Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Earth Power Science Technology

Reclaiming Oil Rigs As Oceanic Eco-Resorts 124

Posted by timothy from the they're-prettier-than-they-look dept.
Mike writes "Here's an innovative reuse for those old abandoned oil rigs littering the ocean — convert them into eco resorts. Morris Architects' Oil Rig Platform Resort and Spa makes use of one of 4,000 oil rigs out in the Gulf of Mexico and transforms it into a beacon of sustainability, re-imagining an iconic source of dirty energy as an eco-haven that generates all of its power from renewable sources."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Reclaiming Oil Rigs As Oceanic Eco-Resorts More

Reclaiming Oil Rigs As Oceanic Eco-Resorts

Comments Filter:
  • Why settle for something weak like a resort when you could have your own micro nation. If it worked for these guys http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principality_of_Sealand [wikipedia.org] why not you or I?!

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by von_rick ( 944421 )
      I think it was The Pirate Bay that wanted to buy this nation to save their asses from legal hassles they might've faced in other countries. There was some glitch in that deal and it didn't go through as they expected. Or maybe it was some other bittorrent listing site.

      • Re:Or a private micro-nation strong hold! (Score:4, Informative)

        by oodaloop ( 1229816 ) on Thursday February 19, 2009 @02:24PM (#26920469)
        Yeah, TPB wanted to buy it, but Sealand was asking for a fortune. The glitch, aside from it being way too much money, is that you can't sell a nation. Besides, no one has recognized Sealand as a nation. A passport from them, which you can buy, wouldn't be worth the paper on which it was printed.

        • Besides, no one has recognized Sealand as a nation.

          Did anyone do anything about it though? If not, you could at least get away with semi-independant nation status, where you were independant unless you provoked a nearby real nation to do something. Which seems to me to be somewhat true of those real nations anyway, Iraq and Afghanistan are proof that you only have independance if nobody cares to disagree with you or you can force them to leave you alone.

          Steal an ICBM, buy an oil rig, and THEN claim you're an independant nation and you might have a better

          • Re: (Score:1)

            by mc1138 ( 718275 )
            Sealand's claims to autonomy are pretty debated, but, they have a more realistic claim then the hundreds of other so called micronations, many of which are just guy's houses that they have changed into a sort of fantasy land with themselves as king. Read the Wiki article for Sealand's past dealings with other countries.

            • Sealand's claims to autonomy are pretty debated, but, they have a more realistic claim then the hundreds of other so called micronations, many of which are just guy's houses that they have changed into a sort of fantasy land with themselves as king.

              You dare mock the sovreignty of "Awesomeville"!?! Step foot on our soil and you'll be beheaded!

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by oodaloop ( 1229816 )
            The UK never bothered to deal with Sealand; it apparently didn't warrant the attention, bad publicity from a raid gone bad, or the time and money necessary to do anything about it. Harboring a wmd on a small rig just 6 miles off the shore of a major power like UK is just asking for trouble. The Royal Marines could take that thing over without even getting out of breath. It's essentially too small and too close to be defendable. As a former US Marine and senior intelligence analyst, that's my opinion any

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by dwye ( 1127395 )

              If you just wanted to say you're the Supreme Dictator for Life of a small island nation, then go for it. But it's kind of pointless to make and sell passports that no one else recognizes. Pretty useless, really.

              It isn't pointless to sell them, anymore than it is pointless to sell diplomas from Miskatonic University; it may be pointless to buy them, of course, unless as a souvenier or novelty item.

              And of course, you never know when it might work. Several American Indian tribes have issued passports that

              • Hey, my MU degree gets me access to their library and there are some very rare books there. Pointless indeed!

          • Re:Or a private micro-nation strong hold! (Score:4, Informative)

            by meringuoid ( 568297 ) on Thursday February 19, 2009 @04:34PM (#26922093)
            Did anyone do anything about it though? If not, you could at least get away with semi-independant nation status, where you were independant unless you provoked a nearby real nation to do something.

            Sealand has never quite provoked Britain badly enough to be invaded. The military cost of annexing Sealand would be trivial; the problem would be the legal situation. It could be argued that Britain has implicitly recognised Sealand in the past; for a start, there was a court decision in 1968 that Sealand was outside British jurisdiction, which was cited ten years later by the British government as a reason to do nothing about a German being held prisoner in Sealand after a failed coup d'etat.

            It would take months to sort out, and be the most spectacular media circus in the meantime. Awfully embarrassing. And then there's the PR end of things. You'd need sound propaganda to paint the Sealanders as, oh, a bunch of crazed armed thugs on an old sea fort with a habit of taking pot shots at passing ships - otherwise you'd look the most awful bully, sending the SBS or someone to take over the smallest country in the world.

            If shooting at the Royal Navy didn't do it, I doubt running a pirate BitTorrent tracker service out of Sealand would be sufficient provocation for a British invasion to go ahead. After all, the place was founded by a pirate radio operator in the first place, it would only be in keeping with proud Sealand tradition. I suspect British policy is simply to quietly ignore the entire thing and wait for Prince Roy to die, or at least grow old enough to want to live somewhere slightly more comfortable - and then demolish the place once it's abandoned.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by geekoid ( 135745 )

              Unless Prince Roy appoints a new leader.
              You can't sell a nation, but you sure as hell can pay your way to leader status.

          • Steal an ICBM, buy an oil rig, and THEN claim you're an independant nation and you might have a better case for nation status.

            As an Australian I believe you shouldn't be a nation unless you are surrounded by water. That would certainly save on seats in the UN.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by cas2000 ( 148703 )

              what's this "surrounded by water" nonsense? some sort of overly poetic kind of tortured english??

              the correct phrase is "girt by sea"!

        • Yeah, TPB wanted to buy it, but Sealand was asking for a fortune.

          They could just buy an old freighter and park it somewhere in international waters.

      • Re:Or a private micro-nation strong hold! (Score:4, Informative)

        by hardburn ( 141468 ) <hardburn@wumpu s - c a v e.net> on Thursday February 19, 2009 @04:16PM (#26921903)

        Taking the assumption that Sealand is a legitimate nation (for the sake of argument), I'm afraid you can no longer replicate that success on with an oil rig. The first problem is that nations have extended their territories into international waters a lot farther since Sealand was founded. If Sealand hadn't already been claimed, it would be in England's territory today.

        Secondly, a 1982 international law forbids artifical structures from being made into countries:

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_Sealand#Territorial_limits [wikipedia.org]
        According to the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, there is no transitional law and no possibility to consent to the existence of a construction which was previously approved or built by a neighbouring state. This means that artificial islands may no longer be constructed and then claimed as sovereign states, or as state territories, for the purposes of extension of an exclusive economic zone or of territorial waters.

        Note that this means that Sealand's claim must be legitimate prior to 1982 in order to be grandfathered in.

        • Except for the minor matter that UN conventions aren't actually international law. For one, the US does not recognize it as law unless the senate were to ratify it, although given the people currently in power if TPB did try this route there would almost certainly be a party line vote on it.
          • You might be surprised about the party-line thing. I heard about the UN Law of the Sea Treaty (v3) from John Norton Moore, one of the people who negotiated it. According to him, UNCLOS III had the support of most of the Senate, Bush, and a coalition of scientific, industrial and environmental groups, with only conspiracy theorists having any objection to it. Never mind the still-odious seabed mining provisions, which basically grant ownership of the world's ocean metal/fossil fuel deposits to the UN! Moore

        • The UN? Who gives a shit what they say.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by geekoid ( 135745 )

          um..
          "for the purposes of extension of an exclusive economic zone or of territorial waters."

          So you can't pop up a rig, say hey we've expanded are territory to this new spot, suck it.

          It in no way covers new territories.

      • I seem to remember that (maybe prompted by the Sealand debate), the UN changed the rules so that any artifical island cannot qualify for statehood, (even if it's outside territorial waters).

        • I seem to remember that (maybe prompted by the Sealand debate), the UN changed the rules so that any artifical island cannot qualify for statehood, (even if it's outside territorial waters).

          So what is an artificial island? People in my country live in artificial structures on solid land. Sealand in an artificial structure on solid sea floor. What about a country in the pacific which gets drowned by rising sea levels? Do they lose nationhood even if they build up their island with buildings and North American trash?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Abreu ( 173023 )

      Are these guys still operating? I thought their ideas for a "neutral nation hosting content of cuestionable legality" had fallen through...

    • It worked until they managed to let it catch on fire. There was only a watchman there, and the place got rather torn up.

  • Don't forget the guns! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by XxtraLarGe ( 551297 ) on Thursday February 19, 2009 @02:23PM (#26920461) Journal
    They'll probably need to employ a pretty good sized security force if they want to ward off pirates--and yes, I'm being serious.

    • Re:Don't forget the guns! (Score:5, Informative)

      by ArcadeX ( 866171 ) on Thursday February 19, 2009 @02:31PM (#26920557)
      I work for the maritime administration in the gulf, pirate aren't really a concern here. Too busy of a shipping lane, with too many patrols from the coast gaurd and navy. Most of these would be just outside US internation waters, pirates would have to be based inside the US to hit them in short range craft more commonly used.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by R2.0 ( 532027 )

        I work for the maritime administration in the gulf, pirate aren't really a concern here yet.

        FTFY

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by khallow ( 566160 )
          Fixed what? Why is piracy going to get worse? I can't figure out cute, context-free quips.

      • Re:Don't forget the guns! (Score:4, Informative)

        by meringuoid ( 568297 ) on Thursday February 19, 2009 @04:16PM (#26921901)
        Most of these would be just outside US internation waters, pirates would have to be based inside the US to hit them in short range craft more commonly used.

        The Somali pirates have been getting bolder lately. Nowadays they set out in large ships with long range, and deploy short-range fast craft from that mothership to launch the actual attack. The Sirius Star was halfway to Madagascar when it was taken.

        Still, the reason pirates flourish in Somalia is that it is an anarchy close to a major shipping route. Although there are plenty of nations in the region with weak governments, I don't think there's any outright anarchic state in the Caribbean that might form a pirate haven. And, as you say, it would be a bold pirate who operated in the back yard of the US Navy. The Gulf of Aden isn't any great power's particular patch, and hasn't been since the fall of the Empire; the same cannot be said for the Caribbean. So far the Somali pirates haven't upset any major power badly enough for a serious effort to be made to eradicate them; even so, it's clear that the Indians in particular are near the limit of their patience, and many other nations have been sending warships to the region.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by khallow ( 566160 )

          The Somali pirates have been getting bolder lately. Nowadays they set out in large ships with long range, and deploy short-range fast craft from that mothership to launch the actual attack. The Sirius Star was halfway to Madagascar when it was taken.

          I was going to say something smarmy about the lack of Somali pirates in the Gulf of Mexico. But let's just look at what's needed. There's no massive pirating infrastructure like that so close to the US. Nor, with the active presence of the US Coast Guard and a stable, cooperative Mexico, will pirates be a serious problem in the Gulf of Mexico.

          • Nor, with the active presence of the US Coast Guard and a stable, cooperative Mexico, will pirates be a serious problem in the Gulf of Mexico.

            A stable, cooperative Mexico is no longer a really safe bet. When narcotrafficking gangs are seriously challenging the legitimacy/stability of the government over a significant part of a country's territory, all bets are off.

  • Yes, but... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by CaptainPatent ( 1087643 ) on Thursday February 19, 2009 @02:27PM (#26920507) Journal
    Can the resorts withstand category 5 hurricane force winds? Seems to me that with only 1 helipad you may have a huge and dangerous bottleneck to evacuating quickly.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by damn_registrars ( 1103043 ) *

      Seems to me that with only 1 helipad you may have a huge and dangerous bottleneck to evacuating quickly.

      Now I am not exactly an expert on oil rigs, but it seems to me that this rig is on the ocean. And generally oceans are full of water. I'm pretty sure we figured out a way to move people over water a while ago without using helicopters.

    • Hurricanes don't form quickly. You would have days to evacuate, if need be. Besides, you can fit a lot of people onto a cargo helicopter. Oh, and let's not forget the attached marina. Lots of people can leave by boat.

  • Lists of Rigs (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Archon-X ( 264195 ) on Thursday February 19, 2009 @02:29PM (#26920527)

    As an avid 'urban explorer' - an oil rig has long since been a hot target.
    Are there maintained lists of abandoned rigs?

    Anyone in the know?

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by i.r.id10t ( 595143 )

      Check fishing web sites and/or charts with "good fishing areas" marked, also maybe check with dive shops. While you may be able to be in a boat next to the rig legally, you may be trespassing if you get up on the rig structure itself.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by swb ( 14022 )

        And from what I've seen it can be really hard to get on an oil rig without either landing on top of it with a helicopter or having someone crane you up (either via a larger boat with a crane or from the rig itself). It's not like you can just climb up, and the platform is often REALLY high off the water (10 stories?).

        It might actually be dangerous close to the rig due to submerged obstacles you can't see and/or wave action smashing you against the rig.

        • No Problem! Wait for a storm, let the wave action lift you to just below the platform, toss your grappling-hook onto the platform and climb up before the next wave hits.

        • Danger to myself is not so much of a concern.
          Danger to others is.

          Have my first helicopter to abandoned sea fort abseil coming up when the weather is nice.
          Would like to try for an oil rig.

          There has to be a database of these somewhere.

      • While you may be able to be in a boat next to the rig legally, you may be trespassing if you get up on the rig structure itself.

        Are there oil rigs in international waters? Or are they too far out? I would assume there are some major ones in use as the drive to go deeper is brought on by the last oil crunch, but most liklye still used since they were further out.

      • While you may be able to be in a boat next to the rig legally, you may be trespassing if you get up on the rig structure itself.

        If you were in international waters, it would be a LOT harder to prosecute (if possible at all)...are rigs even flagged like ships?

    • The MMS maintains a list of all platforms in Federal Waters. http://www.mms.gov/ [mms.gov] Some platforms are very close to the coastline (~8 miles or less). The MMS does not allow oil companies to "abandon" oil rigs as they sit in the water. They have to remove the structure and topple it to form an artificial reef or bring it to shore for dismantling. To answer some of the other comments All platforms have a boat dock and a +12 (deck that is around 12 feet above mean sea level) with access to the upper decks.
    • From what I've heard, there are tens of thousands of abandoned rigs in the world, and it would cost billions of dollars to dismantle them all properly (read: not going to happen). Until relatively recently, countries did not require oil companies to have "end of life" plans for drilling rigs or production platforms, and I suspect a lot of third world countries still don't. In the absence of these requirements, companies would do what made the most sense money-wise: run them empty and then just leave them

  • Do what they do with boats. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by EkriirkE ( 1075937 ) on Thursday February 19, 2009 @02:31PM (#26920561) Homepage
    Clean and sink 'em.
    • They are sunk. Stuck right to the ocean floor. Knocking them over in deep water would just put them down so deep they wouldn't be nearly as much use to ocean life. Just another rusting hulk. If you mean detach them, tow them to shallow water, clean then sink em again, that may be a bit more trouble than anyone is willing to get into.

      • Re: (Score:1, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward

        They usually clip off the tops of them and move them somewhere else to drill more oil. Those structures are multi million dollar platforms... You do not just sink them or abandon them.

        There are companies out there that just own the platforms and rent them out.

        These things are more like boats than towers.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_platform#Types

        In shallow waters they will tend to use fixed ones. But in deeper depths they just can not do it.

        • That's kind of what I figured. Anything of value will be striped off. Didn't realize they reused entire platforms (other than multiple horizontal wells drilled from one rig). Always figured the important stuff was modular and only the skeleton was left. In any case, the legs are pretty interesting if left in place.

    • Or, better yet, torch them off at some depth so that they're no longer a navigation hazard and recycle the platform itself and upper superstructure. Seems silly to sink all that material. If you want to make artificial reefs, make them out of something cheap and plentiful, like formed concrete shapes.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by maxume ( 22995 )

        I would imagine that the companies who own these things (or the governments who are moving in and cleaning up after irresponsible companies) have weighed the costs (especially time and fuel) and decided to do the cheapest thing possible.

  • When it is filled with fit Bikini clad women. However the truth is it will be filled with over 50 out of shape Bikini clad women.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by ArcherB ( 796902 )

      When it is filled with fit Bikini clad women. However the truth is it will be filled with over 50 out of shape Bikini clad women.

      No, the is an ECO resort. That means it will be filled with middle aged, unwashed and unshaven bikini clad hippie chicks. Expect to see lots of armpit hair at best, 70s bush at worst.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by geekoid ( 135745 )

      Not on my secret base! There all going to be hot lesbian bikini clad babes with automatic weapons trained to snap a mans neck in a second.
      They will be order to stop and question anyone wearing a suit, and kill on sight anyone in a Tuxedo.

      You're not stopping me this time Bond.

  • Eco-resort?!? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Locke2005 ( 849178 ) on Thursday February 19, 2009 @02:56PM (#26920947)
    ...an eco-haven that generates all of its power from renewable sources. What about all the fuel used for helicoptering in all the visitors and supplies? Are they planning on running the helicopter off of bio-diesel? Sure, they could use a sailboat to ferry people in and out... but I personally would rather just stay on the sailboat instead of a rusty old oil platform! I'm sorry, but when someone says "eco-vacation", a metal cage in the middle of the ocean is not the first destination that springs to mind. What's the scuba-diving like around an oil platform? This might make a good place to get scuba certified, just on the basis that there is absolutely nothing else to do there.

    • Turning an oil rig into a sea-based hotel is proof to the world that if exhert enough resources and energy, you can announce to the world how much resource and energy that you are saving! Was it Hitler who said something like 'The bigger the lie, the more people will believe it'?? Although Mythbusters already proved it, this is further proof that you CAN polish a turd.

      PS: Godwin's law!

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Grishnakh ( 216268 )

      Sorry, no. Getting Scuba certified at an oil platform isn't going to happen, because (unless I'm mistaken), these are generally located in fairly deep water. Scuba diving beginners get started at the beach, and later use boats to go out a bit, to where it's perhaps 40-50 feet deep. Most generally don't go deeper than 100-150 feet. If you go any deeper than 100 feet, you're probably getting into technical diving, which is where you start messing around with other mixes of gases, and the risk is higher, a

      • As far as using "biofuels" on jet engines - it's been done [boeing.com]. Remember, JetA is pretty much kerosene which is pretty much diesel.

        As far as scuba diving from a oil rig - you're pretty much correct. Lots of critters like to hang around the pylons so it wouldn't be as boring as just dropping off in the middle of the Gulf, but I can think of lots better places to dive.

      • Actually, the corals, etc. on deeper reefs (70-100ft deep, off West Palm from my personal experience) are quite colorful. However, color is filtered out based on depth. First to go is true red, happens near the surface. Then true orange, yellow, etc. until you get down to about 70 feet, after that you really just have various shades of blue. Until you go night diving and take a light source with you, at which point its all pretty colors again.

        For a certification dive I'd be more worried about currents t

      • And I don't imagine that the snorkeling that they hype is any great shakes, either. Unless the water is very clear there, you might as well snorkel in a swimming pool.

  • Where have these clowns been for the last 2 years? Big dollar theme vacations are dead for now - people are happy to have the money to go to the NJ shore.

    I mean, ballooning over the amazon was neat when you could just pull the $10k out of the equity on your McMansion, but now?

  • The only function of this oil platform which looks green is power generation. What about food supplies and waste disposal? The front of the oil rig is lined up with motor boats, which don't look all that green to me. This looks like the perfect vacation for those super rich hippie couples which live in a house with enough floor space for twenty families, with 3 or 4 cars in their entrance, but they're green because they get their power from solar, and their cars are all hybrids. Yep, some kind of green alri

  • Whoever the designer of this was, has no experience with offshore platforms.

    You NEVER put the helicopter platform on the side. It's never in clear air then, you can't safely approach the pad and land. And it was too close to hotel rooms anyways, where they have it, if the pilot goofs he flies the rotor into the rooms.

    • Whoever the designer of this was, has no experience with offshore platforms.

      Doesn't look like they have much experience with the ocean, either. Bad news for the people that go there from, oh, June to November, roughly. But, this is more like the concept cars that the automakers used to come up with, back when they had money. Interesting to look at, but completely impractical.

      • The general concept doesn't totally suck - one could build an offshore hotel on an oil platform, and some of the winning design's components look reasonable to me.

        Rough seas and high winds at times, and the occasional hurricane, aren't impossible to work around at a resort (it's not like parts of Florida, the Caribbean, Mexico etc don't have those problems on land). It's going to need more evacuations and will have an operations impact, but you just have to plan and budget for that. You give people refund

  • Not sure if they have calculated the TCO completely?
    If State Farm is completely pulling out of Florida for profitability reasons, what makes the developers thing this thing will be insurable?
    http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=State+farm+pulling+out+of+Florida [google.com]

    It also depends HOW FAR off shore it is and if is out of International Waters?? ...then you have to consider going through Customs, and the fact that there is no Police, Fire, EMS or 911 service, etc... A real Insurance Nightmare. I suppose
  • look about pen gppd article.... good_pen [t35.com]

Slashdot Top Deals

"The vast majority of successful major crimes against property are perpetrated by individuals abusing positions of trust." -- Lawrence Dalzell

Close