Offshore Rig Is Environmental Asset?

An environmental group is offering to assume legal liability for diving or boating accidents at the artificial Belmont Island off Seal Beach, an obsolete oil drilling facility now slated for dismantling.

But the offer from Heal the Harbor, a Manhattan Beach-based organization, calls for ExxonMobil Corp. to put half the estimated $25 million to $30 million it is spending to remove the former oil production facility into a trust account.

It may have come too late.

The state Lands Commission in early December approved ExxonMobil Corp.’s plan, which calls for removing the island’s concrete and steel structures, as well as hauling 16,000 tons of quarry rock to the Bolsa Chica artificial reef about four miles off Huntington Beach.

Divers and sports fisherman had pleaded with the commission to leave at least part of the island intact because it acts as an artificial reef, attracting a multitude of marine life. The island, which sits about 1 1/2 miles offshore, was built in 1954. Oil production ceased there in 1995.

In a proposal sent to ExxonMobil four days after the commission’s decision, Heal the Harbor secretary Timothy A. Beck wrote that “Belmont Island is an environmentally productive asset and should be preserved.”

The group offered to assume ownership and legal liability if the company puts about $15 million in cash or ExxonMobil stock into a trust account for maintenance, liability and administration.

ExxonMobil spokesman Bob Davis declined comment on Heal the Harbor’s proposal, saying company officials plan to discuss it with the group early this month.

The proposal mimics projects in other oil-producing states, such as Texas, Florida and Louisiana, which have enacted legislation allowing conversion of obsolete oil rigs into artificial reefs. Oil companies in these states can save substantial sums when they are allowed to leave parts of the mammoth steel structures in the ocean, but they must put a portion of those savings into administrative trusts.

In California, no such measures exist. A controversial “rigs-to-reefs” proposal is expected to wind its way through the Legislature this month.

Some environmentalists say the proposal is merely a scheme by the oil industry to save millions of dollars while leaving trash in the ocean. But Beck disagreed, citing the existing marine life surrounding Belmont Island.

A July study for the State Lands Commission said the ecosystem supported by the island’s riprap habitat includes abundant gorgonian coral, mussels, sea stars, scallops, mollusks, bass and black croaker.

Belmont Island would be the first of dozens of oil production facilities slated for dismantling in the coming decades. But Davis said Belmont is different from traditional oil rigs.

While dismantling Belmont is expected to cost ExxonMobil up to $30 million, much of the money already has been spent on environmental studies, site assessments, dismantling the connecting onshore facility and capping the island’s 55 wells. Any saving from leaving parts of Belmont Island in place would be minimal, Davis said.

The U.S. Coast Guard also has navigational concerns over dismantling the island, which stands in 42 feet of water and is close to Long Beach Harbor and the Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station.

All that would be left would be a piling of quarry rock, and the cost difference between leaving the riprap in place or transporting it to Bolsa Chica Artificial Reef is negligible, Davis said.

Also, the July study said “removal of the ‘topsides,’ pilings and leveling the riprap to six to eight feet above the sea floor would likely reduce the diversity and abundance of the existing biological community.”

But Beck said allowing part of the island to remain in place could make up for environmental loss caused by dredging projects and other work in nearby estuaries. “We’re trying to restore the bio-productivity of harbor areas,” he said.

Paul Thayer, the State Lands Commission’s executive officer, said he had not heard of the proposal. Thorough financial, technical and legal reviews would have to take place before any such plan was approved, he said.

“This is the public’s land, so we want to make sure the liability and maintenance issues are adequately addressed,” he said. “We would look at whether the organization has the capability of assuming these responsibilities.”

Since the State Lands Commission already had approved the dismantling, ExxonMobil would have to request a permit amendment and appear before the commission again. Such plans also would have to be approved by the California Coastal Commission. The state Department of Fish and Game, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Coast Guard also would have a say.

ExxonMobil still needs Coastal Commission approval for the dismantling, which it expects to get this month or in February.

Meanwhile, debate is expected over the fate of all offshore oil rigs. Under the oil industry’s offshore oil leases, decommissioned rigs must be removed entirely, the wells capped and the sea floor restored to its natural condition.

But state Sen. Dede Alpert (D-Coronado) has sponsored a bill that would allow oil companies to leave parts of the rigs’ underwater steel structures in place. Oil companies would save millions of dollars in decommissioning costs but would have to pay substantial sums into a marine research endowment fund.

The California Endowment for Marine Preservation bill is scheduled to come before the Senate Natural Resources and Wildlife Committee on Jan. 11. The Legislature’s decision could determine the fate of seven oil platforms off Seal Beach and Huntington Beach that are slated to be decommissioned in coming decades, some as soon as 2005.

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

Island Rocks

Heal the Harbor, an environmental group, has offered to assume liability for accidents at the man-made Belmont Island, possibly eliminating ocncerns about leaving the oil facility’s rock-pile base intact, a move favored by divers and sports fishermen. Source: State Lands Commission