Sunteți pe pagina 1din 13

IBP1111_19

BEST ALTERNATIVE FOR RIGID OFFSHORE


PIPELINES DECOMMISSIONING – A CASE
STUDY,
1 2
Giselle Távora , Isabelle Martins , Fernanda Moraes²,
Eduardo Infante3, Laura Leite4, Edilson Arruda4,
Marcelo I. Lourenço4, Jean-D. Caprace4
Copyright 2019, Brazilian Petroleum, Gas and Biofuels Institute - IBP
This Technical Paper was prepared for presentation at the Rio Pipeline Conference and Exhibition 2019, held
between 03 and 05 of September, in Rio de Janeiro. This Technical Paper was selected for presentation by the
Technical Committee of the event according to the information contained in the final paper submitted by the
author(s). The organizers are not supposed to translate or correct the submitted papers. The material as it is
presented, does not necessarily represent Brazilian Petroleum, Gas and Biofuels Institute’ opinion, or that of its
Members or Representatives. Authors consent to the publication of this Technical Paper in the Rio Pipeline
Conference and Exhibition 2019.

ABSTRACT
Once the end of the productive life of the offshore fields is reached, the evaluation of the best
decommissioning alternative becomes a challenge due to the complexity and the diversity of
the installations found in the Brazilian scenario. Decision-making problems like choice are
difficult to solve, most of the time, there is not a single perfect solution capable of addressing
all the criteria: technical, environmental, social, safety and economic. The main objective of
this paper is to determine the best alternative for the decommissioning of a rigid submarine
pipeline located in the Cação field (Espírito Santo basin, Brazil) with a multi criteria decision
analysis (MCDA) called Preference Ranking Organization Method for Enrichment Evaluation
(PROMETHEE). The following decommissioning alternatives are considered: leaving in situ
with no further remediation, leaving in situ with rock dumping of pipeline ends, removing
whole length by cut and lift, and finally, removing whole length by reverse S-lay. As a result,
one hopes to get a ranking of options, from the best to the worst alternative.

Keywords: Decommissioning, Multi Criteria Decision Analysis, PROMETHEE.

1. Introduction
Decommissioning of subsea structures is gaining importance in Brazil as mature fields
are reaching their end-of- life. Therefore, there is an increasing need for robust analyses on
whether, when, and how to efficiently decommission subsea facilities. Although the offshore
scenario is composed of many equipment, the subsea pipelines represents a significant amount
of decommissioning work when compares to other existing equipment’s. During the process of
removing these pipelines, several technical and operational challenges may arise; requiring
detailed planning and structural integrity studies.
To assess decommissioning options, a number or aspects must be examined, namely
technical and engineering aspects, safety considerations, marine and terrestrial environmental
impacts, consumption of natural resources and energy, consequences on the activities of
communities as well as economic aspects. Among the structures found in subsea installations,
rigid pipelines stand out because they are responsible for the transportation of fluids coming
from the offshore wells. The evaluation of the decommissioning of such installations often
______________________________
1
MSc student in Ocean Engineering – Federal University of Rio de Janeiro
2
MSc student in Production Engineering – Federal University of Rio de Janeiro
3
PhD, Professor – Federal University of São João Del Rei
4
PhD, Professor – Federal University of Rio de Janeiro
Rio Pipeline Conference and Exhibition 2019

implies multiple technical challenges, especially those related to the analysis of structural
integrity, natural occurring radioactive materials (NORM), invasive species (e.g. sun coral),
reverse logistic, waste treatments, etc (ICF INCORPORATED, 2015).
In that regard, national guidelines generally recommend that decommissioning studies
be sufficiently comprehensible to enable a clear evaluation of the practicability of each possible
disposal option.
The main objective of this article is to determine the best alternative for the
decommissioning of a rigid submarine pipeline. The methodology consists of the elaboration
of a database from a decommissioning report and its application using PROMETHEE MCDA
methodology (BRANS; DE SMET, 2016). The criteria are calculated following the guideline
proposed by JIP (DNV-GL, 2018), with a quantitative and qualitative values and the weights
determined by the revised SIMOS method (ROGERS; BRUEN; MAYSTRE, 2000). With the
result, it is possible to ranking of options, from the best to the worst alternative.
A case study based on a rigid submarine pipeline located in the Cação field (Espírito
Santo basin, Brazil) is presented in order to illustrate the applicability of the methodology. The
following decommissioning alternatives are considered: leaving in situ with no further
remediation, leaving in situ with rock dumping of pipeline ends, removing whole length by cut
and lift, and finally, removing whole length by reverse S-lay.

2. Theoretical reference
2.1. Decommissioning
Decommissioning operations are recent activities, mainly in Brazilian fields, since only
now the national industry is beginning to deal with the end of the productive life of some fields
and end of the useful life of its platforms in the exploratory and productive fields of oil and gas
(SANTOS, 2011). The complexity of the operations can vary with increase of the depth, weight
of the structures and variation of the marine environment.
The timing of the completion of oil extraction activities is inherent to the offshore
industry. This is due to three important factors: natural hazards (e.g. hurricane), unviable oil
price to maintain production, lack of available resource and end of field life. Therefore, the
abandonment of the field consists of the deactivation of the offshore installations by means of
the definitive withdrawal and removal of the production facilities, seeking an adequate
destination and taking care of the environmental issues of the areas in which the facilities are
located.
In summary, offshore decommissioning can be divided into three stages: wells,
production units and subsea equipment. The well decommissioning is the most expensive
operation of the process, involving high risks in order to ensure the perfect seal between the
marine contact and the oil reservoir. The production units represent approximately 20% of the
total cost, including cleaning, preparation, removal and final disposal and the last, subsea
decommissioning with a smaller proportion when compared to well and unit of production. The
Figure 1 shows the spread of costs over a decommissioning project in Europe.

2
Rio Pipeline Conference and Exhibition 2019

Figure 1. Expenditure by Activity, 2018 to 2027. Source: (DECC, 2018)

According to Brazilian Navy data, in January 2017 Brazil had 163 platforms in
operation, of which 67 were fixed platforms (41.1%). More recent data indicate that in January
2019 there were 123 platforms in operation, and only 20 fixed platforms (16.3%). During this
period, it is possible to notice the trend in the cease of production (COP) of the fixed production
unit and its associated substructures. The corresponding data can be found in Table 1.

Table 1. Platforms in Brazil in January 2017 and January 2019. Source: Brazilian Navy

Janeiro 2017 Janeiro 2019


Fixed platform 67 20
Floating production storage and offloading (FPSO) 42 52
Semi-submersible 36 34
Drillship 15 10
Self-lifting platform 2 5
Floating storage offloading (FSO) 1 2

2.3. Pipeline Decommissioning

Among the equipment and installations that make up the subsea structure are pipeline,
which can be rigid or flexible (including umbilical), presenting different compositions and
requiring different operations and equipment for decommissioning. The decommissioning of
pipelines is performed based on mapped processes and factors defined as relevant.
Once the decommissioning s decided, a study is necessary to evaluate the possible risks
and impacts associated with the activities. For each alternative, there are multiple factors to be
assessed. The Figure 2 illustrates the alternatives for decommissioning underwater production
pipelines.

3
Rio Pipeline Conference and Exhibition 2019

Reverse S-lay / J-lay

Complete removal Cut and lift of sections

Pipeline Reverse reeling

Total abandonment
Without intervention

Remove uncovered
sections and bury cut
ends
Partial removal
Remove uncovered
sections and cover with
rock cut ends
Figure 2. Decommissioning of underwater pipelines alternatives

The complete removal of pipeline consists of removal of the total length by a specific
method. The reverse S-lay / J-lay method consists of a reverse-removal technique in which the
ducts are collected and cut into the vessel station. The difference between the S-lay method and
J-lay relies on the operating angle that the duct is subjected when arriving on the ship
(MATTOS, 2012).
Total abandonment is a standard practice where it is not possible to determine the
integrity conditions related to the pipeline or when there are risks associated with operations
and the marine environment.
Partial removal is an alternative technique when there are problems related to sections
of tubes, but for this to happen it is necessary to prove to the regulatory agencies the reason for
partial abandonment. A common practice is to bury or to cover by rocks the tip ends in order to
avoid problems related to the fishing industry (SHELL U.K.LIMITED, 2017).
When compared to the flexible pipeline, the rigid pipeline presents some limitations of
removal due to the diameter and the weight per meter of pipe. In most existing projects, the
problem is concentrated in the hundreds of kilometers of pipelines installed and should be
evaluated for the current layout of these structures. The integrity of these structures is one of
the most important considerations for the process, so it should be considered throughout the
design stage.
Uncertainties related to the current situation of this pipeline on the seabed bring
difficulties as the ideal solution removal, since it is not possible to state integrity by being
installed for many years.

2.4. Multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA)

Multicriteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) provides decision-makers with problem-


solving tools that consider diverse, often contradictory, opinions (VINCKE, 1992). It is an
instrument based on formalized models, allowing the analyst to find answers to the questions
posed by decision makers throughout a process, recommending a solution that is more coherent
with the decision maker's objective (ROY, 1996).

4
Rio Pipeline Conference and Exhibition 2019

It is worth mentioning that multicriteria methods do not seek a solution that is truly
unique, but rather support the decision-making process. Therefore, the quality of the
information is as important as the analytical treatment applied (ALMEIDA; COSTA, 2005).
The details the decision-making process in decommissioning problems begins with the
selection of a project and ends with the evaluation of the proposed alternative strategy.

Scenario definition

Structuring the problem

Criteria and subcriteria definition

Criteria and subcriteria quantification

Assignment of weights

Sensitivity analysis

Scenario evaluation
Figure 3. Basic concept of a multicriteria analysis

The PROMETHEE method is a multicriteria method that allows paired comparisons of


actions (decisions, alternatives), that is, it allows that a preference function be associated with
each criterion. More details on this methodology can be found in (FIGUEIRA; GRECO;
EHRGOTT, 2005).

3. Methology

The methodology carried out in this research consisted of a data collection based on the
decommissioning report of the Field of Cação submitted to IBAMA, and thus transformed into
quantitative/qualitative data for the input of the MCDA tool. The Cação field is in the State of
Espírito Santo, 7 km from the coastline, in a depth around 19 meters. It is composed of three
fixed units and the production is drained by 3 rigid pipelines, being one oil pipeline of six inches
and two gas pipelines of 4 and 10 inches respectively. This study considers only the 9 km of
the submarine oil pipeline.
The present work is using the guidelines proposed by JIP (DNV-GL, 2018), which was
developed to propose comparative evaluations of the different decommissioning options for
underwater installations in Brazil.

3.1 Decommissioning alternatives adopted

The elaboration of the model used to aid in decision making depends on the type and
availability of the information and to increase the robustness of the analysis, the maximum
amount of information should be considered. Multicriteria decision analysis is performed by
choosing among the different options the solution that best represents a set of criteria.

5
Rio Pipeline Conference and Exhibition 2019

It is worth mentioning that the techniques of removal of ducts are directly related to
design characteristics: rigid or flexible, diameter, installation methods, etc. Due to the limitation
associated with the rigid pipeline and the operation time, only the following alternatives are
studied:
1. Leaving in situ with no further remediation
2. Leaving in situ with rock dumping of pipeline ends
3. Removing whole length by cut and lift
4. Removing whole length by reverse S-lay

Once the feasible decommissioning alternatives have been established, it will be


possible through the analysis to obtain a ranking from the best to the worst solution.

3.2 Definition of criteria and subcriteria

The definition of an appropriate set of criteria and subcriteria becomes an essential step
in conducting a comparative assessment of the different existing alternatives. The aspects to be
considered for the determination of this stage are:
• Definition of the context of decommissioning (physical arrangement, crossings,
material composition, integrity, etc.);
• Define facilities/equipment groups and feasible options for decommissioning
(appropriate techniques, key operations involved, available resources, etc.).

The Figure 4 illustrates the five criteria of this study also recommended by the main
practical guides of decommissioning of the United Kingdom (SHELL U. K. LIMITED, 2017).

1. Safety
• Risk to offshore personnel
• Risk to other users of the sea
• Risk to onshore personnel
• Risk to onshore public
2. Environmental
• Impacts to marine environment
• Impacts to onshore environment
• Risk of invasive species dissemination
• Waste
• GHG emissions
• Risk of spills to marine environment
• Risk to marine environment from insitu legacy
3. Social
• Social impacts on land
• Impacts on fishing
• Impacts on employment
4. Technical
• Impacts to project technical feasibility
5. Economic
• Cost of the project
Figure 4. Criteria and subcriteria used in the case study
6
Rio Pipeline Conference and Exhibition 2019

The safety criteria were calculated based on Potential Loss of Life (PLL), i.e. the
average number of fatalities, resulting from the accident scenarios involved in the activities,
weighted by their respective probability of occurrence within the duration of the activities.
The description of the methodology used to calculate the environmental subcriteria can
be seen in Table 2 :

Table 2. Description of the calculation of the environmental subcriteria

Subcriteria Description
Impacts to marine
The impact assessment is obtained qualitatively by the product of
environment and
the magnitude (frequency, intensity, extent and duration) and
Impacts to onshore
sensitivity (relevance, resilience and reversibility) score for each
environment
factor. Factors have a score of 1 to 4.

To evaluate the rate of spread of invasive species (Coral Sol) two


factors are considered: the magnitude of the source and the
dispersion. For the magnitude of the source, the following
Risk of invasive species subfactors are considered: average cover factor, level of
dissemination disturbance during the management, larval release duration and
percentage of the submarine facility's colonizable area. And for
the dispersion factor, the following subfactors are considered:
distance to coast, distance to sensitive region, water depth and
connectivity. The subfactors have a score of 1 to 4.
Waste In case of removal, the total amount of material removed from
the sea (ton) is considered.
The measure for the calculation of this sub-criterion is expressed
in ton of CO2 equivalent, corresponding to the multiplication of
GHG emissions
ton of GHG emitted by the global warming potential.
The CO2 equivalent data was obtained based on the atmospheric
emissions inventory data.
Each possible scenario needs to assess the category of probability
Risk of spills to marine of occurrence and its categories of consequences for the marine
environment environment. The risk score of the accidental scenario is given
by the combination of the two categories and obtained in a
qualitative way.
Risk to marine In situ legacy risk presents four levels of uncertainty or
environment from in situ persistence, bioaccumulation and material toxicity and four
legacy severity categories of consequences. The final grade is
qualitative, with the lowest grade 1 and the highest grade 16.

The methodology for social subcriteria assessment is presented in Table 3:

Table 3. Description of the calculation of the social subcriteria

Subcriteria Description
The social impact assessment is obtained qualitatively by the
product of the magnitude (frequency, intensity, extent and
Social impacts on land
duration) and sensitivity (relevance, resilience and reversibility)
score for each factor. Factors have a score of 1 to 4.
7
Rio Pipeline Conference and Exhibition 2019

It is the area of interference of vessel activities and routes (km²)


Impacts on fishing multiplied by the duration of the interference (years) and by the
number of fishermen impacted.
In this subcriterion the estimate was made based on the number
of people per hour required for a given alternative, remembering
Impacts on employment
that each alternative is the sum of several activities.
The values of the hours used for the calculation were the same as
those used in the process related to the worker safety criterion.

In the technical subcriteria, aspects related to the execution and recovery of failures
were considered. The associated factors (for example: complexity of the option, reliability of
equipment, availability of equipment, etc.) were calculated qualitatively, considering a score
from 1 to 4.
Lastly, the data for calculating the economic criterion were extracted from the software
Que$tor. Data were used as vessel value and duration of activities during the decommissioning
process.
The main challenge is to choose the best criteria and sub criteria that are suitably
representing the complexity of the problem. The information available will determine the
quality of the information and may be qualitative and quantitative data.
Once the value of each subcriteria has been determined, the multicriteria analysis will be done
using PROMETHEE, and then a sensitivity analysis is performed comparing three possible
vector of weights scenarios.

3.3 Definition of preference functions

For each criterion, a preference function may be specified, in order to represent the
preference of the decision maker in relation to the differences related to the evaluation of the
criterion. The purpose of the preference function is to translate the difference observed between
two actions on a given criterion, from the criterion scale to a normalized 0-1 degree of
preference.
The PROMETHEE method offers 6 options to define a preference function: usual, U-
shape, V-shape, Level, Linear and Gaussian. More details to select preference functions and to
define p and q parameters can found in (BRANS; VINCKE, 1985).

3.4 Definition of weight and scenarios

The weights are used to express the degree of importance of one criterion with respect
to another. The main challenge is to choose the best way to calculate the weights, since most
multicriteria decision analyzes do not address a specific methodology of how they should be
calculated.
For this study, a sensitivity analysis was performed choosing three scenarios of different
weights. The first scenario corresponds to the improved SIMOS method, (FIGUEIRA; ROY,
2001), based on the experience of three specialists in the area. The weights referring to the
criteria were distributed according to the number of subcriteria. The second scenario is
assuming that all five criteria have the same importance and the third scenario consider
maintaining the same weight for all subcriteria. The corresponding data can be found in Table
4:

8
Rio Pipeline Conference and Exhibition 2019

Table 4. Decision matrix and study scenarios

SCENARIOS
Leave
Remov Sam
in situ Leave Remov Same
e whole e
with in situ e whole weigh
lenght Prefer weig
no with lenght t
Subcrite of ence Min/ SIMOS ht
Criteria Units further rock- of betwe
ria pipeline functi Max Method betw
remedi dump pipeline en
by on een
ation pipelin by cut subcri
reverse crite
require e ends and lift teria
s-lay ria
d
Risk to
Potenci
offshore 5.08E- 6,82E- 5,97E- 5,35E- V-
al loss Mín 6,25
personn 04 04 03 03 shape
of life
el
Risk to
Potenci
other 0,00E+ 1,69E- 3,19E- 0,00E+ V-
al loss Mín 6,25
users of 00 03 04 00 shape
of life
Safety the sea 27 20
Risk to
Potenci
onshore 8,79E- 1,37E- 3,71E- 2,73E- V-
al loss Mín 6,25
personn 04 03 03 03 shape
of life
el
Risk to Potenci
0,00E+ 0,00E+ 1,65E- 2,07E- V-
onshore al loss Mín 6,25
00 00 03 04 shape
public of life
Impacts
Qualita
to
tive
marine 13,7 24,2 36,5 32,7 Usual Mín 6,25
impact
environ
scores
ment
Impacts
Qualita
to
tive
onshore 2,0 2,7 4,6 4,2 Usual Mín 6,25
impact
environ
scores
ment
Waste ton 0,0 0,0 342,0 342,0 Linear Mín 6,25
GHG ton of
13.881 18.740 27.763, 24.292,
emissio CO2- Linear Mín 6,25
,7 ,2 3 9
ns eq
Environ Risk of
Qualita 37,9 20
mental invasive
tive
species 6,6 6,6 7,3 7,3 Usual Mín 6,25
risk
dissemi
scores
nation
Risk of
Quelita
spills to
tive
marine 9,0 9,0 12,0 12,0 Usual Mín 6,25
risks
environ
score
ment
Risk to
marine
Qualita
environ
tive
ment 4,0 4,0 2,0 2,0 Usual Mín 6,25
risk
from
scores
insitu
legacy
9
Rio Pipeline Conference and Exhibition 2019

Qualita
Social
tive
impacts 5,3 8,0 24,7 17,5 Usual Mín 20 6,25
impact
on land
scores
Km2-
Impacts
years- 1.008. 26.020. 20.016.
on 720,0 Linear Mín 6,25
Social fisherm 000,0 800,0 000,0 13,7
fishing
en
Numbe
Impacts
r of
on
employ 110,6 70,8 53,7 77,1 Usual Máx 6,25
employ
ment x
ment
years
Impacts
to
project Numeri
Technica
technica cal 9 23 28 27 Usual Mín 14,6 20 6,25
l
l score
feasibili
ty
Economi 1.715. 2.155. 19.790. 9.540.0
Cost $ Linear Mín 6,7 20 6,25
c 000 000 000 00

4. Results and discussion

The result of the study shows that varying weight scenarios always result in the total
abandonment alternative as the best solution. For the removal of rigid pipelines, it is essential
to consider uncertainties related to the data and the technological complexity associated with
operations.
The Figure 5 presents the box plot of multicriteria decision analysis, with the net flow
(Phi - ) for the alternatives calculated in PROMETHEE. It thus considers and aggregates both
the strengths and the weaknesses of the action into a single score.

Figure 5. Data analysis using box plot

10
Rio Pipeline Conference and Exhibition 2019

This result is confirmed by the spider diagram of the net flow of each alternative (see
Figure 6), which shows that leaving in situ is the ideal alternative (maximizes the spider’s
surface) while cut and lift of sections is the worst alternative (minimizes the spider’s surface).

LEAVE IN SITU ROCK DUMPING OF PIPELINE


ENDS
Safety
1 Safety
0,5 1
0 0,5
Environmenta
Economic -0,5 0 Environment
l Economic
-1 -0,5 al
-1

Technical Social
Technical Social

REVERSE S-LAY CUT AND LIFT OF SECTIONS


Safety
1 Safety
1
0,5
0,5
0 Environment 0
Economic Environment
-0,5 al Economic -0,5 al
-1 -1

Technical Social Technical Social

Figure 6. Spider representations of the ranking matrix for each alternative

5. Conclusion

Considering the perspectives of the offshore scenario in Brazil, it is possible to conclude


that the decommissioning of submarine equipment presents a challenge in the coming years,
especially when it involves the deactivation of fields with ever deeper water depths. Regardless
of the methodology adopted for the process, detailed planning will always be at the forefront of
the project, avoiding impact on the integrity of the operation and the environment.
It is important to emphasize that decommissioning is a process of multidisciplinary
nature. It requires time to ensure that the project remains balanced and can minimize the
possible consequences. The choice of method to be used depends heavily on several parameters
that will be involved in the initial problem, involving the preference of who will be deciding
and the result that will be sought.
Despite the wide range of comparative methodologies, the MCDA-PROMETHEE
allows a visualization through maps and graphs, being fundamental for the decision-making
process between several involved parties. The Visual PROMETHEE is an excellent decision
support tool in the decommissioning sector, providing the classification between the different
alternatives and scenarios of weights.
11
Rio Pipeline Conference and Exhibition 2019

The outcome of the study shows that the developed MCDA adequately represents the
complexity and diversity of technical and environmental situations encountered in Brazil for
rigid submarine pipelines. In these terms, the present study may provide useful insight for other
decommissioning problems in Brazil since it integrates technical, environmental, life cycle
assessment, social, economic, safety, risk-assessment, as well as regulatory, licensing and legal
security issues.

6. Acknowledgements

The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support provided by Petrobras, ANP
and CAPES, during research activities carried out at the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro.

8. References

ALMEIDA, A. T. DE; COSTA, A. P. C. S. Modelo de decisão multicritério para priorização


de sistemas de informação com base no método PROMETHEE. Gestão & Produção, v. 9, n.
2, p. 201–214, 2005.

BRANS, J. P.; DE SMET, Y. PROMETHEE methods. International Series in Operations


Research and Management Science, v. 233, p. 187–219, 2016.

BRANS, J. P.; VINCKE, P. Note—A Preference Ranking Organisation Method: (The


PROMETHEE Method for Multiple Criteria Decision-Making). Management science, v. 31,
n. 6, p. 647–656, 1985.

DECC. Guidance notes: Decommissioning of offshore oil and gas installations and pipelines.
n. May, p. 257–283, 2018.

DNV-GL. JIP - Guidelines for Risk-Based Comparative Assessment of Options for


Decommissioning of Subsea Installations in Brazil. n. 116C9AFX-9, p. 135, 2018.

FIGUEIRA, J.; GRECO, S.; EHRGOTT, M. (EDS.). Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis -
State of the Art - Surveys. New York, NY: Springer, 2005.

FIGUEIRA, J.; ROY, B. Determining the weights of criteria in the ELECTRE type methods
with a revised Simos’ procedure. European Journal of Operational Research, p. 317–326,
2001.
ICF INCORPORATED. Decommissioning Methodology and Cost Evaluation. p. 1–241, 2015.

MATTOS, D. H. DE. Estudo do Comportamento de Dutos Rígidos Durante a Instalação em


Águas Profundas. p. 91, 2012.

ROGERS, M.; BRUEN, M.; MAYSTRE, L.-Y. ELECTRE and Decision Support. [s.l: s.n.].
ROY, B. Multicriteria methodology for decision aiding, volume 12 of nonconvex optimization
and its applicationsKluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, , 1996.

SANTOS, L. F. DESCOMISSIONAMENTO DE SISTEMAS OFFSHORE. TÉCNICAS,


POTÊNCIAIS PROBLEMAS E RISCOS RELACIONADOS AO FINAL DA VIDA
PRODUTIVA. [s.l.] Univeridade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, 2011.

12
Rio Pipeline Conference and Exhibition 2019

SHELL U. K. LIMITED. Brent Field Decommissioning: Comparative Assessment Procedure.


[s.l: s.n.].

SHELL U.K.LIMITED. Brent field pipelines decommissioning technical document. UK: [s.n.].
VINCKE, P. Multicriteria decision-aid. Bruxelles: Wiley Online Library, 1992.

13

S-ar putea să vă placă și