How do you find and deliver a safe, effective site for an offshore geological disposal facility?

The most important decisions are made before a drill touches the seabed. Finding and delivering a safe, effective offshore site for a geological disposal facility (GDF) relies on disciplined site characterization and data collection, with each investigation tied to a defined decision and every offshore response considered before construction starts.  

The goal is to reduce subsurface uncertainty until the evidence is strong enough to support site suitability decision-making and the next stage of the program. It requires a direct connection between the information needed for the safety case and the way the offshore campaign is designed and executed. 

Every piece of data requires a purpose. The team should know which decision it will support and how the result could change the plan. The aim is to agree what matters, what evidence could change the decision and what the team will do when the geology differs from the plan, rather than to predict every condition we might encounter offshore. If conditions offshore differ from the prognosis, the response should already be agreed ahead of time. 

This approach is rooted in my experience across offshore drilling, geological modeling and well planning. My career path in oil and gas isn’t typical. I was an asset and development geologist who built 3D models and planned wells, but I also spent time on offshore drilling rigs, collecting petrophysical information from the deep boreholes and interpreting the results. That means I can talk to drillers, geophysicists and regulators in the same language, and I understand what happens when plans meet reality. Being a connector and translator is essential when you’re building something that's never been done before. 

For a GDF, the biggest challenges aren’t just technical. They’re also operational and programmatic: safety, pace, cost and confidence. When you're offshore and the clock is ticking, with daily operating costs of up to $1 million per day, you can't wait and see. You need clear aims and objectives and a detailed implementation and contingency plan, as well as decision trees that focus the team on what information is essential, and why. We call this the value of information (VOI) exercise, and we use it to see if the data is worth collecting. 

The way you protect safety and cost is by focusing on planning and goal setting before construction: well design, a geological prognosis for what you expect to see, and detailed contingency planning that has already been agreed. If something changes on the day, you follow a pre-existing plan that's designed to keep people safe and keep the program moving. 

Plan and execute smarter with safety at the center

Site characterization for a GDF is first-of-a-kind challenge in the U.K., with diverse workstreams and intense scrutiny from stakeholders and regulators. Adding in the high level of technical complexity means uncertainty in decision-making on the rig can quickly lead to expensive delays. 

My offshore background is focused on energy critical infrastructure, specifically on sensitive offshore subsurface investigations. In oil and gas, safety goes beyond team briefings and best practice. It's a foundational behavior that shapes every meeting and decision.  I’ve brought this mindset into my nuclear work, strengthening health, safety, security, environment and quality (HSSEQ) leadership, without compromising key technical delivery objectives. 

That includes clear planning documents which can be used practically and easily: well plans, operational procedures, data acquisition plans, geological prognoses and contingency decision trees. By setting expectations early, and agreeing how decisions will be made under pressure, it protects people and the budget and keeps critical path activities moving. 

Turn uncertainty into defensible, data-driven decisions

A successful site characterization program depends on integrating requirements (converting multiple information needs into specific objectives) and maintaining a single source of truth when combining and interpreting disparate datasets. For me, this means having to coordinate specialists across geology, geophysics, hydrogeology, geochemistry and engineering to focus on the most efficient way to deliver key outcomes. 

This coordination requires being comfortable operating at multiple scales, from analyzing core data to building multi-well field models. You also need to explain complex geoscience concepts to both experts and non-experts, which is a skill I’ve refined during my time lecturing undergraduates on petrophysics: the study of the physical and chemical properties of rocks and their interactions with fluids. I’ve got a clear understanding of how small decisions during drilling can affect safety as well as the wider program, and how uncertainty and risk to be factored into the decision-making process. 

Success in GDF site characterization will depend on turning subsurface uncertainty into a clear, auditable evidence base: what data to collect, how to interpret it and communicating levels of confidence in the results. It also requires making decisions based on the data: if you didn’t get what you wanted, do you go back for more or end the campaign?  

Finding and delivering a GDF site demands strong technical integration, backed by disciplined governance, quality assurance and reporting that can stand up to regulator and stakeholder scrutiny. Just as important, the program needs decision-ready plans for offshore operations, so safety, schedule and cost are protected as new information emerges.