Oil and Gas Decommissioning - Article responses and other weird stuff

As many of you will have noted, I have been posting a range of articles on the appropriateness of the associated marine legislation and the UK's current approach to offshore architecture removal. The motivation for this was to raise awareness and stimulate debate. The responses I have received, on and mainly off Linkedin, have been overwhelmingly supportive. The articles received over 30,000 hits. As expected though, on a complex issue like this, there were detractors.

Whilst criticism is welcome, most of it was very odd. Here is a flavour;

1. I'm a muppet.
2. It is not a cost to the treasury.
3. I'm an ill-informed academic.
4. If my views were accepted it could lead to euthanasia for those over 60.
5. I'm an embarrassment to Aberdeen University.
6. I can't be taken seriously because the editor showed a picture of a semi-submersible (note associated post picture).
7. I can't be taken seriously because I have never worked on a decommissioning project.

The latter point was completely bewildering. Why does lack of direct project experience dilute my ability to review OSPAR 98/3, assess associated environmental impacts or discuss costs and the UK tax framework?

I repeatedly asked the detractors to show me in OSPAR 98/3 where the science was that delineated the reason why removal was good for the environment. No one responded to that direct request. That would have done it and shut me up.

The detractors will be pleased to know that I will take the topic off Linkedin now. However, I extend an invite to you to come throw rocks at me at the Scottish Oil Club, DNS St Andrews and NPF Stavanger.

Finally, why don't the detractors go set the record straight by writing their own articles in the energy journals?

Your ill-informed, embarrassing academic muppet, Tom