Posted by Eric Frasco on May 18, 2001 at 12:22:38:
In Reply to: one possible oposition posted by JRM on May 18, 2001 at 09:39:10:
Craig, JRM:
Actually, United Anglers support SB1. In oppostion are a lot of environmental organizations and other organizations that seem to be little (if at all) affected by the bill such as the Surfrider Foundation (not to many surfers out at the rigs, dude!). Other opposers are fairly logical such as GOO (Get Oil Out - an organization founded in Santa Barbara 20 or 30 years ago after an oil spill of the SB coastline). Also most of the commercial fishing operations want them out so they can trawl (rape) the bottom - but you don't hear of any commercial fishing boats colliding with the rigs, they know exactly where they are and manage to avoid them now and will probably be able to avoid them in the future as long as they remember to use GPS navigation).
What seems to be at the root of the matter is the fact that the original lease charter which requires the oil companies to return the bottom to its original condition prior to the drilling. Back then, they did not anticipate the problems we are having with marine life, and they did not know that the rigs would become important artificial reefs.
I would welcome input from some of the organizations that oppose this bill, but it seems to me that at the root of the problem is that the perception that oil companies would benefit financially from this bill (think - would any corporation willingly pariticipate in something that did not benefit its interests either financially or in terms of public relations?).
Let's face it, there are just some mean spirited folks out there that want to punish the oil companies, even if it means eliminating a healthy and established ecosystem that has documented scientific evidence showing it benefits marine resources (artificial reef data).
About the only thing that could be considered detrimental to the environment is the "mud" that is pumped into the ground to force the oil out. In some cases, this "mud" was dumped on the ocean floor adjacent to the rig, and may have potential contaminants in it. But I think that removal of the "mud" or other remnants outside of the rig superstructure is an issue could be resolved in the wording of the bill.
As far as the salmon fishing bill is concerned, I may be able to find something out by next week, after the Nearshore Fishery Management Advisory Committee meeting. But due to the energy crisis, this years legislation will probably be occupied trying to resolve that issue and many other bills, especially marine related, will probably get tabled until next year.
-Eric-