Fossil Fuel Industry

...now browsing by category

 

Communication signals threaten marine habitat

Sunday, December 13th, 2009

Commnuication and navigation beacons.

Back in the mid 1970’s Physical Oceanographer Walter Munk was evaluating the acoustical transmission characteristics of the ocean “sound channel” – an isothermal layer in the deep ocean that baleen whales use for long distance communication.

His visionary work in this field developed into a 1991 experiment called the “Heard Island Feasibility Test” which produced the first sound that was literally heard around the world – under water.

The utility of this ocean feature for long distance communication was something Dr. Munk had been advancing ever since 1978 when he proposed a “Sea Net” – an acoustic based ocean internet system that could be used – and heard around the world.

It was along this trajectory that the “Acoustic Thermography of Ocean Climates” (ATOC) was proposed, and then deployed in 1992 despite the misgivings many of us had about projecting very loud sounds throughout the entire Pacific Basin.

ATOC turned out to be relatively benign, but for me it was the harbinger of things to come; where all manner of acoustic signals would be used for research, military, and industrial communication –crowding out the important bio-acoustic signals of marine animals.

The signals and technologies continued to develop, and it was in 2000 with a US Navy proposal of a long distance sonar system called “SURTASS” (which would ensonify the entire ocean with military noise) that the public became aware of the problem.

Public hearings were conducted, lawsuits filed, and demonstrations ensued. It was in the midst of this gambit that the Bahamas Stranding occurred – alerting us all that despite the assurances of our Navy that there was indeed a problem.

It is the continuous association between military operations and marine mammal strandings that has kept the Ocean Noise Pollution issue in the public conversation. While most of this conversation orbits around military sonar and seismic surveys, the exponential advance of other acoustical communication and navigation signals threatens to seriously compromise the marine bio-acoustic habitat.

This link describes one such signal, but there are many others being developed and deployed for research, industrial, and military applications.

While some of these signals may not be pernicious – even while overlapping some odontocete communication and bio-sonar bands, it would be good to know this prior to saturating biologically significant habitat with sounds generated by expensive equipment.

Tools to make this determination is one of OCR’s banner projects which we hope to complete this year pending support from funding agencies.

When we do complete these tools it will be none too soon, as underwater communication systems are springing up like mushrooms all over the sea.

Stay tuned!

Posted in Fossil Fuel Industry, Noise Pollution, Ocean Life | No Responses »

Report from the Dept. of Fisheries and Oceans workshop

Thursday, May 14th, 2009
Maurice Ewing towing and airgun array

Maurice Ewing towing and airgun array

Spending the last two days in the company of geophysicists, marine mammologists, petroleum engineers and policy makers was much less grueling than I had anticipated. But the degree of collegiality was uncharacteristic of these affairs – to a point of being downright pleasant.

The purpose of the meeting was to craft a “Mitigations Practices” document for seismic airgun surveys to minimize their acoustic and behavioral impacts on marine mammals. The final product will be a synthesis of our discussions outlining recommended practices and standards for “Marine Mammal Observers,” emerging technologies, survey planning and design, and passive monitoring for marine animals.

While only four of us (out of 40) were from the environmental NGO community, it was comforting to be among a crowd of people – most of whom owe their living to fossil fuels – who were also sincerely concerned about the impacts of their industry on marine habitat. They were quite agreeable to contributing to a document wherein every line put more constraints on their work.

Of course everything must be put in some context; and while each sentence added costs to seismic surveys, with few exceptions the economic beneficiaries of these cost increases were the geophysicists, marine mammologists, and petroleum engineers in the room.

This situation was punctuated twice over the course of the workshop. On the first day it was when Jim Cummings (www.acousticecology.org) delivered a paper that highlighted the behavioral impacts of seismic exploration on marine mammals – pointing out that the noise might do more that just bother or damage animals within a prescribed distance from the surveys. He pointed out that the noise also interfered with their foraging (feeding) efficiency well outside of the “safe exclusion zone” set by common mitigation practices.

On the second day things got a little hot when Dr. Lindy Weilgart (Dalhousie University) suggested that a “no action alternative” be used when the risks of environmental damage mandated that surveys not take place.

So back to the context: While we in the environmental NGO community were pleased to be invited to the table, by participating we had already accepted the inevitability of seismic surveys.

One of the many responses I received when I announced that I would be attending the workshop was from Mac Hawley, who quipped that “mitigation” and “seismic surveys” were an oxymoron.  I concurred stating that “mitigation” and “airguns” don’t belong in the same sentence unless the word “solar” is also included.

At the end of the day it was not a total giveaway. Dr. Weilgart did get precautionary language into the document. Jim Cummings did get some wording about broader considerations for behavioral and synergistic impacts. I wrote a piece on “Objectives and Outcomes” to clarify the fact that the document was not designed to “make sure that survey operators met the established guidelines;” rather it was to make sure that their practices, above all, are performed with the overarching objective of conserving marine life.

Posted in Fossil Fuel Industry, Noise Pollution | 1 Response »

5 Year Outer Continental Shelf leasing plan hearings

Tuesday, April 21st, 2009
Illustrated letter from Laura Honda's "Green Team" 4th-6th graders

Illustrated letter from Laura Honda's "Green Team" 4th-6th graders

Last Thursday was the final public hearing on the 5 year Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) leasing program. While this was the last chance to stand up in public to express yourself about the program, it is not the last chance to comment, as Interior Secretary Ken Salazar has opened up the public comment period to September 20. (See below for instructions.)

Secretary Salazar was handed the parting gift that the previous administration handed to the oil men – in the form of an oil field leasing program for our coastal oceans that presupposed the continued exploitation of petroleum as our national energy strategy for the future.

Fortunately Secretary Salazar was able to put that assumption on “pause” so he could take in the opinions of the public on this critical issue.

Part of extending the comment period involved staging four public hearings on each of the coasts that would be affected by offshore oil production. The first hearing was in New Jersey, the second in New Orleans, the third in Alaska, and the fourth in San Francisco.

All of the hearings were very well attended. A majority of the public – including elected officials – were more supportive of alternative energy uses of the OCS over oil and gas. This included the hearings in New Orleans, where the public is familiar with what the oil economy brings. About 30% of the public in New Orleans was in favor of oil and gas development. In the other locations the public was predominantly against new fossil fuel development.

Many of the oil folks were complaining that the hearings were loaded against them; with hundreds of conservationists dressed as polar bears, otters and dolphins creating a carnival atmosphere outside of the hearings, and the public presentations mostly against oil drilling. But as the proponents had the same opportunities to express their opinions that everyone else had, this argument is a bit specious.

In the context of this setting, it seemed as if the oil proponents are “against the ropes” on this issue. Most of them couched their presentations within the understanding that solar, wind, and wave energy were going to be the future of our national energy policy. Even Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, the “Duchess of Drill Baby Drill,” stated that oil extraction would need to be done in environmentally sound manner to be acceptable.

The hearings were a clear expression of the public sentiment on the oil economy. I deeply respect Secretary Salazar and his staff for sitting though four days of the same few arguments recited over and over again by both sides of the issue, with the only distinction being how well the presenters handled the microphone.

There were hundreds of folks entering comments in all locations, so actual delivered comments were based on “the luck of the draw.” I got up really early to register so I was able to put in my 3 minutes on the potential dangers of seafloor processing noise. My presentation was a summary of our letter, which I also submitted:

http://ocr.org/literature/letters/Secretary_Ken_Salazar_April_14_OCS_comments.pdf

I also submitted a package of letters from Laura Honda’s Manor School “Green Team.” The package came to me last week just in time and contained about 30 beautifully illustrated appeals for conservation. While I’d love to share every one, the summary letter really gets to the point:

http://ocr.org/literature/letters/Laura_Honda_Green_Team_OCS-Comments.pdf

The “clincher” is on the second page.

If you want to submit your own letter, you can take cues from these letters, or write your own vers libre on your concerns about drilling for oil, continuing with our oil-based economy, or your concerns about the impacts of offshore wind and wave power.

To get more informed about the entire program, see the Interior website here:

http://www.doi.gov/ocs/

Instructions for submitting comments are here:

http://www.mms.gov/5-year/2010-2015DPPComments.htm

I have faith that Secretary Salazar will use his wisdom to sort out a cogent and forward-looking energy strategy from the hearings and from your comments.

Posted in Fossil Fuel Industry, Noise Pollution | No Responses »

Bristol Bay Oil Leases

Friday, November 21st, 2008

bristol bay salmon-jj-001

Alaska’s Bristol Bay is the world’s most productive fishery – 40% of all wild fish eaten in America are pulled from these waters. So it is a puzzlement to many of us that the Minerals Management Service (MMS) is considering an oil lease that would open up a large portion of Bristol Bay to offshore oil drilling – or that there would even be a debate about this ill-conceived proposal.

Unfortunately there is a debate and it is pitting the fishermen against the oil men. The stakes are high, so today I find myself in Seattle Washington at the Pacific Marine Expo talking about the acoustical impacts of offshore oil extraction on commercial fisheries – focusing on seismic airgun surveys and the noise of seafloor processing equipment (see http://ocr.org/research/impacts/SeafloorProcessing.pdf ).

The Pacific Marine Expo is a trade show that caters to commercial fishermen with exhibits by manufacturers and representatives of marine engines, nets and winches, refrigeration and processing equipment, power trains, boats, hooks and line, sonars and communications equipment, and net navigators – to name a few.

I was honored to be on a presentation panel with Norwegian fisherman Ian Kinsey, Eskimo fisherman Tom Tilden, John Goll with Minerals Management Service, Crabber Keith Colbum and Alaskan “catcher boat” captain Brent Paine. We ‘held court’ for a couple of hours to a largely supportive audience of Alaska Fishermen, and a few oil men.

My thanks go out to David Aplin from World Wildlife Foundation (WWF) and Kelly Harrell of Alaska Marine Conservation Council (AK Marine) who coordinated the event and hosted the post-presentation reception. The whole affair, including my expenses were sponsored by WWF and AK Marine, who are doing all they can do to save a vital and abundant fishery from the pillaging of the oil men.

I will let you know when the Environmental Impact Statement needs our input. Stay tuned. Meanwhile please let me know if you want to track this issue and I will send you links to media, power points and other ‘collateral’ about the preservation of our nation’s most productive fishery.

Posted in Fossil Fuel Industry, Noise Pollution, Ocean Life, Uncategorized | No Responses »

Offshore oil drilling constrained by military toxics dumping grounds.

Sunday, October 19th, 2008

Marine Photobank trash

Outer Continental Shelf hero Richard Charter sent us a rather depressing article. (excerpted below) It seems that proposed oil operations off the New Jersey coast will be constrained by some very reckless chemical weapons dumping done by our military.

This is a sad comment on how the military has been able to run roughshod over our environment with impunity. Unfortunately this behavior seems to be embedded in our governance – as evidenced by the high percentage of Superfund sites that are of military origin, and most recently in the Supreme Court case to determine if the Executive branch can exempt the military from environmental law (based on the Navy’s desire to use sonar without mitigation).

I believe that the military has a lot to answer for prior to being allowed to despoil our planet without oversight or responsibility. Surprises like the New Jersey ocean dumping sites do little to convince me that the Army or Navy are the “environmental stewards” that they claim in their respective PR material.

Of course military training is critical - any sovereign nation needs a prepared military. But allowing the military to determine the risk-economies of their own actions is irresponsible governance at best, and as the New Jersey dumping sites illustrate, potentially suicidal.

Hopefully the Supreme Court justices are taking this into consideration in their deliberations about the Navy sonar training.

Excerpted from the Press of Atlantic City, Donna Weaver, staff writer. The “expert” opinion in the last sentence is particularly troubling.

Oil drilling could disrupt chemical weapons off N.J. coast

“The U.S. Army has admitted to dumping 64 million pounds of chemical weapons into U.S. waters from World War I until the early 1970s….Last month, Congress voted to open waters off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts to oil and gas drilling…”

Chemical agents such as mustard gas, sarin gas, arsenic, cyanide and VX nerve gas were all dumped off the Atlantic Coast, raising questions about safety and the volatility of weapons in those dumpsites.

“If you put an oil platform on top of one of those piles, it will be a concern. You don’t want to be on a platform on top of this stuff,” said Richard Albright, of Grasonville, Md., an environmental health scientist, lawyer and author of “Cleanup of Chemical and Explosive Munitions.” “There is enough of this stuff out there that they will want to check and see if the area is clear.”

But according to a 2007 report prepared by the Congressional Research Service on the U.S. disposal of chemical weapons in the ocean, Albright’s suggestion could prove to be quite difficult.

The report states the primary obstacle is locating the weapons in the ocean. The lack of coordinates for most of the disposal sites, and the possibility that ocean currents may have moved the weapons beyond the dump areas, makes finding the weapons difficult at best if not impracticable in some cases, according to the report.

There is no scientific documentation on what effect oil exploration could have on these dumpsites, according to Albright.

When it comes to seismic testing in oil exploration, Albright said, if a significant charge is used in an area where weapons are located it could open up weapons and possibly wash them onto shore.

“If they hit a site with their depth charge, there is going to be a problem. There’s a risk there, but not enough to not do the drilling,” he said.

Posted in Fossil Fuel Industry, Ocean Life | No Responses »