Reasons for BOEM’s industry-weighted policy decisions are becoming clear

William Yancey Brown

William Yancey Brown

Last week investigative reporter David Hammer published a report on how the Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) appears to be sitting on their hands when it comes to performing the environmental enforcement aspect of their charge. It seems that while their budget has increased, allowing them to hire 77 petroleum engineers and geologists, they have only managed to fill two of the 12 positions open for environmental compliance staff.

Dialing back a few years the Department of the Interior’s Minerals Management Service was split into three agencies, BSEE, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) and Office of Natural Resources Revenue (ONRR). This split was ushered in after the BP/Macondo disaster, but was in the making due to an embarrassing revelation that Minerals Management was way-too cozy with industry. It was the cocaine-dusted panty-parties that raised eyebrows, but when the oil-spill response plans for BP/Macondo revealed contingencies for walrus mitigation in the Gulf of Mexico it was clear the agency’s rubber-stamping of industry documents had exceeded the envelope of credulity.

The break-up of the agency into three independent functions was supposed to thwart abuse of MMS conflicting and overlapping missions of safety and environmental regulations (BSEE), resource development and leasing (BOEM), and revenue collection (ONRR). But David Hammer’s report indicates that since Michael Bromwich (the steward of the breakup) left his desk a few years back, the agency’s long-term staff has been returning to their old habits as handmaidens to industry. This trend was substantiated by former training center director Chris Barry, who was told by a supervisor that “as soon as Mr. Bromwich leaves, everything will go back to the way it was.”

This sheds light on the fact that despite preponderance of opposition to offshore development in the Arctic and the Atlantic, BOEM has been acting as if offshore oil and gas is a done deal. This includes attending “closed door meetings” with industry advancing extensive and redundant seismic surveys, and despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, the continued insistence by BOEM Chief Environmental Officer William Yancy Brown that these survey operations will have “no impacts on marine mammal populations.”

We got together with our colleagues at Oceana to address this “no impacts” peccadillo by lodging a Scientific Integrity Complaint against Brown with the Department of the Interior (DOI). We were chagrinned when our 156 page document citing “line, chapter, and verse” of the best available science (required for agency decisions) was summarily dismissed through a one-and-a-half page “closure letter” from DOI stating that they “found no merit to our charge.”

Not ones to shuffle back into our corner to mope we filed a request for reconsideration, cc’ing folks up the chain (DOI Secretary Sally Jewell and Solicitor Hilary Tompkins among others). Supposedly we should have heard from them by now, but given the aforementioned trend of “going back to the way it was” I get a sense that they may still be poking it with a stick to see if it’ll bite…

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

15 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Robert John
Robert John
9 years ago

Perhaps BOEM have ignored the 156 page document prepared by Oceana and Ocean Noise because it is a cherry-picked misrepresentation of FACTS and SCIENCE? I cannot believe that Ocean Noise would “get into bed” with Oceana when it is well known that they mislead a caring and giving public: http://thenorwoodresource.org.au/2014/04/26/how-can-oceana-justify-misleading-the public/ All this reminds me of the title of a book by Ian Plimer : “Telling Lies for God” in which he described the actions of creationists as operating “in the areas of fringe science picking over the carcass of science like hyenas”. This is surely what the likes of Oceana, Ocean Noise and the 75 so called “prominent” scientists (herded by NRDC) do : IGNORE most FACTS AND SCIENCE and pick a few extremely dubious research studies (eg De Soto et al on scallop larvae, Engas et al on fish catch: http://thenorwoodresource.org.au/2014/01/17/is-science-manipulated-by environmental-groups-and-some-researchers/). Perhaps BOEM’s response just reflects the fact that the likes of Oceana and Ocean Noise simply “Tell Lies for the Environment”??

Robert John
Robert John
9 years ago
Reply to  mstocker

Michael,
Thanks for posting my comment and for your considered and detailed response. I agree that it would be difficult to find 75 scientists willing to provide a rebuttal to the 75 who signed up for the NRDC letter, but would still suggest that would not be on the basis of the facts and science. I note that you are one of the signatories so, given the manner in which the letter is written (ie. more like a grab-bag of eNGO claims rather than a balanced scientific review), I wonder if you would care to be an “honest broker” and advise the public who really wrote it and whether there were any queries from these eminent scientists as to the content?
After all, you say yourself that you “find problems with the de Soto paper” but yet you have signed up to the statement “In some species of invertebrates, such as scallops, airgun shots and other low-frequency noises have been shown to interfere with larval or embryonic development.” which was an obvious reference to the de Soto paper.
It appears to me that, in the same way that creationists have to ignore many obvious scientific facts, the scientists who signed the NRDC letter to President Obama also ignored many scientific facts. For example, the ocean is noisy (icebergs calving/colliding, biological vocalisations, whales breaching, etc); no population impacts from seismic survey activity where whale populations have been closely monitored (eg NW Shelf of Australia); seismic survey mitigation measures such as soft start depend on behavioural responses; observations from seismic vessels demonstrate that the % of the population observed is not adversely affected, hence why would the unseen % of the population be adversely affected?; the physics of sound pressure level attenuation in water; etc, etc.
The cynic in me leads me to conclude that scientists must have ulterior motives when they do not take into account ALL the scientific facts involved in a particular subject area.

Robert John
Robert John
9 years ago
Reply to  mstocker

Michael,
Thank you for your openness and honesty – especially with regards to who wrote the “cautionary note” for NRDC. You appear to be placing emphasis on the fact that all these people have Ph.D.’s. While they should be “quite qualified to write this letter” and you claim “it is indeed based on many facts, and much science”, I would still suggest that the content of the letter looks more like a grab-bag of eNGO claims and not a balanced scientific review of the issue. Surely a balanced review is the least one would expected from such a prominent mob?
It is not simply the obvious reference (without naming it) to the de Soto paper that I find disagreeable. There are many examples, too many to quote and rebut in this comment, that I find extremely misleading and, in fact, pseudo-scientific.
Let’s start with the first paragraph:
“This activity represents a significant threat to marine life throughout the region (
U.S. mid-Atlantic and south Atlantic coasts).”
Why is this area so different from the Gulf of Mexico and other ocean margins such as the South American Atlantic coast, African Atlantic Coast, European Atlantic Coast or the Australian Indian Ocean coast, where seismic surveys using compressed air have proceeded for over 4 decades with no significant impacts to marine life? This claim is not supported by the facts and science. In fact, the Group IV humpback population growth on the NW Shelf of Australia since the cessation of whaling in the 60’s demonstrates quite robustly that seismic surveys and petroleum development activities have NOT been a “significant threat” to marine life.

Let’s look at the second paragraph: “with sound almost as powerful as that produced by underwater chemical explosives.”
This is very misleading scientifically and I can only assume it is deliberate! What does “almost” mean? Surely, it cannot mean as much as twice as powerful (ie 6dB difference)? As you have said you don’t like dB numbers it is probably best to keep away from dB levels in this comment. However, what about pressure – due to the fact that the key attribute of a sound pulse’s likelihood of causing damage is the pressure or rate of change in pressure? Seismic arrays operate at 2000psi whereas chemical explosives generate pressures of 3,000,000psi – that’s a very significant difference in pressure and definitely not “almost as powerful”.
In that same second paragraph, 75 prominent scientists, with Ph.D.’s, have demonstrated that they have minimal understanding of the multi-client or speculative survey model in which seismic contractors acquire seismic data in an area and sell it to multiple clients. While there may be multiple applications to conduct surveys over the area, there is NO way that all will actually be acquired – market dynamics will sort out the few that are eventually acquired and there is NO way there will be “multiple duplicative efforts in the same areas”. I note that one of the writers of the letter (Doug Nowacek) is still confused about this model.
Need I go on? I could rebut many more statements about the “NRDC 75 prominent scientists letter” but this is not the place to do it.
Let’s return to your statement at the end of your second paragraph: “If we do otherwise we will continue to see systems collapse before we even get a chance to know, let alone understand them.” Surely you are not saying that systems have collapsed due to seismic surveys and petroleum development? If they had, there would surely be ample evidence of this after over 40 years of offshore exploration and development?
Thanks again for your response – I am pleased we are having this discussion – and hope that at least a few of your 74 colleagues are following!?

Robert John
Robert John
9 years ago
Reply to  mstocker

Michael,
Thanks for continuing the discussion.
Excuse me for thinking you were emphasising the Ph.D. credentials of the core group who wrote the draft cautionary note to President Obama. It’s just that you had ‘Ph.D.’ after every name – hence my confusion. In my experience, Ph.D.’s end up knowing a lot about a very narrow subject and, quite frankly, should not be regarded as experts in subject areas they obviously know very little about.
I’m pleased that you’ve identified one of the issues, that: “Folks from this group are generally more focused on marine biology, which is not an exact science.”
I’m also pleased that you say that you have “feet in both worlds”.
However, I must say I am surprised by your statement “Unfortunately from a biological standpoint we have absolutely no baselines to use as a comparison.” This is exactly what I was referring to regarding the humpback population on the NW Shelf of Australia – see item 3 in the following link: http://thenorwoodresource.org.au/2014/07/30/the-right-to-protest-or-lobby-should-not-be-abused/
If the population growth of the humpback whale in this area is not a classical case of a baseline study, I am at a loss to understand what you mean. I would suggest that, if there were similar studies of different cetacean populations in areas where seismic activity has occurred over more than 4 decades (since the cessation of whaling), the results would be similar (unless the population decline was obviously due to, for example, by-catch, as in the case of the Maui’s dolphin in NZ).
In fact, I’m extremely surprised that, given the knowledge of humpback populations and the preliminary results of the BRAHSS (Behavioural Response of Australian Humpback whales to Seismic Surveys) study, which is still not published but has been reported at a number of conferences, that a humpback whale researcher (Olaf Meynecke, Ph.D.) would add his signature to such a letter.
Perhaps it is the same reason that many of the 75 prominent scientists “jumped on the bandwagon”, especially given my understanding that quite a number of signatories did not agree (as you have mentioned yourself) with ALL the claims in the letter.
Thank you also for sending me, to my email address, the summary of papers that show “behavioral disruptions clearly associated with exposure to seismic surveys.” I am very familiar with most of those papers and I will look forward to responding to you privately by email regarding their validity in this issue. However, given that one of the papers was the Rollond et al study and Rollond plus some of her co-authors (Parks, Nowacek, and Kraus) signed the NRDC letter to President Obama, I cannot resist commenting on the quality and implication of that paper. Firstly, it is not about exposure to seismic surveys as you have implied in your comment (Rollond’s paper was about ship noise); secondly, a very respected acoustic researcher I know has described this paper as “poor science lacking in rigor”; and thirdly (most important of all), I am at a loss to understand how these prominent authors could realistically claim that the reduced stress detected was due to the removal of ship noise and not the removal of the risk of collision especially in an area reknowned for deaths due to collision.
Thanks again for continuing this discussion.

Robert John
Robert John
9 years ago
Reply to  mstocker

Michael,
Thanks for staying with this, given that we are trying to have a discussion on the basis of the facts and science. However, I do realise that, given your area of interest, you probably prefer to discuss this issue on the basis of opinion, anthropomorphism and, in your words, sentimentality.
I totally agree that the nub of this issue is “How geo-seismic surveys are impacting marine life”.
However, don’t you find it surprising that, after over 4 decades of seismic surveys using compressed air, there are no verified adverse impacts on cetacean populations as a result of seismic survey sound? And that is despite very close monitoring, much closer than the monitoring of the shipping, fishing and, dare I say, defence, industries?
Yes, there are behavioural responses, which we actually want as it is regarded as the main mitigation measure.
However, many researchers in this area are certainly “drawing long bows” and relying on opinions as opposed to facts, plus a remarkable leap of faith, when they claim that seismic surveys “represent(s) a significant threat to marine life” when the papers mainly claim they “may”, “could”, “can” or “potentially” represent significant threats to marine life.
My understanding of cetacean population growth baselines, especially humpbacks, do indicate we have the information to arrive at conclusions that there are NO adverse impacts at population level from seismic surveys or petroleum development. The Group IV and the Group V humpback populations have grown very similarly at a rate very close to biological maximum (11-12% pa) and yet there is very little seismic survey or petroleum development in the Group V migration and wintering areas. What does this suggest? All I can gather from these facts are that seismic surveys have had NO adverse impacts on these populations (especially as the other stressors you mention would be similar throughout the two areas).
I am very pleased that you do accept there are many “other stressors – bycatch, entanglement, ship strikes, bio-accumulation of anthropogenic toxins, food source competition, etc.” that threaten cetacean population viability. As you are no doubt aware, some of these, such as by-catch, have been roughly quantified on a world-wide basis (eg 330,000 cetaceans pa; 650,000 if seals/sea-lions are included). Although ship strikes are frequent (especially by fast moving ships like cruise liners, etc) I am not aware of any effort to quantify these impacts.
I am left to ponder why a group of 75 prominent scientists choose to “point the finger” at noise when there are so many stressors known to have major impact (ie DEATH!) on individuals and hence cetacean populations (and I would not be surprised if at least one of these prominent scientists has been on a cruise!).
Finally, I am intrigued by your comment “It doesn’t surprise me that Doug Cato did not (sign the letter)” because it sounds like he was invited to and either declined or abstained.
In the interests of being an “honest broker” perhaps the following details should be published about the background to that letter:
How many scientists were invited to add their name to it?
How many declined?
How many did not respond (ie. effectively abstained)?
I am convinced that, if one considers ALL the facts and science, there is more to the NRDC letter than a simple concern for marine life.

Robert John
Robert John
9 years ago
Reply to  mstocker

Michael,
It is disappointing that you’ve “taken umbrage” as a result of my opening statement in my last comment and that you would like to stop this discussion because it has run its course. However, I’m not surprised, given you believe you’ve used “scientifically substantiated statements” to build your argument yet still appear to be arguing on the basis of opinion, anthropomorphism and sentimentality.
I also find it remarkable that you have admitted that “your” ulterior motive is attacking the “continued development of fossil fuels. This is part of the larger system (and our larger strategy)”. It implies that you have no problems with ignoring most of the facts and science in this subject area for the ‘greater good’ ie. stopping the continued development of fossil fuels.
I totally agree that we should move towards a more sustainable energy mix but this should be based on a balanced, open and transparent debate.
Finally, while you may have an opinion on this issue and have accused me of also having an opinion, I can assure you that I my position is based on all the facts and science, not just selected portions. I would be happy to change my position if all the facts and science supported it.

Robert John
Robert John
9 years ago
Reply to  mstocker

Michael,
I agree with your comment “Time will only tell which of us is “more correct.”” and am left to ponder why you still ignore the lack of evidence of “significant impact”, including evidence to the contrary, during last 40 years of seismic surveying, in your “systematic reasoning”.

Robert John
Robert John
9 years ago
Reply to  mstocker

Michael,
Thanks for your openness and honesty.
While we are obviously not on the same wavelength regarding facts and science it appears we are very much of a similar mind on 2 key issues of our time:
1. Human beings continue “to rapaciously procreate.” (I consider this to be society’s biggest problem, yet discussion of this topic is generally “taboo”); and
2. We both have guiding principles that “advance the highest quality of life for the most beings on our planet.”
However, regarding item 2, I tend to focus on animal populations that are clearly being decimated by human impacts (eg Australian wildlife), whereas you appear to focus on marine populations that “may”, “could”, “potentially” be decimated by noise in the ocean.