Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Removing oil platforms


  • Please log in to reply
7 replies to this topic

#1 tobyone

tobyone

    Triggerfish

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 33 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Orleans

Posted 09 December 2010 - 02:30 PM

I just found out that Main Pass 305 is gone. This was a very bio-diverse ecosystem with more density of life that any natural coral reef I have every dove. The 3800 rigs in the Gulf need to be assessed as to the biological value , many are established reefs with coral, sponges, and diverse invertebrate and fish life. Many should be left intact and in place. Check out www.ecorig.org for more info. The oil companies are responsible for many environmental negatives, but the oil platforms are positive.

#2 bvanant

bvanant

    Orca

  • Team Wetpixel
  • 1497 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Los Angeles (more or less)
  • Interests:Science, photography, travel

Posted 09 December 2010 - 03:36 PM

I just found out that Main Pass 305 is gone. This was a very bio-diverse ecosystem with more density of life that any natural coral reef I have every dove. The 3800 rigs in the Gulf need to be assessed as to the biological value , many are established reefs with coral, sponges, and diverse invertebrate and fish life. Many should be left intact and in place. Check out www.ecorig.org for more info. The oil companies are responsible for many environmental negatives, but the oil platforms are positive.

But it seems to be the "environmental lobby" that wants the rigs gone. That I suppose and the ongoing liability if someone drowns diving on the rig. My view here in CA is that the rigs are really important sources for pelagic larval species to find since they are the only vertical structure for many miles. I hope that the government can figure out how to leave the rigs (say cut off 30 feet down) when they are no longer producing.
Bill

Bill
Canon 7d, Nauticam, Lots of glass, Olympus OMD-EM5, Nauticam, 60 macro, 45 macro, 8 mm fisheye, Inon, S&S, Athena Strobes plus lots of fiddly bits.
www.blueviews.net


#3 Captain_Caveman

Captain_Caveman

    Wolf Eel

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 164 posts
  • Location:Riviera Maya, Mexico

Posted 10 December 2010 - 05:37 PM

I just found out that Main Pass 305 is gone. This was a very bio-diverse ecosystem with more density of life that any natural coral reef I have every dove. The 3800 rigs in the Gulf need to be assessed as to the biological value , many are established reefs with coral, sponges, and diverse invertebrate and fish life. Many should be left intact and in place. Check out www.ecorig.org for more info. The oil companies are responsible for many environmental negatives, but the oil platforms are positive.



Thanks for the post. I'd never even thought of the negative ecological consequences of moving these rigs.

I'll check out the link.

EDIT:

Link is www.ecorigs.org

Edited by Captain_Caveman, 10 December 2010 - 05:46 PM.


I use...

Canon 5d2
Aquatica Housing
8" Dome
Sigma 15mm
Sola lights





~ Canon 24-70 f/2.8 L - Canon 70-200 IS f/2.8 L - Canon 50 f/1.8 ~

~ Canon 350D - Canon G9 - Canon 430 EX ~

#4 davephdv

davephdv

    Doc Eyeballs

  • Senior Moderator
  • 2284 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Goleta CA

Posted 11 December 2010 - 11:41 PM


But it seems to be the "environmental lobby" that wants the rigs gone. That I suppose and the ongoing liability if someone drowns diving on the rig. My view here in CA is that the rigs are really important sources for pelagic larval species to find since they are the only vertical structure for many miles. I hope that the government can figure out how to leave the rigs (say cut off 30 feet down) when they are no longer producing.
Bill


I believe the "Rigs to reefs" bill was passed in CA. They have to cut them off at 60 ft to be safe to shipping.
Dave Burroughs, Nikon D300, D2X, Subal housing, DS160 strobes

Life is a beach and then you dive.

My Website


#5 dwashbur

dwashbur

    Damselfish

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 19 posts

Posted 13 December 2010 - 12:00 AM

We've had something similar going on up here in Puget Sound. The extremists have decided that any wooden structure or old pier is going to be leaking creosote into the water so they all have to be removed. There was a dive site known as Edmonds Oil Dock that was just about the most diverse and rich mini-ecosystem in the entire Sound. It hasn't been a working dock for ages, so it was just a very nice dive site. The powers that be decided it had to come out because it MIGHT still be leaching creosote into the water and threatening the underwater life. Now, nobody even bothered to test the water and see if there was actually any creosote left in the pilings, but what's that got to do with it? It was all politics. After it was ripped out, who knows how many invertebrates pointlessly destroyed, zillions of fish robbed of habitat, and the site turned into a barren wasteland, the truth came out: some rich folks in condos living on the hill above the site didn't want to look out their windows and see the old dock. And it didn't matter to them how much life was rubbed out or what was done to the actual ecosystem; they were going to have their nice view no matter what. And they got it. How? By tossing a few hot-button words at the environmental extremists and then sitting back and watching things snowball out of control.

There has to be a way to counter the extremists. As a diver, I'm an environmentalist. But you don't save an ecosystem by destroying it. As with so many other things in life, it's all about balance. But try telling that to the politicians.

#6 james

james

    The Engineer

  • Super Mod
  • 9969 posts
  • Location:Houston TX

Posted 13 December 2010 - 07:38 AM

Well shoot - glad to hear someone else is interested in this topic! I used to do this for a living.

The code of federal regulations requires that platforms "sometimes called rigs" be removed when they stop being used for producing oil, or accommodating pipeline tie-ins, etc. In fact, the current administration just passed a new rule speeding up the time period in which the rigs have to be removed :-(

It is possible to get a waiver to allow the rig to stay in the water as a reef, but only in some cases.

The IMO guidelines require 90' of clearance over the structure - so cutting it off at 30' is not allowed.

Cheers
James
Canon 1DsMkIII - Seacam Housing
Dual Ikelite Strobes
Photo site - www.reefpix.org

#7 tobyone

tobyone

    Triggerfish

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 33 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Orleans

Posted 13 December 2010 - 09:56 AM

Well shoot - glad to hear someone else is interested in this topic! I used to do this for a living.

The code of federal regulations requires that platforms "sometimes called rigs" be removed when they stop being used for producing oil, or accommodating pipeline tie-ins, etc. In fact, the current administration just passed a new rule speeding up the time period in which the rigs have to be removed :-(

It is possible to get a waiver to allow the rig to stay in the water as a reef, but only in some cases.

The IMO guidelines require 90' of clearance over the structure - so cutting it off at 30' is not allowed.

Cheers
James



The most productive area of the offshore platform is in the top 60 ft. Leave the platforms above the water line, so it does not become a submerged navigation object. In the GOM the only boats that have hit oil platforms(which are lighted and have audible warnings), the operators were asleep or drunk. Above the water they give off large radar targets and in the Gulf the are not in shipping lanes.

#8 tobyone

tobyone

    Triggerfish

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 33 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Orleans

Posted 13 December 2010 - 10:04 AM

I believe the "Rigs to reefs" bill was passed in CA. They have to cut them off at 60 ft to be safe to shipping.


There is also a rigs to reef program for the Gulf. Unfortunately the are destroying the life on an already established just to move it to another location. It would be like killing all the humans in a town and moving the structures someplace else to start another town. The removal of these platforms by explosives is not uncommon, the PROCESS of platform decommissioning is not eco-friendly. check out ecorigs.org and flickr.com/photos/tobyarmstrong to get a sense of the positive aspects of the platforms.