Should Old Oil Rigs Be Reefed?

Man-made structures create entire ecosystems, attracting corals, sea fans and fish. Kirk Wester/stock.adobe.com

Coral reefs around the globe are in trouble. Thanks in large part to oceans warming and acidifying, many reefs have died or are sick. More than half of the coral-reef cover worldwide has been lost since 1950. 

Given that reality, particularly in an area like the Gulf of Mexico, with mostly muddy bottom and reefs few and far between, you might assume that public and environmental groups would be appalled at the idea of intentionally harming reefs in US waters. But we are actively destroying Gulf coral reefs—removing them and towing them to shore to die.

We’ve been killing dozens of thriving reefs every year for decades. Shouldn’t it be illegal? Well, it’s not only legal, federal law dictates it in many cases. Like anything governed by protocols and politics, it’s complicated.

Completely removing old rigs destroys the coral-based environments that thrive there and likely harms the ecology of the nearby area. Kirk Wester/stock.adobe.com Why Should We Care?

Decades back, free-swimming coral larvae (planulae) had the misfortune to settle on steel supports, pipes, jacket legs, extensions, and pretty much every piece of metal that makes up oil rigs and platforms offshore in the Gulf of Mexico and California. The little corals grew and multiplied rapidly while other small organisms drifted in to join the party—sponges, algae, barnacles, oysters, crabs, shrimp, starfish and more. 

With surprising speed, the submerged metal skeletons of rigs grew pretty much invisible, covered by a lush, living coral reef and surrounded by fish—baitfish and predators alike. So, why must these robust, flourishing reefs be destroyed? The short answer: They had the misfortune to grow around a metal structure erected by oil companies.

We’ll come back to that, but first consider the value of these structures as ecosystems. Consider the title of an October 15, 2023, Guardian article on offshore oil platforms: “Every Square Inch Is Covered in Life.” That title cites a comment made by University of California at Santa Barbara biologist Milton Love who, along with marine scientist Ann Scarborough Bull, studied marine life around the state’s oil rigs. A 2014 study by Jeremy T. Claisse et. al. (Cal Poly Pomona) finds these rigs to offer “the most productive ocean habitats in the world”—27 times more productive than natural rocky reefs in the same areas. 

A recent study found almost half the total biomass of amberjack in the Gulf of Mexico is associated with oil or gas structures. Stephen Dougherty Rigs Are Disappearing

The number of rigs supporting coral ecosystems is staggering, particularly in the Gulf. Some 6,000 oil-industry structures have been placed in the Gulf of Mexico since 1942. Most of those are now gone. The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management says 4,645 old platforms were removed from the Gulf between 1947 and 2023, and that 186 platforms are being removed annually. According to the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE, referred to as “Bessie”), the federal agency overseeing oil and gas structures in US waters, there are about 1,100 fixed platforms remaining in the Gulf, most off Louisiana and Alabama.

We are removing or destroying 186 thriving coral reefs from Gulf waters a year. “The loss of habitat is unbelievable,” says Chris Horton, senior director for fisheries policy with the Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation.

One bright spot was the 1984 National Fishing Enhancement Act that reflected the growing interest among Gulf states in creating artificial reefs for habitat on a generally barren, muddy seafloor. The act encouraged Gulf states to turn decommissioned rigs into reefs, and since then more than 600 platforms have been transformed into artificial reefs. 

But many conservationists and anglers believe too many rigs are being removed. In 2016, nearly 90 percent of decommissioned structures were removed instead of being reefed. That might seem surprising because reefing rigs saves the owner—in most cases the oil company—big bucks.

These tall rigs (some taller than skyscrapers) standing in deep water offer huge areas for reef development, and the unique vertical habitat is more accessible to drifting organisms. That includes coral planulae and other invertebrates like tiny fish larvae, which take advantage of rare refuge in open water.

Some critics of allowing rigs to remain still argue that reefs on rigs don’t help fish populations; they merely attract existing fish and allow anglers to overfish them.

But science has incontrovertibly debunked that notion. Tall rigs can actually be superior to natural reefs as nurseries for some species. 

Surveys of overfished bocaccio rockfish (Sebastes Paucispinis), a species valued by California fishermen, have shown them in much higher density around rigs than around natural reefs. The number of juvenile bocaccio around Southern California rigs was enough to increase the species’ stock by about 3 percent. 

Also, tall rigs allow species that move deeper as they grow to simply descend and avoid the risk of moving across open bottom to deeper rocky areas.

Floating rigs attract tuna and billfish in deep waters, while fixed platforms closer to shore invite species such as snapper, grouper, tripletail, cobia and plenty of others. No matter the depth, artificial structures benefit anglers. Stephen Dougherty Economic Realities

For some anti-oil NGOs, their origin is enough reason to yank all rigs. However, most Gulf states pass on half the substantial savings available from not removing rigs to the states’ artificial reef programs. That’s even more impactful off California, where most rigs are large and deep, and full removal is very costly. 

“California platforms are some of the largest and deepest in the world,” Emily Hazelwood of Blue Latitudes, a marine environmental consulting firm, tells the BBC. “You don’t even see the beams, they’re so encrusted with marine wildlife.”

In all, 27 rigs still sit off the California coast. Several will be decommissioned in the next few years. So far, not a single decommissioned rig off California has been left to preserve its ecological community. And that’s primarily a function of the lack of a legislative pathway and a determination of who retains liability for the platform skeleton. 

Public antipathy to anything “big oil” remains strong in California and explains calls to remove all rigs, the loss of coral-based ecosystems notwithstanding. Some environmental organizations, such as the Natural Resources Defense Council, insist that leaving any part of rigs helps the oil industry continue to threaten the environment. 

Blue Latitudes argues that reefing could be a win-win-win for the oil industry, the state and the ecosystem. According to Amber Sparks, with Blue Latitudes, 80 percent of the estimated $1 billion saved if 23 of 27 California platforms were reefed (versus removed) would go back to the state’s Endowment for Marine Preservation and Conservation—$800 million.

Another irony suggests full -removal further harms the ecology of the area because removing drilling waste on the seabed beneath a rig releases and spreads toxins better left undisturbed.

And in this age of carbon-footprint consciousness, consider the energy required to dismantle and transfer to land structures that can weigh more than 80 tons. Recently, a Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement by BSEE determined that removing Platform Harvest off California (in 675 feet, so not particularly deep) would release the equivalent of over 56,000 tons of CO2—the equivalent of 120,000 barrels of oil or powering 8,600 homes for a year.

California: Green or Misguided?

Still, BSEE earlier this year called for full removal of California’s 23 oil platforms as they’re decommissioned. Some experts have found the agency’s arguments for that recommendation manifestly flawed. In “Oil Platforms’ Removal?: Reefing the Superior Environmental Option” in the Montecito Journal (January 9, 2024), Asher Radziner writes of BSEE determinations: “Upon close review, [they] appear to have reached misguided and detrimental conclusions due to critical oversights in their analyses,” and delineates each of those shortcomings.

Although California remains a tough sell for protecting reefs on rigs, Sparks says entertaining a reefing option is gaining traction. She cites Blue Latitudes’ presentations on the subject: “Often those in the audience are strongly anti rigs to reefs, but by the end of the presentation, many change their thinking. The tide of public perception is changing.”

But not everyone is so optimistic. Bill Shedd, head of California-based AFTCO and a leading advocate for marine conservation and fisheries, says California’s extreme environmental community is a powerful opponent. Shedd points to those groups derailing a 2001 state bill to reef rigs that was approved by both legislative houses but, in the face of environmental opposition, vetoed by Gov. Gray Davis. 

Another similar bill was approved in 2010 by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, Shedd says. “The extreme environmental community has made this legislation so onerous to the oil industry that it’s better for oil companies to simply pay the full expense of rig removal.” 

Still, Shedd hopes such interests are becoming less effective in the face of increasing scientific proof and support from the California Artificial Reef Enhancement program (carereefs.org), a coalition of marine scientists, user groups (sport fishermen), oil companies and members of the “more rational” environmental community. Shedd emphasizes that the BSEE recommendation to pull all rigs is not the final word for California and remains hopeful common sense will prevail.

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

The once-great amberjack fishing in the Gulf is struggling, leading to recent shortened seasons. Reefing old rigs could help populations. Jim Hendricks Bureaucracy Delays Reefing

Reefing old rigs faces less opposition in the Gulf of Mexico, where structures have been successfully reefed in state programs, and public support has swung in favor of keeping abandoned rigs. Years of science make clear the best solution for the environment is plugging nonproducing wells (required whether rigs are pulled or left in place) and reefing them. 

One example gaining notice: In the Gulf, amberjack populations have dwindled to a point where AJ—not so long ago open year-round—could only be harvested for one month in 2023. Recent studies found almost half the total biomass of amberjack in the Gulf is associated with oil or gas structures. Some fear removing structures could be a death knell for the once-great amberjack fishery.

Experts say that, nevertheless, removal of decommissioned Gulf rigs likely will continue to dramatically outpace the few being preserved, particularly in federal waters. Under current rules, rig owners can simply haul an old rig to shore to be scrapped unless they want to tow it to an approved reefing site in state waters. 

“If that site is more than a few miles away, the financial incentives for oil and gas companies to reef a rig diminish quickly,” Horton says. Current laws, policies and bureaucracy make it easier to remove these established reef ecosystems in many cases than to preserve them.

For any rig that is reefed, whether in state or federal waters, a state assumes liability for it. Whatever that cost, the state ultimately comes out ahead, Horton says. He points out that everyone wins: The oil company spends considerably less (than removal), the state conservation programs gain the windfall of half the oil company’s savings, and the Gulf retains critical habitat.

Horton also reminds that sport fishing wins too. “Fishing the Gulf rigs is big business. People come from all over the country to fish here,” due in large part to the bounty of offshore rigs. 

The post Should Old Oil Rigs Be Reefed? appeared first on Salt Water Sportsman.