U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

86–262 PDF 2014

THE SCIENCE BEHIND DISCOVERY: 

SEISMIC EXPLORATION AND THE 

FUTURE OF THE ATLANTIC OUTER 

CONTINENTAL SHELF 

OVERSIGHT HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND 

MINERAL RESOURCES 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

Friday, January 10, 2014 

Serial No. 113–57 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov 

or 

Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

DOC HASTINGS, WA, Chairman 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, OR, Ranking Democratic Member 

Don Young, AK 

Louie Gohmert, TX 

Rob Bishop, UT 

Doug Lamborn, CO 

Robert J. Wittman, VA 

Paul C. Broun, GA 

John Fleming, LA 

Tom McClintock, CA 

Glenn Thompson, PA 

Cynthia M. Lummis, WY 

Dan Benishek, MI 

Jeff Duncan, SC 

Scott R. Tipton, CO 

Paul A. Gosar, AZ 

Rau ́l R. Labrador, ID 

Steve Southerland, II, FL 

Bill Flores, TX 

Jon Runyan, NJ 

Markwayne Mullin, OK 

Steve Daines, MT 

Kevin Cramer, ND 

Doug LaMalfa, CA 

Jason T. Smith, MO 

Vance M. McAllister, LA 

Bradley Byrne, AL 

Eni F. H. Faleomavaega, AS 

Frank Pallone, Jr., NJ 

Grace F. Napolitano, CA 

Rush Holt, NJ 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, AZ 

Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU 

Jim Costa, CA 

Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, CNMI 

Niki Tsongas, MA 

Pedro R. Pierluisi, PR 

Colleen W. Hanabusa, HI 

Tony Ca ́ rdenas, CA 

Steven A. Horsford, NV 

Jared Huffman, CA 

Raul Ruiz, CA 

Carol Shea-Porter, NH 

Alan S. Lowenthal, CA 

Joe Garcia, FL 

Matt Cartwright, PA 

Katherine M. Clark, MA 

Todd Young, Chief of Staff 

Lisa Pittman, Chief Legislative Counsel 

Penny Dodge, Democratic Staff Director 

David Watkins, Democratic Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES 

DOUG LAMBORN, CO, Chairman 

RUSH HOLT, NJ, Ranking Democratic Member 

Louie Gohmert, TX 

Rob Bishop, UT 

Robert J. Wittman, VA 

Paul C. Broun, GA 

John Fleming, LA 

Glenn Thompson, PA 

Cynthia M. Lummis, WY 

Dan Benishek, MI 

Jeff Duncan, SC 

Paul A. Gosar, AZ 

Bill Flores, TX 

Steve Daines, MT 

Kevin Cramer, ND 

Vacancy 

Vacancy 

Doc Hastings, WA, ex officio 

Steven A. Horsford, NV 

Matt Cartwright, PA 

Jim Costa, CA 

Niki Tsongas, MA 

Jared Huffman, CA 

Alan S. Lowenthal, CA 

Tony Ca ́ rdenas, CA 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, AZ 

Colleen W. Hanabusa, HI 

Joe Garcia, FL 

Vacancy 

Vacancy 

Vacancy 

Peter A. DeFazio, OR, ex officio 

(III) 

CONTENTS 

Page 

Hearing held on Friday, January 10, 2014 ............................................................ 1 

Statement of Members: 

Holt, Hon. Rush, a Representative in Congress from the State of New 

Jersey ............................................................................................................. 4 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 6 

Lamborn, Hon. Doug, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Colorado ......................................................................................................... 1 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 3 

Statement of Witnesses: 

Barnes, Paul, Manager, Atlantic Canada, Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers ............................................................................................. 12 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 13 

Boesch, Donald F., President, University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science .............................................................................................. 29 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 31 

Cruickshank, Walter, Deputy Director, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, U.S. Department of the Interior ....................................................... 8 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 10 

Knapp, James H., Ph.D., Chair, USC Faculty Senate and Professor, Dept. 

of Earth & Ocean Sciences, School of Earth, Ocean, & Environment, 

University of South Carolina ....................................................................... 16 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 17 

Miller, Richie, President, Spectrum Geo, Inc. ................................................ 24 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 25 

Questions submitted for the record from Chairman Lamborn .............. 28 

(1) 

OVERSIGHT HEARING ON THE SCIENCE 

BEHIND DISCOVERY: SEISMIC EXPLORATION AND THE FUTURE OF THE 

ATLANTIC OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF 

Friday, January 10, 2014 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources 

Committee on Natural Resources 

Washington, DC 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:30 a.m., in room 

1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Doug Lamborn 

[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Lamborn, Wittman, Thompson, 

Benishek, Duncan, Flores, Holt, Costa, Tsongas, Huffman, 

Lowenthal, Hanabusa, and Clark. 

Also Present: Representative Pallone. 

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order. The committee 

notes the presence of a quorum, which under Committee Rule 3(e) 

is two members. 

The Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources is meeting 

today to hear testimony on an oversight hearing entitled ‘‘The 

Science Behind Discovery: Seismic Exploration and the Future of 

the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf.’’ Under Committee rule 4(f), 

opening statements are limited to the Chairman and Ranking 

Member of the subcommittee. However, I ask unanimous consent 

to include any other members’ opening statements in the hearing 

record if submitted to the clerk by close of business today. 

Hearing no objection, so ordered. 

I also ask unanimous consent that Representative Pallone be allowed to participate in today’s hearing at such time as he may be 

able to be here. 

Hearing no objection, so ordered. I now recognize myself for 5 

minutes. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. DOUG LAMBORN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO 

The CHAIRMAN. As we begin today’s hearing, I want to make sure 

that everyone was clear about the focus of this hearing, particularly in light of recent discussions related to crude oil exports. 

While America is in the beginning of a new energy renaissance, 

this committee has continued to focus on the fact that this resurgence has taken place primarily on State and private lands. Meanwhile, the potential jobs and domestic production from Federal land 

has been stifled by this administration. If America wants to continue to reap the economic rewards of increased oil and natural gas 

production, we must eliminate the red tape and other barriers that 

2 

continue to lock up the vast resources of our Federal lands and 

waters. 

However, the topic of crude oil exports has become an important 

discussion point, especially in this past week. I think we all need 

to keep in mind that each day, while the Obama administration 

continues to hold hostage our domestic resources, America imports 

nearly 7.5 million barrels of oil from Arab sheiks and Latin dictators. This amounts to nearly one $1 billion each day flowing from 

the pockets of everyday Americans to petrol dictators and enemies 

of America who fund terrorists around the world. 

We have a choice, we can stop buying their oil by producing more 

here at home, something I support and something unfortunately 

this administration has opposed at almost every step. 

Let me be clear, I support free trade. I also support America 

energy independence, and that is a road we are on, but we are still 

far from our goal. As long as the administration continues to stifle 

our domestic development on Federal lands, our fight to create jobs 

and open our resources must be the focus of our efforts. 

As long as American’s hard-earned dollars are funding terrorists 

and petrol dictators, we must fight to open and develop our domestic resources, and that fight is not over. I hope the day comes soon 

where we can discuss oil exports. But as long as 85 percent of our 

Outer Continental Shelf remains closed by this administration, as 

long as less than 2 percent of our Federal onshore mineral estate 

is available for leasing, as long as the administration drives out research and development investment on new sources of energy like 

domestic oil shale, those discussions are premature. Our focus 

should remain on creating American jobs and producing American 

resources for American consumers. 

This hearing today is a central focus of that agenda. A clear understanding of the resources in the Atlantic Ocean will help us 

know what areas we should develop and what resources America 

holds in our OCS. However, although the process of developing the 

Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, or PEIS, for seismic started in 2009, the Obama administration has dragged its 

feet. 

Now as we start 2014, we are just 1 year from the start of the 

development of the 2017–2022 5-year plan. We are 1 year from 

needing the data this PEIS is supposed to help us secure, yet the 

development is being stifled by the administration. If we hope to 

see the Atlantic included in the next 5-year plan, the administration must move forward immediately and rapidly. 

In any kind of decisionmaking, I think we can all agree that decisions, especially those which will greatly impact our Nation’s future, must be made with the best available data. In the case of the 

Atlantic OCS, the best available data cannot yet be obtained because we await a final record of decision from the Department of 

the Interior. Nearly 5 years ago to the day, January 21, 2009, the 

DOI issued the initial Notice of Intent to prepare the PEIS in order 

to enable the permitting of seismic activity in the Atlantic. Dr. 

Cruickshank will recall the issuance of this notice as he was with 

the Department at the time. When it takes our Canadian allies to 

the north only 6 months to issue a seismic permit, the obvious 

3 

question remains: 5 years and counting, when will the U.S. 

Atlantic finally see this activity? Five years and counting. 

I fully expect that some of my colleagues on the minority side 

will likely decry seismic research because, much like our President, 

they actually do not wish to see new energy development in the 

U.S. Outer Continental Shelf outside of the Gulf of Mexico. But I 

would remind them that today’s hearing is focused primarily on 

sound science and progress. The technology behind seismic surveying has come a long way from the technology employed in the 

late 1970s and early 1980s, when it was last conducted in the 

Atlantic. 

In an increasing competitive global market, where allies like 

Canada and Mexico have made recent announcements about increasing their offshore oil and gas production, we need to know 

that the agencies that oversee our OCS operations are doing their 

jobs efficiently and spending taxpayer dollars wisely. We need to 

know that our country is maintaining its competitive edge and attracting economic development and the thousands of jobs that come 

with it. A recent study estimates that offshore energy development 

in the Atlantic alone could generate 280,000 jobs, $24 billion per 

year to the economy, and 1.3 million barrels of oil and natural gas 

production per day. 

What I hope to find today is that the administration is not standing in the way of permitting advanced and safe technology, which 

is already employed in the Gulf of Mexico and the Canadian Atlantic to scientifically determine what kind of resources are contained 

in the Mid- and South Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf planning 

areas. These are the only areas that the PEIS covers. This information is of fundamental importance as this Congress and this administration make decisions going forward. I cannot imagine a single 

person who would choose ignorance over scientific discovery. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Lamborn follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HON. DOUG LAMBORN, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON

ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES

As we begin today’s hearing, I wanted to make sure that everyone was clear about 

the focus of this hearing—particularly in light of the recent discussions related to 

crude oil exports. 

While America is in the beginning of a new energy renaissance, this committee 

has continued to focus on the fact that this resurgence has taken place primarily 

on State and private lands. Meanwhile, the potential jobs and domestic production 

from Federal land has been actively stifled by this administration. If America wants 

to continue to reap the economic rewards of increased oil and natural gas production 

we must eliminate the red tape and barriers that continue to lock up the vast resources of our Federal lands and waters. 

However, the topic of crude oil exports has become an important discussion point, 

especially this past week. I think we all need to keep in mind that each day, while 

the Obama administration continues to hold hostage our domestic resources, 

America imports nearly 71⁄2 million barrels of oil from Arab Sheiks and Latin Dictators. This amounts to nearly $1 billion each day flowing from the pockets of everyday Americans to petrol dictators and enemies of America who fund terrorists 

around the world. 

We have a choice, we can stop buying their oil by producing more here at home, 

something I support and something this administration has steadfastly opposed at 

every step. 

Let me be clear, I support free trade. I also support American energy independence and that is a road that we are on, but we are still far from our goal. As long 

as the administration continues to stifle our domestic development on Federal lands 

our fight to create jobs and open our resources must be at the center of our efforts. 

4 

As long as American’s hard earned dollars are funding terrorists and petrol dictators we must fight to open and develop our domestic resources—and that fight is 

not over. I hope the day will come where we can discuss oil exports, but as long 

as 85 percent of our OCS remains closed by the administration, as long as less than 

2 percent of our Federal onshore mineral estate is available for leasing, as long as 

the administration drives out research and development investment in domestic oil 

shale, those discussions are premature. Our focus should remain on creating 

American jobs and producing American resources for American consumers. 

This hearing today is a central focus of that agenda. A clear understanding of the 

resources in the Atlantic Ocean will help us know what areas we should develop 

and what resources America holds in our OCS. However, although the process of 

developing the Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement or PEIS for seismic 

started in 2009, the Obama administration has actively dragged their feet. Now as 

we start 2014, we are just 1 year from the start of the development of the 2017– 

2022 5-year plan. One year from needing the data this PEIS is supposed to help 

us secure, yet the development is being stifled by the administration. If we hope to 

see the Atlantic included in the next 5-year plan, the administration must move forward quickly. 

In decisionmaking, I think we can all agree that decisions, especially those which 

will greatly impact our Nation’s future, must be made with the best available data. 

In the case of the Atlantic OCS, the best available data cannot yet be procured because we await a final record of decision from the Department of the Interior. Nearly 5 years ago to the day, January 21, 2009, the DOI issued the initial notice of 

intent to prepare the PEIS in order to enable permitting seismic activity in the Atlantic. Dr. Cruickshank likely will recall the issuance of this notice as he was with 

the Department at the time. When it takes our allies to the North only 6 months 

to issue a seismic permit, the obvious question remains: 5 years AND COUNTING, 

when will the U.S. Atlantic finally allow this activity? 

I fully expect that some of my colleagues on the minority side will likely decry 

seismic research because, much like our President, they do not wish to see new energy development in the U.S. OCS outside of the Gulf of Mexico. But I would remind 

them that today’s hearing is focused primarily on sound science and progress. The 

technology behind seismic surveying has come a long way from the technology employed in the late ’70s and early ’80s—when it was last conducted in the Atlantic. 

In an increasingly competitive global market, where allies like Canada and Mexico 

have made recent announcements about increasing their offshore oil and gas production, we need to know that the agencies that oversee our OCS operations are 

doing their jobs efficiently and spending taxpayer dollars wisely. We need to know 

that our country is maintaining its competitive edge and attracting economic development and the thousands of jobs that come with it. A recent study estimates that 

offshore energy development in the Atlantic alone could generate 280,000 jobs, $24 

billion per year to the economy, and 1.3 million barrels of oil and natural gas production per day. 

What I hope to find today is that we are not spending millions of taxpayer dollars 

and countless years to stand in the way of permitting cutting edge, safe technology 

which is already employed in the Gulf of Mexico and the Canadian Atlantic to simply determine what kind of resources are contained in the Mid- and South Atlantic 

OCS Planning Areas—which are the only areas that the PEIS covers. This information is of fundamental importance as this Congress and this administration make 

decisions going forward—and I cannot imagine a single soul that would choose 

ignorance over scientific discovery. 

The CHAIRMAN. I now yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 

New Jersey. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. RUSH HOLT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY 

Dr. HOLT. I thank the Chairman. Before I begin, I would like to 

welcome the committee’s newest member, Representative 

Katherine Clark, filling the seat vacated by long time committee 

member and environmental champion, Ed Markey. I would like to 

ask unanimous consent to give Ms. Tsongas the opportunity to introduce our new member. 

5 

The CHAIRMAN. Seeing no objection, so ordered. 

Ms. TSONGAS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is my honor to introduce Congresswoman Katherine Clark, newly elected to represent 

Massachusetts’ 5th Congressional District, a seat formerly held 

with such distinction by our former colleague and now U.S. Senator 

Ed Markey. 

Katherine brings great experience in elective office, having previously been a school committeewoman, a State representative and 

a State Senator. Congresswoman Clark is a lawyer by training and 

as an elected official, is committed to her constituents, the issues 

affecting America’s families and to our environment. It is great to 

have my colleague from Massachusetts join us on this committee. 

Thank you and I yield back. 

Dr. HOLT. Thank you, Representative Tsongas. 

Mr. Chairman, 3 years ago this week the Presidential Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill and offshore drilling released its final report on the causes and the lessons of the tragedy 

that claimed 11 lives and resulted in the release of nearly 5 million 

barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico, which some have called the 

greatest environmental disaster in the region ever. 

That report concluded that the incident could have been prevented, that a culture of complacency had taken root with both 

drillers and regulators, and that significant reforms were urgently 

needed before we moved forward. The Commission made dozens of 

recommendations urging the oil and gas industry, the executive 

branch and Congress to take immediate action to assure that the 

appropriate levels of human safety and environmental protection 

were observed. 

The Administration and the industry have, in large part, followed through. With more work needed, we still should fully enact 

the recommendations of the Oil Spill Commission. Congress, however, has lagged behind. In 2012, on the 2-year anniversary of the 

Deepwater Horizon explosion, the former commissioners assigned a 

grade of D, D as in Delta, to Congress, saying that ‘‘Congress did 

nothing about the many other critical issues the Commission identified to improve safety and environmental protection.’’ 

One year later the grade jumped to D-plus in recognition of the 

passage of the RESTORE Act, but the commissioners stressed that 

Congress had ‘‘provided neither the leadership nor the support’’ for 

efforts to make offshore drilling safer. 

Today, we are seeing an example of that lack of leadership and 

support from the majority here. The Democrats have made improving offshore safety a priority since the tragedy. We passed the 

CLEAR Act that summer which would have enacted critical safety 

and environmental reforms. We brought forward a bill in 2011 to 

enact the recommendations of the Oil Spill Commission. Last year, 

I introduced the Big Oil Bailout Prevention Act to raise the recklessly low $75 million liability cap on offshore spills, and the Ocean 

Energy Safety and Technology Improvement Act to adopt recommendations from the National Academy of Sciences to promote 

the use of the best available and safest technology offshore. But the 

majority’s main priority has been to open up more of our oceans to 

drilling. Even the one bill they passed that would have enacted any 

of the Commission’s recommendations was mainly about forcing 

6 

lease sales in new areas, short-circuiting environmental reviews 

and putting up roadblocks to public protests. 

Today, they turn their attention to the Atlantic and how to use 

seismic exploration as the first step toward opening up the entire 

Atlantic seaboard to drilling. I believe that would be a huge mistake. We should not be risking our fishing and tourism industries, 

sustainable industries that bring in over $45 billion each year and 

support half a million jobs in New Jersey alone because the energy 

companies want to get their hands on a quick oil buck, a little 

extra oil, that I might add the oil and gas industry has made clear 

they would rather export than use for the benefit of American consumers. Why should the fisheries, the tourism, the residents, the 

coastal businesses of the Atlantic ocean be burdened with all the 

risks while the reward goes to the foreign fossil fuel companies and 

consumers. 

It is foolish to rush to open new areas to offshore drilling before 

we have heeded the lessons of the last disaster. Those lessons and 

those disasters keep coming. Just in the last 14 months, we have 

had two major offshore explosions in shallow water, one of which 

cost three offshore workers their lives. There have been a number 

of other losses of well control, as Dr. Boesch details in his testimony. Unfortunately, none of these have motivated the majority to 

hold any hearings on shallow-water drilling safety. That is unfortunate. 

It is interesting that the Chairman says that production on 

Federal land is down. That is not true. Production on onshore Federal land is up by 35 percent. And as for offshore drilling, not only 

is it not surprising that it takes a while to recover from the greatest environmental disaster and safety debacle that we have seen, 

but we should be going slow to make sure that we do it right. 

This obstinacy by the majority won’t stop my efforts to draw attention to these issues, to push for adoption of serious, meaningful 

reforms to make offshore drilling safer, not just more prevalent. 

I thank the witnesses for being here today. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Holt follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HON. RUSH D. HOLT, RANKING MEMBER, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES

Mr. Chairman, 3 years ago tomorrow the Presidential Commission on the BP 

Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling released its final report on the 

causes and lessons of the tragedy that claimed the lives of 11 offshore workers and 

resulted in the release of nearly 5 million barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico. 

That report concluded that the incident could have been prevented, that a culture 

of complacency had taken root with both the drillers and the regulators, and that 

significant reforms were urgently needed. The Commission made dozens of recommendations, urging the oil and gas industry, the executive branch, and Congress 

to take immediate action to assure the appropriate levels of human safety and environmental protection in offshore drilling. 

The Administration and the industry have, in large part, followed through. While 

more work needs to be done, they have enacted many of the recommendations made 

by the Oil Spill Commission. 

Congress, however, has lagged woefully behind. In 2012, on the 2-year anniversary of the Deepwater Horizon explosion, the former Commissioners assigned a 

grade of D to Congress, saying ‘‘Congress did nothing about the many other critical 

issues the Commission identified to improve safety and environmental protection.’’ 

One year later, the grade jumped to a D+ in recognition of the passage of the 

RESTORE Act, but the Commissioners stressed that Congress had ‘‘provided neither 

the leadership nor support’’ for efforts to make offshore drilling safer. 

7 

Today we are seeing an example of that lack of leadership and support from the 

Republican side. Committee Democrats have made improving offshore safety a priority since the tragic events of April 2010. We passed the CLEAR Act that summer, 

which would have enacted critical safety and environmental reforms. We brought 

forward a bill in 2011 to enact the recommendations of the Oil Spill Commission. 

Last year, I introduced the Big Oil Bailout Prevention Act to raise the recklessly 

low $75 million liability cap on offshore spills, and the Ocean Energy Safety and 

Technology Improvement Act to adopt recommendations from the National Academy 

of Sciences to promote the use of best available and safest technology offshore. 

But the Majority’s main priority is opening up more of our oceans to drilling. Even 

the one bill they passed that would have enacted any of the Commission’s recommendations was mainly about forcing lease sales in new areas, short-circuiting 

environmental reviews, and putting up roadblocks to public protests. 

Today, they turn their attention to the Atlantic, and how to use seismic exploration as the first step toward opening the entire Atlantic seaboard to drilling. I 

believe that would be a huge mistake. We should not be risking our fishing and 

tourism industries—sustainable industries that bring in over $45 billion each year 

and support over a half million jobs in New Jersey alone—because the energy companies want to get their hands on a little extra oil. 

A little extra oil that, I might add, the oil and gas industry has made clear they 

would rather export than use for the benefit of American consumers, which some 

Republicans have said they would be more than happy to allow them to do. 

It is foolish to discuss opening new areas to offshore drilling before we have heeded the lessons of the last disaster. Unfortunately, those lessons and those disasters 

keep coming. Just in the past 14 months there have been two major offshore explosions in shallow water, one of which cost three offshore workers their lives. There 

have also been a number of other losses of well control, as Dr. Boesch details in 

his testimony. Unfortunately, none of these have motivated the majority to hold any 

hearings on shallow-water drilling safety. 

I believe that is unfortunate, but it will not stop my efforts to draw attention to 

these issues, and to push for adoption of serious, meaningful reforms to make offshore drilling safer, instead of more prevalent. 

I thank the witnesses for being here today, and I yield back the balance of my 

time. 

The CHAIRMAN. OK, I thank the gentleman. I would like to remind everyone that the subject of the hearing today is on the PEIS 

for the Mid- and South Atlantic areas only. These are the planning 

areas for the next 5-year plan. 

OK. We will now hear from our witnesses. I will recognize Representative Duncan for a brief introduction of his witness from 

South Carolina. 

Mr. DUNCAN. I want to thank the Chairman for this opportunity 

to introduce to the committee a fellow South Carolinian whom I 

have had the pleasure of meeting in Columbia, Dr. James Knapp. 

Dr. Knapp is a professor of the Department of Earth and Ocean 

Sciences at the University of South Carolina specializing in the 

areas of structural geology, tectonics, geophysics and petroleum geology. He received a Bachelor of Science degree with Distinction in 

Geology from Stanford University and a Ph.D. in Structural Geology and Tectonics from MIT. 

Before arriving at the University of South Carolina as an associate professor in 1998, Dr. Knapp spent several years working in 

the petroleum industry, both as a research and exploration geologist and as a member of the research faculty at Cornell University. 

He brings to the committee today expertise on seismic reflection 

and refraction data, structural analysis and geological data, as well 

as the application of geological and geophysical analysis for the exploration and production of hydrocarbons. 

8 

Dr. Knapp is married to Dr. Camellia Knapp, also of the Department of Earth and Ocean Sciences at USC where they are proud 

parents of two daughters. It is an honor to have him here today. 

Welcome, Dr. Knapp, and I look forward to your testimony. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. I would like to now welcome the remainder of the panel. Dr. Walter Cruickshank, Deputy Director of 

the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management; Mr. Paul Barnes, manager for Atlantic Canada and with the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers; Mr. Richie Miller, President of Spectrum Geo, 

Inc.; and Dr. Donald F. Boesch, President of the University of 

Maryland Center For Environmental Science. Thank you all for 

being here. 

Like all of our witnesses, your written testimony will appear in 

full in the hearing record, so I ask that you keep your oral statements to 5 minutes. Our microphones are not automatic so you 

need to turn them on when you are ready to begin. 

I also want to explain how our timing lights work. When you 

begin to speak our clerk will start the timer and a green light will 

appear. After 4 minutes, a yellow light will appear and at that time 

you should begin to conclude your statement. At 5 minutes, the red 

light will come on. 

Mr. Cruickshank, you may begin. Thank you again, all of you, for 

being here. If I could say one other thing first, we will try to conclude the hearing before votes. However, if those happen faster 

than we were anticipating, we may have to take a recess and come 

back. This is an important topic. We want to hear your testimony 

and we want to have adequate opportunity for all of us to be able 

to ask our questions. Thank you very much. 

Dr. Cruickshank. 

STATEMENT OF WALTER CRUICKSHANK, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, 

BUREAU OF OCEAN ENERGY MANAGEMENT, U.S. DEPT. OF 

THE INTERIOR 

Mr. CRUICKSHANK. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Holt and members of the subcommittee, and thank you for the 

invitation today to discuss the programmatic environmental impact 

statement for geological and geophysical activities on the Mid- and 

South Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf. 

The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management is preparing a programmatic EIS to evaluate reasonably foreseeable environmental 

effects of multiple G&G surveys in the Mid- and South Atlantic. 

BOEM was directed to develop this programmatic EIS under the 

conference report for 2010 Interior appropriations. As described in 

the current 5-year program for offshore oil and gas leasing, the 

completion of this EIS is part of a region-specific strategy with respect to safe and responsible oil and gas exploration in the Midand South Atlantic that focuses on the need to update information 

in order to inform future decisions about whether, and if so, where, 

leasing would be appropriate in these areas. 

The proposed action analyzed in the EIS is to permit G&G 

activities in support of potential oil and gas exploration and development, renewable energy, and marine mineral activities in the 

Mid- and South Atlantic planning areas. 

9 

The programmatic EIS is being prepared because BOEM currently has no NEPA coverage for permitting G&G activities in the 

Atlantic. BOEM has received 13 permit requests from 9 companies 

for seismic air gun surveys in the Mid- and South Atlantic to support oil and gas exploration. Given the scope of the proposed 

surveys and their potential impact, BOEM determined that a programmatic EIS is needed prior to permitting any significant new 

G&G surveys. 

The offshore oil and gas industry is interested in acquiring modern G&G data and information because of the limitation of existing 

information which was acquired decades ago with now outdated 

technology. Modern technology allows for visualization and analysis 

of what lies beneath the seabed to greater depths and with greater 

clarity. 

The surveys being analyzed in the programmatic EIS would 

allow for better understanding of the location and significance of 

potential oil and gas resources, inform engineering decisions regarding the construction of renewable energy projects, and support 

estimates regarding the composition and volume of marine mineral 

resources used for coastal restoration projects. This information 

would also be used to ensure the proper use and conservation of 

OCS energy resources and the receipt of fair value for any leases 

that might be offered in the future. 

The main purposes of the programmatic EIS are to evaluate the 

potential environmental effects of multiple G&G activities in the 

Mid- and South Atlantic and to define mitigation and monitoring 

measures that would reduce or eliminate potential impacts. BOEM 

uses the best available science and follows the guidance of experts 

and other regulatory agencies such as the National Marine Fisheries Service. BOEM has also spent nearly $40 million over the last 

decade on research to better understand the potential for acoustic 

impacts on marine life from geophysical sound sources. 

BOEM has also conducted programmatic consultation with 

NMFS and the Fish and Wildlife Service to assess impacts to endangered species in the central fish habitat. The results of these 

consultations will be considered in any decisions made by BOEM. 

Further, if seismic surveys are allowed to go forward, operators 

must obtain and authorization from NMFS to assure compliance 

with the Marine Mammal Protection Act before BOEM issues a 

permit. These collective environmental compliance efforts help ensure that any activity that ultimately may be authorized do not 

rise to the level of jeopardizing populations or destroying important 

habitat. 

An EIS of this scale and interest is a significant undertaking. 

The draft programmatic EIS was published in March of 2012 with 

a 90-day public comment period. We received over 55,000 comments, many with constructive and substantive suggestions. Responding to these comments involved a great deal of time, analysis 

and expertise. 

During the development of this programmatic EIS, there has also 

been a significant amount of coordination with other Federal agencies with relevant expertise and authorities. BOEM completed a 

consultation with NMFS under the Endangered Species Act, an important consultation given the presence of the endangered North 

10 

Atlantic right whale throughout the proposed action area. The resulting biological opinion was issued in July 2013 contributing to 

the time taken to finalize this EIS. Both the programmatic EIS and 

the biological opinion will be used to support any future permitspecific environmental analyses. 

Prior to the October government shutdown, BOEM was on target 

to release the final programmatic EIS on January 3rd. The shutdown occurred during a critical review time for finalizing the analysis and required the issuance of a stop work order to the contractor supporting our work. As a result, substantial momentum 

was lost and the schedule for publishing the EIS set back. 

We are now on track to publish the final programmatic EIS by 

the end of February. Finalizing this document is a high priority for 

the Department and BOEM. This is a critical analysis relating to 

the safe and responsible acquisition of G&G data, and we expect 

that the collection of new seismic information will inform future decisionmaking about potential offshore leasing in the Atlantic. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I would be happy to answer any 

questions. 

The CHAIRMAN. OK, thank you. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Cruickshank follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF WALTER CRUICKSHANK, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF

OCEAN ENERGY MANAGEMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Chairman Lamborn, Ranking Member Holt, and members of the subcommittee, 

I am pleased to appear before you today to discuss the Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) for Geological and Geophysical (G&G) Activities in 

the Mid- and South Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). 

BACKGROUND

The Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) 

is preparing a PEIS to evaluate reasonably foreseeable environmental effects of multiple G&G survey activities in the Mid- and South Atlantic OCS, pursuant to the 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). BOEM was directed to develop this 

PEIS under the Conference Report for the Department of the Interior, Environment, 

and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010 (Report 111–316). As described in 

the current Five Year Program for offshore oil and gas leasing, the completion of 

this PEIS is part of a region-specific strategy with respect to safe and responsible 

oil and gas exploration and development in the Mid- and South Atlantic that focuses 

on the need to update information in order to inform future decisions about whether, and if so where, leasing would be appropriate in these areas. 

The proposed action analyzed in the PEIS is to permit G&G activities in support 

of potential responsible oil and gas exploration and development, renewable energy, 

and marine minerals in the Mid- and South Atlantic Planning Areas. This PEIS is 

being prepared because BOEM currently has no programmatic NEPA coverage for 

permitting G&G activities in Atlantic OCS waters. BOEM has received 13 permit 

requests from 9 companies for seismic airgun surveys in support of oil and gas exploration, and industry has expressed interest in expanding activities into Atlantic 

offshore waters. The PEIS also covers G&G activities necessary to support renewable energy projects and the identification of sand and gravel resources for coastal 

restoration projects, including in response to damage from Hurricane Sandy. Given 

the scope of the proposed surveys and their potential impacts, BOEM determined 

a programmatic EIS under NEPA is needed prior to permitting any new, significant 

G&G surveys. 

The offshore oil and gas industry is interested in acquiring modern G&G data and 

information because of the limitations of existing information, which was acquired 

decades ago with now outdated technology. From 1966 to 1988, 2-dimensional (2D) 

seismic data were acquired in all areas of the Atlantic. The technology for acquiring 

and interpreting this data has been eclipsed by newer instrumentation and technology. Modern 2D and 3D data sets are acquired using better acoustic sources and 

longer receiving cables to better define subsea stratigraphy. In short, these advances 

11 

in G&G technology allow for visualization and analysis of what lies beneath the seabed to greater depths and with greater clarity. The surveys being analyzed in the 

PEIS would allow for better understanding of the location and significance of potential oil and gas resources, inform engineering decisions regarding the construction 

of renewable energy projects, and support estimates regarding the composition and 

volume of marine mineral resources. This information would also be used to ensure 

the proper use and conservation of OCS energy resources and the receipt of fair 

value to the American people for any leases that could be offered in the future. 

POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS AND MITIGATION

The main purposes of the PEIS are to evaluate the potential environmental effects 

of multiple G&G activities in the Mid- and South Atlantic and to define mitigation 

and monitoring measures that would reduce or eliminate potential impacts. BOEM 

uses the best available science and follows the guidance of experts and other regulatory agencies, such as the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). BOEM has 

contributed nearly $40 million over the last decade on ground-breaking research to 

better understand the potential for acoustic impacts to marine life from geophysical 

sound sources. BOEM has also conducted numerous expert stakeholder workshops 

to discuss and identify further information needs on acoustic impacts. 

BOEM also is pursuing programmatic consultations with NMFS and U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service to assess impacts under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and 

the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation Management Act (MSFCMA). The results of these consultations will be considered in any decisions made by BOEM. Further, if seismic surveys are allowed to go forward, BOEM will confer with NMFS 

to assure compliance with the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) before 

issuing any permits. These collective environmental compliance efforts (e.g., NEPA, 

ESA, MMPA, MSFCMA) help ensure that any activities that may ultimately be authorized do not rise to the level of jeopardizing populations or destroying important 

habitat. 

FINAL PEIS

A PEIS of this scale and interest is a significant undertaking. The draft PEIS was 

published for public comment on March 30, 2012, and the comment period closed 

on July 2, 2012, reflecting an extended 90-day period per commenter requests. Over 

55,000 comments were received from a variety of industry, government and nongovernment stakeholder groups and the general public, many with constructive, 

substantive suggestions. Responding to these comments, therefore, involved a great 

deal of time, analysis and expertise. 

During the development of the PEIS, there has also been a significant amount of 

coordination with other Federal agencies with relevant expertise and authorities in 

the Atlantic OCS. BOEM completed a consultation with NMFS under the ESA, an 

important consultation given the presence of the endangered North Atlantic right 

whale in the proposed action area. The resulting NMFS Biological Opinion was 

issued on July 19, 2013, which accounts, in part, for the time taken to finalize the 

PEIS. Both the PEIS and the ESA biological opinions will be used to support any 

future permit-specific environmental analyses. 

Prior to the October government shutdown, BOEM was on target to release the 

final PEIS on January 3, 2014. The shutdown occurred during a critical review time 

for finalizing the PEIS and required the issuance of a stop work order to the contractor supporting BOEM’s work on the PEIS. As a result, substantial momentum 

was lost and the schedule for publishing the PEIS set back. BOEM is now on track 

to publish the final PEIS by the end of February 2014. 

CONCLUSION

Finalizing the PEIS is a high priority for the Department and BOEM. The PEIS 

is a critical analysis relating to the safe and responsible acquisition of G&G data, 

and we expect that the new collection of new seismic information will inform future 

decisionmaking about potential offshore leasing in the Atlantic. 

Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for inviting me to appear before your committee. 

I look forward to working with you as we advance these important issues. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Barnes. 

12 

STATEMENT OF PAUL BARNES, MANAGER, ATLANTIC CANADA, 

CANADIAN ASSOCIATION OF PETROLEUM PRODUCERS 

Mr. BARNES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank 

you for the invitation as well to bring a Canadian perspective to 

your subcommittee on this issue. 

I represent the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, 

which is an association of oil and gas companies involved in exploration, development and production of oil and gas in Canada. Our 

members produce about 90 percent of Canada’s natural gas and 

crude oil. Our head office is located in Calgary, Alberta, but we 

have a regional office based in St. John’s, Newfoundland, which 

represents the Atlantic Canada region and primarily is involved in 

the offshore for Canada, and that is where I am based and represent. Our association is very similar to the American Petroleum 

Institute here in the United States. 

Exploration for offshore oil and gas began off of Atlantic Canada 

in the 1960s, with the first offshore seismic program being undertaken in 1964. Since then, over 3 million kilometers, or approximately 1.9 million miles of seismic data has been acquired. This 

seismic data has led to a number of major discoveries of oil and gas 

in offshore Newfoundland and Labrador and of natural gas off of 

Nova Scotia, and those discoveries have brought substantial benefits to this area of Atlantic Canada. 

Currently, our industry employs over 7,000 people directly and 

thousands more indirectly, and we have had cumulative expenditures since 1996 of over $31 billion in Newfoundland and Labrador 

from oil and gas activity and over $8 billion in Nova Scotia associated with that activity. And our impact on gross domestic product 

is huge, over 30 percent actually in Newfoundland and Labrador, 

which means a substantial amount of our activity is driven from 

oil and gas. 

We have five major oil and gas production projects undergoing off 

of Atlantic Canada, three of which are oil and two of which are natural gas, and most of the product is actually exported here to the 

United States. There are also new basins as well that are opening 

up for exploration activity all along the Newfoundland and Nova 

Scotia area. 

As you are aware, seismic surveys provide information on the 

depth, position and shape of underground geological formations 

that may contain oil and gas. Data is processed to improve the 

quality and filter out any background noise and the end result is 

a detailed picture of the underground structures and rock formations in the survey area. 

Why are seismic surveys conducted? Well, they certainly help the 

oil and gas companies determine or decide whether the available 

information is sufficient to justify drilling an exploratory well or if 

additional surveys are needed to better define structures before 

drilling, or if the features present are not attractive enough to warrant further interest. 

One of the concerns often expressed in Canada about offshore 

seismic acquisitions is what are the impacts of seismic surveys on 

marine life? While there has been substantial research that has 

been conducted to determine the impact on ocean life and additional research is ongoing, current research has indicated there is 

13 

minimal risk of mortality in marine mammals, fish and invertebrates, invertebrates being species such as crab, shrimp, lobster, 

those type of things. 

Marine mammals, depending on the species and proximity, can 

experience temporary changes to hearing thresholds. Research has 

also indicated that there has been no mortality among invertebrates and that government, academia and industry continue to invest in research related to seismic impacts to further broaden the 

body of knowledge. 

Recognizing there is concern, industry has undertaken a number 

of mitigation measures to reduce some of the risks associated with 

seismic activity. For example, air source arrays must be shut down 

immediately if an endangered marine mammal or sea turtle is observed within 500 meters or half a mile of a seismic vessel. Surveys 

must also be planned to avoid dispersion of any groups of spawning 

fish from known spawning areas. 

Also seismic surveys in Atlantic Canada are scheduled during optimum weather conditions, which tends to be between June and 

September, largely because of the wave heights experienced in Atlantic Canada. Those are the very same months, of course, that 

there is an awful lot of offshore fishing activity, and we have put 

industry mitigation efforts in place to avoid conflict with the fishing industry. We have communication, direct communication with 

them, to allow them to understand where seismic activity is taking 

place. We have a single point of contact with the operator so that 

the fishing industry can have a specific person to speak with. We 

also have examiners on seismic vessels from the fishing industry 

so they can resolve any situations that may occur. 

In conclusion, I wish to thank you for the invitation to present 

in front of you today. We have had seismic activity off of Canada 

for many, many years and have seen no impact and our activity 

continues. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you for your testimony. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Barnes follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF PAUL BARNES, MANAGER, ATLANTIC CANADA, CANADIAN

ASSOCIATION OF PETROLEUM PRODUCERS

Marine Seismic Surveys: The Search for Oil and Gas Offshore Atlantic 

Canada 

CANADIAN ASSOCIATION OF PETROLEUM PRODUCERS (CAPP)

• Represents Canadian upstream oil and gas sector (approximately 100 member 

companies) 

• Members explore for, develop and produce natural gas, natural gas liquids, 

crude oil, and oil sands throughout Canada 

• Members produce about 90 percent of Canada’s natural gas and crude oil 

• Key focus areas: 

— Education 

— Communications and outreach 

— Policy and regulatory advocacy 

— Industry performance 

• Offices in St. John’s, Ottawa, Calgary and Victoria 

14 

ATLANTIC CANADA OFFSHORE

• Bringing substantial benefits to region: 

— Directly employs over 7,000 people (thousands more indirectly) 

— Supports over 800 local supply/service companies 

— Cumulative expenditures since 1996—over $31 billion in NL, over $8 

billion in NS 

— Impact of production on provincial Gross Domestic Product (GDP) 

* Oil production accounts for 30 percent GDP in NL 

* Mining and oil and gas production account for 2 percent of GDP in NS 

• Five producing projects 

• Exploration ongoing 

WHAT IS A MARINE SEISMIC SURVEY?

• Uses sound energy to map geological structures under the seabed 

• Vessels tow devices that use compressed air to produce pulses of high energy, 

low frequency sound waves 

• Sound waves can penetrate more than 6,000 metres below the sea floor 

• Travel through the water and into the rock layers beneath the seabed 

• Bounce back to receivers (‘‘hydrophones’’) that measure strength and return 

time 

• Types of seismic surveys: 

— Two dimensional (2D): Uses one sound source and one set of receivers 

— Three dimensional (3D): Uses multiple synchronized sound sources and 

hydrophones 

— Four dimensional (4D): Uses multiple synchronized sound sources and hydrophones with the added dimension of time (i.e., a 3D survey is conducted 

multiple times over the same location at different periods to compare data) 

— Geohazard or well site survey: Uses one sound source and one set of 

receivers towed over a small area prior to drilling to check for possible 

hazards 

— Vertical Seismic Profiles: Hydrophones are lowered into a drilled well and 

sound is produced at the surface to give a detailed view of the geology 

near the well bore 

WHY ARE SEISMIC SURVEYS CONDUCTED?

• Seismic surveys provide information on the depth, position and shape of 

underground geological formations that may contain oil or gas 

• Data is processed to improve the quality and filter out background ‘‘noise’’ 

• End result is a detailed picture of the structures and rock formations in the 

survey area 

• Geophysicists look for specific features that could indicate whether oil or gas 

might be present: 

— Sedimentary basins 

— Faults 

— Ancient reefs or buried former beaches 

• Seismic surveys help companies decide whether: 

— The available information is sufficient to justify drilling an exploratory 

well 

— Additional surveys are needed to better define the structures before 

drilling 

— The features present are not attractive enough to warrant further interest 

• Survey results do not show definitively whether oil or gas are present 

WHAT ARE THE IMPACTS OF SEISMIC SURVEYS ON MARINE LIFE?

• Substantial research has been conducted to determine whether seismic 

surveys have an impact on ocean life and additional research is ongoing: 

15 

— Current research indicated there is minimal risk of mortality in marine 

mammals, fish and invertebrates 

— Marine mammals, depending on species and proximity, can experience 

temporary changes to hearing thresholds and in some extreme cases these 

effects can be permanent 

— Laboratory research conducted in NL show no mortality among invertebrates (crab, shrimp, scallop, etc.) but showed some non-life threatening 

physical effects 

— Governments, academia and industry continue to invest in research to 

further broaden the body of knowledge 

• Carefully designed mitigation measures are applied to seismic surveys to 

minimize risk to marine life 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

• Comprehensive Environmental Assessments (EAs) are completed prior to conducting surveys which must be approved by regulators 

• Seismic vessels and their operators are guided by the Statement of Canadian 

Practice with Respect to Mitigation of Seismic Sound in the Marine 

Environment 

— Outlines mitigation measures that must be considered in the planning of 

seismic surveys 

— Examples: 

* Air source arrays must be shut down immediately if an endangered 

marine mammal or sea turtle is observed within 500 metres 

* Surveys must be planned to avoid dispersion of groups of spawning fish 

from known spawning areas 

IMPACT ON FISHING AND MARINE INDUSTRIES

• Seismic surveys in the Atlantic Canada offshore must be scheduled during 

optimal weather conditions (June to September) because: 

— Surveys cannot take place if waves are higher than 3 metres 

— Rough seas affect quality of data 

• June to September is also peak fishing season in Atlantic Canada 

• Effective communication and coordination between petroleum and fishing 

industries is critical 

PROACTIVE MECHANISMS IN PLACE TO MINIMIZE POTENTIAL CONFLICTS BETWEEN BOTH

INDUSTRIES

• Fishing industry advised of marine seismic survey activity through direct 

communication and communique ́s with fishing industry members, public service announcements, etc. 

• In NL a single point of contact is appointed by the operator that fishers can 

go to for precise information about geographic location and potential impacts 

• A fisheries liaison officer (FLO) may be required on board the seismic vessel— 

the FLO communicates directly with fishing vessels in the field to resolve situations where overlap and conflicts could occur 

• Working with the fishing industry: 

— In NL, One Ocean was created as a communication and liaison organization between fishing and petroleum industries 

— Fisheries advisory committee in NS advises regulator on minimizing 

impact on fishing industry 

• Compensation programs in place for damage to fishing vessels or gear 

16 

MORE INFORMATION AVAILABLE AT: 

www.capp.ca www.oneocean.ca 

The CHAIRMAN. Dr. Knapp. 

STATEMENT OF JAMES H. KNAPP, PH.D., CHAIR, USC FACULTY 

SENATE AND PROFESSOR, DEPT. OF EARTH & OCEAN 

SCIENCES, SCHOOL OF EARTH, OCEAN, & ENVIRONMENT, 

UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA 

Dr. KNAPP. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for the 

opportunity to be with you here today, and thank you, Congressman Duncan, for the very generous introduction. It is my great 

pleasure and high honor to be here this morning, and I thank you 

as well as the Ranking Member and the other members of the committee for this opportunity. 

For the record, I am James H. Knapp, professor in the Department of Earth and Ocean Sciences in the School of the Earth, 

Ocean and Environment at the University of South Carolina, and 

I currently serve as the Chair of the Faculty Senate at the University of South Carolina Columbia campus. 

At the risk of some repetition from the introduction, by way of 

background, I was born and raised in California, have lived in 6 

and traveled to 49 States of this great country of ours, and through 

my profession as an Earth scientist, I have worked in or visited 

more than 40 countries. I hold a Bachelor of Science degree with 

distinction in geological sciences from Stanford University, and a 

Ph.D. in geology from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. 

From 1988 to 1991, I worked with Shell Oil, both in Houston, 

Texas, and in New Orleans, Louisiana, where I participated directly in oil and gas exploration in the Gulf of Mexico. For more 

than 20 years since then, my research team and I have carried out 

both fundamental and applied research in the design, acquisition, 

processing and interpretation of seismic surveys, both onshore and 

offshore. 

Marine seismic surveys have been carried out in the United 

States and internationally for decades and represent the single 

most important tool for evaluating oil and gas potential in the subsurface. These surveys employ acoustic or sound energy to 

interrogate the subsurface of the Earth in much the same way that 

a doctor images the interior of a human body with a CAT, or a 

computerized axial tomography scan. 

In the early days of seismic surveying, a typical success rate for 

wildcat wells was around 3 in 10. With the advent of 3D seismic 

surveys and in some cases even 4D seismic surveys, the success 

rate is now typically 7 out of 10, greatly changing our ability to 

evaluate subsurface resources. 

In most cases, we now have significant confidence in not only the 

presence of a petroleum resource, but also the estimated volume 

and consequently the economic value of that resource before ever 

spudding a well, primarily as a result of seismic technology. In addition, scientific work within our research group in the past several 

years using onshore seismic and well data has called into question 

17 

more than 30 years of research on the Atlantic continental margin, 

suggesting that many previous interpretations of the geologic evolution were in error, and accordingly, so potentially is the estimate 

of the resource potential. 

One of the most commonly cited criticisms of marine seismic operations is the punitive and adverse effect acoustic energy has on 

marine life and in particular, on marine mammals. Established in 

1991, the Working Group on Marine Mammal Unusual Mortality 

Events under the aegis of the Office of Protected Resources with 

the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, has formally identified a total of 60 marine mammal UMEs, unusual mortality events, in U.S. waters over the last 23 years. 

In most cases, 29 of those 60, where a cause has been determined, infections and/or biotoxins were indicated. Of the 60 UMEs, 

not a single one has been attributed to marine seismic operations. 

The incidence of UMEs is statistically the same between the 

Atlantic, Pacific and Gulf of Mexico regions during a period when 

extensive commercial seismic surveys have been conducted in the 

Gulf of Mexico, but not on the Atlantic and Pacific margins. The 

two States with the most declared UMEs are California and 

Florida, neither of which has been the site of commercial marine 

seismic acquisition during the period in which records have been 

compiled. These data, along with others, suggest that the contention that marine seismic surveys result in mass mortality events 

of marine mammals is likely a chimera. 

The most recent estimates by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management for the resource potential on the Atlantic OCS range from 

about 3.5 to 18 billion barrels of oil equivalent. Using seismic data 

from pre-1988, these estimates are undoubtedly conservative and 

lack the analysis which would be afforded through new state-ofthe-art seismic data. 

We face a truly historic opportunity to fairly evaluate the energy 

and mineral resource base of the Atlantic OCS through acquisition 

of new seismic surveys. In South Carolina, we are working to establish the Atlantic Coast Center for Energy Sustainability through 

Science and Engineering, or ACCESSE. Our vision is to develop a 

sustainable energy industry based on conventional, unconventional, 

renewable and alternative energy for South Carolina and the 

Southeastern region, helping to train a workforce and creating jobs 

based on locally derived energy resources. 

There could be no more important first step than to initiate new 

seismic surveys on the Atlantic OCS, and we stand ready and able 

to help move that effort forward in the regional and national 

interest. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to be 

here and I will answer any questions. 

The CHAIRMAN. We appreciate your testimony. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Knapp follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JAMES H. KNAPP, PH.D., PROFESSOR, SCHOOL OF EARTH, 

OCEAN & ENVIRONMENT, UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and thank you both for the introduction and for the 

invitation to appear before this subcommittee today. It is my great pleasure and 

high honor to be here, and I thank you, as well as the Ranking Member and the 

other members of the committee for this opportunity. For the record, I am James 

18 

H. Knapp, Professor in the Department of Earth and Ocean Sciences in the School 

of the Earth, Ocean, and Environment at the University of South Carolina, and I 

currently serve as Chair of the Faculty Senate at the University of South Carolina 

Columbia campus. 

EDUCATIONAL AND PROFESSIONAL BACKGROUND

By way of background, I was born and raised in California, have lived in 6 and 

traveled to 49 States, and through my profession as an Earth scientist, have worked 

in or visited more than 40 countries. I hold a Bachelor of Science degree with distinction in geological sciences from Stanford University, and a Ph.D. in geology from 

the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. From 1988 to 1991 I worked with Shell 

Oil, where I participated directly in oil and gas exploration in the Gulf of Mexico. 

For more than 20 years since then, my research team and I have carried out both 

fundamental and applied research in the design, acquisition, processing, and 

interpretation of seismic surveys, both onshore and offshore. 

MARINE SEISMIC SURVEYING

Marine seismic surveys have been carried out in the United States and internationally for decades, and represent the single most important tool for evaluating 

oil and gas potential in the subsurface. These surveys employ acoustic, or sound, 

energy to interrogate the subsurface of the Earth, in much the same way that a doctor images the interior of a human body with a CAT (computerized axial tomography) scan (Figures 1 and 2). In the early days of seismic surveying, the typical 

success rate for wildcat wells was around 3 in 10. With the advent of 3–D seismic 

surveys, the success rate is now typically 7 out of 10, greatly changing our ability 

to evaluate subsurface resources. In most cases, we now have significant confidence 

in not only the presence of a petroleum resource, but also the estimated volume and 

consequently the economic value of that resource before ever spudding a well, primarily as a result of seismic technology. 

In addition, scientific work within our research group in the past several years, 

using onshore seismic and well data, has called into question more than 30 years 

of research on the Atlantic continental margin, suggesting that many previous interpretations of the geologic evolution were in error, and accordingly, so is the estimate 

of the resource potential. 

UME (UNUSUAL MORTALITY EVENTS)

One of the most commonly cited criticisms of marine seismic operations is the 

putative adverse effect acoustic energy has on marine life, and in particular on marine mammals. Established in 1991, The Working Group on Marine Mammal 

Unusual Mortality Events under the aegis of the Office of Protected Resources with 

the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has formally identified a total of 60 marine mammal UMEs in U.S. waters over the last 23 years 

(Figure 3). In most cases (29) where a cause has been determined, infections and/ 

or biotoxins were indicated (Figure 4). Of the 60 UMEs, not a single one has been 

attributed to marine seismic operations. 

The incidence of UMEs is statistically the same between the Atlantic, Pacific, and 

Gulf of Mexico regions (Figure 5), during a period when extensive commercial seismic surveys have been conducted in the GOM, but not on the Atlantic and Pacific 

margins. The two States with the most declared UMEs are California and Florida, 

neither of which has been the site of commercial marine seismic acquisition during 

the period in which the records have been compiled. These data, along with others 

(Figure 6) suggest that the contention that marine seismic surveys result in mass 

mortality events of marine mammals is likely a chimera. 

ECONOMIC POTENTIAL OF THE ATLANTIC OCS

The most recent estimates by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management for the 

resource potential on the Atlantic OCS range from ∼3.5–18 Bboe. Using seismic data 

from pre-1988, these estimates are undoubtedly conservative, and lack the analysis 

which would be afforded through new, state-of-the-art seismic data. We face a truly 

historic opportunity to fairly evaluate the energy and mineral resource base of the 

Atlantic OCS through acquisition of new seismic surveys. In South Carolina, we are 

working to establish the Atlantic Coast Center for Energy Sustainability through 

Science and Engineering (ACCESSE). Our vision is to develop a sustainable energy 

industry based on conventional, unconventional, renewable, and alternative energy 

for South Carolina and the southeastern region, helping to train a workforce and 

creating jobs based on locally derived energy resources. There could be no more imVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:37 Dec 19, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 J:\01 ENERGY & MIN\01JA10 2ND SESS PRINTING\86262.TXT DARLEN
19 

portant first step than to initiate new seismic surveys on the Atlantic OCS, and we 

stand ready and able to help move that effort forward in the regional and national 

interest. 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Members of the Tectonics and Geophysics Lab (TGL) (Figure 8) contributed to this 

document, including Mr. Andrew Pollack and Ms. Susie Boote. 


86262.001.eps
20 


86262.002.eps
21 


86262.003.eps 86262.004.eps
22 


86262.005.eps 86262.006.eps
23 


86262.007.eps 86262.008.eps
24 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Miller. 

STATEMENT OF RICHIE MILLER, PRESIDENT, SPECTRUM GEO, 

INC. 

Mr. MILLER. Chairman Lamborn, Ranking Member Holt and 

members of the subcommittee, good morning. I appreciate the opportunity to be here today to discuss the need for America to better 

understand our offshore oil and gas resources, specifically those in 

the Atlantic. 

My name is Richie Miller. I am president of Spectrum Geo, Inc., 

a company providing seismic data to oil and gas exploration and 

production companies worldwide. We are headquartered in 

Houston, Texas. Spectrum is a member of the International Association of Geophysical Contractors, the trade association of the 

global geophysical industry, and a member of the National Ocean 

Industries Association, which represents all segments of the offshore energy industry. We appreciate the committee’s attention to 

this issue and we are pleased that Congress is looking into this 

matter for the Nation’s continued progress toward energy security 

and economic growth. 

Whether in private business or government, the best decisions 

are made when we have the best available data. This is true of our 

Nation’s oil and gas resources. It only makes sense for us to understand what the resource base and resource value is as the Federal 

Government begins developing the next OCS 5-year leasing plan. 

The best tool to do this is seismic. 

The benefits of modern seismic surveys are numerous. They 

make offshore energy production safer and more efficient by greatly 

reducing the drilling of unsuccessful dry holes. We no longer explore with the drill bit. Seismic surveys make this possible. 

To better understand the resource potential in the Atlantic, we 

need to acquire modern seismic data. The last surveys of the Atlantic OCS were conducted over 30 years ago. Older, low-tech data 

that exists does not image medium to deep plays and does not 

image the basin’s architecture, which is imperative to understanding the Atlantic margin play. 

But before new seismic data can be acquired in the Atlantic, 

BOEM must complete a programmatic environmental impact statement. A record of decision, or ROD, was initially proposed to be released earlier. However, we now understand that that ROD is 

scheduled for March or April of this year. It will take at least a 

year after the EIS is issued before new seismic data is in hand. It 

is critical to have new seismic data to help inform future Atlantic 

leasing decisions. With DOI’s initial work on the next 5-year plan 

for 2017–22 beginning later this year, time is of the essence. 

Recently BOEM officials have indicated that the delay in obtaining new seismic data does not preclude them from ultimately including new areas such as the Atlantic in the next 5-year plan. We 

appreciate this perspective and agree that the next 5-year plan 

should be guided by modern survey data. 

The seismic industry has demonstrated for more than 40 years 

its ability to operate seismic exploration activities in an environmentally safe and responsible manner. Contrary to recent statements by critics who oppose opening the Atlantic, the oil and gas 

25 

industry has demonstrated the ability to operate seismic activities 

in a manner that protects marine life, as recently affirmed in a 

statement from the National Marine Fisheries Service. 

I also want to underscore what is at stake for our country and 

why this issue matters to your constituents. A recent study produced by Quest Offshore for NOIA and API finds that opening the 

Atlantic to oil and natural gas exploration and development would 

generate $51 billion in new Federal and State revenue, generate 

nearly 280,000 jobs, contribute $23 billion per year to the U.S. 

economy, and could produce an incremental 1.3 million barrels of 

oil equivalent per day, which would reduce our need for imported 

oil. 

The Nation’s energy and economic security demands that these 

Atlantic resources be safely explored and developed, and the process begins with acquiring new seismic data. We cannot afford to 

blindly make decisions regarding the future of oil and gas leasing 

in the Atlantic. Americans deserve public policy decisions that are 

made based on the best information possible. Modern seismic surveys provide that information. Let’s allow science to help us understand what resources we have and work together to enhance our 

energy and economic security. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify before this subcommittee. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you for your testimony. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Miller follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RICHIE MILLER, PRESIDENT, SPECTRUM GEO, INC. 

Chairman Lamborn, Ranking Member Holt, members of the subcommittee: Good 

afternoon. I appreciate the opportunity to be here today to discuss the need for 

America to access offshore oil and gas resources, specifically those in the Atlantic. 

My name is Richie Miller. I am President of Spectrum Geo, Inc. (Spectrum), a 

company providing multi-client geoscience data to oil and gas exploration and production (E&P) companies worldwide. We are headquartered in the United States. 

We are a member of the International Association of Geophysical Contractors, the 

trade association of the global geophysical industry and also a member of the 

National Ocean Industries Association. I would like to thank the Subcommittee on 

Energy and Mineral Resources for the opportunity to testify at this oversight hearing regarding ‘‘Seismic Exploration and the Future of the Atlantic OCS.’’ 

We are pleased that Congress is looking into this most important matter for the 

Nation’s continued progress toward energy independence, economic vitality and energy security. Although the United States is set to surpass Saudi Arabia and Russia 

to become the world’s top oil producer by 2015, in order to meet continued demand 

we must make new areas of the federal outer continental shelf (OCS) available for 

oil and gas exploration. The United States has been successful in producing its oil 

and gas resources because we have historically been willing to explore new areas. 

Today, I would like to focus my comments on the need to better understand the 

resource base of the Atlantic OCS and the challenges in providing policymakers and 

regulators with the information they need to make informed decisions based on the 

best available data. Also, I think it is critical to clearly explain the relationship between acquiring new seismic data for the Mid- and South Atlantic OCS and the development of the next Five-Year OCS Leasing Plan (2017–2022). 

I would first like to give a broadened description of my company, Spectrum Geo. 

Our company is engaged in acquiring non-exclusive seismic data, processing it and 

licensing these products to oil and gas companies. That means we do the work (and 

take the financial risks) needed to deliver oil and gas companies the ability to use 

modern seismic imaging to explore an area new to them (or new to the entire industry). We repeatedly license the seismic data to oil and gas companies for a fee, but 

retain the underlying ownership. By acquiring the data once and making it available to any oil and gas company, our industry avoids duplicating these surveys. We 

also provide the same products to Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) 

for their use in evaluating the OCS resource base, ensuring they receive fair market 

26 

value when they lease OCS lands, and making the many conservation decisions required of them as they administer their obligations under the OCS Lands Act. 

ATLANTIC PROGRAMMATIC EIS AND THE FIVE-YEAR LEASE SALE PLANNING PROCESS

Whether in private business or government, the best decisions are generally made 

when we have the best available data. This is true of our Nation’s oil and gas 

resources. It only makes sense for us to understand what the resource base and resource value is. 

BOEM is currently in the process of producing a Programmatic Environmental 

Impact Statement (PEIS) to evaluate ‘‘potential significant environmental impacts 

of multiple geological and geophysical activities on the Atlantic Outer Continental 

Shelf.’’ It is very important to note that these G&G activities will not only be used 

to identify potential oil and gas resources, but also to identify suitable areas to place 

offshore renewable energy facilities. Seismic surveys enable our Nation to reach its 

full energy potential by truly using an ‘‘all-of-the-above’’ approach. A draft PEIS was 

published in the Federal Register on March 30, 2012, and underwent a 90-day comment period. 

A record of decision (ROD) was initially proposed to be released in October 2013; 

however, we now understand that the ROD is scheduled for March or April 2014. 

We are concerned about potential delays in the issuance of an ROD as these delays 

create difficulties in scheduling for permits and vessels. Having sufficient new seismic data to inform future Atlantic leasing decisions is critical. With DOI’s initial 

work on the next Five-Year Plan for 2017–2022 beginning later this year, time is 

of the essence. 

It will take at least a year after the EIS is issued before new seismic data is in 

hand. This is because industry must first obtain permits from NOAA (under the 

Marine Mammal Protection Act); await BOEM’s statutorily required consultations 

with all the impacted coastal States (under the Coastal Zone Management Act); secure an actual G&G permit from BOEM; and then go about conducting the surveys 

and interpreting the data. So with the EIS delayed into 2014, we are very unlikely 

to have any new data in hand until well after the Department has already begun 

scoping for the 2017–2022 Five-Year Plan. However recent public statements from 

BOEM officials indicate that this delay in obtaining new seismic data does not 

preclude them from ultimately including new areas such as the Atlantic in the 

2017–2022 Five-Year Plan. We appreciate this perspective and agree that the next 

Five-Year Plan should be guided by modern survey data. 

Because acquiring and interpreting modern seismic data provides a greater understanding of where oil and gas reserves exist and how much are likely in place, having modern seismic data prior to a lease sale will allow industry to make more 

informed bids. This will likely result in more bids and higher bids (and thus more 

revenue to the Federal Treasury) since industry is reluctant to bid on blocks where 

there is little or no seismic data. Modern seismic imaging consistently brings more 

players to bid on offshore leases, creating more competition and driving the cost of 

leases higher. This is a phenomenon we are seeing globally as occurred recently in 

Uruguay with the government receiving $1.2 billion lease bids and in Brazil where 

$2.0 billion in lease bids were received. Oil and gas producers have the capital to 

explore frontier areas and are always looking for new opportunities. 

WHY NEW SEISMIC IS NEEDED FOR THE MID- AND SOUTH ATLANTIC OCS

It is very clear that seismic surveys are greatly needed in the Atlantic. It has 

been more than 30 years since geological & geophysical (G&G) surveys were conducted in Atlantic waters. BOEM currently estimates that the Mid- and South 

Atlantic OCS holds at least 3.3 billion barrels of oil and 31.3 trillion cubic feet of 

natural gas. While these estimates are impressive, it is widely believed that modern 

seismic imaging using the latest technology will show much greater resources than 

the 30-year-old estimates. Thus, current estimates are outdated and, in all likelihood, grossly inaccurate. 

For the Atlantic OCS, we need to update our understanding of the resource, and 

modern seismic imaging is needed to make this evaluation. Better information enables the government’s evaluation of the potential resource base as well as for 

prospecting for oil and natural gas reserves offshore. Older, low tech data that exists 

does not image medium to deep plays, and does not image the basin’s architecture, 

which is imperative to understanding the Atlantic Margin play. The industry’s array 

of new tools in the toolbox—reflection, gravity, magnetics, electromagnetic—can better help us understand the potential resource. By utilizing these tools and by applying increasingly accurate and effective interpretation practices, we can better locate 

and dissect prospective areas, identify the types of plays we are locating, and evaluVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:37 Dec 19, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 J:\01 ENERGY & MIN\01JA10 2ND SESS PRINTING\86262.TXT DARLEN
27 

ate the potential resource base. Seismic surveys are the only feasible technology 

available to accurately image the subsurface and help us better understand what 

lies below the surface of the Earth before a single well is drilled. 

It is an amazingly useful scientific tool that allows us to accurately image the 

earth’s crust down to depths in excess of 40,000 feet, or more than 8 miles, below 

the ocean floor. Today, seismic surveys that use modern data acquisition techniques 

and then process that data by applying the massive computing power are able to 

produce sub-surface images which are much clearer and more accurate than those 

from decades ago, or even 5 years ago. 

There are reasons why geologists and geophysicists believe that the Atlantic OCS 

could have much more abundant oil and gas resources than we previously believed. 

First, the Atlantic Margin is proving to be quite productive in hydrocarbon production in areas like West Africa, Brazil and Nova Scotia. 

Second, exploration and development activities generally lead to increased resource estimates. For example, in 1987 the Minerals Management Service estimated 

only 9.57 billion barrels of oil in the Gulf of Mexico. With more recent seismic data 

acquisition and additional exploratory drilling, that estimate rose in 2011 to 48.4 

billion barrels of oil—a 500 percent increase. 

The benefits of modern seismic surveys are numerous. They make offshore energy 

production safer and more efficient by greatly reducing the drilling of ‘‘dry holes’’ 

(where no oil or gas is found). We no longer explore with the drill bit. Without seismic surveys, we would again be relegated to that. Because survey activities are temporary and transitory, it is the least intrusive and also the most cost-effective way 

to understand where recoverable oil and gas resources likely exist in the Mid- and 

South Atlantic OCS. Additionally, it is expected that the early surveys will be nonexclusive or multi-client, meaning they would be shared by all E&P companies. The 

data gathered in a one-time process could be used again and again. 

For the energy industry, modern seismic imaging reduces risk—both economic 

risk of exploration and production and also the associated safety and environmental 

risks. It also provides greater certainty by increasing the likelihood that exploratory 

wells will successfully tap hydrocarbons and helping us avoid drilling for oil and gas 

in areas where we won’t likely be successful. It reduces the number of wells that 

need to be drilled in a given area, thus reducing the overall footprint for exploration. 

In addition to modern seismic survey techniques, another key technological advancement has come with the help of the computing industry. The development of 

more powerful computers at diminishing prices allowed us to further leverage this 

new 3D acquisition tool. Ever greater computing power freed the creativity and innovation of data processing professionals to develop increasingly complex algorithms 

that address the vast number of challenges offered by the complex earth. And these 

complex algorithms are now being applied against an ever expanding number of 

data points. 

With substantially larger amounts of data, and with more complex processing 

techniques that are run on increasingly powerful computers, we are now able to 

identify with accuracy drilling targets the size of a parking lot 3 miles deep into 

the earth (and sometimes through a mile of water!). This enables the drilling engineers to do what they do best—hit those targets. 

Today, we are applying these new techniques in older producing areas—areas that 

are known to generate and trap oil and gas. We are able to use the fine scale resolution offered by today’s imaging techniques to find reserves that went unseen using 

the older techniques. Additionally, to maximize production from existing reservoirs, 

another dimension in technology—4D—has been recently introduced. By acquiring 

3D at the same location repeatedly, it is now possible to have a motion picture visualizing the behavior and evolution of fluids in the reservoir as it is produced. 

ENVIRONMENTALLY RESPONSIBLE

The seismic industry has demonstrated for more than 40 years its ability to operate seismic exploration activities in an environmentally safe and responsible manner. Despite recent statements by critics who oppose opening up the Atlantic, the 

oil and gas industry has demonstrated the ability to operate seismic exploration activities in a manner that protects marine life. In the May 11, 2012, publication of 

the Federal Register, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), in response to 

a public comment associated with a recent industry seismic survey in Alaska (comment No. 9), stated the following: ‘‘To date, there is no evidence that serious injury, 

death or stranding by marine mammals can occur from exposure to airgun pulses, 

even in the case of large airgun arrays.’’ (NOAA—National Marine Fisheries Service, Federal Register Notice May 11, 2012—Vol. 77, No. 92 Page 27723.) 

28 

The geophysical industry takes a great deal of care and consideration of potential 

impacts to the marine environment. Because this is a priority, we implement mitigation measures to further reduce any potential impacts to marine mammals. Examples include the avoidance of important feeding and breeding areas, demarcation 

of exclusion zones around seismic operations, soft starts (gradual ramping up of a 

seismic sound source), and visual and acoustic monitoring by professionally trained 

marine mammal observers. Any activity in the Atlantic would be done with at least 

the same care and consideration for marine life. 

Additionally, the industry continues to invest millions of dollars into scientific research to fill any knowledge gaps that may exist in knowing how marine life interrelates to seismic operations. Research studies and operations monitoring programs 

designed to assess the potential impacts from seismic surveys have not demonstrated biologically significant adverse impacts on marine mammal populations. 

Industry continually monitors the effectiveness of the mitigation strategies it employs and funds research to better understand interactions between E&P operations 

and marine mammals. 

ECONOMIC BENEFIT OF SEISMIC AND OIL AND GAS EXPLORATION

What is often understated is the economic benefit that comes from oil and gas exploration. A recent study produced by Quest Offshore for the American Petroleum 

Institute and National Ocean Industries Association finds that opening the Atlantic 

OCS to oil and natural gas exploration and development will add billions of dollars 

annually to the economy by 2035. Federal offshore lease sales under existing laws 

and regulations would be expected to result in offshore oil and natural gas exploration and production. The new exploration and production activity would require 

large amounts of investment and operational spending by oil and gas operators— 

an estimated $195 billion cumulative between 2017 and 2035, which would be primarily spent inside the United States and the Atlantic coast States. 

According to the study, by 2035, new Atlantic OCS activity could produce an incremental 1.3 million barrels of oil equivalent per day, generate nearly 280,000 jobs, 

contribute up to $23.5 billion per year to the U.S. economy, and generate $51 billion 

in Federal and State revenue—with most of the accrued State benefits going to 

Atlantic coastal States. 

The Nation’s energy and economic security demands that these Atlantic resources 

be safely developed, and that long process begins with acquiring new seismic data. 

CONCLUSION

This Nation cannot afford to blindly make decisions regarding the future of oil 

and gas leasing in the Atlantic. Americans deserve public policy decisions that are 

made based on the best information possible. Modern seismic surveys provide that 

information. Let’s allow science to help us understand what resources we have. 

I hope this information adds a new perspective to your understanding of the contributions from the innovations and applications of geophysical data. Thank you for 

your time and attention today. I look forward to any questions you may have, and 

place myself, NOIA and the IAGC at your disposal if we can be of further service. 

I appreciate the opportunity to testify before the subcommittee. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD FROM CHAIRMAN LAMBORN TO RICHIE

MILLER, PRESIDENT, SPECTRUM GEO INC. 

Question. The seismic data from over 30 years ago that has been collected for the 

Atlantic not only used old technology but also covered a distance up to 50 miles from 

the shoreline. Is this the area that would be of interest to industry for the next 

round of seismic data collection or are there additional areas that would need to be 

surveyed for the first time? 

Answer. Interest in new data goes beyond 50 miles, outwards of 250 miles is not 

out of the question. 

Question. At the hearing, there was a predominant focus on the Gulf of Mexico 

and Canada when discussing the way seismic could potentially be conducted in the 

Atlantic. Many other countries have robust seismic regulatory programs that have 

been successful in offshore seismic data acquisition for decades—as well as exploration and production. Can you provide us with additional examples we should look 

at as well as reiterate the programs that are used in the GOM and Canada? Do 

you believe the advent of seismic research in the Atlantic OCS would draw existing 

29 

seismic companies based in and around the Gulf of Mexico to expand to the Atlantic 

seaboard? 

Answer. Seismic is acquired worldwide. Active areas currently are Brazil, Norway, 

UK North Sea, Ireland, Australia, many areas in the Mediterranean and Adriatic, 

including Israel, Lebanon, Greece, Croatia and Cyprus. Africa is active up and down 

the east and west coasts, with active projects in Gabon, Morocco, Mozambique, and 

Madagascar to name a few. Most of these countries have seismic regulatory programs, and if they do not the seismic industry abides by a standard code of principals in these areas. 

Most companies operating in the GOM would be interested in working in the 

Atlantic. 

The CHAIRMAN. Finally, Dr. Boesch. 

STATEMENT OF DONALD F. BOESCH, PRESIDENT, UNIVERSITY 

OF MARYLAND CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE 

Dr. BOESCH. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Holt, and members of the subcommittee, my name is Donald Boesch, and I was one of the seven 

commissioners who comprised the National Oil Spill Commission 

about which Mr. Holt spoke, and I am pleased to be here to have 

the opportunity to testify on behalf of the former commissioners. 

As the Nation considers the expansion of offshore drilling to the 

East Coast of the United States, it is important to heed the lessons 

provided by the catastrophic blowout of the Macondo well in the 

Gulf of Mexico almost 4 years ago now. The explosion tore through 

the Deepwater Horizon and began a human, economic and environmental disaster that is still being played out in terms of the costs 

to people and to the economy that will exceed tens of billions of 

dollars. 

Mr. Holt basically summarized some of our findings, but let me 

just touch on the key issues related to the fact that this explosion, 

this incident in the Gulf, was completely preventable, and that it 

revealed through our report, as well as other reports and the testimony that has been going on in the courts in New Orleans, that 

as a result of systematic failures of not only BP, but the subcontractors, that really point to serious problems of risk management that affect the industry as a whole. And it was a result of 

the fact that as we moved into frontier areas, into deep water in 

the case of the Gulf, we weren’t paying attention, adequate attention, to the kind of oversight and the kind of requirements that 

were needed. Other subsequent reports by the National Academy 

of Engineering, Federal agency investigators, as well as industry 

itself have supported the Commission’s findings and reinforced our 

recommendations. 

Since we completed our service, we have all collectively followed 

through and watched what has gone on, and as Mr. Holt indicated, 

we have issued these report cards about how well we have responded to the recommendations, and I offer this for the record, 

Mr. Chairman, and have copies for members here. 

Overall, the response to our recommendations has been positive. 

The petroleum industry has established a Center for Offshore Safety and built blowout containment capabilities that didn’t exist before that are now being developed and exported around the world. 

The Department of the Interior has implemented many of our recommendations to reduce conflicting incentives that existed within 

30 

the former Minerals Management Service and approved the efficacy of regulatory programs. 

But that doesn’t mean the job is done. As Mr. Holt indicated, 

there have been at least 17 incidences of well control since the 

Macondo well incident in the Gulf of Mexico, and in particular, 

many of these have occurred in shallow water environments which 

we thought we knew how to work in very well and largely related 

to the fact that we have an aging infrastructure that supports that 

previous development now operated by smaller companies which 

don’t have the capacity that a BP does. 

This experience underscores the importance of implementing our 

recommendations, including the initiatives that the industry and 

government have taken are encouraging. But, of course, as was 

pointed out, Congress hasn’t acted on our recommendations to it. 

There are several recommendations detailed in our testimony. I 

just want to highlight a few. Extending the period for approving exploration plans from 30 days to 60 days, this makes sense, particularly in a new area like we perceive in the Atlantic, for example; 

providing whistleblower protection involved for offshore drilling operations, the same kind of protection that we guarantee in other 

comparable settings; increasing the liability cap from the really inadequate level of $75 million that is basically off by three orders 

of magnitude in terms of the cost of this incident; increasing the 

limit of $1 billion per incident payouts from the Oil Spill Liability 

Fund; and to provide a mechanism to pay for the appropriate oversight of the energy industry, regulation of the industry, by the industry as opposed to the taxpayer, as many other regulated industries do. 

When the Exxon Valdez spill occurred in 1989, Congress was 

quick to act. It passed legislation that made maritime transportation safer, provided new capabilities for dealing with oil spills. 

But we kind of, as a Nation, fell asleep at the wheel as we developed our oil resources in a self-reliant way in the deeper waters of 

the Gulf of Mexico and we should learn the lesson. So we think 

that Congress should follow that and take heed and act with needed legislation. 

This is important as we consider the Atlantic Coast because we 

would like to see that we have those regulations, that they be codified by Congress and in place as we proceed in frontier areas. Second, we recommend that these frontier areas be very carefully 

studied. We learned by the lack of knowledge that we had on the 

Gulf. We thought we knew a lot about the Gulf. We were surprised. 

And in particular, as a resident of the Atlantic Coast, as a 

resident of Maryland, I look at the interests of, say, the Commonwealth of Virginia of developing resources there from the standpoint that Ocean City is as close to some of those areas as is 

Virginia Beach. So the whole region, Delaware, New Jersey and so 

on, all have a common stake and interest and are very concerned 

about its ecosystems, but also its tourist industry as we go forward. 

So finally, let me just say that offshore drilling has a substantial 

potential to contribute to the Nation’s oil and gas supplies and 

energy security. My fellow commissioners and I continue to encourage Congress, the executive branch and the oil and gas industry to 

take the necessary steps to ensure that is done safely. 

31 

Thank you. 

[Prepared statement of Dr. Boesch follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DONALD F. BOESCH, PRESIDENT, UNIVERSITY OF

MARYLAND CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE

I. INTRODUCTION

Chairman Lamborn, Ranking Member Holt and members of the subcommittee, 

my name is Donald F. Boesch, President of the University of Maryland Center for 

Environmental Science. I was one of seven commissioners who comprised the 

National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling. 

I thank you for the opportunity to testify today. 

As the Nation considers the expansion of offshore drilling to the East Coast of the 

United States, I believe it is important to evaluate the lessons provided by the catastrophic blowout of the Macondo well almost 4 years ago. 

The explosion that tore through the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig on April 20, 

2010, as the rig’s crew completed drilling the exploratory Macondo well deep under 

the waters of the Gulf of Mexico, began a human, economic, and environmental disaster that is still playing out. 

Eleven crew members died, and others were seriously injured, as fire engulfed 

and ultimately destroyed the rig. For almost 3 months more than four million barrels of oil gushed uncontrolled into the Gulf—threatening livelihoods, the health of 

Gulf coast residents and of those responding to the spill, precious habitats, and even 

a unique way of life. A treasured American coast already battered and degraded 

from years of neglect and mismanagement as well as natural disasters, faced yet 

another blow as the oil spread and washed ashore. Five years after Hurricane 

Katrina, the Nation was again transfixed, seemingly helpless, as this new tragedy 

unfolded in the Gulf. The costs from this one industrial accident are still not yet 

fully adjudicated and counted, but it is already clear that the impacts on the region’s natural systems and people were enormous, and that economic losses will 

total tens of billions of dollars. 

On May 22, 2010, President Barack Obama announced the creation of the 

National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling 

(the Commission): an independent, nonpartisan entity, directed to provide thorough 

analysis and impartial judgment. The President charged the Commission to determine the causes of the disaster, and to improve the country’s ability to respond to 

spills, and to recommend reforms to make offshore energy production safer. And we 

were told to follow the facts wherever they led. 

After an intense 6-month effort to fulfill the charge, the Commission released its 

final report on January 10, 2011, 3 years ago today. As a result of our investigation, 

we concluded: 

• The explosive loss of the Macondo well could have been prevented. • The immediate causes of the Macondo well blowout could be traced to a series 

of identifiable mistakes made by BP, Halliburton, and Transocean that reveal 

such systematic failures in risk management that they place in doubt the 

safety culture of the entire industry. • Deepwater energy exploration and production, particularly at the frontiers of 

experience, involve risks for which neither industry nor government has been 

adequately prepared, but for which they can and must be prepared in the future. • To assure human safety and environmental protection, regulatory oversight 

of leasing, energy exploration, and production require substantial reforms, 

probably even beyond those significant reforms the Department of the 

Interior has already initiated since the Deepwater Horizon disaster. 

• The technology, laws and regulations, and practices for containing, responding to, and cleaning up spills lag behind the real risks associated with deepwater drilling into large, high-pressure reservoirs of oil and gas located far 

offshore and thousands of feet below the ocean’s surface. Government must 

close the existing gap and industry must support that effort. 

• Scientific understanding of environmental conditions in sensitive environments in deep Gulf waters, along the region’s coastal habitats, and in areas 

proposed for more drilling, such as the Arctic, is inadequate. The same is true 

of the human and natural impacts of oil spills. 

We reached these conclusions and made our recommendations in a constructive 

spirit. Our goal was to make American offshore energy exploration and production 

far safer, today and in the future. 

32 

Since we released our report, several other highly qualified committees and organizations have also completed analyses of what went wrong with the Macondo well 

and what should be done to protect against such a catastrophe happening again. 

These include the Department of the Interior-Coast Guard Joint Investigation, several studies of the National Academies of Sciences and Engineering, and even some 

industry analyses. I wish to point out that all of these studies have supported the 

Commission’s findings and often reinforced its recommendations. 

The Commissioners, however, were not satisfied with merely issuing a report. Too 

many task forces and commissions, after devoting significant time and effort to their 

assignments, watch the value of their contribution diminish as other issues and priorities command public attention. As a group, we vowed not to let the spotlight fade 

from our work and elected to do what we can to advance the implementation of our 

recommendations so that the Nation can move forward to secure the oil and gas off 

our shores in a safer, more environmentally responsible manner. 

To this end, we established an Oil Spill Commission Action (OSCA) project to 

monitor progress in making offshore drilling safer and more environmentally protective, and to continue to engage the many actors how can implement the recommendations. On the second and third anniversaries of the explosion, OSCA 

issued ‘‘report cards’’—the most recent was released on April 17, 2013—addressing 

the progress that has been made in implementing the Commission’s recommendations. I have brought copies of this report for committee members and would like 

to request that it be entered into the record. 

As our report cards have indicated, we have been gratified by the positive 

response to many of our recommendations. The oil industry, for instance, has established a Center for Offshore Safety, implementing one of our major recommendations. Similarly the Department of the Interior has implemented many of our 

recommendations to reduce conflicting incentives that had existed in the Minerals 

Management Service, and improve the efficacy of its regulatory programs. All in all, 

we have made important improvements in the way the Nation manages its offshore 

oil and gas exploration and production. 

II. CONGRESS NEEDS TO TAKE ACTION

But that does not mean that the job is done. A recent investigation by WWL-TV 

in New Orleans found that there have been 17 events over the last 4 years in the 

Gulf of Mexico where the drilling crew lost control of a well. There were 7 such 

events reported through the first 10 months of 2013 alone. It was a loss of well control that resulted in the Deepwater Horizon catastrophe. These incidents also show 

that risks occur closer to shore and in shallower water, where older infrastructure 

and smaller operating companies prevail. 

This experience demonstrates the importance of implementing the Commission’s 

recommendations. As I said, the initiatives taken by the Administration and industry have been encouraging. However, through today, coincidentally the third anniversary of the submission of the Commission’s report, Congress has yet to enact any 

of the recommendations we made to it to improve the management and safety of 

offshore drilling. 

With respect to improving safety and environmental protection, we continue to 

urge Congress to codify the organizational changes the Department of the Interior 

has made in its regulatory programs. Although these were not as extensive as the 

Commission recommended, they are a substantial improvement over the organization that existed when the Deepwater Horizon disaster occurred. Congress should 

make these improvements permanent. 

The Commission’s other recommendations for improving safety and environmental 

protection included making the following modifications to the Outer Continental 

Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA): 

• The period for approving exploration plans should be extended from 30 days 

to 60 days. This conclusion is particularly important with respect to proposals 

to extend outer continental shelf exploration and production operations to the 

relatively unfamiliar conditions in the Arctic and along the East Coast of the 

United States. 

• Whistleblowers involved in offshore drilling operations should be provided the 

same protection that workers are guaranteed in other comparable settings. 

Those oil companies providing leadership in the pursuit of an effective safety 

culture agree that any employee should have the authority to stop operations 

if they see conditions they think may be unsafe. Legally protecting employees 

working for less committed companies could be an important step in identifying problems before they become serious. 

33 

• The liability cap and financial responsibility requirements for offshore facilities should be substantially increased. Increasing the liability cap, set by law 

as only $75 million, is important for two reasons. First, it would increase the 

incentive to make sure that the operations are conducted safely. The incredibly low existing cap eliminates such incentives for companies that would take 

advantage of it. The Nation was very fortunate that BP did not try to take 

advantage of this limitation with Deepwater Horizon. The second concern is 

that people damaged by a spill would not be adequately compensated for damages they experienced if a company took advantage of the cap. • The existing limit of $1 billion on per-incident payouts from the Oil Spill 

Liability Trust Fund should be increased. The potential costs of responding 

to spills have increased substantially since these limits were established. It 

would be extremely unfortunate if the government were unable to respond effectively to a spill because of an arbitrarily low limit on how much money can 

be provided by the trust fund. • A mechanism should be established to ensure that the offshore energy industry pays the entire costs associated with its regulatory oversight, just like 

other regulated industries do. This includes the costs of agencies such as 

BSEE and BOEM primarily charged with overseeing the offshore energy operations—ensuring their safety and compliance with environmental protection 

requirements—and also the incremental costs of other agencies responsible 

for overseeing offshore operations. We recognize that Congress has agreed to 

budget increases for these agencies to help support improved regulatory 

programs, but it would benefit both the Federal budget and these oversight 

programs if they were funded by user fees rather than taxes 

We have several other recommendations for congressional action as well. These 

are outlined in the attachment to my testimony and discussed in the Commission’s 

report discussing its recommendations. 

III. CONCLUSION

In the years between the Exxon Valdez spill and the spring of 2010, Congress, 

like much of the Nation, appeared to have developed a false sense of security about 

the risks of offshore oil and gas development. Congress showed its support for offshore drilling in a number of ways, but did not take any steps to mitigate the increased perils that accompany drilling in ever-deeper water or in new frontiers 

areas such as icy Arctic seas. However, despite the lessons learned since the Deepwater Horizon exploded, 11 rig workers lost their lives, and millions of barrels of 

oil spilled into the Gulf of Mexico, Congress still has not enacted any legislation to 

improve the safety of offshore oil exploration and production. 

I recognize that the topic of today’s hearing concerns seismic exploration and the 

future of the Atlantic OCS, but believe that the Commission’s recommendations for 

needed legislative action are very germane. Given what has occurred, it first just 

makes sense to improve and codify the safety regime before moving forward into 

frontier areas. I have outlined some of the more important of these needs related 

to the safety of offshore energy development in my testimony. 

Second, the Commission recommended that frontier areas should be carefully 

studied to determine their environmental sensitivity, guide responsible planning 

within the region, and define a baseline against which damages caused by offshore 

energy development can be accurately assessed. One of the Commission’s surprising 

findings was that when the Macondo blowout dumped enormous volumes of oil into 

the Gulf waters, scientists and policymakers suddenly realized they knew relatively 

little about biological systems, environmental conditions, and even key aquatic and 

coastal species in the area affected. Leasing of vast acreage combined with weak 

policies and limited funding had resulted in inadequate studies of critical environmental processes and sensitive environmental features where greater caution should 

be exercised. The Macondo blowout also taught us that large oil spills do not recognize State boundaries as shores over five States were oiled. As a resident of 

Maryland I feel compelled to remind Virginia proponents of offshore development 

that Ocean City is as close to areas targeted for exploration as Virginia Beach. Surely, risks to tourist economies in Maryland, Delaware and New Jersey, as well as 

Virginia, have also to be taken into account. 

Third, it is also critical that the resources needed to respond effectively to spills 

that may occur be located in the region where the expansion is proposed before the 

new areas are explored and developed. This includes both the equipment and supplies necessary to respond to any emergencies, and adequate training of the Federal, 

State, and local employees and volunteers who would be involved in such a response. 

34 

Offshore drilling has a substantial potential to contribute to the Nation’s oil and 

gas supplies and energy security. For this potential to be fully realized, however, 

the industry and government will have to rebuild public faith in offshore energy exploration and production. The Commission proposed a series of recommendations 

that would assist in this effort. Our message is clear: both government and industry 

must make dramatic changes to establish the high level of safety in drilling operations on the outer continental shelf that the American public has the right to 

expect and to demand. My fellow Commissioners and I continue to encourage Congress, the executive branch, and the oil and gas industry to take the necessary 

steps. 

Recommendations Pertaining to Congress 

A. Safety and Environmental Protection 

Congress and the Department of the Interior should create an independent agency 

within the Department with enforcement authority to oversee all aspects of offshore 

drilling safety, as well as the structural and operational integrity of all offshore energy production facilities, including both oil and gas production and renewable 

energy production. The director of the new agency should be appointed by the President for a 5- to 6-year term and be confirmed by the Senate. 

Congress and the Department of the Interior should create a Leasing and Environmental Science Office within the Department charged with fostering environmentally responsible and efficient development of the Outer Continental Shelf. To 

ensure that environmental concerns receive full consideration, the environmental division of this office should be led by a Chief Scientist, who would conduct all environmental reviews for offshore energy development. 

Congress should amend the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA) to extend the 30-day deadline for approving exploration plans to 60 days. 

Congress should amend OCSLA to provide the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration (NOAA) with a formal consultative role during the development of 

5-year lease-plans and lease-sales. 

Congress should amend the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act or specific safety 

statutes to provide the same whistleblower protection that workers are guaranteed 

in other comparable settings. 

Spill Response and Containment 

Congress should provide mandatory funding (not subject to the annual appropriations process) for oil spill research and development. 

Congress and the Administration should encourage private investment in response technology more broadly, including through public-private partnerships and 

a tax credit for research and development in this area. 

Impacts and Restoration 

Congress, Federal agencies, and ‘‘responsible parties’’ should take steps to restore 

consumer confidence in the aftermath of a ‘‘Spill of National Significance.’’ 

[Congress should dedicate 80 percent of the Clean Water Act penalties to long-term 

restoration of the Gulf of Mexico.—Done] 

[To coordinate Gulf restoration and administer restoration funds, Congress should 

establish a joint State-Federal Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Council. The Council should be given authority to set priorities to govern the expenditure of funds and 

resolve any conflicts regarding eligibility of projects.—Done] 

Congress should ensure that the priorities and decisions of the Council are informed by input from a Citizens Advisory Council, which represents diverse stakeholders. 

[In addition, Congress should establish and fund a Gulf Coast Restoration Science 

and Technology Program to support the design of scientifically sound restoration 

projects and evaluate individual projects for technical feasibility and consistency 

with the region-wide strategy.—Done] 

Ensuring Adequate Resources 

Congress should significantly increase the liability cap and financial responsibility 

requirements for offshore facilities. 

Congress should increase the limit on per-incident payouts from the Oil Spill 

Liability Trust Fund. 

35 

The offshore energy industry should pay the costs associated with its regulatory 

oversight, just like other regulated industries do. This includes the costs of agencies 

such as BOEMRE primarily charged with overseeing the offshore energy operations—ensuring their safety and compliance with environmental protection requirements—and also the incremental costs of other agencies responsible for overseeing 

offshore operations. 

Congress should increase and maintain its awareness of the risks of offshore 

drilling by: 

• designating specific subcommittees to oversee offshore safety and environmental risks, 

• requiring the Department of the Interior and its Inspector General to submit 

annual reports to Congress on the subject, and 

• requiring appropriate congressional committees to hold annual oversight 

hearings on the state of technology and safety. 

FRONTIER AREAS—THE ARCTIC

There should be an immediate, comprehensive Federal research effort to provide 

a foundation of scientific information on the Arctic. 

Congress should provide resources to establish Coast Guard response capabilities 

in the Arctic, based on the Coast Guard’s review of current and projected gaps in 

capacity. 

The CHAIRMAN. OK. Thank you, all of you, for your testimony. 

We will now begin our questions. If we do have votes called in the 

middle of questioning, we will have to take a recess and come back. 

I would ask your indulgence if that is the case. Members are limited to 5 minutes for their questions but we may have additional 

rounds. I now recognize myself for 5 minutes. 

Mr. Barnes, if I can talk to you first very quickly, Canada has 

been permitting seismic activity surveying in the Atlantic Ocean 

for some time now, and has interacted with many of the same species that our agencies have studied in the U.S. Atlantic waters. Is 

it your opinion that Canada is able to balance the protection of marine mammals as well as the advancement of seismic science and 

resource knowledge? 

Mr. BARNES. Yes, it is. It is my opinion that that is the case. We 

have had seismic activity taking place off of Atlantic Canada as I 

mentioned since 1964. We do have mitigation measures in place as 

we undertake that activity to prevent any kind of interaction with 

certain marine mammals. 

The CHAIRMAN. OK, thank you. I appreciate that. Additionally, 

Dr. Miller and Dr. Knapp, given the existing safe record of seismic 

exploration already conducted amongst protected species in the 

Gulf of Mexico, can we do the same kind of safe exploration in the 

Atlantic? A brief answer, please. 

Mr. MILLER. Thank you for making me a doctor, by the way. Yes, 

we can. The mitigation factors that our industry uses are the same 

that we use in Canada. It is transparent between both areas. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Dr. KNAPP. Mr. Chairman, I see no reason why we couldn’t conduct those surveys in a safe and effective manner. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you both. Deputy Director Cruickshank, 

first as an aside, I would like to ask if you believe that offshore oil 

and gas operations on our Nation’s Outer Continental Shelf under 

your oversight in the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management as well 

as the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement of our 

36 

Nation’s offshore energy production are among some of the safest, 

if not the safest in the world? Do you believe that to be the case? 

Mr. CRUICKSHANK. I believe we have made a lot of reforms and 

changes in the last few years that have greatly improved the safety 

of operations on the Outer Continental Shelf, but we have not and 

cannot eliminate all risks. 

The CHAIRMAN. OK. I appreciate hearing that, given the doubts 

that are sometimes cast upon your agency and the Administration 

when it comes to protecting our offshores. 

Continuing on, Deputy Director, the Department first published 

the Notice of Intent to prepare a programmatic environmental impact statement for the Atlantic on January 21, 2009. After seeing 

little progress, the 2010 Interior appropriations bill included language requiring the Department to move forward and to provide 

Congress with a detailed timeline, which it did several months 

later in February of 2010. The timeline said the record of decision 

would be issued on April 13, 2012, almost 2 years ago. The most 

recent timeline estimated that it would be issued last week, which 

we know did not happen. You have stated today that you expect 

to publish the final PEIS by the end of this February. 

Now, you have made reference to the 16-day government shutdown in October, even though we have had 5 years to do this. Can 

you tell us why we have had these delays and is this really a hard 

deadline that you are going to be able to meet at the end of 

February? 

Mr. CRUICKSHANK. This has been a very complicated and challenging programmatic EIS, and as reflected by the number of substantive comments that we received, the additional information, 

new science that was coming forth over this time period as well as 

the danger to species consultation with the National Marine and 

Fisheries Service, and all of these things had to be taken into account as we put together the EIS, and they all contributed to the 

length of time. I think we all wish we would have been able to have 

been more timely in moving it forward, but we are on track to publish the EIS by the end of February. 

The CHAIRMAN. And, Deputy Director, you have heard comments 

about the Canadian experience with, I believe it is the Northern 

right whale. Do you have any indication that behavior of this animal is different south of the Canadian border in U.S. Atlantic 

waters? 

Mr. CRUICKSHANK. I don’t have any reason to believe it would 

necessarily be different. They may be doing different things at different times of the year in different places, but they are the same 

whales. 

The CHAIRMAN. OK. And does it sound like the kind of environmental protections that are done in Canada would be appropriate 

and adequate for protecting U.S. waters, marine mammals found 

in U.S. waters? 

Mr. CRUICKSHANK. We have similar practices in place and we are 

also looking at other potential mitigation measures as part of the 

EIS, to put the best set of mitigation measures we can in place to 

try and avoid and minimize environmental impact. 

The CHAIRMAN. OK. Thank you. I now recognize the Ranking 

Member for 5 minutes. 

37 

Dr. HOLT. Thank you. Thanks for your testimony, all of you. 

Dr. Boesch, in last year’s report card you gave Congress a D-plus 

for the action on the Commission’s recommendations. Has that 

changed? 

Mr. BOESCH. No, it really hasn’t. We upgraded it because of the 

RESTORE Act, but the safety provisions that we recommended 

that Congress act on have still not been acted on. 

Dr. HOLT. Do you see things that Congress could do to promote 

the use of best available and safest technology for OCS drilling? 

Mr. BOESCH. Yes, I do. The concept that you have embraced and 

picked up from the National Academy of Engineering is certainly 

one thing. This needs to be done, I think, in conjunction with the 

government and industry, because industry has a lot of investments in the development of technology and, of course, has to apply 

it. 

Dr. HOLT. Thanks. Mr. Cruickshank, in 2011, Secretary Salazar 

testified before the Senate comparable committee and called on 

Congress to pass legislative proposals to implement offshore safety 

and so forth. Does the Department still support increasing penalties for safety and environmental violations and getting more 

flexibility to hire necessary staff? Those were two of the recommendations. 

Mr. CRUICKSHANK. With respect to the flexibility to hire staff, we 

were given some additional flexibility in the appropriations bills for 

petroleum engineers and geoscientists, which we were grateful for 

and have put to good use. Civil penalties is really a question for 

the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement. I know they 

are taking a look at the civil penalties program and do consider 

that to be an important part of their toolbox for being able to enforce safe practices on the OCS. 

Dr. HOLT. Thank you. Mr. Cruickshank, one offshore bill that the 

Republicans moved this year was the Offshore Energy and Jobs 

Act. It does pay attention to a couple of the Commission’s recommendations, but it appears to take some steps backwards also. 

Does the Administration have a position on whether this bill would 

help or hurt the safety and environmental protection in offshore 

drilling? 

Mr. CRUICKSHANK. The Administration was opposed to that bill. 

One of the main reasons for the opposition was that it really took 

away the Secretary’s discretion to consider the balancing factors in 

the OCS Lands Act to determine where offshore leasing should 

occur. 

Dr. HOLT. In fact, in the Administration statement of policy, the 

phrase is ‘‘strongly opposes’’ because there is inadequate consideration of a number of things in this legislation, and it promotes 

drilling, not without regard to, actually in opposition to, safety and 

environmental protection. 

Mr. Boesch, would you, as a Commission member, go so far as 

to say that it is more important that we implement the recommendations congressionally from the Commission than it is to 

open up new territories right now? 

Mr. BOESCH. I think our view is that since we have made these 

recommendations, they are sensible recommendations, they are 

really a predicate before we make these other decisions to move 

38 

into other areas. The American public, I think, should expect that 

we have systems in place in the long run, not just by administrative action in one Administration. 

Dr. HOLT. That is a pretty strong statement, of course, but I 

think it is consistent with your findings that there were some pretty strong shortcomings, pretty great shortcomings in the culture 

and in the practice and in the details of the regulations and implementations that called for such things. 

Mr. BOESCH. That is correct. But there have been, as I pointed 

out, and I think you did as well, there have been some considerable 

improvements in government oversight, in industry self-regulation 

and moving toward better standards. What is lacking, of course, is 

the law, is the legal part to put these things into place so we can 

reduce the risks that we have similar incidents. 

Dr. HOLT. Just a quick question that we can’t explore fully. Mr. 

Knapp, Mr. Barnes, you seem to put an emphasis on fatality in 

species that would result from the sonic booms in the ocean. Is fatality really the proper measure? Are there other marine biologists 

who use other measures of the effect of these seismic testings? 

Dr. KNAPP. I will go first. 

Dr. HOLT. We can’t go through those. 

Dr. KNAPP. I will try to keep it brief. Thank you for the question, 

Ranking Member Holt. First and foremost, I am an earth scientist 

and not a marine biologist, so I can’t claim to be an authority on 

that. But the number of studies that I am aware of in the published scientific literature refer to behavioral changes that may result, and avoidance measures that marine mammals may take, 

from seismic boats. But I am not aware of any documented case of 

actual damage to marine mammals as a result of seismic work. 

Dr. HOLT. Well, my time has expired. I am sorry, Mr. Barnes. If 

you can submit something later on this subject, I would be interested. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. OK. We will now have one more question and 

then we will take a recess. Fortunately, even though the votes have 

been called, it is only a single vote so we don’t have to go over 

there and linger. We can just head right back. So it will be a short 

recess. 

We will now hear from Representative Wittman, and after that 

we will have a recess. 

Dr. WITTMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks again for 

your leadership in holding this hearing. I want to thank our witnesses for joining us today. 

As you know, Virginia has great potential to be a leader in offshore oil and gas production on the East Coast. However, we want 

to make sure that we understand the full picture as we go into 

seismic studies, and we understand seismic studies are critically 

important to getting that information. 

For Virginia, it has been a bipartisan effort. Both of our 

Senators, Senator Kaine and Senator Warner, are strongly in favor 

of this, as well as our new Governor, Governor-elect McAuliffe, they 

feel very strongly about energy production there on the Atlantic 

Coast, and I along with all of our members of the Virginia delegation were disappointed that Virginia was not included in the 2012– 

2017 Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas leasing program. 

39 

We are also disappointed that it has taken 5 years for circular 

arguments to take place and for there not to be any forward 

progress on the final environmental impact statement to move 

things forward. There has been a lot of talk about let’s explore, but 

talk is cheap, action is needed, and it is critically important that 

we get that done. A recent study highlights the importance to 

Virginia as well as other States on the East Coast by indicating 

that about 25,000 jobs would be created in Virginia and billions in 

economic activities for opening up the Atlantic OCS. 

I want to begin questioning by going to Mr. Cruickshank and 

asking your perspective on, first of all, why it has taken so long for 

the EIS to be done and when will you make the final decision? 

Mr. CRUICKSHANK. The EIS has taken longer than we had originally anticipated because of the complexity of the issues involved 

with seismic in the Atlantic. There has been a lot of new science 

developed, a lot of constructive comments that we received over the 

years, and the consultation for endangered species as well all 

added to the time it took to complete, but we are on schedule to 

publish the final EIS by the end of February. 

Dr. WITTMAN. By the end of February, very good. I want to point 

recently to Secretary Jewell’s comments where she stated before 

the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee that the 

collection of new seismic data would not be a prerequisite for developing the next 5-year plan. 

And Dr. Cruickshank, I wanted to get your specific comment on 

whether the next 5-year plan would in any way, shape or form be 

affected by the seismic studies that are currently going on and the 

environmental impact statement. 

Mr. CRUICKSHANK. What the Secretary was saying I agree with, 

is that we can consider whether or not to include the Mid- and 

South Atlantic in the next 5-year program without those seismic 

surveys having been completed. I think the data that those surveys 

would generate would be particularly important when we are planning for the individual resales under the 5-year program if those 

planning areas are included. 

Dr. WITTMAN. OK, very good. 

Thank you, Dr. Cruickshank. 

Mr. Miller, I want to ask you specifically about the methodology 

involving seismic surveys. We know a lot of technology has improved through the years. The last seismic survey in the Atlantic 

was done over 30 years ago. Can you tell us a little bit about how 

the technology has improved and what you would expect seismic 

surveys today to discover more abundant resources off of Virginia. 

And how would those technologies help us understand the resource 

but also if you could explain some of the mitigation measures used 

by your company when conducting these surveys? And do you believe that those mitigation efforts are effective in protecting marine 

mammals from the potential impact of seismic operations and any 

other of our natural resources or fisheries or fish populations there 

in those coastal waters? 

Mr. MILLER. Yes, sir, I will start with the mitigation measures, 

and as an industry, the IGC has worldwide guidelines that all of 

our members follow. Part of those mitigation methods is we employ 

what we call marine mammal observers on vessels that are moniVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:37 Dec 19, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\01 ENERGY & MIN\01JA10 2ND SESS PRINTING\86262.TXT DARLEN
40 

toring, and if they do see a marine mammal come into the exclusion zone, which those are set by BOEM, and it is different in different areas, then we shut the operation down. We also include a 

passive monitor at night, acoustic monitor to listen, but all those 

are done, are common practice worldwide on our vessels now. 

In regards to the operations, since the 1980s, the seismic industry has come a long way, just like all technology has, and what we 

would really see an improvement on is we would tow a longer 

streamer, which is collect deeper data to help understand the deep 

structures and the architecture of the Atlantic basin, which we are 

unable to see right now, and that is the activity that we are seeing 

in West Africa and South America, and in the Atlantic margin is 

where they are having massive discoveries in those deeper sections, 

so we would expect, just like in the Gulf of Mexico, as the 3D came 

in, the reserve base increased five times just on technology, on the 

seismic technology. We would expect the same thing just with this 

new technology off the East Coast. 

Dr. WITTMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. OK, thank you, and we are going to take a short 

recess of approximately 15 to 20 minutes. The committee will be 

in recess. 

[Recess.] 

The CHAIRMAN. The subcommittee will come back to order. OK. 

The committee will come back to order. We will conclude our hearing. I appreciate everyone’s indulgence as we took a brief recess. 

We will now resume members’ questioning and will go to the distinguished Member from Massachusetts, Representative Tsongas. 

Ms. TSONGAS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

As everyone is well aware and as Ranking Member Holt referenced, tomorrow is the third year anniversary of the report 

issued by the National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon 

Oil Spill. And as we have also heard today several times, Congress 

has received an abysmal D-plus on their response to the disaster 

from the former commissioners, as we have yet to enact many of 

the recommended legislative reforms to improve the safety of offshore drilling. 

It is unfortunate, and that is to say it mildly, that my colleagues 

across the aisle have chosen to ignore the bulk of lessons learned 

from that appalling spill, and much of the push to explore the Atlantic Coast offshore region ignores the fact that domestic oil production is at a 20-year high, and natural gas production is at an 

all-time high in the United States. 

We should be making sure that the current oil production boom 

occurs in a manner that protects its workers, coastal communities, 

and the environment. We cannot discuss expanding offshore drilling in the Atlantic without first passing meaningful legislation to 

enhance drilling safety. I am proud to be a cosponsor of Ranking 

Member DeFazio and Subcommittee Ranking Member Holt’s legislation, the Offshore Energy Safety and Technology Improvements 

Act, which Mr. Holt outlined in his opening remarks. 

A recent report from the American Petroleum Institute claims to 

lay out the economic benefits of opening up the entire Atlantic 

Outer Continental Shelf to oil and natural gas development. HowVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:37 Dec 19, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\01 ENERGY & MIN\01JA10 2ND SESS PRINTING\86262.TXT DARLEN
41 

ever, this report ignores the potential impact, economic impacts on 

tourism and fishing industries in the event of a spill. 

Mr. Boesch, from your experiences in the Gulf and as a member 

of the Commission, how extensive was the economic impact on the 

local fishing and tourism industries following the BP Deepwater 

Horizon disaster? 

Dr. BOESCH. Well, thank you. The impact was indeed extensive 

because it basically shut down both industries for some months 

during that year. Fishing has resumed, and there is at this point 

no indication that there are truly major long-lasting impacts, but 

people literally lost their livelihoods for a full year; similarly, with 

the tourist industry. And in both cases, there is a longer-term impact in terms of the brand. People associate the Gulf of Mexico and 

going there for a vacation or eating Gulf seafood with that oil spill, 

so those industries are very concerned about the long-term impact 

in terms of their attractiveness to tourists or people who consume 

seafood. 

Ms. TSONGAS. Well, I appreciate that, because from the information we have, at the peak of the closure, over 88,000 square miles 

or nearly 30 percent, 37 percent of all Federal waters in the Gulf 

of Mexico were off limits to fishing. The National Academy of 

Science estimates that fishery closures decreased commercial production by 20 percent, which created, obviously, an immediate economic hardship for fishermen and also triggered, as you just mentioned, public concerns regarding the safety of Gulf seafood. It hurt 

the brand, which is much more difficult to quantify. 

As you know, my home State of Massachusetts is also home to 

historic fishing and tourism industries, and like many of the Gulf 

States, the health of our oceans is directly tied to the economic 

health of our communities. While the hearing today is not focused 

on New England and the North Atlantic, our region is still highly 

relevant to today’s discussion as it could well be a precursor to future efforts to drill off New England shores. 

And just as a statement for the record, in Massachusetts, we 

depend on the ocean and coastal areas for shipping, commercial 

fishing, and tourism. In fact, Massachusetts is home to the most 

profitable port in the Nation in New Bedford, Massachusetts, which 

brings in over $400 million a year in commercial fishery landings. 

That would be a significant impact were there to be a spill that 

prevented that from taking place, and the New England region as 

a whole brings in over $1.1 billion in commercial landings annually 

and has a ripple effect on our entire region. 

So we know the ocean is not a static ecosystem. What happens 

impacts many, and for the record, I thank you for your testimony 

today because it demonstrates that it is highly irresponsible for us 

to consider expanding offshore drilling and putting these important 

industries in jeopardy without first taking any action to improve 

overall drilling safety. 

Thank you, and I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

I would like to remind everyone, including our witnesses, that 

the subject of this hearing is seismic exploration off the Mid- and 

South Atlantic. 

42 

OK, we will now resume questioning, and I would like to recognize Representative Duncan. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I second Rob 

Wittman from Virginia’s comments, this is very timely, and it is 

something that the State of South Carolina is very interested in as 

well, including our offshore areas in a potential lease sale and developing the resources that we may have off our coasts and benefiting from the jobs that will be created and the revenue sharing 

back to the State. 

Mr. Cruickshank, just real quick, you don’t have to answer this 

question, but I wish your office could provide to my office, because 

you are doing the environmental impact statement, a single instance where a marine mammal’s death was attributed to seismic. 

I have researched on the Internet, we have looked in other sources, 

and I can’t find a single instance. So if you have that information, 

I certainly would appreciate it because we can’t find a single instance where a marine mammal was killed based on seismic work. 

Mr. Miller, 300 million years ago, the tectonic plates and the continents were all together in an area call Pangaea, and those continents separated. Would you say that the geological features along 

the Atlantic Coast are very similar to those you would find in 

North Africa and West Africa because that area was connected to 

the eastern Continental United States 300 million years ago? 

Mr. MILLER. Yes, sir, that is a play that is undertaking right now 

within industry, the conjugate margin between Angola, which has 

huge oil reserves, and Brazil, and they are looking at the same 

thing with the conjugate between Morocco, Mauritania up into the 

eastern—— 

Mr. DUNCAN. And there are oil and natural gas resources in that 

part of the world? 

Mr. MILLER. That is correct, and there is a lot of activity and a 

lot of money being spent in those two countries right now. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Just one other question. In 1987, I think MMS estimated in the Gulf of Mexico that there were about 9.57 billion barrels of oil. What did recent seismic and actual data from wells in 

the field show? 

Mr. MILLER. Off the East Coast or in Africa? 

Mr. DUNCAN. Well, no, just in the Gulf of Mexico. 

Mr. MILLER. In the Gulf of Mexico—— 

Mr. DUNCAN. Just comparing the 1987 MMS estimate of 9.57 and 

what we are finding out there now. 

Mr. MILLER. Yeah, I am sorry. The Gulf of Mexico, the technology that was developed there with the 3D seismic and then onwards from other types of improvements on 3D seismic, it was a 

fivefold increase in reserves, based on that technology, before they 

put the drill bit in the ground. Since then, it has increased another 

three. In the last 15 years, it has tripled. 

Mr. DUNCAN. So the estimate was about 10 billion barrels, and 

fivefold of that would be almost 50 billion barrels. That is a big difference from what MMS expected to find based on old seismic data 

and what actually we are finding now in new seismic and well 

data, correct? 

Mr. MILLER. That is very correct. 

43 

Mr. DUNCAN. OK, so let’s fast forward or let’s move over to the 

Atlantic Coast. Thirty years ago, we had seismic work done that estimated fairly significant reserves that are harvestable, but 

wouldn’t you agree with me that if we use new 3D and 4D technology, new updated 21st century seismic technology, that we may 

expect to find significant differences between 30-year-old technology and today? 

Mr. MILLER. Yes, the industry is expecting to see that improvement and increase with the new seismic. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Well, thank you for that. 

Professor Knapp, thanks for being here. Your valuable testimony 

and your experience brings a wealth of information to this committee. What geological potential do you see for the Atlantic in 

terms of oil and natural gas? 

Dr. KNAPP. Thank you for the question, Congressman Duncan. 

Our group, as I alluded to in my statement, has been revisiting the 

tectonic and geologic evolution of the Atlantic margin, and we have 

come up I think with some surprising new details that play into 

both the evolution of the deposition of sediments, the organic richness of those sediments, as well as the presence or absence of a 

large volcanic province that would affect the thermal maturity of 

the Atlantic margin. So there is a lot of new information I think 

that would need to be fed into revised seismic interpretations to 

really come up with a new and revised estimate of the resource 

potential. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Well, let me ask you this, what do you think the 

impact would be on institutions of higher education, such as the 

University of South Carolina, from ramping up offshore seismic exploration in future production? What do you think that would, 

what kind of impact would that have on an institution of higher 

ed? 

Dr. KNAPP. I think it could have a very important effect. I think 

there could be a very strong partnership actually between institutions of higher education and training a workforce for the 21st century that is focused on the energy industries, especially if there is 

the potential for developing those resources there geographically. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Real quickly, because my time is up, but you mentioned in your research, in your statement, that there was some onshore seismic well data that has been calling into question more 

than 30 years of research on the Atlantic continental margin, suggesting that many previous interpretations of the geologic evolution 

were in error. Can you explain that? What do you mean by that? 

Dr. KNAPP. Real briefly, that is not uncommon in science, that 

is the way science works, that we are constantly testing our 

hypotheses and coming up with new interpretations, but in this 

case, it is what I just alluded to, those features about whether 

there was a large volcanic province that developed on the margin 

that would have blanketed the entire area before the Atlantic 

opened, we have demonstrated now that that didn’t exist or if it 

did, it is no longer there. So there are things like that that are fundamental to our understanding of the tectonic evolution of passive 

margins where these deposits accumulate that have never been put 

into the resource estimates, so those are the kinds—— 

Mr. DUNCAN. Thanks so much. I appreciate it. 

44 

I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. OK. 

Now I would like to recognize Representative Pallone for 5 minutes. 

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you for letting me sit in on the committee. 

I wanted to ask some questions of Mr. Cruickshank. I hope I am 

pronouncing it right. First, I wanted to impress upon the Department once again that we on the Atlantic Coast can’t afford the inevitable environmental and economic costs that offshore drilling 

has proven to inflict on Americans. As you know, I am totally opposed to any drilling off the coast of the Atlantic. 

In New Jersey, the tourism sector, which is anchored to our clean beaches and ocean, generated $34.7 billion in 2012 alone, and that 

is 7 percent of the entire State economy. Tourism sustained more 

than 5,000 jobs or 10 percent of total employment in New Jersey. 

And commercial fishing supports more than 43,000 jobs. And recreational fishing supports almost another 10,000. So my question 

is, what assurances can you offer me and my constituents that oil 

and gas exploration in the Atlantic will not put these jobs and my 

State’s economy at risk? 

Mr. CRUICKSHANK. Congressman, thank you for the question. We 

have not made any decisions at this point whether or not to allow 

oil and gas exploration development in the Atlantic. What we are 

doing in this programmatic EIS is looking at the seismic, and that 

sort of information will help us make decisions in the future about 

whether to offer areas in the Atlantic. I can say there are no guarantees that there cannot be incidents in the future, but the Department has been very aggressive in recent years in trying to make 

reforms and regulatory changes to improve the safety of offshore 

operations. And if we didn’t believe that we could operate in a safe 

manner, then we would not be pursuing the sorts of things that we 

are in the leasing program. 

Mr. PALLONE. Well, on December 26, NOAA released draft acoustic guidelines for assessing the effects of sound on marine mammals, obviously important when considering the impacts of seismic 

air gun testing. In July, when Secretary Jewell testified before the 

full Natural Resources Committee, I asked that she commit to 

waiting until these guidelines are published and finalized before 

issuing a final PEIS on this matter. And she said that she would 

consider my request after reviewing it with staff. Can you tell me 

whether the Department will wait until the guidelines have been 

finalized and fully considered before issuing the final PEIS? 

Mr. CRUICKSHANK. At this point, only part of the guidelines have 

been put out for the draft for public comments, and to my knowledge, at this point, there is no schedule for when the remaining 

parts will be put out for public comment or when any of those criteria will be finalized, so we are proceeding with publishing the 

final PEIS, but I want to make the point that this PEIS itself does 

not authorize any seismic activity, that each application will be 

subject to a site-specific environmental review and to authorizations under the Marine Mammal Protection Act that we will be 

able to consider any new information including the criteria as they 

come out. 

45 

Mr. PALLONE. Well, would waiting for Congress to adopt the recommendations of the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Commission before moving forward with any offshore oil and gas exploration be 

prudent and make it less likely that a spill would cause catastrophic damage? As you know, I have been pushing for those recommendations to be adopted. We are not getting much help—well, 

any help really—from the Republicans in the majority to accomplish that. So would it make sense to simply wait to adopt those 

Commission recommendations before we move forward? 

Mr. CRUICKSHANK. We have been implementing as many of the 

recommendations administratively as we are able to, but certainly 

that suite of recommendations and where we are in implementing 

them and what the residual risks are, are all factors that the Secretary will consider in deciding in the future whether or not to 

allow leasing activity offshore in the Atlantic. 

Mr. PALLONE. Let me, because I have less than a minute. Dr. 

Boesch, one of the findings of that Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill 

Commission was that there needs to be better science and greater 

interagency consultation to improve decisionmaking related to 

management of offshore resources, and the Commission recommended that Congress give NOAA a formal consultative role 

during Interior’s development of offshore drilling plans. Could you 

just tell us why the Commission made its recommendation, how 

you believe giving NOAA more of a formal role in statute would 

help lead to better decisionmaking? 

Dr. BOESCH. Yes sir. Simply because it is the Federal agency 

which has responsibility for other important resources along our 

coasts, and so as we make these decisions in which we weigh the 

risks and benefits with respect to energy resources, renewable 

energy resources, living resources, we have to think about making 

sure that our government is working together effectively to help 

make those prudent decisions. 

Mr. PALLONE. All right, thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for letting me participate. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

I would like to now recognize Representative Flores. 

Mr. FLORES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I would like to thank the panel for attending today. We have two 

subjects that I would like to talk about. One is somehow offshore 

drilling safety wound its way into a discussion about seismic activity. Just to make sure we understand the nexus between the discussion we are talking about today and some of the red herring 

comments that have been thrown out regarding offshore drilling 

safety, I think it is important to try to build how that relationship 

works. 

So, Mr. Cruickshank, let’s start with you. So let’s assume the 

PEIS is issued in February. What is the earliest that drilling would 

occur in any, either of these two areas, Mid-Atlantic or South 

Atlantic, if we have a lease sale and if we approve drilling permits? 

What is the very earliest that that would happen? 

Mr. CRUICKSHANK. Well, the first thing that would have to happen is that the Secretary would have to decide to include those 

areas in—— 

Mr. FLORES. Just assuming they did, right. 

46 

Mr. CRUICKSHANK. From 2017 to 2022, for a frontier area where 

we would need to do—— 

Mr. FLORES. Just a short answer, just what is the earliest, I 

mean, how many years? 

Mr. CRUICKSHANK. It would probably be toward the latter half of 

the next 5-year program. 

Mr. FLORES. Right. So, I mean, we are talking 4 years at the 

earliest, 5 years, something like that? 

Mr. CRUICKSHANK. Yes. 

Mr. FLORES. So we have got substantial time to address the 

issues related to offshore drilling that have been raised today. The 

next question also for Mr. Cruickshank is this: One is, your agency 

has made policy changes with respect to offshore drilling safety, 

has it not, you and BSEE? I am including you collaboratively with 

BSEE. 

Mr. CRUICKSHANK. That is correct. 

Mr. FLORES. OK. And has the industry made any improvements 

in offshore drilling safety? 

Mr. CRUICKSHANK. Yes, the industry has upgraded a lot of its 

practices as well. 

Mr. FLORES. OK. So, I mean, the bottom line here is safety improvements have not stopped, irrespective of what Congress has 

done regarding the Commission’s report. Is that correct? 

Mr. CRUICKSHANK. That is correct. 

Mr. FLORES. OK. Just by way of comparison, Mr. Barnes, what 

is the earliest, I mean, your regulatory system is a lot different, in 

many ways, it is much more efficient than what ours is. What is 

the earliest, if seismic activity was approved in a particular area 

today, what is the earliest that drilling would occur offshore of 

Nova Scotia and Canada? 

Mr. BARNES. Usually, if seismic is approved and seismic is acquired, there is usually about 2 years between when the seismic 

program is finished and when a company decides to undertake a 

drilling program. 

Mr. FLORES. Right. And so drilling would—— 

Mr. BARNES. That is an industry decision, as opposed to a government decision. 

Mr. FLORES. Right. So drilling would be later on, then, as well? 

Mr. BARNES. That is correct. 

Mr. FLORES. So, anyway, I think we can sort of dispense with the 

hysteria about seismic today means that we are going to have an 

accident tomorrow. I mean, there is plenty of time for the Congress 

to look at the recommendations, and now let’s get on to the subject 

that is really important here. 

Mr. Cruickshank, I would like to go back to you. We are hoping 

to get this PEIS in February. What will the next steps be before 

the next 5-year plan begins in 2017? 

Mr. CRUICKSHANK. Are you referring to the next steps regarding 

seismic activity? 

Mr. FLORES. Well, in order to get to where we can have a 5-year 

lease sale plan, what would happen? The next 5-year plan is due 

in 2017, as I understand it, so what steps do you have to make between the PEIS and the next lease sale? 

47 

Mr. CRUICKSHANK. This programmatic EIS does not feed particularly into the next 5-year program. The Outer Continental Shelf 

Lands Act has a very involved process for developing the 5-year 

program that we will be kicking off in the coming year. 

Mr. FLORES. Right. This doesn’t necessarily mean that we are 

going to have a lease sale in the next, in the Mid-Atlantic or South 

Atlantic area in the 2017 plan, right? That is where I am going 

with this. 

Mr. CRUICKSHANK. That is correct. The decision has not been 

made yet. 

Mr. FLORES. Mr. Miller, you talked about the robust environmental procedures the industry follows. Will you expand on how 

you work with other ocean interests to protect our economy, I mean 

the other parts of the economy such as fishing and shipping? 

Mr. MILLER. The vessels that are working and will be working 

off the Atlantic have a professional group on board that communicates with the shipping industry and the fishing industry while 

we are out there. Besides the marine mammal observers that are 

on board, the vessels also employ what we call a chase vessel that 

is an escort vessel to help to communicate with the fishing business. Those are on all of our operations within our industry. 

Mr. FLORES. OK, thank you. 

And Mr. Miller, a follow up to that. Has there been, in terms of 

risk to marine life, is there more risk from the other activities in 

the ocean, such as shipping and fishing or seismic? Which one has 

the greater risk profile to marine life? 

Mr. MILLER. I am not an expert on that, but I know that within 

the last 40 years, we have not seen an event, a mortality event in 

the seismic business. 

Mr. FLORES. Exactly. 

Mr. MILLER. I would assume that the shipping business may be 

a little bit different. 

Mr. FLORES. Mr. Barnes, what is your, what are your observations in that regard in terms of other economic activities in the 

ocean versus seismic activity. Which has had the bigger impact on 

marine life? 

Mr. BARNES. Oh, definitely other economic activities. The seismic 

industry has very little impact on marine life. 

Mr. FLORES. OK. So I think we have proven today that seismic 

activity is an important precursor to any energy activity offshore. 

It doesn’t mean it is necessarily going to happen. It is also safe, 

and it has nothing to do at this point with offshore drilling safety. 

So, Mr. Chairman, with that, thank you. I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Representative Benishek. 

Dr. BENISHEK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I would like to thank you all as well for being here and taking 

the time to sit before us to answer questions. I have a couple questions. 

The first one is to you, Mr. Cruickshank. I am sort of curious 

about the process of the environmental impact statement development. As I understand from your testimony earlier, the delay has 

come over new data being found, and you are trying to evaluate 

48 

more and more information to include that all in the process. Is 

that correct? 

Mr. CRUICKSHANK. Yes, we are supposed to include the best 

available science as we are preparing this document. As we become 

aware of new information, we need to evaluate it and consider that 

information. 

Dr. BENISHEK. Now, let me just ask you this: In my experience 

in developing procedures and regulations, I am a doctor, we have 

to do things on a timely basis, and we have to decide how to treat 

patients based on the best available knowledge and institute those 

practices, and so we have a timeline that we say we are going to 

try to get as much information as we can by this date, and then 

we are going to act on that data, you know, by studying it for a 

certain period of time, and then we are going to issue the regulations so that they come out in a timely fashion so that improvements can be made in a timely fashion. And I am somewhat 

concerned about your testimony, and it doesn’t seem to me that 

there is a timeline. You know, it has been 5 years that they have 

been working on these regulations, well that hasn’t improved anything in 5 years. Is there a timeline, or do you just keep adding 

on more information as time goes by? I mean, I want the best information, too, but a timely improvement in regulations is important 

as well. Can you comment on that scenario for me, please? 

Mr. CRUICKSHANK. We try to be as efficient as we can in developing these documents, but there was a wealth of information that 

came in and needed to be evaluated. It is not that we are waiting 

for new information to come, but when the information is given to 

us, we do have to evaluate it. 

Dr. BENISHEK. Well, then you would just stop what you are doing 

and maybe change everything you have been working on for the 

last 2 years if information came in tomorrow that you thought 

might change it or somebody in your department might change it, 

you just might change everything you have done for the last 5 

years and start over again. Is that right? 

Mr. CRUICKSHANK. If there is some significant new information 

that we needed to pull into our analysis, we would—— 

Dr. BENISHEK. Who decides that? 

Mr. CRUICKSHANK. The scientists decide whether the information 

that is being provided is something that represents something that 

needs to be incorporated. 

Dr. BENISHEK. Not somebody at your level then? Is it somebody 

higher than you or lower than you? 

Mr. CRUICKSHANK. It is our scientists, our marine biologists, our 

oceanographers. 

Dr. BENISHEK. Well, there is some concern on my part about that 

whole process, where there doesn’t seem to be a timeline because 

making improvements on, like, a 5-year basis, you know, to continue to make progress doesn’t happen if we delay improvement in 

the regulations based on last-minute information. You understand 

what I am saying, what I am trying to get to? 

Mr. CRUICKSHANK. I do, and this EIS has taken longer than an 

EIS typically takes for us, but this was a particularly complicated 

and challenging EIS to complete. 

49 

Dr. BENISHEK. Well, 5 years seems to be a long time to me to 

get something done. 

Mr. Barnes, the permitting process in Canada, is it different 

than what Mr. Cruickshank describes? I mean, do they try to take 

care of things as they come up time after time, or is there a timely 

basis involved? 

Mr. BARNES. The regulatory approval process is pretty similar to 

what is in the United States, but we have I think shorter approval 

times that are actually legislated in practice. I can’t be sure if you 

have legislative approval times, but we do in Canada, such that 

when a company applies for a seismic application to do seismic, 

they get approval within, you know, a certain number of months. 

Dr. BENISHEK. Well, anyway, the point I was trying to get to, Mr. 

Cruickshank, is that I am very suspicious of bureaucracies that 

don’t do their jobs, and getting this environmental impact statement done on a timely basis would seem to be the job of your agency, and the idea that I could just submit data to you today that 

would change everything is sort of scary to me because we are not 

going to make any progress. We are going to maybe wait 10 years 

to develop something instead of having regular improvements over 

a period of time. 

Mr. CRUICKSHANK. Our scientists are well connected to the professional community, so it is not like we would see science come in 

today that would totally change the way we look at things, because 

they have been involved with the practitioners and other scientists 

around the world and understand what sorts of things are being 

developed. It is just a matter of trying to evaluate it and incorporate it in the context of EIS that can take some time to do. 

Dr. BENISHEK. Well, OK, I understand your rationale, but there 

are many other industries that do this on a timely basis, and we 

make continuing progress. 

My time is up. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Representative Lowenthal. 

Dr. LOWENTHAL. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I understand we 

have already touched on the topic that I would like to go on already today, but I would really like to go back and understand a 

little bit more about the marine mammal impacts. 

And so, for Mr. Cruickshank, I came today because I have been 

interested in the potential and understanding more about the 

harmful impacts or potential harmful impacts of seismic surveys on 

marine life and especially on the sea turtle and the endangered 

right whale. And what I want to ask is how you can help us understand how these animals are actually affected by seismic surveys. 

So, for example, how far away does the right whale need to be from 

an acoustic source to not be affected? What are the immediate and 

long-term effects? What are the resulting consequences for the animals? I know this may be difficult to answer and may be different 

for different animals, but could you just give me an overview of 

what is actually happening here? 

Mr. CRUICKSHANK. Yes. I would preface by saying I am not the 

marine biologist, so if you have questions about specific impacts on 

specific species, we will be able to get that to you after the hearing, 

but generally what we try to do is take a look at the sorts of impacts that are possible, and you are right, they do vary by species 

50 

and location. And then a big part of the NEPA process is trying to 

design mitigation and monitoring measures that would reduce or 

eliminate those sorts of potential impacts, and so a lot of what we 

are trying to do in this process is to try to figure out what conditions we should place on approvals that would best protect those 

species. 

Dr. LOWENTHAL. And in trying to figure out, based upon the research, where is the uncertainty? I know you are not a research 

scientist, but where is the uncertainty in our understanding of 

acoustic? Do we need further research? Are we really clear about 

what those impacts are, or really are we just kind of just assuming 

that we understand what those impacts are? 

Mr. CRUICKSHANK. I think it is a combination of things, there is 

always additional research that can be done, and we continue to 

fund research on these very questions. I think, you know, what we 

try to understand through our research is how these species do 

react to these sound sources and how effective the mitigation measures have been, but there are a lot of species out there, a lot of 

ocean to cover, and we are continuing to learn new things as we 

conduct this research. And those things will be considered in future 

decisionmaking. 

Dr. LOWENTHAL. And you mentioned mitigation measures. Can 

you be more specific? What are those measures that we use to 

mitigate these effects? 

Mr. CRUICKSHANK. There is a suite of activities we do now for 

seismic, including having marine mammal observers, requiring 

shutdown and ramp up to make sure that if there are species in 

the area that they have a chance to get out of the way before they 

are hit by loud noises. We are looking at a number of other possible 

mitigation in this EIS, including time area closures, minimum separation distances between simultaneous surveys, passive acoustic 

monitoring, and adaptive management strategies. We are continuing to try to identify best practices and improve our mitigation. 

Dr. LOWENTHAL. So you think that in the preferred alternative 

in the draft programmatic environmental impact statement, the 

PEIS, that we really are maximizing these mitigation opportunities? 

Mr. CRUICKSHANK. We have been working with other scientists 

and with NOAA to try and understand what the best practices 

would be, and we are trying to develop those mitigation measures 

that we think would be the most effective. 

Dr. LOWENTHAL. I am just wondering if anyone else on the panel 

has anything to add to this and help me in my understanding of 

just really what those impacts are. 

Dr. BOESCH. Yes, Mr. Lowenthal, I am here representing the oil 

spill commission, and we did not investigate this issue of the effects 

of seismic exploration. 

However, unlike Dr. Cruickshank and Dr. Knapp, I have to 

admit that I am a marine biologist, and I am not an expert on marine mammals, but I have obviously followed the issues. And I just 

want to say that part of the problem that the agency has in making 

these decisions is that the science isn’t all lined up in the same direction in saying that there are no concerns and no risks. There are 

legitimate concerns, not only with respect to mortality, but more 

51 

specifically with respect to avoidance that have significant effects 

on the species. And I know scientists who have different views 

about these things, which means that it is a matter of scientific, 

legitimate scientific controversy, and so this is the kind of challenge the agency has of sorting through this, to kind of make the 

decision and then to make the decision the way that provides protection. 

Dr. LOWENTHAL. Thank you, and I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. OK, thank you. 

We will have one more round of questioning. I am going to then 

give the gavel to Representative Miller to finish up after I ask my 

questions, and then we will—Duncan, excuse me, and then we will 

conclude. My question is for Mr. Miller; that is why that was on 

my mind. Sorry about that. 

Mr. Miller, and I got it right this time, not Dr. Miller, in 2012, 

the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management and the Bureau of 

Safety and Environmental Enforcement put out a joint notice to 

lessees updating mitigation measures for marine mammals during 

seismic operations in the Gulf of Mexico. These regulations set up 

a rigorous process to minimize any possible impacts on marine 

mammals. Can you discuss how your company implements these 

specific measures, such as the use of ramping up procedures and 

marine observers? 

Mr. MILLER. Within the industry, all of the vessels worldwide 

now carry marine mammal observers, and they are usually locally 

based. Those are on the vessel with binoculars, on the bridge looking out for marine mammals, and if there is a mammal that is 

within the exclusion zone, then the vessel is shut down, and there 

is a time period that that vessel cannot discharge the energy source 

to let this animal move out of the area. At that point, there is a 

ramp up, and you start with a low volume energy source until you 

get back up to your production levels. It is very common practice. 

The whole industry operates within those guidelines. There are industry guidelines that the IGC puts out, and we all, we follow 

those worldwide. 

The CHAIRMAN. And Mr. Miller, I assume that you have great 

flexibility in terms of if some whales or other marine mammals are 

coming into the area, that you can wait while they depart, come 

and go, and still conduct the seismic exploration around their 

behavior? 

Mr. MILLER. Yes, 100 percent correct. I mean, you may move a 

little bit to a different area, but we are flexible. That is the nature 

of our business. We work with them, and we respect it, so it is not 

a problem. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Dr. Knapp, there have not been new seismic surveys conducted 

in the Atlantic OCS in over 30 years. We have talked about this 

earlier. Much of the data that is currently being used by the Federal Government to make oil and gas resource assessments is from 

the late 1970s. Can you talk about how the science and technology 

has changed since that time? 

And, Mr. Miller, if you want to add to this discussion, please feel 

free to do so. 

52 

Dr. KNAPP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We are in the process of 

and have been working with the so-called legacy data from the 

Atlantic OCS, and clearly, it is a useful resource, but given the 

technological developments that have taken place in not only the 

last 30 years, but in particular the last 10 years, for the acquisition 

of 3D seismic data, there are advancements, significant advancements that have been made both in the design and just the acquisition of the data, let alone the processing and the interpretation, so 

it would be the equivalent of using a, you know, a rock to draw in 

the sand versus having a computer to basically write something, 

the difference in what the technology is allowing us, and some 

spectacular examples in terms of that 3-dimensional imaging of 

very complex structures that we find in the subsurface. 

Mr. MILLER. Just briefly. The technology, the big technology that 

has the longer offset that is going to image these deeper plays, and 

we have been modeling. It is very easy to take the old data that 

is at 3,000 meters and take the new data that is 12,000 meters 

that we have in other parts of the world, but you only process the 

three and you compare them, and they look very similar, the old 

data and new data if you only use part of it, but when you add the 

rest of the offsets then the image improves dramatically, and that 

is what we are going to see. 

The CHAIRMAN. OK, thank you all for your testimony. 

I am going to hand the gavel over to Representative Duncan and, 

at this point, recognize Representative Costa for 5 minutes of 

questions. 

Mr. COSTA. Thank you. 

Mr. DUNCAN [presiding]. The gentleman from California. 

Mr. COSTA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. From the snippets of the 

comments I have heard based upon the questions, although I didn’t 

catch the opening statements, I am questioning after the report 

here that there seems to be consensus as to, one, the new science 

and technology; two, an acknowledgment of lessons learned; three, 

a need at this point for the Congress to act to provide the guidelines to demonstrate how we move forward. The tremendous resources that are there I think everyone is aware of. Members of 

Congress, before they get into their questioning mode, always have 

to get their bona fides, right, whether we have them or not, but the 

fact is for some of us who are avid sailors on coastal waters and 

who have spent time in various parts of the Atlantic and the 

Pacific, who are familiar with migratory patterns with whales and 

their pods and other sea life, I think that there is a way this can 

be done, and I think science has demonstrated that it can be done, 

so I guess I am trying to understand what the problem is here, except that, like a lot of other things, Congress has failed to take action to provide the direction. Am I missing something? 

Dr. KNAPP. Thank you, Mr. Costa. 

Not in my opinion. I think it should be fairly straightforward 

that these studies should move forward with expedition. 

Mr. MILLER. We conduct these surveys all over the world safely, 

and there is no reason that this cannot be taken forward and completed. 

Mr. COSTA. I mean, that is my sense. I mean, I was just off the 

Santa Barbara coast last month, and the ability to make deterVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:37 Dec 19, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\01 ENERGY & MIN\01JA10 2ND SESS PRINTING\86262.TXT DARLEN
53 

minations as to when these migratory patterns take place is well 

documented, and I mean, we have greater issues with these mammals being injured as a result of them normally pursuing sea lanes 

and shipping taking place that accidentally has an incident where 

there is an injury, but where you are planning the seismology and 

you are doing different grid patterns and you are focused in an 

area, what is happening in that area. It is totally different than 

ships that are going on a 24–7 basis that are involved in shipping 

lanes. I mean, for those of us who are on a 30- or 40-foot sailboat, 

hell, they don’t even look at us. You need to be careful and beware. 

So it seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that this is one of those issues 

that there ought to be consensus with and that we ought to be able 

to move forward with, realizing that there are some other issues 

that are out there that we all have concerns about as it relates to 

safely dealing with exploration and development of these resources 

that I think are far more serious than this issue of seismology and 

the testing that goes with it. 

Any other comments that either of you would like to make? 

Dr. KNAPP. If I could, Congressman Costa, I agree with you, and 

I would also make the point that it seems that in many cases, people are viewing exploration, seismic acquisition and exploration 

production as an either/or proposition with a lot of the other industries that take place in the offshore: shipping, fishing, tourism, et 

cetera, and I really don’t think that is accurate. I think that we 

have proven that those activities can go on simultaneously in many 

other parts of the world. 

Mr. COSTA. I mean, there is another issue here, and of course, 

the technology we know has changed tremendously in the last 20, 

25 years. There are some folks, and I disagree with them, who 

don’t want to see any additional utilization of the offshore resource, 

whether it be oil or gas. And so they want a complete moratorium 

on any exploration, let alone any utilization of that resource. And 

so, therefore, I understand their goal is not to have any seismology 

testing and to question the efficacy of the seismology testing because they have a different view, and that is they don’t want any 

of the resource to be utilized. 

So let’s be clear about that. If the goal is we shouldn’t open up 

any of these areas period, for a host of reasons that they believe 

are valid, I understand that. I may disagree with it, but I understand that, but it is not the seismology testing that is the issue. 

Anyway, I have expired my time, and thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. DUNCAN. I thank the gentleman from California. 

I will recognize myself for 5 minutes. 

Dr. Knapp and Mr. Miller, the seismic work that we are talking 

about, the technology that is being used, is it currently being used 

all over the globe for seismic research for oil and natural gas? 

Mr. MILLER. Yes, that is correct, our industry has vessels operating in every ocean right now, except Antarctic, but all over the 

world. 

Mr. DUNCAN. So we are not talking about anything that is new 

and that hasn’t been tried and true, tested? 

Mr. MILLER. That is correct. 

Mr. DUNCAN. OK. 

54 

Mr. Barnes, can you discuss further what sort of mitigation effort 

seismic companies operating in the Canadian Atlantic utilize to 

minimize the impact of marine life? 

Mr. BARNES. Very similar mitigation measures as has already 

been mentioned. We have marine mammal observers on board seismic vessels. We do slow ramp ups of the sound source. We do constant communication with the fishing industry, so they understand. 

We do seismic, and we understand in the oil and gas industry, 

where there are any fishing industries, we avoid any conflict. And 

finally, we avoid areas where there are spawning grounds at certain points of the year. 

Mr. DUNCAN. And I would assume that is very similar to what 

is being done in the Gulf of Mexico for mitigation. Are you familiar 

with that? 

Mr. BARNES. I assume so, but I am sure others on the panel 

would have better information. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Cruickshank? 

Mr. CRUICKSHANK. That is correct, a similar source of mitigation 

measures around shutdown and ramp up, marine mammal observers, marine debris requirements, vessel strike avoidance. There is 

a whole suite of measures in place. 

Mr. DUNCAN. The new environmental impact statement and 

study, will the recommendations of that namely mirror what is currently being done, or can you elaborate on what you are going to 

put in there for future mitigation because I think the oil and natural gas companies and the seismic companies, rather, need to 

know what is coming and whether it is going to be cost-prohibitive. 

Or is it going to mirror what is being done in Canada, what is 

being done in the GOM now? 

Mr. CRUICKSHANK. The measures currently in place in the Gulf 

will be used in the Atlantic. We are also looking at some other 

mitigation measures, including time area closures where certain 

areas might be closed during certain seasons when there is a particular concentration of an endangered species in that area. We are 

looking at minimum separation distances between simultaneous 

surveys, passive acoustic monitoring, adaptive management, so we 

are looking at trying to improve our suite of mitigation measures, 

but the ones we have been using in the Gulf will also be in place. 

Mr. DUNCAN. So what I am getting at I guess ultimately is, we 

have seismic being done all over the globe similar to what is going 

to be done in the Mid- and Southern Atlantic areas that we are 

talking about, we have shown that there is no definitive and proven impact where marine mammals have been killed. I haven’t been 

able to find one, and no one has been able to provide me that. We 

have got mitigation that is being done in the Canadian waters that 

is very similar to what is currently being done in the Gulf of 

Mexico. That mitigation has basically protected the marine species, 

so why would we put any more stringent requirements in place 

when these are proven mitigation practices and this is technology 

that has been used all over the world? So why would we go beyond 

what is currently working? 

Mr. CRUICKSHANK. The requirements under the law for endangered species are not just to avoid death or injury; it is also to try 

and minimize effect on behavior. And most of the impacts that you 

55 

see from this activity are behavioral effects, so we are trying to institute measures that would limit the impact on the behavior of 

those endangered species. 

Mr. DUNCAN. All right. Well, there was an article today in the 

Environmental and Energy Daily by Phil Taylor. And Mr. Miller, 

he says that surveys which involve loud blasts from air guns towed 

behind ships for a day, weeks or months at a time are believed to 

impair hearing in whales and an array of other marine life. Are 

you dragging seismic out there for a month at a time? 

Mr. MILLER. No, not in a single location, no. We move. The vessel 

is on a grid or a track, and we are in different locations. It is not 

in one location we sit all the time. 

Mr. DUNCAN. OK. This article goes on to quote the gentleman 

from New Jersey who testified or asked questions earlier who has 

lobbied to the Obama administration to stop the seismic plan. He 

has called it the first step to offshore drilling, and we have to put 

a stop to it before we experience a Deepwater Horizon-like disaster 

in the Atlantic. It is an intent to put stop to seismic because they 

don’t want to see offshore drilling. And seismic is the first step for 

a 5-year plan. If you look at the process, seismic, determine what 

is there, a lease sale to open up those areas, and then production, 

and so I think it is very clear. I don’t want to see the mitigation 

efforts be so cost-prohibitive and so large and cumbersome that it 

doesn’t allow the seismic activity to happen off of South Carolina’s 

coast because we want to see those resources developed. 

And with that, I will recognize the Ranking Member for 5 

minutes. 

Dr. HOLT. I thank the gentleman. My colleague spoke about our 

colleague Mr. Pallone from New Jersey. Yes indeed, seismic, and 

I will just speak on this without a question, is a first step, but as 

we identified in the earlier round of questioning and in the testimony, there are some very important recommendations of the 

Commission that should be implemented before we expand territory. It is that simple, and we can look at the question of expansion, expanding territory, but first things first. 

Mr. Cruickshank, I have here a letter from the Mid-Atlantic 

Fishery Council, and they point out how important commercial and 

recreational fishing is to the economy, to jobs in the Mid-Atlantic 

region and say that, in light of the insufficient data and analysis 

about the effects the impacts of these activities on valuable marine 

resources, the Council cannot support the draft PEIS. 

First of all, Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask unanimous 

consent to have this letter included in the record. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Without objection, so ordered. 

Dr. HOLT. And then I would like to ask, Mr. Cruickshank, if you 

think that the impacts, the effects on marine resources are significant enough that they should be considered in this and whether 

you think they are significant enough that they call for a delay in 

the expansion. 

Mr. CRUICKSHANK. We did receive that comment, and we consider that comment along with all others in moving from the draft 

EIS to the final EIS, and we are using the best information we 

have available to us. I would note that these activities and very 

productive fisheries have coexisted in the Gulf of Mexico for quite 

56 

sometime, so we believe if we put the right suite of mitigation 

measures in place, that seismic activity can occur without having 

a detrimental impact on commercial fisheries. 

Dr. HOLT. OK. I hope that the committee will continue to collect 

data, collect evidence to resolve the questions raised by those 

whose livelihood depends on these fish, on these marine species so 

that we don’t just assume that everything is OK. 

I would like to ask a completely separate question about wind, 

if I may, Mr. Cruickshank. The Atlantic Coast has been dubbed the 

Saudi Arabia of wind because of enormous wind potential offshore. 

The Department of Energy estimates that more than 4,000 

gigawatts of offshore wind potential is found along the coasts, 

which greatly exceeds what is needed to power the entire United 

States. The permitting process for offshore wind in the Atlantic is 

farther along than oil and gas, and unlike oil and gas offshore, 

wind energy avoids, well, the threats of seismic air guns and oil 

spills and greenhouse gas emissions. There certainly are some advantages to it. Why is the Administration diverting from the 

expeditious development of abundant offshore wind energy and proposing to double down, in effect, on fossil fuels along the Atlantic 

Coast? 

Mr. CRUICKSHANK. The Administration has an all-of-the-above 

approach to energy, and we are aggressively pursuing wind offshore the Atlantic. We have had two—— 

Dr. HOLT. Give some examples of this aggressive pursuit then 

because it doesn’t look like it from my point of view. 

Mr. CRUICKSHANK. We have had two successful competitive auctions last year for offshore wind leases to get them in commercial 

hands, there are currently five commercial leases that have been 

issued to companies off the North and Mid-Atlantic. We have just 

announced another lease sale coming up for an area offshore 

Maryland, and we are very close to issuing announcements for additional lease sales off New Jersey and Massachusetts to issue commercial leases for offshore wind development. Once those leases are 

issued, it is then in the hands of the corporations to be able to put 

together the projects. 

Dr. HOLT. My time is expiring, but please understand that I have 

a great deal of interest in this, as do the people of New Jersey, and 

we will want aggressive action and a full report, please. Thank you. 

Mr. DUNCAN. I thank the Ranking Member and I thank Chairman Lamborn for putting this hearing together and staff for their 

work and this panel. 

I thank the panelists, excellent testimony. 

I just wish there had been more members here involved, but I 

want to thank the members that did participate today. Members of 

the committee may have additional questions for the record, and I 

ask you all to respond to these in writing. 

And if there is no further business, without objection, the 

committee will stand adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:49 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

Æ