We at the PCL remember our mothers’ sage advice: “Put away our toys or someone will get hurt.”
So it sounds reasonable to us that oil companies with drilling platforms off the California coast are required to “clean up after themselves” when oil operations finally cease, completely removing all of their drilling platforms and associated apparatus.
As you might imagine, when the end of offshore drilling operations eventually comes, removing the platforms will cost the oil companies a lot of money and those companies would like to avoid some or all of these clean up costs.
Now they may get their way – if the state government lets them turn their “rigs into reefs.”
Here’s how it’s rigged: the oil companies would be “excused” from their current clean up obligations, and may be allowed to simply cut off the drilling platforms below the water line. The understory of the drilling platforms would then remain, supposedly providing fish habitat.
State representatives are quite interested in the possibility of taking money from the oil companies (in exchange for excusing them from their current clean up responsibilities) and note that it could be used in many positive ways, including providing specific benefits to the marine environment.
"Rigs to reefs" is not necessarily the best way to describe the concept, according to the Department of Fish and Game, since the Department believes that any review of the current decommissioning process should include a case by case evaluation process, in which removal of rigs will remain on the list of potential outcomes, and turning rigs into “reefs” will only be one of the possibilities.
Terminology aside, Secretary of Resources Mike Chrisman is moving ahead seriously to explore the “rigs to reef” idea. He convened a meeting last week in Sacramento to focus on the pros and cons. In attendance were various fishing and environmental organizations, including PCL (of course!).
The meeting was, to put it mildly, a “lively” exchange of views.
For example, the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations is not wild about the idea and is concerned that letting oil companies off the hook might harm, not help, fishing.
Other critical questions about the “rigs to reef” proposal have been raised by the Environmental Defense Center (EDC), based in Santa Barbara, which has actual “up close” experience with the problems associated with offshore oil production.
Here are some of the issues that they identify:
• Habitat Value
Do oil platforms, in fact, provide good fish habitat? The EDC properly demands that the State rely on an analysis performed by independent scientists who are not funded by the oil industry or other proponents of a rigs-to-reefs program, pointing out that NOAA has refused to designate platforms as essential fish habitat.
• Pollution
The EDC notes that when the State tested the debris mounds left after the Summerland 4-H offshore platforms were removed, the mounds were found to contain several toxic contaminants, including significant levels of arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, nickel, PCB’s, lead, zinc, and poly-nuclear hydrocarbons. Any consideration of a “rigs to reef” program should evaluate the potential contaminants not only from the debris mounds surrounding the platforms, but also from the platforms themselves as they may corrode over time.
• Safety
Navigation and safety hazards are real. When the 4-H platforms were decommissioned, at least four commercial fishermen filed claims after snagging gear on the remaining debris mounds.
• Liability
Current state and federal laws and regulations require removal of oil platforms as part of decommissioning. Most of the existing offshore platforms in California are in federal jurisdiction, and current federal regulations would require the state to accept title to and liability for the structure and assume liability for a “rigs to reefs” program.
The EDC notes that a primary reason for the oil industry to advocate for a “rigs to reefs” program is to avoid the costs of liability, which can be enormous. They urge the State to determine the costs of such liability, both in terms of direct costs such as insurance, but also potential future costs, if claims are filed and not covered or only partially covered by insurance.
• Costs of Maintenance
Leaving structures in the ocean will also require maintenance, including containing and cleaning up pollutants, avoiding safety risks, and enforcing any applicable fishing restrictions. According to the EDC, the State should factor in these costs of maintenance before considering a “rigs to reefs” program any further.
• Precedent
Other industries and businesses are likely to be interested in using the ocean as a dumping ground for their leftover structures and equipment. Such opportunities alleviate their costs of disposal, especially if the materials contain hazardous materials. Would allowing a “rigs to reefs” program open the door to unwanted materials being deposited or left in the ocean? Current California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) Artificial Reef guidelines warn against an open policy in this regard, and recommend reef materials such as quarry rock and concrete boxes that are designed to mimic natural reefs.
• Incentive for new offshore oil and gas development
Industry representatives have claimed that the costs of decommissioning can be an impediment to new oil and gas development. Therefore, the elimination or reduction of these costs could provide an incentive for new development. While finding new sources of money for marine protection and restoration efforts seems good, maybe it’s not so good when that money is generated by letting oil companies reduce their current clean up obligations.
Your Ads At Here
