Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 66
8
ALTERNATIVE POLICIES FOR DISPOSING OF OFFSHORE PLATFORMS
As discussed in Chapter 4, the United States may have the
flexibility within international law to develop, adopt, and administer
rules for platform disposition that address the unique concerns of the
U.S. outer continental shelf (OCS), especially the large number of
aging platforms of relatively modest size in the Gulf of Mexico. In
summary terms, the rules or policy can take one of two alternative
forms: (1) The government can implement a literal interpretation of
the 19S8 Convention on the Continental Shelf and require that all
platforms be removed at the end of their useful life. Current U.S.
policy approximates this in that there have been very few exceptions
to this rule, and all exceptions have been specifically permitted
uses. (2) Alternatively, the government can implement a discretionary
policy, determining whether platforms should be kept or removed on a
case-by-case basis in accordance with accepted criteria. Such a
policy of coastal state discretion is consistent with one of the main
themes of the new Law of the Sea Convention, under which coastal
states have new-found rights in the exclusive economic zone.
Following is a summary assessment of the alternatives.
STRICT REMOVAL POLICY
A strict removal rule would be predictable in that it would
maintain the existing order. Moreover, it would be acceptable from
the maritime safety standpoint and also from the standpoint of naval
operations. User groups favoring strict removal will include
commercial fishermen who want to reestablish bottom areas for
trawling, as well as minimize any obstruction that could entangle
mid-water trawls, bottom longlines, trap gear, and other equipment. -
~ strict removal policy is not compatible with alternative uses of
platforms, such as fishing reefs for enhancement purposes. Also, some
platforms--up to 7 percent of the total (Categories IV and V)--will be
very costly to remove, while the public benefit from their removal is
marginal. Another factor arguing against a strict removal policy is
the fact that a few platforms, especially subsea template foundations
66
OCR for page 67
67
and North Sea-type concrete gravity-base structures, will be very
difficult to remove. A strict removal policy would generally
eliminate negotiated solutions and the economic efficiency they may
provide.
A DISCRETIONARY POLICY
Two approaches to a discretionary policy are suggested for the sake
of completeness. In the first approach, the government would empower
each owner to make his own removal decision. In the second, the
government would make decisions on the disposition of offshore
platforms on a case-by-case basis; it would require that some
platforms be removed and would allow others to be kept on the OCS i n
accordance with accepted guidelines.
Owner Discretion
With this alternat ive , platform removal decisions would be made by
the owner on an economic basis. The underlying assumption is that if
the location of the platform is deemed acceptable from navigation
safety, environmental, and naval operations standpoints at the time of
installation, then leaving the platform in place for an indeterminate
length of time is not a publ i c concern .
A policy of owner discretion runs counter to the state of practice
in the United States and other countries, as well as international
law. However, such a policy is conceivable in countries where the
government has significant ownership interests in offshore platforms.
A major difficulty with such a policy in the United States is that it
does not take into account public interests such as marine environ-
mental protection and safety.
The effect that such a policy would have is not clear. Since the
owners would still be liable for platforms, it is likely that many
platforms would continue to be removed. At best, the net effect of
the policy is unpredictability concerning platform removal. At worst,
there could be a proliferation of abandoned platforms, which could
adversely affect public safety. Ultimately, the government could
inherit a great deal of unwanted liability.
Government Discretion
This alternative calls for removal decisions to be made by the
government on a case-by-case basis. To be equitable, determinations
would have to be made in accordance with guidelines that would be
adopted in advance both nationally and internationally.
OCR for page 68
68
Such a policy of government discretion appears to be consistent
with the practice of other countries and emerging international law.
It would enable the dedication of platforms to alternate uses. It
would also allow exceptions to the complete removal to shore for a few
of the largest deep-water platforms, where few or no public benefits
would result.
For the majority of U.S. platforms--Categories I-III comprise 93
percent of the total--the ultimate disposition would still be removal
to shore because it is less costly to remove to shore than to address
the residual liability if the platform is left in place; it is
difficult to obtain permission for ocean draping; and there is a
paucity of opportunities for some alternative uses. Nevertheless,
this policy would likely result in a limited number of structures left
in place in whole or in part. This could have some negative effect on
navigation safety, naval operations, and commercial fishing. The
government would probably assume some additional responsibility and
perhaps liability by approving all or part of a structure to be left
in place. A concern is that some would view relief as a ''no-cost
break" for the oil industry. Furthermore, the relief might be
inequitably distributed, unless there were strict guidelines for
implementing the policy.
In assessing the case-by-case alternative, it is instructive to
consider what the guidelines for platform disposition decisions might
entail. Several criteria were suggested during the Law of the Sea
negotiations [Such removal shall have due regard to fishing, the
protection of the marine environment and the rights and duties of
other states. (Article 60, Law of the Sea Convention), but these are
hardly adequate for regulatory guidance. The committee's assessment
of issues points to the following guidelines for case-by-case decision
making:
· Presumption at the time of installation that platforms
installed on the OCS are to be removed unless the goverment, on the
basis of information available, deems otherwise.
· All steel structures in water depths less than 200 feet are to
be removed to shore unless they are dedicated to an alternative,
permi tted use ~ such as a f i sh i ng reef that conforms to the Nat i anal
Fi shins Enhancement Act of 1984) .
· Approvals of plans and designs for final disposition of all
other structures or parts thereof, including deep-water fixed steel
platforms, subsea template installations, and concrete platforms, are
to be established on a case-by-case basis, preferably at the time of
original approval for emplacement, with final decision on disposition
subject to review at the time of disposition. Consideration is to be
given to cost of removal versus public benefit of removal, ultimate
assumption of liability, safety and freedom of surf ace and subsurface
navigation, possible alternative uses, and potential interference with
other uses of the sea and seafloor. In any event, all platforms
should be removed to a depth sui table for the safety of surface
navigation, unless those portions of the structure above Iraq surface
or in the upper water column are permitted for another use.
OCR for page 69
A
69
With regard to implementation of this policy in the Gulf of Mexico,
an alternative for the largest fixed steel structures located far
offshore that would address engineering and cost concerns, legal and
safety issues, and possibly environmental considerations would be
removal to a depth sui table for safety of surface and subsurface
navigation; the removed structures could then be disposed of in a
designated ocean dump-site.
An alternat ive for subsea template foundat ions would be to reduce
their vertical profile with explosives, and then abandon them. If a
template foundation is abandoned in an area of bottom trawl fishing,
then level i ng or bur i al could be requ i red .
If case-by-case decision making is to work, some solution must be
found for the problem of tort liability. Complete removal of a
ashore removes the tort liability burden
completely from the owner. Complete removal and ocean dumping, given
faithful compliance with the EPA permit, has the same effect. None of
the other methods of disposition affords the same degree of protection
from continuing liability. This reduces their practical value as
alternatives, and impairs the effectiveness of case-by-case decision
making. Indemnification of former owners by the government is the
most effective means of addressing this problem.
platform with disposition
OCR for page 70
Representative terms from entire chapter:
removal policy
