View
5
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
1September 2011
BRENT DECOMMISSIONINGSTAKEHOLDER DIALOGUE EVENT
London 20th September 2011
Aberdeen 22nd September 2011
(Shell is operator of the Brent Field for and on behalf of Shell U.K. Limited
and Esso Exploration and Production UK Limited )
2September 2011
BRENT DECOMMISSIONING
BRENT STATUS AND UPDATE
Austin Hand
Project Director – Brent Decommissioning
3September 2011
Cautionary Statement
This presentation contains forward-looking statements concerning the financial condition, results of operations and businesses of Royal Dutch Shell. All statements other than statements of historical fact are, or may be deemed to be, forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements are statements of future expectations that are based on management‟s current expectations and assumptions and involve known and unknown risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results, performance or events to differ materially from those expressed or implied in these statements. Forward-looking statements include, among other things, statements concerning the potential exposure of Royal Dutch Shell to market risks and statements expressing management‟s expectations, beliefs, estimates, forecasts, projections and assumptions. These forward-looking statements are identified by their use of terms and phrases such as „„anticipate‟‟, „„believe‟‟, „„could‟‟, „„estimate‟‟, „„expect‟‟, „„intend‟‟, „„may‟‟, „„plan‟‟, „„objectives‟‟, „„outlook‟‟, „„probably‟‟, „„project‟‟, „„will‟‟, „„seek‟‟, „„target‟‟, „„risks‟‟, „„goals‟‟, „„should‟‟ and similar terms and phrases. Also included as a forward looking statement is our disclosure of reserves, proved oil and gas reserves, proven mining reserves, organic reserves, net reserves and resources. There are a number of factors that could affect the future operations of Royal Dutch Shell and could cause those results to differ materially from those expressed in the forward-looking statements included in this presentation, including (without limitation): (a) price fluctuations in crude oil and natural gas; (b) changes in demand for the Group‟s products; (c) currency fluctuations; (d) drilling and production results; (e) reserve estimates; (f) loss of market and industry competition; (g) environmental and physical risks; (h) risks associated with the identification of suitable potential acquisition properties and targets, and successful negotiation and completion of such transactions; (i) the risk of doing business in developing countries and countries subject to international sanctions; (j) legislative, fiscal and regulatory developments including potential litigation and regulatory effects arising from recategorisation of reserves; (k) economic and financial market conditions in various countries and regions; (l) political risks, including the risks of expropriation and renegotiation of the terms of contracts with governmental entities, delays or advancements in the approval of projects and delays in the reimbursement for shared costs; and (m) changes in trading conditions. All forward-looking statements contained in this presentation are expressly qualified in their entirety by the cautionary statements contained or referred to in this section. Readers should not place undue reliance on forward-looking statements. Additional factors that may affect future results are contained in Royal Dutch Shell‟s 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2010 (available at www.shell.com/investor and www.sec.gov ). These factors also should be considered by the reader. Each forward-looking statement speaks only as of 20th and 22nd
September 2011. Neither Royal Dutch Shell nor any of its subsidiaries undertake any obligation to publicly update or revise any forward-looking statement as a result of new information, future events or other information. In light of these risks, results could differ materially from those stated, implied or inferred from the forward-looking statements contained in this presentation.
The United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) permits oil and gas companies, in their filings with the SEC, to disclose only proved reserves that a company has demonstrated by actual production or conclusive formation tests to be economically and legally producible under existing economic and operating conditions. We use certain terms in this presentation that SEC's guidelines strictly prohibit us from including in filings with the SEC. U.S. Investors are urged to consider closely the disclosure in our Form 20-F, File No 1-32575, available on the SEC website www.sec.gov. You can also obtain these forms from the SEC by calling 1-800-SEC-0330.
Also in this [presentation we have aggregated our equity position in projects for both direct and indirect interest. For example, we have aggregated our indirect interest in the Pluto project via our 34% shareholding in Woodside Energy Ltd.
4September 2011
Project Status - Studies
Project status
Brent decommissioning project now in the “Define” phase (Shell process)
Studies completedConcept select for all four platforms
Topsides removals FEED* studies (nearing completion)
GBS refloat studies completed
Studies currently in progressGBS fate studies
“Legs up” vs. “legs down” studies
EIA planned for completion in Q1 2012
Decommissioning Programme (DP) planned submission of “consultation draft” to DECC planned for Q3 2012
* Front End Engineering and Design
5September 2011
Planned Timeline for Decommissioning Project
Statutory and public consultations (plan = 60 days)
Comparative Assessments
Decommissioning Programme (DP) Prepared
Draft 1: Informal submission of DP to DECC
Draft 2: “Consultation Draft” DP submitted to DECC
Secretary of State Approves DP
Decommissioning Execution
Draft 3 DP submitted to DECC
Derogation Document submitted to DECC
Today
Draft 4 DP submitted to DECC
Q1, 2012
Q2, 2012
Q3, 2012
Environmental Impact Assessment
Q1 2013
Management review (Shell/XoM)
Informal review by DECC
DECC review and consultation with OSPAR
Q2, 2013
Q3/4, 2013
Q3/4, 2013
6September 2011
Project Status - Operations
Project status
Seeking clever solutions in dealing with difficult 40 year old wells
Well abandonment work continues on Brent Delta and Bravo, so far 30 wells completed
Brent Delta handover to decommissioning beginning Q1 2012, Brent Alpha and Bravo planned for end 2013
Brent Decommissioning Services Contract:commenced decommissioning work offshore on Delta
Cell survey planned for later this year - cell survey equipment testing commenced
7September 2011
BRENT DECOMMISSIONING
IRG ACTIVITIES
The Independent Review Group
Please refer to IRG page on the Brent website for this presentation
8September 2011
BRENT DECOMMISSIONING
TECHNICAL OVERVIEW AND STUDIES STATUS
Mike Smith
Senior Project Engineer – Brent Decommissioning
9September 2011
Environmental Impact Assessment
DNV contracted to undertake the EIA study and they commenced work earlier this year
The EIA Scoping Report prepared by DNV sent to stakeholders in May
Some 20 specific comments from the Independent Review Group (IRG) received – mostly
in line with points already covered in DNV‟s scoping report
DNV agreed to some minor changes to the scope of the EIA work based on comments
received
EIA is planned for completion in Q1 2012
EIA will be subjected to public scrutiny as a part of the formal public consultation phase
(likely to be around Q4 2012) of the submitted decommissioning programme to DECC
10September 2011
Brent – Alpha, Bravo, Charlie, Delta
Brent Alpha
Type:Platform, Steel
Topsides weight :16,500 gross /15,500 (dry ) tonnes
Jacket weight:14,300 tonnes (excl. piles)
Number of storage cells: n/a
Well slots: 28
Differences
Steel structure
No oil storage cells
Brent Bravo
Type: Platform, Concrete,Gravity based
Topsides weight: 24,100 gross /23,100 (net) tonnes
GBS weight: 331,300 tonnes
Number of storage cells:16
Well slots:38
Differences
Concrete structureGravity based structure with oil and water storage cells
Brent Charlie
Type:Platform, Concrete,Gravity based
Topsides weight:31,000 gross /30,000 (net) tonnes
GBS weight:290,000 tonnes
Number of storage cells:32
Well slots:40
Differences
Concrete structureGravity based structure with oil and water storage cells
Brent Delta
Type:Platform, Concrete,Gravity based
Topsides weight: 23,500 gross /22,500 (net) tonnes
GBS weight: 300,900 tonnes
Number of storage cells:16
Well slots:48
Differences
Concrete structureGravity based structure with oil and water storage cells
11September 2011
Key Differences
Brent Bravo
• GBS ( = derogation case)
• Similar to Brent Delta ... but
• No attic oil in the storage cells (likely case)
•16 oil storage cells
• 2 drilling legs, 1 utility shaft
Brent Charlie
• GBS ( = derogation case)• Different design to BB/BD• Attic oil trapped in the storage cells and some cooling cells• 8 oil storage cells, 2 diesel storage cells, +22 various cooling cells• Heaviest topsides (nearly x2 Brent Alpha)• Well conductors external to legs
Brent Alpha
• Steel jacket – complex structure
• footings = potential derogation case
• No oil storage cells
• Lightest of the topsides
Brent Delta
• GBS ( = derogation case)
• Similar to Brent Bravo ... but
• Attic oil trapped in the storage cells
•16 oil storage cells
• 2 drilling legs, 1 utility shaft
12September 2011
Project Process
High level concepts selected:
• Topsides x4 removed to shore for dismantling (not decided yet if heavy/modular or single lift)
• GBS structures x 3: derogation case to remain in situ (“legs-up” likely proposal tbc)
• Jacket of Brent Alpha to be removed down to -84m below surface. Footings to remain is a derogation case
• Drill cuttings to remain undisturbed
• Debris removed within 500m of each structure and 100m either side of pipelines
• Pipelines, umbilicals etc – bespoke solutions depending on size and current state/location, based on comparative assessment of options for each individual pipeline
• Cell contents (esp. sediments) still under evaluation. Either (A) “leave in place” (+/- cap) or (B) remove and reinject
Assess feasibility
Select the concept
Define the project concept
Execute the project
We are here2006 2010
Sept. 2011(Shell Process)
13September 2011
Proposal
Remove steel jacket down to -84.5m below LAT (Lowest Astronomical Tide) to Leave footings (derogation case)
Rationale for leaving footings vs. full removal
Significantly lower personnel risks (less days subsea work)
-84.5m is the best environmental option (though little to choose between options)
Cutting tools harder to position and use for full removal
No disturbance of drill cuttings on the sea bed
Full removal is estimated to be twice the cost, with no environmental benefit
Footings will be fully marked as subsea obstruction. Studies indicate risk of collision is small.
Cost (estimated)
Some £50m (est.) down to -84.5m; some £110m (est.) for full removal
Brent Alpha Jacket
16
14September 2011
Brent Alpha Jacket Proposal
“Before” Removal extent showing cut
elevation
“After”
15September 2011
Recommended Proposal: Leave in-situ (derogation case and similar to Brent Delta proposal)
Options not preferred: Refloat and inshore dismantling
In-situ dismantling
Option still being studied (also incl. Brent D): Leg (partial) removal
Why leave structure in situ: Lowest safety risk
Least environment footprint
Refloat option carries a significantly higher risk of technical failure
Removal via refloat: significant risk and uncertainty around: Buoyancy
Weight and its distribution
Structural and watertight integrity
Extraction from the seabed
Installation of new systems
Assuming technically feasible, and safety risk acceptable, indications are that “Legs-down” option could cost in the order of an extra £700 million (provisional)
Gravity Base Structures (Brent B and C)
16September 2011
Brent Subsea Facilities Decommissioning Scope
Pipelines (32 various different pipelines):
Rigid pipelines x 19 (85km)
Flexible flowlines / riser x 5 (7km)
Umbilicals x 6 (11km)
Power cables x 2 (25km)
(Umbilicals are classed as pipelines. Treat cables as umbilicals.)
Structures :
x1 no. approx (140 mts)
x 3 no. approx (100 mts each)
Concrete Mattresses* :
500-600 various mats in total, estimated weight approx 2000 tonnes
Debris:
Numerous debris shown on sonar survey in platform 500m zones. Less along pipeline routes.
*Mattresses are flexible structures comprising a series of linked precast concrete blocks, which typically are placed over a pipeline to provide dropped object protection or prevent movement of the pipeline on the seabed.
17September 2011
Regulatory Requirements - Monitoring
17
Petroleum Act 1998, as amended by Energy Act 2008
Operator to implement arrangements for monitoring, maintenance and management of the decommissioned site, and any remains of installations or pipelines that may exist.
Scope and duration to be agreed between operator and DECC.
DECC Guidance Notes
After removal of seabed debris, independent verification of seabed clearance will be required.
In addition to debris surveys, a post-decommissioning environmental seabed sampling survey should be undertaken – especially to monitor levels of hydrocarbons, heavy metals and other contaminants in sediment and biota.
In most cases, a second survey will need to be undertaken some time after the post-decommissioning sampling. Any further surveys will depend on the results of earlier work and the circumstances of each case.
If concrete structures or steel footings left in place, owners will have to monitor the condition of the remains at appropriate intervals.
Form and duration of programme will depend on particular circumstances, and if necessary will be adapted with time.
Survey strategy should be developed in consultation with DECC‟s Offshore Decommissioning Unit who will consult with other Government Departments.
Details of survey strategy should be specified in the Decommissioning Programme.
18September 2011
Pipelines - Monitoring
18
DECC Guidance Notes, 2011 Operator to devise a “suitable monitoring programme” with DECC and in consultation with
other Government Departments.
Details to be specified in the Decommissioning Programme.
Structure and duration depend on prevailing circumstances.
May have to be updated with time.
Typical programme Post-decommissioning survey on completion of decommissioning work.
After each survey, submit inspection reports to DECC, Offshore Decommissioning Unit
If surveys show potential hazard to other users of the sea, operator to propose appropriate maintenance or remedial work.
Long-term monitoring Risk-based monitoring scheme based on pipeline stability and potential impact.
Establish a monitoring scheme for each line based on its individual burial history and condition. Conduct inspections for a fixed period of time depending on risk criteria.
Then move to “reactive” surveys, only if concerns about the pipeline arise.
19September 2011
To date, we have undertaken extensive environmental monitoring by way of drill cuttings surveys and environmental baseline surveys. These help us to understand what the impacts on the environment might be so that we can mitigate the effect in the most effective and efficient way possible. After decommissioning we shall undertake monitoring activities as consistent with DECC‟s Decommissioning Guidelines.
Monitoring programme
Being assessed at present
Full monitoring regime will be included in Decommissioning Programme
An example of a monitoring schedule can look like:
Cost of one year‟s monitoring: £0.5 million p.a. (approx est.)
Shell and its co-venturer ExxonMobil remain liable for any remaining facilities
Monitoring and Liabilities
Structural surveys of derogated platforms and pipelines Seabed environmental survey
Year 1Debris sweep “As-left” structural surveys of derogated platforms and pipelines
Verification clear seabed Post-decommissioning seabed environmental survey
Report to DECC and discussion of monitoring programme
Year 3 Structural surveys of derogated platforms and pipelines
Report to DECC and discussion of monitoring programme
Year 5 Seabed environmental survey
Year 10
Report to DECC and discussion of monitoring programme
20September 2011
A component of the Decommissioning Programme
OSPAR Recommendation 2006/5 sets out a two stage process for drill cuttings assessment:
Stage 1 – initial screening to determine the persistence* and rate of oil loss over the contaminated area
Stage 2 – assessment of the best available techniques (BAT) and/or the best environmental practice (BEP) for the cuttings pile
Stage 2 is required where either:
Oil loss > 10 tonnes / year, or
Persistence¹ > 500 km2years
Where both the rate and persistence are below the thresholds, the OSPAR recommendation is that no further action is necessary and the piles may to be left in situ to degrade naturally
* Persistence of area of seabed where oil concentration remains above 50mg/kg.
Drill Cuttings – a Reminder of OSPAR/Industry Position
21September 2011
Survey programme designed to conform with OLF* Guidelines to:Survey and sampling using variety of techniques:Environmental survey report still being finalised due to issues with original THC** analyses
Drill Cuttings
Survey resultsAlpha Bravo Charlie Delta
Cell top cuttings (height) n/a 3.0m 8.5m 6.8mCell top cuttings (volume) n/a 592m3 6,973m3 798m3
Seabed cuttings (height) 4.0m 11.2m 9.5m 10.3mSeabed cuttings (volume) 6,506m3 4,635m3 5,266m3 1,575 m3
* OLF - Oljeindustriens Landsforening (Norway)
** THC - Total Hydrocarbon Content
22September 2011
BRENT DECOMMISSIONING
CELL SURVEY PROJECT
John Gillies
Execution Manager – Brent Decommissioning
23September 2011
Storage Cells
24September 2011
Cell Survey Project
Aim: to attempt to enter one(+) cells in November 2011 on Brent Delta
Allocated for 30 days of ROV support to attempt this cell survey project
If entry successful, the plan is:
To use sonar to understand better the amounts and distribution of contents
To obtain one (or more) sediment samples
If possible, more than one cell will be surveyed
If sample obtained, it will give an indication if we are in the range of assumptions for
the contents being used for the Environmental Impact Assessment and the exposure
scenario modeling
Intense planning since last year and is continuing. Designing, ordering and
manufacture of specialised equipment underway
Budget for the 2011 cell survey project = some £35 million
25September 2011
GBS Cell Sampling
• Design, manufacture and development of procedures to undertake cell sampling at Brent D has progressed through 2010/11 and is nearing readiness for deployment
• Operation involves deployment of equipment weighing more than 20 tonnes in close proximity to the platforms.
• The cell survey project will cost some £35M but data obtained will be invaluable in our decision making process
26September 2011
Stage 1:Base-plate installation
Base Plate Installation• 8 tonne base plate will be deployed from diving support vessel onto prepared
sealing location;• Fixed to cell dome by resin secured anchor bolts• Base plate forms the docking and isolation interface for drilling and sampling
operations
27September 2011
Stage 2: Drilling Cell Dome
Drilling Operation• 14 tonne drill stack will be deployed from ROV support vessel
• Stack will dock onto base plate and drill 8 inch diameter hole through 1.2 metre thick reinforced concrete cell dome
28September 2011
Stage 3: Sampling Tool Deployment
Sampling Operation• Sampling stack will be deployed from ROV support vessel• Stack docks onto base plate and deploys suite of sonar and sampling
devices. Real time data transfer to vessel via umbilical from ROV
29September 2011
BRENT DECOMMISSIONING
“SOUK” SESSION
The Environment Council
30September 2011
BRENT DECOMMISSIONING
BREAK OUT SESSION
The Environment Council
31September 2011
Lunch
32September 2011
BRENT DECOMMISSIONING
CELL CONTENTS MANAGEMENT
Mike Smith
Senior Project Engineer – Brent Decommissioning
33September 2011
Cell Management – Some of the Initial Concepts
13 initial concepts were generated for evaluation. The highlighted concepts are those that are being carried forward:
Utility Shaft Accessed OptionsBio-remediation (sediments + liquid contents)
Physical treatment (sediments + liquid contents)
In situ “Monitored Natural Attenuation” (MNA) (sediments + liquid contents)
In situ capping (sediments + liquid contents)
Remove to onshore (sediments + liquid contents)
Re-inject (sediments + liquid contents)
Subsea Accessed OptionsRe-inject after subsea removal (sediments + liquid contents)
Removal to onshore (sediments + liquid contents)
Fluid removal + in situ bio-remediation of sediments
Fluid removal + in-situ physical/chemical treatment of sediments
Fluid removal + in situ “Monitored Natural Attenuation” (MNA) of sediments
Fluid removal + in situ capping of sediments
Treat all on shore (sediments + liquid contents)
34September 2011
Cell Management – the Two Concepts Being Considered
Concept A – Leave in Place (with or without [MNA*] capping)
Remove attic oil and interphase material
Leave water phase in place after in-situ treatment if necessary
Leave sediment in place with capping layer if necessary
Concept B – Remove and Reinject
Remove attic oil and interphase material
Remove water, if necessary, and dispose down an existing well
Remove sediment and dispose down an existing well
* MNA – Monitored Natural Attenuation
35September 2011
Cell Management – Some Thinking Going ForwardObjective
To obtain enough information to be able to complete a robust comparative assessment in accordance with OSPAR 98/3 and DECC Decommissioning Guidelines. This includes substantiated data on environmental impacts and operational efficiency.
Remove and reinject: key uncertainties
Volume of material
Mobility of material
Ability to inject quantities involved
Leave in place: key uncertainties:
Volume of material
Composition of material
Release rate/exsposure when GBS breaks down and impact on environment
Information required
Volume
Composition
Mobility
Injectivity
36September 2011
BRENT DECOMMISSIONING
CELL CONTENTS EXPOSURE SCENARIOS AND IMPACT MODELLING
Mike Smith
Senior Project Engineer – Brent Decommissioning
37September 2011
Modelling Cell Collapse and Contents‟ Exposure Scenarios
The storage cells will likely remain intact for some 500 years. However to study
further the “leave in place” option for cell sediments we need to look at what
might be the effects if the sediments become exposed to the sea. To do this the
following questions should be addressed:
How may the legs collapse and cells be damaged ?
How many cells may be damaged ?
How may the contents be exposed to the sea ?
What may the cell contents contain ?
38September 2011
GBS Scenarios
Six scenarios have been developed with different numbers of cells and legs compromised and exposure of contents. The scenarios range from:
Failure of one outer storage cell/leg caused by collision from a foreign object
……….to……..
Failure of all legs on all platforms causing exposure of up to 6 cells on BB and BD and 4 oil storage cells on BC. [This is considered the most severe possible case]
How may the legs collapse and cells be damaged?
How many cells may be damaged?
39September 2011
The same scenarios have been developed with different numbers of cells and legs compromised and exposure of contents. Some of these are being used as the basis of exposure modeling studies.
The exposure of contents scenarios range from:
Some 2500m³ sediments/ 34,000m³ water (one cell on one GBS)
……….up to……..
Some 45,500m³ sediments/ 567500m³ water (up to 16 cells on 3x GBSs)
[Note: These volumes are for modeling purposes. At this stage we do not yet have actual data from inside the cells]
Cell Contents Exposure Scenarios
What may the cell contents contain? (for modeling purposes)
40September 2011
Previous data from Brent Spar
Storage tanks at Sullom Voe
GBS drilling legs
Historical production records
Sampling of water and interphase material in the cells
“Minicell” and “minicell annulus”
Pig wax*
* wax obtained from pigging operations in the pipework
Sources of Information About Cell Contents
41September 2011
Also based on the information sourced listed in the previous slide, it is possible that the following components could be present in any sediment:
BTEX (Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene, Xylene)
H2S
NORM
TPH (Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon)
PAH (Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons)
PCB (Polychlorinated Biphenyl)
Heavy Metals
Cell Sediment – Possible Components
42September 2011
Cell Management - Basic Decision Structure
43September 2011
Cell Management - Basic Decision Structure
44September 2011
Cell Management - Basic Decision Structure
45September 2011
Cell Management - Basic Decision Structure
46September 2011
Cell Management - Basic Decision Structure
47September 2011
Cell Management - Basic Decision Structure
48September 2011
Cell Management - Basic Decision Structure
49September 2011
Approach for Inclusion in the Decommissioning Programme
2011 2012 2013
Initial surveying
Ops Results Interpretation
Field trial on BD
Start Final call
DP submission to DECC followed by public consultation
DECC approvals process
50September 2011
Cell Management – Concept Selection Criteria
Primary Criteria (as per DECC guidelines) Sub-Criteria
Health and Safety Comparative risk assessment
Long term health risk
Environment Operational risk
Residual risk
Net Co2 emissions
Waste balance
Technical Application of technology
Adaptability
Management of uncertainty
Societal Other sea users
Regional development
Onshore communities
Cost Development cost
Implementation cost
Financial exposure
51September 2011
BRENT DECOMMISSIONING
CELL MANAGEMENT BREAK OUT SESSION
The Environment Council
52September 2011
BRENT DECOMMISSIONING
FUTURE ENGAGEMENT
Jim Niven
Stakeholder Manager - Brent Decommissioning
53September 2011
Brent Stakeholder Engagement Going Forward (1)
An on-line “e-Engagement” process will follow these September 2011 events. Will last eight weeks
Proposed (only): another set of, but closing, dialogue events in Q2 (?) 2012 in the lead in to submitting the Decommissioning Programme (DP) to DECC in Q3 2012
Stakeholders to advise what they would wish to hear about ....... But ............
Possible topics could include: cell survey update, sample analysis (if available); EIA status and report; Decommissioning Programme structure, (proposed contents, update in timetable); lessons learnt / stakeholder feedback on the dialogue process since 2007
Communications will continue e.g. via the e-Newsletter, www, direct mail etc (ideas for topics on what stakeholders want to hear about always appreciated)
60 day period of statutory public consultation of the DP is proposed. Stakeholders will be asked to respond with their comments sent to DECC
54September 2011
Brent Stakeholder Engagement Going Forward (2)
Cell remediation remains a complex challenge for us and we are busy with a number of studies on this topic. Going forward as we move towards recommending a preferred concept, it is proposed to establish a facilitated stakeholder “mini focus group” with a cross section of our current stakeholders to:
Be informed to a greater depth on our rationale and technical studies going forward along the remediation decision process
To feedback to Shell/Exxon views on the weightings that should be applied to selecting a preferred option
To review our assessment process and evaluation
To act as a communications conduit for other relevant/linked stakeholders
Stakeholders included could represent stakeholder groups like regulators, statutory/formal consultees, NGOs, IRG, academics
We welcome stakeholder views on this proposal please. We propose to contact some stakeholders shortly for their feedback and if they wish to participate in this deeper analysis and involvement in cell remediation issues
55September 2011
BRENT DECOMMISSIONING
PLENARY DISCUSSION
The Environment Council
56September 2011
BRENT DECOMMISSIONING
FINAL FEEDBACK SESSION
The Environment Council
57September 2011
BRENT DECOMMISSIONING
WAYS FORWARD AND CLOSING REMARKS
The Environment Council
58September 2011
Recommended