves and pipes on one hand, and measurements of methane in the atmosphere near oil and gas facilities (33).

On the other hand, companies have detected and limited some methane leaks, recapturing what represents lost product. However, earnings from recovering fugitive methane are not always sufficient to justify voluntary action, which suggest that a regulatory intervention is required.

Table 4.8: Summary for the reduction of methane fugitive emissions

Reduce fugitive methane emissions

Policy issue Methane leaks and fugitive emissions are recognised a major GHG source. They poorly monitored by O&G companies, and inadequately managed

Policy proposal Finance monitoring equipment for accountable and peer-reviewed measurement of methane leakages, preferably performed by a reputable research institution of the Eastern Med.

Relevant technological innovations Digitalisation, automation and robotics for monitoring equipment

Potential cost Medium

Potential Benefits Medium to high

Probability of implementation High, if issue is properly documented and researched


Risks & uncertainties Measurement may be disputed by the O&G industry, hence a rigorous validation framework must be in place



The solution to the problem has to start from useful data on these leaks. The right infrastructure and technologies have to be developed to monitor a) on-site and on-platform leaks and b) background coastal emissions levels. Correlating those two datasets will prove a much better picture the leakage patterns of offshore exploration. This proposal therefore aligns well with what is described in par. 4.3.3 on the creation of the technology and policy centre for hydrocarbons in the Eastern Med.


40

The second step is where the regulators would come in to impose caps, after verification of the measurements. This has to be done in close cooperation with the entities performing the monitoring, wince have to provide accountable and peer-reviewed data sets.

4.4.3. Investigate offshore exploration with Carbon Capture and Storage Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) is a well-known and often controversial topic of reinjecting CO2 back into the depleted hydrocarbons reservoirs. It is not a new idea, with a number of projects implemented already since the 1990s in what is essentially storage in geological formations, mainly in deep saline aquifers, and oil or gas reservoirs. It has been hailed as a potential technological breakthrough, which can have a huge impact on GHG releases to the atmosphere (97), in line with the pledges made towards the Paris agreement (98). In fact a recent review of the environmental impacts of the technology showed that there is potential for reductions in GHG emissions between 63-82% (99). The Eastern Med can demonstrate a very interesting convergence of trends for CCS to become a viable option: First, it is poised to possess a large number of offshore reservoirs that may become available for CO2 recycling in the next 10-40 years, depending on rate of exploration and extraction. Second, there are many industrial ports and facilities, as well as numerous power stations scattered around the coast that can be used as the source of the CO2. Third, improved seismic data from the exploration activities on the still numerous undeveloped fields in the area can be used to ascertain the suitability of the geological formations of the area with much better accuracy and confidence. On the other hand, most of the reservoirs are in deep waters which increases the costs and the collection, processing and routing of CO2 in to the reservoirs will require a degree of collaboration, which can be proven problematic.

Table 4.9: Investigate offshore exploration with Carbon Capture and Storage

Investigate offshore exploration with Carbon Capture and Storage Policy issue The availability of emptying hydrocarbons reservoirs can be a

sink for recycling GHG emissions by pumping them underground. This has the potential to effectively contribute towards fighting climate change, but a coordinated study for the Eastern Med is needed

Policy proposal Fund a comprehensive study on the EHS credentials of CCS for depleted gas reservoirs for the region. Levy a fee on O&G exploration companies for the creation of a CCS fund. Oblige them to pump a certain (to be decided) percentage of the CO2 released in the atmosphere from the gas extracted back into the reservoirs.

Relevant technological innovations Seismic imagine, digitalisation, new sharing platforms. The cost of CCS will have to be lowered for serious consideration

Potential cost Cost for study low (1/5); implementing CCS projects very high (5/5)

Potential Benefits Significantly reduce the net GHG emissions from, developing offshore gas fields

Probability of implementation Low (2/5)

Time horizon Medium to long

Risks & uncertainties CCS in deepwater unproven; expensive; may divert attention away from reducing emissions; geological stability still not 100% known; project implementation very complex; environmental issues with leakage not yet well understood; overall CO2 cycle may involve complex regulation with energy producers (mainly power plants)


41

Coherence with EU objectives EU and EC legislation tends to favour reduction in emission rather than recycling CO2

Ethical, social, regulatory impacts May run into strong opposition from international, national, regional and local organisations

Given the high costs associated with the technology, estimated at €90m for 25 Mt CO2/year infected in formations deeper than 100m (100), the likelihood of private interest in promoting CCS is low. The International Energy Agency however believes that with the right policy design and the right steps CCS can fulfil its enormous potential (101). Its proposals revolve around subsiding the technology in its early steps, and then recuperating some of these costs by attaching externalities to the polluters (i.e. the energy producers).

Figure 4.1: Progression for incentive policies for CSS, according to IEA (101)

This study errs on the side of caution in regards to early subsidisation, as this is not a policy measure that is always successful. The proposal here is to do a very thorough examination of the feasibility for the Eastern Med, perhaps combined with the policy proposal for an R&D centre (see par. 4.3.3 above). The contribution of gas field owners, O&G explorers and utilities can then be assessed by entering into a joint agreement for an implementation plan, which, the more inclusive it is, the more chances of success it will have.

The potential environmental impacts of CCS should not be overlooked: There have been reports of solid and marine acidification from CO2 dissolving, and if CSS is not combined with some sort of CO2 utilisation (e.g. Enhanced Oil Recovery – EOR, conversion of CO2 to chemicals and fuels, mineral carbonation), the potential reduction in GHG emissions is significantly reduced (99). Worthy of a note here is also the fact that O&G companies see CSS as a technological solution that can do away with the need for mitigation measures (such as reduction in the use of hydrocarbons), which is contrary to the policies and vision the EU has set for its energy future.

There are of course other strategies of reducing GHG emissions, like improvements in energy efficiency, the use of cleaner sources of energy (including renewables), the use of clean coal, the development of nuclear power, reforestation etc. (102). CCS however represents a rare combination of importance and applicability to the region, a very large GHG reduction potential, and the fact that it still belongs to the forefront of technological developments. Nonetheless, it should not be forgotten that the most immediate and tangible difference to fighting climate change on a global scale has to come from the eventual phasing out of all hydrocarbons, and replacing them with cleaner, or completely clean in terms of global warming potential, sources of energy.


42

4.5. Difficulties and hurdles The Eastern Med is an area with very particular characteristics, as discussed in previous sections of this study. The policy options presented within chapter 4 have themselves their merits and drawbacks, but overall the hurdles for implementation are around three main categories: Geographical, political and technical.

It is a fact that exploration in deep waters is technically challenging. The timing of the interest in hydrocarbons in the area is a function of many thing, but one of them is certainly that maturing of the technology for upstream activities in deep waters, first in other areas (e.g. in the Gulf of Mexico) and then spreading worldwide. It remains a challenge. This has an impact on which companies are attracted, the exploration economics, and the attitude of the licence holders. Most significant plays are also far from the shore: Egypt's initial findings are in the estuary of the river Nile, but more recent (and significant) finds are further ashore. Similarly for Israel and Cyprus, and still unknown for Lebanon, Syria, Turkey and Greece. This uncertainty is affecting the willingness of nations to engage with other countries until things become clearer, impending standardisation, sharing of good practices etc. as outlined in the previous paragraphs.

Hydrocarbons legislation is also disparate across countries in the Eastern Med. On the one hand, there is convergence towards EU directives for Cyprus and Greece, and on the other, there is a fragmented landscape of national interest from countries with wildly different technical capabilities, dissimilar quantities of known reserves and incompatible legal approaches. This is exacerbated by numerous unresolved disputes on maritime zones between countries of the area, which, for the most part, is a showstopper towards deep convergence of legal and technical challenges.

Lastly, O&G companies need to be convinced of the merits of cooperation, and if need be, be regulated and required to cooperate. It is quite evident by now that digitalisation of the industry will bring the biggest benefits towards both their efficient operations and EHS improvements either directly or indirectly. In addition, the advent of new simulation and imaging technologies coupled with improvement in seismic surveys will generate vast amounts of useful data for improvement of EHS standards, the effective sharing of which is one of the keys for the future.


43

5. Conclusions The predicted ramping-up of exploration and exploitation activities in the Eastern Mediterranean appears now to be a certainty. Israel and Egypt are already producing from their respective reserves, while Cyprus is close to a definitive exploitation strategy. Other countries in the region, such as Lebanon, Turkey and Greece, are weighing their options, while Syria has yet to develop a plan. This study aims to consolidate and inform on the latest technological developments and the environmental risks of offshore activities.

The Eastern Mediterranean demonstrates some distinct particularities compared to other marine areas of exploitation, such as the Gulf of Mexico and the North Sea. Most prominent of all is the fact that the surrounding countries of the Eastern Mediterranean are governed by different legal and environmental regulations, which are often incompatible with each other. In addition, many bilateral disputes between countries on the rights of exploitation remain to be resolved, and are often persistent longstanding geopolitical issues. Geographically, most of the gas fields are situated in relatively deep waters, in an comparatively oligotrophic area, but rich in marine biodiversity. The East Mediterranean is also an exceptionally vulnerable sea with very low water regeneration, and is especially at risk from environmental disasters such as blowouts. An event similar in magnitude to the DWH would be much more disastrous for the sea itself and the populations living on its rim.

The risks of exploration are well documented and increasingly monitored and catalogued following the 2010 DWH disaster. This study does not strive to make an exhaustive directory of all associated risks, but rather identify the main ones relevant to the areas in question. The principal risk is that of accidental explosive discharge in the marine environment (a blowout). Gas fields do not present the same level of impacts as oil fields, but this is an area of active research. Other discharges at sea (such as chemicals) are also highlighted in this study, as well as the GHG emissions associated with exploration operations, including the very serious matter of methane leaks and fugitive releases.

As expected in a huge industry, technological development by various actors (service companies, explorers, national R&D programmes, universities and research institutions etc.) progresses at speed, but their application in the field takes place at a more moderate pace. There are many reasons for this that have to do with the industry's culture, but also to make sure that all operations are as safe as possible. Despite this, advances in critical safety equipment (mainly BOPs but also capping stacks), new techniques in seismic surveying, robotics and automation, and widespread digitalisation, are all poised to improve offshore exploration's environmental credentials, but also alter how the industry operates in the future.

As already mentioned, these technological changes are embedded into an environment of geopolitical uncertainly and often legal incompatibility. However, there is now a clear direction from the EU on the steps its Member States should take in addressing environmental challenges, through various agreements and pieces of legislation, chiefly among which is Directive 2013/30/EU (also called the OSD). While this directive is a huge leap forward in standardising safety practices from O&G companies, there is still room for significant improvements as regards the Eastern Mediterranean. This study proposes three main groups of policy measures:

1. Policies targeting environment, health and safety issues directly, such as tests for critical safety equipment and baseline environmental surveys;

2. Polices improving data sharing, such as open-access platforms and the development of standards; and

3. Policies to target gaseous GHG emissions, such as proper monitoring of CH4 fugitive emissions and investigation into the feasibility of CCS.

Ultimately, this study has found that the systematic collection and sharing of environmental information for the Eastern Mediterranean is distinctly lacking. This is an enormously important


44

point for an environmentally fragile marine area, shared by many non-cooperating states, that has not yet experienced the extent of exploitation seen in other seas. Not only is a systematic mapping of where the current situation needed (through baseline surveys and SEAs), but the continuous monitoring of relevant data (e.g. salinity, PH, biodiversity, chemical compounds release etc.) is considered essential. The right recording, cataloguing ,sorting, safekeeping and sharing of this information on proper open-access platforms for the benefit of the research community, policy-makers and O&G explorers that will operate in the Eastern Mediterranean is also vital.

This confluence of tasks is best suited to a properly tasked scientific research and policy centre located in the Eastern Mediterranean, which will act as a hub and perform research, collect and disseminate information, advise governments, monitor the environmental health of the sea, and influence national and regional policy on hydrocarbon exploration matters. Such a centre would accelerate and simplify the operations of all relevant stakeholders and would make sure that the correct actions are taken to minimise the risks from the impending O&G exploration activities in the region.


45

References 1. Grant MJ, Booth A. A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies.

Health Inf Libr J [Internet]. 2009 Jun 1 [cited 2018 Jan 25];26(2):91–108. Available from: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x/abstract

2. Lockwood C, Oh EG. Systematic reviews: Guidelines, tools and checklists for authors. Nurs Health Sci [Internet]. 2017 Sep 1 [cited 2018 May 9];19(3):273–7. Available from: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/nhs.12353

3. Darko E. Short guide summarising the oil and gas industry lifecycle for a non-technical audience [Internet]. UKaid; 2014 p. 15. Available from: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/57a089efed915d3cfd0004d4/Short_guide_summarising_the_oil_and_gas_industry_lifecycle-43.pdf

4. EU Directive. Directive 2013/30/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 June 2013 on safety of offshore oil and gas operations and amending Directive 2004/35/EC Text with EEA relevanc [Internet]. 2013/30/EU 2013. Available from: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32013L0030

5. Upstream (petroleum industry). In: Wikipedia [Internet]. 2018 [cited 2018 May 10]. Available from: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Upstream_(petroleum_industry)&oldid=839630531

6. dti. An overview of offshore oil and gas exploration and production activities [Internet]. UK: Harley Anderson Limited; 2001 Aug. Available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/197799/SD_SEA2EandP.pdf

7. Kark S, Brokovich E, Mazor T, Levin N. Emerging conservation challenges and prospects in an era of offshore hydrocarbon exploration and exploitation. Conserv Biol [Internet]. 2015 Dec 1 [cited 2018 May 7];29(6):1573–85. Available from: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/cobi.12562

8. Ellinas C, Atlantic Council of the United States, Global Energy Center, Atlantic Council of the United States, Dinu Patriciu Eurasia Center. Hydrocarbon Developments in the Eastern Mediterranean: the Case for Pragmatism [Internet]. 2016 [cited 2018 Jun 10]. Available from: http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/images/publications/Hydrocarbon_Developments_in_the_Eastern_Mediterranean_web_0801.pdf

9. Ikonact. Bathymetry map of the Mediterranean Sea. [Internet]. 2015 [cited 2018 May 7]. Available from: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mediterranean_Sea_Bathymetry_map.svg

10. Colombo S, El Harrak M, Sartori N, Istituto affari internazionali, OCP Policy Center, editors. The future of natural gas: markets and geopolitics [Internet]. The Netherlands: Lenthe : Eurpoean Energy Review; 2016. 238 p. Available from: http://www.iai.it/sites/default/files/iai-ocp_gas.pdf

11. ENI. The history of Zohr [Internet]. 2018 [cited 2018 Jun 10]. Available from: https://www.eni.com:443/en_IT/operations/upstream/exploration-model/zohr-egypt.page

12. Paltsev S, O'Sullivan F, Lee N, Agarwal A, Li M, Li X, et al. Natural Gas Monetization Pathways for Cyprus: Interim Report – Economics of Project Development Options [Internet]. Cambridge, MA: MIT Energy Initiative, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; 2013 Aug. (Economics of Project Development Options). Available from: http://mitei.mit.edu/system/files/Cyprus_NG_Report.pdf

13. Department of Fisheries and Marine Research, Cyprus. The Marine Environment of Cyprus [Internet]. 2013 [cited 2018 Jun 7]. Available from:


46

http://www.moa.gov.cy/moa/dfmr/dfmr.nsf/0/6561CB64C528ECFA42257F370041F296?OpenDocument

14. Zenetos A, Siokou-Frangou I, Gotsis-Skretas O, Groom S. Seas around Europe: the Mediterranean Sea: blue oxygen-rich, nutrient-poor waters [Internet]. National Centre for Marine Research, Greece (NCMR), Plymouth Marine Laboratory, UK (PML); 2002 [cited 2018 Jun 7]. Available from: http://www.vliz.be/en/imis?module=ref&refid=26844&printversion=1&dropIMIStitle=1

15. Psarra S. Eastern Mediterranean, a 'miniature ocean' in an era of change: environmental controls of productivity and pelagic food web-functioning [Internet]. EastMed Symposium: Regional Coopera,on in Eastern Mediterranean Sea Research; 2014 Nov; Limassol, Cyprus. Available from: http://www.oceanography.ucy.ac.cy/eastmed/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/D2S2-Psarra.pdf

16. Coll M, Piroddi C, Steenbeek J, Kaschner K, Lasram FBR, Aguzzi J, et al. The Biodiversity of the Mediterranean Sea: Estimates, Patterns, and Threats. PLOS ONE [Internet]. 2010 Aug 2 [cited 2018 Jun 7];5(8):e11842. Available from: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0011842

17. Techtmann SM, Fortney JL, Ayers KA, Joyner DC, Linley TD, Pfiffner SM, et al. The Unique Chemistry of Eastern Mediterranean Water Masses Selects for Distinct Microbial Communities by Depth. PLOS ONE [Internet]. 2015 Mar 25 [cited 2018 Jun 11];10(3):e0120605. Available from: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0120605

18. Mediterranean Sea. In: Wikipedia [Internet]. 2018 [cited 2018 Jun 11]. Available from: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mediterranean_Sea&oldid=845167578

19. Alves TM, Kokinou E, Zodiatis G, Radhakrishnan H, Panagiotakis C, Lardner R. Multidisciplinary oil spill modeling to protect coastal communities and the environment of the Eastern Mediterranean Sea. Sci Rep [Internet]. 2016 Nov 10 [cited 2018 Jun 7];6:36882. Available from: https://www.nature.com/articles/srep36882

20. UNEP-EEA E. Priority issues in the Mediterranean environment. Report; 2006.

21. MEDGIS-MAR. Mediterranean Integrated Geographical Information System on Marine Pollution Risk Assessment and Response [Internet]. 2018. Available from: http://medgismar.rempec.org/

22. Cordes EE, Jones DOB, Schlacher TA, Amon DJ, Bernardino AF, Brooke S, et al. Environmental Impacts of the Deep-Water Oil and Gas Industry: A Review to Guide Management Strategies. Front Environ Sci [Internet]. 2016 [cited 2018 Apr 29];4. Available from: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fenvs.2016.00058/full

23. RigZone. Rig Report: Offshore Rig Fleet by Region [Internet]. 2018 [cited 2018 Apr 10]. Available from: http://images.rigzone.com/data/rig_report.asp?rpt=reg

24. MIT Energy Initiative. The Future of Natural Gas: An Interdisciplinary MIT Study [Internet]. Cambridge, MA 02139-4307: MIT Energy Initiative; 2011 Jun p. 170. Available from: http://mitei.mit.edu/system/files/NaturalGas_Report.pdf

25. National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling, editor. Deep water: the Gulf oil disaster and the future of offshore drilling: report to the President [Internet]. Washington, D.C.: National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling : For sale by the Supt. of Docs., U.S. G.P.O; 2011. 380 p. Available from: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-OILCOMMISSION/pdf/GPO-OILCOMMISSION.pdf

26. Turley JA. An Engineering Look at the Cause of the 2010 Macondo Blowout. In Society of Petroleum Engineers; 2014 [cited 2018 Mar 29]. Available from: https://www.onepetro.org/conference-paper/SPE-167970-MS


47

27. Muehlenbachs L, Cohen MA, Gerarden T. The impact of water depth on safety and environmental performance in offshore oil and gas production. Energy Policy [Internet]. 2013 Apr 1 [cited 2018 May 25];55:699–705. Available from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030142151201141X

28. ABS Consulting. 2016 Update of Occurrence Rates for Offshore Oil Spills [Internet]. Bureau of Offshore Energy Management; 2016 Jul. Available from: https://www.bsee.gov/sites/bsee.gov/files/osrr-oil-spill-response-research/1086aa.pdf

29. Eckle P, Burgherr P, Michaux E. Risk of Large Oil Spills: A Statistical Analysis in the Aftermath of Deepwater Horizon. Environ Sci Technol [Internet]. 2012 Dec 4 [cited 2018 May 25];46(23):13002–8. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1021/es3029523

30. Schout G, Hartog N, Hassanizadeh SM, Griffioen J. Impact of an historic underground gas well blowout on the current methane chemistry in a shallow groundwater system. Proc Natl Acad Sci [Internet]. 2018 Jan 9 [cited 2018 Apr 16];115(2):296–301. Available from: http://www.pnas.org/content/115/2/296

31. Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited. Technical Support for the Risk Management of Unconventional Hydrocarbon Extraction [Internet]. Brussels, Belgium: EU Commission DG Environment; 2015 Aug. Available from: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/integration/energy/pdf/study_management_ei.pdf

32. Corden C, Robert W, Luscombe D, Power O, Ma A, Price J, et al. Study on the assessment and management of environmental impacts and risks resulting from the exploration and production of hydrocarbons [Internet]. European Union; 2016. Available from: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/integration/energy/pdf/Study_on_the_management_of_environmental_impacts_and_risks_of_conventional_oil_and_gas%20.pdf

33. Konschnik K, Jordaan SM. Reducing fugitive methane emissions from the North American oil and gas sector: a proposed science-policy framework. Clim Policy [Internet]. 2018 Feb 12 [cited 2018 Mar 29];0(0):1–19. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2018.1427538

34. US DoE. Advancing Systems and Technologies to Produce Cleaner Fuels: Supplemental Information on Oil & Gas technologies [Internet]. US Department of Energy; 2015. Report No.: Chapter 7. Available from: https://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2016/05/f32/Ch.7-SI-Oil-and-Gas-Technologies.pdf

35. IEA. WEO 2017 [Internet]. 2018 [cited 2018 May 19]. Available from: https://www.iea.org/weo2017/

36. Mitchell JV, Marcel V, Mitchell B. What next for the oil and gas industry? [Internet]. London: Chatham House; 2012. 112 p. Available from: https://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/files/chathamhouse/public/Research/Energy,%20Environment%20and%20Development/1012pr_oilgas.pdf

37. Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology. Blowout Preventer System. In: Macondo Well Deepwater Horizon Blowout: Lessons for Improving Offshore Drilling Safety [Internet]. Washington D.C.: National Academies Press; 2012. Available from: http://nap.edu/13273

38. Blowout preventer. In: Wikipedia [Internet]. 2018 [cited 2018 Apr 21]. Available from: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Blowout_preventer&oldid=824065891

39. US DoI. Investigation of Loss of Well Control and Fire South Timbalier Area Block 220, Well No. A-3 OCS-G 24980 [Internet]. New Orleans; 2015 Jul. Available from: https://www.bsee.gov/sites/bsee_prod.opengov.ibmcloud.com/files/southtimbalier-220-panel-report9-8-2015.pdf

40. Shilling R. Legacy BOP technology could be approaching design limitations [Internet]. 2016 [cited 2018 Apr 18]. Available from: https://www.offshore-mag.com/articles/print/volume-76/issue-2/drilling-and-completion/legacy-bop-technology-could-be-approaching-design-limitations.html


48

41. General Electric. Ram BOPs [Internet]. GE Oil & Gas. 2014 [cited 2018 May 1]. Available from: https://www.geoilandgas.com/drilling/offshore-drilling/ram-bops

42. BOP Technologies. Next Generation Blowout Preventer Aims to Close Gap in Offshore Drilling Safety [Internet]. 2015 [cited 2018 Apr 28]. Available from: https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20151110006784/en/Generation-Blowout-Preventer-Aims-Close-Gap-Offshore

43. RigZone. New BOP Targets Prevention of Future Deepwater Horizon Incidents [Internet]. 2016 [cited 2018 Apr 29]. Available from: https://www.rigzone.com/news/oil_gas/a/147197/new_bop_targets_prevention_of_future_deepwater_horizon_incidents/?all=hg2

44. Raptors Design. HAWK BOP Tool [Internet]. OilSpill Safety Tool for Blowout Preventers - HAWK Tool. 2018 [cited 2018 Apr 18]. Available from: http://raptorsdesign.com/

45. Monitor Systems. BOP Blow Out Preventer Control System, design, manufacture and installation [Internet]. 2015 [cited 2018 Apr 27]. Available from: https://www.monitor-systems-engineering.com/bop_control_engineering_solutions.html

46. Nicholls H, Penn L, Marszalek A, Esestime P, Rodriguez K, Benson C, et al. The role of legacy seismic in exploring new offshore hydrocarbon provinces – or can you 'teach' old data new tricks (technologies)? In Society of Exploration Geophysicists; 2015 [cited 2018 May 10]. p. 1917–21. Available from: http://library.seg.org/doi/10.1190/segam2015-5875295.1

47. PGS. New Cyprus potential on GeoStreamer data [Internet]. PGS. 2014 [cited 2018 Apr 21]. Available from: https://www.pgs.com/campaign/2016/mc-europe/new-cyprus-potential-on-geostreamer-data/

48. Schlumberger. IsoMetrix Marine Isometric Seismic Technology | Schlumberger [Internet]. 2017 [cited 2018 Apr 19]. Available from: https://www.slb.com/services/seismic/marine/technologies/isometrix.aspx

49. NETL. Summary of Costs Associated with Seismic Data Acquisition and Processing [Internet]. 2016 [cited 2018 Apr 19]. Available from: https://www.netl.doe.gov/research/energy-analysis/search-publications/vuedetails?id=528

50. Silixa. acoustic sensing with iDASTM - intelligent Distributed Acoustic Sensor [Internet]. silixa.com. 2016 [cited 2018 Apr 19]. Available from: https://silixa.com/technology/idas/

51. Skinner M, Smith P, Irving A, Muhongo J, Jafargandomi A, Lacombe C, et al. Improved 4D Data Quality Offshore Angola in a Mature 4D Multi Monitor Context. In Society of Exploration Geophysicists; 2015 [cited 2018 May 10]. Available from: https://www.onepetro.org/conference-paper/SEG-2015-5889511

52. Adeyemi AA, Lafram A, Charron P, Radigon C, Pigeaud T, Emang M. A 4D Seismic Processing Case Study in a Difficult Shallow Offshore Complex Carbonate Field. In 2017 [cited 2018 May 10]. Available from: http://www.earthdoc.org/publication/publicationdetails/?publication=88526

53. Gerea C, Pichon P-L, Geddes G, Verliac M, Lesnikov V. Proficient subsalt monitoring with 3D well seismic, deep-offshore West Africa. In Society of Exploration Geophysicists; 2016 [cited 2018 May 10]. Available from: https://www.onepetro.org/conference-paper/SEG-2016-13869509

54. Skourup C, Pretlove J. Remote inspection and intervention [Internet]. Oslo, Norway: ABB Strategic R&D for Oil, Gas and Petrochemicals; 2012 p. 6. Available from: https://library.e.abb.com/public/46a3a908e1a647f3c125795800580caf/50-55%202m155_ENG_72dpi.pdf


49

55. Shukla A, Karki H. Application of robotics in offshore oil and gas industry— A review Part II. Robot Auton Syst [Internet]. 2016 Jan 1 [cited 2018 May 15];75:508–24. Available from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921889015002018

56. Idachaba F. Robotics and the Oil and Gas Production Process: Right Technology, Right Timing. In Society of Petroleum Engineers; 2014 [cited 2018 May 15]. Available from: https://www.onepetro.org/conference-paper/SPE-171700-MS

57. World Economic Forum. The future of jobs: Employment, skills and workforce strategy for the fourth industrial revolution [Internet]. World Economic Forum, Geneva, Switzerland; 2016. Available from: http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Future_of_Jobs.pdf

58. The robots are coming | Eniday [Internet]. 2016 [cited 2018 May 14]. Available from: https://www.eniday.com/en/education_en/robots-in-oil-gas-industry/

59. Hiller T, Steingrimsson A, Melvin R. Expanding the small AUV mission envelope; longer, deeper amp; more accurate. In: 2012 IEEE/OES Autonomous Underwater Vehicles (AUV). 2012. p. 1–4.

60. Meyer A, Roos A, dos Santos JF, Gibson D, Blakemore G, Hammerin R. Subsea robotic friction-welding-repair system. In: Offshore Technology Conference. Offshore Technology Conference; 2001.

61. World Economic Forum, Accenture. Digital Transformation Initiative: Oil and Gas Industry [Internet]. Switzerland: World Economic Forum, Geneva, Switzerland; 2017 Jan. Report No.: REF 060117. Available from: http://reports.weforum.org/digital-transformation/wp-content/blogs.dir/94/mp/files/pages/files/dti-oil-and-gas-industry-white-paper.pdf

62. Midttun A, Piccini PB. Facing the climate and digital challenge: European energy industry from boom to crisis and transformation. Energy Policy [Internet]. 2017 Sep 1 [cited 2018 May 22];108:330–43. Available from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421517303348

63. Chui M, Manyika J, Miremandi M, Henke N, Chung R, Nel P, et al. Notes from the AI frontier: Applications and value of deep learning [Internet]. McKinsey Global Institute; 2018 Apr. Available from: https://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/McKinsey/Global%20Themes/Artificial%20Intelligence/Notes%20from%20the%20AI%20frontier%20Applications%20and%20value%20of%20deep%20learning/MGI_Notes-from-AI-Frontier_Discussion-paper.ashx

64. IEA. Digitalization and Energy [Internet]. 2017 p. 188. Available from: http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/DigitalizationandEnergy3.pdf

65. Perrons RK, Jensen JW. Data as an asset: What the oil and gas sector can learn from other industries about 'Big Data'. Energy Policy [Internet]. 2015 Jun 1 [cited 2018 May 22];81:117–21. Available from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421515000932

66. Ruppel Carolyn D., Kessler John D. The interaction of climate change and methane hydrates. Rev Geophys [Internet]. 2017 Feb 8 [cited 2018 Mar 29];55(1):126–68. Available from: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/2016RG000534

67. Gezdur A, Bhattacharjya J. Digitization in the Oil and Gas Industry: Challenges and Opportunities for Supply Chain Partners. In 2017. p. 97–103.

68. Hjorth R, Skjolding LM, Sørensen SN, Baun A. Regulatory adequacy of aquatic ecotoxicity testing of nanomaterials. NanoImpact [Internet]. 2017 Oct 1 [cited 2018 Feb 13];8:28–37. Available from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2452074817300526

69. Technology readiness level. In: Wikipedia [Internet]. 2018 [cited 2018 May 21]. Available from: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Technology_readiness_level&oldid=839577342


50

70. European Commission. Europe's energy transition is well underway - Energy - European Commission [Internet]. Energy. 2017 [cited 2018 May 29]. Available from: /energy/en/news/europes-energy-transition-well-underway

71. EU Directive. Directive 94/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 1994 on the conditions for granting and using authorizations for the prospection, exploration and production of hydrocarbons [Internet]. 164, 31994L0022 Jun 30, 1994. Available from: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/1994/22/oj/eng

72. European Commission. Offshore oil and gas safety - Energy - European Commission [Internet]. Energy. 2016 [cited 2018 Mar 30]. Available from: /energy/en/topics/oil-gas-and-coal/offshore-oil-and-gas-safety

73. EU Regulation. Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1112/2014 of 13 October 2014 determining a common format for sharing of information on major hazard indicators by the operators and owners of offshore oil and gas installations and a common format for the publication of the information on major hazard indicators by the Member States Text with EEA relevance [Internet]. OJ L, 32014R1112 Oct 22, 2014. Available from: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2014/1112/oj/eng

74. European Commission. Opinion on the public health impacts and risks resulting from onshore oil and gas exploration and exploitation in the EU [Internet]. Scientific Committee on Health, Environmental and Emerging Risks SCHEER; 2018 Nov. Available from: https://ec.europa.eu/health/sites/health/files/scientific_committees/scheer/docs/scheer_o_013.pdf

75. EU Directive. Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment [Internet]. 2001/42/EC 2001. Available from: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/ALL/?uri=CELEX:32001L0042

76. Barcelona Convention. Protocol for the Protection of the Mediterranean Sea against Pollution Resulting from Exploration and Exploitation of the Continental Shelf and the Seabed and its Subsoil [Internet]. 1994. Available from: http://www.ifrc.org/docs/idrl/I449EN.pdf

77. UNEPMAP. Contracting Parties of the Barcelona Convention [Internet]. [cited 2018 May 11]. Available from: http://web.unep.org/unepmap/

78. MAP. Mediterranean Action Plan, Study on international best practices, 3rd offshore protocol working group meeting, 17-18 June 2014. [Internet]. 2013. Available from: http://www.rempec.org/admin/store/wyswigImg/file/News/Forthcoming%20Meetings/3rd%20Offshore%20Protocol%20Meeting,.%20Malta%2017-18%20June%202014/E-%20Info%20and%20Ref%20Docs/4_%20WG_34_INF_%203%20-%20WG_34_19%20-%20Study%20on%20the%20Intel%20Best%20Pratices-Rev1.pdf

79. Antonopoulos E. Safety in Offshore Drilling: From the Gulf of Mexico accident to the Directive 2013/30/EU. The economic dimension of integration [Internet]. Greece: Institute of European Integration and Policy; 2016. Report No.: IEIP Νο. 3/2016. Available from: http://en.eeep.pspa.uoa.gr/fileadmin/eeep.pspa.uoa.gr/uploads/__UTF-8_b_zrPOuc6xIM6UzpfOnM6fzqPOmc6VzqXOo86XIC0______UTF-8_b_IEFudG9ub3BvdWxvcy5wZGY___.pdf

80. Milieu Ltd. Safety of offshore exploration and exploitation activities in the Mediterranean: creating synergies between the forthcoming EU Regulation and the Protocol to the Barcelona Convention [Internet]. milieu consulting; 2013. Report No.: 070307/2012/621038/SER/D2. Available from: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/marine/international-cooperation/regional-sea-conventions/barcelona-convention/pdf/Final%20Report%20Offshore%20Safety%20Barcelona%20Protocol%20.pdf

81. Joye SB, Bracco A, Özgökmen TM, Chanton JP, Grosell M, MacDonald IR, et al. The Gulf of Mexico ecosystem, six years after the Macondo oil well blowout. Deep Sea Res Part II Top Stud Oceanogr


51

[Internet]. 2016 Jul 1 [cited 2018 May 11];129:4–19. Available from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0967064516300935

82. Turrell WR, O'Hara Murray R, Berx B, Gallego A. The Science Of Deepwater Oil Spills-Results From The 2013 Marine Scotland Science Modelling Workshop, Vol. 5 [Internet]. Vol. 5. Abeerden: Scottish Marine and Freshwater Science; 2014. Available from: http://www.gov.scot/Resource/0044/00445530.pdf

83. Maritime Communication Services, Aeoliki Ltd., CSA International, Inc., University of Cyprus Oceanographic Centre. Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) Concerning Hydrocarbon Activities within the Exclusive Economic Zone of the Republic of Cyprus [Internet]. Nicosia, Cyprus; 2008. Report No.: MCIT/ES/13/2007. Available from: http://www.moa.gov.cy/moa/environment/environmentnew.nsf/All/75BC9B3B204E5874C2257F3700422790/$file/M20080301.pdf?OpenElement

84. Floor F, Place TD. Orphan BasinStrategic Environmental Assessment [Internet]. 2003. Available from: http://www.bape.gouv.qc.ca/sections/mandats/sismiques/documents/DD17.pdf

85. Hasle JR, Kjellén U, Haugerud O. Decision on oil and gas exploration in an Arctic area: Case study from the Norwegian Barents Sea. Saf Sci [Internet]. 2009 Jul 1 [cited 2018 May 11];47(6):832–42. Available from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0925753508001847

86. Geotek Ltd., Hartley Anderson Ltd. Strategic Environmental Assessment Area North And West of Orkney Shetland [Internet]. Department of Trade and Industry; 2003. Available from: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/197814/SEA4_assessment.pdf

87. Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region. Exploration Activities in the Eastern Sale Area: Eastern Planning Area, Gulf of Mexico OCS [Internet]. 2003. Report No.: OCS EIS/EA MMS 2003-008. Available from: https://www.boem.gov/BOEM-Newsroom/Library/Publications/2003/2003-008.aspx

88. European Commission. Directive (EU) 2016/1148 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 July 2016 concerning measures for a high common level of security of network and information systems across the Union [Internet]. 194, 32016L1148 Jul 19, 2016. Available from: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2016/1148/oj/eng

89. DNV-GL. Industry Perspective: Digitalization in the Oil and Gas Sector [Internet]. DNV GL AS; 2015. Available from: http://images.e.dnvgl.com/Web/DNVGL/%7B38e9b162-fc3a-4b88-bcff-8c28b297c34b%7D_Industry_Perspective_Digitalization_in_the_oil_and_gas_industry_DNV_GL.PDF?utm_campaign=&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Eloqua

90. Clark N, Avnar A. Not your father's oil and gas business: Reshaping the future with upstream digitization [Internet]. Houston, TX: PwC; 2017 p. 20. (Strategy&). Available from: https://www.strategyand.pwc.com/media/file/Not-your-fathers-oil-and-gas-business.pdf

91. MIT Energy Initiative. Conventional Energy [Internet]. MIT Energy Initiative. 2018 [cited 2018 Jun 3]. Available from: http://energy.mit.edu/area/conventional-energy/

92. Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Internet]. Geneva, Switzerland: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC); 2014. Available from: https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/SYR_AR5_FINAL_full_wcover.pdf

93. Hadjinicolaou P, Giannakopoulos C, Zerefos C, Lange MA, Pashiardis S, Lelieveld J. Mid-21st century climate and weather extremes in Cyprus as projected by six regional climate models. Reg Environ Change [Internet]. 2011 Sep 1 [cited 2017 Mar 2];11(3):441–57. Available from: https://link-springer-com.proxy2.library.illinois.edu/article/10.1007/s10113-010-0153-1


52

94. Commission Expert Group on electricity interconnection targets. Towards a sustainable and integrated Europe: Commission Expert Group on electricity interconnection targets [Internet]. European Commission; 2017 Nov. Available from: https://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/ener/files/documents/report_of_the_commission_expert_group_on_electricity_interconnection_targets.pdf

95. Purvins A, Huang T, Zalzar S, Pi RJ, Flego G, Masera M, et al. Integration of the Baltic States into the EU electricity system: A technical and economic analysis [Internet]. Publications Office of the European Union; 2017. Available from: https://publications.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/8d3b7da2-562e-11e7-a5ca-01aa75ed71a1/language-en/format-PDF/source-31392329

96. Brandt AR, Heath GA, Cooley D. Methane Leaks from Natural Gas Systems Follow Extreme Distributions. Environ Sci Technol [Internet]. 2016 Nov 15 [cited 2018 Dec 13];50(22):12512–20. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.6b04303

97. Global CCS Institute. The Global Status of CCS: 2017 [Internet]. Global CCS Institute; 2017. Available from: http://www.globalccsinstitute.com/sites/www.globalccsinstitute.com/files/uploads/global-status/1-0_4529_CCS_Global_Status_Book_layout-WAW_spreads.pdf

98. Peters GP, Andrew RM, Canadell JG, Fuss S, Jackson RB, Korsbakken JI, et al. Key indicators to track current progress and future ambition of the Paris Agreement. Nat Clim Change [Internet]. 2017 Feb [cited 2018 Jun 4];7(2):118–22. Available from: http://www-nature-com/articles/nclimate3202

99. Cuéllar-Franca RM, Azapagic A. Carbon capture, storage and utilisation technologies: A critical analysis and comparison of their life cycle environmental impacts. J CO2 Util [Internet]. 2015 Mar 1 [cited 2018 Jun 4];9:82–102. Available from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212982014000626

100. Global CCS Institute. 5.2. Offshore facilities for CO2 injection | Global CCS Institute [Internet]. 2015 [cited 2018 Jun 5]. Available from: https://hub.globalccsinstitute.com/publications/development-co2-transport-and-storage-network-north-sea-report-north-sea-basin-task-force/52-offshore-facilities-co2-injection

101. International Energy Agency. A Policy Strategy for Carbon Capture and Storage [Internet]. 2012 Jan [cited 2018 Jun 5]. Report No.: 2012/04. Available from: https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/energy/a-policy-strategy-for-carbon-capture-and-storage_5k9gshq1n29t-en

102. Raza A, Gholami R, Rezaee R, Bing CH, Nagarajan R, Hamid MA. CO2 storage in depleted gas reservoirs: A study on the effect of residual gas saturation. Petroleum [Internet]. 2018 Mar 1 [cited 2018 Jun 4];4(1):95–107. Available from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405656117300202


53

List of experts consulted The following list is not exhaustive. There are several expert contacts that decided not to be named, and are therefore not listed here.

1. Dr Charles Ellinas, ex-CNHC, senior fellow at the Atlantic Council 2. Ms Maria Loizou, dept. of Environment specialising in O&G matters, Cyprus 3. Mr Giorgos Partasides, Ministry of Energy, Commerce, Industry and Tourism, Cyprus 4. Dr Francis O'Sullivan, MIT Energy Imitative 5. Prof Charles Harvey, MIT 6. Mr Robert Kleinberg, Schlumberger 7. Dr Folkers Rojas, Raptors Designs 8. Mr Christian Schwarck, Deputy Director EU Affairs, IOGP

This study examines the evolution of technologies in the offshore exploration and production of hydrocarbons in the Eastern Mediterranean, and their future environmental impact for the region. It reviews the existing literature and draws the expert opinion of various business, policy and academic insiders, and finds that the main risks come from accidental discharges at sea from well blowouts, chemical releases and the associated greenhouse gas emissions. It also finds that new technologies propel this stage of natural gas development towards increasing digitalisation, better designs for safety equipment, and increased automation.

It then proceeds to propose a number of policy measures on collaboration, data sharing, environmental baseline surveys, open digital platforms, as well as better monitoring for leaked greenhouse gas emissions. All these will help to improve the environmental credentials of offshore operations, but they must be accompanied by closer cooperation and collaboration among the countries that surround the East Mediterranean Sea.

This is a publication of the Scientific Foresight Unit (STOA) EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service

This document is prepared for, and addressed to, the Members and staff of the European Parliament as background material to assist them in their parliamentary work. The content of

the document is the sole responsibility of its author(s) and any opinions expressed herein should not be taken to represent an official position of the Parliament.

ISBN 978-92-846-4623-4 | doi: 10.2861/617596 | QA-02-19-170-EN-N

QA

-02-19-170-EN-N