Scarborough Bull went to Occidental College in California to discuss decisions about oil rigs that are no longer being used. Many people have differing ideas on what to do about oil rigs that have become aquatic habitats. Some have a preservationist mindset and believe it is best to restore the sites where oil rigs are to their original conditions, while others believe it is best to turn old platforms that are no longer in use into coral reefs. The European Union is following the preservationist strategy, while old platforms in the Gulf of Mexico are being turned into reef habitats.
I think that it is better to turn these old platforms into reef habitats. It is much cheaper to turn old platforms into reef habitats then completely remove them because removing them involves completely removing them from the sea floor and then disposing of them. In order to convert an oil rig into a reef habitat, toxic materials need to be removed from the structure, which is much cheaper than completely removing them.
Do you know which is better for the environment? Is turning old platforms into reef habitats better for the animals? Or is it just cheaper? Why is the EU following the preservationist strategy?
I’m not sure why the EU is following the preservationist strategy, but turning old platforms into reef habitats is better for the animals, the environment, and it’s cheaper.
I would agree that these old rigs should probably just be left as long as they are safe. They will serve as a reminder of the fossil fuel era of human society. How long could these old rigs feasibly be safe in the environment?
I think researchers have found a way to ensure their safety, and it is better for the environment and safer to leave them in the ocean.
What do you think is the best way to assess this? Would you follow the preservationist strategy?
I think it is the best to turn them into reef habitats and not take them out because it is safer for the animals already living there.