negative impacts due to the release of contami- nants of the disused plat- forms would be localized. Similarly, by studying the artificial reefs effects of World War II shipwrecks, the US Minerals Manage- ment Service found that the state of decay of the wrecks has little effect on the state of the reef and found an even greater diversity of sea creatures than previously thought. Furthermore, partial re- moval of platforms is technically safer than completely removing the platform. In comparison to partial removal, com- plete removal involved much larger amount of work required to remove the jacket. A detailed en- gineering study is neces- sary to determine how the jacket will be cut (size, weight, and location). Locations to cut the jacket are then established, based on the jacket sections con- figurations. Rigging and handling the jacket sec- tions will at times be very challenging to the heavy- lift vessel, requiring an extensive group of per- sonnel. The suitability of decom- missioned oil and gas installations in the Malay- sia artificial reefs has been the subject of much de- bate. Granted, the scien- tific issues relating to rigs- to-reefs conversions are complex. The politics and legal issues are even more so. Hurdles to cross The decommissioning of oil and gas installations in Malaysia is primarily gov- erned by the PETRONAS Decommissioning Guide- lines which is based on recognized international guidelines such as the 1989 International Marine Organization Guidelines and Standards and the 1982 UN Convention on the Law od the Seas (UNCLOS) which is pro- complete removal of all structures in water depths less than 100 meters and substructures weighing less than 4000 tonnes. Both place importance in “the preservation of the marine environment, the safety of navigation, and the legitimate interests of other users of the sea”. Nevertheless, these stan- dards allow partial re- moval or non-removal based on a case-by-case evaluation of potential effect on safety of naviga- tion, future effect on ma- rine environment and liv- ing resources, as well as technical feasibility and risks associated to re- moval. In legal terms, rigs -to-reefs conversion is not prohibited. IMO Resolu- tion A.672 (16), as a mat- ter of fact, permits off- shore installations to “serve a new use if per- mitted to remain wholly or partially in place on the seabed (such as enhance- ment of a living re- source)”. With the advent of navi- gation and communication technology these days, the safety of offshore traffic would not be compro- mised relative to when the laws were first drawn. More accurate and up-to- date vital information on ocean bathymetry and global positioning are now readily available. Of course, a minimum free space distance between the artificial reef and wa- ter surface should be cau- tiously imposed. Recent research done by marine biologists in Uni- versity Technology of Sydney ratified that direct An Alternative View on Platform Decommissioning in Malaysia (Part II) By K.L. Na, N.A. Wan Abdullah Zawawi, M.S. Liew (Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS), & Z. Abdul Razak (PETRONAS) Bulletin 10 August 2012 The Brent Spar incident was a major turning point in decommissioning poli- cies globally. In the wake of Greenpeace’s protest of Shell’s planned deepwater disposal of the Brent Spar facility and subsequent public outcry, the interna- tional political community worked swiftly to ban the ocean disposal of most types of offshore installa- tions. But is it really a necessary and practical move? With the endorsement of independent external or- ganizations and contrac- tors and legal bodies, Shell planned for a deep sea disposal for the dis- used Brent Spar. Due to outrage by a sizeable number of the public with a rooted belief in the prin- ciple of "clean seas", Shell abandoned the disposal plan in June 1995 al- though it was completely legal by international standards. Instead, the Spar was eventually placed on the Norwegian seabed to be reuse as the base of a new quay. Issue 3, Year 2012