WHERE LAND 
 AND WATER MEET 
 
I i — 't5«.^KT • ^~- ~ *^«Ji, 
 
 WHERE LAND AND WATER MEET 
 
 Prepared by the National Ocean Industries Association 
 in Cooperation with the Office of Coastal Zone Management 
 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 
 Department of Commerce 
 Washington, D.C. 
 
 July 1979 
 
 .xO 
 
 t&xjjos*^ 
 
 ^ INDUSTRY 
 
 * This publication was produced and written by the National Ocean Industries Association with partial 
 
 funding from the Office of Coastal Zone Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 
 This publication does not necessarily represent official positions of the Office of Coastal Zone Management, 
 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration or the U.S. Department of Commerce. The opinions 
 B. expressed and interpretations rendered are strictly those of the National Ocean Industries Association. 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
 
 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
 
 3 
 
 NATIONAL OCEAN INDUSTRIES ASSOCIATION 
 —WHO WE ARE 
 
 7 
 
 WHERE LAND AND WATER MEET 
 
 8 
 
 THE COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ACT 
 IN A NUTSHELL 
 
 11 
 
 PROGRESS UNDER THE COASTAL ZONE 
 MANAGEMENT ACT AND BEYOND 
 
 15 
 
 MARINE SANCTUARIES 
 
 17 
 
 BY THE BEAUTIFUL SEA 
 
 19 
 
 TO HIP-BOOT DEPTH AND BEYOND 
 
 21 
 
 THE OFFSHORE INDUSTRIES AND HOW THEY GREW 
 
 ENERGY 
 
 25 
 
 GEOPHYSICAL SURVEYING 
 
 29 
 
 DRILLING 
 
 31 
 
 CONSTRUCTION 
 
 33 
 
 SERVICE 
 
 35 
 
 SUPPLY 
 
 37 
 
 TRANSPORTATION 
 
 39 
 
 DIVING 
 
 41 
 
 SHIPBUILDING 
 
 43 
 
 MARINE SALVORS 
 
 45 
 
 FISHING 
 
 49 
 
 DEEPSEA MINING 
 
 51 
 
 COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT- 
 QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS 
 
 55 
 
 FOOTNOTES AND PHOTO CREDITS 
 
 60 
 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
 
 I 
 
 he National Ocean Industries Associa- 
 tion supports the national goals of coastal zone de- 
 velopment and environmental protection called for 
 in the Coastal Zone Management Act. Future devel- 
 opment and continued economic growth of coastal 
 areas depend in part upon protection of our envi- 
 ronment. NOIA is firmly committed to environmen- 
 tal protection in the coastal activities outlined in this 
 report. These activities represent an outstanding 
 record of achievement in responding to human 
 needs, especially when considering the magnitude of 
 the task of developing our nation's outer continental 
 shelf resources consistent with the national energy 
 policy and sound environmental practices and 
 safeguards. 
 
 The national interest depends on an efficient 
 planning process, and effective coastal zone man- 
 agement should be closely related to a review of and 
 decision on a project. NOIA seeks balance in such 
 coastal decisions because equity is of paramount 
 concern. Maintaining our nation's coastal areas for 
 multiple uses is of top priority, and the value of coast- 
 al activities must be weighed according to necessary 
 goals such as energy self-sufficiency, a healthy econ- 
 omy, and environmental protection. Our past expe- 
 riences have proven that these goals not only are 
 desirable, but are mutually compatible as well. 
 
 Now that the coastal zone management trum- 
 pet has sounded in coastal states, all coastal 
 constituencies must recognize the unique and 
 required roles of the others. Otherwise, the initially 
 uncertain sounds promising "wise management of our 
 coastal areas" for both development and protection 
 will prove to be a cruel delusion for the American 
 
people. It is time to stop debating the future of wise 
 coastal zone management and begin working 
 together to create it. 
 
 In implementing approved state CZM plans, 
 NOIA believes state and local officials and con- 
 cerned citizens should: 
 
 • view their state programs as a framework 
 for decisions rather than blueprints detail- 
 ing preconceived solutions for seemingly 
 obvious coastal problems; 
 
 • encourage multiple-use of coastal 
 resources as intended by the Act; 
 
 • determine that the threats to coastal areas are 
 real and probable — not just a remote possib- 
 ility — before banning any coastal activity; 
 
 • consider and document the national inter- 
 est in coastal decisions while understanding 
 the ramifications of those decisions; and 
 
 • administer local plans with the goal of pro- 
 viding better information concerning the 
 range of coastal options available in order 
 to find creative and equitable solutions. 
 
 NOIA also asks that the Federal coastal zone 
 management effort, embodied in the Office of 
 Coastal Zone Management, implement these 
 recommendations to: 
 
 • establish criteria, responsibility, and ac- 
 countability for states in making CZM deci- 
 sions so that arbitrary actions are avoided 
 and the intent of the law is fulfilled in practice; 
 
 [NOIA believes it will be beneficial for all 
 users if state coastal zone management 
 plans have some elements of predictabil- 
 ity, defined procedures, and a minimum 
 of delay in decision-making. We urge 
 OCZM to seek many views in assisting 
 
the states in this endeavor.] 
 
 • continue yearly reviews to make sure the 
 dual intent of the CZM law is being main- 
 tained in practice by the states; 
 
 • continue working with the Congress and 
 user groups to establish guidelines for 
 states in determining and implementing the 
 "national interest" in their CZM decisions; 
 
 [States need standards by which to judge 
 the "national interest" in their local CZM- 
 decisions.] 
 
 • streamline the permitting process; 
 
 [The Office of Coastal Zone Management 
 should assist states in developing an 
 identifiable single — point permitting pro- 
 cess for activities in coastal areas, and in 
 establishing definite policies and proce- 
 dures for obtaining permits for commercial 
 activities in coastal areas.] 
 
 • guarantee continuous and effective public part- 
 icipation and information exchange in coastal 
 resource areas of local and national concern. 
 
 For our part, the National Ocean Industries As- 
 sociation pledges to assist the Federal government, 
 states, and citizens by urging member companies to: 
 
 • continue conducting their various activities 
 to ensure the economic productivity of 
 coastal resources while maintaining sound 
 practices of environmental protection; 
 
 • assist in the distribution of technical and 
 operational information needed by private 
 citizens and public officials in making wise 
 coastal zone management decisions; and 
 
 • be receptive to alternative proposals for 
 coastal activities and uses when they 
 are feasible. 
 
NATIONAL OCEAN INDUSTRIES 
 ASSOCIATION-WHO WE ARE 
 
 The National Ocean Industries 
 Association (NOIA) is a non-profit, 
 national trade association repre- 
 senting ocean-oriented industries 
 engaged in the development and 
 use of marine resources. NOIA 
 membership is comprised of more 
 than 400 companies involved in 
 ocean related industries such as 
 geophysical surveying, commercial 
 fishing, offshore construction, air 
 and marine transportation, off- 
 shore drilling, catering and house- 
 keeping services, shipbuilding, fi- 
 nancial services, marine salvage, 
 research and technology, engi- 
 neering and consulting, equipment 
 manufacture and supply, offshore 
 petroleum production, deepsea 
 rnining, gas transmission, and 
 
 other activities. Most NOIA mem- 
 bers are small independent com- 
 panies involved primarily in ocean 
 enterprises. One of the Associa- 
 tion's basic purposes is to encour- 
 age optimum development and 
 use of marine resources through 
 the efforts of responsible commer- 
 cial enterprises, consistent with 
 sound environmental practices 
 and safeguards. 
 
 NOIA, founded in 1972 by 35 
 people who became its first board 
 of directors, provides a focus and 
 voice for the smaller companies 
 engaged in ocean resource devel- 
 opment. Today, staff members 
 work on a variety of projects to 
 increase the public's understand- 
 ing of the ocean industries and 
 the vital role they are playing in 
 the continued social, economic, 
 and environmental well-being of 
 our nation. 
 
 NOIA wishes to thank the Office of 
 Coastal Zone Management for this 
 opportunity to share its views 
 with others interested in the wise 
 management and proper use of 
 our coastal areas, and hopes this 
 publication will bring to readers a 
 fuller and more balanced under- 
 standing of coastal issues. 
 
 "Where Land and Water Meet" 
 was prepared by the NOIA staff 
 and Association members, under 
 the direction of the NOIA Environ- 
 mental Protection Committee. It is 
 one of a series of publications 
 sponsored by the U.S. Department 
 of Commerce through the Office of 
 Coastal Zone Management (OCZM) 
 of the National Oceanic and At- 
 
 mospheric Administration (NOAA) 
 as a means for varying points of 
 view to be expressed concerning 
 coastal resource management. The 
 views presented are solely those 
 of the National Ocean Industries 
 Association and do not represent 
 a statement of policy by the Of- 
 fice of Coastal Zone Management. 
 
WHERE LAND AND WATER MEET 
 
 Several hundred years ago 
 travelers approaching the Atlantic 
 Coast of the United States re- 
 ported smelling the forests long 
 before coming within sight of land. 
 Today the forests have given way 
 to cities and industries providing 
 those many things essential to our 
 quality of life. In our past determi- 
 nation to "conquer the wilder- 
 ness," and in our haste to "pave 
 paradise and put up a parking 
 lot," Americans have sometimes 
 mistreated our land. It was taken 
 for granted that the environment 
 could absorb any impact, shrug off 
 any indignity, survive any calam- 
 ity — given time. 
 
 Most of these attitudes have 
 changed, however, because contin- 
 uing developments in technology 
 and a new awareness on the part 
 of all Americans have brought 
 about a growing understanding 
 that there are even greater needs 
 for America's coastal resources 
 than ever before. We also better 
 understand that the ability of na- 
 ture to accommodate a broad 
 range of man's activities is re- 
 markable, but not limitless. 
 
 Our concerns are presently so 
 widespread that ordinary citizens 
 employ terminology and ideas 
 once considered to be the sole 
 province of biologists and other 
 scientists. A dozen or so years 
 ago, for example, coastal marsh- 
 
 lands were considered by many t 
 be useless swamps which were 
 good for nothing but breeding 
 mosquitoes. The sooner they 
 could be drained and filled the 
 better. Today, we recognize those 
 once despised swamps as price- 
 less wildlife havens, as incubator: 
 for a wide variety of life forms in 
 nature's food chain, and we refer 
 to them as "nutrient factories" or 
 "wetland resources." 
 
 Within reasonable limits the; 
 changed attitudes are good. Most 
 Americans today seem to recog- 
 nize the balance needed in the 
 many legitimate (and environmen 
 tally safe) uses of coastal areas. 
 However, a few people still are 
 
 8 
 
conjuring up all the terrible things 
 that could happen rather than rec- 
 ognizing all the positive benefits 
 that are happening. They are lash- 
 ing out at the nearest big target 
 and shouting "STOP!" 
 
 Unfortunately, the nearest big 
 target is often industry — big, highly 
 visible, and not too fast on its 
 feet. All industry, to some extrem- 
 ists, is lumped into a monolithic 
 evil entity with one gigantic, soot- 
 billowing smokestack where the 
 bad people scheme to hurt the 
 good people. So, the finger is 
 pointed and the cries go up to get 
 industry out, and keep it out. 
 
 This is overdrawing the pic- 
 ture a little, but it comes close to 
 the way some people reacted 
 when Congress passed the Coastal 
 Zone Management Act in 1972. As 
 far as these people were con- 
 cerned, the Act was a tool that 
 could be used, if not to get indus- 
 try out of the coastal zone, at 
 least to keep more of it from 
 coming in. 
 
 The Act was useful in provid- 
 ing states and local communities 
 with a valuable tool to focus at- 
 tention on all coastal issues and 
 users. But, when the Congress 
 drew up the law, they had no in- 
 tention of keeping industry out of 
 coastal areas. On the contrary, the 
 Congress specifically stated its be- 
 lief in the need to "preserve, pro- 
 tect, develop and, where possible, 
 to restore or enhance the re- 
 sources of the coastal zone, and 
 to encourage and assist the States 
 in the wise use of the coastal zone 
 for . . . economic development." 1 
 
 The intent of the Act clearly is for 
 balanced use of the coastal zone — 
 for protection and development of 
 coastal resources. The ocean in- 
 dustries join with the Congress in 
 believing this is a good and realis- 
 tic goal. We know, because it is 
 one we are achieving. 
 
 If there was any doubt about 
 the dual nature of the intent of 
 the law, it was dispelled by later 
 amendments 2 requiring that state 
 CZM programs not only provide 
 for adequate consideration of the 
 national interest, but also set up a 
 process to plan for energy facili- 
 ties which might be located in the 
 coastal zone or have a significant 
 impact on it. For a state to close 
 its coastal zone arbitrarily to off- 
 shore energy or food processing 
 operations, for example, might be 
 preferred by the local residents; 
 but, considering the nation's hun- 
 ger for energy and food, such an 
 action would not be in the best 
 interests of all the people, the 
 national interest. 
 
 For our part, the National 
 Ocean Industries Association is 
 committed to helping commercial, 
 recreational, wilderness, and pub- 
 lic activities exist and flourish to- 
 gether in coastal areas. There are 
 some who still insist this cannot 
 be done, that the divisions be- 
 tween industry and other interests 
 are too deep, or the conflicts too 
 great. We disagree. We are pledged 
 to the concept and practice of en- 
 vironmental safeguards. We are in 
 coastal areas because we are 
 water-dependent. This is where 
 our future lies. And, we do not in- 
 tend to do harm to coastal areas 
 where we, along with others, make 
 our homes and livelihoods. 
 
 Coastal zone management 
 questions are complex and chal- 
 lenging, and the answers are often 
 elusive. We have knowledge with 
 respect to the coastal areas and 
 our activities as a necessary part 
 of the whole, but our report is not 
 intended as a single-source refer- 
 ence book. We do not have a cor- 
 ner on truth, but we ask for a fair 
 hearing in matters under dispute. 
 To that end, we also hope that 
 this booklet will help readers bet- 
 ter evaluate the activities, beliefs, 
 claims, and suggestions of others 
 in regard to coastal management. 
 Balance in understanding and 
 judgment will have to come first if 
 we expect to attain the balance in 
 usage called for by the law and 
 sought by each state coastal man- 
 agement program. 
 
 The members of the National 
 Ocean Industries Association en- 
 courage all citizens to become 
 aware of our maritime resources 
 and the need for all forms of re- 
 sponsible coastal zone activity to 
 coexist. We support the Coastal 
 Zone Management Act, and believe 
 that it offers an expanded poten- 
 tial for enlightened judgment, un- 
 derstanding, and cooperation 
 among all those who live and 
 work in coastal areas. With others, 
 we share the anticipations and un- 
 certainties of the future, but we 
 are optimistic that fulfilling the 
 provisions of the Act will help to 
 fuse us together as permanent and 
 effective coastal partners. 
 
7583 
 
 . 
 
THE COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT 
 ACT IN A NUTSHELL 
 
 In 1972, recognizing that "the 
 coastal zone is rich in a variety of 
 natural, commercial, recreational, 
 industrial, and aesthetic resources 
 of immediate and potential value 
 to the present and future value of 
 the nation," 3 the Congress passed 
 the Coastal Zone Management Act. 
 The objective of the original Act, 
 and the 1976 Amendments, was to 
 "establish a national policy and 
 develop a national program for 
 the management, beneficial use, 
 protection, and development of 
 the land and water resources of 
 the Nation's coastal zones. . . ." 4 
 
 Since every coastal area has 
 unique characteristics, needs, and 
 priorities for coastal conservation 
 and use, the law envisioned state 
 leadership in planning and manag- 
 ing the various coastal area activi- 
 ties in their jurisdiction. Among 
 the conditions built into the Act, 
 was that a state's approved 
 coastal zone management program 
 recognize the dual intent of the 
 law and, later, be administered to 
 provide for both environmental pro- 
 tection and orderly use of coastal 
 resources. In this way, a state has 
 a wide degree of discretion within 
 the perimeters of the Congres- 
 sional intent. 
 
 The Office of Coastal Zone 
 Management wants a state plan to 
 meet the requirements of the Act 
 by showing it has considered all 
 coastal uses during the plan's de- 
 velopment stage. After a state has 
 developed and adopted a CZM 
 plan, as many coastal states al- 
 ready have, it becomes eligible for 
 implementation grants. During the 
 implementation stage, OCZM mon- 
 
 itors the state program to ensure 
 that approved policies are main- 
 tained in practice. Thus, the Fed- 
 eral government's role is largely 
 one of support, with the responsi- 
 bility resting in state and local ju- 
 risdictions for planning and imple- 
 menting the balance of coastal 
 activities in their locales. 
 
 OCZM will not make coastal 
 zone decisions for the state. The 
 state and its citizens will assess 
 their own needs and priorities and 
 make decisions through an ap- 
 proved CZM plan. Financial and 
 technical assistance is available to 
 a state as it voluntarily continues 
 to meet the general goals of the 
 Act. The law was written in this 
 way to allow states maximum 
 local flexibility in meeting local 
 needs. In return, the Act asks that 
 states not arbitrarily exclude cer- 
 tain activities defined as important 
 and in the national interest. 
 
 Basically there are three im- 
 portant relationships between the 
 Federal government and state CZM 
 programs which establish the 
 partnership approach intended 
 
 by the Congress: shared-funding, 
 Federal consistency, and state 
 consideration of the national in- 
 terest. To encourage states in this 
 management function, the Federal 
 government provides up to 80 per- 
 cent of the cost of developing 
 state CZM programs. After pro- 
 gram approval, the amount of Fed- 
 eral support increases but the 
 states still provide at least a 20 per- 
 cent share. The Federal govern- 
 ment also promises its actions af- 
 fecting the coastal zone will be 
 "consistent" to the "maximum ex- 
 tent practicable" with the ap- 
 proved state program. In return, 
 the Federal government seeks a 
 quid pro quo from the state. The 
 Federal government asks (as the 
 CZM law requires) that states con- 
 sider in good faith the "national 
 interest" in their individual CZM 
 decisions. In this way, the Federal 
 government hopes to assure that 
 all potential uses of the coast are 
 fairly evaluated and that decisions 
 are based on sound technical data 
 after considering the views of all 
 interested parties. 
 
 n 
 
Thus a simple illustration might be: 
 
 ~> 
 
 PROMISE FROM 
 
 THE FEDERAL 
 
 GO\ER\MEVT 
 
 TO BE 
 
 CONSISTENT 
 
 WITH THE 
 
 -""ATE plan- 
 
 STATES 
 
 to develop 
 
 AND ADMNSIER A CZM 
 
 PROGRAM BASED ON 
 
 THEIR NEEDS — 
 
 AND IN TUBM 
 
 THE STATE PLEDGES 
 
 ITS PLAN WILL MAINTAIN 
 
 THEMULTCF..: USE v'EV 
 
 OF THE CZM ACT AND 
 
 TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE 
 
 • NATIONAL IN TEREST" 
 
 IN ITS LOCAL CZM 
 
 The question then become 5 
 ""What ..- i ^ md faith considera- 
 tion of the national interest"" This 
 
 - e s pe . ally important since the 
 law recognizes many diverse 
 coastal activities 
 
 The national inteif si .an 
 elusive concept which, naturally. 
 1 e ans 1 .frerent things to state 
 and local CZM officials in their 
 specific coastal area. The lai 
 however, requires it must be a 
 factor in CZM decisions by say lag. 
 "The management program [most] 
 
 ji . ir ■: ... .:- . . -. federa- 
 tion o: the ational interest in- 
 volved in the siting of facilities 
 
 - ressary to mee1 e quirements 
 which are other than local in 
 nature." 5 Thus, in this limited 
 statement. CZM lav , — 
 
 ^ruidan.T :..- :. ne na- 
 
 tional interest is. and the qu—: . _ 
 remains open to mterpretattom. 
 LA believes the . . - :ess 
 should amend the CZM .Act to give 
 "- ?:»r: fi: /ruidancf : : :~k 
 : -'- -mining what ; 
 
 12 
 
 i"_ ■ r. :hf -£::;-! merest NOIA 
 :>r r r r :rjt r>_r;'f: ;•: :•;■;: must 
 ':•■ th thf 5 : '- : f : : ustify its na- 
 tional interest reasoning in its 
 CZM cr. 5 : - f !■_.;••: ":.- aad cri- 
 -- ■ 3. should be zevf ; v.f : so that 
 indusr*. :l~ bene: ktj; and 
 plan. -. $ : . "7 " . " • r : • . :■ . r . « 
 should r>f re: _:: f : :r:~ . . t 
 which rejects a use proposal. In 
 this way. states wil. :e: :me more 
 
 "t :■: the difficult and imp: r- 
 tant value judgments in CZM de: ■ 
 sic n* - ntU thif r : . " t thf ' na- 
 ' - " .-- "::':•: ' t main an 
 
 enigma which everyone a g iuLS 
 mu-\ Of : ,r jf.-ed in CZM deci- 
 : . r:f out that n: .- -. : . . ept- 
 1: ;■ if :."■: •• ~'-~ :-.:: e: : . f-oe- 
 cific CZM situations in local 
 jurisdictjc : - 
 
 Thf . -r '. ... 1" t " C_. ~ '.hCt 
 r*~,-, — _ 1. " - ..." " \< '".:..~ '. 
 
 . : : ' . n to the law. The CEl r . r 
 added b> .7:7 :r.f - ;: 
 
 in \r~ ■ z.i : t . r~.-~- 
 
 embargo when .'. :>-■.. r -. -■:•- 
 
 '. . . ' - -■■•_■- _ ,.,,_•_ 
 
 "jffjf: :: -. ~ . :•_: . z~ :."■:■:. f - .- 
 
 the Ou.f: ..:: t>~t.:l :~r : that 
 would bf " .."'*" •" :r. ::.: 
 
 f ;: ■■:: f~f ri " . f:i:f : : :.r.:-.. 
 management pr; crir.-.f 15 z 
 
 ..;• ~'~<: rtant mechanism for 
 
 t : " l f..v.f :--T 1 .■■;•: 3. i;vfr~- 
 r. 7 ::f ."-.:; : — :ci:f 7 ressir. 
 
 irf if 7rj :•_£": . 1 7 : "7 7 7 1-- . 
 ::".f rr.rjjf ~: if.f fif ^:3te an; 
 : vernmf ~:f r :7i.:.: - *j~. ::: 
 s;>: 1 7 . : : . — : ir : fr.v : : - - - - 
 tal imps ' r 7 .7 . . : 7 ; 
 erjfrr- --'. "•" r. ~"7 . j : 
 
 the boos share :: . 1 r :_-if 
 .:.^.7 : ::f I'f-.f :r-f-: f ::r.- 
 
 - • . 7 : - ■ : " ■ . r7 . ■ -. : z _: : 
 .Tit . _.■ ""t _ : ;•' r.i i:::">".:.f.f :>f 
 
 • 7 ■ .'f rsf "> ' ' i -'- — t 
 Rhode island fed significant 
 
 .'•._" '.r . ir.'I ILf ■7" .1 
 
 .■.*.'*. 7 r ■ ■ ;.rr 
 
 • . f in tht r t . 
 
 CZM f ■ ' . ; ' - '7:7'. 
 
 f .z: '.--''.■ aft ." - : . - ■ =_-■: ■ 
 
water use in the coastal zone" are 
 subject to the Federal consistency 
 requirement of the Act. 6 This term 
 is defined to include any Federal 
 actions likely to cause significant 
 changes or limitations in the man- 
 ner in which land, water or other 
 natural resources are used. The 
 significance of the changes or lim- 
 itations caused by the Federal 
 action — such as approval of an 
 OCS exploration and development 
 plan — is to be considered in 
 terms of the primary, secondary, 
 and cumulative effects on coastal 
 areas. Once this test has been 
 met, the designated state agency 
 for coastal zone matters is entitled 
 to review the Federal action to as- 
 sess its consistency with the pro- 
 visions of its Federally approved 
 state coastal zone management 
 program. 
 
 Whether a proposed action 
 requiring a Federal license or per- 
 mit is consistent with a state's 
 plan is a determination for the 
 state to make. In most cases, in- 
 formal discussions will ensure that 
 the Federal activity proceeds in a 
 manner consistent with the 
 coastal program. Should questions 
 still exist, a formal arbitration pro- 
 cedure may be invoked and ulti- 
 mately the Secretary of Commerce 
 may be asked to determine 
 whether the proposal is consistent 
 with the objectives of the Act; or, 
 if not, if the activity is necessary 
 in the interest of national security 
 (always an overriding factor). 
 
 The Act is very ambitious. It 
 calls for orderly development of fi- 
 nite coastal resources in many dif- 
 ferent political jurisdictions for 
 many different activities. In effect, 
 the Act brings state and local gov- 
 ernments into a partnership with 
 the Federal government and oth- 
 
 ers to manage use of coastal re- 
 sources. The objective of the Act 
 is to see the coast and its re- 
 sources become of maximum 
 value to the people; but it does 
 not impose those values, prefer- 
 ring to let the people determine 
 them. Hopefully, citizen under- 
 standing and participation will en- 
 sure that our nation's coastal 
 areas will continue to be as pro- 
 ductive, attractive, and even more 
 useful than they are now. Under- 
 standably, this is no easy task. 
 
 There has been some criti- 
 cism that the CZM Act does not 
 establish clearly identifiable pro- 
 gram goals. However, this was not 
 the purpose of the Act. Rather the 
 CZM Act established a minimum 
 threshold of state responsibility 
 for developing a CZM process and 
 putting it into place in each state. 
 There are several points 7 which 
 must be included by a state for its 
 plan to receive Federal approval. 
 The CZM Act says these points are 
 basic for states which ultimately 
 will be using the framework of 
 their plan to make decisions af- 
 fecting their coastal resources. 
 
 Still, one of the strong points 
 of the state plans, like the Federal 
 law, is that nothing is static. A 
 state can always amend its pro- 
 gram as a process of further 
 "fine-tuning" key problems and is- 
 sues. Likewise, court decisions 
 and changes at the national level 
 could change the overall direction 
 of the program. 
 
 Thus, comprehensiveness is 
 one of the hallmarks of the CZM 
 program. As a program responsive 
 to many legitimate needs, the pro- 
 gram may sometimes seem elu- 
 sive. To impose explicit objectives 
 would be clear, but this would not 
 be sensitive to many different 
 coastal areas . . . and uses. Also, 
 as one of the few comprehensive 
 
 Federal programs, conflict resolu- 
 tion plays an important part in 
 CZM decisions. It is much easier 
 for other "single mission" pro- 
 grams to establish elements of 
 predictability and a minimum 
 threshold of performance. Most 
 Federal programs are not geared 
 to fluidity because their objective, 
 and a single modus operandi to 
 achieve it, is clear. The CZM mis- 
 sion, however, is to develop a 
 comprehensive program aimed at 
 general goals and multiple uses. 
 This involves conflict resolution 
 and a constant balancing in 
 coastal areas with different re- 
 sources and needs. 
 
 Of course, it might have been 
 easier had the Congress simply 
 vested all decision-making author- 
 ity with the Federal government 
 rather than allowing the people 
 living in the areas to make these 
 decisions themselves. Central 
 planning is always administratively 
 easier than a participatory "town 
 meeting" approach. Instead, the 
 Congress established the national 
 goal of individual state coastal 
 zone management programs and is 
 making funds available through 
 the Office of Coastal Zone Man- 
 agement for this purpose. 
 
 This national goal involves 
 cooperation among multifarious 
 government entities and coastal 
 interests. It is a goal which has 
 planned and built in numerous 
 means for citizen participation. 
 Therefore, it is incumbent on all 
 those concerned with balanced 
 coastal decisions to become aware 
 of their state's coastal program 
 and participate in making it work 
 to benefit our nation's coastal 
 areas. 
 
 13 
 

PROGRESS UNDER THE COASTAL ZONE 
 MANAGEMENT AO AND BEYOND 
 
 At this point, making judg 
 ments concerning the progress 
 under the Coastal Zone Manage- 
 ment Act is difficult. The obvious 
 question is: "How is such progress 
 to be measured?" It naturally 
 depends on one's orientation 
 and priorities. The Coastal Zone 
 Management Act does not attempt 
 to eliminate the coastal priorities 
 held by different entities, but 
 hopes they might understand — 
 and accommodate — other worth- 
 while and necessary uses of our 
 nation's coastal areas. 
 
 Ultimately, of course, there 
 are no simple solutions to coastal 
 problems. Nearly all of us today 
 who recognize the need for safe- 
 guards in coastal activities may be 
 considered environmentalists. 
 Also, most people recognize the 
 seriousness of America's energy 
 problems: how our energy supply 
 is directly related to GNP, how the 
 supply of petroleum products dur- 
 ing the next 30-40 years will af- 
 fect our lives, and our national 
 need to increase our domestic en- 
 ergy supply. Language in the Act 
 encourages these, and other, view- 
 points. 
 
 As a concerned citizen, one 
 might see significant progress to 
 date since the CZM Act has in- 
 creased awareness of all coastal 
 concerns and the need for envi- 
 ronmental safeguards with orderly, 
 sustained development. But, the 
 best measure of progress is the 
 state CZM programs themselves. 
 And, since these programs are just 
 now being put in place, it is too 
 early to make a conclusive 
 assessment. 
 
 The CZM program is just a 
 few years old. The Congress envi- 
 sioned that the approved state 
 programs would be in place by 
 the end of Fiscal Year 79 (Septem- 
 ber 30, 1979). As of September 30, 
 1978, there were 13 state pro- 
 grams 8 approved by the Depart- 
 ment of Commerce, which set up 
 a process for making decisions af- 
 fecting their coastal areas. It is es- 
 timated that nine more states 9 will 
 submit and receive approval of 
 their coastal zone management 
 programs during Fiscal Year '79 
 and that the remainder will work 
 toward approval despite diminish- 
 ing planning assistance grants. 
 There are 30 states and five terri- 
 tories eligible for voluntary in- 
 volvement in the CZM program. 
 
 It should be emphasized that 
 the plans themselves are not for 
 any single purpose (i.e. to develop 
 or preserve any single activity). 
 The plans, to be approved by the 
 Department of Commerce, must 
 
 provide an implementation proc- 
 ess by which people in each state 
 will make important decisions re- 
 garding use of coastal resources. 
 When a state submits its plans it 
 tells what the program will ac- 
 complish, how it will make deci- 
 sions, and the processes which 
 will be used to ensure that the in- 
 tent of the law will be fulfilled. 
 
 When a plan is accepted, a 
 process is approved for making fu- 
 ture decisions. A framework then 
 exists in which coastal zone ques- 
 tions can be resolved by the state. 
 Processes differ, just as coastal 
 needs of a state are perceived dif- 
 ferently. Issues are ranked by pri- 
 orities. For instance, some state 
 programs provide for a consulta- 
 tive process whereas the Califor- 
 nia Coastal Commission (the ap- 
 proved authority to administer 
 California's CZM matters) must ap- 
 prove all permits for activities af- 
 fecting their coastal zone. 
 
 After a state has an approved 
 coastal zone management plan, 
 the process of implementation be- 
 gins and a state is eligible for Fed- 
 eral implementation monies for 
 administration of the plan. Even 
 then, the Office of Coastal Zone 
 Management has ways to ensure 
 that the intent of the law is met 
 (i.e. all coastal users receive a fair 
 hearing in the decision-making 
 process). 
 
 Each year an approved state 
 management program is in effect, 
 the OCZM conducts what is known 
 as "Section 312 reviews" 10 to de- 
 termine whether the intent of the 
 law is being followed. These Sec- 
 tion 312 annual evaluations can 
 lead to a decision by OCZM to cut 
 
 15 
 
off funds because of mismanage- 
 ment or impropriety, or to 
 condition future grants, so the 
 states must honor their approved 
 plan. 
 
 How is a state's effort to be 
 judged? What are the require- 
 ments for taking into account the 
 "national interest?" Congress left 
 wide open doors. It is difficult for 
 OCZM to be any more precise on 
 questions of this nature than the 
 Congress was when it enacted the 
 law. OCZM needs legislative guid- 
 ance in making program determi- 
 nations, and NOIA recommends 
 that the Congress establish those 
 guidelines. 
 
 To its credit, the Congress has 
 consistently steered a mid-course 
 in CZM legislation, but this has 
 not included specific criteria. For 
 instance, in the early seventies, 
 the strong environmental mood 
 was prevalent in our country, but 
 in 1972, the Congress called in the 
 CZM Act for both preservation and 
 development of the nation's 
 coastal areas. The passage of the 
 1976 amendments, following the 
 1973-74 Arab Oil Embargo, pro- 
 vided CEIP monies to assist local 
 areas with energy facility siting 
 and in preparing for the "onshore 
 impacts of offshore development." 
 This is a balanced proposal to re- 
 spond to a critical need. Even in 
 the face of the embargo, the Con- 
 gress did not abandon established 
 environmental safeguards. There- 
 fore, the CZM program is still 
 being tested with relation to imple- 
 mentation of its balanced mandate. 
 
 Most of the state plans sub- 
 mitted have been approved and 
 the programs are into the real 
 area of decision-making. The ap- 
 proved state plans are individual 
 blueprints to resolve state- 
 
 16 
 
 determined CZM issues. The plans 
 in and of themselves do not nec- 
 essarily create a state policy; 
 rather, they often reflect existing 
 state policies. State public and pri- 
 vate organizations must work with 
 the built-in mechanisms for partic- 
 ipation to ensure that the plans 
 have all the direction necessary 
 for wise and balanced decision- 
 making. NOIA urges OCZM to alert 
 all coastal users and concerned 
 citizens to the continuing opportu- 
 nities for meaningful information 
 sharing under the approved state 
 plans. We also hope OCZM will 
 continue to monitor the imple- 
 mentation of the state programs 
 to ensure that balanced decisions 
 are reached. 
 
 The mechanisms for approv- 
 ing or denying coastal activities 
 under each state's CZM plan 
 should be clarified. No plan 
 should be approved without well- 
 founded decisions by state author- 
 
 ities demonstrating that adequate 
 weight to all views will be consid- 
 ered during implementation. For 
 instance, a state authority should 
 not be able to dismiss a national 
 interest claim merely by saying it 
 has been considered. Reasons and 
 criteria must be known in order to 
 prevent arbitrary and capricious 
 decisions which do not take into 
 account the national interest or 
 the intent of the Act upon which 
 the state programs were founded. 
 
 States should be held ac- 
 countable for their decisions. In 
 addition to standard criteria for 
 the consistency and national inter- 
 est provisions, adequate and pub- 
 lic documentation of all decisions 
 is needed. More predictability is 
 also needed; and information at all 
 stages in the process can ensure 
 this. 
 
 
MARINE SANCTUARIES 
 
 Another Office of Coastal 
 Zone Management responsibility 
 involves administration of the Ma- 
 rine and Estuaries Sanctuaries 
 Program. Title III of the Marine 
 Protection, Research, and Sanctu- 
 aries Act of 1972 grants the Sec- 
 retary of Commerce the authority, 
 with Presidential approval, to des- 
 ignate Marine Sanctuaries in 
 certain ocean waters for purposes 
 of preserving and/or restoring the 
 conservation, ecologic, recrea- 
 tional, or aesthetic values of 
 sanctuary areas. 
 
 The Marine Sanctuaries pro- 
 gram should not be viewed as a 
 general purpose ocean manage- 
 ment effort, however, but rather 
 as an opportunity to preserve 
 specific, unique marine resources 
 much in the same way the Fed- 
 eral government has reserved 
 land areas of extraordinary 
 beauty as National Parks. Under 
 the program, two Marine Sanctu- 
 aries have been designated: the 
 Monitor Marine Sanctuary off 
 Cape Hatteras, North Carolina, 
 which protects the wreck of the 
 famous Civil War ironclad ship 
 the USS MONITOR; and the Key 
 Largo Coral Reef Sanctuary, an 
 extraordinarily beautiful coral reef 
 off the Southern Florida Coast. 
 
 In 1977, President Carter di- 
 rected the Secretary of Commerce 
 to identify sites of potential sanc- 
 tuaries. Of the 170-plus sanctuary 
 nominations, the Office of Coastal 
 
 Zone Management now is studying 
 four proposals; three off Califor- 
 nia, and one off the Gulf Coast. 
 The sanctuary designation 
 process begins with consideration 
 of a formal sanctuary nomination. 
 The nomination describes the 
 proposed sanctuary's boundaries 
 and the resources subject to pro- 
 tection, and suggests a manage- 
 ment program to preserve the 
 essential attributes of the sanctu- 
 ary. The management program 
 varies from sanctuary to sanctuary 
 according to the resources pre- 
 served by the sanctuary. Initially 
 some people misconstrued the pro- 
 gram as cordoning off large ocean 
 areas from many acceptable, and 
 wholly appropriate, uses such as 
 energy development. Fortunately, 
 OCZM has repeatedly gone on 
 record as supporting multiple 
 uses of sanctuary areas and has 
 
 adopted policies calling for only 
 the minimum amount of manage- 
 ment regulations necessary to 
 protect sanctuary resources. Des- 
 ignating an area a Marine Sanctu- 
 ary does not preclude economic 
 activities from occurring within 
 the sanctuary. Indeed, issue pa- 
 pers for the California Sanctuaries 
 suggest that OCS oil and gas de- 
 velopment can occur within a 
 sanctuary area while still preserv- 
 ing the resources the sanctuary is 
 designed to protect. 
 
 Many groups, like the National 
 Ocean Industries Association, 
 support the intent of rational 
 preservation of marine resources. 
 However, the Marine Sanctuaries 
 program, as worthwhile as we 
 believe it can be, seems to be in 
 conflict with the President's Exec- 
 utive Order 11593 calling for re- 
 duced government regulations. 
 We support President Carter in 
 his call for eliminating regulations 
 which are overlapping with other 
 existing Federal regulations. We 
 support the Marine Sanctuaries 
 program when there is a need for 
 it. 
 
 There is a clear need for some 
 sanctuaries, but some groups have 
 suggested the need for the Marine 
 and Estuaries Sanctuaries Program 
 Office may be duplicative of other 
 Federal efforts. 
 
 The first step in reviewing a 
 nomination involves examining a 
 proposal's feasibility. To do this, 
 
 17 
 
OCZM produces a sanctuary issue 
 paper, laying out the sanctuary 
 nomination and suggesting man- 
 agement policy options. Following 
 comments and workshops on the 
 issue paper, OCZM may advance 
 the sanctuary's candidacy by pro- 
 ducing a Draft Environmental 
 Statement (DES) on the sanctuary. 
 At this stage, OCZM holds formal 
 hearings in the affected coastal 
 area. After considering comments 
 on the DES, OCZM will publish a 
 Final Environmental Statement 
 (FES). The final step is formal 
 designation of the sanctuary by 
 the Secretary of Commerce upon 
 approval of the President. 
 
 Marine Sanctuaries which ex- 
 tend into State waters must also 
 receive approval from the affected 
 states. In practice, OCZM works 
 very closely with states bordering 
 on a proposed sanctuary whether 
 the sanctuary actually covers wa- 
 ters within the state's jurisdiction 
 or not. 
 
 During the spring of 1979 
 OCZM is considering designating 
 four sanctuaries off the California 
 and Gulf coasts. Off California, 
 OCZM has prepared a combined 
 issue paper examining sanctuary 
 
 proposals for the Point Reyes- 
 Farrallon Island area, Monterey 
 Bay, and northern Santa Barbara 
 Channel. OCZM is also studying a 
 proposed sanctuary in the Flower 
 Garden Banks off the Texas and 
 Louisiana coasts. 
 
 A strong case can be made 
 for sanctuaries of reasonable and 
 manageable dimensions, which 
 are established to protect or pre- 
 serve a unique and valuable ma- 
 rine resource. After an initial 
 shaky start, NOIA believes the 
 Federal Marine Sanctuaries Pro- 
 gram Office will implement sanc- 
 tuaries on a site-specific basis, 
 with proper recognition of com- 
 patible multiple use principles. 
 NOIA seeks to assist in that pro- 
 cess be it under the Sanctuaries 
 office, CZM office or, preferably, 
 under previously existing Federal 
 authority. 
 
 Still, NOIA sometimes won- 
 ders whether any substantive or 
 procedural process can ade- 
 quately determine the "aesthetic" 
 values of sanctuaries. We ques- 
 tion how this can be done, and 
 whether the Federal government 
 should attempt to determine aes- 
 thetic values for people. By the 
 
 same token we also question the 
 prudence of many things the gov- 
 ernment attempts to do! 
 
 In view of the above observa- 
 tions it would appear that certain 
 steps could be taken to put the 
 Marine Sanctuary program on a 
 firmer footing and introduce es- 
 sential elements of realism and 
 increased public awareness. NOIA 
 offers the following suggestions 
 toward this end: 
 
 1. a schedule of the pro- 
 posed sanctuary program 
 for the next 4-5 years, 
 similar to the Department 
 of the Interior's Proposed 
 OCS Lease Sale Planning 
 Schedule, should be made 
 available to the public; 
 
 2. maps of the proposed 
 sanctuaries should be 
 made public at an early 
 date; 
 
 3. definitive standards 
 should be established for 
 sanctuary proposals in 
 order for them to qualify 
 for consideration by the 
 Department; 
 
 4. sanctuary proposals which 
 conflict with resource de- 
 velopment should be sub- 
 jected to a careful cost- 
 benefit analysis; 
 
 5. the minimum of additional 
 regulations, over and 
 above those already exis- 
 tent, should be imposed 
 in designated sanctuaries; 
 
 6. the principle of multiple 
 use should be applied to 
 the maximum extent pos- 
 sible; and 
 
 ,7. large committments of the 
 public domain to sanctu- 
 ary status should be sub- 
 ject to Congressional 
 approval, as is the case 
 with wilderness area des- 
 ignations onshore. 
 
 18 
 
BY THE BEAUTIFUL SEA 
 
 We live on a watery planet. 
 The oceans, containing some 330 
 million cubic miles of water, 
 cover almost three-quarters of the 
 earth's surface. If the crust of the 
 earth were to be leveled, with all 
 the great mountain ranges and 
 abyssal depths evened out, the 
 planet would be covered by a 
 uniform sheet of water more than 
 10,000 feet deep. Impressive, yes — 
 yet all the water on earth, both 
 fresh and salt, make up only a lit- 
 tle more than one tenth of one 
 percent of the volume of the 
 planet Earth. It becomes apparent, 
 then, that water, like beauty, is 
 only skin-deep — and again like 
 beauty, is a rare and precious gift. 
 Water is, perhaps, the most pre- 
 cious of all the earth's resources. 
 
 The members of the National 
 Ocean Industries Association ap- 
 preciate this since they earn their 
 living from the development and 
 production of the ocean's living 
 and non-living resources. 
 
 Scientists say life as we know 
 it would not be possible without 
 the sea. And the quality of life as 
 we now enjoy it surely would not 
 
 be possible without the use of the 
 rich resources contained in and 
 under the sea. 
 
 It is for this reason that we 
 in NOIA do not share the notion 
 of absolute conflict between the 
 industry and the environment. We 
 believe people, nature, and tech- 
 nology can live in harmony, and, 
 in many respects, already live in a 
 balanced, productive, continuing 
 relationship. 
 
 People have been harvesting 
 the ocean's resources for hun- 
 dreds of years. The first scientific 
 oceanographic expedition was 
 made by the HMS CHALLENGER 
 in 1872. It is significant to note 
 that some scientists are still using 
 and studying data taken by the 
 HMS CHALLENGER today. This 
 expedition marked the first step 
 by scientists and engineers into 
 the sea. The succeeding steps 
 have been most impressive. 
 
 Ocean use technologies have 
 been developing at a rapid pace. 
 The costs are virtually incalculable. 
 
 Much of this technological 
 development has been in an area 
 that allows industry to develop 
 
 the ocean's resources in a man- 
 ner not damaging to the environ- 
 ment. 
 
 While some believe that no 
 activity in the ocean is desirable 
 and others favor no regulations 
 and unrestricted activities, again 
 we believe that people, nature, 
 and technology can, through wise 
 planning, live in harmony. 
 
 Coastal zone management of- 
 fers coastal states and affected 
 counties a mechanism to plan 
 and have an input into activities 
 affecting coastal areas. One ap- 
 proach to CZM is the implementa- 
 tion of a defined regulatory and 
 permitting process. This is one of 
 the objectives of the Coastal Zone 
 Management Act. With such a 
 clear process, industries can ac- 
 curately plan their activities to 
 ensure the adequate development 
 of ocean resources without en- 
 countering unnecessary produc- 
 tion delays and causing an ad- 
 verse economic impact on 
 consumers. Inefficient government 
 does not benefit anyone — the 
 consumer, the environment, the 
 ocean industries, or the nation. 
 
 19 
 
ft 
 
 
 M 
 
 v^ 
 
 "% 
 
TO HIP-BOOT DEPTH AND BEYOND 
 
 The beginning of man's rela- 
 tionship with the sea probably 
 occurred when a primitive man, 
 following the example of a gull, 
 pried open a clam, ate the con- 
 tents, found it satisfying, and 
 looked around to see what else 
 the water had to offer. Later, he 
 learned to spear fish, gouge a tree 
 trunk into a canoe, build a raft, 
 and weave a net. These were the 
 first ocean industries. In time, 
 they led to small but sturdy fish- 
 ing smacks, and much later to 
 ships of exploration that bridged 
 the dividing seas, and the lumber- 
 ing merchant-men of commerce. 
 Thus, the fishing and shipping in- 
 dustries of today grew from roots 
 buried deep in antiquity. 
 
 In addition to working on the 
 surface of the sea to harvest its 
 depths and move goods across it, 
 early men somewhere lost enough 
 of their fear of the great unknown 
 to enter into it. They learned how 
 to hold their breath for minutes 
 at a time as they plucked sponges 
 and shellfish from the ocean 
 floor. Long after them came such 
 things as submarines, the bathy- 
 sphere that Dr. William Beebe 
 rode to a 3,028-foot depth in 
 1934, TRIESTE I, which sounded 
 the deeps at 35,800 feet in 1960, 
 and underwater living experi- 
 ments like Sealab and Conshelf. 
 But these endeavors were for 
 military or scientific rather than 
 commercial applications. Modern 
 examples of men working in the 
 sea generally were limited to fish- 
 ing until the advent of the off- 
 shore oil industry. Today NOIA 
 
 members are working in the seas 
 and their activities are beneficial 
 to everyone: taxpayers, con- 
 sumers, employees, government, 
 and the general economy. These 
 are important factors in determin- 
 ing the national interest. 
 
 The first useful oil produc- 
 tion in the coastal area of North 
 America was the natural seep off 
 the Pacific coast near what is 
 now Santa Barbara, California. 
 Records of the early explorers in- 
 dicate that Indians living nearby 
 collected tar from the beach, 
 using it to caulk their canoes to 
 make them watertight. 11 This nat- 
 ural oil seep, identified on maps 
 as Coal Oil Point, continues to 
 deposit tar on the beaches of 
 Santa Barbara today 12 and in 
 other offshore areas. 13 
 
 The first real Gulf Coast off- 
 shore activity took place in 1938, 
 when Pure Oil Company erected 
 a wooden platform in 15 feet of 
 water to develop and produce oil 
 reserves from Louisiana's Creole 
 Field. Less than 10 years later, in 
 1947, the Kerr-McGee Corporation 
 established commercial produc- 
 tion on the world's first steel 
 platform, in 20 feet of water some 
 45 miles south of Morgan City — 
 "out of sight of land" for the first 
 time. The offshore oil and gas in- 
 dustry was on its way. 
 
 21 
 
From these historic firsts, the 
 post-war technological boom has 
 brought the United States' off- 
 shore oil industry into progres- 
 sively deeper waters, not only in 
 the Gulf of Mexico but in the Pa- 
 cific off California and Alaska, 
 and, now, in the Atlantic off New 
 Jersey and Rhode Island. 
 
 The energy crisis is the most 
 serious challenge our nation has 
 had to face in recent decades. 
 Energy consumption throughout 
 the world has escalated dramati- 
 cally during the prosperous post- 
 war economic era. Despite the 
 energy squeeze following the 
 1973 oil embargo, there is no 
 reason to believe this trend will 
 reverse itself. 
 
 The indisputable fact is that 
 our nation spent $45 billion in 
 1977 for the imported petroleum 
 we needed. But government delays 
 hampered the industry from 
 exploring as much as possible 
 domestically for additional 
 supplies. 
 
 In addition to a tremendous 
 contribution of technological ex- 
 pertise and capital investment, 
 NOIA members have always been 
 cognizant of their responsibility 
 with respect to conducting envir- 
 onmentally sound operations in 
 the ocean. 
 
 Today all ocean companies 
 must prepare project assessments 
 to analyze each new activity for 
 any adverse impact that could 
 possibly occur from the imple- 
 mentation of their plans. Often 
 these assessments are several 
 volumes long. 
 
 Studies of one type or an- 
 other have been conducted for 
 offshore activities from 1952 to 
 the present. While there are 
 surely studies suggesting damage, 
 most have found no evidence of 
 any significant long-term adverse 
 environmental impact. 14 
 
 The need for ocean energy 
 development is well known. But 
 there are needs to conduct a 
 wide variety of other important 
 ocean activities too. We must also 
 constantly develop new ways to 
 do things better, faster, cheaper 
 or safer by industry/government/ 
 academic research and cooperation. 
 
 Because offshore and related 
 work opportunities are so diverse 
 they are often not understood. 
 "What do the ocean industries do 
 anyway?" is an important first 
 question before their economic 
 and environmental impact can be 
 assessed. 
 
 The ocean industries consist 
 of many parts operating together 
 to achieve individual and joint 
 success. The best way to describe 
 the process is to relate it in the 
 following narrative of how the 
 process unfolds and works. 
 
 
 22 
 
THE OFFSHORE INDUSTRIES 
 AND HOW THEY GREW 
 
P ; 
 
 
 *' - * * 
 
 **V 
 
 <** 
 
 ■ ■ ■ ' ■ 
 
 *- 
 
 Z*** 
 
 » '4 
 
 
 .fefc.A ''*«%J»«tik 
 
ENERGY 
 
 The sea has always been a 
 source of mystery and romance. 
 The oceans once were thought to 
 be the domain of creatures and 
 gods who would swallow up any- 
 one daring to venture beyond 
 sight of land. Even after the first 
 European exploration ships set 
 out in the 15th century to search 
 for new lands treasures, the seas 
 were regarded more with awe 
 than understanding. 
 
 Today, oceans continue to 
 hold mystery and challenge. In no 
 activity is this more evident than 
 in oil and gas production — the 
 modern form of exploration for 
 treasures on (or beneath) the 
 seas. Today research revealing the 
 uniqueness and complexity of the 
 ocean environment has led to the 
 discovery of new resources and 
 technologies for meeting man- 
 kind's shortage of energy. 
 
 The ocean floor and the geo- 
 logical structures beneath it have 
 already become the most chal- 
 lenging and productive areas for 
 oil and natural gas exploration. 
 Today offshore the United States 
 more than 23,000 exploration and 
 development wells have been 
 drilled but not all of these have 
 produced, of course. About one- 
 third were "dry holes." As the 
 United States faces a scarcity of 
 domestically produced oil and 
 gas, the resources located be- 
 neath the ocean floors promise to 
 play an increasingly important 
 role in meeting our national en- 
 ergy requirements. 
 
 Most of the United States' 
 onshore areas likely to contain oil 
 and gas deposits have already 
 been explored. Most of the re- 
 maining undiscovered onshore oil 
 deposits are apt to lie in geologi- 
 cal structures and fault traps, 
 which are costly to evaluate and 
 whose size often may not justify 
 
 the capital investment necessary 
 to bring them into production. We 
 also know that conversion to an 
 alternative energy source (such 
 as wood to coal and coal to oil) 
 has historically taken 40-50 years 
 and that, during this interim, oil 
 and gas will continue to be our 
 principal source of energy. Today 
 we are supplying nearly 50 per- 
 cent of our petroleum needs from 
 abroad and this places America in 
 a tenuous political and economic 
 position. Americans prefer inde- 
 pendence, and the ocean indus- 
 tries are working to see that 
 America is not so likely to be 
 caught over someone else's barrel 
 as it was during the 1973-74 oil 
 embargo. 
 
 Fortunately, the Outer Conti- 
 nental Shelves hold great poten- 
 tial. Only four percent of the 
 United States' offshore areas have 
 been leased for petroleum explo- 
 ration. Yet offshore resources al- 
 ready account for 15 percent of 
 the total domestic oil production 
 and 23 percent of domestic natu- 
 ral gas production. 15 
 
 Many people attribute Ameri- 
 ca's successful offshore effort to 
 the major petroleum companies, 
 but this is far from the case. 
 Today more than 170 independent 
 companies are involved in oil and 
 gas operations in the Gulf of Mex- 
 ico, and this does not take into 
 account the host of offshore serv- 
 ice, support, or supply companies 
 (who make up the bulk of NOIA 
 membership) or inland companies 
 supplying needed parts, services, 
 and related support activities to 
 offshore operations. 
 
 Basically the large oil compa- 
 nies have the investment capital 
 to take the risks offshore. They 
 contract out for most exploratory 
 services they need to produce off- 
 shore oil and gas. NOIA members 
 
 compete with one another to pro- 
 vide their service to an oil com- 
 pany. An oil company must 
 gather all the diverse services 
 needed to develop an offshore 
 area successfully. The oil compa- 
 nies hire independent geophysi- 
 cal, drilling, and diving contrac- 
 tors from an available, willing, 
 and talented selection of U.S. 
 companies. The geophysical and 
 drilling contractors, in turn, go to 
 shipbuilding firms to build their 
 boats or "rigs." The construction 
 companies use steel and parts 
 from other suppliers and so the 
 multiplier effect goes. 
 
 Offshore oil and gas explora- 
 tion is risky. Return on invest- 
 ment of more than $22 billion to 
 date has been about seven per- 
 cent. Net income as a percentage 
 of net worth is average for all 
 American industry. 16 There are no 
 guarantees and, with the costs so 
 great, only the oil companies can 
 pay everyone needed to mount an 
 offshore effort be it successful or 
 not. For instance, in the Destin 
 Anticline off Florida, oil compa- 
 nies paid more than $1.5 billion 
 to the Federal government for the 
 right to look for oil and gas on 
 selected leases. The companies 
 then spent $19 million on drilling 
 eight exploration wells. All were 
 dry holes or "dusters". The proj- 
 ect was abandoned. The process 
 of taking these gambles is as 
 complex as it is costly. Enough 
 professional skills and academic 
 disciplines to staff a university 
 are involved: lawyers, economists, 
 businessmen, oceanographers, 
 geologists, geophysicists, engi- 
 neers, and computer experts. 
 
 The interested companies bid 
 competitively for the right to look 
 for oil and gas from the Federal 
 government because offshore 
 lands (outside State waters) are 
 
 25 
 
federally owned. The Federal gov- 
 ernment has divided the Outer 
 Continental Shelf into "blocks" of 
 not more than 5,760 acres. Com- 
 panies gain the right to drill for 
 oil and gas (the only way to de- 
 termine what — if anything — is 
 "down there") in these blocks 
 through a process of leasing. 17 A 
 given block or group of blocks is 
 first nominated for lease consid- 
 eration by prospective leasees. 
 Citizens are afforded the opportu- 
 nity to nominate blocks they wish 
 to see withheld. When the gov- 
 ernment decides to hold a lease 
 sale, bids are readied by the com- 
 panies. Theoretically, anyone can 
 bid; but, in practice, mostly the oil 
 companies do. No one would 
 want to bid unless they had the 
 money and willingness to explore 
 the blocks or the ability to ab- 
 sorb a total financial loss if their 
 bid was accepted by the govern- 
 ment. Other businesses or people 
 with a lot of money could bid, 
 but then, why would they want to 
 bid alone? Some large companies 
 which are energy users may be- 
 come part of a bidding group. It's 
 risky enough for companies with 
 years of experience. No one in 
 the offshore business has ever 
 known a sure thing. 
 
 Before any bids are submit- 
 ted, however, complex and 
 lengthy studies and public hear- 
 ings are conducted to determine 
 the environmental effects of pro- 
 posed exploration and produc- 
 tion. All this, before any activity 
 has taken place even though the 
 chance for a commercial offshore 
 find is one in ten. 
 
 After environmental impact 
 assessments have been con- 
 cluded — which may take more than 
 a year — the government formally 
 announces that a sale will be held 
 
 for leases on specific blocks. 
 Company bids are secret and dif- 
 ferent types of elaborate proce- 
 dures and safeguards have been 
 developed to protect confidential- 
 ity until the bids are opened in 
 public by a representative of the 
 Bureau of Land Management of 
 the U.S. Department of the Inte- 
 rior. The amount of a bid is de- 
 termined by the oil company's es- 
 timation of four things: its view of 
 the likelihood of finding oil and 
 gas, the possible extent of the de- 
 posit, the potential economic re- 
 turn of development, and the 
 likely costs of hiring the various 
 independent contractors to do 
 the work. Even a high bidder on a 
 given block may be refused a 
 lease if the United States Geologi- 
 cal Survey (USGS) assessed the 
 block at a higher potential value 
 than the bidder did. Of course, all 
 values are speculative until the 
 drill bit actually penetrates a pos- 
 sible oil or gas deposit. 
 
 The highest winning bid on 
 record for a single 5,760 acre 
 block in the Gulf of Mexico was 
 $212 million. That gave the oil 
 company the right to explore for 
 and produce oil and gas found 
 under the lease, and was in addi- 
 tion to rent and any royalty pay- 
 ments plus costs to independent 
 contractors accrued in the actual 
 process of exploratory drilling. 
 That particular block was on the 
 Destin Anticline mentioned above 
 and was as dry as could be. 
 
 Successful bidders must sub- 
 mit an exploration plan to the 
 Department of the Interior detail- 
 ing how drilling is to proceed and 
 what precautions will be taken to 
 ensure compatibility with the 
 ocean environment. The success- 
 
 ful bidder may be denied a permit 
 to drill if his exploration plan 
 does not take into consideration 
 stringent environmental safe- 
 guards. Also a lease can be auto- 
 matically revoked for any viola- 
 tion of the plan. 
 
 Before obtaining a permit to 
 drill, the company must submit a 
 detailed plan for the activity to 
 the USGS Supervisor. The plan 
 must include a description of all 
 onshore and offshore facilities 
 with details on labor, land, mate- 
 rials, and energy to be used. The 
 company is usually required to 
 furnish ocean bottom surveys 
 identifying potential accumulation 
 of sea life and objects of histori- 
 cal or archaeological significance. 
 Copies of this information are 
 sent by the Supervisor to the 
 Governors of directly affected 
 states as required by the CZM Act 
 and the Outer Continental Shelf 
 Lands Act. 
 
 Pollution control and cleanup 
 equipment must be available to 
 the company before a permit to 
 drill is issued. The company is re- 
 quired to submit an oil spill con- 
 tingency plan to the Supervisor to 
 minimize property damage in the 
 event of a spill. Personnel must 
 be trained in all phases of equip- 
 ment maintenance and operation 
 for prevention of pollution. 
 
 When the permit is finally 
 obtained, the company must meet 
 additional rigid USGS specifica- 
 tions for materials with adequate 
 safety factors and must use the 
 safest drilling procedures. Drilling 
 crews must also receive special 
 training for offshore operations. 
 Periodic surprise blowout pre- 
 vention drills are held to ensure 
 that all equipment is operational 
 and crews react correctly in 
 emergencies. 
 
 26 
 
There are also USGS orders 
 covering platforms and structures. 
 The regulations require certifica- 
 tion of the platform by a regis- 
 tered professional engineer. All 
 production facilities such as sepa- 
 rators, treaters, compressors, and 
 flowlines must be designed, in- 
 stalled, and maintained "in a 
 manner which will facilitate effi- 
 cient, safe, and pollution-free opera- 
 tion." 18 Fire prevention, fire fight- 
 ing, and gas detection equipment 
 are specified. Innumerable pres- 
 sure sensors, relief valves, and fail 
 safe devices to shut in the wells 
 in case of equipment failure are 
 required. Also "the company shall 
 make a planned, continuing effort 
 to eliminate accidents due to 
 human error. This effort shall in- 
 clude the training of personnel in 
 operational aspects of their func- 
 tion and a program to instill in 
 each individual working offshore 
 a conscious desire to achieve safe 
 and pollution free operation." 19 
 
 A company which fails to 
 comply with these regulations is 
 subject to heavy penalties: its 
 production may be shut off, elimi- 
 nating income, large fines may 
 be assessed, or its lease may be 
 cancelled. 
 
 The U.S. Coast Guard has 
 additional rules and regulations 
 relating to safety of life and prop- 
 erty, including specifications for 
 lighting and warning signals on 
 offshore structures. The U.S. Army 
 Corps of Engineers considers nav- 
 igational safety when issuing per- 
 mits for the location of offshore 
 platforms and structures. The Of- 
 fice of Pipeline Safety in the U.S. 
 Department of Transportation is- 
 sues standards for the lines. The 
 Department of Labor establishes 
 OSHA standards for offshore op- 
 
 erators, and unannounced USGS 
 or Coast Guard inspectors are fre- 
 quent visitors to offshore plat- 
 forms to make sure all is going 
 according to the regulations, or- 
 ders, and permits. 
 
 As you read about proposed 
 regulations and the continuing 
 conflicts between the ocean 
 industries and special interest 
 groups, you may conclude that 
 industry opposes all regulations. 
 This is not the case. Members of 
 the National Ocean Industries As- 
 sociation realize that fair, impar- 
 tially enforced regulations are 
 useful in our competitive enter- 
 prise system. But regulations are 
 rightfully opposed by the ocean 
 industries when they serve no 
 purpose — and only serve to satisfy 
 those who oppose progress, 
 thereby creating unnecessary 
 delays and excessive costs. Every 
 citizen eventually pays for the 
 delays and extra costs. 
 
 Honest differences of opinion 
 do occur. Then the ocean indus- 
 tries ask only that the final deci- 
 sions be left to those who are 
 impartial, those who are looking 
 only after the national interest, 
 and those who will consider the 
 ocean industries' excellent record. 
 
 Numerous studies have 
 shown the adequacy of offshore 
 regulations implemented by the 
 responsible industries involved. In 
 oil and gas exploration, for exam- 
 ple, these studies indicate that 
 surrounding water quality has not 
 been degraded and there has 
 been no permanent damage to 
 the environment. A Library of 
 Congress study stated that oil and 
 other hazardous materials have 
 
 been spilled from tankers, barges, 
 industrial runoff, and other 
 sources many more times and 
 with a more damaging aggregate 
 impact than from drilling and 
 producing wells. 20 In fact, quoting 
 from USGS Circular 741 (1976), 
 "no spill in excess of 50 barrels 
 has been recorded during explor- 
 atory drilling either on the Fed- 
 eral OCS or, to our knowledge, in 
 any offshore area throughout the 
 world." 21 And, spills from produc- 
 ing operations have, since 1970, 
 averaged only two one thou- 
 sandths of one percent of pro- 
 duced volume — a truly remarka- 
 ble record! 
 
 The Federal government's 
 successful management of OCS oil 
 and gas production is proved by 
 analysis of USGS statistics. During 
 a 23 year period, from 1953 to 
 1976, the value of OCS petroleum 
 production was about $27.6 bil- 
 lion, while the petroleum industry 
 paid $22.9 billion into the Federal 
 Treasury in the form of bonuses, 
 rents, and royalties. In other 
 words, the Federal government 
 derived 83 percent of the total 
 value of the revenue from these 
 resources and the companies re- 
 ceived 17 percent out of which 
 they had to pay all exploration, 
 development, and production 
 costs. As an over-all industry 
 effort, these companies have not 
 yet received sufficient return to 
 justify their tremendous financial 
 risks. Those individual companies 
 which may have made a profit 
 further shared it with the govern- 
 ment by paying income taxes. 
 And the people who received 
 money from the companies (em- 
 ployees and stockholders) also 
 paid taxes on these earnings. 
 
 27 
 

 
 1.0*- 
 
 % » «* 
 
 I 
 
 2.0' 
 
 3.0' 
 
 . ft*. 
 
 •,&- + 
 
 
 •*.«. 
 
 • * < 
 
 
 t" t 
 
 * 
 
 \ 
 
 St? 
 
 *!.* « 
 
 *,'* 
 
 4.0 
 
GEOPHYSICAL SURVEYING 
 
 Both before and after the 
 permits have been issued, inde- 
 pendent geophysical contractors 
 are hired by interested parties to 
 assess the prospects for oil and 
 gas. Contractors' selection is 
 based on a combination of fac- 
 tors — past accuracy, cost, and 
 availability. The geophysical com- 
 panies sometimes "shoot" certain 
 areas as an independent venture 
 and then sell the information to 
 interested parties. In geophysical 
 work, confidentiality is paramount 
 because the proprietary informa- 
 tion they gather, sell, and inter- 
 pret is the "product" of the geo- 
 physical companies. Their 
 reputation as to how well they 
 gather and interpret information 
 determines whether they stay in 
 business. 
 
 If there were a book of a 
 thousand pages documenting the 
 4.5 billion years of the earth's his- 
 tory, each page would cover 
 4,500,000 years. Our first identifi- 
 able ancestors would appear about 
 three pages from the end of the 
 book. Homo Sapiens would ap- 
 pear at the bottom of the last 
 page, and everything that had 
 happened in recorded history 
 would somehow have to be 
 telescoped into the book's final 
 few words. 
 
 The geophysical survey com- 
 panies of the NOIA membership 
 turn back the pages of history to 
 
 a time millions of years ago when 
 hydrocarbons began to form and, 
 more important, to where they 
 formed. Through technology, 
 study, and experience, they are 
 able to locate general areas 
 where there are indications that 
 possibly oil and gas might be 
 present. Again, nothing is certain. 
 
 Geophysical contractors 
 gather and analyze data or the 
 leasees employ their own fulltime 
 geologists or geophysicists for in- 
 terpretations. Extensive tests are 
 made to determine — as accurately 
 as possible — the geological con- 
 figuration of the layers beneath 
 the ocean floor. Seismic tests de- 
 termine the presence of forma- 
 tions likely to contain oil and gas 
 
 by measuring the length of time 
 required for sound to travel to 
 the surface. This requires very so- 
 phisticated equipment. Literally 
 thousands of miles of seismic 
 data may be taken and analyzed 
 before drilling begins. For in- 
 stance, more than 30,000 miles of 
 data was collected before any 
 drilling began in the Baltimore 
 Canyon area of the East Coast. 
 Other tests conducted during the 
 predrilling phase usually include 
 magnetic and gravity surveys. 
 
 For offshore areas all the in- 
 formation is gathered from seis- 
 mic survey boats. Formerly, ex- 
 plosives were used to generate 
 the energy to reflect off the strata 
 below but, for more than 10 
 years, a non-dynamite energy 
 source has been towed behind 
 the boats which emits harmless 
 periodic "pings." The data col- 
 lected is then sent onshore for 
 analysis. Geophysical work causes 
 no damage in coastal areas. 
 Crews arrive (and leave) before 
 the drilling and support activities 
 begin in an area. With the elimi- 
 nation of the use of explosives 
 (one of many industry develop- 
 ments), geophysical work has no 
 impact except from the use of 
 government inspected boats on 
 the water. 
 
 29 
 

 \ 
 
 I 
 
 
 
 -*:-.-* 
 
 
 
DRILLING 
 
 When the lease operator de- 
 cides where the best prospect is 
 to drill an exploratory well, an in- 
 dependent drilling contractor is 
 called in. This is a company that 
 "rents" drilling rigs to oil compa- 
 nies during exploration and devel- 
 opment. Like geophysical contrac- 
 tors, drilling contractors are 
 competing against each other 
 worldwide for business. Again, the 
 operator looks for price advan- 
 tages, reliability, availability, and 
 competence from a contractor. 
 Different drilling contracting com- 
 panies often specialize in different 
 types of rigs for the unique char- 
 acteristics of a specified job and 
 the environmental conditions. Ex- 
 ploratory drilling is generally 
 done from mobile rigs which may 
 be self-propelled or towed to the 
 drilling site. 
 
 The advances in the capabili- 
 ties of drilling contractors are 
 mind-boggling. The first offshore 
 well was drilled from a rig 
 mounted in about 15 feet of 
 water. Today, drilling rigs and 
 their specially trained crews are 
 capable of operating in water 
 depths of more than 3,000 feet. 
 Besides drilling in deep water 
 there is equipment now in use 
 that allows production from these 
 depths. 
 
 Three types of mobile rigs 
 are generally used in offshore ex- 
 ploration today. Jackup rigs, with 
 legs extending to the ocean floor 
 and "jacking up" the drill plat- 
 form deck, are usually used in 
 water depths of less than 300 feet. 
 Drill ships are, as the name implies, 
 ships specially outfitted with drill- 
 ing equipment. They vary from 
 200 to 500 feet in length and are 
 capable of drilling in areas where 
 water depths are more than 
 3,000 feet. 
 
 Semi-submersible rigs are gener- 
 ally used where seas are rough 
 and their open hull design allow 
 water and wind to move through 
 the structure and have little effect 
 on drilling operations. They are 
 partially submerged to provide sta- 
 bility during the drilling process. 
 
 In the years since 1953, some 
 4 percent of Outer Continental 
 Shelf ocean bottom off the U.S., 
 consisting of almost 15,000,000 
 acres, has been leased to compa- 
 nies hoping to discover and de- 
 velop petroleum reserves. Drilling 
 companies, the primary owners of 
 drilling units, have completed 
 more than 23,000 wells on these 
 leases. Indeed, the drilling con- 
 tractor is considered by many to 
 be the backbone of the offshore 
 oil and gas industry. There are 
 available worldwide today more 
 than 400 drilling units of the 
 three types mentioned, more than 
 80 percent of them owned by 
 contractors based in the United 
 States. A breakdown of the num- 
 ber of rigs by type shows 187 
 jack-ups, 136 semi-submersibles 
 and submersibles, and 81 drill 
 ships. 
 
 Advances in drilling technol- 
 ogy and environmental safeguards 
 have been so great, and the mod- 
 ern drill rig has become so so- 
 phisticated, that the risks drilling 
 contractors take these days are 
 principally financial. Along with 
 providing a means for tapping 
 much-needed energy reserves, 
 drilling contractors contribute 
 much more to the nation's eco- 
 nomic welfare. They must buy 
 their rigs from shipbuilding com- 
 panies and other specialty yards. 
 Because the rigs are very costly, 
 this takes a great deal of financ- 
 
 ing. It is not uncommon for the 
 interest costs each day on an off- 
 shore drilling rig to be $10,000 or 
 more. Costs for constructing 
 jack-up rigs range from $10-25 
 million; for drilling ships, $35-40 
 million; and for semi-submersible 
 rigs $40-50 million. 
 
 To contract a drilling rig 
 often costs $75,000 per day so 
 this quickly gets to be an expen- 
 sive proposition. It normally takes 
 three or four months to complete 
 an exploratory well at a drill site, 
 with no guarantee of success or 
 of getting one's money back if 
 drilling turns up a dry hole or 
 marginal production. Even main- 
 tenance for an idle rig (one which 
 is not presently under contract) 
 costs about $15,000 per day. 
 
 The price a contractor bids 
 on a job is determined to a great 
 extent by his overhead. Rigs built 
 years ago have a competitive 
 edge over those constructed 
 recently — a semi-submersible unit 
 built at a cost of $20 to $30 mil- 
 lion a half dozen years ago could 
 easily cost $50 to $60 million if 
 construction were to begin today. 
 
 The construction of the drill- 
 ing units themselves provides nu- 
 merous jobs, to say nothing of 
 the jobs that result from the need 
 to supply goods and services to 
 the units. All told, there are an 
 estimated 125,000 people engaged 
 in oil and gas operations in the 
 state of Louisiana alone, with 
 20,000 of them directly involved 
 offshore. 
 
 31 
 

 »■ ■■■ m i 1 1 i n mi 
 
 mm 
 
 n nftfi ii » « H 
 
 ■ 
 
 
 '4 i'i 1 
 
 Ml 
 
 *t* 
 
 «WP' 
 
 ► 
 
 jH| 
 
 Ji 
 
CONSTRUCTION 
 
 As the search for hydrocar- 
 bons lead drillers into deeper wa- 
 ters, the offshore construction, 
 shipbuilding, engineering, and fab- 
 rication companies have met the 
 increased challenges. These firms 
 construct the rigs and production 
 platforms that must maintain sta- 
 bility in deep water, perform, be 
 economical and safe, and with- 
 stand the unique forces and pres- 
 sures of the ocean environment. 
 In the late 1940's, the first steel 
 platforms, out of sight of land in 
 20 to 50 feet of water, were sup- 
 ported by a "forest" of small pil- 
 ings. By the mid-1950's, however, 
 the average pile size had in- 
 creased to a 30-inch outside di- 
 ameter, which resulted in fewer 
 piles with a more open bracing 
 pattern. By 1955, the largest off- 
 shore structure had stepped out 
 to 100 feet of water, and over the 
 next 20 years the seaward move- 
 ment continued until it reached 
 the 474-foot level. It has been 
 during the mid to late seventies, 
 however, that we have seen the 
 most dramatic technological 
 advances — and capital investment 
 — in the search for offshore oil 
 and gas. In 1976, for example, a 
 two-section platform was installed 
 offshore California in 850 feet of 
 water, but that record was 
 quickly eclipsed when the three- 
 section, 1,265-foot tall Cognac 
 
 platform was completed in 1,025 
 feet of water in the Mississippi 
 Canyon offshore Louisiana during 
 the summer of 1978. 
 
 The construction industry 
 has not exhausted its capabilities 
 to move into deeper waters and 
 to build for more severe condi- 
 tions as the search for oil ex- 
 pands. From a practical stand- 
 point construction limitations are 
 more likely to be set by econom- 
 ics than by technology. On the 
 other hand, the need to expand 
 our domestic offshore develop- 
 ment of hydrocarbon reservoirs 
 and reduce our reliance on finan- 
 cially burdensome foreign oil im- 
 ports is obvious. 
 
 Very large underwater struc- 
 tures, which, under current 
 technology, cannot be launched 
 
 as a single unit must be fabri- 
 cated in two or more sections. 
 For these units to be connected 
 at sea, very close dimensional tol- 
 erances are necessary — and the 
 construction industry has demon- 
 strated that it is capable of meet- 
 ing such requirements. Many off- 
 shore construction companies are 
 located in the Gulf of Mexico area . 
 As offshore development expands in 
 other areas, it is likely that much 
 construction will continue at fa- 
 cilities in the Gulf and the struc- 
 tures floated to their offshore po- 
 sitions. 
 
 33 
 

 
 w 
 
SERVICE 
 
 Lifestyles today put special 
 emphasis on "services." To sus- 
 tain ourselves and achieve our in- 
 dividual goals, we all depend to 
 some degree on goods and serv- 
 ices provided by someone else. 
 Two hundred years ago, it was 
 possible for a family to produce 
 necessary goods and services for 
 its own use. In the early years, it 
 was possible for oil drillers to do 
 that too. But with the advent of 
 offshore development and new 
 varying challenging situations, 
 service companies have devel- 
 oped to provide special services 
 to respond to an array of drilling 
 problems. The offshore industry 
 contracts for personalized, special 
 service that the drilling contrac- 
 tor cannot provide for himself. 
 
 The nature of a service com- 
 pany's business in the offshore oil 
 and gas industry can be com- 
 pared with that of the medical 
 profession. Often times the "doc- 
 tor" is called in when things are 
 not functioning as they should. 
 Service companies "doctor" wells, 
 using everything from preventive 
 medicine to pep tonics to emer- 
 gency remedial procedures. They 
 monitor, test, research, analyze, 
 compute, diagnose, prescribe, op- 
 erate, keep records, and otherwise 
 find cures for both everyday 
 problems and big emergencies. 
 They are on call 24 hours a day. 
 
 Some of these specialized 
 services needed by oil and gas 
 exploration, drilling, and produc- 
 tion operations include: analyzing 
 the fluids to determine how the 
 drilling is going; "fishing" debris 
 (broken tools, etc.) out of the 
 drill hole so drilling can resume; 
 casing the drill hole so the sides 
 will not cave in; core analysis of 
 rocks for data; directional drilling 
 services; cementing, acidizing, and 
 perforating services; oilwell frac- 
 turing services which consist of 
 forcing liquids into a sandstone 
 formation to break open the pas- 
 sageways for the oil to be pumped; 
 blowout assistance where special 
 service crews are called in to 
 "cap" wells that have blown out; 
 and other highly specialized serv- 
 ices such as workover of old 
 wells, scale removal, fluid level 
 sounding, production testing, 
 downhole packing and plugging; 
 pipe inspection, downhole pres- 
 sure testing and temperature sur- 
 veys; and a myriad of other serv- 
 ices too numerous to mention. 
 Naturally no one service company 
 does all of these things since they 
 are specialized. 
 
 It is easy to understand from 
 all this that proper drilling, com- 
 pletion, and production from an 
 offshore oil or gas well is a com- 
 plicated, time-consuming, and 
 costly procedure. It is also easy 
 to realize why many service com- 
 panies are necessary to maintain 
 the high efficiency of recovery 
 and advance our technology as 
 we are required to drill deeper, 
 hotter, and more highly pressur- 
 ized wells. 
 
 The economic impact of 
 service companies in the coastal 
 regions is similar to that of any 
 other business locating in a 
 coastal community — it depends 
 on the need of the business. 
 Many Louisiana towns, for in- 
 stance, have prospered with the 
 coming of offshore development 
 more than thirty years ago. Along 
 the Atlantic, Rhode Island expects 
 at least 2,000 job opportunities 
 for its local inhabitants once the 
 Outer Continental Shelf lands are 
 leased and developed. One good- 
 sized company in the Gulf area 
 estimates that it has created 
 48,000 new jobs in the last five 
 years. 
 
 When a service company 
 opens a new location in a com- 
 munity, it normally hires a num- 
 ber of local personnel, bringing in 
 only experienced engineers, oper- 
 ations and supervisory personnel. 
 The over-all level of business in 
 the community improves through 
 the multiplier effect of new jobs, 
 because the newcomers them- 
 selves provide an influx of new 
 money to local banks, merchants, 
 home-builders, apartment owners, 
 and so on. Government CEIP 
 monies often flow into the area. 
 Government coffers are strength- 
 ened through school, property, 
 and sales taxes. The needs of 
 service company personnel are 
 no different from those of local 
 citizens. They are established 
 business and professional people 
 
 35 
 
who remain in the community for 
 the life of the wells in the area — 
 which is usually twenty years or 
 more. 
 
 The life of the offshore serv- 
 ice company worker can, like oth- 
 ers involved in the offshore busi- 
 ness, be difficult. He or she is 
 likely to be a college graduate, 
 specially trained to perform a 
 highly technical task, and ex- 
 pected to provide optimum serv- 
 ice under the most grueling of 
 conditions. Service companies are 
 often called upon to perform 
 complex jobs very quickly to pre- 
 vent costly down-time during 
 drilling. The field worker, there- 
 fore, puts in long and odd work- 
 ing hours, and sometimes faces 
 difficult transportation problems 
 with no prospects for an easy or 
 quick solution. 
 
 Because they are dealing in 
 services, the most important as- 
 sets of these companies are their 
 people — their experience, knowl- 
 edge, conscientiousness, and 
 teamwork. The services they sup- 
 ply are necessary to the environ- 
 mentally safe drilling and produc- 
 tion of oil and gas resources. 
 
 Typically, when a new area of 
 oil exploration opens up, the 
 major suppliers move in quickly 
 and lease facilities for sales 
 and/or service branches. The first 
 employees are supervisory per- 
 sonnel transferred from other lo- 
 cations, but new employees are 
 hired locally and promoted within 
 their companies as time passes. 
 As long as there is sufficient de- 
 mand for goods and services, oil- 
 field suppliers will be located 
 close by. How long they stay will 
 be determined by the scope and 
 longevity of oilfield operations — a 
 
 few months or many years. The 
 presence of the oilfield supply in- 
 dustry does not pose any unusual 
 safety hazards, either to commu- 
 nity health or to the environment. 
 Supply companies fall under the 
 heading of light industry, and 
 their safety record is well within 
 the norm for the classification. 
 Though neither owned nor 
 managed by petroleum compa- 
 nies, oilfield suppliers are a vital 
 segment of the offshore oil and 
 gas industry. They provide the 
 mechanical tools and machinery 
 required for exploration, develop- 
 ment and production of offshore 
 energy resources. As one of the 
 many support industries to the fi- 
 nancially risky petroleum busi- 
 ness, they are also among the 
 beneficiaries of its success. 
 
 36 
 
SUPPLY 
 
 Oilfield supply companies 
 lease or sell products used in 
 drilling for and producing oil and 
 gas. The products include capital 
 equipment, such as drilling rigs 
 for offshore platforms; machinery, 
 electronic systems and crew 
 quarters; replaceable hardware, 
 such as chain, hand tools, and 
 disposable parts; and consumable 
 items, such as food, soap, and 
 clothing. They also offer mainte- 
 nance and repair services for the 
 equipment they sell. In contrast 
 to oilfield service companies, 
 however, they are not responsible 
 for operating the equipment at 
 the job site. This task is left to 
 the equipment suppliers who 
 form a significant part not only of 
 the NOIA membership, but also of 
 the successful offshore effort. 
 
 Virtually every type of prod- 
 uct used for land operations is 
 also required for offshore work, 
 so most primary oilfield suppliers 
 serve both markets. Offshore op- 
 erations, however, require addi- 
 tional equipment not needed on 
 land — drilling and production 
 platforms, for example, heavy 
 cranes, long distance communica- 
 tions equipment, anchors, sophis- 
 ticated positioning equipment and 
 more. Because much of this addi- 
 tional equipment carries 
 substantial price tags, it consti- 
 tutes an attractive market for spe- 
 cialty suppliers, and provides an 
 expanded market for traditional 
 oilfield suppliers, as well. As with 
 other vital segments of the off- 
 shore network, one needs only to 
 pick up one of many trade jour- 
 nals or magazines to see the 
 scope of the supplier companies. 
 
 In virtually every situation 
 where there is enough drilling ac- 
 tivity to support a supply com- 
 pany, the first into the area are 
 branches or facilities of major 
 supply companies. Currently, for 
 example, there are approximately 
 750 oil field supply stores in the 
 U.S. which serve as the "general 
 hardware" stores to the drilling 
 industry, wherever it is concen- 
 trated. Other businesses already 
 located in those areas — such as 
 welding and fabrication shops, ca- 
 terers and food service establish- 
 ments, transportation companies 
 and marine operators — also re- 
 ceive orders for products or serv- 
 ices needed in the oilfields. 
 
 Following are partial listings 
 of the types of products that fall 
 in the category of offshore oilfield 
 supplies: tubular products; valves; 
 drilling bits; specialty tools; and 
 tool joints. Other specialty sup- 
 plies needed by offshore compa- 
 nies are common to other indus- 
 tries too and include: computers; 
 cement; hand tools; diesel en- 
 gines; food; anchors; electric mo- 
 tors; furnishings; chain; wire rope; 
 structural steel; electronic con- 
 trols, and others. 
 
 A recent published market 
 survey projected total industry- 
 wide sales of drilling and produc- 
 tion equipment at upwards of $5 
 billion annually, with a growth 
 rate of nearly five percent annu- 
 ally through 1990. 22 
 
 As of October, 1978, the U.S. 
 Bureau of Labor Statistics re- 
 ported there were 78,000 people 
 across the nation working for oil- 
 field machinery and equipment 
 suppliers. Of that number, 54,200 
 were hourly production workers 
 earning competitive wages. 23 
 
 Obviously, then, oilfield sup- 
 ply is a big business with a heavy 
 capital investment of its own. If 
 the average capital investment 
 per employee is $50,000 — which 
 may be low by current standards — 
 the total for the industry is ap- 
 proximately $4 billion nationwide. 
 
 Depending upon the nature 
 of the supplier's operations, phys- 
 ical facilities can range from a 
 service and repair shop in a small 
 building to an equipment supply 
 warehouse and storeyard cover- 
 ing several acres. If a local shore 
 base is selected, the operation 
 can develop into a sizeable facil- 
 ity requiring many workers, hun- 
 dreds of acres of marshalling 
 yards, and marine loading docks. 
 In Davisville, Rhode Island, for ex- 
 ample, much of the inactive Sea- 
 bee base at Quonset Point has 
 been leased by equipment and 
 services suppliers to support the 
 fledgling exploration operations 
 90 miles offshore in the North 
 Atlantic. 
 
 37 
 

 
TRANSPORTATION 
 
 Picture yourself as a skipper 
 or crewman of a vessel 200 feet 
 long that is heavily loaded with 
 tubular goods and other supplies, 
 trying to maintain a position 
 alongside a structure as tall as a 
 10-story building, while a crane 
 on top of that building is off- 
 loading your cargo and the seas 
 are running 16 feet high. Now you 
 can understand why transporta- 
 tion is still one of the most color- 
 ful and exciting of the offshore 
 service industries. 
 
 It is also one of the most im- 
 portant. Today's marine transpor- 
 tation industry provides a multi- 
 tude of services — running seismic 
 and other underwater research 
 surveys; towing giant drilling rigs, 
 barges and dredges to exploration 
 sites; handling anchors as huge 
 pipelaying barges slowly move 
 forward; moving towering produc- 
 tion platforms from fabrication 
 yards to their offshore destina- 
 tions; placing and retrieving 
 deep-water mooring systems; 
 serving as mobile workshops and 
 fabrication plants; inspecting off- 
 shore structures and equipment; 
 handling large diameter hoses; 
 transporting the materials these 
 rigs and platforms need from 
 shore bases to the area of explo- 
 ration or production; and more. 
 
 Prior to 1947, when the 
 search for oil and gas had gone 
 seaward only as far as the marsh- 
 lands of Louisiana, petroleum 
 companies and drilling contrac- 
 tors had only limited use for ma- 
 rine equipment, except for small 
 crewboats, tugs, and various 
 types of utility vessels, such as 
 "jo-boats," which worked primar- 
 ily in bays, inlets, and other pro- 
 tected areas. As the industry 
 
 moved farther offshore, however, 
 the need for better boats and 
 other marine equipment became 
 apparent. Early crewboats and 
 supply vessels — converted yachts, 
 fishing craft or home-built models 
 produced by tiny bayou boat- 
 yards — started an evolutionary 
 progression that continued on 
 through wooden shrimp trawlers, 
 oyster luggers, menhaden boats 
 and surplus Navy craft to today's 
 very sophisticated, specialized, 
 and expensive vessels. 
 
 These modern craft are of 
 unique designs, developed for use 
 only in the marine transportation 
 industry. Generally, helicopters 
 carry crews to the rigs and the 
 service boats deliver the supplies. 
 Cargo or supply boats average 
 180 feet in length, with a raised 
 pilot house forward and a large 
 clear deck area aft. These vessels 
 do not have cargo holds, but use 
 instead the clear after deck for 
 transporting the large quantities 
 of pipe, casing, cement, mud, and 
 other materials so vital to petro- 
 leum exploration and production 
 offshore. This type of vessel was 
 developed because the traditional 
 cargo vessel, carrying supplies in 
 a deep hold, cannot be safely and 
 efficiently loaded or unloaded in 
 rough weather in unprotected wa- 
 ters. The specially designed cargo 
 boats can load or discharge at a 
 drilling rig or production platform 
 in all but the roughest weather. 
 
 As the working distances 
 from land increase, the logistical 
 problems of offshore operations 
 intensify. Greater skills and expe- 
 rience are required; supply ves- 
 sels must have more speed, more 
 carrying capacity, and increased 
 capability for sustained self- 
 sufficiency under varying sea and 
 weather conditions. The result 
 
 has been a trend toward larger 
 and more powerful vessels, with 
 modifications of equipment that 
 in some cases have led to the ev- 
 olution of entirely new classes of 
 ships. Towing-supply vessels and 
 cargo-crane vessels are typical 
 examples. 
 
 In addition to performing 
 such routine operations as sup- 
 plying drilling units and produc- 
 tion platforms and towing rigs, 
 many of these sturdy, seaworthy 
 craft have the ability to pre- 
 position, recover, connect, and in- 
 stall moorings with waves crest- 
 ing higher than 10 feet and wind 
 velocities in excess of 35 MPH. 
 These boats are in great world- 
 wide demand because of their ex- 
 cellent performance capabilities. 
 
 Another modern breed of 
 workboat is the cargo-crane vessel, 
 which was designed specifically 
 to perform in areas where big off- 
 shore equipment is not feasible. 
 These vessels provide the off- 
 shore industry with a unique and 
 flexible integral marine support 
 system. By combining extreme 
 mobility with moderate lifting 
 (300,000-plus pounds) they can, in 
 some cases, eliminate the need 
 for extra vessels to perform lim- 
 ited construction functions. They 
 not only get to the location under 
 their own power, but are able to 
 maneuver themselves into precise 
 position with no outside help. 
 
 Other features on modern 
 vessels include fire-fighting equip- 
 ment as well as equipment exclu- 
 sively dedicated to pollution con- 
 trol and environmental protection 
 on a stand-by basis. Ready to get 
 underway almost instantly in the 
 
 39 
 
event of an incident, they are 
 manned by crews trained to 
 deploy booms, handle skimmers, 
 and operate slop barges. The off- 
 shore marine services segment of 
 the industry is capable of aug- 
 menting that fleet of specialized 
 craft, if need be, by performing 
 whatever back-up support tasks 
 are necessary to control and min- 
 imize the effects of any spill. 
 
 In essence, the basic function 
 of the offshore transportation 
 fleet is to provide marine support 
 for the offshore oil and gas indus- 
 try, and other ocean related in- 
 dustries. Support services for the 
 evolution of an oil and gas field 
 may be divided into three 
 categories: 
 
 Phase I: The process begins 
 with 2-4 years of exploration ac- 
 tivity. This phase starts with seis- 
 mic vessels obtaining the detailed 
 geophysical/geological data dis- 
 cussed previously. Once a drill 
 site is decided upon, ocean-going 
 tugs move the drilling units to 
 the site and moor them. Anchor- 
 handling and mooring these giant 
 rigs is a highly specialized task 
 requiring expert seamanship and 
 precise navigational skills. 
 
 Offshore drilling creates a 
 constant demand for enormous 
 amounts of drilling materials and 
 supplies. Moving these necessities 
 to the rigs and platforms is the 
 bread and butter of the offshore 
 transportation industry. Vast 
 amounts of drill pipe, drilling 
 mud, cement, drill water, steel 
 
 casing, chemicals, and various 
 other types of supplies, including 
 food and water for the people 
 working aboard the rigs, cire car- 
 ried aboard supply vessels which 
 run day and night between off- 
 shore locations and onshore sup- 
 ply bases. 
 
 Phase II: Successful explora- 
 tion efforts, the delineation and 
 development period, may span 
 3-5 years. Tugs, barges, supply 
 and crew boats are among the 
 craft used to support the installa- 
 tion of the fixed platforms, devel- 
 opment drilling, and offshore con- 
 struction as the facilities for the 
 production, transportation, and 
 storage of the product are put 
 into place. 
 
 Phase III: Finally, some 5-7 
 years after exploration began, the 
 production phase, which may last 
 20 to 30 years, begins. Here, too, 
 vessels find work, including sup- 
 port of maintenance, workovers, 
 and inspection of production plat- 
 forms as well as the servicing of 
 other offshore transfer facilities 
 where the giant tankers that 
 move the product to markets 
 throughout the world are loaded. 
 
 A major requisite for success 
 in the offshore transportation in- 
 dustry is having a sufficient diver- 
 sity of equipment throughout the 
 
 world to be able to take advan- 
 tage of changing conditions in 
 any given area. But perhaps even 
 more important are the diversity 
 of skills and talents of many dedi- 
 cated people — the deck hands, 
 vessel masters, mates, engineers, 
 and executives that go to make 
 up the boat company. As in any 
 other business endeavor, if the 
 mix is of high quality and the 
 product output is dependable, the 
 likelihood of a successful opera- 
 tion exists. 
 
 With virtually all of the 
 world's oceans now rapidly com- 
 ing within the scope of the indus- 
 try's technological ability to ex- 
 plore and develop the natural 
 resources, there is still a tremen- 
 dous amount of growth potential 
 in the marine service business. 
 The real challenge today is cre- 
 ated by the restrictions that pre- 
 vent the marine transportation in- 
 dustry from having the freedom it 
 needs to be innovative and 
 effective in providing the energy 
 the country so desperately needs. 
 
 The offshore industry devel- 
 oped out of ideas that only a 
 handful of believers thought 
 would work. The projects were 
 not subsidized by the govern- 
 ment, but neither were they con- 
 fronted with the multitude of reg- 
 ulations that industry must face 
 today. Offshore rigs and the nec- 
 essary marine support services 
 evolved in an era that does not 
 exist today — an era of neither 
 subsidization nor intervention, 
 and, therefore, one of looser reins 
 and greater incentives. 
 
 40 
 
DIVING 
 
 Any effort to develop ocean 
 resources requires that clivers de- 
 velop capabilities to enter and 
 work in an environment which is 
 both alien and hostile. Like an 
 iceberg, the largest part of most 
 offshore installations is under 
 water, with only a small portion 
 reaching above the waves where 
 it is accessible to construction, 
 inspection, and repair by conven- 
 tional means. The lower portion 
 of offshore oil platforms, pipelines 
 and well heads, as well as other 
 underwater structures for military 
 security and fishing, are accessi- 
 ble only to a small group of 
 workers using highly sophisti- 
 
 cated techniques for life support 
 in the underwater environment. 
 Divers have always been an 
 important part of exploring for 
 and developing ocean resources. 
 The search for offshore petroleum 
 has been the single most signifi- 
 cant factor in stimulating im- 
 proved methods of working under 
 water. Prior to the development 
 of offshore petroleum, diving was 
 limited to a small group of indi- 
 viduals engaged in salvage or mil- 
 itary activities or divers who har- 
 vested abalone and sponges from 
 the ocean's floor. As the rigs 
 moved offshore, a considerable 
 investment was made in pipelines 
 and platforms, principally in the 
 Gulf of Mexico. Beginning in the 
 early 1950's, divers became in- 
 creasingly important to assist in 
 the construction of these offshore 
 
 facilities and, later, in regular in- 
 spections to determine that the 
 effects of the ocean environment 
 were not creating potential prob- 
 lems or hazards. 
 
 Since early offshore develop- 
 ment efforts were in relatively 
 shallow water, divers used stand- 
 ard diving techniques, breathing 
 air while working at the end of 
 a hose tended from the surface. 
 Beginning in the early 1960's, 
 however, offshore development 
 moved into water depths beyond 
 the acceptable maximum range 
 for air diving, about 200 feet. It 
 became necessary to develop div- 
 ing techniques using other gas 
 mixtures which would avoid the 
 problem of nitrogen narcosis, or 
 "rapture of the deep," which re- 
 sults from breathing air at high 
 pressure. 
 
 Borrowing from development 
 work carried out by the U.S. Navy, 
 the commercial diving industry 
 began to conduct experiments, 
 both in the laboratory and in the 
 ocean, to develop deep-diving 
 techniques. The results were sue- 
 
 41 
 
cessful, and today divers can 
 work in water depths as great as 
 2,000 feet, although the vast ma- 
 jority of dives take place in less 
 than 400 feet of water. 
 
 Divers serve as the eyes and 
 ears of the engineers and con- 
 struction experts who install and 
 maintain the facilities necessary 
 for offshore development. A num- 
 ber of techniques have been de- 
 vised which enable suitably 
 equipped workers to perform a 
 wide variety of mechanical tasks 
 under water, including welding, 
 drilling, and repair and mainte- 
 nance functions. Divers also use 
 underwater television cameras 
 and video tape recorders to in- 
 spect and preserve records of the 
 condition of offshore platforms 
 
 and pipelines. With this inspec- 
 tion information, the engineers re- 
 sponsible for design and mainte- 
 nance of the structures can 
 analyze the condition of their fa- 
 cilities and anticipate any deterio- 
 ration which might occur. Should 
 it be necessary, divers are then 
 sent down again to take correc- 
 tive measures or perform preven- 
 tive maintenance. 
 
 In situations where damage 
 may occur to pipelines or plat- 
 forms as a result of storms, colli- 
 sions, or other accidents, divers 
 are called on to make immediate 
 repairs to prevent the leakage of 
 petroleum products into the 
 ocean, or danger to the lives of 
 offshore workers. 
 
 Today, several thousand peo- 
 ple are involved in this rapidly 
 growing aspect of offshore devel- 
 
 opment. Many millions of dollars 
 are invested in the sophisticated 
 equipment required to work at 
 great depths, and a number of 
 local business enterprises are 
 called upon to provide support to 
 diving operations all along the 
 coastlines of the United States. 
 
 While the general public 
 tends to view divers as being 
 both brave and insane, they are, 
 in fact, a highly trained group of 
 professionals providing an essen- 
 tial capability to the safe and ef- 
 fective development of offshore 
 resources throughout the world. 
 
 42 
 
SHIPBUILDING 
 
 Americans have been ship- 
 builders from early colonial days. 
 In 1630, Governor John Winthrop 
 of Massachusetts helped to estab- 
 lish the first organized shipyard 
 on the Mystic River close to Med- 
 ford, Massachusetts. In 1641, the 
 General Court of Massachusetts 
 proclaimed the building of ships 
 to be "of great importance for the 
 common good." Skilled ship- 
 wrights were recruited from Eng- 
 land. Shipbuilders were given land 
 grants and favorable tax treat- 
 ment. Ships played a basic role in 
 the movement of food, goods, 
 ideas, people, and, thus, in the 
 development of our country. 
 
 Transportation was a vital 
 link between the colonies, and 
 coastwise shipping was facilitated 
 by their geography. From this 
 start, the shipyards of New Eng- 
 land produced the Yankee Clipper 
 Ship which sailed worldwide. At 
 the beginning of the 19th century, 
 these graceful Clippers and their 
 Yankee crews virtually dominated 
 world marine transportation. 
 
 In the gold rush days of the 
 mid-1800's, the Clippers became a 
 vital transportation link with Cali- 
 fornia and were probably as im- 
 portant in the expansion of the 
 Nation to the West as were the 
 Conestoga wagons. 
 
 The use of iron and steel for 
 the hulls of ships and the evolu- 
 tion from sail to steam, however, 
 ushered in a new era of ship- 
 building. At the close of the 19th 
 century, orders for steel naval 
 vessels and merchant ships 
 brought the U.S. shipbuilding in- 
 dustry to a high peak of produc- 
 tion, but England led the world. 
 
 When the United States 
 entered World War I in 1917, a 
 phenomenal growth in shipbuild- 
 ing was necessitated. Many new 
 shipyards were created, and em- 
 
 ployment in the industry in- 
 creased to more than 500,000 
 from the 1916 figure of 70,000. 
 
 After the Armistice, the Con- 
 ference for Limitation of Arma- 
 ments resulted in an agreement 
 by major naval powers to curtail 
 naval construction in 1922. This 
 caused the overnight cancellation 
 of many United States Navy or- 
 ders and depressed the industry. 
 
 About the same time, the 
 Congress, in 1920, declared that 
 50 percent of U.S. imports and ex- 
 ports should be carried in United 
 States ships, but this goal was not 
 reached. In 1927, only 30 percent 
 of U.S. trade was carried by U.S. 
 ships. 
 
 The Merchant Marine Act of 
 1928 was later intended to pro- 
 vide assistance and favorable loan 
 conditions for the shipping and 
 shipbuilding industries; but, after 
 the crash of 1929, employment 
 had fallen to 10,000 by 1933. At 
 this point, President Franklin D. 
 Roosevelt proposed a bill, which 
 the Congress enacted, making 
 $130 million available for naval 
 ship construction in private ship- 
 yards. By 1935, 80,000 shipyard 
 workers were employed, but only 
 two merchant vessels 'or opera- 
 tion in world trade under the 
 American flag were under 
 construction. 
 
 There followed, again with 
 President Roosevelt's impetus, the 
 Merchant Marine Act of 1936 — a 
 landmark statute for the U.S. ship- 
 ping and shipbuilding industries. 
 It created a mechanism for gov- 
 ernment subsidies for construc- 
 tion and operation of ships in for- 
 eign trade. In many respects, this 
 Act has been effective, but many 
 of its objectives have fallen short 
 of perceived aspirations. 
 
 The rationale of the 1936 Act 
 and the portents of World War II, 
 
 nevertheless, initiated a shipbuild- 
 ing program of vast proportions for 
 both naval and merchant ships. In 
 the 1941-1945 period, approxi- 
 mately 1,600 naval ships and 
 5,800 merchant ships were built 
 in this country. Included were 
 nearly 2,700 Liberty ships, 400 
 Victory ships and 700 tankers. 
 Sixty shipyards with 300 shipways 
 and, at top production, nearly 
 1,500,000 workers were involved. 
 Historians have characterized this 
 prodigious feat of shipbuilding as 
 the "bridge of ships." 
 
 At the end of the war, many 
 of these shipyards were closed. 
 Many ships went into lay up or 
 were later sold to interests in 
 other countries. U.S. maritime 
 endeavors, as a consequence, 
 drifted for nearly a decade. 
 
 In 1955, however, the Mari- 
 time Administration sponsored a 
 program for the replacement of 
 obsolete ships by subsidizing 
 shipping companies which rejuve- 
 nated the general cargo (liner) 
 segment of the U.S. shipping fleet. 
 In 1970, the Congress again 
 
 43 
 
amended the Merchant Marine 
 Act of 1936 to stimulate merchant 
 shipbuilding. By this action, it 
 was envisioned that 300 merchant 
 ships would be constructed over 
 a 10-year period. To date, how- 
 ever, contracts for only 80 have 
 been placed. 
 
 These facts need to be put 
 into perspective. For all practical 
 purposes, the United States re- 
 mains an island nation, where 
 ocean transportation of goods is 
 a vital link. Yet, U.S. flag shipping 
 presently carries less than five 
 percent of U.S. exports and im- 
 ports. This discomforting heavy 
 reliance on the vessels of other 
 nations is accentuated by the fact 
 that 69 of 71 critical and strategic 
 materials, without which the en- 
 tire U.S. industrial structure could 
 not function, must be imported 
 by ship. In addition, U.S. depend- 
 ency on more than 20 of these 
 items ranges from 50 to 100 per- 
 cent. The role of ocean shipping — 
 and downstream shipbuilding — as 
 a function of national security is, 
 therefore, dangerously unbal- 
 anced. 
 
 As related to shipbuilding, it 
 needs to be stated that the U.S. 
 industry is not monolithic. There 
 are large shipyards, and there are 
 small shipyards. There are also 
 those which do not fit the classic 
 definition of a shipyard — that is, 
 possessing either a building way, 
 building dock, launching platform, 
 or a drydock. There are yards 
 that specialize in naval shipbuild- 
 ing, others engage only in mer- 
 
 chant ship construction, and workers in supporting activities 
 
 some build both naval and mer- are directly involved in the ship 
 
 chant ships. Particularly on the construction cycle. Conserva- 
 
 Gulf Coast, there are those that tively, applying the theory of eco- 
 
 build only drilling rigs and those_ =-rTomic multiplier, it can be said 
 
 that build oil industry support that some 600,000 people of the 
 
 vessels. There are yards whose United States derive their liveli- 
 
 primary activities center on the hood from shipyard contracts of 
 
 construction of barges and other all types. 
 
 shallow draft vessels. Still others 
 restrict their operations to ship 
 repairs and ship conversions. On 
 the other hand, there are those 
 which build and also repair and 
 some, large and small, engage in 
 non-ship activities as well. There 
 are both privately owned and 
 government owned facilities. All, 
 of course, are located adjacent to 
 navigable waters. 
 
 In all, this complex includes 
 more than 500 establishments. 
 Government statistics, however, 
 are normally predicated on some 
 150 principal privately owned 
 
 Shipbuilding yards do not se- 
 riously affect surrounding water 
 quality and generally are not 
 problems to coastal environ- 
 ments. Ship repair yards have dif- 
 ferent problems. Their work often 
 entails cleaning of fuel tanks and 
 cargo oil tanks. Oil residues, oil 
 water, sanitary wastes, and bilge 
 water are pumped ashore for 
 treatment and disposal according 
 to stringent government require- 
 ments. Sand blasting, as part of 
 repainting, generates the possibil- 
 ity of heavy metals in the waste 
 materials. These residues, how- 
 
 yards of which 48 have the capac- ever, are carefully removed from 
 
 ity for building or accommodating 
 ships 475 feet or longer. Of this 
 latter group, some 30 private fa- 
 cilities, in a very substantial 
 sense, compose the nation's in- 
 dustrial shipbuilding resource 
 base. 
 
 Slightly more than 175,000 
 workers, as of the start of 1979, 
 were employed in the private sec- 
 tor of the U.S. shipyard industry. 24 
 Another 70,000 were on the rolls 
 of the naval shipyards. Despite 
 advances in technology and con- 
 stant increases of capital invest- 
 ments, the industry remains labor 
 intensive. In addition, because of 
 the fact that approximately 50 
 percent of the value of a ship 
 (about 70 percent in the case of 
 naval vessels) is represented by 
 the cost of materials and compo- 
 nents purchased by the ship- 
 builder from virtually every state 
 in the Union, another 300,000 
 
 drydock floors before the dock is 
 submerged to refloat the ship. 
 The declared policy of our 
 country — since Colonial days — 
 recognizes that shipbuilding and 
 shipyard facilities compose a 
 basic and vital element of the na- 
 tional security assurance struc- 
 ture of the nation. There is little 
 doubt on this point, and lasting 
 evidences abound. For example, 
 at the close of World War II, Pres- 
 ident Harry S. Truman declared: 
 "The shipbuilding accomplish- 
 ments of the United States not 
 only astonished the world, but 
 more than that, defeated the 
 enemy." Today those words, 
 voiced in retrospect, provide an 
 unchallengeable statement of the 
 continuing importance of ship- 
 building to U.S. national interests. 
 
 44 
 
MARINE SALVORS 
 
 The need for marine salvage 
 is as old as seagoing itself. The 
 modern marine salvage industry 
 developed after the Industrial 
 Revolution, but its roots go back 
 to antiquity, for ships and their 
 valuable cargos have gone ashore 
 or sunk since man first set out 
 to sea. 
 
 Salvage services are required 
 by almost every shipowner, but, 
 fortunately, not on a regular 
 basis. This irregularity, and the 
 inability to know in advance the 
 conditions under which salvage 
 will have to be carried out, com- 
 bine to make marine salvage a 
 risky and speculative business. 
 Salvors often experience periods 
 of inactivity — and then spurts of 
 frantic action. The salvors' high 
 risk led to the development of the 
 "no cure-no pay" salvage con- 
 tract, the salvor doing his work in 
 expectation of substantial pay- 
 ment at some future date — or no 
 reward at all if he fails. 
 
 Early salvage efforts were de- 
 voted to the removal of valuable 
 cargo and, on rare occasions, the 
 raising of sunken vessels. From 
 ancient times until the mid-19th 
 century, those who undertook to 
 save cargo, equipment, and crews 
 of ships piled up on the shore 
 were known as "wreckers." These 
 entrepreneurs concentrated in 
 coastal areas most hazardous to 
 shipping, waiting for ships to be 
 driven ashore. While most wreck- 
 ers performed a valuable service 
 along the coasts, some inevitably 
 appeared who lured ships ashore, 
 and whose assistance and tender 
 ministrations the crews of 
 wrecked vessels seldom survived. 
 
 In the first half of the 19th 
 century, with the development of 
 steampowered tugs and the intro- 
 duction of steel as the principal 
 shipbuilding material, the techni- 
 cal foundation of the modern ma- 
 rine salvage industry was laid. For 
 the first time, stranded ships 
 could be salved — and the image 
 of the wrecker as a predator and 
 near-relative of the pirate began 
 
 to fade, supplanted by the evolv- 
 ing picture of the modern salvor, 
 a skilled seaman working under 
 the most difficult and dangerous 
 conditions. 
 
 In the mid-19th century there 
 were almost no navigational aids 
 and little regulation of ship sea- 
 worthiness, crewing, or loading. 
 Ships often went to sea danger- 
 ously overloaded or improperly 
 manned. The result was that in 
 1860 a very high percentage (6 
 percent) of the total value of 
 American exports was lost to 
 shipwreck, and marine insurance 
 rates increased dramatically. The 
 Board of Marine Underwriters of 
 New York City sought to alleviate 
 the distressing situation by put- 
 ting marine salvage in the United 
 States on a professional basis. 
 
 Just prior to World War I, 
 conditions on the West Coast 
 were not conducive to successful 
 salvage operations, as ships break 
 up quickly on rocky coasts, and 
 salvors working there have had to 
 be imaginative in developing 
 methods that bring reasonable 
 success. In the period between 
 the World Wars, the industry con- 
 tinued to grow and spread. Many 
 smaller salvage companies failed 
 to survive the great depression of 
 the 1930's, especially in Great 
 Britain, where the industry was 
 practically wiped out, leaving the 
 government-subsidized Dutch and 
 German firms almost a free hand 
 in northern European waters. The 
 failure of the British salvage firms 
 had far-reaching effects, for with 
 the outbreak of hostilities in 1939, 
 the Royal Navy and the Atlantic 
 convoys had little or no salvage 
 support. Numerous ships which 
 could have been saved were lost. 
 
 45 
 
This hard lesson was not lost 
 on the U.S. Navy. Just before 
 Pearl Harbor, the Office of the Su- 
 pervisor of Salvage, USN, was es- 
 tablished to ensure that a viable 
 commercial salvage capability 
 would be maintained in the 
 United States. After American 
 entry into the war, salvage orga- 
 nizations were established in both 
 the Atlantic and the Pacific fleets, 
 and supported by a realistic train- 
 ing program that produced highly 
 skilled salvage officers and divers 
 quickly. 
 
 Having noted the difficulty of 
 building a salvage force from 
 scratch, and recognizing the ne- 
 cessity for maintaining a marine 
 salvage capability, the Congress 
 in 1946 passed two statutes which 
 protect and encourage the sal- 
 vage industry. One, the Cabotage 
 Act (46 USC 316)— cabotage 
 means "navigation or trade along 
 the coast" — prohibits foreign ves- 
 sels from engaging in salvage in 
 the coastal waters of the United 
 States. The other, the Salvage Act 
 (10 USC 7361 et seq), ensures that 
 a viable salvage capability exists 
 in the U.S. not only as a matter of 
 necessity for wartime but as an 
 adjunct to peacetime marine op- 
 erations. The Act accomplishes 
 this by authorizing the Secretary 
 of the Navy to provide for ship 
 salvage by contract, and by au- 
 thorizing him to assist the indus- 
 try in maintaining a responsive 
 capability. 
 
 The period since World War 
 II has been one of growth for the 
 world salvage industry, a growtrT" 
 that has been enhanced by gener- 
 ally increased marine transporta- 
 tion, increases in the size of 
 ships, and especially by the activ- 
 ity associated with offshore petro- 
 leum operations and other indus- 
 trial efforts in the ocean. The 
 latter work involves towing heavy 
 structures, emplanting them, an- 
 chor handling and mooring, struc- 
 ture removal, and many other 
 skills common to marine salvage 
 operations. 
 
 The rapidly advancing tech- 
 nology and generally sound econ- 
 omy of the postwar years has 
 brought a number of new salvage 
 firms into existence. 
 
 Fierce competition is normal 
 among marine salvors. This com- 
 petition is most dramatically 
 demonstrated by the traditional 
 salvor's race to the scene of a 
 maritime casualty. This race had 
 real significance in the days be- 
 fore radio communications pro- 
 vided rapid transmission of in- 
 structions from owners to ship 
 masters. In those days, the first 
 tug on the scene was in a posi- 
 tion to negotiate a contract 
 quickly and effectively with the 
 master of the distressed ship. In 
 modern times, the real competi- 
 tive drama goes on far from the 
 scene in the offices of salvors, 
 owners, and underwriters. It is 
 here that the owner, acting on 
 the advice of the underwriters 
 and salvage association, decides 
 to whom the work will be 
 awarded. The salvor who reaches 
 the scene first enjoys a tactical 
 advantage during negotiations, 
 but is not assured of receiving 
 the work. 
 
 While some salvage compa- 
 nies maintain permanent stations, 
 not unlike the firehouse concept, 
 it has become increasingly more 
 effective to operate salvage bases 
 from which additional or special- 
 ized equipment can be mobilized 
 for specific operations. 
 
 Salvage is a high risk busi- 
 ness. The salvor often hazards his 
 own equipment in his operations, 
 and salvors have on occasion suf- 
 fered heavy loss. As the salvage 
 industry grew away from the in- 
 formal arrangements of the 
 wreckers, the Lloyd's Standard 
 Salvage Contract, popularly 
 known as Lloyd's Open Form, de- 
 veloped and has prevailed. Under 
 this unique form of business ar- 
 rangement, the salvor agrees to 
 use his "best endeavors" to salve 
 the ship and/or cargo, with the 
 services rendered on the principle 
 of "no cure — no pay." The sal- 
 vage award is decided through ar- 
 bitration in London by the Com- 
 mittee of Lloyd's. It is normal for 
 the salvor to require that security 
 
 46 
 
be posted with Lloyd's before de- 
 livery of the ship to her owner. 
 
 Although this form of salvage 
 contract has withstood the test of 
 time, it has some distinct disad- 
 vantages. Using the Lloyd's Open 
 Form, the salvor commits his as- 
 sets to an effort for which he will 
 not be paid if he is unsuccessful; 
 and even if he is successful he 
 may wait for two years to know 
 how much money he will receive — 
 without any possibility of advance 
 payment and with the chance that 
 exchange rate fluctuation and in- 
 terest rates may make it advanta- 
 geous for the ship owner to delay 
 settlement. Faced with this kind 
 of payment prospect, an increas- 
 ing outlay for equipment and in- 
 creased liability resulting from ec- 
 ological considerations, more 
 salvage companies are accepting 
 contracts on a daily rate or fixed 
 price basis. If he is to expect a 
 profit for particularly difficult op- 
 erations where the risks, potential 
 liabilities, and capital outlay are 
 large, the salvor must negotiate a 
 daily rate rather than accept the 
 uncertain traditional "no cure — 
 no pay" contract. Daily rate con- 
 tracts are particularly necessary 
 for those salvage cases where the 
 casualty must be removed for po- 
 litical or ecological reasons, but 
 would not normally be a profita- 
 ble salvage. 
 
 Because of the large number 
 of unknowns affecting the execu- 
 tion of any salvage, fixed price 
 contracts are accepted only when 
 conditions are well established 
 and the salvage can be carried 
 out in a predictable manner. This 
 generally applies to the removal 
 of wrecks. 
 
 Most salvage companies per- 
 mit tug masters or salvage mas- 
 ters to sign Lloyd's Open Form 
 when immediate action is neces- 
 sary to prevent loss of property, 
 but require home office approval 
 for fixed price or daily rate 
 contracts. 
 
 With well over a thousand 
 fires, breakdowns, strandings, and 
 other marine casualties predicted 
 annually, and with more and 
 larger ships continually going into 
 service, the marine salvage indus- 
 try performs a highly responsible 
 role in protecting the environ- 
 ment. Large bulk carriers, con- 
 tainer ships and others with no 
 self-contained cargo-discharging 
 ability, Very Large Crude Carriers 
 (VLCC), Ultra Large Crude Car- 
 riers (ULCC), Liquified Natural 
 Gas (LNG), and Liquified Petro- 
 leum Gas (LPG) carriers all pres- 
 ent some new problems in cargo 
 discharge and the handling of 
 dangerous cargoes which will re- 
 quire the development of new 
 and innovative techniques. Other 
 new techniques and measures, 
 some quite expensive, will be 
 necessary to control pollution 
 and environmental damage ac- 
 companying marine salvage oper- 
 ations. The necessity for provid- 
 ing many types of environmental 
 protection adds a new dimension 
 to the business of salvage. Tradi- 
 tionally, payment for salvage by 
 the owner is based on the value 
 of the property saved. But what 
 value can be placed on saving an 
 owner from a liability claim asso- 
 ciated with a pollution incident? 
 
 The dozens of marine salvage 
 firms dotting our coasts from 
 Maine through the Gulf of Mexico 
 and up to Washington provide 
 thousands of job opportunities — 
 to office workers as well as to the 
 special breed of individuals who 
 
 practice this difficult and some- 
 times dangerous profession. In 
 addition, millions of dollars in 
 ships and valuable cargoes are 
 saved every year from a variety of 
 marine casualties. About 20 per- 
 cent of this activity involves sav- 
 ing tankers and oil barges, 
 thereby contributing directly to 
 helping our energy problems. 
 
 Increased ocean industrial 
 activity — petroleum exploration 
 and production, mining, ocean 
 floor emplantment, construction, 
 and recovery — will require more 
 involvement by the marine sal- 
 vage industry and the special sea- 
 manship talents of its people. The 
 increased availability of air trans- 
 portation will reduce the time 
 required to bring salvage equip- 
 ment and skilled salvors to the 
 scene of an accident, and imme- 
 diate skilled assistance can save 
 ships which would otherwise be 
 lost. Air transportation may also 
 allow a salvor to serve a wider 
 region from a single salvage base. 
 
 There is a subtle attitude 
 often found in the management of 
 salvage firms. This attitude has to 
 do with a sense of public service. 
 Salvage is a service business, but 
 salvors seldom, if ever, advertise 
 their services, for to do so would 
 give notoriety to a client's misfor- 
 tune. Salvors see theirs as a serv- 
 ice dedicated to saving lives, 
 property, and the environment, 
 and are very conscious of the 
 reputation they earn, particularly 
 in the communities they serve. 
 
 47 
 

 P> % 
 
 
 L^^ j^tf 
 
 
 J 
 
 
 
 £•£*? 
 
 
 fffPfe^^P** ^ ^A • • ■ 
 
 
 r - -* • »^ i* XL 
 
 
 
 
 
FISHING 
 
 Fishing was perhaps one of 
 the first coastal industries neces- 
 sary for the American people. 
 Today, shell and fin fish food in- 
 dustries contribute to our vital 
 protein supply and their roles are 
 well known in our heritage. But, 
 the ocean industries are also 
 made up of the menhaden fishing 
 industry which accounts for more 
 than forty percent of the commer- 
 cial tonnage of fish landed in 
 American waters. Even though 
 this fishing industry is largest 
 from the point of view of tonnage 
 landed, it is not as well known 
 because the products are not 
 used directly for human con- 
 sumption. The menhaden fishing 
 industry has long contributed to 
 America through productive and 
 safe operations on the coastal 
 zone. Rather than a standard ac- 
 counting of fishing in general, the 
 menhaden industry — of which vir- 
 tually all companies are NOIA 
 members — provides a useful ex- 
 ample of rich history, a vital in- 
 dustry, and environmentally safe 
 operations to all concerned 
 about wise coastal use. 
 
 As the first settlers began to 
 arrive and establish their colonies 
 in America, it was soon realized 
 that along with food, water, and 
 clothing, their existence depended 
 upon a source of oil for lamps, 
 leather tanning, manufacturing, 
 and for various other uses. Lack- 
 ing knowledge of oil from fossil 
 sources, the early settlers turned 
 
 to the only source known to 
 them, the sea and oil from 
 whales. Commercial fishing for 
 whales to supply the needed oil 
 soon became one of the first 
 major industries in America. As 
 towns and cities sprang up along 
 the coastal areas, the demand for 
 oil became so great that high 
 prices caused whales to be 
 greatly overfished. This overfish- 
 ing brought about the collapse of 
 the whaling industry during the 
 mid-19th century. 
 
 During this early period, the 
 Indians taught the colonists to 
 use fish found in great abundance 
 to fertilize their crops. The 
 Indians called these fish 
 "munnawhatteaug" from which 
 the present day common name 
 menhaden was derived. Unpalata- 
 ble as a table fish, and lacking 
 game qualities, their great abun- 
 dance made them a bounty of the 
 sea to be used for other purposes. 
 
 Legend is that about the time 
 the whale fishery was collapsing, 
 a Maine farm wife boiling menha- 
 den to feed her chickens discov- 
 ered that a considerable quantity 
 of oil came to the surface. She 
 skimmed off the oil and found it 
 to be an adequate substitute for 
 expensive whale oil. Thus a new 
 industry was born which supplied 
 a new source of fish oil. Commer- 
 cial fishermen in sailing vessels 
 using purse seine nets set out 
 to capture schools of menhaden 
 that appeared along the near 
 shore coastal area from late spring 
 to late fall. Small menhaden proc- 
 essing plants with various methods 
 to process menhaden for oil 
 sprang up all along the Atlantic 
 coast. In addition to the oil pro- 
 duced, solids from the processing 
 operation continued to be used 
 for fertilizer until the 1930's. 
 
 As is true in most American 
 industry, competition for fishing 
 grounds, processing methods, and 
 sales of products became deter- 
 mining factors for survival in the 
 menhaden industry. Many of the 
 small companies closed or were 
 acquired by larger companies in 
 the early years of the industry. 
 After a while a few large compa- 
 nies emerged to develop the men- 
 haden fishery today into the larg- 
 est commercial fishery in the 
 United States, by volume of catch. 
 
 Although attempts had been 
 made in the early 1940's to de- 
 velop a menhaden fishery in the 
 Gulf of Mexico, it was not until 
 after World War II that industry 
 made the necessary innovations 
 to bring this about. With post war 
 development of synthetic netting, 
 the power block, aluminum purse 
 seines, refrigerated vessels, fish 
 pumps, radio communications, 
 and aircraft to spot the schools of 
 fish, production from the Gulf 
 fishery soon exceeded that of 
 the Atlantic fishery. 
 
 Uses of menhaden products 
 are many and diversified. Prod- 
 ucts produced fall into three gen- 
 eral product classifications: fish 
 oil, fish meal, and fish solubles. 
 Fish oil, because of its polyunsat- 
 urated fatty acid content, has 
 found widespread use in the man- 
 ufacture of margarine and short- 
 ening in Europe and Canada. Most 
 of the oil exported for this pur- 
 pose comes from the Gulf fishery 
 and represents more than 75 per- 
 cent of the menhaden oil pro- 
 duced in the United States annu- 
 ally. Menhaden oil is used 
 
 49 
 
domestically in the manufacture 
 of paints, resins, putties, and 
 caulking compounds, lubricants, 
 soaps and detergents, varnishes, 
 waxes, ink, electrical coatings, 
 and various other applications. 
 
 Fish meal, rich in protein, vi- 
 tamins, minerals and other essen- 
 tial nutrients, is an important in- 
 gredient in the diets of poultry, 
 hogs, and other farm animals. 
 Menhaden industry technicians 
 working in fully equipped labora- 
 tories in cooperation with nutri- 
 tionists have developed poultry 
 diets using fish meal to the point 
 that more is now known about 
 the nutritional requirements of 
 the chicken than any other ani- 
 mal. Due to the valuable protein 
 or amino acid content, repre- 
 sented by the high proportion of 
 methionine and lysine, efficient 
 high-energy diets can be formu- 
 lated by computer techniques 
 which result in a faster growth in 
 a shorter time at a reduced cost. 
 Fish solubles, a product made by 
 evaporating the remaining liquid 
 after the oil is separated, contains 
 high concentrations of soluble 
 protein, vitamins, and other nutri- 
 ents. This product is also used in 
 diets of poultry and farm animals. 
 
 Continued research in prod- 
 uct application technology has 
 caused the menhaden industry to 
 become a vital part of the United 
 States economy. Menhaden sup- 
 
 k 
 
 plies nearly 75 percent of all fish 
 meal, 95 percent of the fish oils, 
 and 80 percent of all fish solubles 
 produced annually in the United 
 States. Export of menhaden prod- 
 ucts to foreign countries contrib- 
 ute a substantial amount toward 
 the U.S. balance of payments. 
 
 With the United States popu- 
 lation expanding from 80 million 
 in 1900 to over 220 million at 
 present, and with predictions that 
 the earth's population will double 
 in the next 35 years, the need for 
 protein food becomes increas- 
 ingly important. The renewable 
 natural resources from coastal 
 areas will be depended upon 
 more and more as a source of 
 this needed protein. This can be 
 accomplished in part by proper 
 management of available stocks, 
 with harvest of the resource di- 
 rected toward the maximum sus- 
 tainable yield. A more important 
 
 role in maintaining this supply of 
 protein from the coastal areas 
 will be played, however, by the 
 expanding population itself. As 
 the human population grows, 
 greater demands will be placed 
 on coastal areas to support the 
 development of cities, harbors, in- 
 dustries, recreation, and many 
 other uses. Without proper 
 coastal zone management, the 
 delicate balance of life in the sea 
 will be seriously threatened. 
 
 The menhaden industry has 
 inevitably been involved for many 
 years with conservation and pres- 
 ervation within the coastal zone. 
 We will continue to share in re- 
 sponsible actions that will protect 
 it, improve it, and perpetuate the 
 delicate balance of life where land 
 and water meet. 
 
 50 
 
DEEPSEA MINING 
 
 Imagine dangling a long soda 
 straw off the Empire State Build- 
 ing and trying to suck up grains 
 of wet sand off the sidewalk. 
 Imagine doing it in a high wind 
 . . . with a very flexible straw . . . 
 in total darkness so you can't see 
 the street below. This is what 
 mining for valuable minerals from 
 the deep seabed is like. Rather 
 than grains of sand, the prize is 
 known as nodules. 
 
 The elusive nodules are fist- 
 shaped chunks of ore lying on the 
 seabed which are important be- 
 cause they may someday help re- 
 duce America's dependence on 
 foreign sources of vitally needed 
 minerals. The nodules are abun- 
 dantly strewn across the deep 
 ocean beds, but as the "straw" 
 example illustrates, getting them 
 three miles up to the surface 
 through a slender pipe is an engi- 
 neering feat of no small distinc- 
 tion. So it's easy to get an idea of 
 the problems in vacuuming up 
 manganese nodules in the not- 
 yet-established ocean industry of 
 deepsea mining. 
 
 Nodules are not a recent dis- 
 covery, but their potential value 
 is. As long ago as 1872, HMS 
 CHALLENGER dredged nodules 
 from the depths of the Pacific on 
 a scientific voyage. But they gath- 
 ered dust in the British Museum 
 as interesting, but useless, oddi- 
 ties of the deep. These grey-black 
 nodules are composed of varying 
 mixtures of oxides of manganese, 
 cobalt, copper, nickel, and silica, 
 plus traces of a dozen other 
 elements. 
 
 Looking to the future, nod- 
 ules could be extremely impor- 
 tant. Without manganese we can- 
 not make alloy steel. Without 
 cobalt we cannot make jet en- 
 gines, cutting tools, or tool steel. 
 Today America imports approxi- 
 mately 98 percent of our require- 
 ments of primary manganese and 
 cobalt. In the case of nickel, we 
 import more than 90 percent of 
 our total consumption; and al- 
 though the United States is the 
 largest copper producer, we 
 nonetheless import some 15 per- 
 cent of our copper requirements. 
 The net imports of these minerals 
 amounted to more than one bil- 
 lion dollars in 1977, a significant 
 balance of payments figure. 
 
 Unlike the case with our na- 
 tion's high dependency on petro- 
 leum, reliance on foreign sources 
 of hard minerals is not critical at 
 this time. Most experts say that 
 because of the diversity of inter- 
 ests among both developed and 
 developing producer countries, 
 there is little current likelihood of 
 cartelization of these minerals. 
 
 Still, we must begin now in ex- 
 ploring deepsea mining as a via- 
 ble ocean industry for America in 
 the future. The need to examine 
 the challenges and promises of 
 deepsea mining cannot, because 
 of the tremendous lead time, wait 
 until America is effectively "shut 
 down" for lack of vital materials. 
 
 There are telling indications 
 that this is beginning to happen 
 and may be critical as early as 
 the mid-to-late 1980's. 
 
 Today, land-based mining is 
 becoming increasingly expensive 
 both in terms of investment and 
 energy consumption. New mine 
 development has become increas- 
 ingly difficult because of the unfa- 
 vorable investment and political 
 climate in many producer coun- 
 tries. Prudence clearly dictates 
 that we have access to as many 
 sources of mineral supply as 
 possible. 
 
 51 
 
A thriving deepsea mining in- 
 dustry could by the end of the 
 1980's significantly increase our 
 supplies of copper, cobalt, nickel 
 and manganese. This might have 
 a stabilizing effect on prices 
 which are likely to increase for 
 marginal land-based mineral 
 sources. Such price increases 
 could have an inflationary effect 
 upon our economy, and have an 
 adverse effect upon the develop- 
 ment goals of some poorer na- 
 tions. In addition, a healthy sea- 
 bed mining industry could 
 provide other benefits to our na- 
 tion in the form of a more favora- 
 ble balance of payments, techno- 
 logical advancement, and some 
 additional employment. 
 
 A thriving deepsea mining in- 
 dustry is still a long way off. It is 
 estimated that a single, full scale 
 ocean mining operation (includ- 
 ing transportation and processing 
 facilities) would cost from $750 
 million to $1.2 billion. In addition 
 
 52 
 
 there are no guarantees against 
 losses, and uncertainties also 
 exist relative to the ability of in- 
 dustry to live with the still unde- 
 veloped U.S. regulations, or inter- 
 national accords governing 
 deepsea mining. One decided plus 
 is that the nodules are continually 
 forming. 
 
 Scientists have determined 
 that the nodules grow by precipi- 
 tation of minerals out of sea 
 water. Through the use of deep- 
 sea cameras we realize that some 
 parts of the high seas are literally 
 carpeted with nodules in mind- 
 boggling numbers. One estimate 
 puts their total weight at some 
 1.5 trillion tons. There are 330 
 million cubic miles of ocean water 
 on our planet, and each cubic 
 mile contains about 165 million 
 tons of minerals floating in solu- 
 tion . . . everything from common 
 table salt to traces of gold. 
 
 The nodules "grow" one ion 
 at a time when some of the heav- 
 ier metals attach around a nu- 
 cleus such as a scrap of debris, a 
 shark's tooth, or a small piece of 
 whale bone. Over the millenia, 
 they may attain a mean diameter 
 of about three to four inches. As 
 growth occurs through the eons 
 of time, tiny layers of clay get 
 mixed in, so that the nodule 
 grows in concentric rings around 
 the core. Slice a nodule in half 
 and you can see growth rings like 
 those at the end of a log. By 
 holding an average size nodule in 
 your hand you are looking at 
 maybe 40 to 50 million years of 
 growth. 
 
 Many people now working 
 with deepsea mining have been 
 involved in offshore oil and gas 
 operations. The years of experi- 
 ence many have had in handling 
 the stress of long pipe thousands 
 of feet in the earth are helpful in 
 
 instrumentation, coupling of pipe 
 [oints and the like. This helps one 
 understand the interdisciplinary 
 nature of the ocean industries. 
 Technologies developed in one in- 
 dustry can assist other ocean in- 
 dustries as well as our way of life 
 in landbased operations. Concern- 
 ing another frontier, for instance, 
 miniaturized circuits are a direct 
 result of technology transfer from 
 our nation's space achievements. 
 
 There is no direct coastal 
 zone impact from deepsea mining 
 because all mining sites are on 
 the "high seas" and outside the 
 territorial waters of the United 
 States (or any other country). But 
 coastal areas would host port fa- 
 cilities for the mining ships and 
 transportation carriers, as well as 
 processing facilities for the 
 minerals recovered. 
 
 When a ship arrives at the 
 mine site, its crew launches a 
 dredgehead over the side, 
 attaches and deploys 750-foot 
 hose sections, and then hauls 
 them to the derrick located over 
 a hole in the ship's bottom. Then, 
 attaching more than 400 sections 
 of pipe, one by one, the sledge- 
 like apparatus is lowered slowly 
 toward the ocean floor three 
 miles below. 
 
 Television cameras and lights 
 allow the ship's crew to view the 
 seabed path ahead of the dredge- 
 head. Mining operations proceed 
 with the ship moving forward at 
 speeds of one-half to two miles 
 an hour sucking up nodules at 
 rates approaching 1,000 tons a 
 day. There are also other mining 
 methods being tested including a 
 
series of circulating scoops to 
 collect the nodules. A full-scale 
 operation could gather about 
 5,000 tons a day. 
 
 In a mining operation (as op- 
 posed to just a gathering one) the 
 nodules would then be transferred 
 to an accompanying ore ship, 
 which would rotate back to a 
 shore base. However, the tech- 
 nology and economics of process- 
 ing the nodules remains to be 
 worked out. Nodules are com- 
 posed of very complex ores. The 
 metals have to be separated in a 
 reasonably pure form by wet 
 chemical process or by heat or 
 by both. 
 
 Still looming on the horizon, 
 and among the important keys to 
 the future of ocean mining, are 
 international legal aspects. The 
 daring technological challenge to 
 conquering this deepsea frontier 
 could be delayed by the drawn- 
 out international Law of the Sea 
 Conference taking place under 
 the aegis of the United Nations. 
 The UN Law of the Sea Confer- 
 ence has been attempting to es- 
 tablish a new international regime 
 to "manage" the seabed. 
 
 These negotiations have been 
 continuing for more than ten 
 years without significant progress 
 in United Nations Committee I 
 (Seabed Committee), and each 
 session resulted in an impasse 
 between the developed and devel- 
 oping nations. Even though the 
 United States offered very gener- 
 ous concessions to resolve differ- 
 ences in 1976, the demands of the 
 Group of 77 nations (developing 
 nations caucus) have not 
 diminished. 
 
 At the risk of oversimplifying 
 a very complex set of negotia- 
 
 tions, the impasse in Committee I 
 appears to surround differing per- 
 ceptions of the concept that the 
 resources of the deep seabed are 
 
 the "common heritage of man- 
 kind." The "have not" nations be- 
 lieve that the "have" nations 
 should assist them in exploiting 
 the deep seabed and distributing 
 the wealth from such ventures to 
 the developing world. While the 
 United States government may be 
 in general agreement with the 
 common heritage principle, it is 
 exceedingly difficult to implement 
 such a concept while still main- 
 taining the economic viability of 
 an ocean mining venture. 
 
 The main point which the 
 United States must make in any 
 negotiations is that there will 
 never be a sharing of the deepsea 
 resources unless the terms of a 
 final treaty are such as to attract 
 the necessary investment and 
 technology. Since the technology 
 is in the hands of U.S. industry 
 which is also capable of investing 
 large sums of capital into such a 
 venture, it is essential for the 
 United States government to for- 
 mulate an agreement which pro- 
 duces a positive investment cli- 
 mate. As in all the ocean 
 industries, stability and under- 
 standing are needed. 
 
 On the domestic political 
 front legislation has been intro- 
 duced to encourage just such an 
 investment climate. Most propos- 
 als carry provisions to establish 
 an orderly domestic licensing 
 procedure, to protect the marine 
 environment adequately, and to 
 require a national priority for 
 access to processed minerals. 
 
 However, one of the most im- 
 portant sections addresses the 
 problem of security of tenure for 
 domestic miners. Simply stated, 
 this provision would create a 
 stable investment climate by en- 
 suring that any future treaty 
 
 53 
 
would allow U.S. miners to con- 
 tinue their deepsea operations 
 under equitable terms and 
 conditions. 
 
 Problems in investment, tech- 
 nological, and political agree- 
 ments are just a few of the hur- 
 dles members of NOIA are facing 
 in developing the promise of deep- 
 sea mining. The promise of deep- 
 sea mining is a promise the 
 ocean industries are prepared to 
 keep for America. 
 
 54 
 
COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT 
 QUESTIONS & ANSWERS 
 
 Many coastal citizens are 
 aware of coastal zone manage- 
 ment, but there are still many 
 mistaken beliefs. Robert Knecht, 
 Assistant Administrator of the Of- 
 fice of Coastal Zone Management 
 recently said: "I know that, in the 
 past, some coastal residents 
 haven't fully understood the 
 Coastal Zone Management Act, its 
 provisions for citizen input, or the 
 positive role the ocean industries 
 play in a balanced overall CZM ef- 
 fort. I think it is important for all 
 coastal users and citizens to share 
 their concerns and develop a con- 
 tinuing dialogue. It is through ef- 
 fective communication that impor- 
 tant bridges in understanding 
 are built." 
 
 Knecht was talking about the 
 dialogue that has been continuing 
 for the past few years among con- 
 cerned citizen groups in coastal 
 states. People are getting together, 
 sharing concerns, and talking with 
 members of the National Ocean 
 Industries Association about off- 
 shore development and effective 
 coastal zone management. They 
 want to know more about these 
 matters, how they will be affected, 
 and how they can participate in 
 the decisions that affect them. 
 
 So that concerned citizens 
 can learn of the benefits of coastal 
 zone management and the contri- 
 butions of the ocean industries, 
 NOIA has collected some of the 
 types of questions most frequently 
 asked of NOIA members in formal 
 and informal meetings with people 
 all over the nation. We present 
 
 them here, together with our re- 
 sponses. As a concerned citizen, 
 you may find them useful in help- 
 ing you to answer questions about 
 coastal zone management. They 
 may even answer some questions 
 of your own. 
 
 %£ * "' know what the Coastal 
 Zone Management Act says it is 
 supposed to do about providing 
 for the wise use of coastal re- 
 sources. But what I don't under- 
 stand is that everybody who wants 
 to use the beach believes that 
 their group is the one the Act is 
 meant to protect. What is the 
 coastal resource that comes under 
 the provisions of the Act?" 
 
 §\% There has been a lot of con- 
 fusion, partly because the Coastal 
 Zone Management Act raises many 
 difficult questions that for too 
 long have been conveniently 
 swept under the rug. The Act was 
 not intended, nor is it now admin- 
 istered, either to exclude any re- 
 sponsible coastal use or to pro- 
 mote any single coastal activity. 
 Part of the problem is the fact 
 that the CZM Act is one of the few 
 federal actions with a comprehen- 
 sive sweep of responsibilites 
 rather than a single purpose. For 
 example, the government has set 
 up specific clean air, clean water 
 and solid waste disposal programs 
 which mandate federal standards. 
 Single issue programs such as 
 these make it easier to charge 
 ahead and cut compromises based 
 on what one views as the single 
 mission. The CZM Act seeks to 
 balance many coastal activities, 
 and in addition seeks a partner- 
 ship with states, local govern- 
 ments and various interest groups 
 
 to determine their needs and 
 wants, rather than dictating from 
 Washington. In a sense, then, it is 
 a very "democratic" Act, and mis- 
 conceptions are bound to occur 
 because of individual perception 
 and interpretation. 
 
 %^#"My friends tell me that the 
 Act is just to protect swimmers 
 and sport fishermen. Are they 
 right?" 
 
 A 
 
 They are mistaken. The Act 
 does provide that a variety of rec- 
 reational activities on our nation's 
 shore will continue, but it seeks 
 much more. National defense, 
 shipping, offshore energy develop- 
 ment, and other ocean-related in- 
 dustries are certainly no less vital 
 coastal activities than tourism and 
 recreation. Unfortunately, some 
 local and state planners have been 
 taking a limited, provincial view, 
 looking at their coastal areas as 
 "private" bathing beaches, rather 
 than with the total, balanced per- 
 spective called for by the CZM 
 Act. The Act seeks cooperation 
 and coordination between govern- 
 ments and users, and stipulates a 
 proper balance between national 
 needs and state and local con- 
 cerns, allowing for all activities 
 that can be conducted in harmony 
 with state CZM plans. 
 
 %M+ "Coastal areas are already 
 too crowded. Why doesn't the Act 
 prohibit some activities?" 
 
 #%# Pressure is building up in the 
 coastal areas of the U.S. As a re- 
 cent CZM report to the President 
 stated, "Burgeoning population 
 
 55 
 
and increasing economic activity, 
 crammed into a confined space, 
 mean more conflicts." The coastal 
 zone is a pressure cooker pre- 
 cisely because its bounds are lim- 
 ited. Yet because it is the place 
 where land and water meet, it is 
 more complex environmentally 
 and economically, and often more 
 important than interior areas. To 
 reduce or defuse this pressure by 
 arbitrarily halting some activities 
 might seem, in theory, like a good 
 idea. But, realistically speaking, 
 which groups of citizens should be 
 disenfranchised? What makes one 
 activity more right than any 
 other? The tough, fundamental 
 problem of cooperative use of the 
 coastal zone can be solved. That's 
 the task the Coastal Zone Manage- 
 ment Program has been charged 
 with — to assist the states in ac- 
 commodating important economic 
 needs of coastal states and com- 
 munities while improving the qual- 
 ity of life everyone seeks. 
 
 %J#"How does the OCZM hope to 
 accomodate all coastal users when 
 many activities, such as recreation 
 and energy production, seem too 
 diverse and are sure to increase — 
 and eventually, conflict?" 
 
 §\% That's a good question. The 
 OCZM will not be able to do it 
 alone. In fact, the lion's share of 
 this task falls to the coastal states 
 and their citizens. The Federal 
 
 government, as represented by the 
 OCZM, provides money to assist 
 the states to determine their own 
 coastal priorities, so long as those 
 priorities are not inconsistent and 
 do provide adequate recognition 
 of the national interest. In writing 
 the Act, Congress made a key as- 
 sumption that coastal problems 
 are due as much to a lack of co- 
 ordination among users and local 
 direction as they are to inherent 
 coastal conflict. The Act assists 
 the states in preparing for and un- 
 derstanding all users. There are 
 potential conflicts between energy 
 production and recreation, but not 
 necessarily more so than between 
 recreation and other coastal users, 
 or other users among themselves. 
 The wisdom of the Act is that it 
 provides processes to help resolve 
 these conflicts, and insists that an 
 equitable resolution be found. 
 
 %^#"My wife and I live in the 
 Middle West and we like to visit 
 the shore for a vacation — I like 
 surf fishing and she enjoys sun- 
 bathing and taking the grandkids 
 swimming. So we're interested in 
 the beach, but we don't see what 
 all these other coastal activities 
 have to do with us." 
 
 §\% Everybody thinks of fishing 
 and relaxing on the beach when 
 the subject of the coastal areas 
 comes up. But there's a lot more 
 to it than sand, surf, and sun. 
 Long before increased free time 
 made beaches popular with vaca- 
 tioners, coastal areas were being 
 
 used for commercial activities. In 
 fact, if American industry had 
 abused the privilege of using the 
 coastal areas over the past 350 
 years, as much as some people 
 would have others believe, our 
 beaches, bays, and inlets might 
 not be as desirable for recreation 
 as they are. And every American 
 benefits in some way from the 
 ocean industries. The Great Plains 
 farmer, the Northern manufac- 
 turer, the Southern textile pro- 
 ducer, the California exporter all 
 rely on commercial shipping to 
 take their products to foreign mar- 
 kets and bring back things they 
 need. This benefits us all as con- 
 sumers. Nobody today has to be 
 reminded about our dependence 
 on expensive foreign oil — but 
 think what it would be like if more 
 than 30 years of offshore energy 
 production wasn't providing us 
 with nearly a quarter of our do- 
 mestic production of oil and gas. 
 And the percentage will very likely 
 go up considerably because of de- 
 clining onshore reserves. National 
 defense is another coastal zone 
 activity that has benefits for all of 
 us — of 432 principal military in- 
 stallations or activities in the 
 United States, 330 (76 percent) are 
 in coastal states. 25 We must not 
 forget commercial fishermen, ei- 
 ther, who bring in the shrimp, lob- 
 ster, oysters, and sea bass that 
 
 56 
 
diners enjoy in Topeka, Tucson, 
 and Tulsa. It's important to reiter- 
 ate that the CZM Act recognizes 
 both the environmental and eco- 
 nomic resources of coastal areas 
 and seeks a balanced approach in 
 managing these valuable 
 resources. 
 
 %J#"What is the National Ocean 
 Industries Association?" 
 
 #^#The National Ocean Industries 
 Association is the only trade asso- 
 ciation representing all forms of 
 ocean development. Many ocean 
 firms are represented in NOIA 
 such as companies specializing in 
 geophysical surveying, construc- 
 tion, diving, fishing, deepsea 
 mining, marine salvage, air and 
 marine transportation, financial 
 services, offshore drilling, catering 
 and housekeeping, petroleum pro- 
 duction, research and technology, 
 equipment manufacture and 
 supply, and others. There are 
 petroleum companies in the NOIA 
 membership (less than 5 percent) 
 but no industry group dictates 
 to the others. Many NOIA 
 members are part of the "oil in- 
 dustry" although not oil compa- 
 nies. Petroleum companies hire 
 the services needed to explore 
 and develop leases offshore. They 
 contract for most of their offshore 
 exploration requirements. They 
 become known as lease operators 
 and hire a drilling contractor to 
 explore and produce an offshore 
 
 tract they lease from the govern- 
 ment. The drilling contractor buys 
 the chains and engines and many 
 parts he needs from suppliers, like 
 steel, engine, and manufacturing 
 companies, throughout the United 
 States. The lease operator hires 
 boats to transport equipment and 
 helicopters to transport men to 
 the rig. An independent catering 
 firm prepares the food. In fact, the 
 drilling contractor even buys his 
 rigs from a shipyard which itself 
 needs equipment and services. 
 And then there are, of course, ge- 
 ophysical contractors, marine en- 
 gineers, technology firms, and oth- 
 ers all doing their part to ensure 
 offshore success and safety. It's a 
 big task with many components 
 and it all means benefits to Ameri- 
 cans in the form of hundreds of 
 thousands of direct and related 
 jobs, lower prices for consumers, 
 a more stable economy and de- 
 creased foreign monetary trans- 
 fers, more tax revenues, and more 
 energy. All these activities are rep- 
 resented in the NOIA membership 
 and are conducted with minimal 
 danger to coastal areas. 
 
 %^#"I just don't believe that 
 there isn't environmental damage 
 from offshore development." 
 
 A. 
 
 Any coastal use causes some 
 environmental alteration. Walking 
 on the beach probably hastens 
 erosion, but that doesn't mean we 
 should rope off the beaches to 
 everyone who isn't a picture post- 
 card photographer. 
 
 As far as offshore oil and gas 
 are concerned, during the last 30 
 
 years more than 23,000 wells have 
 been drilled on less than four per- 
 cent of our Outer Continental 
 Shelf with no serious adverse eco- 
 system changes. There has been 
 only one accident which can be 
 described as serious, and it did 
 not permanently damage the envi- 
 ronment. This is not to say that 
 offshore pollution from drilling 
 and production activities doesn't 
 exist. Much more serious, how- 
 ever, are the trash barges that 
 dump thousands of tons of gar- 
 bage and sewage sludge from 
 Northeastern cities into the ocean 
 every day. The oceans have amaz- 
 ing powers of rejuvenation, but 
 the sludge dumping area in the 
 Atlantic, a huge, brownish black 
 spot covering miles, is a desert, a 
 dead sea where nothing lives. For- 
 tunately, efforts are being made to 
 get rid of our waste in more re- 
 sponsible ways, and we can look 
 forward to the day when all our 
 lakes, rivers, and seas will no 
 longer be despoiled by improper 
 usage. 
 
 Q 
 
 "Are you trying to claim that 
 offshore petroleum development 
 doesn't cause any pollution to our 
 ocean environment?" 
 
 A 
 
 It is doubtful that a statement 
 as definite as that on any subject 
 would be true. But let's put things 
 into perspective. In 1976, a study 26 
 
 57 
 
by the United States Geological 
 Survey documented oil spills in 
 the Gulf of Mexico from 1971 to 
 
 1975. The study determined that 
 the spillage rate was .00028 per- 
 cent per barrel of oil landed. A 
 1975 Library of Congress Study 27 
 said that there is no appreciable 
 pollution from domestic petroleum 
 development. And in March of 
 
 1976, an Office of Technology As- 
 sessment Report 28 prepared for 
 the House Ad Hoc Committee on 
 the Outer Continental Shelf, stated 
 that spills were ten times as likely 
 to occur in vessels importing for- 
 eign oil (as in the ARGO MER- 
 CHANT incident) than from do- 
 mestic offshore petroleum 
 operations. It is ironic that if we 
 had more domestic OCS produc- 
 tion there would be less need to 
 import expensive foreign petro- 
 leum products, which are ten 
 times as likely to pollute our 
 coastal areas. The study went on 
 to document the causes of ocean 
 pollution, and while it's rarely 
 beneficial to point fingers, it is in- 
 teresting to note that more pollu- 
 tion comes from municipal waste 
 and individual runoff (i.e. drained 
 crank-case oil finding its way into 
 waterways and eventually the 
 oceans) than from domestic off- 
 shore energy efforts. 
 
 \J#'Tm willing to accept the fact 
 that we need offshore oil and gas 
 production, but I sure don't like 
 the idea of visiting my favorite 
 beach and seeing a bunch of drill- 
 
 ing rigs and production platforms 
 sticking up like sore thumbs." 
 
 A#0f all the North and Mid At- 
 lantic OCS tracts leased through 
 1978, none are closer than 90 
 miles from the coast. You couldn't 
 see them even with the world's 
 most powerful telescope, because 
 of the curvature of the earth, 
 which limits direct line vision (de- 
 pending on the height of a struc- 
 ture) to 21 miles or so. Further- 
 more, no OCS leasing in the 
 Atlantic is planned for areas 
 closer than 21 miles from the 
 coast. In California, where some 
 operations are close to land, plat- 
 forms are often made to be non- 
 obtrusive. On the other hand, 
 there are many people who con- 
 sider modern drilling rigs and 
 platforms as spectacular creations. 
 Some great photographs have 
 been taken far out in the Gulf of 
 Mexico showing nothing but 
 water, a fishing boat, a rig or plat- 
 form and the sunset. 
 
 Q 
 
 "What can I do to help get 
 the Coastal Zone Management 
 process rolling in my area?" 
 
 A. 
 
 Glad you're getting involved! 
 The success of the CZM Act de- 
 pends on the involvement of 
 knowledgeable, concerned citizens. 
 While local, state, and federal offi- 
 cials do their best to act upon the 
 needs and preferences of their 
 consitituents, they often have diffi- 
 culty recognizing these needs until 
 people speak out. There are ways 
 
 to do this. Under the Act, states 
 have already designated a single 
 agency for state programs on 
 coastal matters. They all have dif- 
 ferent names however, such as Of- 
 fice of Planning and Budget (Geor- 
 gia); Department of Ecology 
 (Washington); Coastal Management 
 Unit (New York); Office of Coastal 
 Zone Management (New Jersey); 
 California Coastal Commission 
 (California); et cetera. Write your 
 state's CZM office to become in- 
 formed about your state's program 
 and express your feelings on what 
 should be accomplished. Contact 
 your elected officials, take part in 
 public hearings, and make yourself 
 heard. Finally, follow the progress 
 and inform your friends and 
 neighbors to make sure your 
 state's plan is fairly and prudently 
 administered. 
 
 Activity is already underway 
 in all coastal states, but there is 
 still much you can do to shape 
 the program or make sure it is 
 being properly administered to 
 make wise use of coastal re- 
 sources. Citizen input, together 
 with that of local governments 
 and user groups, is needed to 
 fashion each state's decisions on 
 how to deal with key coastal 
 problems and issues. The Federal 
 
 58 
 
responsibility is to make sure that 
 the state has fully considered a 
 range of present and potential 
 needs of coastal areas, and has 
 developed procedures — based on 
 knowledge, public participation, 
 responsible government policies, 
 and user practices — for wise deci- 
 sion-making. 
 
 %^#"A11 this sounds pretty good, 
 but before I do anything I want to 
 check on some of the things 
 you've told me. Where can I get 
 more information on coastal 
 issues?" 
 
 A, 
 
 It is good to search for more 
 information from other interest 
 and user groups. The Office of 
 Coastal Zone Management can 
 provide this information, and NOIA 
 welcomes your further inquiries 
 into any aspect of our report. In 
 general, every group recognizes 
 the needs of all coastal users, but 
 with specific differences of bal- 
 ance and knowledge. Each group 
 has its own perspective as well as 
 its own expertise. The members of 
 the National Ocean Industries As- 
 sociation have been in the off- 
 shore business since its inception, 
 and we plan to be involved in the 
 daily challenge of supplying Amer- 
 ica's needs from our offshore 
 areas for a long, long time 
 to come. 
 
 WANT TO KNOW MORE? 
 
 The National Ocean Industries 
 Association will be glad to send 
 you more information or answer 
 your specific questions. We believe 
 not only in sharing information, 
 but in listening to other 
 concerns, too. 
 
 National Ocean Industries 
 
 Association 
 1100 Seventeenth Street, N.W., 
 
 Suite 410 
 Washington, D.C. 20036 
 
 For the names of other user 
 groups who offer a different per- 
 spective, and for information on 
 the Act and its progress, contact: 
 
 Office of Coastal Zone 
 
 Management 
 National Oceanic and 
 
 Atmospheric Administration 
 Page One Building 
 3300 Whitehaven Street 
 Washington, D.C. 20235 
 
 For further information on specific 
 state efforts and how you can par- 
 ticipate, contact your state office. 
 The Office of Coastal Zone Man- 
 agement can put you in touch 
 with CZM officials in your state. 
 
 59 
 
FOOTNOTES AND PHOTO CREDITS 
 
 1. Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, Public Law 
 92-583. § 303(aXb), 86 STAT. 1281. 
 
 2. Coastal Zone Management Act Amendments of 
 1976, Public Law 94-370. § 308, 16 USC 1457-64. 
 
 3. Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972. Public Law 
 92-583, § 302(b), 86 STAT. 1280. 
 
 4. Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972. Public Law 
 92-583, 86 STAT. 1280. 
 
 5. Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, Public Law 
 92-583, § 306 2(c) (8). 86 STAT. 1284, (1972). 
 
 6. Coastal Zone Management Act Amendments of 
 1976. Public Law 94-370, § 307(b), 16 USC 1456. 
 
 7. Section 305 of the Coastal Zone Management Act 
 specifies each approved state management pro- 
 gram shall include: (1) an identification of the 
 boundaries of the coastal zone subject to the 
 management program; (2) a definition of what 
 shall constitute permissible land and water uses 
 within the coastal zone having a direct and signifi- 
 cant impact; (3) an inventory and designation of 
 particular areas of concern within the coastal 
 zone; (4) an identification of the means by which 
 the state proposes to exert control over its coastal 
 zone, (including a listing of relevant constitutional 
 provisions, state legislative enactments, regula- 
 tions, and judicial decisions); (5) broad guidelines 
 on priority uses in particular areas of the coastal 
 zone; and (6) a description of the state's CZM 
 structure. Coastal Zone Management Act, Public 
 Law 92-583, § 305(b), 86 STAT. 1282, (1972). Also 
 see Section 306 program approval regulations. 
 
 8. The thirteen states which had approved and 
 funded coastal zone management programs as of 
 September 30, 1978 were: Washington, Oregon, Cal- 
 ifornia, Wisconsin, Michigan, Maine, Massachusetts, 
 Rhode Island, New Jersey, Maryland, North Caro- 
 lina, Puerto Rico, and Hawaii. 
 
 9. The Office of Coastal Zone Management expects 
 the following additional states to have approved 
 coastal zone management plans by September 30, 
 1979: Virgin Islands, Alabama, Delaware, Guam, 
 Louisiana, Alaska, Florida, Texas, and South Caro- 
 lina. 
 
 10. Section 312 Reviews are so-named because of the 
 section of the Act which authorizes them. Coastal 
 Zone Management Act Amendments of 1976, Public 
 Law 94-370, §312, 16 USC 1456c. 
 
 11. "Oil and gas seeps are known to occur throughout 
 the world and have been catalogued and docu- 
 mented by many observers; however, nearly all of 
 the seeps noted were found on land, whereas rela- 
 tively few references to underwater seeps appear 
 in the literature. 
 
 The presence of onshore seeps in California, 
 particularly in Southern California, is not uncom- 
 mon. Archeologists have established the fact that 
 prehistoric Indians used tar from seeps to water- 
 proof baskets and caulk canoes at least 7,000 
 years ago." Elbert R. Wilkinson. "California Off- 
 shore Oil and Gas Seeps," California Summary of 
 Operations , 57th Annual Report of the State Oil 
 and Gas Supervisor, Resources Agency of Califor- 
 nia, Department of Conservation, Division of Oil 
 and Gas, Volume 57, No. 1, 1971. 
 
 12. A. A. Allen and R. S. Schulter, "Estimates of Surface 
 Pollution Submarine Seeps at Platform A and Coal 
 Oil Point," General Research Corporation memo- 
 randum No. 1230, 1969, as found in California 
 Summary of Operations, 57th Annual Report of the 
 State Oil and Gas Supervisor, Resources Agency of 
 California, Department of Conservation, Division of 
 Oil and Gas, Volume 57, No. 1, 1971. 
 
 13. "Naturally Occuring Hydrocarbon Seeps in the Gulf 
 of Mexico and the Caribbean Sea," Department of 
 Oceanography, College of Geosciences, Texas A&M 
 University, May, 1979. A copy of the report may be 
 obtained from: Dr. Richard A. Geyer, Professor of 
 Oceanography, Department of Oceanography, 
 Ocean Hydrocarbon Research Study, Texas A&M 
 University, College Station, Texas 77843. 
 
 14. "Offshore Ecology Investigation," Gulf Universities 
 Research Consortium, Report No. 138, September 
 20, 1974. Researched and written by The Program 
 Planning Council: Dr. Robert Menzies, Dr. James 
 Morgan, Dr. Carl Oppenheimer, and Dr. Sayed El- 
 Sayed. The report data is periodically being re- 
 examined and updated by three principal investi- 
 gators: Dr. Michael Bender, Virginia Institute of 
 Marine Science; Dr. Donald Reish, University of 
 California at Long Beach; and Dr. C. H. Ward, Rice 
 University; and "Effects of Man's Activities on the 
 Marine Environment." a study prepared for the 
 94th Congress at the request of Senator Warren G. 
 Magnuson, Chairman, Committee on Commerce 
 and Senator Ernest F. Hollings, Chairman, National 
 Ocean Policy Study, U.S. Government Printing Of- 
 fice, 45-670, Washington, D.C., 1975. 
 
 15. Preliminary Estimates, U.S. Bureau of Mines, Divi- 
 sion of Conservation, U.S.G.S., OCS Statistics, 1978. 
 
 16. Source: First City National Bank as quoted in the 
 American Petroleum Industry Fact Book, Section V, 
 Table 4, (June 1977). 
 
 17. A brief look into the government's OCS leasing 
 procedures is available in a Department of the In- 
 terior booklet, "Leasing and Management of Energy 
 Resources on the Outer Continental Shelf," (USGS 
 lnf.-74-33), U.S. Government Printing Office 1976- 
 211-345/18, from the U.S. Department of the Inte- 
 rior, Office of Public Affairs, 18th and C Streets, 
 N.W., Washington, D.C. 20240. 
 
 18. "OCS Orders 1 thru 14 Governing Oil, Gas, and 
 Sulphur Leases in the Outer Continental Shelf Gulf 
 of Mexico Area," U.S. Department of the Interior. 
 Geological Survey, Conservation Division, Order 
 No. 8 § 4(A) p. 8-5, January, 1977. 
 
 19. "OCS Orders 1 thru 14 Governing Oil, Gas, and 
 Sulphur Leases in the Outer Continental Shelf Gulf 
 of Mexico Area," U.S. Department of the Interior, 
 Geological Survey, Conservation Division, Order 
 No. 8 § 6 p. 8-21. January, 1977. 
 
 20. "Effects of Offshore Oil and Natural Gas Develop- 
 ment on the Coastal Zone," a study by the Library 
 of Congress Congressional Research Service. The 
 study was prepared for the Ad Hoc Committee on 
 the Outer Continental Shelf (House of Representa- 
 tives, March, 1976), U.S. Government Printing Of- 
 fice 69-969-0. 
 
 21. USGS Circular 741 (1976). 
 
 22. Published market forecast by National Supply 
 Company, Houston, Texas. 
 
 23. Figures from the "Employment and Earnings Publi- 
 cation," U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor 
 Statistics, Standard Industrial Classification (SIC), 
 3533. 
 
 24. Year end statement of Edwin M. Hood, President, 
 Shipbuilders Council of America, December 27, 
 1978. The Shipbuilders Council of America is a na- 
 tional trade association composed of the Nation's 
 major commercial shipyards and suppliers of ma- 
 rine equipment and materials. 
 
 25. "United States Military Installations or Activities in 
 the Fifty States," Department of the Army pam- 
 phlet, 210 1, April, 1977, revised, December 1977, 
 18 pp. Note these figures are subject to change as 
 major activities are redefined. These figures in- 
 clude the Great Lakes States as coastal states and 
 all bases in a coastal state whether or not the in- 
 stallations themselves are in coastal areas. 
 
 26. USGS Circular 741 (1976). 
 
 27. "Effects of Man's Activities on the Marine Environ- 
 ment," Congressional Research Service. 
 
 28. IBID footnote 20. 
 
 T 
 
 Froht and back cover, courtesy of NASA; inside front 
 and back cover, American Petroleum Institute; Page 6, 
 clockwise from top, Exxon Inc., Tidewater Marine 
 Service, Inc.; National Ocean Industries Association; 
 National Ocean Industries Association; American Petro- 
 leum Institute; Zapata Corporation; Oceaneering Inter- 
 national; Kennecott Copper Corporation. Page 8, 10, 19, 
 Queen Mary Hyatt Hotel; Page 11, 14, 15, 22, 28, Ameri- 
 can Petroleum Institute; Page 16, Exxon Corporation, 
 Page 17, Perry Oceanographies; Page 18, 20, National 
 Ocean Industries Association; Page 21, National Ocean 
 Industries Association; Page 23. National Ocean Indus- 
 tries Association; Page 24, Zapata Corporation; Page 
 29, National Ocean Industries Association; Page 30, 
 Zapata Corporation; Page 32, 33, National Ocean 
 Industries Association; Page 34, Continental Oil Com- 
 pany; Page 36, Continental Oil Company; Page 37, 
 National Supply Company, Armco, Inc; Page 38, Tide- 
 water Marine Service, Inc.; Page 40, National Ocean 
 Industries Association; Page 41, Oceaneering Interna- 
 tional (both photos); Page 42, Oceaneering International; 
 Page 43, Gulf Oil Corporation; Page 45, 46, U.S. Coast 
 Guard, Page 47, Oceaneerng International; Page 48, 
 Zapata Corporation; Page 50, Zapata Corporation; 
 Page 51, 53, 54, Kennecott Copper Corporation; 
 Page 52, National Ocean Industries Association. 
 
 
 60 
 
 
k 
 
 
PE 7l^»^RSiTY 
 
 LIBRARIES 
 
 :j ^ INDUSTRY 
 
 A'S'ii^i 
 
 1 100 Seventeenth Street N W Suite 410 
 Washington, DC 20036 
 
 A** ' c 
 
 ill 
 
 
 
 nSonB 
 
 **TM O* K