Recent Developments

Current law requires owners of oil and gas rigs to remove their platforms within one year after production ceases, except in a few, limited circumstances.  Energy companies have long sought to avoid the costs of removing (also known as decommissioning) their existing platforms and in 2005 renewed their push in Congress and before federal regulatory agencies to change the law so that old, disused platforms around the country can be abandoned or sold for alternate uses such as fish farms:

•    In Fall 2005, Representative Richard Pombo (R-CA) introduced the House Resource Committee’s Fiscal Year 2006 Budget Reconciliation bill, which contained a so-called “rigs-to-reef” provision that would have allowed old oil and gas rigs to remain in place in federal waters even after production ceases so they can be used for other uses, including offshore fish farms.  Representative Frank Pallone  (D-NJ) condemned the measure at the time of the committee vote: 

“Another provision inserted without any serious legislative consideration . . .  allows oil and gas companies to get away with not properly cleaning up offshore rigs and instead would have them be used for aquaculture or other purposes. Coming from a state with a large number of commercial and recreational fishermen, I can tell you that offshore marine aquaculture especially at old oil rigs, is an incredibly controversial issue.”

The bill passed out of the Resources committee, but due to the controversy surrounding other provisions that lifted the current moratorium on oil and gas drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf, the rigs-to-corporate-fish-farming measure was stripped before it was voted on the House Floor.  Representative Pombo is expected to re-introduce his bill in Spring 2006

•    In December 2005, The Minerals Management Service (MMS) announced that it would propose rules for alternate uses on the Outer Continental Shelf platforms, including offshore fish farming.  Industry lobbyists have already suggested that MMS should permit offshore aquaculture on decommissioned oil and gas rigs.  Proposed rules are expected in Spring 2006.
  
•    In January 2006, the National Marine Fisheries Service  (NMFS) proposed rules that would designate 13 platforms in the Santa Barbara Channel as “Essential Fish Habitat” (EFH).  If this rule goes final, other federal regulatory agencies will be forced to entertain a long “consultation” process with NMFS before the platforms can be removed, putting pressure on these agencies to allow disused oil rigs in federal waters for other uses, such as offshore aquaculture or artificial reefs.  Final rules are expected in Spring 2006.

Problems with allowing Rigs-to-Corporate-Fish-Farms:

Rigs-to-Corporate-Fish-Farms would harm the environment, human health and the economies of local fishing communities.  Offshore aquaculture involves the raising of carnivorous finfish, such as cod, halibut and red snapper, in often large, crowded cages where fish waste and chemicals flush straight into the open ocean.  Water flowing out of fish farms carries excessive nutrients, metals, pesticides and other chemicals that pose potential harm to water quality and the environment.

Moreover, contaminants found in farm-raised fish may threaten public health.  Studies indicate that farm-raised salmon have higher levels of chemical contaminants than wild salmon, including higher levels of PCBs, a group of known carcinogens.  Antibiotics used in farm-raised salmon may also harm human health by contributing to microbial resistance. These concerns are relevant to the type of carnivorous finfish intended for offshore aquaculture.

Furthermore, while fish farming is touted as a way of reducing the pressure on depleted fishing populations, marine aquaculture’s feed requirements may actually increase these pressures due to a necessary diet of large quantities of fishmeal and fish oil.  Aquaculture off the U.S. coast could also harm the existing U.S. fishing industry by lowering prices for wild fish caught by U.S. fishermen.
   
Finally, there are particular problems in allowing offshore aquaculture on and around energy platforms.  For example, there are open questions of how to ensure the safety of the aquaculture structures and who assumes liability for personal injury, property and environmental damages that arise from the use of those structures and liability issues surrounding lease clearance.

Rigs-to-Corporate-Fish-Farms would be a give-away to oil and gas companies.  Energy companies could avoid paying the costs of removing their existing rigs (an estimated $9.9 billion from 1985-2020) if they are allowed to be abandoned or transferred.  These same oil companies are already making record profits at a time when consumers are paying record-high prices at the gas pump. 

Oil and gas rigs could be designated as a “reef,” even if they negatively impact the marine environment and wild-fish populations.   Contrary to industry arguments, not enough evidence exists to conclude that oil and gas platforms contribute to larger, healthier fish populations.  In fact, the best available science indicates that more research is needed.  Indeed, the Select Scientific Advisory Committee on Decommissioning, a body specifically commissioned “to explore[] possible marine ecological implications related to the decommissioning of California’s twenty-seven offshore oil production platforms” concluded that predicting the effects of leaving disused offshore oil and gas platforms in place is impossible given the current state of scientific knowledge. 

Energy platforms may have severe negative impacts on local fisheries.  Reports have established a connection between oil and gas rigs and elevated mercury levels in surrounding sediments and fish.
Moreover, energy platforms can cause environmental damage, and pose navigational hazards when they are affected by storms, such as the recent Hurricanes Rita and Katrina, which severely damaged several offshore oil platforms and resulted in several rigs reported as missing.

Current proposals are just plain unauthorized.  Nothing in existing law authorizes MMS or NMFS to allow energy companies to escape longstanding legally binding removal requirements by transferring platforms for alternative uses such as aquaculture.

The Artificial Reef Act (ARA) and subsequent regulations lay out the procedures for converting secondary-use materials, such as rigs, into artificial reefs.  MMS has long recognized the authority of the ARA, requiring, first, that decommissioned rigs become part of a State artificial reef program, and second, requiring the responsible State agency to obtain a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and accept title and liability for the structure.  Nothing provides MMS any new authority over artificial reefs.

NMFS’s proposal to designate oil rigs as EFH also impedes MMS’s legal obligation to enforce platforms’ existing removal requirements, and thus (among other reasons) it is contrary to the Magnuson-Stevens Act.