Should Old Oil Rigs Be Transformed into Reefs?

Coral reefs across the globe are facing a crisis. The warming and acidifying oceans have taken a significant toll, with more than half of the world’s coral-reef coverage lost since 1950. This deterioration is alarming and needs our urgent attention.

In regions like the Gulf of Mexico, where muddy bottoms prevail and coral structures are scarce, one might expect that conservationists and environmental organizations would denounce any moves to damage reefs in US waters. However, surprisingly, we are actively destroying these coral reefs—removing them and transporting them to shore where they meet their demise.

For decades, we have been systematically eliminating thriving reefs, losing dozens each year. You might wonder, shouldn’t this practice be illegal? The unfortunate reality is that, not only is it legal, but in many cases, federal regulations actually endorse it. The situation is a complex intersection of regulations and political considerations.

Why Should We Care?

Decades ago, free-swimming coral larvae, known as planulae, chanced upon the steel supports, pipes, and other metal components that constitute offshore oil rigs and platforms in the Gulf of Mexico and California. These tiny corals took root and thrived, creating an ecosystem where various organisms, from sponges and algae to barnacles and shrimp, flourished.

Before long, the once visible metal skeletons of the rigs became almost hidden, cloaked by vibrant, living coral reefs teeming with fish—both prey and predators. So, why are these thriving reefs being destroyed? The unfortunate reason is that they’ve grown around structures erected by oil companies.

We will delve deeper into this issue, but it’s essential first to acknowledge just how valuable these structures are as ecosystems. An article titled “Every Square Inch Is Covered in Life,” published in the *Guardian* on October 15, 2023, highlights remarks from University of California biologist Milton Love. Alongside marine scientist Ann Scarborough Bull, Love’s research has shown that marine life around California’s oil rigs is incredibly rich. A 2014 study by Jeremy T. Claisse et al. from Cal Poly Pomona indicates that these rigs represent some of the most productive ocean habitats on the planet—27 times more productive than natural rocky reefs in the same areas.

Rigs Are Disappearing

The number of rigs that support coral ecosystems is astonishing, especially in the Gulf. Since 1942, around 6,000 oil industry structures have been established in the Gulf of Mexico, but most of those no longer exist. According to the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, an astounding 4,645 old platforms were removed from the Gulf between 1947 and 2023, with an annual removal rate of about 186 platforms. The Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) states that roughly 1,100 fixed platforms are still operational in the Gulf, mostly off the coasts of Louisiana and Alabama.

Consequently, we’re losing 186 thriving coral reefs from Gulf waters each year. Chris Horton, senior director for fisheries policy with the Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation, notes, “The loss of habitat is unbelievable.”

On a brighter note, the 1984 National Fishing Enhancement Act represented a turn towards creating artificial reefs to provide habitat over the often barren, muddy seafloor. Since the enactment of this act, over 600 platforms have been successfully transformed into artificial reefs.

However, many conservationists and anglers argue that we are still removing too many rigs. In 2016, nearly 90 percent of decommissioned structures were taken down rather than repurposed as reefs. This is surprising since reefing offers significant financial benefits to the structure owners—typically the oil companies.

These tall rigs, some soaring higher than skyscrapers, provide expansive vertical habitats ideal for reef development, allowing drifting organisms, including coral planulae and various larval fish, to find refuge in often precarious open waters.

Some critics maintain that leaving rigs standing does not bolster fish populations; they merely attract existing fish, leading to overfishing. However, scientific evidence has effectively debunked this perspective. Improperly considered, tall rigs can actually be more beneficial than natural reefs in serving as nurseries for various fish species.

Surveys of overfished bocaccio rockfish (*Sebastes Paucispinis*), a species that California fishermen value highly, show that they exist in much greater densities around rigs than near natural reefs. The number of juvenile bocaccio near Southern California rigs was sufficient to increase their stock by approximately 3 percent.

Moreover, tall rigs afford growing fish species a means of deeper descent without traversing over open seabed, thereby minimizing risk.

Economic Realities

For certain anti-oil non-profits, the very existence of these rigs is grounds enough to have them removed. Yet, many Gulf states have found ways to leverage the savings from not removing rigs, funneling these funds into their artificial reef programs. This financial boon is particularly significant in California, where many rigs are enormous and costly to dismantle completely.

“California platforms are some of the largest and deepest in the world,” notes Emily Hazelwood from Blue Latitudes, a marine environmental consulting firm. “You can barely see the beams; they are so encrusted with marine wildlife.”

As it stands, there are 27 rigs still sitting off the California coast, several of which will face decommissioning in the near future. Not a single decommissioned rig has been preserved to maintain its ecological community primarily due to the lack of a legislative framework and questions of liability. Public sentiment against anything “big oil” remains strong in California, prompting calls for the removal of all rigs regardless of the ecological fallout.

Organizations like the Natural Resources Defense Council argue that allowing any part of the rigs to remain only serves to aid the oil industry in continuing its environmental threats.

On the contrary, Blue Latitudes suggests that transforming rigs into reefs could yield a trifecta of benefits for the oil industry, the state, and the ecosystems involved. According to Amber Sparks of Blue Latitudes, if 23 out of 27 California platforms were reefed instead of removed, around $800 million—80 percent of the estimated $1 billion saved—would be redirected to the state’s Endowment for Marine Preservation and Conservation.

There’s another layer of irony: full removal could further damage the ecology of nearby areas since the act of removing drilling waste from the seabed releases and spreads toxins that are often better left undisturbed.

Furthermore, in an era increasingly focused on carbon footprints, one must consider the energy expended to dismantle and transport these immense structures, sometimes weighing over 80 tons. A recent Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement from BSEE indicated that simply removing Platform Harvest off California would emit the equivalent of over 56,000 tons of CO2—the environmental impact akin to burning 120,000 barrels of oil or providing power to 8,600 homes for a year.

California: Green or Misguided?

Despite these concerns, BSEE recently recommended the complete removal of all 23 oil platforms off the California coast as they are decommissioned. Some experts have critiqued this recommendation, arguing that the justifications put forth by BSEE are fundamentally flawed. Asher Radziner pointed out in the *Montecito Journal* that upon analysis, BSEE’s conclusions indicate critical oversights.

Though California presents challenging dynamics for preserving reefs on rigs, Sparks observes that discussions around reefing options are gaining momentum. During presentations held by Blue Latitudes, even those initially opposed to the concept often find their perspectives shifting positively by the end.

However, not everyone shares this optimism. Bill Shedd, president of California-based AFTCO and a staunch advocate for marine conservation and fisheries, points to the formidable opposition mounted by extreme environmental groups. He recalls how a state bill aimed at reefing rigs was passed in 2001 only to be vetoed by Governor Gray Davis due to environmental pushback.

A similar bill passed in 2010 under Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger still faced resistance. Shedd argues that the burdens placed on the oil industry by these stringent environmental groups have led them to prefer full rig removal over pursuing reefing options.

Despite these challenges, Shedd remains hopeful. He believes that as scientific evidence accumulates and support builds from the California Artificial Reef Enhancement program (carereefs.org), which unites marine scientists, recreational fishing communities, oil companies, and more moderate environmentalists, the tide may ultimately turn. He emphasizes that the BSEE’s recommendation is not the definitive answer for California and expresses hope that common sense will soon prevail.

Read Next: Battling Tuna Around Oil Rigs in the Gulf of Mexico

Bureaucracy Delays Reefing

In the Gulf of Mexico, the push to reef old rigs faces less resistance. Many structures have been successfully repurposed in state programs, and public support has increasingly favored keeping abandoned rigs. Years of scientific research point towards a solution: seal up non-functional wells (which is mandatory, regardless of whether the rigs are removed or left in place) and convert the rigs into reefs.

A notable example lies with the amberjack populations in the Gulf, which have shrunk considerably; what was once a year-round open fishery could only be harvested for one month in 2023. Recent studies indicate that nearly half of the total amberjack biomass in the Gulf is linked to oil or gas structures. Concerns loom that dismantling these facilities may be detrimental to the recovery of the amberjack fishery.

Unfortunately, the trend of removing decommissioned Gulf rigs is likely to continue overshadowing the few that are preserved, especially in federal waters. Under current regulations, rig owners can simply tow an old rig to shore for scrapping; otherwise, they must transport it to an established reefing site in state waters.

“If that desired site is several miles away, the financial incentives for oil and gas companies to reef a rig quickly diminish,” Horton points out. It is often easier to remove established reef ecosystems than to protect them, thanks to existing laws, policies, and bureaucratic hurdles.

When a rig is reefed—whether in state or federal waters—the state takes on liability for it. Regardless of the associated costs, this arrangement typically benefits the state in the long run, as Horton explains. Everyone stands to gain: the oil company incurs less expense (compared to removal), state conservation programs receive financial support from half of the oil company’s savings, and the Gulf retains essential habitats.

Let’s not overlook the recreational fishing sector either. “Fishing the Gulf rigs is a massive industry. People travel from all over the country to fish here,” largely because of the bounty provided by the offshore rigs.