Actually, these seabed moorings can create rich, local eco-systems. I know local fishermen here in Maui are drawn to areas around the off-shore buoys...
On the Southern California coast, they've dismantled some old oil rigs too. But they were allowed to leave a certain amount of the infrastructure intact, about 70 feet or so below the surface, because there was so much marine life clinging to them. They became artificial reefs.
In fact, there's enough interesting sea life there to support recreational diving trips to the sites.
I'd suppose there might also be increased interest in mining areas near black smokers and other geologically and biologically active regions of the seabed.
From what I've been able to gather, scuttling ships to provide artificial reefs works: it increases the surface area of part of the ocean, which in turn leads to an increase in bio-density and species variety.
Note that this is a vague impression of a topic I know next to nothing about; I could easily be wrong here.
Absolutely true. We have a reef about 200m offshore that's doing the heavy lifting blocking waves for us, though it's at risk to reef death (SCTLD - Stony Coral Tissue Loss Disease).
Is it worth sinking them in areas where they can boost aquatic life ecosystems or attract scuba diving tourism. I have read many times on how old shipwrecks turn into a house where lot of aquatic life flourish.
There was news recently that the environmental survey was not done as thoroughly as it should have been and that they were building (or planning to build) through areas where actually so far undiscovered reefs are. A court awarded an injunction to hold work there for now if I recall correctly. I can't image that it is that popular.
I had figured there were technical limitations and my question wasn't meant as "why don't they get off their lazy asses and do it" but more of a "I think it'd be really cool if we figured out how to put them all over the ocean", though I realize now how my wording could be confusing.
I would so love it for the US to adopt them more, but we have reality-star presidential candidates that are telling us their an eyesore with huge applause.
Can’t really comment on anything above the waterline but below typically they become more attractive to marine life, basically things grow on them... if this is good or bad depends on who you talk to (eg should barren places remain barren, is increasing the amount of marine life the right thing?).
I worked on a project decommissioning an oil rig d as no it nearly got canned because rare cold water coral started growing was found on the structure. Marine life is weird...
As notatoad notes: it's entirely impractical. There's no such thing as anchoring in the depths (3-5000m IIRC) prevailing in the Pacific gyre hosting the 'garbage patch'. This alone would require a revolution in marine engineering. The frankly silly idea was quickly walked back, but it was an early & vivid demonstration of the hapless naiveity underlying the whole enterprise.
Can you say a bit more about the anchors? I have in mind just large pieces of metal dragging on the ocean floor but I'm sure that's not representative.
A lot of artificial reefs had been tried before ranging from old train wagons to piles of concrete blocks or tied tires. Is been done on purpose since 70's at least.
They are super effective, but don't last. Either end buried in the sand, are displaced by the currents (creating a danger for ships) or disintegrate after a few years. To have a Titanic you need absence of changes and coastal areas are very dynamic, with all those tidal forces, storms and coastal currents
On the other hand, sand ecosystems are fragile and valuable also in its own way. Wouldn't have any sense to replace al soft bottoms by hard bottoms just because.
So it works, for a while, but is expensive, can block shrimp fisheries, and the trend is not so hot as it was.
"The FADs are located 2.4 to 25 miles offshore and in depths of 80 to 1,510 fathoms." -- https://www.lahainanews.com/sports/local-sports/2016/05/19/s...
reply