STRANGER
THAN FICTION -
THE
TRUTH ABOUT GEORGES BANK
EXPLORATION
AND PRODUCTION OPERATIONS
The
Oil industry traditionally makes sweeping claims and unsupported
assertions based primarily on statistics and models. These generally
go unchallenged due to a lack of hard data available to refute their
evidence. Gradually, this situation is changing and we are now
prepared to address these misconceptions individually using the
latest scientific data. It is up to the reader to critically examine
which truths will ultimately have the greatest impact on Georges Bank
and those who depend on this vital resource.
CLAIM:
Major oil spills are principally caused by tanker accidents not
directly related to Exploration and Production Operations. [Yarmouth
Chamber of Commerce Offshore Oil and Gas Conference October 1998]
FACT:
Of the ten largest oil spills ever recorded, the largest is the
Persian Gulf spill which was caused by an act of war and terrorism.
Four other large spills were caused by Exploration and Production
blowouts. The oil released by these four well blowouts far exceeds
that of the remaining five tanker spills. (See attached list)
CLAIM:
On a global basis offshore operations make only a small contribution
to oil input to the sea. Offshore oil production accounts for only a
small amount of the oil introduced into the world's oceans, perhaps
2% in an average year (National Academy of Sciences 1975).
FACT:
Two percent of total marine oil input is a tremendous amount
especially when much of it is concentrated near coastal areas.
Nearly 49 million gallons (167,000 tonnes) of oil spilled worldwide
into the marine and inland environments from all sources as the
result of 136 incidents during 1997, according to the Oil Spill
Intelligence Report.
“In
the UK context current N Sea Oil activities and associated onshore
developments present a significant threat to the marine environment.”
(R. Johnston 1980)
1.
CLAIM:
Current level of communications, cooperation and compensation
mechanisms appear to allow the fishery and the oil industry to
co-exist on the Scotian shelf9.
[The Environmental Effects of Marine Seismic Exploration on the Fish
and Fisheries of the Scotian Shelf, P. Tsui. 1998]
Canada
Oil and Gas Lands Administration (COGLA) has recommended that
operators on Georges Bank should be participants in the Fishermen’s
Compensation Policy for unattributable damage due to exploration and
Production Activities on Canada's East Coast.13
[Regulation; Number 4 of a series of papers on energy and the
offshore November, 1998]
FACT:
Oil companies can and should be held accountable for their actions
and treatment of fishermen. However, experience in other parts of
the world reveals a reluctance to pay fair claims. Historically,
companies have under-compensated fishermen and have fought lengthy
court battles to avoid paying. (See article below)
The
Seattle Times
Saturday,
June 28, 1997
Copyright
© 1997
The
Seattle Times Company
“In
its October 1991 settlement, Exxon agreed to pay $900 million for
“restoring, replacing, enhancing, rehabilitating or acquiring the
equivalent of natural resources” harmed in the spill.
The
company also paid fines of $125 million to state and federal
governments, much of which has been spent on scientific research and,
purchasing other land.
An
Alaska jury also awarded $5 billion in punitive damages to 28,000
fishermen; native villagers and others harmed by the spill. This
month, Exxon appealed that award in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals in San Francisco.
“Right
after the spill, they said they'd make us whole,” said Cheri Shaw,
executive director of Cordova District Fishermen United, based
southeast of Valdez. “Then they fought us tooth and nail. It's
been eight years, and we haven't seen a dime.”
An
appellate brief filed by Exxon cited juror misconduct, jury
instructions, compensatory-damage errors and the “excessiveness”
of punitive damages.
“We're
going to exercise our right to protect the interests of our
shareholders and employees,” said Ed Burwell, a spokesman for Exxon
in Irving, Texas.
CLAIM:
Blowouts and spills are a risk, albeit an unlikely one, of offshore
hydrocarbon production.12
(Offshore Production, Storage and Transportation number 3 of a series
of papers on energy and the offshore, November, 1998.)
The
well also contains blowout preventers; devices on the top of the
casing that can close off the well in the event of uncontrolled
pressures.).11
[Exploring for Offshore Oil and Gas number 2 of a series of papers
on energy and the offshore November, 1998]
“BOP’s
are large valves that help control the flow of fluid from the well.
One type of BOP can seal off the annulus if the drillpipe is still in
the hole. Another can shear off the drill-pipe and thus seal off the
entire well, while a third can seal off the well if no pipe is in the
hole. If the well is likely to encounter high pressures, all of
these BOP’s may be used in a BOP stack. [Our Petroleum Challenge
1993 Petroleum Communication Foundation.
According
to the DFO, “blowout preventers are routinely installed on all
wells at the seafloor that stop or slow the flow of petroleum product
in unusual circumstances.5
(Assessment of the Possible Environmental Impacts of Exploratory
Activities on Georges Bank Aquatic Resources. DFO. November, 1998)
The
following remarks are excerpted from the trade journal “World Oil”
(May and June 1991) entitled, How to Prevent or Minimize Shallow Gas
Blowouts2
(parts 1 &2).
FACT:
“Shallow gas flows are a critical issue because field experience
and mathematical modeling have shown that it is difficult, and almost
impossible, to control or stop a flow with existing rig equipment
once it begins. Once flow has started, it is almost inevitable that
a blowout will occur. The response time based on field experience is
low or virtually non-existent in many cases. Sufficient time does
not exist in most cases to recognize the situation, dose the
diverter, and begin the kill operation before the flow becomes
uncontrollable2.”
[World Oil” (May and June 1991)]
“Diverter
system failures occur at such an alarming rate during shallow gas
blowouts that contingency plans probably should be based on their
anticipated failure rather than an expectation that they will
function effectively. Previously published studies show that failure
rates range from 50 to 70% of all applications2.”
[World Oil” (May and June 1991)]
“Many
operators and contractors now design diverter systems for the primary
purpose of providing time to evacuate the rig. They do not plan to
remain on the rig and attempt to control shallow gas blowouts2”.
CLAIM:
Natural gas released in a blowout is mostly dispersed in the air by
winds.12
(Offshore Production, Storage and Transportation, number 3 of a
series of papers on energy and the offshore, November, 1998)
The
high volatility of the gas usually allows much of it to evaporate
into the atmosphere and the bulk of the material dissipates rapidly
through the action of the wind. This is often true of the lighter
components of the condensate and oil.
Impacts
would be local and short lived, although depending on the timing and
location could result in significant mortalities5.
(Assessment of the Possible Environmental Impacts of Exploratory
Activities on Georges Bank Aquatic Resources. DFO. November, 1998)
FACT:
With shallow gas blowouts, “Flow outside casing usually results in
severe situations such as a damaged well and rig or platform loss.
(See attached tables) Also, flow can exit to the surface through
fault planes or around poorly cemented casing2.”
“Cratering
occurs when flow outside the casing displaces large volumes of
surface sediment. The eruptive force of blowouts can be dramatic and
has been documented as lifting large boulders weighing several
hundred pounds into the air and dropping them as much as 150 ft from
the well site2.
Their
areal extent can be large. One well had a crater with dimensions of
1,300 ft x 250 ft x 300 ft deep. However, the actual depths of
craters are not easily determined. Large rigs and platforms have been
lost in craters without any evidence of the rig remaining at the
surface2.
A
Natural gas explosion on the Piper Alpha oilrig in the North Sea
resulted in a fire that completely destroyed the platform. It is the
worst platform disaster in history in which 167 men died tragically
in 1988.
CLAIM:
“Not all blowouts lead to significant loss of hydrocarbons
because often they seal naturally and cease flowing within a matter
of days 5.”
(Assessment of the Possible Environmental Impacts of Exploratory
Activities on Georges Bank Aquatic Resources. DFO. November, 1998)
FACT:
“Records show that if a shallow gas blowout does not bridge within
the first one to two days, then the well will probably continue to
blow for an extended period of time, i.e., weeks or months. Some have
continued for years2.”
“Shallow
gas flow rates have generally been grossly under estimated. Bends,
bore size changes and flow path discontinuities produce high particle
impact angles and local increases in velocity 2.
CLAIM:
Approximately 1% of exploratory wells worldwide have had blowouts and
the resulting releases are normally relatively small. In over 22,000
wells of all kinds drilled in US coastal waters from 1971 to 1993,
only five blowouts occurred and the total discharge was 170 m3.
11(Exploring
for Offshore Oil and Gas number 2 of a series of papers on energy and
the offshore) November, 1998
FACT:
The following chart (see table) is condensed from a database of 950
shallow gas blowouts. Of the 56 rigs listed more than half suffered
extensive damage or the total loss of the rig. At least 24 shallow
gas blowouts appear to have occurred in US waters between 1971 and
1993.
2
[How to Prevent or Minimize Shallow Gas Blowouts (parts 1 &2).
World Oil-May and June 1991]
OIL
SPILLS
CLAIM:
“Detectable impacts of oil on biological resources are restricted
to the coastal zone…The
distance from the Georges Bank moratorium lands to the shore and the
residual current, may somewhat reduce the probability of encountering
the shoreline. If
it does it is likely to contact the US shoreline.
There is also the Stellwagen Bank Marine Park off the Coast of
Massachusetts that might be impacted5.”
(Assessment of the Possible Environmental Impacts of Exploratory
Activities on Georges Bank Aquatic Resources. DFO. November, 1998)
“Scientists
have been unable to detect effects of offshore oil blowouts on the
abundance or wholesomeness of fisheries resources including the
Uniacke Blowout near Sable Island5.”
(Assessment of the Possible Environmental Impacts of Exploratory
Activities on Georges Bank Aquatic Resources. DFO. November, 1998)
FACT:
“Georges
Bank oil spill cleanup is presently impractical and will probably
remain so
6”
(Howarth 1987).
The
truth is that the biological impacts of oil spills have been poorly
studied until recently. Even the Uniacke Gas blowout which released
condensate in 1984 was not evaluated for biological impacts.
“There are unique physical and biological features about Georges
Bank that suggest the potential impacts could be greater than in
other offshore regions and perhaps even detectable at both the
resource and ecosystem level 5.”
(Assessment of the Possible Environmental Impacts of Exploratory
Activities on Georges Bank Aquatic Resources. DFO. November, 1998)
EXPLORATION
CLAIM:
“Given that the rock formations underlying the Canadian portion of
Georges Bank appear to be similar to those around Sable Island, gas
and condensate, and possibly light oil would probably also be found.”
10
(Hydrocarbon Resources number 1 of a series of papers on energy and
the offshore, November, 1998)
“Natural
gas and condensate, a light oil with similar properties to gasoline,
are the hydrocarbons most likely to be found on the Canadian portion
of Georges Bank. Although condensate is quite toxic, both disperse or
evaporate rapidly, and do not tend to stay in the marine environment
as long as do the heavier crude oils11.”
(Exploring
for Offshore Oil and Gas number 2 of a series of papers on energy and
the offshore November, 1998)
Fact:
The companies do not yet know which type of hydrocarbon will be
encountered. Vintage seismic cannot distinguish between oil and gas
with certainty and geochemistry was difficult to interpret. Before
drilling, they will conduct a hazard survey primarily to reduce the
chances of encountering shallow gas.
Shallow
seismic surveys of the upper few hundred meters of the seabed are
often carried out to determine the structure of the sediments and
scan for potential hazards to drilling (e.g., shallow gas pockets).
11
[Exploring for Offshore Oil and Gas number 2 of a series of papers on
energy and the offshore November, 1998]
CLAIM:
Marine seismic effects on adult fish are minor short-lived and
localized. Most of the observed mortalities occur close to the
source. Using reasonable caution seismic exploration is unlikely to
result in any significant impacts.
5
(Assessment of the Possible Environmental Impacts of Exploratory
Activities on Georges Bank Aquatic Resources. DFO. November, 1998)
FACT:
“Sound exposure levels of 150 160dB are where potential reactions
might occur for large whales and fish. On the Scotian shelf these
noise thresholds are reached at distances of 4.5 to 14.5 km.
depending on the specific location.” 9[The
Environmental Effects of Marine Seismic Exploration on the Fish and
Fisheries of the Scotian Shelf, P. Tsui. 1998]
“Broadband
sounds at or above 180 dB would be experienced within 1500 m of the
array. Stationary fish would be exposed to this level or greater for
about 20-25 minutes9”.
[The Environmental Effects of Marine Seismic Exploration on the Fish
and Fisheries of the Scotian Shelf, P. Tsui.1998]
“It
is not yet possible to establish unequivocal criteria for determining
the zone of influence around a noise source. Sound waves are created
by the explosive release of compressed air from an array of air guns
towed behind seismic vessels (specialized ships), firing every 5 - 12
seconds. Streamers can be up to 6 km long and are stored on a large
winch11”
[Exploring for Offshore Oil and Gas number 2 of a series of papers
on energy and the offshore November, 1998]
CLAIM:
“Impacts on fish larvae, including those in nursery area, would be
minor, sublocal and short-term and likely to occur”
9.
[The Environmental Effects of Marine Seismic Exploration on the Fish
and Fisheries of the Scotian Shelf, P. Tsui.1998]
FACT:
Herring is also relative sensitive to sound. At 50-1200 Hz its
hearing threshold is about 75-80 dB. Yolk sac larvae (2 day old)
showed peak pressures of 217-220 dB (75- 100 kPa) had detrimental
effects on anchovy. A 50% mortality for 2 day and 4 day old larvae
occurred at this level9
[The Environmental Effects of Marine Seismic Exploration on the Fish
and Fisheries of the Scotian Shelf, P. Tsui.1998]
Pulses
from an airgun damaged larvae mainly with a radius of 5m. Eggs of
the anchovy, the most sensitive species experienced some damage at
this distance. Kostyuchenko (1973). Lethal effects on eggs and
larvae would be expected from an airgun array at a distance of 6.5m.
9[The
Environmental Effects of Marine Seismic Exploration on the Fish and
Fisheries of the Scotian Shelf, P. Tsui.1998]
CLAIM:
“Direct impacts of seismic exploration on adult fish would be
negligible.9”
[The
Environmental Effects of Marine Seismic Exploration on the Fish and
Fisheries of the Scotian Shelf, P. Tsui.1998]
FACT:
“Peak pressures of 217-220 dB (75- 100 kPa) had detrimental
effects on anchovy. Adult anchovy also experienced swim bladder
damage in this range””
Also
“In one study, the fish [Herring] changed direction and moved away
from the source, but schooling behavior was not affected. The fish
reacted to sounds of 144 dB.” 9[The
Environmental Effects of Marine Seismic Exploration on the Fish and
Fisheries of the Scotian Shelf, P. Tsui.1998]
“There
may be some situations in which movement to other areas will not
detrimentally affect the population. However the safest assumption
is that population occupies optimum habitat and movement away from
the habitat is likely to be detrimental, at least if the animals are
displaced for more than a brief period”
9
[The Environmental Effects of Marine Seismic Exploration on the Fish
and Fisheries of the Scotian Shelf, P. Tsui.1998]
“There
are no data on behavioral effects of seismic pulses on fish eggs and
larvae…A small change in the survival rate of larvae can have a
large effect on recruitment to the adult population.” 5
(Assessment of the Possible Environmental Impacts of Exploratory
Activities on Georges Bank Aquatic Resources. DFO. November, 1998)
CLAIM:
“A volume of water equivalent to about 1% of the volume of water in
the study area would contain impulses lethal to fish larvae.”
Therefore, “fewer than 1% of fish larvae in this volume of water
would be exposed to lethal peak levels.”
9
[The Environmental Effects of Marine Seismic Exploration on the Fish
and Fisheries of the Scotian Shelf, P. Tsui.1998]
FACT:
Fish
larvae are generally planktonic for a considerable period. The study
assumed a depth of water of 50 m and averaged the mortality
throughout that water column. If you assume that most larvae are
found near the surface then the mortality could be 50 times as great.
This is particularly alarming since the size of the 1998 seismic
program exceeded 1000 sq km.
CLAIM:
“Herring spawning occurs close to shore in very shallow water and
eggs would not be affected by seismic exploration.”
9
[The Environmental Effects of Marine Seismic Exploration on the Fish
and Fisheries of the Scotian Shelf, P. Tsui.1998]
FACT:
This statement of course does not apply to Georges Bank where herring
have historically spawned in large numbers along the northern peak.
CLAIM:
“Pressure pulses from black powder and airguns have slower rise
times and cause relatively little injury to fish.”
9
[The Environmental Effects of Marine Seismic Exploration on the Fish
and Fisheries of the Scotian Shelf, P. Tsui. 1998]
FACT:
“Information based on tests with black powder is at least partly
relevant.” Further, “eight of nine anchovy on the surface were
killed by an 18 kg charge on the bottom at 29m.” 9
[The Environmental Effects of Marine Seismic Exploration on the Fish
and Fisheries of the Scotian Shelf, P. Tsui. 1998]
CLAIM:
“Impacts on catch caused by presence of the array and associated
noise in typical shooting area are predicted to be minor, sublocal,
short, term and likely to occur.”
9
[The Environmental Effects of Marine Seismic Exploration on the Fish
and Fisheries of the Scotian Shelf, P. Tsui. 1998]
FACT:
Experiments on the effects of seismic shooting on abundance and catch
of cod and haddock were conducted in the Barents Sea. “Acoustic
density of cod and haddock decreased over the entire study area by
45% during the shooting and 64% during the 5 d period after shooting
ceased. More than 90% of the catch was cod. During shooting, catch
in the shooting area decreased by 60% and catch in the other areas
(up to 18 km from the exploration area) decreased by 45-50%. Catch
rates did not recover during the 5-d period after shooting ended.
The longline catch decreased by 45% in the exploration area, but the
decline was smaller with increasing distance from the exploration
area. With no reduction in catch at distances of 16-18 nautical mi.
from it. Catches increased after cessation of shooting.” 9
[The Environmental Effects of Marine Seismic Exploration on the Fish
and Fisheries of the Scotian Shelf, P. Tsui. 1998]
In
a study in Norway, longline “catch was reduced by 55%-80% within
the seismic survey area and there was some reduction in catch to a
distance of 5 Km.” In the same area, “trawls were made before and
during shooting. Cod catches during shooting were reduced by 79-83%
compared to pre-shooting levels within the exploration area and
within 9 km of it.” 9
[The Environmental Effects of Marine Seismic Exploration on the Fish
and Fisheries of the Scotian Shelf, P. Tsui. 1998]
In
a fishing experiment on rockfish in California, catch per unit effort
(CPUE) declined by an average of 52.4% when air gun pulses were
emitted at levels of 186 to 191 dB. Skalski et al (1992) speculated
“in an area where sound had caused the fish to disperse, a lowered
CPUE might persist.”
9
[The Environmental Effects of Marine Seismic Exploration on the Fish
and Fisheries of the Scotian Shelf, P. Tsui. 1998]
“With
the exception of the California studies of rockfish, investigators
did not measure received noise levels. Thus, it is not possible to
say, with any certainty, what sound levels could cause reduction in
catchability cod and haddock.”
9
[The Environmental Effects of Marine Seismic Exploration on the Fish
and Fisheries of the Scotian Shelf, P. Tsui. 1998]
DRILLING
MUDS
OIL
BASED MUD
CLAIM:
For drilling deeper wells and when problems such as pipe sticking
occur, oil-based muds (OBM) are normally used. The typical difference
from water-based muds is the high content of mineral oil (typically
30%). OBMs also contain barite, a powdered heavy mineral, and a
number of additives.
12
[Offshore Production, Storage and Transportation, number 3 of a
series of papers on energy and the offshore, November, 1998]
Early
drilling frequently used diesel oil in drilling fluid, but its use
was stopped because it was so toxic. Stringent regulations, expected
to be in place at the turn of the century, will greatly reduce the
oil content in cuttings, and virtually eliminate the releases of
oil-based mud and cuttings in the offshore. 11(Exploring
for Offshore Oil and Gas number 2 of a series of papers on energy and
the offshore November, 1998)
The
CNSOPB has already stated publicly that oil-based muds will not be
permitted on Georges Bank, should the moratorium be lifted. Their use
is also being stopped on the Scotian Shelf. 13(Offshore
Regulation, number 4 of a series of papers on energy and the
offshore, November, 1998)
FACT:
The issue of oil based mud is largely a paper tiger. Of the eight
wells drilled on Georges Bank during 1981 and 1982 only one used oil
based mud and another used a small amount of mineral oil.
Historically, diesel fuel was added to mud systems to increase the
rate of penetration, but advances in drilling bit technology have
made this practice largely unnecessary. Although N. Sea operations
have switched from diesel oil to mineral oil, experience has shown
that this change has not reduced the benthic impact zones around the
drilling rigs. The amount of barite contained in water based mud can
actually be greater than in oil based muds.
WATER-BASED
MUD
CLAIM:
“One type of mud known as water-based mud (WBM) is a mixture of
water, bentonite clay, and chemical additives, and is used to drill
shallow parts of wells. It is not particularly toxic to marine
organisms and disperses readily. Under current regulations, it can be
dumped directly overboard. Companies typically recycle water-based
drilling muds until their properties are no longer suitable, and then
dump the entire batch overboard over a period of hours. These types
of muds are relatively non-toxic to marine organisms (including
scallops).” 12
[Offshore Production, Storage and Transportation Number 3 of a series
of papers on energy and the offshore, November 1998]
“The
concern is not the bottom area covered by the cuttings pile, as this
is very small compared to the total amount of sea floor in the area;
nor is it problems of toxicity or sublethal effects of the
ingredients for these are so localized as to be negligible.” 7
(Sable Island Development Plan)
Most
acute toxicity thresholds for muds and their components are much
higher than concentration expected under field conditions.
5(Assessment
of the Possible Environmental Impacts of Exploratory Activities on
Georges Bank Aquatic Resources. DFO. November, 1998)
Results
indicate that WBM levels in excess of 50 mg -1[or 50 gm x10-3
per liter] are required before significant effects on haddock or
lobster survival are detected. Acute and chronic exposure of scallop
to 100 mg l-1 [or 100gm x10-3
per liter] WBM had no significant effect on survivorship or growth3.
[(A) - Effects Of Water Based Drilling Mud On Early Life Stages Of
Haddock, Lobster And Sea Scallop. P. Cranford, K. Querbach, G.
Maillet, J. Grant, C. Taggart, And K. Lee
Executive
Summary 5 November, 1998]
FACT:
Of 415 acute lethal bioassays lasting 48-144 hrs with 68 drilling
muds involving 70 species, 8% showed 50% mortality (LC50)
below 10,000 ppm (Petrazuollo, 1983). The 96-hour LC50
test and the sublethal tests Table 52.4 and 52.5 (Neff 1987) revealed
the most sensitive species were as follows:
Copepods-
5500 ppm in 96 hrs (LC50)
Lobster
Larvae-
2000 ppm (increase in larval development by 3 days)
Stage
IV 8 ppm (partial inhibition of molting, delayed detection of food
cues)
Stage
IV-V - 1-4 mm layer (altered burrow behavior delays in construction)
Stage
V - 5000 ppm (LC50)
Adults-
10 ppm Decreased response of walking leg chemosensors to food cues)
1-2mm
layer for 4 days- inhibition of feeding behavior
Scallops
Juveniles
and embryo's -
Scallop
larvae - 49ppm (decreased rate of shell growth)
2
day larvae -100 ppm in 96 hrs (significant inhibition of shell
formation)
Mysid
shrimp
ECOSYSTEM
IMPACTS
“There
is concern that the routine discharge of wastes during drilling for
oil and gas could impact valuable fishery resources. Recent studies
have indicated that intensive drilling efforts in the North Sea have
caused detrimental effects in adult and larval fish and benthic
invertebrates at greater distances from drilling platforms than
previously envisaged”8.
(Neff 1987)
Abundance
of benthic organisms near one N.J. rig site plunged from 8011 animals
/sq m. before drilling to 1729 animals /sq m. during drilling. One
year after drilling was completed, the number had risen to only 2638
animals /sq m. Diversity was also impacted from 70 to 38 species
/0.02 sq m rebounding only to 53 species /0.02 sq m one year
afterwards. 8
(Neff 1987)
In
the Gulf of Mexico, the benthic fauna is “decidedly reduced
relative to other studies and that the majority of the benthos in an
offshore Ecology Investigation (OEI) study area is composed of two
species, both of which have been documented as precise individuals of
severely polluted environment.” 6(Howarth
1987)
DISCHARGES
CLAIM:
“Observations and predictions of particulate drilling waste
concentrations in suspension around exploratory drilling platforms
indicate that the zone of impact of WBM discharges on the early
life-stages of haddock, lobster and scallop would be highly localized
and that the effects on the future strength of each fishery would not
be detectable3.”
(A) - Effects Of Water Based Drilling Mud On Early Life Stages Of
Haddock, Lobster And Sea Scallop. P. Cranford, K. Querbach, G.
Maillet, J. Grant, C. Taggart, And K. Lee Executive Summary 5
November, 1998
FACT
“Much of the observed growth loss was due to retarded gonad
development and not adductor muscle. Therefore it is likely that
drilling wastes would have more effect on spawning potential (An
impact not apparent in the fishery until reduced recruitment in
future years) than on muscle size.” The net effect might be
reproductive loss which could affect strength of future year classes.
5(Assessment
of the Possible Environmental Impacts of Exploratory Activities on
Georges Bank Aquatic Resources. DFO. November, 1998)
CLAIM:
“Analysis of the number of hours that concentrations exceed 10
milligrams/l at various distances along the primary drift line
indicates that the waste concentrations predicted in these
applications are not likely to cause scallop mortality, even at the
release point. 3.”
(A) - Effects Of Water Based Drilling Mud On Early Life Stages Of
Haddock, Lobster And Sea Scallop. P. Cranford, K. Querbach, G.
Maillet, J. Grant, C. Taggart, And K. Lee Executive Summary 5
November, 1998
FACT:
The benthic boundary layer transport (bblt) and mortality studies on
scallops have the following limitations and are inadequate for
predicting the biological impacts of drilling discharges. Therefore
estimates of lost growth days and safe distances from rigs are
invalid
1.
Scallops were exposed only intermittently for 12 hrs each day for up
to 68 days. Even the hypothetical well was projected to be drilled
24 hrs per day for 93 days with wastes released on 59 of those days.
There is no evidence that the benthic concentrations of barite would
decrease significantly during the brief periods when mud and cuttings
were not actually being discharged.
2.
“The biological effects predicted apply only to adult scallops (4-5
years old)” Known impacts on eggs and larvae were not incorporated.
3.
“For these applications, drilling waste concentrations were
averaged for the bottom 10 cm of the water column.”
5
The
concentrations obviously would increase at the sediment water
interface.
4.
No safe level of barite was experimentally determined for adult
scallops. Both the “zero growth concentration” threshold and the
“no effects concentration” threshold were estimates not supported
by experimental results. Zero growth occurred at the lowest
concentration tested (0.5 milligrams/L and could actually have been
much lower. The "no effects" threshold could easily have
been in micrograms or even nannograms per liter but was arbitrarily
set at 0.1 milligrams/L
CLAIM:
A reasonable range of effective settling velocities for flocculated
drilling wastes under natural conditions in tidally energetic
environments is 0.1-0.5 cm/sec (assuming a 50/50 mixture of bentonite
and barite)
5
Waste
concentrations predicted by bblt were assumed to be half barite and
half bentonite. “Although the drilling waste scenario indicates
some change in the proportion of each component with time, this
change was not large and the use of a variable proportion of waste
constituents would require separate bblt runs for each component and
hence a doubling of computational demand.”
5
(Assessment of the Possible Environmental Impacts of Exploratory
Activities on Georges Bank Aquatic Resources. DFO. November, 1998)
FACT:
The actual ratio of barite to bentonite averaged over the total depth
of the eight Georges Bank exploratory wells ranged from 47 to 77%
(avg. 66%)
8[Neff
1987].
This ratio also increases with depth to compensate for increasing
pressures. Increased mud densities result in higher settling
velocities.
“The
predicted near-bottom concentrations are very sensitive to the
effective settling velocities of drilling wastes. Those at the higher
velocity are about an order of magnitude greater than those at the
lower velocity.” 5
(Assessment of the Possible Environmental Impacts of Exploratory
Activities on Georges Bank Aquatic Resources. DFO. November, 1998)
“The
expected range of settling velocities was estimated using measured
drilling waste concentration profiles around the Copan site [on Sable
Island], but it appears that these did not fully resolve the dense
mats seen in video images. Thus higher settling velocities and hence
near bottom concentrations are possible but considered unlikely to
occur under the tidally energetic conditions on Georges Bank. If
they were to occur on the Bank, near bottom concentrations and
scallop loss could be increased by several fold above the present
model predictions.” 5
(Assessment of the Possible Environmental Impacts of Exploratory
Activities on Georges Bank Aquatic Resources. DFO. November, 1998)
CLAIM:
There is no reason to believe that smothering will kill significant
numbers of slow moving or sessile organisms living under a drill rig.
Smothering of benthic organisms by deposited mud and cuttings would
not be anticipated outside about 0.5km radius from the rig. 5
(Assessment of the Possible Environmental Impacts of Exploratory
Activities on Georges Bank Aquatic Resources. DFO. November, 1998)
FACT:
“As mush as 90% of the discharged solids settle directly to the
bottom. (Brandsma 1980).
The remaining 10% including clay-sized particles and soluble
materials is diluted by the current and dispersed over large areas8.
”
Furthermore “during the entire [one well] scenario a total of 468
MT of drilling mud and 2569 MT of cuttings are released to the marine
environment. 5
(Assessment of the Possible Environmental Impacts of Exploratory
Activities on Georges Bank Aquatic Resources. DFO. November, 1998)
“Studies
examining the effects of exploratory drilling on the U.S. portion of
Georges Bank found that small amounts of some drilling muds (in
particular the weighting agent barite) had been transported as much
as 60 km from the well site.”
11
[Exploring for Offshore Oil and Gas number 2 of a series of papers
on energy and the offshore November, 1998]
Furthermore,
“Elevated barium concentrations (up to 1014 ppm compared to a
background of 250 ppm) in the clay-sized fraction of the sediments
were detected up to 65 km. downcurrent of the drill-site in block
312.” (Neff 1987)
8.
Bothner et al 1983 estimated that between 21-31% of the barite and
by inference 21-31% of the settleable fraction of drilling fluid
discharged during drilling on block 312 remained within 6 km of the
drill site.” Therefore “the remaining 69% to 79% of the
drilling-fluid solids presumably were carried to greater distances
from the rig site.” (Neff 1987)
8
MITIGATION
MEASURES
CLAIM:
Any of the following steps should decrease the predicted effects on
scallops
Reduce
the amount of barite in the WBM (which in turn will reduce both the
toxicity and the effective settling velocities); Reduce the mud
density; Limit discharges to times of the year when scallop growth is
low (November to February)
5.
[Assessment
of the Possible Environmental Impacts of Exploratory Activities on
Georges Bank Aquatic Resources. DFO. November, 1998]
FACT:
There is currently no economical alternative to barite in WBM which
will achieve the desired mud weight (density). The mud weight is
dictated by the subsurface pressures encountered while drilling and
cannot be easily reduced.
“Considering
that gametogenesis is near continuous on Georges Bank, exposure to
drilling wastes would have some impact on fecundity and egg viability
regardless of the time of drilling.”
5
(Assessment of the Possible Environmental Impacts of Exploratory
Activities on Georges Bank Aquatic Resources. DFO. November, 1998)
SENSITIVITY
TO HYDROCARBONS
CLAIM:
Background levels of hydrocarbons might make it difficult to
distinguish the effects of a discharge. [Yarmouth Chamber of Commerce
Offshore Oil and Gas Conference October 1998]
FACT:
“Background levels of hydrocarbons in the water column on Georges
Bank are low (< 1 microgram/L). Hydrocarbon levels in the
sediments normally range from 1 microgram/gram to 20 microgram/gram
dry weight”
6(Howarth
1987).
CLAIM:
Oil spills are unlikely to have any major impact on stocks of
commercial fish (Royal Society 1980)
6
FACT:
Many organisms are extremely sensitive to very low concentrations of
oil.
Very
low concentrations (from less than 1 microgram/liter of oil to 1
milligram/l of oil have been found to have harmful effects on various
marine organisms in laboratory tests. 6
(Howarth 1987)
“On
Oct. 3, 1998, NMFS scientists reported at a international conference
in Anchorage, AK, that contaminants, especially longer-lived
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, from lingering oil after the Exxon
Valdez spill at concentrations as low as one part per billion [1
nannogram/gram] will continue to stunt pink salmon growth and cause
other chronic problems for generations. Exxon scientists disputed
these findings”. [Reuters]
PHYTOPLANKTON
CLAIM:
“Exposures of a diatom culture to produced water concentrations up
to 10% for 10 days did not result in significant changes in algae
biomass or physiological condition4.”
(B) - Effects Of Produced Water On Early Life Stages Of Haddock,
Lobster And Sea Scallop. P. Cranford, K. Querbach, G. Maillet, J.
Grant, C. Taggart, And K. Lee Executive Summary 5 November, 1998
FACT:
“Fertilization of algae was completely inhibited by 0.2
micrograms/L of fuel oil6”
(Howarth 1987). Some large species of phytoplankton [typical of
Georges Bank] are sensitive to oil and growth is inhibited by
concentrations as low as 40 micrograms/L of fuel oil. In laboratory
studies (consisting of initial oil concentrations of 100 micrograms
/L), large celled diatoms were displaced by small cells in 9 days.
“Greve and Parsons 1977 have speculated that a change from an
ecosystem dominated by large phytoplankton (Like Georges Bank) to one
dominated by small phytoplankton, might alter food chains to the
detriment of the production of commercially valuable fish species.”
They concluded that “the release of very small amounts of
hydrocarbons in ocean areas where oil exploration is in progress
could cause a decrease in the harvestable fisheries of the areas
through indirect interference in the natural; food web.”
6
(Howarth 1987)
ZOOPLANKTON
CLAIM:
It is difficult to demonstrate that either major spills or chronic
oil input have any irreversible impacts on the marine biological
communities.
5
(Assessment of the Possible Environmental Impacts of Exploratory
Activities on Georges Bank Aquatic Resources. DFO. November, 1998)
FACT:
“Even though estimates of adult stocks are more precise than those
of the young, mortalities as high as 25% could go undetected … It
is also possible that significant impacts on aquatic populations do
occur but may be not be detected with present methodology.”
5
“Oil
concentrations on the order of 100 ppb or less have been demonstrated
to cause both lethal and sublethal effects on planktonic organisms.
5
(Assessment of the Possible Environmental Impacts of Exploratory
Activities on Georges Bank Aquatic Resources. DFO. November, 1998)
Nannoplankton
contamination and fish egg mortality are correlated (see chart)
Greatest contamination of Zooplankton with oil occurred at Argo
Merchant stations having no obvious slick. 6
(Howarth 1987)
FISH
EGGS
HERRING
Following
the Tsesis spill in the N. Baltic Sea in 1980 “The hatching success
of herring eggs, which develop on the sediment surface, spawned in
the spring was only about half as great in oil contaminated areas
sediments as in control areas.
Apparently,
this was not a direct result of oil on the eggs, but rather was due
primarily to increased fungal infection of the eggs. Normally
gammarid amphipods graze the fungi, keeping the infection of the eggs
low. It is presumed the spilled oil killed the amphipods and that
the resulting uncontrolled infection caused the low hatching success”
(Nellbring et al 1980)
6.
Amazingly,
this situation was repeated nine years later in Alaska, but Exxon
denied the connection.
“Pacific
herring spawned in intertidal and subtidal habitats in Prince William
Sound shortly after the [Exxon Valdez] oil spill. A significant
portion of these spawning habitats as well as herring staging areas
in the Sound were contaminated by oil. Field studies conducted in
1989 and 1990 documented increased rates of egg mortality and larval
deformities in oiled versus unoiled areas. Subsequent laboratory
studies confirm that these effects can be caused by exposure to Exxon
Valdez oil, but the significance of these injuries at a population
level is not known.
The
1988 pre-spill year-class of Pacific herring was very strong in
Prince William Sound, and, as a result, the estimated peak biomass of
spawning adults in 1992 was at a record level. In 1993, however,
there was an unprecedented crash of the adult herring population. A
viral disease and fungus were the probable agents of mortality, and
the connection between the oil spill and the disease outbreak is
under investigation. Numbers of spawning herring in Prince William
Sound remained depressed through the 1995 season
Pacific
herring are extremely important ecologically and commercially and for
subsistence users. Reduced herring populations could have
significant implications for both their predators and their prey, and
the closure of the herring fishery from 1993 through 1996 has had
serious economic impact on people and communities in Prince William
Sound.” 15
(See
http://www.oilspill.state.ak.us/herring.html)
COD
“Following
the Argo Merchant spill “ an average of 20% of cod eggs and 46% of
pollock eggs were dead or damaged at all stations near the oil
slick”(Langwell 1978)
6
CAPELIN
“10-
25 micrograms/L of the water soluble component of crude oil adversely
affected the hatching of capelin eggs.” (Johannsen 1976)
6.
PLAICE
“10
- 100 micrograms/L of refined oil products caused 40-100% mortalities
in plaice eggs” (Miranov 1968).
6
WINTER
FLOUNDER
“Exposure
of winter flounder eggs to 100 micrograms/L of water- accommodated
fuel oil significantly reduced their hatching”(Kuhnhold et al 1978)
6.
LARVAE
“All
major commercial species on Georges Bank have pelagic eggs and/or
larvae and therefore are potentially vulnerable.”
5
(Assessment of the Possible Environmental Impacts of Exploratory
Activities on Georges Bank Aquatic Resources. DFO. November, 1998)
“Low
concentrations of oil have sublethal effects on fish eggs and larvae
that also may be important to recruitment.”
6
(Howarth 1987). “Since eggs and larvae are very susceptible to
predation, a slower development rate could increase mortality by
predation. Larval growth rate, by changing the time of exposure to
development may be the most
important
factor controlling recruitment (Cushing 1976)
6.
“Oil
pollution may lead to decreased spawning, can kill fish eggs and
larvae and can delay the development of the fish eggs.”
6
(Howarth). Decreased spawning may lead to decreased recruitment.
Contaminated spawning grounds may also decrease recruitment.
Exposure of adult fish during gonadal maturation to an average
concentration of 10 micrograms/L of dissolved oil for 10 days can
cause reduced survival and growth of larvae coming from eggs laid by
such fish.
6
(Howarth 1987) “Petroleum concentrations in the range of 2-10
micrograms/L can decrease fish larvae viability” (Vandermeulen and
Capuzzo 1983)
6.
On
the effects of offshore oil production on fish stocks the DFO
concluded “ with respect to impacts on fish, there is clear
evidence from laboratory studies that given the expected range of
hydrocarbons in the water column there would be lethal as well as
sublethal effects on the eggs and larvae of teleost fish”. (Wisman
Payne and Akenhead 1982)
6
BENTHIC
ORGANISMS
In
mesocosm experiments which dispersed 190 micrograms of oil/ L of
water over 4 months, mass budget calculations showed that roughly
half of the oil added to the water had become incorporated in
sediments. Contamination of the benthic fauna had increased by at
least an order of magnitude.
6
(Howarth 1987). The researchers concluded “Changes in benthic
community structure on Georges Bank could adversely affect commercial
fish species because commercial important fish feed on invertebrates
there. A decreased rate of benthic production could decrease fish
production. Amphipods are among the most important foods for some
fish and are sensitive to oil pollution, disappearing as a result of
oil spills and chronic discharges. Their loss from the benthic
community might slow the growth of adult fish or result in decreased
spawning”
6
(Howarth 1987).
In
addition, “concentrations of 1 to a few micrograms/L of the
water-soluble fraction of kerosene were found to disrupt the normal
feeding behavior of snails and crabs. Most of the water-soluble
fraction of kerosene used in biologic studies consisted of benzenes,
so such studies are quite appropriate in considering the potential
effects of formation water in which benzene is a major fraction.” 6
(Howarth 1987)
SHELLFISH
Many
Shellfish concentrate oil to fairly high levels; up to 30
milligrams/g dry weight of tissue (Boehm 1980). Contamination of
shellfish can persist as long as the sediments they live in remain
contaminated, which can be at least 6-12 years for fine grained
organic-rich sediments. (Howarth 1987)
“Survivorship
of embryos and larvae was determined following 96-h acute exposures
to 0, 0.1, 1, 10, and 25% solutions of produced water that were
allowed to weather for several days before use. Significant decreases
in survival of late stage haddock embryos (8-12 days old) were
detected at the 25% concentration with 50% mortality (96-hour LC50)
indicated at a concentration of 22%. Similar results were observed
for early stage embryos (1-4 days old) and feeding stage (13-17 days
post hatch) larvae. The yolk sac larvae stage (3-7 days post-hatch)
was the most sensitive of the four haddock life stages tested with
significant effects detected at the 10% concentration. The 25%
concentration resulted in almost 100% mortalities in yolk sac and
feeding stage larvae.
“Results
for first stage lobster larvae (7-17 days old) were highly variable,
with an LC50
value at 0.9% produced water indicated in experiments with fed
larvae. Cannibalism among lobster larvae may have influenced these
results. Early veliger scallop larvae (5-7 days old) experienced a
significant decrease in survival at the 10 and 25% concentrations
with an LC50
value of 20.8% indicated. Scallop veliger growth was monitored after
acute exposure to each produced water concentration. Veligers
exposed to concentrations of 1% and less increased in mean size while
a decrease in size was observed for larvae previously exposed to the
10 and 25% treatments. Fertilization success of scallop eggs (1 hour
old) during 48 hour exposures of eggs and sperm to produced water was
significantly effected at concentrations of 1% and above. The 10 and
25% concentrations prevented most eggs from being fertilized.
The
survival and growth of scallop veligers was monitored during chronic
exposures (18 days) to 0, 0.01, 0.1, 1, and 10% solutions of produced
water. The 10% concentration caused considerable mortalities with few
animals remaining after 15 days. Larvae exposed to lower
concentrations increased in mean size during the experiment, while
animals in the 10% treatment exhibited a gradual decrease in mean
size.”
4
Excerpted
From (B) - Effects Of Produced Water On Early Life Stages Of Haddock,
Lobster And Sea Scallop. P. Cranford, K. Querbach, G. Maillet, J.
Grant, C. Taggart, And K. Lee. Executive Summary 5 November, 1998
RECRUITMENT
CLAIM:
Even if an oil spill or chronic pollution killed large quantities of
fish eggs or larvae, no major effect on recruitment would be
likely…The effects of density dependent mortality are likely to
compensate for additional density independent losses caused by
pollution (Royal society 1980)
6.
FACT:
In a typical “model that predicted a 42% mortality rate of cod
larvae caused by an oil spill, the resulting cumulative loss of the
year class was estimated at 24%”(Spaulding 1983)
6.
Some
scenarios predict cumulative losses in excess of 20% for both cod and
herring5.
(Assessment of the Possible Environmental Impacts of Exploratory
Activities on Georges Bank Aquatic Resources. DFO. November, 1998)
“Commercial
fisheries depend heavily on the production of large year classes,
even though such year classes occur sporadically…Oil production on
Georges Bank might have relatively little effect on fishery
recruitment in years when recruitment would have been very low in any
event, but it might significantly harm recruitment in years when
recruitment otherwise would have been high…Thus the reduction in
size would have significant economic impacts6”
(Howarth 1987).
ADULTS
Catches
per unit effort of commercially valuable fisheries have fallen
historically in the Gulf of Mexico and the North Sea, but in both
cases it is impossible to distinguish the effects of oil from other
pollutant and effects from overfishing. (National Academy of
Sciences 1975)
“There
are at least some reasons to suspect that the hydrology of Georges
Bank and its importance as a nursery ground for larval fish may make
fishery stocks there particularly vulnerable to oil pollution”
6
(Howarth 1987).
CLAIM:
Short-term
concentrations that can be expected in the water column under blowout
or spill conditions on Georges Bank are on the order of 10- 200 ppb
with an upper maximum of about 300 ppb.
5
(Assessment of the Possible Environmental Impacts of Exploratory
Activities on Georges Bank Aquatic Resources. DFO. November, 1998)
Oil
is not dispersed in harmful concentrations to depths greater than 1
or 2 m. (Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution 1981)
6
FACT:
“On Georges Bank concentrations of 210 micrograms/l were detected
up to 20 m immediately after the Argo Merchant spill…Toxic aromatic
hydrocarbons persisted for at least 5 months, and the dissolved
hydrocarbons were uniformly mixed from top to bottom during this
time”
6
(Howarth 1987). Following the Amoco Cadiz spill in France,
concentrations of 100 micrograms/L were found at depth of 100 m. 6
(Howarth 1987)
CLAIM:
Evaporation rapidly removes the more toxic constituents of an oil
slick so that the toxicity of an oil spill becomes negligible in a
matter of hours. (Royal Society 1980)
6
FACT:
Aromatic hydrocarbons are quite soluble and are both volatile and
toxic. “The toxicity of an oil can increase as it is degraded.
Photo-oxidation in particular can increase toxicity.” Moreover,
exposure to ultraviolet light approximating the level found in nature
increased the toxicity of an oil to yeasts fourfold.”
Consequently, “the potential for toxicity can be underestimated.”
6
(Howarth 1987)
After
the Argo Merchant Spill, “concentrations of dissolved oil remained
elevated throughout Georges Bank for at least 5 months”. Once oil
is dispersed in the water column, the toxic components are much more
slowly lost than they are from a surface slick. Also “Oil has been
observed in some anoxic sediments for 6-12 years after a spill…
Some of the effects of the oil persist for as long as the oil remains
or longer.” 6
(Howarth 1987)
DEVELOPMENT
CLAIM:
Development can proceed safely after a discovery with little
environmental impacts.. [Yarmouth Chamber of Commerce Offshore Oil
and Gas Conference October 1998]
FACT
In the case of multiple wells, these [hydrologic] forces might reduce
the dilution effect by concentrating the discharges from multiple
sites in convergence zones. The critical issue would be the
threshold levels of sediment and toxins at important areas of the
bank. 5(Assessment
of the Possible Environmental Impacts of Exploratory Activities on
Georges Bank Aquatic Resources. DFO. November, 1998)
CLAIM:
Impacts of development are usually highly localized. [Yarmouth
Chamber of Commerce Offshore Oil and Gas Conference October 1998]
FACT:
On certain occasions during development drilling [at Sable Island],
fine particulates from drilling wastes were present up to 8 km. from
the platform.
[Yarmouth Chamber of Commerce Offshore Oil and Gas Conference October
1998]
PRODUCTION
CLAIM:
Development and production impacts are localized and short-lived.
[Yarmouth Chamber of Commerce Offshore Oil and Gas Conference October
1998]
FACT:
The gradual ecological change of exposed marine systems resulting
from the cumulative effects of all waste streams over the long life
of a producing field, and the potential for chronic sublethal effects
not measured in the present study could result in significant direct
and indirect effects of development and production activities on
fishery resources. 4
[(B) - Effects Of Produced Water On Early Life Stages Of Haddock,
Lobster And Sea Scallop. P. Cranford, K. Querbach, G. Maillet, J.
Grant, C. Taggart, And K. Lee
Executive
Summary 5 November, 1998]
CLAIM:
Actual exploration and development scenarios have not been developed
for Georges Bank. Finally, a plan for development would be created,
if enough oil and/or natural gas had been found. The four ongoing
hydrocarbon developments on the East Coast all differ, but elements
of these successful projects may be applied to development on Georges
Bank.
12
FACT:
Before an operator bids on a lease detailed exploration and
development scenarios are generated and overall economics are
carefully calculated.
“There are two ways to get the hydrocarbons produced in an
offshore well to market pipelines or tankers. Tankers are
normally used exclusively for liquid hydrocarbons such as crude oil
and condensate. In some areas of the world where markets are
suitable, gas may be liquefied (LNG) and transported by special
tankers, but this is not a usual option for offshore operations.
Pipelines can be used both for natural gas and liquid hydrocarbons.
Production
facilities using tankers have flow lines which run along the sea
floor where a mooring for a tanker is installed at a safe distance
from the wells. In some cases, one tanker may be kept more or less
permanently at the site to fill up or store liquid hydrocarbons. The
hydrocarbons can be transferred rapidly to other tankers arriving on
site for shipment”
12.
[Offshore Production, Storage and Transportation
Number
3 of a series of papers on energy and the offshore, November 1998]
Even
if oil is discovered it is highly unlikely that conditions would
require a gravity-based structure like that at Hibernia. More
likely a floating, rather than fixed, central platform like Terra
Nova would be used. This will require sub-sea completions and flow
lines to bring oil to the floating platform. If oil is found in
relatively shallow water then Cohasset would probably be the model.
The Cohasset Project has a central "jack-up" rig; light oil
flows to it through seabed piping from the other wells, which are
jackets installed on pilings in the seabed. Tankers then take the oil
to onshore refineries.
If
gas and condensate are discovered then development will probably
proceed along the lines of the Sable Island Project.
“SOEP's central Thebaud well will have a central processing jacket
and staff quarters installed on the seabed. Remote wellhead
platforms at each of the fields in the development feed into Thebaud
by pipelines on the sea floor. There, gas and condensate will be
de-watered and transferred by an undersea pipeline to mainland Nova
Scotia.
SOEP
and the Cohasset Project's products are similar to those likely to be
found on Georges Bank; it seems probable that the facilities and
overall designs of all three projects would be somewhat similar”
12.
(Hydrocarbon Resources number 1 of a series of papers on energy and
the offshore November 1998)
CHRONIC
OIL RELEASES
CLAIM:
Even if an oil spill or chronic pollution killed large quantities of
fish eggs or larvae, no major effect on recruitment would be likely.
5
FACT:
There is convincing evidence that chronic oil releases from oil
production contaminates sediments. (Ward, Massie & Davies 1980)
6
they found evidence of sediment contamination with aromatic
hydrocarbons within 30 km of oil rigs in the N. Sea. (See Charts 53.3
and 53.4 from Howarth 1987)
6.
They
also found “decreases in both the number of individual animals and
the number of animal species in sediments within 5 km of a storage
platform in the Ekofisk field after 4 years of operation.”
6(Howarth
1987)
PRODUCED
WATER
CLAIM:
Dispersion models show that a 1,000-fold dilution occurs within 50 m
of discharge. Therefore, the concentration of produced water in
waters beyond the immediate vicinity of the discharge should be well
below the acute toxicity levels (reported here) (> 1% of discharge
concentration).
4
[(B) - Effects Of Produced Water On Early Life Stages Of Haddock,
Lobster And Sea Scallop. P. Cranford, K. Querbach, G. Maillet, J.
Grant, C. Taggart, And K. Lee Executive Summary 5 November, 1998]
FACT:
Produced water is a chronic problem, with the total volume discharged
greatly exceeding the volume of hydrocarbons produced. 4[
(B) - Effects Of Produced Water On Early Life Stages Of Haddock,
Lobster And Sea Scallop. P. Cranford, K. Querbach, G. Maillet, J.
Grant, C. Taggart, And K. Lee Executive Summary 5 November, 1998 ]
“Produced
water usually, but not always, is a brine with a concentration of
dissolved solids up to nearly 10 times that of seawater. In
addition, produced water can contain elevated levels of several
metals (barium beryllium, cadmium, chromium, copper, iron, lead,
nickel, silver and zinc (Neff 1987)
8.
In
the past, operators have been allowed to discharge 50 -70
micrograms/L of oil with formation water. This means they could
legally release 400 tons of oil in a 60-million bbl field
development.
Oil
discharged in formation water is much less likely to evaporate than
is spilled oil because it is more soluble and because it is released
beneath the sea surface6”
(Howarth 1987). The release of oil in formation water is estimated
to have made up more than half of the chronic oil discharge in the N
Sea (Read 1980)
6.
TANKERS
CLAIM:
Tankers bringing oil ashore from Georges Bank will supplant tankers
now used to import oil to New England. 6
FACT:
“If refinery capacity permits there may be more total tanker
traffic. However, even if OCS tankers replace the tankers now
importing oil, the likelihood of oil spillage on Georges Bank would
increase. Most tanker spills occur during loading and unloading or
while tankers are approaching or leaving port and loading facilities.
Loading on Georges Bank would likely result in more oil spillage
there.”
5
(Howarth 1987)
“Most
of the small spills associated with oil production in the N. Sea have
occurred during the loading of tankers.” Small spills may be as
frequent as one spill in 5 loadings6.
(Howarth 1987)
.
PIPELINES
CLAIM:
Canadian and US companies are world leaders in safety reliability,
leak prevention and environmental practices. According to the
Transportation Safety Board (TSB) statistics, The accident rate on
pipelines is miniscule compared with railway, highway and air
transportation. Despite the diligent efforts of pipeline companies.
Accidents do happen.
FACT:
In Canada, there are typically 30 to 40 failures each year on
pipelines regulated by NEB, most of them leaks rather than ruptures.
Offshore
in 1992 alone, there were 54 fires, explosions, blowouts and other
mishaps reported to the Minerals Management Service (MMS) which
oversees activities on the outer continental shelf. In the Gulf of
Mexico where pipelines are ubiquitous there were 98 accidents
reported to the MMS in 1995, an increase of 58% over the previous
year.
CLAIM:
Oil companies can explore and develop
without
having a significant impact on the environment. [Yarmouth Chamber of
Commerce Offshore Oil and Gas Conference October 1998]
FACT:
Oil companies will say and do whatever is necessary to get approval
to explore and develop hydrocarbons. In Long Beach Calif. after
residents objected to activities along the coast they resorted to
camouflage of the entire operation. To shield the islands' oil
operations from public view, designers carefully
disguised
the oil drilling rigs
“as high rise buildings, placed well heads and other support
facilities below ground level, and masked other industrial
installations on the islands with palm trees, concrete sculptures,
waterfalls, and colorful night-lighting.
These
fields still leak oil and have had dramatic impacts on the California
coastline.
If
multinationals are willing to completely camouflage a giant offshore
oil field in the US, what would they be prepared to say and do in
order to gain access to Georges Bank?
David
Lincoln
Environmental
Consultant
January
1, 1999
MAJOR
SOURCES
1.
Backus, Richard H. and Donald W.Bourne ed. 1987 Georges Bank. MIT
Press
2. Adams, N.J. and L.G. Kuhlman, Neal
Adams., Houston
How
to Prevent or Minimize Shallow Gas Blowouts (parts 1 &2).
Firefighters, Inc (World Oil-May and June 1991)
3.
Cranford et al 1998(A).Effects Of Water Based Drilling Mud On Early
Life Stages Of Haddock, Lobster And Sea Scallop. P. Cranford, K.
Querbach, G. Maillet, J. Grant, C. Taggart, And K. Lee Executive
Summary 5 November, 1998
4.
Cranford et al 1998 (B). Effects Of Produced Water On Early Life
Stages Of Haddock, Lobster And Sea Scallop. P. Cranford, K. Querbach,
G. Maillet, J. Grant, C. Taggart, And K. Lee Executive Summary 5
November, 1998
5.
DFO. 1998. Assessment of the Possible Environmental Impacts of
Exploratory Activities on Georges Bank Aquatic Resources. November,
1998
6.
Howarth, Robert W. 1987 “Potential Effects Of Petroleum On Marine
Organisms On Georges Bank” In Georges
Bank
ed. by Backus, Richard H. MIT Press
7.
Mobil. 1976 Sable Island Development Plan
8.
Neff, Jerry M.,1987 “Potential Effects Of Drilling Effluents On
Marine Organisms On Georges Bank” In Georges
Bank
ed. by Backus, Richard H. MIT Press
9.
Tsui, Philip T.P. 1998 The Environmental Effects Of Marine Seismic
Exploration On The Fish And Fisheries Of The Scotian Shelf. Mobil
Resources Corporation
10.
Hydrocarbon Resources number 1 of a series of papers on energy and
the offshore November 1998)
11.
Exploring for Offshore Oil and Gas number 2 of a series of papers on
energy and the offshore November, 1998
12.Offshore
Production, Storage and Transportation
Number
3 of a series of papers on energy and the offshore, November 1998]
13.
Regulation, Number 4 of a series of papers on energy and the
offshore, November 1998
14.
Petroleum Communication Foundation, 1993. Our Petroleum Challenge.
15.
http://www.oilspill.state.ak.us/herring.html
