The US Bureau of Ocean Energy Management has described conditions under which it might consider allowing geologic and geophysical studies off the eastern US south of New Jersey. Splendid. But consideration of G&G surveys doesn't herald oil and gas leasing of the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf with any more certainty than 2D seismic data acquired in the 1980s describes the resource potential of a sparsely drilled ocean.
The BOEM on Feb. 27 published a "programmatic environmental impact statement" (PEIS) indentifying preferred ways of mitigating the effects of G&G activities on sea animals. Rather than approving those activities, BOEM said, the document "establishes a framework for additional mandatory environmental reviews for site-specific actions and identifies broadly applicable measures governing any future G&G activities." Mitigation measures mentioned in a BOEM announcement include "requirements to avoid vessel strikes, special closure areas to protect the main migratory route for the endangered North Atlantic right whale, geographic separation of simultaneous seismic air-gun surveys, and passive acoustic monitoring to supplement visual observers and improve detection of marine mammals prior to and during seismic air-gun surveys."
Assessing potential
The welcome news here is that the agency responsible for oil and gas leasing of the federal offshore is contemplating new G&G work. According to BOEM, seismic surveys haven't been shot on the Atlantic OCS since 1988. The acquired data are 2D. Geophysical technology, applied with computing power only wished for in the 1980s, has advanced enormously since then. Modern methods of acquiring, processing, and interpreting seismic data in 2D and 3D, for example, have greatly improved the industry's ability to resolve subsurface complexity, produce accurate images of rock strata, and characterize reservoirs, among many other things. Other geophysical methods, such as geochemical and electromagnetic surveying, have made comparable strides.
State-of-the-art G&G surveys would tell US officials and producers much more than they now know about geologic potential off the East Coast. They would improve decision-making by officials about leasing and by producers—eventually, perhaps—about investment.
Opponents of offshore oil and gas activity are protesting the BOEM move. An official of the conservation group Oceana said exploratory surveys "could be a death sentence for many marine mammals" and would turn the Atlantic into "a blast zone." Actually, marine geophysical surveys seem not to have killed whales or dolphins anywhere. The exaggeration fits a broad pattern of propaganda used by groups committed mainly to blocking oil and gas work.
Knee-jerk obstructionism is regrettable. Legitimate questions remain whether sonic impulses of seismic surveys have nonfatal but nevertheless harmful effects on marine mammals. Those questions and ideas for mitigating potential damage deserve serious attention. But a lawsuit looms. Oceana and its supporters say BOEM should not have issued its PEIS before publication of acoustic guidelines for marine mammals under development—for 15 years—by the National Marine Fisheries Service.
The state veto
BOEM essentially has refused to rule out G&G surveys in the Atlantic and has set guidelines for survey operations in the event they're eventually allowed. If that's a step toward oil and gas leasing, it's a tiny one. The possibility of a court reversal represents an impediment to leasing that's minor in relation to a threat that neither supporters nor opponents of leasing should forget. States can preclude federal leasing off their shores by finding the activity inconsistent with plans prepared under Coastal Zone Management Act. In the US East, with memories still fresh of the Macondo tragedy of 2010, many states will feel pressure to exercise that veto when the time comes.
Now, attention should focus on knowledge. With modern G&G techniques, the US government can greatly improve its understanding of oil and gas potential along one of the country's continental margins. If it can acquire the knowledge without imperiling sea life, it should do so. If the Atlantic OCS is destined to remain inaccessible to producers, Americans at least should have the best assessment possible of the extent of their sacrifice.