Top ten research priorities on decommissioning offshore oil and gas structures - Research questions from global experts - (NESP MaC 1.19, Deakin)

This dataset consists of an Excel spreadsheet representing an expert elicitation process of determining priority research areas for the decommissioning of ocean-based oil and gas structures. Further description of this process is provided in the 'Offshore decommissioning horizon scan: Research priorities to support decision-making activities for oil and gas infrastructure' paper by Sarah Watson et. al. 2023 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.163015.

A global horizon scan was undertaken, eliciting input from an interdisciplinary cohort of 35 global experts to develop the top ten priority research needs to further inform decommissioning decisions and advance our understanding of their potential impacts. The resulting highest research priorities included: (1) an assessment of impacts of contaminants and their acceptable environmental limits to reduce potential for ecological harm; (2) defining risk and acceptability thresholds in policy/governance; (3) characterising liability issues of ongoing costs and responsibility; and (4) quantification of impacts to ecosystem services. The remaining top ten priorities included: (5) quantifying ecological connectivity; (6) assessing marine life productivity; (7) determining feasibility of infrastructure re-use; (8) identification of stakeholder views and values; (9) quantification of greenhouse gas emissions; and (10) developing a transdisciplinary decommissioning decision-making process.

Methods:
We used a horizon-scan process with leading global experts on the decommissioning of offshore O&G infrastructure (excluded from the scope was P&A of subsea wells), from across a range of fields (science/academia; industry; and policy-making) and technical disciplines (environmental; societal, technical, economic; and policy/governance). Experts were selected based on their: publications on the topic; extent of relevant work (within academia, industry, or a relevant competent authority); or substantial involvement (e.g., chair) of an international industry association specialising in decommissioning. The aim of the expert selection process was to ensure representation across all geographical regions, fields of work, and technical disciplines, as applicable to offshore decommissioning activities

Based on these criteria, an invitation to participate was sent to identified experts (n = 65), from which n = 35 responded, providing: a list of the most important questions/research areas on decommissioning in their view, and a completed experience matrix, indicating offshore O&G decommissioning-related experience by geographical region(s), field(s) of work, and technical discipline(s).

The full list of collated questions (n = 257; from the 35 experts' responses; S-Table 3) were categorised into five disciplinary areas, 15 topics, and 38 sub-topics, grouped according to similarity by the project team leaders (SW, DM, EC, PM; S-Table 2). Categorised responses were subsequently presented to experts at an online workshop, where further discussion on the transdisciplinary nature of the topic, and how best to address within future research, was facilitated (S-Tables 2,3). Following the workshop, the experts voted (n = 32), providing their opinion of the most important sub-topics needing to be addressed by future research to fill critical knowledge gaps (S-Table 4). At this point, due to conflicting time commitments, three withdrew from the vote with their self-identified expertise representing East Asian Seas, South Pacific, and Global regions, and spanning all fields of work and technical disciplines. All votes were collated, and the sub-topics were ordered based on total numbers of votes (S-Table 5), which formed the consensus for the top ten research priorities.

Limitations:
Note: This dataset does not contain a mapping between the experts and the original questions that they voted for, but instead a mapping between the expert and the sub-topic of questions that they voted for. This dataset does not list the final prioritised set of questions. These are listed in the associated paper (Watson et al., 2023). The goal of the voting was to determine the final priority sub topics, not a ranking of the highest priority collated questions. As a result the final priority questions are based on the priority sub-topics and an amalgamation of the prioritised questions within that sub-topic.

Data format:
This dataset consists of 6 sheets with the following tables:

- ST-1:
1. Background of Experts by Geographical Region (G - Global, EAS - East Asian Seas (COBSEA), including NW Australia, NEA - North-east Atlantic (OSPAR Convention), NEP - North-east Pacific (Antigua Convention) including USA-California & Non-arctic Alaska, SP - South Pacific (Nouméa Convention) including SE Australia & New Zealand)
2. Background of Experts by Field of Work (S - Science/Academia, I - Industry, P - Policy)
3. Background of Experts by Technical Discipline (EN - Environmental, SO – Societal (including safety of others), TE – Technical (including safety of workers), EC - Economic, PO - Policy/Governance)

- ST-2:
Categorisation of the collated questions organised into 15 topics and 38 subtopics.

- ST-3:
List of the 257 questions collated from 35 experts, along with the ID of the expert who posed the question.

- ST-4:
Summary of votes by experts, broken down into the topics and subtopics. Each expert was given a total weight of 10 votes. The scores of each expert were normalised to 10 votes, so those that prioritised more than 10 questions were down weighted (to a total of 10) and those with less questions were up weighted (to a total of 10).

- ST-5:
Ranking of the issues/opportunities showing the number of votes received by each sub-topic and their associated priority ranking.

- ST-6:
Characterisation of the experts that voted for each final priorities research sub-topic, indicating their, field of work, technical discipline and region.

References:
Watson, S. M., McLean, D. L., Balcom, B. J., Birchenough, S. N. R., Brand, A. M., Camprasse, E. C. M., Claisse, J. T., Coolen, J. W. P., Cresswell, T., Fokkema, B., Gourvenec, S., Henry, L.-A., Hewitt, C. L., Love, M. S., MacIntosh, A. E., Marnane, M., McKinley, E., Micallef, S., Morgan, D., … Macreadie, P. I. (2023). Offshore decommissioning horizon scan: Research priorities to support decision-making activities for oil and gas infrastructure. Science of The Total Environment, 878, 163015. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.163015

Location of the data:
This dataset is primarily hosted as a supplemental table in Watson et al., 2023. A copy of this dataset is filed in the eAtlas enduring data repository at: data\custodian\2021-2022-NESP-MaC-1\1.19_Decomissioning-oil-gas-infrastructure\data\original

本数据集为一份Excel表格，记录了确定海洋油气设施退役（decommissioning of ocean-based oil and gas structures）优先研究领域的专家征询（expert elicitation）流程。该流程的详细说明已发表于Sarah Watson等人2023年的论文《海上油气设施退役前瞻扫描：支撑油气基础设施决策活动的研究优先级》（Offshore decommissioning horizon scan: Research priorities to support decision-making activities for oil and gas infrastructure，DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.163015）。

本次研究开展了一项全球前瞻扫描（horizon scan），征集了35名跨学科全球专家的意见，以此梳理出十大优先研究需求，为退役（decommissioning）决策提供进一步支撑，并加深对其潜在影响的认知。最终确定的最高优先级研究方向包括：(1) 污染物影响及其可接受环境限值的评估，以降低生态损害风险；(2) 政策/治理框架中风险与可接受阈值的界定；(3) 持续成本与责任相关法律责任问题的刻画；(4) 生态系统服务（ecosystem services）影响的量化。其余八项前十优先级研究方向分别为：(5) 生态连通性量化；(6) 海洋生物生产力评估；(7) 设施再利用可行性判定；(8) 利益相关者（stakeholder）观点与价值识别；(9) 温室气体（greenhouse gas）排放量量化；(10) 跨学科（transdisciplinary）退役决策流程构建。

研究方法：
我们采用前瞻扫描（horizon scan）流程，邀请了全球范围内从事海上油气（Oil and Gas, O&G）设施退役研究的顶尖专家（研究范围不包含海底井封堵弃置（Plug and Abandon, P&A）），这些专家来自科学/学术、工业、政策制定等多个领域，以及环境、社会、技术、经济、政策/治理等多个技术学科。专家遴选标准包括：该主题相关的学术成果、相关工作积累（学术领域、工业领域或相关主管部门内），或在退役（decommissioning）领域国际行业协会中担任要职（如主席）。专家遴选流程的目标是确保覆盖所有地理区域、工作领域及技术学科，以适配海上退役活动的需求。

基于上述标准，我们向遴选出的65名专家发出参与邀请，最终有35名专家回复，他们提供了各自认为最重要的退役（decommissioning）相关研究问题/领域清单，并填写了经验矩阵，用以说明其在特定地理区域、工作领域及技术学科下的海上油气退役相关研究经验。

项目团队负责人（SW、DM、EC、PM；详见S表2）根据内容相似性，将35名专家回复中汇总得到的257条完整问题清单（详见S表3）划分为5大学科领域、15个主题及38个子主题。随后，分类后的回复被提交至线上研讨会，会上就该主题的跨学科（transdisciplinary）属性以及未来研究中的最优解决方案开展了进一步讨论（详见S表2、3）。研讨会结束后，32名专家参与投票，就未来研究需优先解决的关键知识缺口相关子主题发表意见（详见S表4）。在此阶段，因时间冲突，3名专家退出投票，他们分别来自东亚海域、南太平洋及全球区域，覆盖所有工作领域及技术学科。所有投票结果均被汇总，子主题按得票数排序（详见S表5），由此形成十大优先研究主题的共识。

局限性说明：
本数据集未收录专家与其所投票原始问题的对应关系，仅包含专家与其所投票问题所属子主题的映射关系。本数据集未列出最终优先排序的问题清单，相关清单已发表于关联论文（Watson et al., 2023）。本次投票的目标是确定优先子主题，而非对汇总后的原始问题进行排名。因此，最终优先研究问题是基于优先子主题及该子主题下的优先问题合并整理得到的。

数据格式：
本数据集包含6个工作表，对应如下表格：
- ST-1：
1. 按地理区域划分的专家背景信息（G - 全球，EAS - 东亚海域（COBSEA），涵盖澳大利亚西北部；NEA - 东北大西洋海洋保护公约（OSPAR Convention）区域；NEP - 东北太平洋（安提瓜公约）区域，涵盖美国加利福尼亚州及非北极阿拉斯加地区；SP - 南太平洋（努美阿公约）区域，涵盖澳大利亚东南部及新西兰）
2. 按工作领域划分的专家背景信息（S - 科学/学术，I - 工业，P - 政策）
3. 按技术学科划分的专家背景信息（EN - 环境学科，SO – 社会学科（包含他人安全相关内容），TE – 技术学科（包含工作人员安全相关内容），EC - 经济学科，PO - 政策/治理学科）
- ST-2：汇总问题的分类体系，划分为15个主题及38个子主题。
- ST-3：35名专家提供的257条原始问题清单，以及提出该问题的专家ID。
- ST-4：专家投票结果汇总，按主题及子主题分类。每位专家初始投票权重为10票，所有专家的投票得分均被标准化至10票：若某专家优先选择的问题数量超过10个，则对其得分进行下调（总权重固定为10）；若不足10个，则对其得分进行上调（总权重固定为10）。
- ST-5：各议题/机遇的排名表，展示每个子主题的得票数及对应的优先级排名。
- ST-6：参与各最终优先研究子主题投票的专家特征信息，包括其工作领域、技术学科及所属区域。

参考文献：
Watson, S. M., McLean, D. L., Balcom, B. J., Birchenough, S. N. R., Brand, A. M., Camprasse, E. C. M., Claisse, J. T., Coolen, J. W. P., Cresswell, T., Fokkema, B., Gourvenec, S., Henry, L.-A., Hewitt, C. L., Love, M. S., MacIntosh, A. E., Marnane, M., McKinley, E., Micallef, S., Morgan, D., … Macreadie, P. I. (2023). 海上油气设施退役前瞻扫描：支撑油气基础设施决策活动的研究优先级（Offshore decommissioning horizon scan: Research priorities to support decision-making activities for oil and gas infrastructure）. Science of The Total Environment, 878, 163015. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.163015

数据集存储位置：
本数据集主要作为Watson等人2023年发表论文的补充表格发布。本数据集的副本存档于eAtlas永久数据仓储库，路径为：datacustodian2021-2022-NESP-MaC-11.19_Decommissioning-oil-gas-infrastructuredataoriginal