Page 107 - AlertDiver_Winter2013

www.alertdiver.com | 105
include the possible hazard to shipping and the potential for spills
or leaks from aging structures — risks that increase if platforms
are damaged or toppled by storms. Some environmental groups
also support removal as a way to return the Gulf to a more
natural state. But many divers, fishermen and scientists want to
keep these oases of life right where they are.
Rigs to Reefs
It’s possible to preserve these structures by officially
converting the platforms to artificial reefs. The process
requires approval by the DOI’s Bureau of Safety and
Environmental Enforcement, environmental review by the
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management and permits from the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Federally endorsed, state-run
rigs-to-reefs programs exist in Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi,
Alabama, Florida and California. These programs are funded
by donations from platform owners of an amount equivalent
to half of what removal would cost. To date, approximately
420 platforms (10 percent of those removed) have been
converted in the Gulf. Most were moved to a designated reef
site and dropped on the sea floor, although some were cut off
below the surface and left in place. In Texas, of 133 platforms
converted to reefs to date, only 34 were reefed in place, and
all of those were cut off at 85 feet or deeper.
Rigs to reefs isn’t a perfect solution. Offshore companies
say the lengthy process can be more trouble than it’s worth.
Many of the reefs are too deep for divers, while others lie
on silty bottom with poor visibility. Efforts are afoot to solve
these problems; these include two bills currently before
congress (see info box) and official requests by various
elected officials and interest groups to DOI Secretary Ken
Salazar requesting a moratorium on platform removal.
Treasures or Trash?
Standing platforms make the best dive sites because of their
vertical profiles. A prime example is High Island 389A, a
platform erected in 1989 that fell inside the Flower Garden
Banks National Marine Sanctuary (FGBNMS) when the
sanctuary was designated in 1992. In January 2012, 389A
went on the government list for removal.
Jesse Cancelmo, who first dived at the Flower Gardens in
1977, calls 389A a world-class artificial-reef dive. Cancelmo
chairs the FGBNMS sanctuary advisory council’s artificial-
reef working group, which is investigating alternatives to full
removal of platforms in the sanctuary. Proposed expansion
of the sanctuary could put several more platforms within
its boundaries. The working group recommended partial
removal of 389A: cutting the platform off 60 feet below the
surface — the depth at which natural reef in the sanctuary
begins. This would allow an additional 25 vertical feet of
structure compared to the depth (85 feet) at which rigs subject
to cutting are usually cut off. The sanctuary advisory council
endorsed that recommendation.
“We’ve always said we’re open to the reefing-in-place option,”
said G.P. Schmahl, sanctuary superintendent. “But there are
many issues, primarily financial and legal, that make it difficult.”
The platform owner doesn’t want the ongoing liability, and
Schmahl said the government doesn’t either. Putting 389A
under the Texas rigs-to-reefs program is one potential solution.
There are still negatives to leaving platforms in place,
however. “Platforms aren’t actually good habitat for coral,
and most of what is on them is invasive,” Schmahl said.
“Platforms are essentially vectors for invasive species.” While
other scientists agree that is true, some also say invasions
would happen with or without platforms.
A larger issue is that platforms will eventually corrode and
collapse. “We don’t know if that’s a problem,” Schmahl said,
“but from a management point of view, it’s an important
question. We also should be looking at the bigger picture of
marine spatial planning. How many platforms should we save?
Is it better to place them in aggregations in designated locations?
Those are some of the questions we need to answer.”
Cancelmo would like to see each individual platform assessed
for its value as marine habitat before removal. “We don’t have
a one-size-fits-all solution,” he said. “There are platforms out
there that probably don’t merit being left in place, but there
are many that do. As long as the structure poses no hazard
and liability can be adequately addressed, there’s no reason
whatsoever to not leave the platforms in place.” And, from a
diver’s perspective, there are plenty of reasons to do so. AD
Let your federal (and, if applicable,
state) representatives know these
structures are important to divers.
Two bills before Congress would
make decommissioning rules
more favorable to artificial reefing:
S1555, the Rigs to Reefs Habitat
Protection Act, and S3525, the
Sportsmen’s Act of 2012.
Go diving on an offshore platform.
You won’t be disappointed.
What can
you do?
JAMES WISEMAN CHRIS PARSONS