查看购物车
  • Traditional Chinese
  • English
  • Japanese
  • Korean
封面
市场调查报告书
商品编码
2012541

海上退役市场：依服务类型、结构类型和最终用户划分－2026-2032年全球市场预测

Offshore Decommissioning Market by Service Type, Structure Type, End User - Global Forecast 2026-2032
出版日期: | 出版商: 360iResearch | 英文 185 Pages | 商品交期: 最快1-2个工作天内

价格

※ 本网页内容可能与最新版本有所差异。详细情况请与我们联繫。

预计到 2025 年，海上退役市场价值将达到 75.7 亿美元，到 2026 年将成长至 79 亿美元，到 2032 年将达到 105 亿美元，复合年增长率为 4.78%。

主要市场统计数据
基准年 2025 75.7亿美元
预计年份：2026年 79亿美元
预测年份 2032 105亿美元
复合年增长率 (%) 4.78%

建立海上退役专案的策略框架，使技术选择与环境、商业和相关人员的要求保持一致。

目前海上油气退役已从单纯的技术需求演变为一项涉及多方相关人员的策略性挑战，需要商业性、环境和工程等多个领域进行综合规划。随着资产老化、监管预期变化以及公众监督力度加大，退役项目不再是孤立的技术项目，而是影响企业声誉、资产负债表週期和长期区域供应链的复杂项目。因此，领导者必须从油田生命週期的早期阶段就重新思考退役策略，并将退役策略融入更广泛的资产管理和风险缓解计画中。

了解整个产业正在发生的变革性变化，这些变化正在重塑退役实施模式、技术采用和与相关人员。

近年来，整个退役领域发生了翻天覆地的变化，重塑了合约模式、技术应用和专案顺序。其中一个显着的变化是，远端切割、自主检测和重型模组化拆除等专业能力的加速发展，以及更严格的环境评估流程。这种组合提高了承包商的技术门槛，同时也为那些能够在更严格的许可製度下展现出可重复且低风险执行能力的公司创造了机会。

检验到 2025 年关税政策变化对除役供应链、采购选择和区域能力建设的累积影响。

到2025年，贸易政策的发展（包括一系列关税和贸易保护措施）对采购趋势、供应商本地化以及除役项目的总交付成本产生了累积影响。虽然关税因产品类型、地区和实施时间而异，但其最终结果是进口大型结构、特殊钢材部件和海上设备的溢价增加。因此，企划团队现在需要将国内采购零件更长的前置作业时间、增加的内陆运输成本以及对首选供应商的重新评估纳入其计划中。

本研究分析了服务类型、结构类型和最终使用者角色的核心细分趋势，并指出了技术和商业性优先事项的差异。

透过深入的细分，可以揭示整个退役价值链中产能和商业挑战的所在。根据服务类型，服务范围包括工程和咨询服务、陆上处置和回收、封装和封锁 (P&A) 作业、现场修復作业、海底结构拆除以及上部结构拆除。此外，封装和封堵 (P&A) 又细分为管道 P&A 服务和油井 P&A 服务。每项服务都有其独特的技术要求和合约模式。例如，油井 P&A 服务需要专业的油井工程和水泥注入技术，而陆上处置和回收则需要强大的下游物流和材料回收网路。

我们将分析美洲、欧洲、中东和非洲以及亚太地区的区域能力丛集和监管压力，并制定针对每个地区优化的策略。

了解区域趋势对于掌握产能、监管负担和商业性机会的集中地至关重要。在美洲，老旧油田和即将退役的管道催生了对综合项目规划、重型起重能力和健全的环境监测的需求。同时，当地的在地采购规则和国内製造能力是决定实施策略的关键因素。在欧洲、中东和非洲（EMEA）地区，成熟的法规结构和雄心勃勃的环境标准推动了复杂的规划要求，并更加重视回收和循环经济，同时也催生了密集的承包商和专业服务供应商生态系统。另一方面，亚太地区的特点是製造厂的快速发展、当地船队的扩张以及为附近项目而调动的当地承包商的日益增多。

本研究评估了综合承包商、利基服务供应商、船东和技术供应商之间的竞争和伙伴关係模式，并确定了他们的策略定位。

主要企业之间的竞争格局正沿着两大轴线演变：能力整合和服务专业化。大型总承包商持续投资于垂直整合服务，将工程、重型起重设备和陆上处置伙伴关係相结合，从而能够为复杂的拆除作业提供承包解决方案。与之形成对比的是，敏捷的专业公司则透过先进的水下工具、数位化检测能力以及客製化的封井和停产（P&A）专业知识来脱颖而出。这种两极化为策略伙伴关係关係创造了空间，在这种模式下，总承包商负责整个项目，同时将高精度工作分包给专业公司。

为营运商、承包商、船东和技术提供者提供切实可行的优先建议，以降低退役计画的实施风险并创造永续价值。

为了因应不断变化的退役格局，产业领导者应采取一套优先且切实可行的措施，这些措施应在现有的管治框架内实施。首先，将退役策略纳入资产生命週期规划的早期阶段，使工程、采购和环境团队能够制定一致的方案，并将其体现在资本分配和承包商合约中。其次，在关税和物流有风险的地区，应专注于扶持本地製造商，并加强供应商筛选和认证计划，以降低前置作业时间风险，同时确保技术标准。第三，应寻求合作的商业模式，使营运商、承包商和船东之间的奖励保持一致。强调通用绩效指标的合约模式可以减少纠纷，并提高执行进度的可预测性。

本文檔描述了用于确保获得有关稳健且在操作上切实可行的退役程序的知识的多方面调查方法、检验协议和场景检验。

本报告的研究采用了一种混合方法，结合了访谈、技术检验和结构化的二手资料分析，以确保研究结果的可靠性和实用性。访谈包括对营运商、承包商、船东、监管机构和技术专家进行深入访谈，以了解实际挑战、采购偏好和新兴实践。这些定性见解与监管文件、行业标准、船舶登记册和技术文献等第二手资料进行交叉比对，以检验能力声明和实施趋势。

最终评估旨在整合策略挑战和营运措施，并将退休挑战转化为可重复的、低风险的计划。

简而言之，海上退役正从一次性专案执行转向系统化的资产处置，这需要工程、采购、监管合作和商业性架构等方面的策略协调。日益严格的环境要求、不断演变的商业模式、技术的成熟以及贸易政策的转变，共同重新定义了成功的结果。那些积极将退役纳入生命週期规划、投资供应商发展和策略伙伴关係、并采取审慎的专案管治方法的组织，可以显着降低执行风险，并获得更多选择。

目录

第一章：序言

第二章：调查方法

  • 调查设计
  • 研究框架
  • 市场规模预测
  • 数据三角测量
  • 调查结果
  • 调查的前提
  • 研究限制

第三章执行摘要

  • 首席主管观点
  • 市场规模和成长趋势
  • 2025年市占率分析
  • FPNV定位矩阵，2025
  • 新的商机
  • 下一代经营模式
  • 产业蓝图

第四章 市场概览

  • 产业生态系与价值链分析
  • 波特五力分析
  • PESTEL 分析
  • 市场展望
  • 上市策略

第五章 市场洞察

  • 消费者洞察与终端用户观点
  • 消费者体验基准
  • 机会映射
  • 分销通路分析
  • 价格趋势分析
  • 监理合规和标准框架
  • ESG与永续性分析
  • 中断和风险情景
  • 投资报酬率和成本效益分析

第六章：美国关税的累积影响，2025年

第七章：人工智慧的累积影响，2025年

第八章 海上退役市场：依服务类型划分

  • 工程和咨询
  • 土地处置及回收
  • 封装和废弃的矿井
    • 管道封堵与处置服务
    • 油井封堵与处置服务
  • 网站清理
  • 拆除水下结构
  • 拆除上部结构

第九章：海上退役市场结构（按类型划分）

  • 浮体式生产设备
  • 石油钻井平台
  • 水下基础设施
  • 支持结构
  • 井口

第十章 海上退役市场：依最终用户划分

  • 退役承包商
  • 操作员
  • 船东

第十一章 海上退役市场：依地区划分

  • 北美洲和南美洲
    • 北美洲
    • 拉丁美洲
  • 欧洲、中东和非洲
    • 欧洲
    • 中东
    • 非洲
  • 亚太地区

第十二章 海上退役市场：依组别划分

  • ASEAN
  • GCC
  • EU
  • BRICS
  • G7
  • NATO

第十三章 海上退役市场：依国家划分

  • 我们
  • 加拿大
  • 墨西哥
  • 巴西
  • 英国
  • 德国
  • 法国
  • 俄罗斯
  • 义大利
  • 西班牙
  • 中国
  • 印度
  • 日本
  • 澳洲
  • 韩国

第十四章：美国海上油气退役市场

第十五章：中国海上油气退役市场

第十六章 竞争格局

  • 市场集中度分析，2025年
    • 浓度比（CR）
    • 赫芬达尔-赫希曼指数 (HHI)
  • 近期趋势及影响分析，2025 年
  • 2025年产品系列分析
  • 基准分析，2025 年
  • AF Gruppen ASA
  • Aker Solutions ASA
  • Allseas Group SA
  • Baker Hughes Company
  • DeepOcean Group Holding BV
  • Halliburton Company
  • Heerema Marine Contractors NV
  • Jan De Nul Group NV
  • John Wood Group PLC
  • Koninklijke Boskalis Westminster NV
  • McDermott International, Ltd.
  • Oceaneering International, Inc.
  • Petrofac Limited
  • Ramboll Group
  • Royal Boskalis Westminster NV
  • Saipem SpA
  • Schlumberger Limited
  • Subsea 7 SA
  • TechnipFMC plc
  • Van Oord Dredging and Marine Contractors BV
Product Code: MRR-432CBFF6F1D1

The Offshore Decommissioning Market was valued at USD 7.57 billion in 2025 and is projected to grow to USD 7.90 billion in 2026, with a CAGR of 4.78%, reaching USD 10.50 billion by 2032.

KEY MARKET STATISTICS
Base Year [2025] USD 7.57 billion
Estimated Year [2026] USD 7.90 billion
Forecast Year [2032] USD 10.50 billion
CAGR (%) 4.78%

Establishing the strategic context for offshore decommissioning programs to align engineering choices with environmental, commercial, and stakeholder imperatives

The offshore decommissioning landscape has matured from a technical necessity into a strategic, multi-stakeholder challenge that demands integrated planning across commercial, environmental, and engineering disciplines. Aging assets, combined with evolving regulatory expectations and heightened public scrutiny, mean that decommissioning programs are no longer isolated technical projects; they are complex programs that influence corporate reputation, balance sheet timing, and longer-term regional supply chains. Consequently, leaders must rethink how they approach decommissioning from the earliest stages of field life, integrating abandonment strategy into broader asset management and de-risking plans.

In practice, this requires a shift from reactive disposal thinking to proactive lifecycle management that aligns engineering choices with environmental outcomes and cost predictability. Increasingly sophisticated removal techniques, digital tools, and third-party service models are available to reduce uncertainty, but they also introduce new contracting and capability demands. As a result, effective programs now rely on cross-functional governance, early stakeholder engagement, and scenario-based planning that anticipates regulatory timelines and vessel availability. Taken together, these elements establish the context for both near-term project execution and longer-term industry transformation.

Understanding the transformative shifts reshaping decommissioning delivery models, technology adoption, and stakeholder-aligned commercial structures across the industry

Recent years have produced transformative shifts across the decommissioning landscape that are reshaping contracting models, technology adoption, and project sequencing. One prominent shift is the acceleration of specialized capabilities-remote cutting, autonomous inspection, and heavy-lift modular removal-paired with more rigorous environmental assessment processes. This combination has raised the technical bar for contractors while creating opportunities for firms that can demonstrate repeatable, low-risk execution under stricter permit regimes.

Another decisive change is the emergence of collaborative commercial structures that align incentives across operators, contractors, and vessel owners. Rather than the traditional bid-for-scope approach, we now observe integrated delivery models that bundle planning, execution, and remediation responsibilities. This promotes continuity in risk ownership and encourages investment in long-lead assets such as dedicated heavy-lift vessels and specialized subsea tooling. Additionally, greater focus on circularity and onshore value recovery is influencing topside and subsea removal options, prompting operators to consider reuse and recycling pathways earlier in the planning cycle. Together, these shifts are driving a more modular, capability-driven market that rewards scalability and technical depth.

Examining the cumulative repercussions of tariff policy changes through 2025 on supply chains, procurement choices, and regional capability development for decommissioning

Trade policy developments through 2025, including a series of tariff measures and trade defenses, have had a cumulative effect on procurement dynamics, supplier localization, and total delivered costs for decommissioning programs. Although tariffs vary by product category, region, and implementation timeline, their net effect has been to increase the premium on imported heavy fabrication, specialized steel components, and offshore equipment. As a direct consequence, project teams must now factor in longer lead times for domestically sourced alternatives, higher inland transport costs, and a recalibration of preferred vendor pools.

Importantly, the tariff-driven environment has accelerated two parallel responses. First, operators and contractors have strengthened supply chain risk management through longer-term supplier agreements, local content provisions, and strategic inventory positioning to protect critical-path items. Second, there has been a noticeable shift toward retrofitting existing regional capabilities and qualifying more local fabricators and service providers. Together, these responses mitigate exposure to import-related cost volatility, but they also require investment in quality assurance, contractor development, and certification programs to ensure that newly localized supply chains meet technical and regulatory standards. Ultimately, trade policy changes have heightened the importance of procurement agility and supplier diversification when planning decommissioning activities.

Unpacking the core segmentation dynamics across service types, structure typologies, and end-user roles to reveal differentiated technical and commercial imperatives

Insightful segmentation illuminates where capability and commercial pressure points reside across the decommissioning value chain. Based on service type, the landscape includes engineering and consultancy services, onshore disposal and recycling, plug and abandonment operations, site remediation work, subsea structure removal, and topsides structure removal, with plug and abandonment further differentiated into pipeline P&A services and well P&A services. Each service line brings distinct technical requirements and contracting models; for example, well P&A services demand specialized well engineering and cementing expertise, while onshore disposal and recycling requires strong downstream logistics and material recovery networks.

When viewed by structure type, key categories include floating production systems, oil rigs, subsea infrastructure, support structures, and wellheads, and the physical complexity of each structure drives different methodology and vessel needs. Floating systems often demand heavy-lift and module handling capabilities, whereas subsea infrastructure removal leans heavily on remotely operated vehicles and precision subsea cutting. From an end user perspective, the primary actors are decommissioning contractors, operators, and vessel owners, and each end user has distinct commercial imperatives: operators prioritize regulatory compliance and reputational risk management, contractors focus on execution efficiency and margin protection, and vessel owners optimize asset utilization and charter profiles. Appreciating these intersecting dimensions provides clarity for targeting investment, aligning capabilities to contract requirements, and developing partnership strategies that respond to both technical and commercial realities.

Analyzing regional capability clusters and regulatory pressures across the Americas, Europe Middle East & Africa, and Asia-Pacific to inform geographically tailored strategies

Regional dynamics are central to understanding where capacity, regulatory burden, and commercial opportunity concentrate. In the Americas, legacy fields and decommissioning pipelines create demand for integrated project planning, heavy-lift capability, and robust environmental oversight, while regional content rules and domestic fabrication capacity are significant determinants of execution strategy. In Europe, Middle East & Africa (EMEA), mature regulatory frameworks and ambitious environmental standards have led to sophisticated planning requirements and growing emphasis on recycling and circularity, combined with a dense ecosystem of contractors and specialized service providers. Meanwhile, the Asia-Pacific region is characterized by rapid development of fabrication yards, growing local vessel fleets, and increasing participation from regional contractors that can be mobilized for nearby projects.

Each region presents distinct logistical realities, regulatory timelines, and labor market structures, and these differences require tailored approaches that align commercial models with local constraints. For instance, effective regional strategies often blend local capability development with selective importation of niche equipment, ensuring that projects can be delivered on time while meeting compliance obligations. Moreover, cross-border collaboration and the redeployment of assets between regions remain critical levers for managing peak demand and smoothing utilization of specialized vessels and crews.

Evaluating competitive dynamics and partnership models among integrated contractors, niche service providers, vessel owners, and technology vendors to reveal strategic positioning

Competitive dynamics among key companies are evolving along two main axes: capability consolidation and service specialization. Large integrated contractors continue to invest in vertically aligned offerings that bundle engineering, heavy-lift assets, and onshore disposal partnerships, enabling them to present turnkey solutions for complex removals. In contrast, nimble specialist firms are differentiating through advanced subsea tooling, digital inspection capabilities, and tailored P&A expertise. This bifurcation creates space for strategic partnerships where integrated players subcontract specialists for high-precision tasks while maintaining overall program responsibility.

At the same time, alliances between vessel owners and service providers are becoming more strategic, with long-term charters and cooperative vessel-sharing models emerging to manage the capital intensity of heavy-lift and specialized support fleets. Technology vendors that provide autonomous inspection, cutting systems, and digital twins are also increasingly important, as they reduce operational risk and improve predictability. For industry participants, the competitive imperative is to either deepen core technical competencies or to forge partnerships that close capability gaps quickly, thereby offering clients lower-risk commercial packages and demonstrable performance assurances.

Practical, prioritized recommendations for operators, contractors, vessel owners, and technology providers to reduce execution risk and capture resilient value in decommissioning programs

To navigate the shifting decommissioning environment, industry leaders should adopt a set of prioritized, actionable steps that are operable within existing governance frameworks. First, integrate decommissioning strategy into asset life-cycle planning early, ensuring engineering, procurement, and environmental teams develop aligned scenarios that inform capital allocation and contractor engagement. Second, strengthen supplier-vetting and qualification programs with an emphasis on local fabricator development where tariffs or logistics create vulnerability, thereby reducing lead-time risk while preserving technical standards. Third, pursue collaborative commercial structures that align incentives across operators, contractors, and vessel owners; contractual models that emphasize shared performance metrics reduce disputes and improve predictability in execution timelines.

Furthermore, invest selectively in technologies that demonstrably reduce critical-path risk-remote inspection platforms, automated cutting systems, and digital twins that improve planning accuracy-and couple these with robust data governance to capture lessons learned across projects. Finally, engage proactively with regulators and community stakeholders early to shape permit timelines, agree on environmental monitoring requirements, and secure social license to operate. These recommendations are designed to be pragmatic and scalable so that organizations can prioritize actions according to immediate exposures and longer-term strategic goals.

Describing the multi-method research approach, validation protocols, and scenario testing used to ensure robust and operationally relevant decommissioning insights

The research underpinning this report uses a mixed-methods approach combining primary interviews, technical validation, and structured secondary analysis to ensure findings are robust and actionable. Primary research included in-depth interviews with operators, contractors, vessel owners, regulators, and technical specialists to capture real-world challenges, procurement preferences, and emergent practices. These qualitative insights were triangulated with secondary materials such as regulatory filings, industry standards, vessel registries, and technical literature to verify capability claims and execution trends.

Technical validation sessions with independent subject matter experts were conducted to test assumptions around methodology, vessel requirements, and risk factors. Additionally, scenario workshops simulated common project inflection points-supply chain disruption, permit delays, and unexpected subsea conditions-to stress-test recommended mitigation strategies. Data quality controls included cross-referencing multiple independent sources, documenting interview protocols, and applying conservative interpretive frameworks to avoid overgeneralization. Where relevant, limitations and data gaps have been explicitly noted so that readers can apply judgment when adapting insights to specific projects or jurisdictions.

Concluding assessment that synthesizes strategic imperatives and operational levers to transform decommissioning challenges into repeatable, lower-risk programs

In sum, offshore decommissioning is transitioning from episodic project execution to programmatic asset retirement that demands strategic coordination across engineering, procurement, regulatory engagement, and commercial structuring. The intersection of stricter environmental expectations, evolving commercial models, technological maturation, and trade policy shifts has redefined what successful delivery looks like. Organizations that proactively integrate decommissioning into lifecycle planning, invest in supplier development and strategic partnerships, and adopt a measured program governance approach will materially reduce execution risk and preserve optionality.

As the industry evolves, the most resilient players will be those that balance technical excellence with collaborative commercial frameworks, leverage technology to increase predictability, and adapt supply chain strategies to regional realities. Taken together, these elements form the foundation of a pragmatic pathway for converting complex decommissioning challenges into repeatable, lower-risk programs that meet regulatory, environmental, and commercial objectives.

Table of Contents

1. Preface

  • 1.1. Objectives of the Study
  • 1.2. Market Definition
  • 1.3. Market Segmentation & Coverage
  • 1.4. Years Considered for the Study
  • 1.5. Currency Considered for the Study
  • 1.6. Language Considered for the Study
  • 1.7. Key Stakeholders

2. Research Methodology

  • 2.1. Introduction
  • 2.2. Research Design
    • 2.2.1. Primary Research
    • 2.2.2. Secondary Research
  • 2.3. Research Framework
    • 2.3.1. Qualitative Analysis
    • 2.3.2. Quantitative Analysis
  • 2.4. Market Size Estimation
    • 2.4.1. Top-Down Approach
    • 2.4.2. Bottom-Up Approach
  • 2.5. Data Triangulation
  • 2.6. Research Outcomes
  • 2.7. Research Assumptions
  • 2.8. Research Limitations

3. Executive Summary

  • 3.1. Introduction
  • 3.2. CXO Perspective
  • 3.3. Market Size & Growth Trends
  • 3.4. Market Share Analysis, 2025
  • 3.5. FPNV Positioning Matrix, 2025
  • 3.6. New Revenue Opportunities
  • 3.7. Next-Generation Business Models
  • 3.8. Industry Roadmap

4. Market Overview

  • 4.1. Introduction
  • 4.2. Industry Ecosystem & Value Chain Analysis
    • 4.2.1. Supply-Side Analysis
    • 4.2.2. Demand-Side Analysis
    • 4.2.3. Stakeholder Analysis
  • 4.3. Porter's Five Forces Analysis
  • 4.4. PESTLE Analysis
  • 4.5. Market Outlook
    • 4.5.1. Near-Term Market Outlook (0-2 Years)
    • 4.5.2. Medium-Term Market Outlook (3-5 Years)
    • 4.5.3. Long-Term Market Outlook (5-10 Years)
  • 4.6. Go-to-Market Strategy

5. Market Insights

  • 5.1. Consumer Insights & End-User Perspective
  • 5.2. Consumer Experience Benchmarking
  • 5.3. Opportunity Mapping
  • 5.4. Distribution Channel Analysis
  • 5.5. Pricing Trend Analysis
  • 5.6. Regulatory Compliance & Standards Framework
  • 5.7. ESG & Sustainability Analysis
  • 5.8. Disruption & Risk Scenarios
  • 5.9. Return on Investment & Cost-Benefit Analysis

6. Cumulative Impact of United States Tariffs 2025

7. Cumulative Impact of Artificial Intelligence 2025

8. Offshore Decommissioning Market, by Service Type

  • 8.1. Engineering And Consultancy
  • 8.2. Onshore Disposal And Recycling
  • 8.3. Plug And Abandonment
    • 8.3.1. Pipeline P&A Services
    • 8.3.2. Well P&A Services
  • 8.4. Site Remediation
  • 8.5. Subsea Structure Removal
  • 8.6. Topsides Structure Removal

9. Offshore Decommissioning Market, by Structure Type

  • 9.1. Floating Production Systems
  • 9.2. Oil Rigs
  • 9.3. Subsea Infrastructure
  • 9.4. Support Structures
  • 9.5. Wellheads

10. Offshore Decommissioning Market, by End User

  • 10.1. Decommissioning Contractors
  • 10.2. Operators
  • 10.3. Vessel Owners

11. Offshore Decommissioning Market, by Region

  • 11.1. Americas
    • 11.1.1. North America
    • 11.1.2. Latin America
  • 11.2. Europe, Middle East & Africa
    • 11.2.1. Europe
    • 11.2.2. Middle East
    • 11.2.3. Africa
  • 11.3. Asia-Pacific

12. Offshore Decommissioning Market, by Group

  • 12.1. ASEAN
  • 12.2. GCC
  • 12.3. European Union
  • 12.4. BRICS
  • 12.5. G7
  • 12.6. NATO

13. Offshore Decommissioning Market, by Country

  • 13.1. United States
  • 13.2. Canada
  • 13.3. Mexico
  • 13.4. Brazil
  • 13.5. United Kingdom
  • 13.6. Germany
  • 13.7. France
  • 13.8. Russia
  • 13.9. Italy
  • 13.10. Spain
  • 13.11. China
  • 13.12. India
  • 13.13. Japan
  • 13.14. Australia
  • 13.15. South Korea

14. United States Offshore Decommissioning Market

15. China Offshore Decommissioning Market

16. Competitive Landscape

  • 16.1. Market Concentration Analysis, 2025
    • 16.1.1. Concentration Ratio (CR)
    • 16.1.2. Herfindahl Hirschman Index (HHI)
  • 16.2. Recent Developments & Impact Analysis, 2025
  • 16.3. Product Portfolio Analysis, 2025
  • 16.4. Benchmarking Analysis, 2025
  • 16.5. AF Gruppen ASA
  • 16.6. Aker Solutions ASA
  • 16.7. Allseas Group S.A.
  • 16.8. Baker Hughes Company
  • 16.9. DeepOcean Group Holding BV
  • 16.10. Halliburton Company
  • 16.11. Heerema Marine Contractors N.V.
  • 16.12. Jan De Nul Group NV
  • 16.13. John Wood Group PLC
  • 16.14. Koninklijke Boskalis Westminster N.V.
  • 16.15. McDermott International, Ltd.
  • 16.16. Oceaneering International, Inc.
  • 16.17. Petrofac Limited
  • 16.18. Ramboll Group
  • 16.19. Royal Boskalis Westminster N.V.
  • 16.20. Saipem S.p.A.
  • 16.21. Schlumberger Limited
  • 16.22. Subsea 7 S.A.
  • 16.23. TechnipFMC plc
  • 16.24. Van Oord Dredging and Marine Contractors B.V.

LIST OF FIGURES

  • FIGURE 1. GLOBAL OFFSHORE DECOMMISSIONING MARKET SIZE, 2018-2032 (USD MILLION)
  • FIGURE 2. GLOBAL OFFSHORE DECOMMISSIONING MARKET SHARE, BY KEY PLAYER, 2025
  • FIGURE 3. GLOBAL OFFSHORE DECOMMISSIONING MARKET, FPNV POSITIONING MATRIX, 2025
  • FIGURE 4. GLOBAL OFFSHORE DECOMMISSIONING MARKET SIZE, BY SERVICE TYPE, 2025 VS 2026 VS 2032 (USD MILLION)
  • FIGURE 5. GLOBAL OFFSHORE DECOMMISSIONING MARKET SIZE, BY STRUCTURE TYPE, 2025 VS 2026 VS 2032 (USD MILLION)
  • FIGURE 6. GLOBAL OFFSHORE DECOMMISSIONING MARKET SIZE, BY END USER, 2025 VS 2026 VS 2032 (USD MILLION)
  • FIGURE 7. GLOBAL OFFSHORE DECOMMISSIONING MARKET SIZE, BY REGION, 2025 VS 2026 VS 2032 (USD MILLION)
  • FIGURE 8. GLOBAL OFFSHORE DECOMMISSIONING MARKET SIZE, BY GROUP, 2025 VS 2026 VS 2032 (USD MILLION)
  • FIGURE 9. GLOBAL OFFSHORE DECOMMISSIONING MARKET SIZE, BY COUNTRY, 2025 VS 2026 VS 2032 (USD MILLION)
  • FIGURE 10. UNITED STATES OFFSHORE DECOMMISSIONING MARKET SIZE, 2018-2032 (USD MILLION)
  • FIGURE 11. CHINA OFFSHORE DECOMMISSIONING MARKET SIZE, 2018-2032 (USD MILLION)

LIST OF TABLES

  • TABLE 1. GLOBAL OFFSHORE DECOMMISSIONING MARKET SIZE, 2018-2032 (USD MILLION)
  • TABLE 2. GLOBAL OFFSHORE DECOMMISSIONING MARKET SIZE, BY SERVICE TYPE, 2018-2032 (USD MILLION)
  • TABLE 3. GLOBAL OFFSHORE DECOMMISSIONING MARKET SIZE, BY ENGINEERING AND CONSULTANCY, BY REGION, 2018-2032 (USD MILLION)
  • TABLE 4. GLOBAL OFFSHORE DECOMMISSIONING MARKET SIZE, BY ENGINEERING AND CONSULTANCY, BY GROUP, 2018-2032 (USD MILLION)
  • TABLE 5. GLOBAL OFFSHORE DECOMMISSIONING MARKET SIZE, BY ENGINEERING AND CONSULTANCY, BY COUNTRY, 2018-2032 (USD MILLION)
  • TABLE 6. GLOBAL OFFSHORE DECOMMISSIONING MARKET SIZE, BY ONSHORE DISPOSAL AND RECYCLING, BY REGION, 2018-2032 (USD MILLION)
  • TABLE 7. GLOBAL OFFSHORE DECOMMISSIONING MARKET SIZE, BY ONSHORE DISPOSAL AND RECYCLING, BY GROUP, 2018-2032 (USD MILLION)
  • TABLE 8. GLOBAL OFFSHORE DECOMMISSIONING MARKET SIZE, BY ONSHORE DISPOSAL AND RECYCLING, BY COUNTRY, 2018-2032 (USD MILLION)
  • TABLE 9. GLOBAL OFFSHORE DECOMMISSIONING MARKET SIZE, BY PLUG AND ABANDONMENT, BY REGION, 2018-2032 (USD MILLION)
  • TABLE 10. GLOBAL OFFSHORE DECOMMISSIONING MARKET SIZE, BY PLUG AND ABANDONMENT, BY GROUP, 2018-2032 (USD MILLION)
  • TABLE 11. GLOBAL OFFSHORE DECOMMISSIONING MARKET SIZE, BY PLUG AND ABANDONMENT, BY COUNTRY, 2018-2032 (USD MILLION)
  • TABLE 12. GLOBAL OFFSHORE DECOMMISSIONING MARKET SIZE, BY PLUG AND ABANDONMENT, 2018-2032 (USD MILLION)
  • TABLE 13. GLOBAL OFFSHORE DECOMMISSIONING MARKET SIZE, BY PIPELINE P&A SERVICES, BY REGION, 2018-2032 (USD MILLION)
  • TABLE 14. GLOBAL OFFSHORE DECOMMISSIONING MARKET SIZE, BY PIPELINE P&A SERVICES, BY GROUP, 2018-2032 (USD MILLION)
  • TABLE 15. GLOBAL OFFSHORE DECOMMISSIONING MARKET SIZE, BY PIPELINE P&A SERVICES, BY COUNTRY, 2018-2032 (USD MILLION)
  • TABLE 16. GLOBAL OFFSHORE DECOMMISSIONING MARKET SIZE, BY WELL P&A SERVICES, BY REGION, 2018-2032 (USD MILLION)
  • TABLE 17. GLOBAL OFFSHORE DECOMMISSIONING MARKET SIZE, BY WELL P&A SERVICES, BY GROUP, 2018-2032 (USD MILLION)
  • TABLE 18. GLOBAL OFFSHORE DECOMMISSIONING MARKET SIZE, BY WELL P&A SERVICES, BY COUNTRY, 2018-2032 (USD MILLION)
  • TABLE 19. GLOBAL OFFSHORE DECOMMISSIONING MARKET SIZE, BY SITE REMEDIATION, BY REGION, 2018-2032 (USD MILLION)
  • TABLE 20. GLOBAL OFFSHORE DECOMMISSIONING MARKET SIZE, BY SITE REMEDIATION, BY GROUP, 2018-2032 (USD MILLION)
  • TABLE 21. GLOBAL OFFSHORE DECOMMISSIONING MARKET SIZE, BY SITE REMEDIATION, BY COUNTRY, 2018-2032 (USD MILLION)
  • TABLE 22. GLOBAL OFFSHORE DECOMMISSIONING MARKET SIZE, BY SUBSEA STRUCTURE REMOVAL, BY REGION, 2018-2032 (USD MILLION)
  • TABLE 23. GLOBAL OFFSHORE DECOMMISSIONING MARKET SIZE, BY SUBSEA STRUCTURE REMOVAL, BY GROUP, 2018-2032 (USD MILLION)
  • TABLE 24. GLOBAL OFFSHORE DECOMMISSIONING MARKET SIZE, BY SUBSEA STRUCTURE REMOVAL, BY COUNTRY, 2018-2032 (USD MILLION)
  • TABLE 25. GLOBAL OFFSHORE DECOMMISSIONING MARKET SIZE, BY TOPSIDES STRUCTURE REMOVAL, BY REGION, 2018-2032 (USD MILLION)
  • TABLE 26. GLOBAL OFFSHORE DECOMMISSIONING MARKET SIZE, BY TOPSIDES STRUCTURE REMOVAL, BY GROUP, 2018-2032 (USD MILLION)
  • TABLE 27. GLOBAL OFFSHORE DECOMMISSIONING MARKET SIZE, BY TOPSIDES STRUCTURE REMOVAL, BY COUNTRY, 2018-2032 (USD MILLION)
  • TABLE 28. GLOBAL OFFSHORE DECOMMISSIONING MARKET SIZE, BY STRUCTURE TYPE, 2018-2032 (USD MILLION)
  • TABLE 29. GLOBAL OFFSHORE DECOMMISSIONING MARKET SIZE, BY FLOATING PRODUCTION SYSTEMS, BY REGION, 2018-2032 (USD MILLION)
  • TABLE 30. GLOBAL OFFSHORE DECOMMISSIONING MARKET SIZE, BY FLOATING PRODUCTION SYSTEMS, BY GROUP, 2018-2032 (USD MILLION)
  • TABLE 31. GLOBAL OFFSHORE DECOMMISSIONING MARKET SIZE, BY FLOATING PRODUCTION SYSTEMS, BY COUNTRY, 2018-2032 (USD MILLION)
  • TABLE 32. GLOBAL OFFSHORE DECOMMISSIONING MARKET SIZE, BY OIL RIGS, BY REGION, 2018-2032 (USD MILLION)
  • TABLE 33. GLOBAL OFFSHORE DECOMMISSIONING MARKET SIZE, BY OIL RIGS, BY GROUP, 2018-2032 (USD MILLION)
  • TABLE 34. GLOBAL OFFSHORE DECOMMISSIONING MARKET SIZE, BY OIL RIGS, BY COUNTRY, 2018-2032 (USD MILLION)
  • TABLE 35. GLOBAL OFFSHORE DECOMMISSIONING MARKET SIZE, BY SUBSEA INFRASTRUCTURE, BY REGION, 2018-2032 (USD MILLION)
  • TABLE 36. GLOBAL OFFSHORE DECOMMISSIONING MARKET SIZE, BY SUBSEA INFRASTRUCTURE, BY GROUP, 2018-2032 (USD MILLION)
  • TABLE 37. GLOBAL OFFSHORE DECOMMISSIONING MARKET SIZE, BY SUBSEA INFRASTRUCTURE, BY COUNTRY, 2018-2032 (USD MILLION)
  • TABLE 38. GLOBAL OFFSHORE DECOMMISSIONING MARKET SIZE, BY SUPPORT STRUCTURES, BY REGION, 2018-2032 (USD MILLION)
  • TABLE 39. GLOBAL OFFSHORE DECOMMISSIONING MARKET SIZE, BY SUPPORT STRUCTURES, BY GROUP, 2018-2032 (USD MILLION)
  • TABLE 40. GLOBAL OFFSHORE DECOMMISSIONING MARKET SIZE, BY SUPPORT STRUCTURES, BY COUNTRY, 2018-2032 (USD MILLION)
  • TABLE 41. GLOBAL OFFSHORE DECOMMISSIONING MARKET SIZE, BY WELLHEADS, BY REGION, 2018-2032 (USD MILLION)
  • TABLE 42. GLOBAL OFFSHORE DECOMMISSIONING MARKET SIZE, BY WELLHEADS, BY GROUP, 2018-2032 (USD MILLION)
  • TABLE 43. GLOBAL OFFSHORE DECOMMISSIONING MARKET SIZE, BY WELLHEADS, BY COUNTRY, 2018-2032 (USD MILLION)
  • TABLE 44. GLOBAL OFFSHORE DECOMMISSIONING MARKET SIZE, BY END USER, 2018-2032 (USD MILLION)
  • TABLE 45. GLOBAL OFFSHORE DECOMMISSIONING MARKET SIZE, BY DECOMMISSIONING CONTRACTORS, BY REGION, 2018-2032 (USD MILLION)
  • TABLE 46. GLOBAL OFFSHORE DECOMMISSIONING MARKET SIZE, BY DECOMMISSIONING CONTRACTORS, BY GROUP, 2018-2032 (USD MILLION)
  • TABLE 47. GLOBAL OFFSHORE DECOMMISSIONING MARKET SIZE, BY DECOMMISSIONING CONTRACTORS, BY COUNTRY, 2018-2032 (USD MILLION)
  • TABLE 48. GLOBAL OFFSHORE DECOMMISSIONING MARKET SIZE, BY OPERATORS, BY REGION, 2018-2032 (USD MILLION)
  • TABLE 49. GLOBAL OFFSHORE DECOMMISSIONING MARKET SIZE, BY OPERATORS, BY GROUP, 2018-2032 (USD MILLION)
  • TABLE 50. GLOBAL OFFSHORE DECOMMISSIONING MARKET SIZE, BY OPERATORS, BY COUNTRY, 2018-2032 (USD MILLION)
  • TABLE 51. GLOBAL OFFSHORE DECOMMISSIONING MARKET SIZE, BY VESSEL OWNERS, BY REGION, 2018-2032 (USD MILLION)
  • TABLE 52. GLOBAL OFFSHORE DECOMMISSIONING MARKET SIZE, BY VESSEL OWNERS, BY GROUP, 2018-2032 (USD MILLION)
  • TABLE 53. GLOBAL OFFSHORE DECOMMISSIONING MARKET SIZE, BY VESSEL OWNERS, BY COUNTRY, 2018-2032 (USD MILLION)
  • TABLE 54. GLOBAL OFFSHORE DECOMMISSIONING MARKET SIZE, BY REGION, 2018-2032 (USD MILLION)
  • TABLE 55. AMERICAS OFFSHORE DECOMMISSIONING MARKET SIZE, BY SUBREGION, 2018-2032 (USD MILLION)
  • TABLE 56. AMERICAS OFFSHORE DECOMMISSIONING MARKET SIZE, BY SERVICE TYPE, 2018-2032 (USD MILLION)
  • TABLE 57. AMERICAS OFFSHORE DECOMMISSIONING MARKET SIZE, BY PLUG AND ABANDONMENT, 2018-2032 (USD MILLION)
  • TABLE 58. AMERICAS OFFSHORE DECOMMISSIONING MARKET SIZE, BY STRUCTURE TYPE, 2018-2032 (USD MILLION)
  • TABLE 59. AMERICAS OFFSHORE DECOMMISSIONING MARKET SIZE, BY END USER, 2018-2032 (USD MILLION)
  • TABLE 60. NORTH AMERICA OFFSHORE DECOMMISSIONING MARKET SIZE, BY COUNTRY, 2018-2032 (USD MILLION)
  • TABLE 61. NORTH AMERICA OFFSHORE DECOMMISSIONING MARKET SIZE, BY SERVICE TYPE, 2018-2032 (USD MILLION)
  • TABLE 62. NORTH AMERICA OFFSHORE DECOMMISSIONING MARKET SIZE, BY PLUG AND ABANDONMENT, 2018-2032 (USD MILLION)
  • TABLE 63. NORTH AMERICA OFFSHORE DECOMMISSIONING MARKET SIZE, BY STRUCTURE TYPE, 2018-2032 (USD MILLION)
  • TABLE 64. NORTH AMERICA OFFSHORE DECOMMISSIONING MARKET SIZE, BY END USER, 2018-2032 (USD MILLION)
  • TABLE 65. LATIN AMERICA OFFSHORE DECOMMISSIONING MARKET SIZE, BY COUNTRY, 2018-2032 (USD MILLION)
  • TABLE 66. LATIN AMERICA OFFSHORE DECOMMISSIONING MARKET SIZE, BY SERVICE TYPE, 2018-2032 (USD MILLION)
  • TABLE 67. LATIN AMERICA OFFSHORE DECOMMISSIONING MARKET SIZE, BY PLUG AND ABANDONMENT, 2018-2032 (USD MILLION)
  • TABLE 68. LATIN AMERICA OFFSHORE DECOMMISSIONING MARKET SIZE, BY STRUCTURE TYPE, 2018-2032 (USD MILLION)
  • TABLE 69. LATIN AMERICA OFFSHORE DECOMMISSIONING MARKET SIZE, BY END USER, 2018-2032 (USD MILLION)
  • TABLE 70. EUROPE, MIDDLE EAST & AFRICA OFFSHORE DECOMMISSIONING MARKET SIZE, BY SUBREGION, 2018-2032 (USD MILLION)
  • TABLE 71. EUROPE, MIDDLE EAST & AFRICA OFFSHORE DECOMMISSIONING MARKET SIZE, BY SERVICE TYPE, 2018-2032 (USD MILLION)
  • TABLE 72. EUROPE, MIDDLE EAST & AFRICA OFFSHORE DECOMMISSIONING MARKET SIZE, BY PLUG AND ABANDONMENT, 2018-2032 (USD MILLION)
  • TABLE 73. EUROPE, MIDDLE EAST & AFRICA OFFSHORE DECOMMISSIONING MARKET SIZE, BY STRUCTURE TYPE, 2018-2032 (USD MILLION)
  • TABLE 74. EUROPE, MIDDLE EAST & AFRICA OFFSHORE DECOMMISSIONING MARKET SIZE, BY END USER, 2018-2032 (USD MILLION)
  • TABLE 75. EUROPE OFFSHORE DECOMMISSIONING MARKET SIZE, BY COUNTRY, 2018-2032 (USD MILLION)
  • TABLE 76. EUROPE OFFSHORE DECOMMISSIONING MARKET SIZE, BY SERVICE TYPE, 2018-2032 (USD MILLION)
  • TABLE 77. EUROPE OFFSHORE DECOMMISSIONING MARKET SIZE, BY PLUG AND ABANDONMENT, 2018-2032 (USD MILLION)
  • TABLE 78. EUROPE OFFSHORE DECOMMISSIONING MARKET SIZE, BY STRUCTURE TYPE, 2018-2032 (USD MILLION)
  • TABLE 79. EUROPE OFFSHORE DECOMMISSIONING MARKET SIZE, BY END USER, 2018-2032 (USD MILLION)
  • TABLE 80. MIDDLE EAST OFFSHORE DECOMMISSIONING MARKET SIZE, BY COUNTRY, 2018-2032 (USD MILLION)
  • TABLE 81. MIDDLE EAST OFFSHORE DECOMMISSIONING MARKET SIZE, BY SERVICE TYPE, 2018-2032 (USD MILLION)
  • TABLE 82. MIDDLE EAST OFFSHORE DECOMMISSIONING MARKET SIZE, BY PLUG AND ABANDONMENT, 2018-2032 (USD MILLION)
  • TABLE 83. MIDDLE EAST OFFSHORE DECOMMISSIONING MARKET SIZE, BY STRUCTURE TYPE, 2018-2032 (USD MILLION)
  • TABLE 84. MIDDLE EAST OFFSHORE DECOMMISSIONING MARKET SIZE, BY END USER, 2018-2032 (USD MILLION)
  • TABLE 85. AFRICA OFFSHORE DECOMMISSIONING MARKET SIZE, BY COUNTRY, 2018-2032 (USD MILLION)
  • TABLE 86. AFRICA OFFSHORE DECOMMISSIONING MARKET SIZE, BY SERVICE TYPE, 2018-2032 (USD MILLION)
  • TABLE 87. AFRICA OFFSHORE DECOMMISSIONING MARKET SIZE, BY PLUG AND ABANDONMENT, 2018-2032 (USD MILLION)
  • TABLE 88. AFRICA OFFSHORE DECOMMISSIONING MARKET SIZE, BY STRUCTURE TYPE, 2018-2032 (USD MILLION)
  • TABLE 89. AFRICA OFFSHORE DECOMMISSIONING MARKET SIZE, BY END USER, 2018-2032 (USD MILLION)
  • TABLE 90. ASIA-PACIFIC OFFSHORE DECOMMISSIONING MARKET SIZE, BY COUNTRY, 2018-2032 (USD MILLION)
  • TABLE 91. ASIA-PACIFIC OFFSHORE DECOMMISSIONING MARKET SIZE, BY SERVICE TYPE, 2018-2032 (USD MILLION)
  • TABLE 92. ASIA-PACIFIC OFFSHORE DECOMMISSIONING MARKET SIZE, BY PLUG AND ABANDONMENT, 2018-2032 (USD MILLION)
  • TABLE 93. ASIA-PACIFIC OFFSHORE DECOMMISSIONING MARKET SIZE, BY STRUCTURE TYPE, 2018-2032 (USD MILLION)
  • TABLE 94. ASIA-PACIFIC OFFSHORE DECOMMISSIONING MARKET SIZE, BY END USER, 2018-2032 (USD MILLION)
  • TABLE 95. GLOBAL OFFSHORE DECOMMISSIONING MARKET SIZE, BY GROUP, 2018-2032 (USD MILLION)
  • TABLE 96. ASEAN OFFSHORE DECOMMISSIONING MARKET SIZE, BY COUNTRY, 2018-2032 (USD MILLION)
  • TABLE 97. ASEAN OFFSHORE DECOMMISSIONING MARKET SIZE, BY SERVICE TYPE, 2018-2032 (USD MILLION)
  • TABLE 98. ASEAN OFFSHORE DECOMMISSIONING MARKET SIZE, BY PLUG AND ABANDONMENT, 2018-2032 (USD MILLION)
  • TABLE 99. ASEAN OFFSHORE DECOMMISSIONING MARKET SIZE, BY STRUCTURE TYPE, 2018-2032 (USD MILLION)
  • TABLE 100. ASEAN OFFSHORE DECOMMISSIONING MARKET SIZE, BY END USER, 2018-2032 (USD MILLION)
  • TABLE 101. GCC OFFSHORE DECOMMISSIONING MARKET SIZE, BY COUNTRY, 2018-2032 (USD MILLION)
  • TABLE 102. GCC OFFSHORE DECOMMISSIONING MARKET SIZE, BY SERVICE TYPE, 2018-2032 (USD MILLION)
  • TABLE 103. GCC OFFSHORE DECOMMISSIONING MARKET SIZE, BY PLUG AND ABANDONMENT, 2018-2032 (USD MILLION)
  • TABLE 104. GCC OFFSHORE DECOMMISSIONING MARKET SIZE, BY STRUCTURE TYPE, 2018-2032 (USD MILLION)
  • TABLE 105. GCC OFFSHORE DECOMMISSIONING MARKET SIZE, BY END USER, 2018-2032 (USD MILLION)
  • TABLE 106. EUROPEAN UNION OFFSHORE DECOMMISSIONING MARKET SIZE, BY COUNTRY, 2018-2032 (USD MILLION)
  • TABLE 107. EUROPEAN UNION OFFSHORE DECOMMISSIONING MARKET SIZE, BY SERVICE TYPE, 2018-2032 (USD MILLION)
  • TABLE 108. EUROPEAN UNION OFFSHORE DECOMMISSIONING MARKET SIZE, BY PLUG AND ABANDONMENT, 2018-2032 (USD MILLION)
  • TABLE 109. EUROPEAN UNION OFFSHORE DECOMMISSIONING MARKET SIZE, BY STRUCTURE TYPE, 2018-2032 (USD MILLION)
  • TABLE 110. EUROPEAN UNION OFFSHORE DECOMMISSIONING MARKET SIZE, BY END USER, 2018-2032 (USD MILLION)
  • TABLE 111. BRICS OFFSHORE DECOMMISSIONING MARKET SIZE, BY COUNTRY, 2018-2032 (USD MILLION)
  • TABLE 112. BRICS OFFSHORE DECOMMISSIONING MARKET SIZE, BY SERVICE TYPE, 2018-2032 (USD MILLION)
  • TABLE 113. BRICS OFFSHORE DECOMMISSIONING MARKET SIZE, BY PLUG AND ABANDONMENT, 2018-2032 (USD MILLION)
  • TABLE 114. BRICS OFFSHORE DECOMMISSIONING MARKET SIZE, BY STRUCTURE TYPE, 2018-2032 (USD MILLION)
  • TABLE 115. BRICS OFFSHORE DECOMMISSIONING MARKET SIZE, BY END USER, 2018-2032 (USD MILLION)
  • TABLE 116. G7 OFFSHORE DECOMMISSIONING MARKET SIZE, BY COUNTRY, 2018-2032 (USD MILLION)
  • TABLE 117. G7 OFFSHORE DECOMMISSIONING MARKET SIZE, BY SERVICE TYPE, 2018-2032 (USD MILLION)
  • TABLE 118. G7 OFFSHORE DECOMMISSIONING MARKET SIZE, BY PLUG AND ABANDONMENT, 2018-2032 (USD MILLION)
  • TABLE 119. G7 OFFSHORE DECOMMISSIONING MARKET SIZE, BY STRUCTURE TYPE, 2018-2032 (USD MILLION)
  • TABLE 120. G7 OFFSHORE DECOMMISSIONING MARKET SIZE, BY END USER, 2018-2032 (USD MILLION)
  • TABLE 121. NATO OFFSHORE DECOMMISSIONING MARKET SIZE, BY COUNTRY, 2018-2032 (USD MILLION)
  • TABLE 122. NATO OFFSHORE DECOMMISSIONING MARKET SIZE, BY SERVICE TYPE, 2018-2032 (USD MILLION)
  • TABLE 123. NATO OFFSHORE DECOMMISSIONING MARKET SIZE, BY PLUG AND ABANDONMENT, 2018-2032 (USD MILLION)
  • TABLE 124. NATO OFFSHORE DECOMMISSIONING MARKET SIZE, BY STRUCTURE TYPE, 2018-2032 (USD MILLION)
  • TABLE 125. NATO OFFSHORE DECOMMISSIONING MARKET SIZE, BY END USER, 2018-2032 (USD MILLION)
  • TABLE 126. GLOBAL OFFSHORE DECOMMISSIONING MARKET SIZE, BY COUNTRY, 2018-2032 (USD MILLION)
  • TABLE 127. UNITED STATES OFFSHORE DECOMMISSIONING MARKET SIZE, 2018-2032 (USD MILLION)
  • TABLE 128. UNITED STATES OFFSHORE DECOMMISSIONING MARKET SIZE, BY SERVICE TYPE, 2018-2032 (USD MILLION)
  • TABLE 129. UNITED STATES OFFSHORE DECOMMISSIONING MARKET SIZE, BY PLUG AND ABANDONMENT, 2018-2032 (USD MILLION)
  • TABLE 130. UNITED STATES OFFSHORE DECOMMISSIONING MARKET SIZE, BY STRUCTURE TYPE, 2018-2032 (USD MILLION)
  • TABLE 131. UNITED STATES OFFSHORE DECOMMISSIONING MARKET SIZE, BY END USER, 2018-2032 (USD MILLION)
  • TABLE 132. CHINA OFFSHORE DECOMMISSIONING MARKET SIZE, 2018-2032 (USD MILLION)
  • TABLE 133. CHINA OFFSHORE DECOMMISSIONING MARKET SIZE, BY SERVICE TYPE, 2018-2032 (USD MILLION)
  • TABLE 134. CHINA OFFSHORE DECOMMISSIONING MARKET SIZE, BY PLUG AND ABANDONMENT, 2018-2032 (USD MILLION)
  • TABLE 135. CHINA OFFSHORE DECOMMISSIONING MARKET SIZE, BY STRUCTURE TYPE, 2018-2032 (USD MILLION)
  • TABLE 136. CHINA OFFSHORE DECOMMISSIONING MARKET SIZE, BY END USER, 2018-2032 (USD MILLION)