demonstrations are few and small scale (Buck et al. 2004; Bridger 2004; Mee
2006). Cultivation of seaweed and blue mussels have been demonstrated to be
biologically and technically feasible in the high energy ocean environment of the
North Sea (Buck et al. 2004, 2008). In addition, conceptualization of aquaculture
systems that can utilize wind farm infrastructure and adjacent areas is well along
(AWI 2014; Lagerwald et al. 2014).
In the US, a pilot demonstration shellfish farm associated with a large, offshore
wind farm off Cape Cod, State of Massachusetts, was recently approved and is
discussed in the following section. In Europe, in recent years, numerous successful
co-location trials have been carried out using blue mussels and assorted other
species (Lagerwald et al. 2014).
Co-location of aquaculture research and pilot demonstration projects with oil and
gas ocean infrastructure began in the US in the mid-1990s. The first aquaculture
facility associated with the industry was the SeaFish project in 1998, located 34
miles off of the State of Texas. SeaFish operated for one year, growing red drum,
but ended in 1999 when Shell Oil decided to reactivate the platform.
The second major co-location project was planned for Platform Grace in federal
waters 10.5 miles off Ventura, California, USA which stopped producing oil and
gas in 1997. Recognizing the opportunity, HSWRI, a prominent US aquaculture
research institute, leased the facility in August, 2003 for a project to culture shellfish
and a variety of native finfish (HSWRI 2003; Krop and Polefka 2007). In 2004, the
agreement with HSWRI was not renewed by Venoco and the company resumed oil
and gas production shortly thereafter.
With the rising interest in offshore aquaculture, in 2007 the Minerals
Management Service (MMS) that manages all offshore U.S. oil and gas leasing
(now the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement),
approved a program for the outer continental shelf to issue leases, easements, and
rights of way for alternative uses of offshore oil and gas production platforms.
MMS could authorize individual projects and offshore aquaculture is identified as
one of the activities.
9.3 Case Studies on Permitting and Regulation
9.3.1 Introduction
Commercial offshore aquaculture will not fully develop unless governments create
a supportive political climate and resulting regulatory conditions. More specifically,
a recent study of the offshore industry from an economic perspective concluded:
Offshore aquaculture will develop only where there is an enabling regulatory framework
which allows investors to undertake projects with a reasonable expectation that their
investments in the farm and their fish will be secure and a reasonable degree of certainty
about how the operation will be regulated (Knapp 2013).
192
J.S. Corbin et al.
2006). Cultivation of seaweed and blue mussels have been demonstrated to be
biologically and technically feasible in the high energy ocean environment of the
North Sea (Buck et al. 2004, 2008). In addition, conceptualization of aquaculture
systems that can utilize wind farm infrastructure and adjacent areas is well along
(AWI 2014; Lagerwald et al. 2014).
In the US, a pilot demonstration shellfish farm associated with a large, offshore
wind farm off Cape Cod, State of Massachusetts, was recently approved and is
discussed in the following section. In Europe, in recent years, numerous successful
co-location trials have been carried out using blue mussels and assorted other
species (Lagerwald et al. 2014).
Co-location of aquaculture research and pilot demonstration projects with oil and
gas ocean infrastructure began in the US in the mid-1990s. The first aquaculture
facility associated with the industry was the SeaFish project in 1998, located 34
miles off of the State of Texas. SeaFish operated for one year, growing red drum,
but ended in 1999 when Shell Oil decided to reactivate the platform.
The second major co-location project was planned for Platform Grace in federal
waters 10.5 miles off Ventura, California, USA which stopped producing oil and
gas in 1997. Recognizing the opportunity, HSWRI, a prominent US aquaculture
research institute, leased the facility in August, 2003 for a project to culture shellfish
and a variety of native finfish (HSWRI 2003; Krop and Polefka 2007). In 2004, the
agreement with HSWRI was not renewed by Venoco and the company resumed oil
and gas production shortly thereafter.
With the rising interest in offshore aquaculture, in 2007 the Minerals
Management Service (MMS) that manages all offshore U.S. oil and gas leasing
(now the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement),
approved a program for the outer continental shelf to issue leases, easements, and
rights of way for alternative uses of offshore oil and gas production platforms.
MMS could authorize individual projects and offshore aquaculture is identified as
one of the activities.
9.3 Case Studies on Permitting and Regulation
9.3.1 Introduction
Commercial offshore aquaculture will not fully develop unless governments create
a supportive political climate and resulting regulatory conditions. More specifically,
a recent study of the offshore industry from an economic perspective concluded:
Offshore aquaculture will develop only where there is an enabling regulatory framework
which allows investors to undertake projects with a reasonable expectation that their
investments in the farm and their fish will be secure and a reasonable degree of certainty
about how the operation will be regulated (Knapp 2013).
192
J.S. Corbin et al.