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.

  • 768@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    1 year ago

    “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.

      • 768@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.