Diving for Scallops at the Long Beach Oil Rigs

[Power Scuba]

I question whether there is any kind of contract or agreement between the rigs and a commercial scallop harvesting company. I've never seen evidence of commercial harvesting on the Eureka or the twins. The only thing I've seen is the aftermath of the scrubbing companies who scrub EVERYTHING off the pylons down to ~25 feet. Indiscriminate. Not to say that the scrubber crew doesn't go down and grab a few scallops for themselves... but certainly no sign of "commercial harvesting".

Bill

In my mind the scallop issue is a non-issue right up until the rig owners stop us from diving the rigs at all. They cannot enforce if divers hunt; it's not like you can really see if someone is taking them or brings up a bag of scallops if they are discrete. And do they want to have someone in place to monitor them? Probably not. So when the rig cleaners or whoever has the contract to harvest them complains it would be cheaper and easier to keep the dive boats away completely since the rig owners do not get any revenue from them. Just my 2 psi.

 

[dytis-sm]

In my opinion, people diving the rigs is the best PR the oil rigs can gather...fishing adding an additional dimension to it. I disagree with some divers here who fear that we are at the border of being unwelcomed. We are probably their best allies in any environmental contention. I doubt that they care if anyone picks scallops. The "agreement" was to protect the rights of the company cleaning the oil rig legs and they are the only ones concerned. That was in 2003 of course. The fact remains that this was 10 years ago, two owners ago, and nobody know who the cleaning company is now. My guess is that in all those years of "scallop poaching", somebody would have come out and claim some rights!

Now if this is another way for the anti-hunting groups to create a virtual MPA, that is a different story.

 

[MaxBottomtime]

Abalone hunting south of Monterey is illegal by Fish and Game regulations not a Gentleman's agreement...

It is now, but was still legal well into the '90s. By then, they were gone. BTW, it's south of San Francisco now.
Some may not have been diving here long enough to remember, but a diver drowned at the rigs after surfacing with a 75 pound bag of scallops. He kicked so hard to reach the surface that he had no air left and sank. His two buddies already on the boat saw him sink. The oil companies banned diving on the rigs for several years after that. The diver's body was found a few years ago by an oil company submersible survey in over 800 feet.

 

[Ken Kurtis]

Some may not have been diving here long enough to remember, but a diver drowned at the rigs after surfacing with a 75 pound bag of scallops. He kicked so hard to reach the surface that he had no air left and sank. His two buddies already on the boat saw him sink.

First off, that's not exactly correct. (Don't forget who I'm a consultant for.)

The diver in question started the dive with his buddies, very quickly into the dive decided to abort, the buddies watched him go all the way to the surface (no clue as to how deep they were but I'm guessing 30-60 feet), saw him hit the surface, and they continued their dive. However, once he was on the surface, he was in some sort of distress, didn't inflate his BC and sank. The DM from the boat (Pacific Dream as I recall) was on his way to him, saw him go down, tried to swim down to him, and couldn't reach him. The diver sank out of sight.

The oil companies banned diving on the rigs for several years after that.

Not for that reason. This accident had nothing to do with the diving ban. As I mentioned previously, the ban was an "up yours" to divers and anyone else wo came to the rigs when the Rigs-to-Reefs bill was vetoed by Gray Davis because Aera Energy was pissed that they weren't going to be able to leave their rigs in place and would have to tear them down to the seabed at the end of their lease.

The diver's body was found a few years ago by an oil company submersible survey in over 800 feet.

THAT is correct. Although I think the depth was closer to 700 but at that depth, who's going to quibble????

Now as for some other comments that have been made . . .

I've got to tell you that I'm rather disappointed in the general desire to find reasons not to honor the genetleman's agreement. It was too long ago, the people who made it aren't inbolved anymnore, it's not really a "law" so we don't have to follow it . . .

I believe it takes people of honor and character to abide by such things. I'm a big believer in the value of my word and the willingness to stick to it. Whether you like it or not, whether you were there or not, whether you even believe me or not, "we" - as a diving community - agreed to a set of rules to dive the Area-owned oil rigs, specifically Eureka, Ellen, and Elly. It goes far beyond just adhering to no-take. I will post the last updated set of protocols after this e-mail. (I'm going to do it as a separate thread.) IMHO, it's one thing to think about re-negotiating the agreement. But it's quite anothetr to start with an attitude of "That doesn't apply to me."

On that note of re-negotiating . . .

Some of you are simply not thinking big picture here. Do you REALLY want to put into the heads of the current oil rig owners, the idea that they have some control over us? In terms of "unintended consequences" do you really want to get into a discussion with them about no-take to have them come back with the idea that you can take whatever you want . . . but it can only be Monday-Friday between 10AM & 3PM or something like that? Or that no more than 10 divers can be underwater at any given time? Or that they'll only allow one boat per day per rig? Or something you will find equally onerous?

The current system works. The whole idea from the git-go has been to have minimal impact and low profile any time a boat is out there. For instance, the original guidance was NOT to ask them for permission to dive, but to tell them we were coming. Subtle difference. And they could always say, "Please don't come because we have a boat working that site." On top of that, don't lose sight of the fact that these are working rigs, and they're busier now than they were 10 years ago. That means there are workboats coming in and out and they take precedence over any diving we're doing. So the last thing we'd want to do is put our industry in a position where we're an impediment to their work. And trust me when I tell you that I know the boats and the shops who told me to my face they'd work within the guidelines and then went out and ignored them totally. Trust me when I tell you that in the early days of this, we almost lost the access again because of a few selffish cowboys with no honor. (I sound like Worf, don't I???)

Or, as one poster said, let's just do whatever we want until they tell us we can't dive anymore. Because when we can't regulate oursevles, the easiest solution is simply to ban us all together. No dive boats around, no problematic issues.

- Ken

 

[MaxBottomtime]

I remember the death of the diver you mentioned, but that was about ten years after the one I was thinking of. I believe it was around 1990 or 1991.

 

[Ken Kurtis]

I remember the death of the diver you mentioned, but that was about ten years after the one I was thinking of. I believe it was around 1990 or 1991.

You may be correct BUT . . . I am pretty sure there haven't been TWO divers found years later and years apart by submersibles on the Eureka rig.

And to your point of the rigs being closed because of this diver's death, if the accident happened in 1990 or 91 and the rigs were closed to diving in 2001, there's certainly no direct connection.

- Ken

 

[OkByMe]

Only in California. There always seems to be some bureaucracy, or rule or law or practice that gets in the way of living life in that state. Ya'll come on out to the gulf to the rigs. You don't need some concatenated means of diving them. If you fish or spearfish, have a license. Stay out of the way of the working rigs workers or boats, don't get in the water if they are in the water and you will be fine. There are plenty of platforms to dive and fish. The Federal knuckleheads are trying to mandate non-working rig plug and removal. They don't get that it is habitat. Fish'em while you can.

 

[red_instead]

Only in California. There always seems to be some bureaucracy, or rule or law or practice that gets in the way of living life in that state. Ya'll come on out to the gulf to the rigs. You don't need some concatenated means of diving them. If you fish or spearfish, have a license. Stay out of the way of the working rigs workers or boats, don't get in the water if they are in the water and you will be fine. There are plenty of platforms to dive and fish. The Federal knuckleheads are trying to mandate non-working rig plug and removal. They don't get that it is habitat. Fish'em while you can.

Frankly, I'm pretty sure the rigs are in federal waters and I doubt California has jurisdiction.

Still, the companies have enough money and political clout that if they wanted to make a problem, they probably could. Makes sense to play nice.

 

[Power Scuba]

I was simply pointing out that there is no "Gentleman's Agreement" between elements of the dive community and the rigs owners. To have an agreement, there must be informed consent from each party. That does not exist.

If you had simply said, "Folks, act respectfully and in accordance with the precepts of being a good steward... and don't talk too loudly about your diving exploits on the rigs", I would have had nothing to write about.

Bill

Some of you are simply not thinking big picture here. Do you REALLY want to put into the heads of the current oil rig owners, the idea that they have some control over us? In terms of "unintended consequences" do you really want to get into a discussion with them about no-take to have them come back with the idea that you can take whatever you want . . . but it can only be Monday-Friday between 10AM & 3PM or something like that? Or that no more than 10 divers can be underwater at any given time? Or that they'll only allow one boat per day per rig? Or something you will find equally onerous?

- Ken

 

[diverrex]

I dived on oil rig Grace off Ventura a number of years ago. Now there is no diving there I believe because of a dive accident there and the rig owner stopping diving afterwards. It would be a real shame if diving was ever stopped on the E rigs for any reason.