http://www.fieldandstream.com/blogs/where-fish/2010/04/bob-marshall-what-coastal-drilling-means-sportsmen
 April 23, 2010

Editor’s Note: Welcome to The Conservationist, a new blog on
FieldandStream.com, where at least three times per week we’ll be posting
conservation news, analysis, and commentary from Conservation Columnist Bob
Marshall, Contributing Editor Hal Herring, and Deputy Editor Jay Cassell.
—————————————————————————
So what does President Obama’s decision to open once-protected areas of our
coasts to energy drilling mean for fish, wildlife and sportsmen?

It could be terrible. It could be bad. Or it might not matter much at all.

The Terrible: If this derails the push for meaningful carbon reduction
legislation, it will be a black mark on his presidency, and a disaster for
fish and wildlife and sportsmen.

There is no greater threat to our outdoor pursuits than global warming, and
the major cause of that problem is the accumulation of carbon in the
atmosphere, primarily from fossil fuels. There are alternative fuels, but
the only way to encourage development and use of those fuels is to place a
penalty on the production of carbon. That’s what cap and trade is all about.

Even the energy industry agrees the known untapped sources in these offshore
areas can’t make a serious dent in our needs. During the Bush
Administration, the federal Energy Information Agency said the impact on
prices would be “negligible”- and even that wouldn’t happen for 30 years.
But the longer the nation believes we have a ready supply of cheap
carbon-emitting fuels, the longer it will resist converting to cleaner
technologies. No pain, no gain.

There is also fear this could lead us on a slippery slope. By opening these
previously protected areas off the coasts, the administration will be faced
with this question: If the energy emergency means those pristine oceans off
the east coast must be sacrificed, why should the Rocky Mountain front be
any different?

Throwing our petrol patriots a bone has never slated their thirst in the
past.

The Bad: As a lifelong resident of coastal Louisiana, which supports 4,000
oil and gas platforms – the largest such concentration in the world – I
think I can speak with some authority on the impacts of offshore drilling.

The first thing to understand is that the most obvious risk is not the most
serious.

While the nation this week has been gripped by photos of a rig that
exploded,  likely killing at least 11 workers and now pumping untold gallons
of crude into the Gulf, such disasters are the rare exception to the rule in
offshore drilling. Certainly the risks are great in any such event; we’ll
have to wait to see how much damage this does to the coastal estuaries and
beaches, if any. But if tightly regulated, constantly watched and slapped
with crippling fines when it breaks the rules, the offshore energy industry
can be safe and have very little impact on  fish and wildlife.

However, when allowed to bully a state, this industry can do horrendous
damage, most of which takes place onshore. This includes a deep and lasting
disruption to both natural and social infrastructure by the on-shore
component of development such as transmission pipelines, canal dredging,
refineries, and port facilities.

Since permitting was required in the 1970s, as much as 10,000 miles of
pipelines were dredged for oil and gas work through our coastal marshes. No
one has an accurate count of how many miles were dredged before that, but
some experts think it was at least as many.

Louisiana’s coastal estuaries – the largest and most productive in the lower
48, an ecosystem that 90 percent of all Gulf marine species depend on and
that is important to 70 percent of the continent’s migratory waterfowl –
has been reduced by 2,000 square miles in 70 years, and experts believe
almost 40 percent of that loss can be attributed to oil and gas industry
impacts.

Did that have to happen?

No. But efforts to force the energy industry to be more environmentally
sensitive  were defeated under heavy industry lobbying.

There are much greener ways to develop offshore energy than what happened in
Louisiana. But sportsmen in states now facing this challenge should be
prepared to hear from the petro-patriots that all those environmental
safeguards are just too expensive. Let them win that argument, and your fish
and wildlife habitat and quality of life will suffer greatly.
**

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7105649.ece

Timesonline UK

From The Times  April 23, 2010

(AP Photo/Gerald Herbert)

An aerial photo taken in the Gulf of Mexico shows the burning oilrig Deepwater Horizon, which collapsed and sank after an explosion caused by an oil ‘blowout’

Robin Pagnamenta, Energy Editor, and Jacqui Goddard in Miami

A team of engineers using an underwater robot was struggling last night to control one of the world’s most challenging oil spills after an explosion ripped apart and sank a rig leased by BP in the Gulf of Mexico.

As fears grew for the safety of 11 workers still missing, BP and US officials were tackling what could be a major pollution incident using booms and dispersant chemicals.

The spill is being fed by an estimated 13,000 gallons of oil and gas that were pumping every hour from a pipe running up from an oil reservoir more than 2 miles (3km) beneath the seabed.

Deepwater Horizon rig, which had been drilling for oil at the time of the explosion on Tuesday night, collapsed and sank yesterday after being engulfed by a fire that had blazed for more than 36 hours.

Guy Cantwell, a spokesman for Transocean, the Swiss company that owned the rig, said that engineers were trying to cut off the uncontrolled flow of oil using a subsea robot. He said that the robot, equipped with cameras and remote-controlled arms, was being used to try to activate a device on the seafloor, 5,000ft (1,500m) below the surface, that is designed automatically to clamp shut over the base of a pipe that connects the rig with the seabed.

The robot was being deployed remotely from a ship close to the site of the disaster, 50 miles off the coast off Louisiana. If the effort fails the only alternative is to drill a “relief well” intersecting the original well. Mud and cement could then be injected inside to cap it. Such an operation, however, could take weeks or even months.

BP, Transocean and the US Coast Guard were planning to use booms, skimmers and chemicals to control what threatens to be a huge oil spill.

US regulators pledged to begin an investigation into the accident, which appears to have been caused by a “blowout” – an uncontrolled release of gas or oil that forced its way up the well pipe and caught fire, destroying the rig.

The majority of the 126 workers on board escaped unharmed but 17 were injured and 11 remain missing. BP said that all six of its staff, who had been overseeing the operation, were safe.

Last night survivors told of their desperate attempts to escape the fire. Chad Murray, 34, the rig’s chief electrician, said that they had less than five minutes to leap from their stations or bunks and evacuate before the rig was enveloped by the fireball.

Jim Ingram said that he was getting ready for bed when everything suddenly went dark. He heard a thud that “kind of sounded like a crane operator that would have landed a load. On the second one, we knew something was wrong”.

Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 5:51 PM

Richard Charter advises us that…..

– The Mineral Management Services, a federal agency that’s heading up oil and gas exploration on the Outer Continental Shelf, is hosting public environmental review meetings to solicit comments and alternatives on the potential environmental effects of oil drilling.
– Two meetings will take place in Jacksonville at 1 and 7 p.m. today at the Jacksonville Marriott at 4670 Salisbury Road.
– Those who can’t attend today’s meetings may e-mail comments to GGEIS@mms.gov or mail them in an envelope labeled “Comments on the PEIS Scope” to the Regional Supervisor, Leasing and Environment (MS 5410) Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, 1201 Elmwood Park Blvd., New Orleans, LA 70123-2394.

OFFSHORE DRILLING:
Energy reps ask MMS to expedite Atlantic Coast study (04/21/2010)

Energy industry representatives pushed the U.S. Minerals Management Service to speed up a study on the environmental impact of seismic surveying off the Atlantic Coast. The research will look at an area off limits to exploration and drilling for more than two decades.
The agency held the first of 13 public meetings to gather comments on the environmental impact statement yesterday in Houston. The meeting drew about 40 people who largely urged the agency to focus on scientific reports and documented instances of seismic effects rather than speculating on potential impacts.
Once the study is done, scientists will analyze geologic data on the effects of drilling, allowing the government to move forward with lease sales, siting wind turbines, excavating sand and gavel, and drilling. Seismic activity has not taken place in the mid- and south-Atlantic since the early 1980s, surpassed by new technology to find the most prospective areas. Companies say they need the geophysical data to begin planning production from offshore sites.
Jennifer Smith, an environmental activist, urged MMS to consider harm done to whales, sea turtles and other marine life from seismic surveying. The industry says marine mammals are not harmed by seismic surveying, which involves capturing acoustic images reflected off the seabed by loud blasts of compressed air (Monica Hatcher, Houston Chronicle, April 20). — JP

What follows are the comments I sent in.. Feel free to use them..DeeVon

Re:  Comments on the PEIS Scope

To: Minerals Management Service, Interior Department
Attn: Regional Manager
Re:  Offshore oil & gas exploration and Development in the Gulf of Mexico
 
Dear Sirs:
I wish to file my opposition to any plans to expand oil and gas exploration and development in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico or Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf that would affect Florida, especially the area adjacent to the Dry Tortugas National Park.   Oil and water don’t mix.
 
The impacts of such activities would contribute to the further decline of Florida’s endangered coral barrier reef ecosystem where the Tortugas National Park is located.   It will adversely impact tourism and commercial fishing upon which the state’s economy depends. Yet the result would be just a few day’s of oil for a nation that really needs to invest in alternatives such as solar. 
 
The toxic drilling muds, routine spills from the platforms, accidental vessel groundings, daily pollution from land-based support activities, and the potential of rig blow-outs and catastrophic spills would result in water quality degradation and could result in permanent damage to the fragile and endangered coral reef ecosystem of South Florida.  The emissions from such activities would contribute to global warming adding further negative cumulative impacts.
 
Corals need clear, clean, nutrient free waters to thrive.  One spill could ruin this ecosystem.  The ongoing impacts of the Valdez spill are testament that clean-up efforts do not begin to restore natural systems degraded by oil and gas development.  It is not worth the gamble.  For the past 23 years, as the retired founder of the environmental organization Reef Relief, we have opposed oil and gas exploration and development in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico because the short term benefits do not begin to outweigh the negative long term impacts.  Nothing has changed in that regard except that now areas are being opened for such activity without any new evidence or justification as to its merits. For what??? 
 
Your job is to look at the extensive record and make a decision that will insure a sustainable future for all Floridians and the millions of others who come to visit us because of our spectacular oceans, beaches and coral reefs. The Eastern Gulf of Mexico has been off limits for many years for good reasons.   I trust you will take the long view and agree that conservation of this most valuable area is important.
 
Thank you for the opportunity to present this viewpoint. 
 
Very truly yours,
 
DeeVon Quirolo

You must be the change you want to see in the world.
Mahatma Gandhi
Indian political and spiritual leader (1869 – 1948)

We can do no great things; only small things with great love.
Mother Theresa

http://news.oneindia.in/2010/04/15/exxonvaldez-spill-still-affecting-alaskan-wildlife.html

Thursday, April 15, 2010,11:41 [IST]
 
Washington, April 15 (ANI): Lingering oil from the 1989 Exxon Valdez spill is still being ingested by wildlife more than two decades after the disaster, scientists in Alaska have found.
The research uses biomarkers to reveal long-term exposure to oil in harlequin ducks and demonstrates how the consequences of oil spills are measured in decades rather than years.

The Exxon Valdez tanker ran aground on the Prince William Sound on March 24, 1989, spilling 10.8 million gallons of crude oil into the sea, covering 1,300 square miles. It is still regarded as one of the most devastating human-caused contamination events, and the effects on wildlife populations and communities have been debated by biologists, ecologists, and the oil industry ever since.

Now, using the biomarker CYP1A, which is induced upon exposure to crude oil, an international team led by Daniel Esler, from the Centre for Wildlife Ecology
, Simon Fraser University, British Columbia, has measured prolonged exposure to oil in local wildlife populations.

“One of the more remarkable and unanticipated findings of recent research is the length of time over which animals were exposed to residual oil. Our research has shown that oil remaining in the area, particularly in inter-tidal areas, was encountered and ingested by some near-shore animals,” said Esler.

The team focused their research on harlequin ducks as an example of such a species. Harlequins are marine birds that live in inter-tidal and shallow sub-tidal areas. Between 1990 and 2005 there were approximately 14,500 ducks in the Prince William Sound area.

“In addition to the higher likelihood of exposure due to their habitat, harlequin ducks have a number of characteristics that makes them particularly sensitive to oil pollution,” said Esler.

“Their diet consists of invertebrates that live in this area and have a limited ability to metabolize residual oil. Also, harlequin ducks have a life history strategy based on high survival rates, as well as a small body size when compared to other sea ducks.

“We found CYP1A levels were unequivocally higher in areas oiled by the Exxon Valdez spill than in nearby areas, a conclusion supported by multiple samples and two independent laboratories. We believe this shows harlequin ducks continued to be exposed to residual oil from the spill through at least 2009, twenty years after the event.

“We believe it is important to recognize that the duration of presence of residual oil and its associated effects are not limited to a few years after spills, but for some vulnerable species may occur over decades,” Esler added.

The study has been published in Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. (ANI)