Saving Seafood

Trump has proposed offshore drilling in the Atlantic. Here’s what it means for N.J.

January 24, 2018 — When President Trump’s administration announced plans earlier this month to reconsider drilling off the Atlantic coast, officials and community leaders up and down the Jersey Shore began digging in for a fight they thought they’d won in 2016. Here are the basic facts behind the plan and the reasons why so many groups are against the proposal.

Trump’s plan: Drill baby drill

Trump’s Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke proposed opening nearly all federal waters to offshore drilling. The federal waters would be divided into sections and then the leases to those sections would be auctioned off to oil companies. Under the proposal, 25 of the government’s 26 planning areas would be opened up for 47 potential lease sales.

New Jersey would be part of the North Atlantic section, and leases for areas off the Jersey Shore would be auctioned off in 2021 and 2023.

“Responsibly developing our energy resources on the Outer Continental Shelf in a safe and well-regulated way is important to our economy and energy security, and it provides billions of dollars to fund the conservation of our coastlines, public lands and parks,” Zinke said in a press release announcing the plan.

Who supports this plan?

Only one governor on the Atlantic Coast — Paul LePage of Maine, pictured above — has expressed approval of the plan. The Maine governor has said that he supports the plan because he believes it will bring jobs to his state and lower energy costs for Maine residents.

In a December 2013 report, the American Petroleum Institute — a group that advocates for the expansion of oil and natural development nationwide — estimated that offshore drilling could bring more than 8,000 jobs to New Jersey and bring in $515 million in revenue for the state government.

Uncertain potential for profit

Oil and gas companies could stand to profit from drilling off the Jersey Shore, but only if they find enough oil out there.

The last offshore exploration near the Garden State was in the 1970s and 1980s, when companies like Texaco and Tenneco drilled wells near the Hudson Canyon, a little less than 100 miles east of Atlantic City.

According to reports filed with the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, the exploration found no significant oil deposits and small amounts of natural gas reserves.

Has there been drilling off of the shore before?

Technically yes, but the exploratory drilling of the 1970s and 1980s was the farthest that the process has ever gotten. No lease sales have occurred in the Atlantic since 1983.

In 2017, a BOEM assessment estimated that the Atlantic contained an between 1.15 billion and 9.19 billion barrels of oil, a fraction of the estimated 76.69 billion to 105.59 billions barrels throughout all federal waters. According to the same assessment, the North Atlantic is estimated to hold between 0.06 billion and 5.11 billion barrels.

Read the full story at the NJ.com

 

Opposition mounts in Rhode Island to proposed offshore drilling go-ahead

A public information session Thursday on the Trump Administration’s proposal to open up the nation’s coastal waters to fossil fuel extraction has been canceled.

January 22, 2018 — PROVIDENCE, R.I. — A decade ago, when Rhode Island set out to find the most appropriate places for energy development in its coastal waters, offshore drilling was never contemplated as a possibility.

But now after creating a landmark ocean zoning plan and using it to guide the development of the first offshore wind farm in the United States, Rhode Island is facing the possibility of fossil fuel companies drilling for oil and gas off the coast.

On Thursday, the federal Bureau of Ocean Energy Management was scheduled to hold a public information session in Providence on the Trump administration’s proposal to lift Obama-era regulations and open up the nation’s coastal waters to fossil fuel extraction.

But on Monday morning that session was canceled.

The meeting was to be one of nearly two dozen scheduled in the coming weeks around the country.

The drilling proposal has met with widespread opposition from elected officials and environmental groups in Rhode Island.

Read the full story at the Providence Journal

 

Official: Plan to Exclude Florida From Drilling Isn’t Final

An Interior Department official says the Trump administration’s promise to exempt Florida from an offshore drilling plan is not a formal action.

January 22, 2018 — WASHINGTON — The Trump administration’s promise to exempt Florida from an offshore drilling plan is not a formal action, an Interior Department official said Friday in a statement that Democrats said contradicted a high-profile announcement by Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke.

Zinke has proposed opening nearly all U.S. coastline to offshore oil and gas drilling, but said soon after announcing the plan that he will keep Florida “off the table” when it comes to offshore drilling.

Zinke’s Jan. 9 statement about Florida “stands on its own,” said Walter Cruickshank, the acting director of the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, but there’s been no formal decision on the five-year drilling plan.

“We have no formal decision yet on what’s in, or out, of the five-year program,” Cruickshank told the House Natural Resources Committee at a hearing Friday.

Zinke’s announcement about keeping Florida off the table, made during a Tallahassee news conference with Florida Gov. Rick Scott, will be part of the department’s analysis as it completes the five-year plan, Cruickshank said.

Democrats seized on the comment to accuse Zinke of playing politics by granting the Republican governor’s request to exempt Florida while ignoring nearly a dozen other states that made similar requests.

Read the full story from the Associated Press at U.S. News & World Report

 

States seek exemptions from Trump’s offshore drilling plan, citing economic value of fisheries

January 18, 2018 — Newly released plans for an expansion of domestic offshore drilling from the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump could come at a significant cost to the country’s seafood industry, according to  environmental advocates and public officials.

As the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management held a public comment meeting in an Annapolis, Maryland hotel on Tuesday, 16 January, those opposed to the plan met at the same hotel.

William C. Baker, president of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, reiterated his opposition to leasing drilling rights in Maryland waters and elsewhere. The bay is a critical nurturing ground for blue crabs.

“One oil spill at the wrong time at the wrong place could wipe out an entire year’s class of Chesapeake Bay blue crabs, several hundred million dollars worth, and all the jobs that associate with it,” Baker said at the rally, according to the Capital Gazette.

U.S. Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke unveiled the administration’s proposal, which would open nearly all the country’s coastal waters for oil and gas drilling over a five-year period. Proponents of offshore drilling say it would create new jobs and reduce the country’s reliance on foreign oil supplies.

The first public meetings to receive input into the plan were held Tuesday, 16 January in Annapolis and Jackson, Mississippi. According to the Associated Press, the Mississippi meeting drew a small crowd due to snowy conditions.

Read the full story at Seafood Source

 

South Carolina: Gov. McMaster makes official request for South Carolina oil drilling exemption

January 17, 2018 — South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster has formally requested that federal officials take South Carolina off the list for oil and natural gas leases in the Atlantic Ocean.

This is after U.S. Department of the Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke unilaterally removed Florida from the 2019-2024 proposed plan for offshore drilling following a brief meeting with Florida Gov. Rick Scott on Jan. 9.

Zinke had announced on Jan. 4 that the Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Ocean Energy Management had opened 98 percent of undiscovered, technically recoverable oil and gas resources in federal offshore areas available to consider for future exploration and development. Zinke said Florida is exempt because it is “unique and its coasts are heavily reliant on tourism as an economic driver.”

On Jan. 10, McMaster stated during a press conference: “I am opposed to offshore drilling off the South Carolina shore. I am opposed to seismic testing off the South Carolina shore. Our tourism industry and our glorious natural resources particularly in the Lowcountry are beyond compare in the United States. They are the source of enormous economic growth and prosperity and we can’t take a chance with those resources, those industries and that economy. It’s just too important.”

On that same day, McMaster officially made the request to Zinke’s office for a meeting to discuss removing South Carolina from the list. McMaster did not respond to questions from the Georgetown Times concerning the request.

Members of a grassroots group called Stop Oil Drilling in the Atlantic, or SODA, based in Pawleys Island say they are excited about McMaster’s request. They are urging the public to contact McMaster and other U.S. elected officials to express their support for removing South Carolina from the list.

“We trust that the will of the people most impacted by this public decision will be taken very seriously and heard,” said SODA leader Rev. Jim Watkins. “That is why it is really important to get behind the governor and thank him and and urge him on.”

He also said, “I hope that the state legislature and public officials all across the state will have a united front to help us get removed from the plan. I think that the governor’s action should be a rallying point for not only public officials but everyone.”

Watkins stressed that the issue is not a partisan issue and drilling for oil and natural gas is opposed by many Republicans and Democrats. Governors of both parties from most East Coast states are opposed to offshore drilling, including New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, Jew Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Florida, according to the Associated Press.

Read the full story at South Strand News

 

Tom Davis to Congress: ‘Oil and water should not mix’

January 17, 2018 — Below is the text of testimony state Sen. Tom Davis, R-Beaufort, plans to deliver Friday, Jan. 19, before the U.S. House Committee on Natural Resources’ Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources.

The hearing is titled “Deficiencies in the Permitting Process for Offshore Seismic Research.”

Davis provided the text to The Island Packet and The Beaufort Gazette on Wednesday.

1. Impact of seismic testing:

Seismic testing involves firing loud sonic guns into the ocean floor every 16 seconds to read echoes from the bottom geology, with the tests taking place over miles of ocean for months at a time. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) confirms that the sound from the sonic guns can be recorded from sites more than 1,860 miles away.

Scientists disagree on whether these underwater noises are lethal, but most do agree the blasts could alter sea mammals’ behavior, affecting their migration patterns, mating habits and how they communicate with each other. Most animals in the ocean use sound the way animals on land use eyesight; saturating their environment with noise will have an impact. ExxonMobil had to suspend seismic-blasts near Madagascar after more than 100 whales beached themselves. NOAA estimates that 138,000 marine animals could be injured, and 13.6 million could have their migration, feeding, or other behavioral patterns disrupted.

Seismic testing also affects commercial and recreational fishing — sonic blasts can decrease catch rates of commercial fish species by an average of 50 percent over thousands of square miles. Seismic blasting will affect fish that spawn in the rivers and estuaries all along the East Coast. A 2014 study cited by Congressmen John Rutherford (R-FL) and Don Beyer (D-VA) that found reef fish off North Carolina declined by 78 percent during seismic testing compared with peak hours when tests weren’t being conducted.

2. Results of seismic tests would be proprietary to private companies.

Proponents for testing and drilling often argue that seismic tests are necessary in order to provide coastal communities with data about oil and gas deposits off their shores that is necessary in order to assess whether it makes economic sense to move forward with drilling for those resources. But that information is considered proprietary by the private companies conducting them. Local decision makers won’t have access to it, nor will the public. Not even members of Congress can get their hands on it.

3. Damages associated with drilling.

Accidents happen in a world where human error, mechanical imperfections and coastal hurricanes all play unexpected roles. When you drill, you spill. It is inevitable. The oil industry touts a 99 percent safety record, but that 1 percent is pretty horrific for people living in the vicinity of a spill when it occurs. The federal Mineral Management Service predicts at least one oil spill a year for every 1,000 barrels in the Gulf of Mexico over the next 40 years — a spill of 10,000 barrels or more every three to four years.

We saw what happened in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010 when the BP Deepwater Horizon rig spilled millions of barrels of oil into the gulf. It was a disaster, but thankfully the Gulf’s bowl-like shape contained the spill in that region. A similar spill off the Atlantic Coast would be a disaster of epic proportions. If oil entered the Gulf Stream it would be forced up into the Chesapeake Bay, the Hudson River Valley, the Gulf of Maine, the Grand Banks (some of the richest fishing grounds in the world).

The Gulf of Mexico Deepwater Horizon blowout showed that oil cannot be removed from salt marshes and other wetland systems. It can remain in the sediments for decades, as was seen in marshes in Massachusetts. Coastal salt marshes in South Carolina are among the most productive ecosystems in the world, and nursery grounds for many estuarine and marine species. Toxic substances from oil spills, both chronic and acute, will put all of these organisms at risk.

Even if a spill never occurs — and both the oil industry and the federal government admit that spills are inevitable – there’s still an adverse impact to South Carolina’s coast in that the land-based infrastructure necessary to support offshore drilling is dirty and highly industrial. Also, the infrastructure required to transport offshore oil is devastating, e.g., a series of canals built across Louisiana wetlands to transport oil has led to vast destruction of marshlands. Healthy marshlands are a critical component of our ecosystem.

Read the rest of Davis’ future testimony at the Island Packet

 

Susan Murray: Crude plan puts Alaska’s fisheries at risk

January 15, 2018 — Last week, the Trump administration unveiled an extreme proposal to open nearly all United States federal waters off Alaska to offshore oil and gas leasing. Under the Draft Proposed Program for the 2019-2024 Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Program, only the North Aleutian Basin (which contains Bristol Bay) would be safe from potential oil and gas leasing activity. Areas such as the Gulf of Alaska that have not seen a lease sale since the early 1980s, and regions that have never been considered for exploration like the Aleutians, Bering Sea and Kodiak have suddenly been put at risk.

The Gulf of Alaska faced oil and gas lease sales when the first federal offshore leases were offered in Alaska as part of the 1976-1981 program. At that time, 600,000 acres of the seafloor, starting 10 miles off Cape Suckling and stretching to Yakutat, were leased and twelve exploratory wells were drilled. None yielded commercially significant quantities of oil or gas, and thankfully there were no catastrophes from this misguided effort. Further sales were scheduled between 1997 and 2002, but were canceled due to a lack of interest from industry. It was a bad idea then, and it is a bad idea now.

The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) now estimates the recoverable oil and gas reserves in the Gulf of Alaska at around 600 million barrels of oil. Current U.S. consumption is about 20 million barrels per day. In other words, burning through the estimated Gulf of Alaska oil reserves might fuel our country for a mere month. BOEM’s low estimate of environmental and social costs of exploration activities and “small” spills (up to 4 million gallons!) is a staggering $100 million. That doesn’t even include the costs of a catastrophic oil spill, like BP’s Deepwater Horizon disaster, which they claim they will analyze later.

The Gulf of Alaska ecosystem is already stressed, and many fishermen will tell you that things do not look good. Halibut are smaller, Chinook salmon are disappearing, and the Pacific cod stock is collapsing. To add the stress of offshore oil and gas exploration and drilling to the mix is both thoughtless and irresponsible.

Read the full story at the Cordova Times

 

Massachusetts: Three companies submit bids for offshore wind power

December 21, 2017 — Three offshore wind energy developers bid Wednesday on contracts to sell electricity to Massachusetts power companies, taking the next big step in a process that could set turbines spinning south of Martha’s Vineyard within the next five years.

“It’s in the hands of the utilities,” Vineyard Wind Chief Development Officer Erich Stephens said.

By April, Vineyard Wind, Bay State Wind and Revolution Wind will hear whether their bids have been selected for negotiation by the handful of electric distribution companies that will buy the wind energy. By the end of July, the utilities and offshore wind energy companies are expected to finalize long-term contracts and hand them over to the state Department of Public Utilities for review and approval.

Depending on the wind energy company, construction of anywhere from 50 to 100 turbines in federally leased, submerged areas could begin within two to five years. In addition to securing contracts to sell their energy, the companies face federal and state permitting requirements, including through the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management.

“The critical path is the federal permit,” said Bay State Wind representative Michael Ausere, who is also vice president of business development for Eversource, which distributes electricity on Cape Cod and the Vineyard and is one of the utilities that would buy power from the wind farms. “This will be the first large-scale offshore wind farm.”

Read the full story at the Cape Cod Times

 

East Coast Fishing Coalition Continues Legal Challenge to Planned Wind Farm Off New York

WASHINGTON — December 1, 2017 — The following was released by the Fisheries Survival Fund:

A coalition of East Coast fishing businesses, organizations, and communities, led by the Fisheries Survival Fund (FSF), has taken the next step in its legal challenge to a planned wind farm off the coast of New York. FSF and its co-plaintiffs argue that the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) awarded the lease for the New York Wind Energy Area (NY WEA) to Norwegian energy company Statoil without fully considering the impact on fishermen and other stakeholders, in neglect of its responsibilities as stewards of ocean resources.

The plaintiffs outlined their arguments in a brief filed Tuesday in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. In the brief, FSF criticizes BOEM’s claim that it is not the agency’s job to resolve conflicts among new and pre-existing ocean users in the NY WEA. In an October filing, BOEM wrote that it is “not the ‘government steward of the ‘ocean commons,’’” a claim that FSF calls “unbecoming.” In fact, BOEM’s own website states: “The bureau is responsible for stewardship of U.S. [Outer Continental Shelf] energy and mineral resources, as well as protecting the environment that development of those resources may impact.”

FSF also writes that the NY WEA, an expanse of ocean nearly twice the size of Washington, D.C., is a poor location for a wind farm, and that BOEM and Statoil have alternately claimed that it is both too early and too late to raise objections to the lease. Statoil previously stated that vacating the lease would “squander the resources and the five years that BOEM has expended to date in the leasing process,” even as BOEM promises it will consider measures to mitigate the impacts of a wind farm later in the process. By then, after more time and resources have been expended, a wind farm “will be all but a foregone conclusion,” FSF writes.

Additionally, FSF argues that evaluating alternatives and considering conflicting ocean uses from the start would ultimately benefit BOEM and energy developers, ensuring they do not expend vast resources developing poorly located wind farms. The brief cites the ongoing debacle over the Cape Wind energy project, an approved wind farm off Cape Cod, Massachusetts, as an example of what can go wrong when BOEM and a developer ram through an agreement and become too invested to turn back. After the project “slogged through state and federal courts and agencies for more than a decade,” delays and uncertainty have jeopardized, if not eliminated, Cape Wind’s financing and power purchase agreements, according to the brief.

The plaintiffs in this case are the Fisheries Survival Fund; the Borough of Barnegat Light, New Jersey; The Town Dock; Seafreeze Shoreside; Sea Fresh USA; Rhode Island Fishermen’s Alliance; Garden State Seafood Association; Long Island Commercial Fishing Association; the Town of Narragansett, Rhode Island; the Narragansett Chamber of Commerce; the City of New Bedford, Massachusetts; and the Fishermen’s Dock Co-Operative of Point Pleasant, New Jersey.

While the fishing groups hold wide-ranging views about offshore wind energy development, they all agree that the siting process for massive wind energy projects “should not be a land rush, but rather reasoned, fully informed, intelligent, and cognizant of the human environment,” according to the brief.

About the Fisheries Survival Fund
The Fisheries Survival Fund (FSF) was established in 1998 to ensure the long-term sustainability of the Atlantic sea scallop fishery. FSF participants include the vast majority of full-time Atlantic scallop fishermen from Maine to Virginia. FSF works with academic institutions and independent scientific experts to foster cooperative research and to help sustain this fully rebuilt fishery. FSF also works with the federal government to ensure that the fishery is responsibly managed.

New England Council: Massachusetts Offshore Wind Public Open Houses – November 27-30, 2017

November 22, 2017 — The following was released by the New England Fishery Management Council:

The following public open houses may be of interest to the New England Fishery Management Council’s stakeholders who are following offshore wind developments.  Four events are scheduled for the week following Thanksgiving, all in Massachusetts.  Here are the details.

WHAT’S GOING ON:  Bay State Wind LLC is proposing to develop a new offshore wind farm 15-to-25 miles south of Martha’s Vineyard in the area known as the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) Lease OCS-A 0500.

WHO’S INVOLVED:  The project is being developed as a 50/50 joint venture between Orstead (formerly DONG Energy) and Eversource Energy, which together make up Bay State Wind.

WHEN AND WHERE ARE THE OPEN HOUSES:  The four public open houses will be held on the following dates in the following locations:

  • Monday, November 27 – Somerset Berkley Regional High School, 625 County Street, Somerset, MA, 6 p.m. to 8 p.m.
  • Tuesday, November 28 – The New Bedford Whaling Museum, 18 Johnny Cake Hill, New Bedford, MA, 5 p.m. to 8 p.m.
  • Wednesday, November 29 – The Barn Bowl & Bistro, 13 Uncas Avenue, Oak Bluffs, MA, 5 p.m. to 8 p.m.
  • Thursday, November 30 – The Sea Crest Beach Hotel, 350 Quaker Road, Falmouth, MA, 5 p.m. to 8 p.m.

PROJECT DETAILS:  The developers stated, “In December 2017, Bay State Wind will participate in the first state-led procurement of offshore wind power in the United States in response to a solicitation led by the Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources and the Electric Distribution Companies.” More information about the initiative is available at http://baystatewind.com/About-bay-state-wind#0.

QUESTIONS:  For more information contact Bay State Wind Fishery Liaison Officer John Williamson at (207) 939-7055, john@seakeeper.net.