[House Hearing, 111 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
OFFSHORE DRILLING:
ENVIRONMENTAL AND
COMMERCIAL PERSPECTIVES
=======================================================================
OVERSIGHT HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
__________
Serial No. 111-1
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/
index.html
or
Committee address: http://resourcescommittee.house.gov
-----
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
47-302 PDF WASHINGTON : 2009
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia, Chairman
DOC HASTINGS, Washington, Ranking Republican Member
Dale E. Kildee, Michigan Don Young, Alaska
Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American Elton Gallegly, California
Samoa John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee
Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii Jeff Flake, Arizona
Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey Henry E. Brown, Jr., South
Grace F. Napolitano, California Carolina
Rush D. Holt, New Jersey Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Washington
Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona Louie Gohmert, Texas
Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam Rob Bishop, Utah
Jim Costa, California Bill Shuster, Pennsylvania
Dan Boren, Oklahoma Doug Lamborn, Colorado
Gregorio Sablan, Northern Marianas Adrian Smith, Nebraska
Martin T. Heinrich, New Mexico Robert J. Wittman, Virginia
George Miller, California Paul C. Broun, Georgia
Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts John Fleming, Louisiana
Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon Mike Coffman, Colorado
Maurice D. Hinchey, New York Jason Chaffetz, Utah
Donna M. Christensen, Virgin Cynthia M. Lummis, Wyoming
Islands Tom McClintock, California
Diana DeGette, Colorado Bill Cassidy, Louisiana
Ron Kind, Wisconsin
Lois Capps, California
Jay Inslee, Washington
Joe Baca, California
Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, South
Dakota
John P. Sarbanes, Maryland
Carol Shea-Porter, New Hampshire
Niki Tsongas, Massachusetts
Frank Kratovil, Jr., Maryland
Pedro R. Pierluisi, Puerto Rico
James H. Zoia, Chief of Staff
Rick Healy, Chief Counsel
Todd Young, Republican Chief of Staff
Lisa Pittman, Republican Chief Counsel
------
CONTENTS
----------
Page
Hearing held on Wednesday, February 11, 2009..................... 1
Statement of Members:
Brown, Hon. Henry E., Jr., a Representative in Congress from
the State of South Carolina, Prepared statement of......... 59
Capps, Hon. Lois, a Representative in Congress from the State
of California, Prepared statement of....................... 128
Hastings, Hon. Doc, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Washington........................................ 4
Prepared statement of.................................... 6
Lamborn, Hon. Doug, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Colorado, Prepared statement of................... 35
Rahall, Hon. Nick J., II, a Representative in Congress from
the State of West Virginia................................. 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 3
Statement of Witnesses:
Allen, Bruce, Co-Founder, SOS California..................... 91
Prepared statement of.................................... 93
Response to questions submitted for the record........... 94
Angers, Jefferson M., President, Center for Coastal
Conservation............................................... 100
Prepared statement of.................................... 102
Response to questions submitted for the record........... 134
Cousteau, Philippe, President and Chief Executive Officer,
EarthEcho International, and Board Member, Ocean
Conservancy................................................ 15
Prepared statement of.................................... 17
Response to questions submitted for the record........... 135
Danson, Ted, Member, Board of Directors, Oceana.............. 8
Prepared statement of.................................... 10
Response to questions submitted for the record........... 139
Grader, W.F. ``Zeke,'' Executive Director, Pacific Coast
Federation of Fishermen's Associations..................... 82
Prepared statement of.................................... 84
Response to questions submitted for the record........... 142
McCormick, Carolyn, Managing Director, Outer Banks (NC)
Visitors Bureau............................................ 70
Prepared statement of.................................... 72
Response to questions submitted for the record........... 143
Minich, D.T., Executive Director, St. Petersburg/Clearwater
Area Convention & Visitors Bureau.......................... 76
Prepared statement of.................................... 78
Additional materials supplied:
Branham, Brant, Chairman, and Brad Dean, President & CEO,
Myrtle Beach Area Chamber of Commerce, Letter submitted for
the record................................................. 130
CRS memorandum entitled ``Possible Federal Revenue Estimates
From Oil and Gas Production in Areas Currently Off-Limits
(under leasing moratoria or inaccessible)'' submitted for
the record................................................. 122
Florida Association of Convention & Visitors Bureaus' paper
entitled ``Position on Offshore Oil Drilling'' submitted
for the record............................................. 126
Gemmill, Faith, Executive Director,, Resisting Environmental
Destruction on Indigenous Lands (REDOIL), Letter submitted
for the record............................................. 131
List of documents retained in the Committee's official files. 128
Luyendyk, Bruce, Professor of Marine Geophysics, Letter
submitted for the record................................... 112
OVERSIGHT HEARING ON ``OFFSHORE DRILLING: ENVIRONMENTAL AND COMMERCIAL
PERSPECTIVES''
----------
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on Natural Resources
Washington, D.C.
----------
The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m., in Room
1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Nick J. Rahall, II,
[Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Rahall, Faleomavaega, Abercrombie,
Pallone, Napolitano, Holt, Grijalva, Bordallo, Costa, Boren,
Sablan, Heinrich, Kind, Capps, Inslee, Sarbanes, Shea-Porter,
Tsongas, Kratovil, Young, Gallegly, Duncan, Flake, Brown,
Gohmert, Bishop, Lamborn, Smith, Broun, Fleming, Chaffetz,
Lummis, McClintock and Cassidy.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. NICK J. RAHALL, II, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA
The Chairman. The Committee on Natural Resources will come
to order.
The Committee is meeting today in the first of a three-part
series of oversight hearings designed to look at our current
offshore drilling policy and determine where we may need to go
next.
Today we will hear from representatives of the
environmental, tourism and fishing industries. On February 24,
we will hear from State officials; and on February 25, we will
have the oil and gas industry present their viewpoint.
The purpose of these hearings is to allow all sides to air
their views so that we can begin to determine the best way to
move forward and how to ensure that our offshore resources are
managed in an environmentally and physically responsible
manner.
I believe we all remember last year when oil prices neared
$150 a barrel, gas was over $4 a gallon, and, ``Drill, Baby,
Drill'' was chanted repeatedly as a solution to high energy
prices. While undoubtedly a catchy slogan, good for the 30-
second sound bites, it drowned out a number of key facts that
are essential to this debate.
First, the United States does drill, and we drill a lot. We
are the third largest producer of oil and the second largest
producer of natural gas in the world, with roughly a third of
that production coming from public lands.
There were more drilling rigs operating in the United
States last year than in the rest of the world combined. Let me
repeat that. There were more drilling rigs operating in the
United States of America last year than in the rest of the
world combined. Anyone who implies that we are not currently
going after our own resources is being misleading, and perhaps
a little disingenuous.
Second, the vast majority of oil and natural gas in our
Outer Continental Shelf is in those areas that are already
being leased. According to the Minerals Management Service, 82
percent of the oil and 84 percent of the natural gas in the
Outer Continental Shelf are in those areas that were already
available for drilling before the congressional moratoria
expired last year.
Talking about the percentage of the OCS that is not being
leased is far less important than whether or not we are leasing
the right acreage.
Third, no reputable economist believes that increasing the
amount of drilling we do in the OCS will have any real impact
on energy prices. The Energy Information Administration looked
at what would happen if we started leasing every single acre of
the OCS, and they found that the impact on prices would be
quite insignificant. Oil prices, as we all know, are set on the
world market, and the United States does not have the reserves
required to make a big dent in that market.
Fourth, we cannot drill our way to energy independence. The
Energy Information Administration found that drilling
everywhere on the OCS would produce roughly 200,000 barrels in
additional oil per day in 2030, only 1 percent of what we
currently consume. Even the oil and gas industry agrees. A
study contracted by the American Petroleum Institute found that
unlimited OCS drilling would generate less than 300,000 barrels
a day.
And finally, to be clear, I am not opposed to drilling. I
understand the benefits that we get from domestic oil and gas
production, the jobs, the royalties, the money that we keep
here at home instead of sending overseas; but I am also very
well aware of the risk. Last week was the 40th anniversary of
the Santa Barbara oil spill--an environmental disaster that
showed us, in no uncertain terms, what the dangers are.
If we are going to start drilling in new areas offshore, we
have to be aware what the tradeoffs are, we have to ensure that
it can be done safely and carefully, and we have to ensure that
it is being done in the best interests of the American people,
the true owners of these lands.
These three hearings are just the start of this discussion.
Under the leadership of our Subcommittee Chairman,
Representative Jim Costa, the Subcommittee on Energy and
Mineral Resources will be looking at these issues in even more
depth in the coming months. With oil prices down to multi-year
lows, no leasing moratoria on the Atlantic and Pacific Coast in
place, and a new administration in the White House, this is the
time to look at these issues anew.
I want to thank our distinguished witnesses, who I will be
introducing in a moment, for being with us, but before that I
will recognize our Ranking Member, the gentleman from
Washington, Mr. Hastings.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Rahall follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Nick J. Rahall, II, Chairman,
Committee on Natural Resources
The committee is meeting today in the first of a three-part series
of oversight hearings designed to look at our current offshore drilling
policy, and determine where we may need to go next.
Today we will hear from representatives of the environmental,
tourism, and fishing industries. On February 24th we will hear from
state officials, and on February 25th we will have the oil and gas
industry present their viewpoint.
The purpose of these hearings is to allow all sides to air their
views so that we can begin to determine the best way to move forward,
and how to ensure that our offshore resources are managed in an
environmentally and fiscally responsible manner.
I believe we all remember last year when oil prices neared $150 a
barrel, gas was over $4 a gallon, and ``Drill, Baby, Drill'' was
chanted repeatedly as the solution to high energy prices. While
undoubtedly a catchy slogan, it drowned out a number of key facts that
are essential to this debate.
First, the United States does drill, and we drill a lot. We are the
third largest producer of oil and second largest producer of natural
gas in the world, with roughly a third of that production coming from
public lands.
There were more drilling rigs operating in the United States last
year than in the rest of the world combined. Anyone who implies that we
are not currently going after our own resources is being misleading.
Second, the vast majority of oil and natural gas in our Outer
Continental Shelf is in those areas that are already being leased.
According to the Minerals Management Service, 82% of the oil and
84% of the natural gas in the outer continental shelf are in those
areas that were already available for drilling before the congressional
moratorium expired last year.
Talking about the percentage of the OCS that is not being leased is
far less important than whether or not we are leasing the right
acreage.
Third, no reputable economist believes that increasing the amount
of drilling we do in the OCS will have any real impact on energy
prices.
The Energy Information Administration looked at what would happen
if we started leasing every single acre of the OCS, and they found that
the impact on prices would be, quote, ``insignificant.''
Oil prices are set on the world market, and the United States does
not have the reserves required to make a big dent in that market.
Fourth, we cannot drill our way to energy independence. The Energy
Information Administration found that drilling everywhere on the OCS
would produce roughly 200,000 barrels in additional oil per day in
2030, only 1% of what we currently consume.
Even the oil and gas industry agrees: a study contracted by the
American Petroleum Institute found that unlimited OCS drilling would
generate less than 300,000 barrels per day.
Finally, to be clear, I am not opposed to drilling. I understand
the benefits that we get from domestic oil and gas production: the
jobs, the royalties, the money that we keep here at home instead of
sending overseas.
But I am also very aware of the risks. Last week was the 40th
anniversary of the Santa Barbara Oil Spill, an environmental disaster
that showed us in no uncertain terms what the dangers are.
If we are going to start drilling in new areas offshore, we have to
be aware what the trade-offs are, we have to ensure that it can be done
safely and carefully, and we have to ensure that it is being done in
the best interests of the American people.
These three hearings are just the start of this discussion. Under
the leadership of Representative Costa, the Subcommittee on Energy and
Mineral Resources will be looking at these issues in even more depth in
the coming months.
With oil prices down to multi-year lows, no leasing moratorium on
the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, and a new administration in the White
House, this is the time to look at these issues anew.
I thank the witnesses for coming today, and I now recognize our
Ranking Member, Mr. Hastings, for his opening remarks.
______
STATEMENT OF THE HON. DOC HASTINGS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
Mr. Hastings. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And I want
to thank you for calling today's hearing. And I hope that this
hearing and the others that are scheduled that we will have
will be focusing on the important issue that clearly will lay
out the value of the resources in America and that American
taxpayers have in those resources, and specifically in the
Outer Continental Shelf areas.
Mr. Chairman, few areas are more important to the American
economy than energy. At a time when our country is facing
economic turmoil, it is more important than ever that we are
taking the steps to create more American jobs, not taking them
away.
There are recent reports that OPEC leaders are planning to
meet in March to raise prices on American families and
businesses. The belief is that OPEC will announce production
cuts in order to double the current price of oil. We must send
a message to the world that America will produce its own energy
and no longer allow ourselves to be held hostage by foreign
governments to high energy prices.
This Committee has previously heard testimony that during
the first half of this decade, America lost more than 3 million
manufacturing jobs due to high energy costs. Yet the energy
crisis of last year which hurt our economy can also provide the
solutions to bring our economy back.
Expanded domestic energy production will create good, high-
paying jobs and free America from our dependence on foreign
energy. This renaissance is possible because for the first time
since 1982, the moratoria restricting development of our
Nation's Outer Continental Shelf was not included in this
year's appropriation bills. Lifting the moratoria finally
opened one of the richest resources in the entire world to
potential development.
The Minerals Management Service estimates that our Outer
Continental Shelf holds more than 86 billion barrels of oil and
420 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. Of these amounts, an
estimated 18 billion barrels of oil and 76 trillion cubic feet
of natural gas had been left undiscovered in areas previously
off limits. It is entirely possible that America could multiply
our undiscovered resources in the Atlantic many times over.
Without further exploration it is impossible to tell exactly
what amount of oil and gas reserves the United States is
neglecting in the OCS.
The development of the OCS isn't just about energy, though,
Mr. Chairman, it is also about creating good American
manufacturing jobs and building the infrastructure to harness
that energy. The oil and gas industry is one of the highest-
paying industries in America. In addition, this capital-
intensive industry means that the development of a single
platform can cost between $2- and $5 billion, depending on the
platform. Now that really is economic stimulus, in my mind.
Each productive new offshore lease will bring hundreds of
jobs. When multiplied by the thousands of productive new
leases, we could create millions of new jobs and have a
renaissance of American domestic manufacturing.
Exploration and development in the OCS doesn't mean
destruction of our environment, contrary to some thoughts. In
fact, modern technology has made OCS development cleaner and
safer than ever. In 1999, the Clinton administration report
stated, and I want to quote this entirely, ``In the past three
decades, the petroleum business has transformed itself into a
high-technology industry. Dramatic advances in technology for
exploration, drilling and completion, production and site
restoration have enabled the industry to keep up with the ever-
increasing demand for reliable supplies of oil and gas at
reasonable prices. The productivity gains and cost reductions
attributable to these advances have been widely described and
broadly recognized.'' But I want to emphasize this: ``But
public awareness of the significant and impressive
environmental benefits from new exploration and production
advances remain limited.'' In other words, all this is going
on, but the public doesn't know about it.
More recently, Hurricanes Ivan, Katrina and Rita impacted
the oil and gas infrastructure in the Gulf of Mexico, including
refineries, causing many producing oil and gas wells to be shut
down. It is worth noting that no oil field workers were killed,
and no oil blowouts occurred, even though many platforms were
destroyed during these catastrophic storms. The safety and
environmental protection technology built into the platforms
worked.
Finally, new production also brings financial benefits to
taxpayers. In Fiscal Year 2008, the Minerals Management Service
generated over $23 billion in revenue for State, Federal and
tribal treasuries. Since the majority of these resources sit on
Federally held lands, new expanded development will result in
bonus bids, royalties and rents. In addition, expanded
development will mean increased payroll and income taxes,
increased business development, and a stronger U.S. dollar. A
recent ICS study said that there is $1.7 trillion in revenue
awaiting development in the OCS, a figure I believe anyone in
this time would call a stimulus.
This issue is of major national significance. Developing
our resources will create desperately needed jobs across much
of America. In addition, as our economy starts to rebound,
energy prices will rise; and if they rise, it could stunt
future growth. The longer we leave ourselves dependent on
foreign oil, the more fragile our economy will be.
As I stated at the outset, reports are that OPEC will be
meeting in March to purposely manipulate oil production to
raise prices on American families and businesses. The OPEC
cartel may raise the price of a barrel of oil by 75 to 100
percent, from $40 a barrel to $75 or $80 a barrel. America
simply can't afford to leave the fate of our economy in the
hands of this foreign cartel that controls 35 percent of the
world's oil production. America can't afford to continue giving
away $700 billion a year in thousands of high-paying energy-
production jobs to foreign countries who willfully manipulate
prices to harm our economy and cost us even more jobs.
The American people have spoken strongly in support of
utilizing our resources on the OCS, and in these tough economic
times, Congress and the President can't afford to sit by and
not develop the tens of thousands of high-paying energy-
production jobs in America.
Mr. Chairman, I believe that we can free America from our
dependence on foreign oil, free America from imported foreign
natural gas, and invigorate America's economy by harnessing the
resources of America's OCS to create more energy with the skill
and knowledge of the American worker.
I look forward to hearing from the witnesses today and in
subsequent hearings.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hastings follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Doc Hastings, Ranking Member,
Committee on Natural Resources
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for calling today's hearing. I
hope that this hearing and the others that we have focusing on this
important issue will clearly lay out the value of the resources America
and American taxpayers have in the OCS areas.
Few issues are more important to the American economy than energy.
At a time when our country is facing economic turmoil, it is more
important than ever that we are taking steps to create more American
jobs--not taking them away.
It is important that we hold these hearings now to set the record
in support of increased American development. There are reports that
OPEC leaders are planning to meet in March to raise prices on American
families and businesses. The belief is that OPEC will announce
productions cuts in order to double the current price of oil.
We must send a message to the world that America will produce its
own energy and no longer allow ourselves to be held hostage by foreign
governments to high energy prices.
This committee previously heard testimony that during the first
half of this decade America lost more than 3 million manufacturing jobs
due to high energy costs. Yet the energy crisis of last year which hurt
our economy, can also provide the solutions to bring our economy back.
Expanded domestic energy production will create good high paying
jobs and free America from our dependence on foreign energy. This
``renaissance'' is possible because, for the first time since 1982, the
moratoria restricting development of our nation's Outer Continental
Shelf (OCS) was not included in this year's appropriations bills.
RESOURCES
Lifting the moratoria finally opened one of the richest resources
in the entire world to potential development.
The Minerals Management Service estimates that our Outer
Continental Shelf (OCS) holds more than 86 billion barrels of oil and
420 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. Of these amounts, an estimated
18 billion barrels of oil and 76 trillion cubic feet of natural gas
have been left undiscovered in areas previously off-limits.
While those numbers may seem large in their own right, they are
actually small when compared to what really may be recoverable in that
part of the OCS. Much of the data we have on the Atlantic is more than
30 years old, from a time when most Americans were still using rotary
phones.
The technology of that era was not nearly as sophisticated as we
have today. Advances in seismic exploration and drilling technology
mean that we can both find and develop resources that we didn't know
existed in the 1970's.
It is entirely possible that America could multiply our
undiscovered resources in the Atlantic many times over. Without further
exploration it is impossible to tell exactly what amount of oil and gas
reserves the United States is neglecting in the OCS.
JOBS
The development of the OCS isn't just about energy, it is also
about creating good American manufacturing jobs and building the
infrastructure to harness this energy. The oil and gas industry is one
of the highest paying industries in America. The average oil field
worker makes nearly twice the national average.
In addition, this capital intensive industry means that the
development of a single platform can cost 2, 3, or 5 billion dollars
depending on the platform.
Each productive new offshore lease will bring hundreds of jobs.
When multiplied by the thousands of productive new leases, we could
create millions of new jobs and have a renaissance of American domestic
manufacturing.
ENVIRONMENT
Exploration and development in the OCS doesn't mean the destruction
of our environment. In fact, modern technology has made OCS development
cleaner and safer than ever.
A 1999 Clinton Administration Report stated:
``In the past three decades, the petroleum business has transformed
itself into a high-technology industry. Dramatic advances in technology
for exploration, drilling and completion, production, and site
restoration have enabled the industry to keep up with the ever-
increasing demand for reliable supplies of oil and natural gas at
reasonable prices. The productivity gains and cost reductions
attributable to these advances have been widely described and broadly
recognized. But public awareness of the significant and impressive
environmental benefits from new exploration and production (E&P)
technology advances remains limited.''
More recently, Hurricanes Ivan, Katrina and Rita impacted the oil
and gas infrastructure in the Gulf of Mexico, including refineries,
causing many producing oil and gas wells to be shut in. It is worth
nothing that no oil-field workers were killed and no oil blowouts
occurred even though many platforms were destroyed during these
catastrophic storms. The safety and environmental protection technology
built into the platforms worked.
It is a testament to the coordination between the Minerals
Management Service (MMS), the Coast Guard, and industry that everyone
was safely evacuated and modern technology protected our environment.
REVENUE
Finally, new production also brings financial rewards to the
taxpayers. In Fiscal Year 2008, the Minerals Management Service
generated $23.4 Billion in revenue for Federal, state and tribal
treasuries.
Since a majority of these resources sit on federally held lands,
new expanded development will result in bonus bids, royalties and
rents. In addition, expanded development will mean increased payroll
and income taxes, increased business development, and a stronger U.S.
dollar. A recent ICF study said that there is $1.7 trillion in revenue
awaiting development in the OCS, a figure I believe anyone would call
stimulus.
CLOSING
This issue is of major national significance. Developing our
resources will create desperately needed jobs across much of America.
In addition, as our economy starts to rebound, energy prices will rise,
which could stunt or cut off growth. The longer we leave ourselves
dependent on foreign oil the more fragile our economy will be.
As I stated at the outset, reports are that OPEC will be meeting in
March to purposefully manipulate oil production to raise prices on
American families and businesses. The OPEC cartel may raise the price
of a barrel of oil by 75 to 100 percent--from $40 a barrel to $75 or
$80.
America simply can't afford to leave the fate of our economy in the
hands of this foreign cartel that controls 35% of the world's oil
production.
America can't afford to continue giving away $700 billion a year
and thousands of high-paying energy production jobs to foreign
countries who willfully manipulate prices to harm our economy and cost
us even more jobs.
The American people have spoken strongly in support of utilizing
our resources on the Outer Continental Shelf. And in these tough
economic times, Congress and the President can't afford to sit by and
not develop the tens of thousands of high-paying energy production jobs
here in America.
Mr. Chairman, I believe that we can free America from our
dependence on foreign oil, free America from imported foreign natural
gas, and invigorate America's economy, by harnessing the resources of
America's OCS to create more energy with the skill and knowledge of the
American worker.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses.
______
The Chairman. We are going to move now to the two witnesses
that are with us this morning, Ted Danson and Philippe
Cousteau. Both are strong ocean advocates with a long history
of defending and protecting our irreplaceable ocean resources.
They understand the importance of our oceans as a valuable
national resource for all Americans to enjoy, Ted, through his
work with Oceana, and Philippe, through his lasting family
legacy, and they both know that ocean conservation is a worthy
cause.
I think the background of Ted Danson is known to all of us
as an award-winning film and television actor. Along with his
many accomplishments as an actor, he continues to receive much
acclaim for his work as a longtime advocate for the
sustainability of the world's oceans.
Philippe is the son of Jan and Philippe Cousteau--his
mother is with us today, and we appreciate that--and the
grandson of Captain Jacques Yves Cousteau. He is the CEO of
EarthEcho and an Ocean Conservancy Board member.
So, gentlemen, we are very honored to have you as our lead-
off witnesses for our hearings today and for the series of
hearings over the next several months. We want to welcome you.
Ted, you may proceed first. As I tell all witnesses, we do
have your prepared testimony, which will be made a part of the
record as if it was actually read. You may proceed in any
manner you desire, both of you. We usually try to enforce a 5-
minute rule, but if you run over, that is fine. How is that for
enforcement?
STATEMENT OF TED DANSON, OCEANA
Mr. Danson. Thank you very much. Good morning. My name is
Ted Danson. I am a longtime ocean activist and a member of the
Board of Directors of Oceana. We are a global ocean
conservation organization based here in Washington, D.C. And I
would like to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the
Committee for giving me the opportunity to speak to you today.
In the late 1980s, Occidental Petroleum proposed slant
drilling off the coast of Santa Monica. I was very concerned
about the impact this would have on the ocean environment, so I
teamed up with an environmental lawyer to fight it. I am happy
to report that we won. After that, to make sure our oceans
would continue to be protected, we co-founded American Oceans
Campaign, which worked for 15 years to protect the oceans from
oil drilling and other threats. We later decided to expand the
capacity of the American Oceans Campaign by joining with
Oceana, which is now the largest international organization
focused solely on protecting the oceans. And so today I am here
to testify against the opening up of the Outer Continental
Shelf of our oceans to oil and gas development.
The same reasons that made more offshore drilling a bad
idea when I founded the American Oceans Campaign are still
valid today. I am encouraged by the administration's
announcement yesterday that they will be taking additional time
to examine the offshore drilling issue.
Oil and water don't mix. Our oceans give essential protein
to nearly half the world's population. In the U.S.,
recreational and commercial fisheries combined supply over 2
million jobs. On top of that, coastal tourism provides 28.3
million jobs, and annually generates $54 billion in goods and
services.
Ecosystems are disrupted, top to bottom, by the short- and
long-term effects of oil. More oil spills mean less abundant
oceans; more oil spills mean fewer wonderful, pristine beaches;
more oil spills mean fewer jobs.
While not intentional, spills do happen. And according to
the National Academy of Sciences, no current cleanup methods
remove more than a small fraction of oil spilled in the marine
waters, especially in the presence of broken ice.
Approximately 120 million gallons of oil end up in the
world's oceans every year from oil platforms, marine
transportation, vessel discharges, and accidents. The impacts
of oil on fish and other wildlife are numerous and well own.
Ingesting oil is usually lethal, and long-term exposures can
result in serious problems, such as reduced reproduction and
organ damage.
Each offshore oil platform generates approximately 214,000
pounds of air pollutants a year. These pollutants include
precursors to smog, acid rain, and contribute to global
warming. Pollution released from rigs can affect people and
animals living within 180 miles of that platform.
For all these reasons, offshore oil drilling is such a bad
idea that for more than 25 years our leaders put an end to it.
Today it is still a terrible idea. In fact, with today's
science, we have even more reason to keep the oil companies out
of our oceans. That is because we now know that burning fossil
fuels contributes to climate change.
Climate change is potentially catastrophic for the oceans
due to something scientists call acidification. As our oceans
absorb carbon dioxide from the air, they become more acidic.
Coral reefs, essential to ocean life, are already in trouble.
If emissions continue to increase, there is likely to be mass
extinctions of coral by the middle of the end of the century.
Acidification also threatens the very base of the entire
ocean food chain. Scientists estimate that the southern ocean
could reach the tipping point as early as 2030. This means that
in only 20 years, it is likely that creatures at the base of
the food web, such as krill and sea snails, will be unable to
create their shells. If the base of the ocean food web
collapses, it would be catastrophic for the oceans, especially
for our fisheries and everyone that depends on them for food
and for jobs.
Despite all of these problems, oil companies still want to
invest billions of dollars in continuing our dependence on oil
instead of creating a sustainable plan for the future. The
argument for increased offshore drilling is essentially that it
will get gas prices to come way down. That is simply not true.
The oil companies are making us a sucker's offer. They are
asking Americans to take 100 percent of the risk of ocean
drilling for just a fraction of any potential benefits. In
fact, even at peak production, increased drilling offshore
would account for less than 1 percent of current energy demand
in the U.S., and that is if in this global market the oil would
stay in the U.S., which is unlikely. It would only amount to
mere pennies in savings at the pump.
The high gas prices from this summer were not due to a lack
of oil drilling in American oceans, they were a result of high
demand in a worldwide oil market. As we have seen, prices came
way down in just a few months, which is a clear demonstration
of that fact.
The bottom line is this: Offshore oil drilling may be a
good deal from the perspective of an oil executive's office,
but it is a bad deal for a citizen looking at it from a
California or a New Jersey beach. And so today I ask you to
take three important steps that would steer our country in the
right direction toward affordable energy and healthy oceans.
First, I believe Congress should quickly reinstate the
moratorium on new oil leasing in the Outer Continental Shelf
and Bristol Bay.
Second, the threats to the Arctic demand a separate and
distinct planning process. Ongoing oil development activities
must be suspended until that is completed.
Finally, clean, carbon-free ocean energy, such as wind,
tidal, wave and current power, must be a piece of our
sustainable energy future. The Natural Resources Committee
should hold hearings on the renewable resources that our oceans
offer. Stimulating these energy sources creates jobs.
Let's work with the oceans, not against them. Let's use
their abundant wind and water energy to do things that will be
good for the planet and good for America. Let's give future
generations oil-free beaches and oceans that are an abundant
source of food, wildlife and clean energy.
Thank you for this opportunity.
The Chairman. Thank you, Ted.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Danson follows:]
Statement of Ted Danson, Member, Board of Directors, Oceana
Introduction
My name is Ted Danson and I am a member of the Board of Directors
of Oceana, a global ocean conservation organization based here in
Washington, D.C. that works to restore and protect the world's oceans.
Besides our headquarters in Washington DC, Oceana also has staff
located in Alaska, California, Florida, Oregon, and Massachusetts, as
well as international offices in Brussels, Belgium; Madrid, Spain; and
Santiago, Chile. We have 300,000 members and supporters from all 50
states and from countries around the globe. Our mission is to protect
our oceans and the fish and wildlife that depend on them.
Today, I will present testimony regarding the need to protect our
oceans from the threats posed by oil and gas development on the outer
continental shelf of the United States.
In the late 1980s, Occidental Petroleum proposed slant drilling off
the coast of Santa Monica. I was very concerned about the impact this
would have on the ocean environment so I teamed up with an
environmental expert to fight it. I'm happy to report that we won.
After that, to make sure our oceans would continue to be protected, we
co-founded American Oceans Campaign, which worked for fifteen years to
protect the oceans from oil drilling and other threats.
We later decided to expand the capacity of the American Oceans
Campaign, by joining with Oceana, which is now the largest
international organization focused solely on protecting the oceans.
And so today, I am here to testify against the opening up of the
outer continental shelf of our oceans to oil and gas development. The
same reasons that made more offshore oil drilling a bad idea when I
founded the American Oceans Campaign are still valid today.
Oil and water don't mix. Our oceans give essential protein to
nearly half the world's population. In the U.S., recreational and
commercial fisheries combined supply over 2 million jobs. On top of
that, coastal tourism provides 28.3 million jobs and annually generates
$54 billion in goods and services. Ecosystems are disrupted top to
bottom by the short and long term effects of oil. More oil spills mean
less abundant oceans. More oil spills mean fewer wonderful, pristine
beaches. More oil spills mean fewer jobs.
While not intentional, spills happen. These spills range from
small, steady leaks to large accidents and they occur at every stage in
oil production from the oil platform to the oil tanker to the pipeline
and storage tanks. Approximately 120 millions gallons of oil are
discharged into the world's oceans every year from oil platforms,
marine transportation, vessel discharges and accidents. The impacts to
fish and wildlife are numerous and well documented, often resulting in
death.
In addition, more offshore drilling contributes to climate change
by continuing our reliance on fossil fuels without creating a
sustainable plan for the future. Additionally, as our oceans absorb
carbon dioxide from the air, our oceans become more acidic. This ocean
acidification could drastically change life as we know it. Our corals
are already at risk. Additionally, the base of the food web may
collapse due to the inability to create their shells in a more acidic
ocean. Scientists estimate that the Southern Oceans could reach the
tipping point as early as 2030. The collapse of the food web would be
catastrophic for our oceans, our fisheries and everyone that depends on
them for food and jobs.
Despite these risks to the oceans, it is hard to imagine why the
perceived demand for expanded offshore drilling is so strong. The oil
companies are asking Americans to take 100% of the risk for just a
fraction of any benefits. In fact, even at peak production, the U.S.
Energy Information Administration admits that increased offshore
drilling would account for less than 1% of the current energy demand in
the U.S. It would amount to merely pennies in savings at the gas pump.
We should be thinking of our oceans as part of the solution to our
nation's energy problems. Instead of offshore drilling, America needs
science-based, precautionary management for our oceans. Our energy
policies should fit within a consistent blueprint in which expanded
conservation and improved energy efficiency are paired with
facilitating renewable energy production to reduce our reliance on
fossil fuels.
And so, today, I ask you to take three important steps that will
steer our country in the right direction toward energy independence
based on renewable and carbon-free energy sources.
First, it is critical that Congress quickly reinstate its moratoria
on drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) areas and Bristol Bay.
Congress put the OCS moratorium in place in a bipartisan fashion every
single year since 1982. Protection for Bristol Bay lapsed in 2004, and
last year, due to the combined pressures of rising gas prices and an
important election, the OCS moratorium was allowed to lapse.
Secondly, the threats to the Arctic demand a separate and distinct
planning process. The OCS moratoria do not include any of the offshore
areas in Alaska except Bristol Bay, and there has been a significant
expansion of oil and gas activities in the Arctic during the last eight
years. The ongoing activities must be stopped, until a comprehensive
conservation and energy plan for the Arctic is put in place that is
based on assessment of the unique Arctic ecosystem and a precautionary,
science-based approach.
Finally, clean, carbon-free ocean energy such as wind, tidal, wave
and current power must be a piece of our sustainable energy future. The
Natural Resources committee should hold hearings on the renewable
resources that our oceans offer. Stimulating these energy sources
creates jobs. Let's work with the oceans, not against them. Let's use
their abundant wind and water energy to do things that will be good for
the planet, and good for America. Let's give future generations oil
free beaches and oceans that are an abundant source of food, wildlife
and clean energy.
These points are further discussed in the testimony below:
I. Moratoria in the OCS areas and Bristol Bay are Needed to Protect
our Oceans
Our oceans and coasts are now at greater risk than at any time
since the early 1980's. Since 1982, Congress has protected Outer
Continental Shelf water in the ``Lower-48'' with a moratorium on oil
and gas activities. Congress also has enacted a moratorium to protect
the sensitive areas of Bristol Bay, Alaska. In addition, Executive
moratoria have been issued by two Presidents. In 1990, responding to
the 11 million gallon Exxon Valdez oil spill, President George H. W.
Bush used his executive authority to place a moratorium on any leasing
or pre-leasing activity in Lower-48 offshore areas, including a small
portion of the Eastern Gulf of Mexico. In a separate action President
Clinton limited new drilling in the rich Bristol Bay fishing grounds in
Alaska until 2012. Unfortunately, Congressional protections for Bristol
Bay lapsed in 2004 and President George W. Bush lifted the Executive
moratorium in 2007. The broader Congressional moratorium for the Lower-
48 offshore areas was allowed to expire in 2008, and the Executive
moratorium was lifted by President George W. Bush that same year.
Reinstating both of the Congressional moratoria, including valuable
habitat areas that were previously removed, such as Bristol Bay, must
be a top priority. The Executive moratoria also should be reinstated to
provide an added layer of protection for our marine life and coasts.
Offshore oil and gas activities create a myriad of threats to
marine life including accidents, routine spills, disposal of wastes
such as drilling muds and produced water, and noise pollution. The
dramatic increase in shipping activity associated with platform
maintenance, and increased risks of marine mammal collisions, also
imperil marine species, many of which are already threatened or
endangered.
Accidents inevitably accompany all stages of offshore production.
The most typical causes of accidents include equipment failure,
personnel mistakes, and extreme natural impacts from seismic activity,
ice movements, hurricanes, and so on.
According to the National Academy of Sciences, ``No current cleanup
methods remove more than a small fraction of oil spilled in marine
waters, especially in the presence of broken ice.'' Discharges
associated with oil platforms, marine transportation, vessel discharges
and accidents add around 120 million gallons of oil to the world's
ocean every year, about a third of all inputs combined, including
natural oil seeps.
The impacts of oil on wildlife are numerous. Wildlife can become
coated in or ingest oil, which will often lead to a quick death.
However, oil in the environment can also result in non-lethal impacts,
such as reduced reproduction and liver damage. These impacts are a
death sentence for most animals in the wild, crippling their ability to
avoid predators, find food and shelter and reproduce, all of which are
essential to healthy functioning populations.
Toxic compounds in oil have a similarly varied set of effects.
These can include reduced reproductive success due to interruption in
breeding behaviors and damage to the reproductive and immune systems.
Oil's toxic constituents can also damage a long list of organs in
marine animals including the eyes, mouths, skin, nasal cavities,
nervous system, red blood cells, liver, lungs and stomach. It can also
cause damage to turtle and fish eggs, larvae and young, all leading to
varied impacts on survival and reproductive success.
Oil can also affect the habitat of marine species, for example, by
contaminating breeding beaches, estuaries, coral reefs, and seagrass
and mangrove communities that are important feeding, breeding and
resting grounds for a variety of species.
Finally, these impacts can linger for extremely long time periods
creating continuous low-level exposure to oil in the form of tarballs,
slicks, or elevated levels of chemicals that can cause cancer,
developmental and reproductive impairments.
Besides accidents, daily offshore drilling operations also create
other forms of pollution that affect marine and other wildlife.
Offshore rigs can dump tons of drilling fluids, metal cuttings,
including toxic metals (lead, chromium and mercury) and carcinogens
(such as benzene, xylene and toluene and especially polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons) into the ocean. Drilling muds are used to lubricate and
cool the drill bit and pipe. One drilling platform normally drills
between seventy and one-hundred wells and discharges more than 90,000
metric tons of drilling fluids and metal cuttings into the ocean. One
well can potentially affect an area of 1000 meters when it comes to the
discharge of these materials. Some studies suggest that drilling-
related chemicals can stunt fish growth and affect breeding patterns.
For example, cod exposed to this waste water had smaller eggs and
delayed spawning time.
Produced water, fluid trapped underground and brought up with the
oil and gas is another type of pollution that comes from drilling.
Produced waters have high salinity and oil content, so discharges sink
to the seafloor where they poison the rich communities of plants and
animals that often reside there.
Factors other than pollutants can affect marine wildlife as well.
For example, the firing of air guns during oil exploration sends such a
strong shock across the seabed that it is believed to be capable of
causing marine mammal strandings and increased whale mortality,
decreased fish catch and damage to the hearing capacity of various
marine species. For example, endangered grey whales were scared away
from their only feeding grounds by unusually high noise levels at an
oil and gas construction site near Sakhalin Island. Offshore oil rigs
may also attract seabirds at night due to their lighting, flaring and
aggregation of fish species, all of which can result in bird mortality.
Air pollution from offshore oil rigs also poses a health threat to
people who live in proximity to offshore oil platforms. The Living
Oceans Society reports that a single offshore operation emits as much
air pollution as 7,000 cars driving fifty miles per day. Various types
of toxic air pollutants are emitted in the process of flaring. This
process releases more than 250 different contaminants into the
atmosphere, many of which are known to cause health problems such as
lung and heart disorders, cancers, asthma, and reproductive problems.
These pollutants can affect people and animals living within 300
kilometers from the drilling platform.
The harm posed by oil and gas activities in the Outer Continental
Shelf is too large to ignore. As a result, it is incumbent upon the
Congress to reinstate the OCS moratoria as soon as possible.
A. Oil Production will worsen Climate Change.
As described in detail above, the harm posed by oil and gas
activities in the Outer Continental Shelf provides as good a reason to
place a moratorium on such activities today as it has provided everyday
since 1982. However, the worsening threat of climate change imposes a
new urgency. We now realize that the release of carbon dioxide and
other greenhouse gases that results from the use of oil is creating
even more harm to society than was previously understood. Indeed, the
need to curtail releases of greenhouse gasses adds another layer to the
already strong argument for preventing the expansion of oil and gas
production on the Outer Continental Shelf by renewing the moratorium.
If left unchecked, human-caused emissions of greenhouse gases will
have dramatic effects on the oceans and the planet as a whole. These
impacts are already being felt in the Arctic, which is warming twice as
fast as the rest of the planet. The loss and thinning of sea ice has
made hunting and travel increasingly dangerous for indigenous peoples,
and threatens the long-term survival of walrus, polar bears, ice seals
and other ice-dependent animals as their essential habitat melts away.
As these changes affect the Arctic, they will begin to affect all of
us. Loss of sea ice and other changes in the Arctic may, in fact,
amplify climate change on a worldwide scale and lead us closer to a
tipping point, or a point of no return.
Climate change is also causing our oceans to acidify. Since the
industrial revolution, the oceans have absorbed almost 450 billion
metric tons of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, or about one-third
of all anthropogenic carbon emissions. The oceans continue to absorb
approximately 30 million metric tons of carbon dioxide every day. At
the same time, 80% of the heat that is added to the atmosphere is
absorbed by the oceans. Without the oceans, global warming would be far
worse than it already is. But this service is, at the same time, making
our oceans sick. The increased acidity is expected to take its toll on
corals and other species that make their shells and skeletons from
calcium carbonate. In fact, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC) predicts that, under a business-as-usual scenario, we
will likely have a mass extinction of corals by the middle of this
century. Impacts on marine life may be much more imminent in waters
with lower carbonate availability such as those of the Arctic.
These changes are a direct result of our dependence on fossil fuels
for energy. Thus, we must reduce our emissions of greenhouse gases and,
to do so, we must move away from fossil fuels, such as oil, and instead
toward conservation, energy efficiency and alternative energy. As
evidenced by the effects already occurring in the Arctic and elsewhere,
there is an urgent need for action now.
While we must begin this process now, reducing emissions of
greenhouse gases will take time. The concentration of greenhouse gases
in the atmosphere is increasing steadily as our emissions increase. We
must first slow emissions of greenhouse gases and then take action to
reduce their concentration in the atmosphere.
Expanding oil and gas production on the Outer Continental Shelf
will only exacerbate the already damaging effects of climate change on
our oceans.
B. Offshore Drilling Provides No Real Relief from High Gasoline Prices
and Will Not Create Energy Independence.
The U.S. Energy Information Agency has found that at peak
production in 2025 increased drilling offshore would produce 220,000
barrels a day, which would account for less than 1 percent of current
energy demand in the United States. As the recent drop in oil prices
demonstrates, global demand for oil drives the global price and since
the market for oil is truly global--oil from the United States is sold
all over the world and increased demand from countries like China and
India will have a greater effect on the price of oil than the
availability of oil from the OCS.
II. A Separate Planning Process is Necessary for the Arctic, Which is
Particularly at Risk from Industrialization.
The Arctic is among the most beautiful and forbidding places on
Earth. Life there swings between twenty-four hour daylight in the
summer, and the long, dark, and cold months of the winter. The U.S.
Arctic is home to tens of thousands of people and some of the world's
most iconic wildlife species. Protected by sea ice, an unforgiving
climate, and geographic remoteness, the ecosystems of the Arctic Ocean
have been, until recently, among the Earth's least-disturbed. However,
climate change is affecting the Arctic, which is warming nearly twice
as fast as the rest of the world. This is forcing pronounced
alterations of the Arctic environment that affect Arctic ecosystems and
have worldwide implications.
Climate changes and, in particular, the decline of sea ice, in the
Arctic are creating the potential for industrial activities, including
oil and gas development. While historically, there has been little oil
and gas activity in the U.S. Arctic waters, the situation has begun to
change. Until recently, there were no leases owned in the Chukchi Sea,
and the limited activities in the Beaufort Sea have been focused on the
nearshore areas close to existing infrastructure. We are now seeing a
dramatic expansion of activities in the U.S. Arctic waters, and nearly
80 million acres of ocean are currently available for oil and gas
leasing.
These areas are not covered by the Congressional or Executive
moratoria discussed above, and leasing or exploration activities have
begun in some places. These activities pose particular threats to
Arctic marine ecosystems and the people who use and depend on them.
Wells, pipelines and vessels create a substantial risk of an oil spill.
No reliable method exists to clean up an oil spill in icy Arctic
conditions, and such a spill would have catastrophic effects on
important habitat for polar bears, other marine mammals, fish and
recreational, spiritual and subsistence uses. In addition, the drill
rigs, icebreakers, and seismic vessels necessary for oil and gas
activities create substantial noise, which can cause marine mammals,
such as bowhead whales, to stray far from their normal migration routes
and feeding grounds, impact the animals' hearing and potentially cause
other problems such as increased collisions with oil platform support
vessels. The negative effects incurred by the bowhead whales from these
activities are acutely felt by the Native communities that depend upon
them.
Many of the adverse effects of oil development described above may
cause particular harm in Arctic ecosystems already stressed by climate
change. For example, the toxic muds and fluids that are often
discharged into the oceans from rigs threaten already stressed
populations of Arctic marine species and the greenhouse gases, black
carbon soot and other pollutants released from rigs and vessels into
the air, accelerate Arctic warming and ice loss compounding ecological
stresses on these species.
In addition, decisions have been made in the absence of adequate
scientific information. Particularly in light of the rapidly changing
climate, much more information is needed about the sensitive Arctic
ecosystems before prudent development should be allowed to proceed.
Because the previous moratoria did not include most of the offshore
areas in Alaska, a separate and distinct planning process must be
undertaken, ongoing activities stopped, and a comprehensive
conservation and energy plan developed. The development of this plan
would begin with a comprehensive scientific assessment of the health,
biodiversity, and functioning of Arctic ecosystems, including the
benefits and consequences of carrying out specific industrial
activities. A science-based precautionary approach should be used to
determine if those activities should be conducted and, if so, when,
where and how.
III. We Must Shift Toward a Future in which We Rely Upon Affordable,
Carbon-Free, Renewable Energy and End Our Dependence on Oil--
Entirely!
We must shift toward a future in which we rely upon affordable,
carbon-free, renewable energy; one in which our oceans and the
environment are healthy, and one that ensures our freedom from oil
dependency. Part of this effort must include an emphasis on development
of carbon-free technologies, including wind and solar power in
conjunction with improved energy efficiency.
Halting the expansion of offshore drilling on the Outer Continental
Shelf, and developing a comprehensive plan for all activities in the
Arctic are important first steps in developing a comprehensive
conservation and clean energy plan. In order to address a rapidly
changing climate we must reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and
shift to a future with affordable, renewable energy, a healthy
environment, and freedom from the control of oil companies. Thus, we
must begin to build a more sustainable foundation for the future based
on renewable energy enabled by improved conservation and energy
efficiency.
While we will not be able to stop oil use all at once, there are
many conservation measures that could be put in place immediately to
reduce our energy needs. For example, raising fuel efficiency standards
just for light-duty vehicles could save 18.4 billion barrels of oil by
2030. Relatively small efforts such as properly maintaining vehicles
and commuting one day less each week could result in substantial
savings for families and reduce our oil consumption dramatically. If
just 10% of U.S. passenger car travel were shifted to mass transit, 75
million tons less carbon dioxide would be emitted each year. Similarly,
minor adjustments in our thermostats could reduce our greenhouse gas
emissions by 35 million tons each year. Numerous other conservation
measures, from improving the energy efficiency of newly constructed
homes and other buildings to avoiding unnecessary short-distance travel
could reduce U.S. emissions of greenhouse gases by 20% or more.
The United States Department of Energy has projected that we can
generate 20% of electricity demand from renewables by 2030. Offshore
wind could provide 20% of this amount. Supplying even 5 percent of the
country's electricity with wind power by 2020 would add $60 billion in
capital investment in rural America, provide $1.2 billion in new income
for farmers and rural landowners, and create 80,000 new jobs. This
effort has started, as the United States added enough wind power in
2007 alone to provide electricity to more than a million homes.
IV. Oceana urges Congress to reinstate the moratorium on offshore
drilling, begin the development of a comprehensive conservation
and energy plan for the Arctic, and move us towards a clean,
carbon-free, renewable energy future.
These issues--oil, climate change, energy, and the ocean
environment--are inextricably linked and must be addressed together.
For example, reducing greenhouse gas emissions is necessary to protect
our oceans; moving toward renewable energy sources is necessary to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions; and we have an opportunity right now
to make an unprecedented investment in the solution: renewable energy.
On behalf of Oceana, I urge the United States Congress to act
swiftly to set up a rational policy to protect our oceans, coasts--and
planet--from the impacts of offshore oil and gas drilling.
Specifically, in the first 100 days Congress should take the following
essential steps to set America on course toward a new energy economy:
Reinstate the moratorium on offshore drilling in U.S.
waters on the Outer Continental Shelf including sensitive ecosystems
such as Bristol Bay, Alaska.
Begin the development of a comprehensive conservation and
energy plan for the Arctic that provides a bridge from oil to renewable
energy and conservation. The plan should include a comprehensive
scientific assessment of the health, biodiversity and functioning of
Arctic ecosystems, as well as the benefits and consequences of specific
industrial activities. Ongoing activities must be stopped, and a
precautionary, science-based approach must be applied to all oil and
gas leasing, exploration and development activities in Arctic waters to
determine if those activities should be conducted and if so, when,
where and how.
Adopt legislation that provides for clean, carbon-free,
renewable sources of energy, including ocean energy such as wind,
tidal, wave and current power must be a piece of our sustainable energy
future. The Natural Resources committee should hold hearings on the
renewable resources that our oceans offer. Stimulating these energy
sources creates jobs.
The challenge to provide affordable energy and a healthy
environment is monumental, but there still is time for leadership and
personal responsibility to turn the tide. We can and must think
comprehensively and creatively about our oceans, energy, climate
change, and the broader environment. U.S. leadership in this area will
not only help stem the changes in our climate, it will help create a
new energy economy that will benefit Americans and that can be exported
to other nations, making the United States a leader and exporter of
clean energy technology.
______
The Chairman. Philippe.
STATEMENT OF PHILIPPE COUSTEAU, OCEAN CONSERVANCY
Mr. Cousteau. Thank you, Chairman Rahall, Ranking Member
Hastings and the Committee, both for holding this series of
hearings and for inviting me to speak here today. It is
certainly an honor to speak on behalf of the oceans.
I am CEO of EarthEcho International, as the Chairman said
earlier, where we work to empower individuals to take action to
restore and protect our oceans. And I also serve on the board
of trustees of the Ocean Conservancy, the country's oldest and
largest ocean nonprofit, harnessing over 35 years of policy and
scientific expertise to anticipate ecological threats to the
ocean.
As many of you know, I have grown up around the ocean, and
marine conservation has been part of my family's legacy for
decades. Indeed, I remember hearing tales about my grandfather
and his adventures, diving for the first time off the southern
coast of France. But I also remember stories about how
devastated he was by the changes that he saw over his lifetime,
over a relatively short period of time, on those very reefs
which are more or less a dead zone today. And I think that it
is an irony that in the last 50 years we have seen not only the
greatest amount of exploration of the oceans, but also the
greatest amount of exploitation and destruction of them at the
same time.
Now, what is so critical about the Outer Continental Shelf
is that almost all of the nonfisheries-based, not to mention
much of the fisheries-based, exploitation occurs there.
We face great hardship in this country at this time, and
the ocean and coastal communities are a critical part of our
economy. Over 50 percent of our GDP is generated in coastal
counties where approximately 50 percent of our population
resides, with blue jobs and marine industries contributing
greatly.
I am not advocating that we do not develop the Outer
Continental Shelf, but if we are to realize the full benefit of
our oceans, if they are to continue to provide us with the
opportunities for economic development, it must be done in a
way that is planned and that takes into consideration the
health of the environment, or we will merely reap short-term
gains at the expense of future generations.
Specifically, speaking on behalf of Ocean Conservancy, we
seek three things. First, Congress must act where it failed
last fall. As Ted said, we must fully reinstate the moratorium
on new oil leasing in the Outer Continental Shelf. Now, I
strongly maintain that the reinstatement of that moratorium is
absolutely critical to the health of the ocean. But if there is
to be new drilling, at the very least--and again, I am against
it--but at the very least, if there is to be new drilling, we
must make sure and legislate that the process of new drilling
siting and the conditions applied to exploration and production
minimize their impacts. Science should guide any activity that
occurs in the OCS, and where science is not adequate, it is
absolutely crucial that studies should be conducted before any
leasing occurs for any uses.
And contrary to popular belief, not all ocean floors are
created equal. There are a myriad of different types of
habitat, from deep coral reefs to rich rocky habitats, to some
relatively barren terrain, but the current process does not
sufficiently consider these variables.
Similarly, some regions are especially vulnerable, and
Congress must ensure they are protected. In the Arctic, for
example, as Ted said, we lack the baseline scientific
information necessary to make informed decisions, and there is
no capacity to handle accidents and oil spills in its ice-
filled seas.
Rather than oil, I believe we must vigorously enhance our
efforts to develop ocean renewable energy. That is the future.
From wind, solar, wave, tidal, and even ocean thermal energy
conversion, there is an endless potential to responsibly
develop new and clean sources of energy and provide new jobs
and economic development for this country.
The second specific recommendation is for a comprehensive
plan to put order in the ocean and stop the anarchy of
fractionalized development. In late 20th century America, urban
sprawl saw suburbs creep across the landscape in ever-widening
mazes of highways and strip malls. In the ocean, the situation
is similar, only worse. We need comprehensive planning, with
conservation as a central deciding factor, so that the multiple
competing industrial uses work together in a way that is
sustainable for our shared ocean future. Indeed, it is not only
critical for the environment that we plan, but also for
industry, so that they can anticipate more accurately the
outcome of permitting and development.
And the third specific recommendation is the creation of an
ocean investment fund. This would set aside a small portion of
the revenue generated off these uses to pay for activities and
projects that maintain and restore marine ecosystem health,
such as comprehensive environmental-based spatial planning of
the Outer Continental Shelf.
Now, just as I said earlier that the last 50 years have
seen the greatest amount of change and damage to our oceans, I
believe it is the next 50 years that are the most crucial, the
next 50 years that are our years, years that we will decide the
fate of the world, and we have no time to lose. We must have
the courage and conviction and foresight to make the decisions
now that will set the course for our future forever.
Let me close my time with you by sharing some final words
from my grandfather, one of my favorite quotes: ``We can find
happiness in protecting the world around us not only because we
cherish it for its awesome beauty, power and mystery, but
because we cherish our fellow humans, those who live today, and
those who will live tomorrow, living beings who, like
ourselves, will increasingly depend on the environment for
happiness, and even for life itself.''
Thank you for giving me this opportunity, and on behalf of
EarthEcho International, as well as the half-million members in
support of Ocean Conservancy, thank you for allowing their
voices to be heard as well.
The Chairman. Thank you, Philippe. Very powerful quote.
Beautiful.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Cousteau follows:]
Statement of Philippe Cousteau, President and CEO,
EarthEcho International, and Board Member, Ocean Conservancy
Thank you Chairman Rahall, Ranking Member Hastings and the
Committee both for holding this series of hearings and for inviting me
to be here today.
It is a great pleasure and honor to be here to testify about the
critical importance of responsibly managing our fragile and
increasingly important marine resources. As many of you know I have
grown up around the ocean and marine conservation has been part of my
family's legacy for generations. I am the CEO of EarthEcho
International, where we work to empower individuals to take action to
restore and protect our oceans and also serve on the Board of Trustees
of Ocean Conservancy, the country's oldest and largest ocean non-profit
harnessing over 35 years of policy and scientific expertise to
anticipate ecological threats to the ocean.
Ever since the invention of the aqualung, or scuba tank as it is
referred to today, by my grandfather, there has been an explosion of
ocean exploration. Indeed, I remember growing up with tales about my
grandfather's adventures; about when he took his first breath
underwater and descended onto the reefs in the South of France. I also
was told of how devastated the changes he saw in his lifetime on those
very reefs which are all but dead today.
I spent many hours of my own youth there, as well, diving off the
coast of France as a young boy. I can no longer stand to go back. I
find the barren and desolate underwater landscape so terrible. It can
break your heart when you see the beauty that was once there--that was
captured by my grandfather on film--and know that it's all gone now.
I think that there is an irony that the last 50 years have seen not
only the greatest amount of exploration of the oceans, but also the
greatest amount of exploitation and destruction of them and it
continues apace. What is so critical about the Outer Continental Shelf
is that almost all of the non-fisheries based, not to mention much of
the fisheries exploitation occurs there. From oil and gas drilling, to
renewable ocean energy development and even aquaculture and traditional
fishing, the OCS is under increasing pressure every year.
We face great hardship in the country at this time and the ocean
and coastal communities are a critical part of our economy ``Over 50%
of our GDP is generated in coastal counties where approximately 50% of
our population resides, with ``blue jobs'' and marine industries
contributing greatly. I am not advocating that we do not develop the
ocean. But if we are to realize the full benefit of our oceans, if they
are to continue to provide us with opportunities for economic
development, it must be done in a way that is planned and that takes
into consideration the health of the environment or we will merely reap
short term gains at the expense of our children.
Specifically, speaking on behalf of Ocean Conservancy, we seek
three things:
First, Congress must act where it failed to act last fall: most
preferably by fully reinstating the moratorium on new oil leasing in
the OCS. While I strongly maintain that the reinstatement of the
moratorium is critical to the health of the ocean, if there is to be
new drilling we must at the very least legislate to ensure the process
of new drill siting and the conditions applied to exploration and
production minimize their impacts. Science should guide OCS oil and gas
development, and where the science is not adequate, it is absolutely
crucial that studies should be conducted before leasing occurs.
Contrary to popular belief, not all ocean floors are created equal.
There are myriad different types of habitat from deep coral reefs to
rich rocky terrain to relatively barren mud but the current process
doesn't sufficiently consider these variables. Similarly, some regions
are especially vulnerable and Congress must ensure they are protected.
In the Arctic, for example, we lack the baseline scientific information
necessary to make informed decisions, and there is no capacity to
handle accidents and oil spills in its ice-filled seas. There are
cheaper, faster, safer alternatives to new offshore oil drilling to
meet our energy needs and end our dependency on foreign oil. We must
vigorously enhance our efforts to develop ocean renewable energy. From
wind...solar...wave...tidal and even Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion
there is an endless potential to responsibly develop new clean sources
of energy. To give you an idea of the power of the oceans, on an annual
basis, the amount of solar energy absorbed by the oceans is equivalent
to at least 4000 times the amount presently consumed by humans.
The second specific recommendation is for a comprehensive plan to
put order in the ocean and stop the anarchy of fractionalized
development. In late 20th century America, suburbs crept across the
landscape in ever-widening maze of highways and strip malls. The term
``urban sprawl'' entered the vernacular as a way to describe our
penchant for building our cities outward with little forethought as to
what we built where, and why. In the ocean the situation is similar,
only worse. As we gaze out over the great blue expanse of the ocean,
the peace and tranquility that we often witness is deceiving. Wind
farms compete with recreation. Recreation competes with shipping.
Shipping competes with conservation and so on down the line until the
pattern reflects a tangle of uses that are neither economically
efficient nor sustainable. It's clear that we need order in the ocean
just as surely as we need it on land. We need comprehensive ocean
planning--with conservation as a central deciding factor--so that the
many competing uses work together in a way that is sustainable for our
shared ocean future.
I am sure that everyone can agree that having no laws, no zoning
and no plan for the development of a city would lead to chaos and
economic disaster, so too with the ocean. Indeed, it is not only
critical for the environment that we plan, but also for industry so
that they can anticipate more accurately the outcome of permitting and
development.
And the third specific recommendation is the creation of an ocean
investment fund. This would set aside a small portion of the revenue
generated off these uses to pay for activities and projects that
maintain and restore marine ecosystem health, such as this
comprehensive environmentally based spatial planning of the outer
continental shelf. It is ironic that OCS mineral receipts have been
devoted towards many causes, but never the preservation of our oceans.
There is an appallingly low amount of investment in ocean exploration
and conservation. In fact, we spend 1000 times more on space
exploration than ocean exploration. This fund would be vital in the
effort to push forward the veil of mystery that obscures much of the
ocean and help enormously in further refinement of both management and
conservation of our dwindling ocean resources.
Just as I said earlier that the last 50 yrs have seen the greatest
amount of damage to our oceans it is the next 50 that will be the most
critical. The next 50, these are our years, these are the years where
we will decide the fate of the world and we have no time to lose. We
must have the courage and conviction and foresight to make the
decisions now that will set our course forever.
Let me close my time with you by sharing some final words my
grandfather once wrote, and I'm quoting:
``We can find happiness in protecting the world around us not only
because we cherish it for its awesome beauty, power, and mystery, but
because we cherish our fellow humans, those who live today and those
who will live tomorrow, living beings who, like ourselves, will
increasingly depend on the environment for happiness and even for life
itself.''
Thank you for giving me this opportunity. And on behalf of
EarthEcho International as well as the half a million members and
supporters of Ocean Conservancy, thank you for allowing their voices to
be heard today as well.
______
The Chairman. Gentlemen, I thank you both for your
testimony; it has been superb. And I appreciate what you said
and understand your desire to see the moratoria reinstated.
However, we may be in a situation where the ship has already
sailed, and the political reality may be that the moratoria, as
we knew it, will not be reimposed. You both have alluded to
that.
If that is the case--and I know, Philippe, you have said
that science should be our guide--but if that is the case, what
environmental safeguards would you both suggest be incorporated
into any leasing program beyond what is in current law? For
instance, do we need buffer areas? Or do we need certain areas
with unique resources and features set-off limits? Do we need
environmental and safety safeguards imposed before we allow
drilling to continue?
Mr. Cousteau. Well, I think we do indeed need as much
protection as possible and as much research and knowledge as
possible. We know so little about our oceans. I think people
look at space and think ``the final frontier,'' when, in fact,
we have explored less than 10 percent of our oceans.
One of the challenges with the idea of a buffer zone, I
would say 50 miles off the shore, is that ecosystems don't
respect a straight, direct line around the continental United
States. They vary in size and space where they are. So, I think
a buffer zone, while a good idea, is probably not the best way
to proceed.
I think we need as much to understand and explore as much
about the various ecosystems that exist in the ocean and then
site appropriately. There are some places that are just not
appropriate for any kind of development, very fragile marine
ecosystems, deep sea coral reefs, et cetera, and I think all of
that needs to be taken into consideration. Siting is the first
and foremost, and knowledge, science. We need to know what
exists before we exploit it. You would not put a coal-fired
power plant in the middle of a pristine national forest. It is
the same in the oceans. We must at least, at the very first,
know what exists there before we exploit it.
The Chairman. Ted.
Mr. Danson. My hope would be that you would sail the ship
back into port, because I think we are flirting with disaster
by drilling and opening up the Outer Continental Shelf, period.
We don't talk a great deal about what is happening to the
fisheries of the world, and a lot of times when we talk, it
sounds like we are talking about an environmental sweet,
thoughtful, let's take care of the fishes and the beauty, but
we are talking about economy and jobs and food.
Our fisheries around the world are an $80-billion-a-year
landed industry. One-third of the world's fisheries have
totally collapsed, which means that they are below the 10
percent level, which means they may not come back. The U.N.
says that 75 percent of our fisheries are either fully or
overfished.
If we continue to harvest our fisheries the way we are by
destroying habitat with bottom-trawling and wasteful bycatch
being thrown overboard, science tells us we could literally
fish out our oceans commercially in the next 40 to 50 years if
the trends continue.
So, you have an incredibly delicate balance in our
fisheries already. Now you add acidification to the ocean,
which would destroy, literally make it impossible for the
bottom of the food chain to create shells that allow them to
survive. The animals and creatures that eat the bottom of the
food chain would also disappear.
So, you have insults to the ocean from all different sides,
besides the pollution of oil spills in areas--the Outer
Continental Shelf, which is the nurseries for most of our
fisheries, so that all of the added insults could literally
have an impact on our oceans in our children's lifetime or our
grandchildren's lifetime where we could fish out or destroy our
fisheries completely. That is $80 billion a year, that is a
billion people a year around the world that depend on that
food. That is, you know, 200 million people who have jobs that
they depend on to go out and be able to fish. So, this is about
the economy, and it is about jobs.
So, my answer is, absolutely do not open it up. You are
pulling your finger out of the dike, and all sorts of bad
things, I do believe, will happen. And we take the risks for
very little benefit.
The Chairman. Let me observe that the money from the oceans
appears to go to everything but the ocean.
Philippe, you have called for the creation of the Ocean
Investment Fund, and I appreciate that. Do you have any
recommendation on what percentage of OCS receipts should be
dedicated to such a fund? And would you like to elaborate on
what type of activities should be financed by that fund?
Mr. Cousteau. Well, Chairman, that is a great point, that
there is a fund that already exists that is subject to
appropriations, the Land and Sea Conservation Fund, where
revenue from current offshore drilling is placed--a percentage
of revenue is placed, but none of it goes to ocean
conservation, which is ironic.
We certainly advocate an investment fund, new investment
fund, for any new revenue that would be generated--or
percentage. I think that it is up to policymakers to decide
what that percentage is, but needless to say, it is a small
percentage that would still generate potentially hundreds of
millions of dollars--a fraction of the billions of dollars
generated. A few hundred million dollars would go very, very
far toward helping us to understand and having the investment
necessary to research and understand what exists in the Outer
Continental Shelf.
We know so little about the oceans, and any additional
research and planning and conservation would go very, very far.
The Chairman. Ted.
Mr. Danson. Unfortunately, I am not in the discussion from
that point of view.
The Chairman. Mr. Hastings.
Mr. Hastings. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And thank
both of you for your testimony.
Just to kind of put an exclamation point on what you were
discussing regarding the moratoria, both of you are in favor,
yes or no, of reinstating the moratoria that has been in place
since 1982?
Mr. Danson. Yes.
Mr. Hastings. Mr. Cousteau.
Mr. Cousteau. I am absolutely fully in support of
reinstating a moratorium.
Mr. Hastings. Both of you represent organizations that are
obviously pretty broad dealing with oceans. And you also said,
both in your oral and written testimony, that you are in favor
of wind power. Do you or your organizations support the
placement of wind turbines on the coastline and/or in coastal
areas and in ocean waters?
Mr. Danson. With as much research and care going into what
is the best place as far as it impacts fisheries and shipping
and everything, if the studies were complete, yes, I would. I
would be right up there probably muttering, ``Not in my back
yard,'' but I would rather have that by far than oil rigs.
Mr. Hastings. Mr. Cousteau.
Mr. Cousteau. Absolutely. I think that oil is not the
future, renewable energy is the future. And we can grasp that
future. Wind power has a tremendous potential, especially
offshore; it is much more reliable and much more powerful
offshore. And as Ted said, I think all development of the OCS
should be subject to a comprehensive plan that takes in spatial
planning, takes in ecosystems. We would not advocate planning
an offshore wind farm in a deep-sea coral reef either or a
seagrass bed or anything like that. So, we need to know as much
as possible, and it should be subject to the same kind of
siting and responsible management as the OCS.
Mr. Hastings. What about specifically of the potential
siting off Nantucket Sound off the north Atlantic coast?
Mr. Danson. That is sounding very much like my back yard,
Congressman.
Mr. Hastings. And your response?
Mr. Danson. My response would be, I would be sad to change
my view. I would be thrilled to have it be in that direction as
opposed to oil. And I would also note, if I could slip in this,
that for every million dollars that was invested into green,
into the wind, it would be creating 17 jobs as opposed to 5.5
jobs for every million invested into oil. So, I would be happy
for the economy as well.
Mr. Cousteau. I think that any development of offshore
wind, if it is an appropriate place, is a good thing, certainly
off of Nantucket. I think, again, as I said, I think they are
quite elegant. I think it represents the future. I think it is
a great example that every time we don't build an offshore wind
farm or renewable energy, and we build, say, a coal-fired power
plant--and one out of four children in New York City have
asthma--there are other prices that we pay for the further
development of oil and coal and gas in the health care of this
Nation, in the health of our children. It is not just the
direct impact of jobs, though, as Ted said, green jobs are
potentially a much greater source of jobs than the traditional
oil. So, I am fully supportive of any wind anywhere if it is an
appropriate place.
Mr. Hastings. Well, we focused a bit on Mr. Danson's back
yard. I assume that your answer to that question would be the
same off the east or west coast; is that correct?
Mr. Cousteau. Absolutely.
Mr. Danson. Yes.
Mr. Hastings. One last question I have. You are talking
about alternative power and so forth. Has your organizations,
or have you, taken a position on nuclear power, which, of
course, is emission free?
Mr. Danson. That is not part of our campaign. Just as a
civilian saying--first off, I don't know enough about it.
Second off, it seems to me that the disposal of the waste is
still a problem that we need to fix. But it is not something
that I am by any means an expert on.
Mr. Hastings. Mr. Cousteau.
Mr. Cousteau. We have not taken a position either way on
nuclear power.
Mr. Hastings. I might say that, since you brought up the
waste issue, it is worth noting that if we recycled the spent
waste, we could drastically reduce the footprint. If that could
be satisfied, at least you would be open to looking at that; is
that correct?
Mr. Danson. Ted would. I can't speak for Oceana. Sorry, it
is way above me.
Mr. Hastings. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. I am going to recognize Members according to
their presence here this morning, and I believe on our side the
next would be Mr. Kind of Wisconsin.
Mr. Kind. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I, too, want to thank
Mr. Danson and Mr. Cousteau for their testimony here today. And
obviously it is a big area that we are going to have to come to
grips with, given the expiration of the moratorium last year
and the debate that will undoubtedly ensue.
And one of my big problems with the idea of drilling on the
OCS is the illusion that this can be the answer to our energy
challenge in the 21st century. When, as the Chairman indicated
in his opening statement, we can't drill our way out, we have
to be smarter than that, which means enhanced investment in
clean technology, clean energy sources, but by offering this
illusion that offshore drilling is going to solve all our
problems, it may take our eye off the ball, and that is the
future and where we have to go with the investments that we
have to make.
But there are a couple of arguments that I was hoping you
guys could quickly touch upon that we constantly hear. One is
the enhanced technology and the reduction of spills or mistakes
or accidents occurring. And the second one is the States rights
argument, and that is, if a State where drilling will occur
offshore has done the calculation and the cost/benefit or the
analysis, and they think, fine, let's take that risk, what is
wrong with that? Why not leave it up to the States to determine
if they are going to allow offshore drilling off of their
shores since the risk and the impact is going to be much
greater on them than anyone else?
Mr. Cousteau. Well, I think that oceans do not respect
geographic boundaries. I mean, oil spreads in the ocean, as I
pointed our earlier. I mean, currents carry oil everywhere. And
while technology has advanced--mind you, the U.S. Coast Guard
reported that over 9 million gallons of oil were released into
both land and water from six major spills and five medium
spills during Rita and Katrina. So, there is still a tremendous
amount of oil that can be spilled during natural disasters. The
technology has not advanced that far, it is still a great
problem. And that can be felt for 20 or 30 miles away from the
site where the oil spill occurred, if not further. So, there is
currently no technology to clean up, especially in the Arctic,
such a fragile place, with ice floating. We have absolutely no
idea how to clean that oil up.
So, I think that still the technology is not far enough for
that kind of an argument, for the argument that it is safe to
drill now. It is not.
Mr. Kind. Mr. Danson.
Mr. Danson. I would just reiterate what Philippe said, that
the technology of actual drilling may be better, I don't know.
But the whole package is transporting it, pipelines, platforms
cutting loose. Our figures are 120 million gallons of oil end
up in the water every year. And I think you have to, when you
think about drilling for oil, you have to think about the
entire package, which means you are also going to burn it.
We have denied climate change for so long, the rest of the
world is so far ahead of us in making and producing a
technology to deal with that. So, why would we be the last in
line to create a technology and jobs that would be lasting
forever, that would also not spew carbon dioxide into the
oceans and risk destroying the bottom of the food chain in the
oceans? I mean, it is just a whole package you have to think
of, not just one argument.
Mr. Kind. And I think both of you are correct that the
great potential that exists with alternative renewable energy
sources, we are just scratching the surface on that right now.
And the technology is leaping forward, and it is going to make
it much more viable in capacity building, too.
But, Mr. Danson, what is wrong with the argument that if
the people in the State of California, that benefits greatly
from the ocean, the tourism, the economy there, decides that
they are willing to take the risk of setting up some platforms
offshore, what is wrong with leaving it up to the State of
California to make that determination as opposed to us?
Mr. Danson. I don't know the legality or the legislative
way to deal with that, but the fact is that Oregon and Mexico
and Washington and Nevada and Utah may have a strong feeling
about that because of air and wind and currents. You are not
acting alone anymore. We are all in this together, and we need
to find a solution together. States, I don't think, can just,
you know, go it alone and say, I don't care if I mess up my
back yard because you are messing up someone else's.
Mr. Kind. Thank you, both.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. After consultation with the Ranking Member,
we have decided we are going to recognize Members as much as I
can follow the order in which they came to the hearing,
physically present, this morning.
So, on the Minority side, I recognize the gentleman from
South Carolina Mr. Brown.
Mr. Brown. Thank you, gentlemen, for coming.
To give me a little bit broader perspective of the area
that you are involved in, Ted, is this an American
organization, or is it an international organization?
Mr. Danson. It is international. We have offices in
Santiago, Chile; and Madrid and Brussels; small presence in
Geneva; Juno, Alaska; Washington.
Mr. Brown. So, you are not just concerned with just the
United States as far as the energy policy or the environmental
policies?
Mr. Danson. You know something, we are in the process of
coming up with, as an organization, our stand on energy and
oil. This Committee hearing, I think, came before Oceana has
had a chance to formulate a policy that is worldwide. So, I am
here really dealing with this specific moment in time.
Mr. Brown. And I guess that is always my concern is
exactly, you know, how does the United States fit into the
world? We are such a small portion of it, about 5 percent of
the population, and yet I think we all want to become bullish
in trying to find a new resolve to the petroleum base that we
find our economy, but it is a slow transition. And I know we
are trying to move into some other energy source, but we are
still dependent upon natural gas and petroleum. It is going to
be difficult for us to keep our economy at the pace that we
find today without having another reliable energy source.
Are you as opposed to natural gas development as you are
petroleum?
Mr. Danson. My understanding is that most of the time you
find natural gas by drilling for oil. So, my fear in saying,
yes, go drill for natural gas, is it would be a back-door way
for oil companies to drill for oil.
Mr. Brown. But isn't the scientific evidence now that you
actually can determine at the source what you are going to be
finding underneath the surface?
Mr. Danson. I am sorry, I don't know. That may be so. I am
sorry.
Mr. Brown. As we look at the United States in perspective
with the rest of the world, you know, I have traveled to many
countries in this great universe, and we find a good number of
those countries aren't as sensitive to the environment as we
are. In fact, we have some countries that are just filling in
the ocean. And you would think that the environmental community
would be in an outrage over doing that. What comment could you
give me on that?
Mr. Danson. And we are, we are absolutely outraged wherever
this takes place. We deal with these issues all around the
world. And this country has, in many ways, some of the best
environmental laws and regulations. Some of the most thoughtful
people on both sides of the aisle are involved with making this
an environmentally sound Nation. So, we have a record we should
be proud of. But this would not be one of those things we
should be proud of, opening up the Outer Continental Shelf.
Mr. Brown. And I think we must maintain some level of the
economy that we can all have a good quality of life. You know,
I am not willing to give up my automobile. You know, I mean, I
like riding bicycles and this sort of stuff, but I think it is
going to be a long time coming.
I am just really kind of appalled that the national
community--like cutting down the rain forest. We were in Brazil
the other day, and it is amazing how that is going to impact
climate change. We want to do our part, but I know the Chairman
mentioned the fact that we drill more than any other country,
but the fact remains that we still are 70 percent dependent on
foreign countries for our energy sources. We have to resolve
that problem not only for our economy, for our security, too.
And I would hope somehow that the environmental community and
the oil-developing companies could all come together with some
sense of operation.
Mr. Danson. Can I just say one more thing? I so agree with
you. I think people are suffering. I think our energy crisis is
real. What upsets me is it feels cynical and shortsighted, and
not creating more jobs, and not doing the right thing for our
economy in the long term, and not doing the right thing for the
environment. So, when you look at just the jobs, you end up
doubling the jobs if you go with investing in green energy.
Those jobs also--well, anyway----
Mr. Brown. Well, I feel the same way about the 70 percent
of energy that is being developed in these other countries. If
they could be developed in the United States, look at all the
jobs that could be created, maybe not in the same portion as
the green, but we have to do both. I just feel that that is
important.
Mr. Chairman, I know my time is expired. Thank you very
much.
Thank you all very much for coming.
Mr. Cousteau. May I add something to that? I agree that
there needs to be collaboration in finding solutions. I just
want to say that I think that this is such an outstanding
country. The United States has an opportunity to take a real
leadership role in our management of resources. And since the
moratorium was not reinstated, there is virtually no protection
for the Outer Continental Shelf. And I think that if we want to
maintain our leadership role and enhance our leadership role
from an environmental perspective, that you refer to,
Congressman, that we must have an integrated management plan,
which ideally would not include oil and gas, but nonetheless
would be a plan that we can be proud of and that can provide
leadership for ocean management for rest of the world.
Mr. Brown. You wouldn't be in favor of closing the ones we
have down now, would you?
Mr. Cousteau. No. I think we are supportive on reinstating
the moratorium on any new oil and gas drilling.
Mr. Brown. But keep the current ones.
Mr. Cousteau. I think if they are there, I think it is
unrealistic to expect that they would be shut down.
Mr. Danson. I would say in the Arctic Ocean, we need to
look at that very carefully because oil spills of any kind
there, even with existing wells, we are not advocating shutting
down pumping, but it is very tricky in the Arctic Ocean. An oil
spill would be disastrous and uncleanable--
Mr. Brown. Thank you very much.
The Chairman. The gentlelady from Massachusetts, Ms.
Tsongas.
Ms. Tsongas. Thank you very much for your testimony and
your great passion around protecting the oceans. And also, Mr.
Cousteau, I was moved and reminded again by your grandfather's
quote how we have only one Earth, and how it is our obligation
to protect it.
As you have both testified, our oceans contain unique
ecosystems that support diverse species and many of our
national treasures. One of these national treasures is the
Georges Bank off the coast of Massachusetts, a mass of sand and
gravel underwater plateau. Nearly the entire bank is less than
200 feet deep, in some places only 10 feet deep. And as you can
imagine, it plays an important role in the Gulf of Maine by
accelerating the tidal waves as they race across the bank
toward and away from New England. This cycle distributes
nutrients which support an abundance of marine life, including
259 different species of animals. Congressman Ed Markey from
Massachusetts has introduced legislation, which I support, that
would protect this area, and I hope that we are successful in
passing this important bill.
But as you know, and as you both mentioned, waters and
ecosystems are not contained within State or national
boundaries. How would you suggest we work with our neighbor,
Canada, here on the east coast, and our neighbor, Mexico, on
the west coast as we begin to address the importance of
protecting these natural resources? Have you given it any
thought? Have you worked with partners there? I am curious to
hear your comments.
Mr. Danson. For Oceana, do you mind if I get back? Because
I know there is a great answer, I am not aware of it. But I
know we do work and think about that a great deal. So, do you
mind if we get back to you with that answer?
Ms. Tsongas. Absolutely.
Ms. Tsongas. Mr. Cousteau.
Mr. Cousteau. I think certainly, as well, that any specific
work that Ocean Conservancy has done with Mexico and Canada I
would have to get back to you, and we certainly can do that.
Mr. Cousteau. But I think, again, that this is such an
outstanding country, and we have such an opportunity for
leadership, we must focus on our own back yard first and
provide the protections and the responsible management of those
systems first to then be able to walk the walk and not just
talk the talk. And I think that is absolutely critical, and it
is going to be a difficult process, but since when has the
United States, this great country, turned its back on a
difficult challenge? We have always embraced them and overcome
them. And I think we must start now, because it will be
difficult to map and to understand the Outer Continental Shelf
as much as we need to, and we must start now.
Ms. Tsongas. Well, I don't see it as an excuse for not
acting, failure to engage or somehow finding a way to work with
our neighboring countries. It is really more of the challenge
we have, as we do our part here, how we prevent actions from
beyond our borders from having a negative impact on all our
good work. So, thank you for that.
Mr. Cousteau. That is a very good point.
Mr. Danson. May I just say, one of the places is the World
Trade Organization, and the chance of reducing subsidies for
the first time, fishing subsidies. That is one way for all the
nations to work together, because Canada and New England have
all the same problems, they are dealing with the same fishing
issues. So, I know we have been working very hard at the World
Trade Organization.
Ms. Tsongas. Well, I would welcome your further thoughts as
you have a chance to go back to your organizations.
The other question I have is that proponents of offshore
drilling often point to new technologies and equipment that you
have mentioned that minimize impacts on aquatic ecosystems. I
am just curious if you think these are effective, if people are
underestimating the impacts in spite of these new technologies,
if there is truthfulness in all of these statements around
these new technologies.
Mr. Danson. You know, I assume there is some truthfulness
to that statement. And then there is truthfulness to the
statement that 120 million gallons of oil end up in the ocean
waters every year. So, maybe the drilling technique is better,
but you still have to get the oil from there to our cars, and
in the process you have a lot of spillage, obviously, 120
million gallons in the ocean. So, the problem still exists.
Ms. Tsongas. Mr. Cousteau.
Mr. Cousteau. I agree. You know, the spills that are still
occurring from, as I said a little earlier, 9 million gallons
of oil from Hurricane Rita and Katrina alone. Just recently
Hurricane Gustav, there were 33 oil spills of up to 8,000
gallons each off Louisiana. Just off of Santa Barbara a few
months ago there were 10,000 gallons or so that were spilled.
So, oil spills still occur, and I think that the public
doesn't realize that really. I think a lot of people think the
days of Exxon Valdez are over. I must say that many of the oil
tankers in the world still are not double-hulled, they are
still not reinforced as they should be. And we lack any real
technology to clean up an oil spill.
And to give you an idea, 16,000 gallons of oil still remain
in the sound where the Exxon Valdez spilled, Prince William
Sound, 20 years later. So, the impacts of oil spills are
lasting and myriad, and I think that is very important.
And Ted mentioned earlier, he made a great point, that the
footprint of oil drilling is not just the oil rigs themselves,
it is the entire infrastructure that is designed--the
pipelines, the receiving stations that is necessary to support
those rigs. And if you look at a lot of the development on the
coast of Louisiana, it is from servicing platforms for oil rigs
that destroyed many of the wetlands and the natural resources
there that would have helped to mitigate Hurricane Katrina and
would have saved potentially billions, if not tens of billions,
if not more billions of dollars, out of our economy that was
spent to mitigate Katrina, to repair after Katrina, and to
potentially save lives, and certainly save people and culture
and this country a lot of heartache.
So, oil has many compound effects, negative effects. And I
think, again, that we can do a lot better.
Ms. Tsongas. Thank you.
The Chairman. The gentleman from Texas Mr. Gohmert.
Mr. Gohmert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And as we discuss oil spills, I would like to urge that we
not get into ``word spills'' over disagreements, different
opinions. The Chairman said that anyone who represents we are
not going after our own resources is being disingenuous, or
worse. It seemed like we were tiptoeing up, to our words being
taken down, when we just have a disagreement.
Some of us believe that since 85 percent of the Outer
Continental Shelf is off limits, I think we are not going after
all of our resources, where as apparently the Chairman and
others think 15 percent is going after all our resources. But I
applaud our witnesses for your efforts in doing what many
believe was the original job for man, and that was tending this
garden that we have been given, because we should be good
stewards.
Mr. Gohmert. But I also have concerns just trying to make
sense of some of these things. We are provided figures that
indicate that 63 percent of the oil in the ocean is coming from
natural seepage and that 32 percent is coming from boats,
ships, tankers and--I am sorry, 4 percent from tankers but 32
percent from sources. And also that after Katrina there were
spills, but according to this--we had a statement from the
Coast Guard--it didn't come from platforms; it came from
industrial plants, storage depots and other facilities, because
the information that I have been able to get said that the
platforms, even though it was a level 5 when it hit the
platforms, 3 when it hit the coast of Louisiana, it destroyed
about 100 of the platforms, but there was no leakage from the
platforms themselves. They were able to--let's see, this report
says shut in with the subsurface safety valves. They were
closed as the personnel abandoned before the storm. Some
platforms were equipped with control systems that allowed them
to be monitored remotely and shut in.
And as I look at the advances and I have to tell you Mr.
Cousteau, your grandfather was entertaining and so educating
and was really inspirational to so many of us. But when you
look at products he used and designed and engineered and all
the incredible finds that he was able to do to make this a
better place to live--natural gas was a feedstock for so many
of the products. As I recall watching, I watched every Jacques
Cousteau special there was and thoroughly enjoyed them. But I
was thinking that the Calypso was not a sailboat, right? I mean
it used oil-based products, correct?
Mr. Cousteau. The Calypso was an old World War II mine
sweeper, diesel-powered, yes.
Mr. Gohmert. So, we do have to balance these things.
And, Mr. Danson, we may disagree on some things but I have
to tell you, you provided pleasure and laughter and
entertainment and enjoyment at a time when around my house it
was much needed, and I will always be grateful to you for the
pleasure that you brought my family.
But Ralph Regula was on this Committee back in the 1981
area and he said that the big complaint they got from people
that were begging for the moratorium, first from California,
was they just did not want platforms on the horizon seeing the
sunset, and also there had been in 1969 the big oil spill at
Santa Barbara; but to my understanding we haven't an oil spill
since '69 from a platform, and I think it is largely because of
efforts by people like you demanding better accountability. But
then he said, then Florida came in and said we don't want oil
rigs or platforms in our sunrise. And then once California and
Florida got the moratorium, then the rest of the Nation said,
well, we don't want it either for the most part.
But on the fishing, growing up in Texas we heard this
complaint, that if we allow these platforms off the coast then
it is going to destroy fishing. And, Mr. Danson, you made such
a great point about how many people were allowing fishing, but
since the platforms have been out there if you want to go
fishing, they take you to the oil platforms. And in fact the
data that I have been provided here from some friends that are
involved in this effort say that 100 platforms each year are
removed and most taken to the shore for recycling and some are
taken, towed and installed as approved artificial reef sites.
That is 10 percent that are done with that. And that increases
fishing and helps folks.
And I realize I have used my 5 minutes but, again, thank
you for your effort. I think it does make people more
accountable, but I hate to put people out of work or make
things too expensive that hurt us as we move toward things like
wind power. I think solar power could be tremendous, and I
would encourage what basically it sounds like you were alluding
to: if we get some resources, allow OCS to be open for
drilling, then take those proceeds and dedicate it to further
research and development for these other sources that really
are our future. But thank you very much.
Mr. Danson. Thank you.
The Chairman. I am not sure I heard a question but you can
go ahead and comment.
Mr. Cousteau. If I could just add something, thank you for
your comments. I agree that we must tend this garden, that we
must protect this planet, Congressman. I appreciate that. I
will say, though, in my grandfather's defense----
Mr. Gohmert. He doesn't need a defense. I have nothing but
praise for your grandfather.
Mr. Cousteau. The second ship he built, the Alcyone, was
designed to be a sail-powered, wind-powered vessel. But I will
also say that while oil spills from rigs were perhaps rare, if
they occurred at all, during the hurricanes, the impact on the
infrastructure still resulted in 9 million gallons. So, it is
still part of the drilling of the oil and gas, 9 million
gallons spilled on both land and sea, in total, through the
infrastructure and pipelines and through the receiving
stations, et cetera.
And I also agree with you that the ocean energy, renewable
energy, is of tremendous potential. Every year the ocean
absorbs 4,000 times more energy than is used by the entire
planet. It is pretty remarkable, the ocean--the potential that
exists in ocean energy. So, I thank you for that comment.
Mr. Danson. I think blighting the sunset and creating more
fishing around platforms is a very kind of small part of the
whole picture. It is not--I don't think you can just look at
the drilling of oil and say that--and just talk about that. You
have to talk about burning it. You have to talk about the
entire picture.
So, on every level we create more jobs with green energy,
and jobs are so important now. So, to imply that we are losing
jobs by not drilling in the offshore feels to me disingenuous.
The benefits at the pump, people are scared at high prices
coming our way. And to make people think that it is going to be
solved by drilling seems to me also not a good thing to put out
in the world when we are all so scared.
The big picture of oil, not just the sunsets and the
fishing around them is that--the result of burning carbon fuels
is disastrous to our planet right now. In just my area, oceans,
we literally could be destroying the bottom of the food chain
at the same time we are fishing out the top of it. But we could
literally destroy--and I am told not to use percentages because
it is not scientific; but you know, 20, 30 percent of our
oceans could be wiped out like that because of acidification,
which comes from carbon dioxide coming into our waters and
changing the pH balance, which comes from burning carbon fuels.
So, it just seems to me we are on this incredible path of
destruction and we are using this one little thing. This Outer
Continental Shelf could help us create jobs and turn around our
energy problem when the big picture is we are going so far in
the wrong direction with continuing this addiction to oil.
Sorry.
Mr. Gohmert. But it sounds like fishing problems, as you
pointed out, was from overfishing and not from platforms that
have created fishing jobs off the coast----
Mr. Danson. Carbon dioxide getting in at the levels we are
putting in there from burning oil will absolutely wipe out the
bottom of the food chain, which would devastate fishing. There
would be very few fishermen around our oil platforms.
Mr. Gohmert. Do you still drive a car?
Mr. Danson. Yes. And I drive hybrids, which can--yes.
Sorry. I do drive a car and I used plastic and----
Mr. Gohmert. But the hybrids plug in, don't they?
Mr. Danson. I use all of those things. Sorry. I shouldn't
be interrupting.
The Chairman. I think we will have more time to discuss
this. The gentleman's time from Texas has been extended by 5-1/
2 minutes.
The gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Pallone, is recognized.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank both
of our panelists for all you have done not only today but
historically to protect the oceans. And I wanted to say that I
join with you in wanting to reinstate the moratorium and,
frankly, making it permanent. And I also would be willing to
have wind farms off the coast of my district. In fact, some
have actually been proposed.
But I wanted to really kind of zero in on--and I thought
that Ted Danson--I actually wrote this down, Ted, when you
said, ``This is about the economy and this is about jobs,''
because that is so true. My district is along the coast. We
depend on tourism more than ever, particularly with the
recession. And the bottom line is that when I think about the
small amount of oil or natural gas that might be drilled for
off the coast of New Jersey versus the damage to the economy,
which is, you know, the second largest industry, and people
unfortunately don't think of New Jersey as a tourism mecca all
of the time, but the fact is it is the second largest industry
in the State.
So, I wanted to ask Ted Danson, has your organization or
either of your organizations really done a cost analysis of the
potential costs of drilling on coastal economies versus the
potential energy savings? Because it seems to me that if you do
that, it is weighted in favor of coastal economies in not
having this drilling. Have either of you any statistics in that
regard.
Mr. Danson. Can you vamp while I look?
Mr. Cousteau. I thank you, Congressman, for that insightful
question. We do not have any statistics, but I will say there
are far cheaper and more efficient ways to deal with our oil
consumption in this country, including boosting oil efficiency
in our homes, gas efficiency. Let us not continue to feed our
gluttonous need for this product. Let's find other ways. And I
think efficiency is a big way to do that. That will mean we
don't need to continue new drilling and we can develop, as you
said so well, though, the kind of renewable energies that have
so much promise.
Mr. Pallone. I mean I have seen figures that say when you
talk about the mid-Atlantic coast, you are talking about--or
actually the entire eastern coast of the United States, you are
only talking about a few weeks' U.S. consumption. And I know
that you are talking about billions of dollars annually just
from my district that is directly related to tourism.
And the other thing I wanted to say, because I know I don't
have a lot of time, is that this whole idea of people being
willing to swim and have active tourism near these oil rigs,
that is just a lot of nonsense. I mean you start putting these
oil rigs off the coast of New Jersey, people aren't going to
come whether they spill or not. But the reality is there have
been spills.
I know that in the next panel I guess it is Mr. Minich's
testimony, I have a little quote here I will read. It says that
in 2005 Hurricanes Katrina and Rita destroyed 113 oil platforms
and damaged 457 pipelines near Louisiana. This is according to
Minerals Management Service. The agency reported 124 spoils
totaling 741,000 gallons of petroleum from offshore rigs,
platforms, and pipelines.
You know, there is this notion out there that, you know,
that no rigs caused spills and there was no damage per Katrina
and Rita; and that if there was any, it was all localized and
it didn't have any impact.
Would you want to comment on that, either of you, because
my understanding is that there were a lot of spills.
Mr. Cousteau. Congressman, absolutely there were several
spills; dozens, in fact. And satellite images clearly show oil
slicks covering hundreds of miles, hundreds of square miles in
the Gulf of Mexico. So, any idea that there is localization to
the oil spills is untrue. You are absolutely correct.
Mr. Danson. I have the same figures in front of me that you
do: 183 oil platforms were affected, 113 completely destroyed.
Also, green investments, this was the University of
Massachusetts study, 17 jobs created for 1 million invested
into green as opposed to 5.5 jobs from 1 million into oil. So,
the jobs--the economy argument seems to go in the favor of not
opening up and continuing offshore oil drilling in my mind.
Total economic activity from offshore wind alone could reach a
cumulative 950 billion by 2030 and create 250,000 jobs. Another
little tidbit. A good one, too.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you both. Really I appreciate it.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. The gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Fleming.
Mr. Fleming. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First let me say, Mr. Danson, I appreciate your movie
career, your TV career. As a physician of 32 years I identify
with your cranky doctor character, think about it a lot.
And, Mr. Cousteau, your grandfather, of course I have seen
every one of his TV segments and some of them many times over.
There are a couple of things, Mr. Cousteau, that you said
that I certainly agree with. You said this needs to be driven
by science. Oftentimes in this debate, politics drive the
science rather than the other way around. And I think it is
really important that we let science determine where we are
going to go with things, within a certain moral and ethical
standard. You also said that we should have minimal impact or
reduced impact, and I certainly agree with that.
One of the problems that we are seeing today with this
discussion about wind turbines and solar energy is the
technology is really not as advanced in those areas as in the
safety that we have in the petroleum industry to protect our
environment. I would love to heat and cool my home with solar.
I would love to have a windmill in my backyard that would drive
everything. But to a great extent those are inefficient and
noncompetitive forms of energy with what we have today with
petroleum. So, while those are lofty goals, I am not sure that
we are quite there yet, and we certainly need to bridge that
gap.
Jobs in Louisiana, which I represent and which is perhaps
the most impacted among States, with whatever decisions are
made here, good or bad, we have 21,000 producing company jobs
that are related to oil and gas just to the Continental Shelf
itself. Estimated payroll of 1.2 billion, with an average
annual salary of around $60,000 per employee.
Recently we had in our area, northwest Louisiana, finding
of the Haynesville shale, which we didn't even know--didn't
have the technology to exploit even several years ago because
it is natural gas, it is in a shale. We don't know what all we
can do out there in the ocean today because we have new and
emerging technologies that are advancing.
Also, with respect to the issue of 120 million gallons of
oil that were spilled, I guess, last year and years before
that, my question is what percentage of that was actually
related to platforms themselves? Our statistics show that since
1980 the estimates are less than .001 percent of oil has
spilled from the U.S. production percentage out of a total of
4.7 billion barrels of oil production.
So, that is a question and then certainly I welcome any
comments. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Danson. I love Louisiana and I can imagine it would be
hit hard if magically we switched to wind and solar and moved
off of oil. So, I am not in a position to refute anything you
are saying about jobs in Louisiana. Wind and solar has
progressed more than I think you depicted it. For 17 years,
Europe has had ocean wind farms and they have been very
successful. Clearly you need to invest money into these areas
to make them come up to the level of oil exploration and
investments. But it seems to me that we were looking at this--
two things. I agree that science should lead the way, but I am
not sure that science in fact has led us to the point where it
is OK to open up the Outer Continental Shelf. I think you said
once we open it up--what I heard was once we open it up, we
need to let science and facts lead the way. But I don't think
science and facts are leading the way to even have the
conversation about opening up, because the science and the
facts say don't. For the economy, don't; for the environment,
for the long-term health of the planet and health of people's
everyday health, don't. So, I would disagree on that point.
Oil, it is not just the oil platforms that are perhaps
behaving wonderfully well, but it is how do you get it to the
cars? So, it is pipelines, it is barges, it is whatever. That
is where some of the spills happen. So, I agree with you,
platforms probably have gotten better and drilling technology
perhaps has gotten better, but that is just one part of the
entire picture and the entire picture to me is the wrong
direction.
Mr. Cousteau. If I may add to that, Chairman.
Congressman, thank you for your comments. I agree with Ted.
Wind power, certainly one facility can provide 4 to 5 megawatts
or more of wind power. We are at least 10 years, if not more,
behind Europe; and I think that is appalling when we think
about the opportunities that we have missed over the last
decade to develop our renewable energy economy here in this
country.
Certainly, as I have stated before, the infrastructure for
the platforms affected the coastal habitats of Katrina--of
Louisiana, which certainly had--allowed Katrina to have a
greater impact on the State. And so I wonder what kind of
offset there is with respect to the jobs and the money that is
earned from the oil and gas industry in Louisiana compared to
the damage and the cost that was required to mitigate that
damage and rebuild after Katrina.
I wonder, I don't know, but I wonder if that wouldn't
offset at least a little bit some of that gain that you
mentioned. And I think it is deceiving to think that overall, a
small percentage of oil has been spilled, because we cannot
forget that even a minor amount of oil has a devastating impact
on environments. And certainly I think 9 million gallons is
pretty substantial with respect to Katrina and Rita, and that
is both land and water.
And I think from a scientific perspective, I absolutely
agree with you that science is critical to what we are doing
and to understanding. And when I talk about science for the
Outer Continental Shelf, it is because we know so little about
it and we must start now in our understanding what our
alternatives are in fighting in the Outer Continental Shelf for
any development--renewable, aquaculture fishery, anything. We
just don't know enough. And I think it is critical to start now
to develop that science and to learn. And honestly, we will
receive no gains from any further oil and gas drilling for a
decade or more. It is not going to help us today.
And I think it is a false promise to those people who are
hurting at the pumps, who were hurting at the pumps this fall,
to promise them that drilling is--while polluting the
environment further, while hurting the oceans further, while
continuing to pollute the air and our children, is going to
help you at the gas pump, because it won't. And I think we need
to vigorously engage in renewable energy and really get off the
oil and gas as a primary focus. It should be last resort, if
any at all.
The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Fleming. Could I just have two quick comments?
The Chairman. Very quickly.
Mr. Fleming. With respect to utilization of solar and wind,
I know there are a lot of tax subsidies that go on with that.
So, it is very hard to measure the success on that. And I think
that if you look at the oil spills in a global way, the
increased production and as a percent of production and flow,
we have seen the instance of that in the numbers of gallons
steadily decrease over time. So, it is not perfect and we need
it better, of course, but it is getting better.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. The gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Kratovil.
Mr. Kratovil. Gentlemen, thank you for being here. My name
is Frank Kratovil. I am a freshman Congressman representing the
First District of Maryland, which includes the entire eastern
shore of Maryland, and I am particularly concerned about this
issue as a result of one of the proposals off the coast of
Assateague, which is very close to me.
As we have this debate I pride myself on trying to
recognize the other sides of issues. I was a prosecutor and did
my best to balance both sides of the issues. And I have to tell
you on this issue, Ted, that you have raised, I am 100 percent
in agreement with you. I just do not get the argument on this.
And during the election I was amazed that the entire focus of
the debate was whether or not we should be opening up
additional places to drill. In my view, that is question number
two. And we are having a debate here today on question number
two, which is: Should we be opening up new places to drill?
We haven't answered question number one. And question
number one, during all of the debate in the Presidential
election and still going on, question number one is: Why are we
not drilling in the areas where they are able to drill?
So, my question to you is--and I intend to ask this to the
other panel when they come here--but before we move to question
two, which is getting back to the cost and benefits of doing
this, which is an appropriate argument to have, I am not sure
the benefits are worth it. But before we get to that question,
the first question is: Why are we not drilling in the areas
that are currently leased?
And my question to you folks as you have been looking at
this, do you have a view--what is your perspective on that
issue, even if it is one that is perhaps cynical? Why in your
view are they not drilling in those areas that are available
right now?
Mr. Danson. It probably would be cynical and not factual;
so I don't know the answer, but I would definitely say that I
don't want them to drill in areas that they have permission to
drill in on the Outer Continental Shelf. The argument for me is
still the same, although it is a great question. Why are we
talking about opening up new leases when there are existing
leases? And I will say in the Arctic Ocean, do not drill in the
existing leases that you own until you have done an
environmental impact report that is genuine, because a spill
there would be devastating.
Mr. Cousteau. I agree. I don't know the specific reason. I
know that some places that have been leased are under
development currently. But I don't know why all of them have
not been developed. Certainly I cannot speculate on that. But I
must agree with Ted that in the Arctic it is very fragile.
Mr. Kratovil. But my point is as that debate went on during
the Presidential election, I was constantly amazed at how we
were--the folks that were opposing the drilling were losing the
argument. And my point to you guys is, it seems to me that
should be the thrust, at least one of the thrusts of your
arguments, which is asking that question and getting answers to
that question. That question was never answered. So, we are
moving to issue two when the folks that want to drill more
haven't answered question one. So, I think in moving forward,
that is a question we need to ask and we need to get the
answers to that.
Mr. Danson. In all honesty, I am a little afraid of their
answer, which might be a ``good idea.'' So, for me, it is a
mixed----
Mr. Kratovil. Well, it isn't in terms of moving to
additional----
Mr. Danson. Absolutely. I agree.
Mr. Kratovil. To getting the boat back in the port.
I yield the rest of my time.
The Chairman. The gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Lamborn.
Mr. Lamborn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Could I have my
opening statement submitted to the record?
The Chairman. Sure.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lamborn follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Doug Lamborn, Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources
Mr. Chairman, development of America's Outer Continental Shelf
(OCS) will create jobs, reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and
generate substantial revenue for the federal government. The
Congressional Research Service said there is nearly $800 billion in
revenue available from the OCS areas that were under moratoria. This
estimate is nearly the same amount proposed by the current majority in
the pending stimulus package.
The choice between a clean environment and OCS development is a
false premise. We can have both energy development and a clean
environment. In 1999 the Department of Energy, then run by Secretary
Bill Richardson, produced a report which found that advanced technology
means that oil exploration and development can be clean, create jobs,
and produce the energy needed for America.
We will need this energy. The Energy Information Administration
says that we will continue importing massive volumes of oil from now
through 2030. The United States currently imports more than 12 million
barrels of oil per day, more than 60 percent of all the oil it
consumes. Over the past 35 years, as America's demand for energy has
grown, U.S. production of its own domestic resources has fallen
steadily. We don't have to continue that trend. We can and must develop
our domestic resources and reduce our reliance on foreign energy.
While I am an advocate of increasing access to energy resources in
the OCS I believe that we need more than just oil and gas development.
We need to use all the resources available to us. This means we must
expand areas for capturing wind and solar energy. Breaking down the
barriers which stop those developments on federal lands is paramount.
We should open more areas to tidal and wave energy harnessing the
energy of the oceans and tides to help power America. We must open the
Nation's vast oil shale resources in my home state of Colorado, as well
as those in Utah and Wyoming. Unleashing these resources can help
secure our energy future. We should expand our use of nuclear energy,
and cut permitting times to make replacement structures a reality. We
need an ``all of the above'' energy strategy to free America and spur
our economy.
______
Mr. Lamborn. I would like to ask you, Mr. Danson, about
tradeoffs because there are so many tradeoffs in life. To the
extent that we reduce the energy available from domestic
sources, including from offshore drilling, we become more
dependent, I believe, from foreign sources. Have your
organizations analyzed the risk of a catastrophic oil spill
coming from a tanker coming in from a foreign source,
especially that we know there are terrorism risks to tankers,
there are piracy risks, compared to that that could be incurred
from a spill from a platform? Have you done that kind of risk
analysis?
Mr. Danson. No. No, we haven't. But I imagine it would be
horrendous. Your example would be horrendous.
Mr. Lamborn. Because I was just trying to compare the two,
because to the extent we don't do one, we are going to have to
do more of the other.
Mr. Danson. But we will never stop having those foreign oil
freighters coming into our waters if we think by drilling in
the Outer Continental Shelf, which will produce 1 percent of
our daily needs, we will never not have those foreign
freighters in our waters. So, the argument of trying to get
away from under foreign influence won't happen.
Mr. Lamborn. Let us look at it a little differently. We
have the most environmentally rigorous protections for offshore
drilling in the U.S. than there are for any other country.
Mr. Danson. Yes.
Mr. Lamborn. So, to the degree that we shut down and don't
have offshore drilling in the U.S., we will have more offshore
drilling in Third World countries. Now, it doesn't--and I know
you think globally, which is good. Won't we have more risks
from a Third World offshore operation than we have from the
rigorous and advanced types of operations we have here in the
U.S.?
Mr. Danson. If we just sat in that oil universe, yes, that
is probably true. But I don't think the goal is to remain in
this carbon universe. It is to develop and not--truly develop
and have alternative sources of energy, relieve the burden of
having to drill for oil and burn oil all over the world.
Mr. Lamborn. Mr. Cousteau, would you----
Mr. Cousteau. I agree. I think we need to get off the
debate from the spectrum of oil and embrace a vigorous approach
to renewable energy that is worthy of this country's ingenuity
and power and gifts. The Outer Continental Shelf drilling in
2007 accounted for 27 percent of total U.S. oil production. Any
new drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf will not result in
new oil for at least a decade. Any new drilling in the OCS is
not going to mitigate drilling environmental effects elsewhere.
It is not drastically going to reduce our continued importation
through tankers of oil into this country. And so it is just not
going to help that situation. Because I think you make a good
point that tankers are very dangerous. They continue to be--as
I mentioned earlier, many of them are still single-hulled like
the Exxon Valdez. But continued drilling in the OCS is not
going to significantly increase any of our domestic oil
production and is not going to decrease our importation of oil
significantly either.
Mr. Lamborn. Well, we will have to continue to agree to
disagree on some of those points. Thank you.
Mr. Cousteau. Thank you.
The Chairman. The gentlewoman from Guam, Ms. Bordallo.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And my
first question is for Mr. Danson. I thank you for your
testimony this morning and I know you have been personally
committed to ocean conservation issues for more than two
decades and I do appreciate your efforts.
I represent a district that is in the middle of the ocean,
so I am extremely interested in this topic. And I am sure you
don't remember, but a few years ago at the Ocean Summit in
Monterey you were seated right next to me. I remember you, but
I know you don't remember me.
Mr. Danson. Give me a chance. Wait.
Ms. Bordallo. As you know, Mr. Danson, scientists are
telling us that climate change is having considerable impacts
on our oceans and the resulting ocean acidification is likely
to cause a mass extension of corals by the middle to the end of
this century. In fact, the Great Barrier Reef has been
projected to stop growing around 2050. In your opinion, what
are some of the critical steps that Congress can take to
address ocean acidification in that regard?
Mr. Danson. I think you are looking at it right now. I
think if you were to say we are not going to drill on the Outer
Continental Shelf because it would be--first of all, the
benefits would not be--the risks way out--sorry, I am babbling
here.
I think by sending a signal that we are not going to
continue drilling for oil and burning oil, that we are going to
look for alternative sources of energy. We are serious. We are
not going to do token drilling that makes no sense
scientifically or factually; that we are actually going to
focus all of our energy in renewable sources of energy would be
a huge signal for that.
I don't know that people realize the seriousness of the
fact that our oceans are not able to absorb any more carbon
dioxide without the oceans changing their pH balance. Global
climate change sounds like this kind of liberal airy-fairy
thought, and it is not. It has a huge impact on our industries,
on our health, on the future of our oceans. Without coral reefs
you don't have nurseries for our fisheries to expand. It is a
huge problem. So, to answer your question I would say send a
signal.
Ms. Bordallo. Mr. Cousteau?
Mr. Cousteau. Thank you Congressman. ``Airy-fairy,'' I like
that, Ted.
Mr. Danson. Sorry.
Mr. Cousteau. No. I think it is true. You know, 25 percent
of our coral reefs are already dead around the world, and
scientists estimate another 25 percent by the middle of this
century. That is shocking when you think that they hold at
least a third of the biodiversity in our oceans. Ocean
acidification is one of the greatest threats that we are facing
today, I believe. And it is directly not from climate change
but directly resultant of the output of carbon into the
atmosphere and the absorption by the ocean.
So, I think that is an interesting distinction to make. And
the science can be done in the laboratory. I mean it is not
controversial and cannot be debated. We know, however, from
research, that if corals are to be resilient and are to
withstand the additional stresses of ocean acidification that
they cannot withstand further impacts--that they need to be
healthy otherwise. So, if they are withstanding multiple
impacts, be it impacts from oil, be it runoff, nutrification,
nutrient overload in the water, whatever it may be,
development, it is like having cancer, meningitis,
tuberculosis, all those things at the same time. You are not
going to survive. So, if there is any hope for our coral reefs
to survive ocean acidification and the other threats that are
facing them, we must do what we can to minimize our impacts on
their health and certainly minimize immediately our output of
carbon into the atmosphere, period.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you very much. And I have one more
question, Mr. Chairman, for Mr. Cousteau.
You spoke very eloquently about the need for better
planning before we embark upon more development, even renewable
energy development in the oceans. Can you elaborate more on
that need for not just better planning but more comprehensive
management that looks at all activities and their cumulative
impacts?
Mr. Cousteau. Thank you, Congresswoman. You know, as I said
in my testimony, urban sprawl is something that has come to be
seen as a negative thing on the land and a lack of planning and
understanding of what sites in the ocean are appropriate--for
what is bad for the environment is bad for industry as well.
And I think first and foremost, we need the science to
understand what exists, and then to be able to cite what uses
are appropriate where--similar to the way we plan on the land.
As I said, we wouldn't put a coal-fired power plant or a toxic
waste dump in the middle of a national park, and this is with
respect to any kind of development, wind, aquaculture,
anything. There needs to be a comprehensive plan.
I think it is incumbent upon Congress to manage this
national resource that belongs to all of us as citizens of this
country, and we must protect it in the best way that we can.
And the best way we can do that is to have as much knowledge as
we can.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. The gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Duncan.
Mr. Duncan. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
The problem that I see is we have--I think it is over 1,400
conservancy groups in the country now. We have hundreds of
other local environmental groups. You have all of these
government agencies that oppose or throw up roadblocks and are
mostly successful anytime anybody wants to drill for any oil or
dig for any coal or cut any trees or produce any natural gas.
And certainly they don't want any nuclear power. And so they
just shut down so much natural resource or energy production in
this country. And what that does, as the Ranking Member pointed
out in his opening statement, that destroys jobs, it drives up
prices and we can't--and who that hurts the most are the poor
and the lower income and the working people of this country.
For instance, you are putting the final nail in the coffin
of some of these small towns and rural areas if you drive gas
prices up and utility bills up, because they have to drive
further distances mostly, most of their people, to go to jobs,
and they work mostly at lower-wage type jobs. And all of these
places where these groups oppose these projects, they always
say that it is just 1 percent or it is just some tiny
percentage of the overall energy production in this country.
But when you put them all together, it adds up to a very great
percentage. And we can't base the entire economy of our country
on tourism, especially in tough economic times.
Michael Barone, who is a columnist for U.S. News and World
Report and who writes the Almanac of American Politics--and he
is considered a very middle-of-the-road columnist, he is not
considered a conservative at all. But he wrote a few months
ago, he said: ``Lobbyists and litigators for environmental
restriction groups have produced energy policies that I suspect
future generations will regard as lunatic. We haven't built a
new nuclear plant for 30 years since the Jane Fonda movie
exaggerated their dangers. We have allowed States to ban oil
drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf, prompted by a failure
of 40- or 50-year-old technology in Santa Barbara, California,
in 1969, though current technology is much better, as shown by
a lack of oil spills in waters off Louisiana and Mississippi
during Hurricane Katrina.
We have banned oil drilling on a very small portion of the
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge that is god-forsaken tundra for
fear of disturbing a herd of caribou, a species of hoofed
animals in no way endangered or scarce. The ANWR ban is the
work of environmental restriction groups that depend on direct
mail fundraising to pay their bills and keep their jobs. That
means they must always say the sky is falling. ANWR is a
precious cause for them because it can be portrayed dishonestly
as a national treasure.''
So, I think what we need in this area is a little balance
and common sense. I have noticed over the years that almost all
of our environmental radicals and extremists come from very
wealthy or very upper-income families, and perhaps they are not
hurt when we drive the utility bills way up or we drive the gas
prices way up, but a lot of the people that I represent are
hurt by it. And those are my concerns.
I don't really have any questions, Mr. Chairman, so I will
yield back the balance of my time. Thank you.
The Chairman. Would anybody like to respond?
Mr. Danson. I think I probably have said it all, and I
think we have different points of view.
The Chairman. The gentlewoman from California is
recognized, Mrs. Capps.
Mrs. Capps. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to continue just with one sentence, the conversation
begun by our new colleague from Maryland, Mr. Kratovil, when he
talked about the use-it-or-lose-it idea, and that currently
there are, I believe, 6,000 leases already sited in the Gulf of
Mexico to be drilled upon. And I also say that in part because
I represent a coastal district in California, on the central
coast with 23 oil platforms offshore, and my constituents and I
deal with environmental and public health impacts from this
every single day.
I want to welcome our two witnesses and thank you for your
excellent testimony, both of you; and thank the Chairman for
getting this series of hearings on offshore drilling off to
such a good start.
We definitely have heard a lot from the industry about how
things have changed, and technology is better, and we have
heard that from some of our colleagues here today. My response
is that oil spills and gas leaks still happen. No matter how
careful you are, there is a huge risk of a spill and spills do
happen.
In fact our colleague from Tennessee just stepped out, but
Mr. Duncan referred to the big blowout on platform A off the
Santa Barbara coastline that I know and you all know very well
too. Just this past December, a small hole the size of a
quarter developed in a rusted pipe that sends oil to shore from
that very platform A and 1,400 gallons of oil seeped into the
ocean immediately. This was just last year.
And I am going to pick on you, Mr. Danson, even though you
said you have said it all. I agree with you as a longtime--in
fact, we are neighbors. I unfortunately don't get to be your
congressional representative, but we share a big concern about
our region off the shore. As a longtime advocate that you are,
I respect that. You have said that you really can't safely
drill in the oceans. But I want to underscore what that really
means. It is not just the drilling. It is not just the
platform. It is the pipelines. It is the barges. It is the
onshore infrastructure that has to be there and is there. All
of this puts our environment at risk. The industry has come to
our oceans.
And my question is: Would you like to expand upon that?
Mr. Danson. I think I understand your question. I was just
sitting here agreeing with everything you were saying, so
forgive me. I wasn't formulating any kind of rebuttal or
anything. I was enjoying it.
Mrs. Capps. Well, I think it is a simplistic notion from
some, and some in the industry too, that we just want to get
rid of those platforms, that we just want to get rid of
offshore drilling, but it is whole bigger picture than that.
And either of you can respond.
Mr. Danson. I probably should back up. I probably should
have said something when I had the chance, but I don't think
you can dismiss tourism as something that doesn't have anything
to do with the economy, as if only oil and oil energy is truly
about our economy; that that is the real source of energy for
real Americans. New Jersey makes a huge sum of money from its
tourism, so to dismiss it I think is wrong.
And I think that what this Committee should do is to have
facts and figures. There must be somebody that you can all
agree on that will tell you this amount of jobs would be
produced by wind power and solar and green energy, this amount
would be produced by drilling offshore, this amount of money
would be made, the price would go down, so that people could
have a real chance at saying, oh, I get it, this is not good
for the environment. And it is also a fib that it will give me
a better chance at lower gas prices and a job.
Mrs. Capps. I want to get to another topic, so I am going
to change. But I think you sound a lot like our new Secretary
of the Interior, who also wants to base our energy policies now
on sound science and particularly our renewable energy, because
they are so new that we haven't amassed this body. But we are
going to hear more about this from the next panel, but I want
to give either of you a chance to respond now about many who
are saying--and some from my district--how the largest source
of oil in the ocean is actually natural seeps, not industrial
activity. And playing devil's advocate, if that is the case,
why do we have to be concerned about man-made spills at all?
Mr. Danson. I didn't understand that question. I am sorry.
Mrs. Capps. That natural seeps are the cause of oil damage
to our coastline.
Mr. Danson. Are you saying, or is that fact saying that is
part of the 120----
Mrs. Capps. There are some who argue that it helps to drill
because it relieves the pressure off the natural seeps.
Mr. Danson. I don't know the facts and figures. I can't
believe that. I know that 120 million gallons that gets in
there from spills and seeps, I know about that--I mean from the
pipelines.
Are you aware of----
Mr. Cousteau. Yes. First of all----
Mrs. Capps. That is why there are two of you. You play off
each other.
Mr. Cousteau. First of all, thank you for your insightful
and outstanding comments very much. I was sitting here as well
with Ted, just agreeing. So, thank you for that.
You know, I think just because there are natural seeps and
they do occur, we should be no less concerned about man-made
spills, because natural oil and gas does seep out of fissures
in the ocean. But human caused oil spills occur very
differently. Their seepage is a very slow process that happens
in distinct areas and oftentimes over a long period of time and
habitats have adapted to that. Human-based spills have been in
a concentrated fashion in a specific area that can oftentimes
be very fragile and not at all adapted to natural oil and gas.
I have a great point here about Prince William Sound, the
spill that happened there over 20 years ago or 20 years ago
this March, and 20 years later there are still species that are
struggling to recover from that oil spill from the Exxon Valdez
because of the concentrated nature of the spill in a specific
geographic location. So, seeps do occur. It is a natural
process and there is nothing we can do about that, but what we
can control is our own behavior and our own actions, and we can
do better.
Mrs. Capps. Thank you both.
Mr. Cousteau. Thank you.
The Chairman. The gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Cassidy.
Mr. Cassidy. Thank you. I have had to step out a couple of
times. I apologize if someone addressed something that I
mention.
There is a little bit, I will say, a little bit of a
disconnect between the reality of what I have experienced in
Louisiana and what you have been describing. In Louisiana we
probably have more offshore drilling than any other State, or
at least as much as almost any other. We have the most
productive fisheries outside of Alaska. So, actually this
problem, Mr. Danson--and I also enjoy your acting, by the way--
this problem of fisheries isn't in Louisiana.
In fact, when I read your testimony that if there is
pollution at the base of the platform that is so toxic to fish,
the favorite place for folks to fish is next to the platform.
Now the other issue--so let's just correct the record.
Second, regarding the spill of Katrina that was actually
from the Murphy Oil Refinery where tankers floated and oil got
out, but from the platforms themselves there was actually very
little.
Another thing I want to correct is that, although I may
have put it down, petroleum in American waters is very
interesting here. Frank talked about how he is concerned about
this issue and polluting his streams. You know, the Maryland
crab cake we will have at lunch today is actually crab meat
from Louisiana that they fly up here and they make Maryland
crab cakes with Louisiana crab meat. One of the great things
about the job, you learn those facts. And the reason is that
the Chesapeake Bay doesn't produce as much crab meat anymore,
and that is because of runoff from petroleum products on the
land into the Chesapeake Bay, among other reasons I am sure.
And here we see that--and this is from the Minerals
Management Service and Representative Capps talked about
seepage. According to this government agency, 63 percent of the
oil in American waters is from natural seepage, 31 percent from
cars, boats, and other sources in the Chesapeake Bay, 1 percent
is from drilling, or less than 1 percent.
So, in Louisiana we have the most productive fisheries than
anyone else, and we have the most drilling. In fact, we have so
much fisheries, you will be eating Louisiana crabmeat for
lunch. So, I think there has been a little bit of a disconnect.
The other thing, I think we are focusing upon oil, but
natural gas is a major production and natural gas, of course,
has a lower carbon footprint than does oil. And if you look at
the projected natural gas stores off the eastern coast of
Florida, which, by the way, already had OCS drilling
grandfathered in before the moratorium, and the pipelines run
underneath back through Louisiana, so it doesn't spoil the
beach. But that is tremendous natural gas reserves which does
have the potential to not only give us the lower carbon
footprint but also cheaper fertilizer for farmers, cheaper
plastics, other things that make life good. Natural gas fuels
so much of our economy.
So, one, I just want to correct the record. Some of the
things said do not pertain to offshore drilling. Indeed,
offshore drilling is much safer than, say, the cars we are
driving around and dropping oil on the street which then runs
off into the bay.
The Katrina disaster was from the Murphy Oil Refinery. I
imagine you might say, well, we just need to get away from a
petroleum-based economy. That is true. But even your testimony,
Mr. Danson, said that 20 percent of electricity could be
provided by wind power by 2030. Well, that is electricity, but
it is not what powers our vehicles. And most folks don't think
that we can completely get away from a carbon-based economy for
at least some time, however good that goal. And I agree the
goal is good. I am not arguing that point. So, just to correct
the record, I think there are some issues here.
Last, tourism, again to correct that record, we have so
much tourism off the coast of Louisiana, we have so much
recreational fishing, we have scuba diving at the rigs because
it has become this kind of man-made reef and everybody goes
down and scuba dives. And it is just--when I hear that tourism
is hurt, I am thinking, wow, man, wow; think about where we
have so much drilling, we have so much tourism. Brownsville,
Texas, lots of offshore drilling. Corpus Christie, a great
place for the snowbirds to come down during the winter.
And last, Mrs. Capps, you are rightly concerned about the
effects of rusted infrastructure causing leakage, but the nice
thing about new OCS is that it is new infrastructure. That if
you look at the leakage that does happen from pipelines, it is
old pipelines, it is not new pipelines. Those typically have
newer techniques and newer stuff and so therefore they don't
leak as much. So, I think the environmental hazard with the new
stuff is less than the old stuff.
The Santa Barbara spill, which was terribly egregious, was
not reproduced in Katrina because of, as I think Louie
mentioned, the valves they put at the base of the ocean.
Last, I want to say, Mr. Cousteau, I agree with you. I
agree with you positively that science should guide what we do.
And one thing in your testimony, that you said let science
guide where we go further. I applaud that. And if we do an OCS
bill, I would agree to an amendment that would devote a certain
amount of that to restoring oceans.
Again, I live in an ocean State. We are affected by rising
sea levels, so we have a dog in this hunt.
Last, how come you don't have a French accent? I have to
admit I kept thinking about that the whole time.
Mr. Cousteau. Congressman, my mother, who is actually right
behind me, she is American and I spent most of my life growing
up here in the United States. I have a dual citizenship of
American and French. So, that is probably why. I do speak
French and some Spanish, but no French accent, though I can
fake a pretty cheesy one, but I will spare you that.
And thank you for comments. Certainly I think that the
bottom line is that if we continue to drill and we continue to
rely on oil, then we won't get off our dependence off of oil,
and I think that----
Mr. Cassidy. But isn't that a different point? Because
really we are going to rely on oil. It is just going to come
from something else until we can transition out of a carbon-
based economy if only for fertilizer and plastics.
Mr. Cousteau. Well, I think we need a paradigm shift
mentality from continuing to say at some point we will get off
of oil. I think we have better ways to do that than continue to
drill for oil in the Outer Continental Shelf. As I said
earlier, efficiency, energy efficiency, is a big way to do
that. And if we could actually reduce our need for oil, that
could help balance in the short term our need to drill for more
oil and instead to be able to develop renewable energy.
And I think that it is deceiving to talk about the seepage
issue again, as I said earlier, because while about 60 percent
of oil seeps into the United States waters, again that is a
very slow process. It is a natural process. It is nothing like
the catastrophic and exponentially greater impact of the
relative to the 60 percent the small percentage of oil from
drilling from----
Mr. Cassidy. Good point. I agree with that. On the other
hand, the major spills you are referring to, except for Santa
Barbara, which we now have different technology, the major
spills have come from tankers. So, the one off of France a few
years ago was from a tanker; the Prince William Sound, a
tanker. So, it is actually the transportation. Any degree that
we can decrease tankers would probably be safer for the
environment, because if you look at this, tankers provide more
than do offshore drilling.
The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired.
The gentlewoman from California, Mrs. Napolitano, is
recognized.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and it is good to
see you again, Mr. Danson. We met in California a while back.
But before I start, I would like to recognize Ms. Lois
Capps, Lois's daughter, who is in the audience, and I know she
is going to be embarrassed but we wanted you to know there is
an activist out there and we hope that you will be working with
us more. Thank you.
It is very interesting to hear the testimony that you have
given. And yes, like my colleague, I saw all your grandfather's
series. I would marvel at what was out there and I am sure if
he were to do a lot of those again, he would find a lot of the
shortages in a lot of the marine life not only because of the
impact nature has had but human beings have imposed upon our
oceans.
Having sat upon the sanitation district in California,
going out into the outflow where there was DDT spilled that
created a problem for marine life off of Point--not Mugu, I
can't remember the Point out there that mutated a lot of the
sea life. Well, if we only rely on the decreasing of the
tankers, we also need to rely on what we put into the ocean,
whether it is the pipelines or whether it is the outflow of
effluent from the sanitation districts. That is why one of the
things that would be perfect would be an ocean investment fund
that would take a look at all of it and put their arms around
being able to determine we need funding to be able to do this,
so that this is the outcome. But in that same vein, we ought to
start looking at what impact--and, Mr. Danson, I was marveling
at, well, I would rather have a windmill out in my backyard
rather than an oil pipeline. Well, maybe hydrokinetics would be
important, the ocean current.
We have countries in New Zealand and Australia--I am sorry,
in Scotland and Norway that are really ahead of the curve.
Those are the things that need this ocean investment fund could
begin to look at and how do we apply them and be able to have
more power and less reliance on imported oil and drilling in
our ocean.
I would like to hear what you would want us to consider,
looking at the future, for putting all of it together, so that
we don't say, well, you are wrong because you are saying this.
Everybody's areas are a little different. Louisiana versus New
York versus California, how do we put it all together to
improve the quality and maintain the marine life for future
generations?
I have a greatgrandson I want him to enjoy going out into
the ocean, maybe scuba diving someday, and watching the beauty
of the ocean. How do we do that?
Mr. Cousteau. Well, thank you, Congresswoman. I think that
part of the--well, first I would comment that growing up, as I
said in my testimony, I saw great change myself with my own
eyes in the Mediterranean and in other places, so indeed I
think my grandfather would be appalled at many of the changes
that continue to occur around the world and very saddened by
them. I just finished a series of Discovery, and we visited
many of the places that he had been in--Red Sea, the Baja, et
cetera--all over the world, and even I saw changes from looking
back at the films from the fifties and sixties to today. It is
very, very serious.
I think that the interplay here, you know, the OCS
recommendation is that we have an integrated planning for
Federal waters. And I think it is going to be very important at
how that interplays with State waters, because within the 3-
mile mark I think there are some great examples from the
Massachusetts Ocean Act, Rhode Island is doing a lot of
outstanding work, California has done a lot of work on
fisheries management. I think there is a great deal that we can
learn from the various different practices some of the States
have engaged in. I think that needs to be a big part of the
dialogue about how any Federal regulations would interplay with
State regulations. But that is for much wiser and smarter
minds.
Mrs. Napolitano. But some of the authorities tell us that
if you start putting fisheries and growing them--in other
words, fisher nurseries--is different than wild, and that we
are reducing the endangered species by not allowing it to grow
naturally.
Mr. Cousteau. In terms of aquaculture?
Mrs. Napolitano. Yes.
Mr. Cousteau. Yes. Well, there is great concern with
aquaculture and how to responsibly develop that. Unfortunately,
farming of the oceans is a future that is here. I mean, it is
already happening and it will continue to happen. I know at
Ocean Conservancy we are doing a lot of work on----
Mrs. Napolitano. But not as a replacement for.
Mr. Cousteau. Well, unfortunately, I think in some cases we
will look at--in terms of protein, potentially, but not as a
replacement of species. But already over 2 billion people rely
on fish as a primary source of protein on the oceans. And a
great deal of aquaculture. In fact, a great percentage of the
protein that comes from seafood today comes from aquaculture
globally, especially in countries like China, et cetera. So, it
is not a replacement of species, but it will increasingly be a
replacement of protein.
Mr. Danson. I think that there are, as you said, huge
problems, especially with fish that are carnivorous, because
the salmon that we eat, the farmed salmon we eat comes perhaps
from Chile. And to make 1 pound of farmed salmon, you need to
catch and feed 3 pounds of wild fish with that salmon. So, it
is 3 to 4 pounds of wild fish to create 1 pound. So, it is
great for us here or in Europe to be able to continue eating
salmon, but fish in the markets in Santiago are getting smaller
and smaller because their wild fish are being fed to farm
salmon. And then there is all of the problems with biotics.
Mr. Cousteau. And disease.
Mrs. Napolitano. And rise in the temperature of the ocean,
too.
Mr. Danson. Complicated.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. The gentleman from Utah, Mr. Chaffetz.
Mr. Chaffetz. Listen, I appreciate it. I am a freshman. It
is an honor to be here and to ask you some questions and talk
about the serious dialogue. I appreciate the passion and
commitment that you have to this. You could both be doing
something else, and you are sitting here about lunchtime, and
so I appreciate it.
I also want you to know that I have a passion for our
environment. I have a passion for the outdoors. Part of that
came from watching Jacques Cousteau. Part of it came from
watching Mutual of Omaha. Most of it came from being in the
outdoors and enjoying that, sharing it with my wife and my
three kids. And so I am passionate about that and I care about
it.
My time is short, so rapid fire here, if I could. You are
in favor of wind technologies, correct? You are in favor of
tidal technology to capture energy. You are in favor of wave
and current power. In order to capture that power and then
transmit that power, explain to me the difference between your
concerns--take the word oil out of it--a rig that is placed in
a waterway, that is placed out in the ocean, and the difference
between that rig and what you might see if, for instance, you
were going to create a wind tower; what does that effect have
on the ocean? What is the difference?
Mr. Cousteau. Well, again, it comes down to a siting issue.
I would not place a wind farm that you would drill into the
ground, the post in a fragile seagrass bed or fragile deep sea
coral reef or shallow coral reef. So, it is a siting issue. So,
the siting issues aside, if there is an appropriate place that
would have minimum impact on the environment, that is the main
thing.
Mr. Chaffetz. Well, it is drilling, too. It is not the fact
that there is actually a rig or an actual structure there.
Mr. Cousteau. Well, the thing about wind that is different
than oil is that it is not producing a caustic toxic substance.
Mr. Chaffetz. And I think I understand and appreciate the
concern that there are inevitably spills. No one is in favor of
spills; no one has ever advocated that they are pro-spill. But
the question is: the structure itself, is that problematic to
being in the ocean? Does that harm whales or fish or anything
else like that?
Mr. Cousteau. It is a siting issue. Again, it depends on
where it is placed.
Mr. Chaffetz. If it is actually placed in the right spot,
in your professional opinion it is not going to cause a problem
long term to the health and ability of the ocean to thrive,
correct?
Mr. Cousteau. Everything will have an impact. It is just a
balancing of----
Mr. Chaffetz. But there is nothing worse about an oil rig
as opposed to a wind tower.
And then let me ask you about the transmission----
Mr. Danson. Are you saying the rig itself----
Mr. Chaffetz. Yes.
Mr. Danson.--or the fact that it is extracting oil?
Probably not. If the oil rig were placed correctly and is not
pumping oil, it would probably be the same as the wind tower.
Mr. Chaffetz. OK, I appreciate that.
Now, once that energy is captured, there has to be a way to
transmit it, right? I mean, we run into this with the windmills
that are actually within the Continental United States to
actually transmit that power. What challenges and problems do
you see with that?
Mr. Cousteau. Transmitting power from wind?
Mr. Chaffetz. Again, wind, tidal, wave, current.
Mr. Cousteau. Again, it is a siting issue. You must take
into consideration the entire habitat from the shoreline to the
facility. But typically it is a DC power cable that is buried
underground and that remains there. As long as it is not
impacting a fragile environment in between the shore, it has
very minimal impact.
Mr. Chaffetz. So, the actual installation, the long-term
effect of once it is actually placed upon the floor of the sea
bed, that is not a problem.
Mr. Cousteau. Of wind power----
Mr. Chaffetz. I mean, I understand you have a nice coral
reef, you don't want to tear it out and have something drill. I
think I understand and appreciate that. But the fact that once
that power line or once that transmission line is actually laid
down, it is not going to create a problem. In fact, the sea
life might actually thrive on that; is that correct?
Mr. Cousteau. Ideally, any kind of a power line that is
connecting the shore to any kind of wind power would be
submerged underground. Sea life wouldn't thrive. Ideally, it
wouldn't impact them at all if you find a place that is
appropriately sited that doesn't have a lot of vibrancy left to
begin with.
Mr. Chaffetz. And would you support the acceleration of the
permitting process to go through this? I mean, if this is such
urgency, one of the challenges out there is the NEPA process
and going through the permitting process to actually accelerate
the inevitable challenges. We see this in our wind farms now.
We have them in Utah, we have them in Wyoming, we have them
across the country. You get these nice big structures out
there, and then they have a permitting problem to actually
transmit the energy, so you can't take advantage of that. We
have that with geothermal as well.
Would you support the acceleration of the permitting
process and rapidly accelerating the appeals process that is so
cumbersome to the development of alternative energies and
traditional forms of energy as well?
Mr. Danson. Can I get back to you from Oceana's point of
view? I don't know the answer to that.
Mr. Chaffetz. Sure.
Mr. Cousteau. Well, no matter what, the NEPA process, we
will go through the NEPA process, and that is important to go
through. But I think that our advocacy for a comprehensive plan
will greatly accelerate the NEPA process in and of itself
because siting is a major issue, as I said a few times. If you
can appropriately site and plan, spatial planning of the
oceans, then you can provide a better certainty that the
permitting process will be approved and that NEPA will move,
thus, faster just through planning.
Mr. Chaffetz. Any other comments to what we were talking
about with the siting?
Mr. Danson. I will get back to you from Oceana's point of
view.
The Chairman. The gentleman from the Commonwealth of the
Northern Mariana Islands, Mr. Sablan, is recognized.
Mr. Sablan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Danson
and Mr. Cousteau.
I understand Mrs. Bordallo has brought specific questions
that relate to the Mariana Islands. As you are aware, I come
from an area that is as large as the Continental United States,
but 99 percent of it is water. And the Cousteau family has been
out in Micronesia before, particularly in Palau, I understand.
So, thank you for your testimony today. This is important to
us.
As I understand, Mr. Cousteau is aware of the recent
declaration of a monument in the Northern Mariana Islands. It
was an issue that actually was very divisive, not because of
the monument, but because of the approach that was taken. Some
people preferred that it be a sanctuary approach, and some
people thought the exercise of the antiquity site was the only
way to go.
But the ocean is very important to us; it is our livelihood
for many people. Tourism is the only industry we have in the
Northern Marianas at this time. And so I will read into your
testimony, and thank you for your time.
Mr. Danson. Thank you.
Mr. Cousteau. Thank you.
The Chairman. The gentlelady from Wyoming, Ms. Lummis.
Mrs. Lummis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I would like to thank you as well for spending some
time with us today.
I am as devoted to the land as you are to the oceans. Being
from Wyoming, it is one of the most beautiful States in the
United States. So, I understand your passion for your
particular natural resource.
The question is, the ``not in my back yard'' issue, and I
want to pursue that line of thinking because we need assistance
from organizations such as yours who are devoted to protecting
a natural resource in finding other ways, better ways, to do
what we need to produce energy for this country and for this
world. And not just here, not in my back yard.
So, in pursuit of that line of thinking, I want you to know
that we have a world-class wind resource in Wyoming, and the
other world-class wind resource is in the oceans. I am facing
in my area, within my view, 20,000 acres' worth of wind
turbines. And the ranchers in my area are very concerned about
the effects that it will have on rafters, on livestock raising,
on wildlife migration corridors. So, these same issues appear
on land. But we are willing to allow for that kind of resource
to be exploited on that land because of its importance to the
world at large.
The problem I am having is I don't hear that same
commitment to solving problems from organizations such as
yours. I am hearing we don't want energy production in the
resource that we love, which is the oceans. But it has to be
produced somewhere. We could blanket the entire State of Ohio
with wind turbines and it would only produce as much energy as
one square mile of Wyoming coal. Yet groups are protesting
building new coal-fired power plants and not supporting carbon
sequestration research or clean coal technology because they
say there is no such thing. The only way to get such a thing is
to fund the research.
So, I want to make a plea to you that, while you are
passionate about your resource and I am passionate about my
resource, we need to work together to find answers and not just
throw up roadblocks.
The gentleman earlier said, I would like an answer to the
question about why those leases are not being produced on the
Outer Continental Shelf now. Well, the answer is because they
can't get a drilling permit. Once you have a lease to drill,
you don't have a permit to drill; all you have is the
opportunity to go through the greater roadblocks, the greater
processes that we throw up in order to produce those resources.
And it is that we will allow nothing to be produced, and yet
you want the gal in my home district, in my State, who is
trying to raise three children while working at a fast food
joint, to find a way to get her children to day care and then
to work.
I am expressing my frustrations only because I am as
devoted to my resource as you are to yours, the land. I love
the land and I love the Rocky Mountain West. But we have to
find answers, we can't just establish roadblocks. And I simply
make a plea to you, in your passion for your resource, to also
bring about positive alternatives to the consequences to your
resource that you are so passionate about.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I deeply appreciate the
opportunity to be here today and to have you here today.
The Chairman. The gentleman from Oregon, Mr. Inslee.
Mr. Inslee. A little better than Oregon. It is actually
Washington, but just a little better. We do have some coastline
in Washington.
Mr. Abercrombie. Mr. Chairman, the people of Oregon have
enough trouble already.
Mr. Inslee. We do have coastline in my State. I just want
to assure Ms. Lummis, given enough time and burning enough
fossil fuel, you will have a shoreline, too, in Wyoming. That
is what we are trying to prevent here.
I want to refer to a famous philosopher who before almost
every revelation said, ``It is a little known fact'' and that
was philosopher Cliff Claven. And I want to tell you that I
really appreciate our two witnesses bringing out this issue of
a little known fact of ocean acidification. It really is the
sleeping time bomb in public perception that has not arrived in
public perception yet. So, I appreciate you talking about it.
And I want to make a suggestion that we change how we talk
about this issue about what the percentages are of oil spills
from offshore oil drilling.
I think that the fact is, in offshore oil drilling, a fact
of life we have to live with is that, despite the improvements
of technology--and there have been improvements in oil drilling
technology from safety perspectives--100 percent of that oil
spills because the carbon that goes up in carbon dioxide
eventually comes back down and lands where we live. Seventy
percent of it spills in the ocean, and 30 percent of it spills
on the land. And that 70 percent of the ocean is now making the
oceans 30 percent more acidic than in preindustrial ages, and
will clearly cause the mortality of coral species in probably
my grandson's lifetime--who is now 9 weeks old.
So, I think that as we talk about this, we need to talk
about the inevitability of oil spills from every single
offshore--and onshore, frankly--drilling rig that we have. And
that is a reality we have to build into this policy. I just
suggest it is a way of thinking about this; 100 percent oil
spills from offshore drilling if we continue on this course.
So, I want to thank you for talking about this issue.
Second, I want to focus on the Arctic. I have been a
sponsor of a bill to essentially call a time-out on Arctic oil
drilling, both in the Bering Sea and in the Polar Sea from the
polar bear perspective. And we now have seen virtually the
disappearance of the Arctic during the summers due to global
warming; that is a scientific fact. And it has accelerated a
lot faster, just like acidification, much faster than the
models predicted.
Now, as it has happened, every time I hear a story that the
Arctic has disappeared, I read another story about how the oil
industry is absolutely salivating at the prospect of going out
there and drilling oil in the places where we used to have the
Arctic ice sheet until the oil drilling destroyed it.
I think we should consider an international moratorium on
oil extraction in the areas of the planet that our use of
fossil fuels has destroyed. And the reason I say that is that I
think that there is generally in all of our guts something that
would seem wrong about doing something--which is burning oil,
which destroys the Arctic, which is the heat shield for the
whole planet--and then responding to that by going up and
drilling for more oil in the Arctic, which will cause more
Arctic melting, which will allow more Arctic drilling, et
cetera, et cetera. I think there is something in the human
psyche that would reject that kind of idea.
And I would suggest this is something--I haven't talked to
anyone but my wife about this, she thought it was an OK idea. I
am just going to throw that idea for you guys' consideration.
And I think it is one way for us to focus the world on what is
happening and why we ought to pay particular concern about
marine extraction policies. I will just throw this idea out for
you. What do you think?
Mr. Cousteau. Bravo, Congressman. I will restrain from
applause, but I am tempted. I think that is a great way of
looking at the challenge that we face.
You are right; 100 percent of our exploitation of not only
oil, but coal, comes back into our own backyards. And I think
it is a great way of looking at the challenge. And ocean
acidification is one of those things that few people are
talking about. And it is just chilling when you really
understand the potential devastation that it will cause to our
oceans.
I think your wife clearly has great judgment because you
make an outstanding point, I will say that. And I appreciate
you bringing that up because I had not looked at it that way,
and I think it is a great way to look at it.
I think specifically the Arctic. I was there in June
filming. We were up just a few miles south of the North Pole,
and, look as we may, we could not find multi-year ice, which is
of great concern. All the ice is melting. We did some research
up there as part of the film for NASA on drilling in the ice.
Mr. Inslee. What do you think of this moratorium idea in
the Arctic?
Mr. Cousteau. I think it is an outstanding idea. If there
is anywhere that is the most fragile for drilling it is the
Arctic. Because not only do we not have the technology to
sufficiently clean up oil spills in the Gulf or in places
without floating ice, the Arctic is especially fragile. And we
know so little about it. In places where the ice has retreated,
we have no scientific data. We cannot conscientiously and
morally and responsibly exploit those areas because we know
nothing about them. And we don't know what kind of tremendous
impact we will have on these amazing resources that provide the
basis of food chains for the entire northern Pacific oceans. I
mean, the gray whale travels to the Bering Sea, 6,000 miles
from the Gulf of Mexico, in the longest migration of a mammal
in the world to feed in these rich, rich waters. And they
provide the basis of a food chain that goes all the way down
through the Pacific.
The Arctic is such a critical habitat. It is the smallest
ocean, if not one of the most critical oceans in the world. And
we know so little. I think your idea for a moratorium certainly
in the Arctic is absolutely appropriate.
Mr. Danson. It is interesting that fishermen who don't
always like to be told what to do have come to the same
conclusion. And they are going to not fish, period, until they
have done the science to know what is the environmentally
correct, sustainable, responsible way to go about it. And I
think the same applies to oil.
Mr. Inslee. Thank you.
The Chairman. The gentleman from California, Mr.
McClintock.
Mr. McClintock. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would
respectfully withhold my support of the gentleman from
Washington's idea, although I am sure that the Saudis would
certainly applaud such an approach.
I wanted to weigh in on the colloquy with Mrs. Capps
earlier concerning national seepage. I grew up in Ventura
County in Thousand Oaks just a few miles from the coast, spent
a great deal of time at the beach as a young person. I was a
NAWI- and PADI-certified scuba diver in my younger days. And I
can tell you from personal experience that in the 1960s,
whenever you visited a friend near the beach, there was a
ubiquitous tin pan of turpentine in the garage. And the reason
for that was the beaches throughout that region were so spotted
with natural seepage that you couldn't walk across a beach
without ending up with big globs of tar on your feet. And every
family had a big tin pan by the garage door so that you could
get the tar off your feet before you went inside. You won't
find those tin pans today. There has been a great relief in the
natural seepage in the 45 years of my experience in that
region. In fact, I represented the coastline from the LA County
line all the way up to Ventura in the Assembly; and then for
the past 8 years in the State Senate, all the way up to Santa
Maria.
So, again, I can tell you from personal experience,
dramatic change over those 45 years for the better. And in
fact, if one opens a history book, you will find Juan
Cabrillo's notes on the coast of California as he sailed up the
coast in the 16th century. When he anchored off the coast of
what is now Carpendria, he made extensive notations in his log
books over a massive, massive oil slick that covered the water
as far as he could see. And it was, to my recollection, before
the offshore rigs went in.
Mr. Danson. Thank you.
The Chairman. The gentleman from Oklahoma, Mr. Boren.
Mr. Boren. I really appreciate both of you being here, Mr.
Danson and Mr. Cousteau. And I knew when we had this hearing
that we would have a lot of Cheers references, so I have to add
mine.
I know we have France and the United States. And of course
my favorite episode is where Sammy beat the French gigolo. And
USA did win, by the way. ``USA, USA'' as Carla said. But,
anyway, I had to throw that in.
Mr. Cousteau. I had not seen that episode. I don't know
why. I will take your word for it though.
Mr. Boren. Anyway, I am kind of an outlier. I know we have
Republicans and Democrats here, and a lot of times this becomes
kind of a regional argument. I am a Democrat from Oklahoma. It
is an oil and gas producing State. It is a big industry in our
State. And, you know, I want to say to you all, it is a large
producer of income for our Federal Government. It is actually
the second largest contributor to the Treasury next to income
taxes.
And in Oklahoma, the oil and gas industry buys a lot of
textbooks for education. We also have a check-off program in
Oklahoma called the Oklahoma Energy Resources Board where we go
back and clean up well sites.
So, when you think about the oil and gas industry, I know a
lot of folks on our side sometimes disparage them as these kind
of greedy JR Ewing types. Most of the folks in the oil and gas
industry want to protect the environment, they want to give
back, and they want us all to coexist.
I am the incoming chairman of the Congressional Sportsmen's
Caucus, and I support responsible energy development. I don't
think we should just drill for the sake of drilling, but I do
think it is a big part of our economy.
One thing that we heard today was about spills and
everything else--and I wanted to go back to Katrina and Rita
where we had 3,050 offshore platforms in the Gulf--and
according to the MMS and the U.S. Coast Guard, that there
weren't any significant spills. Now, this is just from the
platforms. The industry that produces about 1.4 billion barrels
of oil per day, which since 1980 less than .001 percent of that
has spilled, how do you all reconcile that? I mean, you are
saying, well, it is a problem. Is it just this oil that is
running around there? Is it from fishing boats? Are you saying
it is mainly from rigs? Because from my estimation, .001
percent is a very small percentage. That is my first question.
And again I just want to reiterate there are a lot of
responsible people in the oil and gas industry, patriotic
people that want to do what is right by our country.
Mr. Danson. I have a huge amount of respect. When I first
started doing this 20 years ago, we were invited up to Prudhoe
Bay by the oil companies. We got to know them, we enjoyed them.
We disagreed, but we came together and decided how can we work
together. We are never going to agree on the wildlife refuge,
but let's find something we can do together. And we started to
reuse the motor oil, a recycling used motor oil program in
Southern California that kept more oil out of our oceans, our
coastal waters, almost than Exxon Valdez. You dump that much
down, do-it-yourselfers every year. So, I have a huge amount of
respect for you all--not ``you all,'' I am sorry.
Mr. Boren. I am part of the oil and gas industry,
absolutely. Sure, sure, my family has been in the business.
Mr. Danson. And it makes absolute sense I think from your
perspective, an oilman's perspective, to drill. But I just
think the risks far outweigh. But it is not out of a lack of
respect.
Mr. Boren. And I want to make one comment, too. I think
that, as Boone Pickens and a lot of other folks who have been
involved in the oil and gas industry for a long time, I think
we all want alternatives. I think we all want to move in that
direction. And natural gas is really a bridge to the future
there. And we have a ton of domestic natural gas that is not
even produced offshore. A lot of it actually is produced in my
congressional district in eastern Oklahoma in the Woodford
shale. And if we use that natural gas--which is actually less
than what it would be for oil--and use that as a transportation
fuel, the carbon footprint will be smaller and we won't be
relying on Saudi Arabia and these other places. And we will
employ a lot of Oklahomans and Californians and a lot of
Americans. So, I appreciate your candor there, that comment.
Thank you.
The Chairman. As it has all been said to my right, but not
everybody has said it, I am going to recognize the gentleman
from Utah, Mr. Bishop.
Mr. Bishop. Did you put me in here between these two
microphones so it would be uncomfortable to talk? Is this the
subtle version?
Hey, I appreciate the kind words of the Chairman. I am
assuming they will get better as the day goes on. And I
apologize for being late. My solar-powered airplane was late
arriving.
I have not had the opportunity of hearing a lot of the
questions that have been asked so far. I will try not to be
redundant. I did have the opportunity of looking at some of the
testimony that was added, and so let me start off with a couple
of things because, to be honest, my math is confusing here.
The number of 120 million barrels that are spilled into the
oceans that has been floating around, how many gallons are in a
barrel?
Mr. Danson. Oh, you got me.
Mr. Inslee. Forty-two.
Mr. Bishop. If it is 42, then that means the number is
somewhere around 3 million barrels that we are talking about is
existing.
Mr. Inslee. 2.9.
Mr. Bishop. 2.9? If the actual leakage from an area is .001
percent, and 63 percent we have been told of actually the oil
spillage comes from that, for some reason those numbers don't
seem to add up in some way. The .001 percent of 4.7 that is
produced is actually more than 3 million barrels that is
supposed to be in there. So, I am making the assumption that we
are throwing around numbers here pretty fast and loose, looking
at different years, different atoms, different concepts, in
coming up with some of these figures that are there, with the
only constant being that seepage is really one of the narrower
of problems that has to be there, or in some way that it just
doesn't fit in some particular way.
I am concerned. And I would like to ask either of you to
respond to a couple of implications that were made, one in
which it was stated that decisions over offshore drilling have
been made in the absence of adequate scientific information.
And I would like to know if you wanted to amplify that,
especially because any kind of offshore drilling activity would
first of all go through, by law and regulation, a study before
a lease program is established, a study before the lease sale
is given, another study before the exploration would take
place, another study before production. A minimum of three
separate environmental impact statements would be made. And if
we are talking also--let me see if I can list--that there are
no laws, at the very least, legislature is to ensure the
process of new drilling sites and conditions applied to
exploration minimize their impact. We already have the Outer
Continental Shelf Lands Act, the Coastal Zone Management Act,
Marine Mammals Protection Act, the Endangered Species Act, the
Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, the National Environmental
Protection Agency Act, and all sorts of other protections.
Are you really serious when you say that you firmly believe
decisions have been made without adequate scientific input?
Mr. Danson. Yes, I do. I don't know if that is necessarily
accurate; but yes, I do believe that. The reason why I got into
this conversation to begin with was the scientific information
that was coming our way about the acidification of the oceans.
Mr. Bishop. But if indeed we are having--they just gave me
a list of the laws that are applicable, and they are not
numbered, it goes from A to ii. Is there not some room maybe to
vary some of that approach and saying, yes, there is a
significant amount of research impact, at least environmental
statements that have to be made before any of this stuff
progresses?
Mr. Danson. You know well more than I do. I will defer to
you. But if you are not taking into consideration that by
burning fossil fuels you are dumping so much carbon dioxide
into our oceans that a vast percentage of that could die as a
result of acidification, then no, we haven't done enough
science.
Mr. Bishop. All right. I mean, if you want to work with me,
I am told I have a great deal of ability for having rhetorical
excess around here, at least the Chairman does. You don't have
to verify that.
The Chairman. That is why you were given two microphones.
Mr. Bishop. OK. We can work on those. Now I can't reach
this one. You noticed I moved to the left to talk here, though.
We can try and move on that particular approach.
There is another thing. We are in a State that is currently
trying to balance the budget. I am an old classroom teacher.
This is not my native area of expertise. They are desperately
trying to fund education in the State of Utah and make sure
that my retirement checks keep coming through, and yet the
Secretary recently withdrew 77 leases of potential gas, which
took $3 million off the table that the legislature is now
trying to bundle with. Now, that has got to be made up in a
particular way.
So, in your position as maybe an expert--I am running out
of time--an expert on these issues, if we had traditionally had
since the 1950s about $200 billion in royalties that have gone
to the State and local government, the expectation is somewhere
in the name of $1 trillion billion that have gone to State
government so they can fund themselves, what tax would you
suggest should be used to replicate that funding source?
Mr. Danson. You outdid me, sir. I know the staff heard the
question, and we will get back an answer to that.
Mr. Bishop. Is that my rhetorical excess again one more
time?
Mr. Danson. No. I honor the question, I just don't have an
answer.
Mr. Bishop. If I could ask the indulgence of Chairman
Rahall, this is the last question. I don't want to abuse my
privilege yet.
The Chairman. Will you leave after this set of questions?
Mr. Bishop. If the Chairman would be satisfied, I would be
happy to do that. The things I do to make you happy around
here.
We import about $700 billion worth of petroleum from the
Middle East, and every barrel of gas, of product--oil, I was
just told, 19 percent of that equates to fuel that is pulled
off, which any kind of green alternative could kind of handle
that. The other 42 percent is the stuff that is left over,
which is reserve, that goes into making plastics and chemicals.
And, in fact, they just told me you went into an operating
room, something with which you are familiar--and you go in
there--everything except for the steel comes from some source
that is oil-based product. Jobs are oil-based product. I am not
sitting on leather up here, these are all oil-based products.
If indeed we do not come up with an American source to supply
those types of needs in the chemical and the medical and the
plastics area, what product are we going to--how are we going
to replace that? What is the process that goes through that? We
are not just talking about fueling automobiles when we talk
about oil production, we are talking about a whole series of
issues: jobs, input, things that have made life better.
Mr. Cousteau. Well, if I may, Congressman, I think in
answer to your first question, there are several acts that
govern management of the oceans. However, since the moratorium
was not reinstated, there is no comprehensive management
legislation for the Outer Continental Shelf. And the research
is inadequate. We know for sure that the research that exists
right now--and I am not making a comment on what has happened
in the past, it has happened--but going forward, the research
of the Outer Continental Shelf, the knowledge of the ecosystems
there and spatial planning is inadequate today in many, many
places.
I will also say that in answer to your second question, to
replace some of the tax revenue from that, I think renewable
energy will certainly--there will be taxes on renewable energy
in the development of that, certainly in offshore and domestic
on the land. And I think that we forget, too, that there are
negative costs to developing and our reliance on oil.
As I said earlier, 1 out of 4 children in New York City
have asthma. I think that we must balance the negative impacts
to our health, to our health care industry--we have some of the
highest costs in the health care industry in the world. I
believe there are multiple estimates that I have seen, various
different research studies, but certainly numbering in the
thousands of deaths that occur from air pollution in this
country. So, if you want to fully factor the costs in, you need
to factor those in as well to the costs on taxpayer dollars for
health care and for other things that are negatively impacted
by oil.
And to the third point. I agree with you, I think it is not
going to be realistic for a very long time to fully eliminate
oil from our economy. I think that the critical--and what we
must embark upon now is a drastic reduction with the goal of
eventually eliminating it. But we can't wait any longer, we
have to start now. And continuing to drill and continuing to
focus on this issue of drilling is not, I think, the way to do
it.
Mr. Bishop. I think there are some serial things where we
can actually work together on this.
I appreciate the very eloquent answer that is there. And I
realize that Pampers come from oil, and that they do cause
problems in landfills. But as somebody who had three kids under
3 in the cloth diaper era, I like Pampers. And I may like them
in the future a lot more; who knows?
The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired.
The gentleman from California, Mr. Costa.
Mr. Costa. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Cousteau and Mr. Danson, are either of you familiar
with the last evaluation of research that was done by the
National Academy of Sciences in 2002 that talked about the
impacts of pollution in the seas throughout the world?
Mr. Danson. Probably not.
Mr. Costa. Well, it is my understanding one of the last
comprehensive compilations of all the different information
that is put out there, some of the information has already been
discussed this morning. I guess you put me somewhere out in the
middle. I mean, you talked about, earlier this morning, about a
comprehensive approach. And if there is going to be some
additional expansion of offshore oil and gas resources, that
the revenues from that ought to be used to get us off of fossil
fuels. We had such a bill last year, Congressman Abercrombie
and myself, on a bipartisan basis, I would suggest you look at
it.
But basically what the National Academy of Sciences
concluded in this report was that today accidental spills from
platforms represent about 1 percent of the petroleum inputs in
North America waters and about 3 percent worldwide. And it goes
on to stipulate that when you look at the impacts around the
world, that over 85 percent of the contributions of decline of
fisheries that we have talked a lot about today is a result of
nonpoint sources. And I want to use all the energy tools in our
energy toolbox to get us off of fossil fuels. But what you
haven't talked about today is how we get there, how you develop
an orderly process. Because there is a near-term, there is an
intermediate-term, and there is a long-term strategy. And just
wishing or saying that offshore drilling or oil and gas
exploration in this country is bad, when we have the highest
standards--and I would take issue with you, Mr. Cousteau,
because the moratorium has been lifted, that in fact there are
not the protections that Mr. Bishop--you prefer a moratorium, I
understand that, and we may agree to disagree on that, but all
the protections are still in place in terms of all the
requirement and permits that have to be done.
Do you agree that nonpoint source, both of you, is the
primary source of decline of fisheries and degradation of the
oceans of the world?
Mr. Danson. I would say, you know, I don't know the facts
and figures exactly, but absolutely it plays a huge part of it.
Mr. Costa. It is 85 percent.
Mr. Danson. Huge part of it. But then when you add what
happens----
Mr. Costa. Do you agree, Mr. Cousteau? We had 1.5 billion
people living on the planet 200 years ago, we have 6 billion
people living on the planet today. Do you know where a lot of
them live? Around the world, around the coast. And they have
all of that nonpoint source pollution going into the oceans.
Mr. Cousteau. Correct.
Mr. Costa. And what my point is, I think that your efforts
are misplaced. I mean, if I want to correct an ecological
nightmare that is taking place, I would be focusing on the
nonpoint source pollutions that we do in this country, that we
require cities and counties with tertiary treatment facilities
and with waste disposal and all of the like, and every time it
rains--I am one of those that does sail the coast of California
and sails the Caribbean. I am a passionate sailor. And my
Portuguese compatriot, Juan Rodriguez Cabrillo's notes I have
read when he sailed the coast of California 400 years ago. And
obviously we can't go back 400 years. But I think trying to see
where our differences lie is an acknowledgement, as you made a
point of with ANWR, that it just seems to me you want to get us
off of fossil fuel. I want to get us off of fossil fuel, but no
one is talking here about an orderly process on how we do that.
Mr. Danson. It feels to me that the reason why we are not
at this particular moment is because I feel, from my point of
view, we are putting out the fire of opening up the Outer
Continental Shelf to oil drilling. I mean, that is the
conservation that--I agree with you wholeheartedly; to sit back
and say no, no, no is not responsible. I agree.
Mr. Costa. We are going to have to continue, for the near
term, I believe, extraction of oil and natural gas not only
along our coasts, but around the world. And we do it better--I
mean, do you spend the same focus on the impacts of this
offshore activity in Nigeria and along the Arabian coasts as we
are talking about here----
Mr. Danson. I respect the fact that we do it really well. I
am not denying that.
Mr. Cousteau. If I may add----
Mr. Costa. Your grandfather spent a lot of time around the
world, Mr. Cousteau, and talked about that pollution occurring
in other places where they didn't have very good management
practices, whether it be from oil or nonpoint sources. And I
haven't heard you comment about the nonpoint sources.
Mr. Cousteau. Well, because--I mean our discussion today is
for management of the Outer Continental Shelf. I agree the
nonpoint source pollution is a challenge, but----
Mr. Costa. And what percentage of the challenge do you
believe it to be on the Outer Continental Shelf in North
America, where we have some of the best management practices,
so that we stay focused on this morning's topic.
Mr. Cousteau. Can you repeat the question?
Mr. Costa. What percentage of the problems of degradation
of the oceans on the Outer Continental Shelf in North America
is contributing to the decline versus nonpoint sources versus
activity of offshore oil and gas?
Mr. Cousteau. I don't have any of those figures in front of
me.
Mr. Costa. Well, don't you think a good comparative
analysis would be appropriate if we are talking about concerns
about good science, best management practices?
Mr. Cousteau. I am sure if they don't exist----
Mr. Costa. We have limited dollars, and it just seems to me
that we ought to put our dollars for the best bang for the best
buck. And so we should do a quantitative analysis on how much
the nonpoint source pollutions are contributing to the decline
of the Outer Continental Shelf off North America versus the
impacts of oil and gas. That is all I am asking.
Mr. Cousteau. I don't disagree that we don't know enough
about the oceans, and I think I have been saying that all day.
But----
Mr. Costa. But we know that the overwhelming majority comes
from nonpoint source to the decline of the fisheries.
Mr. Cousteau. Well, today what we are advocating is the
management of the Outer Continental Shelf, not to the exclusion
of focusing----
Mr. Costa. I understand. But I just want to know, you as a
very high-minded citizen, and you, Mr. Danson, I mean, you live
off--Mr. Danson, did we, for the record, substantiate--by the
way, they say you and I look a lot alike. I love your Arctic
blonde hair.
Mr. Danson. That is very kind of you.
Mr. Costa. I think it is very becoming. Mine is actually
naturally black, but I do this to get more gravitas for
people----
The Chairman. On that point, I think we ought to tell the
gentleman his time has expired.
Mr. Costa. Well, it has expired. But just for the record, I
think that it would be helpful in terms of ocean management
studies--of which I have read some--that we do the kind of
comparative analysis on this, because we have 27 platforms off
the California coast. And I know tourism is a big thing in
California, because I live there. And I don't think those 27
platforms have turned anyone away from wanting to visit
California.
Mr. Cousteau. I agree that more research is needed on all
fronts, Congressman.
Mr. Danson. And I hope that today's conservation is giving
the impression that we are not just looking at oil rigs per se,
we are looking at the whole process of oil; what happens when
you drill it, what happens when it gets spilled in
transportation, what happens when we burn it in our cars and it
gets washed off in nonpoint into the coastal zone, and what
happens when it falls back down into our oceans. So, we are
trying to look at it from a complete point of view of what are
the risks and costs of drilling and continuing our addiction to
oil.
The Chairman. The Chair will recognize the gentleman from
South Carolina just quickly for a UC. I believe you want to
submit a statement.
Mr. Brown. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. If it is in order,
I would like to submit an opening statement.
The Chairman. Without objection, so ordered.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Brown follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Henry E. Brown, Jr., a Representative in
Congress from the State of South Carolina
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that you have scheduled this oversight
hearing on the Federal Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas leasing
program.
It is not only the first hearing of the Natural Resources Committee
this year but it is the first time we have reexamined the benefits of
the OCS program since the 110th Congress wisely ended the 27-year old
leasing moratorium.
The U.S. Mineral Management Service has estimated that the Federal
OCS contains as much as 86 billion barrels of oil and 420 trillion
cubic feet of natural gas.
As a representative of the 1st Congressional District of South
Carolina, I proudly represent 75 percent of the coastline of my State
and some 140 miles that includes some of the finest beaches in the
world.
Every year, millions of Americans, Canadians and other visitors
travel to my District to enjoy these beaches and I would never support
any Federal action that would put our pristine beaches in peril.
Yet, the real facts of the OCS Program are frequently ignored and
blatantly misrepresented. Despite the heated rhetoric, the OCS Program
has an outstanding environmental record. It is our Nation's safest
energy extraction program. In fact, urban runoff dumps more oil into
the ocean than offshore rigs.
We will also hear from a witness today who will testify that 70,000
barrels of oil and 3 billion cubic feet of methane are seeping into
California coastal waters each and every year. These annual seeps are
equal to the volume created by the 1969 Santa Barbara oil spill.
Furthermore, let's be clear. The greatest threat to my beaches and
those in California, Florida and New Jersey is not the Federal OCS
Program but oil spills from leaking foreign tankers. Of the 50 largest
oil spills, not a single one was the result of the Federal OCS leasing
program.
In the Gulf of Mexico, which is the site of the greatest amount of
OCS activity, commercial energy production and fishing activities have
co-existed for decades. In 2006, commercial fishermen landed 1.3
billion pounds of fish and eight of the top 25 ports for commercial
landings were in the Gulf of Mexico. We know that offshore rigs provide
habitat for millions of fish and the potential of using rigs for
offshore aquaculture is a huge untapped source of protein for this
nation.
In the final analysis, the choice is clear. We can continue to
obtain our vital energy resources from foreign governments that hate
the United States and are more than willing to strangle our economy or
we can develop our resources in a safe and responsible way. We can
continue to have our imported energy resources transported on foreign
tankers which sometimes foul our beaches or we can increase the amount
of production on the Federal OCS which is our safest energy extraction
program.
I choose to support the Federal OCS program and would remind my
colleagues that in a recent Rasmussen nationwide survey, 68 percent of
Americans indicated they support offshore oil drilling. Since our
witnesses did not walk from their homes to this hearing and visitors to
my State need gasoline to drive their cars to the Grand Strand, it is
essential that we move forward with the OCS Program and not reinstate
the short-sighted and ill conceived leasing moratoriums.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
______
The Chairman. By way of housekeeping, the Chair intends to
recognize the remaining members on the majority side, including
the gentlelady from New Hampshire next, who was here early on
in the hearings for some time and did not get recognized. And
then, with the forbearance of the panel, there are some that
still would like to go through a second round of questions, but
if the panelists--yes, I will leave it up to your discretion
after we go through our Democrats.
Mr. Danson. I would love to stay here all day. Next time I
will learn not to be nervous and drink a lot of water.
Is it possible to----
The Chairman. We shall have a 5-minute break.
Mr. Danson. That is so kind of you.
The Chairman. OK. The Committee will be in recess.
[Recess.]
The Chairman. The Committee will resume. And the Chair and
all members of the Committee certainly want to extend our
appreciation to Ted and Philippe for their patience and
willingness to share so much time with us today. We deeply
appreciate it.
The Chair will now recognize the gentlelady from New
Hampshire, Ms. Carol Shea-Porter.
Ms. Shea-Porter. Thank you very much for being here.
I grew up along the oceans of New York and New Hampshire.
And there can be no doubt that the oceans are degraded and that
they are greatly stressed. So, I am concerned that there is not
universal consensus about the conditions of the oceans right
now.
And I am particularly concerned by the statistic that you
used, Mr. Danson, when you were saying that half the people in
the world depend on the ocean for their protein as a major
source of food. And it occurred to me that the argument that we
are having here and other places would just be wiped off the
map if we started to argue about the food and the loss of food
if our oceans continue being degraded.
The question that I wanted to ask, I first wanted to talk
about Georges Bank, and that obviously is in New England. If
they did develop it, it could only give maybe 3 percent of the
recoverable oil for the Nation's preserves, 3 percent. And I
have concerns because it is such a rich fishing area. Would you
comment on the possible damage that could be done to Georges
Bank?
Mr. Danson. I think you just said it. I just keep going
back--sorry, I don't know the specifics of Georges Bank, so it
is hard to for me to sound intelligent about that.
Ms. Shea-Porter. In the Gulf of Maine, Massachusetts, New
England area.
Mr. Danson. But spills do happen, oil spills do happen. And
the fact that we keep burning fossil fuels and contributing to
climate change and that carbon dioxide is falling into the
oceans and creating something that we haven't talked about a
lot, which is acidification, so that your fishing areas are
getting stress from overfishing, they are getting stress from
pollution, and now if they start getting stressed from the
bottom of the food chain being eradicated by carbon dioxide
getting in and acidification, then you could seriously lose
your fisheries completely.
Ms. Shea-Porter. Right. In New Hampshire we have a great
deal of concern. We call ourselves--and, indeed, all of New
England--the tailpipe of America. We don't feel good about
that, and I know you know what that means. And we do see the
effects of acid rain from coal and others. And we are seeing
the impact, if you go up to the top of some of our mountains
and you can see the damage to the leaves, and you see damage in
the environment just in general because of the climate change
and because of our addiction to fossil fuels.
Now, I think it is interesting also that we are having this
discussion, but we haven't brought up the fact that at some
point we are probably going to run out of this. So, I want to
talk to you about what T. Boone Pickens had to say when he came
and spoke to the Democrat Caucus, and I know you have seen his
ads on television. And he has a lot of faith in our ability to
harness the wind and solar and use other renewables. And what I
am hearing from a certain segment of the population is a kind
of scorn that we actually could change our use of fuels and we
could use the alternatives.
I am sure that you have looked at what our predicted energy
needs will be. And we all agree that for the short term we have
to continue in oil. But having looked at all of this, do you
think that, along with T. Boone Pickens and so many of us, do
you think that we are capable and that there will be enough
energy that we could harness to meet our needs, not this
generation, but next generation maybe?
Would you like to take a crack at that?
Mr. Cousteau. Well, thank you, Congresswoman, for your
question and insight.
I think that we have the capability to overcome any
challenge in this country. And I have great faith in the
ingenuity and the ability of the workers in this country, of
our economy, the resiliency of us to be able to do so.
We have put people on the Moon. I think we can solve our
energy crisis if we dedicate ourselves and start now with a
really vigorous approach to do so and a vigorous commitment to
doing so.
The technology exists. It may take some hardship as well.
Maybe we don't need to have two SUVs in our garages, or three.
Maybe we don't need to have 50,000 square foot homes. Maybe we
don't need to be flying around just a few people on massive
private jets. Maybe we don't need some of these things; I would
argue that we don't.
I think that there are multiple factors that will be
required for us to continue to live sustainably on this planet.
And I think that the answers to that is myriad. And I think we
can do it. I have great faith that we can do it, because I am
not a big fan of the alternative. Because the alternative, I do
believe, is for us to literally wipe ourselves off the face of
this Earth.
Ms. Shea-Porter. Well, I have always told my children,
little house, big world. And I think that is a safe philosophy
for all of us, because conservation is not being talked about
and it is not being respected yet, so we are not really
addressing it.
I also wanted to talk a moment about what happened with
Valdez. For many, many years the fishermen and those who relied
on that industry tried to get the oil company to settle up and
pay their bills. And it finally went to the Supreme Court and
the fishermen lost. Is there some kind of warning here for
people who live along the coastline who are thinking, well,
maybe that would be the answer, maybe that would help us if we
did get more oil? Is there some kind of lesson for them as
small business and people who rely on tourism, et cetera, to
take a look? What are the lessons there?
Mr. Cousteau. I think that is a great quote. I am actually
a student of history. And I believe it was Churchill who said,
``Those who do not learn from the past are doomed to repeat
it.'' And I think that all we need to do is look back at the
past. Have our reliance and continued exploitation of oil led
us to anywhere positive? I would say no.
I think that it is incumbent upon us to develop renewable
energy and to get off of oil or we will continue to repeat the
mistakes of the past. And I think we only need to look at oil
spills of the past and how we still have 16,000 gallons, I
believe, of oil in Prince William Sound from Exxon Valdez. I
mean, these legacies live for a long time.
Mr. Danson. It is probably not just that the oil companies
are stingy about giving their money to the fishermen, it is
probably that it is so overwhelmingly expensive that it is
probably impossible to clean up the damage, that you do not
have enough money to make it right. It is not just that they
don't want to part with their money, it is probably an
impossibility to make it right with money, which I think is a
lesson. If you have a disastrous spill, there is nothing that
can mitigate that; it is forever.
Mr. Cousteau. And immediately, if you begin to hold oil
companies accountable for the entire cost of their actions and
the entire cost of the oil and what they do, then you start to
get into the question of do you start to account for all of the
health care costs that come from air pollution from
exploitation of these resources? I mean, do you start to charge
them for the full life cycle? That would drive up oil costs
tremendously. I mean, we pay for everything. It is just where
we end up paying for it. So, they probably don't want to open
Pandora's box and set a precedent.
Ms. Shea-Porter. OK. And so for those that are looking at
that as maybe a temporary relief, there is definitely a lesson
to be learned, what the actual experience was, that people lost
their livelihood. And it takes us right back to the beginning
of the hearing when we were talking about we need this for
jobs, we need this for a food source, and we can use it for an
energy source as well.
And on that note, I will say thank you and yield back.
The Chairman. The gentleman from Hawaii is recognized, Mr.
Abercrombie.
Mr. Abercrombie. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And gentlemen,
thank you for being here.
Mr. Costa indicated that we had a bill--when I say ``we,''
this was a broad consensus of Republicans and Democrats. We
didn't call it even bipartisan, we called it nonpartisan. We
developed a bill; it is H.R. 6709 from last year. We are going
to reintroduce it again this year, the National Conservation
Environment and Energy Independence Act. It came out of an
effort that Mr. Peterson of Pennsylvania--since retired I am
very, very sorry to say--and myself put together originally,
H.R. 2784, which had to do with the development offshore of
natural gas absent oil production. And it might be useful to
you just to read what we originally wrote some years ago, it
took us years to put this together, ``to enhance the Nation's
environmental energy, economic and national security by
terminating longstanding Federal prohibitions on the domestic
production of abundant offshore supplies of natural gas.''
This is where we started. I was converted to this, by the
way. I supported the moratorium that you speak of for many
years. I didn't think much about it. Offshore oil, OK, I am
against that, and I didn't think about it. But I listened to
Mr. Peterson at the time about the crisis that we faced in
terms of being able to go from a carbon-based fuel economy now
to an alternative energy, and how would we get there, what kind
of alternative energy bridge could we use? And I concluded that
we had to have exploration and extraction of carbon-based fuels
now to fund and make the transition period. So, we started with
natural gas. ``To dedicate fixed percentages of the resultant
royalties for environmental restoration projects, renewable
energy and carbon sequestration research, weatherization and
energy assistance for those in need, and to share a portion of
such royalties with the producing States, and for other
purposes.''
That is how we started out with this. We tried to figure
out, how do we get to restoration of various areas? And some of
the things that we did were to take the revenues from--this was
just from natural gas leases before we got to oil--energy
efficiency and renewable reserves, $32 billion; carbon capture
and sequestration reserve, $32 billion; Chesapeake Bay
restoration reserve, $20 billion; Great Lakes restoration
reserve--the Great Lakes get forgotten all the time in all the
discussion that takes place. I was born in Buffalo, and I
watched Lake Erie become inert liquid, not H20. It didn't
qualify as a lake anymore, it was inert liquid. I watched
rivers catch on fire in Buffalo.
Great Lakes restoration. Everglades restoration reserve,
$12 billion; Colorado River Basin restoration, $12 billion; San
Francisco Bay restoration reserve, $12 billion. LIHEAP and
Weatherization Service.
We put all this in because we tried to say, well, what can
we do to get the transition period from gas. And then we moved
to 6709--I give you these numbers because I am going to ask you
to refer to them because this hearing--and I want to say
parenthetically about the Chairman and Mr. Bishop, there could
not be better legislators in terms of fairness and openness and
dialogue that we have with one another about how to get to the
solution. We will get new numbers for what was 6709 before, but
I want to refer to you because if we are going to get to where
you want to go, you are going to have to work through the
Congress and work through this Committee, in particular, and
the members on it and the members associated with it who came
in.
We went into a room, no lobbyists--including yourselves, no
offense--no lobbyists, no leadership from either party,
members, no staff--and we worked this out among ourselves to
try and get this transition.
So, what I am going to ask you to do, you needn't comment
further on it, the bill itself, 6709, essentially says the same
thing: to dedicate fixed percentages of royalties received for
conservation programs, environmental restoration projects,
renewable energy research development, clean energy technology
research and development, increased development of existing
energy sources, energy assistance to those in need, and to
share a portion with the States and with the Federal Treasury
to enable us to do these renewable energy and alternative
energy products, including giving money for hybrid electric
cars and energy stations and so on. In other words, a complete
spectrum out there.
And if you just give me one more minute, Mr. Chairman, what
we did is we took ANWR off the table because we knew that those
of us who have been against the ANWR and those who supported
the ANWR drilling knew that that was such a volatile political
issue that it would get in the way of us trying to move
forward.
I then, and people like myself who were for raising the
CAFE standards, we took that off the table because that caused
so much political difficulty. So, we tried to zero in on those
things where we could get agreement that it had to be faced up
to, like carbon sequestration and carbon capture, and put money
behind it, real money. Because out where I am from in Hawaii,
we are trying to do wind right now, we are trying to do
geothermal, we are trying to do biofuels. I am a strong
supporter of all that. But we have to get the money for all
that. We have to be able to invest it. Where are we going to
get the money? We wanted to use the carbon-based energy culture
that we have now to finance the alternative energy future that
we want to get to.
The final thing was that we wanted to stop the hemorrhaging
of money leaving this country to supply the energy that we have
right now by developing these domestic resources offshore and
on land here, so that whatever arguments we were having and
whatever conclusions we would make would at least be over
domestic supply that we control so the money stayed here. And
the money that we were generating from the extraction of
domestic oil and natural gas would be invested in alternative
energy here in this Nation rather than seeing those dollars
flow out to the Saudis or Venezuelans, or whomever; and also
because we felt the Chinese were going to try to corner every
possible energy resource that they could get to fund their own
domestic concerns, so that it would cause the price of carbon-
based fuel--particularly oil--to, on the whole, rise regardless
of fluctuations such as we see now.
Mr. Abercrombie. So, I am going to ask you to kindly take a
look at what we started out with, which was called the NEED
Act. That was 2784, which evolved into the National
Conservation and Energy Independence Act, 6709, because we are
going to try to introduce it again because I think there is
common ground here that if we can figure out a way to do
domestic production in as safe a way as possible, and I am not
going to argue with anything you have put forward here as to
what the difficulties are, that we will actually be able to
have a path for investment for alternative energy, and that is
essentially what I am asking, 6709 and 2784.
And I just want to conclude because everybody says it
personally, I want to say to you, Mr. Danson, that there are
two national media resources that we have in terms of
entertainment. One was ``The Wire,'' which is, I thought I was
the only person watching it in the country, and it turns out, I
think it is Shakespearean. It was wonderful. But the other is
``Damages.'' And I want to tell you, I fail to completely
understand why it doesn't get the recognition it deserves, and
right now if there is any contribution being made on a mass
media basis--you know, C-SPAN or something covers us. We are
just politicians and all the rest. But in terms of credibility,
``Damages,'' that series, is doing more to create environmental
awareness right now with the present story structure that is
going on now and with the premises that were established there,
I think, than anything else that is being done in the Nation
right now.
So, I, for one, am not one who dismisses the idea that
people who have a national cultural resource to explore are
somehow disenabled from being able to comment or to participate
in the national discussion. On the contrary, I think it is the
quality of the presentation that counts; and the quality of the
presentation with which you are associated, I believe, enhances
your capacity to speak authoritatively and to comment as a
citizen. I welcome that and, on the basis of goodwill and good
intentions, hope that you, in turn, with the Ocean Conservancy
will take a look at 6709 and our intentions and purposes and
perhaps we can begin a dialogue.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your indulgence.
The Chairman. Thank you.
The gentleman from American Samoa, Mr. Faleomavaega.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I personally welcome our two distinguished witnesses
this morning, Mr. Danson and Mr. Cousteau.
If my numbers are correct, and please correct me if I am
wrong, I think between 4 to 5 percent of the world's population
is from the United States, and in doing so, I think we consume
about 25 to 30 percent of the world's energy. From that, I am
told that we import approximately $700 billion worth of fossil
fuel every year to meet the demands of our country's need, and
I say with tremendous pride that our country also contributes
tremendously to the world's needs. And as Mr. Costa has said
earlier, Mr. Danson, that while I respect your efforts in
seeing that we continue the moratorium in doing any offshore
drilling, I think it raises the same question about what we can
do to make up for the $700 billion worth of oil that we have to
purchase from foreign countries and foreign companies in order
to meet our own consumer demands? Have you given--we talked
about wind, solar energy, and all the others, but do you think
that will make up substantially the $700 billion worth of
fossil fuel that we need, Mr. Danson?
Mr. Danson. I am not an expert on how to and I hope that
is--and clearly that is what this Committee will be looking
into. But I feel fairly confident that the figures that say 1
percent, that if we do open up the Outer Continental Shelf, we
will get 1 percent of our daily need. So, it is not going to
come from us drilling on our Continental Shelf. That won't
happen.
So, the hope would be that over time you do find ways to
supplement your energy needs with alternative sources of
energy. But you will not drill your way out of it, and you
certainly won't in the Continental Shelf.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Mr. Cousteau?
Mr. Cousteau. I agree with Ted.
Thank you, Congressman.
I certainly think we won't be drilling ourselves out of
that problem. It certainly won't come from the Outer
Continental Shelf. Only 27 percent of U.S. Oil production
currently comes from the Outer Continental Shelf, and any new
drilling will not bring new oil production into the country for
at least a decade. So, I think we need to vigorously and
aggressively now say, well, we have 10 to 15 years, even if we
drill in the Outer Continental Shelf, before we get any oil
from there. How much oil can we get? I think we can challenge
ourselves. I know we can challenge ourselves to develop
alternatives in that same period of time that I think we should
challenge ourselves that will equal more than any of the
production that would come from the Outer Continental Shelf.
And I have great faith that we could do that. All we do is lack
the will to do so.
Mr. Faleomavaega. So, do you suggest that we ought to
continue importing fossil fuel to meet our own consumer
demands?
Mr. Cousteau. I think that we will never not import fossil
fuels. I mean, we cannot--at least, currently, we don't
produce. We import 70 percent of that oil from other countries.
That is not going to change by drilling in the Outer
Continental Shelf. We have to find other ways to get off our
addiction, period, to oil and develop other energies and energy
efficiency for us to be able to reduce our dependence on
foreign oil.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Are both of you supportive of nuclear
energy?
Mr. Danson. I don't know enough about it. I hesitate
because of the problems that we all talk about. What do you do
with the waste? How do you deal with that? If we found a safe
way to do that, but I certainly have nothing intelligent to
contribute on that.
Mr. Cousteau. I hesitate as well with nuclear energy, but
we do not have a formal position currently on the development
of nuclear energy.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Mr. Cousteau, I, too, am a great admirer
of your grandfather.
Mr. Cousteau. Thank you, Congressman:
Mr. Faleomavaega. I have here a photo that looks like a
beautiful flower. It happens to be a nuclear explosion that
took place on the island of Moruroa in French Polynesia on
which I was able to visit. And the question that comes to mind
was that the French government conducted some 200 nuclear
explosions of this island and made a cheese hole, literally,
out of this island of Moruroa. Your grandfather was
commissioned by the French government to go under the island to
see if there had been any nuclear leakages coming out of this
because what the French government did was drill 3,000 feet
below the islands and then conducted their nuclear testing.
Supposedly the nuclear blast fuses, whatever, nuclear
radiation, whatever the thing that comes out of it, and there
was a real serious question about the danger of leakages coming
out of it from what the French did for some 20 years.
And what I wanted to ask you is that your grandfather did
the research, but, unfortunately, I am told, according to
scientific reports, he only went halfway down the atoll; so he
never was really able to find out exactly the leakages that
have come out of the contamination that the French did on this
island. And I would like to ask you, sir, if you could do this
by following your grandfather's legacy, go to Moruroa Island to
find out if, in fact, that we have some real dangers here from
the fact of what the French government did some years ago?
Would you might be able to conduct a survey by going down there
and finding out if this nuclear--you know, some 10,000
Tahitians were subjected to nuclear radiation because of what
the French did. Some 1.5 million Kazakhs in Kazakhstan were
exposed to nuclear radiation because of what the Russians did
in conducting some 500 nuclear explosions during its testing
period. We conducted about 67 nuclear tests in the Marshall
Islands. I am probably one of the few Members who has ever
visited all of these islands, and I can say to you gentlemen,
it is not a very pretty sight to see.
But I just wanted to offer that challenge to you, Mr.
Cousteau, since you have such a famous name to go with it, if
you could follow your grandfather's legacy, find out what
happened, because to my understanding, the French government
does not allow people to go down there to see. It is still
nuclear, if you want to put it in those terms. This island is
still prohibited for visits. I know this has nothing to do with
offshore drilling, but since I come from an island, I have a
real sense of appreciation of what it means to live in an
island community. And I sincerely hope you two gentlemen may
want to go visit this island called Moruroa. It is about 500
miles south of Tahiti.
Again, I want to thank you, Chairman, and thank you
gentlemen for making the effort to come and testify.
Mr. Cousteau. Thank you, Congressman.
I think that underlines the concerns about nuclear and why
both Ted and I are reticent about it as a technology, and it
certainly has left a terrible legacy and a lasting legacy there
that I appreciate, that I think you have a great point, we
don't know enough about, like so many things in the ocean.
So, thank you.
The Chairman. The gentleman from Utah, Mr. Chaffetz.
Mr. Chaffetz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
You will find that I am a bit more conservative than Mr.
Bishop, and I will be using just one microphone, but thank you.
I am a fired-up freshman. I didn't create this problem, but
I want to help solve it. We may disagree on some points, but
the commitment to our long-term future, our kids, our
grandkids, I am there with you on that. And again, I appreciate
your passion.
I believe we have established several times that your
testimony is that because we can get, again plus or minus a
little bit, 1 percent, only 1 percent is the number I keep
hearing, 1 percent of our national energy needs out by drilling
off the Continental Shelf, that that is insufficient. It is not
going to make a difference. It is not going to be impactful and
whatnot. Clearly that has been the position that you have taken
along the way. And yet when I also look at the situation, and
according to the National Academy of Sciences and whatnot, it
is roughly less than 1 percent of the challenges and problems
that we have with oil being dumped into our oceans; less than 1
percent of the problem is caused by offshore drilling. So, why
is the 1 percent number important when it is, well, it is not
going to do anything, just ignore it; and on the other hand,
when we talk about 1 percent, well, that is so critical, that
is so important? Why the discrepancy between the importance of
the 1 percent on both sides of this argument?
Mr. Danson. I don't know. I mean, it seems like almost a
trick question if I don't----
Mr. Chaffetz. It probably is. But you see, from the
hypocrisy that I see, and I use that word a little strongly. I
mean it as softly as possible.
Mr. Danson. It just feels to me that this is coming in a
climate of, we need to be independent of foreign oil. We need
to create jobs. People are hurting. So, that has been offered
as the reason to drill on the Outer Continental Shelf. And none
of those things, to my mind, which is why I bring up the 1
percent or I bring up that you create more jobs per million
investment doing green investments, that you will not see a
significant lessening at the pump as a result 10, 11 years from
now of this coming online, 10 or 11 years from now. It seems
like we are not telling the American people what they really
need to know right now. Drilling is not going to make a
difference. If drilling were to make a difference to you, it
wouldn't make a difference in the next 10 to 20 years. It would
make pennies at the pump difference if that oil actually made
it to us in this global market. And the cost of--continuing to
make all of our energy effort, this is what this feels to me.
It is like, if you open up the Outer Continental Shelf, you are
really saying we are going to work on clean energy. We are. We
will. It is important. But not as important as getting that
last drop of oil. So, you are sending the wrong signal to
people who are desperate. So, that is why I bring up 1 percent.
Mr. Chaffetz. Again but----
Mr. Danson. Because it is not just the spills. Sorry. It is
not just the spills. It is the burning of--it is our whole
addiction to it. It is the whole cycle, our whole use of it.
Mr. Chaffetz. So, if we know that the problem of the oceans
is 99 percent other than drilling off the Outer Continental
Shelf--boating, it is interesting. If we look at the history of
the world, transportation and shipping, it was all very eco-
friendly, right? We would have ships, and they put up sails. It
was later that we developed a quicker, more efficient way, and
you could argue all the positive things of turning our boats
into diesel-oriented vehicles. Are you advocating or would you
support--are you saying we should abolish diesel or fossil fuel
propelled shipping in this country? Because we have an
alternative that is totally eco-friendly.
Mr. Danson. But--no, of course not. I am not saying that.
But I will say that that shipping fleet actually puts off as
much carbon dioxide as Great Britain does or something like
that.
Mr. Chaffetz. It is huge.
Mr. Danson. Huge. So, find the technology to scrub it, to
clean it, to make sure that, like you do with coal-burning
plants, when you do it, that you find ways to clean up that
pollution. You are not going----
Mr. Chaffetz. So, even though it is a bigger, I mean, by a
multitude, it is exponentially bigger than the 1 percent, you
are fine with that. You are comfortable with that, our
shipping, and you wouldn't advocate a change there?
Mr. Danson. My mind is a little confused.
Mr. Chaffetz. It is late, I know.
Mr. Cousteau. I think that one of the points--I think that
percentages can be deceiving, certainly, and I know a lot of
them have been discussed today. And 1 percent can equal a lot
of damage. Maybe 1 percent sounds like, in the abyss, in space,
in air, as we talk about it, not a lot. But when you talk about
an oil spill in the Arctic or critical habitats that have
impacts on the entire ecosystems, that 1 percent or fraction of
the 1 percent can be very, very serious. So, I think 1 percent
is deceiving in that it sounds small, but it can have a
tremendous impact, even for multiple years, as we have seen
with Exxon Valdez.
And I think it comes down to the point of why we are here.
The specific recommendations that any kind of development on
the Outer Continental Shelf must be subject to planning,
process, a special planning that is not currently in existence
and must be subject to science and research that we don't have
enough investment in, we invest a thousand times more money in
space exploration than we do in ocean conservation exploration.
That is mind boggling to me. I love the idea of knowing whether
there was ever water on Mars, but we don't need to know that to
live on this planet. We do need healthy oceans and safe oceans
to live on this planet.
Mr. Chaffetz. I buy that.
Mr. Cousteau. So we don't have enough investment in the
oceans, and we don't know enough to make many decisions about
how to use that. So, I think it comes back to the idea that
fundamentally what we need is good planning, good science, and
I think that it is deceiving to throw small numbers around like
1 percent because that 1 percent can have a massive impact on
very critical areas but then have a compound impact. I mean, if
we destroy the Arctic ocean, that has consequences for
fisheries and ecosystems throughout the entire Pacific ocean
and fisheries that support economics for many, many, many
people. And I think that that is important to remember.
Mr. Chaffetz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you.
Mr. Cousteau. Thank you.
The Chairman. That concludes episode one.
The Chair wishes to certainly express his deepest
appreciation to both of you, Ted and Philippe, for the
tremendous amount of time you have given us today, of patience,
of facts, of knowledge, intelligence, and passion. And I
certainly commend you for being true champions of our oceans
and the manner in which you fight for the sustainability of our
oceans and the irreplaceable resources therein. I commend you
in every stretch of the imagination, and thank you so much for
being with us today.
Mr. Danson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Cousteau. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
The Chairman. Safe travels.
Mr. Danson. Thank you. Thank you all.
The Chairman. Thank you.
The Chairman. Episode two. Our panel number two is composed
of the following individuals: Ms. Carolyn Esther McCormick,
Managing Director of the Outer Banks Visitors Bureau in North
Carolina; Mr. D.T. Minich, Executive Director, St. Petersburg/
Clearwater Area Convention and Visitors Bureau; Mr. W. F.
``Zeke'' Grader, Jr., Executive Director of the Pacific Coast
Federation of Fishermen's Associations; Mr. Bruce Allen, Co-
Founder of SOS California; and Mr. Jefferson M. Angers,
President of the Center for Coastal Conservation.
Lady and gentlemen, we do have your prepared testimony and
it will be made part of the record as if actually read, and you
are given 5 minutes to proceed as you desire. And I assume we
will go in the order in which I introduced you if that is your
desire, starting with you Ms. McCormick.
STATEMENT OF CAROLYN ESTHER McCORMICK, MANAGING DIRECTOR, OUTER
BANKS VISITORS BUREAU, NORTH CAROLINA
Ms. McCormick. Good afternoon and thank you for being here.
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, again, thank you
for this opportunity to be here today. My name is Carolyn
McCormick, and I have been serving the public as a tourism and
travel director since 1987, beginning in Gary, Indiana, to the
State of Indiana, to West Texas, and now to Nags Head, North
Carolina, for the last 11 years.
We are here today to help preserve and protect one of
America's National treasures, our beaches. We must encourage
thoughtful and responsible discourse that recognizes the
importance of our coastal tourism centers and our Nation's
economic needs.
The tourism industry generates trillions of dollars in
income and provides memorable experiences to individuals and
families worldwide. Tourism brings people and families together
outdoors. Working families use the beaches of North Carolina's
Outer Banks for vacations with children and their grandchildren
and their great grandchildren. Half of all leisure travelers
emphasize the importance of natural settings in deciding their
family vacations.
In North Carolina, tourism is a $15.4 billion industry with
employment at 184,000 people. The Outer Banks accounts for
expenditures of over $1 billion last year and 20,000 jobs. Dare
County's Outer Banks hosts over 5 million visitors from all
over the world annually.
The Outer Banks Visitors Bureau's staff and I speak with
thousands of visitors and their families every year. In
overwhelming numbers, they tell us that the natural, cultural
and historic resources, primarily the 130-mile stretch of
barrier islands along the Outer Banks, are the main reason they
visit us. The Outer Banks are truly America's beach, a free and
open-access chain of barrier islands off the northeastern coast
of North Carolina.
Oil and gas development threatens coastlines, harms
ecosystems, and directly impacts our tourism, fishing, and real
estate economies. The people of Dare County have a long and
strong history of opposing drilling along the Outer Continental
Shelf. The towns of Duck, Nags Head, Kill Devil Hills, Kitty
Hawk, Southern Shores, Manteo, the County of Dare, and the Dare
County Tourism Board have all filed resolutions opposing
drilling off the Outer Continental Shelf. The well-documented
socioeconomic and environmental risks outweigh the rewards. We
need policies that help us cope with climate change on the
Nation's coastline.
On January 29, Winston Salem Journal editorial staff put in
an op-ed piece. I am going to read a couple of excerpts: ``The
Interior Department has issued a detailed proposal for oil and
gas drilling off both the Pacific and Atlantic Coasts,
including the fragile, already-threatened North Carolina coast.
Efforts and human ingenuity should concentrate on making the
country more energy independent thus seeking alternative fuels
that do not, in fact, increase levels of greenhouse gas
emissions.''
``There's been talk for years about drilling off the North
Carolina coast. Many of the State's top leaders have resisted
such proposals, fearing that drilling could hurt the tourism
this State increasingly depends upon. But when gas prices shot
up to record highs last year, some of our elected leaders, like
their counterparts nationwide, relaxed their resistance.''
``The Interior Department issued its proposal in the last
days of the Bush administration, which had pushed for more
drilling off America's coasts. The draft plan would allow
drilling from New England to Florida and off the California
coast...these areas were recently declared off-limits by
Congress. Ken Salazar, the new Interior Secretary, indicated to
the Associated Press that he likely would be receptive to
scaling back his department's proposal for more oil drilling.''
``Drilling rigs would require nearby refineries and storage
facilities and create increased traffic between the rigs and
refineries. The rigs would threaten the environment especially,
if one was knocked over in a hurricane. With the Outer Banks
jutting right out into the path of so many storms, that danger
would be very, very real.''
In January of 2009, the State of North Carolina legislative
body appointed a group to examine economic and environmental
impacts of gas and oil exploration off the coast of North
Carolina. That review is expected to be completed in 6 to 8
months.
Again, the industrial character of offshore oil and gas
development is often at odds with the existing economic base of
the effective coastal communities, many of which rely on
tourism, coastal recreation, and fishing. In Dare County, North
Carolina, the Outer Banks Visitors Bureau has been fighting
efforts to lift the ban on coastal drilling precisely because
we realize what a crushing effect coastal drilling could have
on our Great Barrier Islands, a $1 billion tourist and fishing
economy. If there is one spill, one disaster, the Outer Banks
can be impacted for a long time. The powerful hurricanes that
battered the Gulf Coast have destroyed drilling platforms,
underwater pipelines, and coastal storage tanks, dumping
millions of gallons of oil. Drilling in hurricane and storm-
plagued waters has proven to be disastrous.
In addition to potentially catastrophic effects on the
tourism industry, drilling for gas and oil off our coast could
have significant negative impacts on commercial and
recreational fishing, our fisheries, marsh lands, and marine
habitat. Jobs and the environment are not mutually exclusive. A
balanced economy is based on a clean, healthy marine
environment, and efforts need to be focused on restoring our
marine environment and sustaining our fisheries.
According to the U.S. Travel Association, tourism in
America is a $1.7 trillion industry, with coastal communities
representing over $700 billion annually. Last year, travel and
tourism generated over $100 billion in tax revenues for State,
local, and Federal Governments. The world tourism industry has
identified climate change as key to future strategic planning.
United Nation's World Tourism Organization Secretary General
Frangialli, addressing climate change, said, ``We,'' the
tourism industry, ``are part of the problem,'' global warming,
``and we will be part of the solution.''
Social scientists recognize the need to create innovative
responses to projected impacts of climate change on tourism. It
is incumbent upon all industries, governments, nongovernmental
organizations to work together to find solutions to our current
energy needs and place a higher emphasis on seeking alternative
fuels, wind, reintroducing efficient railway systems,
encouraging smarter, more fuel-efficient transport vehicles,
while reducing greenhouse gas emissions. We must create real
incentives that motivate and drive the ingenuity of all of us
to find a cure, not just a treatment, that will keep America
working, traveling, and living.
Again, gentlemen, thank you and the staff for giving me
this opportunity today, and I respect each of your efforts to
help to identify solutions to our energy needs during these
very, very challenging times.
[The prepared statement of Ms. McCormick follows:]
Statement of Carolyn Esther McCormick, Managing Director,
Outer Banks Visitors Bureau, Travel and Tourism Industry
INTRODUCTION:
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for this
opportunity to testify at the Committee on Natural Resources oversight
hearing; ``Perspectives on the Outer Continental Shelf''.
My name is Carolyn Esther McCormick, and I have been serving the
public as a tourism and travel professional since 1987. My public
service experience began in Lake County: Gary, Indiana then to The
State of Indiana as Deputy Director of Tourism in Indianapolis; to
Lubbock, Texas, (1993) as Director of Culture, Leisure and Recreational
Services and now serve as the Managing Director (since late 1997), of
the Outer Banks Visitors Bureau, Dare County Tourism Board. a North
Carolina Public Authority. I am a resident of Nags Head, North
Carolina; which is located along the Outer Banks and a mother of two
girls.
You and I are here today to help preserve and protect one of
America's national treasures, our pristine beaches. We must encourage
thoughtful and responsible discourse that recognizes the importance of
our coastal tourism centers and our nation's economic needs.
The tourism industry generates trillions of dollars in income and
provides memorable experiences to individuals and families worldwide.
Tourism brings people and families together outdoors. Working families
use the beaches of North Carolina's Outer Banks for vacations with
children and grandchildren. Half of all leisure travelers emphasize the
importance of natural settings in deciding their family vacations.
In North Carolina tourism is a $15.4 billion industry with
employment at 184,000, and North Carolina's Outer Banks accounts for
expenditures of over 1 billion dollars and 20,000 jobs. Dare County's
Outer Banks host over 5 million visitors to our National Seashore, and
National parks. The Outer Banks Visitor's bureau staff and I speak with
thousands of visitors and their families every year. In overwhelming
numbers they tell us that the natural, cultural and historic resources;
primarily the 130 mile stretch of beaches of the Outer Banks are the
main reason they visit us.
The Outer Banks are truly America's Beach; a free and open access
chain of barrier islands off the northeastern coast of North Carolina.
The birth place of English speaking America in 1587--Ft. Raleigh
National Historic Site; home of man's first powered flight in 1903--
Wright Brothers National Memorial; Cape Hatteras National Seashore
Recreation Area, the Nation's first national seashore established in
1953; Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge, and Alligator River National
Wildlife Refuge. Seventy percent, (70%) of our dynamic barrier islands
are owned by the people of the United States and managed by the United
States Department of the Interior.
Oil and gas development threatens coastlines, harms ecosystems, and
directly impacts our tourism, fishing and real estate economies. The
people of Dare County have a history of strongly opposing drilling
along the Outer Continental Shelf. The Towns of Nags Head, Kill Devil
Hills, Kitty Hawk, Southern Shores, Duck, Manteo, the County of Dare
and the Dare County Tourism Board have filed resolutions opposing
drilling. The well-documented socio-economic and environmental risks
outweigh the rewards.
The Outer Banks is particularly vulnerable to storms, beach erosion
near our homes, and loss of our fish habitat. It is clear to us that a
changing climate and a rising sea level could have a tremendous impact
on tourism in all coastal communities. Researchers, businesses, and
government agencies in the Outer Banks and throughout North Carolina
are cooperating to develop solutions to the effects of climate change
including storm severity. We need policies that help us cope with
climate change on the nation's coastline.
On January 29, 2009 the Winston Salem Journal, editorial staff
printed an op-ed on the issue of drilling along the coast of North
Carolina, The paper stated:
``The Interior Department has issued a detailed proposal for oil
and gas drilling off both the Pacific and Atlantic coasts--including
the fragile, already-threatened North Carolina coast. Efforts and human
ingenuity should concentrate on making the country more energy
independent thus seeking alternative fuels that do not in fact increase
levels of green house gas emissions.''
``There's been talk for years about drilling off the North Carolina
coast. Most of the state's top leaders have resisted such proposals,
fearing that drilling could hurt the tourism this state increasingly
depends upon. But when gas prices shot up to record highs last year,
some of our elected leaders, like their counterparts nationwide,
relaxed their resistance.''
``The Interior Department issued its proposal in the last days of
the Bush administration, which had pushed for more drilling off
America's coasts. The draft plan would allow drilling from New England
to Florida and off the California coast, The Associated Press reported
last week. These areas were recently declared off limits by Congress.
Ken Salazar, the new Interior Secretary, indicated to The Associated
Press that he likely would be receptive to scaling back his
department's proposal for more oil drilling.
``The N.C. legislature announced last week the formation of a
committee to study the effects of drilling off our coast. One can't
imagine a scenario in which the economic benefits of such a plan could
outweigh the damage to the environment and scenery--and, consequently,
tourism.''
``Drilling rigs would require nearby refineries and storage
facilities, and create increased traffic between the rigs and
refineries. The rigs would threaten the environment, especially if one
was knocked over in a hurricane. With our Outer Banks jutting right out
into the path of so many storms, that danger would be very real.''
Winston Salem Journal, North Carolina
In January 2009 the State of North Carolina legislative body
appointed a group to examine economic and environmental impacts of gas
and oil exploration off the coast of North Carolina. ``The Offshore
Energy Exploration Study Committee will be co-chaired by Dr. James
Leutze, former University of North Carolina at Wilmington chancellor,
and Dr. Doug Rader, chief oceans scientist for the Environmental
Defense Fund. The committee--comprised of university researchers,
industry and environmental representatives, coastal residents and other
members of the public. North Carolina Senate President Pro Tempore Marc
Basnight and Speaker of the House Joe Hackney will name a legislative
panel that will review the study committee's findings and develop any
legislation that might be needed as a result of the committee's work
``In our nation's effort to move toward energy independence, we must
take a long, careful look at how energy exploration off our shores
could affect our coastal economy as well as our environment,'' Basnight
said. ``This study will be thorough and balanced reviews that will help
us better understand all possible risks and benefits that might be
associated with drilling off our coast.''
``People on both sides of this issue have already declared what
they believe the right thing to do is, but there has been only a
limited scientific examination of what the true benefits and dangers
would be,'' Speaker Hackney said. ``We cannot head down this path
halfway. Drilling along the coast is irreversible and we must fully
appreciate what we're doing before we take such a step.''
The North Carolina Committee shall study the following and the
review is expected to be completed in 6 to 8 months:
The implications of leasing federal waters off North Carolina's
coast in the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf to energy companies for
oil and natural gas exploration.
Relevant federal law and the legal authority of the State
of North Carolina with regard to offshore drilling.
The potential impacts on the nation's energy supply,
including documenting the best-unbiased estimates available for what
oil and natural gas might exist.
The potential financial impact of proposed exploration on
the State of North Carolina, including effects on the economy, tourism,
the commercial fishing industry, the impacts of a more industrial
coastline, and ensuring a share of state profits.
The environmental impacts of exploration on North
Carolina's coastline, including possibilities of spills, effects on
water quality, air quality, marine life, and contributions to global
climate change.
The environmental impacts of the infrastructure that
would be associated with exploration and drilling for oil and natural
gas.
The industrial character of offshore oil and gas development is
often at odds with the existing economic base of the affected coastal
communities, many of which rely on tourism, coastal recreation and
fishing. In Dare Country, NC, the Outer Banks Visitors Bureau has been
fighting efforts to lift the ban on coastal drilling precisely because
it realizes what a crushing effect coastal drilling could have on the
Outer Banks' 1 billion dollar tourist and fishing economy. If there's
one spill or one disaster, the Outer Banks could be devastated for a
long time. The powerful hurricanes that battered the gulf coast have
destroyed drilling platforms, underwater pipelines and coastal storage
tanks, dumping millions of gallons of oil. Drilling in hurricane and
storm-plagued waters has proven to be disastrous.
In addition to potentially catastrophic effects on the tourism
industry, drilling for gas and oil off our coasts could have
significant negative impacts on commercial and recreational fishing,
our fisheries, marshlands, and marine habitat. Jobs and the environment
are not mutually exclusive. A balanced economy is based on a clean
healthy marine environment and efforts need to be focused on restoring
our marine environment and sustaining our fisheries.
The U.S. tourism industry is one of America's major retail
industries employing 7.7 million people. Tourism creates jobs, adds to
income, spurs economic development, promotes economic diversification,
introduces additional products, spawns new businesses, increases tax
revenue, and contributes to economic integration. Global tourism, $7.1
trillion industry, is a large fast growing industry that employs more
than 232 million people. According to the U.S. Travel Association,
tourism in America is a 1.7 trillion dollar industry with coastal
communities representing over 700 billion dollars annually. Last year
travel and tourism generated over 100 billion dollars in tax revenues
for state, local and federal governments.
The world tourism industry has identified climate change as key to
future strategic planning. United Nations World Tourism Organization's
Secretary General, Francesco Frangialli, addressing climate change
said: ``We (tourism industry) are part of the problem (global warming)
and we will be part of the solution''. Social scientists recognize the
need to create innovative responses to projected impacts of climate
change on tourism. Climate change presents a special challenge to the
Atlantic Ocean coastline of the Outer Banks of North Carolina.
Stakeholders along this dynamic chain of barrier islands are planning
strategies now to mitigate future negative climate change impact. The
beautiful environmental coastline is a major reason why five million
visitors from more than 50 countries visit the Outer Banks each year.
It is incumbent upon all industries, governments and non-
governmental organizations to work together to find solutions to our
current energy needs and place a higher emphasis on seeking alternative
fuels, reintroducing efficient railway systems throughout the entire
United States, encouraging smarter more fuel efficient transport
vehicles while reducing green house gas emissions. We must create real
incentives that motivate and drive the ingenuity of all to find a cure
not just a treatment that will keep America working, traveling and
living.
Thank you for this opportunity today and I respect each of the
committee's efforts to identify solutions to our energy needs during
these very challenging times.
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Minich.
STATEMENT OF D.T. MINICH, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ST. PETERSBURG/
CLEARWATER AREA CONVENTION & VISITORS BUREAU
Mr. Minich. Good afternoon.
Being from the great State of Florida, I don't think I need
to tell you that we rely on tourism very heavily. It is our
number one industry. It has been since day one when the Spanish
Conquistadors visited our State, we have been welcoming
visitors. It is a $3.9 billion industry for the State. It
represents 18 percent of our total tax revenues.
I come from a place called St. Petersburg/Clearwater, which
is on the west coast of Florida, about halfway down, and we are
known for our beaches. In fact, last year, Dr. Beach, the
national expert on beaches, named Caladesi Island the number
one beach in the world. And Fort DeSoto was ranked by visitors
to tripadviser.com as--Fort DeSoto is in the southern part of
our county--as the number one beach in North America. So,
beaches are our backbone. That is what brings in the tourism
for our area, and for our area, it is a $7 billion industry,
with 84,000 jobs related to tourism. So, you can see how
important it is.
We are very opposed to offshore drilling off of our coast
because of these beaches and the importance of the beaches. And
I think what is important is there are a lot of States
represented here, and every one of you--we welcomed guests from
all 50 States and from over 100 different countries last year.
So, your constituents are coming to our beaches and they are
experiencing those kinds of experiences that they want in a
beach vacation. So, it is very important to point that out, I
think. And 180 million Americans made 2 billion visits to the
ocean last year, so it is very, very important.
We cannot afford a risk of some sort of a spill like you
heard of earlier this morning. We can't afford any of those
kinds of things for our tourism industry. But, in fact, in
1993, we did experience a spill. Two tankers collided right off
of our coast, and I am going to read to you what happened.
The incident resulted in oiling of birds, sea turtles,
mangroves, salt marches, sea grasses, mud flats, oyster beds,
seawalls, and finger canals within Boca Ciega Bay, and miles of
shoreline, including sandy recreational beaches. Some of the
fuel oil sank, forming mats on submerged sediments in offshore
depressions, in the Passes and in Boca Ciega Bay. This spill
was very small in number. It sounds big, but it was really only
about 360,000 gallons of jet oil and other oils. What it did,
though, was 366 birds were injured or killed. More importantly,
on the endangered and threatened list, 2,177 loggerhead sea
turtle hatchlings and eggs were injured by oiling, and this
resulted in death. And hatchling success was just completely
obliterated for the year on our beaches.
The resulting cleanup--we had to remove 39,000 cubic yards
of sand from our public beaches. Out of our 35 miles of
beaches, 18 miles of our beaches were closed for months to get
this cleaned up. We were fortunate, and I say fortunate, but
this happened in August and September, when it is starting to
slow down. September is our slowest tourism month. If this
would have happened in February, or March or April, our high
season, it would have been devastating to the industry. We saw
a lot of people stay away from the beaches for months after
that. We had huge occupancy decreases for months. And just the
perception alone, the media, it was detrimental to our industry
for quite some time.
The other thing that you heard this morning that I would
like to address is, why the need for these additional leases;
why the need for this exploration? Out of the 43 million leased
acres, there is only 8 million in 2006 that the oil companies
were using. They were using 8 million of the 43 million leased.
Big Oil has not drilled three-quarters of the territory that
Congress has made available for exploration. And so we say,
when we rely on tourism, why now? Why do we need to do this?
There should be no reason for this. We can't take the risk.
The other argument that I have heard is that this will be a
quick fix. And it will not. And I think you heard plenty of
that this morning, but I just want to reiterate that this would
not be a quick fix. Why open this up when we don't have the
rigs? A $700 million oil rig being built today is going to be
taken away to other countries. You heard 10 years. I have heard
up to 30 years before this would even slightly make an impact
by opening up these waters. It is just not worth--it is just
not worth it. We are very opposed to this exploration or from
opening this up. It just--everything that we have seen, all of
the information that we have and from our past experience with
just a small, small spill, it makes us very frightened for our
number one industry in Pinellas County and the number one
industry in Florida.
And you also heard--just to finish up here--about what
happened with Katrina and the rigs and all of the things that
washed off of those rigs during these storms. We do get
hurricanes in Florida, as you know. We don't like to talk about
those in the tourism business, but that is another factor in
here that is very worrisome. We have enough worries with
hurricanes that we don't need a component on top of that, of
what is going to happen to our beaches with these rigs off of
our coast.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Minich follows:]
Statement of D.T. Minich, CDME, Executive Director,
St. Petersburg/Clearwater Area Convention & Visitors Bureau
Travel and tourism is big business. The numbers speak for
themselves.
The tourism industry is the world's largest, with the broad measure
of economic activity--Travel and Tourism Economy (TTE)--contributing
$5.4 trillion in 2007 to the world's Gross Domestic Product (GDP),
according to the World Travel and Tourism Council. It exceeds the GDP
of all countries other than the United States. Similarly, TTE
contributes $1.4 trillion to America's GDP, or 10.2% of U.S. output and
the largest contribution to GDP just ahead of durable goods
manufacturing. Travel and tourism also is the world's largest employer,
with 231 million people working in the industry worldwide.
In the U.S., travel generated $739 billion in domestic and
international expenditures in 2007; and $116 billion of that figure
went to federal, state and local governments as tax revenue. Moreover,
the tourism industry is America's largest employer, with 7.7 million
direct travel generated jobs and $186 billion direct travel generated
payroll. One of every eight U.S. non-farm jobs is created directly or
indirectly or is induced by tourism.
In Florida, 82.4 million travelers visited the state in 2007.
That's more than the combined populations of New York, California and
Texas. They generated more than $65 billion in taxable sales. To put
that into perspective, 65 billion dollar bills end-to-end would circle
the world 247 times!
Tax-related revenue to the state was $3.9 billion, which is 18% of
the state's annual sales tax revenue for schools, transportation,
museums and more. With an annual payroll of $16.4 billion, nearly one
million Floridians are employed by the tourism industry. That's seven
jobs for every 2006 Florida high school graduate. Just think, a 1%
increase in visitors to Florida generates an additional $39 million a
year--more than $1 a second!
In St. Petersburg/Clearwater on the Gulf Coast of Florida, tourism
is the engine that drives the local economy. Total direct and indirect
visitor expenditures are approximately $7 billion. That is more than
$19 million per day, about $800,000 per hour, more than $13,000 per
minute and about $220 per second. For perspective, a line of 7 billion
dollar bills laid end to end would wrap around the Earth at the equator
26 times.
The impact of the tourism industry on the local job market is just
as dramatic. With a 25% drop in tourism, Pinellas County would lose
about 21,000 jobs; at 50%, it would lose about 42,000 jobs; at 100%,
about 84,000 jobs would be lost. And with lost jobs would come closed
businesses. When a local business closes, hundreds are affected not
just its employees. This trickle-down effect can devastate a community.
Suppliers rely on small local business for their income. So when a
business closes, its suppliers feel the pinch as well.
For instance, just a 25% drop in tourism would cause 300 local
restaurants to close. Tourist dollars are vital to their success, not
only to keep the doors open, but also to give these restaurants the
revenue necessary to provide everything residents enjoy most. From
sitting on the deck, listening to a live steel-drum band, to enjoying
social event nights and parties, tourist dollars make it all happen.
Not to mention the tax revenues. Tourism contributes almost $300
million in taxes annually to Pinellas County. Fuel taxes alone equal
roughly $15 million. That means visitors to the county save the average
household more than $600 per year in taxes.
So tourist revenue is vital to the success of the county's
businesses and the community. It keeps restaurants and retail locations
open, taxes down, and gives residents conveniences such as low-cost
flights and world-class entertainment. It supports beach nourishment
programs and helps fund transportation, public safety programs and
more.
Quality of Life Benefits
But tourism revenues are only part of the story. Not only do people
benefit from the economic impact of the travel industry in dollars and
cents, but they also benefit from the quality of life to which it
contributes. So, the industry's impact is actually measured in two
ways.
The ``value in exchange'' measurement considers expenditures, jobs,
taxes and the like; AND the industry's ``value in use'' takes into
account the quality of life that tourism gives not only to visitors but
also to residents who reap the rewards of tourism expenditures on local
infrastructure. This latter measurement of tourism's impact reframes
the industry's purpose from an ends--meaning the dollars spent--to a
means--meaning what is done with those dollars locally. In essence,
tourism is a tool for enhancing what residents love about their region.
From performing arts to low cost travel, tourism affords a better
quality of life. It also impacts parts of the community that are far
beyond the obvious. The Penny for Pinellas program in Pinellas County
would suffer without tourism. Visitors contribute approximately 35% of
Penny for Pinellas revenues, which equals roughly $40 million annually.
This program adds value to the county by funding roads, bridges, parks,
drainage and other capital improvement projects.
And because of tourism, Ruth Eckerd Hall performing arts center has
record-breaking ticket sales. The Palladium Theater in St. Petersburg
offers year-round musical performances. And the Salvador Dali Museum
continues to provide world-class exhibits due to its tourist revenue.
Plus, its visitor dollars do more than enhance the museum. The museum's
profits fund educational programs for local youth.
All of this paints a clear picture of the contributions that
tourism makes to every community around the world that it impacts and
the trickle down benefits of visitor expenditures. Yet another relevant
part of the picture is the economic value of beaches.
Leading Tourist Destination
Beaches are the key element of U.S. travel and tourism, since they
are the leading tourist destination. Coastal states receive about 85%
of tourist-related revenues in the U.S. largely because beaches are
tremendously popular. It is estimated that each year approximately 180
million Americans make 2 billion visits to ocean, gulf, and inland
beaches. This is almost twice as many visits as the combined 1.06
billion visits made to properties of the National Park Service (272
million), Bureau of Land Management (55 million), and all state parks
and recreation areas (735 million). The 2 billion beach visits also
dwarf the 138 million visitors to all theme parks in the U.S.
Given these facts, it is not surprising that beaches make a large
contribution to America's economy. Beach tourism in Florida made a $52
billion contribution to the economy in 2007 dollars, and U.S. beaches
currently contribute $322 billion annually to the economy in 2007
dollars. This is more than 25 times the $12 billion contribution of the
National Park Service system to the national economy.
In order to protect the lucrative tourism industry and the beaches
that are a cornerstone of that industry, we must not risk the potential
damages of off-shore drilling in Florida. Despite the impressive
technological advances the oil industry has made, there still are too
many potential risks. Two of the major hazards are pollution from every
day operations and oil spills from platforms, pipelines and tankers.
When oil is brought up from beneath the ocean floor, other things
are too. Chemicals and toxic substances such as mercury and lead can be
discharged back into the ocean. The water pumped up along with the oil
may contain benzene, arsenic and other pollutants. Even the exploration
that precedes drilling, which depends on seismic air guns, can harm sea
mammals.
And while large spills are rare, smaller spills are still too
common. The biggest pollution risk involved is in transporting the oil
back to shore--by pipeline, barge or tanker. A 2002 National Research
Council report found that marine transportation was responsible for
one-third of worldwide petroleum spillage, about eight times the amount
caused by drilling platforms and pipelines.
First-Hand Experience
Pinellas County has first-hand experience with this fact. In 1992,
the local convention and visitors bureau hired a Tampa firm, Research
Data Services, to study how a major oil spill would affect Pinellas
County. Although the figures are dated, at the time the company's
founder, economist Walter Klages, estimated a major spill could cause a
45% decrease in visitors over two years. It also could result in the
loss of 7,392 tourism-related jobs in the county, Klages estimated.
His predictions seemed prophetic a year later, when in August 1993,
the beaches of southern Pinellas County suffered a minor oil spill that
nonetheless caused beach hoteliers major headaches. The spill occurred
after two barges and a freighter collided in the shipping channel west
of the Sunshine Skyway Bridge south of Mullet Key in Tampa Bay,
Florida. After the accident, a few large resorts reported that their
occupancy rates fell by double digits when compared with the previous
year.
Furthermore, the environmental impact not to mention the clean-up
efforts for what would be considered a ``minor spill'' were
significant. Systematic shoreline surveys were conducted and oil was
found buried by two to eight inches of clean sand deposited during high
tide. Cleanup crews focused on manually removing the band of surface
oil high on the beach. A plan was developed to remove the subsurface
oil without generating large volumes of sediment for handling,
disposal, and replacement. The plan called for mechanical removal of
the heavy buried layers, manual removal of moderately oiled sediments,
and mechanically pushing stained sand onto the lower part of the beach
for surf washing.
Meanwhile, cleanup crews were contending with very thick oil that
had been deposited around some mangrove islands. Tarmats formed when
sediment was mixed with oil along the shallow flats surrounding the
islands. Large thick mats coated mangrove roots, oyster and seagrass
beds, and tidal mud flats.
Roughly 14.5 miles of fine-grained sand beach from St. Petersburg
Beach north to Redington Shores Beach were affected by this spill. Sand
beaches on Egmont Key at the entrance to Tampa Bay were also oiled.
Additionally, four mangrove islands inside the entrance to Boca Ciega
Bay at Johns Pass and two small areas of Spartina Marsh were oiled.
Jetties, seawalls, and riprap within the bay and at Johns Pass and
Blind Pass were also oiled to varying degrees. It is estimated that
more than 30 miles of residential seawalls were oiled within Boca Ciega
Bay. Some impact also occurred on the northern side of Mullet Key at
Bonne Fortune Key in fringing mangroves.
Oil Spills
And that's just one spill. The U.S. Coast Guard estimates that more
than 200,000 small spills occurred in the Gulf of Mexico from 1973 to
2001. The Minerals Management Service, the federal agency that
regulates offshore oil production, thinks spills will continue and
projects about one oil spill per year of at least 1,000 barrels in the
Gulf of Mexico over the next 40 years. Every three to four years, it
says, a spill of at least 10,000 barrels can be expected. Having seen
what happened in Pinellas County, one can only imagine the extensive
impact on this grander scale!
How badly the Tampa Bay area would suffer would depend on where a
spill took place, according to Robert Weisberg, a physical oceanography
professor at the University of South Florida-St. Petersburg. If a spill
occurred in the deep water of the Gulf, the currents likely would sweep
it south to the Florida Keys and carry it to the east coast of Florida.
It might not affect the Bay area much, he contends. However, if the
spill occurred over the West Florida Continental Shelf--an area of
relatively shallow water that extends as much as 100 miles out from
Florida's coast--he thinks the currents could sweep it to the Bay area
and rest of the West Coast. When determining the impact of a spill, he
believes the distance offshore is much less important than whether the
drilling is on the continental shelf.
The potential risks are magnified by the Gulf's well-known
propensity for annual hurricane activity. In 2005, hurricanes Katrina
and Rita destroyed 113 oil platforms and damaged 457 pipelines near
Louisiana, according to the Minerals Management Service. The agency
reported 124 spills totaling 741,000 gallons of petroleum from offshore
rigs, platforms and pipelines.
Damages from those two storms are a prime example why the
moratorium on new offshore drilling should not be lifted. That
moratorium can trace its roots to the industry opposition ignited by
the Santa Barbara oil spill of 1969. Roughly 3.4 million gallons of oil
were spilled, spreading across 800 square miles of ocean and spoiling
35 miles of shoreline. It was our nation's worst oil spill until 20
years later, when the Exxon Valdez struck a reef and lost almost 11
million gallons. Let's not let time erase the sting of those two
catastrophic environmental and economic disasters.
And, closer to my home, let's remember the oil spill in the Gulf of
Mexico in 1979 that caused tar balls to wash up on Texas beaches and
resulted in a 60 percent decline in the state's tourism business. It is
a clear historical precedent of how detrimental and catastrophic an oil
spill could be to Florida's tourism industry.
Central Debate
Beyond environmental and economic impact concerns, the central
debate regarding offshore drilling focuses on where to drill for more
oil. Democrats in Congress, led by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of
California, say areas where drilling already is permitted should remain
the bull's eye. Only about 8 million of 43 million leased acres were
producing oil in 2006. Big Oil has not drilled three-quarters of the
territory that Congress has made available for exploration. Why
endanger our beautiful, economically lucrative beaches if the oil
industry refuses to explore the areas already open for drilling?
And why open up the 574 million acres now off limits along the
outer continental shelf, when tight supplies of equipment and labor
will severely constrain exploration in the next decade. Only a limited
number of shipyards are capable of building the necessary $700 million
drilling rig, and many of the rigs being built today are going to other
countries where the oil business is also booming. Even then, it usually
takes at least seven to 10 years for the oil to start flowing, with
some estimates placing the economic impact of exploration around 2030.
Not to mention the Department of Energy estimates that, even if
Congress removed all restrictions on offshore drilling, the impact on
global oil prices would be ``insignificant.'' Witness that domestic
drilling permits have increased 361 percent since 1999, yet the price
of gas continues to climb to record-breaking plateaus.
One final point. Finding oil has become more costly. The oil boom
has led to a surge in exploration and drilling activity, which has
pushed up the price for skilled workers and equipment. Furthermore, new
supplies of oil are increasingly difficult to find and generally tend
to be located in harder to reach--and hence more expensive--places. Yet
surely the oil companies can find ways to utilize their existing
leases, no matter the costs.
Exxon Mobil, the world's largest publicly traded oil company, made
history on January 30, 2009, by reporting the highest quarterly and
annual profits ever for a U.S. company, boosted in large part by
soaring crude prices. Exxon said fourth-quarter net income rose 14% to
$11.66 billion, or $2.13 per share. The company earned $10.25 billion,
or $1.76 per share, in the year-ago period. The profit topped Exxon's
previous quarterly record of $10.7 billion, set in the fourth quarter
of 2005, which also was an all-time high for a U.S. corporation. Exxon
also set an annual profit record by earning $40.61 billion last year--
or nearly $1,300 per second in 2007. That exceeded its previous record
of $39.5 billion in 2006.
Similarly, America's second largest oil company Chevron Corp. has
reported soaring annual profits of $23.9 billion for 2008, a whopping
28% jump from its 2007 annual profits of $18.7 billion that were lifted
by sky-rocketing oil prices.
Exxon and Chevron aren't the only two oil giants to report
impressive earnings recently. Conoco, the nation's third-largest oil
company, trounced profit estimates by nearly 25% when it reported in
late January. And Royal Dutch Shell PLC, Europe's largest oil company,
reported a 60% increase in profits on January 29 of this year.
National Treasure
Florida's beaches are a national treasure, and their preservation
should be a top priority. Yet, because the tourism industry is so
interwoven into the fabric of the community, the state, the country and
the world, it is sometimes taken for granted, especially the beaches.
We cannot afford to do that.
Travel and tourism is America's leading industry, employer, and
earner of foreign exchange; and beaches are America's leading tourist
destination. Few Americans realize that beaches are a key driver of
America's economy and support U.S. competitiveness in a world economy.
One reason why Americans do not appreciate the importance of
tourism to the national economy may be because 98% of the 1.4-million
tourism-related businesses in the United States are classified as small
businesses. That makes the industry extremely fragmented and not well
represented. Hence, the importance of the tourism industry to the
national economy has not been communicated to the American people.
Until there's a fundamental shift in awareness of the economic and
quality of life contributions of travel and tourism to the world, our
beaches will not be adequately protected and the infrastructure that
sustains them will not be effectively managed. And ultimately, the U.S.
will risk relinquishing its dominant worldwide lead in its most
important industry.
References
Barge Bouchard 155--History's 10 most famous oil spills--gCaptain
publication for Maritime Professionals retrieved February 3,
2008 from http://www.gCaptain.com.
Ellis, D. (2008, February 1). Exxon shatters profit records. CNNMoney.
Retrieved February 3, 2008, from http://www.CNNMoney.com.
Houston, J.R. (2008, Summer). The economic value of beaches: A 2008
update. Shore & Beach, 76, 22-26.
Jervis, R., Welch, W. M., & Wolf, R. (2008, July 14) Worth the risk?
Debate on offshore drilling heats up. USA Today. Retrieved
February 3, 2008 from http://www.usatoday.com
Sasso, M. (2008, June 19). Tribune taps experts on drilling for oil off
Florida. The Tampa Tribune. Retrieved February 3, 2008, from
http://www.tampatribune.com
______
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Grader.
STATEMENT OF W.F. ``ZEKE'' GRADER, JR., EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
PACIFIC COAST FEDERATION OF FISHERMEN'S ASSOCIATIONS
Mr. Grader. Thank you, Chairman Rahall and Mr. Hastings,
and thank you very much for the opportunity to provide
testimony here today regarding potential impacts to the
commercial fishing industry from opening up new lease sales off
of our coast.
As I mentioned in my written testimony, among our members
along the West Coast are fishermen in Santa Barbara who not
only experienced the major spill in 1969 but have, for 40 to 50
years now, experienced offshore drilling right in their waters.
They know firsthand what the impacts are. And it is largely
based on what their experiences have been, not mere speculation
on our part that has given rise to many of our concerns here
today. We have heard it here this morning being said that at
best that the most optimistic projections are that any of the
oil developed from new leases off of our shores will probably
get to market in about 10 years. So, the effect to the consumer
is about 10 years out. However, for the fishing industry, the
impacts are going to be almost immediate. And that is primarily
from the seismic testing that goes on. And this isn't spoken
about. I don't think I heard it mentioned here once this
morning, but it is a very real impact on fishery resources. I
served on a committee in the 1980s looking at the impact of
seismic testing on anchovy and it did. It had a mortality in
those stocks of up to 30 to 40 percent of a particular
population. So, we know that seismic surveys do kill fish.
Moreover, they also scare fish. They make it impossible for
fishing operations to be held. So, while everybody talks about,
well, we put these rigs out there and, gosh, what great fishing
sites they are, nobody discusses the fact that since we had
these seismic boats operating, it is impossible to fish. And
that was certainly true in the 1980s, when the California
Coastal Commission actually had to set up areas where the
seismic boats could operate, so they would not interfere with
fishing activities. So, this is an almost immediate impact, and
if you look at what just recently happened in Norway where, if
you listened to Speaker Gingrich, you would think everything
was hunky dory there, as far as oil and fishing, well, in fact,
it wasn't. Fishermen were offering civil disobedience because
of the problems specifically with seismic testing in some new
areas that were being developed offshore there.
The second problem of course is, what happens when the
development occurs? Now, again here, fishermen are going to be
the first to feel the impacts. First, it is going to be in
their ports as the materials are brought in to begin setting up
to build the offshore structures. But then there is also the
building of the pipeline. So, there is that spatial
interference that directly has an impact. But probably the
other thing is, again, what people don't discuss is these rigs
particularly as you are drilling in deeper water, the anchors
and cables extending out for them extend out a great deal of
distance. There are precautionary zones that are placed around
these rigs. So, if you are trolling for salmon, or you are
trolling for sole, you cannot operate in these areas. That is a
large area that becomes a no-fishing zone for you. And if you
put enough of them out there, pretty soon it becomes impossible
to operate. This is really something else that has to be looked
at.
Now, we have heard a lot this morning about the
contamination, the problem with pollution spills. Frankly, the
spill issue is not a big one for us because we recognize that
most of the spills have come from tankers. They do, in fact,
come from runoff offshore. And that is one of the reasons why
we ask that they have better cleanup of our municipal runoffs
and deal with other nonpoint source pollutions. But there is
contamination that comes about, again, which wasn't discussed
here this morning, is the problem with the toxic drill muds
that are oftentimes dumped right nearby those sources.
Fishermen may go fish near those rigs. But what nobody is
telling them is often those fish are very toxic, particularly
heavy laden with mercury, more so than in background areas, and
that has to be considered. Now, if a moratorium is not going to
be reinstated, and we think it should be, we think certainly
certain areas of the coast need to be taken off limits, made
permanently off limits. And the big three we think are, first
of all, going to be Bristol Bay, and I would agree with Mr.
Hastings that all of the Arctic should be taken off limits. We
just heard that the North Pacific Council last week said we are
not going to fish there. That was a unanimous vote. The fishing
industry people called for no fishing there. So, that should be
taken off limits.
The second place is Northern California. The area there, it
is one of the greatest upwelling areas in the world. It is just
too rich for fisheries. It has the Nation's only roadless area
in the ``Lower 48.'' It is just not an area to be drilling.
And finally, Georges Bank, which we heard talked about this
morning. Those three areas need to be taken off the--off limits
being made permanently.
If you are going to go ahead and do some planning, you also
have to develop some mitigations and better protections. The
existing system does not work well, and so we need to have
that.
And finally, I think in looking at this whole issue,
because we are looking at our oceans, and I will be quick here,
is it really call for a national oceans policy. If we are
moving--even if we are moving to nonrenewables, we need to know
how to space wave and wind energy out there. It is incumbent
upon the administration and the Congress--administration
through an executive order--that we put in place a national
ocean policy that is the policy of the country to protect our
oceans. Then we need to call for the Federal agencies to better
coordinate so that we can protect those oceans, and then
finally put in place a trust fund.
Thank you, and I apologize for going over.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Grader follows:]
Statement of W.F. ``Zeke'' Grader, Jr., Executive Director,
Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations
Chairman Rahall, members of the Natural Resources Committee, thank
you for the opportunity to testify before you here today on the
perspectives of my organization and many in the commercial fishing
industry on new offshore oil and gas development on the Outer
Continental Shelf,
By way of introduction, the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's
Associations (PCFFA) represents working men and women in the U.S. West
Coast commercial fishing fleet. Its offices are in San Francisco with a
Northwest branch office in Eugene, Oregon. PCFFA is a member of the
Marine Fish Conservation Network and the newly-formed Commercial
Fishermen of America.
PCFFA was founded in 1976 bringing together mostly port-based
fishermen's marketing associations to address with a single voice
common issues facing mostly the small to mid-sized family fishing
operations. PCFFA is currently comprised of 16 fishing associations,
mostly in California. The fishing men and women in PCFFA member
organizations are engaged in a number of different fisheries, including
salmon, crab, herring, rockfish, halibut, sablefish and swordfish,
utilizing a variety of different gears including, troll, trawl, trap,
longline, hook-and-line, seine and gillnets. Among PCFFA's members are
the Commercial Fishermen of Santa Barbara, Inc., and the Southern
California Trawlers Association. Both those organizations have had
first hand experience with offshore oil development in the Santa
Barbara Channel.
My background is in the commercial fisheries, having worked part-
time in fish buying and processing plants while in high school and
college and managing a fish processing plant while in law school. I
joined the PCFFA at the time of its founding in 1976, shortly after
graduation from law school and passing the California Bar. In addition
to my role for the past 33 years as PCFFA's executive director, I was
the first chair of the Pacific Council's Salmon Advisory Subpanel,
served on the board of the West Coast Fisheries Development Foundation
(President--1985) for nearly a decade, was a member of the Secretary of
Commerce's Marine Fisheries Advisory Committee (MAFAC) during the
Reagan and first Bush Administration, and currently serve on the
executive committee for the Marine Fish Conservation Network. Since
1993, I have served as executive director for the Institute for
Fisheries Resources, in addition to my work with PCFFA, and am a member
of the California Bar's Environmental Law Section.
A few years after PCFFA's founding, California fishermen were
confronted with an issue none, at least north of Santa Barbara, had
ever dealt with before--the prospect of oil and gas drilling offshore
along California's narrow shelf. Lease Sale 53 was initially proposed
to extend from the Santa Maria Basin--just north of Santa Barbara to
the Oregon Border. There was a strong temptation by PCFFA's member
groups to support offshore drilling.
The oil embargo had affected commercial fishing as it had the rest
of the nation, with shortages and price increases. Oil industry jobs,
we were told, could help our coastal communities already beginning to
reel from the downturn in the timber industry. Oil industry
representatives assured our members there would be no conflicts--even
promising the rigs would be good habitat for fish. Our members were
told there were no conflicts between commercial fishing and oil
drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.
PCFFA's Board, however, wanted to hear what California fishermen
who had lived with offshore oil in the Santa Barbara Channel had to
say. The Santa Barbara Channel fishermen they called on had experienced
the major spill from a Union Oil platform a decade before, as well as
day-to-day offshore oil and gas activities
Surprisingly, that major oil spill was not the problem for Santa
Barbara fishermen. It was rather, the small, unreported spills they
said would foul their gear and contaminate catches. There were even
instances where fishermen were cited for pollution when they sought to
clean their gear that had been in oily waters near the rigs.
There was a problem with fishing gear becoming snagged on debris
left by oil companies in their operations ranging from old washing
machines disposed overboard from the rigs to tractor tires. While the
rigs may act as fish attraction devices, this did most fishermen little
good due to the precautionary zones established around many of the rigs
where fishermen could not operate. Trawlers, in particular, were
affected losing much of their fishing grounds, over sandy and soft
bottoms, for the catch of halibut, sole and flounder. Although
California banned bottom trawling in state waters for decades, it did
open some state waters in sandy and soft bottom areas off Santa Barbara
for halibut and flounder to partially mitigate losses of fishing area
in federal waters to oil and gas development.
Considering California's narrow shelf--considerably different than
the wide shelf in the Gulf of Mexico--the PCFFA Board felt the
potentials for conflict with offshore drilling operations were just too
great. That, and the fact that the oil reserves off central and
northern California, along with Oregon and Washington, were not
expected to be that large, made it seem the prudent course to oppose
drilling off central and northern California.
Then-Secretary of Interior Cecil Andrus subsequently reduced the
scope of Lease Sale 53 to the Santa Maria Basin. PCFFA, along with
other West Coast commercial fishing groups, supported Congressional
appropriations language thereafter prohibiting oil and gas development
off central and northern California--Lease Sale 73 for example, and
later for Oregon and Washington. New England fishermen fought plans for
oil drilling off Georges Bank and Alaska fishermen sought to stop
drilling from going ahead in Bristol Bay where a lease sale had already
been held (the leases were later bought back at a cost of $100 million
to the federal government).
Offshore drilling has taken a back seat in recent years among the
issues fishermen have to contend with. The 27-year old congressional
moratorium and the Presidential offshore oil moratorium established by
the first President Bush took away the threat. All that changed when
the last President Bush lifted the executive order against drilling
this past July 14th and the Congressional moratorium was allowed to
lapse.
Times change and certainly the cost of diesel fuel the past two
years was cutting deeply into fishermen's meager profits and made it
just too costly to untie the boats where a great deal of running for
fish was necessary or the anticipated catches too small to offset the
cost of fuel. So, thirty years after first voting to oppose new
drilling along the coast, the issue was brought back to the PCFFA Board
this past year. After a full discussion of the issue, the vote was
unanimous to stay the course, to oppose new drilling. We know of no
other fishing groups along the West Coast that have changed their
positions in opposition.
Problems for Fishing from Offshore Drilling
The conflicts between commercial fishing and offshore oil and gas
operations can be summed up as 1) seismic surveys; 2) spatial and gear
losses; and 3) pollution/contamination. Before I detail the nature of
the conflicts, let me state that much of this is a repeat from
testimony I gave the Congress in the 1980's and from various
correspondence to members at that time.
Seismic Surveys. While the American public may not see any of the
oil developed from new offshore leases for a decade or more, the impact
on commercial fishing will be almost immediate, as soon as the
companies decide to go ahead with drilling they will be wanting to
update information to give them information on where the most likely
deposits of oil and gas are likely to be under the seabed. To find this
out they will deploy seismic vessels to explore areas both before and
after any lease sale.
The powerful sound waves generated by seismic surveys can have a
variety of harmful effects on fish. Within close range, seismic surveys
have been found to kill adult fish as well as larvae and fish eggs.
More than 20 years ago research in the Santa Barbara Channel found
seismic surveys were lethal to anchovy populations. Scientific studies
have also shown that air gun blasts can cause a variety of sublethal
impacts on fish such as damaging orientation systems and reducing their
ability to find food. Researchers have noted disturbances in the
migration routes of salmon and other anadromous species as a result of
seismic operations.
Seismic surveys can cause physical damage to fish ears and other
tissues and organs such as swim bladders. Although such effects may not
kill fish immediately, they may lead to reduced fitness, which
increases their susceptibility to predation and decreases their ability
to carry out important life processes. Furthermore, if important prey
species in the food web such as squid and zooplankton are harmed by
seismic testing, the fish dependent on these creatures may also be
negatively affected.
Seismic surveys not only threaten commercial and subsistence
fishing by harming fish resources, but also by interfering with fishing
operations and dramatically affecting catch rates. Seismic ships tow
streamers that can be miles long. These can get tangled up with crab
pots, set nets and trawl nets causing damage and decreasing crucial
fishing time. The best time to conduct seismic surveys in Arctic and
sub-arctic environment is during the summer, which is also prime season
for many Alaskan fisheries. As a result, seismic survey operations can
end up competing with fishing for time and space on the water.
In California, the state's Coastal Commission was forced to utilize
its CZMA authority to end a conflict between the hook-and-line fleet in
the Santa Barbara Channel by prohibiting seismic surveys during key
fishing seasons. There seismic surveys were making it impossible for
fishermen to operate. Even then the one of the companies, Exxon, sued
to try to keep operating with full knowledge of what their seismic
surveys were doing to fishing.
Even if these kinds of conflicts can be avoided, several studies
have shown that seismic operations have greatly reduced catches of fish
around areas where air guns were being fired. These studies have
demonstrated reduced catches over 20 miles away from the source with
catch reductions continuing five days after the testing was complete
(see table below). Researchers believe these catch reductions are a
result of altered fish behavior due to seismic operations which cause
them to be less likely to take hooks and/or to move down and away from
the seismic firing.
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The conflicts with seismic surveys are not unique to the U.S.
fishing industry. This past year, the Norwegian Association of Fishing
Boat Owners threatened to initiate civil disobedience action around oil
installations in the Barents Sea, where they said increased oil and gas
related activities in the area scare the fish away from their fishing
fields. In 2006 and 2007, 800 tons of Atlantic pollock were caught off
the Vesteralen and Lofoten Islands. By comparison, in 2008 just 83 tons
of the fish have been caught. The fishermen say that drop off in catch
was primarily due to oil and gas operations. Unfortunately, former
Speaker Gingrich, it seems, didn't talk to any fishermen before
returning from his trip last year to Norway proclaiming how well
offshore oil was working for that nation.
Spatial Conflicts (Including Gear Loss and Construction and
Presence of OCS Infrastructure). The second problem for commercial
fishing with offshore oil and gas is the displacement of fishing by oil
on either the fishing grounds, in the ports, or both. While looking at
a chart, it may seem that the ocean is large enough to accommodate a
myriad of uses. However when looking at where fishing takes place,
mostly on the shelf, and where oil and gas development occurs, they
tend to be in the same places and the footprint of the rigs is not
limited to the area covered by a platform.
The rigs have precautionary zones around them, precluding most
fishing. Thus, the area taken from fishing tends to be quiet a bit
larger than the platform. Cables and anchors can extend out making
fishing, particularly trawling impossible.
The spacing of the rigs can also hinder fishing operations where
the fishing is mobile, such as a trawler working a tow, or trollers on
a tack. The rigs may not present a spatial conflict, as I mentioned,
where there is a wide shelf, but along the West Coast the shelf is
narrow and most fishing occurs along that shelf, thus there is a real
potential for displacement of fishing.
In the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the 5-Year
(2007-2012) Offshore Oil and Gas Leasing Program for Alaska, the
Minerals Management Service found:
``Some exploration, development, and production activities have
a potential to result in space-use conflicts with commercial
fishing activities. Commercial fishing vessels could be
excluded from normal fishing grounds to avoid the potential for
gear loss.'' (IV-256)
``Offshore construction of platforms could infringe on
commercial fishing activities by excluding commercial fishing
from adjacent areas due to safety considerations.'' (IV-257)
``Fishing activities could be temporarily excluded from some
areas during construction of offshore pipelines. Once pipelines
are put into place, they could result in entanglement hazards
for some types of fishing gear...'' (IV-257)
Pipelines, during construction and once in place, can act as snags
for fishing gear--thereby displacing fishing. Making matters worse, as
fishermen experienced in the Santa Barbara Channel, is the fact some
oil and gas operators treated the ocean as if it were there own
personal landfill where they could dump old machinery, tires used for
bumpering and other materials that then snagged fishing gear--from
trawl nets to troll lines. That has been the experience in the Santa
Barbara Channel. Of course, pipelines and their construction affect not
just fishing, but fish. For the Bristol Bay area, MMS concedes in its
FEIS for the 5-year leasing plan:
``Pipeline installation would include trench excavation through
intertidal and shallow subtidal areas.'' (IV-204)
``Trenching and excavation for pipeline installation could
directly disturb tidal and mud flats, eelgrass beds, marshes,
or other coastal habitats (depending on the location of the
pipeline route) resulting in direct habitat losses.'' (IV-204)
``Pipeline crossings (onshore) of streams could affect EFH for
several life stages of managed anadromous salmon, including
eggs, larvae, juveniles, and adults.'' (IV-184)
``Onshore facility construction (e.g. pipelines, processing
facilities, service bases, etc.) causes definite short-term and
long-term changes, with localized long-term effects on coastal
habitats along onshore pipeline corridors.'' (IV-522)
The spatial problem is not limited to fishing grounds. Fishing
activities in ports--ranging from areas for berthing, processing fish,
mending fish gear and other space required to support commercial
fishing have been displaced by offshore oil and gas support operations
and vessels. This is not a problem where there is adequate space, space
not used to support fisheries, but it becomes a real problem in smaller
ports where space may be at a premium.
Some of the areas where drilling is planned are relatively remote
with little infrastructure in place, thus the impacts will be far
greater. The area of northern Mendocino, southern Humboldt Counties in
California--known as the Lost Coast, for example, is the one area in
the lower continental U.S. where there is no coastal road, yet the area
(around Shelter Cove) is under consideration for development. Much of
Alaska is equally as remote.
Pollution/Contamination. As mentioned earlier, the concern voiced
by commercial fishermen from the Santa Barbara Channel has been with
the small, but chronic, unreported spills and leaks that caused the
oiling of fishing gear or catch. That, however, was before the Exxon
Valdez spill in 1989 or a number of other spills that have occurred
subsequent where there is a greater understanding now of the impacts of
a major spill on certain key species.
The Prince William Sound herring fishery has still not recovered
from the Exxon Valdez spill and even the small herring fishery in San
Francisco Bay seems to have been affected by the November 2007 spill of
bunker fuel by the Cosco Busan, judging from the size of the biomass
now in the Bay. While both the Exxon Valdez and Cosco Busan were spills
from ships, not rigs, it does point out to the danger posed by oil to
the marine environment. Again, quoting from the MMS' 5-Year FEIS:
``...localized areas of shellfish essential fish habitat (EFH)
could be affected by leaks from offshore pipelines.'' (IV-186)
``...contact with some EFH [Essential Fish Habitat] resources
from an oil spill would probably be unavoidable.'' (IV-188)
``Valuable shellfish species, including various crabs and
weathervane scallops, could be affected by oil spills that
occur when planktonic life stages are present in surface
waters.'' (IV-186)
Oil spills, however, are not the only pollution source from
offshore oil and gas. Santa Barbara fishermen complained of the
disposal of drill muds on the seafloor containing diesel fuel. The
State of California has banned the disposal of drill muds in state
waters and requires them to disposed of safely onshore. The problem
identified by the Santa Barbara fishermen with diesel fuel in the drill
muds may be far greater with findings in the Gulf of Mexico of mercury
and heavy metals in the drill muds and fish sampled from the nearby
rigs. In its FEIS, MMS stated:
``Depositions of sediments could smother more sedentary
invertebrates (e.g. clams or scallops) located within a given
radius of discharge points.'' (IV-182)
``Settling of discharge cuttings on the seafloor could smother
some prey species, displace some managed groundfish species,
and change substrate composition in the area where the cuttings
settle.'' (IV-184)
``Eggs, fry, and small prey occurring or entering the mixing
zone during the discharge of muds and cuttings could experience
lethal and sublethal effects if they are within 1-2 m of the
discharge point and if the volumes of muds and cuttings are
released at the rates permitted by the U.S. EPA (500-1,000 bbl/
hour).'' (IV-182)
``...approximately 522 tons of drill cuttings would be released
into the environment for each exploration well constructed. Up
to 20 exploration wells are anticipated, which could result in
the release of up to 10,440 tons of cuttings.'' (IV-181)
Major Fishing Grounds Threatened
As we are discussing offshore oil drilling here today, the clock is
already ticking under the previous 5-year plan for Lease Sale 214, the
North Aleutian Basin, which includes Bristol Bay--with the largest
salmon fishery in the world. After the lifting of the moratorium, under
the revised plan, the clock is also ticking for lease sales of the
Northern and Central Coast of California, Georges Bank and the Virginia
coast.
Some of the nation's most productive fishing grounds are now
threatened. They include:
Bristol Bay. In its October 16, 2008 letter to the Minerals
Management Service regarding the EIS for Lease Sale 214 in the North
Aleutian Basin, which affects Bristol Bay, the United Fishermen of
Alaska described the area as ``the most important economic driver of
the region, the commercial fishing industry has impacts extending
throughout Alaska and the Pacific Northwest. As shown by National
Marine Fisheries Service statistics, over 40% of the commercial U.S.
fisheries catch including the nation's richest crab, Pollock, cod,
halibut, and salmon fisheries come from the Bering Sea region with
annual harvests worth more than a half a billion dollars.
``Both groundfish and shellfish fisheries completely overlap
the proposed lease sale area 214. Shellfish harvested in
significant numbers include Bristol Bay red king crab, Bering
Sea tanner crab, and Bering Sea snow crab. Commercially
harvested groundfish species include Pacific cod, Alaska
Pollock, Pacific halibut, flatfish species, rockfish species,
Atka mackerel and sablefish. The Bristol Bay and north Alaska
Peninsula salmon fisheries depend on the large numbers of all
five species of Pacific salmon that utilize the area for
feeding and migration. Subsistence fisheries, while not
economically comparable to the region's commercial fisheries,
are vital to local communities.''
An earlier letter sent to President Bush by six Alaskan
organizations (Bristol Bay Native Association, Bering Sea Fishermen's
Association, Bristol Bay Economic Development Corporation, Alaska
Independent Fishermen's Marketing Association, and Bristol Bay Reserve)
stated, ``[t]he economics of the fisheries that depend on the North
Aleutian Basin have sustained an annual average wholesale value of
about $450 million dollars; we estimate the retail value to be nearly
$2 billion annually. The snapshot of oil and gas development for this
area does not compare to the longevity of these fisheries or to the
future value. The Bristol Bay salmon fishery alone maintained an
average annual catch value of $105 million from 1980-2003. This
represents a 20-40% total value of Alaska's salmon fisheries. Jobs in
Bristol Bay that depend on fisheries and wildlife provide an annual
payroll of about $175 million. The economic benefits and impacts of
Alaska's fishing industry extend far beyond the region in which they
are located as the Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission reports 41% of
the Bristol Bay Drift and Set Gillnet permit holders to be residents of
states other than Alaska.
``Even though the North Aleutian Basin does not directly
overlap with the Bristol Bay salmon fisheries, it provides
significant habitat for salmon. Salmon smolt outmigrate through
the area and adult salmon migrate through the area on their way
to spawn in Bristol Bay Rivers. Juvenile salmon also feed and
grow to maturity within and surrounding the area. Clearly,
leasing in the North Aleutian Basin poses serious risks to
salmon. Even a small spill or contamination event could damage
the ability to market Bristol Bay salmon and could harm new
efforts to increase their value.''
Northern California. Although much of the Central California coast
enjoys protection in one of four national marine sanctuaries, the area
from Sonoma Coast to the Oregon border remains vulnerable. North of San
Francisco the coast is increasingly remote, to the roadless area of the
Lost Coast. The shelf is narrow and the area is frequented by
treacherous winter storms with few ports of refuge. The fishing and
tourism industries that support this region of the coast would be
devastated by offshore oil and gas development.
In his recent letter to you, Mr. Chairman, Representative Mike
Thompson stated the coastal part of his district, ``is remote,
pristine, and rocky. It is also host to one of four major upwelling
regions in the world. Upwelling regions are coastal areas that support
extremely abundant and productive marine life. This is because
upwelling brings cold, nutrient-rich waters up from the ocean depths
that, when combined with sunlight, enhance seaweed and phytoplankton
growth. The seaweed and phytoplankton provide energy for some of the
most productive ecosystems in the world, including many of the world's
most important fisheries, such as the North Coast fisheries. According
to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, while upwelling
regions make up only one percent of the world's oceans, they contribute
to approximately half of the world's fish catch.
``Northern California's coast brings biological and economic
benefits to the entire country as a result of the incredibly
productive and diverse ecosystem found within its waters.
Drilling activity off the Northern Coast of California could
cause serious harm to the unique ecosystem and abundant marine
life found off my district. The impact this would have on the
California fishing industry and the coastal communities that
depend on it could far exceed any benefits we would hope to
gain by drilling.
``Even if the price of oil were to skyrocket again, the
Minerals Management Service's own estimates show that the
amount of oil we could expect to recover would only be enough
to satisfy about 100 days of national demand.''
Georges Bank. Part of MMS' proposed North Atlantic lease sale,
includes the fishing rich ground of Georges Bank. Representative Ed
Markey reflects the feelings of most fishermen in New England, when he
says Georges Bank is vital to New England's economy. New Bedford,
Massachusetts is the most productive fishing port in the United States,
raking in $268 million in catch value. The collective catch of New
Bedford, Gloucester, and Provincetown-Chatham-all of which rely on
Georges Bank-is worth nearly $350 million annually.
``From the boats and wharfs to the markets and restaurants of
New England, the unique habitat of Georges Bank is a key
economic engine for Massachusetts and the region and an
important part of our cultural heritage,'' said Congressman
Markey. ``In this economic crisis, the preservation of Georges
Bank is vital to not just the environmental integrity of New
England but also the stability of its economy.''
In the case of all three areas identified above, if the fishing is
well-managed these areas will continue to provide economic benefit to
the nation well into the future. But these areas are now at risk in
order to pursue finite oil and gas reserves, whose extraction will
affect fish and fisheries for, at best, a short supply of carbon-based
fuel.
If Drilling Were to Go Ahead
It is PCFFA's position supporting reinstatement by Congress and the
Administration of the offshore oil and gas moratorium. However, if a
moratorium is not reinstated, PCFFA recommends at minimum the following
actions are taken:
1. Remove Bristol Bay, Northern California and Georges Bank
immediately from any lease sales. We would also ask for consideration
of much of the rest, if not all, of the lease sales planned for
offshore Alaska, as well as Oregon and Washington, any unprotected
areas of Central and Southern California, the remainder of the North
Atlantic and the Mid-Atlantic be protected from oil and gas
exploration. We cannot comment on the South Atlantic and Straits of
Florida, but those areas, too, may be worthy of protection from
offshore oil.
2. Consolidate oil and lease sales around areas where existing oil
and gas development is taking place to minimize disruption to fishing
and coastal communities.
3. Establish mitigation measures to protect fishing where new
drilling is to occur. To this end, we support the recommendations made
by the United Fishermen of Alaska for fishery protection and mitigation
including:
Creation of Regional Citizens Advisory Councils for
states, following approved OCS lease sales, to be funded by the
approved leaseholders
Zero discharges from drilling installations.
Establishment of oil and gas spill response and
mitigation plans, to be developed in consort with a regional
citizens advisory councils.
Establishment of an adequate fisheries disaster fund
to provide compensation to the fishing industry and coastal
communities in the event of disruption of fisheries.
A commitment from the oil and gas industry and the
federal government to develop and implement a long term
scientific monitoring program to assess potential impacts to
the marine environment and the fisheries.
A prohibition of any use of offshore energy
facilities for open ocean aquaculture.
Inclusion of commercial fishing organizations in the
planning process as stakeholders on par with the status of
other cooperating municipal, state and federal agencies.
Restrict lease-related use will to prevent conflicts
with local commercial, subsistence, and sport harvest
activities. All OCS operations, both onshore and offshore, must
be designed, sited and operated to ensure that:
(a) adverse changes to the distribution or abundance of
fish resources do not occur;
(b) fish or shellfish catches are not adversely impacted
by OCS activities;
(c) all exploration, construction and operation activities
is coordinated with the fishing community to maximize
communication, ensure public participation, and avoid
conflicts;
(d) ballast water treatment is required to remove or
eliminate non-indigenous species.
(e) fishermen are not displaced or precluded from access
to fishing areas, unless they are adequately compensated
for the displacement;
(f) fishermen are not precluded from participating in
designated fishing seasons, unless they are adequately
compensated for the lost season(s); and
(g) fishermen are compensated for damage to fishing
equipment, vessels, gear and decreased harvest value from
OCS operations in a timely manner.
Why Offshore Drilling is Not a Good Move
When PCFFA formulated it policy 30 years ago to oppose new offshore
drilling, it did so unaware of climate change or its implications,
including the acidification of ocean waters. We felt there was a
compelling case to be made then for not expanding offshore drilling
beyond the high yield basins where it was then taking place.
From what we have learned in the past decade, certainly the past
year and even month, it is evident that we need to phase out carbon-
based fuels as quickly as possible. We say that knowing our fishing
boats currently rely on diesel fuel for power. But if we don't stop
putting carbon into the atmosphere from burning coal and oil there
won't be any fish in the ocean for our members to harvest. This is a
problem that needs fixing now.
This past summer was particularly disturbing for those of us who
remember the summers of the late 1960's, when many of the nation's
cities were burning. We heard then the chants of ``Burn, Baby, Burn.''
Most of us understood the frustration of those rioting, torching
buildings. The years of Jim Crow, inequality, lack of opportunity, and
brutality at the hands of police and vigilante groups set off a powder
keg. Understandable as it was for many of us, looting and burning was
no answer.
When the President lifted the executive order on the offshore
moratorium, when Congress allowed the moratorium to lapse, when we
heard people shouting ``Drill, Baby, Drill,'' we felt for our fisheries
the way a shop owner must have felt in those hot summers of the late
1960's as the mob converged. We understood the frustration with the
prices at the pump. The cost of diesel had taken the profit out of
fishing, keeping many tied to the dock. And, we understood the
frustration with paying for fuel imported from nations that are openly
hostile to our interests.
But drilling for a small amount of oil and gas, putting at risk
America's oldest industry, to further exacerbate global warming--which
may not be reversible for a century, is no solution. It is no more an
answer to our energy needs than burning the cities was in the 1960's in
response in discrimination and inequality. Are we now prepared to loot
and burn the planet, chanting ``Drill, Baby, Drill?''
There is no doubt that immediate action is needed on the energy
front, but in so acting we should not threaten our food supplies, nor
life on Earth. Prompt and thoughtful action, based on good science, is
what's needed. It's time to ``Think, Baby, Think.''
Mr. Chairman we urge you and committee members to rethink our
offshore drilling policies, both in terms of damage to the environment
and industries such as fisheries that rely on a clean environment, as
well as damage to the planet from continued reliance on carbon based
fuels.
A better course I would suggest is to focus on the development of
renewable energy sources--continue to push solar and wind and
development of alternative fuels that can safely power everything from
fishing vessels to jet aircraft. We do not expect any of the oil from
development of new offshore leases to be available for a decade.
Wouldn't we be better off spending this next decade working to be free
of not just foreign oil, but oil as a fuel altogether?
Thank you Mr. Chairman for this opportunity to testify and I'll be
happy to answer any questions you or members of the Natural Resources
Committee may have.
______
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Allen.
STATEMENT OF BRUCE ALLEN, CO-FOUNDER,
SOS CALIFORNIA
Mr. Allen. I would like to thank Chairman Rahall and the
Committee for the invitation to speak here today. I am Bruce
Allen, a co-founder of SOS California, a nonprofit dedicated to
educating the public about how offshore oil and gas production
can actually improve the marine environment and provide a
bridge to our renewable energy future.
Due to advances in subsea wellhead, platform and pipeline
technology, according to the National Academy of Sciences, less
than 1 percent of hydrocarbon pollution in all U.S. waters now
comes from drilling and extraction, while natural oil seeps
contribute 63 percent.
Published studies document that, in the Gulf of Mexico,
natural hydrocarbon seepage may far exceed the environmental
significance of production and transportation of oil and gas.
Surprising to many is the fact that California offshore oil and
gas production has been drying up seepage pollution. Similar
seepage productions also appear to be occurring in other oil
and gas resource basins.
Natural oil and gas seeps off the California coast are the
second most active in the world, seeping 70,000 barrels of oil
into coastal waters and 3 billion cubic feet of methane into
the air every year. This annual oil seepage volume equals the
entire 1969 oil spill and equals the Exxon Valdez oil spill
amount every 4 years. Local beaches are washed with oil seepage
from State and OCS waters for 100 miles of Central California
coastline.
These seeps pollute the ocean and beaches, sicken surfers,
and are a significant source of air pollution in Santa Barbara
County. For example, in January 2005, an increase in this
seepage killed or oiled as many as 5,000 seabirds that washed
ashore from Santa Barbara to Huntington Beach, creating a 25-
square-mile oil slick, which went largely unreported.
These seeps are being reduced by offshore oil and gas
production. It is well known to longtime Santa Barbara
residents that over the last 40 years, the amount of oil
washing up on their beaches has been declining and is commonly
assumed that offshore oil production is the reason. These
observations are supported by research documenting a 50 percent
reduction in the seepage near an offshore oil platform that was
studied for 20--over 20 years. If after the 1969 spill all
California offshore oil production had been stopped, these
long-term seepage reductions would never have occurred.
In the last 40 years, there have been only 872 barrels of
oil spilled offshore California due to offshore oil production,
with no lasting long-term environmental impact, compared to the
2 million barrels of oil seepage into the same coastal waters.
A 2008 opinion poll shows that, by 62 percent to 29 percent,
Santa Barbara County residents support more offshore production
in California, a population that follows this subject more
closely than any other. The Gulf of Mexico offshore production
also has an excellent safety and environmental record even in
the face of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
Modern technology and 3-D seismic allows reserves to be
accurately targeted, including seep zones and resources at risk
from earthquakes. For example, the 1925 Santa Barbara
earthquake caused a massive flood of crude oil from seabed
fissures to pour into coastal waters and onto California
beaches.
Pacific OCS resources are estimated by MMS to be at least
13 billion barrels of oil equivalent. Discovered resources in
the California OCS and State waters--which are not allowed to
be produced--amount to about 1.8 billion barrels, are near
existing infrastructure, and are producible within 18 months--
given permitting approvals. Eleven of 13 reservoirs are
overlaid by active seeps in State and OCS waters, seepage which
could be permanently reduced by offshore extraction. Royalties
from these resources could fund conversion to electricity use
by 20 million Americans for solar electricity and cut
California oil imports in half.
This would reduce the risk of a large spill in coastal
waters since studies show the risks from large oil tanker
spills are greater than from offshore platforms or pipeline
spills. Total 2006 MMS estimated OCS resources are 160 billion
barrels of oil equivalent. Royalties from these resources
exceed $3 trillion, which in terms of renewable energy, could
buy 1,000 gigawatts of solar electric-generating power--an
amount equal to all U.S. electric-generating capacity.
Assertions that new offshore oil production will slow
conversion to renewable energy are not correct. More OCS
production will actually accelerate the conversion. SOS
California believes new offshore production royalties should be
tied directly to funding renewable energy infrastructure to
accelerate the transition to solar electric vehicles and other
renewables. The U.S. will not be able to borrow overseas money
for 30 years to pay for building a renewable energy
infrastructure while running a $600 billion a year trade
deficit due to primarily imported oil moratorium.
I urge Congress not to reimpose an OCS moratorium. New OCS
production will allow Americans to benefit from safe extraction
of domestic energy resources with royalty revenues accelerating
the transition to renewable energy. For coastal Californians,
intelligently expanded production in the OCS and State waters
would further reduce coastal seepage pollution for future
generations.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Allen follows:]
Statement of Bruce Allen, Co-Founder, SOS California
I would like to thank Chairman Rahall and the Committee for the
invitation to speak here today. I am Bruce Allen, a co-founder of SOS
California, a non-profit dedicated to educating the public how offshore
oil and gas production can actually improve the marine environment and
provide a bridge to our renewable energy future. Due to advances in
subsea wellhead, platform and pipeline technology, according to the
National Academy of Sciences less than 1% of hydrocarbon pollution in
all U.S. waters now comes from drilling and extraction, while natural
oil seeps contribute 63%.
Published studies document that in the Gulf of Mexico natural
hydrocarbon seepage may far exceed the environmental significance of
the production and transportation of oil and natural gas.
Surprising to many is the fact that California offshore oil and gas
production has been drying up seepage pollution. Similar seepage
reductions also appear to be occurring in other oil and gas resource
basins.
Natural oil and gas seeps off the California coast are the second
most active in the world, seeping 70,000 barrels of oil into coastal
waters and 3 billion cubic feet of methane into the air every year.
This annual oil seepage volume equals the entire 1969 oil spill and
equals the Exxon Valdez oil spill amount every 4 years. Local beaches
are washed with oil seepage from state and OCS waters for 100 miles of
central California coastline. These seeps pollute the ocean and
beaches, sicken surfers, and are a significant source of air pollution
in Santa Barbara County.
For example, in January 2005 an increase in this seepage killed or
oiled as many as 5000 seabirds that washed ashore from Santa Barbara to
Huntington Beach, creating a 25 square mile oil slick, which went
largely unreported.
These seeps are being reduced by offshore oil and gas production.
It is well known to long time Santa Barbara residents that over the
last 40 years the amount of oil washing up on their beaches has been
declining, and it is commonly assumed offshore oil production is the
reason. These observations are supported by research documenting a 50%
reduction in seepage near an offshore platform studied for over 20
years.
If, after the 1969 spill, all California offshore oil production
had been stopped, these long term seepage reductions would never have
occurred.
In the last 40 years there have only been 872 barrels of oil
spilled offshore California due to offshore production with no lasting
long term environmental impact compared to the 2 million barrels of oil
seepage into the same coastal waters. A 2008 opinion poll shows by 62%
to 29% Santa Barbara County residents support more offshore production
in California, a population that follows this subject more closely then
any other.
Gulf of Mexico offshore production also has an excellent safety and
environmental record, even in the face of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
Modern technology and 3-D seismic allows reserves to be accurately
targeted, including seep zones and resources at risk from earthquakes.
For example, the 1925 Santa Barbara earthquake caused a massive flood
of crude oil from seabed fissures to pour into coastal waters and onto
California beaches.
Pacific OCS resources estimated by MMS are at least 13 billion
barrels of oil equivalent. Discovered, but not allowed to be produced
resources in California OCS and state waters are about 1.8 billion
barrels, near existing infrastructure producible within 18 months given
permitting approvals. 11 of 13 reservoirs are overlaid by active seeps
in state and OCS waters, seepage which could be permanently reduced by
offshore extraction. Royalties from these resources could fund
conversion of electricity usage by 20 million Americans to solar
electricity and cut California oil imports in half. This would reduce
the risk of a large spill in coastal waters, since studies show risks
from large oil tanker spills are greater then from offshore platform or
pipeline spills.
Total 2006 MMS estimated OCS resources are 160 billion barrels of
oil equivalent. Royalties from these resources could exceed 3 trillion
dollars, which in terms of renewable energy, could buy one thousand
gigawatts of solar electric generating power, an amount equal to all
U.S. electric generating capacity.
Assertions that new offshore oil production will slow conversion to
renewable energy are not correct; more OCS production can actually
accelerate the conversion. SOS California believes new offshore
production royalties should be tied directly to funding renewable
energy infrastructure to accelerate the transition to solar, electric
vehicles and other renewables.
The U.S. will not be able to borrow overseas money for 30 years to
pay for building a renewable energy infrastructure while running a 600
billion dollar a year trade deficit due primarily to imported oil.
I urge Congress not to re-impose an OCS moratorium. New OCS
production will allow Americans to benefit from safe extraction of
domestic energy resources with royalty revenues accelerating the
transition to renewable energy. For central coast Californians,
intelligently expanded production in OCS and state waters would further
reduce coastal seepage pollution for future generations. I would be
pleased to answer questions. Thank you.
______
Response to questions submitted for the record by Bruce Allen,
Co-Founder, SOS California
I submit this memo to the House Committee on Natural Resources
Chief Clerk to be forwarded to all House Natural Resource Committee
Members and request its inclusion and the attachments in the
Congressional Record in response to questions to me at the February 11,
2009 Natural Resources hearing and the request for citation for the
Record by Rep. Capps regarding my comments on the source of California
Monterey County beach seepage tar and the chemical typing of this
seepage tar.
I also would like to request a copy of the letter by Bruce Luyendyk
regarding SOS California that Rep. Capps indicated she would submit to
the Record, and request that I be given the opportunity to include my
comments on the letter in the Congressional Record. I was not offered
an opportunity to see the letter to which Rep. Capps referred before or
after the hearing.
I would note for the Committee that Bruce Luyendyk did submit a
letter to the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors in August 2008
(a copy of which I have attached), in which the letter points to
``clarifications'' in regard to SOS's position on offshore oil. In his
letter, Luyendyk stated,
``Their premise is based on interpretation of two 1999 UCSB studies
on oil seeps offshore Coal Oil Point in Goleta, the location of
Venoco's platform Holly. As a member of that UCSB research team I want
to point to several qualifications in this SOS argument. The
relationship between ongoing production and decreasing seepage remains
a hypothesis that is not fully tested. The relationship is well
established for the Coal Oil Point field under current production
methods but not tested by scientific studies elsewhere in the
Channel.''
SOS California's ``premise'' is NOT solely based on the two 1999
studies, and is not restricted to the Santa Barbara ``channel''. Our
analysis includes other published research which includes seep zones in
California, reservoir engineering opinions, analysis of the advances in
offshore drilling technology and discussions with many petroleum
geologists and researchers that did not include Luyendyk and he was not
been privy to any of those discussions. That the ``hypothesis has not
been fully tested'' merely states the obvious fact that to be ``fully
tested'', the offshore oil fields in seep zone areas that are currently
off limits would need to be produced and seepage reductions measured.
Petroleum geologists with current offshore oil production technology
experience have consistently given opinions that if extraction of
hydrocarbon resources from many reservoirs in undeveloped active seep
zone areas offshore California occurred, it is highly likely that
extraction with modern technology would reduce this existing seepage
pollution.
In his letter Luyendyk states, ``It is true that natural oil
seepage may be the major source of oil in the ocean: to what degree is
uncertain. However, labeling this natural floating oil to be pollution
is not so simple.''
I believe it is clear that natural seepage emissions, including
oil, tar and ROG (reactive organic gases) emissions off the coast of
southern and central California are considered pollution sources per
definitions by the EPA, California Air Resources Board, and other
agencies. I believe it is clear these seepage emissions harm the
environment, and are responsible for wildlife deaths.
Bruce Luyendyk also stated in the August 2008 letter, ``Even if
drilling were to go forward as a means of decreasing seepage, some
seeps are located where oil drilling would not occur either because of
non-economic deposits or legal restrictions.''
SOS California believes that drilling and extraction are clearly a
means of decreasing seepage. If the resources are not economic to
produce, they will likely not be produced and SOS has never said
otherwise, and SOS California believes many of the seep fields off the
coast of California are economic, based on existing known resource
estimates and many detailed seep field studies. With respect to legal
restrictions, this is the very policy issue SOS California is
addressing through public education and hearings.
SOS California has not changed its position since Luyendyk's letter
was sent to the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors, dated August
18, 2008. I believe the conclusions of the 1999 UCSB studies speak for
themselves, and I encourage the committee to read their conclusions,
including the conclusion ``...oil production here has resulted in an
unexpected benefit to the atmosphere and marine environment.'' The 1999
studies are a notable set of studies, but implying that our policy
position is solely based on those findings is incorrect.
SOS California does not consider the other studies we have reviewed
and analyzed to constitute ``evidence'' as was asked by Rep. Capps at
the hearing, but rather these other studies and geologists opinions to
be significant factors in our assessment of the potential for seepage
reductions along the California coast due to oil reservoir extraction.
With respect to the request by Rep. Capps to provide for the record
a source for my reference to the fact that tar from Santa Barbara area
seepage washes up on Monterey County beaches, and the issue of their
chemical typing, I include below a USGS (United States Geological
Survey) April 2008 Sound Waves article citing chemical analysis of tar
ball samples by the California Department of Fish and Game, Oil Spill
Prevention and Response (OSPR) and titled:
``Tar Balls from Southern California Seeps Appear on Central
California Beaches'' By Helen Gibbons, Bob Rosenbauer, Tom Lorenson,
and Randy Imai (CDFG Office of Spill Prevention and Response) April
2008:
Excerpt: ``Tar balls that appear on central California shores
during the winter months mostly originate in southern California seeps,
as evidenced by their chemical fingerprints. These tar balls are
believed to be carried northward by the Davidson Current, which
periodically flows northward along the California coast, often aided by
winter storms that bring southwesterly winds to the region.''
http://soundwaves.usgs.gov/2008/04/fieldwork2.html
Attached also to this memo is a published news article dated March
6th, 2007 that gives some additional context regarding the question of
natural oil and tar seepage flowing up the coast of California and
deposition on Monterey and San Francisco area beaches.
I would note for the Committee that Santa Barbara and California
residents over the last 40 years have clearly observed the major
improvement of their coastal environment due to less natural oil and
tar on their beaches that has always been present even before offshore
oil production began in California. The best scientific evidence points
to offshore oil and gas production as the cause of this benefit. I
believe the potential to even further reduce natural offshore seepage
pollution through expanded offshore oil and gas production is a
significant potential benefit that the Committee should seriously
consider as a factor in evaluating the benefits of offshore oil and gas
resource development.
______
Attachment 2
August 18, 2008
TO: Board of Supervisors, Santa Barbara County
RE: Statement on oil seeps and drilling for August 26 meeting, ``State
and National Energy Crisis--Discussion''
The local group Stop Oil Seeps (SOS) has gained a lot of traction
lately as alarmed southern Californians react to sharply increasing
gasoline prices. Part of the SOS agenda is to promote offshore drilling
and oil production as a means of reducing natural oil and gas seepage
and their effects in the Santa Barbara Channel. Their premise is based
on interpretation of two 1999 UCSB studies\1\ \2\ on oil seeps offshore
Coal Oil Point in Goleta, the location of Venoco's platform Holly. As a
member of that UCSB research team, I want to point to several
qualifications in this SOS argument.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Quigley, D. C., J. S. Hornafius, B. P. Luyendyk, R. D. Francis,
J. F. Clark, and L. Washburn (1999), Decrease in Natural Marine
Hydrocarbon Seepage near Coal Oil Point, California Associated with
Offshore Oil Production, Geology, 27 (11), 1047-1050.
\2\ Hornafius, J. S., D. C. Quigley, and B. P. Luyendyk (1999), The
world's most spectacular marine hydrocarbons seeps (Coal Oil Point,
Santa Barbara Channel, California): quantification of emissions,
Journal Geophysical Research - Oceans, 104 (C9), 20703-20711.2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The relationship between ongoing production and decreasing seepage
remains a hypothesis that is not fully tested. The relationship is well
established for the Coal Oil Point field under current production
methods but not tested by scientific studies elsewhere in the Channel.
Many oil reservoirs offshore in fact are not seeping so drilling them
would have no effect. Those reservoirs that are seeping, to my
knowledge, are discharging far less that the Coal Oil Point field,
minimizing any effect of drilling on seepage. Even if drilling were to
go forward as a means of decreasing seepage, some seeps are located
where oil drilling would not occur either because of non-economic
deposits or legal restrictions. Further, any relationship between
ongoing production and decreasing seepage could only apply in the early
history of an oil field during a phase known as primary production
where natural subsurface conditions allow easy extraction of
hydrocarbons. As oil fields age more elaborate Enhanced Oil Recovery
measures are required, and these could have the opposite result of
increasing seepage.
The argument is also made by SOS that most of the oil floating on
the surface of the ocean today is of natural origin, not industrial,
and that therefore our enemy is really natural seepage. It is true that
natural oil seepage may be the major source of oil in the ocean: to
what degree is uncertain. However, labeling this natural floating oil
to be pollution is not so simple. Ecosystems have adapted to ongoing
hydrocarbon seepage as they have done at Coal Oil Point. On the other
hand, a sudden accidental spill of even a small magnitude is something
that natural systems experience as acute stress and could have far
greater impact than continual natural sources.
The Coal Oil Point field emits gases that are classified as noxious
air pollutants and precursors to ozone. These are likely of large
magnitude offshore but are highly dispersed once they blow onshore to
Goleta. That area is rarely beyond state or federal air quality (ozone)
standards according to our county monitoring records.
Our 1999 UCSB studies were made on a special case of marine seeps;
one of the world's most active. However, these seeps occur over a
limited area. To extrapolate the findings of our studies beyond the
Coal Oil Point area cannot yet be substantiated, and there are many
reasons to caution against generalizing our study results to the
greater Santa Barbara Channel, much less to the California continental
shelf.
Sincerely,
Bruce P. Luyendyk
Professor of Marine Geophysics
UC Santa Barbara
______
Attachment 3
http://www.mcpost.com/article.php?id=695
Winter Storms Wash Santa Barbara's Tar onto Central Coast Beaches Thick
Tar Balls from Naturally Occurring Seepage
By Monica Woelfel March 6, 2007
On Feb. 23, the state Department of Fish & Game's Office of Spill
Prevention and Response (OSPR) identified the source of the tar balls
that have been washing up on local beaches. The tar, according to OSPR
information officer Rob Hughes, is ``Monterey formation crude'' from a
natural seep, and does not originate, as some had feared, from offshore
drilling or from an oil tanker spill.
``There isn't much we can do about that except monitor it,'' Hughes
said of the natural source. ``We're waiting for nature to clean itself
up.''
Fortunately, according to Hughes, ``There hasn't been any wildlife
impact and there haven't been any [human] health concerns.''
Petroleum and environmental geochemist Fran Hostettler has been
working with the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary Project for
years.
``There are no known seeps in the Sanctuary,'' she said. ``That's
why people pay attention whenever tar shows up, because it could be
from an oil spill.''
The findings of the OSPR lab, however, are no surprise to
Hostettler. For decades, she and other researchers have documented the
presence of tar balls on Monterey Bay beaches that come from natural
seeps as far south as Santa Barbara.
In the latest instance, the tar started washing up on the Central
Coast from Asilomar at Pacific Grove to San Francisco's Ocean Beach on
Feb. 10 and continued to come ashore for about a week.
Aside from the tar balls, no other evidence of a potential oil
spill (such as oiled wildlife) was found.
``It was reported to our department from the public,'' said local
Fish and Game warden Jess Mitchell, of the tar washing up. ``I
collected a few samples down at Asilomar State Beach. They were flat,
like a pancake and pliable. They ranged from the size of a dime to
about 4 inches by 8 inches.''
According to Hostettler, past reports have documented flattened tar
balls as large as three feet in diameter.
Tar Balls Date Back Thousands of Years
In addition to Mitchell's samples from Asilomar, OSPR, San Mateo
County and State Parks staff collected recent tar balls in February
from Fitzgerald Marine Reserve, and Manresa and Sunset State Beaches.
Fish and Game officers sent the samples to OSPR's Petroleum
Chemistry Laboratory in Rancho Cordova for analysis. The lab was able
to ``fingerprint'' the oil, using gas chromatography-mass spectrometry
analysis.
Any sample of oil has a mix of specific chemicals within it,
explained Hostettler.
``The ratio of the amounts of different chemicals within the
sample,'' she said, ``gives you that oil's fingerprint.''
Two samples of oil from the same source, she said, even if they are
collected from locations far apart, will give exactly the same
fingerprint.
Scientists can pretty easily distinguish natural-seep tar from that
which has been drilled out, according to Hostettler.
``The stuff that comes up from deep down is not as degraded,'' she
said. ``These seeps are very close to the surface.''
As a result, microbial systems have degraded it.
For those who have known the Central Coast beaches well over the
years, the appearance of tar balls is not all that surprising. Last
year, Mitchell said, he saw a similar event happen.
Hostettler's historical re-search turned up interesting results.
``These tars have been showing up here for thousands of years,''
she said.''
In fact, she found reports that some boats of the original Indian
residents of the Monterey Bay area were sealed for waterproofing using
tars from the same source.
``Essentially what happens,'' said UCSC earth sciences professor
Gary Griggs, director of the Institute of Marine Sciences, ``is those
hydrocarbons seep out of the sea floor. The light stuff evaporates and
the heavier tar balls form and move with the currents.''
He said that currents bring the tar north in winter.
``During the summer and fall the coastal current is going south,''
Griggs said. ``But in the winter months the Davidson Current, which is
near shore, is going north. And that is a mechanism to move tar balls
from the Santa Barbara Channel up to the Monterey, San Mateo, and Santa
Cruz coast.''
Weathered tar balls are not very sticky while they're in the ocean,
therefore they pose a minimal threat to marine life, according to the
Department of Fish and Game. Once on shore, however, the sun's warmth
melts the tar some, making it sticky and potentially a hazard to marine
life and pets.
Fish and Game officials remind the public that oil, even from
natural sources, contains hazardous chemicals, and the public should
avoid contact with the tar balls. The tar must be removed from beaches
by people with personal protective equipment, and disposed of at a
licensed hazardous waste facility.
If someone has reliable evidence that an oil spill may have taken
place (in this or any other instance), they should contact the
Department of Fish and Game's CalTIP (Californians Turn In Poachers and
Polluters) toll-free at 888-DFG-CALTip (888-334-2258).
______
Attachment 4
February 20, 2009
The Honorable Nick J. Rahall II
Chairman
Committee on Natural Resources
1324 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
RE: Natural Resources Committee hearing Wednesday February 11, 2009
Dear Chairman Rahall,
Thank you for providing me the opportunity to testify before the
Committee on Natural Resources on February 11. I hope that my testimony
and answers were helpful to the Committee's work. I would also like to
respond to several aspects of a letter sent to you by Bruce Luyendyk
regarding me and the organization SOS California, and references to the
letter by Rep. Lois Capps which were directed to me in the February 11
Committee hearing. I only have had an opportunity to view the contents
of the letter after the hearing.
The statement in the letter from Dr. Luyendyk that I represent
``the industry group Stop Oil Seeps (SOS)'' may suggest that I and SOS
represent an industry, which is not the case. The issues we are
addressing as an independent non-profit are a confluence of offshore
oil and gas, the marine and coastal environment, long term quality of
life issues, renewable energy and responsible governance.
The statement in the letter that ``The SOS premise is based on
interpretation of two 1999 UCSB studies'' is misleading for several
reasons. It has been overwhelmingly obvious to long time Santa Barbara
and ``South Central Coast'' residents, and members and supporters of
SOS California that the amount of oil and tar on their beaches has been
declining for decades and their belief is that offshore oil production
has been the cause of this benefit. These very long term environmental
benefits have previously received virtually no public acknowledgement
and are even resisted by some organizations that apparently do not wish
the public and policy makers to be aware of these benefits. I addressed
SOS California's view of the economic benefits and safety aspects of
California and U.S. offshore oil development in my written testimony.
The likely connection between the reduction in seepage pollution
and offshore oil and gas production has been known to many geologists
not associated with the UCSB 1999 study and they have expressed the
opinion that the 1999 study findings of seepage reduction and net
environmental benefit are ``no surprise'' and also the expected result
of resource extraction in many other seep areas offshore south central
California. SOS California would be pleased at your request to provide
the Committee on Natural Resources a portfolio of information
documenting the seepage oil and tar pollution reductions along
California's south central coast beaches and ocean waters over the past
50 years independent of the above referenced 1999 studies.
We believe that the benefits of seepage pollution reductions
through offshore oil and gas production should be a significant factor
in the policy consideration for resource planning for future offshore
oil production. I would note that the issue of long term seepage
pollution reduction and the associated environmental benefits appears
to have never been a federal or state policy consideration for offshore
oil and gas production and SOS California believes this has been a
policy deficiency that should be corrected.
The letter from Dr. Luyendyk further states, ``To assume that
natural marine seeps are a source of pollution that needs to be
controlled ignores the fact that they have coexisted with the natural
environment of the Santa Barbara Channel for more than half a million
years. Ecosystems have developed around them and are fully adapted.'' I
would note that if the current seepage rates in the major seep zones
off the coast of California which have not been explored with modern 3-
D seismic were to continue in time for only an additional 20% longer,
then there are offshore resources well beyond 7 billion barrels
equivalent (BOE). These resources would be within close proximity to
coastal infrastructure and extractable through safe slant drilling
which would eliminate all California oil imports for 30 years (400,000
barrels per day) and provide an additional 260,000 barrel per day
surplus. With respect to the ecosystem, there is no evidence that
humans, other mammals, birds and many other species are ``fully
adapted'' to oil and gas pollution. The suggestion that the seepage
pollution is benign defies common sense and ignores standard
environmental regulatory agency policies concerning pollution sources
and hazardous substances.
I have attached a front page newspaper article, dated August 28,
2008, in which a surfer describes a typical experience surfing in ocean
waters contaminated with natural seepage near Santa Barbara. The surfer
states, ``It's been pretty bad out there. When I go out surfing for an
hour I can literally feel the tar and oil in the back of my throat. I
actually get a sore throat if I go surfing too long,'' The EPA and CARB
(California Air Resources Board) define geogenic (seepage) emissions to
be pollution whether natural or man made. The California Department of
Fish and Game treats oil and tar seepage collected on California
beaches as a hazardous substance and requires its disposal at a
hazardous waste facility. Bird death estimates off the south central
coast of California from natural seepage pollution in the last 40 years
significantly exceed bird death estimates due to all California
offshore oil spills, including the 1969 oil spill. In January 2005
there were 1400 oil covered birds that were injured or dead collected
on California beaches in one incident alone due to ``natural'' offshore
oil seepage. Generally total bird casualties far exceed the number of
birds actually collected.
Dr. Luyendyk's letter then states, ``Fumes from seeps, although
noxious up close, are barely detectable onshore.'' I find this
statement to be surprising and contradicted by the facts in detailed
peer reviewed published research, including studies sponsored by the
U.S. Minerals and Management Service on California South Central Coast
Air Quality. In a series of studies published in the Journal of Applied
Meteorology, May 1991, the issue of geogenic (seepage) air pollution
emission levels in the region was studied. In one of the papers, titled
``Factor Analysis of Hydrocarbon Species in the South-Central Coast Air
Basin'', page 733, the paper identifies two major sources of
hydrocarbon air pollution in the region, surface transportation
vehicles and geogenic (seep) sources. The study summary states ``The
second major source is high in methane, ethane, and propane, but also
contains reasonable amounts of butane and pentane. This type of
composition suggests a geogenic source.'' I have attached the abstract
and first page of the study.
I would encourage that the Committee staff read the full set of
studies that detail the levels and sources of hydrocarbon air pollution
that are estimated from the air sample data which is the basis for the
estimates and air quality modeling over the regional population
centers. It is clear that the seep emissions are a major source of the
regions air pollution. I would also note as a Santa Barbara Air
Pollution Control District Community Advisory Council Member that the
2007 Santa Barbara Air Pollution Control District (APCD) Air Quality
Plan Inventory estimates total ROC (reactive organic compound) seep
emissions to be 6,075 tons per year, compared to ROC's from all on-road
vehicles of only 4,846 tons, and note that man-made ROC's are heavily
regulated due to their environmentally damaging health effects.
I also believe the statement in Dr. Luyendyk's letter, ``This
natural phenomenon contrasts sharply with industrial oil spills, which
are sudden acute events of obvious stress to the marine environment.''
may not be entirely representative for California south central coast
oil pollution. I have attached a published, July 4th, 1925 eyewitness
account of the 1925 earthquake offshore oil release in an area
previously free of seepage which speaks for itself. Other eyewitness
accounts corroborate the nature of the massive and sudden 1925
earthquake release of offshore oil.
In the last 40 years, there have been only approximately 872
barrels of oil spilled due to offshore production versus 2 million
barrels from natural seepage in that 100 mile region. The offshore area
near Coal Oil Point near Santa Barbara is estimated to contain
approximately half of the south central coast oil and gas seeps, with
most of the other half concentrated in the Santa Maria Basin state and
OCS waters off the coast of northern Santa Barbara County. Many of the
Santa Maria Basin seepage areas are also very active with high
concentrations of oil, tar and gas seepage pollution in proximity to
discovered but off limits oil and gas resources (``Geological Controls
of Hydrocarbon Seeps in Santa Maria Basin, Offshore California'', Dr.
Peter J. Fischer, Joseph M. Saenz, AAPG 2003)
In response to the statement in Dr. Luyendyk's letter, ``If it is
successfully argued that seeps need to be controlled, then
indiscriminate drilling offshore is not the clear solution. This is
because not all oil reservoirs in the offshore are seeping. Therefore
drilling them would have no impact on seepage.'' I would note that in
my Committee testimony in reference to California offshore, I referred
to ``11 of 13 reservoirs are overlaid by active seeps in state and OCS
waters''. Most of these reservoirs are in the Santa Maria Basin and
surrounding area, which has very active oil, tar and gas seeps,
including areas near Point Conception that have very extended areas
offshore encompassing seabed oil and tar seeps and tar mounds covering
the ocean floor that are 12-15 feet thick. The beaches all along the
coast in this region are also heavily impacted from oil and tar from
natural seepage pollution.
In the same letter the statement that ``It is also important to
realize that the drilling-seepage relationship could be in question if
aggressive artificial means to enhance subsurface production were
employed, as is often the case for mature oil reservoirs. Seepage could
in fact increase over time negating the expected positive effects.''
fails to note that the offshore platform (Holly) in the 1999 study has
seen major reductions in surrounding seepage, even with the use of
standard re-injection practices for aging fields.
This issue should be viewed in the context that reservoir pressures
can indeed be managed by offshore field operators, and as part of the
regulatory process, consideration for maximizing field production while
maximizing seepage reductions can be included in the approval process.
In this light, the seepage reductions due to reservoir extraction can
be even greater then would otherwise be the case.
Most of the discovered, but off-limits California state and OCS
hydrocarbon resources and seepage zones are within reach of land based
slant drilling which would have no new risk of an offshore spill. In
the case of offshore production, a single offshore platform now has the
capability to drain a hydrocarbon resource basin and seep zone area
covering 80 square miles.
In addition to offshore oil and gas resource potential, resource
size, proximity to infrastructure, economic potential, potential
adverse environmental impacts and safety, SOS California believes that
the potential for seepage pollution reductions is a significant policy
consideration that heretofore has not been recognized. We also strongly
encourage that future royalties from any new offshore production be
directed to funding solar electricity and electric vehicles and other
renewable energy programs.
I would be pleased to provide any additional information on the
issues of energy, natural resources and the environment that may be
helpful for the Committee's work.
Sincerely,
Bruce Allen
Co-Founder
SOS California
______
[NOTE: Additional attachments have been retained in the Committee's
official files.]
The Chairman. Mr. Angers.
STATEMENT OF JEFFERSON M. ANGERS, PRESIDENT,
CENTER FOR COASTAL CONSERVATION
Mr. Angers. Mr. Chairman and members, my name is Jeff
Angers. I am the President for the Center for Coastal
Conservation. I am a native Louisianian.
We have talked a lot about Louisiana here this morning and
this afternoon, and I am a recreational fisherman. The center
is a coalition of the leading advocates for marine recreational
fishing and boating. Our mission is to promote good stewardship
of America's marine resources.
I was asked to discuss today the compatibility of
recreational saltwater fishing with the oil and gas industry.
Not only do the two industries coexist in Louisiana, but they
both thrive. To start, I would like to quote from the Accord
for New Sustainability for America's Energy Coast, which is an
initiative sponsored by America's WETLAND: ``Host to almost 90
percent of America's offshore oil and gas supply and a third of
all oil and gas consumed in this country, the region is
connected to 50 percent of the Nation's refining capacity. It
is home to the largest port system by tonnage in the world,
moving the bulk of America's waterborne commerce. The region
also provides habitat for dozens of endangered and threatened
species and millions of migratory waterfowl and songbirds. The
region produces more than a third of the fish caught in the
Lower 48, and our coastal wetlands serve as a nursery ground
for marine life throughout the entire Gulf of Mexico.''
Mr. Chairman, one of the addendums to my testimony was this
accord published by America's Wetlands, which was a
collaborative effort brought together by government, industry,
the national conservation community, academia, and all the
major stakeholders. And as this Committee discusses a
collaborative process to move forward, this would be a model
that I would commend to the Members of the Committee.
Though I am not an energy expert, I can give you a couple
of facts about the oil and gas business in Louisiana. Louisiana
ranks first in crude oil and second in natural gas production.
The total direct and indirect economic impact of the oil and
gas industry in Louisiana is $65 billion. Clearly, it is a big
business.
There is a companion big business in Louisiana about which
I am here to testify today, and that is the recreational
saltwater fishing industry. Just last month, NOAA reported that
Louisiana was one of the top five States in economic impact of
saltwater angling; $2.9 billion pumped into the Louisiana
economy just from recreational saltwater fishing. The other
States that were atop that list were: Florida, $16.7 billion
from recreational saltwater fishing; Texas, $3.2 billion;
California, $3 billion; Louisiana, as I said, $2.9 billion; and
North Carolina with $2 billion. The overall $31.4 billion in
total U.S. expenditures in 2006 contributed $82 billion in
total sales; $39 billion to the gross national product; $24
billion in personal income; and supported nearly 534,000 jobs.
Commercial fishing is another big business in Louisiana
that coexists and thrives with the recreational fishing
industry and the oil and gas business. The commercial fishing
industry generated $2.1 billion in sales in 2006, $1.1 billion
in income, and supported 46,000 jobs.
Structure and infrastructure is something that we have
talked a lot about today. Ninety percent of the more than 4,500
oil and gas-related structures in the Gulf of Mexico are in
Louisiana waters or in our adjacent waters. Since the first
offshore platform was built in the 1940s, these structures have
been very important. First, they have, in recent years,
provided the United States with a quarter of our oil and gas
requirements. They have also served as hard structures in an
otherwise soft bottom environment for reef fish to grow and
prosper. Thanks in large part to the leadership of former
Senator John Breaux, who sponsored the National Fishing
Enhancement Act of 1994, coastal States began to establish
artificial reef programs, converting many of these rigs into
permanent artificial reefs. The ``Rigs-to-Reefs Program'' has
been nothing but an overwhelming success in the entire Gulf of
Mexico.
Beyond the structure offshore, which anglers target--
because clearly you want to go to where the fish are--we like
to tell everyone, ``Come to Louisiana because we have all the
fish''--we target fish on the structure but also the
infrastructure that we enjoy onshore really comes about in
large part because of what the oil and gas industry has created
for themselves, and we are somewhat of a secondary beneficiary.
There would not be four-lane highways to many of the coastal
fishing destinations in rural Louisiana were there not a bigger
business, and that indeed is what the oil and gas industry has
been.
There has been a lot of talk about wetlands loss in
Louisiana and coastal erosion. Surely all of the industries
that operate on Louisiana's coast have contributed to the
wetlands loss, but thanks to the foresight of the Members of
this Committee and of the Congress in 2006 passing the OCS
revenue sharing bill, Louisiana is seeing some of the revenues
that are going to be able to help us to restore our coast.
Going forward, one recommendation that I would like to
recommend to the Committee would be the inclusion of a process
similar to the permitting of offshore LNG terminals that was
established years ago. The reliance on adjacent State Governors
for input added a very positive dimension to the policy debate
around LNG sighting and permitting in the Gulf of Mexico.
That concludes my testimony, and I will be happy to take
any questions, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Angers follows:]
Statement of Jefferson M. Angers, President,
Center for Coastal Conservation
Good morning Mr. Chairman. My name is Jeff Angers, and I am the
President of the Center for Coastal Conservation, a native Louisianian
and a recreational fisherman. I would like to thank the Chairman for
this opportunity to address the Committee as it begins its
consideration of the measures to facilitate offshore energy
development.
The Center is a coalition of the leading advocates for marine
recreational fishing and boating. It is dedicated to promoting sound
conservation and use of ocean resources. Our mission is to promote good
stewardship of America's marine resources.
I was asked to discuss the compatibility of offshore energy
development with recreational fishing in coastal areas. Not only do the
two industries co-exist in Louisiana, but they both thrive.
Coastal Louisiana is the portal for 27 percent of America's oil and
gas. It is home to the largest port complex in the country. Coastal
Louisiana produces over half of America's shrimp and is the leading
producer of oysters. It also supports a recreational fishing industry
for 1.2 million American anglers which pump $2.9 billion into
Louisiana's economy.
Oil and Gas: Big Business
Although I am not an energy expert, a couple facts and figures
about oil and gas in the ``Sportsmen's Paradise'' should be set forth
at the outset: Including current Outer Continental Shelf production,
Louisiana ranks 1st in crude oil and 2nd in natural gas production.
Excluding OCS production, Louisiana ranks 4th in crude oil and 5th in
natural gas production.
According to Mid-Continent Oil and Gas, the total direct and
indirect economic impact of the oil and gas industry on Louisiana is
approximately $65 billion. The direct impact comes from the taxes,
royalties, fees, salaries, and other money spent in Louisiana by the
oil and gas industry. The indirect impact results from the salaries and
wages earned by oil and gas employees being spent in the state as well
as service companies.
The offshore industry operating in the Gulf of Mexico just outside
the state's territorial boundaries has a huge impact on the state. A
study conducted by Applied Technology Research Inc. shows that the
offshore industry has a direct impact of $3 billion on the state. The
offshore industry pays more than $500 million in salaries and wages to
people working in the Gulf of Mexico. Another $2.5 billion is spent
with companies operating in Louisiana and doing business with the
offshore industry. It is important to remember that everything used on
an offshore platform has to come from somewhere onshore.
Recreational Fishing: A Companion Big Business
Just last month, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration reported Louisiana was one of the top five states in
economic impact of saltwater angling: $2.9 billion pumped into the
state's economy. Nationally, saltwater anglers are estimated to have
spent $5.8 billion on trip-based expenses, such as ice, bait, and fuel,
and another $25.6 billion on fishing equipment and durable goods like
fishing rods, fishing tackle, and boats.
The top five coastal recreational fishing states were Florida
($16.7 billion), Texas ($3.2 billion), California ($3.0 billion),
Louisiana ($2.9 billion), and North Carolina ($2.0 billion). In
addition to quantifying angler expenditures, this study examines how
these expenditures circulated through each state's economy and the
national economy using a regional assessment. The $31.4 billion in
total U.S. expenditures in 2006 contributed $82.3 billion in total
sales, $39.1 billion to gross national product, $24 billion in personal
income, and supported nearly 534,000 jobs.)
Commercial Fishing: Another Big Business
Louisiana's commercial fishing industry generated $2.1 billion in
sales (mostly menhaden, shrimp and oysters), $1.1 billion in income and
supported 46,000 jobs.
The fishing and oil and gas industries in Louisiana are strong
economic engines.
Structure and Infrastructure
Ninety percent of the more than 4,500 oil and gas-related
structures in the Gulf of Mexico are in Louisiana waters or adjacent
waters. Since the first offshore platform was built in the 1940s, these
structures themselves have been very important to America:
1. They have in recent years supplied our nation with 25% of its
oil and gas requirements, and
2. They have served as hard structures in an otherwise soft-bottom
environment for reef species to grow (including barnacles, corals, and
all sorts of other reef animals). This species growth, in conjunction
with the cover provided, makes the structures an ideal habitat for all
sorts of commercial and recreational fish, especially snapper, grouper,
cobia, amberjack and various mackerels.
The presence of these fish gives them economic importance, since
fishing is big business. When large numbers of scuba divers who
frequent the rigs and nearby commercial fisheries are included, the
result is the creation and maintenance of many jobs and a large tax
base.
Thanks in large part to the leadership of former Senator John
Breaux, who sponsored the National Fishing Enhancement Act of 1984,
coastal states began to establish artificial reef programs converting
many of these rigs into permanent artificial reefs. The rigs-to-reefs
program has been nothing but an overwhelming success in the Gulf of
Mexico.
Beyond the structure offshore which anglers target having the
largest aggregations of fish, the onshore infrastructure provided
mostly by the oil and gas industries provides access to coastal waters
that anglers would otherwise not enjoy.
Wetlands Loss
Louisiana has lost 1,900 square miles of land since the 1930s (an
area roughly the size of Delaware). Still the state has 30 percent of
the total coastal marsh and accounts for 90 percent of the coastal
marsh loss in the lower 48 states. Coastal Louisiana is losing about
10.3 square miles of vegetated wetlands per year (one football field
every 90 minutes). The primary culprits:
Levees have cut off sediment replenishment from the
overflow of the river.
Oil and gas exploration and pipeline canals have allowed
salt water intrusion into freshwater areas.
Navigation channels have also allowed the distribution of
salt water into fresh areas.
Natural sinking of the sediments and natural sea level
rise.
Coastal restoration efforts are more important than ever to
Louisiana and its estuarine environment. Thanks to OCS revenue sharing
legislation championed by Sen. Mary Landrieu and former Rep. Bobby
Jindal, Louisiana will see substantial federal revenues to help save
its coast.
Compatibility
The fishing and oil and gas industries have co-existed in Louisiana
for half a century. And they've worked well together.
Going forward, I would like to recommend to the Committee the
inclusion of a process similar to the permitting of offshore Liquefied
Natural Gas terminals. The reliance on adjacent state governors for
input added a positive dimension to the policy debate around LNG citing
and permitting.
TRCP's ``CAST'' Principles
Continued offshore energy exploration and development is an
important augmentation to the nation's plan to become energy
independent. Oil, gas, wind and wave power facilities are all
technologically and economically feasible. We must be mindful in the
development of any program that the citing and impact of these efforts
could be crucial to existing uses of the ocean.
Recently the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership adopted a
set of principles to guide in the development of offshore energy
development. The coalition recognized that offshore energy development
of all kinds is an important part of our energy security. It also
recognized that marine recreational fishing is part of America's
heritage and highly dependent on a healthy marine ecosystem. In
addition to the fundamental environmental protections needed to protect
that ecosystem, the coalition endorsed four concepts, called their
``CAST Principles.''
Conservation: Conservation concerns must top all others. A network
of conservation areas important to recreational fishing and
conservation must be established before offshore energy leasing and
development should proceed. Those places crucial to the vitality of
fish populations, recreational anglers and coastal economies should be
restricted. Concurrently, the Minerals Management Service, the agency
responsible for overseeing offshore development, should adopt and
adhere to a new standard operating procedure that strives to balance
the concerns of all ocean users.
Allocation: Allocations of the royalties paid to the federal
government by industry for offshore energy development must be used
primarily to benefit aquatic resources. A significant portion of any
such royalties must be directed to marine research and recreational
fisheries conservation. Several vehicles already exist to ably deliver
these funds.
Science: Science-based, adaptive management strategies that respond
continually to emerging information should be required for all offshore
energy development projects. These strategies should begin with species
inventory, include population monitoring and analysis, and carry
through to any mitigation phase. Where gaps in data exist, they must
not be used to justify development. Rather, they must serve to
highlight areas where additional study is immediately necessary.
Transparency: Transparency must characterize the management of all
public trust resources. Not only does this mean that the decisions
affecting our shared aquatic species must be made in a manner that
allows public oversight, it also means that public comment must be
addressed and integrated during the decision-making process.
These principles represent a responsible way forward as the nation
develops its offshore resources. Recreational anglers, like all
sportsmen, have always been the first line of defense for coastal and
marine environments, and their voice must be heard when considering the
future for these special places.
The coalition believes that the development of these offshore
resources can be done in an environmentally responsible manner that
protects the traditions of recreational anglers. In that regard I would
like to point out how oil and gas development have worked together with
Louisiana recreational fishermen to provide a healthy resource and
additional habitat.
OCS Revenue Sharing
In 2006 while still with the Coastal Conservation Association, I
testified on H.R.4761, the Domestic Energy Production through Offshore
Exploration and Equitable Treatment of State Holdings Act of 2006, a
bill designed to increase offshore energy development while protecting
important fisheries habitat. The principal elements of that bill
facilitated the recovery of one of Louisiana's most important
resources, its coast and coastal habitat.
Most of the fish species harvested in the Gulf of Mexico are
estuarine dependant. And coastal habitat loss along the Gulf has a
direct correlation to the health of fishery stocks. Louisiana is the
Sportsman's Paradise because of the productivity of this habitat, which
coexists with oil and gas industry. Improvement of habitat and
reversing the degradation of our wetlands provides a multiplicity of
benefits, one of which is better stewardship of these nursery grounds.
As we all know, the Gulf of Mexico has successfully been the site
of oil and gas extraction for the last 50 years. One of the unintended
benefits of that extraction has been the creation of fisheries habitat,
particularly for reef fish. The most well-known reef fish in the Gulf
is red snapper, a prized recreational fish and the primary target
species for a number of charter boat fishermen in the upper Gulf. The
members of this Committee are familiar with the ongoing efforts to
restore and rebuild the red snapper fishery. What members may not
realize is the importance of the habitat created by the offshore oil
and gas industry to that rebuilding process.
Red snapper have been commercially harvested in the upper Gulf for
over 100 years. As early as the 1880s, there were federal research
efforts to find harvestable quantities of red snapper. Today the
fishery is rebuilding from being overfished by the directed fishery and
particularly by extensive bycatch from the shrimp fishery.
After World War II, three events occurred which impacted red
snapper. The first: a dramatic expansion of the shrimp fleet resulting
in an incredible bycatch of snapper. Secondly, an influx of people to
coastal communities, many of whom were--or were to become--anglers.
Both of these events increased the mortality of red snapper. The third
event (more of a journey) has helped increase the abundance of red
snapper. The structures facilitating extraction of the oil and gas from
the Gulf have created habitat. And better and more habitats have
created more fish.
Many of the rigs now in place are nearing either the end of their
useful life or the end of their license period. When they were put in
place, most companies and regulators thought well heads ought to be
capped; structures removed; cleaned up, and disposed of on shore. For a
number of years, recreational interests have supported the use of oil
and gas rigs as artificial reefs. Gulf recreational fishermen continue
to be beneficiaries of rigs converted to reefs much closer to shore.
Many scientists have studied the impact of this method of habitat
enhancement to determine if it creates more fish or simply aggregates
fish from surrounding habitat making them easier to catch. The debate
for the most part seems to be endless, but the red snapper example
seems to produce the most definitive long-term result. Yes, new habitat
creates more fish. Sound fishery management is necessary to address the
health of the entire stock, but more fish is still better than less.
Artificial reefs are new habitat or continuing habitat, and we support
their use inshore and off.
We would like to work with the Committee to ensure that the fishery
management system now in place is included in determinations. State
fish and game agencies, regional Fisheries Management Councils and the
National Marine Fisheries Service all have responsibilities that will
be impacted by the decisions made to allow offshore energy development.
All of them have a positive role to play in these decisions.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my testimony, and I would be happy to
take questions.
______
The Chairman. Thank you. The Chair would advise the panel
just by the way of House announcement that we are voting on the
Floor now. So, in about 5 minutes, we will recess the Committee
for approximately 15 minutes, more like 20, so we can go over
and answer these votes, and then we will come back and resume
the Committee hearing.
Let me begin.
Ms. McCormick and Mr. Minich, I certainly appreciate all
that you had to say about the benefits of travel and tourism
industry as it relates to your coastlines. Probably any summer
or anytime during our miners' vacation in West Virginia, you
will find as many license plates from my home State of West
Virginia at your respective places as you will from your own
home State. So, it is a very popular area.
And of course, Mr. Minich, as I grew up as a youngster my
family had a chain of radio and TV stations. The corporate
headquarters was in St. Petersburg--WLCY TV and radio--and I
always went down with my father during the summers and spent
summers as a kid at the old Don CeSar Hotel in St. Petersburg
Beach. I don't know if it is still there or not. So, I
certainly know of benefits of tourism to your area and how
popular it is.
Mr. Grader, I was particularly struck by the comparisons
you made between the current efforts to expand offshore oil
drilling with your experiences in the late 1970s, when oil
companies promised that new production off the California coast
would provide multiple benefits with virtually no risks or
conflicts with the fishing industry. Clearly, your industry
rejected that as a false promise then and continues to reject
the cry of ``drill, baby, drill'' today, urging us instead to
``think, baby, think.''
With that in mind, can you elaborate on the actions that
you think at a minimum must be taken to ensure that any new
drilling that is allowed to occur does not undermine the
economy of the fishing industry in California and elsewhere?
Mr. Grader. As I said, I think there are some areas that if
we do--if the moratorium remains lifted, that is, we proceed
ahead with drilling, that there are some areas that permanently
need to be taken off the table. And again, I say Bristol Bay
and part of the Arctic, certainly Northern California area, and
the Georges Bank. And then there are certainly some other areas
that may be under consideration, for example, the Outer Banks.
I don't know those areas as well. But I think certainly--and
you have a copy of my testimony--some mitigation measures that
were suggested by the United Fishermen of Alaska, which I think
are very good. Now, this is no left-wing conservation group.
They have year-in and year-out endorsed Senator Stevens, and
all that. These are pretty rock ribbed--many of them rock-
ribbed Republicans, so there are no leftists out there, and I
think they came up with some very good suggestions on the
measures that need to be taken--both as far as preplanning the
type of standards we have to put in place for oil drilling that
is going to occur where fishing is, and then the types of
mitigation and compensation that have to be put in place. I
think those are there at a minimum.
The other thing I should point out, and it came up this
morning, is that there has been a lot of discussion--we are
certainly very enthusiastic about developing offshore renewable
power sources. I remember Mike Patching at the time about 30
years ago was first proposing wave energy to develop hydrogen
to power fishing boats.
Mr. Grader. Unfortunately, I think he came along 30 years
too soon. But we do need to do some really good planning for
that, because right now what we have is a very dysfunctional
planning service. We are going through this right now in
Northern California--and certainly in Oregon and Washington
they are, too--about planning for these renewables, and it
really is a mess. You have the Minerals Management Service
doing one thing, the Federal Regulatory Commission doing
something else. We really do need to consolidate the process
and make it comprehensible and make it make sense, because
right now that process doesn't--certainly, that is one of the
alternatives that we need to come up with to offshore drilling.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
I believe we will recess at this point for 15 minutes so we
can go vote. The Committee stands in recess.
[Recess.]
The Chairman. The Committee will resume.
The Chair will recognize the gentleman from Washington Mr.
Hastings.
Mr. Hastings. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Let me correct a statement that Mr. Grader made. He
referenced a Mr. Hastings coming out with a statement on the
Antarctic, and that was not Mr. Hastings, it was Mr. Inslee.
But I just wanted to correct that for the record. We are both
from Washington.
I just want to ask a question of all of you, and just a
``yes'' or ``no'' question, if you would. Do you support the
reinstatement of the Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas
moratoria that was put in place in 1982?
And I will start with Ms. McCormick.
Ms. McCormick. Yes, we do support.
Mr. Hastings. Mr. Minich?
Mr. Minich. Definitely, yes.
Mr. Hastings. Mr. Grader?
Mr. Grader. Yes.
Mr. Hastings. Mr. Allen?
Mr. Allen. No.
Mr. Hastings. Mr. Angers?
Mr. Angers. No.
Mr. Hastings. Just for the record, Mr. Chairman, I note
that we have had seven panelists on these two panels today. And
I know this is the first of three meetings on OCS, and I know
we will go into a lot more detail, but I just note for the
record that five of the Majority witnesses were ``no,'' and two
of the Minority's were ``yes'' as far as the moratorium.
The Chairman. Would the gentleman yield quickly?
Mr. Hastings. I would be happy to yield.
The Chairman. As you mentioned, this is the first of our
hearings, and we will have the other side amply represented
before all is said and done.
Mr. Hastings. I may save that question even for them, too,
but thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to ask Mr. Minich and Ms. McCormick a
question. When we had the high gas prices last summer, did that
affect your industry in your respective areas? I know, Mr.
Minich, yours is a different time of the year, but
nevertheless, I am sure there are people who go to Florida in
the summertime. Did it affect your industries?
Mr. Minich. We targeted the instate market very heavily, a
drive market. And even with the $4-a-gallon gas prices, people
were not ready to give up their vacation because the tank of
gas was going to be $70, versus $30 or $40. Where we were
concerned was with the airline industry, because a good
portion, 70 percent, of our folks come in by air, and we were
concerned about the airline prices.
But overall, our summer business was stable, and we
actually picked up or gained 25 to 35 percent over the summer
each month with European visitation because of the weakness of
the dollar. So, overall, our summer was good, despite the fact
that there were $4-a-gallon prices.
Ms. McCormick. Thank you. That is a very good question.
June, July and August represent 66 percent of the revenue
of the Outer Banks, which includes three counties where
revenues come from. And we were certainly blessed that we did
see an increase in visitation, but due to the same things that
my colleague here did, we refocused our advertising efforts and
spoke to people within a tank's drive. Now, it did have an
impact on our camping industry and those that use recreational
vehicles because the cost was so high.
There is another thing that we had put into place and
continue to put in place, and that is advocating carpooling.
Instead of bringing three cars to one of those big houses on
the beachfront, we push and promote the fact that people need
to actually leave a couple cars at home and come on vacation.
Now, that is not to say that the current state of today's
economy is not going to have an impact on our summer----
Mr. Hastings. I was talking specifically on gas prices. So,
you didn't see much of one because of your advertising?
Ms. McCormick. Yes, sir.
Mr. Hastings. And, Mr. Minich, you said that your increase
came from overseas. Did I hear you correctly?
Mr. Minich. The majority of our increase came from
overseas, but then the instate made up for--we did see losses
from our core markets in the Midwest and Northeast.
Mr. Hastings. How did the Europeans get there?
Mr. Minich. All by air. And it is primarily through the
gateway cities of Orlando and Miami, and then they rent cars.
Mr. Hastings. And just to make a point, how do the
airplanes get from Europe to Orlando and Tampa?
Mr. Minich. How did they get there?
Mr. Hastings. Yes.
Mr. Minich. They flew.
Mr. Hastings. What powered them?
Mr. Minich. Fuel.
Mr. Hastings. I just wanted to make that point.
I might also make another point on this, and that is, with
the new generation of airplanes, specifically the 787, it is
all carbon composites, which is a derivative of oil and gas.
Now, we had a bit of a discussion earlier on here about the
byproducts of oil and gas, and it is something that is going to
be with us in our economy for a long time. And thank you for
answering that way.
Mr. Allen, you mention in your testimony--and I will be
very brief here, Mrs. Capps--you mentioned in your testimony
about an oil spill here some--let us see, what year was that? I
think it was--well, in your testimony you mention that. And you
mention there were some 5,000 sea birds that were washed up,
and it was quite a slick--25 miles, or something like that. But
yet, I think in your testimony you also said that there was not
a whole lot of discussion on that. Now, why do you think that
was the case?
Mr. Allen. Yes. That was 2005, in January. There was an oil
seep event off the coast of Santa Barbara. It is not well
understood. They are not sure why it happened, but it did
happen. It created an estimated--there are photos as well,
which I brought--about a 25-square-mile oil slick. There were a
few reports in the Los Angeles Times and the local paper, but
that was about it. It was not reported nationally, at least
that I saw. And that oil seep event caused birds to wash ashore
from Santa Barbara, from Huntington Beach. They collected
approximately 1,400 birds, and the estimates were as many as
5,000 birds or more may have been oiled or killed from that oil
seep event. That was in 2005.
Now, that wasn't widely reported, and yet if the same event
had occurred, but it had been tied to an oil spill, I believe
it would have gotten national recognition and--a lot of
national recognition--and been reported extensively in the
newspapers. And yet from our perspective, our organization's
perspective, it killed just as many birds as a spill would have
done and was the same basic oil.
So, it is essentially a pollutant in the ocean, and we view
that as a significant issue with respect to our marine
environment off the Central California coast. And so, in that
sense, because the word ``seep'' is attached to it or
``natural,'' it gets no recognition within the media. But if a
spill is attached to the word, then it gets a lot of attention.
And there are several mentions. In December, there was a
27-barrel spill from Platform A, the same one from the 1969
spill that was mentioned. That got a lot of media attention,
both in California and nationally. And I would just point out
that spill, which was rare, but that spill was the equivalent
of 3 hours' worth of natural seepage along the central coast.
So, today, during this hearing, there will be about 200 barrels
of oil seepage, and that is, of course, not going to be
reported, but that is almost 10 times as much oil in our
environment as has occurred from that December spill.
Mr. Hastings. If I may continue on this line, how was that
cleaned up? What is the response, I guess I should ask, when
there is a substantial seepage like the one you cited in 2005?
I mean, you are getting enormous seepage all the time, but how
is that cleaned up, or does Mother Nature take care of it?
Mr. Allen. That is a good question. It is not. The December
spill, for example, was immediately cleaned up. And there was a
lot of attention, and in a matter of days, it was essentially
cleaned up. But the oil seepage, in essence, is never cleaned
up, except when it washes up on the beaches. Then it does need
to be addressed. And California Fish and Game, for example--the
seeps also wash up tar balls as far north as San Francisco and
the Monterey Bay. And actually, there it is required to use
protective suiting to clean up those tar balls, and it is
required to be put in a hazardous waste dump. And yet that is
natural seepage, but it is only cleaned up essentially when it
washes up on California beaches.
Mr. Hastings. So, that spill that did not wash up on the
beaches then, somehow Mother Nature took care of that?
Mr. Allen. In the 2005 event, because in the winter the
currents generally flow north--and it takes the oil seepage and
deposits, much of it, along the Monterey coast--that wasn't
noticed as much by Santa Barbara County or Ventura and L.A.
Counties because the currents were taking it north. If it would
have happened during another time of year, and it would have
flowed south, much of that would have washed up on Southern
California beaches.
Mr. Hastings. And finally, how much washed up on the beach?
Is there any way to estimate that?
Mr. Allen. No, that would be difficult to estimate. From
the 2005 event, there were no published statistics on how much
there was, but I would point out that there were 1,400 birds
that were washed up on California beaches.
Mr. Hastings. So, what was washed up was taken care of, and
what wasn't washed up was--Mother Nature took care of it-
however Mother Nature takes care of those things.
Mr. Allen. Correct. It eroded over time.
Mr. Hastings. Right. Thank you very much for your
indulgence for the time.
Mrs. Capps. [presiding.] And to my colleague from
Washington, I am fine with the fact that you went over time
because I intend to do the same. Since I am sitting in the
chair, I was going to take the Chair's prerogative to do that.
And I appreciate the testimony of all of the witnesses
here. And I do have questions for several of you, so I will go
as quickly as I can, and perhaps we will have some succinct
answers as well.
But I do want to start with Mr. Minich and Ms. McCormick.
This question is addressed to both of you, but, Mr. Minich,
like the coast of Florida, Santa Barbara, where I hail from on
the Pacific Coast, is an international tourist destination.
Many of my constituents are concerned by the amount of onshore
infrastructure that is needed to support offshore drilling
operations.
In Santa Barbara County, we have several treatment and
processing plants--one right next to a luxury hotel--and dozens
of storage tanks and public stations, miles and miles of
pipelines. Even without an oil spill, much of this
infrastructure is at odds with the nature and economy of our
local community, and the tourist industry especially, but for
all kinds of purposes. And my question to you both, would
increasing the industrialization of the Florida coast affect
your existing economic base which relies on tourism and coastal
recreation? If you could each give a brief answer to that
question.
Mr. Minich. Absolutely. We actually don't have room for it.
While we are home to some of the world's most famous beaches,
we are also one of the smallest, geographically, counties in
the State of Florida and the most highly densely populated, so
we really don't have room. And all of our areas now that are
protected, that would be the only place you could move into.
And I think especially on the Gulf Coast of Florida, you
look at places like Sanibel Island and down in Naples and that
area, and all the way up our coast, Sarasota, we are renowned
for the natural beauty, ecotourism, all those kinds of
activities. And this counteracts everything that we have been
known for and promoting over the years.
Mrs. Capps. And Ms. McCormick?
Ms. McCormick. Along the coast of the Outer Banks of North
Carolina--as you know, that is a very thin strip of barrier
islands, arcs into the Atlantic Ocean. The mainland is 50 miles
away. So, when you take a look at land mass--also 7 percent of
the land on the Outer Banks is owned by the Department of the
Interior--we don't have the land available.
Now, Wilmington, North Carolina, which is a port town that
doesn't have the problems that we face as barrier islands,
could probably support that meshing of those land-based
refineries with their tourism-based economy. But to succinctly
answer your question--probably our biggest issue is the land-
based.
Mrs. Capps. All right. I appreciate that information from
each of you.
I want to turn now to my constituent. I welcome you here,
Mr. Allen, and I am very familiar with your work, and also the
work that your organization, Stop Oil Seeps--SOS, as you call
it--has been doing in the community that we both hail from.
Much of your referencing points to work that has been done
by Dr. Luyendyk and others at UCSB regarding how drilling can
reduce oil seeps. In fact, the references are primarily made to
one study, not to an additional study. And I am now referring
to a study from Dr. Luyendyk in which he looked at natural
seepage at Coal Oil Point, which is right off the shore,
actually very near UCSB, from 1996 to 1999. And it is important
to note that, despite drilling at Platform Holly right there
during all that period of time, the seepage did not decrease
during that time. It remained pretty much constant.
Yesterday, Dr. Luyendyk sent this Committee a letter
refuting the conclusions that your group draws from his
research. And I ask consent now to include that letter, which I
have here, into the record of this hearing. And in it he says,
and I am quoting now, ``I feel that SOS, Stop Oil Seeps, has
both overstated the adverse effects of this phenomenon and the
overall applicability of the drilling seepage relationship to
offshore oil development policy. The marine seeps issues that
have been raised by SOS are, at best, not relevant, and at
worst, a red herring in a much larger debate.'' And here is
another quote from him. He notes that, ``To attribute our
findings to the broader offshore with the present state of
knowledge is an extrapolation that is not justified either
scientifically or as a matter of national energy policy.''
And I have a question at this point. Given that Dr.
Luyendyk emphatically claims that his research cannot be used
to bolster these claims, do you have other scientific evidence
that can be used to do so?
Mr. Allen. Well, first of all, I think it is a
misperception that our work is based on the studies and set of
studies that Professor Luyendyk was one of six professors they
participated in.
First of all, as you may know, I have been in Santa Barbara
since 1984 and have been visiting Santa Barbara since the
1960s. And as Representative McClintock said, it is very clear
to long-time Santa Barbara residents that over the last 50
years, oil seepage pollution that washes up on Santa Barbara
beaches has been declining, and has been declining
significantly.
Mrs. Capps. Could I interrupt you to ask you, I listened to
Mr. McClintock's testimony, and I have lived on the same
coastline since 1964, and I know what it is like to get the
vegetable oil out when you come back from a day's outing at the
beach with your kids. But that is anecdotal evidence that he
gave. And what you are citing to me is not a study either; it
is anecdotal evidence.
Mr. Allen. What I am saying is that anecdotal evidence,
taken with the set of studies from 1999 that were published
that Professor Luyendyk was one of six professors of, he also
said to me personally and has also said that he stands by the
conclusions in those published studies. And if I may just quote
from one of those studies, the conclusion in the study was,
``The effect of the offshore oil drilling there was an
unexpected benefit to the environment.'' That was in the
conclusion of the study.
He also said, at the Santa Barbara County Board of
Supervisors hearing in August, when the County Supervisors
voted to support more offshore drilling, he said he stood by
the conclusions of that report.
Mrs. Capps. Of that particular study. OK. I am just going
to make sure that we get this letter inserted.
[The letter submitted for the record by Bruce Luyendyk,
Professor of Marine Geophysics, follows:]
February 9, 2009
The Honorable Nick J. Rahall II
Chairman
Committee on Natural Resources
1324 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
RE: Natural Resources Committee hearings Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Dear Congressman Rahall;
I recently learned that on Wednesday February 11, 2009, Bruce
Allen, representing the industry group Stop Oil Seeps (SOS) will be
testifying before your Natural Resources Committee. Because he will be
speaking about research that I was part of, I want to be sure my
comments are taken into account.
Part of the SOS agenda is to promote offshore drilling and oil
production as a means of reducing natural oil and gas seepage and their
effects in the Santa Barbara Channel and offshore generally. The SOS
premise is based on interpretation of two 1999 UCSB studies [1],[2] on
oil and gas seeps offshore Coal Oil Point in Goleta (California), the
location of Venoco's oil platform Holly. We documented a decrease in
gas seepage over a period of 23 years that we hypothesized was due to
continuing oil and gas production from platform Holly (the drilling-
seepage relationship). We further speculated that this relationship
might be found elsewhere in similar geologic situations should further
investigations take place.
The SOS group has been representing our research as a rationale for
increased offshore oil drilling as a means of decreasing marine seepage
and its effects. As a member of the UCSB seep research team I want to
point to several qualifications in this SOS argument. I feel that SOS
has both overstated the adverse effects of this phenomenon and the
overall applicability of the drilling-seepage relationship to offshore
oil development policy.
The marine seeps issues that have been raised by SOS are at best
not relevant and at worst a red herring in the larger debate about
offshore drilling and national energy policies.
To explain:
To assume that natural marine seeps are a source of
pollution that needs to be controlled ignores the fact that they have
coexisted with the natural environment of the Santa Barbara Channel for
more than half a million years. Ecosystems have developed around them
and are fully adapted. Fumes from seeps, although noxious up close, are
barely detectable onshore. This natural phenomenon contrasts sharply
with industrial oil spills, which are sudden acute events of obvious
stress to the marine environment.
If it is successfully argued that seeps need to be
controlled, then indiscriminate drilling offshore is not the clear
solution. This is because not all oil reservoirs in the offshore are
seeping. Therefore drilling them would have no impact on seepage.
Other offshore reservoirs with seeps are being drilled
now but these have small seeps in comparison to Coal Oil Point. Any
drilling-seepage benefit is unknown but is likely small.
Some seepages are located where oil production would not
occur or be possible; e.g. the National Marine Sanctuary. Drilling
elsewhere offshore would not affect these seeps.
It is also important to realize that the drilling-seepage
relationship could be in question if aggressive artificial means to
enhance subsurface production were employed, as is often the case for
mature oil reservoirs. Seepage could in fact increase over time
negating the expected positive effects.
Finally, the Coal Oil Point field is by far the largest
seep source in the California offshore, if not the world, and it
already is being drilled with a resulting decrease in seepage, so I
consider this ``seep problem'' as being dealt with now. It is
unnecessary and ineffective to drill elsewhere offshore if controlling
seepage is the goal.
The Coal Oil Point field is the only California seep field where
the drilling-discharge relationship has been proposed. To apply this
more broadly to other potential offshore oil reservoirs would require
additional investigations. To attribute our findings to the broader
offshore with the present state of knowledge is an extrapolation that
is not justified, either scientifically, or as a matter of national
energy policy.
Our studies at Coal Oil Point are on a special case marine seep
field, one of unusually large discharge from a limited area. I do not
feel our findings at Coal Oil Point can be applied elsewhere in the
offshore without increased levels of study.
Sincerely;
Bruce Luyendyk
Professor of Marine Geophysics
____
[1] Quigley, D. C., J. S. Hornafius, B. P. Luyendyk, R. D. Francis, J.
F. Clark, and L. Washburn (1999), Decrease in Natural Marine
Hydrocarbon Seepage near Coal Oil Point, California Associated
with Offshore Oil Production, Geology, 27 (11), 1047-1050.
[2] Hornafius, J. S., D. C. Quigley, and B. P. Luyendyk (1999), The
world's most spectacular marine hydrocarbons seeps (Coal Oil
Point, Santa Barbara Channel, California): quantification of
emissions, Journal Geophysical Research - Oceans, 104 (C9),
20703-20711.
______
Mrs. Capps. I have another question to ask you. A portion
of the tar on Santa Barbara beaches does come from seeps, but I
am wondering how you conclude, particularly when you are
talking about San Francisco Bay, that all of the beach tar is
attributable to seepage? According to another UCSB-produced
study and recently confirmed by the State Lands Commission,
samples collected from natural seepage cannot be differentiated
from Platform Holly. In other words, if you see the beach tar,
you make the inference that it is seepage, but the tar itself
is indistinguishable from that which Platform Holly, in this
particular instance, produces.
To me, this implies that artificial sources of oil, such as
leakage from platforms and ships, also can contribute to tar.
And I am wondering again, do you have scientific evidence, not
just anecdotal, but scientific studies that documents the fact
that the tar that we see on the beaches or the tar that was
collected in San Francisco and had to be specially disposed of
is actually seepage tar and not some other kind of tar that
comes from a platform or a pipeline?
Mr. Allen. On that point, the MMS has sponsored studies
where they have done chemical typing of the oil emissions to be
able to trace it back to the sources. And California Fish and
Game, it was actually published March 6, 2007, at least that I
recall, where they stated that, based on the chemical typing of
sending those samples to a lab, they traced it back to Monterey
formation oil that--at least California Fish and Game
believed--came from Santa Barbara oil seepage.
Mrs. Capps. So, this is documented? Are you able to get
that study for us and to include it with the record here?
Mr. Allen. I will do so.
Mrs. Capps. All right. We will make that a point in the
recording of the hearing that this documentation will be added
to it, but we don't have that at this time.
Mr. Allen. But if I may just say for the record, I have
also spoken both with the MMS and the State Lands Commission,
Paul Thayer, who is the Executive Officer of the State Lands
Commission, requesting that studies be done to take the 1999
studies that UCSB did and actually extend them and try to
determine to the extent how much--if more offshore oil
production were done along the coast, how much more reduction
in seepage would there be, and would there be benefits? I was
told there is no money for such studies, so we have endeavored
to have additional studies on this point.
Mrs. Capps. But, right now, there are no studies that we
have documented, right here, for this hearing.
Mr. Allen. I would point out there was a letter published
by Professor James Boles, who was the Chair of the Crustal
Studies Institute of UC Santa Barbara, of which Professor
Luyendyk is a member, and he published a letter in which he
said----
Mrs. Capps. Was that a study or a letter?
Mr. Allen. He published a letter where he said there should
be no surprise that oil production above seep zones would
decrease the seepage. That is the same conclusion that was
actually reached in the study you are referring to. The study
concluded you would expect that production of offshore oil
above seep zones, it should be no surprise that you would
reduce seepage.
Mrs. Capps. OK. We will look for documentation of those
studies, because I agree with our new Secretary of the Interior
that we are going to try to base our energy policy on
scientific knowledge, and we will hold for that.
I do have questions now for Mr. Grader, if I could.
I want to refer to the Cosco Busan spill in the San
Francisco Bay. I believe it illustrates--and it is very
pertinent to our discussion today--how close to impossible it
is to control oil spills once they have occurred. And you were
a firsthand observer, I understand. What consequences did you
observe to the severe oiling of the shorelines and mortality to
marine life of that spill from that barge?
Mr. Grader. In spill terms, it was fairly small. It was
bunker fuel from a container ship. We were totally unprepared
to handle it, although California has in place its OSCA program
to clean up oil, but they were ill prepared for it. We did
finally get the fishing boats out there working it, doing the
clean-up. And thank God they did, because they were the only
ones who really knew what they were doing, as opposed to the
professional responders.
Mrs. Capps. I guess we should add that that is your
profession then.
Mr. Grader. Yes. There was a little bit of anger that a
Coast Guard committee, when they were out there in November,
heard some of our wrath.
But the problem we have seen is that it looks like some of
the other species of fish have recovered, but we have seen no
recovery of our herring. There has been virtually no herring
fishery this winter, which is supposed to be going on right
now, in San Francisco Bay. And this pretty much follows up what
happened in Prince William Sound after the oil spill there. The
herring fishery to Prince William Sound has just not responded.
So, it hits at the herring, which are important because they
are critical to the--not the exact base of the food chain, but
they are important for such things as salmon.
Mrs. Capps. I hear you.
I want to ask you one more question. And to my colleague,
Mr. Cassidy, I hope you realize that I have gone way over time,
and that you are entitled to the same privileges----
Mr. Cassidy. I am a freshman. I just show up when I am
supposed to.
Mrs. Capps. Your questions are as credible as anybody
else's. And if I could add, Mr. Hastings and I were both
freshmen once, too.
Mr. Grader, one more question--by the way, I am so pleased
that we do have a fisherman on the panel here.
Practically all stages and operations of offshore oil and
gas production are accompanied by discharges of waste. These
pollutants include drilling muds and mounds, which contain
toxic metals like mercury. Our local fishers association, which
belongs to the Pacific Coast Fishing Association, worked with
you--I think you have been part of that consortia--to have the
oil companies reduce the amount of these wastes.
Could you elaborate, if you would, just for a couple
minutes on the impacts these wastes might have on water
quality, or, more importantly, actually--well, equally
importantly on the fish?
Mr. Grader. Yes, exactly. And this is something that tends
to get overlooked in these discussions on offshore oil.
A number of years ago the Santa Barbara fishermen, the
Commercial Fishermen of Santa Barbara as well as the Southern
California Trawlers Association, expressed to us their concern
that in these drill muds, that they were using diesel fuel, and
that they were saying, ``Look, we are getting more and more
hydrocarbons into the water column; some of the fish are
picking up the contaminants.'' It wasn't necessarily killing
them, but certainly it was making them so you couldn't market
them.
Mr. Grader. And so we did go, and fortunately we have a
good Coastal Commission. We went to our Coastal Commission, and
they demanded that at least in State waters that all drill muds
had to be then taken and disposed of properly onshore. And that
is a condition that we did get put in place, and I believe the
Minerals Management Service then extended that to the area--to
the west of that in the Federal waters.
I don't know if that occurs elsewhere. Certainly in my
reading of, for example, the lease sale for Alaska for Bristol
Bay--that is one of the issues that actually MMS concedes--is
that what happens to those drill muds and cuttings--and this
really came out of some news clippings that we began getting
out of Alabama about what was going on in the Gulf of Mexico--
was the fact that it wasn't just the diesel fuel and the
hydrocarbons, but there were actually heavy metals, and that
they were detecting much higher levels of mercury and other
heavy metals in fish found around the platforms down there. And
indeed, they did some samples of blood testing of people
fishing around those and found it higher.
At the very least, if we are going to go ahead with more
drilling, I would say one of the strict prohibitions that have
to be put in place is you cannot dispose of drill muds on the
seabed. It has got to be brought back to shore and disposed of
properly, because--forget the discussions about oil spills and
seeps and how much gets in. We have to do something about those
drill muds if they are contaminated.
Mrs. Capps. Thank you very much, and I beg the indulgence
of my colleagues for going so far over the line.
And, Mr. Cassidy, you can have all the time you wish.
Sorry. I am getting a little pushback from staff. A reasonable
amount of time.
Mr. Chairman, I will never be asked to take the chair
again. I can tell that.
Mr. Cassidy. I missed your testimony, much of it, but I
read it so I am familiar with it. And, Mr. Angers, you have to
put an ``L'' in your name--``Angler.'' What a great guy for a
fishing organization.
But what I hear from you is that tourism is fantastic
around where they are doing offshore drilling. We are spending
about $2.9 billion on fishing tackle.
Mr. Angers. The economic impact in 2006 of recreational
saltwater fishing in Louisiana, $2.9 billion and, truly, people
come to--Louisianians fish in Louisiana because that is where
the fish are, and people come to Louisiana because that is
where the fish are. We love to go to Florida because they have
beautiful water, and they have plenty of fish there, too, but
we know there is plenty of fish in Louisiana and doing good
things for the economy.
Mr. Cassidy. And I will vouch for it. I caught 100 speckled
trout with my son and two other people. It is important to
specify we were under the limit, but 100 speckled trout, and we
did very well.
So, Mr. Minich, it comes to mind that there is already
offshore drilling off of Florida, and as I remember--I don't
have the map, and I can't remember precisely, but I think that
offshore drilling is somewhere west of Tampa Bay, St. Pete. Is
that currently negatively impacting your tourism industry?
Mr. Minich. There is no drilling anywhere near our coast.
Mr. Cassidy. But it is considered off the coast of Florida,
and if you grandfathered it in before the moratorium--I just
researched this when I was running for office, and it is out
there.
Mr. Minich. It is way out there. It is not what you are
talking about. Where the protected area was went out, I
believe, 150 miles.
Mr. Cassidy. This is within 150 miles.
Mr. Minich. It is way farther out.
Mr. Cassidy. And it is considered to be in the eastern
Gulf. So, the fact that you are unaware of it makes me think,
my gosh, it is not even impacting your tourism. I know that
because the pipelines go under the Gulf to Louisiana.
Mr. Minich. Yes.
Mr. Cassidy. They go up under Port Fushon.
Mr. Minich. Yes.
Mr. Cassidy. So, your concern is you don't have room for
this industrial complex.
I think, ma'am, your observation was perfect. We will just
take it not over the barrier islands, but rather through
Wilmington. Let them have the economic bonanza of a pipeline
company, but it would avoid bringing it onshore where you are.
Similarly, I would love for your oil and gas to come to
Louisiana. It would be great as far, as I am concerned.
Mr. Minich. We just don't want any drilling off of our
coast, because if you look at the currents in the Gulf of
Mexico----
Mr. Cassidy. But you have drilling.
Mr. Munich. We do not----
Mr. Cassidy. I promise you. I will----
Mr. Minich. There is drilling in the Gulf, yes. There is
absolutely drilling in the Gulf.
Mr. Cassidy. It is in the eastern portion.
Mr. Minich. But it is not in the currents--if you look at
the way the currents flow in the Gulf of Mexico, the waters do
not come from that area and come down.
Mr. Cassidy. So, you don't mind if there is drilling as
long as----
Mr. Minich. There is no effect from those wells that are
hundreds and hundreds of miles from our coast.
Mr. Cassidy. So, whatever that distance is off the coast,
you would be OK with drilling at that point, I presume, because
it apparently has had no impact whatsoever upon your tourism.
Mr. Minich. That drilling is there already. There is----
Mr. Cassidy. But would you mind its expansion? Because
apparently it has had no impact. I mean, the fact that we are
having a debate whether it even exists tells me it hasn't had
an impact.
Mr. Minich. Because it is too far away.
Mr. Cassidy. But it still is considered the eastern
segment--it is still subject to the moratorium, just
grandfathered in.
So, my question is if it is already there, and it is not
bothering you, and pipelines go through Louisiana, could we
have more of the same however far off that is?
Mr. Minich. We don't want it off of our coast. If a
hurricane moves off of our coast 300 miles, that is one thing.
If it moves within 20 miles or 50 miles of our coast, that is a
totally different thing. I think you are familiar with
hurricanes. So, we don't want those--that kind of activity--
within close proximity of our beaches.
Mr. Cassidy. I see what you are saying, but I am not seeing
a rationale now because it is already there, and so even if we
didn't move it in further, but kept it at that distance from
the coast where it is currently, and apparently it has had no
impact--so I guess I am--you say, ``We don't want it,'' but I
don't understand why not, if it hadn't had a negative impact,
but indeed would give cheaper gasoline for the people coming
into your State.
Mr. Minich. No. There is no--we don't want it close to our
coast. There is nothing close to our coast right now and----
Mr. Cassidy. Let me just stop you right there. But if it is
no further in than it is currently, are you OK with that?
Mr. Minich. Well, it is already there. We can't----
Mr. Cassidy. And are you OK with expanding it, as long as
it stays that far out?
Mr. Minich. We can't change what is already there.
Mr. Cassidy. OK. Then my next question is, are you OK with
expanding it, as long as it remains that far from the coast?
Mr. Minich. I am only--my information and what I have
knowledge of is near my coast, so I can't address whether the
expansion is good or bad. But I think you heard this morning
time and time again that opening up this area is not going to
affect gas prices----
Mr. Cassidy. It is going to affect natural gas prices.
Natural gas prices are, of course, very important for many
things, and they are also a source of BTU. You may have noticed
that the buses that go through Washington, D.C., use natural
gas because it has a lower carbon footprint. So, one of the
things people argue to help with global warming is converting
to natural gas, and much of what we produce in the Gulf is
natural gas.
One more thing. I am a little curious that everybody is
concerned about the negative impact on tourism. My wife is from
Mobile. We go over to the Eastern Shore, go to the Orange
Beach. Man, it is booming. The only thing that keeps that from
being any bigger is that it is so small. And huge--you can see
oil rigs off the Mobile Gulf Coast. You can see the platforms
out there. You can see the boaters out there boating. That has
had no negative impact, as far as I can tell. Hurricanes do,
but not offshore drilling.
Any comment on that? I mean, there seems to be a real fear
that it is going to keep people from the beach but, in Alabama,
their beach is within eyesight of it, and they are having a
great old time.
Mr. Minich. I think that our customers are used--they have
been coming for 100 years to the St. Pete beaches, and they are
used to what we have to offer, and that is not what we have to
offer.
Mr. Cassidy. So, it is almost more a fear of change. I
mean, I am not trying to minimize what you are saying, but it
does seem as if we fear change.
Mr. Minich. And I don't want our hotels to have to put as
part of--you know, hotels have little bottles of shampoo and
little bars of soap. You look at hotels in some of those areas,
and along with the shampoo and along with the soap are little
packets to remove tar from the bottom of your feet from the
beach.
Mr. Cassidy. It is interesting because when I was a kid, we
used to go to Pensacola and Panama City, and there used to be
tar balls all over the place. So, I read Mr. Allen's testimony,
and it all of a sudden made sense. The physics make sense to
me. The physics make sense that here you have a pressure-filled
volume. Pressure is equal to flow times resistance. So, you
have something set there. And you plug a hole in it, and you
start to remove it on a graduated basis, and you would relieve
that pressure.
There are fewer tar balls now in Panama City beach than
there was when I was a kid, even though they are now doing
offshore drilling, you know, 30 miles away, because obviously
Pensacola is right next to Mobile.
Actually, Mr. Allen, I like the physics of what you are
talking about. Intuitively it makes sense. So, I will just
comment on that. I am not sure that you would have that.
Actually, we used to have that on the Panhandle of Florida. Now
we don't.
Mr. Minich. Our beaches are pure white. There is no tar
whatsoever on our beaches because we don't have natural
seepage, and we don't want to open up anything that could----
Mr. Cassidy. The panhandle does.
Mr. Minich. I am not here speaking on behalf of the
panhandle. I am speaking on behalf of Pinellas County beaches.
Mr. Cassidy. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. McCormick. Just one comment. You had made the comment
that tourism is booming, sir. Tourism is not booming right now
anywhere except here in Washington, D.C., over the last couple
of weeks. I did--very quickly, went to Biloxi 6 months after
Katrina and helped clean up, and I did visit some of those
refineries, and was saddened to see the history that was
destroyed and not put back.
And what you have in Biloxi is you have an emergence and a
realignment of casinos that have gone from being water-based
casinos to land-based casinos, and that is why Biloxi has been
able to revive themselves. It is not because of the drilling.
But I do want to set the record straight. We have a problem
in America today. Tourism is not booming. This is a challenge
for all of us.
Mr. Cassidy. Biloxi does not have offshore oil; so if you
heard me say that that is the reason Biloxi is coming back,
that is not true.
Ms. McCormick. You said tourism was booming. I just wanted
to make sure that you understood----
Mr. Cassidy. Tourism is booming on Orange Beach. It is
interesting because I look at the downfall in tourism as when
gasoline went to $140 a barrel. Now, in Louisiana it was great
for the coffers, but it was bad for the people taking trips
outside of their hometown.
Ms. McCormick. Absolutely.
Mr. Cassidy. And so it is interesting, and I think you are
agreeing with that. So, I think actually our energy crisis,
which has persisted, has thrown us into this recession, which
now has people staying at home. So, actually I would like to
think that you are supporting my argument that we need to
diversify, not just offshore drilling, do everything, but on
the other hand, oil platforms make a nice place for a windmill.
Ms. McCormick. They sure do, and I support a good portion
of your argument, but I do not support drilling on the Outer
Continental Shelf.
Mr. Cassidy. I am not quite sure why not, because whenever
I come up with a specific, it is just, ``Well, we don't want
it,'' as opposed to, ``No, we have documentation,'' and such.
Ms. McCormick. Well, the gentlemen this morning did a very
good job, and one thing I stated in my paper, and I may not
have stated that as clearly as I would like to, what I would
like to encourage us to do is to find alternatives, find
renewables, put those energies and those efforts--in 1933, man
first flew in Kitty Hawk; 66 years later we landed on the moon.
We can do so much, so much together, and I would hate to see
that we feel, or you feel, that opening oil and drilling along
the Outer Continental Shelf is going to fix the problems that
we are facing today.
Mr. Cassidy. There is no one fix. It is an amalgamation.
Mr. Minich. And in terms of the expansion, they are only
using 8 million of the 43 million acres that they have under
lease; so there is your expansion. Go where you have already
got these lands leased. There are 43 million acres of leased
land with the Big Oil companies, and they are currently only
using 8 million of those acres. So, that is where you go.
Mr. Allen. Can I make a comment on that? Santa Barbara has
about almost 2 billion barrels. They know exactly where they
are. It is close to infrastructure, and it is producible in the
near term safely, and it is off limits. And that would be the
quickest oil that could be produced in this country offshore,
and it would make a significant impact at least with respect to
the revenue that could be generated for the local economies,
Santa Barbara and California. And that money taken as royalty
revenue could actually, in the case of Santa Barbara County
sharing that revenue, in 4 years pay for the build-out of an
entire electric grid infrastructure based on solar energy, but
it is not being done because it is off limits.
The Chairman. The gentleman from Colorado Mr. Lamborn.
Mr. Lamborn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I apologize I didn't get to hear all of your testimony
earlier because I was in another committee. So, I am going back
and forth. But I do have your written statements here that I
can look at later.
To follow up on what you were just saying, sir, could you
talk to me about the litigation climate? Maybe you have already
addressed this, but I see that sometimes there is talk about
why aren't all the acres being used that are leasable, or why
does it take so many years? And I am aware a little bit how
litigation can really slow that down, snarl that up. Do you
have any insights on that?
Mr. Allen. Yes, litigation is actually--in the case of
offshore Central California--what stopped a number of leases
from being produced. And then there was a moratorium imposed,
and those leases to this day have not been produced.
Exploratory drilling was done. There were resources discovered.
But they have been off limits and remain off limits both in the
OCS and in California State waters.
There was recently a PXP, a deal with Plains Petroleum from
a platform in the California OCS to slant drill with no new
infrastructure into State waters to produce those State
resources, and that was voted down by the California State
Lands Commission 2 to 1. And the primary reason--I was at the
hearings given by the Lieutenant Governor--was that it would
send the wrong signal that California was open to offshore
drilling.
Mr. Lamborn. As a follow-up, do the duration of time that
these leases are available sometimes run out while litigation
is being pursued?
Mr. Allen. Well, in the case of those leases, that is
actually a subject--I believe ongoing litigation and potential
resolution, and I haven't really followed in as much detail as
I should have exactly the current legal status of those
particular OCS leases that were subject to litigation. And I
believe it is between the oil companies and the courts and the
Federal Government now.
Mr. Lamborn. Well, it just strikes me that if the
litigation climate was a little easier to navigate, faster and
so on, then we wouldn't have as many problems with needing to
look for--because I do believe we need to look for more sources
of domestic energy, and if we could somehow get on top of the
litigation issues, whether to expedite the lawsuits or whatever
it takes, then we would not have some of these problems that we
are talking about, where existing current leasable land is not
being used, and then some of us want to look to expand that.
So, maybe if you all could help me with suggestions on how we
could--while protecting everyone's rights--but expedite the
whole legal process.
Mr. Allen. Well, there is one note that perhaps you would
be much more knowledgeable than I, but I believe there is a
1990 congressional action that was signed into law that where
pollution sources are identified, there should be efforts made
to mitigate them or reduce them. And we view, because of the
coast of Central California, by far the largest source of
hydrocarbon pollution are the natural oil seeps.
The best peer-reviewed science to date shows a strong
connection that the seeps are being reduced by oil production
in that seep zone in that study that Representative Capps
referred to. So, the best science strongly suggests that is the
case. So, we would ask or encourage that future studies be
conducted, or funded, or supported by Congress to explore
better whether or not that is indeed true for the whole central
coast/OCS areas that are subject to the seeps that would reduce
the offshore pollution and be in line with that legislation for
reducing pollution sources.
And in Santa Barbara County, the offshore emissions are the
single largest source of ROCs, reactive organic compounds, in
the county. They exceed automobile and surface transportation
air emissions by 50 percent, 6,000 tons per year. And in the
research that Representative Capps cited, it clearly states
there has been a reduction of those emissions, apparently due
to the offshore oil production. So, it is a net benefit to the
environment.
Mr. Lamborn. Thank you.
In the short time remaining, anyone else would care to
comment----
Mr. Grader. I am a little bit disturbed that thinking that
litigation somehow is slowing everything down. Everything I
read, and in particular in preparing for this, is that in some
of the most recent papers, it indicated that one of the biggest
impediments right now, one of the reasons it would take 10
years or more before any of these, if we did lease some of
these new areas, to come on is just the infrastructure, the
physically--the shipyards, the building of the rigs and all
that, the demand you have elsewhere.
So, I think if you are going to be doing further hearings
on this issue, that is certainly something that should be posed
to the oil companies is what is the nature right now? What are
those impediments? Stop blaming the lease processes or claiming
that it is litigation, but just that the technical or the
physical aspects of getting these places into production. I
think that really is the bigger issue. It is not litigation or
States being intransigent. I think it is just the oil company
itself--with its infrastructure--of how quickly it can put new
oil into production.
Mr. Minich. And I think I heard this earlier this morning
that the third session of this will be with the oil companies,
and I think what needs to be asked of the oil companies is that
they should give you a cost comparison on some of these leased
lands that they do not want to use, and are not using, versus a
cost comparison if they drilled in the shallow Gulf of Mexico,
because some of the information that we have is that it is
cheaper in these waters that are currently out of bounds than
on some of the leased lands that they have to their liking. And
if you look at the profit and loss statements, and the profits
of the oil companies, I think they can afford to drill in some
of these other areas.
And, yes, he is correct. I mean, you know, it would take
somewhere between 10 to 30 years to get rigs built, a $700
million rig, and most of those rigs that are under construction
right now at shipyards are being shipped off to other places in
the world for use in other places.
Mr. Lamborn. Thank you very much.
The Chairman. The gentleman from Washington, Mr. Hastings.
Mr. Hastings. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I just have one question. Mr. Minich, I just want to ask
you one question here. How does your position, which you have
very well enunciated, differ from that of the Florida
Association of Convention and Visitors Bureaus?
Mr. Minich. The Florida Association of Convention and
Visitors Bureau did last fall release a report, and they are
saying that they are supportive of offshore drilling. I do not
agree with the Florida Association. I have adamantly not agreed
with them, and I do not understand why they are taking that
position.
Mr. Hastings. Well, I just wanted to, because I understand
at least your local association is probably a part of that, and
I just wanted, for the record, to denote that in Florida there
are some that have a different view than yours. So, thank you
very much.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to submit for the
record--and I have a list here that I can read off or just give
to you, whichever way you want to do that.
The Chairman. Just throw it in.
Mr. Hastings. OK. I will just throw it in. With that, there
are seven statements, including Mr. Lamborn's opening
statement, and I ask unanimous consent that that be submitted
for the record.
The Chairman. Without objection, so ordered.
[A CRS memorandum entitled ``Possible Federal Revenue
Estimates From Oil and Gas Production in Areas Currently Off-
Limits (under leasing moratoria or inaccessible)'' submitted
for the record follows:]
Memorandum September 12, 2008
_______________________________________________________________________
TO: House Committee on Natural Resources
Attn: Kevin V. Kennedy
FROM: Marc Humphries
Analyst in Energy Policy
Resources, Science, and Industry
SUBJECT: Possible Federal Revenue Estimates From Oil and Gas
Production in Areas Currently Off-Limits (under leasing moratoria or
inaccessible)
_______________________________________________________________________
This memorandum is in response to your request for estimates of
revenues from royalties and corporate income taxes if the public lands,
now off-limits, (i.e., outer continental shelf moratoria and onshore
inaccessible areas) were open and available for oil and natural gas
leasing and development.
Resource estimates in Table 1 are from the Department of the
Interior Statement of Stephen C. Allred before the Senate Committee on
Energy and Natural Resources, Resource Estimate Table, January 25, 2007
and onshore resource estimates in Table 2 are from the Interagency
report: Inventory of Onshore Federal and Natural Gas Resources and
Restrictions to Their Development, 2008.
I hope this information meets your needs. If you have any further
questions, please call me at ext. 7-7264.
Background
The federal government currently collects revenues from oil and gas
leases on public lands in the form of bonus bids, annual rents, and
royalties. Bonus bids are upfront payments made to secure a lease in a
competitive lease sale. Leases are awarded to the highest bidder.
Royalties are based on the value of production. Annual rental payments
are made by lessees on a per acre basis. Once commercial production
begins, rental payments are no longer required. The primary lease term
for onshore leases is ten years. For offshore leases the primary term
is 5 years for shallow water (<400 meters), 8 years for mid-depth water
(400-800 meters) and 10 years for deep water (>800 meters). Leases
continue as long as commercial production takes place. The Bureau of
Land Management (BLM) administers the onshore leasing program and the
Minerals Management Service (MMS) administers the offshore leasing
program. The MMS collects and disburses all revenues from federal
leases. The MMS and BLM are agencies within the Department of the
Interior.
In FY2007, the MMS collected about $11.5 billion from leasing
activity on public lands. About 90% came from royalty payments. A
royalty rate of 12.5% applies to onshore leases and up to 18.75%
applies to offshore leases. 1 All states except Alaska
generally receive 50% of the revenue generated from leasing activity
within their state for onshore leases. Alaska receives 90%. The
Reclamation Fund receives 40% of onshore receipts and the General
Treasury receives 10%. Revenues from offshore leases are statutorily
allocated among the coastal states, the Land and Water Conservation
Fund (LWCF), the National Historic Preservation Fund (NHPF) and the
General Treasury. Revenue sharing among the coastal states is limited
to revenues generated within an area three miles beyond the state's
boundary and revenues from leases identified in the Gulf of Mexico
Energy Security Act of 2006 (P.L. 109-432). 2 Despite the
statutory allocations, the vast majority of revenues from offshore
leases go to the General Treasury.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as amended, established a
minimum royalty rate of 12.5% for federal leases. The most recent
offshore lease sales contained a royalty rate of 18.75%. MMS
Congressional Affairs representative Lyn Herdt indicated that MMS would
likely continue to impose the 18.75% rate on offshore leases in the
foreseeable future.
\2\ For a more detailed discussion of revenue sharing see CRS
Report RL33493 Outer Continental Shelf: Debate Over Oil and Gas Leasing
and Revenue Sharing by Marc Humphries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assumptions
A number of assumptions are made in this memo to simplify a very
complex process of making revenue projections. Supportable projections
of revenue generation would require complex economic modeling and would
likely include many more variables. A simplified approach here assumes
that leasing restrictions were lifted and once those restrictions were
lifted, discovery and production of all possible undiscovered
technically recoverable resources (UTRR) estimated by Department of the
Interior in the OCS and onshore would be produced over a 58-year time
horizon (2010-2068). Federal revenue projections are over the entire
recovery cycle (58 years), until oil and gas is no longer recoverable.
Production rates, however, are beyond the scope of this memo. It is
assumed that once legislation to open withdrawn lands is enacted, it
could take at much as 5 years or longer for lease sales in the newly
opened areas to be held. Production might begin 5-10 years from the
lease sale if commercial quantities were found. However, in certain
areas of the OCS, production, if resources are discovered, could come
onstream much sooner, thus, revenues might be generated as soon as
2010, assuming there is known geological data and infrastructure
requirements, among other variables, are in place. To receive revenues
as early as 2010, an assumption is made that the administration would
begin its new 5-year OCS leasing program in 2010. Further, a lease sale
would need to occur in 2010 along with drilling and development.
According to assumptions in this memo, most of the revenues would
likely be generated beyond 2018. The revenue estimates are based on the
mean resource estimates provided by the Department of the Interior and
the base forecasted price ($113/barrel oil, $10.34/thousand cubic foot
of natural gas) by the Energy Information Administration within the
Department of Energy. Price and revenue estimates are in nominal
dollars. Revenue estimates are not discounted to reflect present value.
These revenue projections are very rough and meant to reflect what
might happen, not what will happen. Data in Tables 1 and 2 reflect
receipts to the General Treasury only and do not include bonus bids and
rents collected or revenues to the states.
Royalty revenue estimates in Table 1 assume the federal government
(General Treasury) would receive a 50% share and the coastal states
would receive 50%. Statutory allocations to the NHPF and the LWCF would
come out of the revenues allocated to the General Treasury. This
assumption reflects a distribution formula that is included in nearly
all of the legislation proposed to lift the moratoria in the outer
continental shelf (OCS). The royalty revenue estimates in Table 2 are
based on the current onshore distribution allocation that distributes
50% to the states, 40% to the Reclamation Fund, and 10% to the General
Treasury. This formula also includes revenue estimates from ANWR.
Alaska would also receive 50% of the estimated royalty revenues.
Corporate income tax estimates are based on calculating pre-tax
profits from assumed oil production in the newly opened areas, then
multiplying that amount by an estimated effective federal corporate
income tax rate for large integrated oil companies that would have an
interest in oil and gas development. Net pre-tax profit for those
companies averaged 31% of revenue and the average effective tax rate
for the years 1998-2005 was 33%. 3
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ For more details on corporate income tax rates and production
costs see CRS Report RL34547 Possible Federal Revenue from Oil
Development of ANWR and Nearby Areas by Salvatore Lazzari.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Caveats
These rough estimates should be used with caution. There are major
uncertainties involved. First, the amount of recoverable resource is an
estimate based on assumptions and probabilities; in fact, they are
educated guesses. Second, projecting the price of oil for a few years
is difficult and complex; projecting for decades is highly uncertain.
Lastly, the possible legislation and its terms are not known at this
time.
Results
Given the above caveats, OCS leases might generate royalty revenue,
(over a 50-year period), of about $518.5 billion of which 50% ($259.25
billion) might go to the states and 50% ($259.25 billion) might go to
the General Treasury. Corporate income tax revenue is estimated to be
about $283 billion.
Onshore leases (excluding ANWR) in areas that might be opened might
generate an estimated total royalty revenue of about $280 billion, of
which about $28 billion would flow to the General Treasury, $140
billion to the states and $112 billion to the Reclamation Fund.
Corporate income tax revenue is estimated at about $230 billion.
ANWR leases might generate royalty revenue of about $114 billion of
which $11.5 billion might go to the General Treasury, $57 billion might
go to the states, and $45.5 billion might go to the Reclamation Fund.
Corporate income tax receipts could total about $95 billion.
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[A Florida Association of Convention & Visitors Bureaus'
paper entitled ``Position on Offshore Oil Drilling'' follows:]
FACVB
FLORIDA ASSOCIATION OF CONVENTION & VISITORS BUREAUS
Position on Offshore Oil Drilling
Introduction
Serving as the single unifying voice for all of Florida's
convention and visitor bureaus, the Florida Association of Convention
and Visitors Bureaus (FACVB) strives to provide insight and direction
on emerging trends that may impact the effectiveness of Florida CVBs'
destination management efforts. Energy availability is a key factor in
Florida's tourism industry. Affordable and available fuel makes it
easier for consumers to consider Florida as their vacation destination.
The FACVB has been monitoring impacts on Florida's tourism industry
associated with recent trends in energy affordability and reliability.
The FACVB recognizes that a comprehensive, long-term energy policy,
including conservation, efficiency, renewable and alternative fuels as
well as increased U.S. domestic oil and natural gas production, is
essential to maintain a healthy, vital Florida tourism industry.
Tourism Trends in Florida
During 2007, Florida tourism generated $65.5 billion in revenues
from 84.5 million visitors and was responsible for directly employing
991,300 Floridians, according to VISIT FLORIDA research. Over the five-
year period between 2003 and 2007, revenues increased 21.4 percent and
visitors increased 11.7 percent. Effective marketing efforts combined
with Florida's attractions and natural resources continue to make
Florida a favored destination throughout the world and tourism a prime
contributor to Florida's growing economy. However, the five-year growth
trend statistics also indicate a flattening of the growth trend between
2005 and 2007. In particular, visitor and revenue growth grew only 0.8
percent during 2007, and visitors arriving via automobile actually
declined 2.3 percent during 2007. It is important to note the
correlation between the flattening growth in Florida tourism and the
concurrent rise in energy costs. Energy in Florida
Florida's tourism industry heavily relies on consistently
affordable energy from dependable sources. The state's residents and
visitors consume approximately 23 million gallons of gasoline per day,
more than 8 billion gallons per year. In addition to meeting the
transportation needs of Floridians, products are necessary to fuel
vehicles for more than 40 million tourists arriving via automobiles; to
fuel cruise ships, fishing and recreational watercraft; and to fuel the
airplanes servicing Florida's numerous airports.
While U.S. demand has slowed over the past decade, global demand
for crude oil, the raw material of most refined transportation fuels,
has increased dramatically due to emerging markets in Asia and other
parts of the world. This has led to a tightening of supplies. Many of
the congressional and presidential moratoria that prevented domestic
oil and natural gas exploration and production were either recently
withdrawn or expired; however, the long-term status of the moratoria
will probably remain unclear for some time after the elections in
November. During the duration of the various moratoria over the
previous three decades, our country's dependence on imported oil has
increased from 40 percent to 60 percent of our total consumption.
Significant state and federal legislation and efforts of the
Governors Climate Action Team are designed to address global climate
change and have established aggressive renewable fuel mandates for
transportation fuels. Florida has been a leader in recognizing the
importance of alternative fuels, and this year has mandated that by
December 31,2010, all gasoline must contain at least 10 percent
ethanol. Additionally, federal mandates dictate that 9 billion gallons
of renewable fuels must be blended with transportation fuels in 2008,
expanding to 36 billion gallons by 2022. Further, increasing amounts of
the renewable fuels must originate from cellulosic sources beginning in
2011; however, it is questionable as to whether adequate commercial
cellulosic fuel refining plant production will be available to meet the
mandate. No commercial cellulosic product is available in Florida or
the United States at this time.
Florida is committed to taking a new direction in energy
production, requiring utilities to meet stringent air emission
guidelines amid concerns about global climate change. Florida utilities
have always been more reliant on natural gas for power generation than
our surrounding states; this commitment to clean-burning natural gas
will only grow stronger through the next decade. According to Florida
Public Service Commission statistics, total utility generation capacity
that uses natural gas will increase from 29 percent to 44 percent by
2014. Many sources for natural gas fall under the same moratoria that
had been issued for oil production; therefore, the industry has had to
rely more on imported natural gas to meet growing demand. Recent
tightening of supplies in the natural gas markets, evidenced by the
increased price of natural gas and the subsequent rise in utility
rates, ultimately increases operating costs of airlines, cruise ships,
attractions, convention centers and hotels.
FACVB Position on Offshore Oil and Natural Gas Production
The state and federal governments, along with entrepreneurs and
major energy companies, have made a long-term commitment to the
development of alternative energy sources; the FACVB endorses the
diversification of energy sources, particularly lower carbon
alternative and renewable fuels, as a means to address global climate
necessities. However, petroleum products will remain a key energy
source for our country as we make necessary technological advancements
so alternative energy sources become cost efficient. Recognizing that
affordable and reliable energy is essential to nourish the future
growth of Florida tourism and the state's economy, the FACVB evaluated
domestic oil and natural gas access, including off Florida's coasts.
The FACVB conducted an Offshore Oil Drilling Summit on October 2, 2008,
allowing members to discuss issues in depth with representatives from
the environmental community and the petroleum industry. The discussions
covered long-term energy projections, the local and global
environmental impacts of drilling, impacts to fishing industries,
advanced drilling and production technologies, mitigation of risks
through redundant systems, regulatory oversight, revenue sharing,
impacts of hurricanes, and the availability of oil and natural gas
based on previous seismic and geophysical data.
After carefully considering all factors, the Florida Association of
Convention and Visitors Bureaus (FACVB) endorses state and federal
energy policies allowing the production of oil from existing leases
within the Gulf of Mexico out of sight of Florida's coast (at least 30
miles offshore), with the following conditions imposed by state and
federal lawmakers:
1. Any Florida offshore drilling must be a component of a
comprehensive energy policy dedicated to reducing America's dependence
on foreign oil.
2. Production facilities must incorporate the most advanced zero
discharge natural gas and oil production systems.
3. The federal revenue sharing plan affecting Gulf of Mexico
resources, which currently does not include revenue sharing to Florida,
must be changed by the U.S. Congress to include significant revenue
dedicated to the state for 1) beach renourishment projects; 2)
alternative energy investments for the state of Florida; 3) tourism
promotion to attract more visitors to Florida to bolster the state's
economy and tax collections; and 4) a catastrophe fund to reimburse
Florida for expenses related to any oil release into the environment as
a result of these oil production activities;
4. A five-year moratorium on new leases in the eastern Gulf of
Mexico must be established so state officials can evaluate oil
production safety and evaluate any impact on Florida's natural
resources. This moratorium should permit exploration by seismic and
geophysical scientific testing to identify potential future reserves.
The military mission of the U.S. Department of Defense shall have
the first priority in the offshore in the Gulf of Mexico.
Conclusion
Changes in global energy markets have affected the price and supply
of oil and natural gas and subsequently may have a future impact on
Florida's tourism industry. The FACVB recommends that environmentally
responsible exploration and production of domestic oil and natural gas
from current leases be an essential element of state and federal energy
policies. Experts expect production from existing leases could commence
as early as within 2 years from the date leaseholders are permitted to
proceed.
______
[A list of documents retained in the Committee's official
files follows:]
American Petroleum Institute booklet entitled
``Strengthening Our Economy: The Untapped U.S. Oil and Gas Resources''
dated December 5, 2008
U.S. Department of Energy / Office of Fossil Energy
booklet entitled ``Environmental Benefits of Advanced Oil and Gas
Exploration and Production Technology''
U.S. Department of the Interior/ Minerals Management
Service fact sheet entitled ``OCS Oil Spill Facts'' dated September
2002
The National Academies report entitled ``Oil in the Sea
III''--Copyright 2002 by The National Academy of Sciences
______
Mr. Hastings. And with that, Mr. Chairman, thank you very
much for the indulgence. And I want to thank the panel very
much for their time, and especially for the break that we had
when we had to go do our business on the Floor of the House.
And I appreciate your being here.
The Chairman. Per our usual unanimous consent requests, all
Members will have a right to submit statements for the record.
[The prepared statement of Mrs. Capps follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Lois Capps, a Representative in Congress
from the State of California
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I'm pleased the first hearing before this Committee will deal with
the impacts of offshore oil and gas drilling on the environment and
coastal communities.
I have been a long time opponent of new offshore oil and gas
development.
It's no surprise that I don't want to see more oil rigs off my
congressional district.
I witnessed firsthand the devastation of the Platform A blowout in
1969.
The disastrous spill created an 800 square-mile slick and marred 35
miles of California's coastline.
I saw the dead birds and seals, the beaches covered with oil, the
land that I love so much nearly destroyed.
In the years since oil accidents and drilling-based pollution in my
congressional district has been an ongoing story.
In December, more than 1,400 gallons of oil spilled into our
coastal waters from the same location as the infamous 1969 spill nearly
40 years ago.
Also last year, Exxon-Mobil agreed to pay millions in fines for
releasing dangerous PCBs into the Santa Barbara Channel from Platform
Hondo.
Spills of course are not limited to offshore locations on
California's Central Coast.
Greka Oil has been polluting our local creeks with toxic runoff and
countless oil spills, looking like it got its environmental policies
straight from the movie There Will Be Blood.
There was also the Torch pipeline explosion in 1997 and the
decades-long pollution that required rebuilding the entire town of
Avila Beach.
And that's not even including the impacts on our local air and
water quality we deal with every day.
So, yes, my constituents and I don't want more of that.
Even so, my opposition to new offshore drilling is mostly because
it is simply not in the best interests of this country.
It is the slowest, dirtiest, and most expensive way to produce
energy.
And the longer we try to fool ourselves into believing that new
drilling will bring us lower gas prices and that we still have plenty
of time to get ourselves off this oil addiction, the tougher the day of
reckoning will be.
Mr. Chairman, America's coastal waters and economies should not be
sacrificed for campaign sound bites.
That's why I was pleased by the Obama Administration's responsible
decision to take a fresh look at the 5-year offshore leasing plan that
former President Bush released on his last day in office.
Future leasing decisions must be based on the strongest, most
objective science available, especially in areas that have previously
been off limits to drilling for decades.
While we need to take a more reasoned approach to managing our
public energy resources, I continue to believe there are cheaper,
cleaner, faster, and more sustainable energy solutions than more
drilling.
Energy efficiency and clean, renewable energy will start saving
consumers and businesses money today.
Improved vehicle standards on their own would do more to lower gas
prices than wiping out sea otter habitat to drill for more oil.
I'm hopeful this Committee will invest its time, energy and
creativity into real solutions that put us on the right path, toward
renewable energy solutions for our future.
Our nation shouldn't be known for chasing after yesterday's energy
solutions, but for its leadership toward the clean energy solutions of
today and tomorrow.
Thank you again for calling this hearing and I look forward to the
testimony from our knowledgeable witnesses.
______
The Chairman. Gentlemen, lady, thank you very much for
being here. I know some of you have traveled long distances,
and your input into our deliberations will be very useful. And
I appreciate the facts you have presented, and the manner in
which you presented it, and this story shall be continued.
Thank you.
The Chair wishes to thank all Members, too, on both sides
of the aisle, I might add. I think we had a very good
attendance record today, and I appreciate so many Members
attending. Let that be on the record.
The Committee is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:46 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
[Additional material submitted for the record follows:]
[A letter submitted for the record by Brant Branham,
Chairman, and Brad Dean, President & CEO, Myrtle Beach Area
Chamber of Commerce, follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[A letter submitted by Faith Gemmill, REDOIL, follows:]
Resisting Environmental Destruction on Indigenous Lands (REDOIL)
P.O. Box 74667 * Fairbanks, AK 99701 * PH: 907-456-2181 *
Fax: 907-456-2184 * Email: [email protected]
February 11, 2009
Chairman Nick Rahall (D-W.Va.)
House Natural Resources Committee
1324 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20240'
Respectful Greetings;
Today we submit these comments for the record to the House Natural
Resource Committee on behalf of Resisting Environmental Destruction on
Indigenous Lands (REDOIL) an Alaska Native Network of the Inupiat,
Yupik, Aleut, Tlingit, Eyak, Gwich'in and Denaiana Athabascan Tribes.
REDOIL is a movement of Alaska Natives who are challenging the fossil
fuel and mining industry and demanding their rights to a safe and
healthy environment conducive to subsistence. REDOIL aims to address
the human and ecological health impacts brought on by unsustainable
development practices of the fossil fuel and mining industry, and the
ensuing effect of catastrophic climate change. REDOIL supports the self
determination right of Tribes in Alaska, as well as a just transition
from fossil fuel and mineral development to sustainable economies, and
sustainable development.
The Alaskan Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) provides an abundance of
marine life, and is adjacent to some important terrestrial public
resources in Alaska. Alaska Native coastal communities have depended on
marine subsistence resources since time immemorial. The Beaufort and
Chukchi Seas, North Aleutian Basin (Bristol Bay), Cook Inlet and other
offshore areas are critical to Alaska Natives subsistence. REDOIL is
deeply concerned with the risks posed to sensitive marine and coastal
environments from oil and gas activities in the Alaskan OCS. Vital
subsistence resources that are intrinsic to the livelihood of coastal
Alaska Native communities within the Alaska OCS area are at risk. Due
to the serious risk posed to these ecological areas and the communities
that are within these areas or in close proximity who rely upon coastal
resources, REDOIL strongly recommends the entire Alaska OCS be
suspended from the Federal OCS Energy Plan. Considering that the Bush
Administration imprudently pushed through a massive expansion of oil
and gas activities in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas, North Aleutian
Basin and Cook Inlet in the face of opposition from federal expert
agencies, conservation groups, Alaska Native entities, and commercial
fishing organizations. These experts and others correctly asserted that
there is too little information known about the existing biological
conditions in the Arctic, especially in light of changes wrought by
climate change, to be able reasonably to understand, evaluate and
address the adverse impacts of oil and gas activities on those
environments. Therefore we recommend an immediate suspension and
cancellation of oil and gas leases and activities within the Alaska OCS
and other conservation priority areas in the NPRA and we also support
the strongest possible protection for the coastal plain of the Arctic
Refuge.
Existing international law already protects subsistence rights.
This right is recognized and affirmed by civilized nations in the
international covenants on human rights. Article I of both the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights read in
part: ``...In no case may a people be deprived of its own means of
subsistence.''
The Outer Continental Shelf of Alaska--Each of Alaska's OCS regions
contains important subsistence resources that would be threatened by
oil and gas development. Subsistence use of fish and other marine
animals is both an established economy of Native coastal communities
and is absolutely central to the survival of Alaska's indigenous
cultures. Unlike oil and gas resources, the marine resources of the
Alaska OCS can last indefinitely, and should therefore not be
jeopardized by non-renewable resource development.
Beaufort Sea--The Arctic Ocean's Beaufort Sea is the primary marine
subsistence use area for the Inupiat of the North Slope. The Beaufort
provides critical habitat for polar bears, walruses, seals, migratory
birds, threatened spectacled and steller's eiders and the endangered
bowhead whale. In this vulnerable and harsh environment, spilled oil
will concentrate in restricted open water such as the leads and
breathing holes where marine mammals surface and birds congregate, and
along the sensitive coasts. The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, with
its incomparable wildlife and wilderness, adjoins the eastern portion
of the Beaufort Sea in the United States. Critical bowhead whale spring
migratory pathways in the lead zone are located east of Barrow, and
fall migratory and feeding habitats are located offshore of the Arctic
National Wildlife Refuge.
Chukchi Sea--Lease Sale 193, would allow oil and gas exploration
and development for almost 30 million acres of the Chukchi Sea. The
Chukchi Sea is an important primary subsistence use area for Inupiat
that live in nearby coastal communities. Oil leasing in Arctic waters
of the Chukchi Sea threatens critical spring migration route for
bowhead and beluga whales, important feeding areas for gray whales and
other Whales and Pacific walruses, staging and molting areas for
migratory birds, polar bear and walrus habitats. In Government to
Government consultations the Native Village of Point Hope has
consistently objected to any offshore activities toward oil and gas
development, despite this, the Minerals Management Service has
consistently approved offshore leases for exploration and development
of the Chukchi Sea and this has been perceived as blatant disregard of
government to government consultation.
North Aleutian Basin (Bristol Bay)--President Bush lifted a
longstanding presidential order that specifically prohibited oil and
gas drilling in Alaska's pristine Bristol Bay. In light of the lifting
of the moratorium, as part of the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) five
year plan offshore oil and gas development in Bristol Bay by as early
as 2010 has been included. Bristol Bay supports the world's largest
sockeye salmon run, other important fisheries, and abundant seabirds
and marine mammals. Offshore drilling in this sensitive place would put
fisheries, marine life, traditional subsistence livelihoods, and
economies at risk.
Cook Inlet--Cook Inlet is the birthplace of commercial oil and gas
development in Alaska. With that we observe the ensuing effects of
underwater seismic blasting, toxic dumping from offshore platforms, and
regular leaks and spills which are the primary threats to the Cook
Inlet Beluga Whales and their habitat. The U.S. Army also retains a
presence in Cook Inlet, and its bombing range at Eagle River Flats on
Fort Richardson regularly showers toxics and other pollutants into
areas that support belugas and their prey. Cook Inlet is also a major
shipping hub and fishing center, and ship traffic, noise, port dredging
and prey disturbance may be affecting belugas. The National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS) listed the beluga whale as ``endangered'' in
October 2008 after an exhaustive scientific review. The State of Alaska
announced its intent to challenge the listing in a January 12, 2009,
letter to NMFS. We support maintaining the ``endangered'' listing of
the Beluga.
It is an undisputed fact that the burning of oil, gas, and coal
(``fossil fuels'') is the primary source of human-induced climate
change. The United States appetite and high consumption of energy
creates a stubborn insistence upon the use of non-renewable sources of
energy, particularly, unsustainable and highly polluting, fossil fuels.
Pristine and un-recoverable ecosystems are being assaulted in the
shortsighted quest for new sources of fossil fuel. Indigenous
communities are disproportionately impacted by fossil fuel exploration
and extraction/drilling activities, and by the resulting effects of
pollution, global warming, and climate change. Here in Alaska this is
our reality. We are living with unsustainable fossil fuel extraction,
and dealing with ensuing cumulative impacts of loss of our subsistence
resources, detrimental impacts to human and ecological health and this
is compounded by climate change. Further pursuits into pristine
ecosystems of which Alaska Native peoples depend on for subsistence
such as the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas, North Aleutian Basin (Bristol
Bay) and Cook Inlet is a threat to Alaska Native subsistence
livelihoods, culture, spirituality and social systems.
If these critical offshore areas within the Alaska OCS are pursued
and allowed to proceed and development of these critical subsistence
use areas ensues, the harm to Alaska Native cultures and subsistence
livelihood would be severe and in some cases irreparable.
In regard to Federal OCS plans specifically in Alaska's OCS we
strongly encourage the Department of the Interior to fulfill and honor
their government to government responsibilities and work
collaboratively and in good faith with Tribes in Alaska on these
important issues. It is unfortunate that the federal agencies have
disregarded the federal government to government meeting outcomes in
which Tribes have consistently opposed any development activity within
the oceans which provide the very lifeblood of their communities. The
experience thus far of tribes in Alaska on these issues with the MMS
has been a clear erosion of federal trust responsibility.
We are also gravely concerned with the threat of an oil spill in
Arctic waters if development is allowed within the Alaska OCS--the MMS
itself has stated that the risk of a significant oil spill can be as
high as 51 percent. Because of the remoteness of these areas and the
extremely harsh environment it may be near impossible to have immediate
response to any spill or accident that occurs due to oil and gas
development. The detrimental impacts that may occur to key subsistence
species may create a situation where they may never be able to recover
from the stresses that oil and gas development will cause. It has
become clear that if an oil spill occurs within the Alaska OCS, there
is no proven technology to clean up oil spills in Arctic waters.
Demonstrations have shown that oil cannot be cleaned up in Arctic
waters.
The fact remains that we cannot drill our way to oil independence.
The U.S. must break its insatiable dependence on oil--be it foreign or
domestic--if we are to achieve true energy independence and national
security. Limiting leasing and development could have an even more
profound impact on this country's energy landscape if coupled with a
re-direction of billions of dollars in federal subsidies, tax breaks
and incentives away from fossil fuels and toward renewable energy
sources, energy efficiency and conservation. The United States
generates about 25 percent of world petroleum demand. This fact alone
indicates that Americans can have a much larger impact on global
markets on the demand side than on the supply side. This conclusion is
strengthened by the fact that there are large untapped energy
efficiency resources, yet the United States government continues to
focus almost exclusively on exploiting non-renewable oil and gas
resources. Energy efficiency alternatives to opening up these sensitive
areas are numerous. Using available technology, we could save an
average of 3.2 million barrels of oil per day within 10 years.
Today's profit driven economies are not sustainable and threaten
the existence of our future generations. Our actions as humanity are
creating an imbalance within the natural order and natural laws created
for all our benefit. The decisions that are made today by government
leaders will effect the rights of the unborn and this responsibility
cannot be taken lightly. Though Alaska Natives are hit first and hit
hardest by climate change, we now share the consequences together. We
have to take action now to implement genuine measures of a just
transition toward clean renewable energy and an energy efficient
economy that supports sustainable jobs and communities. We ought to be
weaning our addiction to fossil fuels now, not allowing more
development in areas that are critical to the survival of Indigenous
Peoples such as within the Alaska OCS.
We strongly recommend that Congress begin taking concrete serious
measures now to address the Climate crisis we are in, such as imposing
a moratorium on all new exploration for oil, gas and coal as a first
step towards the full phase-out of fossil fuels with a just transition
to sustainable jobs, energy and environment. We take this position and
make this recommendation based on our concern over the disproportionate
social, cultural, spiritual, environmental and climate impacts on
Indigenous Peoples in Alaska
Should drilling in Alaska's OCS move forward without regard to the
serious and profound concerns for the very survival of Alaska Native
Peoples the dire implications of that decision would harm untold
generations. We request that Congress by any means necessary suspend
and cancel leases within the Alaska OCS.
Thank You.
K'eegwaadhat Noohaa Ooli'
Faith Gemmill, Executive Director
Resisting Environmental Destruction on Indigenous Lands (REDOIL)
______
[The response to questions submitted for the record by
Jefferson M. Angers follows:]
Response to questions submitted for the record by Jefferson M. Angers,
President, Center for Coastal Conservation
1. Mr. Angers, do you believe that offshore wind turbines could also
provide similar fish habitat benefits to what you ascribe to
oil and gas platforms?
From a fishery perspective, most structures do benefit the fishery.
My testimony focused on the actual conditions related to offshore oil
and gas production and the Gulf of Mexico fishery. I attempted to share
with the committee my observations regarding the co-existence of energy
activities and fish stocks. We currently do not have experience with
offshore wind turbines; however, I think it important to note that one
of the first offshore wind projects in the nation (Cape Wind) has been
subject to significant opposition and delay.
2. Mr. Angers, in your testimony you mention four primary culprits for
wetlands loss, and two of them, exploration and pipeline canals
and navigation channels, are either directly related to oil and
gas activity, or are a consequence of the increasing
industrialization of the coastline. Since you also mention that
most of the fish species in the Gulf are estuarine dependent,
can we be sure that the habitat destruction being caused in the
estuaries by the oil and gas industry isn't much more
significant than the habitat creation due to the platforms?
I believe that it is important to clearly understand our coastal
challenges in the Gulf. Numerous studies have confirmed that the
primary cause of coastal wetlands loss (and associated ecosystems) in
Louisiana was due to the installation of levees on the lower
Mississippi River system. The levees achieved the goal of establishing
a certain navigation channel and improved flood protection, but cut off
the river sediment that provided for the accretion of land in
Louisiana. Prior to this time, our state--and the estuary--was actually
growing in size. Today, more than 30 states benefit from the maritime
commerce accommodated by the levees and the navigation system they
protect.
Many have predicted a collapse of the marine fishery if domestic
offshore oil and gas production were allowed to expand into new
production areas. Based upon the experiences in the Gulf of Mexico,
this is not the case. The states of Florida, Alabama, Mississippi,
Louisiana and Texas remain as some of the most productive waters in the
nation.
I do believe that there were some important lessons learned in the
oil and gas industry as it relates to coastal sustainability and proper
stewardship of our marine resources, but in my opinion, these pale in
comparison to the extraordinary impact that river levees have had on
Louisiana's coast.
Future offshore oil and gas development both in the Gulf of Mexico
and in potentially new lease areas in other parts of the U.S. exclusive
economic zone, must be done in the most environmentally sound manner
taking into account critical habitat and the overall protection of
fishery resources.
3. Mr. Angers, could you elaborate on the new operating procedure that
you believe the Minerals Management Service should adopt in
order to balance the concerns of all ocean users? How would it
be different from how they operate now?
First, I believe it critical that decisions be based upon the most
accurate information possible. In many cases, extraordinary claims are
made related to the adverse impacts of offshore energy production. Many
of those claims are not supported by actual conditions in the Gulf of
Mexico and should be challenged.
In regard to improved operating procedures, balance is appropriate.
Blanket policies, such as moratoria, are not appropriate in today's
challenging economic climate. Commercial and recreational fishermen are
affected in pursuing their vocation and their avocation by the price of
fuel. Similarly, all the concomitant businesses that service the
fishing industries feel that pain. Efforts to increase domestic energy
production will help to temper future fuel price spikes that prevent
America's fishermen from ever leaving the docks.
There are some areas where any potential disturbance to a sensitive
or threatened fishery may outweigh any benefits ascribed to the
expansion of offshore energy production. In some cases, an area with
promising energy potential may require innovative recovery techniques
to ensure proper balance with other resource needs. I believe that
current technologies are available to allow for win-win situations in
most cases.
4. Mr. Angers, you mention the need for a network of conservation
areas for fishing before offshore energy leasing and
development should proceed. Do we have the information we need
to make the determination of what areas need to be protected?
And what kinds of protections are you talking about?
Information does exist related to essential fish habitat and
productive marine wildlife areas. Rather than first trying to survey
the entire exclusive economic zone of the United States for potential
conservation area designations, prioritization may be appropriate.
Reviewing areas that have attractive volumes of oil and gas, wind, wave
and other energy potential to identify marine resources pressures would
be a wise approach to balance our needs.
The type of protections to be placed upon areas would depend upon
the conditions of those areas. Again, blanket prohibitions preventing
access to our marine resources is inappropriate in most areas.
5. Mr. Angers, you call for additional transparency in the management
of the oceans. Coincidentally, that was one of the goals of
Oceans-21. Are you supportive of that legislation, and if not,
what are you calling for that is different from what is in that
legislation?
Over the past 33 years since the passage of the Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA), there have been many
well-intended proposals to alter this unique federal/state fisheries
management law. While not perfect, the legal structures under the MSA
that created the eight regional councils have provided for important
regional and local input on how best to manage the unique fishery
resources in a particular ocean region.
I believe the single biggest failing of the Oceans 21 proposal is
its mandate to provide an overarching national ocean policy that would
effectively subordinate the regional councils to a subcommittee status
reducing substantially the critical input from the various regions.
Oceans 21 proposes to enforce this national ocean policy by
establishing another strata of ocean governance comprised completely of
governmental officials from the federal, state, local and tribal level.
This would take out all input and recommendations from user groups and
local insights on the best management of unique regional ocean
resources.
I would suggest that fisheries management and ocean conservation is
complex enough without an additional layer of governmental oversight.
Rather than create more government, I would suggest providing greater
transparency and public process in the ocean laws we currently have and
make sure the best science available is used to make informed ocean
management decisions.
6. Mr. Angers, you describe vehicles that already exist to enable
royalties to be directed towards marine research and
recreational fisheries conservation. Could you specify which
vehicles you're talking about, and explain how they currently
direct funds to marine research and conservation?
The Coastal Impact Assistance Program authorized in the Energy
Policy Act of 2005 and the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006
are two examples of vehicles that could be used to fund marine research
and conservation activities. While I would not call either of these
perfect, they do demonstrate a structure through which outer
Continental Shelf revenues could be reinvested into under-resourced
coastal needs. Other examples that have been proposed include the
Conservation and Reinvestment Act (CARA) and the Coastal and Ocean
Assistance for States Fund developed by Senators Inouye, Stevens, Kerry
and the Coastal States Organization.
______
[The response to questions submitted for the record by
Philippe Cousteau follows:]
Response to questions submitted for the record by Philippe Cousteau
1. Mr. Cousteau, can you describe in more detail how an ocean
investment fund would work, and if it were established how it
could be used to support ocean planning.
Congress could establish a permanently appropriated, dedicated fund
that is capitalized through a percentage of revenue derived from
offshore energy development. Funding sources could include OCS oil and
gas development, wind, tidal and wave energy production projects, and
potentially other revenue-generating uses of marine resources in
federal waters, especially those that include fixed structures and/or
preclude other uses. The Ocean Investment Fund (the Fund) should be
used to pay for activities and projects that protect, maintain, and
restore ocean, coastal and Great Lakes ecosystem health including the
necessary research, planning, and management.
Planning for the use of submerged areas is needed for both marine
areas and the Great Lakes. For now, I will refer to it collectively as
ocean planning.
I would recommend that planning within state waters be voluntary.
States should be able to access the Fund if they are willing to engage
in ocean planning that is comprehensive and takes into account whole
ecosystems including humans. Planning must be done in a way that
anticipates the cumulative effects of given policies rather than
focusing on single species, sectors, activities or concerns. It needs
to entail spatial planning that allocates three-dimensional marine and
freshwater spaces (ecosystems) for specific uses to achieve ecological,
economic, and social objectives. These objectives would need to
include: safeguarding ecological processes and ecosystem services,
protecting special and sensitive areas, improving the resilience of
ecosystems to disturbances, increasing the adaptability of ecosystems
to climate change, and providing for sustainable economic development.
Regional planning should be mandatory (for EEZ areas beyond state
jurisdiction) and should be done in a manner similar to that described
above for state waters. There should be incentives for states to
participate in regional planning and to coordinate state plans with
regional plans. Consideration should be given to using existing
regional structures such as the West Coast Governors' Agreement and the
Northeast Regional Ocean Council as the geographical basis for regional
ocean planning. Areas where human activity is concentrated should be
prioritized.
2. Mr. Cousteau, if we were to pursue the ocean investment fund
concept, would the revenue be generated from just oil revenue
or renewable energy revenue as well?
The Fund could be established and credited with a small percentage
of existing oil and gas revenue that is collected by MMS and deposited
into the Treasury. A portion of revenue from any new development of oil
and gas production facilities in the OCS should also go toward this
fund, but it should be structured so that it does not provide an
incentive for such development.
If such facilities are paying fees, a percentage of funds from
leasing fees and/or a portion of revenue from renewable energy projects
such as wind and/or hydrokinetic energy generation facilities should
also be collected for the Fund since these facilities will impact the
OCS ecosystem and will need to be properly sited. However, whether
these facilities are paying substantial fees in the short term is a
question related to our larger energy strategy, which ought to include
encouraging renewable energy sources.
In addition, consideration should be given to other offshore
business ventures such as aquaculture facilities, transatlantic cables
and other fixed-structure ocean activities being subjected to fees, of
which a portion could be collected and deposited into the Fund.
3. Mr. Cousteau, you mentioned on a number of occasions that we don't
know enough about the oceans, and that more scientific studies
are needed. Could you elaborate on what types of studies, and
where, you would like to see take place on the U.S. Outer
Continental Shelf?
The first step would be to compile existing data and make it
available in a spatially explicit form wherever possible. There should
be a common framework for information such as a multipurpose marine
cadastre, which could be an expansion of the cadastre currently being
used by MMS. The data needs for a particular area will be a function of
what data is available and what data gaps exist.
Data on the geophysical and biological characteristics of an area
as well as data on current and future human activities must be
collected, as they are intertwined.
Currently the greatest demand on the OCS is for the development of
energy resources, and some have argued for seismic studies to determine
as precisely as possible the location, extent and types of hydrocarbon
resources that may exist. However, with respect to more preferable
renewable energy development, studies are needed to assess the
locations of potentially exploitable wind, wave and tidal energy. For
example, wind speed, water depth, distance from shore (to determine
visual impact), bottom type (to determine if piles can be driven) are
some of the physical variables that need to be understood to site a
wind facility. These studies will allow predictions of where additional
exploration and development activities may occur including the
transport of energy via ships, pipelines or transmission lines to the
shore.
Data on other human activities must also be complied in a spatially
explicit, scientific, and standardized way. In many cases, data exists
but it is patchy and/or anecdotal. Information is needed on activities
such as shipping, sand and gravel mining, dredging and dredged material
disposal, recreational and commercial fishing, recreational boating and
diving, scientific research, and cultural and historic preservation
such as shipwrecks and submerged artifacts.
With respect to marine species, studies are needed to understand
abundances, distributions and migration patterns. For example, more
information is needed about endangered marine mammals such as the
northern right whale and the humpback whale. Sea turtles comprise
another group that merit further study including migration routes and
juvenile and foraging habitats.
In many cases, even basic maps of habitat distributions are
unavailable. In order to conserve critical habitats and communities we
need to know where they are. The submarine canyons and shelf edges are
structurally complex and support diverse benthic and pelagic
communities. Deepwater corals and golden tilefish (that construct
extensive burrows that drive ecological processes) are examples of
species that must be mapped in order to inform decisions about
development of OCS resources.
In terms of where these studies should take place, with finite
resources it might be expedient to focus the effort on the OCS within
25 miles, and locations where leases for oil and gas activity are being
considered for areas between 25 and 200 miles. Human activities are
currently concentrated within 25 miles of shore. At least for the near
term this is also where development of renewable energy projects are
expected based on transmission limitations. Some proposed oil and gas
leases are extensive but if development of an area is a possibility, it
should be adequately studied.
Finally, the science of ``ecosystem services'' (the delivery of
benefits from natural ecosystems to humans) needs to be advanced
rapidly. It is impossible to evaluate the benefit of a project that
provides economic benefit against the environmental impacts without
understanding the economic value of the ecosystem itself.
4. Mr. Cousteau, you talked about the need to initiate marine spatial
planning to avoid the ``suburban sprawl'' of the oceans, but
won't this type of national marine planning take many years to
implement? Is it worth starting such a protracted national
process now, when the industrialization of our oceans is
already upon us?
It's never too late to start planning for, and managing
development, whether on land or in the ocean. The alternative is a
continuation of poorly planned uses contributing to the degradation of
marine resources.
With adequate funding, marine spatial planning can be accomplished
relatively quickly. In Massachusetts the Oceans Act was signed into law
May 28th, 2008, the draft plan is due June 2009, and the entire plan
must to be completed and promulgated by December 31st 2009. Rhode
Island is developing a marine spatial plan within a similar 18-month
time frame. Proper planning is expected to actually expedite the siting
of projects such as renewable energy facilities by increasing the
certainty of permitting outcomes. It might be possible to provide
funding first to those states and regions that have the most pressing
needs based on pending permit applications for offshore projects.
Industrialization of our oceans may be upon us, but it is expected
to accelerate in the near future. Existing uses, especially those that
include fixed structures, have been permitted without comprehensive
planning. However, that is no reason to allow all future uses to be
sited without a plan. Some states may choose to hold permit
applications for projects in state waters until a plan is complete.
This is the approach that Rhode Island has taken but federal
legislation should not mandate this approach for either state or
federal waters.
5. Mr. Cousteau, you mentioned the need for more consideration to be
given to siting issues in the leasing process. Do you think the
current MMS and NEPA processes provide sufficient safeguards to
ecosystem health? Do you think they look comprehensively at all
marine activities and their cumulative impacts on the oceans?
The current MMS siting process does not take a comprehensive look
at all marine activities. The process focuses on oil and gas
exploration and development and evaluating the impacts of those
activities on the marine environment. It does not consider how oil and
gas development might preclude other ocean uses, and the process was
not designed to accommodate renewable energy siting. Furthermore, when
determining the long-term economic value of fossil fuel development
there is no consideration given to whether a renewable energy project
in the same area would have comparable economic returns with fewer
environmental impacts. The value of ecosystem services is also not
considered.
Among the criteria examined for siting are key geographic and
geological features of these regions. But, MMS does not examine whether
these regional features might be better suited to a different use.
Given the increased competition for ocean spaces, it is imperative that
we manage ocean energy uses in concert with all other economic
development uses and conservation. The MMS process is insufficient to
address this need. Marine Spatial Planning is needed to ensure that
each use is sited in an environmentally appropriate manner, and that
ocean space is used efficiently.
The NEPA process was designed to evaluate the impacts of a
particular project and does not consider the cumulative impacts of
multiple projects, nor does it require specific actions to be taken to
mitigate environmental harm. It is entirely reactionary--driven solely
by competing uses that apply for permits. A developer proposes a
location usually based on a dearth of knowledge as opposed to knowing
what locations might be appropriate for the project based on an
understanding of the ecosystem including current and future human uses.
The NEPA process also does not have the capacity to consider any future
ecosystem changes such as shifts due to climate change.
Putting an ocean plan in place does not eliminate the need for the
NEPA process or intrude on the authority of MMS or any other agency for
siting projects. A full NEPA process that evaluates environmental
impacts would still need to be done. However, many of the environmental
variables, for example the locations of sensitive habitats, would have
already been identified during the planning process. Ocean planning is
intended to streamline the NEPA process.
6. Mr. Cousteau, some points were made in the hearing about the number
of environmental reviews that must occur before oil and gas
production can begin on the OCS. Does that seemingly intensive
review process give us the information that we need to make
informed decisions about where to make new drilling decisions?
There is no doubt that the MMS process is both time consuming and
intensive, but that alone does not lead to sound decision-making. The
MMS process starts with proposing specific planning areas, then after a
period of comment the agency issues a final proposed program along with
a draft EIS for that program. The process hinges on the initial
planning areas that are proposed. If those are not evaluated correctly,
it does not matter how thorough the EIS is. When MMS decides which
sites to initially propose they look at eight key factors ranging from
energy interests to environmental and predictive information for the
area. The decision on where to locate leases in the OCS is made by
balancing those eight factors and MMS uses a comparative analysis to
evaluate potential sites. The problem is that key data is not included
or not factored into the comparative analysis.
For example when evaluating potential environmental costs of
offshore drilling they do not calculate the costs from catastrophic
events or impacts on unique resources such as endangered species--both
of which are two of the primary concerns with offshore drilling. Even
when they assess the risk of incidental oil spills, they present an
incomplete estimate. When MMS assesses the risk of incidental oil
spills they evaluate shoreline sensitivity. Shorelines are ranked
according to their sensitivity to oiling, the natural persistence of
oil, and the ease of clean up. It is important to note biological
productivity and sensitivity only applies to the physical shoreline and
not biological habitats that are on or adjacent to the shoreline. What
is not included is whether or not a wetland shoreline serves as a
habitat for endangered birds, or whether a beach is a haul out site for
endangered seals.
The comparative analysis is only used to rank the planning areas;
the final decision is still at the discretion of the Secretary. Several
court cases have elaborated on the Secretary's role in decision-making
stating, ``The environmental and coastal zone considerations are
undoubtedly important, but the act does not require they receive a
weight equal to that of potential oil and gas discovery.'' 1
No part of the OCSLA requires MMS to give equal weight to environmental
impacts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ California I, 668 F.2d, p.1317.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Mr. Cousteau, if, as was cited during the hearing, there are dozens
of law overseeing our oceans and protecting the natural
resources of the outer continental shelf, why do we need a new
planning process? Aren't the current laws sufficient?
There are many laws that were designed to protect the natural
resources of the outer continental shelf and a myriad of agencies that
implement them. That is part of the problem. Authorities are fractured
and there is no coordination of the various efforts. Each agency has
responsibility for a particular sector or issue but there is no
overarching plan that connects them nor is there a common vision or a
set of goals. The underpinning of ocean planning is the coordination of
existing planning efforts. Upon that is built a spatially explicit,
comprehensive plan that is based on adequate information.
______
[The response to questions submitted for the record by Ted
Danson on behalf of Oceana follows:]
Response to questions submitted for the record by Ted Danson
1. Mr. Danson, could you elaborate a bit on the difference between
natural seeps and man-made spills, and why we should be
concerned about the small fraction of the oil in the ocean that
comes from manmade spills?
First, according to the National Research Council, more than half
the oil released into the world ocean comes from the extraction,
transportation and consumption of petroleum, so this is not really a
``small fraction'' as stated in the question.
Crude oil can seep naturally from beneath the sea floor into the
marine environment. While these seeps do release oil, the rate of
release is very slow, and it tends to be in fixed locations, two
factors which allow the surrounding ecosystems to adapt to the oil in
their surrounding environment. Many mobile animals such as fish and
marine mammals are able to avoid these slow releases. Additionally,
while some species can adapt, others may be unable to do so, even given
the slow release and the fixed location. \1\ Unlike natural oil seeps,
however, human caused spills, and even relatively small ones, can cause
considerable harm in areas that have not adapted to oil. Even animals
with some degree of prior oil exposure tend to be unable to cope with
the impacts of a spill which generally will involve more oil than what
they may have been exposed to naturally. \2\ Most animals, which are
not naturally exposed to oil seeps, will be even less able to cope,
including the marine mammals that I described in my written testimony.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Committee on Oil in the Sea (2003) Oil in the Sea III: Inputs,
Fates, and Effects, Ocean Studies Board, Marine Board, and
Transportation Research Board, National Research Council http://
books.nap.edu/catalog/10388.html
\2\ Luyendyk, B. (2008) Statement on oil seeps and drilling.
Presented to the Board of Supervisors, Santa Barbara County at the
August 26 meeting. State and National Energy Crisis--Discussion. http:/
/ www.geol.ucsb.edu/faculty/luyendyk/seeps%20pubs/luyendyk_BOS.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is important to note that there is very little evidence that oil
drilling reduces natural seeps. \3\ In fact, we are aware of only one
study, in one specific location, that has linked oil drilling to a
reduction in natural seeps. \4\ Even in such a case, reductions in
natural seep rates may only occur at the early stages of drilling, when
oil is easily extracted. Beyond this point, as an oil field ages, oil
recovery becomes more difficult and more advanced technology and
drilling techniques are required. Importantly, these more advanced
techniques may in fact, increase the likelihood of seepage, rather than
decreasing it. \5\ Therefore, the suggestion that drilling reduces
seeps requires much more evidence to back it up.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Luyendyk, B. (2008) Statement on oil seeps and drilling.
Presented to the Board of Supervisors, Santa Barbara County at the
August 26 meeting. State and National Energy Crisis--Discussion. http:/
/ www.geol.ucsb.edu/faculty/luyendyk/seeps%20pubs/luyendyk_BOS.pdf
\4\ Quigley, D. et al. (1999) Decrease in natural marine carbon
seepage near Coal Oil Point, California, associated with offshore
production. Geology, 27(11):1047-1050
\5\ Luyendyk, B. (2008) Statement on oil seeps and drilling.
Presented to the Board of Supervisors, Santa Barbara County at the
August 26 meeting. State and National Energy Crisis--Discussion. http:/
/ www.geol.ucsb.edu/faculty/luyendyk/seeps%20pubs/luyendyk_BOS.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The bottom line is this: natural oil seeps are largely out of our
control. However, the impacts from unnecessary offshore oil
exploration, production and transportation are entirely in our control.
2. Mr. Danson, there was a comment made in the hearing about the
percentage of a barrel of oil that goes to fuel and the
percentage that goes to plastics and other materials. Could you
provide the exact data on the breakdown of products that are
derived from a barrel of oil?
First, we must recognize that while oil provides resources, it has
become more obvious that we must move away from a carbon-based society.
The costs associated with drilling and producing petroleum products are
increasing as our climate warms. These costs are even more dramatic
with regard to offshore oil production.
According to the U.S. Energy Information Agency, a 42-U.S. gallon
barrel of crude oil provides slightly more than 44 gallons of petroleum
products. This is largely made up of finished motor oil, diesel fuel,
propane and other energy producing fuels. Other products that can be
made from components of oil include, according to EIA, things like ink,
dishwashing soap, deodorant, tires, and even heart valves. \6\ EIA
reports that about 16% of a barrel goes to these ``other'' uses though
it is unclear whether that includes only non-energy-related purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Energy Information Agency, Energy Kids Page (2009) http://
www.eia.doe.gov/kids/energyfacts/sources/non-renewable/oil.html#Howused
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is important to keep in mind, however, that none of these
products requires drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf, and each can
and will continue to be produced regardless of whether the OCS is
opened to additional drilling. The OCS provides such a small fraction
of our oil needs, its use is irrelevant to the manufacture of the above
products. In fact, our ability to continue to use oil to make these
products in the future is furthered by implementing the shift away from
oil use as fuel, and towards alternatives, as I recommended in my
testimony. Finally, it is important to keep in mind that many of the
products that are made with petroleum components can be made using
alternative materials.
3. Mr. Danson, following up on a line of questioning from the hearing,
could you describe the differing environmental impacts between
a properly sited wind tower and a properly sited oil rig?
During the hearing, it sounded as if you and Mr. Cousteau were
saying that the environmental impact of the rig itself is no
different than the impact of the tower.
There are tremendous differences between offshore oil production
and offshore wind production. The impacts of oil rigs are numerous,
beginning with siting the rig, the oil production process, the
transportation of the product, and ultimately the use of the product
itself. I discussed each of these steps in my written testimony,
including the impacts associated with each of them, for the record.
Wind turbines, on the other hand, do not require the same siting
process; they produce only minimal impacts and present no risk of oil
spills.
While it may appear that the physical infrastructure is the same,
there is a big difference between building a structure that drills into
the earth's crust, injecting and extracting materials through it
constantly, and one that is anchored to the ocean floor, harnessing the
wind that passes above it.
In addition, there are a variety of factors associated with oil
drilling that present risks to marine life and coastal economies.
Accidents, for example, inevitably accompany all stages of offshore
production. The most typical causes of accidents include equipment
failure, personnel mistakes, and extreme natural impacts from seismic
activity, ice movements, hurricanes, and so on. Besides accidents,
offshore oil and gas activities create a myriad of other threats to
marine life including routine spills, and disposal of wastes such as
drilling muds and produced water, and noise pollution.
Furthermore, daily offshore drilling operations create a variety of
pollutants that affect marine and other wildlife. Offshore rigs can
dump tons of drilling fluids, metal cuttings, including toxic metals
(lead, chromium and mercury) and carcinogens (such as benzene, xylene
and toluene and especially polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons) into the
ocean. Drilling muds are used to lubricate and cool the drill bit and
pipe. One drilling platform normally drills between seventy and one-
hundred wells and discharges more than 90,000 metric tons of drilling
fluids and metal cuttings into the ocean. Some studies suggest that
drilling-related chemicals can stunt fish growth and affect breeding
patterns.
Wind, on the other hand, creates little if any pollution
surrounding the site. While some concerns exist with the impact of wind
turbines on wildlife, we believe these concerns can be alleviated
through a proper environmental review process prior to siting. However,
the overall suggestion that a rig is the same as a wind farm is a ``red
herring'' designed to distract attention from the myriad of risks
clearly and indisputably associated with offshore oil and gas drilling
and production.
4. Mr. Danson, in your opinion, how would you like to see Congress
moving forward to address ocean acidification?
First of all, it is crucial to recognize that the only way to avert
ocean acidification is to stabilize and ideally reduce the amount of
carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. No other plausible technological
fixes exist. The most important thing that we can do now is to cap and
reduce carbon dioxide emissions in our atmosphere.
Preventing the expansion of offshore oil and gas drilling on the
Outer Continental Shelf is a first step. We also need to stop ongoing
activities in the Arctic until we develop a comprehensive conservation
and clean energy plan as I described in my testimony and as I discuss
further below.
We must shift toward a future in which we rely upon affordable,
carbon-free, renewable energy; a future in which our oceans and the
environment are healthy. Part of this effort must include an emphasis
on development of carbon-free technologies such as wind and solar and
improved energy efficiency.
To make this shift, we will need to strengthen the infrastructure
for energy alternatives such as solar and wind. We also need to
increase the efficiency of cars, trucks, trains, planes and ships, as
well as homes, office buildings and industrial processes, while cutting
down on deforestation and promoting reforestation efforts to help
``draw down'' carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere.
As I stated in my written testimony, there are many conservation
measures that could be put in place immediately to reduce our energy
needs and that will help us lower the demand that needs to be filled by
renewables. The United States Department of Energy has projected that
we can generate 20% of our electricity demand from renewables by 2030.
Offshore wind could provide 20% of this amount. This effort has
started, as the United States added enough wind power in 2007 alone to
provide electricity to more than a million homes.
As you can see clearly from my testimony and from my answers to
these questions, Oceana is not opposed to harnessing energy from the
oceans. We must do so based on sound science and a thorough assessment
of the ecosystem, risks, and benefits. At this point, an objective
assessment of the comparative risks and benefits of oil and wind
clearly demonstrates that wind can better help us solve climate change
with minimal impacts to marine resources. In shifting to clean,
renewable energy, we are reducing our reliance on carbon dioxide
emitting energy sources that put our oceans at risk from climate change
and ocean acidification.
5. Mr. Danson, in your testimony you mentioned the need for the
development of a comprehensive conservation and energy plan for
the Arctic. Could you elaborate on the unique characteristics
of the Arctic that you believe would necessitate such a plan?
And also, who do you think should be in charge of putting
together such a plan?
The Arctic is home to vibrant communities of indigenous peoples and
provides vital habitat for some of the world's most iconic wildlife
species. The region is warming at approximately twice the rate of the
rest of the planet, and the resulting changes--particularly the loss of
sea ice--have created the potential for rapid industrialization.
Science-based, precautionary management should be implemented through
an interagency task force charged with developing an Arctic
conservation and energy plan.
Tens of thousands of people inhabit the Arctic region of the United
States, which is entirely in Alaska. The majority of these residents
consider themselves to be Alaska Natives and, though organized into
towns and villages like elsewhere in the country, inhabitants of the
far north lead a much different life. For many Arctic residents,
culture is dependent on subsistence harvesting, sharing of food, travel
on snow and ice, traditional knowledge, and adaptation to Arctic
conditions.
In addition to the vibrant communities that have adapted to the top
of the world, the Arctic also supports some of the last remaining
relatively pristine terrestrial and marine ecosystems. The Arctic Ocean
provides important habitat for 23 species of marine mammals, including
polar bears; bowhead, beluga, and gray whales; narwhal; walruses; and
bearded, ringed, and ribbon seals; 100 species of fish including Arctic
cod, capelin, and herring; and more than 50 species of seabirds,
including spectacled Eiders, Arctic terns, and Ivory Gulls.
In addition, the Arctic plays an important role in regulating our
climate. The long periods of little to no sunlight and high
reflectivity of snow and ice during periods of sunlight result in a net
loss of heat. These factors help drive the circulation of the Earth's
atmosphere and ocean currents which transport heat from the tropics to
the poles where it is released from the planet. Thus, the health of the
Arctic is important to the Earth's atmospheric and oceanic circulation
patterns, which affects climate, weather, and natural systems
worldwide.
The changes to the Arctic are occurring in an area that is not well
understood by scientists. According to the U.S. Arctic Research
Commission Report on Goals and Objectives for Arctic Research, the
Arctic is ``the least studied and most poorly understood area on
Earth,'' and, in particular, the Arctic Ocean is the least understood
of all the world's oceans. Scattered efforts are underway to gather
data on Arctic Ocean ecosystems, but no comprehensive, reliable
database of this and other relevant information exists to inform
federal policies and agency actions with regard to the American Arctic.
Further, the reduction in Arctic sea ice over the last few years
also is opening the Arctic Ocean to the possibility of unprecedented
industrialization. The expansion of high-risk activities such as large-
scale commercial fishing, shipping, and oil and gas exploration and
development would add additional pressures to the already-stressed
communities, animals, and ecosystems of the far north. Of particular
concern is the 70 million acres opened for drilling in the Beaufort and
Chukchi seas in the current 5-year OCS leasing plan (2007-2012).
Leasing has occurred, and there is ongoing seismic exploration in many
of these areas.
These leasing decisions were made despite an acknowledged,
substantial risk of a major oil spill and the direct recognition that
there is no proven technology to clean up such a spill in icy Arctic
conditions. The same environmental conditions that contribute to oil
spill risks in the Arctic--lack of natural light, extreme cold, moving
ice floes, high winds and low visibility--can make spill response
operations extremely difficult or totally ineffective.
Current drilling activities must stop until a comprehensive,
science-based, precautionary approach to any industrial activity is
developed. The federal government must design a comprehensive Arctic
conservation and energy plan based on a full scientific assessment of
the health, biodiversity, and functioning of Arctic ecosystems to guide
decisions about whether, when, where, and how industrial activities are
permitted. Creating a comprehensive plan would begin with a gap
analysis and research plan developed by independent scientists, such as
the National Research Council. Further, the plan could be created in
conjunction with broader climate and energy plans for America.
An interagency task force comprised of federal agencies regulating
activities in Arctic and those with expertise in the region should
oversee the creation and implementation of an Arctic conservation and
energy plan and could be headed by a new position in CEQ or by the NOAA
Administrator. In addition to federal agencies, creation of an Arctic
conservation and energy plan will require participation from local
governments, Native tribes, and other local entities.
______
[The response to questions submitted for the record by W.F.
``Zeke'' Grader follows:]
PACIFIC COAST FEDERATION
OF FISHERMEN'S ASSOCIATIONS
14 March 2009
The Honorable Nick J. Rahall II
Chairman
House Natural Resources Committee
Washington, DC 20515
RE: Response to Questions for Testimony Presented 11 February 2009--
``Offshore Drilling: Environmental and Commercial Perspectives?''
Dear Chairman Rahall:
The following are my responses to written questions sent me in your
2 March 2009 letter:
1. The precautionary zones our members in the Santa Barbara Channel
are subject to are 1,000 feet in diameter around each platform. Those
zones were imposed following the attacks of 11 September 2001. They
appear to be fairly well enforced for commercial fishing craft, but
perhaps less so for smaller recreational fishing vessels. Prior to 9/11
there were precautionary zones placed around rigs in the North Sea and
at times off Santa Barbara. These are the ones I am aware of and that
were reported to me. For trawlers operating around rigs in deeper
waters such as the Santa Barbara Channel and the North Sea there have
been de facto closed areas to fishing around the rigs due to cables and
anchor extending out from the platforms that can snag or destroy
fishing gear.
2. Pipelines create a problem for fishing gear, including trawls,
troll lines and traps, where the pipelines are not covered over and
create snags - for gear either being towed through the water near the
bottom or gear is being dropped to the bottom (e.g., traps). I have not
had reported to me any instance where fishing gear encountering a
pipeline has caused a leak, but it is reasonable to expect that as
pipelines age they will be more vulnerable to leaks, particularly if
hit by a hard, heavy piece of fishing gear such as the weighted metal
door used to keep a trawl net open. Conflicts between fishing gear and
pipelines can be kept to a minimum as long as the pipelines are
adequately buried or, if not buried, as long as they have smooth
surfaces and no protrusions that may snag fishing gear.
3. Yes, there are three reasons why we do not believe offshore oil
platforms should be converted to offshore aquaculture facilities.
First, there are the lease agreements requiring platforms to be
removed at the end of their useful life in oil and gas production. This
was the legal condition on the leases and from a fishing industry
perspective we expect them to be removed, the seabed cleaned-up and the
area returned as it was so it may again be used, among other things, as
fishing grounds. As far as we're concerned the oil industry has a legal
obligation to remove those platforms and we expect nothing less.
Second, offshore aquaculture is highly problematic (excepting
perhaps certain types of mollusks) from the standpoint of feed (i.e.,
demand on wild fish for feed, conversion ratios of feed to edible
protein), pollution, spread of disease/parasites, and escapes. The
thrust for aquaculture development at this time should focus on
completely-contained, land-based facilities utilizing non-carnivorous
species as stocks for such operations.
Third, the water quality around oil and gas platforms may not be
suitable for raising edible fish/shellfish products, where there are
increased hydrocarbon levels in the water column or seafloor sediment
around a platform or increased levels of heavy metal toxicity. The
whole point of eating seafood is that it is supposed to be healthy--
good for you, not kill you.
4. Yes, we know there will be spatial conflicts with other types of
offshore development, including renewable energy generation, such as
wind and wave. We are generally supportive of renewable energy
development (e.g., as replacement power to help facilitate removal of
salmon-killing hydro electric dams), particularly since it is non-
carbon based and does not contribute to green house gas emissions
which, in turn, make the oceans more acidic. Currently we are having to
deal with a number of wave energy proposals along the west coast--
mostly from San Francisco north to the Canadian Border--that would
either displace fleets from traditional fishing grounds and/or create
navigation hazards. We have called for a better mechanism than the
current conflicting authorities between FERC and the Minerals
Management Service for siting offshore energy development to minimize
conflicts with fishing and other maritime activities.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify. If there are any
further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
W.F. ``Zeke'' Grader, Jr.
Executive Director
______
[The response to questions submitted for the record by
Carolyn McCormick follows:]
March 10, 2009
The Honorable Nick J. Rahall, II, Chairman
Committee on Natural Resources
1324 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Chairman Rahall and U.S. Congressional Members, Committee on
Natural Resources:
Once again, I would like to personally thank each of you for the
opportunity and your time to discuss our nation's future energy needs
and pleased the Committee on Natural Resources has recognized that
tourism based economies are part of the discourse and will be part of
finding solutions to our energy needs.
I have addressed your three (3) questions as succinctly as possible
and would welcome the opportunity to elaborate if needed.
1. ``I've heard the term, sustainable tourism used in the past and
wonder if you could elaborate on what exactly this means?''
The classic definition of sustainable tourism is: ``...sustainable
tourism is achieving quality growth in a manner that does not deplete
the natural and built environment and preserves the culture, history,
and heritage of the local community.'' (Managing Sustainable Tourism: A
Legacy for the Future by David L. Edgell, Sr., PhD, page 4). Further:
``Managing sustainable tourism...depends on forward-looking policies
and sound management philosophies, including a harmonious relationship
between local communities, the private sector, and governments in
developmental practices that protect natural, built, and cultural
environments in a way compatible with economic growth'' (Ibid, page 4).
``It means handling tourism in such a way that the place is not
degraded, so that future generations can also enjoy it--historically,
culturally, environmentally, and visually.'' Jonathan B. Tourtellot,
Director, Center for Sustainable Destinations, National Geographic
Society; and Geotourism Editor, National Geographic Traveler
2. ``And you could also give concrete examples of things being done in
your community to address these issues.''
GOSPL--Green Open Space Preservation of Land grant
program created in 2000 by the Dare County Tourism Board, a public
Authority. The Dare County Tourism Board recognizes the natural
resources that have attracted citizens and visitors to Dare County and
the physical beauty of our coastal environment is Dare County's
greatest asset. The GOSPL program is available to all Governmental
Municipalities in Dare County as well as the County of Dare.
Written proposals are required and must demonstrate applying
organizations' ability to meet the GOSPL criteria., and N.C.G.S. 121-34
et seq., the Uniform Conservation and Historic Preservation Agreements
Act (hereinafter ``the Act'') provides that public bodies of the State,
including subdivisions thereof such as the Dare County Tourism Board
may enter into preservation and conservation agreements; and whereas,
N.C. House Bill 225, Section 7, provides that the Dare County Tourism
Board may expend funds on services or programs subject to certain
limitations; and whereas, governmental partnerships to preserve and
protect land is in the best interest of the entire community directly
benefiting citizens and visitors for generations to come. Adopted the
21st Day of September 2000.
The Dare County Tourism Board is proud to have recently purchased
nineteen (19) acres of land in critical mass areas that have been
placed with conservation deeds.
The (Short Term) Restricted Fund Grant is designed to
help Dare County based Municipalities and nonprofit organizations with
projects such as highway beautification, beach and sound accesses, or
hike/bike walk trails. Grants are disbursed on a 50/50-match basis.
Since 1994 the Dare County Tourism Board, doing business as the
Outer Banks Visitors Bureau, funded fifty (50) public and sound beach
accesses and multi-use paths. These projects were funded in order to
increase non-motorized mobility and encouraging park and walk, bike
ride run, skate and free and open access to America's beaches.
In addition to the above adaptation and mitigation concrete
projects that in fact minimize carbon emissions, the State of North
Carolina is currently working on an adjustment to coastal development
due to the ever changing nature of these barrier islands and sea level
rise.
The State of North Carolina Coastal Resource Commission
(CRC) has set forth new set back rules for building along the coast and
although these rules have not been approved by the NC legislature there
are ardent steps being taken to protect property, the economy and the
environment.
Current rules:
Residential buildings: 30 times erosion rate setback or if greater
than 5000 sq ft then 60 times erosion rate or minimum of 120ft.
Commercial structures: 60 times erosion rate.
Buildings less than 5000 sq ft: 30 times erosion rate is rate less
than 3.5 ft/yr but if greater than 3.5ft/yr then 30 times rate plus 105
ft.
Proposed rules adopted by CRC and in public hearing stage:
Building size: less than 5000 sq ft 60 feet or 30 times erosion
rate whichever is larger.
Greater than 5000 but less than 10,000 sq ft: 120 feet or 60 times
erosion rate whichever is larger.
Greater than 10,000 but less than 20,000 sq ft: 130 feet or 65
times erosion rate whichever is larger.
Greater than 20,000 but less than 40,000 sq ft: 140 feet or 70
times erosion rate whichever is larger.
Greater than 40,000 but less than 60,000 sq ft: 150 feet or 75
times erosion rate whichever is larger.
Greater than 60,000 but less than 80,000 sq ft: 160 feet or 80
times erosion rate whichever is larger.
Greater than 80,000 but less than 100,000 sq ft: 170 feet or 85
times erosion rate whichever is larger.
Greater than 100,000: 180 feet or 90 times erosion rate whichever
is larger.
Other projects that the County and several towns have spent
millions of dollars, years and countless hours; concrete projects
needed but have not been funded due to lack of federal funding and
limited local funds are:
Beach re-nourishment. - Currently there is a 1% occupancy
tax in place to build this fund and the project is on the Army Corps of
Engineers list.
Public Transportation system. Task force met for four
years and disbanded in late 2008 due to lack of funding.
3. ``And explain how that relates to this issue of energy
development.''
Energy that contributes to global warming and sea-level rise pose
an obvious long-term threat to any barrier island destination, not to
mention the still-undetermined risk from changes in storm patterns, as
well as risk to portions of the marine food chain that are dependent on
back-bay wetlands and supply the area's seafood. Pollution risk is an
obvious hazard. Visually, industrial-style activity close within
eyeshot and land based infrastructure for refineries would have an
obvious negative impact on the desirability of the locale for a
vacation.
Dare County and the Towns of Duck, Southern Shores, Kill Devil
Hills, Kitty Hawk, Nags Head and Manteo, along with the State of North
Carolina, are working together to revise wind generated energy
opportunities along the coast and also in preliminary discussions on
hydro technology.
Energy development is critical to the mobility of humans and
diversification and innovation should remain the driving force to find
alternative ways to keep American's working and traveling while
understanding the perils barrier islands face as we dance with Mother
Nature.
As always, I remain,
With best regards,
Carolyn E. McCormick
Enclosures (5)
cc: Dare County Tourism Board
______
CLIMATE CHANGE AND TOURISM: THE CASE FOR THE
COASTLINE OF THE OUTER BANKS, NORTH CAROLINA
David L. Edgell, Sr., PhD, Department of Hospitality and Management,
East
Carolina University
Carolyn E. McCormick, Managing Director, Outer Banks Visitors Bureau,
North Carolina
Introduction
The tourism industry generates trillions of dollars in income and
provides memorable experiences to individuals and families worldwide.
Tourism brings people outdoors and so is heavily dependent on changing
climates and ecologies. Coastal areas are amongst the world's most
important tourism destinations and are especially vulnerable to climate
change. This paper discusses planning, public perception, climate
change and tourism on the Outer Banks of North Carolina.
Tourism creates jobs, adds to income, spurs economic development,
promotes economic diversification, introduces additional products,
spawns new businesses, increases tax revenue, and contributes to
economic integration. Global tourism, a U.S. $7.1 trillion industry, is
a large fast growing industry that employs more than 232 million
people. The U.S. tourism industry is one of America's major retail
industries with $700 billion in total expenditures, employing 7.5
million people. In North Carolina tourism is a $15.4 billion industry
with employment at 184,000, and North Carolina's Outer Banks accounts
for expenditures of $705 million and 15,000 jobs.
The tourism industry has identified climate change as key to future
strategic planning. United Nations World Tourism Organization's
Secretary General, Francesco Frangialli, addressing climate change
said: ``We (tourism industry) are part of the problem (global warming)
and we will be part of the solution''. Social scientists recognize the
need to create innovative responses to projected impacts of climate
change on tourism. Climate change presents a special challenge to the
Atlantic Ocean coastline of the Outer Banks of North Carolina.
Stakeholders along this dynamic chain of barrier islands are planning
strategies now to mitigate future negative climate change impact. The
beautiful environmental coastline is a major reason why five million
visitors from more than 50 countries visit the Outer Banks each year.
Impact
The tourism industry consists of an integrated set of private
businesses, private-public partnerships, and public agencies. Tourism
and travel are nearly synonymous and many of its key businesses are
highly dependent on fossil fuels; which emit large amounts of
greenhouse gases (GHGs). Forecasted growth in tourism suggests that
these emissions are likely to increase. These interactions between
climate change and tourism have to date not been examined on a large
scale (Viner and Becken, 2003).
Researchers from four North Carolina universities collaborated on a
scientific study entitled ``Measuring the Impacts of Climate Change on
North Carolina Coastal Resources.'' The scientists considered the
impacts of sea-level rise on coastal recreation and tourism. Their
study, using 2004 data, measured the impact of climate change on
``beach recreation and tourism'' in four southern North Carolina
counties (Carteret, Onslow-Pender, New Hanover, Brunswick; excluding
the high density tourism counties of Dare and Currituck) and on marine
recreational fishing (along the entire North Carolina coastline). This
study estimated, in 2004 dollars, that the value lost to local beach
goers would be $93 million a year by 2030 and $223 million a year by
2080 and for local anglers, $15 million a year by 2030 and $17 million
a year by 2080 (Bin et al, 2007).
In a February, 2007, interview, Dr. Stanley Riggs, a geology
professor at East Carolina University, stated that ``The Outer Banks is
one of the most important coastal systems in the world, there is no
other place like this one'' (Bragunier 2007). Dr. Riggs pointed out
that climate change along the coast has been taking place for thousands
of years but it is only recently that we have good geologic records of
such changes. He presented diagrams showing substantial loss of
shoreline from the years 1962-2005 on the Outer Banks. He concluded his
presentation with the following remarks: ``There is a lot of human
modification to the Outer Banks without understanding the dynamics of
the system...Conflict of natural dynamics and human dynamics and they
are on a collision course. We have to start to understand the natural
dynamics and work with them, work in partnership with nature.''
The research reviewed and developed for this paper suggests that
much of the tourism industry does not understand the present and future
impact of climate change on tourism. ``Tourism administrators must
undertake a paradigm shift away from overuse of natural resources
toward environmental stewardship...Additionally, as global warming
comes to the forefront in environmental concerns, tourism managers will
need to stay attuned to forecast changes...Individual regions need to
address their potential climate changes and the effects on
international inbound travel.'' (Edgell, et al, 2008, p. 351).
The Changing Coastline
The authors of this study (Edgell and McCormick) made an aerial
reconnaissance to review and better understand the dynamics of coastal
changes. We noted damages to tourism related facilities that had taken
place in the recent past due to beach erosion, storms, and hurricanes.
From this aerial view, there was no visual evidence of transformations
resulting from climate change.
The authors met with Research Hydraulic Engineer Bill Birkemeier at
the Field Research Facility, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer
Research and Development Center for Dare County's Outer Banks. This
facility, considered the finest such center in the U.S., measures the
level of the coastal waters and climate change. According to Mr.
Birkemeier, ``over the past twenty years there has been a slight rise
in both sea temperatures and sea levels due to climate change. Because
the Outer Banks are dynamic and ever changing, and since sea-level rise
is at present small and gradual, relative to twice-daily tidal
variation and surges caused by frequent storms, it is difficult to
determine what changes on the coastline are due directly to sea-level
rise. A more immediate concern would be whether climate change may
increase the number or severity of storms on the coast as storms have a
major impact on coastlines''.
Dr. Nancy White, Director, University of North Carolina Coastal
Studies Institute has been studying water quality and coastal
sustainability. Tourism, which is water-dependent and an important
coastal industry, is of concern to the Institute. Dr. White suggests
that ``currently there is not enough research or evidence to suggest
that climate change is impacting tourism in a negative way in the Outer
Banks''. In an interview with Dr. Patrick Long, Director, North
Carolina Center for Sustainable Tourism, and a researcher on climate
change and tourism, he stated that ``We need to further our knowledge
about climate trends and projections, the impacts of variability and
seasonality on federal, state, local, and private sector tourism
communities, and the development of strategies to adapt to and mitigate
effects of climate change''.
While it is not clear whether Outer Banks tourism is being impacted
by climate change, the issue has generated serious discussion and some
concern amongst private business interests, government agencies and the
public. Carolyn McCormick, in an article in The Island Breeze, and
Outer Banks newspapers, said: ``Before the concerns about climate
change and the effort by some to make us a symbol for climate change
became part of the public debate, Outer Banks officials, including
those of us at the Visitor's Bureau and the members of the Tourism
Board, worked with state and federal officials and environmental groups
on climate change discussions and helped to shape policy for coastal
dwellers and visitors''. A colleague working with Ms McCormick on
related issues, Dr. Stephen A. Smith stated ``I believe that the
tourism industry can become a leading voice to help educate visitors
about the vulnerabilities of the Outer Banks and other important
natural areas''.
Conclusion
Few industries are more dependent on climate change than tourism.
Paradoxically, climate change may not be totally negative to beach
tourism; certain coastlines may be able to extend their seasons due to
higher water and air temperatures. Regardless, we must better
understand the interactions of climate change and tourism and respond
with responsible plans and policies.
The Outer Banks is particularly vulnerable to storms, beach erosion
near homes, and loss of fish habitat (due to erosion and the
increasingly close link between the land and near shore waters causing
decreased water quality). These changes affect the quality of the
environment, the experience of tourists, and, finally, the number of
visitors. It is clear that a changing climate and rising water levels
could have a tremendous impact on tourism in the Outer Banks.
Researchers, businesses, and government agencies in the Outer Banks are
cooperating and developing ideas to respond to climate change and storm
severity. Tourism stakeholders need to seek solutions now in order to
cope with the impact of climate change on tourism in the future.
Recommendations
With respect to climate change and tourism along the Outer Banks
coastline., the tourism industry (business and government) should:
1. Work with individuals and institutions to improve data
collection and communication of climate trends /projections to the
community.
2. Help to develop, monitor and test climate change models and
assess the effect of individual storms over a substantial time period.
3. Sponsor open forums of discussion on climate change and tourism
to seek long-term sustainable solutions.
4. Develop strategies to lessen the impact of tourism and travel
on greenhouse gas emissions.
5. Embrace sustainable programs that encourage efficient usages of
energy and land resources in tourist destinations like the Green Open
Spaces for People and Life program in Dare County.
6. Investigate solutions to the impact of climate change and storm
severity with respect to long-term erosion of the coastal beaches.
7. Improve emergency planning and crisis management with regards
to the evacuation of coastal areas.
References
Bin, O., C. Dumas, B. Poulter, and J. Whitehead (2007). ``Measuring the
Impacts of Climate Change on North Carolina Coastal
Resources.'' National Commission on Energy Policy. March 2007.
Washington, DC.
Birkemeier, B. (2008). Personal Interview. U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Engineer Research & Development Center. January 18,
2008. Duck, NC.
Bragunier, V. (2007). ``Geologist: Climate Change Will Impact Banks.''
Sentinel, February 27, 2007. Nags Head, NC.
Edgell, Sr., D.L., M.D. Allen, G. Smith, and J. R. Swanson (2008).
Tourism Policy and Planning: Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow.
London: Elsevier.
Frangialli, F. (2007). Keynote address on ``Tourism Can Help in Global
Action on Climate Change and Poverty'', Bali, Indonesia,
December 13, 2007.
Long, P. (2008). Personal Interview. North Carolina Center for
Sustainable Tourism. January 23, 2008. Greenville, NC.
McCormick, C. (2007). ``Climate and the Coast'', The Island Breeze,
September 2007. Outer Banks, NC.
Smith, S. (2008). Interview by telephone and email. Executive Director,
Southern Alliance for Clean Energy. February 2, 2008.
Viner, D. and S. Becken (2003). ``Climate Change Mitigation Policies
and the Global Tourism Industry.'' Climate Change Management,
12 (December).
White, N. (2008). Personal Interview. University of North Carolina
Coastal Studies Institute. January 20, 2008. Manteo, NC.
David L. Edgell, Sr., PhD Carolyn E. McCormick
Department of Hospitality Managing Director
Management Dare County Tourism Board
East Carolina University Outer Banks Visitors Bureau
RW-325 Rivers Building One Visitors Center Circle
Greenville, NC 27858-4353 Manteo, NC 27954
Ph 252-328-4962 Ph: 252-473-2138
Fax 252-328-4963 Fax: 252-473-5777
Email Address: [email protected]