I
N FISHERIES MANAGEMENT,
you get used to issues not being black and white. In feder- al fisheries in particular, every problem tends to be clouded with suspect data or outdated science. Most of the things we
debate in fisheries management revolve around murky models and uncertain statistics. Politics and fish- eries science are woven together into a perfect bird’s nest of confusion, pro- ducing baffling regulations and counter-intuitive policies. So as the Idle Iron issue began to
heat up, the initial reaction may have been something akin to relief in that, at last, here was an issue that was black and white. Being from Texas or Lou - isia na, you not only get used to seeing platforms in the Gulf, you come to appreciate them as prime habitat and cherish them as prime destinations for anglers. The thought of a federal order to systematically remove those struc- tures struck every Gulf Coast angler as a horrible mistake. It seemed that all we would have to do is point out all the amazing things that live on and around those platforms to get the Admini - stration to change course. That brief period of time regarding
this as a black and white issue was quickly replaced by a dense fog bank as the enormity and complexity of the challenges associated with those struc- tures emerged. Keeping that habitat in the Gulf of Mexico remains one of the highest priorities for CCA and after extensive engagement, the fog bank is only just starting to lift.
LIABILITY AND RED TAPE Just as location, location, and loca-
tion are the three most important fac- tors in real estate, the three most daunt- ing factors for idle iron are liability, lia- bility and liability. Every road that might possibly lead to leaving those structures in the water to serve as Gulf habitat has to find a way over, around or through the liability issue and CCA has spent an enormous amount of time trying to find a way to build that road. Among other things, we have
worked closely with Texas Gov. Rick Perry on a letter he sent to the U.S. Department of Interior requesting a review of the removal policy. We sup- ported U.S. Sen. David Vitter (La.) and U.S. Rep. Steven Palazzo (Miss.) as they filed the Rigs to Reefs Habitat
TIDE
www.joincca.org
Protection Act. We helped coordinate a push by the Congressional Sportsmen’s Caucus to enact a moratorium on removals until a solution can be found. We worked to include language in the Sportsmen’s Act of 2012 that would require an assessment of the biodiver- sity and critical habitat present at plat- forms and related structures subject to removal and assess the potential im - pacts of their removal. We’ve hosted workshops with industry and the marine science community to find common ground and mutually benefi- cial solutions. All of those efforts and more eventu-
ally ran into the same wall — liability. It should be stated unequivocally
that there is no comparing an unused platform standing over a played-out well and the Deepwater Horizon, which was engaged in highly complex deepwater drilling operations when that tragic accident occurred. However, big, expensive things can still go wrong when you leave a skyscraper of idle iron in a marine environment for decades. Energy industry representatives
and regulators can recite a litany of sce- narios that no company in its right mind wants to be liable for — super- tanker collision, cruise ship collision, storm-tossed structure slamming into an active underwater pipeline, to name just a few. Some entity will have to be liable for accidents like those and com- panies today are all too familiar with the concept of “boomerang” proper- ties, those whose liability comes back to the last financially viable company that owned the structure, no matter how many times it has been sold or who owns it now. Arguments can be made, and we
have made them repeatedly, that steps can be taken to guard against those sce- narios. Maintenance in the form of lighting, horns and anode systems to prevent corrosion can keep those struc- tures as safe as they were when they were operational. Again, industry rep- resentatives and regulators are quick to point out that costs to maintain decom- missioned rigs in that manner can run hundreds of thousands of dollars a year per platform. It is understandable that a company with one dozen or two dozen or 200 platforms would quick- ly decide it makes more sense to remove them than maintain them at that ongoing cost. As anglers we argue that is a small price to pay for the marine habitat at
17
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64