Gizmodo57%

The Government Wants to Turn Abandoned Oil Rigs Into Rocket Launch Pads 15%

By Passant Rabie29%

7/13/2026, 11:30:07 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 17 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Emotion, Confirmation Bias, and Availability Heuristic, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 27.3% saturation with 160 hits. Analysis detected 782 faulty-reasoning hits from 587 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 31.1% and a BS Rank of 15% (18,682 of 21,886 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 85.40% of the article peer group.

The Government Wants to Turn Abandoned Oil Rigs Into Rocket Launch Pads 
The government is looking to establish new launch sites to accommodate a growing industry. 
Published July 13, 2026, 7:30 am ET 
Reading time 2 minutes 
SpaceX's Falcon 9 rocket launches Starlink satellites to low-Earth orbit. 
SpaceX 
Hundreds of offshore oil rigs have neared the end of their lives, but they remain perched high above the surface of oceans while the wells beneath them have run dry. 
Now, the government has proposed a plan to repurpose the offshore rigs and use them to launch rockets to space. 
The U.S. 
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) issued a notice on Tuesday, revealing that it was considering the use of the Outer Continental Shelf for offshore space activities. 
The request for information explores the potential use of existing infrastructure like oil and gas drilling platforms for launch, re-entry, and recovery of commercial rockets. 
The idea would help resolve a shortage of space launch pads that can barely keep up with an expanding industry, but it could have worrying effects on the ocean. 
The recent request for information is in line with the White House’s December 2025 executive order, titled “Ensuring American Space Superiority,” which is aimed at boosting investment and advancing policies in order for the private space industry to grow. 
As such, BOEM suggests utilizing the approximately 3.2 billion acres under federal jurisdiction in the Outer Continental Shelf, a region that extends 200 nautical miles offshore from U.S. coastlines. 
“The Outer Continental Shelf presents a significant opportunity to support the future of America’s space economy,” Matt Giacona, acting director of BOEM, said in a statement. 
“Offshore launch, re-entry, and recovery infrastructure could expand operational flexibility, increase capacity, reduce constraints on growing launch demand, and strengthen the nation’s commercial and national security space capabilities.” 
BOEM is seeking input on how to use the submerged land and existing offshore facilities in the Outer Continental Shelf for space launch activities, requesting comments from commercial space companies and other interested parties. 
The bureau did not specify a certain project but more so just floated the idea around. 
As the space industry continues to grow, so does the number of payloads seeking to reach orbit. 
A recent report by the Commercial Space Federation warns that existing infrastructure for rocket launches will not be able to meet the increasing demand of the space industry. 
By repurposing offshore oil platforms, BOEM could potentially help alleviate some of the demand on crowded space launch facilities. 
The plan, however, could also have terrible consequences on the ocean. 
“Space junk and rocket explosions have already been trashing our coastal wildlife refuges and now Trump wants to expand that destruction farther into our oceans,” Miyoko Sakashita, oceans program director at the Center for Biological Diversity, told The Hill. 
There is also concern that the proposed plan would essentially let oil companies get away with not ridding the ocean of their defunct facilities. 
“At best, this plan is likely another Trump excuse for allowing the oil industry to leave its rusty old junk in the ocean instead of cleaning it up,” Sakashita added. 
“The whales, sea turtles and other marine wildlife off our coasts deserve better than to suffer for Big Oil and the pet projects of trillionaires and billionaires.” 
Explore more on these topics 
Sign up for our newsletters 
Subscribe and interact with our community, get up to date with our customised Newsletters and much more. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 11.1%Passant Rabie: 4.2%Gizmodo: 4.1%Confirmation Bias11.1%This article: 0.0%Passant Rabie: 0.9%Gizmodo: 1.4%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 9.9%Passant Rabie: 3.0%Gizmodo: 3.1%Availability Heuristic9.9%This article: 0.0%Passant Rabie: 1.5%Gizmodo: 1.5%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Passant Rabie: 1.1%Gizmodo: 0.7%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Passant Rabie: 4.4%Gizmodo: 2.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 4.9%Passant Rabie: 4.7%Gizmodo: 5.5%Framing Effect4.9%This article: 4.1%Passant Rabie: 0.0%Gizmodo: 0.5%Loss Aversion4.1%This article: 0.0%Passant Rabie: 0.0%Gizmodo: 0.4%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Passant Rabie: 0.0%Gizmodo: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 8.0%Passant Rabie: 8.9%Gizmodo: 3.9%Optimism Bias8.0%This article: 7.8%Passant Rabie: 0.1%Gizmodo: 2.1%Pessimism Bias7.8%This article: 27.3%Passant Rabie: 1.1%Gizmodo: 7.5%Negativity Bias27.3%This article: 0.0%Passant Rabie: 0.2%Gizmodo: 0.9%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Passant Rabie: 0.0%Gizmodo: 1.1%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Passant Rabie: 0.0%Gizmodo: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Passant Rabie: 0.0%Gizmodo: 0.9%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Passant Rabie: 0.0%Gizmodo: 0.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Passant Rabie: 0.4%Gizmodo: 2.9%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Passant Rabie: 0.0%Gizmodo: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Passant Rabie: 0.0%Gizmodo: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Passant Rabie: 1.2%Gizmodo: 1.6%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Passant Rabie: 0.2%Gizmodo: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Passant Rabie: 0.3%Gizmodo: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 5.1%Passant Rabie: 1.0%Gizmodo: 1.1%Ad Hominem5.1%This article: 0.0%Passant Rabie: 0.0%Gizmodo: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 9.2%Passant Rabie: 5.0%Gizmodo: 4.3%Appeal to Authority9.2%This article: 0.0%Passant Rabie: 0.2%Gizmodo: 1.4%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Passant Rabie: 0.3%Gizmodo: 0.6%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Passant Rabie: 0.0%Gizmodo: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 2.9%Passant Rabie: 3.9%Gizmodo: 5.3%Hasty Generalization2.9%This article: 0.0%Passant Rabie: 0.1%Gizmodo: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Passant Rabie: 0.0%Gizmodo: 0.9%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 11.2%Passant Rabie: 2.9%Gizmodo: 4.9%Appeal to Emotion11.2%This article: 0.0%Passant Rabie: 1.7%Gizmodo: 1.0%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Passant Rabie: 2.8%Gizmodo: 3.2%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Passant Rabie: 0.0%Gizmodo: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 4.1%Passant Rabie: 0.3%Gizmodo: 0.5%Burden of Proof4.1%This article: 0.0%Passant Rabie: 0.5%Gizmodo: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Passant Rabie: 0.4%Gizmodo: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Passant Rabie: 0.4%Gizmodo: 2.0%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Passant Rabie: 0.0%Gizmodo: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Passant Rabie: 1.8%Gizmodo: 2.3%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Passant Rabie: 0.0%Gizmodo: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Passant Rabie: 0.2%Gizmodo: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Passant Rabie: 0.0%Gizmodo: 0.2%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 5.1%Passant Rabie: 0.0%Gizmodo: 0.1%Special Pleading5.1%This article: 0.0%Passant Rabie: 0.0%Gizmodo: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Passant Rabie: 1.0%Gizmodo: 4.6%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 6.6%Passant Rabie: 1.1%Gizmodo: 1.2%Quote-first Misdirection6.6%This article: 6.6%Passant Rabie: 3.5%Gizmodo: 13.5%Biased Writer Voice6.6%This article: 4.6%Passant Rabie: 0.0%Gizmodo: 1.6%Indoctrination4.6%This article: 0.0%Passant Rabie: 0.0%Gizmodo: 1.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Passant Rabie: 0.0%Gizmodo: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 4.6%Passant Rabie: 0.2%Gizmodo: 3.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…4.6%

587 words analyzed.

Speakers

4speakers46%attributed speech319writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageBureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 39 words • 0.0% coverageBureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) • 29 words • 0.0% coverageMatt Giacona • 26 words • 0.0% coverageMatt Giacona • 28 words • 0.0% coverageBureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) • 34 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageCommercial Space Federation • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageMiyoko Sakashita • 39 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageMiyoko Sakashita • 30 words • 0.0% coverageMiyoko Sakashita • 27 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Miyoko Sakashita

100%flagged-word coverage
96 attributed words36% of attributed speech54% writer coverage
0%22.5%45.0%Quote-first Misdirection+40.6 ptsWriter: 0.0%Miyoko Sakashita: 40.6%40.6%Biased Writer Voice+40.6 ptsWriter: 0.0%Miyoko Sakashita: 40.6%40.6%Indoctrination+28.1 ptsWriter: 0.0%Miyoko Sakashita: 28.1%28.1%Attempt to Sell a Product -8.5 ptsWriter: 8.5%Miyoko Sakashita: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.