[Coral-List] Bring Back the Gulf
Steve Mussman
sealab at earthlink.net
Mon Aug 4 23:13:31 EDT 2014
Dear Gene,
I assumed that the mandate requiring that these rigs be removed and the
seabed restored to itâs natural state comes directly from the contracts that
the oil companies agreed to as a condition of approval to drill offshore in
the first place. Referring to these structures as âessential marine
habitatsâ is rather curious as scientific research on the ecological
benefits appears to be inconclusive. In fact there is
considerable dispute over whether current research holds that it would be
better for the marine environment if partial or complete removal were
required. Oceana, an advocacy organization that supported California's
rigs-to-reefs law, noted that "while oil platforms may appear to benefit
certain species and recreational stakeholders, decisions on decommissioning
must also take into account there is no evidence platforms provide net
ecological benefits to the marine ecosystem as a whole relative to areas
left in their natural state." As for following the money . . . why not focus
on those who benefit the most from the cost savings when a rig is converted
to "reef" rather than removed. That might tell you something about the
motivation behind competing advocacies involved in this issue. I'd also like
to know if the use of explosives is specifically stipulated in the existing
decommissioning regulations applied to the rigs in the Gulf of Mexico. I was
under the impression that there are other ways to cut below the mud line.
Regards,
Steve
More information about the Coral-List
mailing list