While not natural structures, their platforms have been embedded into the muddy seabed long enough to become part of the ocean environment, providing a home for creatures like mussels and barnacles, which in turn attract larger fish and sea lions that find safety and food there.
After two and a half decades of studying the rigs, Bull says it’s clear to her: “These places are extremely productive, both for commercial and recreational fisheries and for invertebrates.”
Now, as California and the US shift away from offshore drilling and toward greener energy, a debate is mounting over their future. On one side are those who argue disused rigs are an environmental blight and should be removed entirely. On the other side are people, many of them scientists, who say we should embrace these accidental oases and that removing the structures is morally wrong. In other parts of the world, oil rigs have successfully become artificial reefs, in a policy known as rigs to reefs.
Is it possible to remove the part that’s above sea level and make a reef out of that, next to what’s already below the surface? That way nobody has to see these ugly structures and the sea life get more reef.
Sure, anything is possible without enough c4.
Whether it’s economical to do so and the risks of making a submerged navigation hazard are worthwhile is up for debate.
I suspect we’ll land in between - many of these rigs are far beyond where anyone is likely to see them and should be retained as is. The ones closer to the coast should probably be decommissioned or modified as you suggest with navigation markers.
I mean why destroy them at all. I have yet to read the article and I’m ready to fall asleep so hopefully this is a coherent thought, but why not try to convert it into a research station or something wild life can use
Actually I do know why they don’t covert it because it’ll probably cost a lot and that’s without concern of ownership and all that fun stuff
Removing the top part would mean ships have no visual cue there’s a bunch of metal underneath the surface that could wreck their ship. Better to just leave it intact.
Thats a good point. Hide it just below the surface so ships wreck themselves on it. Those sink and become more reefs that then go on to scuttle more ships. Circle of life!
Ted Kaczynski liked that
Ah that seems slightly important and something I had not considered
Ships use charts to dodge such things. All of those rigs should already be on the charts so as long as the “reef” is deep enough for small boats to pass over it should be all good.
Tbh I’d kinda like to see some of them turned into hotels. It’s not that I like oil drilling, but these rigs are still incredibly huge and complicated structures, and given more or less full access to a decommissioned oil rig and a decent camera I could possibly spend a couple days just exploring there.
Maybe the top part can be something socially useful like a weather station and scuba school.
Ah yes such unsightly things out in the middle of nowhere where the average human being will never be within seeing distance of. How ugly they are out there completely out of sight from 90% of the human population.
I sailed out of TX earlier this year and the amount of shit out there was depressing. It’s like an industrial wasteland out in the ocean. Polluted and forgotten. But you’re right, that’s not something most people will ever encounter.
What do you mean man the rigs look dope as shit. The only good thing to come out of fossil fuel industry
I mean, isn’t the point of this article that they won’t stay that way?
Humans alter the landscape, but when nature takes it back why take away what it’s making use of?
Why does everything have to be for us?
What about ships passing through. How are they supposed to avoid scraping their bottoms on the columns if they can’t see the columns. I think there needs to be enough structure above water too.
Using the same charts they’re already using. Those things aren’t visible in the dark or when it’s raining/foggy etc. Ships rely on charts and known channels.
“Visual pollution”. Why does this smell like anti-wind power astroturfing tactics?
For my guess someone needs to benefit from dismantled oil rigs though and I don’t see the media competence nor motive in the deconstruction sector.
deleted by creator
I think you either didn’t read the article or didn’t understand it. The companies have to pay either way.
What’s weird to me, is that this Environment Defense Fund and others are so interested in the dismantling of the rigs even after sealing of the well and their only reason seems to be ‘visual pollution’, which is utter BS.
deleted by creator
Dismantle the top. Keep the base. Build a giant flat bed on it and set up a house. Fly or ferry in supplies.
Boom island oasis free from property tax and shitty neighbours.
The mad lads even made currency 🤣
Leaving them seems like a no-brainer. The question is should we build more? Without the oil extraction of course. I wonder if offshore wind turbines will create similar reefs?
It’s not that we should build more platforms, since artificial reef technology has been a thing for several years already. We can just build more artificial reefs. Probably cheaper than platforms too. I’ve also heard of electrified reefs which sound solarpunk af. We could use wind turbines to electrify artificial reefs.
Sure but making them have a second use beyond just habitat would greatly increase the possible number that can be produced. I wasn’t really saying we should build more oil rigs, but artificial reefs that have other industrial functions is a great idea I think.
That said, if artificial reefs can be cheap enough to build many of them, that could be worth pursuing as well. I don’t know the relative costs here.
