Government Appears to Prefer Complete Rig Removal

[Wookie]

Texas has a few rigs that are removed to a shallower clearance, but they require buoys. We never had to do any audible alarms. Buoys alone are eye-wateringly expensive to maintain, especially if they are deeper than 100' (thanks OSHA). We were only able to get that permission in areas where the water wasn't very deep and the structures were a long way from any shipping fairways.

I had this contract for a number of years. I cleaned every buoy quarterly, and changed buoys/lights as required, within a week of notification. TPWD spent hundreds of thousands for the service.

We weren't cheap.

 

[HalcyonDaze]

I used to be cheap (free) grad student labor for fish tagging/counting research on the E-series platforms off Huntington Beach; some of that work was specifically looking at which fish species use the upper ~100 ft of the platforms and would be affected by removing the upper 85 ft. Granted, for safety reasons 100 was our hard deck for diving (although I think one of the platforms we dove was only in 60 ft of water). Presumably they'd also have to factor in shooing away all the sealions that use the platforms as haulouts (and would present us with the risk of pinniped cannonballs, both of the high dive and excretory varieties).

The navigation and maintenance issue is the big sticking point to retaining them; unless topped at a depth where they wouldn't present an obstacle to deep draft shipping someone is going to be paying for the required aids to navigation it in perpetuity. The rig operators sure aren't eager to spring for that if the platforms aren't turning a profit. Heck, one of my clients in my current job is none too happy that they missed the part in some mitigation permits saying that they have to maintain relatively simple shoal markers in ~6 ft of water in perpetuity.

The ideal would be to convert the rigs to another profitable use; I know there have been some studies on the east coast at least to reuse them as bases for offshore wind turbines. Some of the more outlandish suggestions have been to repurpose them as resorts or casinos; I have a hard time seeing those raking in enough funding or having the kind of management to do proper maintenance.

 

[Ken Kurtis]

Re the money issue to maintain if anything's left above the waterline . . .

At least here is CA, the general proposal was that if it cost X to take a rig fully apart and that cost was to be born by the oil company, they would eave the rig in place and the state would take over, and pay 50% of X to a state fund for conservation and maintaining the left-over rig. And I generally remember hearing numbers like $10-20 million to take down a right.

Point is if the general rigs-to-reefs proposals are enacted, there's plenty of money there for maintenance should buoys, markers, etc., be required.

 

[Wookie]

Point is if the general rigs-to-reefs proposals are enacted, there's plenty of money there for maintenance should buoys, markers, etc., be required.

Who would do this maintenance? Forever.

Not the oil company, they want to be out of the rig business when it isn't making money. All that's left is a liability.

Not the state. They want it gone.

Not Ken Kurtis, he won't live forever, and when he's gone, who will take his place.

Who is responsible when the rig is dark and no one has made it out to change the bulb and Billy Boatowner slams it at 65 knots in the middle of the night? The State? The oil company? Ken Kurtis?

Rigs to reefs is a no-win situation unless you can get the Coast Guard to absolve you of responsibility. They will do that at 85 feet.

 

[covediver]

• No matter how a rig is reefed, (left in place, toppled) the above water structure is removed and the jacket cut down to a certain depth. Coastal aesthetics alone demands that the above water portion be removed.
• The government (MMS, BOEM, BSEE) has officially taken the position that the rigs must be removed and the bottom cleaned up around the bottom. These same agencies, BSEE and BOEM, have long advocated the advantage of a rigs to reef program, particularly in the Gulf of Mexico.
• The National Artificial Reef Program has established a framwork for rigs to reef with the flexibility to allow each state to tailor a program within the framework.
• The Federal government, through the DOI Environmental Studies Program, particularly in California has been reseaching the productivity and ecosystem services provided by the rigs. They even funded a demonstration project project to determine if rig organisms had particular biltechnology (aka marine natural products) potential. derived from the unique location characteristics. (Essentallly and open water steel pinnacle).

From a philosophical point of view,

• How long does an artificial reef have to be in place as a functioning micro ecosystem before it can be considered "real" or "natural."
• Do coastal recreational opportunites need to be preserved and expanded? Do rigs-to-reef provide such an opportunity? Could it become something similar to wreck alley in San Diego. (Is there any enthusiasm to continue or expand wreck alley?
• California environmental law requires mitigation of adverse environmental effects. Federal enviornmental laws are similar. The adverse environmental effects of rig removal has been recognized as a consequence of placing the rig. What is the appopriate mitigation for loss of ecosystem services that the rigs provide?
• California has an agressive program to create marine protect areas. The federal government has created a chain of national marine sanctuaries and marine refuges that enclose much of the California coast (mostly at their inception to keep offshore oil out of those areas). If preservation is the goal, how do reefed rigs fit in to those efforts? My experience with marine protected areas is that over time they become

I have not resided in California for 20 years and my trips to the state to visit and dive become less frequent. When I did live there, I dived the coast from Monterey to San Diego. I recall my first dive on the NOSC tower. It was a big and wonderful underwater jungle gym. My dive on the now-removed platforms off of summerland proved an even better experience. I would hope divers could still experience that.

 

[sea_ledford]

I had this contract for a number of years. I cleaned every buoy quarterly, and changed buoys/lights as required, within a week of notification. TPWD spent hundreds of thousands for the service.

We weren't cheap.

Actually, you were cheap. There were three or 4 companies (Spree included) that were "commercial-lite" divers; capable of following OSHA regulations and doing a perfectly acceptable job with what we needed. As far as I know now, there is maybe one left, and when I left TPWD 5 years ago, he was contemplating no longer doing the work. What will be left is full commercial dive companies that will be 100% surface supplied, with bids that include onsite dive barges and chambers, even though the depth doesn't require it. Their bids were in the $100k-150k PER BUOY range. Even though what was needed was scrubbing the chain down to 50 feet. We had 10 buoys needing (ideally) quarterly inspections/maintenance. That's $4 million/year. There is a reason NOAA does their own buoy maintenance.

 

[sea_ledford]

Re the money issue to maintain if anything's left above the waterline . . .

At least here is CA, the general proposal was that if it cost X to take a rig fully apart and that cost was to be born by the oil company, they would eave the rig in place and the state would take over, and pay 50% of X to a state fund for conservation and maintaining the left-over rig. And I generally remember hearing numbers like $10-20 million to take down a right.

Point is if the general rigs-to-reefs proposals are enacted, there's plenty of money there for maintenance should buoys, markers, etc., be required.

Yes, the 50% realized savings is how the reef programs are funded. The problem is no one knows how much it costs except the company doing the donation. We had third party people, with knowledge of the industry and process, develop worksheets to help with the process. But the donor can put whatever they want to make it look like the difference is only $250k, when in reality it is millions.

I went to a oil and gas conference workshop on pricing rig removals. This was an insiders meeting, cost to attend the conference was something like $3000/person just to walk in the door. The workshop was three hours long with probably 50-70 attendees, including people from the super major companies (BP, Shell, Connoco, etc). There was not a single dollar amount mentioned in the entire workshop.

The rigs that are left in Texas are mostly the deepest ones made before moving to floating platforms. They are in 600-1000 feet of water. The cost to remove them is going to be astronomical, even by O&G standards. There is literally one ship in the world that can do the work. I've suggested to my friends that are still in the Art Reef program, that the need to walk away from the first offer. I'm sure it'll be in the $1.5 to 2 million range, which seems like a lot of money so they will probably accept it, which will set to cost of the donation for the rest of them. In reality, they could ask for just about anything and the O&G company would have to take it. I suggested $20 million. It would still be a steal for the donor. $200 million is probably closer to half of the savings.

 

[Eric Sedletzky]

Cap off the pipeline then set charges at the base of the structure (or close to the base) and blow it up. Let the rig fall to the ocean floor and leave it to develop a deep water eco system.
Some of those are in 300’ of water.

 

[HalcyonDaze]

Cap off the pipeline then set charges at the base of the structure (or close to the base) and blow it up. Let the rig fall to the ocean floor and leave it to develop a deep water eco system.
Some of those are in 300’ of water.

Problem is the rigs are already a functioning artificial reef; blowing the bottom part and its inhabitants up and dropping the near-surface community to the depths is a bit rude.

 

[Eric Sedletzky]

Problem is the rigs are already a functioning artificial reef; blowing the bottom part and its inhabitants up and dropping the near-surface community to the depths is a bit rude.

But it will rebuild, probably within a year or two it would be just as encrusted with scallops and fish all over it.
Better than spending millions and completely removing it and having nothing but a big bill.