▶ 0:05:41Energy and minerals resources will come to order. Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare a recess of the subcommittee at any time under committee rule for any oral opening statement at hearings are limited to the chairman and the ranking minority member. I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from california, Mr. carbajal, be allowed to participate in today's hearing. Without objection, so ordered. I now recognize myself for an opening statement. Thank you all for being here today to discuss this important bipartisan bill.
▶ 0:06:09The united states is blessed with abundant natural resources, from oil and gas and the outer continental shelf to critical minerals in minnesota's vast duluth complex. We also benefit from the best environmental and labor standards in the world, allowing resource development vital to our national and economic security, to work in harmony with conservation, recreation, and other multiple uses.
▶ 0:06:33A prime example of this is seen in the gulf of america, where offshore oil and gas infrastructure has supported fisheries habitat growth for decades. Within months of an offshore rigs construction, marine life begins to gather on and around it. By the time a platform completes production, it has become a central part of the local marine ecosystem, hosting coral, various fish species and marine mammals, and more.
▶ 0:06:58In 1984, congress passed the national fishing enhancement act, which allows operators working with state and federal agencies to transform decommissioned rigs into artificial reefs. Notably, these existing structures would otherwise cost millions of dollars to build from scratch. Commonly known as rigs to reef initiative, this program provides wide benefits to gulf coast states and fishermen by creating thriving marine populations, while also providing critical funding for state conservation efforts.
▶ 0:07:31Although strong leadership from state governments has allowed hundreds of platforms to be successfully reefed in the gulf of america, unnecessary red tape at the federal level is preventing the rigs to reefs program from reaching its full potential. In fact, since 2000, most inactive oil rigs in the gulf waters have been fully removed, disrupting habitats that support billions of dollars in annual recreational fishing activity across the gulf coast states. H.r.
▶ 0:07:565745, the marine fisheries habitat protection act, introduced by my colleague representative ezelle, streamlines and clarifies the reefing process for oil and gas infrastructure in federal waters. The bill would codify the bureau of safety and environmental enforcement, or bessie, as the lead agency for the rigs to reefs program.
▶ 0:08:19Given bessie's expertise in decommissioning offshore energy infrastructure and administering the rigs to reef initiative, it is ideally situated to ensure these projects are carried out safely. H.r. 5745 would allow bessie, in consultation with the national oceanic and atmospheric administration and the coast guard, to oversee reefing of eligible oil and gas structures in federal waters within three years. When completing these conversations.
▶ 0:08:48Operators would be required to remove hydrocarbons, plug and abandoned wells, and comply with navigation safety requirements set out under existing law and regulations. This standardized process eliminates the need for lengthy, duplicative reviews across multiple federal agencies. The bill also makes it easier for states and operators to reef the structures in place, avoiding towing reefs to plan planning areas which could disrupt the marine ecosystem.
▶ 0:09:17Lastly, the bill codifies the long standing practice of allowing state reefing programs to assume liability for converting rigs. Once reefing activities are completed. I would like to commend my colleague, Mr. mike ezell for his strong bipartisan work on this legislation by allowing us to make the most out of our offshore infrastructure, from production to fisheries enhancement. This bill will deliver a strong win for gulf states and marine ecosystems.
▶ 0:09:41I look forward to hearing from our witnesses on this important bill, and will now yield to the ranking member for her opening statement. >> thank you, chair stauber, it's good to see you. I'm happy to be back for our first subcommittee hearing of 2026. Unfortunately, this bill falls into a pattern that we've seen before from the majority pushing legislation that they claim will have some benefit for the economy or our society.
▶ 0:10:08But no surprise, it's really yet another way to subsidize big oil and leave the taxpayer holding the bag. The united states is already the largest producer of oil and gas in the world, and yet american families are still struggling with utility bills and the cost of groceries. We cannot drill our way to affordability, so we're forced to look a layer deeper at the motives here.
▶ 0:10:31As a reminder, the oil industry spent lavishly on the campaign to elect the president, and they're cashing in. And before we get into the bill on the agenda today, I do need to address the elephant in the room. The president of the united states just illegally invaded venezuela and captured the president, albeit, of course, a brutal and illegitimate dictator, and seized the country's oil resources for profit.
▶ 0:10:57The president is now promising that the revenue from the stolen venezuelan oil is going to benefit the venezuelan and the american people. I'm sorry, promises are simply not enough. This is absolutely ripe for corruption. No guardrails, no guarantees for the people of venezuela or america. The only guarantee is that big oil corporations will have their way.
▶ 0:11:22It's been reported that the president hinted to the oil and gas industry that they should get ready for big changes in this country. President trump has even floated having taxpayers reimburse the oil companies for their ventures in the country. This is exactly in line with how this administration is treating america's resources, practically giving away our public resources to extractive industry, then making the american taxpayer pay their costs of doing business. In the context of today's hearing.
▶ 0:11:53H.r. 5745, the marine fisheries habitat protection act, would essentially allow for oil and gas companies to permanently leave their platforms and pipelines in the ocean. If the companies can demonstrate that there could be habitat at the platform sometime in the future. Decommissioning is actually blocked for at least several years. If there is even so much as a whiff of a fish swimming by, or if a coral polyp makes itself at home.
▶ 0:12:20The bill also allows pipelines to be considered artificial reefs for the first time. Many of these pipelines are supposed to be buried under the seafloor. How is that habitat? Now, there may be a time and place for rigs to reefs with proper environmental safeguards, and if it is truly the best outcome for all parties involved. But this bill is an extreme waiver of responsibilities already.
▶ 0:12:46Instead of paying to clean up their mess, oil and gas companies have shifted billions in cleanup costs to the american taxpayer. Right now, over 75% of end of lease and idle offshore infrastructure is overdue for decommissioning. That's thousands of wells, hundreds of platforms. The bureau of safety and environmental enforcement has allowed tens of thousands of miles of decommissioned pipeline to remain on the seafloor.
▶ 0:13:12And it's not as if these pipelines don't cause problems. As we'll hear in today's testimony, they impede essential coastal restoration work that creates other essential habitats. But the core issue is that when offshore oil and gas leases are issued, companies agree to fully clean up after themselves.
▶ 0:13:32But behind closed doors, they know that there's a strong chance they'll be able to get out of those obligations, whether by selling their bad platforms to companies that then go bankrupt, and passing the cost to the taxpayer, or just by idling the wells for years, hoping regulators will forget about them or pass a so-called rights to reefs bill like this. Companies are supposed to have financial assurances and bonds in place to help cover this cleanup, in case of bankruptcy or other inability to decommission.
▶ 0:13:59But according to the government accountability office, the department of interior holds only about 3.5 billion in bonds to cover 40 to 70 billion in estimated cleanup costs. If the oil companies don't pay for this. Guess who will? The taxpayers. Either through government bailouts or just by letting these companies pollute our oceans.
▶ 0:14:21And I'll add that these handouts for offshore oil and gas companies, as president trump continues his attacks on clean, reliable energy such as offshore wind. We don't need a so-called rigs to reefs program. That's a get out of decommissioning free card for big oil. We need strong safeguards to protect our federal resources and the taxpayer through policies that hold companies accountable for what they have already agreed to. Should be simple enough. I oppose h.r.
▶ 0:14:515745 and I yield back. >> I want to thank ranking member ansari for her statement. I will not yield to the distinguished chairman of the full committee, Mr. wasserman, for his opening statement. >> thank you, chairman stauber, for holding this important legislative hearing. And thank you to all the witnesses for being here today. I thought I had walked in on the wrong hearing, chairman stauber, because I thought this was a bipartisan issue.
▶ 0:15:16I know there's a great documentary out on the rigs to reefs program, uh, that features, um, at least one maybe. I think there's more democrat members of congress talking about what a great program it is, and marine biologists talking about how the, uh, gulf of america has the, uh, most flourishing coral reefs anywhere in the world because of, uh, the the structures that the rigs provide for coral to attach to.
▶ 0:15:46Uh, so hopefully as we go through the hearing, we can get better educated on the rigs to reef program and the benefits, uh, that it has and how it really is a win win situation where we can decommission, uh, old structures and create wonderful aquatic habitat when we do that. I'm obviously supportive of h.r. 5745, which does codify and build upon key elements of the rigs to reef initiative that's currently being implemented across the gulf of america.
▶ 0:16:14For decades, thousands of oil and gas platforms in the gulf have supported diverse marine life. Rather than haul back to shore and scrap this life giving infrastructure, local government, sportsmen and energy producers have worked together to safely turn energy infrastructure into permanent artificial reefs that support robust marine ecosystems.
▶ 0:16:35The bill builds on the existing processes to provide greater confidence for all parties involved, while bolstering the artificial reef programs across the gulf. As a fisherman who has spent a great deal of time fishing in the gulf of america, I've seen firsthand the benefits of these programs. The gulf of america coastal states response to the national fishing enhancement act of 1984 has been nothing short of outstanding.
▶ 0:17:02Ever since, the states have adopted the rigs to reef program, over 600 oil and gas platforms have been converted to artificial reefs. Every party involved has benefited from the rigs to reef program. Local anglers, divers and tourists enjoy some of the best fishing in the united states has to offer, while local governments use the donations from oil and gas producers to fund local education and coastal restoration, as well as other conservation efforts.
▶ 0:17:28On top of all that, energy producers reduce their operating expenses, ultimately lowering the cost of living for everyday americans, whether they live along the gulf coast or not. The marine fisheries habitat protection act builds on the existing programs functioning across the gulf, and further capitalizes on the benefits that offshore energy infrastructure provides to marine habitats. Since 2000, 60% of oil rigs in the gulf of america have been removed, causing disruption to habitats and harm to the fishing economy.
▶ 0:18:00Some anglers locking the gulf seafloor to a desert because it lacks natural structures and its muddy bottom, inhibits the growth of reefs, even while they're still functioning as active wells. Oil and gas infrastructure in the gulf create a type of oasis where all types of marine life can find refuge and flourish. As Mr. horton mentioned in his written testimony, these structures don't just gather life, they actually lead to increased aquatic populations.
▶ 0:18:27When we completely remove the infrastructure, we lose essential marine habitat, as well as the diverse economic benefits that accompany it. Mitigating this disruption is critical given the recent data from the american sport fishing association, which found that anglers in louisiana alone contribute $2.5 billion in economic output and support nearly 18,000 jobs. H.r.
▶ 0:18:475745 takes crucial steps to incentivize and strengthen the rigs to reef initiative, ensuring the continued conservation of marine habitats while safeguarding the economic lifelines of gulf communities. Uh, that they rely on, uh, specifically, this legislation codifies states authority to take on liability for oil and gas infrastructure for the purpose of reefing.
▶ 0:19:11It also sets clear timelines and federal jurisdiction for each step of the reefing approval process, while retaining state autonomy and promoting free market principles. Lastly, the bill streamlines the process for reefing in place, avoiding the need to tow structures to planning areas and further incentivizing operators to reef versus removing the structure which would harm the marine ecosystem.
▶ 0:19:34I once again want to thank the members, witnesses and public that have joined in this morning, and I'm looking forward to hearing more about how this piece of legislation will advance the objectives of the committee. And with that, I yield back. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. Uh, we'll now yield to the ranking member of the full committee, Mr. hoffman, for his opening statement. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. Before I begin, I do have a unanimous consent request. I'd like to enter into the record this recent article by time magazine.
▶ 0:20:02The title is climate and weather disasters cost the us $115 billion in 2025. It details how, um, these billion dollar disasters occurred on average every ten days in the last year. The cost of climate denial is without expensive and deadly. Thank you, Mr. chairman. I think I should have five minutes now. Thank you. Um, so if I could, Mr. chairman.
▶ 0:20:28Uh, let me let me explain the mystery to chairman westerman about the bipartisan issue. Uh, this is one of these issues that could be bipartisan. Absolutely. It's a little bit like permitting reform. Uh, when you take an issue that has all the potential to be bipartisan and you turn it into a naked giveaway to industry, it turns into something else. That is the trouble with the legislation we're discussing here today.
▶ 0:20:57Uh, it takes place as well, against a backdrop of the most favorable political environment for big oil that I can ever recall. It's beyond even their fondest wish list. It's been one giveaway after another for billionaire polluters, but not a single meaningful thing to solve the affordability crisis. And the bill on today's agenda could leave taxpayers footing the bill for even more of big oil's messes.
▶ 0:21:24Today, we hear a lot about creating habitat for fisheries, but h.r. 5745 is yet another thinly veiled giveaway it has already received. This industry has already received more favors, as I said, than I can count from this administration and republicans in congress. At some point, uh, you would hope enough would be enough. Um, there's no shame. There's no limits.
▶ 0:21:46The very first thing trump did this year was to go around congress and use the military for regime change in venezuela in order to grab their oil. He says that he'll personally oversee the proceeds. Uh, very promising, coming from a failed businessman with a bunch of bankruptcies under his belt and apparently the attempt to drag american oil companies along with him on this adventure didn't go so well.
▶ 0:22:13Uh, in the spectacle the other day, uh, in november, the president proposed opening nearly $1.3 billion billion acres of federal waters to new offshore drilling, including up and down the california coast, the whole west coast and every region of alaska, including previously protected areas, which are vital for subsistence fisheries and their ways of life up there, uh, even the eastern gulf of mexico. And no, I will not call it anything but the gulf of mexico.
▶ 0:22:43I've got to say, it is chilling and, um, just surreal to hear my colleagues call it something else over and over again. Uh, it is deeply delusional, but the gulf of mexico, um, that, uh, drilling is happening over the objections of republican senators from florida, california's floridians, many alaskans, gulf coast residents. They don't want this. But does trump care about what the american people want? Of course not. Where you drill, you spill.
▶ 0:23:15And we've seen this over and over. When the inevitable happens, it is pretty hard to get big oil to live up to their end of the bargain. The obligations to clean up after themselves. In the gulf of mexico, there are 2700 wells, 500 platforms, 18,000 miles of pipelines left in the ocean that are either overdue for decommissioning or have simply been allowed to languish on the sea floor. In california, we've got 23 offshore oil and gas platforms remaining in federal waters decades old.
▶ 0:23:45Eight of these are in the early stages of decommissioning. Several, uh, we're in fights with over who's supposed to pay for the cleanup now for platforms that are still producing. Production is declining rapidly. They're maintaining a marginal level of oil output simply because they don't want to pay to remove the rigs. But when these companies moved into our waters and started making all these money, all this money, that was the deal. Understanding the decommissioning is costly.
▶ 0:24:12In 2010, california passed a law that would allow, under very narrowly tailored circumstances, a rigs to reef uh, alternative cost savings would then be shared between the oil companies and the state, but liability would remain with the oil companies. And in 2023, uh, bessie published a record of decision for programmatic environmental impact statements that require full decommissioning of these california platforms as the best way to meet its legal obligation. Under axilla.
▶ 0:24:44Bessie was very careful about that. Uh, it would allow this only as a partial decommissioning if it was done in accordance with california's plan. The bill before us today upends all of that. It just throws the standards completely out the window. It would make reefing the default end of life option for offshore infrastructure, not just for rigs, but for pipelines, too. That is an unprecedented and an unstudied expansion of this concept. So this is a naked industry giveaway.
▶ 0:25:12Uh, it is past time for this committee, uh, and my friends across the aisle to, to get serious about the public interest in these conversations and not just more giveaways to big oil. And with that, I yield back. >> thank you.
▶ 0:25:29Uh, representative huffman, before I turn it over to the bill sponsor, I ask unanimous consent that the following academic paper from uc san diego titled rigs to reefs, uh, be entered into the record where it states, quote, our principal finding is that a well designed and efficiently implemented rigs to reefs program for california would likely result in direct and indirect benefits that far exceed the cost.
▶ 0:25:54Without objection, I will now begin our members panel to allow the bill sponsors to speak on this legislation, and I'll recognize representative from mississippi for his testimony on his bill. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. Uh, I'd like for everybody to take a look at this photo right here in south mississippi. We call that a honey hole. And that's what we like to do when we go out fishing. We like to go to the honey hole where all the fish are.
▶ 0:26:21So I just I'm proud to be able to introduce the marine fisheries habitat protection act. And thank you, uh, for the committee for working with me on this important legislation. It's a step forward in enhancing our marine fisheries and habitats along the gulf coast, while supporting the communities that depend on almost as soon as they are put in place, offshore oil and gas platforms become vital ecosystems that support diverse marine and provide strong fishing grounds for both
▶ 0:26:52Recreational and commercial fishermen. Rather than removing these structures entirely, this bill allows for their responsible conversion into artificial reefs, preserving habitat and strengthening coastal economies that rely on healthy fisheries. For mississippi and the gulf coast region of the united states, the gulf of america plays a vital role in fishing, recreational activity, and energy production.
▶ 0:27:16Recent data from the american sport fishing association found that anglers in mississippi contributed $2.5 billion in economic output and supported nearly 8000 jobs. Our communities know the importance of balancing stewardship and with livelihoods. Uh.
▶ 0:27:36This legislation ensures we conserve our natural resources while supporting the families, industries, and recreational and commercial fishers who rely on them every day. I'm proud that the marine fisheries habitat protection act takes a practical, science based approach to sustaining our gulf fisheries for generations to come, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to advance this common sense solution. And with that, Mr. chairman, I yield back. >> thank you very much, Mr.
▶ 0:28:06Mike ezell. Uh, we will now begin our second panel, which is comprised of one witness. Uh, let me remind the witness that under committee rules, they must limit the oral statements to five minutes, but their entire statement will appear in the hearing record. To begin your testimony, please press the on button on your microphone. We use timing lights. When you begin, the light will turn green. At the end of five minutes, the light will turn red and I will ask you to please complete your statement. I will allow the witnesses to testify before members questioning. Our witness for this panel is Mr. brian domain.
▶ 0:28:32He is the gulf of america regional director for the bureau of safety and environmental enforcement, and he is stationed in new orleans, louisiana. Mr. domingue, you are now recognized for five minutes. >> chairman, ranking member. Ansari and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today on h.r. 5745, the marine fisheries habitat protection act.
▶ 0:28:57My name is brian domingue, and I serve as the gulf of america regional director at the bureau of safety and environmental enforcement with the department of interior. I've been working for the department of interior for almost 30 years, with my entire career focused on energy development and operations, primarily in the oil and gas industry.
▶ 0:29:18Bessy's mission is to promote safety, protect the environment, and conserve offshore resources through regulatory oversight and enforcement of offshore energy activities on the outer continental shelf. In carrying out this mission, bessey administers safety and environmental compliance for offshore oil and gas operations, including the decommissioning of related wells, pipelines, and platforms.
▶ 0:29:43Offshore platforms can support complex marine ecosystems, providing hard substrate and vertical relief that are otherwise scarce in many offshore environments. In 1984, the national fishing enhancement act was enacted to address increased interest and participation in fishing at offshore oil and gas platforms and widespread support for effective artificial reef development by coastal states.
▶ 0:30:12The act recognizes the social and economic values in developing artificial reefs, establishes national standards for artificial reef development, provides for creation of a national artificial reef plan, and provides for establishment of a reef permitting system. Since then, bessey has supported and encouraged the reuse of obsolete oil and gas platforms as artificial reef material.
▶ 0:30:37Bessey performs comprehensive reviews of platform decommissioning proposals and coordinates with the state operators, valid in coordinates with the state and operators to validate that all requirements are met only when an operator decommissions proposals meets bessey's engineering environmental standards and a state acquires a us army, us army corps of engineers reef building permit is the operator granted approval to convert a platform
▶ 0:31:08Into an artificial reef. The three methods generally used for reefing are retired platform or partial removal, tow and place and topple in place. Hr 55,745 would amend the existing framework by introducing a detailed process for converting inactive oil and gas platforms and pipelines into artificial reefs, adding deadlines, liability transfer mechanisms, and federal prohibitions on removal orders during reefing.
▶ 0:31:38Eligibility assessments. The bill outlines eligibility criteria, inter-governmental consultation requirements, and processes to evaluate ecological and economic considerations. The bill aims to provide clarity and predictability for artificial reef decisions, with a particular emphasis on reefing platforms and pipelines in place.
▶ 0:32:01Bessey supports the intent of the bill, and would like to work with the sponsors on modifications to account for key coordination, implications and opportunities. Technical assistance would aim to clarify authorities liability and cost sharing timelines and enforcement, and in balancing habitat enhancement objectives with multiple uses of on the ocs to ensure safe, efficient and environmentally responsive reef safe and environmentally responsible reading practices.
▶ 0:32:32Bessey looks forward to working with the sponsor on this bill to help provide clarity and consistency for regulators, operators and coastal states considering alternative decommissioning options. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I'd be pleased to answer any of your questions you may have. >> thank you, Mr. domingue. Uh, the chair now recognizes members for five minutes of questioning, and I now recognize myself for five minutes. Mr.
▶ 0:32:57Domingue, how do laws and regulations currently on the books ensure that reef structures meet environmental and navigational safety requirements? >> thank you for your question. So at present, where it comes to the regulations on the books, we the standard through the regulations is to decommission by removal with the rigs program that was enacted many years ago.
▶ 0:33:24There is a departure, that process that we can go through, through the national reefing plan for an operator to apply for that permit for us to review and for the states to the states to be willing to take liability for the structure.
▶ 0:33:43The state acquires a rivers and harbor permit from the us army corps of engineers that the operator meets the standards for navigation through the us coast guard, and that it's required for the operator to meet bessie standards for environmental review and for engineering reviews before a structure would be allowed to be reefed in place, or. >> it has to be both state and federal standards. Okay. Mr.
▶ 0:34:14Domingue, do you believe codifying many of these existing practices, procedures and environmental standards through Mr. ezell's legislation will strengthen this? >> I think it will. >> in your experience, has the rigs to reefs program been utilized by administrations on both sides of the aisle? >> it has. >> and I think that, as the chairman westerman alluded to, this is a bipartisan piece of legislation.
▶ 0:34:44So this is not a republican or democrat program. This program has been embraced by presidential administrations on both sides aisle, of the as well as coastal state governments, no matter if they are controlled by democrats or republicans. Is that correct? >> yes, sir. It's been in place since the 80s and throughout my 30 years. It's been used consistently across every year since I've been in the agency.
▶ 0:35:08>> so while this is a largely successful bipartisan program, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle often gripe about the decommissioning liability in the gulf and elsewhere. How does the rigs to reefs program help bessie alleviate this liability? And what if it were done away with? Would that result in increased liability or decreased liability? >> thank you for the question.
▶ 0:35:36Um, when it comes to liability, I think often liability is confused with, um, cost effectiveness. So when an operator puts in a permit through bessie for the decommissioning of a structure through the rigs to reef program, that operator is a solvent operator looking for a solution to not only, uh, have that decommissioning operation be cost effective, but at the same time, it's looking to provide an ecosystem where the
▶ 0:36:08States feel the need for that structure to be housed in order to maintain fishing habitat. So it's really a win win in that the liability is passed to the state only after the facility has met the stringent economic and environmental considerations. >> so is that what Mr. ezell was talking about, his honey hole, where he goes right out to the structures? >> absolutely. >> thank you very much. Uh, and I yield back.
▶ 0:36:36I will now recognize, uh, Mr. huffman, uh, for his five minutes. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. Um, and thank you, Mr. deming. As you know, this administration is proposing opening up the waters of california, alaska, and the eastern gulf of mexico to significantly more offshore gas and oil development. Uh, this goes against the will of the congressional delegations in all of these regions, with the exception of alaska.
▶ 0:37:05And, uh, our constituents will, without a doubt, uh, feel very strongly about this. Uh, you putting their coastlines and their coastal economies at risk of environmental disaster.
▶ 0:37:17And, uh, while you were proposing this huge expansion, um, it is important to note that the administration is systematically dismantling the federal workforce, including the very people who will regulate and oversee these operations, like those within bessie. Um, and so, sir, uh, how many bessie staff currently serve? Let's start with the pacific region. How many staff do you have in the pacific region.
▶ 0:37:45>> as the gulf of america regional director? I don't have those numbers, sir. >> we can. We can call it whatever you like, whatever delusional term you like, but you don't have the numbers. I would love it if you could get back to me. Uh, on the pacific region. Let me ask about the alaska region. Uh, how many personnel do you have there? If you know. >> I do. >> not, I can tell you on that one it is four. The answer is four. To serve the entire alaska. Alaska is a big place. That's a lot of coastline we're talking about.
▶ 0:38:13Um, do you know how many lease sales uh, boem is proposing to conduct off the coast of alaska? >> I do not. >> the answer is 21, and that is 21 across every single region of alaska, including the sensitive arctic and vital areas to tribal communities like the bering sea.
▶ 0:38:31Now, bessie actually submitted a comment to boem, uh, on the five year plan, saying that any leasing program that does not address appropriations or staff required to supervise operations pursuant to each lease, um, the stuff that's necessary for due diligence and legal compliance, that that would be a strain, uh, to alaska ocs regional resources.
▶ 0:38:58We are talking about millions of acres of federal waters potentially sold off to the oil and gas industry. And these lease sales proceeding as planned, would be a disaster for the arctic. But letting them proceed without sufficient staff to protect safety and the environment, uh, is an even bigger disaster of epic proportions. Your own agency, sir, uh, has effectively said that, uh, I want to ask you about the rigs to reefs program.
▶ 0:39:26Um, and continuing on this point of agency capacity, has bessie assessed the additional workload and staffing strain that this bill would impose on the agency? >> thank you for the question. As far as the staffing, you know, again, I've been with the agency for 30 years. I'm extremely proud of the staff we have. >> have you assessed the staffing need for this?
▶ 0:39:50>> we where it stands for the staffing that we presently have, I'm convinced that this process would not put an undue burden on the staff of the gulf of america region. >> I'm sorry you feel like you have adequate staff or you haven't assessed it. I'm not understanding your answer. >> I'm saying that we definitely want to work with the sponsor to fully understand the new federal process, but the existing rigs to reef program, we have adequate staff to accommodate.
▶ 0:40:19This bill process. >> this bill would dramatically expand, uh, the program. Do you have enough staff for that? >> again, I appreciate the question, but as far as understanding entire federal process, I don't think that's well defined in the bill enough for me to tell you. >> it sounds like much analysis. Is that fair to say? >> I don't think you can make the analysis based off the information given. >> understood.
▶ 0:40:45Um, well, look, we've got a bill here that, um, there is an option for bessie and noah to avoid doing the ecosystem analysis themselves. If you don't have enough staff, this bill would allow you to have a third party do it. Notably, it would let the oil company themselves do it. Just go out there and check for the presence of species and habitat on each platform or pipeline. That's one of the naked giveaways in this bill.
▶ 0:41:12These companies do not work for the united states or the american people. Their primary motivation is to get out of there on the cheap. Um, there's also an indefinite pause on decommissioning while this becomes the default, uh, for these, uh, antiquated reefs. There is a new definition, uh, that gives significant leeway, uh, for whether a reef ecosystem exists.
▶ 0:41:37And all of this gets shunted off to state rigs, to reef programs without a single dollar in additional funding. Uh, for any of that to happen. Um, so I want to thank you for being here, but I think it's pretty clear that this bill, if it's going to proceed in a certainly in a bipartisan spirit, uh, needs a lot of work, and I would hope that our colleagues would start talking to democrats about how to get it back on the rails. I yield back. >> chairman recognizes, uh, the full committee chair, Mr.
▶ 0:42:08Westerman, for five minutes. >> thank you, chairman stauber. Uh, Mr. deming, uh, let's talk about a pipeline in the gulf. If a pipeline is going to be decommissioned, you just leave it full of oil and say we're done with it. >> thank you for your question. As far as decommissioning pipelines, we have standards and regulations that require that that pipeline be flushed and filled with initially.
▶ 0:42:34If it's going to be out of service for a period, it would be flushed with inhibited seawater. And then once it's decommissioned, it would be flushed to a certain volume with seawater prior to being decommissioned. >> so it's not just a pipeline full of oil on the bottom of the. >> no, sir, it is not. >> I didn't think so. Um, are you familiar with the alabama reef program, which I don't think any has any connection with the reef program?
▶ 0:43:08>> there are several states that participate in this rigs to reefs program, which so far have been alabama, louisiana, florida, texas. Um, so. >> I got a chance to go out with university of south alabama to, to count fish. And they were fishing on artificial reefs. I believe that program started in the 1950s where they, um, put some car bodies out in the ocean. Uh, they sunk ships out there. They put airplane bodies.
▶ 0:43:37They basically anything they can clean up and sink down the ocean to create, uh, reefs. And it's been a very, very successful program in building fish habitat. The reason I bring that up is because you have, uh, some people that realize the benefit of this are actually paying to haul stuff out in the ocean. And we have these offshore rigs that are already in the ocean.
▶ 0:44:00Uh, and it does it make sense to chop them down, haul them back to the shore, and then haul them back out and put them in place, or just to leave them where they're at. >> so thank you for the question.
▶ 0:44:15Um, it doesn't make a lot of sense when there's a situation where there's a motivated operator where they're able to meet the process through the state program, through the army corps of engineer, through the coast guard, when those situations exist and they can be placed in locations where it supports a thriving marine ecosystem, it makes perfect sense to do so.
▶ 0:44:43These facilities are ensured to be clean and free of hydrocarbons. The topsides from the platforms are removed and only the structural steel that is supporting marine growth and habitat is left when they're done. >> and how far below the surface are these structures, um, cut off to make sure that navigation is not impeded. >> typically that's 85ft, which is the us coast guard standard.
▶ 0:45:10>> so there's um, there's a lot of, um, coral that's already on these structures that because you're cutting them off so low, you're actually kind of destroying some of the habitat, but you're putting it back on the ocean floor so that can build back up. Is that how that works? >> absolutely. So the you know, when you look at a structure that's bottom founded like these, um, you know, let's just say they're in 300ft of water.
▶ 0:45:39You would have to cut a portion of that from the water surface to 85ft and place that on the side, or maybe tow it and place it in another site. It really depends on the state's involvement and where they choose to have their rig planning area or their reef planning area. And also it depends on whether or not it's been determined to be a, uh, whether it would hurt future uses of the ocs.
▶ 0:46:08We also do that evaluation. So where it's placed is dependent upon exactly what would be the best place for it to be, so to speak. >> and this isn't done just with bessie. It's in coordination with state agencies and other federal agencies. >> absolutely. The states with us coast guard, with the us army corps of engineers and other federal partners as well.
▶ 0:46:33>> so the I've never been diving around one of these platforms, but I've seen the videos and it's pretty amazing the amount of coral reef that's there. Uh, aren't we essentially destroying coral reef? If we take down this whole structure and tow it back into the to the shore? >> thank you for that question. Yes, it has to be towed in. Then the existing marine life on that structure would, would essentially go away and not be available for a marine habitat.
▶ 0:47:05>> and if it weren't on an oil rig, I'm guessing everybody would be up in arms if that much coral reef were, uh, were destroyed. I'm out of time. I yield back, Mr. chairman. >> thank you very much. I recognize ranking member ansari for her five minutes. >> thank you. Chair. Uh, Mr. thank you so much for your many years of service to the federal government. To start, would you be able to please provide us with an update on the number of idle structures and wells that are past due for decommissioning in the gulf of mexico? Just a number will do.
▶ 0:47:36>> I don't have an up to date number. You know that. Where it comes to idle, that number changes on a sometimes on a weekly basis. So be happy to get an accurate number. >> that would be great. I know. Um, according to the government accountability office, the most recent number I have is from june 2023. So a while ago, 2700 wells and 500 platforms were overdue for decommissioning in the gulf of mexico.
▶ 0:48:03Could you confirm how many miles of pipelines have been decommissioned in place on the seafloor? >> that's not a number I have today, but I could confirm it. >> according to a different report by the gao, bessie has allowed the offshore oil and gas industry to leave 97% of its pipelines on the seafloor when they're no longer in use. That's at least 18,000 miles of pipelines.
▶ 0:48:28The marine fisheries habitat protection act directs the approval of a rig to reef application for a platform or a pipeline if it has an established reef ecosystem. However, the definition is so extremely broad that any reef species found near a rig, even if it is merely passing by at the time of the survey, could be considered an established reef ecosystem. So, Mr. deming, would you agree that most, if not all, structures under this definition could be eligible for reefing?
▶ 0:49:00>> thank you for that question. As far as the program, bessie has environmental standards and engineering reviews. That portion of the process, which, you know, we if we go over the process again, the process is to have the state be willing to take liability for the structure.
▶ 0:49:21Having the state acquiring a harbors and river act permit from the us army corps of engineers, as well as the navigational standards for meeting the navigational standards for the us coast guard. And as part of that state process, the operator is reviewing with the state the likelihood that that facility will meet.
▶ 0:49:48Environmental standards for a fisheries habitat. So I could not agree with you that it would say that every structure would be qualified for the process, because my understanding of the process is, is the states review those structures for the likelihood that they will support a robust marine environment?
▶ 0:50:14>> well, I think my concern is, and I think it's pretty clear that this bill is meant to be as broad and as all encompassing as possible. So could you confirm in some cases, bessie has ordered the full decommissioning of pipelines in the past when they would obstruct things like dredging projects for sand resources, for coastal restoration. >> thank you for that question. So there is a sand sediment resource program.
▶ 0:50:38And when an operator may request for that pipeline to be decommissioned in place. But it's contrary to, say, a future use project like a sand sediment resource project. There are times when we have denied decommissioning that pipeline in place in order to support sand sediment resource. It is about future uses of the ocs, which include the sand sediment resource process.
▶ 0:51:08>> to clarify, the answer is yes. >> did you question your question? I thought you'd understand. I thought your question was to whether or not there's been times when a pipeline has been been required to be decommissioned by removal in lieu of decommissioning place because of programs like the sand sediment resource project. And that answer is yes. Okay. >> um, as far as I can tell, h.r.
▶ 0:51:355745 leaves no room for boem or bessie to say, maybe we shouldn't leave this infrastructure in place because it could interfere with other ocean users. The studies required by this bill are so one sided that we wouldn't even be able to determine what the harms of keeping these structures in place are, or the benefits of decommissioning. And the bill leaves no room for states or regulators to make a different decision down the line to require decommissioning, because the full liability and costs would be with the state and therefore the taxpayers.
▶ 0:52:04As I've said, this bill is an extreme waiver of responsibilities, which, if we were going to take it seriously at all, would need significant work to address these issues and ensure that it's not just a get out of decommissioning free card for the oil industry. Thank you I yield back. >> chair recognizes Mr. gosar for five minutes. Well, thank you, Mr. chairman. And contrary to popular belief, we do not have oceanfront property in arizona.
▶ 0:52:29But I applaud my colleague from mississippi for his common sense conservative bill that eases the regulatory burden on the energy industry and bolsters the health of aquatic ecosystems in the gulf of america. This bipartisan legislation takes a page out of the doge handbook and to reuse and recycle existing energy structures, instead of ripping them out of the ocean and disrupting aquatic habitats through common sense co-existence.
▶ 0:52:55The marine fisheries habitat protection act will one promote active, wise stewardship of of of the booming aquatic ecosystem in the gulf of mexico? Uh, bolster the local tax base of gulf states and uplift the fishing industry, reducing the united states reliance on foreign countries for seafood. In fact, nearly 80% of the us consumption of fish is imported from canada, chile, india, indonesia and vietnam.
▶ 0:53:24As this infrastructure reform demonstrates, mother nature heals itself. But congress can do more to streamline the permitting process for energy industry leaders that want to do their part in promoting the health of the gulf of america. Now, uh, question for you, what are these structures really, really made out of? >> thank you for that question.
▶ 0:53:49All of the bottom founded structures that would be part of a rigs to reefs program or structural steel. The you know, from. >> concrete, I take it. >> some, some concrete very rarely when you pin the facility to the sea floor, they use pin piles. Sometimes they'll they'll help anchored in place with cement. But very rarely will it be concrete. It'll mainly be structural steel.
▶ 0:54:19>> well, the structural steel now saltwater is very, very hard on steel. Right. >> it is. >> yeah. So this will become a reef. Now I'm kind of kind of, kind of going back to this, this reef beneficial are they not for whether. >> I'm sorry. Could you repeat the question? >> if you have a reef that's out there, it's helpful to a lot of weather incidents where it's now coming up to a shallow part. And so the storm kind of kind of kills, uh, is kind of deadened. Right.
▶ 0:54:49>> so yes, thank you for that question. In some instances, depending upon the depth of the reef planning area, it could have effects on the waves as a result of storms. >> gotcha. Now, would a program that involves, uh, the public be of beneficial to a program like this? Like, say, for example, if the public was really put back into the public limelight for land and the water, that the public could have a big say in it.
▶ 0:55:23>> thank you for that question. If I'm understanding your question, I think you're asking me how the public could benefit from this process, and certainly the public could benefit from this process in the fisheries. I mean, if you're from south louisiana, south mississippi or south texas, some of the best fishing in the world at this point is off of these structures. >> well, I'm kind of talking about my last bill, which actually takes 10% of all the proceeds off of public lands and public waters and puts it in the social security trust fund.
▶ 0:55:53So that's what I was after. Okay. Um. Well, with that, I'll go back. Thank you. The chair recognizes Mr. carbajal for five minutes. >> thank you, Mr. chairman and ranking member ansari, for the opportunity to join this subcommittee. Uh, or the committee, should I say, I'm sure Mr.
▶ 0:56:20Uh, I'm sure you are familiar with the sable offshore corporation, which is seeking to restart the las flores pipeline system off of the coast of santa barbara, the same pipeline involved in the 2015 refugio oil spill that released nearly 150,000 gallons of oil into some of the most biologically diverse regions on the west coast, which also had a major impact on our local economy. I know I was on the local board of supervisors back then.
▶ 0:56:49Last september, I sent to the department of the interior a letter cosigned by more than a dozen of my colleagues, including ranking member huffman, seeking clarification on bessie's role in the project and on the agency statement that the sable had restarted production despite lacking all required permits. To date, I have not received a response.
▶ 0:57:15Then, in december, phmsa assumed direct oversight of the pipeline, even though federal agencies had previously determined it should be regulated at the state level, citing what the administration had described as an energy emergency. Since I have not received a response, I'd like to ask you a few direct questions. What is bessie's current role in sable effort to restart the las flores pipeline system? >> thank you for that question, congressman.
▶ 0:57:45So I am the regional director for the for bessie, for the gulf of america region. I can generally talk to you today about process. And so when you're looking at the platforms associated, bessie does have an engineering review process for the platforms as well as an inspection protocol associated.
▶ 0:58:08So what I can tell you is, is that the normal process would be to inspect the facilities from wellhead to departing pipeline and ensure that all safety systems are prepared to sense abnormal conditions and be prepared to shut in the facility. That is standard process for bessie, whether that's in the gulf of america or off the coast of california.
▶ 0:58:35>> are you are you aware of those protocols have been followed to date. >> so I'm aware that the we call those pre-production inspections, and I'm aware that the facilities that you're talking about are going through that process for they'll go through that process before each platform is brought back online. So yes, they will they will achieve those inspections prior to each platform returning to service.
▶ 0:59:06>> but they have not occurred as of this date. Correct. >> um, my, my familiarity is that the platform that the first platform to come online did that inspections being completed and the others are at the follow. >> are you aware if sable has restarted their production to date by the end of the year, that just, uh, came and went? >> I cannot confirm that today.
▶ 0:59:36>> thank you. Um, are you aware as of last week, a federal judge reaffirmed that sable remained under the injunction prohibiting the pipeline from resuming operations. >> I am not. >> thank you. I see you're not as familiar with this issue as I had hoped you'd be. Uh, Mr.
▶ 0:59:58Domingo, turning to decommissioning in 2010, california enacted a law allowing limited rigs to reef decommissioning while requiring that liability remain with the oil and gas companies. That policy policy has not been popular with big oil, but it reflects the reality that the pacific region is very different from the gulf of mexico.
▶ 1:00:20We have far fewer offshore platforms, they are more widely spaced, and california already operates in artificial reefs program for recreational fishing that is entirely separate from oil and gas. So let me ask you another question. Do you believe the federal government should dictate how california manages its own reef program? >> thank you for that question.
▶ 1:00:52Honestly, I had not contemplated that question, so I don't have an opinion on it. >> thank you. Um, at the end of the day, uh, if big oil doesn't want to maintain liability, they could simply take their platforms and pipelines out of the water as they committed to the american people. When they develop these infrastructure items. Um, thank you very much. I wish I had better answers, but I appreciate you being here.
▶ 1:01:22With that, I'll yield back. >> thank you very much. The chair recognizes representative craig for his five minutes. Thank you, Mr. chairman. Uh, the marine fisheries habitat protection act updates existing law to ensure the decommissioning offshore infrastructure in the gulf does not mean losing the thriving underwater ecosystems that have grown up around these structures. And these are ecosystems that are critically important to gulf anglers and coastal communities. As my colleague Mr.
▶ 1:01:52Easel, uh, suggested, over decades, offshore rigs in the gulf of america have become some of the most productive and popular fishing spots in the region. These structures support complex habitat, uh, increase biodiversity, and they sustain the abundant sport fishing populations that recreational anglers rely on. This is not speculation. It's backed by science.
▶ 1:02:18A california study found that oil platforms off the west coast are among the most productive marine fish habitats, functioning as artificial reefs throughout the water column and research conducted by california state university, um has, uh shown that the traditional decommissioning causes a massive loss of fish life in the immediate area and destroys habitat that marine life has
▶ 1:02:49Been building for decades. Yet despite this evidence, environmental groups in california continue to pursue blanket removal of these structures without fully considering the environmental benefits they provide once they're no longer producing. And to be clear, this bill does not force california to participate. But california's experience shows what's at stake.
▶ 1:03:13By choosing blanket removal, they're missing an opportunity to preserve proven habitat and fisheries that gulf states are working to protect through science based policy. Opponents of this legislation, some of whom we'll hear from later today, argue that leaving these structures in place causes environmental harm or creates a loophole for oil and gas companies to avoid decommissioning. That argument ignores what the bill actually does.
▶ 1:03:43The bill does not shortcut the process. It strengthens the process. It enhances coordination between federal and state partners, and it applies only to eligible structures. And it ensures science based review before any reef, uh or reefing decisions are made. Um, director uh does anything in this bill shortcut existing environmental review or in your view, increase the environmental risk posed by these structures?
▶ 1:04:15>> thank you for that question. So the rig in reviewing this bill and knowing about the existing rigs to reef process that we go through, it appears to me that all of the reviews that are conducted now will continue to be conducted through this new process.
▶ 1:04:35So where it comes to, at least in the gulf of america, where it comes to the states performing their reviews, states receiving a rivers and harbors permit from the us engineers, the us coast guard rules for navigation, as well as the best engineering and environmental rules. All of those stay in place, so I haven't seen anything that is contrary to the existing process.
▶ 1:05:04>> so at the end of the day, this bill ensures that responsible decommissioning doesn't come at the expense of the fishery resources and access that gulf sportsmen depend on. The rigs to reef program is critical for gulf states economies, and they can continue to be a blueprint for other states with aging offshore assets. Uh, do you agree with that? >> I agree great. >> thank you, Mr. chair. >> gentleman. Yield. >> yes. >> Mr. josh harder. Yeah.
▶ 1:05:32So one of the questions I had is if science adapts, right. So if you start a program and under one auspice and then the science changes where you actually can make it better, you probably want to do that through science, right. >> but thank you for the question. If I understand your question is is constantly is science constantly evolving? And would we evaluate those situations as they evolve? That answer would be yes.
▶ 1:06:03>> yeah. So I guess my question was, was our research under attack supposedly under the around the world. So the increased appetite for building reefs would actually help us. Right. >> I'm sorry. Could you repeat that? >> yeah. We're losing our reefs because they're under a lot of problems with, uh, some of the, like the great barrier reef. They're losing some of that aspect. So building reefs actually helps us, does it not?
▶ 1:06:28>> I would agree, as a, as a former scuba diver and whose dove on these, these reefs and these rigs, the abundance of sea life is is evident. And any opportunity we get to build a reef from structural material that is free of hydrocarbons and chemicals is a is a win win in my opinion. >> thank you, I yield back. >> thank you, Mr. chair. >> thank you very much. If there are no further questions, representative. >> five minutes. Thank you, Mr. chair. Thank you for the indulgence.
▶ 1:06:57Um, just reading both sides of this argument, I represent a coastal community along the chesapeake bay. You might be familiar with mallows bay marine sanctuary, where? Who knows when or what, or who sunk a whole bunch of world war two vessels in the chesapeake bay. Luckily, it turned out well. We have a flourishing, um, fish population and is now a designated marine sanctuary. It turned out well, but that was a lot of of, frankly, luck, um, and a lot of conservation efforts. I just want to follow up on Mr.
▶ 1:07:27Carvajal's question, sir, about this bill. If it were to pass superseding state law, particularly california, who went ahead in 2010 and passed additional regulations on these types of projects, can you please speak to whether if this were to pass in this case, california's law would be null and void. >> thank you for that question.
▶ 1:07:51My read of the bill as it stands now is that there is there is an additional federal process, but I don't read the bill as preventing through the the national reefing plan, taking away at least the states responsibilities and the states ability to take liability for that structure.
▶ 1:08:14And I could have read it wrong, but my my read on it is, is that the national program is still in existence with new reviews such as economic reviews and ecological reviews, but I didn't read it to be taking away the the coastal states ability to implement their their processes.
▶ 1:08:36>> I appreciate it, but your language, while it sounds positive, is not, uh, as strong as I personally need it to be in terms of having affirmative language in this bill, that it would not supersede state law. And so I'm not sure, Mr. chair, who we could work with to include that provision, but I think it's in terms of representing a coastal community, it's very important that we still honor positive state laws that have additional environmental protections. If we're going to make this drastic step. And with that, I yield back. >> thank you very much.
▶ 1:09:05Um, if there are no further questions, we will now move on to the third panel. I want to thank Mr. domain for, uh, for his valuable testimony today. Uh, you are now dismissed, sir. Uh, while the clerk resets our witness table, I will remind the witnesses that under committee rules, they must limit their oral statements to five minutes. But their entire statement will appear in the hearing record.
▶ 1:09:27I'd also like to remind our witnesses of the timing lights, which will turn red at the end of your five minute statement, and to please remember to turn on your microphone. As with the second panel, I will allow all witnesses to testify before members questioning.
▶ 1:10:07All right. It looks like we're all set. Our first witness of this panel is doctor greg stuntz. He is the senior executive director of the heart research institute at texas a&m university in corpus christi, texas. Doctor stuntz, you are now recognized for five minutes. >> thank you.
▶ 1:10:25Chairman, ranking member ansari and members of the subcommittee, I'm pleased to appear before you today to discuss scientific discoveries as they relate to the reef program and in general, oil and gas infrastructures, artificial reefs in the gulf of america. My name is greg stunz.
▶ 1:10:40I'm the senior executive director at the heart research institute at texas a&m university, corpus christi, and I hold the academic ranks of regents professor, endowed chair, and professor of marine biology, a large research component of our marine science institute involves investigations into rigs to reefs as they represent the dominant structured habitat in the western gulf of mexico and serve as ecological hotspots and very important fishing grounds.
▶ 1:11:07Overall, our science, along with research investigations of many of my colleagues, is showing that rigs to reefs are of high value in supporting and enhancing our marine fisheries resources. Interestingly, our science is simply refining and validating what we have long known structured habitat in an otherwise featureless bottom enhances fisheries productivity. Early fishermen recognized that sunken vessels and a variety of other materials on the seafloor are quickly colonized and become flourishing ecosystems.
▶ 1:11:37Directed artificial reef construction began in the early 1800s and has expanded to modern programs across the gulf states and beyond. Thus, we are not talking about a new concept, but rather how we can use science to inform and maximize the effectiveness of an abundance of reefing opportunities we have with the rigs to reef program, our research teams and colleagues involved with habitat restoration are routinely faced with limited resources, particularly materials for substrate needed for reefing,
▶ 1:12:08And this represents the major bottleneck. However, that is not the case for rigs to reefs. We have billions in infrastructure readily available in place for reefing and capitalizing on the existing opportunity provided by these platforms is a win for all parties and an opportunity we should not miss.
▶ 1:12:24Scientific information regarding rigs to reefs has been relatively sparse, however, just in the last few years, congress has appropriated over 20 million in research funding for three seminal studies to better understand the value of artificial reefs. With this extraordinary level of funding, today's scientists are equipped with robust resources in the latest technologies to further rigs to reefs science.
▶ 1:12:47These new data are showing that these artificial structures represent important fisheries habitat and are major economic drivers that would otherwise not exist if it weren't for these structures. A central question is how do these structures perform in relation to mother nature or natural bottom habitat? And I'm pleased to report that in every parameter we use to measure success, we see that artificial reefs perform at least as well or better than natural habitat.
▶ 1:13:16Certainly no discussion on this topic would be complete without addressing the pervasive yet obsolete attraction versus production argument. The scientific community is well beyond this particular debate. Nevertheless, this criticism still exists that being new structures simply redistribute and attract what is already there versus actually produce new additional fish. Recent scientists.
▶ 1:13:39Science shows that artificial reef, including rigs to reefs, function synergistically to both attract and enhance production of new fish biomass. We have discovered that this is not an either or, but a both and situation where they exist simultaneously in a positive manner. Interestingly, rigs to reef also attract fishermen.
▶ 1:14:02Today's anglers have fast, long range boats equipped with remarkable electronics, capable of locating fish even over the smallest and most remote bottom features. There are no longer secret fishing spots, and without alternatives, anglers are forced to target sensitive natural reef areas.
▶ 1:14:18These artificial reefs can be alternative form of spatial management by dispersing fishing efforts and directing it away from ecologically fragile areas, affording these rare natural habitats such as the flower gardens banks, national marine sanctuary refuge from fishing pressure and damage. Perhaps the most convincing evidence as to the value of rigs to reef can literally be seen in person. The spectacular rig dive located in the flower gardens, is just as astonishing as the natural coral banks themselves.
▶ 1:14:50Seeing this underwater oasis in person teeming with marine life, certainly dispels concerns over whether these structures should remain in the water. In conclusion, rigs to reefs work and are effective management tool. They produce fish, reduce fishing pressure on natural areas and are an excellent example of industry and the environment working hand in hand, where both the natural resource economy and public benefit.
▶ 1:15:15I encourage congress to take action to safely ensure these habitats remain in the water. This could be accomplished by codifying the program through the marine fisheries habitat protection act. This bill will facilitate enhanced rigorous programs, build on past and current successes, and our work will allow you to rest assured that science bolsters this legislation. Thank you for the opportunity to address your subcommittee today, and I'll be happy to answer any questions. >> thank you for your testimony. Our next witness is Mr.
▶ 1:15:45Ryan montague. He is the assistant secretary of fisheries at the louisiana department of wildlife and fisheries, and he is stationed in baton rouge. Mr. montague, you are now recognized for five minutes. >> thank you. Chairman, ranking member and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify here on house on h.r. 5745, the marine fisheries habitat protection act. Uh, my name is ryan montague.
▶ 1:16:10I serve as the assistant secretary for the office of fisheries within the louisiana department of wildlife and fisheries, where I act as the state fisheries director. In that role, I currently oversee commercial and recreational fisheries management, fisheries research, and of course, the artificial reef program. I appreciate the committee's interest in policies that recognize the importance of marine fisheries habitat, particularly habitat that already exists and is demonstrably productive.
▶ 1:16:40If you've ever visited a public aquarium and been impressed by the diversity of life that it contains, you would genuinely be astonished by the amount of marine life that exists on and around these offshore oil and gas platforms in the gulf. There's a reason that the aquarium of the americas in new orleans features a large reef aquarium with a full scale replica of an oil and gas production rig right in the center of the exhibit. These structures are not barren industrial remnants.
▶ 1:17:09They are among the most productive reef sites in the world, supporting dense concentrations of fish, corals and invertebrates. Uh, where natural hard bottom habitat is otherwise scarce. Louisiana's artificial reef program was established in 1986, and since that time we have developed one of the most comprehensive programs in the country.
▶ 1:17:32Through this program, louisiana has reaped approximately 478 decommissioned oil and gas structures across 87 artificial reef sites, with additional structures added each year when structures are reefed in place. Louisiana is deliberate about how that is done. Operators remove the platform topside and all the nonstructural components, along with all the pollutants and regulated materials, and they return those to the shore.
▶ 1:18:00What remains is structural steel that is clean, durable and well suited to support long term fisheries, coral and invertebrate habitat. This approach protects the environment while preserving valuable habitat. Um. Equally important is how louisiana's program is funded. When an offshore structure is reefed rather than removed, uh, one half of the cost savings is contributed to the state that comes into our program.
▶ 1:18:28The funding would not exist absent the reefing option, and it forms the financial foundation of our artificial reef program. Those funds allow louisiana to do more to than preserve offshore habitat. They support the creation of inshore and nearshore reefs accessible to recreational anglers. Quote oyster cultch plants that enhance habitat and coastal resilience, and long term fisheries monitoring and applied research that the state could otherwise not sustain.
▶ 1:19:01Louisiana's experience demonstrates that offshore structures already function as established, highly productive fisheries, habitat. Effective marine fisheries habitat protection policy should recognize the importance of preserving and responsibly managing these sites. The concepts reflected in h.r. 5007 45 align closely with the processes that louisiana has, excuse me, successfully implemented for decades. Uh, thank you for the opportunity again to here to appear today.
▶ 1:19:32And I look forward to answering your questions. >> thank you very much for your testimony. Our next witness is miss megan biven. She is the founder of true transition transition, and she is stationed in carmel, indiana. Uh, miss biven, you are now recognized for five minutes. >> good morning. Chairman, ranking member, representative ezell and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today on the proposed marine fisheries habitat protection act.
▶ 1:20:00Last time I sat in the seat, I shared my optimism, which I maintain. I believe that everyone in this room wants the same things energy, security, productive industry, american jobs, healthy fisheries, and a clean gulf of america. But I do not believe the proposed legislation would achieve these aims. Today's discussion is not about fish and habitat, but humans and money. Decommissioning and oil and gas. Well, does not make an oil and gas company or its investors money.
▶ 1:20:29Plugging just one offshore well can cost $350,000. Removing one mile of pipeline segment costs an average of $338,000, properly removing one fixed platform in water depths greater than 30m cost $3.8 million in deepwater installations like bullwinkle are projected to cost 265 million. Offshore decommissioning is a costly endeavor. It also diverts engineers and staff that would be otherwise engaged in finding new reserves into this unprofitable task.
▶ 1:20:59Oil and gas companies do not want to do it, but it is the law and they agreed to it. Every single company signs a lease agreement with the united states of america that includes an obligation to plug an abandoned wells, remove topsides and jackets, decommission pipelines and clear the seafloor of all associated obstructions created by the lease operations. In exchange, they are provided access to american sovereign resources that we hold in common.
▶ 1:21:27That makes them tremendous amounts of private profit. But these firms have breached the terms as other members have already stated. As of 2023, over 75% of end of lease and idle infrastructure in the gulf were overdue for decommissioning. With this bill, aids and abets is an accumulation of infrastructure. It decriminalizes orphaning. I do not believe that is the intent or your desire. I believe you wish to protect and serve the american citizenry.
▶ 1:21:57We could instead commit to enforcing the law and these contracts and finally carrying out this overdue task. We would create thousands of jobs, reinvigorate the gulf coast, struggling shipbuilding and maritime industries, and steward the god given resources over which we have dominion. A study by the national ocean industry association, an oil and gas industry trade group, estimates that the final year of a shallow water, oil and gas project employment peaks to its highest at 1600 jobs during the decommissioning and abandonment phase.
▶ 1:22:26When you consider that louisiana has lost 20,000 upstream oil and gas jobs in the last 15 years, we should be celebrating this opportunity to create american jobs and put american offshore supply vessels and lift boats back into the water. But I do not want to forget the fish. We already have 515 reefed rigs in federal waters. Louisiana's artificial reef planning areas comprise over 19,000 acres across louisiana's coast, with over 400 deepwater structures.
▶ 1:22:58The invasive fish and coral that already call these reefs home will not lose reefs. The densest concentration of these so-called habitats on earth already exists in the gulf of america. For the first time ever. However, this legislation proposes that pipelines are habitat. This misclassification has real consequences.
▶ 1:23:18Louisiana's own coastal protection restoration authority has stated that decommissioned pipelines, together with their often 1000 foot wide safety buffers, form one of the largest practical impediments to accessing offshore sediment resources. These sediments are the fundamental building blocks for louisiana's coastal restoration, protection, and resilience efforts. Louisiana's verdant wetlands provide critical habitat for over 70% of gulf species throughout their lives.
▶ 1:23:45Many of today's witnesses would not be able to catch redfish or speckled trout without louisiana's wetlands providing nursery habitats for their larval and juvenile stages. But this eden is sinking, crumbling and sliding into the gulf. Louisiana has lost over 2000mi in the last century, and loses an average of 34mi per year. Louisiana's iconic boot is in shreds, and the marine species that call it home will find no home in the future without its restoration.
▶ 1:24:14Each rusting jacket or leaking pipeline added to the gulf inventory eliminates another possible sediment borrow site. This proposed legislation would not secure the future of the gulf of america. It would sabotage current efforts to save its cradle. If you want to create fish habitat, you are legislating in the wrong direction. Fish don't need more jungle gyms, they need nurseries, and americans don't need underwater cemeteries. To our industrial past, we need jobs working towards our shared future. Thank you for your time.
▶ 1:24:45>> thank you very much. Our final witness is Mr. chris horton. He is the senior director of fisheries policy for the congressional sportsmen foundation, and he is stationed right here in washington, D.C. Mr. horton, you are now recognized for five minutes. Thank you. Chairman, ranking member and members of the subcommittee. Uh, I'm chris horton, senior director of fisheries policy for the congressional sportsmen's foundation. I'm also a fisheries biologist. I serve on the board of the national fish habitat partnership.
▶ 1:25:12I'm the immediate past chair of the sport fishing and boating partnership council, which is an advisory committee to the secretaries of interior and commerce. Though in the context of today's hearing, probably most importantly, uh, the gulf waters around fort morgan, alabama are my home waters when it comes to saltwater fishing. Many of my best and most productive and consistent spots are around offshore oil and gas platforms, and their associated infrastructure.
▶ 1:25:39I want to thank you for holding a hearing today on h.r. 5007 45, the marine fisheries habitat protection act. This science based, bipartisan legislation will ensure that highly productive marine habitats that serve as important fishing and diving destinations for the american public are protected today and for future generations.
▶ 1:25:57Energy and infrastructure, uh, on the outer continental shelf, or ocs, has boosted fish, coral and other marine life production for more than three quarters of a century by providing hard substrates over otherwise soft mud, sand, unproductive bottom, um. Over time, these structures have been the catalyst for teeming communities of fish and marine life and is highlighted in my written testimony.
▶ 1:26:25There's ample science to suggest that these aren't merely fish attractors, but also fish producers. However, you don't have to be a scientist to appreciate the tremendous habitat value that these structures offer. Recreational fishermen, commercial fishermen, recreational divers have been visiting these platforms for decades because of the abundant life that they offer. From an angler's perspective, fishing ground platforms.
▶ 1:26:51Really, it stacks the odds in your favor that you're going to go from catching fish and just fishing for fish. Um, they also serve as a perfect opportunity to take someone and introduce them to fishing for the very first time, because you can almost guarantee that they're going to feel that adrenaline rush of something tugging on the end of their line. And that true, uh, genuine, inspiring connection, uh, with nature. But sadly, we're losing these platforms, uh, at an alarming rate.
▶ 1:27:23Luckily, there is an opportunity to convert these highly productive structures into permanent artificial reefs through the rigs to reef program, which has been around for a while through current federal regulations, states with an approved rigs to reef plan can accept liability and ownership of ocs infrastructures as artificial reefs, provided some strict conditions are met and this legislation does not change that.
▶ 1:27:44Those conditions include ensuring that the well is sealed and capped and abandoned in no danger of hydrocarbon leakage, just as that the structure, if it were reefed onshore or removed ashore, um, it has to be free of contaminants and it has to be safe from a navigational perspective. Unfortunately, of the approximately 7000 platforms that once dotted the gulf were down to about 1000 of those with more than half of those, uh, at or near the end of their life.
▶ 1:28:12And we'll have to be removed in the next few years. Hr 4755, which is strongly supported by the recreational fishing community, would improve the process for converting these prolific marine habitats to permanent artificial reefs while codifying the rigs to reefs program. Specifically, this bill allows appropriate time for the structures to be converted to a states reef program and allows the infrastructure to be reefed in place. If a science based evaluation identifies the presence of an established reef fish community.
▶ 1:28:40Now, I want to be clear that this bill does nothing to remove any platform, decommissioning responsibilities, or environmental safeguards that are required by the owners. People come from all over the country and the world to experience the rich, diverse habitat in marine life ocs platforms have to offer.
▶ 1:28:58In a country where, thankfully, we have numerous laws and statutes that protect and enhance fish and wildlife habitat for the american public, which is why it seems counterintuitive that we haven't taken steps sooner to codify and improve the efficiency of the rigs, to reprogram and keep more of these unique and highly valuable habitats from disappearing. In summary, the increased efficiency of the rigs to reefs program offered by the science based marine fisheries habitat protection act is simply a win.
▶ 1:29:25It's a win for anglers, divers, commercial fishermen, nearby coastal communities and the marine environment. And I thank you again for the opportunity to be here today. Thank you very much. Uh, the chair will now recognize members, uh, for five minutes of questions, and I'm going to recognize myself for five minutes first.
▶ 1:29:43But before I do, I would like to enter into the record, uh, with unanimous consent, that the following 2018 academic paper printed in the bulletin of marine science from the rosenstiel school of marine are out of the university of miami, and it talks about the decommissioning options that remove the shallowest 26m of structure would eliminate the most, the habitat most utilized by 3 or 4 of the studied species.
▶ 1:30:12And then I also ask unanimous consent that the following letter from the american sports fishing association, voicing support for hr 5745, be entered into this hearing record without objection. So moved. Uh, doctor stuntz. According to the california state lands commission, there are 23 rigs off the coast of california. Currently, none of these rigs will be reefed, assuming at least some of them host vibrant aquatic life.
▶ 1:30:40What will happen to the marine habitat under those 24 platforms if they're ripped out of the water and towed back to shore? >> well, thank you, Mr. chairman. Uh, yes. The marine life that would be associated with that would be removed as well, or be displaced. Um, the rigs off of california, the scientists. And there's some very good ones that you see.
▶ 1:31:02Various uc schools out there have shown that in particular, those structures in california are some of the most productive in the world, greater than rainforests, estuaries, and a variety of other things. >> so to confirm those 23 platforms right now are likely supporting habitat development for aquatic life, correct? >> yes, sir. That is correct. >> and when these 23 platforms are decommissioned and towed back to shore, these habitats will be destroyed as well. Is that correct? >> yes, that is correct.
▶ 1:31:32>> Mr. montague, in your role with louisiana's department of wildlife and fisheries, you have spent a considerable amount of time working on the state's rigs to reefs program. One thing you highlight in your testimony is how thorough the state is in retaining specific structures as artificial habitat. Can you expand on the state's process for reefing these structures? >> yes, sir. Thank you for the question. Um, typically.
▶ 1:31:57Uh, the operator, whenever they're applying for decommissioning, they will reach out to us as a department and, um, in connection with reaching out to boem and bessie about the decommissioning process, they apply with us and to see if we'll accept the structure into our program. We're very selective about the structures that we accept into the program.
▶ 1:32:26Uh, we I wish we were able to take more, but we have a program in place is designed to make sure that the structures we accept are environmentally safe and productive. And we when our legislation for our program was drafted, uh, years ago. Special artificial reef.
▶ 1:32:47I'm sorry, not special, but artificial reef planting zones were created in certain areas of the gulf, uh, because we had to work with local user groups like the shrimpers and other, uh, commercial fisheries that utilize these habitats.
▶ 1:33:00Uh, so once we have these designated zones, the, uh, we'll review the application, uh, at the same time, running in parallel with the bessie and boem communications, we communicate with bessie and boem at the same time, uh, to ensure that we're all on the same page. >> so would you say it's environmentally and marine habitat protection that drives the decision process? >> yes, sir. It is. We only want the good structures.
▶ 1:33:26So we typically want what's from the sea floor to the platform, the structural steel that forms really good habitat. And the oil company or the, the the company will, will be required to chop off the top of the structure, basically to take these like living quarters and tanks and things that aren't good fish habitat. And they tow that back to shore, leaving behind the structural steel, which is then if it's accepted into the program.
▶ 1:33:53Um, we also reach out to the corps of engineers for the permitting process to we will take that structure, chop it in half basically. And what they'll do it have it laid down, towed into a site, unless it's in a, in an artificial reef site already. And after that process is completed, before we accept the final reef structure, the operator is required to go and dredge around the structure to clean up any, any debris and other material that's not desirable for this habitat.
▶ 1:34:25>> okay. Thank you very much. Mr. horton. You mentioned in your testimony the cost that it would take to replace artificial habitat in the gulf in the form of oil and gas infrastructure. Can you speak a little more about this, specifically, the cost of replacing this infrastructure in both monetary terms and impacts on the environment? Yes, sir. Thank you for the question. Uh, alabama dcnr again.
▶ 1:34:44My home waters, as has been mentioned, they had the most extensive artificial reef habitat, state built artificial reef habitat program in the country, and it cost them about. They typically use 15 foot concrete pyramids that they build and multiple pyramids and distribute them around the reef zones. It cost them $500 per cubic meter of volume to produce, haul and place those structures.
▶ 1:35:10It would take, uh, almost 400 of those concrete pyramids to replace one four legged platform in 130ft of water, at a cost of 3.9 million. >> uh. >> each or total, uh, total.
▶ 1:35:25If if you took those, those concrete pyramids and tried to replace the same volume of that one four legged, uh, structure, it would take almost 400 of them, and it would add a cost of $3.9 million for one platform. Uh, thank you very much. This is an interesting topic, but I have run out of time. I will now, uh. Uh, representative rivas, you are up for five minutes. Okay.
▶ 1:35:53>> thank you, mister chair, for recognizing me. Um, in california, we are leaders in protecting our coast for all community members. From small businesses to families visiting on a hot summer day for relief. Our coast is a true gem and an asset to our country. And once again, president trump wants to sell us out to ensure oil companies can report another year of record profits.
▶ 1:36:17We saw this last year with the passage of the one big ugly bill, where house republicans and trump prioritize selling our public lands and waters to oil companies over the health care of americans. This includes six lease proposals off the california coast that will hurt our health and environment, while jeopardizing a california marine economy that accounts for over 50 billion in gdp.
▶ 1:36:45This is yet another bill that provides oil companies an opportunity to get out of their legally obligated responsibilities. Under h.r. 5745, the responsibility to clean up our ocean falls to the states, not the polluting oil companies that made the mess in the first place.
▶ 1:37:03This means that oil companies can use our oceans as their playgrounds, make a mess that harms the generational health of our communities and the livelihoods of local ecosystems, and leave states on the hook for cleaning up that mess. I'm proud that my state requires a strong review of the rig to process, to determine the cost savings and the benefit to the marine environmental um, during the decommissioning process.
▶ 1:37:32Uh, miss bevin, can you speak about the harmful impact that h.r. 5745 will have on states like california? >> I can speak more to louisiana, where I'm from, if that's okay. >> go ahead. >> yes. So for louisiana, this is particularly problematic for access to sand resources.
▶ 1:37:51So as the director of the gulf of america office said earlier, they also oversee the marine minerals program in the gulf, which is for states like alabama, mississippi and louisiana and texas to go and dredge in the gulf for coastal restoration purposes for louisiana, like I mentioned before, it's a delta that's sinking and crumbling into the ocean. We have a $50 billion state master plan that is critically dependent upon these sand resources.
▶ 1:38:21But as it is now, pipelines decommissioned in place are a huge impediment and obstacle to accessing those sand resources. The increase the cost of these restoration projects by an order of magnitude. And we need to bring that sand onshore for dune barrier island projects like in mississippi and alabama, but also coastal wetland restoration projects. So this is not just about, you know, recreational fishers.
▶ 1:38:45It is also about the people who live inland and the critical oil and gas infrastructure that is inland in louisiana that needs this land in front of it for storms coming in. >> okay. Thank you. Thank you for sharing that. Um, like louisiana, california, a lot of coastal states, this affects us all. Um, and not just those that live along the coast like you've mentioned.
▶ 1:39:08Um, it affects inland communities to, uh, you know, the administration and house republicans continue to give shortcuts to their friends in the oil industry instead of helping hard working americans, um, afford health care. Um, we need more than a full decommissioning. We need full removal. Thank you. And I yield back. >> thank you very much. The chair now recognizes the chair of the full committee, Mr. wasserman, for five minutes.
▶ 1:39:36>> thank you, chairman, and thank you to the witnesses again. I didn't have the privilege of having an ocean in my backyard when I was growing up in arkansas, but I did learn to fish in little creeks that you could jump across and farm ponds and larger rivers and lakes. And one thing I learned as a little boy was that where the structure is, is where the fish are going to be.
▶ 1:39:55Um, whether that's a log laying in the creek or, uh, christmas trees that we had sunk in the lake to create what we don't call it rigs to reef, we call it crappy condos because they, uh, they love those, those christmas trees.
▶ 1:40:10But, uh, and then, you know, I studied forestry and I, I've got a really pretty good concept of how if you manage forest habitat, you actually get more wildlife there because you create more food, and the wildlife come to the food and you actually increase populations of wildlife. But sometimes you hear an argument that the only thing, uh, artificial reefs or structures do is, is, uh, consolidate the population of fish species.
▶ 1:40:38Is is that true, or do you actually get more fish when you have more structure and more food, like you get with with good forest management? Doctor sterns, do you have some research or knowledge on that? >> yes, congressman, you're exactly right. And that's the attraction versus production argument. The argument was does this merely attract fish in fact making them easier to catch or does it produce more fish.
▶ 1:41:04And it you're right on both accounts structured in an unstructured area attract fish, but they also produce. There are more fish in the gulf of america because these structures exist. >> Mr. montague, do you have a. Is that true? I know we've got some. >> well, I think doctor stone is the expert on this particular matter, but from from my research, I agree that that it does both, like you'll have when these structures are in the gulf.
▶ 1:41:33You have barnacles and other invertebrates that attach to structures. They will, um, collect plankton to feed and so that plankton that would typically drift around and maybe sink to the sea floor gets consumed locally at that site that builds a, that forms the base of a system that, uh, adds to the productivity in that area. Um, so I, I do believe they do definitely accumulate and congregate fish, but I do believe it also causes an increase in production.
▶ 1:42:03>> Mr. horton, I know you're a fisheries biologist. >> yes, sir. 100%. Uh, they do contribute to biomass accumulation, essentially, as, uh, assistant secretary said. And as doctor sun has mentioned, I mean, you have all these nutrients in the water.
▶ 1:42:19You've got phytoplankton that's floating in the current that just drifts with the current and doesn't get assimilated, simulated locally until you have hard structure where organisms that can take those nutrients and take those, uh, phytoplankton, zooplankton and start collecting and building that biomass right there. And there's actually several studies out there on the benefits of artificial reefs using stable isotope analysis that determines that, yes, artificial reefs can contribute to or do contribute to fish production, not just attraction.
▶ 1:42:51>> the argument's been made that if we, um, if we don't go to the expense of removing all of these platforms that were actually causing the loss of jobs because it costs so much money to remove them. And I've got a question, especially in, in the gulf, don't you create jobs in fishing and outdoor recreation by having the structures?
▶ 1:43:22>> absolutely. Uh, if you go to charter a fishing trip out of venice, louisiana, or grand isle, louisiana, or cocodrie an offshore trip, you're going to an artificial platform or artificial reef in the form of an oil and gas platform, and sometimes not just the platform, but the pipelines, because in places the pipelines will become exposed at the top again, the same thing happens. You have, um, sessile organisms colonizing those, that metal surface that's exposed. And, and I know some of the best charter captains out of grand isle, louisiana.
▶ 1:43:52That's all they run and look for is, is, is pipelines. And do. >> we know the economic impact of for sport fishing? >> I don't have a specific number, but, uh, but I know it's, it's it's substantial again, because of all that artificial habitat that's out there. That's why louisiana is such a popular fishing destination. People come from all over the world to pay money to be able to go fish on these structures.
▶ 1:44:18>> so a few years ago, I know it was during covid because I had to wear a mask on the boat, but I just, as a citizen, bought a ticket out to the channel islands off the coast of california. And the young lady on the on the boat was talking about the pristine waters off the coast of california. Uh, you can answer this as well. She she made the claim that dolphins are an indicator species. If you've got dolphins, you've got the cleanest water in the world, and they have all these dolphins off the coast of california.
▶ 1:44:48And she's really building this up. And she was also just raking over the coals. The oil industry in california and the polluters and all this horrible thing they had done. And it was like it was on cue. The first time we saw an oil rig, the dolphins started, uh porpoising in the in off the waters of california. So I'm glad I had the mask on because I think I had a big smile underneath it. But, uh, is interesting to get that, uh, professional lecture. I yield back. Mr. chairman. >> thank you very much.
▶ 1:45:16Before we go to representative, I would like to submit, uh, uh, for the record, a letter from the congressional sportsmen's foundation supporting h.r. 5745. The letter states, for anglers, divers, commercial fishermen, coastal economies, and most importantly, our marine resources across the nation, the marine fisheries habitat protection act represents a clear win for conservation, access and sustainable use of marine resources. Without objection, so ordered. Representative min, you're recognized for five minutes.
▶ 1:45:47>> thank you, Mr. chair. Thank you. To the witnesses. Uh, I guess I just want to start with the question. I know this is not an economics class we're in, but how many of y'all are aware of the concept of negative externalities? Raise your hand. Uh, miss vivian, you want to try to describe it? Negative externalities. >> so when an activity imposes costs outside of the person doing the activity. >> on a third party. On a third party. Yeah, it's an economics concept.
▶ 1:46:16And it, you know, long standing one um, first came about the classic example is downstream pollution. You pollute, uh, people downstream, get the pollution, whatever that is, and they're affected by it. They bear the cost. The polluter doesn't bear the cost. And this is a problem we always try to solve for when we think about economic policy and offshore drilling, I'm concerned, has a lot of negative externalities.
▶ 1:46:36Uh, first, with the problem of oil spills, which we're not here to discuss today, but I do just want to mention, uh, we've had some major oil spills in orange county, including the 1 in 2021 off the coast of huntington beach, which I represent one of our beautiful beaches. Not sure if Mr. westerman was around that area, but it's a it's a beautiful area. Not so long ago we had the refugio oil spill, which, uh, spilled about 243,000 gallons, shut down santa barbara's beautiful beaches for, uh, I think two months. Uh, we've had a long history of oil spills in california.
▶ 1:47:05And as I looked into this as a state senator, I realized that this is a ticking time bomb. Many of the offshore rigs at this point are being operated by wildcatters that the majors have all left because there's so little oil left. Uh, and so the wildcatters that are left have very little capital. They're not investing in upgrades.
▶ 1:47:22This is actually apparently one of the reasons we had the huntington beach oil spill a couple of years back, because the company operating in amplified beta, which none of us had ever heard of, was not investing in some of the safety protocols that they should have been, or at least that was the allegation that was being made. So 2021 2015 2007 1990. Another major oil spill off the coast of huntington beach. Uh, and so this is a major concern.
▶ 1:47:44It's one of the reasons californians have been really concerned about offshore drilling, particularly compared to the $44 billion in tourism that is generated each year in california. People like Mr. westerman come from all over the world to come tour our beautiful beaches. Uh, every time an oil spill happens, it challenges our local economies. It costs us a lot of money. Uh, and by the way, I just add, as a californian myself, um, this is not just a coastal issue.
▶ 1:48:12Every californian I've ever met identifies with a certain beach. They think of a certain beach as their own, even if they're coming from the nevada border. Uh, the oregon border. They identify with some beach. Another form of externality that I'm concerned about is the subject of today's hearing, which is decommissioning. And so my question for you, miss bivins, uh, since you know about externalities, uh, when you have an abandoned, um, well, is there any concern about some leakage there? Are they all fully plugged, or do we see leakage coming out of some of these wells?
▶ 1:48:42>> so thank you for that question. It depends on whether they are temporarily abandoned. Um, if they are plugged and abandoned, there's always a risk of pressure building. Um, steel corrodes. Oh. >> that's not you. >> you okay? Yeah. Um. Yeah. Yeah. Um, there's obviously a risk. Um, whether that is an unplugged. Well, a properly plugged. Well, you want to make sure it's properly plugged, but there's always a. >> always a risk. >> lingering risk. >> and here's a challenge. And I'm an eagle scout.
▶ 1:49:10My oldest son is in boy scouts right now. And we always learned the classic quote. Many of you probably are familiar with it. Leave the campground cleaner than you found it. And that ought to be the principle we apply to the oil industry, particularly given how much money they've made off these offshore rigs, that you ought to leave the oceans cleaner than you found them. And now I'm not an opponent of rigs to reefs. We this is something we adopted in california. I think it can be an appropriate approach.
▶ 1:49:35Uh, however, we're talking about hundreds of oil wells around the country off the coast of this country, 65, $70 billion in potential liabilities and rigs to reefs is obviously a cheaper way of doing that. But I guess my question and again, miss bivins, I'll leave this to you, is rigs to reefs always an appropriate solution for all these different types of wells? >> thank you for that question. Absolutely not.
▶ 1:50:00Um, I am concerned, especially in those cases where you would topple in place if you do have a case where you need to re abandon a well, how would you access that wellbore? Uh, like I mentioned earlier, in the case of sediment resources, especially decommissioned placed pipelines, these impose huge costs on state coastal programs to access that sand material. Um, there are a variety of circumstances. You know, this is the this is the charge of the federal government to balance different uses.
▶ 1:50:27And, you know, there's a lot of different players in economic uses in the gulf. You know, I highlight shipbuilding in the maritime industry, which is currently stacked. >> I'm going to reclaim my time just because I only have 13 seconds left. I agree with you. I'd also add that there are parts, certain oil rigs that are very deep, uh, and where it might not be appropriate for other reasons. And I just say this.
▶ 1:50:49I don't oppose rigs, sharif, but I do oppose a one size fits all solution, particularly when that puts the burden of assuming these decommissioning liabilities on the taxpayers of states that may not want them. Uh, states should be allowed to make their own decisions here. And I know that many of my republican colleagues talk about states rights and federalism. I think that this bill as structured is a gross imposition on states rights. With that, I yield back. >> thank you very much, representative gosar. You're recognized for five minutes. Oh. >> I'm sorry.
▶ 1:51:17And I'd like to introduce into the record two pictures. They say a picture is worth a thousand words. So these are pictures of the refugio and huntington beach oil spills. >> without objection. >> thank you. Sorry about that. Mr. >> um, Mr. gosar, I'd like to yield some time to Mr. men. There's also something called positive externality. Uh, the production or consumption of a good or service creates uncompensated benefits for the third parties who are not directly involved.
▶ 1:51:41And you're looking at the fishing industry and the marine habitat that can be, uh, increased with, uh, the rigs to reef program. And I yield to Mr. >> yes. And the gentleman from california, I want to remind him that because the pacific ocean and the plates you have natural weeping of oil that comes up from underneath from nonstop. So, um, Mr.
▶ 1:52:02Horton, one of the fastest growing aspects is, is, uh, in, uh, uh, the world is a conservation and fishing, is it not? >> yes, sir. Well, we're losing a lot of our habitat, so we're putting it back as important. >> oh, and I want you to reiterate, this is not just catching, but breeding with the fisheries. >> yes, sir.
▶ 1:52:29Providing the appropriate habitat for the full life cycle and the production of fisheries. >> so, uh, three years ago, the biden administration tried to amortize all our public lands and even waters. Were you aware of this? >> I'm not sure I'm familiar with what you're speaking about. >> well, they tried to put it on the new york stock exchange, so only the rich and famous could have access to it. So I want to put public back in the public lands and waters. Okay, so I have a bill. It's called the lasso bill.
▶ 1:52:56And what it does is takes 10% of all the proceeds off of public and federal lands and waters and puts it in the social security trust fund. What it does is it brings conservation back home so that the people in that area are all involved in that aspect. Okay. And so, uh, would you find that that they'd be very interested in this discussion this morning? >> I think in general, you would find that most people, whether they're anglers, hunters or outdoor recreationists or just in general, a value conservation and what we can do for conservation.
▶ 1:53:26>> would you agree? Uh, doctor? Uh, jones. Is that right? Yeah. Would you agree with that statement? >> yes, I would agree with that. >> because the more you use it, the better you enjoy it. And we're seeing lots of people. They can't afford to go different places. They're going to our public lands and public waters. Right? >> that's correct. And all that hinges that the habitat is available to support that activity. >> okay. So I'm going to stick on that idea there.
▶ 1:53:54I brought up weather earlier today and I know you were in the in the audience. Can a, uh can these uh. Oh uh, these uh, little areas that are built up, can they not help us with weather, you know, breaking up some of the storm waters on, on on the mainland? >> uh, it depends on which structures we're talking about.
▶ 1:54:23Uh, routinely, artificial reefs are used as breaks and avoid erosion, particularly inshore. Offshore. It depends on the location and where they're at. It's very situational what effect that might have on the actual weather. >> but it should really be something to be looked at because it definitely helps all those, uh, those coastal areas. Right? >> it's definitely one alternative use of artificial reefs is shoreline erosion protection and a variety of other uses. >> um, Mr.
▶ 1:54:49Uh, margaret montague, um, so would you agree with my aspect that the one of the fastest growing things is fishing and hunting and conservation aspects of public. >> uh, yeah. In general. Yes, sir. Um, I do believe that we are we sometimes we're losing some of our fishermen and our fishing license sales are declining in some sense.
▶ 1:55:13So, uh, part of the benefit of these programs, and this one is also to increase, uh, fishing activity, increase community participation, um, and increase the number of fishermen that we have, uh, that take advantage of the, the, the wonderful habitat that we have off the coast of louisiana. >> would you agree that if the public is more involved in the decision process, they're going to take ownership of it more often. >> of the process?
▶ 1:55:44>> yeah. >> are you talking about the artificial reefing process? >> no. The whole process of building artificial reefs in regards to breeding and fishing and all that kind of aspect? >> I can tell you that that, uh, louisiana's public is, is very, very happy with the artificial reef program that we have because it does preserve these fishing spots.
▶ 1:56:02And, um, and like I said earlier in my testimony, and it's also in my written testimony, uh, the financial benefit that the state receives is also used to create a whole number of inshore and near-shore artificial reefs that allow the public to access these sites much easier than they can. Uh, if you don't have a giant boat that can get you out to the deep water stuff. >> so real quickly. So these actually have a long lasting benefit, right? >> oh yes, sir. >> yes. That's what I want to get to. Thank you so very much.
▶ 1:56:34I'll yield back. >> thank you. >> thank you very much. Chair recognizes, uh, ranking member ansari for five minutes. >> thank you so much. Uh, we are sitting here just over a week after president trump carried out yet another illegal act of war in venezuela, capturing the country's illegitimate and brutal dictator, nicolas maduro. And over the last week, the reasons for this action have become increasingly clear. It is, and always has been, about the control of natural resources oil. It's a familiar story.
▶ 1:57:00In fact, it's been reported that chevron, exxon and conocophillips were some of the first to even catch hints about these war plans before even congress. Yet another part of president trump's extraction, above all strategy. He is proposing to unleash unrestricted oil drilling across our coasts, including in sensitive places like arctic alaska and in military zones in the eastern gulf. Once again, the united states is greed, for oil is going imperial.
▶ 1:57:31President trump has even suggested that us taxpayers could reimburse oil companies for their expenses, setting up shop in venezuela, yet another subsidy. And for what? Miss bevan, I understand that you are not opposed to oil and gas development. Could you tell us why, despite this, why the us energy strategy of drill baby drill may be shortsighted. >> thank you for the question. Um, yes.
▶ 1:57:57Uh, as you said, I'm not against america producing oil and gas or energy, any energy resource for the benefit of the american people, american businesses, and for credible national defense. Uh, our current national policy is rather disjointed when it comes to energy. And, you know, it hinges on precise market conditions for private actors to want to drill, to bring in consumers just the right price.
▶ 1:58:24And so I would argue that our current energy policy across administrations since the 1970s has been a bit incoherent. And I think we need a larger national conversation about for whose benefit. And, you know, how do we conserve these resources or do we just export them, or are we just going to become a banana republic of crude oil, or are we going to conserve this into the future? So these are the questions that I have. Thank you for your question. >> thank you. That's right.
▶ 1:58:51And just so we're clear, do you think that chevron operates in the best interest of the united states? >> I think as a multinational corporation, it acts in the interest of its shareholders and its company. And I think there is a distinction between a company and a sovereign government. And it's up to you and to the president to ensure that chevron acts in the best interests of the united states. >> how about exxon or conocophillips? Same thing.
▶ 1:59:20>> I would extend that same answer to those. Yes. >> so you just you just answered this. But to put a finer point on it, whose job is it to ensure that corporations operate in the best interest of the united states? >> it's the american government. >> and to wrap this up, miss bevan, do you believe that this bill, h.r. 5745, is a regulation that is in the best interest of the united states?
▶ 1:59:47>> I think it creates some potential regulatory issues that restricts bassey from doing its job effectively. I think as I've belabored over and over again, the pipelines in place issue is a huge concern for me and jeopardizes louisiana's $50 billion state master plan. So I would say, as it is written in the vagueness in which I read as a former regulator, excuse me, former regulator with the american government, I read it as potentially problematic in need of refinement.
▶ 2:00:17>> thank you, I yield back. >> thank you very much. Chair now recognizes, uh, representative ezell for five minutes. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. Uh, before I go forward, I'd like to submit for the record a letter from the american sport fishing association. >> uh. Without objection.
▶ 2:00:36>> this is a bill that I'm very proud to have introduced, and it's been a priority of mine because it supports our coastal fisheries community, strengthens ocean health, and benefits the men and women who spend their time and make their living on the water. The rigs to reprogramed is all of that, and this legislation brings these priorities together in a practical way. Mr.
▶ 2:00:56Horton, one of the perspective of recreational anglers and sportsmen from the perspective of recreational angler and a sportsman. Can you discuss how the rigs to reprogram improved sport fishing opportunities enhances marine habitat and supports healthy fisheries for the long term? >> yes. Thank you for the question, congressman. Yeah.
▶ 2:01:20As we as we've been discussing earlier, um, by putting hard substrates in the water, you begin to see creatures attached that can assimilate nutrients from the water column and begin building biomass locally and as those as that biomass is built up, smaller fish come along to feed on those, and bigger fish come along to feed on those and set up home.
▶ 2:01:43And over time, you just get this, uh, fish production factory, this, this cycle of life, this marine ecosystem that sets up and, uh, obviously this is something that, uh, that anglers are highly attracted to. Is this this stationary mecca that they can depend on going to and catching fish every time? Um, unfortunately, whenever those you go one year and at the beginning of season going to your favorite rig that you fished with family and friends for years, and you get there and it's gone. I mean, it's just gone.
▶ 2:02:13And you look on the graph, the bottom finder, there's nothing there but sand. I mean, literally it's it's almost like you just lost a best friend that you've been going to for years. So these things are incredibly important to the folks in the gulf. >> thank you. As this bill moves forward, I think it's important to be clear about the rigs to reprogram what it's intended to do. This legislation is pro ecosystem, pro fisheries, pro recreational and commercial fishing, and pro economy.
▶ 2:02:40And it reflects a balance of environmental stewardship and economic opportunity. Mr. montague and doctor stutts, if I pronounce that right, could you discuss how the rigs reprogram delivers tangible benefits for marine habitat, fisheries and coastal communities and help clarify why this legislation should be understood as both a conservation and economic policy, rather than something that is sometimes mistakenly
▶ 2:03:11Characterized as. >> uh, as I said earlier, we we receive a lot of funding from this program that that funding allows us to create inshore reefs, near-shore reefs. We've got, um, we go out and put limestone and we see that with oyster spat. And we'll do this in connection with living shorelines. And so you'll have oyster larval transport back and forth from, from these reefs. That provides benefits.
▶ 2:03:39Um, again, you've got research programs. We've through our artificial reef program, we fund, uh, assistantships and, uh, education and researchers from the louisiana universities. Um, we are using some of this funding to, to fund our fisheries research lab that does all sorts of fisheries management, uh, that's going to benefit the state and the gulf for the foreseeable future. Uh, I could go on and on. I know you've got limited time.
▶ 2:04:07I'd like to give an opportunity to answer as well. >> go ahead. >> thank you. And yes, I would add to that that, uh, texas, my home state, is very active with their rigs to reprogram. In fact, it's beyond rigs to reef. We're putting a lot of other materials out there because we recognize that the more substrate we can put out, the more fish productivity you're going to have. And I would add to in addition, Mr. horton's, obviously these make great fishing areas and drive that economy, but that produces many, many jobs as well. Mr.
▶ 2:04:35Montague, our state agency rigs to reef programs, um, employ a lot of people that employs more in the fishing industry. Also, there's the multipliers that come with that in terms of tourism and hotels and gas boats, fuels and all of that. So once you begin to add up the multiplier effect from putting these structures in the water, you can quickly get into the billions of dollars of benefit from artificial reefing and in particular rigs to reefs.
▶ 2:05:02>> and, you know, I'll tell you, nobody likes cleaner water than fishermen. And because when there's no clean water, there's no fish. And, uh, you know, I want to make sure that we get this right. And that's why I put this forward. And I think that we're going to work hard to make sure that it works, so that when people come and they pay money to go fishing, they have enjoyment. They, they, they learn how to, uh, how we do things in off the gulf of mississippi and enjoy that life out there.
▶ 2:05:31So, you know, this is something that's very important. And I think that we need to make sure we get it right. And I believe everybody has the best interest of the country at heart here. And, uh, so with that, Mr. chairman, I yield back. >> thank you very much. The chair recognizes representative for five minutes. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. This debate is not just about steel in the water.
▶ 2:05:51It's about workers, coastal communities, and who bears the cost of oil companies when they abandon infrastructure, when decommissioning is delayed or avoided, workers lose jobs, ports lose economic activity, and communities are left in limbo. At the same time, oil rigs and pipelines continue to deteriorate, increasing environmental and safety risks while pushing future cleanup costs into the public. H.r.
▶ 2:06:195745 is written as if leaving rigs in place is always a win, but it requires studies that focus only on. But it requires studies that focus only on the benefits of reefing while ignoring economic and environmental benefits of full decommissioning, including job creation, recycled materials, restoring ocean areas for other uses. That is why we need to hear from people who understand what is actually happening on the ground, not just what it looks like looks good on paper.
▶ 2:06:48With that, I want to begin with miss biven. Um, you founded two transition, which makes sure that workers and communities aren't left behind as energy systems changes. Can you share what motivated you to start this organization and what you're learning from workers on the ground? >> thank you very much for that question. So true transition was started partially because louisiana lost those 20,000 upstream oil and gas jobs.
▶ 2:07:11Uh, louisiana, the outer continental shelf has several depths, and the shallow area has seen a decline in production. Oil and gas wells deplete. And that used to support a whole ecosystem of different types of companies. Everything from osb supply vessels to, uh, food and, uh, making sure that the workers on the rigs are okay and those jobs have gone completely away.
▶ 2:07:39And a lot of those companies have stampeded to the permian where they have nicer margins. And so what I see right now with decommissioning is an opportunity to put those workers back to work. I go to cocodrie, I go to these places and you can see the economic effect of those those job losses. You know, as you go deeper offshore, it's more efficient.
▶ 2:07:57We are producing twice as much oil and gas in the ocs than we have before, but with fewer workers, fewer boats, you know, shipbuilding and maritime has become a big, um, justifiably a priority of the trump administration, which I agree and completely support. But we need civilian uses for those vessels. And decommissioning is low hanging fruit for a lot of these companies and a lot of the maritime companies in louisiana absolutely support full decommissioning when appropriate. So that's just the other side of the coin.
▶ 2:08:28>> thank you. Um, hr 5745 requires studies that focus only on economic benefits of reefing in place. Could you tell us more about the economic benefits of decommissioning, and why it's a good deal for coastal communities and the environment, including the workforce? >> thank you for the question. And as I just said, you know, it would put boats back in the water. You know, the gulf coast is not known just for recreational fisheries, but also a robust shipbuilding and maritime industry.
▶ 2:08:56And that industry is dying on the vine without other uses, without the ocs as a vibrant of a place. And decommissioning could be part of that coastal restoration. We could be building a public dredge fleet in, you know, gulf coast shipyards and going out and dredging those sandy bottoms and putting them back on the shore and creating jobs tomorrow, if we had the political will to do so. >> thank you.
▶ 2:09:21When decommissioning is delayed or or underfunded, workers and coastal communities are left in limbo. Based on your work, how does uncertainty around decommissioning timelines and funding affect workers ability and planning? >> well, we lose those expertise. They go and work in other industries. They'll go work completely in unrelated fields, and we will forever lose their critical skills.
▶ 2:09:43And as far as the infrastructure just sitting, I mean, you can go in coastal louisiana and look at, you know, these rigs that I mean, I don't think they'd be prime rig material. I mean, they look very bad. They are just rotting in place. And, you know, there have been studies that have had helicopters with equipment to go overhead. And we can see natural gas venting, you can see seeps. And they also move during hurricanes.
▶ 2:10:07I've heard from underwater welders and scuba divers that a lot of these pipelines will shift and bend, and it just looks like a mess under there. So the longer you wait to address these appropriately, which this bill would do, would prolong this process, the more damage and the costlier it will be to remove them appropriately. >> thank you so much for your input. Um, thank you, I yield back. >> thank you very much.
▶ 2:10:32Uh, I want to thank the witnesses for their valuable testimony today and the members for their questions. The members of the subcommittee may have some additional questions for the witnesses, and we will ask you to respond to these in writing. Under committee rule three, members of the subcommittee must submit questions to the subcommittee clerk by 5 p.m. On friday, january 16th. The hearing record will be held open for ten business days. For these responses, there's no further business. Without objection, the subcommittee stands adjourned.