INFRASTRUCTURE REPURPOSING FRAMEWORKS

Governments can create a clear legal route for converting suitable oil and gas assets to CO₂ transport or storage before they are dismantled. Owners and prospective storage operators apply to retain and reuse wells, pipelines, platforms or terminals, supplying evidence that they can perform the new task safely. Authorities specify which permissions must change, whether dismantling deadlines can be postponed and who pays for inherited defects and eventual closure. This lets developers compare conversion with new construction while usable assets and records still exist. Geological removal projects may then obtain transport or storage with less new construction. The policy governs permission and responsibility for reuse; owners must still finance the engineering work, and unsuitable assets must be decommissioned.

Authorities should define which existing duties to dismantle assets and restore sites can be delayed, for how long and on what evidence of a credible reuse project. They need to assign responsibility for inherited defects, conversion work, storage operation and eventual closure, including any later transfer to the state. Independent engineers should test whether wells and equipment can tolerate the proposed CO₂ composition and pressures, and whether the reservoir will contain it. New operators need access to historical records before accepting those responsibilities. A funded fallback is essential if conversion fails after dismantling has been postponed.

Suitable reuse can avoid some new construction and preserve geological records, equipment and specialist workers that would otherwise be lost as petroleum activity ends. Reviewing assets before dismantling decisions allows developers to compare conversion with new facilities while both options remain available. A clear sequence of permissions and responsibility transfers can also shorten negotiations between old and new operators. The savings depend on the asset's condition and fit with the proposed storage chain; prior industrial use does not remove the need to assess the changed environmental effects or consult affected communities.

Legacy defects can turn an apparently cheap asset into a costly liability. Deferring decommissioning without credible finance and a delivery timetable can leave the state exposed if reuse fails. Incomplete records or weak transfer terms can obscure who must pay for inherited damage. Repurposing may also lock projects into unsuitable locations or favour incumbents. Independent verification, time-limited deferral and a funded fallback are needed to preserve reuse value without abandoning existing responsibilities.

Authorities should record which assets are screened, approved or rejected for reuse and why. Before responsibility changes hands, they should check technical assessments, named liability holders and the funds available if conversion fails. Later reviews should compare conversion costs, incidents and reliability with suitable new-build alternatives. Repeated defects or missed reuse deadlines should trigger additional work, withdrawal of deferrals or the funded decommissioning plan, rather than leave the asset indefinitely in limbo.

Petroleum, storage and environmental regulators must coordinate their decisions and information requirements. Current and prospective operators should provide asset records and credible financing plans. Independent engineers should assess whether equipment can be safely converted, while workforce bodies help plan changed duties and training. Coastal communities and other marine users should help identify the effects of the proposed conversion and the conditions needed to manage them.

National and regional or state authorities can establish conversion procedures where they control petroleum assets, subsoil rights and decommissioning. Supranational lawmakers can set common rules for storage permits, closure and transfers of responsibility, which national authorities apply to proposed conversions. The agencies responsible for old and new uses must coordinate their decisions so an asset does not receive incompatible operating and dismantling requirements.