Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
4 LEGAL I S SUES INTRODUCTION So far as removal of offshore platforms is concerned, the law seems clear, at least within the jurisdiction of the United States. The 1958 Convention on the Continental Shelf, a treaty to which the United States is party, states in paragraph 5 of Article 5: "Any installa- tions which are abandoned or disused must be entirely removed." The Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (1953) gives broad authority to the Secretary of the Interior to administer leasing of the outer continen- tal shelf (OCS) and to prescribe rules and regulations for the preven- tion of waste and conservation of the natural resources of the OCS. The Secretary has exercised that authority through regulations, OCS orders, and standard leasing terms. OCS Order No. 3 of January 1980 on "Plugging and Abandonment of Wells" requires that "all casing, wellhead equipment, and piling shall be removed to a depth of at least 5 meters (16 feet) below the ocean floor...." The Minerals Management Service (MMS) standard oil and gas lease (Form MMS-2005, August 1982) requires the lessee, within one year after lease termination, to "remove all devices, works and structures from the premises" in accordance with MMS regulations and orders. Complete removal is the rule that appears in the 19S8 convention. But what then? Removal, where required, is but one step toward ultimate disposition. As it stands in the United States today, the law places 1 imi tat ions on the di spas i t ion process . Transportat ion of the platform to final destination is governed by the rules of naviga- tion. Placement of the platform on the ocean floor requires one permit for disposal by dumping and another if the structure is to be used as an artificial reef. And, during and after the disposition process, one or more of the parties involved will probably be liable for damages should an innocent third party suffer harm. The disposi- tion process-is rich in legal issues and each one is potentially a centerpiece for controversy. At the United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea (LOS), convened in Geneva, Switzerland, for two months in 1958, the delegates adopted four treaties. In one of those, the Convention on the Con- tinental Shelf, appeared the sentence quoted in the first paragraph. In due course, with sufficient ratifications and acceptances, the 31
32 convention entered into force for many nation-states around the world Those States implemented the removal provision in various ways, not always so rigorously as the United States. As it turns out, some States allow for official discretion in making removal deci- sions. It is evident that discretion on removal broadens the options base for platform disposition. The Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, when considering a removal provision for the new LOS treaty, at first accepted the language of the 1958 convention with all its apparent certainty. By the time the conference accepted the LOS convention in final form, however, the removal provision had been transformed to allow some degree of discretion, and specified were factors to be taken into account in arriving at a removal dec i s ion. It may be debated whether th i s i s a change i n the law on removal or i s merely a restatement of the 1958 provision in light of state practice. Either way, the new provision is a departure from the hard-and fast complete removal policy presently in force in the United States. This sug- gests, at the least, that a reassessment of removal requirements in this country is appropriate, not only in light of developments in competing uses of the sea, but also to assure that no disadvantage befalls U. S. interests because of a unilaterally rigid policy. Offshore platforms, while actively engaged in exploration or production, obviously represent serious problems involving competing uses of the sea. Some solutions ad interim have been found, and lingering problems have been tolerated because of the utility of these structures in meeting society's energy needs. When usefulness in extracting oil or gas ends, however, new and subst an t i al j us t i f i c at i on is needed if the platforms are to be left, in whole or in part, on the seafloor. In this report, and in the wealth of literature on this subject, can be found sufficient evidence to conclude that substantial justification may exist in a given situation to leave all or part of a platform and its appendages on the seafloor, either in its original location or elsewhere. In other words, occasionally or even rarely it could be better, all things considered, to dispose of platforms at sea rather than br i ng i ng them ashore. Clearly, that possibility exists. What may be needed, therefore, for deciding on platform disposi- tion, is a sensible policy, reflected in rules and procedures , allowing discretionary decisions based on accepted criteria. The appropriate authority could decide the case-by-case merits, taking all factors into account. The rules and criteria to be applied should have the force of law, and it is highly desirable that they be the product of international agreement. Such matters are already the subject of treaty law, and international agreement on rules and criteria would promote uniformity in the interest of trade and commerce and protect the competitive position of U.S. industry. An intergovernmental organization exists, the International Maritime Organization (IMO), with the competence to develop rules and criteria. Fortunately, the United States has a strong voice in IMO, earned over years of substantial contributions to the work of the organization, and this would help assure a leadership role for the United States in developing a new system for managing disposition.
33 Th i s i ntroduc t i on has been both a look back and a look ahead, coupled wi th the sugges t i on that changes may be i n order . Next i t i s appropriate to examine more closely the options for disposition of offshore platforms in light of international and national law. THE OPTIONS Following is a restatement of the options for removing and disposing of offshore platforms organized in a way that facilitates identification of the legal issues involved. · Opt i on 1 . Complete removal from s i be, wi th j acket severed below the mudl i ne, and wi th all parts: (a) transported to shore for scrapping or reuse; (b) transported to approved site for ocean dumping; or (c) transported to approved site for use as artificial reef. · Option 2. Partial removal from site, with some parts left pro- jecting above the mudline, and with removed parts handled as in (a), (b), or (c) above. ~ Option 3. Toppling or dismantling in place. · Option 4. Leave on-site in the original upright position for use i n some c apacity other than gas or o i 1 explorat; on and produc t i on . This discussion will return to the options as set out above after consideration of applicable international and national law. The central question is this: What are the legal limitations on actions to be taken pursuant to disposition under each option? INTERNATIONAL LAW Conventional international law offers relet i vely 1 i t tle concern i ng the disposition of offshore platforms. While a number of treaties speak generally about rights and obligations pertaining to activities on and in the sea, only the 1958 Convention on the Continental Shelf contains a rule specifically dealing with what is to be done with a platform when its usefulness for exploration or exploitation has ended. That provision is found in Article 5, already quoted. To provide context, pertinent parts of Article S are as follows Article 5 1. The exploration of the continental shelf and the exploita- tion of its natural resources must not result in any unjustifi- able interference with navigation, fishing, or the conservation of the living resources of the sea, nor result in any inter- ference with fundamental oceanographic or other scientific research carried out with the intention of open publication.
34 2. Subject to the provisions of paragraphs 1 and 6 of this article, the coastal State is entitled to construct and main- tain or operate on the continental shelf installations and other devices necessary for its exploration and the exploita- tion of its natural resources, and to establish safety zones around such installations and devices, and to take in those zone measures necessary for their protection. 3. [Not quoted] 4. [Not quoted] 5. Due notice must be given of the construction of any such installations, and permanent means for giving warning of their presence must be maintained. Any installations which are abandoned or disused must be entirely removed [emphasis added]. 6. Neither the installations or devices, nor the safety zones around them, may be established where interference may be c aused to the use of recognized sea lanes es sent i al to i nter- national navigation. 7. The coastal State is obliged to undertake, in the safety zones, all appropriate measures for the protection of the 1 iving resources of the sea from harmful agents. 8 . [Not quoted ~ The provisions of Article S create a careful balance among competing uses of the sea as they may be affected by the presence of "installa- tions and other devices" on the shelf. Other articles in the conven- tion follow the same pattern: Article 2 recognizes the sovereign rights of the coastal State over the shelf while Article 3 safeguards the legal status of superjacent waters as high seas, and Article 4 protects the rights of other States to lay and maintain submarine cables and pipelines on the shelf. Paragraph 5 of Article 5 may be viewed in light of the balance clearly intended by the other provi- sions: the requirement to remove is absolute, mandating a return to the status guo ante because the justification for the obstruction, allowed only as an exception to the principle of freedom of the seas, has ceased to exist. Along these lines, one legal scholar, Professor E. D. Brown of the University of Wales, believes that the removal provision allows no room for flexibility: If there is to be scope for greater flexibility, it will have to result from a change in the law. Others disagree. Messrs. Peters and Soons and Ms. Zima of the Netherlands branch of the International Law Association raise a number of questions: What is meant by "installations"? When is an installation to be deemed "abandoned" or "di Bused"? What i s the significance of "entirely'? These three scholars conclude, pointing to State practice in justifica- tion, that the removal provision found in Article 5 has always allowed cons iderable room to exercise discretion, although the discretion of which they speak seems to be vested in government officials, not offshore operators.
35 These differences of scholarly opinion are mentioned mainly to show that the apparently unqualified terms of the removal provision are open to varying interpretations and to serious debate. This fact is further illustrated by State practice, to which this discussion turns next. State practice, as the term is used here, has to do with the way States party to the 1958 convention interpret treaty provisions as demonstrated by their implementation of them. Implementation may be through national legislation, bilateral treaties on similar subject matter, or industry practice as permitted or condoned by the State. Except In the Gulf of Mexico, actual removal of platforms has occurred very rarely around the world. Therefore ~ implementation must be judged not by what was done when removal decisions were made, but by expressions of policy on how the decisions will be made when the time comes. State practice is important when considering the removal provision of the 19S8 convention because it can lend weight to a particular interpretation of the provision, or it can indicate that the provision no longer is valid in its literal meaning. A review of the national legislation and regulatory programs of several Western European countries, together with a number of bilateral and multilateral treaties applicable in that region, discloses that complete removal is not generally required by national law. In fact, only one country (i.e., Netherlands) has a rule that directly reflects the convention provision. Some countries make provision for removal, but leave to government officials the extent to which removal must be effected. Other countries make no such provision, but grant broad discretion to officials to decide what measures should be taken when an installation is to be abandoned or disused. Typically, the other uses of the sea that could be affected by the installation are required to be taken into account in deciding what to do. This comparatively soft position originally taken in the 1960s and 1970s on a 1958 hard-line provision has been further qualified by official expressions of concern made in the 1980s. Government studies suggest that removal policies applicable to large installations on Europe's continental shelf are uncertain now and will remain so until the time for decisions is much closer. Furthermore, the questions of removal will be addressed in light of the economic consequences of removal that pertain today, as contrasted with those pertaining in 1958. The attitudes represented by state practice are indicators that a new and more flexible rule for removal is taking shape and gaining acceptance. This is confirmed by events at the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea before its adoption of the LOS treaty in 1982. The text Of the draft convention on the Law of the Sea that emerged from the tenth session of the conference in August 1981 contained a provision on removal of offshore installations in Article 60, entitled "Artificial Islands, Installations, and Structures in the Exclusive Economic Zone." This provision, paragraph 3 of the article, was almost identical to paragraph 5, Article S. of the 1958 Convention on the Continental Shelf; the changes that were made were merely to fit the context of Article 60, but the thrust on removal was unchanged. There
36 had been little discussion of this provision for the first several years of the conference, but in 1980 and 1981 concerns were raised about its implications--the provision was stated in unqualified terms, and no discretion in its implementation would be permitted no matter how minor the safety and pollution risks of leaving the installation in place or how major the expense of its removal. During the tenth session the British delegation proposed an amendment to paragraph 3 that was responsive to the concerns that had been raised. The Briti sh proposal gained support and became the focus of considerable discus- sion, although the draft removal provision produced by the tenth session was, as stated above, practically verbatim with the l9S8 convention. At ensuing sessions, however, the British formulation, after considerable debate and a number of amendments, gained wide support. It was adopted by the conference with the adoption of the LOS conven- tion. The final version of the article is as follows: Article 60 Artificial Islands, Installations, and Structures in the Exclus ive Economi c Zone I. In the exclusive economic zone, the coastal State shall have the exclus ive right to construct and to authorize and regulate the construction, operation, and use of: ~a) artificial islands; (b) installations and structures for the purposes provided for in Article 56 and other economic purposes; (c) installations and structures which may interfere with the exercise of the rights of the coastal State in the zone. 2. The coastal State shall have exclusive jurisdiction over such artificial islands, installations, or structures, including jurisdiction with regard to customs, fiscal, health, safety, and Mini Brat i on 1 aws and regulat i ons . 3. Due notice must be given of the construction of such artificial islands, installations, or structures, and permanent means for giving warning of their presence must be maintained. Any installations or structures which are abandoned or disused shall be removed to ensure safety of navigation, taking into account any generally accepted international standards estab- lished in this regard by the competent international organiza- tion. Such removal shall also have due regard to fishing, the protection of the marine environment, and the rights and duties of other States. Appropriate publicity shall be given to the depth, position, and dimensions of any installations or struc- tures not entirely removed. 4. The coastal State may, where necessary, establish reason- able safety zones around such artificial islands' installations, and structures in which it may take appropriate measures to ensure the safety both of navigation and of the artificial islands, installations, and structures.
37 5. [Not quoted] 6. All ships must respect these safety zones and shall comply with generally accepted international standards regarding navigation in the vicinity of artificial islands, installations, structures, and safety zones. 7. Artificial islands, installations, and structures and the safety zones around them may not be established where inter- ference may be caused to the use of recognized sea lanes essen- tial to international navigation. 8. [Not quoted] A full analysis of the meaning in all its aspects of paragraph 3 of Article 60 would require a searching appraisal of the debate surround- ing the adoption of the new formulation, including the reasons for acceptance or rej ect ion of each amendment that was offered. There wi 11 come a t ime when such an analys i s must be done, but, for now, i t should be suff ic lent to examine the paragraph and draw some con- clus ions about i ts princ ipal components as compared wi th the 1958 removal prov i s i on . The LOS provision is more flexible than its predecessor and invites consideration of the effects of leaving an installation on-site, in whole or in part, in reaching a decision on removal. Not all installations would need to be entirely removed; only those where the combined effect of a number of criteria or the crucial importance of one governing criterion make inescapable the decision to remove entirely. The criteria to be considered are specified: safety of navigation; fishing; protection of the marine environment; and the rights and duties of other States. The formulation seems to give safety of navigation a priority among these criteria, although an examination of the record of the treaty negotiations might support giving all equal weight. In any event, the provision contemplates generally accepted international standards to be applied in ensuring safety of navigation and cites the competent international organizations presumably IMO, to develop those standards. One can envisage an IMO code to meet this purpose, with gradations of area sensitivity based on traffic density, water depth, presence of natural and man-made hazards, and configuration of channels or sea lanes. Or IMO could devise a matrix of weighted factors, whereby individual candidates for removal could be assessed case-by-case. However approached, the goal would be objectivity in standards for safety of navigation, so that the pleas of special interests would not drive the decisions of coastal States having jurisdiction. This would not be the case, apparently, with the other criteria (i.e., fishing, marine environment, and other States) where governments would have wide discretionary latitude. This dichotomy is probably consistent with one of the main themes of the new LOS convention, under which coastal States have new-found rights in the Exclusive Economic Zone.
38 whether one argues that paragraph 3 of Article 60 is a newly minted provision of conventional international law or that the paragraph is for the most part ~ statement of emerging customary international law, the provi s ion i s cons i s tent wi th the argument that the 1958 removal provision cannot today be taken literally. The argument also finds support in state practice, discussed earlier. To the extent that the present U. S. policy of complete removal is based on the 1958 conven- tion's removal provision, this argument may be crucial in the quest for a more f lex i ble pal i cy . OCEAN DUMPING The law on ocean dumping is found both in conventional interna- tional law and in U.S. federal law. The two are closely linked and will be considered together here. The law is clear where disposition of offshore platforms is concerned; the discussion, therefore, will not be elaborate. The 1972 Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter was ratified by the United States in 1974 and entered into force in August 1975. Congress enacted the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act in October 1972, before the convention was open for signature. Title I of the act, which deals with ocean dumping, is consistent wi th and serves to implement the convention. The title was amended in 1974 to make this explicit. "Dumping" means the deliberate disposal at sea of wastes or other matter' and, in the words of the convention, "any deliberate disposal at sea of vessels, aircraft, platforms, or other man-made structures at sea." The convention categorizes certain materials through lists in two annexes: in Annex I are listed materials for which dumping is prohibited entirely and in Annex II are listed materials for which a special permit to dump is required. All other materials require a prior general permit. Under the U.S. implementing act, the Environ- mental Protection Agency (EPA) administers the ocean dumping permit program for all materials except dredged material (the permit program for dredged material is administered by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). 80th the convention and the act contemplate special permits for most instances of dumping, but allow for general permits under speci- fied circumstances. The act authorizes EPA to issue general permits for dumping specified materials and to set forth classes of materials for which permits may be issued and that are determined to have "minimal adverse environmental impact." Among the "substances and materials requiring special care" listed in Annex lI are "containers , scrap metal, and other bulky wastes liable to sink to the sea bottom which may present a serious obstacle to fishing or navigation. " This sounds as though offshore platforms
39 would constitute materials falling under the strictures of Annex II: special permit required and no general permit allowed. EPA long ago, however, issued a general permit for transportation and disposal of vessels. If vessels do not fall into the Annex II category, it would seem that platforms should not . Furthermore, at least one EPA official has suggested that platforms could qualify for a general permit if other criteria are met. Perhaps this is on the theory that, i f the water at the dump i ng s i te i s deep enough, even a large and bulky object like a platform would not be a serious obstacle to fishing or navigation. But the issue is clouded, and further research and analysis is in order if a general permit for platforms is to be sought. General permits aside, the detailed information and compelling arguments required to justify any permit constitute a serious challenge. The federal statute, buttressed by exacting regulations, lays out an arduous route to be followed in filing a permit applica- tion. The statement of the need for proposed dumping is especially crucial. One can conclude from the criteria, together with the pre- liminary attitudes expressed by EPA officials, that successful justi- fication of disposal of offshore platforms by dumping would require considerably more than data and arguments pertaining to costs. The 1982 Law of the Sea Convention takes its definition of dumping from the 1972 Ocean Dumping Convention. The LOS convention distills the main features of the 1972 convention into two relatively short articles that, on cursory inspection, seem intended to bring a large number of States into a uniform regulatory scheme for dumping rather than to supplant the more detailed and cohesive 1972 convention. The key point concerning platforms is that the LOS convention, just as the 1972 convention, requires that the dumping of platforms be controlled by coastal States. LAW IN THE UNITED STATES When all options are open to consideration, a profusion of federal statutes surrounds the subject of disposition of offshore platforms. The principal statutes follow, each with a functional description of provisions related to disposition: · Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA). The act gives the Department of the Interior broad authority to manage all aspects of the oil and gas leasing program on the OCS. It gives the Coast Guard authority to regulate in the interests of safety of life and property on OCS installations. The act extends to OCS installations the authority of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to prevent obstruction to navigation in U.S. navigable waters, established by the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. OCSLA applies the laws and jurisdiction of the United States to the OCS and installations attached to it, and to the
40 extent applicable and not inconsistent with federal law, the act applies the civil and criminal laws of each adjacent U.S. state. · Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972. The ocean dumping statute is discussed in the preceding section. · Ports and Waterways Safety Act. The act gives the Coast Guard broad authority to control marine traffic and designate fairways and traffic separation schemes. · National Fishing Enhancement Act of 1984. The act establishes net i anal s tandards for s i t i ng, cons t rue t i on, and man i tar i ng art i f i c i al reefs. It requires the Corps of Engineers to assure that title to reef material is unambiguous and that maintenance responsibility and financial ability to cover future liability is established. The act declares a permittee not liable if cause of damages or injury results from terms and conditions of permit and the permittee is in compliance. Many other provisions of federal law would apply to the family of alternatives for disposition of offshore platforms. The Coast Guard has the responsibility and enforcement powers to assure that obstacles to navigation are properly marked. Title III of OCSLA and other pollution liability and compensation laws prescribe strict liability for oil spill damage and clean-up. Navigation of the tug and tow laden wi th platform parts i s governed by the Regulat ions for Preventing Collisions at Sea and other rules with the force of law des i gned to enhance the safety of such operas ions and to protec t others navigating nearby. These requirements of law are noted here not only to fill in the picture somewhat, but also to emphasize that each step of any disposition alternative involves duties and obliga- tions and a consequent risk of liability under statute or regulation if those duties and obligations are not met. This sort of liability may involve payment of damages or a civil penalty, and, in certain instances, a criminal penalty may be involved. The alternatives for disposition also involve liability under the law of torts. To complicate the picture, state law (made applicable by the OCSLA) or admiralty and general maritime law may apply, depend- ing on the facts and circumstances in a particular case. If harm were to occur as the result of the presence of a platform, wherever and however located in the sea, tort principles of negligence, trespass, nuisance, and unseaworthiness might be relied upon by the injured party to bring suit against the owner of a platform or platform Lithe National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 requires an environmental impact statement (EIS) to be filed with "every recommendation or report on propos al s f or leg i s l at i on and other mad or f ederal ac t i ons s; gn i f i c antly affecting the quality of the human environment" [42 USC §4332 (C) ~ . Accordingly, any legislative or regulatory proposal substantially to alter the rules governing removal of offshore platforms would entail either preparation of an EIS by the sponsoring agency or a formal determination that no EIS is required.
41 materials in the appropriate court.* A previous owner of a platform could not be protected in all circumstances from becoming ~ defendant. This aspect of liability, i.e., liability after title has passed, is obviously of great concern to present owners of platforms as they contemplate the disposition alternatives. A statute such as the National Fishing Enhancement Act can help, but where a platform is left in place (in whole or in part), the terms and conditions of the artificial reef permit would need to be very specific and comprehensive to afford to the donor the protec- tion from liability contemplated by the act. In short, complete invulnerability in these circumstances to assertions of legal liability is virtually impossible to achieve. LEGAL LIMITATIONS ON PLATFORM DISPOSITION This review of legal issues leads to some general conclusions: 1. Any transportation of platform materials from the production site to another location involves observance of all applicable rules for safe navigation. (In this context, the term "transportation" includes removal operations on site and offloading operations at the new location. ) This obvious fact is important because risk of liability, as well as costs, attaches to transportation. The risk, as the costs, will be borne by the party holding title as well as by others associated with the move, unless contractually placed elsewhere through indemnification. 2. Where disposition of a platform is to be at sea and involves no new use, a dumping permit will be required from EPA. This will apply regardless of the locat ion of di sposal . 3. If platform materials are to be used as an artificial reef' a permit from the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers will be required. The Corps and the new owner will have to meet strict statutory require- ments before the permit may be issued. 4. Any disposition at sea will involve meeting two requirements set by the Coast Guard to protect the safety of navigation : (a) suf- ficient clearance between the surface of the sea and the highest projection above the seafloor, and (b) marking by suitable aids to sin Wyandotte Transportation Co . v. Uni ted States, 389 U. S . 191, 88 S. Ct. 379, 1967 AMC 2553 (1967), the Supreme Court rejected the argument that nonstatutory law establ i shes the rule that one who has negligently sunk a vessel (and, presumably, any other object) may abandon it and be insulated from all but in rem liability. The same principle would apply a fortiori where the sinking had been inten- tional. The Wyandotte case actually involved interpretation of 33 USCA 409. The annotation to that statutory provision provides interesting reading. The court's decision put an end to the principle that abandonment of a wreck terminates the risk of liability.
42 navigation as determined to be necessary according to the depth of the highest projection. 5. Any disposition at sea will have to meet Coast Guard requirements involving sufficient horizontal clearance from fairways and traffic separation schemes. 6. Existing international law as interpreted to be applicable to the United States requires complete removal of an installation at the conclusion of its useful economic life. Any means of disposition involving leaving a platform on-site, in whole or in part, without subsequent dedicated use will require either a change in applicable international law or an interpretation of international law that would allow a change in present U.S. requirements. 7. Owners of platforms and platform materials put to new use would be subject to liability under traditional tort principles. 8. Liability of former owners of platforms put to new use could occur in some circumstances. This residual liability will be difficult to avoid with certainty, even with protections afforded under federal statute. In light of these general conclusions, the legal limitations on the options for disposition are as follows - · Option 1. Complete removal from site, with jacket severed below the mudline, and with all parts: ( a) transported to shore for scrapping or reuse ( i ) risk of liability in connection with transportation (b) transported to approved site for dumping (i) risk of liability in connection with transportation (ii) dumping permi t required (c) transported to approved site for use as artificial reef i ~ risk of liability in connection with transportation (ii) permit required to place as artificial reef (iii) requirements for depth clearance, aids to navigation marking, and horizontal clearance from fairways and traffic separation systems (iv) principal and residual tort liability · Option 2. Partial removal from site, with some parts left pro- jecting above the mudline, and with parts that are removed handled as in (a), (b), or (c) above: (a) parts left on site (i) permit required either for dumping or artificial reef (ii) requirements for depth clearance, aids to navigation marking, and horizontal clearance from fairways and traff ic separat ion systems This requirement is enforced on the U.S. outer continental shelf by the Minerals Management Service of the Department of the Interior. It may be assumed that any new rules governing disposition would be similarly enforced as to the original installation site.
43 (iii) principal and residual tort liability (b) parts removed: see Option 1, (a)-(c) · Option 3. Toppling or dismantling in place: (a) permit required either for dumping or artificial reef (b) requirements for depth clearance, aids to navigation marking, and horizontal clearance from fairways and traffic separation systems (c) principal and residual tort liability · Option 4. Leave on-site in the original upright position for use in some capacity other than gas or oil exploration and production ~ a ~ Fermi t requ i red for art i f i c i al reef or, as appropr i ate, for other des ignated purpose ~ b ~ requ i remeets for a i ds to navi get i on marki ng and hor i zontal clearance from fairways and traffic separation systems (c) other requirements to safeguard life and property (d) principal and residual liability REFERENCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY Baer, Herbert R. 1979, 1985 . Admiralty Law of the Supreme Court. Charlottesville, Va.: the Michie Company. With 1985 Cumulative Supplement. Brown, E. D. 1982. "Decommissioning of offshore structures: Legal obligations under international and municipal law." Oil and Petro- chemical Pollution lilt. Collins, Patricia M. 1984. Liability Concerns in Artificial Reef Development. Draft report prepared for the Sport Fishing Institute, Washington D.C. Healy, Nicholas J., and David J. Sharp. 1974. Cases and Materials on Admiralty. St. Paul, Minnesota: West Publishing Company. Peters, Paul, Alfred H. A. Soons, and Luc ie A. Zima. 1983. Removal of Installations in the Exclusive Economic Zone. Report of the Netherlands Branch of the International Law Association. Convention on the Continental Shelf, 1958, 15 UST 472, TIAS 5578. Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, as Amended, 49 USC 1331 et seq. United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982. Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter, 1972, 26 UST 2406, TIAS 8165. Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, as amended, 33 USC 1401 et seq., 16 USC 1431 et seq. National Fishing Enhancement Act of 1984, P.L. 98-623. Ports and Waterways Safety Act , as amended, 33 USC 1221 et seq. Extracts from acts and regulations pertaining to continental shelf: Netherlands , United Kingdom, and Norway . Correspondence to Department of the Interior regarding (1) Notice of Interpretation by the Minerals Management Service of 30 CFR Part 2SO, published in Federal Register of July 8, 1983, and (2) Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking concerning removal of postproduction oil and gas platforms on the OCS, published in Federal Register of November 13, 1984.
. 44 Compilation of Laws Related to Mineral Resource Activities on the Outer Continental Shelf, Department of the Interior, January 1981 ( two volumes ~ . Compilation of Regulations Related to Mineral Resource Activities on the Outer Continental Shelf, Department of the Interior, January 1981 (two volumes). Letter from Tudor Davies, Director, Office of Marine and Estuarine Protection, EPA, to W. M. Benkert, Chairman, Committee on Disposition of Offshore Platforms, November 27, 1984. Regulations on ocean dumping, 40 CFR Chapter 1, Subchapter H. as pub- lished in Federal Register of January 11, 1977.
