Saving Seafood

Opponents, supporters react to Trump’s offshore drilling plan

February 6, 2018 — Environmentalists, fishermen, and state governments are signaling their opposition to the Trump administration’s proposed plan to reopen the ocean off Cape Cod and New England to oil and gas exploration.

“We are skeptical of anything the Trump Administration is doing in the marine environment or anything they are proposing to do,” said Conservation Law Foundation Vice President Priscilla Brooks.

A 2016 Bureau of Ocean Energy Management report estimated nearly 90 billion barrels of recoverable oil and 327 trillion tons of natural gas existed in mostly unexplored areas of the U.S. continental shelf. The new push for fossil fuel exploration and recovery was announced Jan. 4 with the unveiling of the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management’s Draft Five Year Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Program. It is part of President Donald Trump’s campaign pledge to make the U.S. more energy independent.

Currently, offshore fossil fuel exploration is controlled by a BOEM plan finalized near the end of the Obama presidency. Obama invoked a 1953 law, the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, to give what he said would be permanent protection from drilling to the continental shelf from Virginia to Maine.

But there were doubts that Obama’s use of the 1953 law would hold up in court, and the new plan is meant to replace the current one. International Association of Drilling Contractors President Jason McFarland hailed the inclusion of the Atlantic, Pacific, Arctic and an expansion of Gulf of Mexico drilling areas as an important step in achieving the goal of U.S. energy dominance in the world.

“IADC has long argued for access to areas that hold potential for oil and gas development,” McFarland wrote in comments last month, citing a U.S. Energy Information Administration estimate of a 48 percent growth in worldwide energy demand over the next 20 years. “The number and scale of the recoverable resources is large, and can lead to thousands of new jobs and billions of dollars in investment.”

But the Massachusetts Lobstermen’s Association and the various fishermen’s associations have panned the proposal. Last week, the New England Fishery Management Council approved a comment letter to BOEM that requested Mid-Atlantic and Northern Atlantic lease areas be excluded from the exploration and drilling.

Read the full story at the Cape Cod Times

 

Attorneys general urge offshore drilling plan’s cancellation

February 2, 2018 — The top lawyers for a dozen coastal states want the U.S. Interior Department to cancel the Trump administration’s plan to expand offshore drilling, warning it threatens their maritime economies and natural resources.

Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey and her fellow attorneys general, all Democrats, wrote Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke on Thursday about his agency’s proposed five-year oil and gas leasing plan that opens new ocean waters.

“Not only does this irresponsible and careless plan put our state’s jobs and environment at risk, but it shows utter disregard for the will and voices of thousands of local businesses and fishing families,” said Healey in a prepared statement. “My colleagues and I will continue to fight this plan.”

Healey first announced her opposition to the plan in an August 2017 letter to Department’s Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. The Northeast Seafood Coalition and the Massachusetts Lobstermen’s Association agreed with her that the Interior Department’s plan to expand offshore drilling threatens Massachusetts’ $7.3 billion commercial fishing industry — the third largest in the country — and more than 240,000 jobs in the state.

The plan also could devastate the state’s robust recreation and tourism industries, according to Healey, as well harm the state’s coastal environment and protected endangered species, including the Northern Right Whale, which feeds in the waters off of Cape Cod and Nantucket, according to the comment letter. There are only about 460 critically endangered Northern Right Whales remaining worldwide.

Read the full story at the Gloucester Times

 

NEFMC Takes Final Action on Deep-Sea Coral Amendment; Comments on Offshore Oil and Gas Drilling in North Atlantic

January 31, 2018 — The following was released by the New England Fishery Management Council:

The New England Fishery Management Council has taken final action on its Omnibus Deep-Sea Coral Amendment and voted to submit the document to the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) for review and approval.

In June of 2017, the Council adopted coral protection zones for the Gulf of Maine. Yesterday, at its meeting in Portsmouth, NH, the Council, after extensive debate, approved a 600-meter minimum depth “broad zone” for the continental slope and canyons south of Georges Bank. Once the amendment is implemented, this zone – with one exception – will be closed to all bottom-tending gear, meaning both mobile gear such as trawls and dredges and fixed gear such as traps and gillnets. The Council approved an exemption for the Atlantic deep-sea red crab pot fishery.

The 600-meter minimum depth broad zone, known as Option 6 in the Coral Amendment, was the Council’s preferred alternative for the continental slope and canyons prior to public hearings. However, the Council postponed final action last June in order to consider an additional proposal put forward by environmental groups. Known as Option 7, the new proposal covered more bottom and included shallower depths, ranging between 300 meters and 550 meters. Option 7 would have prohibited mobile bottom-tending gear but not fixed gear.

The Council’s Habitat Plan Development Team, using trawl vessel monitoring system data to identify fishing grounds, edited the Option 7 boundary to reduce economic impacts.

Before making a final determination, the Council considered extensive analyses of:

  • Option 6, the 600-meter minimum zone
  • Option 7 as revised, the 300-meter to 550-meter zone
  • Option 6/7 combined with Option 7 for mobile bottom-tending gear and Option 6 for all bottom-tending gear. An exemption for the deep-sea red crab pot fishery was considered for all options.

In the end, the Council selected the 600-meter broad zone, which encompasses 25,153 square miles. This option, which also was recommended by the Habitat Committee and Advisory Panel, covers: 75% of the known coral within the zone; 75% of the areas highly or very highly suitable as habitat for soft corals; and 85% of the areas with slopes greater than 30°. It also has lower economic impacts on fishermen using mobile bottom-tending gear.

Gulf of Maine 

Here’s a recap of what the Council approved last June for the Gulf of Maine:

  • Outer Schoodic Ridge and Mt. Desert Rock – The Council adopted a discrete coral protection zone for each of these areas where mobile bottom-tending gear (trawls and dredges) will be prohibited. Other types of fishing gear will be allowed, including lobster traps/pots.
  • Jordan Basin DHRA – The Council designated a Dedicated Habitat Research Area in Jordan Basin on/around the 114 fathom bump site, which encompasses roughly 40 square miles. This designation is meant to focus attention on the coral habitats at this site. The Council believes additional research on corals and fishing gear impacts should be directed here. No fishing restrictions are proposed at this time.

The Omnibus Deep-Sea Coral Amendment also specifies that anyone conducting research activities in coral zones would be required to obtain a letter of acknowledgement from NMFS’s Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office.

Once the amendment is implemented, changes to the following provisions will be allowable through framework adjustments: (1) adding, revising, or removing coral protection zones; (2) changing fishing restrictions; and (3) adopting or changing special fishery programs.

Offshore and Oil Gas Drilling 

The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) is soliciting comments through March 9, 2018 on its Draft National 2019-2024 Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Program, which includes the North and Mid-Atlantic Planning Areas. The Council agreed to send a letter to BOEM recommending exclusion of these two areas from the five-year plan because oil and gas exploration and extraction activities in the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf involve inappropriate risks that “may harm living marine resources and the communities that depend on them.” The draft plan proposes lease sales in 2021 and 2023 for the North Atlantic area and in 2020, 2022, and 2024 for the Mid-Atlantic area.

The New England Council previously submitted oil and gas development comments to BOEM and Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke on June 29, 2017 and August 15, 2017. In the August letter and reiterated in this next letter, the Council broke down its concerns into five categories, which involve the following:

  • Direct displacement of fishing activities due to survey or extraction activities in offshore environments;
  • Harm to sensitive, deep-water benthic habitats, including deep-sea corals, due to extraction activities;
  • Negative impacts on living marine resources due to highdecibel sounds emitted during seismic gas surveys and drilling operations, including potential harm to some of the 28 species managed by the New England Council;
  • Negative impacts to nearshore fish habitats due to infrastructure development needed to support an Atlantic oil and gas industry; and
  • Risks associated with leaks and spills resulting from oil and gas extraction and transport.

The Council also supported developing a report to spatially document the value of fisheries on the Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf. The report will be used when developing future comments related to both renewable and non-renewable offshore energy.

More Information

View the release in its entirety here.

 

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