SASLess,
HC's concern is about the reference point from which the MAP is located. The only way this can work with such low mimima is if the approach is absolutely defined in terms of direction and offset; thus, each MAP will be defined with respect to the nearest part of the installation (to the MAP) and will apply only to specific approach (it could be bi-directional of course).
Because the go-around will have to be directly ahead, if the obstacle avoidance distance is the same as the distance of the MAP, at the MAP the helicopter will be adjacent to the rig and it will appear in the side window!
The way to avoid this is to reduce the miss-distance from the installation in the go-around; less than 1/4 SM is quite close when all errors are taken into consideration.
I thought that the main reason for automating the approach was to minimise the work on the visual segment; reducing the distance of the MAP doesn't do this, it increases the workload and puts it into a shorter distance (and time).
My experience is that we lose only a tiny percentage of flights from weather related causes. It would be interesting to see the safety case (potential gains v increased risk of collision) from reducing the MAP.
Jim