• 35 mins Syrian Rebels Relinquish Control Of Major Gas Field
  • 2 hours Schlumberger Warns Of Moderating Investment In North America
  • 3 hours Oil Prices Set For Weekly Loss As Profit Taking Trumps Mideast Tensions
  • 4 hours Energy Regulators Look To Guard Grid From Cyberattacks
  • 5 hours Mexico Says OPEC Has Not Approached It For Deal Extension
  • 7 hours New Video Game Targets Oil Infrastructure
  • 8 hours Shell Restarts Bonny Light Exports
  • 9 hours Russia’s Rosneft To Take Majority In Kurdish Oil Pipeline
  • 16 hours Iraq Struggles To Replace Damaged Kirkuk Equipment As Output Falls
  • 21 hours British Utility Companies Brace For Major Reforms
  • 1 day Montenegro A ‘Sweet Spot’ Of Untapped Oil, Gas In The Adriatic
  • 1 day Rosneft CEO: Rising U.S. Shale A Downside Risk To Oil Prices
  • 1 day Brazil Could Invite More Bids For Unsold Pre-Salt Oil Blocks
  • 1 day OPEC/Non-OPEC Seek Consensus On Deal Before Nov Summit
  • 1 day London Stock Exchange Boss Defends Push To Win Aramco IPO
  • 1 day Rosneft Signs $400M Deal With Kurdistan
  • 1 day Kinder Morgan Warns About Trans Mountain Delays
  • 2 days India, China, U.S., Complain Of Venezuelan Crude Oil Quality Issues
  • 2 days Kurdish Kirkuk-Ceyhan Crude Oil Flows Plunge To 225,000 Bpd
  • 2 days Russia, Saudis Team Up To Boost Fracking Tech
  • 2 days Conflicting News Spurs Doubt On Aramco IPO
  • 2 days Exxon Starts Production At New Refinery In Texas
  • 2 days Iraq Asks BP To Redevelop Kirkuk Oil Fields
  • 3 days Oil Prices Rise After U.S. API Reports Strong Crude Inventory Draw
  • 3 days Oil Gains Spur Growth In Canada’s Oil Cities
  • 3 days China To Take 5% Of Rosneft’s Output In New Deal
  • 3 days UAE Oil Giant Seeks Partnership For Possible IPO
  • 3 days Planting Trees Could Cut Emissions As Much As Quitting Oil
  • 3 days VW Fails To Secure Critical Commodity For EVs
  • 3 days Enbridge Pipeline Expansion Finally Approved
  • 3 days Iraqi Forces Seize Control Of North Oil Co Fields In Kirkuk
  • 3 days OPEC Oil Deal Compliance Falls To 86%
  • 4 days U.S. Oil Production To Increase in November As Rig Count Falls
  • 4 days Gazprom Neft Unhappy With OPEC-Russia Production Cut Deal
  • 4 days Disputed Venezuelan Vote Could Lead To More Sanctions, Clashes
  • 4 days EU Urges U.S. Congress To Protect Iran Nuclear Deal
  • 4 days Oil Rig Explosion In Louisiana Leaves 7 Injured, 1 Still Missing
  • 4 days Aramco Says No Plans To Shelve IPO
  • 7 days Trump Passes Iran Nuclear Deal Back to Congress
  • 7 days Texas Shutters More Coal-Fired Plants
Alt Text

The Next Big Digital Disruption In Energy

Blockchain technology is transforming the…

Alt Text

Oil Fundamentals Overturn Geopolitical Risk

Geopolitical risk from Iraq and…

Michael McDonald

Michael McDonald

Michael is an assistant professor of finance and a frequent consultant to companies regarding capital structure decisions and investments. He holds a PhD in finance…

More Info

Decommissioning Costs Pile Up For Energy Infrastructure

Decommissioning Costs Pile Up For Energy Infrastructure

As human history progresses, new technologies come along and old ones have to make way. In many cases, this process is made more costly and difficult, because of a lack of planned obsolescence in existing products and infrastructure. Unfortunately, that kind of thinking often leads to costly rework issues and the inability to understand that business is an evolutionary rather than revolutionary process. The latest example of this is in Britain where poor planning and an inability to think ahead for the future is now set to cost the government roughly 500 million pounds.

In the British case, the National Grid will remove less than 10 miles of overhead power lines at a cost of roughly 11 million pounds per pylon. The cables will be buried underground subsequently with the entire 45 pylon removal project being intended to help beautify the area in certain sections of country. The irony of the project is that it is entirely unnecessary had proper foresight been used. The countryside in question did not suddenly become more beautiful so the project is a really a reflection of the failure of the National Grid operators to look ahead and try to do work in a slightly more expensive but more viable long-term fashion. Related: Statoil Greenlights Unmanned Platform in North Sea

The British are hardly alone in this general dilemma. The Germans and the U.S. are going to face enormous decommissioning costs related to removing and replacing thousands of older windmills over the court of the next decade. Similarly, nuclear plant decommissioning costs are rising rapidly and making the decision to shut down old reactors even more economically difficult.

The reality is that in the energy space, decommissioning older infrastructure will always be a costly challenge. Regulators and industry groups in California and elsewhere pay some attention to the need to focus on the long term in energy development. But simply having a plan for decommissioning old facilities is not enough. Instead projects need to be built with a more realistic set of expectations for the cost and time frame for decommissioning. This is where the U.S. bankruptcy code and other financial issues can come into play. Related: Lithium: The Bright Spot For The Commodity Sector

Take solar rooftop installations for instance. Companies like Solar City install the installations on customers’ roofs at no upfront cost and they the consumer essentially pays for the installation over a period of two decades. Yet once that period is over, the rooftop installation will have very little value as the technology will likely be very obsolete and the system itself maybe so old that it requires constant maintenance. Yet homeowners are unlikely to pay to take the panels down and repair holes cut in the roof after the end of the system’s life.

The solution to this type of poor long term planning is fairly straight-forward. New energy installation projects should require a long-term sinking fund that will eventually pay for the decommission of the infrastructure in question. Such a sinking fund would be funded over the course of a project’s life. Related: Geothermal Energy Could Grow Six Fold

For instance, the cost of decommissioning a nuclear power plant is perhaps 10-15 percent of the plants upfront cost. Assuming a 7 percent return on assets, if the plant operator were required to contribute just 0.07 percent of the asset cost annually to a sinking fund for decommission (1 percent of revenues), assuming a 50 year plant life, and a 5 percent interest rate, the decommissioning would be fully paid for by the end of the nuclear plant’s life. The same plan could be applied to a variety of other infrastructure projects in the energy space.

It may be difficult to foresee when new technologies will come along that will supplant existing technologies, but with proper financial planning in advance, decommissioning existing infrastructure when needs change does not have to be a major burden for a firm or taxpayers.

By Michael McDonald of Oilprice.com

More Top Reads From Oilprice.com:




Back to homepage


Leave a comment

Leave a comment




Oilprice - The No. 1 Source for Oil & Energy News