November 21, 2024 • 44 mins
In this episode, CODA CEO Francis Norman is joined by Renea Larsen, Program Director of the National Decommissioning Research Initiative (NDRI), Dr. Dianne McLean, Senior Marine Scientist with AIMS, and Dr. Darren Koppel, Research Scientist with AIMS. The conversation delves into the critical research being conducted in the decommissioning space, focusing on evidence-based decision-making tools, contaminant behavior, marine ecosystem responses, and the importance of interdisciplinary collaboration. This insightful dialogue sheds light on the innovative approaches and key findings driving the decommissioning sector forward.
Get in touch with Renae via renae.larsen@decommissioning.org.au, or Dianne and Darren via WAadmin@aims.gov.au if you have any questions after listening to this episode.
We'd love to hear from you! Have a topic you would like us to discuss? Let us know: bit.ly/plugging-away
Listen
Watch
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Francis Norman (00:00):
Welcome everyone to the latest edition of
CODA's Plugging Away podcast.
Today I'm delighted to be joined bythree of the leading people looking
after the research in the decommissioningspace for us as part of the National
Decommissioning Research Initiative,or NDRI as we like to refer to it.
They are executing some reallyinteresting research to, to develop
(00:24):
evidence based decision making toolsto assist us with some of the big
questions in the decommissioning space.
So I would like to introduceto you Renea Larsen, who is
the NDRI program director, Dr.
Dianne McLean, who is a seniormarine scientist with AIMS, and Dr.
Darren Koppel, who is a researchscientist also with AIMS.
(00:44):
And I will hand over to you, Renea,to to lead the conversation, please.
Renae Larsen (00:49):
Thanks very much, Francis, for introducing us today.
It's a pleasure to have Darrenand Di in the room with us.
And I'm really excited to have thisdiscussion with you to understand a little
bit more about some of the questions thatyou're unpacking in the decommissioning
space and more broadly with AIMS.
So I'll start by giving a little bitof background around NDRI's mission.
(01:12):
And that's really about.
It is filling those knowledgegaps in the decommissioning space.
NDRI was born of a recognition ofgaps locally in Australia and more
broadly in a global sense aroundinteraction of infrastructure with the
environment and other marine users.
So obviously that introduces certainlevels of un, certain levels of
(01:34):
uncertainty, if that's the rightphrase to use for decision makers.
And there was.
A need from industry, from thepolicy makers, from the community
to start building a betterknowledge base and contextualize
it in the Australian environment.
NDRI's mission is really aroundExploring that collaborative research
(01:56):
and engaging the right people todo that, including yourselves.
So we engage industry service providers.
There's a lot of engagementwith policymakers and other
stakeholders more broadly.
And we, as Francis referred to,we're looking at building evidence
based decision making tools.
And that's really a keyto phase two of NDRI.
(02:16):
Especially that it's not necessarilyan emerging priority now, but it's a
recognized high priority, which is thatof contaminants in the marine environment
around infrastructure and how thesedifferent constituents behave in under
different circumstances, whether that bedecommissioning activities or whether.
Under operational circumstances andlong term interaction if some of this
(02:38):
infrastructure is in fact left inthe environment for various reasons.
So in terms of how we're delivering thatwe've got some fabulous partnerships
that we've built for phase two, andwe've reestablished our independent
scientific advisory board whichincludes Professor Peter McCready, Dr.
Sarah Gall and Dr.
Carl Bowles who'vejoined us more recently.
(03:00):
Peter returns after being involvedin ISAB from the inception of NDRI.
We've also got our lovely AustralianInstitute of Marine Science.
Teams and the various peoplethat are involved on your side.
The Australian Nuclear Science andTechnology Organization is also involved.
And we've got some lovely industryservice providers that are
delivering some excellent workin the contaminant space as well.
(03:20):
And that includes Exodus andmore recently hydrobiology.
So we're delving into thecharacterization, the fate and the
impacts around some of these potentialcontaminants to build a better
understanding of the constituents.
I guess to wrap up my summary there, I'mreally interested to just have a recap
(03:41):
from Di, first of all, on AIME's role inphase one of NDRI research and some of the
key findings on marine ecosystem responsethat you uncovered with your work.
Would you be able to commenton that a little bit, Di?
Dianne McLean (03:56):
Yeah.
So AIME's had two projects that we wereinvolved in through phase one of NDRI.
The first was on connectivity.
So looking at the role that oil andgas structures play more broadly in
an ecosystem from say the larvae rightthrough to marine megafauna, how the
structures influence movement, canact as stepping stones, source or sink
(04:19):
populations the role of structuresin promoting spreads of invasives.
Biodiversity.
So that connectivity piecewas really important.
It brought in experts from all aroundthe world to to look at what we know
at the moment about the influence ofstructures on connectivity and then
where our real knowledge gaps are.
So that work was published, um, recently.
(04:40):
So that one's out therefor everyone to read.
The second project that AIMS wereinvolved in through phase one
of NDRI was looking at existingimagery that industry collects.
One of the key components for us isthrough the decommissioning process,
we have to be able to minimize.
Impacts and risks to the environmentand understanding how the different
(05:02):
decommissioning options might impact theenvironment really requires us to have
an understanding of what's there now.
And one of the best ways to get at that,or one of the most extensive sources
of information that currently exist.
Is industry held ROVimagery of these structures.
Industry routinely collect ROVimagery through their inspection,
(05:23):
maintenance, repair campaigns.
With access to that imagery, wewere able to document the marine
communities that exist around the ROV.
Many structures in Australia'smarine environment.
So that project looked to really developa knowledge base of the influence of
structures on fish and benthic communitiesthat exist around infrastructure.
(05:47):
And what we found was super interesting.
Firstly, industry ROV imagery.
It has enormous value for science.
We see behaviors, we see newstructures that scientists have never
really had access to previously.
So we learn a lot around the ecology inpreviously unsurveyed places for science.
(06:08):
Secondly, I think one of the bigfindings for that project was that
no structure is the same as another,as much as industry hate it, when I
say that one of the patterns wouldbe, it would be so much easier if the
patterns were the same everywhere.
Each structure is in a different depth,in a different place, is configured
differently, is been there for adifferent amount of time, is subject
(06:30):
to different environmental conditions.
So the marine communities thathave developed around them differ,
which really shows that we needthat science on a daily basis.
A structure by structure, caseby case basis to inform the
decommissioning decisions for them.
Renae Larsen (06:46):
Yeah, you can really see that there is an emphasis on the
case by case studies in terms of howimpactful this information is for
industry and other decision makers.
How do you see that being utilizedmore broadly for decommissioning
or other industries perhaps?
Dianne McLean (07:04):
Another of the main findings we found was we didn't just
use this industry ROV, we were able toweave in a lot of additional science
that had been done off infrastructure.
So we had that context of how do these.
Fish communities, for example,compare on a platform compared to a
natural reef or surrounding areas.
(07:24):
So one of the key things we were ableto show was particularly for those
important fishery species, they reallyare abundant and have a higher biomass
on a lot of this infrastructure thanthey do in their surrounding ecosystems.
And we see that translateinto fishing effort.
So we know commercial fishers willpreferentially fish subsea pipelines
(07:47):
in the Northwest for higher catches.
So through those learnings, we can, wereally have a feel for what it is about
the infrastructure that attracts fisherytarget species, for example, and that
has then implications for how we go on.
Design or add new structures into theocean, whether it be for oil and gas or
more likely for other offshore energydevelopments as they come online in
(08:08):
Australia, we should be weaving thatknowledge into the design elements of
those that go into benefit fisheries.
Renae Larsen (08:15):
And what are some of your thoughts on the connectivity and
productivity aspects there around thedifferent lifecycle stages for different
species and how that will play intosome of the decommissioning activities?
Dianne McLean (08:27):
Yeah.
So what we're finding at the moment isthat infrastructure in the Southeast
of Australia, for example, can, plays aminor role in the connectivity of some
of the key, most common species thatwe're seeing around those structures.
So for example, there's the longspine sea urchin, which is an
invasive species coming down fromNew South Wales with climate change.
(08:51):
And we importantly found that theinfrastructure in the southeast doesn't
play a role in aiding the spread ofthat species, which was pretty cool.
We have also shown that pipelines inthat region appear to play a fairly
important role in The populations of aperch species, it's quite important in
the fishery through that region too.
(09:11):
So there's some specific connectivity workthat's come online recently and published
this year that people will be able tolook at to, to have a feel for that.
Same for the productivity, really.
We've been finding that, a lot ofpeople will be familiar with some
of the research that's come outof Milton Love's lab in the U S.
which looks at, the productionvalue of some of these
(09:32):
platforms for rockfish species.
What we're finding in the Southeastthrough our recent research is that even
just looking at three common fisheryspecies, the amount of production that can
be sourced from these platforms is veryhigh compared to the surrounding areas.
So they do seem to have quite an importantrole with secondary fish production.
(09:54):
So the fish that are beingsourced from these structures.
At the moment we're at the step nowwhere we're going to expand that out
to all the different fish speciesthat we're seeing on these structures.
Renae Larsen (10:05):
And how does that impact the scale of your work
and the timelines for that?
It might be pretty challengingout in those environments to
get, gather that data, I imagine.
Dianne McLean (10:14):
Yeah it's taken two or three years now, survey work,
and we haven't been able to survey,obviously, all the different structures
that are out there in the Southeast.
So we've been focusing on a subset.
So we'll be looking at the valueof that subset of platforms and
pipelines for fish production.
Renae Larsen (10:30):
Thank you very much.
Now I'm going to throw acrossto Darren a few questions.
Do you think you could also just talk alittle bit about your involvement with
some of the content research prioritiesthrough NDRI in phase one, late phase
one, early phase two, and how that sort ofinteracts with some of Di's work as well.
Darren Koppel (10:50):
Yeah, sure.
So phase one was all about understandingthe priority contaminants of
mercury and norm, which is naturallyoccurring radioactive materials.
The focus was really bringing togetherour understanding from a mechanistic
point of view, but also from surveyingindustry around those contaminants, their
formation in infrastructure and what sortof levels or concentrations we were seeing
(11:13):
in different types of infrastructure.
And one of the key outputs fromthat work in phase one was Quite
different to the ecological scope inthat we were seeing quite a lot of
the similar contaminants forming notjust in Australia amongst different
infrastructure, but also internationally.
So the type of radioactive scalethat forms in certain flow lines
(11:34):
in Australia, very similar towhat we see internationally.
And so there's a common mechanism.
It's the chemistry, it's the physics.
And so there is some commonality there.
We could really maybe draw a circlearound the types of contaminants that
form which I think really helped to.
Pull that information together,give everyone a common knowledge
base to then start talking aboutwhat's the consequence of releasing
(11:56):
some of that to the environment.
After phase one that was reallydesktop based thinking about that
type of knowledge gathering As wemoved into phase two, we're now
talking to the regulator and we'resaying there are these regulations,
which are very outcomes based.
So any activity needs to haveacceptable levels of impacts and risks.
(12:17):
And there's a lot ofdifferent aspects to that.
One of which might be contaminant impacts.
And we're really trying to give some moreinformation about what that might mean.
So just what an acceptableimpact of a contaminant in the
environment is, but also how wouldan operator go about assessing that.
Okay.
So to do that, we're pulling togetherwhat we think is a best practice risk
(12:38):
assessment framework for norm and mercury,and it's, we say for norm and mercury,
but we're hoping at the highest levelthat it's specific to decommissioning, but
agnostic about the type of contaminants.
So in future, we hope to expand it toall the contaminants but it's certainly
tailored and gives practical adviceabout the types of investigations
that can be undertaken for norm,for mercury for decommissioning.
(13:01):
To help inform that risk assessmentthat an operator might want to do to
determine the suitability of differentpieces of infrastructure for in situ
decommissioning versus complete removal.
Renae Larsen (13:12):
Do you think you could elaborate a little bit around the
types of information the industry needto input into that framework to make
sure it's robust and they get a goodoutcome to assess the end state by.
Darren Koppel (13:27):
Yeah, absolutely.
One of the key needs is understandingthe contaminant inventory and
that means what's going to beleft in the infrastructure at the
point that it's decommissioned.
Not just, The concentrations, but alsothe total mass of mercury, for example,
and its chemical and physical form.
So is it elemental or isit highly mineralized?
So understanding the source term ofthe contaminant is very important.
(13:50):
The next step is understanding the impact.
So if it were to be released in theenvironment, how is it going to behave?
Is it going to, stay as a solid, getburied and not interact with anything.
Great.
That's important for the risk.
If it's going to start to dissolve,if it's going to be, if it's mercury
and it starts to methylate, then it'sgoing to be entering that food web
and there might be downstream impacts.
(14:13):
So understanding imagery,understanding fate in the
environment and then understandingpotential impacts to receptors.
And that could be toxicity, thatcould be through bioaccumulation and
biomagnification, or it could be longterm contamination of water and sediment
that prevents natural recovery processes.
So it is quite a wide rangingamount of information.
(14:37):
At the moment there's a lot ofuncertainty, but with a bit of
research tackling those low hangingfruit, common research questions for
different fields, we think The wholeprocess will be simplified in the
future and it won't need to be as hugein scope because there'd be a lot of
learnings that would be shared betweencommon fields or common contaminants.
Renae Larsen (15:00):
How have you found unpacking the policy around these key contaminants?
Has it been a challenge?
What level of consultation has beenrequired to build a really solid
framework that perhaps could moveforward and become best practice?
Darren Koppel (15:18):
It's been a huge challenge trying to understand what some
of these outcomes based regulations.
mean for radioactive materials insediment, mercury in a pipeline.
And we've had constant engagementand good engagement with
some of the key regulators.
And the intent there is to ensure thatour framework, it's never going to be
(15:40):
endorsed as a part of the regulation.
That's not its purpose.
It's, but what we do hope is thatit will be consistent with the
different regulatory frameworks.
And so we're hoping to have that level ofalignment in order to say doing this type
of work, applying this risk framework willgive you a good understanding of risk.
(16:01):
And that's where my interest is.
It's on, the scientific impact andrisk of different contaminants.
It's really for the regulatorsto make a determination on
whether that's acceptable or not.
To then be left in the ocean as a, asan end state for that infrastructure.
That's really a values judgment.
Renae Larsen (16:19):
Thanks, Darren.
That's a really great summary aroundthe framework that's going to come
out of this phase two for NDRI.
I'm also interested, Diah, inunderstanding a little bit more about
what are your current research prioritiesare in the decommissioning space?
Dianne McLean (16:37):
Yeah, sure.
For the past five to 10 years, we'vereally been focused on what is there.
And now we're more focused on processes.
So things like connectivity, productivity.
Food web dynamics looking at howmarine communities are coming
to establish and what, howthey're using the infrastructure.
So really getting at what will happento these communities potentially
(17:01):
when structures are removed.
And linking in also the ecology withDarren's work on the contaminants.
So, we've been expanding ourresearch through the Bass Strait.
Building up more and moreinventory of ROV imagery.
We've been Working on machinelearning algorithms to detect
invasive species in ROV imagery.
For example, we've been really focusingon the methods we're using to analyze
(17:25):
imagery and improving workflows andstreamlining Processes so that we can do
things much more efficiently and quickly.
So for example, we've got such a bigdatabase now of imagery for that region,
we've got great AI models that are ableto auto ID a lot of the Benthic imagery,
Benthic classes from that imagery for us.
Renae Larsen (17:43):
Have you found that you're having to establish those datasets as
a current baseline, because you do nothave access to some of the broader.
Parameters that are necessaryto undertake your work in terms
of that historical aspect for.
The analysis that you need to do,is there a need to for different
(18:05):
marine users to start sharingtheir data sets more broadly?
Dianne McLean (18:08):
I it's a challenging one because the structures in the
marine environment, for example,in the Southeast they were put into
an area that doesn't have similar.
structure, right?
So they're a novel, uniqueecosystem on them themselves.
So the benthic communities thatwe see growing on platforms, for
example, there don't exist inthat offshore region otherwise.
(18:31):
So you're trying to think about baselinesas a very difficult or challenging concept
when they are those novel habitats.
We're also, we're doing a lot of workin the Northwest as well at the moment
like I said, focusing more on process.
So trying to understand fish, what fishare eating, for example, on the platforms.
(18:52):
So we can look at that process throughthe food web, what happens when we
remove these structures or potentiallyretain the bottom sections, we're
dividing up some of that food web,what potentially happens how resident
species might be on these structures.
So they.
Are they using them intermittently or arethey living there for their entire lives?
And also looking at whether there'sany contaminants in the tissues of
(19:14):
these fish that we might collect oninfrastructure, working closely with
Darren in that regard to piece togethermore of that food web information.
Renae Larsen (19:23):
When you're looking at that food web data, are you beginning
to see some of some regional trendsemerging or is it still very much
infrastructure or site specific?
Dianne McLean (19:34):
We've done enough work I think now in some regions where we're
getting a feel for some of the seasonalchanges in the community structure.
For example, we'll have certain fishspecies at school at certain times of the
year that aren't present at others, or.
Even some species that will bepresent in the shallow sections of
platforms in summer, but in the deepsections of platforms in winter.
(19:56):
And of course, as things move aroundthat really affects the food webs.
And we've got a field team out in theBass Strait at the moment deploying
beta remote underwater video systems.
So, our field team are out there.
Looking at what fish communitieslook like around the shallow
sections of some of the pipelines andcomparing those to the natural reef
and sandy areas surrounding them.
(20:17):
And that's super important forunderstanding what communities exist
in those shallow areas where thosepipelines cross the shore, for example.
And that'll be really important, Ithink, also for the offshore wind
development that might occur in that area.
There's very little known on thosenear shore communities at the minute,
so that data will be super important.
Beyond decommissioning, butinto offshore renewables.
Renae Larsen (20:39):
Thanks, Di.
Darren, do you think you could carryon from there from where Di left off
and talk about some of the broaderresearch that you're doing, not just
for NDRI, but in, and across thecontaminant space for Australia.
And some of the technologies andmethods that you're applying.
Darren Koppel (20:57):
Absolutely.
So my area of.
Research is really focusedon two different aspects.
One is improving theparameterizations of existing tools
to understand contaminant risk.
And then the other is thinking aboutnew ways of answering tricky problems
like mercury biomagnification.
So on the parameters, we're backin the lab, we're doing some good
(21:19):
basic chemistry and toxicology work.
And one recent example is takingsome of the radioactive material
from the Griffin tubular.
And then dosing it into sediments invery precise quantities and taking it
to our national sea simulator up inTownsville and exposing four different
types of organisms over 28 days tounderstand bioaccumulation to those
(21:40):
organisms of things like radium andpolonium, but also look at the behavior
of that material within the sediments.
And we think for the mostpart, it's barite, barium
sulfate in oxygenated water.
It's not going to do anything.
It's not going to go anywhere.
But if it's in the sediments, whereit's anoxic, potentially you could
start to get microbes munching onthe sulfate, releasing the barium
(22:01):
and any co precipitated radium.
So that's part of the, what happens inthe environment, what's the long term
fate of these types of contaminants.
And hot off the press, some of the earlyresults seem to be that There isn't really
much of an impact in terms of toxicity tothose organisms that we were looking at.
We didn't detect changes in growthrates or photosynthetic efficiency and
(22:23):
some of the metrics that we looked at.
So there's still a bit ofwork to do on the chemistry.
So understand if there's beenbioaccumulation and understand if there is
that release of radium in the pore waters,for now it looks like the concentrations
we were dosing, which are above currentguidelines doesn't seem to be too toxic.
So that's some of the labwork that we're doing.
(22:43):
On the other side, thinking about theproblem of mercury biomagnification,
we know that mercury in the environmentforms part of that environmental
cycle of mercury, and that canlead to high concentrations in fish
tissue in particular, and that mighthave impacts to the environment.
Not just those higher orderorganisms in terms of toxicity, but
(23:05):
it could also impact recreationaland commercial fisheries.
And there have been examples aroundAustralia where certain areas have
had to close fisheries for a period oftime because of mercury contamination.
So how do you know how much mercuryyou can throw in a food web before
you start to see negative impacts is aquestion that we're trying to answer.
And we're adopting a food web modelingapproach and we've got some Ecological
(23:31):
modelers, mathematicians, computerscientists coming together at AIMS to
try and look at existing tools, usethem as a starting point, but then
really accelerating them with highperformance computing and new interfaces.
So instead of running a few modelscenarios, we can run a thousand
model scenarios and really start totease apart what are the important
(23:53):
aspects of the biomagnification andcomponents that we need to care about.
Is it the amount of mercury?
Can we put a number aroundthat or even a range?
Is it a gram?
Is it a kilogram?
Is it a ton?
Or maybe it's the food web compositionor maybe it's the speciation of mercury.
So hopefully we can get someresolution of what's an important
(24:14):
question in that aspect that wecan then take to the lab and start
doing more empirical research on.
Renae Larsen (24:22):
And that will feed into some of those long term models that will
support obviously the decision making fordecommissioning, but other industries,
emerging industries, offshore windoperational aspects, just to understand.
The structures that are in there thatnot ready to come out of the, of the
marine environment yet, but it's reallyimportant to understand what their assets
(24:46):
are doing in that space now, not justfor decommissioning, but for long term
users what does the background sedimentcomposition look like or the contaminants
or potential contaminants in there?
And Yeah, we need to understand some,unpack some of these questions and it's
not just applicable to decommissioning.
(25:06):
I think I eventuallygot to that point there.
Darren Koppel (25:09):
No, and that's right.
And particularly with the radioactivematerials, it's an interesting time
in Australia for radiation researchbecause potentially we've got nuclear
submarines coming and potentially we'vegot nuclear power coming and, radiation.
Dose is radiation dose, nomatter where it comes from.
So understanding impact from normin a decommissioning context would
be quite valuable for understandingdose rates from other sources.
(25:32):
To those receptors.
Renae Larsen (25:34):
Lots of really interesting work coming from the AIMS offices
and labs over the past few years.
So it's really exciting.
On that note what's next forAustralian decommissioning research?
What do you see, both of you, I'masking this question to as the
priority areas and knowledge gaps?
I'd like
Dianne McLean (25:52):
to really focus our efforts more on understanding
the more the regional role thatinfrastructure is having in our oceans.
So rather than on looking at particularstructures Looking at the regions
at a whole and trying to understandwhat value those structures play
into the fisheries, for example,but also in connecting populations
(26:15):
from north to south, east to west.
So that role in connectivity becauseit's, that regional influence that's
really going to have that big impact whenwe start talking about decommissioning
a lot of structures in place.
So that really is gettingto that cumulative impact.
Type assessment.
So I think that's really where ourscience needs to go in the next few years.
Darren Koppel (26:38):
Yeah, I'll follow on from that.
Cumulative impacts in the contaminantspace is a interesting question as well,
and not just say mercury from multiplepipelines within a given food web, but
also the combination or joint toxicityof mercury, radioactive materials,
plastic coatings, steel corrosionproducts, thinking about the whole
life cycle of all the contaminants andall the potential impacts, what they,
(27:01):
that may be from these activities.
Peace.
And you're thinking more broadly, this isa complex challenge, understanding, leave
something in, pull it out, impacts, risks.
My hope is that as a Australiancommunity, we will be able to make good
decisions for the marine environment.
That's really what we're hoping to inform.
(27:23):
And to make those complex decisions,we need lots of information coming
together and a capability that canpull that information together.
And I don't really know whereI'm going with this, but complex
decision making is important.
And I really hope that within anindustry that has a lot of experience
making complex decisions, maybeabout commissioning a field or.
Drilling deep underground.
(27:45):
We can also make complexdecisions about what is the
best outcome for the environmentfrom a decommissioning scenario.
And from the contaminants, thatmay be leaving it in situ because
shifting it on land is just moving theproblem to a new environment where.
The receptors may be more exposed but Idon't think the current framework allows
(28:05):
for that type of thinking about the fulllife cycle and full impact scenarios.
So I hope that we can get to apoint where we can start making
that type of a complex decision.
Renae Larsen (28:17):
Those holistic assessments.
And I think that's what youend up coming back to and
knowledge sharing and the data.
Access to the right data sets andtesting those in the right conditions
and under the various scenariosto support our decision makers.
Following on from that, what wouldbest help you in your research
(28:38):
and some of your interest areas?
Dianne McLean (28:41):
I'm
Renae Larsen (28:41):
not allowed to say
Darren Koppel (28:42):
Money and data,
Dianne McLean (28:43):
money and data.
It's always, we just, we needto be able to do more research
and more science out there.
Yeah.
So bringing teams together, I think it,to tackle the big questions that we need
to answer in the decommissioning spaces.
It involves collaboration across industrylike CODA and NDRI Facilitate but broadly
(29:03):
across the research institutes as well.
So for a lot of our work at themoment, we are partnering with others
to deliver on more, a lot of the morecomplex difficult to answer questions.
Yeah, so I think collaboration, sharingof data and you Putting in the resources
required to actually enable the scienceto answer the questions that you're
(29:26):
trying to answer is pretty critical.
Renae Larsen (29:30):
And I would add to that reaching outside your comfort zone.
Outside your research institution,outside your the walls of your
industry offices, outside your policyoffices and speak to people that you
wouldn't necessarily reach out toand just have a better understanding
of their views and the work thatthey're doing and their needs as well.
(29:51):
So we can all.
Move forward and share our lessonslearnt and our knowledge more broadly.
And the science, the type of sciencecommunication that AIMS does that some
of the other research groups do is Iknow Francis would agree with me here.
It's a challenge attracting peopleto the decommissioning space.
And I imagine that's a similar thingin the science realm around making
(30:15):
decommissioning an attractive careerchoice for people with disabilities.
for scientists.
Is that a challenge?
It's a little bit of achallenge across industry.
Darren Koppel (30:24):
I don't think so.
Not in my world.
And the biggest limitation isreally funding certainty and
funding availability for research.
Because it is, it's aninteresting problem, right?
It's a complex contamination issue.
There's a lot of fundamental work thatneeds to happen to inform decision making.
And I think that's what drives usscientists, but being able to get
(30:46):
Funding, sustainability or continuityof funding to support new positions.
That's in my mind, the biggest challenge.
Francis Norman (30:51):
Yeah I'll chip in a little bit since you
dragged me into this part of it.
Certainly in the broader decommissioninglandscape, I think the industry itself
suffers a little bit from a general moveaway from the, particularly the younger
people coming into the workforce, thattheir values don't align necessarily with.
(31:14):
With the historical footprint, ifyou like, of the resources sector.
But when we look at decommissioning andpart of the challenge, part of the thing
that we found very interesting here istrying to tell the story of where those
opportunities lie for, for doing thisdecommissioning work in a sustainable
way, for giving the best outputsfrom, for bringing everything through.
That maybe brings me to aquestion that I've got for
(31:36):
possibly all three of you here.
And that's around thebroader consultation piece.
We talk a lot about in thedecommissioning space, in the
offshore oil and gas space, we talka lot about community consultation.
And to me, one of the starting pointsfor that is community education and just
awareness of what all this lot means.
And there's, there's a gut reactionthat people have when you talk about
(31:58):
installation of these facilities.
That then translates across into some ofthe exposure, some of the opportunities,
some of the risks, if you like, withthe decommissioning side of things.
Do any of the three of you have anythoughts in terms of just how we can
help through that education piece to, toget a better outcome from consultation?
Dianne McLean (32:20):
I think publishing, the science that we're doing is one
of the first key steps that we reallytry and put a lot of work into.
So making all Scientific discoveriespublicly available and advertising
the fact with a bit of media.
But also the imagery, speaks volumes.
I think people don't see these things.
(32:40):
They're far offshore, they're way downunderwater and, it's really eyeopening,
I think, to just, Actually look atthe imagery of these structures and
get a feel for what exists down there.
And, it's very different to yourlittle reef off Cottesloe here.
It's it's a city skyscraper andoffshore, spanning the water
(33:01):
column surrounded by everythingfrom a whale shark to a, to krill.
So I think making that imagery moreavailable to people would be helpful.
Francis Norman (33:10):
The images are certainly remarkable, very powerful
pictures, the diversity of marine lifethat you see around these structures
and in the environment around.
around the structure, if that makessense from a linguistic perspective.
It's just remarkable and I'mprivileged to get to see some of that.
But yeah, to get that information,to get that, to get the impact of
(33:33):
that out to the broader communitywould be an amazing thing, wouldn't
Dianne McLean (33:35):
it?
And it starts a conversation, I think,as well, because one, there's so much
knowledge out there, particularlywith commercial fishers, for example
that they know where all the bitsof infrastructure are, right.
That it might not even be on themap that they'll know what's there
and what they catch in every place.
So there's a huge amount ofknowledge that stakeholders can
bring decommissioning as well.
Francis Norman (33:58):
Do either of the others want to add anything to that?
Darren Koppel (34:01):
Yeah, we don't have the same luxury of beautiful
imagery in the contaminant space.
Mercury contaminated steel justlooks like rusty steel sometimes.
Yeah, no, no good imagery there.
But the consultationpiece is very important.
AIMS is a trusted advisor to industry.
to the government, but also to the public.
And being able to share ourwork is a key part of that.
And a lot of the green groups who arereally interested in decommissioning,
(34:24):
they really value having access to thatscience because it helps them understand.
And when it comes to contaminants,it is a, it's a story of nuance.
So hearing radioactive materials ininfrastructure, that can be quite scary.
But, the ocean is radioactive,so having the ability to
explain it's all about the dose.
(34:44):
The dose makes the poison.
It's a nuance that's sometimes missed,but it's critical in order to get the
whole picture and the whole understanding.
Francis Norman (34:51):
An interesting and evolving space, really, isn't it?
That we, that then it, and it, I'vegot to say, it is very good to have.
People like the three of you, so committedto the science that we're doing here
and sharing it and making it available.
Yeah, we just need to find waysto share it better and share it
more and more broadly, don't we?
But recording these sorts of podcasts is,I think is another contributor to that.
(35:13):
Not that we have an enormousaudience, but but I'm sure those
that listen really do care aboutwhat what's going on in here as well.
Darren Koppel (35:21):
Thoughts on communication, Renea, and its
importance in decommissioning?
Renae Larsen (35:25):
I think it's important for it to be open access.
NDRI, we're working really hard to makesure all of the information that comes
out is robust and it's transparentand it's released in a timely manner.
And obviously we're workingwith amazing people to do that.
In terms of different stakeholders,I think it, Needs to be transformed
(35:46):
in different ways so that it can bedigestible to different groups because
some community groups might not be ableto interpret the science as it is on the,
in the, in peer reviewed articles that weneed to make sure we provide it in formats
that are accessible for different people.
That would be my point there.
Recognizing also interdependenciesof the information across
(36:08):
different groups and the differentcontext it can be captured in.
Francis Norman (36:15):
So look, just.
But to wrap things up maybe if wego around the the table here and any
closing thoughts from from anybody interms of, what you maybe would like to
see going forwards, where, what getsyou really excited about what's going
on in the research space just, or justgeneral ideas that come into your mind.
(36:35):
If you'd like to start us off, Dianne.
Dianne McLean (36:37):
Yeah, sure.
What do I get excited about?
I find it quite exciting when industryare willing to consider the different
sort of science that we're reallypushing out there as being important that
they wouldn't, traditionally look at.
There's easy wins for them and usingthe existing ROV imagery, but the real
value in the science comes when westart doing those big scientifically
(37:02):
developed sampling programs that enableus to add in all sorts of methods
and value add with all manner ofnew instruments and things to really
provide a holistic robust, super, superimportant, view of what their structures
are having in the marine environment.
So I think I'd just encourageanyone to get in touch with us.
(37:22):
Whether it be me or Darren and AIMSto chat about what decommissioning
research might look like for them.
And yeah, just to keep our minds open.
Francis Norman (37:32):
Excited for the science, eh?
Dianne McLean (37:33):
Very excited for the science.
Good to hear.
Francis Norman (37:35):
Good to hear.
Dianne McLean (37:36):
Send me more imagery.
I want to know more.
Francis Norman (37:38):
Wonderful.
Darren, always excited about the science.
So any thoughts from you?
Darren Koppel (37:42):
Yeah, no, send me some scales, send me some mercury,
send me some, no, don't do that.
I'm joking.
Yeah, look I'm really hopeful that as anation of industry and community groups
and researchers, we can all come togetherand outline our priorities and values.
And then.
generate the science to informthe decisions about those.
(38:03):
So this is a complex field.
I think we can rise to the challenge.
We can answer a lot of these questions.
It takes some time, it takessome effort, but we've got the
right people in the right place.
And we've got a lot of expertise.
In our research institutes, universities,but also in industry, and it has to be
(38:23):
that collaboration that brings everyonetogether to answer these questions.
So definitely about the collaboration.
Definitely about sharinginformation where practical and.
I'm always keen about the science.
Good to hear.
Good to hear.
And Renée,
Francis Norman (38:39):
last word from you as the NDRI program director.
Renae Larsen (38:42):
I'm obviously enthusiastic about the science.
It, as Darren said, it's a bigchallenge, but it's not insurmountable.
We are chipping away at it uncoveringsome really interesting information.
And I think it's, Exploring new ground incontaminants and ecosystem interactions.
So, there's a lot to unpack.
I think we are in a good position to moveforward with developing methodologies,
(39:07):
even move towards those best practiceguidance and framework nationally, and
perhaps something that might supportbroader than Australia more, in a
more global sense to better protect.
The environment.
I think our job is really to continuallydrive that improvement in not only
in the science space, but in thedesign and execution of oil and
(39:28):
gas activities from installation todecommissioning and newer industries.
So it's applicable acrossthe board and I think it's a
really exciting space to be in.
Francis Norman (39:39):
Brilliant.
Look, thank you.
First off, thank you all three ofyou for your time to record this.
It's been, as we know from sitting onthis side of the microphone, it's not been
without its challenges to capture thisparticular episode, but look, thank you so
much, all of you for your contributions.
From the CODA side, weare incredibly excited.
As well to be part of the journeywith working with and supporting NDI
(40:02):
and helping to uncover some of thesereally interesting outcomes from
the work that you folks are doing.
So keep at it, please.
It is very much appreciated byindustry that we are getting these
very valuable findings coming through.
And on that, I will say if anybody wantsto follow up with any questions, outreach,
bring some interesting footage for a day.
(40:24):
Don't send Darren any undocumentedpackages of material, but but
they are always happy to haveconversations with people about future
opportunities in the research space.
Or if they're broadly interested in NDRIas well, we will include connections
and ways to get in touch with all of ourwonderful speakers from today's episode
(40:45):
in the notes associated with this podcast.
And on that, thank you everybodyfor participating and thank
you everyone for listening.
Dianne McLean (40:51):
Thanks for having us.
Francis Norman (40:53):
Thanks.
Dianne McLean (40:53):
Thank you.
Welcome everyone to the latest edition of
CODA's Plugging Away podcast.
Today I'm delighted to be joined bythree of the leading people looking
after the research in the decommissioningspace for us as part of the National
Decommissioning Research Initiative,or NDRI as we like to refer to it.
They are executing some reallyinteresting research to, to develop
(00:24):
evidence based decision making toolsto assist us with some of the big
questions in the decommissioning space.
So I would like to introduceto you Renea Larsen, who is
the NDRI program director, Dr.
Dianne McLean, who is a seniormarine scientist with AIMS, and Dr.
Darren Koppel, who is a researchscientist also with AIMS.
(00:44):
And I will hand over to you, Renea,to to lead the conversation, please.
Renae Larsen (00:49):
Thanks very much, Francis, for introducing us today.
It's a pleasure to have Darrenand Di in the room with us.
And I'm really excited to have thisdiscussion with you to understand a little
bit more about some of the questions thatyou're unpacking in the decommissioning
space and more broadly with AIMS.
So I'll start by giving a little bitof background around NDRI's mission.
(01:12):
And that's really about.
It is filling those knowledgegaps in the decommissioning space.
NDRI was born of a recognition ofgaps locally in Australia and more
broadly in a global sense aroundinteraction of infrastructure with the
environment and other marine users.
So obviously that introduces certainlevels of un, certain levels of
(01:34):
uncertainty, if that's the rightphrase to use for decision makers.
And there was.
A need from industry, from thepolicy makers, from the community
to start building a betterknowledge base and contextualize
it in the Australian environment.
NDRI's mission is really aroundExploring that collaborative research
(01:56):
and engaging the right people todo that, including yourselves.
So we engage industry service providers.
There's a lot of engagementwith policymakers and other
stakeholders more broadly.
And we, as Francis referred to,we're looking at building evidence
based decision making tools.
And that's really a keyto phase two of NDRI.
(02:16):
Especially that it's not necessarilyan emerging priority now, but it's a
recognized high priority, which is thatof contaminants in the marine environment
around infrastructure and how thesedifferent constituents behave in under
different circumstances, whether that bedecommissioning activities or whether.
Under operational circumstances andlong term interaction if some of this
(02:38):
infrastructure is in fact left inthe environment for various reasons.
So in terms of how we're delivering thatwe've got some fabulous partnerships
that we've built for phase two, andwe've reestablished our independent
scientific advisory board whichincludes Professor Peter McCready, Dr.
Sarah Gall and Dr.
Carl Bowles who'vejoined us more recently.
(03:00):
Peter returns after being involvedin ISAB from the inception of NDRI.
We've also got our lovely AustralianInstitute of Marine Science.
Teams and the various peoplethat are involved on your side.
The Australian Nuclear Science andTechnology Organization is also involved.
And we've got some lovely industryservice providers that are
delivering some excellent workin the contaminant space as well.
(03:20):
And that includes Exodus andmore recently hydrobiology.
So we're delving into thecharacterization, the fate and the
impacts around some of these potentialcontaminants to build a better
understanding of the constituents.
I guess to wrap up my summary there, I'mreally interested to just have a recap
(03:41):
from Di, first of all, on AIME's role inphase one of NDRI research and some of the
key findings on marine ecosystem responsethat you uncovered with your work.
Would you be able to commenton that a little bit, Di?
Dianne McLean (03:56):
Yeah.
So AIME's had two projects that we wereinvolved in through phase one of NDRI.
The first was on connectivity.
So looking at the role that oil andgas structures play more broadly in
an ecosystem from say the larvae rightthrough to marine megafauna, how the
structures influence movement, canact as stepping stones, source or sink
(04:19):
populations the role of structuresin promoting spreads of invasives.
Biodiversity.
So that connectivity piecewas really important.
It brought in experts from all aroundthe world to to look at what we know
at the moment about the influence ofstructures on connectivity and then
where our real knowledge gaps are.
So that work was published, um, recently.
(04:40):
So that one's out therefor everyone to read.
The second project that AIMS wereinvolved in through phase one
of NDRI was looking at existingimagery that industry collects.
One of the key components for us isthrough the decommissioning process,
we have to be able to minimize.
Impacts and risks to the environmentand understanding how the different
(05:02):
decommissioning options might impact theenvironment really requires us to have
an understanding of what's there now.
And one of the best ways to get at that,or one of the most extensive sources
of information that currently exist.
Is industry held ROVimagery of these structures.
Industry routinely collect ROVimagery through their inspection,
(05:23):
maintenance, repair campaigns.
With access to that imagery, wewere able to document the marine
communities that exist around the ROV.
Many structures in Australia'smarine environment.
So that project looked to really developa knowledge base of the influence of
structures on fish and benthic communitiesthat exist around infrastructure.
(05:47):
And what we found was super interesting.
Firstly, industry ROV imagery.
It has enormous value for science.
We see behaviors, we see newstructures that scientists have never
really had access to previously.
So we learn a lot around the ecology inpreviously unsurveyed places for science.
(06:08):
Secondly, I think one of the bigfindings for that project was that
no structure is the same as another,as much as industry hate it, when I
say that one of the patterns wouldbe, it would be so much easier if the
patterns were the same everywhere.
Each structure is in a different depth,in a different place, is configured
differently, is been there for adifferent amount of time, is subject
(06:30):
to different environmental conditions.
So the marine communities thathave developed around them differ,
which really shows that we needthat science on a daily basis.
A structure by structure, caseby case basis to inform the
decommissioning decisions for them.
Renae Larsen (06:46):
Yeah, you can really see that there is an emphasis on the
case by case studies in terms of howimpactful this information is for
industry and other decision makers.
How do you see that being utilizedmore broadly for decommissioning
or other industries perhaps?
Dianne McLean (07:04):
Another of the main findings we found was we didn't just
use this industry ROV, we were able toweave in a lot of additional science
that had been done off infrastructure.
So we had that context of how do these.
Fish communities, for example,compare on a platform compared to a
natural reef or surrounding areas.
(07:24):
So one of the key things we were ableto show was particularly for those
important fishery species, they reallyare abundant and have a higher biomass
on a lot of this infrastructure thanthey do in their surrounding ecosystems.
And we see that translateinto fishing effort.
So we know commercial fishers willpreferentially fish subsea pipelines
(07:47):
in the Northwest for higher catches.
So through those learnings, we can, wereally have a feel for what it is about
the infrastructure that attracts fisherytarget species, for example, and that
has then implications for how we go on.
Design or add new structures into theocean, whether it be for oil and gas or
more likely for other offshore energydevelopments as they come online in
(08:08):
Australia, we should be weaving thatknowledge into the design elements of
those that go into benefit fisheries.
Renae Larsen (08:15):
And what are some of your thoughts on the connectivity and
productivity aspects there around thedifferent lifecycle stages for different
species and how that will play intosome of the decommissioning activities?
Dianne McLean (08:27):
Yeah.
So what we're finding at the moment isthat infrastructure in the Southeast
of Australia, for example, can, plays aminor role in the connectivity of some
of the key, most common species thatwe're seeing around those structures.
So for example, there's the longspine sea urchin, which is an
invasive species coming down fromNew South Wales with climate change.
(08:51):
And we importantly found that theinfrastructure in the southeast doesn't
play a role in aiding the spread ofthat species, which was pretty cool.
We have also shown that pipelines inthat region appear to play a fairly
important role in The populations of aperch species, it's quite important in
the fishery through that region too.
(09:11):
So there's some specific connectivity workthat's come online recently and published
this year that people will be able tolook at to, to have a feel for that.
Same for the productivity, really.
We've been finding that, a lot ofpeople will be familiar with some
of the research that's come outof Milton Love's lab in the U S.
which looks at, the productionvalue of some of these
(09:32):
platforms for rockfish species.
What we're finding in the Southeastthrough our recent research is that even
just looking at three common fisheryspecies, the amount of production that can
be sourced from these platforms is veryhigh compared to the surrounding areas.
So they do seem to have quite an importantrole with secondary fish production.
(09:54):
So the fish that are beingsourced from these structures.
At the moment we're at the step nowwhere we're going to expand that out
to all the different fish speciesthat we're seeing on these structures.
Renae Larsen (10:05):
And how does that impact the scale of your work
and the timelines for that?
It might be pretty challengingout in those environments to
get, gather that data, I imagine.
Dianne McLean (10:14):
Yeah it's taken two or three years now, survey work,
and we haven't been able to survey,obviously, all the different structures
that are out there in the Southeast.
So we've been focusing on a subset.
So we'll be looking at the valueof that subset of platforms and
pipelines for fish production.
Renae Larsen (10:30):
Thank you very much.
Now I'm going to throw acrossto Darren a few questions.
Do you think you could also just talk alittle bit about your involvement with
some of the content research prioritiesthrough NDRI in phase one, late phase
one, early phase two, and how that sort ofinteracts with some of Di's work as well.
Darren Koppel (10:50):
Yeah, sure.
So phase one was all about understandingthe priority contaminants of
mercury and norm, which is naturallyoccurring radioactive materials.
The focus was really bringing togetherour understanding from a mechanistic
point of view, but also from surveyingindustry around those contaminants, their
formation in infrastructure and what sortof levels or concentrations we were seeing
(11:13):
in different types of infrastructure.
And one of the key outputs fromthat work in phase one was Quite
different to the ecological scope inthat we were seeing quite a lot of
the similar contaminants forming notjust in Australia amongst different
infrastructure, but also internationally.
So the type of radioactive scalethat forms in certain flow lines
(11:34):
in Australia, very similar towhat we see internationally.
And so there's a common mechanism.
It's the chemistry, it's the physics.
And so there is some commonality there.
We could really maybe draw a circlearound the types of contaminants that
form which I think really helped to.
Pull that information together,give everyone a common knowledge
base to then start talking aboutwhat's the consequence of releasing
(11:56):
some of that to the environment.
After phase one that was reallydesktop based thinking about that
type of knowledge gathering As wemoved into phase two, we're now
talking to the regulator and we'resaying there are these regulations,
which are very outcomes based.
So any activity needs to haveacceptable levels of impacts and risks.
(12:17):
And there's a lot ofdifferent aspects to that.
One of which might be contaminant impacts.
And we're really trying to give some moreinformation about what that might mean.
So just what an acceptableimpact of a contaminant in the
environment is, but also how wouldan operator go about assessing that.
Okay.
So to do that, we're pulling togetherwhat we think is a best practice risk
(12:38):
assessment framework for norm and mercury,and it's, we say for norm and mercury,
but we're hoping at the highest levelthat it's specific to decommissioning, but
agnostic about the type of contaminants.
So in future, we hope to expand it toall the contaminants but it's certainly
tailored and gives practical adviceabout the types of investigations
that can be undertaken for norm,for mercury for decommissioning.
(13:01):
To help inform that risk assessmentthat an operator might want to do to
determine the suitability of differentpieces of infrastructure for in situ
decommissioning versus complete removal.
Renae Larsen (13:12):
Do you think you could elaborate a little bit around the
types of information the industry needto input into that framework to make
sure it's robust and they get a goodoutcome to assess the end state by.
Darren Koppel (13:27):
Yeah, absolutely.
One of the key needs is understandingthe contaminant inventory and
that means what's going to beleft in the infrastructure at the
point that it's decommissioned.
Not just, The concentrations, but alsothe total mass of mercury, for example,
and its chemical and physical form.
So is it elemental or isit highly mineralized?
So understanding the source term ofthe contaminant is very important.
(13:50):
The next step is understanding the impact.
So if it were to be released in theenvironment, how is it going to behave?
Is it going to, stay as a solid, getburied and not interact with anything.
Great.
That's important for the risk.
If it's going to start to dissolve,if it's going to be, if it's mercury
and it starts to methylate, then it'sgoing to be entering that food web
and there might be downstream impacts.
(14:13):
So understanding imagery,understanding fate in the
environment and then understandingpotential impacts to receptors.
And that could be toxicity, thatcould be through bioaccumulation and
biomagnification, or it could be longterm contamination of water and sediment
that prevents natural recovery processes.
So it is quite a wide rangingamount of information.
(14:37):
At the moment there's a lot ofuncertainty, but with a bit of
research tackling those low hangingfruit, common research questions for
different fields, we think The wholeprocess will be simplified in the
future and it won't need to be as hugein scope because there'd be a lot of
learnings that would be shared betweencommon fields or common contaminants.
Renae Larsen (15:00):
How have you found unpacking the policy around these key contaminants?
Has it been a challenge?
What level of consultation has beenrequired to build a really solid
framework that perhaps could moveforward and become best practice?
Darren Koppel (15:18):
It's been a huge challenge trying to understand what some
of these outcomes based regulations.
mean for radioactive materials insediment, mercury in a pipeline.
And we've had constant engagementand good engagement with
some of the key regulators.
And the intent there is to ensure thatour framework, it's never going to be
(15:40):
endorsed as a part of the regulation.
That's not its purpose.
It's, but what we do hope is thatit will be consistent with the
different regulatory frameworks.
And so we're hoping to have that level ofalignment in order to say doing this type
of work, applying this risk framework willgive you a good understanding of risk.
(16:01):
And that's where my interest is.
It's on, the scientific impact andrisk of different contaminants.
It's really for the regulatorsto make a determination on
whether that's acceptable or not.
To then be left in the ocean as a, asan end state for that infrastructure.
That's really a values judgment.
Renae Larsen (16:19):
Thanks, Darren.
That's a really great summary aroundthe framework that's going to come
out of this phase two for NDRI.
I'm also interested, Diah, inunderstanding a little bit more about
what are your current research prioritiesare in the decommissioning space?
Dianne McLean (16:37):
Yeah, sure.
For the past five to 10 years, we'vereally been focused on what is there.
And now we're more focused on processes.
So things like connectivity, productivity.
Food web dynamics looking at howmarine communities are coming
to establish and what, howthey're using the infrastructure.
So really getting at what will happento these communities potentially
(17:01):
when structures are removed.
And linking in also the ecology withDarren's work on the contaminants.
So, we've been expanding ourresearch through the Bass Strait.
Building up more and moreinventory of ROV imagery.
We've been Working on machinelearning algorithms to detect
invasive species in ROV imagery.
For example, we've been really focusingon the methods we're using to analyze
(17:25):
imagery and improving workflows andstreamlining Processes so that we can do
things much more efficiently and quickly.
So for example, we've got such a bigdatabase now of imagery for that region,
we've got great AI models that are ableto auto ID a lot of the Benthic imagery,
Benthic classes from that imagery for us.
Renae Larsen (17:43):
Have you found that you're having to establish those datasets as
a current baseline, because you do nothave access to some of the broader.
Parameters that are necessaryto undertake your work in terms
of that historical aspect for.
The analysis that you need to do,is there a need to for different
(18:05):
marine users to start sharingtheir data sets more broadly?
Dianne McLean (18:08):
I it's a challenging one because the structures in the
marine environment, for example,in the Southeast they were put into
an area that doesn't have similar.
structure, right?
So they're a novel, uniqueecosystem on them themselves.
So the benthic communities thatwe see growing on platforms, for
example, there don't exist inthat offshore region otherwise.
(18:31):
So you're trying to think about baselinesas a very difficult or challenging concept
when they are those novel habitats.
We're also, we're doing a lot of workin the Northwest as well at the moment
like I said, focusing more on process.
So trying to understand fish, what fishare eating, for example, on the platforms.
(18:52):
So we can look at that process throughthe food web, what happens when we
remove these structures or potentiallyretain the bottom sections, we're
dividing up some of that food web,what potentially happens how resident
species might be on these structures.
So they.
Are they using them intermittently or arethey living there for their entire lives?
And also looking at whether there'sany contaminants in the tissues of
(19:14):
these fish that we might collect oninfrastructure, working closely with
Darren in that regard to piece togethermore of that food web information.
Renae Larsen (19:23):
When you're looking at that food web data, are you beginning
to see some of some regional trendsemerging or is it still very much
infrastructure or site specific?
Dianne McLean (19:34):
We've done enough work I think now in some regions where we're
getting a feel for some of the seasonalchanges in the community structure.
For example, we'll have certain fishspecies at school at certain times of the
year that aren't present at others, or.
Even some species that will bepresent in the shallow sections of
platforms in summer, but in the deepsections of platforms in winter.
(19:56):
And of course, as things move aroundthat really affects the food webs.
And we've got a field team out in theBass Strait at the moment deploying
beta remote underwater video systems.
So, our field team are out there.
Looking at what fish communitieslook like around the shallow
sections of some of the pipelines andcomparing those to the natural reef
and sandy areas surrounding them.
(20:17):
And that's super important forunderstanding what communities exist
in those shallow areas where thosepipelines cross the shore, for example.
And that'll be really important, Ithink, also for the offshore wind
development that might occur in that area.
There's very little known on thosenear shore communities at the minute,
so that data will be super important.
Beyond decommissioning, butinto offshore renewables.
Renae Larsen (20:39):
Thanks, Di.
Darren, do you think you could carryon from there from where Di left off
and talk about some of the broaderresearch that you're doing, not just
for NDRI, but in, and across thecontaminant space for Australia.
And some of the technologies andmethods that you're applying.
Darren Koppel (20:57):
Absolutely.
So my area of.
Research is really focusedon two different aspects.
One is improving theparameterizations of existing tools
to understand contaminant risk.
And then the other is thinking aboutnew ways of answering tricky problems
like mercury biomagnification.
So on the parameters, we're backin the lab, we're doing some good
(21:19):
basic chemistry and toxicology work.
And one recent example is takingsome of the radioactive material
from the Griffin tubular.
And then dosing it into sediments invery precise quantities and taking it
to our national sea simulator up inTownsville and exposing four different
types of organisms over 28 days tounderstand bioaccumulation to those
(21:40):
organisms of things like radium andpolonium, but also look at the behavior
of that material within the sediments.
And we think for the mostpart, it's barite, barium
sulfate in oxygenated water.
It's not going to do anything.
It's not going to go anywhere.
But if it's in the sediments, whereit's anoxic, potentially you could
start to get microbes munching onthe sulfate, releasing the barium
(22:01):
and any co precipitated radium.
So that's part of the, what happens inthe environment, what's the long term
fate of these types of contaminants.
And hot off the press, some of the earlyresults seem to be that There isn't really
much of an impact in terms of toxicity tothose organisms that we were looking at.
We didn't detect changes in growthrates or photosynthetic efficiency and
(22:23):
some of the metrics that we looked at.
So there's still a bit ofwork to do on the chemistry.
So understand if there's beenbioaccumulation and understand if there is
that release of radium in the pore waters,for now it looks like the concentrations
we were dosing, which are above currentguidelines doesn't seem to be too toxic.
So that's some of the labwork that we're doing.
(22:43):
On the other side, thinking about theproblem of mercury biomagnification,
we know that mercury in the environmentforms part of that environmental
cycle of mercury, and that canlead to high concentrations in fish
tissue in particular, and that mighthave impacts to the environment.
Not just those higher orderorganisms in terms of toxicity, but
(23:05):
it could also impact recreationaland commercial fisheries.
And there have been examples aroundAustralia where certain areas have
had to close fisheries for a period oftime because of mercury contamination.
So how do you know how much mercuryyou can throw in a food web before
you start to see negative impacts is aquestion that we're trying to answer.
And we're adopting a food web modelingapproach and we've got some Ecological
(23:31):
modelers, mathematicians, computerscientists coming together at AIMS to
try and look at existing tools, usethem as a starting point, but then
really accelerating them with highperformance computing and new interfaces.
So instead of running a few modelscenarios, we can run a thousand
model scenarios and really start totease apart what are the important
(23:53):
aspects of the biomagnification andcomponents that we need to care about.
Is it the amount of mercury?
Can we put a number aroundthat or even a range?
Is it a gram?
Is it a kilogram?
Is it a ton?
Or maybe it's the food web compositionor maybe it's the speciation of mercury.
So hopefully we can get someresolution of what's an important
(24:14):
question in that aspect that wecan then take to the lab and start
doing more empirical research on.
Renae Larsen (24:22):
And that will feed into some of those long term models that will
support obviously the decision making fordecommissioning, but other industries,
emerging industries, offshore windoperational aspects, just to understand.
The structures that are in there thatnot ready to come out of the, of the
marine environment yet, but it's reallyimportant to understand what their assets
(24:46):
are doing in that space now, not justfor decommissioning, but for long term
users what does the background sedimentcomposition look like or the contaminants
or potential contaminants in there?
And Yeah, we need to understand some,unpack some of these questions and it's
not just applicable to decommissioning.
(25:06):
I think I eventuallygot to that point there.
Darren Koppel (25:09):
No, and that's right.
And particularly with the radioactivematerials, it's an interesting time
in Australia for radiation researchbecause potentially we've got nuclear
submarines coming and potentially we'vegot nuclear power coming and, radiation.
Dose is radiation dose, nomatter where it comes from.
So understanding impact from normin a decommissioning context would
be quite valuable for understandingdose rates from other sources.
(25:32):
To those receptors.
Renae Larsen (25:34):
Lots of really interesting work coming from the AIMS offices
and labs over the past few years.
So it's really exciting.
On that note what's next forAustralian decommissioning research?
What do you see, both of you, I'masking this question to as the
priority areas and knowledge gaps?
I'd like
Dianne McLean (25:52):
to really focus our efforts more on understanding
the more the regional role thatinfrastructure is having in our oceans.
So rather than on looking at particularstructures Looking at the regions
at a whole and trying to understandwhat value those structures play
into the fisheries, for example,but also in connecting populations
(26:15):
from north to south, east to west.
So that role in connectivity becauseit's, that regional influence that's
really going to have that big impact whenwe start talking about decommissioning
a lot of structures in place.
So that really is gettingto that cumulative impact.
Type assessment.
So I think that's really where ourscience needs to go in the next few years.
Darren Koppel (26:38):
Yeah, I'll follow on from that.
Cumulative impacts in the contaminantspace is a interesting question as well,
and not just say mercury from multiplepipelines within a given food web, but
also the combination or joint toxicityof mercury, radioactive materials,
plastic coatings, steel corrosionproducts, thinking about the whole
life cycle of all the contaminants andall the potential impacts, what they,
(27:01):
that may be from these activities.
Peace.
And you're thinking more broadly, this isa complex challenge, understanding, leave
something in, pull it out, impacts, risks.
My hope is that as a Australiancommunity, we will be able to make good
decisions for the marine environment.
That's really what we're hoping to inform.
(27:23):
And to make those complex decisions,we need lots of information coming
together and a capability that canpull that information together.
And I don't really know whereI'm going with this, but complex
decision making is important.
And I really hope that within anindustry that has a lot of experience
making complex decisions, maybeabout commissioning a field or.
Drilling deep underground.
(27:45):
We can also make complexdecisions about what is the
best outcome for the environmentfrom a decommissioning scenario.
And from the contaminants, thatmay be leaving it in situ because
shifting it on land is just moving theproblem to a new environment where.
The receptors may be more exposed but Idon't think the current framework allows
(28:05):
for that type of thinking about the fulllife cycle and full impact scenarios.
So I hope that we can get to apoint where we can start making
that type of a complex decision.
Renae Larsen (28:17):
Those holistic assessments.
And I think that's what youend up coming back to and
knowledge sharing and the data.
Access to the right data sets andtesting those in the right conditions
and under the various scenariosto support our decision makers.
Following on from that, what wouldbest help you in your research
(28:38):
and some of your interest areas?
Dianne McLean (28:41):
I'm
Renae Larsen (28:41):
not allowed to say
Darren Koppel (28:42):
Money and data,
Dianne McLean (28:43):
money and data.
It's always, we just, we needto be able to do more research
and more science out there.
Yeah.
So bringing teams together, I think it,to tackle the big questions that we need
to answer in the decommissioning spaces.
It involves collaboration across industrylike CODA and NDRI Facilitate but broadly
(29:03):
across the research institutes as well.
So for a lot of our work at themoment, we are partnering with others
to deliver on more, a lot of the morecomplex difficult to answer questions.
Yeah, so I think collaboration, sharingof data and you Putting in the resources
required to actually enable the scienceto answer the questions that you're
(29:26):
trying to answer is pretty critical.
Renae Larsen (29:30):
And I would add to that reaching outside your comfort zone.
Outside your research institution,outside your the walls of your
industry offices, outside your policyoffices and speak to people that you
wouldn't necessarily reach out toand just have a better understanding
of their views and the work thatthey're doing and their needs as well.
(29:51):
So we can all.
Move forward and share our lessonslearnt and our knowledge more broadly.
And the science, the type of sciencecommunication that AIMS does that some
of the other research groups do is Iknow Francis would agree with me here.
It's a challenge attracting peopleto the decommissioning space.
And I imagine that's a similar thingin the science realm around making
(30:15):
decommissioning an attractive careerchoice for people with disabilities.
for scientists.
Is that a challenge?
It's a little bit of achallenge across industry.
Darren Koppel (30:24):
I don't think so.
Not in my world.
And the biggest limitation isreally funding certainty and
funding availability for research.
Because it is, it's aninteresting problem, right?
It's a complex contamination issue.
There's a lot of fundamental work thatneeds to happen to inform decision making.
And I think that's what drives usscientists, but being able to get
(30:46):
Funding, sustainability or continuityof funding to support new positions.
That's in my mind, the biggest challenge.
Francis Norman (30:51):
Yeah I'll chip in a little bit since you
dragged me into this part of it.
Certainly in the broader decommissioninglandscape, I think the industry itself
suffers a little bit from a general moveaway from the, particularly the younger
people coming into the workforce, thattheir values don't align necessarily with.
(31:14):
With the historical footprint, ifyou like, of the resources sector.
But when we look at decommissioning andpart of the challenge, part of the thing
that we found very interesting here istrying to tell the story of where those
opportunities lie for, for doing thisdecommissioning work in a sustainable
way, for giving the best outputsfrom, for bringing everything through.
That maybe brings me to aquestion that I've got for
(31:36):
possibly all three of you here.
And that's around thebroader consultation piece.
We talk a lot about in thedecommissioning space, in the
offshore oil and gas space, we talka lot about community consultation.
And to me, one of the starting pointsfor that is community education and just
awareness of what all this lot means.
And there's, there's a gut reactionthat people have when you talk about
(31:58):
installation of these facilities.
That then translates across into some ofthe exposure, some of the opportunities,
some of the risks, if you like, withthe decommissioning side of things.
Do any of the three of you have anythoughts in terms of just how we can
help through that education piece to, toget a better outcome from consultation?
Dianne McLean (32:20):
I think publishing, the science that we're doing is one
of the first key steps that we reallytry and put a lot of work into.
So making all Scientific discoveriespublicly available and advertising
the fact with a bit of media.
But also the imagery, speaks volumes.
I think people don't see these things.
(32:40):
They're far offshore, they're way downunderwater and, it's really eyeopening,
I think, to just, Actually look atthe imagery of these structures and
get a feel for what exists down there.
And, it's very different to yourlittle reef off Cottesloe here.
It's it's a city skyscraper andoffshore, spanning the water
(33:01):
column surrounded by everythingfrom a whale shark to a, to krill.
So I think making that imagery moreavailable to people would be helpful.
Francis Norman (33:10):
The images are certainly remarkable, very powerful
pictures, the diversity of marine lifethat you see around these structures
and in the environment around.
around the structure, if that makessense from a linguistic perspective.
It's just remarkable and I'mprivileged to get to see some of that.
But yeah, to get that information,to get that, to get the impact of
(33:33):
that out to the broader communitywould be an amazing thing, wouldn't
Dianne McLean (33:35):
it?
And it starts a conversation, I think,as well, because one, there's so much
knowledge out there, particularlywith commercial fishers, for example
that they know where all the bitsof infrastructure are, right.
That it might not even be on themap that they'll know what's there
and what they catch in every place.
So there's a huge amount ofknowledge that stakeholders can
bring decommissioning as well.
Francis Norman (33:58):
Do either of the others want to add anything to that?
Darren Koppel (34:01):
Yeah, we don't have the same luxury of beautiful
imagery in the contaminant space.
Mercury contaminated steel justlooks like rusty steel sometimes.
Yeah, no, no good imagery there.
But the consultationpiece is very important.
AIMS is a trusted advisor to industry.
to the government, but also to the public.
And being able to share ourwork is a key part of that.
And a lot of the green groups who arereally interested in decommissioning,
(34:24):
they really value having access to thatscience because it helps them understand.
And when it comes to contaminants,it is a, it's a story of nuance.
So hearing radioactive materials ininfrastructure, that can be quite scary.
But, the ocean is radioactive,so having the ability to
explain it's all about the dose.
(34:44):
The dose makes the poison.
It's a nuance that's sometimes missed,but it's critical in order to get the
whole picture and the whole understanding.
Francis Norman (34:51):
An interesting and evolving space, really, isn't it?
That we, that then it, and it, I'vegot to say, it is very good to have.
People like the three of you, so committedto the science that we're doing here
and sharing it and making it available.
Yeah, we just need to find waysto share it better and share it
more and more broadly, don't we?
But recording these sorts of podcasts is,I think is another contributor to that.
(35:13):
Not that we have an enormousaudience, but but I'm sure those
that listen really do care aboutwhat what's going on in here as well.
Darren Koppel (35:21):
Thoughts on communication, Renea, and its
importance in decommissioning?
Renae Larsen (35:25):
I think it's important for it to be open access.
NDRI, we're working really hard to makesure all of the information that comes
out is robust and it's transparentand it's released in a timely manner.
And obviously we're workingwith amazing people to do that.
In terms of different stakeholders,I think it, Needs to be transformed
(35:46):
in different ways so that it can bedigestible to different groups because
some community groups might not be ableto interpret the science as it is on the,
in the, in peer reviewed articles that weneed to make sure we provide it in formats
that are accessible for different people.
That would be my point there.
Recognizing also interdependenciesof the information across
(36:08):
different groups and the differentcontext it can be captured in.
Francis Norman (36:15):
So look, just.
But to wrap things up maybe if wego around the the table here and any
closing thoughts from from anybody interms of, what you maybe would like to
see going forwards, where, what getsyou really excited about what's going
on in the research space just, or justgeneral ideas that come into your mind.
(36:35):
If you'd like to start us off, Dianne.
Dianne McLean (36:37):
Yeah, sure.
What do I get excited about?
I find it quite exciting when industryare willing to consider the different
sort of science that we're reallypushing out there as being important that
they wouldn't, traditionally look at.
There's easy wins for them and usingthe existing ROV imagery, but the real
value in the science comes when westart doing those big scientifically
(37:02):
developed sampling programs that enableus to add in all sorts of methods
and value add with all manner ofnew instruments and things to really
provide a holistic robust, super, superimportant, view of what their structures
are having in the marine environment.
So I think I'd just encourageanyone to get in touch with us.
(37:22):
Whether it be me or Darren and AIMSto chat about what decommissioning
research might look like for them.
And yeah, just to keep our minds open.
Francis Norman (37:32):
Excited for the science, eh?
Dianne McLean (37:33):
Very excited for the science.
Good to hear.
Francis Norman (37:35):
Good to hear.
Dianne McLean (37:36):
Send me more imagery.
I want to know more.
Francis Norman (37:38):
Wonderful.
Darren, always excited about the science.
So any thoughts from you?
Darren Koppel (37:42):
Yeah, no, send me some scales, send me some mercury,
send me some, no, don't do that.
I'm joking.
Yeah, look I'm really hopeful that as anation of industry and community groups
and researchers, we can all come togetherand outline our priorities and values.
And then.
generate the science to informthe decisions about those.
(38:03):
So this is a complex field.
I think we can rise to the challenge.
We can answer a lot of these questions.
It takes some time, it takessome effort, but we've got the
right people in the right place.
And we've got a lot of expertise.
In our research institutes, universities,but also in industry, and it has to be
(38:23):
that collaboration that brings everyonetogether to answer these questions.
So definitely about the collaboration.
Definitely about sharinginformation where practical and.
I'm always keen about the science.
Good to hear.
Good to hear.
And Renée,
Francis Norman (38:39):
last word from you as the NDRI program director.
Renae Larsen (38:42):
I'm obviously enthusiastic about the science.
It, as Darren said, it's a bigchallenge, but it's not insurmountable.
We are chipping away at it uncoveringsome really interesting information.
And I think it's, Exploring new ground incontaminants and ecosystem interactions.
So, there's a lot to unpack.
I think we are in a good position to moveforward with developing methodologies,
(39:07):
even move towards those best practiceguidance and framework nationally, and
perhaps something that might supportbroader than Australia more, in a
more global sense to better protect.
The environment.
I think our job is really to continuallydrive that improvement in not only
in the science space, but in thedesign and execution of oil and
(39:28):
gas activities from installation todecommissioning and newer industries.
So it's applicable acrossthe board and I think it's a
really exciting space to be in.
Francis Norman (39:39):
Brilliant.
Look, thank you.
First off, thank you all three ofyou for your time to record this.
It's been, as we know from sitting onthis side of the microphone, it's not been
without its challenges to capture thisparticular episode, but look, thank you so
much, all of you for your contributions.
From the CODA side, weare incredibly excited.
As well to be part of the journeywith working with and supporting NDI
(40:02):
and helping to uncover some of thesereally interesting outcomes from
the work that you folks are doing.
So keep at it, please.
It is very much appreciated byindustry that we are getting these
very valuable findings coming through.
And on that, I will say if anybody wantsto follow up with any questions, outreach,
bring some interesting footage for a day.
(40:24):
Don't send Darren any undocumentedpackages of material, but but
they are always happy to haveconversations with people about future
opportunities in the research space.
Or if they're broadly interested in NDRIas well, we will include connections
and ways to get in touch with all of ourwonderful speakers from today's episode
(40:45):
in the notes associated with this podcast.
And on that, thank you everybodyfor participating and thank
you everyone for listening.
Dianne McLean (40:51):
Thanks for having us.
Francis Norman (40:53):
Thanks.
Dianne McLean (40:53):
Thank you.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by Audiochuck Media Company.