A US mandate threatens to destroy the world’s largest collection of artificial marine habitats in the Gulf of Mexico
By ordering the removal of roughly 650 idle oil and gas structures from the Gulf of Mexico over the next five years, the US Department of the Interior’s “idle iron mandate”, which came into effect in October 2010, threatens protected species that thrive in the artificial habitats these installations provide.
The rationale behind the mandate is that it is more efficient, financially and environmentally, to remove old installations and seal redundant oil wells than leave them open to storm damage with the risk of potential leaks. Storm damaged installations are more expensive and dangerous to remove.
But the mandate is in conflict with several US federal environmental laws, according to a report by Louisiana-based non-profit organisation EcoRigs.
Roughly 7bn marine invertebrates, many of which are protected species, and 37m fish will be wiped out over the next five years, as oil and gas operators scramble to comply with the mandate, says EcoRigs’ director and founder, Steve Kolian. This is due to both the use of explosives to cut the pilings, and the removal of the pilings themselves.
The mandate is “illegal, because it results in the mortality of protected organisms”, Kolian says, pointing out that the Magnuson-Stevens Act prohibits the removal of protected coral, hydrozoans and gorgonians from federal waters.
Further, the National Environmental Policy Act requires the federal government to describe the environmental impacts of the use of explosives and platform removal. But there is no evidence that the Bureau of Ocean and Energy Management (BOEMRE), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration fisheries service or the Gulf of Mexico Fisheries Management Council (Gulf Council) have carried out such an assessment, says the report.
Independent oil company Black Elk Energy has also picked up on the anomaly. “One law says I have to remove the platform, another says I can’t touch it. Therein lies the conflict and the need to make a change,” Black Elk chief executive John Hoffman recently told RigZone.
Dr Paul Sammarco, marine biologist at the Louisiana Universities Marine Consortium, has raised the issue with BOEMRE. “The laws are not in alignment,” he says.
Life-giving structures?
EcoRigs has long lobbied for the preservation of offshore platforms beyond their productive life on the grounds that they provide exceptional nursery habitats, refuge and food supplies for certain marine species. While BOEMRE points out that the mandate includes provisions for reefing structures, this involves toppling and towing the structure to a designated rig drop zone. But Kolian stresses that reefing a structure in this way causes 90% of the organisms to either perish, or move from the site.
He also says offshore platforms are a foundation on which to rebuild damaged fisheries in the Gulf of Mexico, which is still nursing the effects of last year’s BP Macondo well blow-out (that led to the Deepwater Horizon spill).
Ongoing research confirms that high levels of oil and toxic Corexit dispersant are still present in sediments, waters, seafood and biota in the Gulf following the incident that led to 783m litres of crude oil and 7m litres of dispersants being released into the water.
“The removal of platforms from the Gulf of Mexico will further stress fish populations contaminated by the Deepwater Horizon incident,” says Kolian. Rather than blasting 1,800 acres of coral reef habitat out of the water, Kolian suggests leveraging existing environmental laws to prevent the removal of offshore structures.