[ckinchen]

Originally Posted by "W"

No that is not in all cases , it costs flight time and up keep to maintain a unused platform,, if it is a field with close by transportation is might be. But the ones we just pulled out needed millions of dollars of sand blasting and consturction to keep in compliance.

If you do not flow a platform for a certain # of years you have to remove it and 80% of oil companies agree and want to have removed
#1 cost money with no income
#2 have to visit so many days a week (on contract )
#3 have to do monthly compliance and Coast Guard
#4 if government finds any thing out of compliance can cost hefty fines in lump sum or each day!

Interesting, my clients would disagree. At the last OTC conference in Houston (your company was there), a big topic of discussion as it has been for the past several years was how much the Companies wanted something to be done about the federally mandated decommission rules for offshore platforms. That being said, like most subjects you know more than the experts.

As far as ocean life is concerned that is no vaild argument to be made that would support taking down the rigs, the rigs are a valuable reef resource in the gulf and taking down the rigs the way they are being taken down wihtout a doubt kills oceanic lifeforms.

As is always the case, when a subject comes up that in some small way crosses something that you do, you immediatley jump on the side that you think benefits you, however in this argument big oil and conservationist (not the ones that live in Washington) are on the same page, rig removal is not good for either party.