COMMERCE
Subscriber Services
Classified Ads
Subscribe
Advertise
NEWS
This Month
Editorial
Letters
F/V Safety
Past Issues
ABOUT US
Contact Us
Latest Issue
Subscribe
History
MORE CONTENT
CFN Archives
Links
Each month exclusively in the PRINT edition of CFN
Along the Coast
Ask the Lobster Doc
Bearin’s
Classifieds
Coming Events
Editorial
Enforcement Report
FISH SAFE
Fleet Additions
Letters
Lobster Market Report
New Boats
News Catch
Quahog Market Report
|
Commercial Fisheries News
Volume 35 Number 3
November 2008
Oil drilling bans lifted, industry mulls future
BOSTON, MA – As of mid-October, all federal bans on offshore oil drilling had been lifted, leaving open the possibility that oil and gas drilling could take place just three miles off the Northeast coast.
Whether that will happen remains to be seen. Lawmakers immediately began taking steps to protect ecologically sensitive areas such as Stellwagen Bank and Georges Bank, environmentalists vowed to fight to reinstate drilling bans, and some fishermen’s representatives remained adamantly opposed to oil exploration.
However, economic and political developments over the past year have prompted many fishermen to begin thinking about what may lay ahead.
Here’s how the current situation came about. Although energy costs have been rising over the last few years, the most recent shocking surge in oil prices began in January and culminated at an all-time record high of $147.27 a barrel on July 11. President George W. Bush responded to the growing crisis by lifting the executive ban on oil drilling in federal offshore waters on July 14.
Enacted in 1990 by his father, President George H. W. Bush, and extended by President Bill Clinton, the executive order was one of two safeguards against drilling on the US outer continental shelf. The other was a congressional moratorium on offshore drilling enacted in the early 1980s and routinely renewed over the years.
With the lifting of the executive ban in July, debate over the environmental and economic benefits and disadvantages of offshore drilling was suddenly placed at the center of American politics as politicians turned their attention to the congressional moratorium.
Americans began to consider what offshore domestic oil production could mean to the country in terms of economic stability, national security, climate change, and environmental impact. After much debate, Congress allowed the moratorium to expire on Sept. 30.
The issue of offshore drilling creates real conflict for many commercial fishermen who, while struggling with fuel expenses that they fear could destroy the industry and hurt the US, are upset at the thought of seeing oil wells placed on traditional, biologically productive, and economically crucial fishing grounds.
“We need oil”
Hampton, NH fisherman David Goethel, owner/operator of the dragger Ellen Diane, said he was resigned to the fact that the energy needs of the country will come first.
“Let’s be honest,” he said. “We need the oil and, in politics, energy and national security trump the fishing industry.”
John Drouin of Cutler, ME, owner/operator of the lobster boat Rebbie’s Mistress, pointed out that the oil issue wasn’t just about fuel.
“Every aspect of our industry uses petroleum-based products, from our gear to our fiberglass boats,” he said, adding that it sticks in his craw that the US is so dependent on foreign oil.
“To me, it’s always been frustrating that, as a country, we could produce enough oil for ourselves. I am not a fan of relying on another country for something,” Drouin said. He’d like to see the nation develop alternate energy sources.
Fuel costs, even though they dipped in mid-October, were still of critical concern to the industry.
Fred Mattera, owner of the Point Judith, RI-based Travis & Natalie, said, “We’re right on the brink. I’ve been a successful fisherman for 20 years. I cannot, with the way things are managed now, catch enough fish and cover these exorbitant fuel costs.”
Drilling impacts
Generally speaking, people in the fishing community believe any consideration of offshore drilling must include careful assessment of environmental impacts.
“We would have to have extensive research done on potential impacts of exploration,” Goethel said.
He also warned of the need to guard against being left out of the decision-making process.
“I don’t think that offshore drilling is necessarily a bad thing – if the fishing industry has consultation on the location of drilling sites and potential environmental impacts,” he said. “It would not be favorable if the oil companies came in and ran roughshod.”
The potential environmental impacts of exploration and drilling include the effects on sea life of seismic testing, which involves the use of sound waves to identify geological characteristics under the sea floor.
Environmentalists also are very concerned about the disposal of drilling muds, which include materials used to lubricate drill bits and carry off cuttings and waste that can be released into the sea. They caution that storm activity and the currents of the northwest Atlantic could distribute these materials throughout fishing grounds.
And that would exacerbate the complications of a third concern – small-scale seepage and large-scale spills from cargo vessels or rigs. These kinds of incidents have been responsible for some of the largest oil-related disasters in history, including the Exxon Valdez tragedy in 1989 and the release of over 3 million gallons of oil from a rig off Santa Barbara, CA in 1969.
Said Bonnie Spinazzola, executive director of the Atlantic Offshore Lobstermen’s Association, “We understand the need for oil, but we have serious concerns about what exploration and drilling will do to the resource and to the ocean environment.”
Angela Sanfilippo is president of the Gloucester Fishermen’s Wives Association (GFWA) and executive director of the Massachusetts Fishermen’s Partnership. She worked alongside politicians and environmentalists to fight drilling in the early 1980s and also has worked to provide economic and retraining assistance to fishermen as management regulations have made it more and more difficult for them to work. She said GFWA remains adamantly opposed to drilling.
“We worked very hard to protect Georges Bank, ecosystems, and fish stocks. Now to have the industry reduced to its minimum and then have drilling allowed? It’s unthinkable in my eyes,” she said.
Possible benefits
Supporters of offshore drilling note that there have been significant improvements to drilling technology, decreasing the likelihood for a disaster similar to the Santa Barbara spill.
Some also argue that a potential environmental benefit to offshore drilling is the ability of oil platforms to act as artificial reefs, attracting and possibly growing fish populations. Though rigs usually are surrounded by no-fishing zones, some believe that the advancement of biodiversity is beneficial to the whole ecosystem.
The debate over offshore drilling also revolves around the perceived economic benefits that additional oil could have to consumers, including increasing supply, decreasing costs, and eventually reducing reliance on foreign oil.
Opponents say that oil from offshore reserves would bring prices down by mere cents and that it could take as long as 10 years until the additional supply would be available to the public.
Though the economic advantage of drilling is in dispute, some fishermen see the development of an offshore oil industry in the region as an economic opportunity loaded with potential.
At the Boston Fish Pier recently, Marty Gorham of the Bethany Jean said he saw oil exploration as a possible new line of work for fishermen.
“I don’t have a problem with it, if they’re smart about it,” he said. “If they aren’t going to let us go fishing, let us drill for oil.”
Mattera also acknowledged this potential.
“It could create alternative jobs. Who knows the ocean better than fishermen? Fishermen could be employed on transport vessels and in numerous capacities related to offshore drilling,” he said.
Additionally, Mattera said one idea he’s heard is for oil companies to be required to pay a fee or subsidy to the fishing industry over time.
“This could involve a vessel buyback to reduce the fleet and then an annual payment that could be used to improve fishery management science, pay for health insurance to cover fishermen and their families, improve management databases, and any number of aspects of fishing that need development,” he said.
Next steps
The one thing that is certain at this point is that there will be much more debate over offshore energy in the coming months.
In late September, US Sens. John Kerry (D-MA) and Ted Kennedy (D-MA) jointly introduce S 3576, the “Georges Bank Preservation Act.”
The legislation would prohibit the issuance of “any lease or other authorization by the federal government that authorizes exploration, development, production of oil or natural gas in any marine national monument or national marine sanctuary or in the fishing ground known as Georges Bank in the waters of the US.”
The bill was referred to the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
In early October, Kerry sent a letter to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration demanding that the agency take immediate steps to prohibit oil and gas development in the Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary.
Joshua Allen
Back to story list
|
|
Tell us what you think.
