• Evil_Shrubbery@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    edit-2
    9 hours ago

    Knowing humans: build additional ones, but also keep these ones working past their eol date, after all, the short-term financial side effects of destroying all the things are negligible, and the profits huuuge.

  • grue@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    38
    ·
    12 hours ago

    The “independent” corporation that owns each rig and somehow magically has no affiliation at all with the petroleum company that takes the rig’s output will say “whoops, we have no money to decommission the rig and no assets to seize to pay for it, bye suckers!” and promptly go bankrupt and leave governments holding the bag.

    • zante@lemmy.wtf
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      8 hours ago

      I was gonna go with “pay a marine biologist to publish a paper saying how the rig will become a haven for wildlife playing a vital part in ecosystem “

      But I like yours more

    • PennyRoyal
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      11 hours ago

      How very dare you suggest such a thing. This kind of thinking must come from your warped mind, and very definitely not be based on the slew of mines and chemical plants left to poison the landscape, and especially not the multitude of poorly-capped methane-leaking oil wells scattered around the US by those same companies!

      • grue@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        11 hours ago

        Alright, you got me. I admit it: Superfund sites are a hoax I invented to push my ‘woke’ agenda!

      • jol@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        12 hours ago

        They’ll probably greenwash the whole thing, saying that leaving it up is great for wildlife because it creates a habitat for birds and marine life.