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.

  • doczombie@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • FlihpFlorp@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      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

      • fartsparkles@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • Agent641@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          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!

        • Sir_Kevin@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

      • vrojak@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • driving_crooner@lemmy.eco.br
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          The upkeep costs would be huge, I imagine. They hard to access and are not designed for human leisure. Maybe one oil plataform could do it, for the novelty seeking guests, but can’t think how the costs are going to work.