Right Column

Mineral Resources Management Division - Rigs to Reefs Workshop

Linda Krop

Ms. Krop is Chief Counsel with the Environmental Defense Center based in Santa Barbara, California. The EDC represents environmental and commercial fishing interests.

~ From Transcript ~

My name is Linda Krop. I'm the chief counsel of the Environmental Defense Center. We are a public interest environmental law firm that represents clients in a variety of issues including coastal and marine resource protection cases. 

Specifically, we represent the environmental coalition of Santa Barbara, which is the coalition of environmental groups, and currently we, represent the Pacific coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations on decommissioning issues.

Our clients oppose the concept of rigs to reefs.  We actually prefer to talk to about this as platform abandonment which is really what it is for many reasons.

First and foremost, we do not believe that evidence exists to support the proposition that oil platforms function as reef habitat. Second, we believe the oil companies should be required to clean up their mess when they finish exploiting our ocean resources.

Third, we are concerned about the navigational, safety and maintenance and liability problems posed by leaving platforms in the ocean. Finally, we are appalled at the political shenanigans taking place in Sacramento to support this effort by the oil industry to avoid their current obligations to remove their facilities and debris and restore a marine environment thereby saving millions of dollars in the process.

I would like to first touch on the environmental issues that our clients are concerned about. The environmental community is concerned about the long-term effects of leaving these manmade structures in the marine environment.

As pointed out in the September, 1997 decommissioning workshop, there is a concern that has not been addressed today that these structures will corrode over time and contaminate the sea if not rigorously maintained.

Also another issue that has not been addressed today is the fact that these structures are accompanied by drilling muds and cuttings that have fallen to the sea floor and made these toxic materials into the environment over time.

Who will be responsible for the maintenance and clean up of these materials? Who will fund such maintenance? What if at some point in the future the state determines that the structures are posing harm for the marine environment and should be removed?

We are also concerned that certain representatives are jumping to the conclusion that the platforms provide fish habitat despite the lack of clear scientific evidence to that effect. We acknowledged the documented presence of fish at some platforms. However, mere presence of fish does not demonstrate the presence of habitat.

Just because fish are seen around the platforms, does not mean the platforms are providing habitat. In fact, studies thus far demonstrate a wide variability of fish populations around the platforms varying from year to year, from season to season and from platform to platform.

We are also concerned about the potential negative impacts that may result if fish are attracted away from more productive natural reefs to the platforms. As stated in a published article by Mr. Mark Carr, a comparison of artificial versus natural reefs is essential.

According to Dr. Carr, studies to date indicated that the number of individuals and species of fishes on natural reefs is greater than on artificial structures because natural reefs provide greater structural complexities and natural forage gates.

Dr. Carr recommends that further research should ask does an artificial reef provide habitat for increased production that would otherwise not be possible? More specifically, could fishes that recruit to artificial reefs have recruited instead to natural reefs, and had they done so, what would be their relative rates of growth, mortality and emigration?

Importantly these questions require assessing production of. an artificial reef in the context of regional production on natural reefs.

Finally, Dr. Carr warns that, if recruitments for artificial reefs reduces recruitments in natural habitats, by intercepting larvae. And if survival and growth are greater on natural reefs than artificial reefs, the effect of the artificial reef will actually be to reduce the regional productivity of that species.

In summary, as stated earlier by Mark Helvey of the National Marine Fishery Service, only if production of reef organisms is greater on artificial reefs than oil natural reefs as demonstrated by the evidence, can one conclude that artificial reefs enhance production.

And this approach is similar to the current California State Artificial Reef Guidelines which have a  goal of increasing fish carrying capacity. Specifically the current state guidelines require that Department of Fish and Game biologists design reefs which will not only attract fishes but will provide them with adequate habitat for shelter, forage, growth and reproduction thereby increasing fish production.

According to the guidelines, observations to date have shown that the best material for artificial reefs are concrete boxes and quarry rock, as stated earlier by Dave Parker.

Based upon the above, we believe any artificial reef program should be based upon the following principles. The goal must be to increase regional fish productivity, and the factors to consider should be first to identify the species of concern, then determine the type and location of reef necessary to contribute to the regional productivity of species; third, to compare the effectiveness of the proposed artificial reef to natural reefs; and, finally, to consider the potential negative consequence from the artificial reefs such as detract from the natural reefs.

The second concern of the environmental community of the state and the concerns – platform abandonment raises obvious concerns about navigational and other safety impacts.

State agencies should pay special attention to the fact that the federal government in whose waters these structures exist does not want the liability.  Neither do the oil companies who own and operate these platforms. Why would the state want the liability? It does not make sense. 

We urge the state to continue its current protocol which is that permittees in this case the oil companies would remain liable for any future damage.

The final area I want to address is the area of public trust. The State Lands Commission holds public resources in trust for the people of the state of California, for all the people of the state of California.

While platform abandonment in place would benefit the oil industry, it may negatively impact other ocean users and in fact abandonment of platforms in place would actually pollute the marine environment while providing questionable benefit.

I want to conclude by making some recommendations. At the conclusion of the September 1997 decommissioning workshop, there was a debriefing, and all of the participants agreed unanimously that any consideration of platform abandonment in place should be considered objectively, not opportunistically.

In other words, the fact that platforms exist and that oil companies can save money by not removing them, should not influence any agency's decision pertaining to decommissioning.

Instead the agencies should look objectively at the feasibility of removing the platforms as well as the impacts of removal versus abandonment in place.

An Interagency Decommissioning Working Group, which was mentioned earlier, was formed and has been meeting. They have developed an action plan. And we have stated our preferences that we will receive any scientific research in this area.

In that respect, we also recommend that any  research or analysis be funded and overseen by neutral parties so as to avoid either an actual conflict of interest or the appearance of a conflict of interest.

Anytime an interested party such as an oil industry funds technical scientific research, it will be vulnerable to attack. Such appears to be the case with the research promoted by Senator Dede Alpert and her scientific panel.

I don't know exactly who's on the panel.  But there has been overtures to date that Chevron would help fund the research, and in the past some of the entities that have been suggested for the research have already taken public criticism. So we feel that it's very important that any scientist involved in research not have publicly taken a position already on the issue.

Therefore, we recommend as follows, that, first of all, agencies adopt the precautionary principal approach. In other words, don't take any action before you really identify and assess the potential impacts of that action. 

Currently platforms have to be removed.  That policy should stand unless research indicates otherwise.

Second, prior to considering an amendment to current policies, guidelines and permits, the State Lands Commission and any other agency must conduct an unbiased credible analysis of the following items:

First of all, the feasibility of removing the platforms, the various options for decommissioning, the full range of environmental socioeconomic impacts of leaving the platforms in place, the true habitat value of  the structure taking into consideration it's contribution to regional productivity, the comparative value of and potential conflicts of natural reefs, navigational and other safety impacts, liability issues, maintenance obligations and conflicts with other ocean users such as commercial fishers.

Because this analysis has not been performed, our clients and we oppose SB 241 the legislation is premature. And incidentally, I do want to let the audience know that Senator Jack O'Connell from our district also opposes SB 241.

Supporters of this legislation hope for funding for research and environmental purposes. But given the examples and experience in the Gulf of Mexico, it looks quite surprising to me that any money would be available to that. That looking at the figures, the donations and the costs of maintaining buoys and managing the artificial reefs looks to me like the donations don't even meet the bare costs of liability and maintenance.

So I think it's also naive to think that money would be left over for beneficial programs. In any event, any artificial reef program must not be based on such incentives. Our ocean resources are not for sale. No price can be pay for the right to use our ocean environment as a dump for the oil companies.

Artificial reefs must be developed to sustain and enhance fisheries in need of protection and must be sited and designed to meet the habitat needs of such fisheries. Thank you.