[House Hearing, 113 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE SCIENCE BEHIND DISCOVERY: SEISMIC EXPLORATION AND THE FUTURE OF
THE ATLANTIC OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF
=======================================================================
OVERSIGHT HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND
MINERAL RESOURCES
of the
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
Friday, January 10, 2014
__________
Serial No. 113-57
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov
or
Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
00-000 PDF WASHINGTON : 2014
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
DOC HASTINGS, WA, Chairman
PETER A. DeFAZIO, OR, Ranking Democratic Member
Don Young, AK Eni F. H. Faleomavaega, AS
Louie Gohmert, TX Frank Pallone, Jr., NJ
Rob Bishop, UT Grace F. Napolitano, CA
Doug Lamborn, CO Rush Holt, NJ
Robert J. Wittman, VA Rauul M. Grijalva, AZ
Paul C. Broun, GA Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU
John Fleming, LA Jim Costa, CA
Tom McClintock, CA Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
Glenn Thompson, PA CNMI
Cynthia M. Lummis, WY Niki Tsongas, MA
Dan Benishek, MI Pedro R. Pierluisi, PR
Jeff Duncan, SC Colleen W. Hanabusa, HI
Scott R. Tipton, CO Tony Caardenas, CA
Paul A. Gosar, AZ Steven A. Horsford, NV
Rauul R. Labrador, ID Jared Huffman, CA
Steve Southerland, II, FL Raul Ruiz, CA
Bill Flores, TX Carol Shea-Porter, NH
Jon Runyan, NJ Alan S. Lowenthal, CA
Markwayne Mullin, OK Joe Garcia, FL
Steve Daines, MT Matt Cartwright, PA
Kevin Cramer, ND Katherine M. Clark, MA
Doug LaMalfa, CA
Jason T. Smith, MO
Vance M. McAllister, LA
Bradley Byrne, AL
Todd Young, Chief of Staff
Lisa Pittman, Chief Legislative Counsel
Penny Dodge, Democratic Staff Director
David Watkins, Democratic Chief Counsel
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES
DOUG LAMBORN, CO, Chairman
RUSH HOLT, NJ, Ranking Democratic Member
Louie Gohmert, TX Steven A. Horsford, NV
Rob Bishop, UT Matt Cartwright, PA
Robert J. Wittman, VA Jim Costa, CA
Paul C. Broun, GA Niki Tsongas, MA
John Fleming, LA Jared Huffman, CA
Glenn Thompson, PA Alan S. Lowenthal, CA
Cynthia M. Lummis, WY Tony Caardenas, CA
Dan Benishek, MI Rauul M. Grijalva, AZ
Jeff Duncan, SC Colleen W. Hanabusa, HI
Paul A. Gosar, AZ Joe Garcia, FL
Bill Flores, TX Vacancy
Steve Daines, MT Vacancy
Kevin Cramer, ND Vacancy
Vacancy Peter A. DeFazio, OR, ex officio
Vacancy
Doc Hastings, WA, ex officio
------
CONTENTS
----------
Page
Hearing held on Friday, January 10, 2014......................... 1
Statement of Members:
Holt, Hon. Rush, a Representative in Congress from the State
of New Jersey.............................................. 4
Prepared statement of.................................... 6
Lamborn, Hon. Doug, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Colorado.......................................... 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 3
Statement of Witnesses:
Barnes, Paul, Manager, Atlantic Canada, Canadian Association
of Petroleum Producers..................................... 12
Prepared statement of.................................... 13
Boesch, Donald F., President, University of Maryland Center
for Environmental Science.................................. 29
Prepared statement of.................................... 31
Cruickshank, Walter, Deputy Director, Bureau of Ocean Energy
Management, U.S. Department of the Interior................ 8
Prepared statement of.................................... 10
Knapp, James H., Ph.D., Chair, USC Faculty Senate and
Professor, Dept. of Earth & Ocean Sciences, School of
Earth, Ocean, & Environment, University of South Carolina.. 16
Prepared statement of.................................... 17
Miller, Richie, President, Spectrum Geo, Inc................. 24
Prepared statement of.................................... 25
Questions submitted for the record from Chairman Lamborn. 28
OVERSIGHT HEARING ON THE SCIENCE BEHIND DISCOVERY: SEISMIC EXPLORATION
AND THE FUTURE OF THE ATLANTIC OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF
----------
Friday, January 10, 2014
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources
Committee on Natural Resources
Washington, DC
----------
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:30 a.m., in
room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Doug Lamborn
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Lamborn, Wittman, Thompson,
Benishek, Duncan, Flores, Holt, Costa, Tsongas, Huffman,
Lowenthal, Hanabusa, and Clark.
Also Present: Representative Pallone.
The Chairman. The committee will come to order. The
committee notes the presence of a quorum, which under Committee
Rule 3(e) is two members.
The Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources is meeting
today to hear testimony on an oversight hearing entitled ``The
Science Behind Discovery: Seismic Exploration and the Future of
the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf.'' Under Committee rule
4(f), opening statements are limited to the Chairman and
Ranking Member of the subcommittee. However, I ask unanimous
consent to include any other members' opening statements in the
hearing record if submitted to the clerk by close of business
today.
Hearing no objection, so ordered.
I also ask unanimous consent that Representative Pallone be
allowed to participate in today's hearing at such time as he
may be able to be here.
Hearing no objection, so ordered. I now recognize myself
for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. DOUG LAMBORN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO
The Chairman. As we begin today's hearing, I want to make
sure that everyone was clear about the focus of this hearing,
particularly in light of recent discussions related to crude
oil exports.
While America is in the beginning of a new energy
renaissance, this committee has continued to focus on the fact
that this resurgence has taken place primarily on State and
private lands. Meanwhile, the potential jobs and domestic
production from Federal land has been stifled by this
administration. If America wants to continue to reap the
economic rewards of increased oil and natural gas production,
we must eliminate the red tape and other barriers that continue
to lock up the vast resources of our Federal lands and waters.
However, the topic of crude oil exports has become an
important discussion point, especially in this past week. I
think we all need to keep in mind that each day, while the
Obama administration continues to hold hostage our domestic
resources, America imports nearly 7.5 million barrels of oil
from Arab sheiks and Latin dictators. This amounts to nearly
one $1 billion each day flowing from the pockets of everyday
Americans to petrol dictators and enemies of America who fund
terrorists around the world.
We have a choice, we can stop buying their oil by producing
more here at home, something I support and something
unfortunately this administration has opposed at almost every
step.
Let me be clear, I support free trade. I also support
America energy independence, and that is a road we are on, but
we are still far from our goal. As long as the administration
continues to stifle our domestic development on Federal lands,
our fight to create jobs and open our resources must be the
focus of our efforts.
As long as American's hard-earned dollars are funding
terrorists and petrol dictators, we must fight to open and
develop our domestic resources, and that fight is not over. I
hope the day comes soon where we can discuss oil exports. But
as long as 85 percent of our Outer Continental Shelf remains
closed by this administration, as long as less than 2 percent
of our Federal onshore mineral estate is available for leasing,
as long as the administration drives out research and
development investment on new sources of energy like domestic
oil shale, those discussions are premature. Our focus should
remain on creating American jobs and producing American
resources for American consumers.
This hearing today is a central focus of that agenda. A
clear understanding of the resources in the Atlantic Ocean will
help us know what areas we should develop and what resources
America holds in our OCS. However, although the process of
developing the Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, or
PEIS, for seismic started in 2009, the Obama administration has
dragged its feet.
Now as we start 2014, we are just 1 year from the start of
the development of the 2017-2022 5-year plan. We are 1 year
from needing the data this PEIS is supposed to help us secure,
yet the development is being stifled by the administration. If
we hope to see the Atlantic included in the next 5-year plan,
the administration must move forward immediately and rapidly.
In any kind of decisionmaking, I think we can all agree
that decisions, especially those which will greatly impact our
Nation's future, must be made with the best available data. In
the case of the Atlantic OCS, the best available data cannot
yet be obtained because we await a final record of decision
from the Department of the Interior. Nearly 5 years ago to the
day, January 21, 2009, the DOI issued the initial Notice of
Intent to prepare the PEIS in order to enable the permitting of
seismic activity in the Atlantic. Dr. Cruickshank will recall
the issuance of this notice as he was with the Department at
the time. When it takes our Canadian allies to the north only 6
months to issue a seismic permit, the obvious question remains:
5 years and counting, when will the U.S. Atlantic finally see
this activity? Five years and counting.
I fully expect that some of my colleagues on the minority
side will likely decry seismic research because, much like our
President, they actually do not wish to see new energy
development in the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf outside of the
Gulf of Mexico. But I would remind them that today's hearing is
focused primarily on sound science and progress. The technology
behind seismic surveying has come a long way from the
technology employed in the late 1970s and early 1980s, when it
was last conducted in the Atlantic.
In an increasing competitive global market, where allies
like Canada and Mexico have made recent announcements about
increasing their offshore oil and gas production, we need to
know that the agencies that oversee our OCS operations are
doing their jobs efficiently and spending taxpayer dollars
wisely. We need to know that our country is maintaining its
competitive edge and attracting economic development and the
thousands of jobs that come with it. A recent study estimates
that offshore energy development in the Atlantic alone could
generate 280,000 jobs, $24 billion per year to the economy, and
1.3 million barrels of oil and natural gas production per day.
What I hope to find today is that the administration is not
standing in the way of permitting advanced and safe technology,
which is already employed in the Gulf of Mexico and the
Canadian Atlantic to scientifically determine what kind of
resources are contained in the Mid- and South Atlantic Outer
Continental Shelf planning areas. These are the only areas that
the PEIS covers. This information is of fundamental importance
as this Congress and this administration make decisions going
forward. I cannot imagine a single person who would choose
ignorance over scientific discovery.
[Prepared statement of Mr. Lamborn follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Hon. Doug Lamborn, Chairman, Subcommittee on
Energy and Mineral Resources
As we begin today's hearing, I wanted to make sure that everyone
was clear about the focus of this hearing--particularly in light of the
recent discussions related to crude oil exports.
While America is in the beginning of a new energy renaissance, this
committee has continued to focus on the fact that this resurgence has
taken place primarily on State and private lands. Meanwhile, the
potential jobs and domestic production from Federal land has been
actively stifled by this administration. If America wants to continue
to reap the economic rewards of increased oil and natural gas
production we must eliminate the red tape and barriers that continue to
lock up the vast resources of our Federal lands and waters.
However, the topic of crude oil exports has become an important
discussion point, especially this past week. I think we all need to
keep in mind that each day, while the Obama administration continues to
hold hostage our domestic resources, America imports nearly 7\1/2\
million barrels of oil from Arab Sheiks and Latin Dictators. This
amounts to nearly $1 billion each day flowing from the pockets of
everyday Americans to petrol dictators and enemies of America who fund
terrorists around the world.
We have a choice, we can stop buying their oil by producing more
here at home, something I support and something this administration has
steadfastly opposed at every step.
Let me be clear, I support free trade. I also support American
energy independence and that is a road that we are on, but we are still
far from our goal. As long as the administration continues to stifle
our domestic development on Federal lands our fight to create jobs and
open our resources must be at the center of our efforts.
As long as American's hard earned dollars are funding terrorists
and petrol dictators we must fight to open and develop our domestic
resources--and that fight is not over. I hope the day will come where
we can discuss oil exports, but as long as 85 percent of our OCS
remains closed by the administration, as long as less than 2 percent of
our Federal onshore mineral estate is available for leasing, as long as
the administration drives out research and development investment in
domestic oil shale, those discussions are premature. Our focus should
remain on creating American jobs and producing American resources for
American consumers.
This hearing today is a central focus of that agenda. A clear
understanding of the resources in the Atlantic Ocean will help us know
what areas we should develop and what resources America holds in our
OCS. However, although the process of developing the Programmatic
Environmental Impact Statement or PEIS for seismic started in 2009, the
Obama administration has actively dragged their feet. Now as we start
2014, we are just 1 year from the start of the development of the 2017-
2022 5-year plan. One year from needing the data this PEIS is supposed
to help us secure, yet the development is being stifled by the
administration. If we hope to see the Atlantic included in the next 5-
year plan, the administration must move forward quickly.
In decisionmaking, I think we can all agree that decisions,
especially those which will greatly impact our Nation's future, must be
made with the best available data. In the case of the Atlantic OCS, the
best available data cannot yet be procured because we await a final
record of decision from the Department of the Interior. Nearly 5 years
ago to the day, January 21, 2009, the DOI issued the initial notice of
intent to prepare the PEIS in order to enable permitting seismic
activity in the Atlantic. Dr. Cruickshank likely will recall the
issuance of this notice as he was with the Department at the time. When
it takes our allies to the North only 6 months to issue a seismic
permit, the obvious question remains: 5 years AND COUNTING, when will
the U.S. Atlantic finally allow this activity?
I fully expect that some of my colleagues on the minority side will
likely decry seismic research because, much like our President, they do
not wish to see new energy development in the U.S. OCS outside of the
Gulf of Mexico. But I would remind them that today's hearing is focused
primarily on sound science and progress. The technology behind seismic
surveying has come a long way from the technology employed in the late
'70s and early '80s--when it was last conducted in the Atlantic. In an
increasingly competitive global market, where allies like Canada and
Mexico have made recent announcements about increasing their offshore
oil and gas production, we need to know that the agencies that oversee
our OCS operations are doing their jobs efficiently and spending
taxpayer dollars wisely. We need to know that our country is
maintaining its competitive edge and attracting economic development
and the thousands of jobs that come with it. A recent study estimates
that offshore energy development in the Atlantic alone could generate
280,000 jobs, $24 billion per year to the economy, and 1.3 million
barrels of oil and natural gas production per day.
What I hope to find today is that we are not spending millions of
taxpayer dollars and countless years to stand in the way of permitting
cutting edge, safe technology which is already employed in the Gulf of
Mexico and the Canadian Atlantic to simply determine what kind of
resources are contained in the Mid- and South Atlantic OCS Planning
Areas--which are the only areas that the PEIS covers. This information
is of fundamental importance as this Congress and this administration
make decisions going forward--and I cannot imagine a single soul that
would choose ignorance over scientific discovery.
______
The Chairman. I now yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
New Jersey.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. RUSH HOLT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Dr. Holt. I thank the Chairman. Before I begin, I would
like to welcome the committee's newest member, Representative
Katherine Clark, filling the seat vacated by long time
committee member and environmental champion, Ed Markey. I would
like to ask unanimous consent to give Ms. Tsongas the
opportunity to introduce our new member.
The Chairman. Seeing no objection, so ordered.
Ms. Tsongas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is my honor to
introduce Congresswoman Katherine Clark, newly elected to
represent Massachusetts' 5th Congressional District, a seat
formerly held with such distinction by our former colleague and
now U.S. Senator Ed Markey.
Katherine brings great experience in elective office,
having previously been a school committeewoman, a State
representative and a State Senator. Congresswoman Clark is a
lawyer by training and as an elected official, is committed to
her constituents, the issues affecting America's families and
to our environment. It is great to have my colleague from
Massachusetts join us on this committee.
Thank you and I yield back.
Dr. Holt. Thank you, Representative Tsongas.
Mr. Chairman, 3 years ago this week the Presidential
Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill and offshore
drilling released its final report on the causes and the
lessons of the tragedy that claimed 11 lives and resulted in
the release of nearly 5 million barrels of oil into the Gulf of
Mexico, which some have called the greatest environmental
disaster in the region ever.
That report concluded that the incident could have been
prevented, that a culture of complacency had taken root with
both drillers and regulators, and that significant reforms were
urgently needed before we moved forward. The Commission made
dozens of recommendations urging the oil and gas industry, the
executive branch and Congress to take immediate action to
assure that the appropriate levels of human safety and
environmental protection were observed.
The Administration and the industry have, in large part,
followed through. With more work needed, we still should fully
enact the recommendations of the Oil Spill Commission.
Congress, however, has lagged behind. In 2012, on the 2-year
anniversary of the Deepwater Horizon explosion, the former
commissioners assigned a grade of D, D as in Delta, to
Congress, saying that ``Congress did nothing about the many
other critical issues the Commission identified to improve
safety and environmental protection.''
One year later the grade jumped to D-plus in recognition of
the passage of the RESTORE Act, but the commissioners stressed
that Congress had ``provided neither the leadership nor the
support'' for efforts to make offshore drilling safer.
Today, we are seeing an example of that lack of leadership
and support from the majority here. The Democrats have made
improving offshore safety a priority since the tragedy. We
passed the CLEAR Act that summer which would have enacted
critical safety and environmental reforms. We brought forward a
bill in 2011 to enact the recommendations of the Oil Spill
Commission. Last year, I introduced the Big Oil Bailout
Prevention Act to raise the recklessly low $75 million
liability cap on offshore spills, and the Ocean Energy Safety
and Technology Improvement Act to adopt recommendations from
the National Academy of Sciences to promote the use of the best
available and safest technology offshore. But the majority's
main priority has been to open up more of our oceans to
drilling. Even the one bill they passed that would have enacted
any of the Commission's recommendations was mainly about
forcing lease sales in new areas, short-circuiting
environmental reviews and putting up roadblocks to public
protests.
Today, they turn their attention to the Atlantic and how to
use seismic exploration as the first step toward opening up the
entire Atlantic seaboard to drilling. I believe that would be a
huge mistake. We should not be risking our fishing and tourism
industries, sustainable industries that bring in over $45
billion each year and support half a million jobs in New Jersey
alone because the energy companies want to get their hands on a
quick oil buck, a little extra oil, that I might add the oil
and gas industry has made clear they would rather export than
use for the benefit of American consumers. Why should the
fisheries, the tourism, the residents, the coastal businesses
of the Atlantic ocean be burdened with all the risks while the
reward goes to the foreign fossil fuel companies and consumers.
It is foolish to rush to open new areas to offshore
drilling before we have heeded the lessons of the last
disaster. Those lessons and those disasters keep coming. Just
in the last 14 months, we have had two major offshore
explosions in shallow water, one of which cost three offshore
workers their lives. There have been a number of other losses
of well control, as Dr. Boesch details in his testimony.
Unfortunately, none of these have motivated the majority to
hold any hearings on shallow-water drilling safety. That is
unfortunate.
It is interesting that the Chairman says that production on
Federal land is down. That is not true. Production on onshore
Federal land is up by 35 percent. And as for offshore drilling,
not only is it not surprising that it takes a while to recover
from the greatest environmental disaster and safety debacle
that we have seen, but we should be going slow to make sure
that we do it right.
This obstinacy by the majority won't stop my efforts to
draw attention to these issues, to push for adoption of
serious, meaningful reforms to make offshore drilling safer,
not just more prevalent.
I thank the witnesses for being here today.
[Prepared statement of Mr. Holt follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Hon. Rush D. Holt, Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources
Mr. Chairman, 3 years ago tomorrow the Presidential Commission on
the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling released its
final report on the causes and lessons of the tragedy that claimed the
lives of 11 offshore workers and resulted in the release of nearly 5
million barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico.
That report concluded that the incident could have been prevented,
that a culture of complacency had taken root with both the drillers and
the regulators, and that significant reforms were urgently needed. The
Commission made dozens of recommendations, urging the oil and gas
industry, the executive branch, and Congress to take immediate action
to assure the appropriate levels of human safety and environmental
protection in offshore drilling.
The Administration and the industry have, in large part, followed
through. While more work needs to be done, they have enacted many of
the recommendations made by the Oil Spill Commission.
Congress, however, has lagged woefully behind. In 2012, on the 2-
year anniversary of the Deepwater Horizon explosion, the former
Commissioners assigned a grade of D to Congress, saying ``Congress did
nothing about the many other critical issues the Commission identified
to improve safety and environmental protection.'' One year later, the
grade jumped to a D+ in recognition of the passage of the RESTORE Act,
but the Commissioners stressed that Congress had ``provided neither the
leadership nor support'' for efforts to make offshore drilling safer.
Today we are seeing an example of that lack of leadership and
support from the Republican side. Committee Democrats have made
improving offshore safety a priority since the tragic events of April
2010. We passed the CLEAR Act that summer, which would have enacted
critical safety and environmental reforms. We brought forward a bill in
2011 to enact the recommendations of the Oil Spill Commission. Last
year, I introduced the Big Oil Bailout Prevention Act to raise the
recklessly low $75 million liability cap on offshore spills, and the
Ocean Energy Safety and Technology Improvement Act to adopt
recommendations from the National Academy of Sciences to promote the
use of best available and safest technology offshore.
But the Majority's main priority is opening up more of our oceans
to drilling. Even the one bill they passed that would have enacted any
of the Commission's recommendations was mainly about forcing lease
sales in new areas, short-circuiting environmental reviews, and putting
up roadblocks to public protests.
Today, they turn their attention to the Atlantic, and how to use
seismic exploration as the first step toward opening the entire
Atlantic seaboard to drilling. I believe that would be a huge mistake.
We should not be risking our fishing and tourism industries--
sustainable industries that bring in over $45 billion each year and
support over a half million jobs in New Jersey alone--because the
energy companies want to get their hands on a little extra oil.
A little extra oil that, I might add, the oil and gas industry has
made clear they would rather export than use for the benefit of
American consumers, which some Republicans have said they would be more
than happy to allow them to do.
It is foolish to discuss opening new areas to offshore drilling
before we have heeded the lessons of the last disaster. Unfortunately,
those lessons and those disasters keep coming. Just in the past 14
months there have been two major offshore explosions in shallow water,
one of which cost three offshore workers their lives. There have also
been a number of other losses of well control, as Dr. Boesch details in
his testimony. Unfortunately, none of these have motivated the majority
to hold any hearings on shallow-water drilling safety.
I believe that is unfortunate, but it will not stop my efforts to
draw attention to these issues, and to push for adoption of serious,
meaningful reforms to make offshore drilling safer, instead of more
prevalent.
I thank the witnesses for being here today, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
______
The Chairman. OK, I thank the gentleman. I would like to
remind everyone that the subject of the hearing today is on the
PEIS for the Mid- and South Atlantic areas only. These are the
planning areas for the next 5-year plan.
OK. We will now hear from our witnesses. I will recognize
Representative Duncan for a brief introduction of his witness
from South Carolina.
Mr. Duncan. I want to thank the Chairman for this
opportunity to introduce to the committee a fellow South
Carolinian whom I have had the pleasure of meeting in Columbia,
Dr. James Knapp.
Dr. Knapp is a professor of the Department of Earth and
Ocean Sciences at the University of South Carolina specializing
in the areas of structural geology, tectonics, geophysics and
petroleum geology. He received a Bachelor of Science degree
with Distinction in Geology from Stanford University and a
Ph.D. in Structural Geology and Tectonics from MIT.
Before arriving at the University of South Carolina as an
associate professor in 1998, Dr. Knapp spent several years
working in the petroleum industry, both as a research and
exploration geologist and as a member of the research faculty
at Cornell University. He brings to the committee today
expertise on seismic reflection and refraction data, structural
analysis and geological data, as well as the application of
geological and geophysical analysis for the exploration and
production of hydrocarbons.
Dr. Knapp is married to Dr. Camellia Knapp, also of the
Department of Earth and Ocean Sciences at USC where they are
proud parents of two daughters. It is an honor to have him here
today. Welcome, Dr. Knapp, and I look forward to your
testimony.
The Chairman. Thank you. I would like to now welcome the
remainder of the panel. Dr. Walter Cruickshank, Deputy Director
of the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management; Mr. Paul Barnes,
manager for Atlantic Canada and with the Canadian Association
of Petroleum Producers; Mr. Richie Miller, President of
Spectrum Geo, Inc.; and Dr. Donald F. Boesch, President of the
University of Maryland Center For Environmental Science. Thank
you all for being here.
Like all of our witnesses, your written testimony will
appear in full in the hearing record, so I ask that you keep
your oral statements to 5 minutes. Our microphones are not
automatic so you need to turn them on when you are ready to
begin.
I also want to explain how our timing lights work. When you
begin to speak our clerk will start the timer and a green light
will appear. After 4 minutes, a yellow light will appear and at
that time you should begin to conclude your statement. At 5
minutes, the red light will come on.
Mr. Cruickshank, you may begin. Thank you again, all of
you, for being here. If I could say one other thing first, we
will try to conclude the hearing before votes. However, if
those happen faster than we were anticipating, we may have to
take a recess and come back. This is an important topic. We
want to hear your testimony and we want to have adequate
opportunity for all of us to be able to ask our questions.
Thank you very much.
Dr. Cruickshank.
STATEMENT OF WALTER CRUICKSHANK, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF
OCEAN ENERGY MANAGEMENT, U.S. DEPT. OF THE INTERIOR
Mr. Cruickshank. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
Holt and members of the subcommittee, and thank you for the
invitation today to discuss the programmatic environmental
impact statement for geological and geophysical activities on
the Mid- and South Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf.
The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management is preparing a
programmatic EIS to evaluate reasonably foreseeable
environmental effects of multiple G&G surveys in the Mid- and
South Atlantic. BOEM was directed to develop this programmatic
EIS under the conference report for 2010 Interior
appropriations. As described in the current 5-year program for
offshore oil and gas leasing, the completion of this EIS is
part of a region-specific strategy with respect to safe and
responsible oil and gas exploration in the Mid- and South
Atlantic that focuses on the need to update information in
order to inform future decisions about whether, and if so,
where, leasing would be appropriate in these areas.
The proposed action analyzed in the EIS is to permit G&G
activities in support of potential oil and gas exploration and
development, renewable energy, and marine mineral activities in
the Mid- and South Atlantic planning areas.
The programmatic EIS is being prepared because BOEM
currently has no NEPA coverage for permitting G&G activities in
the Atlantic. BOEM has received 13 permit requests from 9
companies for seismic air gun surveys in the Mid- and South
Atlantic to support oil and gas exploration. Given the scope of
the proposed surveys and their potential impact, BOEM
determined that a programmatic EIS is needed prior to
permitting any significant new G&G surveys.
The offshore oil and gas industry is interested in
acquiring modern G&G data and information because of the
limitation of existing information which was acquired decades
ago with now outdated technology. Modern technology allows for
visualization and analysis of what lies beneath the seabed to
greater depths and with greater clarity.
The surveys being analyzed in the programmatic EIS would
allow for better understanding of the location and significance
of potential oil and gas resources, inform engineering
decisions regarding the construction of renewable energy
projects, and support estimates regarding the composition and
volume of marine mineral resources used for coastal restoration
projects. This information would also be used to ensure the
proper use and conservation of OCS energy resources and the
receipt of fair value for any leases that might be offered in
the future.
The main purposes of the programmatic EIS are to evaluate
the potential environmental effects of multiple G&G activities
in the Mid- and South Atlantic and to define mitigation and
monitoring measures that would reduce or eliminate potential
impacts. BOEM uses the best available science and follows the
guidance of experts and other regulatory agencies such as the
National Marine Fisheries Service. BOEM has also spent nearly
$40 million over the last decade on research to better
understand the potential for acoustic impacts on marine life
from geophysical sound sources.
BOEM has also conducted programmatic consultation with NMFS
and the Fish and Wildlife Service to assess impacts to
endangered species in the central fish habitat. The results of
these consultations will be considered in any decisions made by
BOEM.
Further, if seismic surveys are allowed to go forward,
operators must obtain and authorization from NMFS to assure
compliance with the Marine Mammal Protection Act before BOEM
issues a permit. These collective environmental compliance
efforts help ensure that any activity that ultimately may be
authorized do not rise to the level of jeopardizing populations
or destroying important habitat.
An EIS of this scale and interest is a significant
undertaking. The draft programmatic EIS was published in March
of 2012 with a 90-day public comment period. We received over
55,000 comments, many with constructive and substantive
suggestions. Responding to these comments involved a great deal
of time, analysis and expertise.
During the development of this programmatic EIS, there has
also been a significant amount of coordination with other
Federal agencies with relevant expertise and authorities. BOEM
completed a consultation with NMFS under the Endangered Species
Act, an important consultation given the presence of the
endangered North Atlantic right whale throughout the proposed
action area. The resulting biological opinion was issued in
July 2013 contributing to the time taken to finalize this EIS.
Both the programmatic EIS and the biological opinion will be
used to support any future permit-specific environmental
analyses.
Prior to the October government shutdown, BOEM was on
target to release the final programmatic EIS on January 3rd.
The shutdown occurred during a critical review time for
finalizing the analysis and required the issuance of a stop
work order to the contractor supporting our work. As a result,
substantial momentum was lost and the schedule for publishing
the EIS set back.
We are now on track to publish the final programmatic EIS
by the end of February. Finalizing this document is a high
priority for the Department and BOEM. This is a critical
analysis relating to the safe and responsible acquisition of
G&G data, and we expect that the collection of new seismic
information will inform future decisionmaking about potential
offshore leasing in the Atlantic.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I would be happy to answer any
questions.
The Chairman. OK, thank you.
[Prepared statement of Mr. Cruickshank follows:]
Prepared Statement of Walter Cruickshank, Deputy Director, Bureau of
Ocean Energy Management, U.S. Department of the Interior
Chairman Lamborn, Ranking Member Holt, and members of the
subcommittee, I am pleased to appear before you today to discuss the
Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) for Geological and
Geophysical (G&G) Activities in the Mid- and South Atlantic Outer
Continental Shelf (OCS).
background
The Department of the Interior's Bureau of Ocean Energy Management
(BOEM) is preparing a PEIS to evaluate reasonably foreseeable
environmental effects of multiple G&G survey activities in the Mid- and
South Atlantic OCS, pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA). BOEM was directed to develop this PEIS under the Conference
Report for the Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010 (Report 111-316). As described in the
current Five Year Program for offshore oil and gas leasing, the
completion of this PEIS is part of a region-specific strategy with
respect to safe and responsible oil and gas exploration and development
in the Mid- and South Atlantic that focuses on the need to update
information in order to inform future decisions about whether, and if
so where, leasing would be appropriate in these areas.
The proposed action analyzed in the PEIS is to permit G&G
activities in support of potential responsible oil and gas exploration
and development, renewable energy, and marine minerals in the Mid- and
South Atlantic Planning Areas. This PEIS is being prepared because BOEM
currently has no programmatic NEPA coverage for permitting G&G
activities in Atlantic OCS waters. BOEM has received 13 permit requests
from 9 companies for seismic airgun surveys in support of oil and gas
exploration, and industry has expressed interest in expanding
activities into Atlantic offshore waters. The PEIS also covers G&G
activities necessary to support renewable energy projects and the
identification of sand and gravel resources for coastal restoration
projects, including in response to damage from Hurricane Sandy. Given
the scope of the proposed surveys and their potential impacts, BOEM
determined a programmatic EIS under NEPA is needed prior to permitting
any new, significant G&G surveys.
The offshore oil and gas industry is interested in acquiring modern
G&G data and information because of the limitations of existing
information, which was acquired decades ago with now outdated
technology. From 1966 to 1988, 2-dimensional (2D) seismic data were
acquired in all areas of the Atlantic. The technology for acquiring and
interpreting this data has been eclipsed by newer instrumentation and
technology. Modern 2D and 3D data sets are acquired using better
acoustic sources and longer receiving cables to better define subsea
stratigraphy. In short, these advances in G&G technology allow for
visualization and analysis of what lies beneath the seabed to greater
depths and with greater clarity. The surveys being analyzed in the PEIS
would allow for better understanding of the location and significance
of potential oil and gas resources, inform engineering decisions
regarding the construction of renewable energy projects, and support
estimates regarding the composition and volume of marine mineral
resources. This information would also be used to ensure the proper use
and conservation of OCS energy resources and the receipt of fair value
to the American people for any leases that could be offered in the
future.
potential environmental effects and mitigation
The main purposes of the PEIS are to evaluate the potential
environmental effects of multiple G&G activities in the Mid- and South
Atlantic and to define mitigation and monitoring measures that would
reduce or eliminate potential impacts. BOEM uses the best available
science and follows the guidance of experts and other regulatory
agencies, such as the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). BOEM
has contributed nearly $40 million over the last decade on ground-
breaking research to better understand the potential for acoustic
impacts to marine life from geophysical sound sources. BOEM has also
conducted numerous expert stakeholder workshops to discuss and identify
further information needs on acoustic impacts.
BOEM also is pursuing programmatic consultations with NMFS and U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service to assess impacts under the Endangered
Species Act (ESA) and the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation
Management Act (MSFCMA). The results of these consultations will be
considered in any decisions made by BOEM. Further, if seismic surveys
are allowed to go forward, BOEM will confer with NMFS to assure
compliance with the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) before issuing
any permits. These collective environmental compliance efforts (e.g.,
NEPA, ESA, MMPA, MSFCMA) help ensure that any activities that may
ultimately be authorized do not rise to the level of jeopardizing
populations or destroying important habitat.
final peis
A PEIS of this scale and interest is a significant undertaking. The
draft PEIS was published for public comment on March 30, 2012, and the
comment period closed on July 2, 2012, reflecting an extended 90-day
period per commenter requests. Over 55,000 comments were received from
a variety of industry, government and non-government stakeholder groups
and the general public, many with constructive, substantive
suggestions. Responding to these comments, therefore, involved a great
deal of time, analysis and expertise.
During the development of the PEIS, there has also been a
significant amount of coordination with other Federal agencies with
relevant expertise and authorities in the Atlantic OCS. BOEM completed
a consultation with NMFS under the ESA, an important consultation given
the presence of the endangered North Atlantic right whale in the
proposed action area. The resulting NMFS Biological Opinion was issued
on July 19, 2013, which accounts, in part, for the time taken to
finalize the PEIS. Both the PEIS and the ESA biological opinions will
be used to support any future permit-specific environmental analyses.
Prior to the October government shutdown, BOEM was on target to
release the final PEIS on January 3, 2014. The shutdown occurred during
a critical review time for finalizing the PEIS and required the
issuance of a stop work order to the contractor supporting BOEM's work
on the PEIS. As a result, substantial momentum was lost and the
schedule for publishing the PEIS set back. BOEM is now on track to
publish the final PEIS by the end of February 2014.
conclusion
Finalizing the PEIS is a high priority for the Department and BOEM.
The PEIS is a critical analysis relating to the safe and responsible
acquisition of G&G data, and we expect that the new collection of new
seismic information will inform future decisionmaking about potential
offshore leasing in the Atlantic.
Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for inviting me to appear before
your committee. I look forward to working with you as we advance these
important issues.
______
The Chairman. Mr. Barnes.
STATEMENT OF PAUL BARNES, MANAGER, ATLANTIC CANADA, CANADIAN
ASSOCIATION OF PETROLEUM PRODUCERS
Mr. Barnes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank
you for the invitation as well to bring a Canadian perspective
to your subcommittee on this issue.
I represent the Canadian Association of Petroleum
Producers, which is an association of oil and gas companies
involved in exploration, development and production of oil and
gas in Canada. Our members produce about 90 percent of Canada's
natural gas and crude oil. Our head office is located in
Calgary, Alberta, but we have a regional office based in St.
John's, Newfoundland, which represents the Atlantic Canada
region and primarily is involved in the offshore for Canada,
and that is where I am based and represent. Our association is
very similar to the American Petroleum Institute here in the
United States.
Exploration for offshore oil and gas began off of Atlantic
Canada in the 1960s, with the first offshore seismic program
being undertaken in 1964. Since then, over 3 million
kilometers, or approximately 1.9 million miles of seismic data
has been acquired. This seismic data has led to a number of
major discoveries of oil and gas in offshore Newfoundland and
Labrador and of natural gas off of Nova Scotia, and those
discoveries have brought substantial benefits to this area of
Atlantic Canada.
Currently, our industry employs over 7,000 people directly
and thousands more indirectly, and we have had cumulative
expenditures since 1996 of over $31 billion in Newfoundland and
Labrador from oil and gas activity and over $8 billion in Nova
Scotia associated with that activity. And our impact on gross
domestic product is huge, over 30 percent actually in
Newfoundland and Labrador, which means a substantial amount of
our activity is driven from oil and gas.
We have five major oil and gas production projects
undergoing off of Atlantic Canada, three of which are oil and
two of which are natural gas, and most of the product is
actually exported here to the United States. There are also new
basins as well that are opening up for exploration activity all
along the Newfoundland and Nova Scotia area.
As you are aware, seismic surveys provide information on
the depth, position and shape of underground geological
formations that may contain oil and gas. Data is processed to
improve the quality and filter out any background noise and the
end result is a detailed picture of the underground structures
and rock formations in the survey area.
Why are seismic surveys conducted? Well, they certainly
help the oil and gas companies determine or decide whether the
available information is sufficient to justify drilling an
exploratory well or if additional surveys are needed to better
define structures before drilling, or if the features present
are not attractive enough to warrant further interest.
One of the concerns often expressed in Canada about
offshore seismic acquisitions is what are the impacts of
seismic surveys on marine life? While there has been
substantial research that has been conducted to determine the
impact on ocean life and additional research is ongoing,
current research has indicated there is minimal risk of
mortality in marine mammals, fish and invertebrates,
invertebrates being species such as crab, shrimp, lobster,
those type of things.
Marine mammals, depending on the species and proximity, can
experience temporary changes to hearing thresholds. Research
has also indicated that there has been no mortality among
invertebrates and that government, academia and industry
continue to invest in research related to seismic impacts to
further broaden the body of knowledge.
Recognizing there is concern, industry has undertaken a
number of mitigation measures to reduce some of the risks
associated with seismic activity. For example, air source
arrays must be shut down immediately if an endangered marine
mammal or sea turtle is observed within 500 meters or half a
mile of a seismic vessel. Surveys must also be planned to avoid
dispersion of any groups of spawning fish from known spawning
areas.
Also seismic surveys in Atlantic Canada are scheduled
during optimum weather conditions, which tends to be between
June and September, largely because of the wave heights
experienced in Atlantic Canada. Those are the very same months,
of course, that there is an awful lot of offshore fishing
activity, and we have put industry mitigation efforts in place
to avoid conflict with the fishing industry. We have
communication, direct communication with them, to allow them to
understand where seismic activity is taking place. We have a
single point of contact with the operator so that the fishing
industry can have a specific person to speak with. We also have
examiners on seismic vessels from the fishing industry so they
can resolve any situations that may occur.
In conclusion, I wish to thank you for the invitation to
present in front of you today. We have had seismic activity off
of Canada for many, many years and have seen no impact and our
activity continues.
The Chairman. Thank you for your testimony.
[Prepared statement of Mr. Barnes follows:]
Prepared Statement of Paul Barnes, Manager, Atlantic Canada, Canadian
Association of Petroleum Producers
Marine Seismic Surveys: The Search for Oil and Gas Offshore Atlantic
Canada
canadian association of petroleum producers (capp)
Represents Canadian upstream oil and gas sector
(approximately 100 member companies)
Members explore for, develop and produce natural gas,
natural gas liquids, crude oil, and oil sands throughout
Canada
Members produce about 90 percent of Canada's natural gas
and crude oil
Key focus areas:
-- Education
-- Communications and outreach
-- Policy and regulatory advocacy
-- Industry performance
Offices in St. John's, Ottawa, Calgary and Victoria
atlantic canada offshore
Bringing substantial benefits to region:
-- Directly employs over 7,000 people (thousands more
indirectly)
-- Supports over 800 local supply/service companies
-- Cumulative expenditures since 1996--over $31 billion in
NL, over $8 billion in NS
-- Impact of production on provincial Gross Domestic Product
(GDP)
* Oil production accounts for 30 percent GDP in NL
* Mining and oil and gas production account for 2
percent of GDP in NS
Five producing projects
Exploration ongoing
what is a marine seismic survey?
Uses sound energy to map geological structures under the
seabed
Vessels tow devices that use compressed air to produce
pulses of high energy, low frequency sound waves
Sound waves can penetrate more than 6,000 metres below the
sea floor
Travel through the water and into the rock layers beneath
the seabed
Bounce back to receivers (``hydrophones'') that measure
strength and return time
Types of seismic surveys:
-- Two dimensional (2D): Uses one sound source and one set
of receivers
-- Three dimensional (3D): Uses multiple synchronized sound
sources and hydrophones
-- Four dimensional (4D): Uses multiple synchronized sound
sources and hydrophones with the added dimension of time (i.e.,
a 3D survey is conducted multiple times over the same location
at different periods to compare data)
-- Geohazard or well site survey: Uses one sound source and
one set of receivers towed over a small area prior to drilling
to check for possible hazards
-- Vertical Seismic Profiles: Hydrophones are lowered into a
drilled well and sound is produced at the surface to give a
detailed view of the geology near the well bore
why are seismic surveys conducted?
Seismic surveys provide information on the depth, position
and shape of underground geological formations that may
contain oil or gas
Data is processed to improve the quality and filter out
background ``noise''
End result is a detailed picture of the structures and
rock formations in the survey area
Geophysicists look for specific features that could
indicate whether oil or gas might be present:
-- Sedimentary basins
-- Faults
-- Ancient reefs or buried former beaches
Seismic surveys help companies decide whether:
-- The available information is sufficient to justify
drilling an exploratory well
-- Additional surveys are needed to better define the
structures before drilling
-- The features present are not attractive enough to warrant
further interest
Survey results do not show definitively whether oil or gas
are present
what are the impacts of seismic surveys on marine life?
Substantial research has been conducted to determine
whether seismic surveys have an impact on ocean life and
additional research is ongoing:
-- Current research indicated there is minimal risk of
mortality in marine mammals, fish and invertebrates
-- Marine mammals, depending on species and proximity, can
experience temporary changes to hearing thresholds and in some
extreme cases these effects can be permanent
-- Laboratory research conducted in NL show no mortality
among invertebrates (crab, shrimp, scallop, etc.) but showed
some non-life threatening physical effects
-- Governments, academia and industry continue to invest in
research to further broaden the body of knowledge
Carefully designed mitigation measures are applied to
seismic surveys to minimize risk to marine life
environmental protection
Comprehensive Environmental Assessments (EAs) are
completed prior to conducting surveys which must be
approved by regulators
Seismic vessels and their operators are guided by the
Statement of Canadian Practice with Respect to Mitigation
of Seismic Sound in the Marine Environment
-- Outlines mitigation measures that must be considered in
the planning of seismic surveys
-- Examples:
* Air source arrays must be shut down immediately if
an endangered marine mammal or sea turtle is observed
within 500 metres
* Surveys must be planned to avoid dispersion of
groups of spawning fish from known spawning areas
impact on fishing and marine industries
Seismic surveys in the Atlantic Canada offshore must be
scheduled during optimal weather conditions (June to
September) because:
-- Surveys cannot take place if waves are higher than 3
metres
-- Rough seas affect quality of data
June to September is also peak fishing season in Atlantic
Canada
Effective communication and coordination between petroleum
and fishing industries is critical
proactive mechanisms in place to minimize potential conflicts between
both industries
Fishing industry advised of marine seismic survey activity
through direct communication and communiquees with fishing
industry members, public service announcements, etc.
In NL a single point of contact is appointed by the
operator that fishers can go to for precise information
about geographic location and potential impacts
A fisheries liaison officer (FLO) may be required on board
the seismic vessel--the FLO communicates directly with
fishing vessels in the field to resolve situations where
overlap and conflicts could occur
Working with the fishing industry:
-- In NL, One Ocean was created as a communication and
liaison organization between fishing and petroleum industries
-- Fisheries advisory committee in NS advises regulator on
minimizing impact on fishing industry
Compensation programs in place for damage to fishing
vessels or gear
more information available at:
www.capp.ca
www.oneocean.ca
______
The Chairman. Dr. Knapp.
STATEMENT OF JAMES H. KNAPP, Ph.D., CHAIR, USC FACULTY SENATE
AND PROFESSOR, DEPT. OF EARTH & OCEAN SCIENCES, SCHOOL OF
EARTH, OCEAN, & ENVIRONMENT, UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Dr. Knapp. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
the opportunity to be with you here today, and thank you,
Congressman Duncan, for the very generous introduction. It is
my great pleasure and high honor to be here this morning, and I
thank you as well as the Ranking Member and the other members
of the committee for this opportunity.
For the record, I am James H. Knapp, professor in the
Department of Earth and Ocean Sciences in the School of the
Earth, Ocean and Environment at the University of South
Carolina, and I currently serve as the Chair of the Faculty
Senate at the University of South Carolina Columbia campus.
At the risk of some repetition from the introduction, by
way of background, I was born and raised in California, have
lived in 6 and traveled to 49 States of this great country of
ours, and through my profession as an Earth scientist, I have
worked in or visited more than 40 countries. I hold a Bachelor
of Science degree with distinction in geological sciences from
Stanford University, and a Ph.D. in geology from the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
From 1988 to 1991, I worked with Shell Oil, both in
Houston, Texas, and in New Orleans, Louisiana, where I
participated directly in oil and gas exploration in the Gulf of
Mexico. For more than 20 years since then, my research team and
I have carried out both fundamental and applied research in the
design, acquisition, processing and interpretation of seismic
surveys, both onshore and offshore.
Marine seismic surveys have been carried out in the United
States and internationally for decades and represent the single
most important tool for evaluating oil and gas potential in the
subsurface. These surveys employ acoustic or sound energy to
interrogate the subsurface of the Earth in much the same way
that a doctor images the interior of a human body with a CAT,
or a computerized axial tomography scan.
In the early days of seismic surveying, a typical success
rate for wildcat wells was around 3 in 10. With the advent of
3D seismic surveys and in some cases even 4D seismic surveys,
the success rate is now typically 7 out of 10, greatly changing
our ability to evaluate subsurface resources.
In most cases, we now have significant confidence in not
only the presence of a petroleum resource, but also the
estimated volume and consequently the economic value of that
resource before ever spudding a well, primarily as a result of
seismic technology. In addition, scientific work within our
research group in the past several years using onshore seismic
and well data has called into question more than 30 years of
research on the Atlantic continental margin, suggesting that
many previous interpretations of the geologic evolution were in
error, and accordingly, so potentially is the estimate of the
resource potential.
One of the most commonly cited criticisms of marine seismic
operations is the punitive and adverse effect acoustic energy
has on marine life and in particular, on marine mammals.
Established in 1991, the Working Group on Marine Mammal Unusual
Mortality Events under the aegis of the Office of Protected
Resources with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, has formally identified a total of 60 marine
mammal UMEs, unusual mortality events, in U.S. waters over the
last 23 years.
In most cases, 29 of those 60, where a cause has been
determined, infections and/or biotoxins were indicated. Of the
60 UMEs, not a single one has been attributed to marine seismic
operations.
The incidence of UMEs is statistically the same between the
Atlantic, Pacific and Gulf of Mexico regions during a period
when extensive commercial seismic surveys have been conducted
in the Gulf of Mexico, but not on the Atlantic and Pacific
margins. The two States with the most declared UMEs are
California and Florida, neither of which has been the site of
commercial marine seismic acquisition during the period in
which records have been compiled. These data, along with
others, suggest that the contention that marine seismic surveys
result in mass mortality events of marine mammals is likely a
chimera.
The most recent estimates by the Bureau of Ocean Energy
Management for the resource potential on the Atlantic OCS range
from about 3.5 to 18 billion barrels of oil equivalent. Using
seismic data from pre-1988, these estimates are undoubtedly
conservative and lack the analysis which would be afforded
through new state-of-the-art seismic data.
We face a truly historic opportunity to fairly evaluate the
energy and mineral resource base of the Atlantic OCS through
acquisition of new seismic surveys. In South Carolina, we are
working to establish the Atlantic Coast Center for Energy
Sustainability through Science and Engineering, or ACCESSE. Our
vision is to develop a sustainable energy industry based on
conventional, unconventional, renewable and alternative energy
for South Carolina and the Southeastern region, helping to
train a workforce and creating jobs based on locally derived
energy resources.
There could be no more important first step than to
initiate new seismic surveys on the Atlantic OCS, and we stand
ready and able to help move that effort forward in the regional
and national interest.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to be
here and I will answer any questions.
The Chairman. We appreciate your testimony.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Knapp follows:]
Prepared Statement of James H. Knapp, Ph.D., Professor, School of
Earth, Ocean & Environment, University of South Carolina
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and thank you both for the introduction
and for the invitation to appear before this subcommittee today. It is
my great pleasure and high honor to be here, and I thank you, as well
as the Ranking Member and the other members of the committee for this
opportunity. For the record, I am James H. Knapp, Professor in the
Department of Earth and Ocean Sciences in the School of the Earth,
Ocean, and Environment at the University of South Carolina, and I
currently serve as Chair of the Faculty Senate at the University of
South Carolina Columbia campus.
educational and professional background
By way of background, I was born and raised in California, have
lived in 6 and traveled to 49 States, and through my profession as an
Earth scientist, have worked in or visited more than 40 countries. I
hold a Bachelor of Science degree with distinction in geological
sciences from Stanford University, and a Ph.D. in geology from the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology. From 1988 to 1991 I worked with
Shell Oil, where I participated directly in oil and gas exploration in
the Gulf of Mexico. For more than 20 years since then, my research team
and I have carried out both fundamental and applied research in the
design, acquisition, processing, and interpretation of seismic surveys,
both onshore and offshore.
marine seismic surveying
Marine seismic surveys have been carried out in the United States
and internationally for decades, and represent the single most
important tool for evaluating oil and gas potential in the subsurface.
These surveys employ acoustic, or sound, energy to interrogate the
subsurface of the Earth, in much the same way that a doctor images the
interior of a human body with a CAT (computerized axial tomography)
scan (Figures 1 and 2). In the early days of seismic surveying, the
typical success rate for wildcat wells was around 3 in 10. With the
advent of 3-D seismic surveys, the success rate is now typically 7 out
of 10, greatly changing our ability to evaluate subsurface resources.
In most cases, we now have significant confidence in not only the
presence of a petroleum resource, but also the estimated volume and
consequently the economic value of that resource before ever spudding a
well, primarily as a result of seismic technology.
In addition, scientific work within our research group in the past
several years, using onshore seismic and well data, has called into
question more than 30 years of research on the Atlantic continental
margin, suggesting that many previous interpretations of the geologic
evolution were in error, and accordingly, so is the estimate of the
resource potential.
ume (unusual mortality events)
One of the most commonly cited criticisms of marine seismic
operations is the putative adverse effect acoustic energy has on marine
life, and in particular on marine mammals. Established in 1991, The
Working Group on Marine Mammal Unusual Mortality Events under the aegis
of the Office of Protected Resources with the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has formally identified a total of 60
marine mammal UMEs in U.S. waters over the last 23 years (Figure 3). In
most cases (29) where a cause has been determined, infections and/or
biotoxins were indicated (Figure 4). Of the 60 UMEs, not a single one
has been attributed to marine seismic operations.
The incidence of UMEs is statistically the same between the
Atlantic, Pacific, and Gulf of Mexico regions (Figure 5), during a
period when extensive commercial seismic surveys have been conducted in
the GOM, but not on the Atlantic and Pacific margins. The two States
with the most declared UMEs are California and Florida, neither of
which has been the site of commercial marine seismic acquisition during
the period in which the records have been compiled. These data, along
with others (Figure 6) suggest that the contention that marine seismic
surveys result in mass mortality events of marine mammals is likely a
chimera.
economic potential of the atlantic ocs
The most recent estimates by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management
for the resource potential on the Atlantic OCS range from 3.5-18 Bboe.
Using seismic data from pre-1988, these estimates are undoubtedly
conservative, and lack the analysis which would be afforded through
new, state-of-the-art seismic data. We face a truly historic
opportunity to fairly evaluate the energy and mineral resource base of
the Atlantic OCS through acquisition of new seismic surveys. In South
Carolina, we are working to establish the Atlantic Coast Center for
Energy Sustainability through Science and Engineering (ACCESSE). Our
vision is to develop a sustainable energy industry based on
conventional, unconventional, renewable, and alternative energy for
South Carolina and the southeastern region, helping to train a
workforce and creating jobs based on locally derived energy resources.
There could be no more important first step than to initiate new
seismic surveys on the Atlantic OCS, and we stand ready and able to
help move that effort forward in the regional and national interest.
acknowledgements
Members of the Tectonics and Geophysics Lab (TGL) (Figure 8)
contributed to this document, including Mr. Andrew Pollack and Ms.
Susie Boote.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairman. Mr. Miller.
STATEMENT OF RICHIE MILLER, PRESIDENT, SPECTRUM GEO, INC.
Mr. Miller. Chairman Lamborn, Ranking Member Holt and
members of the subcommittee, good morning. I appreciate the
opportunity to be here today to discuss the need for America to
better understand our offshore oil and gas resources,
specifically those in the Atlantic.
My name is Richie Miller. I am president of Spectrum Geo,
Inc., a company providing seismic data to oil and gas
exploration and production companies worldwide. We are
headquartered in Houston, Texas. Spectrum is a member of the
International Association of Geophysical Contractors, the trade
association of the global geophysical industry, and a member of
the National Ocean Industries Association, which represents all
segments of the offshore energy industry. We appreciate the
committee's attention to this issue and we are pleased that
Congress is looking into this matter for the Nation's continued
progress toward energy security and economic growth.
Whether in private business or government, the best
decisions are made when we have the best available data. This
is true of our Nation's oil and gas resources. It only makes
sense for us to understand what the resource base and resource
value is as the Federal Government begins developing the next
OCS 5-year leasing plan. The best tool to do this is seismic.
The benefits of modern seismic surveys are numerous. They
make offshore energy production safer and more efficient by
greatly reducing the drilling of unsuccessful dry holes. We no
longer explore with the drill bit. Seismic surveys make this
possible.
To better understand the resource potential in the
Atlantic, we need to acquire modern seismic data. The last
surveys of the Atlantic OCS were conducted over 30 years ago.
Older, low-tech data that exists does not image medium to deep
plays and does not image the basin's architecture, which is
imperative to understanding the Atlantic margin play.
But before new seismic data can be acquired in the
Atlantic, BOEM must complete a programmatic environmental
impact statement. A record of decision, or ROD, was initially
proposed to be released earlier. However, we now understand
that that ROD is scheduled for March or April of this year. It
will take at least a year after the EIS is issued before new
seismic data is in hand. It is critical to have new seismic
data to help inform future Atlantic leasing decisions. With
DOI's initial work on the next 5-year plan for 2017-22
beginning later this year, time is of the essence.
Recently BOEM officials have indicated that the delay in
obtaining new seismic data does not preclude them from
ultimately including new areas such as the Atlantic in the next
5-year plan. We appreciate this perspective and agree that the
next 5-year plan should be guided by modern survey data.
The seismic industry has demonstrated for more than 40
years its ability to operate seismic exploration activities in
an environmentally safe and responsible manner. Contrary to
recent statements by critics who oppose opening the Atlantic,
the oil and gas industry has demonstrated the ability to
operate seismic activities in a manner that protects marine
life, as recently affirmed in a statement from the National
Marine Fisheries Service.
I also want to underscore what is at stake for our country
and why this issue matters to your constituents. A recent study
produced by Quest Offshore for NOIA and API finds that opening
the Atlantic to oil and natural gas exploration and development
would generate $51 billion in new Federal and State revenue,
generate nearly 280,000 jobs, contribute $23 billion per year
to the U.S. economy, and could produce an incremental 1.3
million barrels of oil equivalent per day, which would reduce
our need for imported oil.
The Nation's energy and economic security demands that
these Atlantic resources be safely explored and developed, and
the process begins with acquiring new seismic data. We cannot
afford to blindly make decisions regarding the future of oil
and gas leasing in the Atlantic. Americans deserve public
policy decisions that are made based on the best information
possible. Modern seismic surveys provide that information.
Let's allow science to help us understand what resources we
have and work together to enhance our energy and economic
security.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify before this
subcommittee.
The Chairman. Thank you for your testimony.
[Prepared statement of Mr. Miller follows:]
Prepared Statement of Richie Miller, President, Spectrum Geo, Inc.
Chairman Lamborn, Ranking Member Holt, members of the subcommittee:
Good afternoon. I appreciate the opportunity to be here today to
discuss the need for America to access offshore oil and gas resources,
specifically those in the Atlantic.
My name is Richie Miller. I am President of Spectrum Geo, Inc.
(Spectrum), a company providing multi-client geoscience data to oil and
gas exploration and production (E&P) companies worldwide. We are
headquartered in the United States. We are a member of the
International Association of Geophysical Contractors, the trade
association of the global geophysical industry and also a member of the
National Ocean Industries Association. I would like to thank the
Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources for the opportunity to
testify at this oversight hearing regarding ``Seismic Exploration and
the Future of the Atlantic OCS.''
We are pleased that Congress is looking into this most important
matter for the Nation's continued progress toward energy independence,
economic vitality and energy security. Although the United States is
set to surpass Saudi Arabia and Russia to become the world's top oil
producer by 2015, in order to meet continued demand we must make new
areas of the federal outer continental shelf (OCS) available for oil
and gas exploration. The United States has been successful in producing
its oil and gas resources because we have historically been willing to
explore new areas.
Today, I would like to focus my comments on the need to better
understand the resource base of the Atlantic OCS and the challenges in
providing policymakers and regulators with the information they need to
make informed decisions based on the best available data. Also, I think
it is critical to clearly explain the relationship between acquiring
new seismic data for the Mid- and South Atlantic OCS and the
development of the next Five-Year OCS Leasing Plan (2017-2022).
I would first like to give a broadened description of my company,
Spectrum Geo. Our company is engaged in acquiring non-exclusive seismic
data, processing it and licensing these products to oil and gas
companies. That means we do the work (and take the financial risks)
needed to deliver oil and gas companies the ability to use modern
seismic imaging to explore an area new to them (or new to the entire
industry). We repeatedly license the seismic data to oil and gas
companies for a fee, but retain the underlying ownership. By acquiring
the data once and making it available to any oil and gas company, our
industry avoids duplicating these surveys. We also provide the same
products to Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) for their use in
evaluating the OCS resource base, ensuring they receive fair market
value when they lease OCS lands, and making the many conservation
decisions required of them as they administer their obligations under
the OCS Lands Act.
atlantic programmatic eis and the five-year lease sale planning process
Whether in private business or government, the best decisions are
generally made when we have the best available data. This is true of
our Nation's oil and gas resources. It only makes sense for us to
understand what the resource base and resource value is.
BOEM is currently in the process of producing a Programmatic
Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) to evaluate ``potential
significant environmental impacts of multiple geological and
geophysical activities on the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf.'' It is
very important to note that these G&G activities will not only be used
to identify potential oil and gas resources, but also to identify
suitable areas to place offshore renewable energy facilities. Seismic
surveys enable our Nation to reach its full energy potential by truly
using an ``all-of-the-above'' approach. A draft PEIS was published in
the Federal Register on March 30, 2012, and underwent a 90-day comment
period.
A record of decision (ROD) was initially proposed to be released in
October 2013; however, we now understand that the ROD is scheduled for
March or April 2014. We are concerned about potential delays in the
issuance of an ROD as these delays create difficulties in scheduling
for permits and vessels. Having sufficient new seismic data to inform
future Atlantic leasing decisions is critical. With DOI's initial work
on the next Five-Year Plan for 2017-2022 beginning later this year,
time is of the essence.
It will take at least a year after the EIS is issued before new
seismic data is in hand. This is because industry must first obtain
permits from NOAA (under the Marine Mammal Protection Act); await
BOEM's statutorily required consultations with all the impacted coastal
States (under the Coastal Zone Management Act); secure an actual G&G
permit from BOEM; and then go about conducting the surveys and
interpreting the data. So with the EIS delayed into 2014, we are very
unlikely to have any new data in hand until well after the Department
has already begun scoping for the 2017-2022 Five-Year Plan. However
recent public statements from BOEM officials indicate that this delay
in obtaining new seismic data does not preclude them from ultimately
including new areas such as the Atlantic in the 2017-2022 Five-Year
Plan. We appreciate this perspective and agree that the next Five-Year
Plan should be guided by modern survey data.
Because acquiring and interpreting modern seismic data provides a
greater understanding of where oil and gas reserves exist and how much
are likely in place, having modern seismic data prior to a lease sale
will allow industry to make more informed bids. This will likely result
in more bids and higher bids (and thus more revenue to the Federal
Treasury) since industry is reluctant to bid on blocks where there is
little or no seismic data. Modern seismic imaging consistently brings
more players to bid on offshore leases, creating more competition and
driving the cost of leases higher. This is a phenomenon we are seeing
globally as occurred recently in Uruguay with the government receiving
$1.2 billion lease bids and in Brazil where $2.0 billion in lease bids
were received. Oil and gas producers have the capital to explore
frontier areas and are always looking for new opportunities.
why new seismic is needed for the mid- and south atlantic ocs
It is very clear that seismic surveys are greatly needed in the
Atlantic. It has been more than 30 years since geological & geophysical
(G&G) surveys were conducted in Atlantic waters. BOEM currently
estimates that the Mid- and South Atlantic OCS holds at least 3.3
billion barrels of oil and 31.3 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.
While these estimates are impressive, it is widely believed that modern
seismic imaging using the latest technology will show much greater
resources than the 30-year-old estimates. Thus, current estimates are
outdated and, in all likelihood, grossly inaccurate.
For the Atlantic OCS, we need to update our understanding of the
resource, and modern seismic imaging is needed to make this evaluation.
Better information enables the government's evaluation of the potential
resource base as well as for prospecting for oil and natural gas
reserves offshore. Older, low tech data that exists does not image
medium to deep plays, and does not image the basin's architecture,
which is imperative to understanding the Atlantic Margin play. The
industry's array of new tools in the toolbox--reflection, gravity,
magnetics, electromagnetic--can better help us understand the potential
resource. By utilizing these tools and by applying increasingly
accurate and effective interpretation practices, we can better locate
and dissect prospective areas, identify the types of plays we are
locating, and evaluate the potential resource base. Seismic surveys are
the only feasible technology available to accurately image the
subsurface and help us better understand what lies below the surface of
the Earth before a single well is drilled.
It is an amazingly useful scientific tool that allows us to
accurately image the earth's crust down to depths in excess of 40,000
feet, or more than 8 miles, below the ocean floor. Today, seismic
surveys that use modern data acquisition techniques and then process
that data by applying the massive computing power are able to produce
sub-surface images which are much clearer and more accurate than those
from decades ago, or even 5 years ago.
There are reasons why geologists and geophysicists believe that the
Atlantic OCS could have much more abundant oil and gas resources than
we previously believed. First, the Atlantic Margin is proving to be
quite productive in hydrocarbon production in areas like West Africa,
Brazil and Nova Scotia.
Second, exploration and development activities generally lead to
increased resource estimates. For example, in 1987 the Minerals
Management Service estimated only 9.57 billion barrels of oil in the
Gulf of Mexico. With more recent seismic data acquisition and
additional exploratory drilling, that estimate rose in 2011 to 48.4
billion barrels of oil--a 500 percent increase.
The benefits of modern seismic surveys are numerous. They make
offshore energy production safer and more efficient by greatly reducing
the drilling of ``dry holes'' (where no oil or gas is found). We no
longer explore with the drill bit. Without seismic surveys, we would
again be relegated to that. Because survey activities are temporary and
transitory, it is the least intrusive and also the most cost-effective
way to understand where recoverable oil and gas resources likely exist
in the Mid- and South Atlantic OCS. Additionally, it is expected that
the early surveys will be non-exclusive or multi-client, meaning they
would be shared by all E&P companies. The data gathered in a one-time
process could be used again and again.
For the energy industry, modern seismic imaging reduces risk--both
economic risk of exploration and production and also the associated
safety and environmental risks. It also provides greater certainty by
increasing the likelihood that exploratory wells will successfully tap
hydrocarbons and helping us avoid drilling for oil and gas in areas
where we won't likely be successful. It reduces the number of wells
that need to be drilled in a given area, thus reducing the overall
footprint for exploration.
In addition to modern seismic survey techniques, another key
technological advancement has come with the help of the computing
industry. The development of more powerful computers at diminishing
prices allowed us to further leverage this new 3D acquisition tool.
Ever greater computing power freed the creativity and innovation of
data processing professionals to develop increasingly complex
algorithms that address the vast number of challenges offered by the
complex earth. And these complex algorithms are now being applied
against an ever expanding number of data points.
With substantially larger amounts of data, and with more complex
processing techniques that are run on increasingly powerful computers,
we are now able to identify with accuracy drilling targets the size of
a parking lot 3 miles deep into the earth (and sometimes through a mile
of water!). This enables the drilling engineers to do what they do
best--hit those targets.
Today, we are applying these new techniques in older producing
areas--areas that are known to generate and trap oil and gas. We are
able to use the fine scale resolution offered by today's imaging
techniques to find reserves that went unseen using the older
techniques. Additionally, to maximize production from existing
reservoirs, another dimension in technology--4D--has been recently
introduced. By acquiring 3D at the same location repeatedly, it is now
possible to have a motion picture visualizing the behavior and
evolution of fluids in the reservoir as it is produced.
environmentally responsible
The seismic industry has demonstrated for more than 40 years its
ability to operate seismic exploration activities in an environmentally
safe and responsible manner. Despite recent statements by critics who
oppose opening up the Atlantic, the oil and gas industry has
demonstrated the ability to operate seismic exploration activities in a
manner that protects marine life. In the May 11, 2012, publication of
the Federal Register, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), in
response to a public comment associated with a recent industry seismic
survey in Alaska (comment No. 9), stated the following: ``To date,
there is no evidence that serious injury, death or stranding by marine
mammals can occur from exposure to airgun pulses, even in the case of
large airgun arrays.'' (NOAA--National Marine Fisheries Service,
Federal Register Notice May 11, 2012--Vol. 77, No. 92 Page 27723.)
The geophysical industry takes a great deal of care and
consideration of potential impacts to the marine environment. Because
this is a priority, we implement mitigation measures to further reduce
any potential impacts to marine mammals. Examples include the avoidance
of important feeding and breeding areas, demarcation of exclusion zones
around seismic operations, soft starts (gradual ramping up of a seismic
sound source), and visual and acoustic monitoring by professionally
trained marine mammal observers. Any activity in the Atlantic would be
done with at least the same care and consideration for marine life.
Additionally, the industry continues to invest millions of dollars
into scientific research to fill any knowledge gaps that may exist in
knowing how marine life interrelates to seismic operations. Research
studies and operations monitoring programs designed to assess the
potential impacts from seismic surveys have not demonstrated
biologically significant adverse impacts on marine mammal populations.
Industry continually monitors the effectiveness of the mitigation
strategies it employs and funds research to better understand
interactions between E&P operations and marine mammals.
economic benefit of seismic and oil and gas exploration
What is often understated is the economic benefit that comes from
oil and gas exploration. A recent study produced by Quest Offshore for
the American Petroleum Institute and National Ocean Industries
Association finds that opening the Atlantic OCS to oil and natural gas
exploration and development will add billions of dollars annually to
the economy by 2035. Federal offshore lease sales under existing laws
and regulations would be expected to result in offshore oil and natural
gas exploration and production. The new exploration and production
activity would require large amounts of investment and operational
spending by oil and gas operators--an estimated $195 billion cumulative
between 2017 and 2035, which would be primarily spent inside the United
States and the Atlantic coast States.
According to the study, by 2035, new Atlantic OCS activity could
produce an incremental 1.3 million barrels of oil equivalent per day,
generate nearly 280,000 jobs, contribute up to $23.5 billion per year
to the U.S. economy, and generate $51 billion in Federal and State
revenue--with most of the accrued State benefits going to Atlantic
coastal States.
The Nation's energy and economic security demands that these
Atlantic resources be safely developed, and that long process begins
with acquiring new seismic data.
conclusion
This Nation cannot afford to blindly make decisions regarding the
future of oil and gas leasing in the Atlantic. Americans deserve public
policy decisions that are made based on the best information possible.
Modern seismic surveys provide that information. Let's allow science to
help us understand what resources we have.
I hope this information adds a new perspective to your
understanding of the contributions from the innovations and
applications of geophysical data. Thank you for your time and attention
today. I look forward to any questions you may have, and place myself,
NOIA and the IAGC at your disposal if we can be of further service. I
appreciate the opportunity to testify before the subcommittee.
______
Questions submitted for the record from Chairman Lamborn to Richie
Miller, President, Spectrum Geo Inc.
Question. The seismic data from over 30 years ago that has been
collected for the Atlantic not only used old technology but also
covered a distance up to 50 miles from the shoreline. Is this the area
that would be of interest to industry for the next round of seismic
data collection or are there additional areas that would need to be
surveyed for the first time?
Answer. Interest in new data goes beyond 50 miles, outwards of 250
miles is not out of the question.
Question. At the hearing, there was a predominant focus on the Gulf
of Mexico and Canada when discussing the way seismic could potentially
be conducted in the Atlantic. Many other countries have robust seismic
regulatory programs that have been successful in offshore seismic data
acquisition for decades--as well as exploration and production. Can you
provide us with additional examples we should look at as well as
reiterate the programs that are used in the GOM and Canada? Do you
believe the advent of seismic research in the Atlantic OCS would draw
existing seismic companies based in and around the Gulf of Mexico to
expand to the Atlantic seaboard?
Answer. Seismic is acquired worldwide. Active areas currently are
Brazil, Norway, UK North Sea, Ireland, Australia, many areas in the
Mediterranean and Adriatic, including Israel, Lebanon, Greece, Croatia
and Cyprus. Africa is active up and down the east and west coasts, with
active projects in Gabon, Morocco, Mozambique, and Madagascar to name a
few. Most of these countries have seismic regulatory programs, and if
they do not the seismic industry abides by a standard code of
principals in these areas.
Most companies operating in the GOM would be interested in working
in the Atlantic.
______
The Chairman. Finally, Dr. Boesch.
STATEMENT OF DONALD F. BOESCH, PRESIDENT, UNIVERSITY OF
MARYLAND CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE
Dr. Boesch. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Holt, and members of the
subcommittee, my name is Donald Boesch, and I was one of the
seven commissioners who comprised the National Oil Spill
Commission about which Mr. Holt spoke, and I am pleased to be
here to have the opportunity to testify on behalf of the former
commissioners.
As the Nation considers the expansion of offshore drilling
to the East Coast of the United States, it is important to heed
the lessons provided by the catastrophic blowout of the Macondo
well in the Gulf of Mexico almost 4 years ago now. The
explosion tore through the Deepwater Horizon and began a human,
economic and environmental disaster that is still being played
out in terms of the costs to people and to the economy that
will exceed tens of billions of dollars.
Mr. Holt basically summarized some of our findings, but let
me just touch on the key issues related to the fact that this
explosion, this incident in the Gulf, was completely
preventable, and that it revealed through our report, as well
as other reports and the testimony that has been going on in
the courts in New Orleans, that as a result of systematic
failures of not only BP, but the subcontractors, that really
point to serious problems of risk management that affect the
industry as a whole. And it was a result of the fact that as we
moved into frontier areas, into deep water in the case of the
Gulf, we weren't paying attention, adequate attention, to the
kind of oversight and the kind of requirements that were
needed. Other subsequent reports by the National Academy of
Engineering, Federal agency investigators, as well as industry
itself have supported the Commission's findings and reinforced
our recommendations.
Since we completed our service, we have all collectively
followed through and watched what has gone on, and as Mr. Holt
indicated, we have issued these report cards about how well we
have responded to the recommendations, and I offer this for the
record, Mr. Chairman, and have copies for members here.
Overall, the response to our recommendations has been
positive. The petroleum industry has established a Center for
Offshore Safety and built blowout containment capabilities that
didn't exist before that are now being developed and exported
around the world. The Department of the Interior has
implemented many of our recommendations to reduce conflicting
incentives that existed within the former Minerals Management
Service and approved the efficacy of regulatory programs.
But that doesn't mean the job is done. As Mr. Holt
indicated, there have been at least 17 incidences of well
control since the Macondo well incident in the Gulf of Mexico,
and in particular, many of these have occurred in shallow water
environments which we thought we knew how to work in very well
and largely related to the fact that we have an aging
infrastructure that supports that previous development now
operated by smaller companies which don't have the capacity
that a BP does.
This experience underscores the importance of implementing
our recommendations, including the initiatives that the
industry and government have taken are encouraging. But, of
course, as was pointed out, Congress hasn't acted on our
recommendations to it.
There are several recommendations detailed in our
testimony. I just want to highlight a few. Extending the period
for approving exploration plans from 30 days to 60 days, this
makes sense, particularly in a new area like we perceive in the
Atlantic, for example; providing whistleblower protection
involved for offshore drilling operations, the same kind of
protection that we guarantee in other comparable settings;
increasing the liability cap from the really inadequate level
of $75 million that is basically off by three orders of
magnitude in terms of the cost of this incident; increasing the
limit of $1 billion per incident payouts from the Oil Spill
Liability Fund; and to provide a mechanism to pay for the
appropriate oversight of the energy industry, regulation of the
industry, by the industry as opposed to the taxpayer, as many
other regulated industries do.
When the Exxon Valdez spill occurred in 1989, Congress was
quick to act. It passed legislation that made maritime
transportation safer, provided new capabilities for dealing
with oil spills. But we kind of, as a Nation, fell asleep at
the wheel as we developed our oil resources in a self-reliant
way in the deeper waters of the Gulf of Mexico and we should
learn the lesson. So we think that Congress should follow that
and take heed and act with needed legislation.
This is important as we consider the Atlantic Coast because
we would like to see that we have those regulations, that they
be codified by Congress and in place as we proceed in frontier
areas. Second, we recommend that these frontier areas be very
carefully studied. We learned by the lack of knowledge that we
had on the Gulf. We thought we knew a lot about the Gulf. We
were surprised.
And in particular, as a resident of the Atlantic Coast, as
a resident of Maryland, I look at the interests of, say, the
Commonwealth of Virginia of developing resources there from the
standpoint that Ocean City is as close to some of those areas
as is Virginia Beach. So the whole region, Delaware, New Jersey
and so on, all have a common stake and interest and are very
concerned about its ecosystems, but also its tourist industry
as we go forward.
So finally, let me just say that offshore drilling has a
substantial potential to contribute to the Nation's oil and gas
supplies and energy security. My fellow commissioners and I
continue to encourage Congress, the executive branch and the
oil and gas industry to take the necessary steps to ensure that
is done safely.
Thank you.
[Prepared statement of Dr. Boesch follows:]
Prepared Statement of Donald F. Boesch, President, University of
Maryland Center for Environmental Science
i. introduction
Chairman Lamborn, Ranking Member Holt and members of the
subcommittee, my name is Donald F. Boesch, President of the University
of Maryland Center for Environmental Science. I was one of seven
commissioners who comprised the National Commission on the BP Deepwater
Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling. I thank you for the
opportunity to testify today.
As the Nation considers the expansion of offshore drilling to the
East Coast of the United States, I believe it is important to evaluate
the lessons provided by the catastrophic blowout of the Macondo well
almost 4 years ago.
The explosion that tore through the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig
on April 20, 2010, as the rig's crew completed drilling the exploratory
Macondo well deep under the waters of the Gulf of Mexico, began a
human, economic, and environmental disaster that is still playing out.
Eleven crew members died, and others were seriously injured, as
fire engulfed and ultimately destroyed the rig. For almost 3 months
more than four million barrels of oil gushed uncontrolled into the
Gulf--threatening livelihoods, the health of Gulf coast residents and
of those responding to the spill, precious habitats, and even a unique
way of life. A treasured American coast already battered and degraded
from years of neglect and mismanagement as well as natural disasters,
faced yet another blow as the oil spread and washed ashore. Five years
after Hurricane Katrina, the Nation was again transfixed, seemingly
helpless, as this new tragedy unfolded in the Gulf. The costs from this
one industrial accident are still not yet fully adjudicated and
counted, but it is already clear that the impacts on the region's
natural systems and people were enormous, and that economic losses will
total tens of billions of dollars.
On May 22, 2010, President Barack Obama announced the creation of
the National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and
Offshore Drilling (the Commission): an independent, nonpartisan entity,
directed to provide thorough analysis and impartial judgment. The
President charged the Commission to determine the causes of the
disaster, and to improve the country's ability to respond to spills,
and to recommend reforms to make offshore energy production safer. And
we were told to follow the facts wherever they led.
After an intense 6-month effort to fulfill the charge, the
Commission released its final report on January 10, 2011, 3 years ago
today. As a result of our investigation, we concluded:
The explosive loss of the Macondo well could have been
prevented.
The immediate causes of the Macondo well blowout could be
traced to a series of identifiable mistakes made by BP,
Halliburton, and Transocean that reveal such systematic
failures in risk management that they place in doubt the
safety culture of the entire industry.
Deepwater energy exploration and production, particularly
at the frontiers of experience, involve risks for which
neither industry nor government has been adequately
prepared, but for which they can and must be prepared in
the future.
To assure human safety and environmental protection,
regulatory oversight of leasing, energy exploration, and
production require substantial reforms, probably even
beyond those significant reforms the Department of the
Interior has already initiated since the Deepwater Horizon
disaster.
The technology, laws and regulations, and practices for
containing, responding to, and cleaning up spills lag
behind the real risks associated with deepwater drilling
into large, high-pressure reservoirs of oil and gas located
far offshore and thousands of feet below the ocean's
surface. Government must close the existing gap and
industry must support that effort.
Scientific understanding of environmental conditions in
sensitive environments in deep Gulf waters, along the
region's coastal habitats, and in areas proposed for more
drilling, such as the Arctic, is inadequate. The same is
true of the human and natural impacts of oil spills.
We reached these conclusions and made our recommendations in a
constructive spirit. Our goal was to make American offshore energy
exploration and production far safer, today and in the future.
Since we released our report, several other highly qualified
committees and organizations have also completed analyses of what went
wrong with the Macondo well and what should be done to protect against
such a catastrophe happening again. These include the Department of the
Interior-Coast Guard Joint Investigation, several studies of the
National Academies of Sciences and Engineering, and even some industry
analyses. I wish to point out that all of these studies have supported
the Commission's findings and often reinforced its recommendations.
The Commissioners, however, were not satisfied with merely issuing
a report. Too many task forces and commissions, after devoting
significant time and effort to their assignments, watch the value of
their contribution diminish as other issues and priorities command
public attention. As a group, we vowed not to let the spotlight fade
from our work and elected to do what we can to advance the
implementation of our recommendations so that the Nation can move
forward to secure the oil and gas off our shores in a safer, more
environmentally responsible manner.
To this end, we established an Oil Spill Commission Action (OSCA)
project to monitor progress in making offshore drilling safer and more
environmentally protective, and to continue to engage the many actors
how can implement the recommendations. On the second and third
anniversaries of the explosion, OSCA issued ``report cards''--the most
recent was released on April 17, 2013--addressing the progress that has
been made in implementing the Commission's recommendations. I have
brought copies of this report for committee members and would like to
request that it be entered into the record.
As our report cards have indicated, we have been gratified by the
positive response to many of our recommendations. The oil industry, for
instance, has established a Center for Offshore Safety, implementing
one of our major recommendations. Similarly the Department of the
Interior has implemented many of our recommendations to reduce
conflicting incentives that had existed in the Minerals Management
Service, and improve the efficacy of its regulatory programs. All in
all, we have made important improvements in the way the Nation manages
its offshore oil and gas exploration and production.
ii. congress needs to take action
But that does not mean that the job is done. A recent investigation
by WWL-TV in New Orleans found that there have been 17 events over the
last 4 years in the Gulf of Mexico where the drilling crew lost control
of a well. There were 7 such events reported through the first 10
months of 2013 alone. It was a loss of well control that resulted in
the Deepwater Horizon catastrophe. These incidents also show that risks
occur closer to shore and in shallower water, where older
infrastructure and smaller operating companies prevail.
This experience demonstrates the importance of implementing the
Commission's recommendations. As I said, the initiatives taken by the
Administration and industry have been encouraging. However, through
today, coincidentally the third anniversary of the submission of the
Commission's report, Congress has yet to enact any of the
recommendations we made to it to improve the management and safety of
offshore drilling.
With respect to improving safety and environmental protection, we
continue to urge Congress to codify the organizational changes the
Department of the Interior has made in its regulatory programs.
Although these were not as extensive as the Commission recommended,
they are a substantial improvement over the organization that existed
when the Deepwater Horizon disaster occurred. Congress should make
these improvements permanent.
The Commission's other recommendations for improving safety and
environmental protection included making the following modifications to
the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA):
The period for approving exploration plans should be
extended from 30 days to 60 days. This conclusion is
particularly important with respect to proposals to extend
outer continental shelf exploration and production
operations to the relatively unfamiliar conditions in the
Arctic and along the East Coast of the United States.
Whistleblowers involved in offshore drilling operations
should be provided the same protection that workers are
guaranteed in other comparable settings. Those oil
companies providing leadership in the pursuit of an
effective safety culture agree that any employee should
have the authority to stop operations if they see
conditions they think may be unsafe. Legally protecting
employees working for less committed companies could be an
important step in identifying problems before they become
serious.
The liability cap and financial responsibility
requirements for offshore facilities should be
substantially increased. Increasing the liability cap, set
by law as only $75 million, is important for two reasons.
First, it would increase the incentive to make sure that
the operations are conducted safely. The incredibly low
existing cap eliminates such incentives for companies that
would take advantage of it. The Nation was very fortunate
that BP did not try to take advantage of this limitation
with Deepwater Horizon. The second concern is that people
damaged by a spill would not be adequately compensated for
damages they experienced if a company took advantage of the
cap.
The existing limit of $1 billion on per-incident payouts
from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund should be
increased. The potential costs of responding to spills have
increased substantially since these limits were
established. It would be extremely unfortunate if the
government were unable to respond effectively to a spill
because of an arbitrarily low limit on how much money can
be provided by the trust fund.
A mechanism should be established to ensure that the
offshore energy industry pays the entire costs associated
with its regulatory oversight, just like other regulated
industries do. This includes the costs of agencies such as
BSEE and BOEM primarily charged with overseeing the
offshore energy operations--ensuring their safety and
compliance with environmental protection requirements--and
also the incremental costs of other agencies responsible
for overseeing offshore operations. We recognize that
Congress has agreed to budget increases for these agencies
to help support improved regulatory programs, but it would
benefit both the Federal budget and these oversight
programs if they were funded by user fees rather than taxes
We have several other recommendations for congressional action as
well. These are outlined in the attachment to my testimony and
discussed in the Commission's report discussing its recommendations.
iii. conclusion
In the years between the Exxon Valdez spill and the spring of 2010,
Congress, like much of the Nation, appeared to have developed a false
sense of security about the risks of offshore oil and gas development.
Congress showed its support for offshore drilling in a number of ways,
but did not take any steps to mitigate the increased perils that
accompany drilling in ever-deeper water or in new frontiers areas such
as icy Arctic seas. However, despite the lessons learned since the
Deepwater Horizon exploded, 11 rig workers lost their lives, and
millions of barrels of oil spilled into the Gulf of Mexico, Congress
still has not enacted any legislation to improve the safety of offshore
oil exploration and production.
I recognize that the topic of today's hearing concerns seismic
exploration and the future of the Atlantic OCS, but believe that the
Commission's recommendations for needed legislative action are very
germane. Given what has occurred, it first just makes sense to improve
and codify the safety regime before moving forward into frontier areas.
I have outlined some of the more important of these needs related to
the safety of offshore energy development in my testimony.
Second, the Commission recommended that frontier areas should be
carefully studied to determine their environmental sensitivity, guide
responsible planning within the region, and define a baseline against
which damages caused by offshore energy development can be accurately
assessed. One of the Commission's surprising findings was that when the
Macondo blowout dumped enormous volumes of oil into the Gulf waters,
scientists and policymakers suddenly realized they knew relatively
little about biological systems, environmental conditions, and even key
aquatic and coastal species in the area affected. Leasing of vast
acreage combined with weak policies and limited funding had resulted in
inadequate studies of critical environmental processes and sensitive
environmental features where greater caution should be exercised. The
Macondo blowout also taught us that large oil spills do not recognize
State boundaries as shores over five States were oiled. As a resident
of Maryland I feel compelled to remind Virginia proponents of offshore
development that Ocean City is as close to areas targeted for
exploration as Virginia Beach. Surely, risks to tourist economies in
Maryland, Delaware and New Jersey, as well as Virginia, have also to be
taken into account.
Third, it is also critical that the resources needed to respond
effectively to spills that may occur be located in the region where the
expansion is proposed before the new areas are explored and developed.
This includes both the equipment and supplies necessary to respond to
any emergencies, and adequate training of the Federal, State, and local
employees and volunteers who would be involved in such a response.
Offshore drilling has a substantial potential to contribute to the
Nation's oil and gas supplies and energy security. For this potential
to be fully realized, however, the industry and government will have to
rebuild public faith in offshore energy exploration and production. The
Commission proposed a series of recommendations that would assist in
this effort. Our message is clear: both government and industry must
make dramatic changes to establish the high level of safety in drilling
operations on the outer continental shelf that the American public has
the right to expect and to demand. My fellow Commissioners and I
continue to encourage Congress, the executive branch, and the oil and
gas industry to take the necessary steps.
______
Recommendations Pertaining to Congress
A. Safety and Environmental Protection
Congress and the Department of the Interior should create an
independent agency within the Department with enforcement authority to
oversee all aspects of offshore drilling safety, as well as the
structural and operational integrity of all offshore energy production
facilities, including both oil and gas production and renewable energy
production. The director of the new agency should be appointed by the
President for a 5- to 6-year term and be confirmed by the Senate.
Congress and the Department of the Interior should create a Leasing
and Environmental Science Office within the Department charged with
fostering environmentally responsible and efficient development of the
Outer Continental Shelf. To ensure that environmental concerns receive
full consideration, the environmental division of this office should be
led by a Chief Scientist, who would conduct all environmental reviews
for offshore energy development.
Congress should amend the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA)
to extend the 30-day deadline for approving exploration plans to 60
days.
Congress should amend OCSLA to provide the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) with a formal consultative role
during the development of 5-year lease-plans and lease-sales.
Congress should amend the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act or
specific safety statutes to provide the same whistleblower protection
that workers are guaranteed in other comparable settings.
Spill Response and Containment
Congress should provide mandatory funding (not subject to the
annual appropriations process) for oil spill research and development.
Congress and the Administration should encourage private investment
in response technology more broadly, including through public-private
partnerships and a tax credit for research and development in this
area.
Impacts and Restoration
Congress, Federal agencies, and ``responsible parties'' should take
steps to restore consumer confidence in the aftermath of a ``Spill of
National Significance.''
[Congress should dedicate 80 percent of the Clean Water Act
penalties to long-term restoration of the Gulf of Mexico.--Done]
[To coordinate Gulf restoration and administer restoration funds,
Congress should establish a joint State-Federal Gulf Coast Ecosystem
Restoration Council. The Council should be given authority to set
priorities to govern the expenditure of funds and resolve any conflicts
regarding eligibility of projects.--Done]
Congress should ensure that the priorities and decisions of the
Council are informed by input from a Citizens Advisory Council, which
represents diverse stakeholders.
[In addition, Congress should establish and fund a Gulf Coast
Restoration Science and Technology Program to support the design of
scientifically sound restoration projects and evaluate individual
projects for technical feasibility and consistency with the region-wide
strategy.--Done]
Ensuring Adequate Resources
Congress should significantly increase the liability cap and
financial responsibility requirements for offshore facilities.
Congress should increase the limit on per-incident payouts from the
Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund.
The offshore energy industry should pay the costs associated with
its regulatory oversight, just like other regulated industries do. This
includes the costs of agencies such as BOEMRE primarily charged with
overseeing the offshore energy operations--ensuring their safety and
compliance with environmental protection requirements--and also the
incremental costs of other agencies responsible for overseeing offshore
operations.
Congress should increase and maintain its awareness of the risks of
offshore drilling by:
designating specific subcommittees to oversee offshore
safety and environmental risks,
requiring the Department of the Interior and its Inspector
General to submit annual reports to Congress on the
subject, and
requiring appropriate congressional committees to hold
annual oversight hearings on the state of technology and
safety.
frontier areas--the arctic
There should be an immediate, comprehensive Federal research effort
to provide a foundation of scientific information on the Arctic.
Congress should provide resources to establish Coast Guard response
capabilities in the Arctic, based on the Coast Guard's review of
current and projected gaps in capacity.
______
The Chairman. OK. Thank you, all of you, for your
testimony. We will now begin our questions. If we do have votes
called in the middle of questioning, we will have to take a
recess and come back. I would ask your indulgence if that is
the case. Members are limited to 5 minutes for their questions
but we may have additional rounds. I now recognize myself for 5
minutes.
Mr. Barnes, if I can talk to you first very quickly, Canada
has been permitting seismic activity surveying in the Atlantic
Ocean for some time now, and has interacted with many of the
same species that our agencies have studied in the U.S.
Atlantic waters. Is it your opinion that Canada is able to
balance the protection of marine mammals as well as the
advancement of seismic science and resource knowledge?
Mr. Barnes. Yes, it is. It is my opinion that that is the
case. We have had seismic activity taking place off of Atlantic
Canada as I mentioned since 1964. We do have mitigation
measures in place as we undertake that activity to prevent any
kind of interaction with certain marine mammals.
The Chairman. OK, thank you. I appreciate that.
Additionally, Dr. Miller and Dr. Knapp, given the existing safe
record of seismic exploration already conducted amongst
protected species in the Gulf of Mexico, can we do the same
kind of safe exploration in the Atlantic? A brief answer,
please.
Mr. Miller. Thank you for making me a doctor, by the way.
Yes, we can. The mitigation factors that our industry uses are
the same that we use in Canada. It is transparent between both
areas.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Dr. Knapp. Mr. Chairman, I see no reason why we couldn't
conduct those surveys in a safe and effective manner.
The Chairman. Thank you both. Deputy Director Cruickshank,
first as an aside, I would like to ask if you believe that
offshore oil and gas operations on our Nation's Outer
Continental Shelf under your oversight in the Bureau of Ocean
Energy Management as well as the Bureau of Safety and
Environmental Enforcement of our Nation's offshore energy
production are among some of the safest, if not the safest in
the world? Do you believe that to be the case?
Mr. Cruickshank. I believe we have made a lot of reforms
and changes in the last few years that have greatly improved
the safety of operations on the Outer Continental Shelf, but we
have not and cannot eliminate all risks.
The Chairman. OK. I appreciate hearing that, given the
doubts that are sometimes cast upon your agency and the
Administration when it comes to protecting our offshores.
Continuing on, Deputy Director, the Department first
published the Notice of Intent to prepare a programmatic
environmental impact statement for the Atlantic on January 21,
2009. After seeing little progress, the 2010 Interior
appropriations bill included language requiring the Department
to move forward and to provide Congress with a detailed
timeline, which it did several months later in February of
2010. The timeline said the record of decision would be issued
on April 13, 2012, almost 2 years ago. The most recent timeline
estimated that it would be issued last week, which we know did
not happen. You have stated today that you expect to publish
the final PEIS by the end of this February.
Now, you have made reference to the 16-day government
shutdown in October, even though we have had 5 years to do
this. Can you tell us why we have had these delays and is this
really a hard deadline that you are going to be able to meet at
the end of February?
Mr. Cruickshank. This has been a very complicated and
challenging programmatic EIS, and as reflected by the number of
substantive comments that we received, the additional
information, new science that was coming forth over this time
period as well as the danger to species consultation with the
National Marine and Fisheries Service, and all of these things
had to be taken into account as we put together the EIS, and
they all contributed to the length of time. I think we all wish
we would have been able to have been more timely in moving it
forward, but we are on track to publish the EIS by the end of
February.
The Chairman. And, Deputy Director, you have heard comments
about the Canadian experience with, I believe it is the
Northern right whale. Do you have any indication that behavior
of this animal is different south of the Canadian border in
U.S. Atlantic waters?
Mr. Cruickshank. I don't have any reason to believe it
would necessarily be different. They may be doing different
things at different times of the year in different places, but
they are the same whales.
The Chairman. OK. And does it sound like the kind of
environmental protections that are done in Canada would be
appropriate and adequate for protecting U.S. waters, marine
mammals found in U.S. waters?
Mr. Cruickshank. We have similar practices in place and we
are also looking at other potential mitigation measures as part
of the EIS, to put the best set of mitigation measures we can
in place to try and avoid and minimize environmental impact.
The Chairman. OK. Thank you. I now recognize the Ranking
Member for 5 minutes.
Dr. Holt. Thank you. Thanks for your testimony, all of you.
Dr. Boesch, in last year's report card you gave Congress a
D-plus for the action on the Commission's recommendations. Has
that changed?
Mr. Boesch. No, it really hasn't. We upgraded it because of
the RESTORE Act, but the safety provisions that we recommended
that Congress act on have still not been acted on.
Dr. Holt. Do you see things that Congress could do to
promote the use of best available and safest technology for OCS
drilling?
Mr. Boesch. Yes, I do. The concept that you have embraced
and picked up from the National Academy of Engineering is
certainly one thing. This needs to be done, I think, in
conjunction with the government and industry, because industry
has a lot of investments in the development of technology and,
of course, has to apply it.
Dr. Holt. Thanks. Mr. Cruickshank, in 2011, Secretary
Salazar testified before the Senate comparable committee and
called on Congress to pass legislative proposals to implement
offshore safety and so forth. Does the Department still support
increasing penalties for safety and environmental violations
and getting more flexibility to hire necessary staff? Those
were two of the recommendations.
Mr. Cruickshank. With respect to the flexibility to hire
staff, we were given some additional flexibility in the
appropriations bills for petroleum engineers and geoscientists,
which we were grateful for and have put to good use. Civil
penalties is really a question for the Bureau of Safety and
Environmental Enforcement. I know they are taking a look at the
civil penalties program and do consider that to be an important
part of their toolbox for being able to enforce safe practices
on the OCS.
Dr. Holt. Thank you. Mr. Cruickshank, one offshore bill
that the Republicans moved this year was the Offshore Energy
and Jobs Act. It does pay attention to a couple of the
Commission's recommendations, but it appears to take some steps
backwards also. Does the Administration have a position on
whether this bill would help or hurt the safety and
environmental protection in offshore drilling?
Mr. Cruickshank. The Administration was opposed to that
bill. One of the main reasons for the opposition was that it
really took away the Secretary's discretion to consider the
balancing factors in the OCS Lands Act to determine where
offshore leasing should occur.
Dr. Holt. In fact, in the Administration statement of
policy, the phrase is ``strongly opposes'' because there is
inadequate consideration of a number of things in this
legislation, and it promotes drilling, not without regard to,
actually in opposition to, safety and environmental protection.
Mr. Boesch, would you, as a Commission member, go so far as
to say that it is more important that we implement the
recommendations congressionally from the Commission than it is
to open up new territories right now?
Mr. Boesch. I think our view is that since we have made
these recommendations, they are sensible recommendations, they
are really a predicate before we make these other decisions to
move into other areas. The American public, I think, should
expect that we have systems in place in the long run, not just
by administrative action in one Administration.
Dr. Holt. That is a pretty strong statement, of course, but
I think it is consistent with your findings that there were
some pretty strong shortcomings, pretty great shortcomings in
the culture and in the practice and in the details of the
regulations and implementations that called for such things.
Mr. Boesch. That is correct. But there have been, as I
pointed out, and I think you did as well, there have been some
considerable improvements in government oversight, in industry
self-regulation and moving toward better standards. What is
lacking, of course, is the law, is the legal part to put these
things into place so we can reduce the risks that we have
similar incidents.
Dr. Holt. Just a quick question that we can't explore
fully. Mr. Knapp, Mr. Barnes, you seem to put an emphasis on
fatality in species that would result from the sonic booms in
the ocean. Is fatality really the proper measure? Are there
other marine biologists who use other measures of the effect of
these seismic testings?
Dr. Knapp. I will go first.
Dr. Holt. We can't go through those.
Dr. Knapp. I will try to keep it brief. Thank you for the
question, Ranking Member Holt. First and foremost, I am an
earth scientist and not a marine biologist, so I can't claim to
be an authority on that. But the number of studies that I am
aware of in the published scientific literature refer to
behavioral changes that may result, and avoidance measures that
marine mammals may take, from seismic boats. But I am not aware
of any documented case of actual damage to marine mammals as a
result of seismic work.
Dr. Holt. Well, my time has expired. I am sorry, Mr.
Barnes. If you can submit something later on this subject, I
would be interested. Thank you.
The Chairman. OK. We will now have one more question and
then we will take a recess. Fortunately, even though the votes
have been called, it is only a single vote so we don't have to
go over there and linger. We can just head right back. So it
will be a short recess.
We will now hear from Representative Wittman, and after
that we will have a recess.
Dr. Wittman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks again for
your leadership in holding this hearing. I want to thank our
witnesses for joining us today.
As you know, Virginia has great potential to be a leader in
offshore oil and gas production on the East Coast. However, we
want to make sure that we understand the full picture as we go
into seismic studies, and we understand seismic studies are
critically important to getting that information.
For Virginia, it has been a bipartisan effort. Both of our
Senators, Senator Kaine and Senator Warner, are strongly in
favor of this, as well as our new Governor, Governor-elect
McAuliffe, they feel very strongly about energy production
there on the Atlantic Coast, and I along with all of our
members of the Virginia delegation were disappointed that
Virginia was not included in the 2012-2017 Outer Continental
Shelf oil and gas leasing program.
We are also disappointed that it has taken 5 years for
circular arguments to take place and for there not to be any
forward progress on the final environmental impact statement to
move things forward. There has been a lot of talk about let's
explore, but talk is cheap, action is needed, and it is
critically important that we get that done. A recent study
highlights the importance to Virginia as well as other States
on the East Coast by indicating that about 25,000 jobs would be
created in Virginia and billions in economic activities for
opening up the Atlantic OCS.
I want to begin questioning by going to Mr. Cruickshank and
asking your perspective on, first of all, why it has taken so
long for the EIS to be done and when will you make the final
decision?
Mr. Cruickshank. The EIS has taken longer than we had
originally anticipated because of the complexity of the issues
involved with seismic in the Atlantic. There has been a lot of
new science developed, a lot of constructive comments that we
received over the years, and the consultation for endangered
species as well all added to the time it took to complete, but
we are on schedule to publish the final EIS by the end of
February.
Dr. Wittman. By the end of February, very good. I want to
point recently to Secretary Jewell's comments where she stated
before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee that
the collection of new seismic data would not be a prerequisite
for developing the next 5-year plan.
And Dr. Cruickshank, I wanted to get your specific comment
on whether the next 5-year plan would in any way, shape or form
be affected by the seismic studies that are currently going on
and the environmental impact statement.
Mr. Cruickshank. What the Secretary was saying I agree
with, is that we can consider whether or not to include the
Mid- and South Atlantic in the next 5-year program without
those seismic surveys having been completed. I think the data
that those surveys would generate would be particularly
important when we are planning for the individual resales under
the 5-year program if those planning areas are included.
Dr. Wittman. OK, very good.
Thank you, Dr. Cruickshank.
Mr. Miller, I want to ask you specifically about the
methodology involving seismic surveys. We know a lot of
technology has improved through the years. The last seismic
survey in the Atlantic was done over 30 years ago. Can you tell
us a little bit about how the technology has improved and what
you would expect seismic surveys today to discover more
abundant resources off of Virginia. And how would those
technologies help us understand the resource but also if you
could explain some of the mitigation measures used by your
company when conducting these surveys? And do you believe that
those mitigation efforts are effective in protecting marine
mammals from the potential impact of seismic operations and any
other of our natural resources or fisheries or fish populations
there in those coastal waters?
Mr. Miller. Yes, sir, I will start with the mitigation
measures, and as an industry, the IGC has worldwide guidelines
that all of our members follow. Part of those mitigation
methods is we employ what we call marine mammal observers on
vessels that are monitoring, and if they do see a marine mammal
come into the exclusion zone, which those are set by BOEM, and
it is different in different areas, then we shut the operation
down. We also include a passive monitor at night, acoustic
monitor to listen, but all those are done, are common practice
worldwide on our vessels now.
In regards to the operations, since the 1980s, the seismic
industry has come a long way, just like all technology has, and
what we would really see an improvement on is we would tow a
longer streamer, which is collect deeper data to help
understand the deep structures and the architecture of the
Atlantic basin, which we are unable to see right now, and that
is the activity that we are seeing in West Africa and South
America, and in the Atlantic margin is where they are having
massive discoveries in those deeper sections, so we would
expect, just like in the Gulf of Mexico, as the 3D came in, the
reserve base increased five times just on technology, on the
seismic technology. We would expect the same thing just with
this new technology off the East Coast.
Dr. Wittman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I yield back.
The Chairman. OK, thank you, and we are going to take a
short recess of approximately 15 to 20 minutes. The committee
will be in recess.
[Recess.]
The Chairman. The subcommittee will come back to order. OK.
The committee will come back to order. We will conclude our
hearing. I appreciate everyone's indulgence as we took a brief
recess. We will now resume members' questioning and will go to
the distinguished Member from Massachusetts, Representative
Tsongas.
Ms. Tsongas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
As everyone is well aware and as Ranking Member Holt
referenced, tomorrow is the third year anniversary of the
report issued by the National Commission on the BP Deepwater
Horizon Oil Spill. And as we have also heard today several
times, Congress has received an abysmal D-plus on their
response to the disaster from the former commissioners, as we
have yet to enact many of the recommended legislative reforms
to improve the safety of offshore drilling.
It is unfortunate, and that is to say it mildly, that my
colleagues across the aisle have chosen to ignore the bulk of
lessons learned from that appalling spill, and much of the push
to explore the Atlantic Coast offshore region ignores the fact
that domestic oil production is at a 20-year high, and natural
gas production is at an all-time high in the United States.
We should be making sure that the current oil production
boom occurs in a manner that protects its workers, coastal
communities, and the environment. We cannot discuss expanding
offshore drilling in the Atlantic without first passing
meaningful legislation to enhance drilling safety. I am proud
to be a cosponsor of Ranking Member DeFazio and Subcommittee
Ranking Member Holt's legislation, the Offshore Energy Safety
and Technology Improvements Act, which Mr. Holt outlined in his
opening remarks.
A recent report from the American Petroleum Institute
claims to lay out the economic benefits of opening up the
entire Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf to oil and natural gas
development. However, this report ignores the potential impact,
economic impacts on tourism and fishing industries in the event
of a spill.
Mr. Boesch, from your experiences in the Gulf and as a
member of the Commission, how extensive was the economic impact
on the local fishing and tourism industries following the BP
Deepwater Horizon disaster?
Dr. Boesch. Well, thank you. The impact was indeed
extensive because it basically shut down both industries for
some months during that year. Fishing has resumed, and there is
at this point no indication that there are truly major long-
lasting impacts, but people literally lost their livelihoods
for a full year; similarly, with the tourist industry. And in
both cases, there is a longer-term impact in terms of the
brand. People associate the Gulf of Mexico and going there for
a vacation or eating Gulf seafood with that oil spill, so those
industries are very concerned about the long-term impact in
terms of their attractiveness to tourists or people who consume
seafood.
Ms. Tsongas. Well, I appreciate that, because from the
information we have, at the peak of the closure, over 88,000
square miles or nearly 30 percent, 37 percent of all Federal
waters in the Gulf of Mexico were off limits to fishing. The
National Academy of Science estimates that fishery closures
decreased commercial production by 20 percent, which created,
obviously, an immediate economic hardship for fishermen and
also triggered, as you just mentioned, public concerns
regarding the safety of Gulf seafood. It hurt the brand, which
is much more difficult to quantify.
As you know, my home State of Massachusetts is also home to
historic fishing and tourism industries, and like many of the
Gulf States, the health of our oceans is directly tied to the
economic health of our communities. While the hearing today is
not focused on New England and the North Atlantic, our region
is still highly relevant to today's discussion as it could well
be a precursor to future efforts to drill off New England
shores.
And just as a statement for the record, in Massachusetts,
we depend on the ocean and coastal areas for shipping,
commercial fishing, and tourism. In fact, Massachusetts is home
to the most profitable port in the Nation in New Bedford,
Massachusetts, which brings in over $400 million a year in
commercial fishery landings. That would be a significant impact
were there to be a spill that prevented that from taking place,
and the New England region as a whole brings in over $1.1
billion in commercial landings annually and has a ripple effect
on our entire region.
So we know the ocean is not a static ecosystem. What
happens impacts many, and for the record, I thank you for your
testimony today because it demonstrates that it is highly
irresponsible for us to consider expanding offshore drilling
and putting these important industries in jeopardy without
first taking any action to improve overall drilling safety.
Thank you, and I yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you.
I would like to remind everyone, including our witnesses,
that the subject of this hearing is seismic exploration off the
Mid- and South Atlantic.
OK, we will now resume questioning, and I would like to
recognize Representative Duncan.
Mr. Duncan. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I second Rob
Wittman from Virginia's comments, this is very timely, and it
is something that the State of South Carolina is very
interested in as well, including our offshore areas in a
potential lease sale and developing the resources that we may
have off our coasts and benefiting from the jobs that will be
created and the revenue sharing back to the State.
Mr. Cruickshank, just real quick, you don't have to answer
this question, but I wish your office could provide to my
office, because you are doing the environmental impact
statement, a single instance where a marine mammal's death was
attributed to seismic. I have researched on the Internet, we
have looked in other sources, and I can't find a single
instance. So if you have that information, I certainly would
appreciate it because we can't find a single instance where a
marine mammal was killed based on seismic work.
Mr. Miller, 300 million years ago, the tectonic plates and
the continents were all together in an area call Pangaea, and
those continents separated. Would you say that the geological
features along the Atlantic Coast are very similar to those you
would find in North Africa and West Africa because that area
was connected to the eastern Continental United States 300
million years ago?
Mr. Miller. Yes, sir, that is a play that is undertaking
right now within industry, the conjugate margin between Angola,
which has huge oil reserves, and Brazil, and they are looking
at the same thing with the conjugate between Morocco,
Mauritania up into the eastern----
Mr. Duncan. And there are oil and natural gas resources in
that part of the world?
Mr. Miller. That is correct, and there is a lot of activity
and a lot of money being spent in those two countries right
now.
Mr. Duncan. Just one other question. In 1987, I think MMS
estimated in the Gulf of Mexico that there were about 9.57
billion barrels of oil. What did recent seismic and actual data
from wells in the field show?
Mr. Miller. Off the East Coast or in Africa?
Mr. Duncan. Well, no, just in the Gulf of Mexico.
Mr. Miller. In the Gulf of Mexico----
Mr. Duncan. Just comparing the 1987 MMS estimate of 9.57
and what we are finding out there now.
Mr. Miller. Yeah, I am sorry. The Gulf of Mexico, the
technology that was developed there with the 3D seismic and
then onwards from other types of improvements on 3D seismic, it
was a fivefold increase in reserves, based on that technology,
before they put the drill bit in the ground. Since then, it has
increased another three. In the last 15 years, it has tripled.
Mr. Duncan. So the estimate was about 10 billion barrels,
and fivefold of that would be almost 50 billion barrels. That
is a big difference from what MMS expected to find based on old
seismic data and what actually we are finding now in new
seismic and well data, correct?
Mr. Miller. That is very correct.
Mr. Duncan. OK, so let's fast forward or let's move over to
the Atlantic Coast. Thirty years ago, we had seismic work done
that estimated fairly significant reserves that are
harvestable, but wouldn't you agree with me that if we use new
3D and 4D technology, new updated 21st century seismic
technology, that we may expect to find significant differences
between 30-year-old technology and today?
Mr. Miller. Yes, the industry is expecting to see that
improvement and increase with the new seismic.
Mr. Duncan. Well, thank you for that.
Professor Knapp, thanks for being here. Your valuable
testimony and your experience brings a wealth of information to
this committee. What geological potential do you see for the
Atlantic in terms of oil and natural gas?
Dr. Knapp. Thank you for the question, Congressman Duncan.
Our group, as I alluded to in my statement, has been revisiting
the tectonic and geologic evolution of the Atlantic margin, and
we have come up I think with some surprising new details that
play into both the evolution of the deposition of sediments,
the organic richness of those sediments, as well as the
presence or absence of a large volcanic province that would
affect the thermal maturity of the Atlantic margin. So there is
a lot of new information I think that would need to be fed into
revised seismic interpretations to really come up with a new
and revised estimate of the resource potential.
Mr. Duncan. Well, let me ask you this, what do you think
the impact would be on institutions of higher education, such
as the University of South Carolina, from ramping up offshore
seismic exploration in future production? What do you think
that would, what kind of impact would that have on an
institution of higher ed?
Dr. Knapp. I think it could have a very important effect. I
think there could be a very strong partnership actually between
institutions of higher education and training a workforce for
the 21st century that is focused on the energy industries,
especially if there is the potential for developing those
resources there geographically.
Mr. Duncan. Real quickly, because my time is up, but you
mentioned in your research, in your statement, that there was
some onshore seismic well data that has been calling into
question more than 30 years of research on the Atlantic
continental margin, suggesting that many previous
interpretations of the geologic evolution were in error. Can
you explain that? What do you mean by that?
Dr. Knapp. Real briefly, that is not uncommon in science,
that is the way science works, that we are constantly testing
our hypotheses and coming up with new interpretations, but in
this case, it is what I just alluded to, those features about
whether there was a large volcanic province that developed on
the margin that would have blanketed the entire area before the
Atlantic opened, we have demonstrated now that that didn't
exist or if it did, it is no longer there. So there are things
like that that are fundamental to our understanding of the
tectonic evolution of passive margins where these deposits
accumulate that have never been put into the resource
estimates, so those are the kinds----
Mr. Duncan. Thanks so much. I appreciate it.
I yield back.
The Chairman. OK.
Now I would like to recognize Representative Pallone for 5
minutes.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you for letting me sit in on the committee.
I wanted to ask some questions of Mr. Cruickshank. I hope I
am pronouncing it right. First, I wanted to impress upon the
Department once again that we on the Atlantic Coast can't
afford the inevitable environmental and economic costs that
offshore drilling has proven to inflict on Americans. As you
know, I am totally opposed to any drilling off the coast of the
Atlantic.
In New Jersey, the tourism sector, which is anchored to our
clean beaches and ocean, generated $34.7 billion in 2012 alone,
and that is 7 percent of the entire State economy. Tourism
sustained more than 5,000 jobs or 10 percent of total
employment in New Jersey. And commercial fishing supports more
than 43,000 jobs. And recreational fishing supports almost
another 10,000. So my question is, what assurances can you
offer me and my constituents that oil and gas exploration in
the Atlantic will not put these jobs and my State's economy at
risk?
Mr. Cruickshank. Congressman, thank you for the question.
We have not made any decisions at this point whether or not to
allow oil and gas exploration development in the Atlantic. What
we are doing in this programmatic EIS is looking at the
seismic, and that sort of information will help us make
decisions in the future about whether to offer areas in the
Atlantic. I can say there are no guarantees that there cannot
be incidents in the future, but the Department has been very
aggressive in recent years in trying to make reforms and
regulatory changes to improve the safety of offshore
operations. And if we didn't believe that we could operate in a
safe manner, then we would not be pursuing the sorts of things
that we are in the leasing program.
Mr. Pallone. Well, on December 26, NOAA released draft
acoustic guidelines for assessing the effects of sound on
marine mammals, obviously important when considering the
impacts of seismic air gun testing. In July, when Secretary
Jewell testified before the full Natural Resources Committee, I
asked that she commit to waiting until these guidelines are
published and finalized before issuing a final PEIS on this
matter. And she said that she would consider my request after
reviewing it with staff. Can you tell me whether the Department
will wait until the guidelines have been finalized and fully
considered before issuing the final PEIS?
Mr. Cruickshank. At this point, only part of the guidelines
have been put out for the draft for public comments, and to my
knowledge, at this point, there is no schedule for when the
remaining parts will be put out for public comment or when any
of those criteria will be finalized, so we are proceeding with
publishing the final PEIS, but I want to make the point that
this PEIS itself does not authorize any seismic activity, that
each application will be subject to a site-specific
environmental review and to authorizations under the Marine
Mammal Protection Act that we will be able to consider any new
information including the criteria as they come out.
Mr. Pallone. Well, would waiting for Congress to adopt the
recommendations of the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Commission
before moving forward with any offshore oil and gas exploration
be prudent and make it less likely that a spill would cause
catastrophic damage? As you know, I have been pushing for those
recommendations to be adopted. We are not getting much help--
well, any help really--from the Republicans in the majority to
accomplish that. So would it make sense to simply wait to adopt
those Commission recommendations before we move forward?
Mr. Cruickshank. We have been implementing as many of the
recommendations administratively as we are able to, but
certainly that suite of recommendations and where we are in
implementing them and what the residual risks are, are all
factors that the Secretary will consider in deciding in the
future whether or not to allow leasing activity offshore in the
Atlantic.
Mr. Pallone. Let me, because I have less than a minute. Dr.
Boesch, one of the findings of that Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill
Commission was that there needs to be better science and
greater interagency consultation to improve decisionmaking
related to management of offshore resources, and the Commission
recommended that Congress give NOAA a formal consultative role
during Interior's development of offshore drilling plans. Could
you just tell us why the Commission made its recommendation,
how you believe giving NOAA more of a formal role in statute
would help lead to better decisionmaking?
Dr. Boesch. Yes sir. Simply because it is the Federal
agency which has responsibility for other important resources
along our coasts, and so as we make these decisions in which we
weigh the risks and benefits with respect to energy resources,
renewable energy resources, living resources, we have to think
about making sure that our government is working together
effectively to help make those prudent decisions.
Mr. Pallone. All right, thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for letting me participate.
The Chairman. Thank you.
I would like to now recognize Representative Flores.
Mr. Flores. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to thank the panel for attending today. We
have two subjects that I would like to talk about. One is
somehow offshore drilling safety wound its way into a
discussion about seismic activity. Just to make sure we
understand the nexus between the discussion we are talking
about today and some of the red herring comments that have been
thrown out regarding offshore drilling safety, I think it is
important to try to build how that relationship works.
So, Mr. Cruickshank, let's start with you. So let's assume
the PEIS is issued in February. What is the earliest that
drilling would occur in any, either of these two areas, Mid-
Atlantic or South Atlantic, if we have a lease sale and if we
approve drilling permits? What is the very earliest that that
would happen?
Mr. Cruickshank. Well, the first thing that would have to
happen is that the Secretary would have to decide to include
those areas in----
Mr. Flores. Just assuming they did, right.
Mr. Cruickshank. From 2017 to 2022, for a frontier area
where we would need to do----
Mr. Flores. Just a short answer, just what is the earliest,
I mean, how many years?
Mr. Cruickshank. It would probably be toward the latter
half of the next 5-year program.
Mr. Flores. Right. So, I mean, we are talking 4 years at
the earliest, 5 years, something like that?
Mr. Cruickshank. Yes.
Mr. Flores. So we have got substantial time to address the
issues related to offshore drilling that have been raised
today. The next question also for Mr. Cruickshank is this: One
is, your agency has made policy changes with respect to
offshore drilling safety, has it not, you and BSEE? I am
including you collaboratively with BSEE.
Mr. Cruickshank. That is correct.
Mr. Flores. OK. And has the industry made any improvements
in offshore drilling safety?
Mr. Cruickshank. Yes, the industry has upgraded a lot of
its practices as well.
Mr. Flores. OK. So, I mean, the bottom line here is safety
improvements have not stopped, irrespective of what Congress
has done regarding the Commission's report. Is that correct?
Mr. Cruickshank. That is correct.
Mr. Flores. OK. Just by way of comparison, Mr. Barnes, what
is the earliest, I mean, your regulatory system is a lot
different, in many ways, it is much more efficient than what
ours is. What is the earliest, if seismic activity was approved
in a particular area today, what is the earliest that drilling
would occur offshore of Nova Scotia and Canada?
Mr. Barnes. Usually, if seismic is approved and seismic is
acquired, there is usually about 2 years between when the
seismic program is finished and when a company decides to
undertake a drilling program.
Mr. Flores. Right. And so drilling would----
Mr. Barnes. That is an industry decision, as opposed to a
government decision.
Mr. Flores. Right. So drilling would be later on, then, as
well?
Mr. Barnes. That is correct.
Mr. Flores. So, anyway, I think we can sort of dispense
with the hysteria about seismic today means that we are going
to have an accident tomorrow. I mean, there is plenty of time
for the Congress to look at the recommendations, and now let's
get on to the subject that is really important here.
Mr. Cruickshank, I would like to go back to you. We are
hoping to get this PEIS in February. What will the next steps
be before the next 5-year plan begins in 2017?
Mr. Cruickshank. Are you referring to the next steps
regarding seismic activity?
Mr. Flores. Well, in order to get to where we can have a 5-
year lease sale plan, what would happen? The next 5-year plan
is due in 2017, as I understand it, so what steps do you have
to make between the PEIS and the next lease sale?
Mr. Cruickshank. This programmatic EIS does not feed
particularly into the next 5-year program. The Outer
Continental Shelf Lands Act has a very involved process for
developing the 5-year program that we will be kicking off in
the coming year.
Mr. Flores. Right. This doesn't necessarily mean that we
are going to have a lease sale in the next, in the Mid-Atlantic
or South Atlantic area in the 2017 plan, right? That is where I
am going with this.
Mr. Cruickshank. That is correct. The decision has not been
made yet.
Mr. Flores. Mr. Miller, you talked about the robust
environmental procedures the industry follows. Will you expand
on how you work with other ocean interests to protect our
economy, I mean the other parts of the economy such as fishing
and shipping?
Mr. Miller. The vessels that are working and will be
working off the Atlantic have a professional group on board
that communicates with the shipping industry and the fishing
industry while we are out there. Besides the marine mammal
observers that are on board, the vessels also employ what we
call a chase vessel that is an escort vessel to help to
communicate with the fishing business. Those are on all of our
operations within our industry.
Mr. Flores. OK, thank you.
And Mr. Miller, a follow up to that. Has there been, in
terms of risk to marine life, is there more risk from the other
activities in the ocean, such as shipping and fishing or
seismic? Which one has the greater risk profile to marine life?
Mr. Miller. I am not an expert on that, but I know that
within the last 40 years, we have not seen an event, a
mortality event in the seismic business.
Mr. Flores. Exactly.
Mr. Miller. I would assume that the shipping business may
be a little bit different.
Mr. Flores. Mr. Barnes, what is your, what are your
observations in that regard in terms of other economic
activities in the ocean versus seismic activity. Which has had
the bigger impact on marine life?
Mr. Barnes. Oh, definitely other economic activities. The
seismic industry has very little impact on marine life.
Mr. Flores. OK. So I think we have proven today that
seismic activity is an important precursor to any energy
activity offshore. It doesn't mean it is necessarily going to
happen. It is also safe, and it has nothing to do at this point
with offshore drilling safety.
So, Mr. Chairman, with that, thank you. I yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Representative Benishek.
Dr. Benishek. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to thank you all as well for being here and
taking the time to sit before us to answer questions. I have a
couple questions.
The first one is to you, Mr. Cruickshank. I am sort of
curious about the process of the environmental impact statement
development. As I understand from your testimony earlier, the
delay has come over new data being found, and you are trying to
evaluate more and more information to include that all in the
process. Is that correct?
Mr. Cruickshank. Yes, we are supposed to include the best
available science as we are preparing this document. As we
become aware of new information, we need to evaluate it and
consider that information.
Dr. Benishek. Now, let me just ask you this: In my
experience in developing procedures and regulations, I am a
doctor, we have to do things on a timely basis, and we have to
decide how to treat patients based on the best available
knowledge and institute those practices, and so we have a
timeline that we say we are going to try to get as much
information as we can by this date, and then we are going to
act on that data, you know, by studying it for a certain period
of time, and then we are going to issue the regulations so that
they come out in a timely fashion so that improvements can be
made in a timely fashion. And I am somewhat concerned about
your testimony, and it doesn't seem to me that there is a
timeline. You know, it has been 5 years that they have been
working on these regulations, well that hasn't improved
anything in 5 years. Is there a timeline, or do you just keep
adding on more information as time goes by? I mean, I want the
best information, too, but a timely improvement in regulations
is important as well. Can you comment on that scenario for me,
please?
Mr. Cruickshank. We try to be as efficient as we can in
developing these documents, but there was a wealth of
information that came in and needed to be evaluated. It is not
that we are waiting for new information to come, but when the
information is given to us, we do have to evaluate it.
Dr. Benishek. Well, then you would just stop what you are
doing and maybe change everything you have been working on for
the last 2 years if information came in tomorrow that you
thought might change it or somebody in your department might
change it, you just might change everything you have done for
the last 5 years and start over again. Is that right?
Mr. Cruickshank. If there is some significant new
information that we needed to pull into our analysis, we
would----
Dr. Benishek. Who decides that?
Mr. Cruickshank. The scientists decide whether the
information that is being provided is something that represents
something that needs to be incorporated.
Dr. Benishek. Not somebody at your level then? Is it
somebody higher than you or lower than you?
Mr. Cruickshank. It is our scientists, our marine
biologists, our oceanographers.
Dr. Benishek. Well, there is some concern on my part about
that whole process, where there doesn't seem to be a timeline
because making improvements on, like, a 5-year basis, you know,
to continue to make progress doesn't happen if we delay
improvement in the regulations based on last-minute
information. You understand what I am saying, what I am trying
to get to?
Mr. Cruickshank. I do, and this EIS has taken longer than
an EIS typically takes for us, but this was a particularly
complicated and challenging EIS to complete.
Dr. Benishek. Well, 5 years seems to be a long time to me
to get something done.
Mr. Barnes, the permitting process in Canada, is it
different than what Mr. Cruickshank describes? I mean, do they
try to take care of things as they come up time after time, or
is there a timely basis involved?
Mr. Barnes. The regulatory approval process is pretty
similar to what is in the United States, but we have I think
shorter approval times that are actually legislated in
practice. I can't be sure if you have legislative approval
times, but we do in Canada, such that when a company applies
for a seismic application to do seismic, they get approval
within, you know, a certain number of months.
Dr. Benishek. Well, anyway, the point I was trying to get
to, Mr. Cruickshank, is that I am very suspicious of
bureaucracies that don't do their jobs, and getting this
environmental impact statement done on a timely basis would
seem to be the job of your agency, and the idea that I could
just submit data to you today that would change everything is
sort of scary to me because we are not going to make any
progress. We are going to maybe wait 10 years to develop
something instead of having regular improvements over a period
of time.
Mr. Cruickshank. Our scientists are well connected to the
professional community, so it is not like we would see science
come in today that would totally change the way we look at
things, because they have been involved with the practitioners
and other scientists around the world and understand what sorts
of things are being developed. It is just a matter of trying to
evaluate it and incorporate it in the context of EIS that can
take some time to do.
Dr. Benishek. Well, OK, I understand your rationale, but
there are many other industries that do this on a timely basis,
and we make continuing progress.
My time is up. Thank you.
The Chairman. Representative Lowenthal.
Dr. Lowenthal. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I understand we
have already touched on the topic that I would like to go on
already today, but I would really like to go back and
understand a little bit more about the marine mammal impacts.
And so, for Mr. Cruickshank, I came today because I have
been interested in the potential and understanding more about
the harmful impacts or potential harmful impacts of seismic
surveys on marine life and especially on the sea turtle and the
endangered right whale. And what I want to ask is how you can
help us understand how these animals are actually affected by
seismic surveys. So, for example, how far away does the right
whale need to be from an acoustic source to not be affected?
What are the immediate and long-term effects? What are the
resulting consequences for the animals? I know this may be
difficult to answer and may be different for different animals,
but could you just give me an overview of what is actually
happening here?
Mr. Cruickshank. Yes. I would preface by saying I am not
the marine biologist, so if you have questions about specific
impacts on specific species, we will be able to get that to you
after the hearing, but generally what we try to do is take a
look at the sorts of impacts that are possible, and you are
right, they do vary by species and location. And then a big
part of the NEPA process is trying to design mitigation and
monitoring measures that would reduce or eliminate those sorts
of potential impacts, and so a lot of what we are trying to do
in this process is to try to figure out what conditions we
should place on approvals that would best protect those
species.
Dr. Lowenthal. And in trying to figure out, based upon the
research, where is the uncertainty? I know you are not a
research scientist, but where is the uncertainty in our
understanding of acoustic? Do we need further research? Are we
really clear about what those impacts are, or really are we
just kind of just assuming that we understand what those
impacts are?
Mr. Cruickshank. I think it is a combination of things,
there is always additional research that can be done, and we
continue to fund research on these very questions. I think, you
know, what we try to understand through our research is how
these species do react to these sound sources and how effective
the mitigation measures have been, but there are a lot of
species out there, a lot of ocean to cover, and we are
continuing to learn new things as we conduct this research. And
those things will be considered in future decisionmaking.
Dr. Lowenthal. And you mentioned mitigation measures. Can
you be more specific? What are those measures that we use to
mitigate these effects?
Mr. Cruickshank. There is a suite of activities we do now
for seismic, including having marine mammal observers,
requiring shutdown and ramp up to make sure that if there are
species in the area that they have a chance to get out of the
way before they are hit by loud noises. We are looking at a
number of other possible mitigation in this EIS, including time
area closures, minimum separation distances between
simultaneous surveys, passive acoustic monitoring, and adaptive
management strategies. We are continuing to try to identify
best practices and improve our mitigation.
Dr. Lowenthal. So you think that in the preferred
alternative in the draft programmatic environmental impact
statement, the PEIS, that we really are maximizing these
mitigation opportunities?
Mr. Cruickshank. We have been working with other scientists
and with NOAA to try and understand what the best practices
would be, and we are trying to develop those mitigation
measures that we think would be the most effective.
Dr. Lowenthal. I am just wondering if anyone else on the
panel has anything to add to this and help me in my
understanding of just really what those impacts are.
Dr. Boesch. Yes, Mr. Lowenthal, I am here representing the
oil spill commission, and we did not investigate this issue of
the effects of seismic exploration.
However, unlike Dr. Cruickshank and Dr. Knapp, I have to
admit that I am a marine biologist, and I am not an expert on
marine mammals, but I have obviously followed the issues. And I
just want to say that part of the problem that the agency has
in making these decisions is that the science isn't all lined
up in the same direction in saying that there are no concerns
and no risks. There are legitimate concerns, not only with
respect to mortality, but more specifically with respect to
avoidance that have significant effects on the species. And I
know scientists who have different views about these things,
which means that it is a matter of scientific, legitimate
scientific controversy, and so this is the kind of challenge
the agency has of sorting through this, to kind of make the
decision and then to make the decision the way that provides
protection.
Dr. Lowenthal. Thank you, and I yield back.
The Chairman. OK, thank you.
We will have one more round of questioning. I am going to
then give the gavel to Representative Miller to finish up after
I ask my questions, and then we will--Duncan, excuse me, and
then we will conclude. My question is for Mr. Miller; that is
why that was on my mind. Sorry about that.
Mr. Miller, and I got it right this time, not Dr. Miller,
in 2012, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management and the Bureau
of Safety and Environmental Enforcement put out a joint notice
to lessees updating mitigation measures for marine mammals
during seismic operations in the Gulf of Mexico. These
regulations set up a rigorous process to minimize any possible
impacts on marine mammals. Can you discuss how your company
implements these specific measures, such as the use of ramping
up procedures and marine observers?
Mr. Miller. Within the industry, all of the vessels
worldwide now carry marine mammal observers, and they are
usually locally based. Those are on the vessel with binoculars,
on the bridge looking out for marine mammals, and if there is a
mammal that is within the exclusion zone, then the vessel is
shut down, and there is a time period that that vessel cannot
discharge the energy source to let this animal move out of the
area. At that point, there is a ramp up, and you start with a
low volume energy source until you get back up to your
production levels. It is very common practice. The whole
industry operates within those guidelines. There are industry
guidelines that the IGC puts out, and we all, we follow those
worldwide.
The Chairman. And Mr. Miller, I assume that you have great
flexibility in terms of if some whales or other marine mammals
are coming into the area, that you can wait while they depart,
come and go, and still conduct the seismic exploration around
their behavior?
Mr. Miller. Yes, 100 percent correct. I mean, you may move
a little bit to a different area, but we are flexible. That is
the nature of our business. We work with them, and we respect
it, so it is not a problem.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Dr. Knapp, there have not been new seismic surveys
conducted in the Atlantic OCS in over 30 years. We have talked
about this earlier. Much of the data that is currently being
used by the Federal Government to make oil and gas resource
assessments is from the late 1970s. Can you talk about how the
science and technology has changed since that time?
And, Mr. Miller, if you want to add to this discussion,
please feel free to do so.
Dr. Knapp. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We are in the process
of and have been working with the so-called legacy data from
the Atlantic OCS, and clearly, it is a useful resource, but
given the technological developments that have taken place in
not only the last 30 years, but in particular the last 10
years, for the acquisition of 3D seismic data, there are
advancements, significant advancements that have been made both
in the design and just the acquisition of the data, let alone
the processing and the interpretation, so it would be the
equivalent of using a, you know, a rock to draw in the sand
versus having a computer to basically write something, the
difference in what the technology is allowing us, and some
spectacular examples in terms of that 3-dimensional imaging of
very complex structures that we find in the subsurface.
Mr. Miller. Just briefly. The technology, the big
technology that has the longer offset that is going to image
these deeper plays, and we have been modeling. It is very easy
to take the old data that is at 3,000 meters and take the new
data that is 12,000 meters that we have in other parts of the
world, but you only process the three and you compare them, and
they look very similar, the old data and new data if you only
use part of it, but when you add the rest of the offsets then
the image improves dramatically, and that is what we are going
to see.
The Chairman. OK, thank you all for your testimony.
I am going to hand the gavel over to Representative Duncan
and, at this point, recognize Representative Costa for 5
minutes of questions.
Mr. Costa. Thank you.
Mr. Duncan [presiding]. The gentleman from California.
Mr. Costa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. From the snippets of
the comments I have heard based upon the questions, although I
didn't catch the opening statements, I am questioning after the
report here that there seems to be consensus as to, one, the
new science and technology; two, an acknowledgment of lessons
learned; three, a need at this point for the Congress to act to
provide the guidelines to demonstrate how we move forward. The
tremendous resources that are there I think everyone is aware
of. Members of Congress, before they get into their questioning
mode, always have to get their bona fides, right, whether we
have them or not, but the fact is for some of us who are avid
sailors on coastal waters and who have spent time in various
parts of the Atlantic and the Pacific, who are familiar with
migratory patterns with whales and their pods and other sea
life, I think that there is a way this can be done, and I think
science has demonstrated that it can be done, so I guess I am
trying to understand what the problem is here, except that,
like a lot of other things, Congress has failed to take action
to provide the direction. Am I missing something?
Dr. Knapp. Thank you, Mr. Costa.
Not in my opinion. I think it should be fairly
straightforward that these studies should move forward with
expedition.
Mr. Miller. We conduct these surveys all over the world
safely, and there is no reason that this cannot be taken
forward and completed.
Mr. Costa. I mean, that is my sense. I mean, I was just off
the Santa Barbara coast last month, and the ability to make
determinations as to when these migratory patterns take place
is well documented, and I mean, we have greater issues with
these mammals being injured as a result of them normally
pursuing sea lanes and shipping taking place that accidentally
has an incident where there is an injury, but where you are
planning the seismology and you are doing different grid
patterns and you are focused in an area, what is happening in
that area. It is totally different than ships that are going on
a 24-7 basis that are involved in shipping lanes. I mean, for
those of us who are on a 30- or 40-foot sailboat, hell, they
don't even look at us. You need to be careful and beware.
So it seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that this is one of those
issues that there ought to be consensus with and that we ought
to be able to move forward with, realizing that there are some
other issues that are out there that we all have concerns about
as it relates to safely dealing with exploration and
development of these resources that I think are far more
serious than this issue of seismology and the testing that goes
with it.
Any other comments that either of you would like to make?
Dr. Knapp. If I could, Congressman Costa, I agree with you,
and I would also make the point that it seems that in many
cases, people are viewing exploration, seismic acquisition and
exploration production as an either/or proposition with a lot
of the other industries that take place in the offshore:
shipping, fishing, tourism, et cetera, and I really don't think
that is accurate. I think that we have proven that those
activities can go on simultaneously in many other parts of the
world.
Mr. Costa. I mean, there is another issue here, and of
course, the technology we know has changed tremendously in the
last 20, 25 years. There are some folks, and I disagree with
them, who don't want to see any additional utilization of the
offshore resource, whether it be oil or gas. And so they want a
complete moratorium on any exploration, let alone any
utilization of that resource. And so, therefore, I understand
their goal is not to have any seismology testing and to
question the efficacy of the seismology testing because they
have a different view, and that is they don't want any of the
resource to be utilized.
So let's be clear about that. If the goal is we shouldn't
open up any of these areas period, for a host of reasons that
they believe are valid, I understand that. I may disagree with
it, but I understand that, but it is not the seismology testing
that is the issue.
Anyway, I have expired my time, and thank you. I yield
back.
Mr. Duncan. I thank the gentleman from California.
I will recognize myself for 5 minutes.
Dr. Knapp and Mr. Miller, the seismic work that we are
talking about, the technology that is being used, is it
currently being used all over the globe for seismic research
for oil and natural gas?
Mr. Miller. Yes, that is correct, our industry has vessels
operating in every ocean right now, except Antarctic, but all
over the world.
Mr. Duncan. So we are not talking about anything that is
new and that hasn't been tried and true, tested?
Mr. Miller. That is correct.
Mr. Duncan. OK.
Mr. Barnes, can you discuss further what sort of mitigation
effort seismic companies operating in the Canadian Atlantic
utilize to minimize the impact of marine life?
Mr. Barnes. Very similar mitigation measures as has already
been mentioned. We have marine mammal observers on board
seismic vessels. We do slow ramp ups of the sound source. We do
constant communication with the fishing industry, so they
understand. We do seismic, and we understand in the oil and gas
industry, where there are any fishing industries, we avoid any
conflict. And finally, we avoid areas where there are spawning
grounds at certain points of the year.
Mr. Duncan. And I would assume that is very similar to what
is being done in the Gulf of Mexico for mitigation. Are you
familiar with that?
Mr. Barnes. I assume so, but I am sure others on the panel
would have better information.
Mr. Duncan. Mr. Cruickshank?
Mr. Cruickshank. That is correct, a similar source of
mitigation measures around shutdown and ramp up, marine mammal
observers, marine debris requirements, vessel strike avoidance.
There is a whole suite of measures in place.
Mr. Duncan. The new environmental impact statement and
study, will the recommendations of that namely mirror what is
currently being done, or can you elaborate on what you are
going to put in there for future mitigation because I think the
oil and natural gas companies and the seismic companies,
rather, need to know what is coming and whether it is going to
be cost-prohibitive. Or is it going to mirror what is being
done in Canada, what is being done in the GOM now?
Mr. Cruickshank. The measures currently in place in the
Gulf will be used in the Atlantic. We are also looking at some
other mitigation measures, including time area closures where
certain areas might be closed during certain seasons when there
is a particular concentration of an endangered species in that
area. We are looking at minimum separation distances between
simultaneous surveys, passive acoustic monitoring, adaptive
management, so we are looking at trying to improve our suite of
mitigation measures, but the ones we have been using in the
Gulf will also be in place.
Mr. Duncan. So what I am getting at I guess ultimately is,
we have seismic being done all over the globe similar to what
is going to be done in the Mid- and Southern Atlantic areas
that we are talking about, we have shown that there is no
definitive and proven impact where marine mammals have been
killed. I haven't been able to find one, and no one has been
able to provide me that. We have got mitigation that is being
done in the Canadian waters that is very similar to what is
currently being done in the Gulf of Mexico. That mitigation has
basically protected the marine species, so why would we put any
more stringent requirements in place when these are proven
mitigation practices and this is technology that has been used
all over the world? So why would we go beyond what is currently
working?
Mr. Cruickshank. The requirements under the law for
endangered species are not just to avoid death or injury; it is
also to try and minimize effect on behavior. And most of the
impacts that you see from this activity are behavioral effects,
so we are trying to institute measures that would limit the
impact on the behavior of those endangered species.
Mr. Duncan. All right. Well, there was an article today in
the Environmental and Energy Daily by Phil Taylor. And Mr.
Miller, he says that surveys which involve loud blasts from air
guns towed behind ships for a day, weeks or months at a time
are believed to impair hearing in whales and an array of other
marine life. Are you dragging seismic out there for a month at
a time?
Mr. Miller. No, not in a single location, no. We move. The
vessel is on a grid or a track, and we are in different
locations. It is not in one location we sit all the time.
Mr. Duncan. OK. This article goes on to quote the gentleman
from New Jersey who testified or asked questions earlier who
has lobbied to the Obama administration to stop the seismic
plan. He has called it the first step to offshore drilling, and
we have to put a stop to it before we experience a Deepwater
Horizon-like disaster in the Atlantic. It is an intent to put
stop to seismic because they don't want to see offshore
drilling. And seismic is the first step for a 5-year plan. If
you look at the process, seismic, determine what is there, a
lease sale to open up those areas, and then production, and so
I think it is very clear. I don't want to see the mitigation
efforts be so cost-prohibitive and so large and cumbersome that
it doesn't allow the seismic activity to happen off of South
Carolina's coast because we want to see those resources
developed.
And with that, I will recognize the Ranking Member for 5
minutes.
Dr. Holt. I thank the gentleman. My colleague spoke about
our colleague Mr. Pallone from New Jersey. Yes indeed, seismic,
and I will just speak on this without a question, is a first
step, but as we identified in the earlier round of questioning
and in the testimony, there are some very important
recommendations of the Commission that should be implemented
before we expand territory. It is that simple, and we can look
at the question of expansion, expanding territory, but first
things first.
Mr. Cruickshank, I have here a letter from the Mid-Atlantic
Fishery Council, and they point out how important commercial
and recreational fishing is to the economy, to jobs in the Mid-
Atlantic region and say that, in light of the insufficient data
and analysis about the effects the impacts of these activities
on valuable marine resources, the Council cannot support the
draft PEIS.
First of all, Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask unanimous
consent to have this letter included in the record.
Mr. Duncan. Without objection, so ordered.
Dr. Holt. And then I would like to ask, Mr. Cruickshank, if
you think that the impacts, the effects on marine resources are
significant enough that they should be considered in this and
whether you think they are significant enough that they call
for a delay in the expansion.
Mr. Cruickshank. We did receive that comment, and we
consider that comment along with all others in moving from the
draft EIS to the final EIS, and we are using the best
information we have available to us. I would note that these
activities and very productive fisheries have coexisted in the
Gulf of Mexico for quite sometime, so we believe if we put the
right suite of mitigation measures in place, that seismic
activity can occur without having a detrimental impact on
commercial fisheries.
Dr. Holt. OK. I hope that the committee will continue to
collect data, collect evidence to resolve the questions raised
by those whose livelihood depends on these fish, on these
marine species so that we don't just assume that everything is
OK.
I would like to ask a completely separate question about
wind, if I may, Mr. Cruickshank. The Atlantic Coast has been
dubbed the Saudi Arabia of wind because of enormous wind
potential offshore. The Department of Energy estimates that
more than 4,000 gigawatts of offshore wind potential is found
along the coasts, which greatly exceeds what is needed to power
the entire United States. The permitting process for offshore
wind in the Atlantic is farther along than oil and gas, and
unlike oil and gas offshore, wind energy avoids, well, the
threats of seismic air guns and oil spills and greenhouse gas
emissions. There certainly are some advantages to it. Why is
the Administration diverting from the expeditious development
of abundant offshore wind energy and proposing to double down,
in effect, on fossil fuels along the Atlantic Coast?
Mr. Cruickshank. The Administration has an all-of-the-above
approach to energy, and we are aggressively pursuing wind
offshore the Atlantic. We have had two----
Dr. Holt. Give some examples of this aggressive pursuit
then because it doesn't look like it from my point of view.
Mr. Cruickshank. We have had two successful competitive
auctions last year for offshore wind leases to get them in
commercial hands, there are currently five commercial leases
that have been issued to companies off the North and Mid-
Atlantic. We have just announced another lease sale coming up
for an area offshore Maryland, and we are very close to issuing
announcements for additional lease sales off New Jersey and
Massachusetts to issue commercial leases for offshore wind
development. Once those leases are issued, it is then in the
hands of the corporations to be able to put together the
projects.
Dr. Holt. My time is expiring, but please understand that I
have a great deal of interest in this, as do the people of New
Jersey, and we will want aggressive action and a full report,
please. Thank you.
Mr. Duncan. I thank the Ranking Member and I thank Chairman
Lamborn for putting this hearing together and staff for their
work and this panel.
I thank the panelists, excellent testimony.
I just wish there had been more members here involved, but
I want to thank the members that did participate today. Members
of the committee may have additional questions for the record,
and I ask you all to respond to these in writing.
And if there is no further business, without objection, the
committee will stand adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:49 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[all]