Deep-sea fish farms to reduce trade deficit?
In an attempt to reduce the trade deficit, the Bush administration is backing a proposal to convert thousands of idle oil and natural gas platforms into deep-sea fish farms that would produce seafood such as flounder, mahi-mahi and yellow fin tuna. Seafood currently accounts for approximately $7 billion of the United States foreign trade deficit. There are approximately 3500 platforms located in the Gulf of Mexico that could be converted into barn-like bases used as deep-sea fish farms. While there are still legal and regulatory obstacles to overcome, the conversion of now idle platforms would increase the Unites States seafood production and offer much needed employment opportunities to coastal communities. The plan also benefits the oil companies as they would be allowed to leave the platforms in place. Dismantling and bringing the platform to shore can cost as much as $2 million.
This idea could prove to lower the US trade deficit but it is unlikely to be supported by environmentalists. Roger Rufe, president of The Ocean Conservancy, best describes the possible negative impact on the ocean in the following statement, “It’s much like chickens or hogs or other confined feeding operations on land and putting them in the ocean. There are considerable issues with that, pollution issues.” Feeling that the Gulf has tremendous potential, Granvil Treece, an aquaculture specialist at the Texas Sea Grant, met Rufe’s concerns with, “The solution to pollution is dilution, and that’s what you got out here- lots of dilution.”
While I can appreciate the employment opportunities that deep-sea fish farms would offer the Gulf of Mexico region, particularly along the Louisiana and Texas coastlines, I have real concerns regarding the impact of this proposal on the environment. Pollution regulation measures are seldom effective. Pollution will continue to be a problem until the penalties for pollution are substantial and until the regulations regarding pollution are aggressively enforced. Is the Bush administration backing this plan to lower the trade deficit or to help the oil companies save the money that it would cost to dismantle and remove the platforms?
You can read the article, “Oil Platforms may be used for fish farms”, in its entity and form your own opinion of the proposal.
This idea could prove to lower the US trade deficit but it is unlikely to be supported by environmentalists. Roger Rufe, president of The Ocean Conservancy, best describes the possible negative impact on the ocean in the following statement, “It’s much like chickens or hogs or other confined feeding operations on land and putting them in the ocean. There are considerable issues with that, pollution issues.” Feeling that the Gulf has tremendous potential, Granvil Treece, an aquaculture specialist at the Texas Sea Grant, met Rufe’s concerns with, “The solution to pollution is dilution, and that’s what you got out here- lots of dilution.”
While I can appreciate the employment opportunities that deep-sea fish farms would offer the Gulf of Mexico region, particularly along the Louisiana and Texas coastlines, I have real concerns regarding the impact of this proposal on the environment. Pollution regulation measures are seldom effective. Pollution will continue to be a problem until the penalties for pollution are substantial and until the regulations regarding pollution are aggressively enforced. Is the Bush administration backing this plan to lower the trade deficit or to help the oil companies save the money that it would cost to dismantle and remove the platforms?
You can read the article, “Oil Platforms may be used for fish farms”, in its entity and form your own opinion of the proposal.
7 Comments:
At 11:03 PM, 7190 said…
While I see a potential need for deep-sea fish farms, I see a greater need to put these oil platforms back in production of oil. Are we entirely sure that these oil platforms cannot produce oil?
At 1:35 PM, songbird said…
I have two comments. One, I do agree in trying to lower the trade deficit by converting these oil platforms for deep sea fishing. The trade deficit as of this morning is at an all time high, so something has to be done. Two, do we have to convert all of the oil platforms? Are we sure that our oil reserves, if any, are enough to support demand? It's kind of a two situation.
At 11:29 AM, Winston said…
This post has been removed by the author.
At 11:30 AM, Winston said…
I found this to be a very interesting article. I had no idea that President Bush was proposing anything of this nature. While I understand that this could help our county with the trade deficit and employment, I am concerned with the environment; is there a reason why we have not done this in the past? What kind of precautions will the U.S. government take and what kind of problems could we possibly encounter with these deep-sea fish farms? I feel that there is a very good reason as to why deep-sea fish farming has not been allowed by our government in the past.
At 8:42 PM, jst6658 said…
I feel that the fish farms are an excellent alternative use of the out of service oil rigs. Companies that are willing to explore the potential use of the rigs should be allowed to do so at their own financial risk (i.e. no government subsidies). The possible environmental effects seem to be negligible. Personally, I'm more concerned about the potential environmental effects of dismantling and removal of the rigs.
At 6:24 PM, rose said…
After reading the article, I don't see anything wrong with this idea as long as the U.S. holds to its high environmental standard recommended by the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy.If deep-sea fish farms can help reduce trade deficit, which is much to high.
At 1:35 AM, James Gerber said…
I think we are all forgetting one thing: food quality. Look at the salmon for an example. Pacific coast salmon, which is the fish's native home, tastes great, and Atlantic coast salmon, which is largely flown in and farmed, tastes notably worse. Who is to say a current restaurant favorite,like Mahi Mahi, will not be next? With that said, this is probably the most economical way to lower the U.S. trade deficit. It pleases me to say, "Bravo Bush."
Post a Comment
<< Home