Good read from MSN

[Finfeatherfur]

Here's an interesting read I saw this morning on MSN......I know, "MSN" and "interesting" in the same sentence - crazy!!
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/47855790...ew_york_times/

[Texas Tiger]

Another case where the government needs to apply a little more common sense instead of a regulation book

[Finfeatherfur]

Originally Posted by Texas Tiger

Another case where the government needs to apply a little more common sense instead of a regulation book

Can I get an "AMEN"?

[ElectricChicken]

AMEN!!!

[Captain Mike P.]

Leaving the structure there would be a win for everyone. Im sure the oil company would agree to keep up the Nav aid systems considering the money they would save by not having to remove it. On another note I'm not sure how much money they would save by refurbishing the exisitng structure as opposed to building a new one for a future structure.

[Finfeatherfur]

Since this is what I do for my primary occupation, I tend to know what a decommissiong project cost. The removal of the jacket (structure) then the site clearance with a trawl would be hundreds of thousands. The wells still need to have an approved P&A program completed regardless if it is "reefed in place" or not. I have discussed this topic before, and still don't see why the federal agencies can't work together to keep these. It does not pose a risk to navigation if it is already a stationary object and has been for years. Keep it on all the Nav charts as a "reef" instead of "structure" and move on. Really chaps my rear that everything is a fight!!!

[SULPHITE]

http://www.votervoice.net/core.aspx?...True&SiteID=-1