The localized depression created on the seabed following the extraction of subsea infrastructure, often associated with water injection systems, is generally termed a “seabed gouge” or “excavation.” This refers to the physical void left behind after removing pipelines, umbilicals, or other components of the injection setup. The dimensions and characteristics of the “seabed gouge” will depend on the size and configuration of the infrastructure that was removed, as well as the sediment properties of the seabed. For example, a large pipeline removal will result in a more substantial “seabed gouge” than the removal of a smaller umbilical.
The formation of a “seabed gouge” carries environmental and operational implications. Environmentally, it can disrupt the benthic habitat, impacting marine life and potentially altering seabed morphology. Operationally, it poses risks to other subsea assets, such as trawling gear or future installation activities, if not properly managed. Historically, the creation of “seabed gouges” was not always a primary concern during decommissioning activities, leading to long-term environmental impacts. However, increasing environmental awareness and regulatory requirements have driven the development of strategies for mitigation and remediation.
The management of these seabed features typically involves detailed surveys to assess their dimensions and surrounding environment. Mitigation strategies may include backfilling with suitable material to restore the seabed profile, or the placement of protective structures to prevent interference with other activities or to provide habitat enhancement. Understanding the nature of these seabed disturbances is essential for responsible subsea infrastructure decommissioning and environmental stewardship, enabling informed decision-making and the implementation of appropriate remediation measures.
1. Dimensions (width, depth, length)
The dimensions width, depth, and length are fundamental descriptors of the seabed gouge formed subsequent to water injection infrastructure removal. These parameters directly quantify the physical scale of the disturbance left on the seabed. The specific dimensions are a function of multiple factors, including the size of the removed infrastructure (e.g., pipeline diameter, umbilical bundle size), the method of removal (e.g., cutting and lifting, trenching), and the geotechnical properties of the seabed sediment. A wider pipeline, for instance, will necessitate a wider initial trench for installation, leading to a wider resulting gouge upon removal. Similarly, a deeper initial burial depth will result in a deeper gouge. Understanding these cause-and-effect relationships is critical for predicting gouge dimensions before removal activities commence.
The accurate determination of gouge dimensions is of significant practical importance. Detailed bathymetric surveys using multibeam echo sounders or side-scan sonar are employed to map the seabed post-removal. These surveys provide the data necessary to calculate the width, depth, and length of the gouge with precision. This dimensional information informs risk assessments related to potential snagging hazards for fishing gear, the stability of surrounding seabed sediments, and the potential impact on benthic habitats. For example, a deep, narrow gouge may pose a greater snagging risk than a wide, shallow one. Furthermore, the volume of the gouge, derived from these dimensions, is a crucial input for estimating the quantity of backfill material required for remediation efforts.
In summary, the dimensions of the seabed gouge are integral to characterizing the disturbance created by water injection infrastructure removal. These parameters are not merely descriptive; they are crucial for understanding the potential risks and environmental impacts, and for planning effective remediation strategies. Accurate measurement and analysis of these dimensions are therefore essential components of responsible subsea decommissioning practices, ensuring compliance with environmental regulations and minimizing long-term ecological consequences.
2. Sediment composition disruption
The creation of a seabed gouge following water injection infrastructure removal inherently results in sediment composition disruption. This disruption represents a significant environmental consequence, altering the physical and biogeochemical properties of the seabed and affecting the resident benthic communities. Understanding the nature and extent of this disruption is crucial for effective decommissioning and remediation strategies.
-
Resuspension of Sediments
The physical process of removing subsea structures causes the resuspension of bottom sediments into the water column. This process mobilizes fine-grained particles, including silt and clay, along with associated organic matter and contaminants. The resuspended material can then be transported by currents, impacting water quality and potentially affecting sensitive habitats far from the original disturbance site. The degree of resuspension depends on factors such as the removal method, the sediment type, and the prevailing hydrodynamics. For example, jetting techniques, sometimes employed to free buried pipelines, generate significantly more resuspension than controlled cutting and lifting operations.
-
Alteration of Sediment Stratigraphy
The act of excavation during infrastructure removal disrupts the natural layering, or stratigraphy, of the seabed sediments. Sediments are typically deposited in distinct layers over time, with each layer possessing unique physical, chemical, and biological characteristics. Removing infrastructure mixes these layers, effectively homogenizing the sediment composition within the gouge. This homogenization can alter the vertical distribution of nutrients, organic carbon, and pollutants, affecting the biogeochemical cycling within the sediment. For instance, the mixing of deeper, anoxic sediments with surface sediments can release dissolved nutrients or toxic compounds into the water column.
-
Exposure of Anaerobic Sediments
Many seabed sediments, particularly in deeper or organic-rich areas, are anaerobic below a certain depth. These anaerobic sediments contain reduced chemical species, such as sulfides, and support specialized microbial communities. Excavation can expose these anaerobic sediments to the oxygenated water column, leading to oxidation reactions and the release of potentially harmful substances, such as hydrogen sulfide. This process can also alter the redox potential of the sediment, affecting the biogeochemical cycling of metals and nutrients. The extent of anaerobic sediment exposure depends on the depth of the gouge and the redox profile of the sediment.
-
Introduction of Foreign Materials
Decommissioning activities may inadvertently introduce foreign materials into the seabed environment. This can include debris from cutting operations, remnants of coatings or insulation materials, or even materials used for backfilling. These foreign materials can alter the sediment composition and potentially introduce pollutants into the marine environment. The long-term effects of these materials on the benthic ecosystem are not always well understood and require careful monitoring. Minimizing the introduction of foreign materials through careful planning and execution of decommissioning operations is crucial for mitigating environmental impacts.
In conclusion, the sediment composition disruption resulting from seabed gouge formation represents a complex and multifaceted environmental challenge. Understanding the various aspects of this disruption, from resuspension to stratigraphic alteration and the introduction of foreign materials, is essential for developing effective mitigation and remediation strategies. A comprehensive understanding of these impacts enables informed decision-making and the implementation of appropriate measures to minimize the long-term ecological consequences of water injection infrastructure removal.
3. Habitat disturbance impact
The creation of a seabed gouge, the direct result of water injection infrastructure removal, invariably leads to significant disturbance of the benthic habitat. This impact necessitates careful consideration due to its long-term consequences for marine ecosystems. The extent and nature of this disturbance are multifaceted and require a thorough understanding to inform effective mitigation strategies.
-
Physical Disruption of Benthic Communities
The excavation process directly removes or crushes benthic organisms inhabiting the area occupied by the infrastructure. This includes sessile organisms like corals and sponges, as well as mobile fauna such as crustaceans and worms. The immediate impact is a reduction in species richness and abundance within the gouge area. For example, the removal of a pipeline buried in sediment will eliminate any infaunal organisms living within the sediment directly above the pipeline’s original location. The recovery of these communities can be slow, depending on the sediment type, the species involved, and the presence of any lingering contaminants.
-
Alteration of Sediment Characteristics
The removal process alters the physical and chemical characteristics of the seabed sediment. This can include changes in grain size distribution, organic matter content, and redox potential. These alterations can make the habitat unsuitable for the recolonization of certain species. For instance, the removal of fine-grained sediments, exposing coarser substrates, may favor different species compositions than those present before removal. Additionally, the disturbance can release buried contaminants into the water column, further impacting benthic organisms.
-
Creation of Artificial Hard Substrates
The gouge itself, depending on its dimensions and the surrounding sediment type, can inadvertently create artificial hard substrates. These substrates can be colonized by different species than those originally present, potentially leading to shifts in community structure. For example, the exposed sides of the gouge may provide attachment points for opportunistic species like barnacles or hydroids. While this can contribute to increased biodiversity in some cases, it can also displace native species and alter ecosystem functioning.
-
Indirect Impacts on Surrounding Habitats
The disturbance created by water injection infrastructure removal can have indirect impacts on habitats adjacent to the gouge. These impacts can include increased turbidity due to sediment resuspension, changes in water flow patterns, and the spread of invasive species. For example, increased turbidity can reduce light penetration, affecting primary productivity and impacting visual predators. These indirect impacts can extend beyond the immediate vicinity of the gouge, affecting larger areas of the seabed.
The interplay between these facets highlights the complex ecological consequences of creating seabed gouges. Understanding these impacts is paramount for responsible decommissioning practices. By carefully assessing the pre-removal habitat characteristics, minimizing the physical disturbance during removal, and implementing appropriate remediation measures, it is possible to mitigate the long-term ecological damage associated with water injection infrastructure decommissioning.
4. Stability risk analysis
The creation of a seabed gouge, a direct consequence of water injection infrastructure removal, necessitates a comprehensive stability risk analysis. This analysis is a crucial component of any decommissioning plan, focusing on the potential for the gouge to undergo further degradation, leading to potential hazards. The primary concern centers on the instability of the gouge’s slopes and the surrounding seabed, which can be influenced by sediment type, water currents, and the presence of other subsea structures. Failure to adequately assess and address these stability risks can result in a range of adverse outcomes, including the exposure of buried pipelines, damage to existing infrastructure, and increased environmental impact.
Stability risk analysis typically involves a multi-faceted approach. Geotechnical investigations are conducted to characterize the sediment properties, including shear strength and consolidation characteristics. Hydrodynamic modeling is employed to assess the impact of water currents on the gouge slopes. These data are then used to perform slope stability calculations, determining the factor of safety against failure. In cases where the factor of safety is deemed inadequate, remedial measures may be necessary. For example, if the analysis reveals a high risk of slope failure in a soft clay seabed, backfilling with a more stable material, such as rock armor, may be required to reinforce the gouge and prevent further degradation. The consequences of neglecting this analysis were evident in instances where unforeseen seabed collapses exposed previously buried pipelines, necessitating costly repairs and remediation efforts.
In conclusion, stability risk analysis is not merely an academic exercise; it is a critical step in ensuring the safe and environmentally responsible decommissioning of water injection infrastructure. By proactively assessing the potential for seabed instability, operators can mitigate risks, prevent costly repairs, and minimize the long-term environmental impact of gouge formation. This analysis should be an integral part of any decommissioning plan, reflecting a commitment to both safety and environmental stewardship.
5. Remediation strategy costs
The financial burden associated with seabed gouge remediation is directly proportional to the size and complexity of the gouge itself, which is created during water injection removal processes. Larger gouges, resulting from extensive infrastructure removal or unstable seabed conditions, demand greater volumes of backfill material, more complex engineering solutions, and increased deployment time. This direct correlation makes the initial assessment of the gouge’s dimensions and seabed stability a critical factor in predicting and managing remediation expenses. Inadequate pre-removal planning, which fails to accurately estimate gouge size and sediment characteristics, often leads to significant cost overruns during the remediation phase. The selection of the appropriate remediation strategy, balancing cost-effectiveness with environmental protection, represents a key challenge for operators.
Specific remediation strategies, such as backfilling with rock, sand, or a combination thereof, each carry distinct cost implications. Rock backfilling, while providing excellent stability, is generally more expensive than sand backfilling due to material costs and deployment logistics. Furthermore, the choice of backfill material must consider environmental factors, such as compatibility with the existing seabed habitat and potential impacts on water quality. In some cases, advanced techniques, such as bio-remediation or the use of artificial reefs to promote habitat recovery, may be necessary, further escalating remediation costs. For instance, the remediation of a large gouge near a sensitive coral reef would likely require a more elaborate and costly approach than remediating a similar gouge in a less ecologically sensitive area. Real-world examples from North Sea decommissioning projects underscore the potential for remediation costs to represent a substantial portion of the overall decommissioning budget.
Effective management of remediation strategy costs necessitates a holistic approach that integrates thorough pre-removal site assessments, careful selection of remediation techniques, and robust cost control measures. The inherent uncertainty associated with seabed conditions and the potential for unforeseen complications pose ongoing challenges. However, proactive planning, informed decision-making, and a commitment to environmental responsibility are essential for minimizing the financial burden and ensuring the long-term sustainability of water injection infrastructure decommissioning. This comprehensive strategy also requires adherence to evolving environmental regulations, which often stipulate specific remediation standards and may impose penalties for non-compliance.
6. Environmental regulation compliance
Environmental regulation compliance is intrinsically linked to the management of seabed gouges resulting from water injection infrastructure removal. The creation of these gouges falls under the scrutiny of various national and international environmental protection laws. These regulations dictate the standards for decommissioning activities, aiming to minimize disturbance to the marine environment and ensure responsible disposal or remediation of subsea infrastructure. Failure to adhere to these regulations can result in significant penalties, reputational damage, and legal action. Therefore, any activity involving water injection removal must be planned and executed in full compliance with applicable environmental laws. An example includes adherence to OSPAR (Oslo/Paris Convention) guidelines which govern the protection of the marine environment of the North-East Atlantic. These guidelines influence the acceptable methods for infrastructure removal and the required levels of seabed restoration. The dimensions and characteristics of the seabed gouge directly influence the level of compliance, where larger, more ecologically disruptive gouges necessitate more stringent and potentially costly remediation efforts to meet regulatory standards. Environmental impact assessments are often a prerequisite, determining the extent of the gouge and its potential effects on benthic habitats and water quality.
The practical application of environmental regulation compliance involves detailed seabed surveys, conducted before and after infrastructure removal, to accurately map the extent of the gouge. These surveys are essential for documenting compliance with regulations pertaining to seabed disturbance and habitat recovery. The information gathered from these surveys informs the selection of appropriate remediation strategies, which may include backfilling with suitable material, capping the gouge with protective structures, or implementing long-term monitoring programs. Data related to the gouge such as its size, sediment composition, and the presence of contaminants must be reported to regulatory agencies. Regular audits and inspections are conducted to ensure ongoing compliance. The financial implications of non-compliance can be substantial, including fines, mandatory remediation orders, and potential liabilities for environmental damage. This incentivizes operators to prioritize environmental protection and adhere to best practices during water injection infrastructure removal.
In summary, environmental regulation compliance is a non-negotiable aspect of managing seabed gouges. Regulations exist to mitigate the negative impacts of seabed disturbances on marine ecosystems and to ensure responsible decommissioning practices. The characteristics of the gouge directly influence the level of compliance required, with larger and more ecologically disruptive gouges necessitating more stringent remediation efforts. By prioritizing environmental protection, adhering to regulations, and implementing effective monitoring and remediation strategies, operators can minimize environmental impacts, avoid penalties, and maintain a positive public image. The continuous evolution of environmental regulations necessitates ongoing vigilance and adaptation to ensure that water injection infrastructure removal activities are conducted in a sustainable and responsible manner.
7. Trawling gear hazards
The presence of seabed gouges, a direct result of water injection infrastructure removal, poses significant hazards to trawling gear used in commercial fishing. The irregular topography created by these gouges presents a risk of snagging or entanglement, leading to potential damage to fishing equipment, loss of catch, and even safety risks for fishing vessels. The characteristics of the gouge itself its depth, width, slope angles, and the presence of debris directly influence the severity of these hazards.
-
Snagging and Entanglement
Seabed gouges can act as traps for trawl nets, particularly those designed to operate close to the seafloor. The net can become lodged in the gouge, leading to damage or complete loss of the gear. This is especially problematic when the gouge contains sharp edges or protruding debris from the removed infrastructure. The economic impact of snagging can be substantial, encompassing the cost of replacing damaged equipment, lost fishing time, and reduced catch yields. An example is the loss of a demersal trawl net, valued at several thousand dollars, after becoming entangled in a gouge created by pipeline decommissioning in the North Sea.
-
Damage to Trawling Gear
The abrasive nature of seabed sediments within the gouge, combined with the irregular topography, can cause significant wear and tear on trawling gear. Nets can be torn, and metal components can be bent or broken due to the increased stress and friction. This damage reduces the effectiveness of the gear and increases the risk of premature failure. The gradual degradation of the gear due to repeated contact with the seabed gouge can also lead to microplastic pollution as fragments of the net break off and are dispersed into the marine environment.
-
Risk to Fishing Vessels
In severe cases, snagging of trawling gear in a seabed gouge can pose a direct threat to the safety of the fishing vessel. If the net becomes firmly lodged, the sudden increase in drag can destabilize the vessel, particularly in rough seas. There have been instances where vessels have experienced near-capsizing incidents due to this phenomenon. Furthermore, attempts to free a snagged net can be dangerous, requiring careful maneuvering and potentially hazardous manual labor.
-
Mapping and Mitigation Challenges
The effective mitigation of trawling gear hazards requires accurate mapping of seabed gouges. However, many older gouges may not be accurately charted, posing an unforeseen risk to fishermen. Furthermore, even when gouges are mapped, their dimensions and characteristics can change over time due to sediment movement and erosion. This necessitates regular surveys and updates to navigational charts. Mitigation measures may include the placement of warning markers, the backfilling of the gouge with suitable material, or the establishment of exclusion zones to prevent trawling in hazardous areas.
The combined effects of snagging, gear damage, and safety risks underscore the importance of proper seabed management following water injection infrastructure removal. Accurate mapping, effective remediation strategies, and clear communication with the fishing industry are essential for minimizing the hazards posed by seabed gouges and ensuring the safe and sustainable use of marine resources.
8. Mitigation technique efficacy
The effectiveness of mitigation techniques applied to the seabed gouges, formed after water injection infrastructure removal, is a critical determinant of long-term environmental impact and operational safety. Assessing the efficacy of these techniques is essential to ensure regulatory compliance, minimize ecological damage, and prevent hazards to other seabed users, such as fishing vessels. The selection and implementation of mitigation strategies must be based on a thorough understanding of the gouge’s characteristics and the surrounding environment.
-
Backfilling Material Selection and Placement
The type of material used for backfilling and the method of its placement significantly influence the stability and ecological recovery of a seabed gouge. Using unsuitable materials, such as fine silts in high-energy environments, can lead to rapid erosion and re-exposure of the gouge. Proper placement techniques are crucial to ensure complete filling of the gouge and prevent the formation of voids that could pose a snagging hazard. For example, the use of graded rock backfill, with larger rocks at the base and smaller rocks at the surface, can provide both stability and a suitable substrate for colonization by benthic organisms. Monitoring the settlement and consolidation of backfill material over time is essential for assessing its long-term efficacy.
-
Erosion Control Measures
In areas with strong currents or wave action, erosion control measures are often necessary to prevent the degradation of backfilled seabed gouges. These measures can include the placement of rock armor, geotextile fabrics, or concrete mattresses to protect the backfill material from erosion. The design and placement of these structures must consider the hydrodynamic conditions and the potential impact on surrounding habitats. For instance, improperly designed rock armor can create scour zones that undermine the stability of the structure and disrupt benthic communities. The efficacy of erosion control measures should be evaluated through regular monitoring of seabed topography and sediment transport patterns.
-
Habitat Enhancement Strategies
To accelerate the recovery of benthic habitats within and around seabed gouges, habitat enhancement strategies can be employed. These strategies can include the creation of artificial reefs, the transplantation of native species, or the addition of organic matter to the backfill material to improve sediment quality. The selection of appropriate habitat enhancement techniques should be based on a thorough understanding of the pre-existing ecological conditions and the specific needs of the target species. For example, the creation of artificial reefs using locally sourced materials can provide habitat for a variety of marine organisms, enhancing biodiversity and promoting ecosystem recovery. Monitoring the colonization and growth of benthic communities on enhanced seabed gouges is crucial for assessing the success of these strategies.
-
Long-Term Monitoring and Adaptive Management
The long-term efficacy of mitigation techniques requires ongoing monitoring and adaptive management. Regular surveys of the seabed gouge, including bathymetric surveys, sediment sampling, and biological assessments, are essential for tracking changes in the gouge’s topography, sediment composition, and benthic community structure. The data collected from these surveys should be used to evaluate the effectiveness of the mitigation techniques and to identify any unforeseen problems. Adaptive management involves adjusting the mitigation strategy based on the monitoring results, ensuring that the gouge is effectively stabilized and that the benthic habitat is recovering as expected. For example, if monitoring reveals that backfill material is eroding, additional erosion control measures may be necessary. The long-term monitoring plan should include clear objectives, performance indicators, and a defined process for making adaptive management decisions.
The multifaceted assessment of mitigation technique efficacy provides critical feedback for refining decommissioning practices. By rigorously evaluating the performance of different techniques, it is possible to optimize strategies for seabed gouge management, minimize environmental impact, and ensure the long-term stability and ecological recovery of the affected areas. This iterative process of assessment, adaptation, and refinement is essential for responsible water injection infrastructure decommissioning and the sustainable management of marine resources.
Frequently Asked Questions about Seabed Gouges
This section addresses common inquiries regarding seabed gouges, the depressions formed following the removal of subsea infrastructure, such as that associated with water injection systems. These questions aim to clarify the nature, implications, and management of these seabed features.
Question 1: What term accurately describes the trench created when removing subsea water injection infrastructure?
The localized depression on the seabed, resulting from the removal of pipelines, umbilicals, or other components of a subsea water injection system, is most accurately referred to as a “seabed gouge” or “excavation.”
Question 2: What factors determine the size and shape of a seabed gouge?
The dimensions of a seabed gouge are influenced by the size and configuration of the removed infrastructure, the method of removal employed, and the geotechnical properties of the seabed sediment itself.
Question 3: What are the primary environmental concerns associated with seabed gouges?
Seabed gouges can disrupt benthic habitats, alter seabed morphology, and potentially remobilize contaminants. These factors collectively impact marine life and overall ecosystem health.
Question 4: How are seabed gouges assessed and monitored following infrastructure removal?
Detailed bathymetric surveys, utilizing technologies such as multibeam echo sounders and side-scan sonar, are employed to map the dimensions and characteristics of seabed gouges. This data informs subsequent risk assessments and remediation strategies.
Question 5: What remediation strategies are typically employed to manage seabed gouges?
Common remediation strategies include backfilling with suitable materials to restore the seabed profile and the placement of protective structures to prevent interference with other activities or to enhance habitat recovery.
Question 6: What regulations govern the management and remediation of seabed gouges?
Various national and international environmental regulations dictate the standards for decommissioning activities, including the management of seabed gouges. These regulations aim to minimize environmental disturbance and ensure responsible disposal or remediation of subsea infrastructure.
In summary, seabed gouges represent a significant environmental consideration in the context of subsea infrastructure decommissioning. Understanding their formation, characteristics, and management is essential for responsible operations and the preservation of marine ecosystems.
The following section will transition into discussing case studies highlighting successful seabed gouge remediation projects.
Seabed Gouge Management
This section offers essential guidance for addressing seabed gouges, those depressions created after water injection equipment removal. Effective management mitigates environmental impact and operational risks.
Tip 1: Conduct Comprehensive Pre-Removal Surveys: Before commencing infrastructure removal, undertake detailed seabed surveys. Utilize high-resolution bathymetry and sediment sampling to accurately characterize the area. This baseline data informs removal planning and remediation strategies.
Tip 2: Select Environmentally Sensitive Removal Methods: Prioritize removal techniques that minimize sediment disturbance and resuspension. Avoid methods like jetting when viable alternatives, such as controlled cutting and lifting, are available. This reduces the immediate impact on benthic habitats.
Tip 3: Implement Real-Time Monitoring During Operations: Deploy monitoring systems to track sediment plume dispersion and turbidity levels during the removal process. This allows for immediate adjustments to operational parameters if environmental thresholds are exceeded.
Tip 4: Utilize Appropriate Backfill Materials: Choose backfill materials that are compatible with the existing seabed environment and promote habitat recovery. Consider using locally sourced materials with similar grain size distribution and chemical properties as the surrounding sediments.
Tip 5: Implement Erosion Control Measures in Dynamic Environments: In areas prone to strong currents or wave action, implement erosion control measures to stabilize the backfill material. This may involve the placement of rock armor, geotextile fabrics, or concrete mattresses.
Tip 6: Conduct Post-Remediation Monitoring: After remediation, conduct regular monitoring to assess the stability of the backfilled gouge and the recovery of benthic communities. This should include bathymetric surveys, sediment sampling, and biological assessments.
Tip 7: Engage Stakeholders: Maintain open communication with stakeholders, including fishermen, environmental groups, and regulatory agencies, throughout the decommissioning process. This fosters transparency and builds trust, ensuring that concerns are addressed promptly.
Properly managed seabed gouges pose minimal long-term risk. Proactive planning, environmentally conscious execution, and consistent monitoring are key to achieving successful decommissioning outcomes.
The concluding section of this document will summarize the critical components discussed and reinforce the importance of responsible management.
Conclusion
The preceding discussion has comprehensively explored the physical void created on the seabed, which is often termed a “seabed gouge” or “excavation”, following the removal of subsea infrastructure associated with water injection systems. This analysis has extended from the characterization of the gouge’s dimensions and sediment disruption to the assessment of habitat impacts, stability risks, remediation strategies, and regulatory compliance requirements. Furthermore, the hazards posed to trawling gear and the efficacy of mitigation techniques have been carefully considered.
Responsible management of these seabed features is paramount. It requires a commitment to thorough pre-removal surveys, environmentally sensitive removal methodologies, diligent monitoring programs, and engagement with all stakeholders. As subsea infrastructure decommissioning activities increase, a sustained focus on minimizing seabed gouge formation and implementing effective remediation measures will be crucial to preserving the integrity of the marine environment and ensuring the safety of all seabed users.
