Every piece of structure spreads the pressure out.
Not in significant fashion... Look at the numbers yourself:
“An economic impact survey of SC artificial reef users was also completed which revealed that approximately 203,400 fishing trips were made to SC artificial reefs during the 2006 calendar year”
203,400 trips spread across 40 reefs = 5085 trips per reef…
Okay, let’s add in 10 oil rigs
203,400 trips across 40 reefs + 10 oil rigs = 4068 trips per artificial structure…
And that is assuming that people don’t ■■■■■ to the rigs. I would be willing to bet that they are hit harder than the reefs because of expectations…
~1000 trips less per structure is not significant? if you average that for 3 guys catching only BSB. 15 BSB per trip multiplied by 1000 = 15000 BSB per structure.
I still think the more the better. Spread out the structure and increase the fish.
Fishb8 (Fish Bait)
23 Sea Hunt “My Last Boat V”
If you can’t stand behind our soldiers, try standing in front of them.
I’ve worked and fished the offshore structures in the gulf. The fishing is great but the economic boost to the coastal area is the credential that makes it all worthwhile.
The rigs, helicopter services, crew boats, supply boats, tugs and an endless list of support outfits make the entire region what it is. Something near 120 active oil platforms and 600 additional support structures or abandoned rigs, both land and water based, produce more than just petroleum products.
I would welcome the drilling to the east coast emphatically.
“Chasin’ Tale” Pursuit 3400 Offshore Express
Twin Cummins
City Dock
Every piece of structure spreads the pressure out.
Not in significant fashion... Look at the numbers yourself:
“An economic impact survey of SC artificial reef users was also completed which revealed that approximately 203,400 fishing trips were made to SC artificial reefs during the 2006 calendar year”
203,400 trips spread across 40 reefs = 5085 trips per reef…
Okay, let’s add in 10 oil rigs
203,400 trips across 40 reefs + 10 oil rigs = 4068 trips per artificial structure…
And that is assuming that people don’t ■■■■■ to the rigs. I would be willing to bet that they are hit harder than the reefs because of expectations…
~1000 trips less per structure is not significant? if you average that for 3 guys catching only BSB. 15 BSB per trip multiplied by 1000 = 15000 BSB per structure.
I still think the more the better. Spread out the structure and increase the fish.
Fishb8 (Fish Bait)
23 Sea Hunt “My Last Boat V”
If you can’t stand behind our soldiers, try standing in front of them.
Again, that would still leave 4000 trips per structure EVERY YEAR. Do you honestly not think that is enough pressure to keep those fish pretty trimmed down? Have you ever bottom fished on one of our artificial r
1st, i rarely bottom fish(Phin owes me a trip though, so hope to learn alot).
2nd, we are in agreement here. More is better to spread the pressure. Yes hundreds would be better. but some is better than nothing.
Fishb8 (Fish Bait)
23 Sea Hunt “My Last Boat V”
If you can’t stand behind our soldiers, try standing in front of them.
1st, i rarely bottom fish(Phin owes me a trip though, so hope to learn alot).
2nd, we are in agreement here. More is better to spread the pressure. Yes hundreds would be better. but some is better than nothing.
Fishb8 (Fish Bait)
23 Sea Hunt “My Last Boat V”
If you can’t stand behind our soldiers, try standing in front of them.
Yes, assuming that they don't have to drill through any naturally productive structure (i.e. live bottoms).
I don't think that the argument is if they are good or bad for fish. I think that that argument is risk vs reward... We have a lot to lose and I question if the reward will be great enough to be worth that risk. Unlike the GOM, we have lots of natural live bottoms here that are hundreds of thousands of years old. If they got covered in tar, they could literally be ruined for ever. Not all oil rigs in the gulf are like the one that you posted. There are many oil rigs that don't carry near that amount of life on them.
Anyway, but since we are posting links, let me post one to remind what we are risking:
I don’t really see how people can have a strong opinion on this subject without asking where these oil rigs would be placed and what is the cost to the environment when building an oil rig in the proximity of naturally occuring live bottoms…
Again, if these things were well offshore, I think the reward vs risk ratio looks a lot better. If we are talking about putting these things from 40’ on out and scattered on the continental shelf, then I think I would strongly oppose…
As you can imagine, with the campaign, and headed to the legislature next year, I’m pretty involved in the latest economic initiatives for SC. I can almost promise you that you want see OIL platforms off our coast, barring some unforeseen discovery. However, I think gas platforms are a real possibility sometime in the next 10 years. Gas platforms, though they do drill into the bottom, don’t have near the possibilities for disaster that an oil platform does. I really don’t see a down side to gas drilling off of SC’s coast. The economic benefit alone is unbelievable, especially for coastal communities. If you don’t believe it, take a look at the 2.5% unemployment in gas drilling communities in the west. There are thousands of 18-30 year old high school graduates making over $1000.00 a day. I’ve spent a lot of time elk and deer hunting around those rigs in the west. Trust me, the wildlife don’t mind them.
As you can imagine, with the campaign, and headed to the legislature next year, I’m pretty involved in the latest economic initiatives for SC. I can almost promise you that you want see OIL platforms off our coast, barring some unforeseen discovery. However, I think gas platforms are a real possibility sometime in the next 10 years. Gas platforms, though they do drill into the bottom, don’t have near the possibilities for disaster that an oil platform does. I really don’t see a down side to gas drilling off of SC’s coast. The economic benefit alone is unbelievable, especially for coastal communities. If you don’t believe it, take a look at the 2.5% unemployment in gas drilling communities in the west. There are thousands of 18-30 year old high school graduates making over $1000.00 a day. I’ve spent a lot of time elk and deer hunting around those rigs in the west. Trust me, the wildlife don’t mind them.
Stephen Goldfinch
“Sleep When You’re Dead!”
Where would they be? They aren't very pretty either... Not arguing the economic benefit, but that's only 1 part of the story. Many things need to be considered.
The latest proposals (and only ones that will pass) only allow rigs beyond 10 NM from the coast. I don’t think seeing them from shore will be a problem. This whole stalling point by some people is a nonstarter. They’re so ugly and will ruin our tourism doesn’t fly when one can’t see them.
You can EASILY see them from 10 nm. I’ve seen the bridges in Charleston from 12nm out before on a clear day. Also, that put’s them right on top of our natural reefs. What kind of damage will it cause to our natural reefs when they bust through them to drill? That sand is going to re-settle somewhere. I think that 60nm is more reasonable. 10nm and they won’t be any more productive than our already existing artificial reefs. AJ’s, cuda’s, spadefish…
You can EASILY see them from 10 nm. I’ve seen the bridges in Charleston from 12nm out before on a clear day. Also, that put’s them right on top of our natural reefs. What kind of damage will it cause to our natural reefs when they bust through them to drill? That sand is going to re-settle somewhere. I think that 60nm is more reasonable. 10nm and they won’t be any more productive than our already existing artificial reefs. AJ’s, cuda’s, spadefish…
I didn’t say they were putting them at 10NM, I said the proposal allows them STARTING at 10NM. Most if not all the research I’ve seen shows the pockets of gas all sit at the break and beyond in deep water. I think we may be missing the forest for the trees here. Think about it like this: damage done (if any) to existing hard bottom will be mitigated or even replaced by the additional ecosystem built above. In other words, the net detriment, ecologically, is negligible. The net positive may include some better fishing, but the real key is the economic benefit. If we can honestly conclude that the ecological problems are negligible, we should push forward for the undeniable economic benefits. I’m no expert on the gas industry, but I don’t think I’ve ever heard of a natural gas “spill” or natural resources disaster as a result of natural gas. I know there are some theories on fracking and ground water, but is there any real proof of negative impacts of natural gas exploration in deep ocean environments?
Don’t underestimate the economic benefits of gas exploration. If its opened off our coast, each and every one of us will be affected. There will be need for helicopters, crew boats, freshwater, tools, welders, cooks, fuel, restaurants, hotels…and all this eventually trickles down to banks, lawyers, enginee
Our tradition is that of the first man who sneaked away to the creek when the tribe did not really need fish.
The bunny huggers have been pushing these for years…I guess the ugliness of these don’t matter, even though their cost to produce energy is nealy 4 times that of gas and coal production. They’re finally getting their wish. Georgetown is now asking the state to approve a testing facility just outside the jetty. It’s only 30 megawatt and will cost nearly $100 million. Seems like a lot of money for a research project. After all, that’s all it is, let’s get them up and try to improve the research until they become cost effective. Or is it that we have to regulate and demonize coal and gas until it’s so expensive that wind and algae actuall start looking viable? Hummm???
