Professional Writing at UCSB

Lucian Scher

Writ 159A

Dr. Kenneth Smith

16th, March 2024

Oh, Mann, it's our fault - Science History Essay

What would you say if I told you a volcanic eruption killing countless people was your fault? Micheal Mann was in this position when he published an article in 1999 that essentially concluded that a certain phenomenon estimated to have killed 4 million people between the years 2000 and 2024 (4) was the fault of none other than society itself. His article titled, “Northern Hemisphere Temperatures during the Past Millennium: Inferences, uncertainties, and Limitations” was called “a new low in climate science” (5). The effort to debunk his findings was so controversial personal attacks called Mann “fraudulent”, proved him of committing academic misconduct (later cleared), and even compared him directly to a convicted sex offender. Mann lost friends, colleagues, and credibility during a 12-year lawsuit, all in the pursuit of scientific fact. The episode involving Michael Mann's iconic "hockey stick" graph serves as a lens to explore the human dimension of climate science and the political challenges of a changing world.

This story begins in 1760 during the first industrial revolution. While humans had made significant impacts on the planet long before then, the coal, railroads, and land clearing that marked this era began an exponential growth in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions directly correlated to global temperatures that Mann later graphed. Nearly 100 years later French mathematician Jean-Baptiste-Joseph Fourier theorized the concept of a greenhouse effect which was confirmed 30 years after that by an American scientist Eunice Foote in a study showing how carbon dioxide (Co2) and other gasses reflected heat from the sun into the atmosphere, The early-mid 1900s confirmed increasing Co2 in the atmosphere resulted in an increasing global temperature that in 1957 was called a “large-scale geophysical experiment of a kind that could not have happened in the past (6).  At this point, it was clear the world was experiencing worldwide global warming.

Global warming, later renamed to climate change after praise for the billions of tonnes of CO2 “which helps the air absorb heat from the Sun” was realized by scientists to be not necessarily a positive for our changing planet, after heatwaves, increasingly unpredictable rainfall leading to drought and rising sea levels, to name a few effects began to have negative effects on civilization. It wasn’t until 2001, long after early suggestions of the cause, and industry giants such as ExxonMobil having indisputable research and denying all of it (7), that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in their Third Assessment Report confirmed ‘attribution of a changing climate to human activities’ (6). 

A large part of the IPCC’s results were due to findings by Micheal Mann and his team in their 1999 “hockey stick” graph depicting global temperature rise correlation to atmospheric Co2. Using a combination of “proxy” data such as “tree rings, ice cores, coral, and lake sediment” (11) an exponential growth in temperature created the blade of the stick and relatively unchanging temperatures from 1000 years before the industrial revolution created the handle. For the first time in over a century knowing that humans pumped unprecedented amounts of GHGs into the atmosphere, warming the planet, climate change was legitimized by an accredited global institution, and those who were skeptical were very unhappy; others were miserable. 

The graph put Micheal Mann at the forefront of climate science in U.S. courts in 2009. The so-called "Climategate" scandal began when Mann's emails were hacked from the University of East Anglia. The most troublesome emails were sent to Mann, not from him, by his colleagues saying “I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow” as well as “The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't... Our observing system is inadequate” (12). Climate change skeptics alleged that these emails revealed that the science used in the Hockey Stick graph was not sound. However, multiple investigations into the matter found no evidence of scientific malpractice or manipulation of data. A later email from Mann said “Phil and I are likely to have to respond to more crap criticisms from the idiots in the near future." which was used to explain how keeping their paper out of the IPCC report and the media would prevent a controversy that the climate scientists did not feel ready enough to handle. He referred to antagonizing media as “idiots” because what they failed to notice was that the global temperature over the past 1000 years fluctuated up and down dramatically, and the planet is just about due for an ice age. If data showed the temperature of the planet dropping in recent years, which it did, naturally. The urgency of climate change would be ignored, hence the incentive for Mann and his colleagues to keep their evidence out of the report until they could prove that the natural rise and fall of the global temperature was normal and that anthropogenic warming was still occurring at an unprecedented rate, despite natural, subtle drops. Judges were then able to conclude that the emails had been taken out of context and misrepresented by climate change deniers. The controversy, while largely discredited within the scientific community, was nonetheless used to sow doubt about the legitimacy of climate science and the consensus on anthropogenic global warming. 

In Manns 2012 lawsuit that concluded this year, Mann sued Rand Simberg and Mark Steyn for defamation, leading to a trial that lasted four weeks against National Review. The blogger defendants, Rand Simberg and Mark Steyn of the National Review accused Mann of manipulating data related to his "hockey stick" graph based on the emails they hacked. Despite attempts by the National Review to halt the case when they realized they might be on the wrong side of things, the Supreme Court declined to intervene in 2019. Mann's attorney emphasized that the defamatory writings, calling him a sex offender and blowing his email inbox way out of proportion, had harmed Mann personally and professionally. In February 2024, Michael Mann's long-standing legal battle concluded, with the D.C. Superior Court jury awarded him $1 million in damages. To which he said “Open debate is a good thing in scientific discourse. It's not okay to make false accusations against scientists as part of an ideologically driven agenda to discredit science that might be inconvenient to your political views”. The 12-year controversy underscored the personal and professional toll skeptics can exact on scientists which often lead to burnout. 

Popperian falsifiability proposes that for a hypothesis to be considered scientific, it must be capable of being falsified through empirical evidence. Michael Mann's legal battle about his research does not represent Popperian falsifiability because the opposition deals with issues of defamation, misrepresentation, and personal attacks rather than the falsification of scientific hypotheses. However, Mann's case also underscores a fundamental aspect of climate science—that it's a field of research pitted against the challenges of the world, not against other scientists. Unlike some areas of scientific inquiry where there may be incentives for competition or personal gain, climate science operates where the collective goal is to understand and address the complex challenges of climate change. This means there's no inherent non-political incentive to falsify data or manipulate results for personal benefit, as the ultimate aim is to advance our understanding of the Earth's climate system for the betterment of humanity. What comes with the field, as seen by Manns media presence explosion after his legal battle, is prestige. While climate science is not an inherently prestigious field, scientists who do well are in a good position for tenure, awards, and other career-boosting. All press is good press. But the very emails that put Mann’s name at the top reveal that he tried to hide his findings from the media to avoid that attention, which speaks to his thinking about maximizing the environmental benefit from his work and reducing criticism he is forced to respond to.

Therefore, Mann's legal battle highlights the need to defend against political attacks on scientific integrity and reinforces the collaborative and collective nature of climate science, where researchers work together to confront global challenges rather than competing against each other. 

Mann’s story also represents how while climate science is rooted in rigorous scientific methodology, it is not immune to influences of radical subjectivism, which emphasizes the subjective nature of knowledge and truth. A large part of Simberg, Rand, and the “climate gate” argument was that individual researchers interpret data through their own biases. Still, that idea shouldn’t be grounds to deny evidence without conflicting evidence. In the broader societal context, radical subjectivism can influence public perceptions of climate change, leading to the denial of scientific consensus, a large political goal of the American right. Even President Trump, when questioned about accepting the scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change, employs the well-worn denialist trope that "climate is always changing," disregarding the overwhelming evidence of anthropogenic warming. Despite these potential challenges, Micheal Mann continually strives to uphold rigorous standards of objectivity, transparency, and peer review to ensure the integrity of climate science research. Through the hardship of court, Mann maintained his pursuit of the truth and did not let personal troubles come in the way of getting the truth into the hands of the public. It is crucial for scientists to not let political attacks hurt their research.

The proof that climate change is anthropogenic calls for a worldwide cultural paradigm shift towards a nature-oriented symbiosis, Mann echoes sentiments that transcend science. Such a shift, as articulated by Robin Wall Kimmerer, acknowledges that solutions to our pressing challenges need not be solitary endeavors. Instead, they can emerge from a collaborative relationship with the natural world. Mann's research on ACC not only illuminates the scientific realities of climate change but also highlights the interconnectedness of societal issues such as poverty, health, conflict, and human rights. Recognizing nature as a potential ally rather than a foe in this endeavor, Mann's work invites us to reimagine our relationship with the planet, offering hope for a future where humanity and nature thrive in harmony.

From the controversy surrounding his iconic "hockey stick" graph to the protracted legal skirmishes against defamation and misrepresentation, Mann's story serves as a compelling narrative of resilience and commitment to truth. Through it all, Mann's steadfast dedication to upholding rigorous standards of objectivity and transparency underscores the paramount importance of defending scientific integrity in the face of political attacks. Moreover, Mann's work underscores the urgent need for a paradigm shift in our relationship with the planet, recognizing the interconnectedness of environmental, societal, and economic challenges. As we confront the existential threat of Anthropogenic Climate Change, Mann's research not only illuminates the scientific realities of climate change but also offers a beacon of hope for a future where humanity and nature can coexist in symbiotic harmony. In a world beset by myriad problems, Mann's work calls for a collective awakening to the imperative of embracing a nature-oriented worldview, transcending political divisions, and embracing a shared commitment to planetary stewardship. Through his perseverance and unwavering pursuit of truth, Mann exemplifies the transformative potential of science in shaping a more sustainable and equitable future for generations to come.

Changes for final Portfolio.

All I did for this paper was add details about what went down during Climategate and the resulting legal battle between Mann and the media. I also explained the reasoning behind both sides of the emails to paint a picture of what each side's argument was during the trials. I did a bit more digging to introduce quotes from the emails involved in the trial. I also addressed the side of the story that maybe Mann was not all innocent because of the prestige that comes with being a successful scientist.

Works Cited:

1. Mann, M. E., Bradley, R. S., & Hughes, M. K. (1998). Global-scale temperature patterns and climate forcing over the past six centuries. Nature, 392(6678), 779–787. https://doi.org/10.1038/33859

2. International Relations and Global Climate Change. (n.d.). http://ndl.ethernet.edu.et/bitstream/123456789/32966/1/31.pdf.pdf#page=34

3. A brief history of climate change discoveries. (2020). Ukri.org. https://www.discover.ukri.org/a-brief-history-of-climate-change-discoveries/index.html‌

4. Carlson, C. J. (2024). After millions of preventable deaths, climate change must be treated like a health emergency. Nature Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-023-02765-y

5. ‌The Hockey Stick: A New Low in Climate Science. (2024). John-Daly.com. http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm

6. ‌Center, U. (2016). History of Climate Science Research | Center for Science Education. Ucar.edu; UCAR. https://scied.ucar.edu/learning-zone/how-climate-works/history-climate-science-research

7. ‌gazetteterrymurphy. (2023, January 12). Exxon disputed climate findings for years. Its scientists knew better. Harvard Gazette; Harvard Gazette. https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2023/01/harvard-led-analysis-finds-exxonmobil-internal-research-accurately-predicted-climate-change/#:~:text=%E2%80%9CWhat%20we%20found%20is%20that,denying%20that%20very%20climate%20science.%E2%80%9D

8. ‌King, P., & News, E. (2024, February 9). Embattled Climate Scientist Michael Mann Wins $1 Million in Defamation Lawsuit. Scientific American. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/embattled-climate-scientist-michael-mann-wins-1-million-in-defamation-lawsuit/

9. ‌Climate Change Denial in the Age of Trump. (2018, January 29). MICHAEL E. MANN. https://michaelmann.net/content/climate-change-denial-age-trump

10. ‌Vice: A Commentary on the Politics of Climate Denial. (2019, January 7). MICHAEL E. MANN. https://michaelmann.net/content/vice-commentary-politics-climate-denial

11. Mann, M. E. (2023, October 25). Beyond The Hockey Stick: What We’re Missing When We Talk About Climate Change. TIME; Time. https://time.com/6328017/climate-change-hockey-stick/

‌Henderson, C. (2009, November 23). escenic. The Telegraph; The Telegraph. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/6636563/University-of-East-Anglia-emails-the-most-contentious-quotes.html

Lucian Scher

Kenny Smith

Writing 159A: Scientific Literacy

March 16th, 2024

Big oil for biodiversity?

The state of California likes to do the right thing for the environment, but sometimes doing the right thing means doing nothing at all. Less than two miles off the coast of Isla Vista lies an off-shore oil drilling platform called Platform Holly. After a tumultuous bankruptcy lawsuit, the fate of the platform is to be decided by the state. But it’s not as easy as just removing it, millions of marine organisms now call the structure home and as Indigenous activist Robin Wall Kimmerer puts it “When we build things, they interact with nature and we need to respect that”. Local citizens, at least those who care to publicly comment, see only what’s above the surface, such as environmental lobbyist Carla Frisk, who believes "leaving the platform in place would reward polluters and oil companies'' [12]. As do many environmentalists, who would agree that offshore oil rigs represent some of the worst environmental destruction of the anthropocene. And while they are not wrong, what’s important in the climate crisis today, is preserving the resources available, even if it means big oil saves a few bucks, I’d rather protect the little good they did, to see them fall another day.

Unfortunately for me, it is the Red states that tend to agree. In the Gulf of Mexico, more than 500 retired oil platforms have been cleaned and left as artificial reefs that benefit local biodiversity, fishing economies, and recreation, with few residual environmental issues and proving the effectiveness of supporting reciprocity with nature when it's thriving upon colossal human structures. The efficiency of platform reefs is due to the over 200 feet of “construction of corrosion-resistant steel” pilings built for shallow water rigs that criss-cross down to the seafloor creating an “open structure that allows easy circulation for fish” (13). The pilings solely intended to support Platform Holly retain organisms lost at sea, protects them from predators including humans and gives space to grow bigger as they move deeper under the platform. Unfortunately for the sea-life, strong negative public opinion against Oil Platform Holly may blind decision-makers and lead to a missed opportunity to create an environmental benefit for the state in which climate change driving forces are repurposed into emissions reducing, biodiversity bolstering powerhouses. 

And it’s not just speculation, UCSB marine biologist Professor Milton Love published an article concluding that Pacific offshore oil rigs, such as Oil Platform Holly, are “among the most productive marine fish habitats globally,” making Holly a clear candidate for a reefing program that would provide clear benefits to state recreation, economy and culture. Yet, a Rigs-to-Reefs program signed into law by then-Governor Arnold Schawrznegger has never successfully transformed an oil rig into a reef in California [7]. Democratic State Senator Bob Hertzberg explained how, “fed by concerns from some environmental advocates and a skepticism about the motives of California’s billion-dollar oil industry, the Rigs to Reefs program that passed in 2010 was so complicated by political compromise that the permitting process became almost unworkable” [7]. At this time, Oil Platform Holly is one of the few platforms in the state waters of California being planned for removal, and the only platform under full jurisdiction of the State of California, making it easily the most workable for the program.

Conflicting views on the fate of retiring offshore oil platforms in California add a layer of complexity to implementing the Rigs-to-Reefs program. For example, Assembly Bill 2503 advocates for the swift removal of these platforms, emphasizing the need to “enhance aesthetic values"[1]. Despite Holly being referenced for its aesthetic in popular culture first by The Doors in their song, “The Crystal ship” and by Jack Johnson who called it an “Alien Casino”, the future of Holly is toyed with inconsiderate to the ecosystem, and the fact that it’s really not really that ugly. As one community member puts it, “not very long ago, the average human was David, and nature was Goliath. Vast swaths of land seemed unbreakable by mankind, yet now the tables have turned, and for many, it's cringe-worthy to watch the big humans pummeling the land with ease at a rate where the land can put up no defense” [8].  

On the other hand, recreational fishermen, considered pivotal stakeholders by the state, strongly endorse the Rigs-to-Reefs program. An American Petroleum Institute report says, “As offshore platforms reach the end of their useful lives, fishermen and marine biologists express concern about the loss of the enhanced fish habitat they create” [9]. The “aesthetic value” standard set by AB 2503 misses the greater environmental picture. Especially considering the reef lies entirely underwater, invisible from shore or on a boat. Removal of oil platforms will disrupt an existing ecosystem and kill millions of organisms, something easily overlooked because these are underwater communities.  Another option is partial removal, where the oil platform structure above the surface is removed, leaving the below surface structure in place.  However, recent research raises concerns that much of the benefit to species communities is lost with the removal of the top of the platform.  

Navigating this maze of conflicting opinions requires a comprehensive understanding of the diverse perspectives at play, ultimately leaving behind the most important forgotten goal proposed by Dr Love, “the purpose of rigs-to-reefs in California should be to protect rockfish populations” [2]. But that cannot happen if the decision makers are concerned with the “aesthetic value” of the thing. Especially when stakeholders only see the structure above the surface and none of what’s below.  The conclusion of an Italian study on public understanding of artificial reefs was that visual media – showing the wildlife – was critical to building public support for artificial reefs created from man-made structures [4]. But the photo and video of Platform Holly is extremely limited and old quality, and the surrounding waters require permission to dive on. If the reef was more accessible, maybe the public could see how close they are to reciprocity with nature.

"Braiding Sweetgrass" by Robin Wall Kimmerer, a well known botanist and member of the Citizen Potawatomi Nation, brings together indigenous wisdom, scientific knowledge, and the teachings of the natural world.  Through a blend of personal narratives, scientific insights, and indigenous teachings, Kimmerer draws attention to the critical theme of interconnectedness between humans and nature.  This theme is particularly relevant in challenging prevailing perspectives, as Kimmerer highlights how some environmentalists can perceive the environment and humanity as separate entities engaged in destructive pursuits against each other.  As an alternative perspective, Kimmerer introduces a concept called the "honorable harvest," highlighting the significance of reciprocity and sustainable interactions with the environment. 

By colonizing the undersea steel structure of Oil Platform Holly, the plants and animals now comprise a natural community living on infrastructure originally designed and operated for oil extraction. The conflict is that by removing that oil infrastructure now we destroy a thriving marine ecosystem that did not exist prior to the oil platform. This conflict blurs the lines between conservation and restoration. What is the goal of conservation if not to protect wild communities? And is restoration valuable if it destroys an existing ecosystem?

Elrick-Barr et al.'s (2022) comprehensive literature review on man-made structures (MMS) in the marine environment serves as the most comprehensive overview of understanding the diverse public perspectives surrounding artificial platform reefs in The Pacific Ocean. The authors highlight the increasing controversy associated with MMS, acknowledging the broad stakeholder perspectives and the nuanced evaluations of their economic and cultural impacts. The paper reviews conflicts and collaborations between oil companies and environmentalists that have led to rigs-to-reefs programs. While the paper offers explicit examples of social benefits derived from artificial reefs, this paper draws attention to a critical gap in existing research: the scarcity of studies attempting to measure and compare the social, economic, and cultural values of MMS. His conclusion presents the notion that this conflict between science and the public just has not enough information to make a generalized consensus. 

This gap in scientific inquiry underscores a limitation in our current understanding and provides an entry point for further discourse on the multifaceted implications of artificial reefs [5]. The review underscores the need for a more comprehensive investigation into the social and economic dimensions of artificial reefs, suggesting that existing knowledge may be insufficient to definitively support or oppose their implementation.

The transition away from hydrocarbon production will create financial challenges such as how to decommission offshore platforms, such as Oil Platform Holly. As stated by Jennifer Lucchesi, Executive Director of the State Lands Commission, the original operator of Oil Platform Holly, ExxonMobil Corp., bears the responsibility of plugging wells and removing the platform. The estimated pre-pandemic cost of full removal of Oil Platform Holly was $350 million, but the true cost is expected to be more than half a billion dollars [7]. 

The state is obligated to cover a quarter of this cost due to a bankruptcy claim by Holly’s current proprietor, Venoco. The rest would be covered by Exxon Mobil, Holly’s prior operator and builder of the platform. Amid this fiscal burden on taxpayers and the oil company, ongoing community discussions have arisen contemplating alternative uses for decommissioned oil platforms. As expressed by the Environmental Defense Center, offshore wind generation, marine research, and aquaculture could be potential ways to beneficially repurpose these structures [10]. One such proposal by a community member Ryan Davis included these alternatives in his plan for turning Holly into a “Green Lighthouse” that has been largely ignored by the state and big oil because of the complexity of California bureaucracy, and public uncertainty. 

One major challenge of leaving oil platforms in place for alternative purposes is that liabilities would persist with the operator, deferring inevitable long-term financial responsibility.  The potential inclusion of offshore platforms in an artificial reef program, as discussed by the regulatory framework of the Rigs-to-Reefs program, would transfer liability to the state, prompting potential future consequences for taxpayers [10]. In the words of the State Lands Commission, "liability passed to taxpayers'' signifies that damages to shipping, fishing, recreational users, and other potential risks would necessitate affirmative measures from the state, such as recording locations and installing buoys to mitigate navigational hazards [7]. Although it's important to note that in the Gulf, liability claims have been minimal, people who use these facilities tend to be knowledgeable about ocean safety.

California's lack of a successful artificial reef program and an overarching plan for successful reef management adds another layer of uncertainty to this dilemma. The potential net environmental impact hinges on whether the surrounding waters are part of the state's network of marine protected areas or open to fishing activities. The balance between preserving biodiversity and accommodating the interests of scuba divers, fishers, and other stakeholders underscores the need for a carefully crafted reef management strategy [1]. 

In conclusion, Oil Platform Holly could set a precedent for retiring offshore oil platforms in California, if the public had a better understanding of marine science. The intent of the Rigs-to-Reefs program is to balance environmental, economic, and recreational interests to ensure that decommissioned oil platforms are put to their best use. Transforming a retired oil platform into an ecological sanctuary requires a massive change in public perspective and understanding, as well as new financial and legal requirements for the state and oil company that owned the platform. Despite the difficulty in managing the different stakeholder perspectives and integrating science into the decision making, Oil Platform Holly could be an opportunity to make the Rigs-to-Reefs program work in California. 

Changes for Final Portfolio “A little finesse”

1. We need a hero

I added more details about Holly and what it actually looks like and provides. I tried to introduce a humanization aspect that turns Holly into a hero that the reader can root for to provide a more engaging narrative. I also introduced my own informed opinion, but kept it minimal so as to not distract from allowing the reader to make their own opinion.

2. What's the big idea?

I highlighted and added an earlier introduction as well as more references back to the main idea of the essay which is reciprocity between humans and nature. I also introduced Robin Wall Kimmerers ideas earlier to draw the storyline together and have them already think about the meaning when they get to the paragraph specific to her writing. Additionally, most of my changes came at the beginning of the paper where I rushed through the context a little quickly, likely because I am so invested in this topic I forgot to build up the story, so I added more context and information before jumping into the conflict.

3. The sources are clear

I definitely saw what you meant with the sources. I went back in and decided that most of my paraphrasing made sense. But for direct quotes I added a little context and tried to make it more clear what the point of adding it was and why it is relevant in order to transition better between quotes and paragraphs.

1. AB 2503 Assembly Bill, Amended Fishermen (2014). Ca.gov. http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_2501-2550/ab_2503_bill_20100405_amended_asm_v98.html

2. Rothbach, D. (n.d.). RIGS-TO-REEFS: REFOCUSING THE DEBATE IN CALIFORNIA. Retrieved January 23, 2024, from https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1081&context=delpf

3. Rigs-to-Reefs | Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement. (2021). Bsee.gov. https://www.bsee.gov/what-we-do/environmental-compliance/environmental-programs/rigs-to-reefs

4. 
   

• Modaffari, G. (2023). A car showroom for the fish: The visual story of the first-ever artificial reef in Italy and the beginning of contemporary environmental discourse (Varazze, December 1970) - Giovanni Modaffari, 2023. Environment and Planning E: Nature and Space. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/25148486231151806?casa_token=_RjoaUdiyl8AAAAA%3AB471JuHe8iK9W8q4--MLqqgeNJZrMseyw3hf_3E0qBYTWGWG9VtyeOXuhoZqYqHpfNd1DieIhA

5. Elrick-Barr, Carmen E, et al. “Man-Made Structures in the Marine Environment: A Review of Stakeholders’ Social and Economic Values and Perceptions.” Environmental Science & Policy, vol. 129, 2022, pp. 12–18, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2021.12.006. 

6. Kimmerer, Robin Wall. Braiding Sweetgrass: Indigenous Wisdom, Scientific Knowledge, and the Teachings of Plants. Milkweed Editions, 2013.

7. Willon, P. (2021, November 29). First California plan to bar offshore oil failed, casts shadow. Los Angeles Times; Los Angeles Times. https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-11-29/failures-of-california-rigs-to-reefs-program-offshore-oil

8. The unintentional dystopian beauty of oil rigs | Hacker News. (2022). Ycombinator.com. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35725094

9. ‌Rigs to Reef Programs Create Valuable Fish Habitat. (2021). Api.org. https://www.api.org/oil-and-natural-gas/environment/environmental-performance/environmental-stewardship/rigs-to-reef-programs

10. ‌Oil Platform Decommissioning» Environmental Defense Center. (2015). Environmentaldefensecenter.org. https://www.environmentaldefensecenter.org/programs_post_type/climate-energy/oil-platform-decommissioning/

11. ‌Claisse, J. T., Pondella, D. J., Love, M., Zahn, L. A., Williams, C. M., Williams, J. P., & Bull, A. S. (2014). Oil platforms off California are among the most productive marine fish habitats globally. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 111(43), 15462–15467. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1411477111

12. Platform Holly: Ecological Implications - Isla Vista - LocalWiki. (2016). Localwiki.org; LocalWiki. https://localwiki.org/islavista/Platform_Holly%3A_Ecological_Implications#:~:text=Ecological%20Role,it%20acts%20as%20a%20reef.

13. Rigs to Reefs. (2024). Api.org. https://www.api.org/oil-and-natural-gas/environment/clean-water/oil-spill-prevention-and-response/rigs-to-reefs#:~:text=Decommissioned%20platforms%20make%20ideal%20artificial,clams%2C%20bryozoans%2C%20and%20hydroids.

From Black Gold to Blue Haven: How an Oil Platform could become a Beacon of Environmental Change.

Lucian Scher

Anyone whose been to Isla Vista and looked out at the water has surely noticed the 100-foot-tall structure looming almost two miles offshore known as Oil Platform Holly. It's hard to miss. One of the few decommissioned oil platforms in California state waters that lights up every night and attracts multiple ships each day to its rusted dock. The defunct platform now possesses one of the most ecologically productive artificial reefs on the west coast. 

Local lore claims rockstar Jim Morrison wrote his song “The Crystal Ship” after a vision of Holly when he was tripping on acid on a salty Isla Vista evening. The song's opening lyrics represent the mystical being that is Holly’s future. 

“Before you slip into unconsciousness,

I'd like to have another kiss

Another flashing chance at bliss.”

An eerily accurate take on Platform Holly’s current situation. After more than 70 years of pumping, the oil in the well is depleted. The State of California recently removed two onshore piers used for oil processing, and Holly could be the next thing to “slip into unconsciousness.” But being in state waters, Holly is a prime candidate for transformation into a reef, or reefing, either through California’s 2010 rigs-to-reefs program or by the State Lands Commission. This chance at “another kiss” is based on research that shows Platform Holly's potential effectiveness as a magnet for sea life.  Transformation into an artificial reef could be Holly’s “chance at bliss.”

In 2017, the oil company Venoco declared bankruptcy and abandoned operations on Oil Platform Holly and the Ellwood Offshore facility, which supported its operation. To maintain the storage of toxic hydrogen sulfide and remnants of oil leaking from Holly, the California State Lands Commission (Lands Commission) took over both sites' facilities and the decommissioning process – which includes removing or ensuring that remaining infrastructure no longer poses any ongoing threat to the environment. Venoco claimed in Delaware bankruptcy court that the Land Commission’s seizure of these abandoned properties was “an exemplary illustration of its police power.”

The case ended with U.S. Bankruptcy Judge John T. Dorsey concluding that “the Commission’s actions were a reasonable exercise of police power.” The Lands Commission stated that Venoco’s trustee owner, ExxonMobil, remains responsible for funding the “remediation and disposition” of the former oil operation sites. 

In June 2023, the City of Goleta hosted the Lands Commission for a town hall update on the decommissioning of all of Goletas oil infrastructure including platform Holly. State officials and contractors presenting to the public confirmed that the processing plant had been flushed and cleaned of residual hydrocarbons. The oil pipelines have been flushed, cleaned and idled and hardening work has begun in order for the platform to be left unmanned while underwater dive, remote operated vehicle work and Bathymetric studies are completed by UCSB and scientists from other organizations to collect data over the next year. Additionally, plans to complete an Environmental impact report are expected to be completed in mid-2025. The state is also negotiating with Exxon regarding the financial responsibility of decommissioning while Exxon completes a feasibility study with physical and engineering requirements for the decommissioning project. Presenters at the meeting also mentioned that stakeholder and public feedback were vital to this process.

California assembly bill 2503, signed and enacted by Governor Schwarzenegger in 2010, created a system called the California Marine Resources Legacy Act (Rigs-to-Reefs), enabling offshore oil platform leaseholders to request partial removal (85 feet down) of decommissioned oil platforms as an alternative to total removal. Contingent on approval by the other state agencies to support the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Additionally, the State Lands Commission is required to calculate the cost savings and spending plan of an application. The law requires the planning and project are monitored by a board of governmental officials, scientists, and non-profit organization representatives. Exxon in this case, as the trustee of the oil infrastructure, remains liable for future accidents and failures. 

There are many environmental benefits of turning Platform Holly into a natural reef. “But it's so goddam politically complicated nobody wants to do it,” says UCSB Professor Milton Love, a leading researcher on the topic of artificial reefs in California. Total removal of a platform is a multi-million dollar project meaning that the Rigs-to-Reefs transformation has the potential to save tremendous amounts of cash. Which would be used for other environmental projects, with a small portion given to Santa Barbara Country. 

But in practice, the LA Times has called the Rigs-to-Reefs program a “failure.” 

Although there have been six decommissioned rigs removed in California, the difficulty of the political and technical process has prevented any company from applying for the Rigs-to-Reef program, despite the potential savings of millions of dollars gained by all parties. Additionally, removing the top 85 feet of Platform Holly, if it were to be approved, would have damaging consequences for wildlife. 

“The top 30-ish feet is dominated by mussels and shallower water invertebrates, like anemones. If you remove the top 85 feet of the [platform] jacket, there will not be any muscles. But the rest of the jacket is covered in sea life. And most of the fish are found below that 80-foot level. So it's still a very viable reef.” 

Professor Love explained. Considering the ecosystem benefits of mussels, it is unlikely that creating a natural reef has a net benefit, one of the requirements for Rigs-to-Reefs, unless you also, leave the top 85 feet of the platform. Meanwhile, the benefits of the lower portion of the platform are clear. Love found in his research that “Year-Over-Year blue rockfish at Platform Holly had higher growth rates than individuals at a nearby natural reef.”

Artificial reefs like Holly provide a platform for organisms to combat anthropogenic climate change. In a natural physical deposition, California mussels deposit organic matter and shell debris beneath their beds. Over time, these materials become buried in the seabed and contribute to the accumulation of carbon – acting as a carbon sink that effectively sequesters carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. 

Additionally, the sholes of mussels provide a habitat and attachment surface for other organisms. The densely packed muscle shells on the platform structure create a complex structure on the steel jacket, attracting various species such as algae, barnacles, and other small invertebrates. This biodiversity contributes to a healthy and diverse ecosystem, supporting various trophic levels within the food web and improving water quality. mussels are filter feeders. They remove excess nutrients, such as nitrogen and phosphorus, from the water. This process helps regulate nutrient levels and prevents eutrophication, an environmental phenomenon where excessive nutrients lead to catastrophic algal blooms and oxygen depletion. 

In addition to the environmental benefit, mussels slow the rusting process that threatens steel pilings in the long term. When mussels attach themselves to a steel surface, they secrete a sticky substance that forms a physical barrier between the steel and the surrounding water and oxygen. Additionally, mussels also produce a protective layer that covers their shells. The adhesive effect and protective barriers inhibit the diffusion of water and ions that cause corrosion. So, along with the pH-lowering potential of mussels' ammonia production, mussels serve their artificial substrata by preventing rust. What’s observed resembles a symbiotic relationship between an anthropogenic mega structure and a keystone marine species. mussels capture carbon and support a healthy ecosystem, which in turn supports anthropogenic recreation. The artificial reef provides a new substrate environment for species to multiply.

For the Rigs-to-Reefs program to work, Holly needs the environmental benefit of mussels on the upper portion of the platform. A challenge is that the state program was designed to be implemented by oil companies, not the state. “State Lands Commission says we don't need no stinking law. The conventional wisdom is you’ve got to change the law. State Lands says hey, we own this already.” Love explained that the Lands Commission is in a unique position owning Platform Holly, whereas most other platforms are owned by an oil company, with enough public support, Holly could be an artificial reef. 

This situation allows artists like Ryan Davis to present alternative solutions.  “I am the founder and creative director of America's Greencore. At the heart of who I am, I'm an artist.” Davis wants to turn Platform Holly into a national monument signifying America’s transition to a green economy. His plan includes harnessing wind power, solar power and hydropower as well as establishing infrastructure for research and an environmental disaster alert system enhancing public safety, and supporting state and local services. The green lighthouse would recreate Platform Holly as a research lab dedicated to frontline workers. He explains,

“Recognizing that California is in this position where it has a lot of oil infrastructure that's ready to be transitioned, we thought, why don't we try and look at ways to recycle that oil infrastructure for renewable energy, taking an oil platform and creating a green lighthouse and allowing it to become an ocean energy transfer port.”

His plan includes adding more substrate to the base of the rig to support the reef. In the town hall, Chris Goldblatt founder of the Santa Barbara Fish Reef program explained the, “gap between shallow and deeper water for rockfish to be able to travel.” Given that anthropogenic infrastructure, such as roads, have disabled many natural reef recharging systems. For example, in Goleta Bay where reef beds never recovered from the 1983 El Nino that wiped them out. He added that “it is difficult to see hundreds of millions of pounds of thriving marine life killed,” by completely removing Holly. His artificial reef structures will support small fish like rockfish to “hide, lay eggs and grow”. His technology has been proven to recruit giant kelp that stimulates growth capacity of sea life. If paired with Holly’s natural artificial reef and Ryan Davis’s support system idea, a thriving new system of reefs could support a huge interconnected ecosystem. 

Davis believes it is the public who will determine the fate of Holly. 

“I've been told that the Environmental Defense Center (EDC) is the big dog around here. For a while, they have been advocating for total removal.” A natural enemy of oil companies, the EDC is funded by the wealthy Santa Barbarans. 

In one 2021 article about the EDC successfully lobbying the Santa Barbara County Planning Commission to deny an Exxon proposal, a public commenter claimed, “ This is not an engineering issue. It’s a NIMBY issue. Locals: Fix the local pipeline or stop consuming oil/gas. When your magic windmills are finally built and working, then you can remove the oil platforms.” 

Despite the euphoria of Jim Morrision’s vision, there’s nothing magic about Platform Holly. But it will take some strong belief in science, trust in an ambitious vision, and risk to transform Platform Holly into a thriving ecological reef. Nature has already made the first move, colonizing the oil infrastructure into a hotbed of natural life. Next it will be up to State regulators, Exxon, environmental groups, and the public to choose what will become of Platform Holly.

Bibliography:

1. Elrick-Barr, Carmen E, et al. “Man-Made Structures in the Marine Environment: A Review of Stakeholders’ Social and Economic Values and Perceptions.” Environmental Science & Policy, vol. 129, 2022, pp. 12–18, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2021.12.006. 

2. Bull, A. S., & Love, M. S. (2019). Worldwide Oil and Gas Platform Decommissioning: A review of practices and reefing options. Ocean & Coastal Management, 168, 274–306. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2018.10.024 

3. Gray, B. et al. Aquarium of the Pacific. (2020) Offshore Oil Platform Decommissioning Forum (2020)https://www.aquariumofpacific.org/downloads/Offshore_Forum_2020_V5_LoRes_wLinks.pdf 

4. Chapman, Sasha Jan. 13, S. (2022, January 13). Offshore oil rigs are a surprising safe haven. High Country News – Know the West. 

5. Love, Milton. (2023, January 15). Interview. Conducted By Lucian Scher.

6. (Scientific Source 4) Claisse, J. (2014). Oil platforms off California are among the most productive marine fish habitats globally. - PNAS. pnas.org. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1411477111 

7. Kimmerer, R. (2022, December 14). Speaking of nature. Orion Magazine. https://orionmagazine.org/article/speaking-of-nature/ 

8. (Long form journalism 2) Lamont, T. (2017, May 2). Where oil rigs go to die. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/may/02/where-oil-rigs-go-to-die 

9. California State Assembly. "Assembly Bill No. 2503 Analysis." California Legislative Information, 31 Aug. 2010, http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_2501-2550/ab_2503_cfa_20100831_150539_asm_floor.html.

10. Willon, Phil. "Failures of California’s First Plan to Stop Offshore Oil Drilling Cast Shadow Over New Efforts." Los Angeles Times, 29 November 2021, https://www.example.com/article.

11. Pfister, C. A., Meyer, F., & Antonopoulos, D. A. (2010, May 6). Metagenomic profiling of a microbial assemblage associated with the California mussel: A node in networks of carbon and Nitrogen Cycling. PloS one. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2865538/ 

12. EDC, E. (2021, November 4). Santa Barbara Commission vote puts Exxon Oil Trucking Plan on thin ice. Edhat. https://www.edhat.com/news/santa-barbara-commission-vote-puts-exxon-oil-trucking-plan-on-thin-ice 

13. Davis, Ryan. Interview. Conducted by Lucian Scher. 3/10/23.