stake, but in an honest moment we should also acknowledge that it is easy to make that argument with someone else’s money. Anglers and divers would like to see
those platforms stay exactly as they are now, upright and in place, to continue serving as prime habitat for a myriad of marine life forever. But industry repre- sentatives and regulators make the fun- damental point that those structures were never designed to exist in a harsh marine environment indefinitely. The best explanation I’ve heard
likened a platform standing above the waves to the tab on a can of soda. If you bend that soda tab back and forth long enough, the metal will weaken and it will snap off. A platform in the ocean bends fractionally back and forth millions of times over its lifespan. Eventually, it will snap and fall to the seafloor, leaving not only the liability issue but a bigger price tag to remove. When Hurricanes
ture in the marine environment. To their credit, many energy compa-
nies in the Gulf have made great efforts to reef structures rather than haul them to the beach. State managed rigs to reefs programs are the best avenue to keeping structure in the water, but a snarl of regulations, permitting require-
form must be moved to a designated reefing area, and there aren’t nearly enough of those. Given the economics of removing a rig and the cost to cut and barge such a huge structure, there better be a reefing area in the immedi- ate area or directly along the path back to shore or it stops making economic
Anglers and divers would like to see
Katrina and Rita churned through the Gulf of Mexico in 2005, more than 150 platforms in the Gulf of Mexico were top- pled. Whereas the cost to remove an intact and upright platform might be $2 million, that cost is multiplied by a fac- tor of 20 to 30 if that same platform is toppled and scattered by a hurricane. One company that lost more than 60 platforms in the storms finally finished its cleanup from that natural disaster just last year. That is why talk of a moratorium on removals for a year or two draws a heated response and out- right rejection by regulators and ener- gy companies alike. No one is willing to play platform roulette in the Gulf of Mexico through a hurricane season.
WHAT CAN BE DONE? All of the things discussed so far are
valid concerns for energy companies and regulators, but not necessarily for anglers. As a marine resource conservation orga- nization, we can appreciate all the factors that make this issue so difficult and expensive, but our overriding concern remains the vast forest of habitat that we stand to lose if ways can’t be found to address liability and make it easier for companies to leave that productive struc-
18
ments and general miscommunication between the industry and federal agen- cies isn’t making it easy. For a variety of reasons, only about 11 to 12 percent of eligible rigs have been reefed. In simplest terms, state-run rigs-to-
reefs programs work by allowing ener- gy companies to donate a platform as a reef in exchange for the state assuming the liability. The catch is that the plat-
www.joincca.org
sense to participate. A concerted effort by the states of Louisiana and Texas to create more designated reefing areas, particularly in the 100- to 200-foot depth range, would reap immediate benefits. Texas recently announced two huge new areas along the southern coast that will help save what structure is left, but with most platforms in the region already removed, it could be a
TIDE
those platforms stay exactly as they are
now, upright and in place, to continue serving as prime
habitat for a myriad of marine life forever.
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