Right Column
Mineral Resources Management Division - Rigs to Reefs Workshop
Mike Parker |
 |
Mr. Parker is the Planning and Issues Coordinator from the Exxon |
| ~From Transcript ~ |
Well, good morning. My name is Mike Parker. I'm with the newly merged Exxon Mobil Company.
I appreciate this opportunity to offer Mobil's position regarding artificial reefs programs. Our experience with them is primarily in the Gulf of Mexico. So that's where most of these comments are focused on.
Just kind of as a caveat too because of the time of this merger stuff and everything else, these numbers and things like that primarily would be directed towards former Exxon type activities.
Let me start off by saying that we do support an establishment of well-planned artificial reef programs with well-planned being the key consideration to that support.
The well-planned program includes clear authority for assumption and ownership of the artificial reef material. Clear identification of a responsible agency and state holder involvement during the program's development.
We support artificial reef programs because artificial reefs can and do enhance marine habitat. Research has consistently shown that habitat enhancement will result from well-placed, well-planned placement of artificial reef material.
Oil and gas facilities can be recycled as artificial reef material. Again, research consistently shows that recycled oil and gas facilities make nearly ideal reef material.
Artificial reef programs provide a win, win opportunity for both public and private sectors. An artificial reef can be but isn't always a more economical alternative option for operators.
In these cases operators have been willing to donate valuable reef material to state programs and allow the reef managers to gain this material at no cost to the public. Participation is essential in an artificial reef program.
This short term impact in reduced quantify our reduced level of operations that can result in lower emissions and other nonwater quality impacts like fuel produced fuel consumption, lower risk exposure and shorter time on site.
It's also the highest long-term benefits option. It creates a diverse fully functioning marine habitat that will remain in place providing these benefits almost indefinitely.
We are and have been an active supporter of artificial reef programs for many years. We've pioneered the donations and use of artificial oil and gas facilities as artificial reef material.
We were an active participant in the development of the National and Fishing Enhancement Act, which is the basis for all artificial reef programs in this country.
We made one of the first donations of an oil, gas facility in an artificial reef program with the donation of our sub sea production system template, which was placed about 25 miles off the Apalachicola cove of Florida in 1981.
We were an active participant in the Louisiana artificial reef initiative which Rick Kasprzak’s has mentioned which led to the implementation of what has become the most successful state-administered artificial reef program in the country.
Most subsequent state programs which rely heavily on the Louisiana experience in developing their own programs, we, and as I said before I'm talking about Exxon here, have donated four platform jackets to the Louisiana artificial reef program.
All of these jackets have been placed in the West Cameron reef planning area, which is about 80, not 60 miles off shore, the southwest coast of Louisiana.
One of those jackets was toppled into place, the other three one of which were in some of the pictures we've showed you, were towed to that locationfrom off-site locations. Distances were about 30 miles where they towed the structures.
So what is a well-planned artificial reef program? First, let me say that a well-planned program is important because it gives operators the assurance that the program is accepted by the public, user groups and other potentially impacted entities.
Balancing broad state over input during program development is important. Input from N.G.O.'s, all interested government entities and user groups must be sought during the planning process.
The planning process should be used to identify and resolve user group and wildlife conflicts. The exclusion mapping process that the Louisiana program used is a very good example of that process.
We want to avoid disruption of historical and current human use patterns, primarily fishing. We want to avoid any detrimental harsh alterations to existing habitat, migration patterns or other wild-life behavior.
The program should also identify the target enhancements. On an individual project basis, the purpose of the reefs should be understood and defined prior to placement.
Purposes can include fisheries enhancements, habitat diversity, for safe havens for protected or regulated species. Planners need also to consider user accessibility. Public access or recognition of the benefits is important to maintaining program support.
It's also vital to minimize environmental risks which would be a clear site selection criteria, and clearly uncrafted areas need to be considered.
What does industry need to facilitate their participation? First and foremost, clear and unambiguous transfer and ownership and liability for donated material.
This is the single most important consideration for potential donors of artificial reef material. I can't overstate its importance. Donors of reef material cannot be placed in an untenable position of retaining liability for donated materials. Assumption of liability should be the clear responsibility of the reef permittee.
With that in mind, authority to assume liability for donated rigs in most cases, and I think for California, will require state legislation.
There must be a designated lead agency for program administration. There should be a clear assignment of authority and responsibility for the program. This designated agency should be responsible for permitting from start to finish.
This designated agency should also be responsible for any decision making or at least the management of that process.
And finally, the rigs to reefs program should be developed to have the flexibility to encourage innovative participation as the program evolves. The program should always been open to new opportunltles and be continuously evaluated for improvement.