If it helps species cross oceans where previously they could not, it is also going to be bad for a bunch of species (those that see their niches invaded at the other side of the ocean, or whatever barrier the rigs help cross).

If so, I'd say that overall, this is bad.

There's plenty of space not touched by oil-rigs for the open ocean species to live.

Read the post again, it’s not about the species along the way, but the species living in places that have become open for colonization by the creatures taking advantage of oil rigs for cross-oceanic migration that wasn’t possible before. Kind of like how trans-oceanic navigation turned out great for the Europeans and not so much great for the Native Americans.

Ouch, yes. I've read the OP completely wrong.

Can we use raw oil 100% without burning/wasting it?

How much percent recyclable plastic could we extract out of raw oil? Like real recyclable plastic, where it is worth money to do so.

Maybe making more bitumen/asphalt for roads/roofs, or graphite for batteries?

My comment wasn't clear - I'm talking about abandoned rigs. So the well is sealed.

Some of the more extreme "environmentalist" (in my opinion extreme) also demand that the ocean floor near the well is scrubbed clean to 'leave no trade' which is good in theory but in practice will wipe out the fish and plant life which has grown up around it.

> So the well is sealed.

Sometimes. Not all the time though.

> Can we use raw oil 100% without burning/wasting it?

Burning it isn't wasting it, we get a lot of value out of that.

> How much percent recyclable plastic could we extract out of raw oil? Like real recyclable plastic, where it is worth money to do so.

0. There's no such thing as real recyclable plastic, unless you count burning it for heat/power generation.

> Maybe making more bitumen/asphalt for roads/roofs, or graphite for batteries?

Every fraction of oil has some use. But you're unlikely to get perfectly balanced demand for every single thing you can pull out of it.

> Every fraction of oil has some use. But you're unlikely to get perfectly balanced demand for every single thing you can pull out of it.

Oh God not Factorio again

Instead of saying "wasting", OP should have said "emitting CO2 to the atmosphere", which is the real problem here. Including from refinery flare stacks, and emissions of non-CO2 GHGs like methane from leaks.

Unbalanced fractions aren't so much of a problem as they can be cracked.

To be pedantic, assuming the fuel is used in a combustion engine, there will always be a percentage of the fuel wasted as heat energy. This depends on the thermodynamic efficiency of the engine and various other conditions, of course.

Oil is not part of the dispute parent is talking about. Abandoned rigs provides shelter for a multitude of species and helps marine diversity. On the other hand, they are manmade structures and essentially ocean trash.

On the third hand, coral reefs are polypmade structues and essentially ocean poop and excreta.

It's not so much the manmade structures that are problematic, more the associated toxic sludges still residual within structures.

Are there residual devastating toxic sludges in any non-human structures in the ocean

Yes. (Black smokers, white smokers, other discharge points for hydrocarbons .. like tar pits on land, only underwater)

There are also human structures in the ocean that lack toxic sludges.

The volcanic vents are interesting in that, while toxic to most life, separate species have evolved that only live in toxic hot sludge.

There are many types of toxic sludge, the fact that rare organics can live within them not only points to the possibility of life off planet earth, it also hints at potential uses in remediation of human created toxic wastes (binding to heavy metals in wetlands capturing industrial run off, etc.).

The main environmental problem is not the rigs themselves, but the wells and transportation pipeline network of which they were a part. Systems for making sure wells are safely capped at end of life are not robust. Pipelines have similar problems with inspection and end of life closure.

Gulf of Texas?

I guess they're talking about "Texas Gulf Coast"? Would be strange to put rigs so close to land though...

This is getting out of hand, now there are three of them!

Aka gulf of Cuba

Yeah my brain has been addled by watching US Politics from another country.

I knew there was some controversy about calling it the Gulf of Mexico or the Gulf of Texas.

I just got mixed us with which words are used by evil people with no soul who hate America, and which words are used by good people standing up for their rights. /s

nobody wants to call it gulf of texas.

Islands are good for organisms.

Oil rigs are the worst type of island.