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

47-302 PDF 2009

OFFSHORE DRILLING: 

ENVIRONMENTAL AND 

COMMERCIAL PERSPECTIVES 

OVERSIGHT HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

Wednesday, February 11, 2009 

Serial No. 111-1 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/index.html 

or 

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

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia, Chairman 

DOC HASTINGS, Washington, Ranking Republican Member 

Dale E. Kildee, Michigan 

Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American Samoa 

Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii 

Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey 

Grace F. Napolitano, California 

Rush D. Holt, New Jersey 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, Arizona 

Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam 

Jim Costa, California 

Dan Boren, Oklahoma 

Gregorio Sablan, Northern Marianas 

Martin T. Heinrich, New Mexico 

George Miller, California 

Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts 

Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon 

Maurice D. Hinchey, New York 

Donna M. Christensen, Virgin Islands 

Diana DeGette, Colorado 

Ron Kind, Wisconsin 

Lois Capps, California 

Jay Inslee, Washington 

Joe Baca, California 

Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, South Dakota 

John P. Sarbanes, Maryland 

Carol Shea-Porter, New Hampshire 

Niki Tsongas, Massachusetts 

Frank Kratovil, Jr., Maryland 

Pedro R. Pierluisi, Puerto Rico 

Don Young, Alaska 

Elton Gallegly, California 

John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee 

Jeff Flake, Arizona 

Henry E. Brown, Jr., South Carolina 

Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Washington 

Louie Gohmert, Texas 

Rob Bishop, Utah 

Bill Shuster, Pennsylvania 

Doug Lamborn, Colorado 

Adrian Smith, Nebraska 

Robert J. Wittman, Virginia 

Paul C. Broun, Georgia 

John Fleming, Louisiana 

Mike Coffman, Colorado 

Jason Chaffetz, Utah 

Cynthia M. Lummis, Wyoming 

Tom McClintock, California 

Bill Cassidy, Louisiana 

James H. Zoia, Chief of Staff 

Rick Healy, Chief Counsel 

Todd Young, Republican Chief of Staff 

Lisa Pittman, Republican Chief Counsel 

(III) 

CONTENTS 

Page 

Hearing held on Wednesday, February 11, 2009 .................................................. 1 

Statement of Members: 

Brown, Hon. Henry E., Jr., a Representative in Congress from the State 

of South Carolina, Prepared statement of .................................................. 59 

Capps, Hon. Lois, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

California, Prepared statement of ............................................................... 128 

Hastings, Hon. Doc, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Washington .................................................................................................... 4 

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

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

Colorado, Prepared statement of ................................................................. 35 

Rahall, Hon. Nick J., II, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of West Virginia ............................................................................................ 1 

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

Statement of Witnesses: 

Allen, Bruce, Co-Founder, SOS California ..................................................... 91 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 93 

Response to questions submitted for the record ..................................... 94 

Angers, Jefferson M., President, Center for Coastal Conservation .............. 100 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 102 

Response to questions submitted for the record ..................................... 134 

Cousteau, Philippe, President and Chief Executive Officer, EarthEcho 

International, and Board Member, Ocean Conservancy ............................ 15 

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

Response to questions submitted for the record ..................................... 135 

Danson, Ted, Member, Board of Directors, Oceana ....................................... 8 

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

Response to questions submitted for the record ..................................... 139 

Grader, W.F. ‘‘Zeke,’’ Executive Director, Pacific Coast Federation of 

Fishermen’s Associations ............................................................................. 82 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 84 

Response to questions submitted for the record ..................................... 142 

McCormick, Carolyn, Managing Director, Outer Banks (NC) Visitors 

Bureau ........................................................................................................... 70 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 72 

Response to questions submitted for the record ..................................... 143 

Minich, D.T., Executive Director, St. Petersburg/Clearwater Area 

Convention & Visitors Bureau ..................................................................... 76 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 78 

Additional materials supplied: 

Branham, Brant, Chairman, and Brad Dean, President & CEO, Myrtle 

Beach Area Chamber of Commerce, Letter submitted for the record ...... 130 

CRS memorandum entitled ‘‘Possible Federal Revenue Estimates From 

Oil and Gas Production in Areas Currently Off-Limits (under leasing 

moratoria or inaccessible)’’ submitted for the record ................................. 122 

Florida Association of Convention & Visitors Bureaus’ paper entitled 

‘‘Position on Offshore Oil Drilling’’ submitted for the record .................... 126 

Gemmill, Faith, Executive Director,, Resisting Environmental 

Destruction on Indigenous Lands (REDOIL), Letter submitted for the 

record ............................................................................................................. 131 

List of documents retained in the Committee’s official files ......................... 128 

Luyendyk, Bruce, Professor of Marine Geophysics, Letter submitted for 

the record ....................................................................................................... 112 

(1) 

OVERSIGHT HEARING ON ‘‘OFFSHORE DRILLING: ENVIRONMENTAL AND COMMERCIAL 

PERSPECTIVES’’ 

Wednesday, February 11, 2009 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Committee on Natural Resources 

Washington, D.C. 

The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m., in Room 

1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Nick J. Rahall, II, 

[Chairman of the Committee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Rahall, Faleomavaega, Abercrombie, 

Pallone, Napolitano, Holt, Grijalva, Bordallo, Costa, Boren, Sablan, 

Heinrich, Kind, Capps, Inslee, Sarbanes, Shea-Porter, Tsongas, 

Kratovil, Young, Gallegly, Duncan, Flake, Brown, Gohmert, Bishop, 

Lamborn, Smith, Broun, Fleming, Chaffetz, Lummis, McClintock 

and Cassidy. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. NICK J. RAHALL, II, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA 

The CHAIRMAN. The Committee on Natural Resources will come 

to order. 

The Committee is meeting today in the first of a three-part series 

of oversight hearings designed to look at our current offshore drilling policy and determine where we may need to go next. 

Today we will hear from representatives of the environmental, 

tourism and fishing industries. On February 24, we will hear from 

State officials; and on February 25, we will have the oil and gas 

industry present their viewpoint. 

The purpose of these hearings is to allow all sides to air their 

views so that we can begin to determine the best way to move forward and how to ensure that our offshore resources are managed 

in an environmentally and physically responsible manner. 

I believe we all remember last year when oil prices neared $150 

a barrel, gas was over $4 a gallon, and, ‘‘Drill, Baby, Drill’’ was 

chanted repeatedly as a solution to high energy prices. While undoubtedly a catchy slogan, good for the 30-second sound bites, it 

drowned out a number of key facts that are essential to this 

debate. 

First, the United States does drill, and we drill a lot. We are the 

third largest producer of oil and the second largest producer of 

2 

natural gas in the world, with roughly a third of that production 

coming from public lands. 

There were more drilling rigs operating in the United States last 

year than in the rest of the world combined. Let me repeat that. 

There were more drilling rigs operating in the United States of 

America last year than in the rest of the world combined. Anyone 

who implies that we are not currently going after our own 

resources is being misleading, and perhaps a little disingenuous. 

Second, the vast majority of oil and natural gas in our Outer 

Continental Shelf is in those areas that are already being leased. 

According to the Minerals Management Service, 82 percent of the 

oil and 84 percent of the natural gas in the Outer Continental 

Shelf are in those areas that were already available for drilling 

before the congressional moratoria expired last year. 

Talking about the percentage of the OCS that is not being leased 

is far less important than whether or not we are leasing the right 

acreage. 

Third, no reputable economist believes that increasing the 

amount of drilling we do in the OCS will have any real impact on 

energy prices. The Energy Information Administration looked at 

what would happen if we started leasing every single acre of the 

OCS, and they found that the impact on prices would be quite 

insignificant. Oil prices, as we all know, are set on the world 

market, and the United States does not have the reserves required 

to make a big dent in that market. 

Fourth, we cannot drill our way to energy independence. The 

Energy Information Administration found that drilling everywhere 

on the OCS would produce roughly 200,000 barrels in additional oil 

per day in 2030, only 1 percent of what we currently consume. 

Even the oil and gas industry agrees. A study contracted by the 

American Petroleum Institute found that unlimited OCS drilling 

would generate less than 300,000 barrels a day. 

And finally, to be clear, I am not opposed to drilling. I understand the benefits that we get from domestic oil and gas production, the jobs, the royalties, the money that we keep here at home 

instead of sending overseas; but I am also very well aware of the 

risk. Last week was the 40th anniversary of the Santa Barbara oil 

spill—an environmental disaster that showed us, in no uncertain 

terms, what the dangers are. 

If we are going to start drilling in new areas offshore, we have 

to be aware what the tradeoffs are, we have to ensure that it can 

be done safely and carefully, and we have to ensure that it is being 

done in the best interests of the American people, the true owners 

of these lands. 

These three hearings are just the start of this discussion. Under 

the leadership of our Subcommittee Chairman, Representative Jim 

Costa, the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources will be 

looking at these issues in even more depth in the coming months. 

With oil prices down to multi-year lows, no leasing moratoria on 

the Atlantic and Pacific Coast in place, and a new administration 

in the White House, this is the time to look at these issues anew. 

I want to thank our distinguished witnesses, who I will be 

introducing in a moment, for being with us, but before that I will 

3 

recognize our Ranking Member, the gentleman from Washington, 

Mr. Hastings. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Rahall follows:] 

Statement of The Honorable Nick J. Rahall, II, Chairman, 

Committee on Natural Resources 

The committee is meeting today in the first of a three-part series of oversight 

hearings designed to look at our current offshore drilling policy, and determine 

where we may need to go next. 

Today we will hear from representatives of the environmental, tourism, and fishing industries. On February 24th we will hear from state officials, and on February 

25th we will have the oil and gas industry present their viewpoint. 

The purpose of these hearings is to allow all sides to air their views so that we 

can begin to determine the best way to move forward, and how to ensure that our 

offshore resources are managed in an environmentally and fiscally responsible manner. 

I believe we all remember last year when oil prices neared $150 a barrel, gas was 

over $4 a gallon, and ‘‘Drill, Baby, Drill’’ was chanted repeatedly as the solution to 

high energy prices. While undoubtedly a catchy slogan, it drowned out a number 

of key facts that are essential to this debate. 

First, the United States does drill, and we drill a lot. We are the third largest 

producer of oil and second largest producer of natural gas in the world, with roughly 

a third of that production coming from public lands. 

There were more drilling rigs operating in the United States last year than in the 

rest of the world combined. Anyone who implies that we are not currently going 

after our own resources is being misleading. 

Second, the vast majority of oil and natural gas in our Outer Continental Shelf 

is in those areas that are already being leased. 

According to the Minerals Management Service, 82% of the oil and 84% of the 

natural gas in the outer continental shelf are in those areas that were already available for drilling before the congressional moratorium expired last year. 

Talking about the percentage of the OCS that is not being leased is far less important than whether or not we are leasing the right acreage. 

Third, no reputable economist believes that increasing the amount of drilling we 

do in the OCS will have any real impact on energy prices. 

The Energy Information Administration looked at what would happen if we started leasing every single acre of the OCS, and they found that the impact on prices 

would be, quote, ‘‘insignificant.’’ 

Oil prices are set on the world market, and the United States does not have the 

reserves required to make a big dent in that market. 

Fourth, we cannot drill our way to energy independence. The Energy Information 

Administration found that drilling everywhere on the OCS would produce roughly 

200,000 barrels in additional oil per day in 2030, only 1% of what we currently consume. 

Even the oil and gas industry agrees: a study contracted by the American Petroleum Institute found that unlimited OCS drilling would generate less than 300,000 

barrels per day. 

Finally, to be clear, I am not opposed to drilling. I understand the benefits that 

we get from domestic oil and gas production: the jobs, the royalties, the money that 

we keep here at home instead of sending overseas. 

But I am also very aware of the risks. Last week was the 40th anniversary of 

the Santa Barbara Oil Spill, an environmental disaster that showed us in no uncertain terms what the dangers are. 

If we are going to start drilling in new areas offshore, we have to be aware what 

the trade-offs are, we have to ensure that it can be done safely and carefully, and 

we have to ensure that it is being done in the best interests of the American people. 

These three hearings are just the start of this discussion. Under the leadership 

of Representative Costa, the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources will 

be looking at these issues in even more depth in the coming months. 

With oil prices down to multi-year lows, no leasing moratorium on the Atlantic 

and Pacific coasts, and a new administration in the White House, this is the time 

to look at these issues anew. 

I thank the witnesses for coming today, and I now recognize our Ranking 

Member, Mr. Hastings, for his opening remarks. 

4 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. DOC HASTINGS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON 

Mr. HASTINGS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And I want 

to thank you for calling today’s hearing. And I hope that this hearing and the others that are scheduled that we will have will be focusing on the important issue that clearly will lay out the value of 

the resources in America and that American taxpayers have in 

those resources, and specifically in the Outer Continental Shelf 

areas. 

Mr. Chairman, few areas are more important to the American 

economy than energy. At a time when our country is facing economic turmoil, it is more important than ever that we are taking 

the steps to create more American jobs, not taking them away. 

There are recent reports that OPEC leaders are planning to meet 

in March to raise prices on American families and businesses. The 

belief is that OPEC will announce production cuts in order to double the current price of oil. We must send a message to the world 

that America will produce its own energy and no longer allow ourselves to be held hostage by foreign governments to high energy 

prices. 

This Committee has previously heard testimony that during the 

first half of this decade, America lost more than 3 million manufacturing jobs due to high energy costs. Yet the energy crisis of last 

year which hurt our economy can also provide the solutions to 

bring our economy back. 

Expanded domestic energy production will create good, high-paying jobs and free America from our dependence on foreign energy. 

This renaissance is possible because for the first time since 1982, 

the moratoria restricting development of our Nation’s Outer Continental Shelf was not included in this year’s appropriation bills. 

Lifting the moratoria finally opened one of the richest resources in 

the entire world to potential development. 

The Minerals Management Service estimates that our Outer 

Continental Shelf holds more than 86 billion barrels of oil and 420 

trillion cubic feet of natural gas. Of these amounts, an estimated 

18 billion barrels of oil and 76 trillion cubic feet of natural gas had 

been left undiscovered in areas previously off limits. It is entirely 

possible that America could multiply our undiscovered resources in 

the Atlantic many times over. Without further exploration it is impossible to tell exactly what amount of oil and gas reserves the 

United States is neglecting in the OCS. 

The development of the OCS isn’t just about energy, though, Mr. 

Chairman, it is also about creating good American manufacturing 

jobs and building the infrastructure to harness that energy. The oil 

and gas industry is one of the highest-paying industries in America. In addition, this capital-intensive industry means that the development of a single platform can cost between $2- and $5 billion, 

depending on the platform. Now that really is economic stimulus, 

in my mind. 

Each productive new offshore lease will bring hundreds of jobs. 

When multiplied by the thousands of productive new leases, we 

could create millions of new jobs and have a renaissance of American domestic manufacturing. 

5 

Exploration and development in the OCS doesn’t mean destruction of our environment, contrary to some thoughts. In fact, modern 

technology has made OCS development cleaner and safer than 

ever. In 1999, the Clinton administration report stated, and I want 

to quote this entirely, ‘‘In the past three decades, the petroleum 

business has transformed itself into a high-technology industry. 

Dramatic advances in technology for exploration, drilling and completion, production and site restoration have enabled the industry 

to keep up with the ever-increasing demand for reliable supplies of 

oil and gas at reasonable prices. The productivity gains and cost reductions attributable to these advances have been widely described 

and broadly recognized.’’ But I want to emphasize this: ‘‘But public 

awareness of the significant and impressive environmental benefits 

from new exploration and production advances remain limited.’’ In 

other words, all this is going on, but the public doesn’t know about 

it. 

More recently, Hurricanes Ivan, Katrina and Rita impacted the 

oil and gas infrastructure in the Gulf of Mexico, including refineries, causing many producing oil and gas wells to be shut down. 

It is worth noting that no oil field workers were killed, and no oil 

blowouts occurred, even though many platforms were destroyed 

during these catastrophic storms. The safety and environmental 

protection technology built into the platforms worked. 

Finally, new production also brings financial benefits to taxpayers. In Fiscal Year 2008, the Minerals Management Service 

generated over $23 billion in revenue for State, Federal and tribal 

treasuries. Since the majority of these resources sit on Federally 

held lands, new expanded development will result in bonus bids, 

royalties and rents. In addition, expanded development will mean 

increased payroll and income taxes, increased business development, and a stronger U.S. dollar. A recent ICS study said that 

there is $1.7 trillion in revenue awaiting development in the OCS, 

a figure I believe anyone in this time would call a stimulus. 

This issue is of major national significance. Developing our resources will create desperately needed jobs across much of America. 

In addition, as our economy starts to rebound, energy prices will 

rise; and if they rise, it could stunt future growth. The longer we 

leave ourselves dependent on foreign oil, the more fragile our economy will be. 

As I stated at the outset, reports are that OPEC will be meeting 

in March to purposely manipulate oil production to raise prices on 

American families and businesses. The OPEC cartel may raise the 

price of a barrel of oil by 75 to 100 percent, from $40 a barrel to 

$75 or $80 a barrel. America simply can’t afford to leave the fate 

of our economy in the hands of this foreign cartel that controls 35 

percent of the world’s oil production. America can’t afford to continue giving away $700 billion a year in thousands of high-paying 

energy-production jobs to foreign countries who willfully manipulate prices to harm our economy and cost us even more jobs. 

The American people have spoken strongly in support of utilizing 

our resources on the OCS, and in these tough economic times, Congress and the President can’t afford to sit by and not develop the 

tens of thousands of high-paying energy-production jobs in 

America. 

6 

Mr. Chairman, I believe that we can free America from our dependence on foreign oil, free America from imported foreign natural 

gas, and invigorate America’s economy by harnessing the resources 

of America’s OCS to create more energy with the skill and knowledge of the American worker. 

I look forward to hearing from the witnesses today and in subsequent hearings. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hastings follows:] 

Statement of The Honorable Doc Hastings, Ranking Member, 

Committee on Natural Resources 

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for calling today’s hearing. I hope that this 

hearing and the others that we have focusing on this important issue will clearly 

lay out the value of the resources America and American taxpayers have in the OCS 

areas. 

Few issues are more important to the American economy than energy. At a time 

when our country is facing economic turmoil, it is more important than ever that 

we are taking steps to create more American jobs—not taking them away. 

It is important that we hold these hearings now to set the record in support of 

increased American development. There are reports that OPEC leaders are planning 

to meet in March to raise prices on American families and businesses. The belief 

is that OPEC will announce productions cuts in order to double the current price 

of oil. 

We must send a message to the world that America will produce its own energy 

and no longer allow ourselves to be held hostage by foreign governments to high 

energy prices. 

This committee previously heard testimony that during the first half of this decade America lost more than 3 million manufacturing jobs due to high energy costs. 

Yet the energy crisis of last year which hurt our economy, can also provide the solutions to bring our economy back. 

Expanded domestic energy production will create good high paying jobs and free 

America from our dependence on foreign energy. This ‘‘renaissance’’ is possible because, for the first time since 1982, the moratoria restricting development of our nation’s Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) was not included in this year’s appropriations 

bills. 

RESOURCES 

Lifting the moratoria finally opened one of the richest resources in the entire 

world to potential development. 

The Minerals Management Service estimates that our Outer Continental Shelf 

(OCS) holds more than 86 billion barrels of oil and 420 trillion cubic feet of natural 

gas. Of these amounts, an estimated 18 billion barrels of oil and 76 trillion cubic 

feet of natural gas have been left undiscovered in areas previously off-limits. 

While those numbers may seem large in their own right, they are actually small 

when compared to what really may be recoverable in that part of the OCS. Much 

of the data we have on the Atlantic is more than 30 years old, from a time when 

most Americans were still using rotary phones. 

The technology of that era was not nearly as sophisticated as we have today. Advances in seismic exploration and drilling technology mean that we can both find 

and develop resources that we didn’t know existed in the 1970’s. 

It is entirely possible that America could multiply our undiscovered resources in 

the Atlantic many times over. Without further exploration it is impossible to tell exactly what amount of oil and gas reserves the United States is neglecting in the 

OCS. 

JOBS 

The development of the OCS isn’t just about energy, it is also about creating good 

American manufacturing jobs and building the infrastructure to harness this energy. The oil and gas industry is one of the highest paying industries in America. 

The average oil field worker makes nearly twice the national average. 

In addition, this capital intensive industry means that the development of a single 

platform can cost 2, 3, or 5 billion dollars depending on the platform. 

Each productive new offshore lease will bring hundreds of jobs. When multiplied 

by the thousands of productive new leases, we could create millions of new jobs and 

have a renaissance of American domestic manufacturing. 

7 

ENVIRONMENT 

Exploration and development in the OCS doesn’t mean the destruction of our environment. In fact, modern technology has made OCS development cleaner and safer 

than ever. 

A 1999 Clinton Administration Report stated: 

‘‘In the past three decades, the petroleum business has transformed itself into a 

high-technology industry. Dramatic advances in technology for exploration, drilling 

and completion, production, and site restoration have enabled the industry to keep 

up with the ever-increasing demand for reliable supplies of oil and natural gas at 

reasonable prices. The productivity gains and cost reductions attributable to these 

advances have been widely described and broadly recognized. But public awareness of the significant and impressive environmental benefits from new exploration and production (E&P) technology advances remains limited.’’ 

More recently, Hurricanes Ivan, Katrina and Rita impacted the oil and gas infrastructure in the Gulf of Mexico, including refineries, causing many producing oil and 

gas wells to be shut in. It is worth nothing that no oil-field workers were killed and 

no oil blowouts occurred even though many platforms were destroyed during these 

catastrophic storms. The safety and environmental protection technology built into 

the platforms worked. 

It is a testament to the coordination between the Minerals Management Service 

(MMS), the Coast Guard, and industry that everyone was safely evacuated and modern technology protected our environment. 

REVENUE 

Finally, new production also brings financial rewards to the taxpayers. In Fiscal 

Year 2008, the Minerals Management Service generated $23.4 Billion in revenue 

for Federal, state and tribal treasuries. 

Since a majority of these resources sit on federally held lands, new expanded development will result in bonus bids, royalties and rents. In addition, expanded development will mean increased payroll and income taxes, increased business development, and a stronger U.S. dollar. A recent ICF study said that there is $1.7 trillion in revenue awaiting development in the OCS, a figure I believe anyone would 

call stimulus. 

CLOSING 

This issue is of major national significance. Developing our resources will create 

desperately needed jobs across much of America. In addition, as our economy starts 

to rebound, energy prices will rise, which could stunt or cut off growth. The longer 

we leave ourselves dependent on foreign oil the more fragile our economy will be. 

As I stated at the outset, reports are that OPEC will be meeting in March to purposefully manipulate oil production to raise prices on American families and businesses. The OPEC cartel may raise the price of a barrel of oil by 75 to 100 percent— 

from $40 a barrel to $75 or $80. 

America simply can’t afford to leave the fate of our economy in the hands of this 

foreign cartel that controls 35% of the world’s oil production. 

America can’t afford to continue giving away $700 billion a year and thousands 

of high-paying energy production jobs to foreign countries who willfully manipulate 

prices to harm our economy and cost us even more jobs. 

The American people have spoken strongly in support of utilizing our resources 

on the Outer Continental Shelf. And in these tough economic times, Congress and 

the President can’t afford to sit by and not develop the tens of thousands of highpaying energy production jobs here in America. 

Mr. Chairman, I believe that we can free America from our dependence on foreign 

oil, free America from imported foreign natural gas, and invigorate America’s economy, by harnessing the resources of America’s OCS to create more energy with the 

skill and knowledge of the American worker. 

I look forward to hearing from our witnesses. 

The CHAIRMAN. We are going to move now to the two witnesses 

that are with us this morning, Ted Danson and Philippe Cousteau. 

Both are strong ocean advocates with a long history of defending 

and protecting our irreplaceable ocean resources. They understand 

the importance of our oceans as a valuable national resource for all 

Americans to enjoy, Ted, through his work with Oceana, and 

8 

Philippe, through his lasting family legacy, and they both know 

that ocean conservation is a worthy cause. 

I think the background of Ted Danson is known to all of us as 

an award-winning film and television actor. Along with his many 

accomplishments as an actor, he continues to receive much acclaim 

for his work as a longtime advocate for the sustainability of the 

world’s oceans. 

Philippe is the son of Jan and Philippe Cousteau—his mother is 

with us today, and we appreciate that—and the grandson of Captain Jacques Yves Cousteau. He is the CEO of EarthEcho and an 

Ocean Conservancy Board member. 

So, gentlemen, we are very honored to have you as our lead-off 

witnesses for our hearings today and for the series of hearings over 

the next several months. We want to welcome you. 

Ted, you may proceed first. As I tell all witnesses, we do have 

your prepared testimony, which will be made a part of the record 

as if it was actually read. You may proceed in any manner you desire, both of you. We usually try to enforce a 5-minute rule, but if 

you run over, that is fine. How is that for enforcement? 

STATEMENT OF TED DANSON, OCEANA 

Mr. DANSON. Thank you very much. Good morning. My name is 

Ted Danson. I am a longtime ocean activist and a member of the 

Board of Directors of Oceana. We are a global ocean conservation 

organization based here in Washington, D.C. And I would like to 

thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the Committee for giving me the opportunity to speak to you today. 

In the late 1980s, Occidental Petroleum proposed slant drilling 

off the coast of Santa Monica. I was very concerned about the impact this would have on the ocean environment, so I teamed up 

with an environmental lawyer to fight it. I am happy to report that 

we won. After that, to make sure our oceans would continue to be 

protected, we co-founded American Oceans Campaign, which 

worked for 15 years to protect the oceans from oil drilling and 

other threats. We later decided to expand the capacity of the American Oceans Campaign by joining with Oceana, which is now the 

largest international organization focused solely on protecting the 

oceans. And so today I am here to testify against the opening up 

of the Outer Continental Shelf of our oceans to oil and gas development. 

The same reasons that made more offshore drilling a bad idea 

when I founded the American Oceans Campaign are still valid 

today. I am encouraged by the administration’s announcement yesterday that they will be taking additional time to examine the offshore drilling issue. 

Oil and water don’t mix. Our oceans give essential protein to 

nearly half the world’s population. In the U.S., recreational and 

commercial fisheries combined supply over 2 million jobs. On top 

of that, coastal tourism provides 28.3 million jobs, and annually 

generates $54 billion in goods and services. 

Ecosystems are disrupted, top to bottom, by the short- and longterm effects of oil. More oil spills mean less abundant oceans; more 

oil spills mean fewer wonderful, pristine beaches; more oil spills 

mean fewer jobs. 

9 

While not intentional, spills do happen. And according to the National Academy of Sciences, no current cleanup methods remove 

more than a small fraction of oil spilled in the marine waters, especially in the presence of broken ice. 

Approximately 120 million gallons of oil end up in the world’s 

oceans every year from oil platforms, marine transportation, vessel 

discharges, and accidents. The impacts of oil on fish and other 

wildlife are numerous and well own. Ingesting oil is usually lethal, 

and long-term exposures can result in serious problems, such as reduced reproduction and organ damage. 

Each offshore oil platform generates approximately 214,000 

pounds of air pollutants a year. These pollutants include precursors 

to smog, acid rain, and contribute to global warming. Pollution released from rigs can affect people and animals living within 180 

miles of that platform. 

For all these reasons, offshore oil drilling is such a bad idea that 

for more than 25 years our leaders put an end to it. Today it is 

still a terrible idea. In fact, with today’s science, we have even 

more reason to keep the oil companies out of our oceans. That is 

because we now know that burning fossil fuels contributes to climate change. 

Climate change is potentially catastrophic for the oceans due to 

something scientists call acidification. As our oceans absorb carbon 

dioxide from the air, they become more acidic. Coral reefs, essential 

to ocean life, are already in trouble. If emissions continue to increase, there is likely to be mass extinctions of coral by the middle 

of the end of the century. 

Acidification also threatens the very base of the entire ocean food 

chain. Scientists estimate that the southern ocean could reach the 

tipping point as early as 2030. This means that in only 20 years, 

it is likely that creatures at the base of the food web, such as krill 

and sea snails, will be unable to create their shells. If the base of 

the ocean food web collapses, it would be catastrophic for the 

oceans, especially for our fisheries and everyone that depends on 

them for food and for jobs. 

Despite all of these problems, oil companies still want to invest 

billions of dollars in continuing our dependence on oil instead of 

creating a sustainable plan for the future. The argument for increased offshore drilling is essentially that it will get gas prices to 

come way down. That is simply not true. The oil companies are 

making us a sucker’s offer. They are asking Americans to take 100 

percent of the risk of ocean drilling for just a fraction of any potential benefits. In fact, even at peak production, increased drilling offshore would account for less than 1 percent of current energy demand in the U.S., and that is if in this global market the oil would 

stay in the U.S., which is unlikely. It would only amount to mere 

pennies in savings at the pump. 

The high gas prices from this summer were not due to a lack of 

oil drilling in American oceans, they were a result of high demand 

in a worldwide oil market. As we have seen, prices came way down 

in just a few months, which is a clear demonstration of that fact. 

The bottom line is this: Offshore oil drilling may be a good deal 

from the perspective of an oil executive’s office, but it is a bad deal 

for a citizen looking at it from a California or a New Jersey beach. 

10 

And so today I ask you to take three important steps that would 

steer our country in the right direction toward affordable energy 

and healthy oceans. 

First, I believe Congress should quickly reinstate the moratorium 

on new oil leasing in the Outer Continental Shelf and Bristol Bay. 

Second, the threats to the Arctic demand a separate and distinct 

planning process. Ongoing oil development activities must be suspended until that is completed. 

Finally, clean, carbon-free ocean energy, such as wind, tidal, 

wave and current power, must be a piece of our sustainable energy 

future. The Natural Resources Committee should hold hearings on 

the renewable resources that our oceans offer. Stimulating these 

energy sources creates jobs. 

Let’s work with the oceans, not against them. Let’s use their 

abundant wind and water energy to do things that will be good for 

the planet and good for America. Let’s give future generations oilfree beaches and oceans that are an abundant source of food, wildlife and clean energy. 

Thank you for this opportunity. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Ted. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Danson follows:] 

Statement of Ted Danson, Member, Board of Directors, Oceana 

Introduction 

My name is Ted Danson and I am a member of the Board of Directors of Oceana, 

a global ocean conservation organization based here in Washington, D.C. that works 

to restore and protect the world’s oceans. Besides our headquarters in Washington 

DC, Oceana also has staff located in Alaska, California, Florida, Oregon, and Massachusetts, as well as international offices in Brussels, Belgium; Madrid, Spain; and 

Santiago, Chile. We have 300,000 members and supporters from all 50 states and 

from countries around the globe. Our mission is to protect our oceans and the fish 

and wildlife that depend on them. 

Today, I will present testimony regarding the need to protect our oceans from the 

threats posed by oil and gas development on the outer continental shelf of the 

United States. 

In the late 1980s, Occidental Petroleum proposed slant drilling off the coast of 

Santa Monica. I was very concerned about the impact this would have on the ocean 

environment so I teamed up with an environmental expert to fight it. I’m happy to 

report that we won. After that, to make sure our oceans would continue to be protected, we co-founded American Oceans Campaign, which worked for fifteen years 

to protect the oceans from oil drilling and other threats. 

We later decided to expand the capacity of the American Oceans Campaign, by 

joining with Oceana, which is now the largest international organization focused 

solely on protecting the oceans. 

And so today, I am here to testify against the opening up of the outer continental 

shelf of our oceans to oil and gas development. The same reasons that made more 

offshore oil drilling a bad idea when I founded the American Oceans Campaign are 

still valid today. 

Oil and water don’t mix. Our oceans give essential protein to nearly half the 

world’s population. In the U.S., recreational and commercial fisheries combined supply over 2 million jobs. On top of that, coastal tourism provides 28.3 million jobs 

and annually generates $54 billion in goods and services. Ecosystems are disrupted 

top to bottom by the short and long term effects of oil. More oil spills mean less 

abundant oceans. More oil spills mean fewer wonderful, pristine beaches. More oil 

spills mean fewer jobs. 

While not intentional, spills happen. These spills range from small, steady leaks 

to large accidents and they occur at every stage in oil production from the oil platform to the oil tanker to the pipeline and storage tanks. Approximately 120 millions 

gallons of oil are discharged into the world’s oceans every year from oil platforms, 

marine transportation, vessel discharges and accidents. The impacts to fish and 

wildlife are numerous and well documented, often resulting in death. 

11 

In addition, more offshore drilling contributes to climate change by continuing our 

reliance on fossil fuels without creating a sustainable plan for the future. Additionally, as our oceans absorb carbon dioxide from the air, our oceans become more 

acidic. This ocean acidification could drastically change life as we know it. Our corals are already at risk. Additionally, the base of the food web may collapse due to 

the inability to create their shells in a more acidic ocean. Scientists estimate that 

the Southern Oceans could reach the tipping point as early as 2030. The collapse 

of the food web would be catastrophic for our oceans, our fisheries and everyone that 

depends on them for food and jobs. 

Despite these risks to the oceans, it is hard to imagine why the perceived demand 

for expanded offshore drilling is so strong. The oil companies are asking Americans 

to take 100% of the risk for just a fraction of any benefits. In fact, even at peak 

production, the U.S. Energy Information Administration admits that increased offshore drilling would account for less than 1% of the current energy demand in the 

U.S. It would amount to merely pennies in savings at the gas pump. 

We should be thinking of our oceans as part of the solution to our nation’s energy 

problems. Instead of offshore drilling, America needs science-based, precautionary 

management for our oceans. Our energy policies should fit within a consistent blueprint in which expanded conservation and improved energy efficiency are paired 

with facilitating renewable energy production to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels. 

And so, today, I ask you to take three important steps that will steer our country 

in the right direction toward energy independence based on renewable and carbonfree energy sources. 

First, it is critical that Congress quickly reinstate its moratoria on drilling in the 

Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) areas and Bristol Bay. Congress put the OCS moratorium in place in a bipartisan fashion every single year since 1982. Protection for 

Bristol Bay lapsed in 2004, and last year, due to the combined pressures of rising 

gas prices and an important election, the OCS moratorium was allowed to lapse. 

Secondly, the threats to the Arctic demand a separate and distinct planning process. The OCS moratoria do not include any of the offshore areas in Alaska except 

Bristol Bay, and there has been a significant expansion of oil and gas activities in 

the Arctic during the last eight years. The ongoing activities must be stopped, until 

a comprehensive conservation and energy plan for the Arctic is put in place that 

is based on assessment of the unique Arctic ecosystem and a precautionary, sciencebased approach. 

Finally, clean, carbon-free ocean energy such as wind, tidal, wave and current 

power must be a piece of our sustainable energy future. The Natural Resources committee should hold hearings on the renewable resources that our oceans offer. Stimulating these energy sources creates jobs. Let’s work with the oceans, not against 

them. Let’s use their abundant wind and water energy to do things that will be good 

for the planet, and good for America. Let’s give future generations oil free beaches 

and oceans that are an abundant source of food, wildlife and clean energy. 

These points are further discussed in the testimony below: 

I. Moratoria in the OCS areas and Bristol Bay are Needed to Protect our 

Oceans 

Our oceans and coasts are now at greater risk than at any time since the early 

1980’s. Since 1982, Congress has protected Outer Continental Shelf water in the 

‘‘Lower-48’’ with a moratorium on oil and gas activities. Congress also has enacted 

a moratorium to protect the sensitive areas of Bristol Bay, Alaska. In addition, Executive moratoria have been issued by two Presidents. In 1990, responding to the 

11 million gallon Exxon Valdez oil spill, President George H. W. Bush used his executive authority to place a moratorium on any leasing or pre-leasing activity in 

Lower-48 offshore areas, including a small portion of the Eastern Gulf of Mexico. 

In a separate action President Clinton limited new drilling in the rich Bristol Bay 

fishing grounds in Alaska until 2012. Unfortunately, Congressional protections for 

Bristol Bay lapsed in 2004 and President George W. Bush lifted the Executive moratorium in 2007. The broader Congressional moratorium for the Lower-48 offshore 

areas was allowed to expire in 2008, and the Executive moratorium was lifted by 

President George W. Bush that same year. Reinstating both of the Congressional 

moratoria, including valuable habitat areas that were previously removed, such as 

Bristol Bay, must be a top priority. The Executive moratoria also should be reinstated to provide an added layer of protection for our marine life and coasts. 

Offshore oil and gas activities create a myriad of threats to marine life including 

accidents, routine spills, disposal of wastes such as drilling muds and produced 

water, and noise pollution. The dramatic increase in shipping activity associated 

with platform maintenance, and increased risks of marine mammal collisions, also 

imperil marine species, many of which are already threatened or endangered. 

12 

Accidents inevitably accompany all stages of offshore production. The most typical 

causes of accidents include equipment failure, personnel mistakes, and extreme natural impacts from seismic activity, ice movements, hurricanes, and so on. 

According to the National Academy of Sciences, ‘‘No current cleanup methods remove more than a small fraction of oil spilled in marine waters, especially in the 

presence of broken ice.’’ Discharges associated with oil platforms, marine transportation, vessel discharges and accidents add around 120 million gallons of oil to the 

world’s ocean every year, about a third of all inputs combined, including natural oil 

seeps. 

The impacts of oil on wildlife are numerous. Wildlife can become coated in or ingest oil, which will often lead to a quick death. However, oil in the environment can 

also result in non-lethal impacts, such as reduced reproduction and liver damage. 

These impacts are a death sentence for most animals in the wild, crippling their 

ability to avoid predators, find food and shelter and reproduce, all of which are essential to healthy functioning populations. 

Toxic compounds in oil have a similarly varied set of effects. These can include 

reduced reproductive success due to interruption in breeding behaviors and damage 

to the reproductive and immune systems. Oil’s toxic constituents can also damage 

a long list of organs in marine animals including the eyes, mouths, skin, nasal cavities, nervous system, red blood cells, liver, lungs and stomach. It can also cause 

damage to turtle and fish eggs, larvae and young, all leading to varied impacts on 

survival and reproductive success. 

Oil can also affect the habitat of marine species, for example, by contaminating 

breeding beaches, estuaries, coral reefs, and seagrass and mangrove communities 

that are important feeding, breeding and resting grounds for a variety of species. 

Finally, these impacts can linger for extremely long time periods creating continuous low-level exposure to oil in the form of tarballs, slicks, or elevated levels of 

chemicals that can cause cancer, developmental and reproductive impairments. 

Besides accidents, daily offshore drilling operations also create other forms of pollution that affect marine and other wildlife. Offshore rigs can dump tons of drilling 

fluids, metal cuttings, including toxic metals (lead, chromium and mercury) and carcinogens (such as benzene, xylene and toluene and especially polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons) into the ocean. Drilling muds are used to lubricate and cool the drill 

bit and pipe. One drilling platform normally drills between seventy and one-hundred 

wells and discharges more than 90,000 metric tons of drilling fluids and metal 

cuttings into the ocean. One well can potentially affect an area of 1000 meters when 

it comes to the discharge of these materials. Some studies suggest that drilling-related chemicals can stunt fish growth and affect breeding patterns. For example, cod 

exposed to this waste water had smaller eggs and delayed spawning time. 

Produced water, fluid trapped underground and brought up with the oil and gas 

is another type of pollution that comes from drilling. Produced waters have high salinity and oil content, so discharges sink to the seafloor where they poison the rich 

communities of plants and animals that often reside there. 

Factors other than pollutants can affect marine wildlife as well. For example, the 

firing of air guns during oil exploration sends such a strong shock across the seabed 

that it is believed to be capable of causing marine mammal strandings and increased whale mortality, decreased fish catch and damage to the hearing capacity 

of various marine species. For example, endangered grey whales were scared away 

from their only feeding grounds by unusually high noise levels at an oil and gas 

construction site near Sakhalin Island. Offshore oil rigs may also attract seabirds 

at night due to their lighting, flaring and aggregation of fish species, all of which 

can result in bird mortality. 

Air pollution from offshore oil rigs also poses a health threat to people who live 

in proximity to offshore oil platforms. The Living Oceans Society reports that a single offshore operation emits as much air pollution as 7,000 cars driving fifty miles 

per day. Various types of toxic air pollutants are emitted in the process of flaring. 

This process releases more than 250 different contaminants into the atmosphere, 

many of which are known to cause health problems such as lung and heart disorders, cancers, asthma, and reproductive problems. These pollutants can affect 

people and animals living within 300 kilometers from the drilling platform. 

The harm posed by oil and gas activities in the Outer Continental Shelf is too 

large to ignore. As a result, it is incumbent upon the Congress to reinstate the OCS 

moratoria as soon as possible. 

A. Oil Production will worsen Climate Change. 

As described in detail above, the harm posed by oil and gas activities in the Outer 

Continental Shelf provides as good a reason to place a moratorium on such activities 

today as it has provided everyday since 1982. However, the worsening threat of cliVerDate Aug 31 2005 15:01 Mar 19, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\47302.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
13 

mate change imposes a new urgency. We now realize that the release of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that results from the use of oil is creating even more 

harm to society than was previously understood. Indeed, the need to curtail releases 

of greenhouse gasses adds another layer to the already strong argument for preventing the expansion of oil and gas production on the Outer Continental Shelf by 

renewing the moratorium. 

If left unchecked, human-caused emissions of greenhouse gases will have dramatic 

effects on the oceans and the planet as a whole. These impacts are already being 

felt in the Arctic, which is warming twice as fast as the rest of the planet. The loss 

and thinning of sea ice has made hunting and travel increasingly dangerous for indigenous peoples, and threatens the long-term survival of walrus, polar bears, ice 

seals and other ice-dependent animals as their essential habitat melts away. As 

these changes affect the Arctic, they will begin to affect all of us. Loss of sea ice 

and other changes in the Arctic may, in fact, amplify climate change on a worldwide 

scale and lead us closer to a tipping point, or a point of no return. 

Climate change is also causing our oceans to acidify. Since the industrial revolution, the oceans have absorbed almost 450 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide from 

the atmosphere, or about one-third of all anthropogenic carbon emissions. The 

oceans continue to absorb approximately 30 million metric tons of carbon dioxide 

every day. At the same time, 80% of the heat that is added to the atmosphere is 

absorbed by the oceans. Without the oceans, global warming would be far worse 

than it already is. But this service is, at the same time, making our oceans sick. 

The increased acidity is expected to take its toll on corals and other species that 

make their shells and skeletons from calcium carbonate. In fact, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) predicts that, under a business-as-usual 

scenario, we will likely have a mass extinction of corals by the middle of this century. Impacts on marine life may be much more imminent in waters with lower carbonate availability such as those of the Arctic. 

These changes are a direct result of our dependence on fossil fuels for energy. 

Thus, we must reduce our emissions of greenhouse gases and, to do so, we must 

move away from fossil fuels, such as oil, and instead toward conservation, energy 

efficiency and alternative energy. As evidenced by the effects already occurring in 

the Arctic and elsewhere, there is an urgent need for action now. 

While we must begin this process now, reducing emissions of greenhouse gases 

will take time. The concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is increasing steadily as our emissions increase. We must first slow emissions of greenhouse 

gases and then take action to reduce their concentration in the atmosphere. 

Expanding oil and gas production on the Outer Continental Shelf will only exacerbate the already damaging effects of climate change on our oceans. 

B. Offshore Drilling Provides No Real Relief from High Gasoline Prices and Will Not 

Create Energy Independence. 

The U.S. Energy Information Agency has found that at peak production in 2025 

increased drilling offshore would produce 220,000 barrels a day, which would account for less than 1 percent of current energy demand in the United States. As 

the recent drop in oil prices demonstrates, global demand for oil drives the global 

price and since the market for oil is truly global—oil from the United States is sold 

all over the world and increased demand from countries like China and India will 

have a greater effect on the price of oil than the availability of oil from the OCS. 

II. A Separate Planning Process is Necessary for the Arctic, Which is 

Particularly at Risk from Industrialization. 

The Arctic is among the most beautiful and forbidding places on Earth. Life there 

swings between twenty-four hour daylight in the summer, and the long, dark, and 

cold months of the winter. The U.S. Arctic is home to tens of thousands of people 

and some of the world’s most iconic wildlife species. Protected by sea ice, an unforgiving climate, and geographic remoteness, the ecosystems of the Arctic Ocean have 

been, until recently, among the Earth’s least-disturbed. However, climate change is 

affecting the Arctic, which is warming nearly twice as fast as the rest of the world. 

This is forcing pronounced alterations of the Arctic environment that affect Arctic 

ecosystems and have worldwide implications. 

Climate changes and, in particular, the decline of sea ice, in the Arctic are creating the potential for industrial activities, including oil and gas development. While 

historically, there has been little oil and gas activity in the U.S. Arctic waters, the 

situation has begun to change. Until recently, there were no leases owned in the 

Chukchi Sea, and the limited activities in the Beaufort Sea have been focused on 

the nearshore areas close to existing infrastructure. We are now seeing a dramatic 

14 

expansion of activities in the U.S. Arctic waters, and nearly 80 million acres of 

ocean are currently available for oil and gas leasing. 

These areas are not covered by the Congressional or Executive moratoria discussed above, and leasing or exploration activities have begun in some places. These 

activities pose particular threats to Arctic marine ecosystems and the people who 

use and depend on them. Wells, pipelines and vessels create a substantial risk of 

an oil spill. No reliable method exists to clean up an oil spill in icy Arctic conditions, 

and such a spill would have catastrophic effects on important habitat for polar 

bears, other marine mammals, fish and recreational, spiritual and subsistence uses. 

In addition, the drill rigs, icebreakers, and seismic vessels necessary for oil and gas 

activities create substantial noise, which can cause marine mammals, such as 

bowhead whales, to stray far from their normal migration routes and feeding 

grounds, impact the animals’ hearing and potentially cause other problems such as 

increased collisions with oil platform support vessels. The negative effects incurred 

by the bowhead whales from these activities are acutely felt by the Native communities that depend upon them. 

Many of the adverse effects of oil development described above may cause particular harm in Arctic ecosystems already stressed by climate change. For example, 

the toxic muds and fluids that are often discharged into the oceans from rigs threaten already stressed populations of Arctic marine species and the greenhouse gases, 

black carbon soot and other pollutants released from rigs and vessels into the air, 

accelerate Arctic warming and ice loss compounding ecological stresses on these 

species. 

In addition, decisions have been made in the absence of adequate scientific information. Particularly in light of the rapidly changing climate, much more information is needed about the sensitive Arctic ecosystems before prudent development 

should be allowed to proceed. 

Because the previous moratoria did not include most of the offshore areas in Alaska, a separate and distinct planning process must be undertaken, ongoing activities 

stopped, and a comprehensive conservation and energy plan developed. The development of this plan would begin with a comprehensive scientific assessment of the 

health, biodiversity, and functioning of Arctic ecosystems, including the benefits and 

consequences of carrying out specific industrial activities. A science-based precautionary approach should be used to determine if those activities should be conducted and, if so, when, where and how. 

III. We Must Shift Toward a Future in which We Rely Upon Affordable, 

Carbon-Free, Renewable Energy and End Our Dependence on Oil— 

Entirely! 

We must shift toward a future in which we rely upon affordable, carbon-free, renewable energy; one in which our oceans and the environment are healthy, and one 

that ensures our freedom from oil dependency. Part of this effort must include an 

emphasis on development of carbon-free technologies, including wind and solar 

power in conjunction with improved energy efficiency. 

Halting the expansion of offshore drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf, and developing a comprehensive plan for all activities in the Arctic are important first 

steps in developing a comprehensive conservation and clean energy plan. In order 

to address a rapidly changing climate we must reduce our dependence on fossil fuels 

and shift to a future with affordable, renewable energy, a healthy environment, and 

freedom from the control of oil companies. Thus, we must begin to build a more sustainable foundation for the future based on renewable energy enabled by improved 

conservation and energy efficiency. 

While we will not be able to stop oil use all at once, there are many conservation 

measures that could be put in place immediately to reduce our energy needs. For 

example, raising fuel efficiency standards just for light-duty vehicles could save 18.4 

billion barrels of oil by 2030. Relatively small efforts such as properly maintaining 

vehicles and commuting one day less each week could result in substantial savings 

for families and reduce our oil consumption dramatically. If just 10% of U.S. passenger car travel were shifted to mass transit, 75 million tons less carbon dioxide 

would be emitted each year. Similarly, minor adjustments in our thermostats could 

reduce our greenhouse gas emissions by 35 million tons each year. Numerous other 

conservation measures, from improving the energy efficiency of newly constructed 

homes and other buildings to avoiding unnecessary short-distance travel could reduce U.S. emissions of greenhouse gases by 20% or more. 

The United States Department of Energy has projected that we can generate 20% 

of electricity demand from renewables by 2030. Offshore wind could provide 20% of 

this amount. Supplying even 5 percent of the country’s electricity with wind power 

by 2020 would add $60 billion in capital investment in rural America, provide $1.2 

15 

billion in new income for farmers and rural landowners, and create 80,000 new jobs. 

This effort has started, as the United States added enough wind power in 2007 

alone to provide electricity to more than a million homes. 

IV. Oceana urges Congress to reinstate the moratorium on offshore drilling, begin the development of a comprehensive conservation and 

energy plan for the Arctic, and move us towards a clean, carbon-free, 

renewable energy future. 

These issues—oil, climate change, energy, and the ocean environment—are inextricably linked and must be addressed together. For example, reducing greenhouse 

gas emissions is necessary to protect our oceans; moving toward renewable energy 

sources is necessary to reduce greenhouse gas emissions; and we have an opportunity right now to make an unprecedented investment in the solution: renewable 

energy. 

On behalf of Oceana, I urge the United States Congress to act swiftly to set up 

a rational policy to protect our oceans, coasts—and planet—from the impacts of offshore oil and gas drilling. Specifically, in the first 100 days Congress should take 

the following essential steps to set America on course toward a new energy economy: • Reinstate the moratorium on offshore drilling in U.S. waters on the Outer Continental Shelf including sensitive ecosystems such as Bristol Bay, Alaska. 

• Begin the development of a comprehensive conservation and energy plan for the 

Arctic that provides a bridge from oil to renewable energy and conservation. 

The plan should include a comprehensive scientific assessment of the health, 

biodiversity and functioning of Arctic ecosystems, as well as the benefits and 

consequences of specific industrial activities. Ongoing activities must be 

stopped, and a precautionary, science-based approach must be applied to all oil 

and gas leasing, exploration and development activities in Arctic waters to determine if those activities should be conducted and if so, when, where and how. 

• Adopt legislation that provides for clean, carbon-free, renewable sources of energy, including ocean energy such as wind, tidal, wave and current power must 

be a piece of our sustainable energy future. The Natural Resources committee 

should hold hearings on the renewable resources that our oceans offer. Stimulating these energy sources creates jobs. 

The challenge to provide affordable energy and a healthy environment is monumental, but there still is time for leadership and personal responsibility to turn the 

tide. We can and must think comprehensively and creatively about our oceans, energy, climate change, and the broader environment. U.S. leadership in this area will 

not only help stem the changes in our climate, it will help create a new energy economy that will benefit Americans and that can be exported to other nations, making 

the United States a leader and exporter of clean energy technology. 

The CHAIRMAN. Philippe. 

STATEMENT OF PHILIPPE COUSTEAU, OCEAN CONSERVANCY 

Mr. COUSTEAU. Thank you, Chairman Rahall, Ranking Member 

Hastings and the Committee, both for holding this series of hearings and for inviting me to speak here today. It is certainly an 

honor to speak on behalf of the oceans. 

I am CEO of EarthEcho International, as the Chairman said earlier, where we work to empower individuals to take action to restore and protect our oceans. And I also serve on the board of trustees of the Ocean Conservancy, the country’s oldest and largest 

ocean nonprofit, harnessing over 35 years of policy and scientific 

expertise to anticipate ecological threats to the ocean. 

As many of you know, I have grown up around the ocean, and 

marine conservation has been part of my family’s legacy for decades. Indeed, I remember hearing tales about my grandfather and 

his adventures, diving for the first time off the southern coast of 

France. But I also remember stories about how devastated he was 

by the changes that he saw over his lifetime, over a relatively short 

period of time, on those very reefs which are more or less a dead 

zone today. And I think that it is an irony that in the last 50 years 

16 

we have seen not only the greatest amount of exploration of the 

oceans, but also the greatest amount of exploitation and destruction of them at the same time. 

Now, what is so critical about the Outer Continental Shelf is that 

almost all of the nonfisheries-based, not to mention much of the 

fisheries-based, exploitation occurs there. 

We face great hardship in this country at this time, and the 

ocean and coastal communities are a critical part of our economy. 

Over 50 percent of our GDP is generated in coastal counties where 

approximately 50 percent of our population resides, with blue jobs 

and marine industries contributing greatly. 

I am not advocating that we do not develop the Outer Continental Shelf, but if we are to realize the full benefit of our oceans, 

if they are to continue to provide us with the opportunities for economic development, it must be done in a way that is planned and 

that takes into consideration the health of the environment, or we 

will merely reap short-term gains at the expense of future generations. 

Specifically, speaking on behalf of Ocean Conservancy, we seek 

three things. First, Congress must act where it failed last fall. As 

Ted said, we must fully reinstate the moratorium on new oil leasing in the Outer Continental Shelf. Now, I strongly maintain that 

the reinstatement of that moratorium is absolutely critical to the 

health of the ocean. But if there is to be new drilling, at the very 

least—and again, I am against it—but at the very least, if there 

is to be new drilling, we must make sure and legislate that the 

process of new drilling siting and the conditions applied to exploration and production minimize their impacts. Science should guide 

any activity that occurs in the OCS, and where science is not adequate, it is absolutely crucial that studies should be conducted before any leasing occurs for any uses. 

And contrary to popular belief, not all ocean floors are created 

equal. There are a myriad of different types of habitat, from deep 

coral reefs to rich rocky habitats, to some relatively barren terrain, 

but the current process does not sufficiently consider these variables. 

Similarly, some regions are especially vulnerable, and Congress 

must ensure they are protected. In the Arctic, for example, as Ted 

said, we lack the baseline scientific information necessary to make 

informed decisions, and there is no capacity to handle accidents 

and oil spills in its ice-filled seas. 

Rather than oil, I believe we must vigorously enhance our efforts 

to develop ocean renewable energy. That is the future. From wind, 

solar, wave, tidal, and even ocean thermal energy conversion, there 

is an endless potential to responsibly develop new and clean 

sources of energy and provide new jobs and economic development 

for this country. 

The second specific recommendation is for a comprehensive plan 

to put order in the ocean and stop the anarchy of fractionalized development. In late 20th century America, urban sprawl saw suburbs creep across the landscape in ever-widening mazes of highways and strip malls. In the ocean, the situation is similar, only 

worse. We need comprehensive planning, with conservation as a 

central deciding factor, so that the multiple competing industrial 

17 

uses work together in a way that is sustainable for our shared 

ocean future. Indeed, it is not only critical for the environment that 

we plan, but also for industry, so that they can anticipate more accurately the outcome of permitting and development. 

And the third specific recommendation is the creation of an ocean 

investment fund. This would set aside a small portion of the revenue generated off these uses to pay for activities and projects that 

maintain and restore marine ecosystem health, such as comprehensive environmental-based spatial planning of the Outer Continental 

Shelf. 

Now, just as I said earlier that the last 50 years have seen the 

greatest amount of change and damage to our oceans, I believe it 

is the next 50 years that are the most crucial, the next 50 years 

that are our years, years that we will decide the fate of the world, 

and we have no time to lose. We must have the courage and conviction and foresight to make the decisions now that will set the 

course for our future forever. 

Let me close my time with you by sharing some final words from 

my grandfather, one of my favorite quotes: ‘‘We can find happiness 

in protecting the world around us not only because we cherish it 

for its awesome beauty, power and mystery, but because we cherish 

our fellow humans, those who live today, and those who will live 

tomorrow, living beings who, like ourselves, will increasingly depend on the environment for happiness, and even for life itself.’’ 

Thank you for giving me this opportunity, and on behalf of 

EarthEcho International, as well as the half-million members in 

support of Ocean Conservancy, thank you for allowing their voices 

to be heard as well. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Philippe. Very powerful quote. 

Beautiful. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Cousteau follows:] 

Statement of Philippe Cousteau, President and CEO, 

EarthEcho International, and Board Member, Ocean Conservancy 

Thank you Chairman Rahall, Ranking Member Hastings and the Committee both 

for holding this series of hearings and for inviting me to be here today. 

It is a great pleasure and honor to be here to testify about the critical importance 

of responsibly managing our fragile and increasingly important marine resources. 

As many of you know I have grown up around the ocean and marine conservation 

has been part of my family’s legacy for generations. I am the CEO of EarthEcho 

International, where we work to empower individuals to take action to restore and 

protect our oceans and also serve on the Board of Trustees of Ocean Conservancy, 

the country’s oldest and largest ocean non-profit harnessing over 35 years of policy 

and scientific expertise to anticipate ecological threats to the ocean. 

Ever since the invention of the aqualung, or scuba tank as it is referred to today, 

by my grandfather, there has been an explosion of ocean exploration. Indeed, I remember growing up with tales about my grandfather’s adventures; about when he 

took his first breath underwater and descended onto the reefs in the South of 

France. I also was told of how devastated the changes he saw in his lifetime on 

those very reefs which are all but dead today. 

I spent many hours of my own youth there, as well, diving off the coast of France 

as a young boy. I can no longer stand to go back. I find the barren and desolate 

underwater landscape so terrible. It can break your heart when you see the beauty 

that was once there—that was captured by my grandfather on film—and know that 

it’s all gone now. 

I think that there is an irony that the last 50 years have seen not only the greatest amount of exploration of the oceans, but also the greatest amount of exploitation 

and destruction of them and it continues apace. What is so critical about the Outer 

Continental Shelf is that almost all of the non-fisheries based, not to mention much 

18 

of the fisheries exploitation occurs there. From oil and gas drilling, to renewable 

ocean energy development and even aquaculture and traditional fishing, the OCS 

is under increasing pressure every year. 

We face great hardship in the country at this time and the ocean and coastal communities are a critical part of our economy ‘‘Over 50% of our GDP is generated in 

coastal counties where approximately 50% of our population resides, with ‘‘blue jobs’’ 

and marine industries contributing greatly. I am not advocating that we do not develop the ocean. But if we are to realize the full benefit of our oceans, if they are 

to continue to provide us with opportunities for economic development, it must be 

done in a way that is planned and that takes into consideration the health of the 

environment or we will merely reap short term gains at the expense of our children. 

Specifically, speaking on behalf of Ocean Conservancy, we seek three things: 

First, Congress must act where it failed to act last fall: most preferably by fully 

reinstating the moratorium on new oil leasing in the OCS. While I strongly maintain that the reinstatement of the moratorium is critical to the health of the ocean, 

if there is to be new drilling we must at the very least legislate to ensure the process of new drill siting and the conditions applied to exploration and production minimize their impacts. Science should guide OCS oil and gas development, and where 

the science is not adequate, it is absolutely crucial that studies should be conducted 

before leasing occurs. Contrary to popular belief, not all ocean floors are created 

equal. There are myriad different types of habitat from deep coral reefs to rich rocky 

terrain to relatively barren mud but the current process doesn’t sufficiently consider 

these variables. Similarly, some regions are especially vulnerable and Congress 

must ensure they are protected. In the Arctic, for example, we lack the baseline scientific information necessary to make informed decisions, and there is no capacity 

to handle accidents and oil spills in its ice-filled seas. There are cheaper, faster, 

safer alternatives to new offshore oil drilling to meet our energy needs and end our 

dependency on foreign oil. We must vigorously enhance our efforts to develop ocean 

renewable energy. From wind...solar...wave...tidal and even Ocean Thermal Energy 

Conversion there is an endless potential to responsibly develop new clean sources 

of energy. To give you an idea of the power of the oceans, on an annual basis, the 

amount of solar energy absorbed by the oceans is equivalent to at least 4000 times 

the amount presently consumed by humans. 

The second specific recommendation is for a comprehensive plan to put order in 

the ocean and stop the anarchy of fractionalized development. In late 20th century 

America, suburbs crept across the landscape in ever-widening maze of highways and 

strip malls. The term ‘‘urban sprawl’’ entered the vernacular as a way to describe 

our penchant for building our cities outward with little forethought as to what we 

built where, and why. In the ocean the situation is similar, only worse. As we gaze 

out over the great blue expanse of the ocean, the peace and tranquility that we often 

witness is deceiving. Wind farms compete with recreation. Recreation competes with 

shipping. Shipping competes with conservation and so on down the line until the 

pattern reflects a tangle of uses that are neither economically efficient nor sustainable. It’s clear that we need order in the ocean just as surely as we need it on land. 

We need comprehensive ocean planning—with conservation as a central deciding 

factor—so that the many competing uses work together in a way that is sustainable 

for our shared ocean future. 

I am sure that everyone can agree that having no laws, no zoning and no plan 

for the development of a city would lead to chaos and economic disaster, so too with 

the ocean. Indeed, it is not only critical for the environment that we plan, but also 

for industry so that they can anticipate more accurately the outcome of permitting 

and development. 

And the third specific recommendation is the creation of an ocean investment 

fund. This would set aside a small portion of the revenue generated off these uses 

to pay for activities and projects that maintain and restore marine ecosystem 

health, such as this comprehensive environmentally based spatial planning of the 

outer continental shelf. It is ironic that OCS mineral receipts have been devoted towards many causes, but never the preservation of our oceans. There is an appallingly low amount of investment in ocean exploration and conservation. In fact, we 

spend 1000 times more on space exploration than ocean exploration. This fund 

would be vital in the effort to push forward the veil of mystery that obscures much 

of the ocean and help enormously in further refinement of both management and 

conservation of our dwindling ocean resources. 

Just as I said earlier that the last 50 yrs have seen the greatest amount of damage to our oceans it is the next 50 that will be the most critical. The next 50, these 

are our years, these are the years where we will decide the fate of the world and 

we have no time to lose. We must have the courage and conviction and foresight 

to make the decisions now that will set our course forever. 

19 

Let me close my time with you by sharing some final words my grandfather once 

wrote, and I’m quoting: 

‘‘We can find happiness in protecting the world around us not only because we 

cherish it for its awesome beauty, power, and mystery, but because we cherish our 

fellow humans, those who live today and those who will live tomorrow, living beings 

who, like ourselves, will increasingly depend on the environment for happiness and 

even for life itself.’’ 

Thank you for giving me this opportunity. And on behalf of EarthEcho International as well as the half a million members and supporters of Ocean Conservancy, thank you for allowing their voices to be heard today as well. 

The CHAIRMAN. Gentlemen, I thank you both for your testimony; 

it has been superb. And I appreciate what you said and understand 

your desire to see the moratoria reinstated. However, we may be 

in a situation where the ship has already sailed, and the political 

reality may be that the moratoria, as we knew it, will not be reimposed. You both have alluded to that. 

If that is the case—and I know, Philippe, you have said that 

science should be our guide—but if that is the case, what environmental safeguards would you both suggest be incorporated into any 

leasing program beyond what is in current law? For instance, do 

we need buffer areas? Or do we need certain areas with unique resources and features set-off limits? Do we need environmental and 

safety safeguards imposed before we allow drilling to continue? 

Mr. COUSTEAU. Well, I think we do indeed need as much protection as possible and as much research and knowledge as possible. 

We know so little about our oceans. I think people look at space 

and think ‘‘the final frontier,’’ when, in fact, we have explored less 

than 10 percent of our oceans. 

One of the challenges with the idea of a buffer zone, I would say 

50 miles off the shore, is that ecosystems don’t respect a straight, 

direct line around the continental United States. They vary in size 

and space where they are. So, I think a buffer zone, while a good 

idea, is probably not the best way to proceed. 

I think we need as much to understand and explore as much 

about the various ecosystems that exist in the ocean and then site 

appropriately. There are some places that are just not appropriate 

for any kind of development, very fragile marine ecosystems, deep 

sea coral reefs, et cetera, and I think all of that needs to be taken 

into consideration. Siting is the first and foremost, and knowledge, 

science. We need to know what exists before we exploit it. You 

would not put a coal-fired power plant in the middle of a pristine 

national forest. It is the same in the oceans. We must at least, at 

the very first, know what exists there before we exploit it. 

The CHAIRMAN. Ted. 

Mr. DANSON. My hope would be that you would sail the ship 

back into port, because I think we are flirting with disaster by 

drilling and opening up the Outer Continental Shelf, period. 

We don’t talk a great deal about what is happening to the fisheries of the world, and a lot of times when we talk, it sounds like 

we are talking about an environmental sweet, thoughtful, let’s take 

care of the fishes and the beauty, but we are talking about economy and jobs and food. 

Our fisheries around the world are an $80-billion-a-year landed 

industry. One-third of the world’s fisheries have totally collapsed, 

which means that they are below the 10 percent level, which 

20 

means they may not come back. The U.N. says that 75 percent of 

our fisheries are either fully or overfished. 

If we continue to harvest our fisheries the way we are by destroying habitat with bottom-trawling and wasteful bycatch being 

thrown overboard, science tells us we could literally fish out our 

oceans commercially in the next 40 to 50 years if the trends continue. 

So, you have an incredibly delicate balance in our fisheries already. Now you add acidification to the ocean, which would destroy, 

literally make it impossible for the bottom of the food chain to create shells that allow them to survive. The animals and creatures 

that eat the bottom of the food chain would also disappear. 

So, you have insults to the ocean from all different sides, besides 

the pollution of oil spills in areas—the Outer Continental Shelf, 

which is the nurseries for most of our fisheries, so that all of the 

added insults could literally have an impact on our oceans in our 

children’s lifetime or our grandchildren’s lifetime where we could 

fish out or destroy our fisheries completely. That is $80 billion a 

year, that is a billion people a year around the world that depend 

on that food. That is, you know, 200 million people who have jobs 

that they depend on to go out and be able to fish. So, this is about 

the economy, and it is about jobs. 

So, my answer is, absolutely do not open it up. You are pulling 

your finger out of the dike, and all sorts of bad things, I do believe, 

will happen. And we take the risks for very little benefit. 

The CHAIRMAN. Let me observe that the money from the oceans 

appears to go to everything but the ocean. 

Philippe, you have called for the creation of the Ocean Investment Fund, and I appreciate that. Do you have any recommendation on what percentage of OCS receipts should be dedicated to 

such a fund? And would you like to elaborate on what type of activities should be financed by that fund? 

Mr. COUSTEAU. Well, Chairman, that is a great point, that there 

is a fund that already exists that is subject to appropriations, the 

Land and Sea Conservation Fund, where revenue from current offshore drilling is placed—a percentage of revenue is placed, but 

none of it goes to ocean conservation, which is ironic. 

We certainly advocate an investment fund, new investment fund, 

for any new revenue that would be generated—or percentage. I 

think that it is up to policymakers to decide what that percentage 

is, but needless to say, it is a small percentage that would still generate potentially hundreds of millions of dollars—a fraction of the 

billions of dollars generated. A few hundred million dollars would 

go very, very far toward helping us to understand and having the 

investment necessary to research and understand what exists in 

the Outer Continental Shelf. 

We know so little about the oceans, and any additional research 

and planning and conservation would go very, very far. 

The CHAIRMAN. Ted. 

Mr. DANSON. Unfortunately, I am not in the discussion from that 

point of view. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Hastings. 

Mr. HASTINGS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And thank 

both of you for your testimony. 

21 

Just to kind of put an exclamation point on what you were discussing regarding the moratoria, both of you are in favor, yes or 

no, of reinstating the moratoria that has been in place since 1982? 

Mr. DANSON. Yes. 

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Cousteau. 

Mr. COUSTEAU. I am absolutely fully in support of reinstating a 

moratorium. 

Mr. HASTINGS. Both of you represent organizations that are obviously pretty broad dealing with oceans. And you also said, both in 

your oral and written testimony, that you are in favor of wind 

power. Do you or your organizations support the placement of wind 

turbines on the coastline and/or in coastal areas and in ocean waters? 

Mr. DANSON. With as much research and care going into what 

is the best place as far as it impacts fisheries and shipping and everything, if the studies were complete, yes, I would. I would be 

right up there probably muttering, ‘‘Not in my back yard,’’ but I 

would rather have that by far than oil rigs. 

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Cousteau. 

Mr. COUSTEAU. Absolutely. I think that oil is not the future, renewable energy is the future. And we can grasp that future. Wind 

power has a tremendous potential, especially offshore; it is much 

more reliable and much more powerful offshore. And as Ted said, 

I think all development of the OCS should be subject to a comprehensive plan that takes in spatial planning, takes in ecosystems. We would not advocate planning an offshore wind farm in 

a deep-sea coral reef either or a seagrass bed or anything like that. 

So, we need to know as much as possible, and it should be subject 

to the same kind of siting and responsible management as the 

OCS. 

Mr. HASTINGS. What about specifically of the potential siting off 

Nantucket Sound off the north Atlantic coast? 

Mr. DANSON. That is sounding very much like my back yard, 

Congressman. 

Mr. HASTINGS. And your response? 

Mr. DANSON. My response would be, I would be sad to change my 

view. I would be thrilled to have it be in that direction as opposed 

to oil. And I would also note, if I could slip in this, that for every 

million dollars that was invested into green, into the wind, it would 

be creating 17 jobs as opposed to 5.5 jobs for every million invested 

into oil. So, I would be happy for the economy as well. 

Mr. COUSTEAU. I think that any development of offshore wind, if 

it is an appropriate place, is a good thing, certainly off of Nantucket. I think, again, as I said, I think they are quite elegant. I 

think it represents the future. I think it is a great example that 

every time we don’t build an offshore wind farm or renewable energy, and we build, say, a coal-fired power plant—and one out of 

four children in New York City have asthma—there are other 

prices that we pay for the further development of oil and coal and 

gas in the health care of this Nation, in the health of our children. 

It is not just the direct impact of jobs, though, as Ted said, green 

jobs are potentially a much greater source of jobs than the traditional oil. So, I am fully supportive of any wind anywhere if it is 

an appropriate place. 

22 

Mr. HASTINGS. Well, we focused a bit on Mr. Danson’s back yard. 

I assume that your answer to that question would be the same off 

the east or west coast; is that correct? 

Mr. COUSTEAU. Absolutely. 

Mr. DANSON. Yes. 

Mr. HASTINGS. One last question I have. You are talking about 

alternative power and so forth. Has your organizations, or have 

you, taken a position on nuclear power, which, of course, is emission free? 

Mr. DANSON. That is not part of our campaign. Just as a civilian 

saying—first off, I don’t know enough about it. Second off, it seems 

to me that the disposal of the waste is still a problem that we need 

to fix. But it is not something that I am by any means an expert 

on. 

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Cousteau. 

Mr. COUSTEAU. We have not taken a position either way on nuclear power. 

Mr. HASTINGS. I might say that, since you brought up the waste 

issue, it is worth noting that if we recycled the spent waste, we 

could drastically reduce the footprint. If that could be satisfied, at 

least you would be open to looking at that; is that correct? 

Mr. DANSON. Ted would. I can’t speak for Oceana. Sorry, it is 

way above me. 

Mr. HASTINGS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. I am going to recognize Members according to 

their presence here this morning, and I believe on our side the next 

would be Mr. Kind of Wisconsin. 

Mr. KIND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I, too, want to thank Mr. 

Danson and Mr. Cousteau for their testimony here today. And obviously it is a big area that we are going to have to come to grips 

with, given the expiration of the moratorium last year and the debate that will undoubtedly ensue. 

And one of my big problems with the idea of drilling on the OCS 

is the illusion that this can be the answer to our energy challenge 

in the 21st century. When, as the Chairman indicated in his opening statement, we can’t drill our way out, we have to be smarter 

than that, which means enhanced investment in clean technology, 

clean energy sources, but by offering this illusion that offshore 

drilling is going to solve all our problems, it may take our eye off 

the ball, and that is the future and where we have to go with the 

investments that we have to make. 

But there are a couple of arguments that I was hoping you guys 

could quickly touch upon that we constantly hear. One is the enhanced technology and the reduction of spills or mistakes or accidents occurring. And the second one is the States rights argument, 

and that is, if a State where drilling will occur offshore has done 

the calculation and the cost/benefit or the analysis, and they think, 

fine, let’s take that risk, what is wrong with that? Why not leave 

it up to the States to determine if they are going to allow offshore 

drilling off of their shores since the risk and the impact is going 

to be much greater on them than anyone else? 

Mr. COUSTEAU. Well, I think that oceans do not respect geographic boundaries. I mean, oil spreads in the ocean, as I pointed 

our earlier. I mean, currents carry oil everywhere. And while techVerDate Aug 31 2005 15:01 Mar 19, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\47302.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
23 

nology has advanced—mind you, the U.S. Coast Guard reported 

that over 9 million gallons of oil were released into both land and 

water from six major spills and five medium spills during Rita and 

Katrina. So, there is still a tremendous amount of oil that can be 

spilled during natural disasters. The technology has not advanced 

that far, it is still a great problem. And that can be felt for 20 or 

30 miles away from the site where the oil spill occurred, if not further. So, there is currently no technology to clean up, especially in 

the Arctic, such a fragile place, with ice floating. We have absolutely no idea how to clean that oil up. 

So, I think that still the technology is not far enough for that 

kind of an argument, for the argument that it is safe to drill now. 

It is not. 

Mr. KIND. Mr. Danson. 

Mr. DANSON. I would just reiterate what Philippe said, that the 

technology of actual drilling may be better, I don’t know. But the 

whole package is transporting it, pipelines, platforms cutting loose. 

Our figures are 120 million gallons of oil end up in the water every 

year. And I think you have to, when you think about drilling for 

oil, you have to think about the entire package, which means you 

are also going to burn it. 

We have denied climate change for so long, the rest of the world 

is so far ahead of us in making and producing a technology to deal 

with that. So, why would we be the last in line to create a technology and jobs that would be lasting forever, that would also not 

spew carbon dioxide into the oceans and risk destroying the bottom 

of the food chain in the oceans? I mean, it is just a whole package 

you have to think of, not just one argument. 

Mr. KIND. And I think both of you are correct that the great potential that exists with alternative renewable energy sources, we 

are just scratching the surface on that right now. And the technology is leaping forward, and it is going to make it much more 

viable in capacity building, too. 

But, Mr. Danson, what is wrong with the argument that if the 

people in the State of California, that benefits greatly from the 

ocean, the tourism, the economy there, decides that they are willing to take the risk of setting up some platforms offshore, what is 

wrong with leaving it up to the State of California to make that 

determination as opposed to us? 

Mr. DANSON. I don’t know the legality or the legislative way to 

deal with that, but the fact is that Oregon and Mexico and Washington and Nevada and Utah may have a strong feeling about that 

because of air and wind and currents. You are not acting alone 

anymore. We are all in this together, and we need to find a solution together. States, I don’t think, can just, you know, go it alone 

and say, I don’t care if I mess up my back yard because you are 

messing up someone else’s. 

Mr. KIND. Thank you, both. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. After consultation with the Ranking Member, we 

have decided we are going to recognize Members as much as I can 

follow the order in which they came to the hearing, physically 

present, this morning. 

24 

So, on the Minority side, I recognize the gentleman from South 

Carolina Mr. Brown. 

Mr. BROWN. Thank you, gentlemen, for coming. 

To give me a little bit broader perspective of the area that you 

are involved in, Ted, is this an American organization, or is it an 

international organization? 

Mr. DANSON. It is international. We have offices in Santiago, 

Chile; and Madrid and Brussels; small presence in Geneva; Juno, 

Alaska; Washington. 

Mr. BROWN. So, you are not just concerned with just the United 

States as far as the energy policy or the environmental policies? 

Mr. DANSON. You know something, we are in the process of coming up with, as an organization, our stand on energy and oil. This 

Committee hearing, I think, came before Oceana has had a chance 

to formulate a policy that is worldwide. So, I am here really dealing 

with this specific moment in time. 

Mr. BROWN. And I guess that is always my concern is exactly, 

you know, how does the United States fit into the world? We are 

such a small portion of it, about 5 percent of the population, and 

yet I think we all want to become bullish in trying to find a new 

resolve to the petroleum base that we find our economy, but it is 

a slow transition. And I know we are trying to move into some 

other energy source, but we are still dependent upon natural gas 

and petroleum. It is going to be difficult for us to keep our economy 

at the pace that we find today without having another reliable 

energy source. 

Are you as opposed to natural gas development as you are petroleum? 

Mr. DANSON. My understanding is that most of the time you find 

natural gas by drilling for oil. So, my fear in saying, yes, go drill 

for natural gas, is it would be a back-door way for oil companies 

to drill for oil. 

Mr. BROWN. But isn’t the scientific evidence now that you actually can determine at the source what you are going to be finding 

underneath the surface? 

Mr. DANSON. I am sorry, I don’t know. That may be so. I am 

sorry. 

Mr. BROWN. As we look at the United States in perspective with 

the rest of the world, you know, I have traveled to many countries 

in this great universe, and we find a good number of those countries aren’t as sensitive to the environment as we are. In fact, we 

have some countries that are just filling in the ocean. And you 

would think that the environmental community would be in an outrage over doing that. What comment could you give me on that? 

Mr. DANSON. And we are, we are absolutely outraged wherever 

this takes place. We deal with these issues all around the world. 

And this country has, in many ways, some of the best environmental laws and regulations. Some of the most thoughtful people 

on both sides of the aisle are involved with making this an environmentally sound Nation. So, we have a record we should be proud 

of. But this would not be one of those things we should be proud 

of, opening up the Outer Continental Shelf. 

Mr. BROWN. And I think we must maintain some level of the 

economy that we can all have a good quality of life. You know, I 

25 

am not willing to give up my automobile. You know, I mean, I like 

riding bicycles and this sort of stuff, but I think it is going to be 

a long time coming. 

I am just really kind of appalled that the national community— 

like cutting down the rain forest. We were in Brazil the other day, 

and it is amazing how that is going to impact climate change. We 

want to do our part, but I know the Chairman mentioned the fact 

that we drill more than any other country, but the fact remains 

that we still are 70 percent dependent on foreign countries for our 

energy sources. We have to resolve that problem not only for our 

economy, for our security, too. And I would hope somehow that the 

environmental community and the oil-developing companies could 

all come together with some sense of operation. 

Mr. DANSON. Can I just say one more thing? I so agree with you. 

I think people are suffering. I think our energy crisis is real. What 

upsets me is it feels cynical and shortsighted, and not creating 

more jobs, and not doing the right thing for our economy in the 

long term, and not doing the right thing for the environment. So, 

when you look at just the jobs, you end up doubling the jobs if you 

go with investing in green energy. Those jobs also—well, anyway—— 

Mr. BROWN. Well, I feel the same way about the 70 percent of 

energy that is being developed in these other countries. If they 

could be developed in the United States, look at all the jobs that 

could be created, maybe not in the same portion as the green, but 

we have to do both. I just feel that that is important. 

Mr. Chairman, I know my time is expired. Thank you very much. 

Thank you all very much for coming. 

Mr. COUSTEAU. May I add something to that? I agree that there 

needs to be collaboration in finding solutions. I just want to say 

that I think that this is such an outstanding country. The United 

States has an opportunity to take a real leadership role in our 

management of resources. And since the moratorium was not reinstated, there is virtually no protection for the Outer Continental 

Shelf. And I think that if we want to maintain our leadership role 

and enhance our leadership role from an environmental perspective, that you refer to, Congressman, that we must have an integrated management plan, which ideally would not include oil and 

gas, but nonetheless would be a plan that we can be proud of and 

that can provide leadership for ocean management for rest of the 

world. 

Mr. BROWN. You wouldn’t be in favor of closing the ones we have 

down now, would you? 

Mr. COUSTEAU. No. I think we are supportive on reinstating the 

moratorium on any new oil and gas drilling. 

Mr. BROWN. But keep the current ones. 

Mr. COUSTEAU. I think if they are there, I think it is unrealistic 

to expect that they would be shut down. 

Mr. DANSON. I would say in the Arctic Ocean, we need to look 

at that very carefully because oil spills of any kind there, even with 

existing wells, we are not advocating shutting down pumping, but 

it is very tricky in the Arctic Ocean. An oil spill would be disastrous and uncleanable— 

Mr. BROWN. Thank you very much. 

26 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentlelady from Massachusetts, Ms. 

Tsongas. 

Ms. TSONGAS. Thank you very much for your testimony and your 

great passion around protecting the oceans. And also, Mr. 

Cousteau, I was moved and reminded again by your grandfather’s 

quote how we have only one Earth, and how it is our obligation to 

protect it. 

As you have both testified, our oceans contain unique ecosystems 

that support diverse species and many of our national treasures. 

One of these national treasures is the Georges Bank off the coast 

of Massachusetts, a mass of sand and gravel underwater plateau. 

Nearly the entire bank is less than 200 feet deep, in some places 

only 10 feet deep. And as you can imagine, it plays an important 

role in the Gulf of Maine by accelerating the tidal waves as they 

race across the bank toward and away from New England. This 

cycle distributes nutrients which support an abundance of marine 

life, including 259 different species of animals. Congressman Ed 

Markey from Massachusetts has introduced legislation, which I 

support, that would protect this area, and I hope that we are successful in passing this important bill. 

But as you know, and as you both mentioned, waters and ecosystems are not contained within State or national boundaries. 

How would you suggest we work with our neighbor, Canada, here 

on the east coast, and our neighbor, Mexico, on the west coast as 

we begin to address the importance of protecting these natural resources? Have you given it any thought? Have you worked with 

partners there? I am curious to hear your comments. 

Mr. DANSON. For Oceana, do you mind if I get back? Because I 

know there is a great answer, I am not aware of it. But I know 

we do work and think about that a great deal. So, do you mind if 

we get back to you with that answer? 

Ms. TSONGAS. Absolutely. 

Ms. TSONGAS. Mr. Cousteau. 

Mr. COUSTEAU. I think certainly, as well, that any specific work 

that Ocean Conservancy has done with Mexico and Canada I would 

have to get back to you, and we certainly can do that. 

Mr. COUSTEAU. But I think, again, that this is such an outstanding country, and we have such an opportunity for leadership, 

we must focus on our own back yard first and provide the protections and the responsible management of those systems first to 

then be able to walk the walk and not just talk the talk. And I 

think that is absolutely critical, and it is going to be a difficult 

process, but since when has the United States, this great country, 

turned its back on a difficult challenge? We have always embraced 

them and overcome them. And I think we must start now, because 

it will be difficult to map and to understand the Outer Continental 

Shelf as much as we need to, and we must start now. 

Ms. TSONGAS. Well, I don’t see it as an excuse for not acting, failure to engage or somehow finding a way to work with our neighboring countries. It is really more of the challenge we have, as we 

do our part here, how we prevent actions from beyond our borders 

from having a negative impact on all our good work. So, thank you 

for that. 

Mr. COUSTEAU. That is a very good point. 

27 

Mr. DANSON. May I just say, one of the places is the World Trade 

Organization, and the chance of reducing subsidies for the first 

time, fishing subsidies. That is one way for all the nations to work 

together, because Canada and New England have all the same 

problems, they are dealing with the same fishing issues. So, I know 

we have been working very hard at the World Trade Organization. 

Ms. TSONGAS. Well, I would welcome your further thoughts as 

you have a chance to go back to your organizations. 

The other question I have is that proponents of offshore drilling 

often point to new technologies and equipment that you have mentioned that minimize impacts on aquatic ecosystems. I am just curious if you think these are effective, if people are underestimating 

the impacts in spite of these new technologies, if there is truthfulness in all of these statements around these new technologies. 

Mr. DANSON. You know, I assume there is some truthfulness to 

that statement. And then there is truthfulness to the statement 

that 120 million gallons of oil end up in the ocean waters every 

year. So, maybe the drilling technique is better, but you still have 

to get the oil from there to our cars, and in the process you have 

a lot of spillage, obviously, 120 million gallons in the ocean. So, the 

problem still exists. 

Ms. TSONGAS. Mr. Cousteau. 

Mr. COUSTEAU. I agree. You know, the spills that are still occurring from, as I said a little earlier, 9 million gallons of oil from 

Hurricane Rita and Katrina alone. Just recently Hurricane Gustav, 

there were 33 oil spills of up to 8,000 gallons each off Louisiana. 

Just off of Santa Barbara a few months ago there were 10,000 gallons or so that were spilled. 

So, oil spills still occur, and I think that the public doesn’t realize 

that really. I think a lot of people think the days of Exxon Valdez 

are over. I must say that many of the oil tankers in the world still 

are not double-hulled, they are still not reinforced as they should 

be. And we lack any real technology to clean up an oil spill. 

And to give you an idea, 16,000 gallons of oil still remain in the 

sound where the Exxon Valdez spilled, Prince William Sound, 20 

years later. So, the impacts of oil spills are lasting and myriad, and 

I think that is very important. 

And Ted mentioned earlier, he made a great point, that the footprint of oil drilling is not just the oil rigs themselves, it is the entire infrastructure that is designed—the pipelines, the receiving 

stations that is necessary to support those rigs. And if you look at 

a lot of the development on the coast of Louisiana, it is from servicing platforms for oil rigs that destroyed many of the wetlands and 

the natural resources there that would have helped to mitigate 

Hurricane Katrina and would have saved potentially billions, if not 

tens of billions, if not more billions of dollars, out of our economy 

that was spent to mitigate Katrina, to repair after Katrina, and to 

potentially save lives, and certainly save people and culture and 

this country a lot of heartache. 

So, oil has many compound effects, negative effects. And I think, 

again, that we can do a lot better. 

Ms. TSONGAS. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas Mr. Gohmert. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

28 

And as we discuss oil spills, I would like to urge that we not get 

into ‘‘word spills’’ over disagreements, different opinions. The 

Chairman said that anyone who represents we are not going after 

our own resources is being disingenuous, or worse. It seemed like 

we were tiptoeing up, to our words being taken down, when we just 

have a disagreement. 

Some of us believe that since 85 percent of the Outer Continental 

Shelf is off limits, I think we are not going after all of our resources, where as apparently the Chairman and others think 15 

percent is going after all our resources. But I applaud our witnesses for your efforts in doing what many believe was the original 

job for man, and that was tending this garden that we have been 

given, because we should be good stewards. 

Mr. GOHMERT. But I also have concerns just trying to make 

sense of some of these things. We are provided figures that indicate 

that 63 percent of the oil in the ocean is coming from natural seepage and that 32 percent is coming from boats, ships, tankers and— 

I am sorry, 4 percent from tankers but 32 percent from sources. 

And also that after Katrina there were spills, but according to 

this—we had a statement from the Coast Guard—it didn’t come 

from platforms; it came from industrial plants, storage depots and 

other facilities, because the information that I have been able to 

get said that the platforms, even though it was a level 5 when it 

hit the platforms, 3 when it hit the coast of Louisiana, it destroyed 

about 100 of the platforms, but there was no leakage from the platforms themselves. They were able to—let’s see, this report says 

shut in with the subsurface safety valves. They were closed as the 

personnel abandoned before the storm. Some platforms were 

equipped with control systems that allowed them to be monitored 

remotely and shut in. 

And as I look at the advances and I have to tell you Mr. 

Cousteau, your grandfather was entertaining and so educating and 

was really inspirational to so many of us. But when you look at 

products he used and designed and engineered and all the incredible finds that he was able to do to make this a better place to 

live—natural gas was a feedstock for so many of the products. As 

I recall watching, I watched every Jacques Cousteau special there 

was and thoroughly enjoyed them. But I was thinking that the Calypso was not a sailboat, right? I mean it used oil-based products, 

correct? 

Mr. COUSTEAU. The Calypso was an old World War II mine 

sweeper, diesel-powered, yes. 

Mr. GOHMERT. So, we do have to balance these things. 

And, Mr. Danson, we may disagree on some things but I have to 

tell you, you provided pleasure and laughter and entertainment 

and enjoyment at a time when around my house it was much needed, and I will always be grateful to you for the pleasure that you 

brought my family. 

But Ralph Regula was on this Committee back in the 1981 area 

and he said that the big complaint they got from people that were 

begging for the moratorium, first from California, was they just did 

not want platforms on the horizon seeing the sunset, and also there 

had been in 1969 the big oil spill at Santa Barbara; but to my understanding we haven’t an oil spill since ’69 from a platform, and 

29 

I think it is largely because of efforts by people like you demanding 

better accountability. But then he said, then Florida came in and 

said we don’t want oil rigs or platforms in our sunrise. And then 

once California and Florida got the moratorium, then the rest of 

the Nation said, well, we don’t want it either for the most part. 

But on the fishing, growing up in Texas we heard this complaint, 

that if we allow these platforms off the coast then it is going to destroy fishing. And, Mr. Danson, you made such a great point about 

how many people were allowing fishing, but since the platforms 

have been out there if you want to go fishing, they take you to the 

oil platforms. And in fact the data that I have been provided here 

from some friends that are involved in this effort say that 100 platforms each year are removed and most taken to the shore for recycling and some are taken, towed and installed as approved artificial reef sites. That is 10 percent that are done with that. And that 

increases fishing and helps folks. 

And I realize I have used my 5 minutes but, again, thank you 

for your effort. I think it does make people more accountable, but 

I hate to put people out of work or make things too expensive that 

hurt us as we move toward things like wind power. I think solar 

power could be tremendous, and I would encourage what basically 

it sounds like you were alluding to: if we get some resources, allow 

OCS to be open for drilling, then take those proceeds and dedicate 

it to further research and development for these other sources that 

really are our future. But thank you very much. 

Mr. DANSON. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. I am not sure I heard a question but you can go 

ahead and comment. 

Mr. COUSTEAU. If I could just add something, thank you for your 

comments. I agree that we must tend this garden, that we must 

protect this planet, Congressman. I appreciate that. I will say, 

though, in my grandfather’s defense—— 

Mr. GOHMERT. He doesn’t need a defense. I have nothing but 

praise for your grandfather. 

Mr. COUSTEAU. The second ship he built, the Alcyone, was designed to be a sail-powered, wind-powered vessel. But I will also 

say that while oil spills from rigs were perhaps rare, if they occurred at all, during the hurricanes, the impact on the infrastructure still resulted in 9 million gallons. So, it is still part of the drilling of the oil and gas, 9 million gallons spilled on both land and 

sea, in total, through the infrastructure and pipelines and through 

the receiving stations, et cetera. 

And I also agree with you that the ocean energy, renewable energy, is of tremendous potential. Every year the ocean absorbs 

4,000 times more energy than is used by the entire planet. It is 

pretty remarkable, the ocean—the potential that exists in ocean energy. So, I thank you for that comment. 

Mr. DANSON. I think blighting the sunset and creating more fishing around platforms is a very kind of small part of the whole picture. It is not—I don’t think you can just look at the drilling of oil 

and say that—and just talk about that. You have to talk about 

burning it. You have to talk about the entire picture. 

So, on every level we create more jobs with green energy, and 

jobs are so important now. So, to imply that we are losing jobs by 

30 

not drilling in the offshore feels to me disingenuous. The benefits 

at the pump, people are scared at high prices coming our way. And 

to make people think that it is going to be solved by drilling seems 

to me also not a good thing to put out in the world when we are 

all so scared. 

The big picture of oil, not just the sunsets and the fishing around 

them is that—the result of burning carbon fuels is disastrous to 

our planet right now. In just my area, oceans, we literally could be 

destroying the bottom of the food chain at the same time we are 

fishing out the top of it. But we could literally destroy—and I am 

told not to use percentages because it is not scientific; but you 

know, 20, 30 percent of our oceans could be wiped out like that because of acidification, which comes from carbon dioxide coming into 

our waters and changing the pH balance, which comes from burning carbon fuels. 

So, it just seems to me we are on this incredible path of destruction and we are using this one little thing. This Outer Continental 

Shelf could help us create jobs and turn around our energy problem 

when the big picture is we are going so far in the wrong direction 

with continuing this addiction to oil. Sorry. 

Mr. GOHMERT. But it sounds like fishing problems, as you pointed out, was from overfishing and not from platforms that have created fishing jobs off the coast—— 

Mr. DANSON. Carbon dioxide getting in at the levels we are putting in there from burning oil will absolutely wipe out the bottom 

of the food chain, which would devastate fishing. There would be 

very few fishermen around our oil platforms. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Do you still drive a car? 

Mr. DANSON. Yes. And I drive hybrids, which can—yes. Sorry. I 

do drive a car and I used plastic and—— 

Mr. GOHMERT. But the hybrids plug in, don’t they? 

Mr. DANSON. I use all of those things. Sorry. I shouldn’t be interrupting. 

The CHAIRMAN. I think we will have more time to discuss this. 

The gentleman’s time from Texas has been extended by 5-1/2 minutes. 

The gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Pallone, is recognized. 

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank both 

of our panelists for all you have done not only today but historically to protect the oceans. And I wanted to say that I join with 

you in wanting to reinstate the moratorium and, frankly, making 

it permanent. And I also would be willing to have wind farms off 

the coast of my district. In fact, some have actually been proposed. 

But I wanted to really kind of zero in on—and I thought that Ted 

Danson—I actually wrote this down, Ted, when you said, ‘‘This is 

about the economy and this is about jobs,’’ because that is so true. 

My district is along the coast. We depend on tourism more than 

ever, particularly with the recession. And the bottom line is that 

when I think about the small amount of oil or natural gas that 

might be drilled for off the coast of New Jersey versus the damage 

to the economy, which is, you know, the second largest industry, 

and people unfortunately don’t think of New Jersey as a tourism 

mecca all of the time, but the fact is it is the second largest industry in the State. 

31 

So, I wanted to ask Ted Danson, has your organization or either 

of your organizations really done a cost analysis of the potential 

costs of drilling on coastal economies versus the potential energy 

savings? Because it seems to me that if you do that, it is weighted 

in favor of coastal economies in not having this drilling. Have either of you any statistics in that regard. 

Mr. DANSON. Can you vamp while I look? 

Mr. COUSTEAU. I thank you, Congressman, for that insightful 

question. We do not have any statistics, but I will say there are far 

cheaper and more efficient ways to deal with our oil consumption 

in this country, including boosting oil efficiency in our homes, gas 

efficiency. Let us not continue to feed our gluttonous need for this 

product. Let’s find other ways. And I think efficiency is a big way 

to do that. That will mean we don’t need to continue new drilling 

and we can develop, as you said so well, though, the kind of renewable energies that have so much promise. 

Mr. PALLONE. I mean I have seen figures that say when you talk 

about the mid-Atlantic coast, you are talking about—or actually 

the entire eastern coast of the United States, you are only talking 

about a few weeks’ U.S. consumption. And I know that you are 

talking about billions of dollars annually just from my district that 

is directly related to tourism. 

And the other thing I wanted to say, because I know I don’t have 

a lot of time, is that this whole idea of people being willing to swim 

and have active tourism near these oil rigs, that is just a lot of nonsense. I mean you start putting these oil rigs off the coast of New 

Jersey, people aren’t going to come whether they spill or not. But 

the reality is there have been spills. 

I know that in the next panel I guess it is Mr. Minich’s testimony, I have a little quote here I will read. It says that in 2005 

Hurricanes Katrina and Rita destroyed 113 oil platforms and damaged 457 pipelines near Louisiana. This is according to Minerals 

Management Service. The agency reported 124 spoils totaling 

741,000 gallons of petroleum from offshore rigs, platforms, and 

pipelines. 

You know, there is this notion out there that, you know, that no 

rigs caused spills and there was no damage per Katrina and Rita; 

and that if there was any, it was all localized and it didn’t have 

any impact. 

Would you want to comment on that, either of you, because my 

understanding is that there were a lot of spills. 

Mr. COUSTEAU. Congressman, absolutely there were several 

spills; dozens, in fact. And satellite images clearly show oil slicks 

covering hundreds of miles, hundreds of square miles in the Gulf 

of Mexico. So, any idea that there is localization to the oil spills is 

untrue. You are absolutely correct. 

Mr. DANSON. I have the same figures in front of me that you do: 

183 oil platforms were affected, 113 completely destroyed. 

Also, green investments, this was the University of Massachusetts study, 17 jobs created for 1 million invested into green as opposed to 5.5 jobs from 1 million into oil. So, the jobs—the economy 

argument seems to go in the favor of not opening up and continuing offshore oil drilling in my mind. Total economic activity 

32 

from offshore wind alone could reach a cumulative 950 billion by 

2030 and create 250,000 jobs. Another little tidbit. A good one, too. 

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you both. Really I appreciate it. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Fleming. 

Mr. FLEMING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

First let me say, Mr. Danson, I appreciate your movie career, 

your TV career. As a physician of 32 years I identify with your 

cranky doctor character, think about it a lot. 

And, Mr. Cousteau, your grandfather, of course I have seen every 

one of his TV segments and some of them many times over. 

There are a couple of things, Mr. Cousteau, that you said that 

I certainly agree with. You said this needs to be driven by science. 

Oftentimes in this debate, politics drive the science rather than the 

other way around. And I think it is really important that we let 

science determine where we are going to go with things, within a 

certain moral and ethical standard. You also said that we should 

have minimal impact or reduced impact, and I certainly agree with 

that. 

One of the problems that we are seeing today with this discussion about wind turbines and solar energy is the technology is really not as advanced in those areas as in the safety that we have in 

the petroleum industry to protect our environment. I would love to 

heat and cool my home with solar. I would love to have a windmill 

in my backyard that would drive everything. But to a great extent 

those are inefficient and noncompetitive forms of energy with what 

we have today with petroleum. So, while those are lofty goals, I am 

not sure that we are quite there yet, and we certainly need to 

bridge that gap. 

Jobs in Louisiana, which I represent and which is perhaps the 

most impacted among States, with whatever decisions are made 

here, good or bad, we have 21,000 producing company jobs that are 

related to oil and gas just to the Continental Shelf itself. Estimated 

payroll of 1.2 billion, with an average annual salary of around 

$60,000 per employee. 

Recently we had in our area, northwest Louisiana, finding of the 

Haynesville shale, which we didn’t even know—didn’t have the 

technology to exploit even several years ago because it is natural 

gas, it is in a shale. We don’t know what all we can do out there 

in the ocean today because we have new and emerging technologies 

that are advancing. 

Also, with respect to the issue of 120 million gallons of oil that 

were spilled, I guess, last year and years before that, my question 

is what percentage of that was actually related to platforms themselves? Our statistics show that since 1980 the estimates are less 

than .001 percent of oil has spilled from the U.S. production percentage out of a total of 4.7 billion barrels of oil production. 

So, that is a question and then certainly I welcome any comments. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. DANSON. I love Louisiana and I can imagine it would be hit 

hard if magically we switched to wind and solar and moved off of 

oil. So, I am not in a position to refute anything you are saying 

about jobs in Louisiana. Wind and solar has progressed more than 

I think you depicted it. For 17 years, Europe has had ocean wind 

33 

farms and they have been very successful. Clearly you need to invest money into these areas to make them come up to the level of 

oil exploration and investments. But it seems to me that we were 

looking at this—two things. I agree that science should lead the 

way, but I am not sure that science in fact has led us to the point 

where it is OK to open up the Outer Continental Shelf. I think you 

said once we open it up—what I heard was once we open it up, we 

need to let science and facts lead the way. But I don’t think science 

and facts are leading the way to even have the conversation about 

opening up, because the science and the facts say don’t. For the 

economy, don’t; for the environment, for the long-term health of the 

planet and health of people’s everyday health, don’t. So, I would 

disagree on that point. 

Oil, it is not just the oil platforms that are perhaps behaving 

wonderfully well, but it is how do you get it to the cars? So, it is 

pipelines, it is barges, it is whatever. That is where some of the 

spills happen. So, I agree with you, platforms probably have gotten 

better and drilling technology perhaps has gotten better, but that 

is just one part of the entire picture and the entire picture to me 

is the wrong direction. 

Mr. COUSTEAU. If I may add to that, Chairman. 

Congressman, thank you for your comments. I agree with Ted. 

Wind power, certainly one facility can provide 4 to 5 megawatts or 

more of wind power. We are at least 10 years, if not more, behind 

Europe; and I think that is appalling when we think about the opportunities that we have missed over the last decade to develop our 

renewable energy economy here in this country. 

Certainly, as I have stated before, the infrastructure for the platforms affected the coastal habitats of Katrina—of Louisiana, which 

certainly had—allowed Katrina to have a greater impact on the 

State. And so I wonder what kind of offset there is with respect to 

the jobs and the money that is earned from the oil and gas industry in Louisiana compared to the damage and the cost that was required to mitigate that damage and rebuild after Katrina. 

I wonder, I don’t know, but I wonder if that wouldn’t offset at 

least a little bit some of that gain that you mentioned. And I think 

it is deceiving to think that overall, a small percentage of oil has 

been spilled, because we cannot forget that even a minor amount 

of oil has a devastating impact on environments. And certainly I 

think 9 million gallons is pretty substantial with respect to Katrina 

and Rita, and that is both land and water. 

And I think from a scientific perspective, I absolutely agree with 

you that science is critical to what we are doing and to understanding. And when I talk about science for the Outer Continental 

Shelf, it is because we know so little about it and we must start 

now in our understanding what our alternatives are in fighting in 

the Outer Continental Shelf for any development—renewable, 

aquaculture fishery, anything. We just don’t know enough. And I 

think it is critical to start now to develop that science and to learn. 

And honestly, we will receive no gains from any further oil and gas 

drilling for a decade or more. It is not going to help us today. 

And I think it is a false promise to those people who are hurting 

at the pumps, who were hurting at the pumps this fall, to promise 

them that drilling is—while polluting the environment further, 

34 

while hurting the oceans further, while continuing to pollute the 

air and our children, is going to help you at the gas pump, because 

it won’t. And I think we need to vigorously engage in renewable 

energy and really get off the oil and gas as a primary focus. It 

should be last resort, if any at all. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. FLEMING. Could I just have two quick comments? 

The CHAIRMAN. Very quickly. 

Mr. FLEMING. With respect to utilization of solar and wind, I 

know there are a lot of tax subsidies that go on with that. So, it 

is very hard to measure the success on that. And I think that if 

you look at the oil spills in a global way, the increased production 

and as a percent of production and flow, we have seen the instance 

of that in the numbers of gallons steadily decrease over time. So, 

it is not perfect and we need it better, of course, but it is getting 

better. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Kratovil. 

Mr. KRATOVIL. Gentlemen, thank you for being here. My name 

is Frank Kratovil. I am a freshman Congressman representing the 

First District of Maryland, which includes the entire eastern shore 

of Maryland, and I am particularly concerned about this issue as 

a result of one of the proposals off the coast of Assateague, which 

is very close to me. 

As we have this debate I pride myself on trying to recognize the 

other sides of issues. I was a prosecutor and did my best to balance 

both sides of the issues. And I have to tell you on this issue, Ted, 

that you have raised, I am 100 percent in agreement with you. I 

just do not get the argument on this. And during the election I was 

amazed that the entire focus of the debate was whether or not we 

should be opening up additional places to drill. In my view, that 

is question number two. And we are having a debate here today 

on question number two, which is: Should we be opening up new 

places to drill? 

We haven’t answered question number one. And question number one, during all of the debate in the Presidential election and 

still going on, question number one is: Why are we not drilling in 

the areas where they are able to drill? 

So, my question to you is—and I intend to ask this to the other 

panel when they come here—but before we move to question two, 

which is getting back to the cost and benefits of doing this, which 

is an appropriate argument to have, I am not sure the benefits are 

worth it. But before we get to that question, the first question is: 

Why are we not drilling in the areas that are currently leased? 

And my question to you folks as you have been looking at this, 

do you have a view—what is your perspective on that issue, even 

if it is one that is perhaps cynical? Why in your view are they not 

drilling in those areas that are available right now? 

Mr. DANSON. It probably would be cynical and not factual; so I 

don’t know the answer, but I would definitely say that I don’t want 

them to drill in areas that they have permission to drill in on the 

Outer Continental Shelf. The argument for me is still the same, although it is a great question. Why are we talking about opening 

up new leases when there are existing leases? And I will say in the 

35 

Arctic Ocean, do not drill in the existing leases that you own until 

you have done an environmental impact report that is genuine, because a spill there would be devastating. 

Mr. COUSTEAU. I agree. I don’t know the specific reason. I know 

that some places that have been leased are under development currently. But I don’t know why all of them have not been developed. 

Certainly I cannot speculate on that. But I must agree with Ted 

that in the Arctic it is very fragile. 

Mr. KRATOVIL. But my point is as that debate went on during the 

Presidential election, I was constantly amazed at how we were— 

the folks that were opposing the drilling were losing the argument. 

And my point to you guys is, it seems to me that should be the 

thrust, at least one of the thrusts of your arguments, which is asking that question and getting answers to that question. That question was never answered. So, we are moving to issue two when the 

folks that want to drill more haven’t answered question one. So, I 

think in moving forward, that is a question we need to ask and we 

need to get the answers to that. 

Mr. DANSON. In all honesty, I am a little afraid of their answer, 

which might be a ‘‘good idea.’’ So, for me, it is a mixed—— 

Mr. KRATOVIL. Well, it isn’t in terms of moving to additional—— 

Mr. DANSON. Absolutely. I agree. 

Mr. KRATOVIL. To getting the boat back in the port. 

I yield the rest of my time. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Lamborn. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Could I have my opening statement submitted to the record? 

The CHAIRMAN. Sure. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Lamborn follows:] 

Statement of The Honorable Doug Lamborn, Ranking Member, 

Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources 

Mr. Chairman, development of America’s Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) will create jobs, reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and generate substantial revenue for 

the federal government. The Congressional Research Service said there is nearly 

$800 billion in revenue available from the OCS areas that were under moratoria. 

This estimate is nearly the same amount proposed by the current majority in the 

pending stimulus package. 

The choice between a clean environment and OCS development is a false premise. 

We can have both energy development and a clean environment. In 1999 the Department of Energy, then run by Secretary Bill Richardson, produced a report which 

found that advanced technology means that oil exploration and development can be 

clean, create jobs, and produce the energy needed for America. 

We will need this energy. The Energy Information Administration says that we 

will continue importing massive volumes of oil from now through 2030. The United 

States currently imports more than 12 million barrels of oil per day, more than 60 

percent of all the oil it consumes. Over the past 35 years, as America’s demand for 

energy has grown, U.S. production of its own domestic resources has fallen steadily. 

We don’t have to continue that trend. We can and must develop our domestic resources and reduce our reliance on foreign energy. 

While I am an advocate of increasing access to energy resources in the OCS I believe that we need more than just oil and gas development. We need to use all the 

resources available to us. This means we must expand areas for capturing wind and 

solar energy. Breaking down the barriers which stop those developments on federal 

lands is paramount. We should open more areas to tidal and wave energy harnessing the energy of the oceans and tides to help power America. We must open 

the Nation’s vast oil shale resources in my home state of Colorado, as well as those 

in Utah and Wyoming. Unleashing these resources can help secure our energy future. We should expand our use of nuclear energy, and cut permitting times to make 

36 

replacement structures a reality. We need an ‘‘all of the above’’ energy strategy to 

free America and spur our economy. 

Mr. LAMBORN. I would like to ask you, Mr. Danson, about tradeoffs because there are so many tradeoffs in life. To the extent that 

we reduce the energy available from domestic sources, including 

from offshore drilling, we become more dependent, I believe, from 

foreign sources. Have your organizations analyzed the risk of a catastrophic oil spill coming from a tanker coming in from a foreign 

source, especially that we know there are terrorism risks to tankers, there are piracy risks, compared to that that could be incurred 

from a spill from a platform? Have you done that kind of risk analysis? 

Mr. DANSON. No. No, we haven’t. But I imagine it would be horrendous. Your example would be horrendous. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Because I was just trying to compare the two, because to the extent we don’t do one, we are going to have to do 

more of the other. 

Mr. DANSON. But we will never stop having those foreign oil 

freighters coming into our waters if we think by drilling in the 

Outer Continental Shelf, which will produce 1 percent of our daily 

needs, we will never not have those foreign freighters in our waters. So, the argument of trying to get away from under foreign influence won’t happen. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Let us look at it a little differently. We have the 

most environmentally rigorous protections for offshore drilling in 

the U.S. than there are for any other country. 

Mr. DANSON. Yes. 

Mr. LAMBORN. So, to the degree that we shut down and don’t 

have offshore drilling in the U.S., we will have more offshore drilling in Third World countries. Now, it doesn’t—and I know you 

think globally, which is good. Won’t we have more risks from a 

Third World offshore operation than we have from the rigorous and 

advanced types of operations we have here in the U.S.? 

Mr. DANSON. If we just sat in that oil universe, yes, that is probably true. But I don’t think the goal is to remain in this carbon universe. It is to develop and not—truly develop and have alternative 

sources of energy, relieve the burden of having to drill for oil and 

burn oil all over the world. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Cousteau, would you—— 

Mr. COUSTEAU. I agree. I think we need to get off the debate 

from the spectrum of oil and embrace a vigorous approach to renewable energy that is worthy of this country’s ingenuity and 

power and gifts. The Outer Continental Shelf drilling in 2007 accounted for 27 percent of total U.S. oil production. Any new drilling 

in the Outer Continental Shelf will not result in new oil for at least 

a decade. Any new drilling in the OCS is not going to mitigate 

drilling environmental effects elsewhere. It is not drastically going 

to reduce our continued importation through tankers of oil into this 

country. And so it is just not going to help that situation. Because 

I think you make a good point that tankers are very dangerous. 

They continue to be—as I mentioned earlier, many of them are still 

single-hulled like the Exxon Valdez. But continued drilling in the 

OCS is not going to significantly increase any of our domestic oil 

37 

production and is not going to decrease our importation of oil significantly either. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Well, we will have to continue to agree to disagree 

on some of those points. Thank you. 

Mr. COUSTEAU. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Guam, Ms. Bordallo. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And my 

first question is for Mr. Danson. I thank you for your testimony 

this morning and I know you have been personally committed to 

ocean conservation issues for more than two decades and I do appreciate your efforts. 

I represent a district that is in the middle of the ocean, so I am 

extremely interested in this topic. And I am sure you don’t remember, but a few years ago at the Ocean Summit in Monterey you 

were seated right next to me. I remember you, but I know you 

don’t remember me. 

Mr. DANSON. Give me a chance. Wait. 

Ms. BORDALLO. As you know, Mr. Danson, scientists are telling 

us that climate change is having considerable impacts on our 

oceans and the resulting ocean acidification is likely to cause a 

mass extension of corals by the middle to the end of this century. 

In fact, the Great Barrier Reef has been projected to stop growing 

around 2050. In your opinion, what are some of the critical steps 

that Congress can take to address ocean acidification in that regard? 

Mr. DANSON. I think you are looking at it right now. I think if 

you were to say we are not going to drill on the Outer Continental 

Shelf because it would be—first of all, the benefits would not be— 

the risks way out—sorry, I am babbling here. 

I think by sending a signal that we are not going to continue 

drilling for oil and burning oil, that we are going to look for alternative sources of energy. We are serious. We are not going to do 

token drilling that makes no sense scientifically or factually; that 

we are actually going to focus all of our energy in renewable 

sources of energy would be a huge signal for that. 

I don’t know that people realize the seriousness of the fact that 

our oceans are not able to absorb any more carbon dioxide without 

the oceans changing their pH balance. Global climate change 

sounds like this kind of liberal airy-fairy thought, and it is not. It 

has a huge impact on our industries, on our health, on the future 

of our oceans. Without coral reefs you don’t have nurseries for our 

fisheries to expand. It is a huge problem. So, to answer your question I would say send a signal. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Mr. Cousteau? 

Mr. COUSTEAU. Thank you Congressman. ‘‘Airy-fairy,’’ I like that, 

Ted. 

Mr. DANSON. Sorry. 

Mr. COUSTEAU. No. I think it is true. You know, 25 percent of 

our coral reefs are already dead around the world, and scientists 

estimate another 25 percent by the middle of this century. That is 

shocking when you think that they hold at least a third of the biodiversity in our oceans. Ocean acidification is one of the greatest 

threats that we are facing today, I believe. And it is directly not 

38 

from climate change but directly resultant of the output of carbon 

into the atmosphere and the absorption by the ocean. 

So, I think that is an interesting distinction to make. And the 

science can be done in the laboratory. I mean it is not controversial 

and cannot be debated. We know, however, from research, that if 

corals are to be resilient and are to withstand the additional 

stresses of ocean acidification that they cannot withstand further 

impacts—that they need to be healthy otherwise. So, if they are 

withstanding multiple impacts, be it impacts from oil, be it runoff, 

nutrification, nutrient overload in the water, whatever it may be, 

development, it is like having cancer, meningitis, tuberculosis, all 

those things at the same time. You are not going to survive. So, 

if there is any hope for our coral reefs to survive ocean acidification 

and the other threats that are facing them, we must do what we 

can to minimize our impacts on their health and certainly minimize immediately our output of carbon into the atmosphere, period. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you very much. And I have one more 

question, Mr. Chairman, for Mr. Cousteau. 

You spoke very eloquently about the need for better planning before we embark upon more development, even renewable energy development in the oceans. Can you elaborate more on that need for 

not just better planning but more comprehensive management that 

looks at all activities and their cumulative impacts? 

Mr. COUSTEAU. Thank you, Congresswoman. You know, as I said 

in my testimony, urban sprawl is something that has come to be 

seen as a negative thing on the land and a lack of planning and 

understanding of what sites in the ocean are appropriate—for what 

is bad for the environment is bad for industry as well. 

And I think first and foremost, we need the science to understand what exists, and then to be able to cite what uses are appropriate where—similar to the way we plan on the land. As I said, 

we wouldn’t put a coal-fired power plant or a toxic waste dump in 

the middle of a national park, and this is with respect to any kind 

of development, wind, aquaculture, anything. There needs to be a 

comprehensive plan. 

I think it is incumbent upon Congress to manage this national 

resource that belongs to all of us as citizens of this country, and 

we must protect it in the best way that we can. And the best way 

we can do that is to have as much knowledge as we can. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Duncan. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

The problem that I see is we have—I think it is over 1,400 conservancy groups in the country now. We have hundreds of other 

local environmental groups. You have all of these government 

agencies that oppose or throw up roadblocks and are mostly successful anytime anybody wants to drill for any oil or dig for any 

coal or cut any trees or produce any natural gas. And certainly 

they don’t want any nuclear power. And so they just shut down so 

much natural resource or energy production in this country. And 

what that does, as the Ranking Member pointed out in his opening 

statement, that destroys jobs, it drives up prices and we can’t—and 

39 

who that hurts the most are the poor and the lower income and 

the working people of this country. 

For instance, you are putting the final nail in the coffin of some 

of these small towns and rural areas if you drive gas prices up and 

utility bills up, because they have to drive further distances mostly, 

most of their people, to go to jobs, and they work mostly at lowerwage type jobs. And all of these places where these groups oppose 

these projects, they always say that it is just 1 percent or it is just 

some tiny percentage of the overall energy production in this country. But when you put them all together, it adds up to a very great 

percentage. And we can’t base the entire economy of our country 

on tourism, especially in tough economic times. 

Michael Barone, who is a columnist for U.S. News and World Report and who writes the Almanac of American Politics—and he is 

considered a very middle-of-the-road columnist, he is not considered a conservative at all. But he wrote a few months ago, he said: 

‘‘Lobbyists and litigators for environmental restriction groups have 

produced energy policies that I suspect future generations will regard as lunatic. We haven’t built a new nuclear plant for 30 years 

since the Jane Fonda movie exaggerated their dangers. We have allowed States to ban oil drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf, 

prompted by a failure of 40- or 50-year-old technology in Santa 

Barbara, California, in 1969, though current technology is much 

better, as shown by a lack of oil spills in waters off Louisiana and 

Mississippi during Hurricane Katrina. 

We have banned oil drilling on a very small portion of the Arctic 

National Wildlife Refuge that is god-forsaken tundra for fear of disturbing a herd of caribou, a species of hoofed animals in no way 

endangered or scarce. The ANWR ban is the work of environmental 

restriction groups that depend on direct mail fundraising to pay 

their bills and keep their jobs. That means they must always say 

the sky is falling. ANWR is a precious cause for them because it 

can be portrayed dishonestly as a national treasure.’’ 

So, I think what we need in this area is a little balance and common sense. I have noticed over the years that almost all of our environmental radicals and extremists come from very wealthy or 

very upper-income families, and perhaps they are not hurt when 

we drive the utility bills way up or we drive the gas prices way up, 

but a lot of the people that I represent are hurt by it. And those 

are my concerns. 

I don’t really have any questions, Mr. Chairman, so I will yield 

back the balance of my time. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Would anybody like to respond? 

Mr. DANSON. I think I probably have said it all, and I think we 

have different points of view. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from California is recognized, 

Mrs. Capps. 

Mrs. CAPPS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to continue just with one sentence, the conversation 

begun by our new colleague from Maryland, Mr. Kratovil, when he 

talked about the use-it-or-lose-it idea, and that currently there are, 

I believe, 6,000 leases already sited in the Gulf of Mexico to be 

drilled upon. And I also say that in part because I represent a 

coastal district in California, on the central coast with 23 oil platVerDate Aug 31 2005 15:01 Mar 19, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\47302.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
40 

forms offshore, and my constituents and I deal with environmental 

and public health impacts from this every single day. 

I want to welcome our two witnesses and thank you for your excellent testimony, both of you; and thank the Chairman for getting 

this series of hearings on offshore drilling off to such a good start. 

We definitely have heard a lot from the industry about how 

things have changed, and technology is better, and we have heard 

that from some of our colleagues here today. My response is that 

oil spills and gas leaks still happen. No matter how careful you are, 

there is a huge risk of a spill and spills do happen. 

In fact our colleague from Tennessee just stepped out, but Mr. 

Duncan referred to the big blowout on platform A off the Santa 

Barbara coastline that I know and you all know very well too. Just 

this past December, a small hole the size of a quarter developed 

in a rusted pipe that sends oil to shore from that very platform A 

and 1,400 gallons of oil seeped into the ocean immediately. This 

was just last year. 

And I am going to pick on you, Mr. Danson, even though you 

said you have said it all. I agree with you as a longtime—in fact, 

we are neighbors. I unfortunately don’t get to be your congressional 

representative, but we share a big concern about our region off the 

shore. As a longtime advocate that you are, I respect that. You 

have said that you really can’t safely drill in the oceans. But I want 

to underscore what that really means. It is not just the drilling. It 

is not just the platform. It is the pipelines. It is the barges. It is 

the onshore infrastructure that has to be there and is there. All of 

this puts our environment at risk. The industry has come to our 

oceans. 

And my question is: Would you like to expand upon that? 

Mr. DANSON. I think I understand your question. I was just sitting here agreeing with everything you were saying, so forgive me. 

I wasn’t formulating any kind of rebuttal or anything. I was enjoying it. 

Mrs. CAPPS. Well, I think it is a simplistic notion from some, and 

some in the industry too, that we just want to get rid of those platforms, that we just want to get rid of offshore drilling, but it is 

whole bigger picture than that. And either of you can respond. 

Mr. DANSON. I probably should back up. I probably should have 

said something when I had the chance, but I don’t think you can 

dismiss tourism as something that doesn’t have anything to do 

with the economy, as if only oil and oil energy is truly about our 

economy; that that is the real source of energy for real Americans. 

New Jersey makes a huge sum of money from its tourism, so to dismiss it I think is wrong. 

And I think that what this Committee should do is to have facts 

and figures. There must be somebody that you can all agree on 

that will tell you this amount of jobs would be produced by wind 

power and solar and green energy, this amount would be produced 

by drilling offshore, this amount of money would be made, the price 

would go down, so that people could have a real chance at saying, 

oh, I get it, this is not good for the environment. And it is also a 

fib that it will give me a better chance at lower gas prices and a 

job. 

41 

Mrs. CAPPS. I want to get to another topic, so I am going to 

change. But I think you sound a lot like our new Secretary of the 

Interior, who also wants to base our energy policies now on sound 

science and particularly our renewable energy, because they are so 

new that we haven’t amassed this body. But we are going to hear 

more about this from the next panel, but I want to give either of 

you a chance to respond now about many who are saying—and 

some from my district—how the largest source of oil in the ocean 

is actually natural seeps, not industrial activity. And playing devil’s advocate, if that is the case, why do we have to be concerned 

about man-made spills at all? 

Mr. DANSON. I didn’t understand that question. I am sorry. 

Mrs. CAPPS. That natural seeps are the cause of oil damage to 

our coastline. 

Mr. DANSON. Are you saying, or is that fact saying that is part 

of the 120—— 

Mrs. CAPPS. There are some who argue that it helps to drill because it relieves the pressure off the natural seeps. 

Mr. DANSON. I don’t know the facts and figures. I can’t believe 

that. I know that 120 million gallons that gets in there from spills 

and seeps, I know about that—I mean from the pipelines. 

Are you aware of—— 

Mr. COUSTEAU. Yes. First of all—— 

Mrs. CAPPS. That is why there are two of you. You play off each 

other. 

Mr. COUSTEAU. First of all, thank you for your insightful and 

outstanding comments very much. I was sitting here as well with 

Ted, just agreeing. So, thank you for that. 

You know, I think just because there are natural seeps and they 

do occur, we should be no less concerned about man-made spills, 

because natural oil and gas does seep out of fissures in the ocean. 

But human caused oil spills occur very differently. Their seepage 

is a very slow process that happens in distinct areas and oftentimes over a long period of time and habitats have adapted to that. 

Human-based spills have been in a concentrated fashion in a specific area that can oftentimes be very fragile and not at all adapted 

to natural oil and gas. 

I have a great point here about Prince William Sound, the spill 

that happened there over 20 years ago or 20 years ago this March, 

and 20 years later there are still species that are struggling to recover from that oil spill from the Exxon Valdez because of the concentrated nature of the spill in a specific geographic location. So, 

seeps do occur. It is a natural process and there is nothing we can 

do about that, but what we can control is our own behavior and our 

own actions, and we can do better. 

Mrs. CAPPS. Thank you both. 

Mr. COUSTEAU. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Cassidy. 

Mr. CASSIDY. Thank you. I have had to step out a couple of 

times. I apologize if someone addressed something that I mention. 

There is a little bit, I will say, a little bit of a disconnect between 

the reality of what I have experienced in Louisiana and what you 

have been describing. In Louisiana we probably have more offshore 

drilling than any other State, or at least as much as almost any 

42 

other. We have the most productive fisheries outside of Alaska. So, 

actually this problem, Mr. Danson—and I also enjoy your acting, 

by the way—this problem of fisheries isn’t in Louisiana. 

In fact, when I read your testimony that if there is pollution at 

the base of the platform that is so toxic to fish, the favorite place 

for folks to fish is next to the platform. Now the other issue—so 

let’s just correct the record. 

Second, regarding the spill of Katrina that was actually from the 

Murphy Oil Refinery where tankers floated and oil got out, but 

from the platforms themselves there was actually very little. 

Another thing I want to correct is that, although I may have put 

it down, petroleum in American waters is very interesting here. 

Frank talked about how he is concerned about this issue and polluting his streams. You know, the Maryland crab cake we will have 

at lunch today is actually crab meat from Louisiana that they fly 

up here and they make Maryland crab cakes with Louisiana crab 

meat. One of the great things about the job, you learn those facts. 

And the reason is that the Chesapeake Bay doesn’t produce as 

much crab meat anymore, and that is because of runoff from petroleum products on the land into the Chesapeake Bay, among other 

reasons I am sure. 

And here we see that—and this is from the Minerals Management Service and Representative Capps talked about seepage. According to this government agency, 63 percent of the oil in American waters is from natural seepage, 31 percent from cars, boats, 

and other sources in the Chesapeake Bay, 1 percent is from drilling, or less than 1 percent. 

So, in Louisiana we have the most productive fisheries than anyone else, and we have the most drilling. In fact, we have so much 

fisheries, you will be eating Louisiana crabmeat for lunch. So, I 

think there has been a little bit of a disconnect. 

The other thing, I think we are focusing upon oil, but natural gas 

is a major production and natural gas, of course, has a lower carbon footprint than does oil. And if you look at the projected natural 

gas stores off the eastern coast of Florida, which, by the way, already had OCS drilling grandfathered in before the moratorium, 

and the pipelines run underneath back through Louisiana, so it 

doesn’t spoil the beach. But that is tremendous natural gas reserves which does have the potential to not only give us the lower 

carbon footprint but also cheaper fertilizer for farmers, cheaper 

plastics, other things that make life good. Natural gas fuels so 

much of our economy. 

So, one, I just want to correct the record. Some of the things said 

do not pertain to offshore drilling. Indeed, offshore drilling is much 

safer than, say, the cars we are driving around and dropping oil 

on the street which then runs off into the bay. 

The Katrina disaster was from the Murphy Oil Refinery. I imagine you might say, well, we just need to get away from a petroleum-based economy. That is true. But even your testimony, Mr. 

Danson, said that 20 percent of electricity could be provided by 

wind power by 2030. Well, that is electricity, but it is not what 

powers our vehicles. And most folks don’t think that we can completely get away from a carbon-based economy for at least some 

time, however good that goal. And I agree the goal is good. I am 

43 

not arguing that point. So, just to correct the record, I think there 

are some issues here. 

Last, tourism, again to correct that record, we have so much 

tourism off the coast of Louisiana, we have so much recreational 

fishing, we have scuba diving at the rigs because it has become this 

kind of man-made reef and everybody goes down and scuba dives. 

And it is just—when I hear that tourism is hurt, I am thinking, 

wow, man, wow; think about where we have so much drilling, we 

have so much tourism. Brownsville, Texas, lots of offshore drilling. 

Corpus Christie, a great place for the snowbirds to come down during the winter. 

And last, Mrs. Capps, you are rightly concerned about the effects 

of rusted infrastructure causing leakage, but the nice thing about 

new OCS is that it is new infrastructure. That if you look at the 

leakage that does happen from pipelines, it is old pipelines, it is 

not new pipelines. Those typically have newer techniques and 

newer stuff and so therefore they don’t leak as much. So, I think 

the environmental hazard with the new stuff is less than the old 

stuff. 

The Santa Barbara spill, which was terribly egregious, was not 

reproduced in Katrina because of, as I think Louie mentioned, the 

valves they put at the base of the ocean. 

Last, I want to say, Mr. Cousteau, I agree with you. I agree with 

you positively that science should guide what we do. And one thing 

in your testimony, that you said let science guide where we go further. I applaud that. And if we do an OCS bill, I would agree to 

an amendment that would devote a certain amount of that to restoring oceans. 

Again, I live in an ocean State. We are affected by rising sea levels, so we have a dog in this hunt. 

Last, how come you don’t have a French accent? I have to admit 

I kept thinking about that the whole time. 

Mr. COUSTEAU. Congressman, my mother, who is actually right 

behind me, she is American and I spent most of my life growing 

up here in the United States. I have a dual citizenship of American 

and French. So, that is probably why. I do speak French and some 

Spanish, but no French accent, though I can fake a pretty cheesy 

one, but I will spare you that. 

And thank you for comments. Certainly I think that the bottom 

line is that if we continue to drill and we continue to rely on oil, 

then we won’t get off our dependence off of oil, and I think that—— 

Mr. CASSIDY. But isn’t that a different point? Because really we 

are going to rely on oil. It is just going to come from something else 

until we can transition out of a carbon-based economy if only for 

fertilizer and plastics. 

Mr. COUSTEAU. Well, I think we need a paradigm shift mentality 

from continuing to say at some point we will get off of oil. I think 

we have better ways to do that than continue to drill for oil in the 

Outer Continental Shelf. As I said earlier, efficiency, energy efficiency, is a big way to do that. And if we could actually reduce our 

need for oil, that could help balance in the short term our need to 

drill for more oil and instead to be able to develop renewable energy. 

44 

And I think that it is deceiving to talk about the seepage issue 

again, as I said earlier, because while about 60 percent of oil seeps 

into the United States waters, again that is a very slow process. 

It is a natural process. It is nothing like the catastrophic and exponentially greater impact of the relative to the 60 percent the small 

percentage of oil from drilling from—— 

Mr. CASSIDY. Good point. I agree with that. On the other hand, 

the major spills you are referring to, except for Santa Barbara, 

which we now have different technology, the major spills have 

come from tankers. So, the one off of France a few years ago was 

from a tanker; the Prince William Sound, a tanker. So, it is actually the transportation. Any degree that we can decrease tankers 

would probably be safer for the environment, because if you look 

at this, tankers provide more than do offshore drilling. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The gentlewoman from California, Mrs. Napolitano, is recognized. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and it is good to 

see you again, Mr. Danson. We met in California a while back. 

But before I start, I would like to recognize Ms. Lois Capps, 

Lois’s daughter, who is in the audience, and I know she is going 

to be embarrassed but we wanted you to know there is an activist 

out there and we hope that you will be working with us more. 

Thank you. 

It is very interesting to hear the testimony that you have given. 

And yes, like my colleague, I saw all your grandfather’s series. I 

would marvel at what was out there and I am sure if he were to 

do a lot of those again, he would find a lot of the shortages in a 

lot of the marine life not only because of the impact nature has had 

but human beings have imposed upon our oceans. 

Having sat upon the sanitation district in California, going out 

into the outflow where there was DDT spilled that created a problem for marine life off of Point—not Mugu, I can’t remember the 

Point out there that mutated a lot of the sea life. Well, if we only 

rely on the decreasing of the tankers, we also need to rely on what 

we put into the ocean, whether it is the pipelines or whether it is 

the outflow of effluent from the sanitation districts. That is why 

one of the things that would be perfect would be an ocean investment fund that would take a look at all of it and put their arms 

around being able to determine we need funding to be able to do 

this, so that this is the outcome. But in that same vein, we ought 

to start looking at what impact—and, Mr. Danson, I was marveling 

at, well, I would rather have a windmill out in my backyard rather 

than an oil pipeline. Well, maybe hydrokinetics would be important, the ocean current. 

We have countries in New Zealand and Australia—I am sorry, in 

Scotland and Norway that are really ahead of the curve. Those are 

the things that need this ocean investment fund could begin to look 

at and how do we apply them and be able to have more power and 

less reliance on imported oil and drilling in our ocean. 

I would like to hear what you would want us to consider, looking 

at the future, for putting all of it together, so that we don’t say, 

well, you are wrong because you are saying this. Everybody’s areas 

are a little different. Louisiana versus New York versus California, 

45 

how do we put it all together to improve the quality and maintain 

the marine life for future generations? 

I have a greatgrandson I want him to enjoy going out into the 

ocean, maybe scuba diving someday, and watching the beauty of 

the ocean. How do we do that? 

Mr. COUSTEAU. Well, thank you, Congresswoman. I think that 

part of the—well, first I would comment that growing up, as I said 

in my testimony, I saw great change myself with my own eyes in 

the Mediterranean and in other places, so indeed I think my grandfather would be appalled at many of the changes that continue to 

occur around the world and very saddened by them. I just finished 

a series of Discovery, and we visited many of the places that he 

had been in—Red Sea, the Baja, et cetera—all over the world, and 

even I saw changes from looking back at the films from the fifties 

and sixties to today. It is very, very serious. 

I think that the interplay here, you know, the OCS recommendation is that we have an integrated planning for Federal waters. 

And I think it is going to be very important at how that interplays 

with State waters, because within the 3-mile mark I think there 

are some great examples from the Massachusetts Ocean Act, Rhode 

Island is doing a lot of outstanding work, California has done a lot 

of work on fisheries management. I think there is a great deal that 

we can learn from the various different practices some of the States 

have engaged in. I think that needs to be a big part of the dialogue 

about how any Federal regulations would interplay with State regulations. But that is for much wiser and smarter minds. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. But some of the authorities tell us that if you 

start putting fisheries and growing them—in other words, fisher 

nurseries—is different than wild, and that we are reducing the endangered species by not allowing it to grow naturally. 

Mr. COUSTEAU. In terms of aquaculture? 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Yes. 

Mr. COUSTEAU. Yes. Well, there is great concern with aquaculture and how to responsibly develop that. Unfortunately, farming of the oceans is a future that is here. I mean, it is already happening and it will continue to happen. I know at Ocean Conservancy we are doing a lot of work on—— 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. But not as a replacement for. 

Mr. COUSTEAU. Well, unfortunately, I think in some cases we will 

look at—in terms of protein, potentially, but not as a replacement 

of species. But already over 2 billion people rely on fish as a primary source of protein on the oceans. And a great deal of aquaculture. In fact, a great percentage of the protein that comes from 

seafood today comes from aquaculture globally, especially in countries like China, et cetera. So, it is not a replacement of species, 

but it will increasingly be a replacement of protein. 

Mr. DANSON. I think that there are, as you said, huge problems, 

especially with fish that are carnivorous, because the salmon that 

we eat, the farmed salmon we eat comes perhaps from Chile. And 

to make 1 pound of farmed salmon, you need to catch and feed 3 

pounds of wild fish with that salmon. So, it is 3 to 4 pounds of wild 

fish to create 1 pound. So, it is great for us here or in Europe to 

be able to continue eating salmon, but fish in the markets in 

Santiago are getting smaller and smaller because their wild fish 

46 

are being fed to farm salmon. And then there is all of the problems 

with biotics. 

Mr. COUSTEAU. And disease. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. And rise in the temperature of the ocean, too. 

Mr. DANSON. Complicated. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Utah, Mr. Chaffetz. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Listen, I appreciate it. I am a freshman. It is an 

honor to be here and to ask you some questions and talk about the 

serious dialogue. I appreciate the passion and commitment that 

you have to this. You could both be doing something else, and you 

are sitting here about lunchtime, and so I appreciate it. 

I also want you to know that I have a passion for our environment. I have a passion for the outdoors. Part of that came from 

watching Jacques Cousteau. Part of it came from watching Mutual 

of Omaha. Most of it came from being in the outdoors and enjoying 

that, sharing it with my wife and my three kids. And so I am passionate about that and I care about it. 

My time is short, so rapid fire here, if I could. You are in favor 

of wind technologies, correct? You are in favor of tidal technology 

to capture energy. You are in favor of wave and current power. In 

order to capture that power and then transmit that power, explain 

to me the difference between your concerns—take the word oil out 

of it—a rig that is placed in a waterway, that is placed out in the 

ocean, and the difference between that rig and what you might see 

if, for instance, you were going to create a wind tower; what does 

that effect have on the ocean? What is the difference? 

Mr. COUSTEAU. Well, again, it comes down to a siting issue. I 

would not place a wind farm that you would drill into the ground, 

the post in a fragile seagrass bed or fragile deep sea coral reef or 

shallow coral reef. So, it is a siting issue. So, the siting issues 

aside, if there is an appropriate place that would have minimum 

impact on the environment, that is the main thing. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Well, it is drilling, too. It is not the fact that there 

is actually a rig or an actual structure there. 

Mr. COUSTEAU. Well, the thing about wind that is different than 

oil is that it is not producing a caustic toxic substance. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. And I think I understand and appreciate the concern that there are inevitably spills. No one is in favor of spills; no 

one has ever advocated that they are pro-spill. But the question is: 

the structure itself, is that problematic to being in the ocean? Does 

that harm whales or fish or anything else like that? 

Mr. COUSTEAU. It is a siting issue. Again, it depends on where 

it is placed. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. If it is actually placed in the right spot, in your 

professional opinion it is not going to cause a problem long term 

to the health and ability of the ocean to thrive, correct? 

Mr. COUSTEAU. Everything will have an impact. It is just a balancing of—— 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. But there is nothing worse about an oil rig as opposed to a wind tower. 

And then let me ask you about the transmission—— 

Mr. DANSON. Are you saying the rig itself—— 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Yes. 

47 

Mr. DANSON.—or the fact that it is extracting oil? Probably not. 

If the oil rig were placed correctly and is not pumping oil, it would 

probably be the same as the wind tower. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. OK, I appreciate that. 

Now, once that energy is captured, there has to be a way to 

transmit it, right? I mean, we run into this with the windmills that 

are actually within the Continental United States to actually transmit that power. What challenges and problems do you see with 

that? 

Mr. COUSTEAU. Transmitting power from wind? 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Again, wind, tidal, wave, current. 

Mr. COUSTEAU. Again, it is a siting issue. You must take into 

consideration the entire habitat from the shoreline to the facility. 

But typically it is a DC power cable that is buried underground 

and that remains there. As long as it is not impacting a fragile environment in between the shore, it has very minimal impact. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. So, the actual installation, the long-term effect of 

once it is actually placed upon the floor of the sea bed, that is not 

a problem. 

Mr. COUSTEAU. Of wind power—— 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. I mean, I understand you have a nice coral reef, 

you don’t want to tear it out and have something drill. I think I 

understand and appreciate that. But the fact that once that power 

line or once that transmission line is actually laid down, it is not 

going to create a problem. In fact, the sea life might actually thrive 

on that; is that correct? 

Mr. COUSTEAU. Ideally, any kind of a power line that is connecting the shore to any kind of wind power would be submerged 

underground. Sea life wouldn’t thrive. Ideally, it wouldn’t impact 

them at all if you find a place that is appropriately sited that 

doesn’t have a lot of vibrancy left to begin with. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. And would you support the acceleration of the 

permitting process to go through this? I mean, if this is such urgency, one of the challenges out there is the NEPA process and 

going through the permitting process to actually accelerate the inevitable challenges. We see this in our wind farms now. We have 

them in Utah, we have them in Wyoming, we have them across the 

country. You get these nice big structures out there, and then they 

have a permitting problem to actually transmit the energy, so you 

can’t take advantage of that. We have that with geothermal as 

well. 

Would you support the acceleration of the permitting process and 

rapidly accelerating the appeals process that is so cumbersome to 

the development of alternative energies and traditional forms of 

energy as well? 

Mr. DANSON. Can I get back to you from Oceana’s point of view? 

I don’t know the answer to that. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Sure. 

Mr. COUSTEAU. Well, no matter what, the NEPA process, we will 

go through the NEPA process, and that is important to go through. 

But I think that our advocacy for a comprehensive plan will greatly 

accelerate the NEPA process in and of itself because siting is a 

major issue, as I said a few times. If you can appropriately site and 

plan, spatial planning of the oceans, then you can provide a better 

48 

certainty that the permitting process will be approved and that 

NEPA will move, thus, faster just through planning. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Any other comments to what we were talking 

about with the siting? 

Mr. DANSON. I will get back to you from Oceana’s point of view. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from the Commonwealth of the 

Northern Mariana Islands, Mr. Sablan, is recognized. 

Mr. SABLAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Danson 

and Mr. Cousteau. 

I understand Mrs. Bordallo has brought specific questions that 

relate to the Mariana Islands. As you are aware, I come from an 

area that is as large as the Continental United States, but 99 percent of it is water. And the Cousteau family has been out in Micronesia before, particularly in Palau, I understand. So, thank you for 

your testimony today. This is important to us. 

As I understand, Mr. Cousteau is aware of the recent declaration 

of a monument in the Northern Mariana Islands. It was an issue 

that actually was very divisive, not because of the monument, but 

because of the approach that was taken. Some people preferred 

that it be a sanctuary approach, and some people thought the exercise of the antiquity site was the only way to go. 

But the ocean is very important to us; it is our livelihood for 

many people. Tourism is the only industry we have in the Northern 

Marianas at this time. And so I will read into your testimony, and 

thank you for your time. 

Mr. DANSON. Thank you. 

Mr. COUSTEAU. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentlelady from Wyoming, Ms. Lummis. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And I would like to thank you as well for spending some time 

with us today. 

I am as devoted to the land as you are to the oceans. Being from 

Wyoming, it is one of the most beautiful States in the United 

States. So, I understand your passion for your particular natural 

resource. 

The question is, the ‘‘not in my back yard’’ issue, and I want to 

pursue that line of thinking because we need assistance from organizations such as yours who are devoted to protecting a natural resource in finding other ways, better ways, to do what we need to 

produce energy for this country and for this world. And not just 

here, not in my back yard. 

So, in pursuit of that line of thinking, I want you to know that 

we have a world-class wind resource in Wyoming, and the other 

world-class wind resource is in the oceans. I am facing in my area, 

within my view, 20,000 acres’ worth of wind turbines. And the 

ranchers in my area are very concerned about the effects that it 

will have on rafters, on livestock raising, on wildlife migration corridors. So, these same issues appear on land. But we are willing 

to allow for that kind of resource to be exploited on that land because of its importance to the world at large. 

The problem I am having is I don’t hear that same commitment 

to solving problems from organizations such as yours. I am hearing 

we don’t want energy production in the resource that we love, 

which is the oceans. But it has to be produced somewhere. We 

49 

could blanket the entire State of Ohio with wind turbines and it 

would only produce as much energy as one square mile of Wyoming 

coal. Yet groups are protesting building new coal-fired power plants 

and not supporting carbon sequestration research or clean coal 

technology because they say there is no such thing. The only way 

to get such a thing is to fund the research. 

So, I want to make a plea to you that, while you are passionate 

about your resource and I am passionate about my resource, we 

need to work together to find answers and not just throw up roadblocks. 

The gentleman earlier said, I would like an answer to the question about why those leases are not being produced on the Outer 

Continental Shelf now. Well, the answer is because they can’t get 

a drilling permit. Once you have a lease to drill, you don’t have a 

permit to drill; all you have is the opportunity to go through the 

greater roadblocks, the greater processes that we throw up in order 

to produce those resources. And it is that we will allow nothing to 

be produced, and yet you want the gal in my home district, in my 

State, who is trying to raise three children while working at a fast 

food joint, to find a way to get her children to day care and then 

to work. 

I am expressing my frustrations only because I am as devoted to 

my resource as you are to yours, the land. I love the land and I 

love the Rocky Mountain West. But we have to find answers, we 

can’t just establish roadblocks. And I simply make a plea to you, 

in your passion for your resource, to also bring about positive alternatives to the consequences to your resource that you are so passionate about. 

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

be here today and to have you here today. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Oregon, Mr. Inslee. 

Mr. INSLEE. A little better than Oregon. It is actually Washington, but just a little better. We do have some coastline in Washington. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, the people of Oregon have 

enough trouble already. 

Mr. INSLEE. We do have coastline in my State. I just want to assure Ms. Lummis, given enough time and burning enough fossil 

fuel, you will have a shoreline, too, in Wyoming. That is what we 

are trying to prevent here. 

I want to refer to a famous philosopher who before almost every 

revelation said, ‘‘It is a little known fact’’ and that was philosopher 

Cliff Claven. And I want to tell you that I really appreciate our two 

witnesses bringing out this issue of a little known fact of ocean 

acidification. It really is the sleeping time bomb in public perception that has not arrived in public perception yet. So, I appreciate 

you talking about it. 

And I want to make a suggestion that we change how we talk 

about this issue about what the percentages are of oil spills from 

offshore oil drilling. 

I think that the fact is, in offshore oil drilling, a fact of life we 

have to live with is that, despite the improvements of technology— 

and there have been improvements in oil drilling technology from 

safety perspectives—100 percent of that oil spills because the carVerDate Aug 31 2005 15:01 Mar 19, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\47302.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
50 

bon that goes up in carbon dioxide eventually comes back down and 

lands where we live. Seventy percent of it spills in the ocean, and 

30 percent of it spills on the land. And that 70 percent of the ocean 

is now making the oceans 30 percent more acidic than in 

preindustrial ages, and will clearly cause the mortality of coral 

species in probably my grandson’s lifetime—who is now 9 weeks 

old. 

So, I think that as we talk about this, we need to talk about the 

inevitability of oil spills from every single offshore—and onshore, 

frankly—drilling rig that we have. And that is a reality we have 

to build into this policy. I just suggest it is a way of thinking about 

this; 100 percent oil spills from offshore drilling if we continue on 

this course. So, I want to thank you for talking about this issue. 

Second, I want to focus on the Arctic. I have been a sponsor of 

a bill to essentially call a time-out on Arctic oil drilling, both in the 

Bering Sea and in the Polar Sea from the polar bear perspective. 

And we now have seen virtually the disappearance of the Arctic 

during the summers due to global warming; that is a scientific fact. 

And it has accelerated a lot faster, just like acidification, much 

faster than the models predicted. 

Now, as it has happened, every time I hear a story that the Arctic has disappeared, I read another story about how the oil industry is absolutely salivating at the prospect of going out there and 

drilling oil in the places where we used to have the Arctic ice sheet 

until the oil drilling destroyed it. 

I think we should consider an international moratorium on oil 

extraction in the areas of the planet that our use of fossil fuels has 

destroyed. And the reason I say that is that I think that there is 

generally in all of our guts something that would seem wrong 

about doing something—which is burning oil, which destroys the 

Arctic, which is the heat shield for the whole planet—and then responding to that by going up and drilling for more oil in the Arctic, 

which will cause more Arctic melting, which will allow more Arctic 

drilling, et cetera, et cetera. I think there is something in the 

human psyche that would reject that kind of idea. 

And I would suggest this is something—I haven’t talked to anyone but my wife about this, she thought it was an OK idea. I am 

just going to throw that idea for you guys’ consideration. And I 

think it is one way for us to focus the world on what is happening 

and why we ought to pay particular concern about marine extraction policies. I will just throw this idea out for you. What do you 

think? 

Mr. COUSTEAU. Bravo, Congressman. I will restrain from applause, but I am tempted. I think that is a great way of looking 

at the challenge that we face. 

You are right; 100 percent of our exploitation of not only oil, but 

coal, comes back into our own backyards. And I think it is a great 

way of looking at the challenge. And ocean acidification is one of 

those things that few people are talking about. And it is just 

chilling when you really understand the potential devastation that 

it will cause to our oceans. 

I think your wife clearly has great judgment because you make 

an outstanding point, I will say that. And I appreciate you bringing 

51 

that up because I had not looked at it that way, and I think it is 

a great way to look at it. 

I think specifically the Arctic. I was there in June filming. We 

were up just a few miles south of the North Pole, and, look as we 

may, we could not find multi-year ice, which is of great concern. All 

the ice is melting. We did some research up there as part of the 

film for NASA on drilling in the ice. 

Mr. INSLEE. What do you think of this moratorium idea in the 

Arctic? 

Mr. COUSTEAU. I think it is an outstanding idea. If there is anywhere that is the most fragile for drilling it is the Arctic. Because 

not only do we not have the technology to sufficiently clean up oil 

spills in the Gulf or in places without floating ice, the Arctic is especially fragile. And we know so little about it. In places where the 

ice has retreated, we have no scientific data. We cannot conscientiously and morally and responsibly exploit those areas because we 

know nothing about them. And we don’t know what kind of tremendous impact we will have on these amazing resources that provide the basis of food chains for the entire northern Pacific oceans. 

I mean, the gray whale travels to the Bering Sea, 6,000 miles from 

the Gulf of Mexico, in the longest migration of a mammal in the 

world to feed in these rich, rich waters. And they provide the basis 

of a food chain that goes all the way down through the Pacific. 

The Arctic is such a critical habitat. It is the smallest ocean, if 

not one of the most critical oceans in the world. And we know so 

little. I think your idea for a moratorium certainly in the Arctic is 

absolutely appropriate. 

Mr. DANSON. It is interesting that fishermen who don’t always 

like to be told what to do have come to the same conclusion. And 

they are going to not fish, period, until they have done the science 

to know what is the environmentally correct, sustainable, responsible way to go about it. And I think the same applies to oil. 

Mr. INSLEE. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California, Mr. McClintock. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would respectfully withhold my support of the gentleman from Washington’s 

idea, although I am sure that the Saudis would certainly applaud 

such an approach. 

I wanted to weigh in on the colloquy with Mrs. Capps earlier concerning national seepage. I grew up in Ventura County in Thousand Oaks just a few miles from the coast, spent a great deal of 

time at the beach as a young person. I was a NAWI- and PADIcertified scuba diver in my younger days. And I can tell you from 

personal experience that in the 1960s, whenever you visited a 

friend near the beach, there was a ubiquitous tin pan of turpentine 

in the garage. And the reason for that was the beaches throughout 

that region were so spotted with natural seepage that you couldn’t 

walk across a beach without ending up with big globs of tar on 

your feet. And every family had a big tin pan by the garage door 

so that you could get the tar off your feet before you went inside. 

You won’t find those tin pans today. There has been a great relief 

in the natural seepage in the 45 years of my experience in that region. In fact, I represented the coastline from the LA County line 

52 

all the way up to Ventura in the Assembly; and then for the past 

8 years in the State Senate, all the way up to Santa Maria. 

So, again, I can tell you from personal experience, dramatic 

change over those 45 years for the better. And in fact, if one opens 

a history book, you will find Juan Cabrillo’s notes on the coast of 

California as he sailed up the coast in the 16th century. When he 

anchored off the coast of what is now Carpendria, he made extensive notations in his log books over a massive, massive oil slick 

that covered the water as far as he could see. And it was, to my 

recollection, before the offshore rigs went in. 

Mr. DANSON. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Oklahoma, Mr. Boren. 

Mr. BOREN. I really appreciate both of you being here, Mr. 

Danson and Mr. Cousteau. And I knew when we had this hearing 

that we would have a lot of Cheers references, so I have to add 

mine. 

I know we have France and the United States. And of course my 

favorite episode is where Sammy beat the French gigolo. And USA 

did win, by the way. ‘‘USA, USA’’ as Carla said. But, anyway, I had 

to throw that in. 

Mr. COUSTEAU. I had not seen that episode. I don’t know why. 

I will take your word for it though. 

Mr. BOREN. Anyway, I am kind of an outlier. I know we have Republicans and Democrats here, and a lot of times this becomes kind 

of a regional argument. I am a Democrat from Oklahoma. It is an 

oil and gas producing State. It is a big industry in our State. And, 

you know, I want to say to you all, it is a large producer of income 

for our Federal Government. It is actually the second largest contributor to the Treasury next to income taxes. 

And in Oklahoma, the oil and gas industry buys a lot of textbooks for education. We also have a check-off program in Oklahoma 

called the Oklahoma Energy Resources Board where we go back 

and clean up well sites. 

So, when you think about the oil and gas industry, I know a lot 

of folks on our side sometimes disparage them as these kind of 

greedy JR Ewing types. Most of the folks in the oil and gas industry want to protect the environment, they want to give back, and 

they want us all to coexist. 

I am the incoming chairman of the Congressional Sportsmen’s 

Caucus, and I support responsible energy development. I don’t 

think we should just drill for the sake of drilling, but I do think 

it is a big part of our economy. 

One thing that we heard today was about spills and everything 

else—and I wanted to go back to Katrina and Rita where we had 

3,050 offshore platforms in the Gulf—and according to the MMS 

and the U.S. Coast Guard, that there weren’t any significant spills. 

Now, this is just from the platforms. The industry that produces 

about 1.4 billion barrels of oil per day, which since 1980 less than 

.001 percent of that has spilled, how do you all reconcile that? I 

mean, you are saying, well, it is a problem. Is it just this oil that 

is running around there? Is it from fishing boats? Are you saying 

it is mainly from rigs? Because from my estimation, .001 percent 

is a very small percentage. That is my first question. 

53 

And again I just want to reiterate there are a lot of responsible 

people in the oil and gas industry, patriotic people that want to do 

what is right by our country. 

Mr. DANSON. I have a huge amount of respect. When I first started doing this 20 years ago, we were invited up to Prudhoe Bay by 

the oil companies. We got to know them, we enjoyed them. We disagreed, but we came together and decided how can we work together. We are never going to agree on the wildlife refuge, but let’s 

find something we can do together. And we started to reuse the 

motor oil, a recycling used motor oil program in Southern California that kept more oil out of our oceans, our coastal waters, almost than Exxon Valdez. You dump that much down, do-ityourselfers every year. So, I have a huge amount of respect for you 

all—not ‘‘you all,’’ I am sorry. 

Mr. BOREN. I am part of the oil and gas industry, absolutely. 

Sure, sure, my family has been in the business. 

Mr. DANSON. And it makes absolute sense I think from your perspective, an oilman’s perspective, to drill. But I just think the risks 

far outweigh. But it is not out of a lack of respect. 

Mr. BOREN. And I want to make one comment, too. I think that, 

as Boone Pickens and a lot of other folks who have been involved 

in the oil and gas industry for a long time, I think we all want alternatives. I think we all want to move in that direction. And natural gas is really a bridge to the future there. And we have a ton 

of domestic natural gas that is not even produced offshore. A lot 

of it actually is produced in my congressional district in eastern 

Oklahoma in the Woodford shale. And if we use that natural gas— 

which is actually less than what it would be for oil—and use that 

as a transportation fuel, the carbon footprint will be smaller and 

we won’t be relying on Saudi Arabia and these other places. And 

we will employ a lot of Oklahomans and Californians and a lot of 

Americans. So, I appreciate your candor there, that comment. 

Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. As it has all been said to my right, but not everybody has said it, I am going to recognize the gentleman from Utah, 

Mr. Bishop. 

Mr. BISHOP. Did you put me in here between these two microphones so it would be uncomfortable to talk? Is this the subtle 

version? 

Hey, I appreciate the kind words of the Chairman. I am assuming they will get better as the day goes on. And I apologize for 

being late. My solar-powered airplane was late arriving. 

I have not had the opportunity of hearing a lot of the questions 

that have been asked so far. I will try not to be redundant. I did 

have the opportunity of looking at some of the testimony that was 

added, and so let me start off with a couple of things because, to 

be honest, my math is confusing here. 

The number of 120 million barrels that are spilled into the 

oceans that has been floating around, how many gallons are in a 

barrel? 

Mr. DANSON. Oh, you got me. 

Mr. INSLEE. Forty-two. 

54 

Mr. BISHOP. If it is 42, then that means the number is somewhere around 3 million barrels that we are talking about is existing. 

Mr. INSLEE. 2.9. 

Mr. BISHOP. 2.9? If the actual leakage from an area is .001 percent, and 63 percent we have been told of actually the oil spillage 

comes from that, for some reason those numbers don’t seem to add 

up in some way. The .001 percent of 4.7 that is produced is actually 

more than 3 million barrels that is supposed to be in there. So, I 

am making the assumption that we are throwing around numbers 

here pretty fast and loose, looking at different years, different 

atoms, different concepts, in coming up with some of these figures 

that are there, with the only constant being that seepage is really 

one of the narrower of problems that has to be there, or in some 

way that it just doesn’t fit in some particular way. 

I am concerned. And I would like to ask either of you to respond 

to a couple of implications that were made, one in which it was 

stated that decisions over offshore drilling have been made in the 

absence of adequate scientific information. And I would like to 

know if you wanted to amplify that, especially because any kind of 

offshore drilling activity would first of all go through, by law and 

regulation, a study before a lease program is established, a study 

before the lease sale is given, another study before the exploration 

would take place, another study before production. A minimum of 

three separate environmental impact statements would be made. 

And if we are talking also—let me see if I can list—that there are 

no laws, at the very least, legislature is to ensure the process of 

new drilling sites and conditions applied to exploration minimize 

their impact. We already have the Outer Continental Shelf Lands 

Act, the Coastal Zone Management Act, Marine Mammals Protection Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Water Act, the 

Clean Air Act, the National Environmental Protection Agency Act, 

and all sorts of other protections. 

Are you really serious when you say that you firmly believe decisions have been made without adequate scientific input? 

Mr. DANSON. Yes, I do. I don’t know if that is necessarily accurate; but yes, I do believe that. The reason why I got into this conversation to begin with was the scientific information that was 

coming our way about the acidification of the oceans. 

Mr. BISHOP. But if indeed we are having—they just gave me a 

list of the laws that are applicable, and they are not numbered, it 

goes from A to ii. Is there not some room maybe to vary some of 

that approach and saying, yes, there is a significant amount of research impact, at least environmental statements that have to be 

made before any of this stuff progresses? 

Mr. DANSON. You know well more than I do. I will defer to you. 

But if you are not taking into consideration that by burning fossil 

fuels you are dumping so much carbon dioxide into our oceans that 

a vast percentage of that could die as a result of acidification, then 

no, we haven’t done enough science. 

Mr. BISHOP. All right. I mean, if you want to work with me, I 

am told I have a great deal of ability for having rhetorical excess 

around here, at least the Chairman does. You don’t have to verify 

that. 

55 

The CHAIRMAN. That is why you were given two microphones. 

Mr. BISHOP. OK. We can work on those. Now I can’t reach this 

one. You noticed I moved to the left to talk here, though. We can 

try and move on that particular approach. 

There is another thing. We are in a State that is currently trying 

to balance the budget. I am an old classroom teacher. This is not 

my native area of expertise. They are desperately trying to fund 

education in the State of Utah and make sure that my retirement 

checks keep coming through, and yet the Secretary recently withdrew 77 leases of potential gas, which took $3 million off the table 

that the legislature is now trying to bundle with. Now, that has got 

to be made up in a particular way. 

So, in your position as maybe an expert—I am running out of 

time—an expert on these issues, if we had traditionally had since 

the 1950s about $200 billion in royalties that have gone to the 

State and local government, the expectation is somewhere in the 

name of $1 trillion billion that have gone to State government so 

they can fund themselves, what tax would you suggest should be 

used to replicate that funding source? 

Mr. DANSON. You outdid me, sir. I know the staff heard the question, and we will get back an answer to that. 

Mr. BISHOP. Is that my rhetorical excess again one more time? 

Mr. DANSON. No. I honor the question, I just don’t have an answer. 

Mr. BISHOP. If I could ask the indulgence of Chairman Rahall, 

this is the last question. I don’t want to abuse my privilege yet. 

The CHAIRMAN. Will you leave after this set of questions? 

Mr. BISHOP. If the Chairman would be satisfied, I would be 

happy to do that. The things I do to make you happy around here. We import about $700 billion worth of petroleum from the Middle East, and every barrel of gas, of product—oil, I was just told, 

19 percent of that equates to fuel that is pulled off, which any kind 

of green alternative could kind of handle that. The other 42 percent 

is the stuff that is left over, which is reserve, that goes into making 

plastics and chemicals. 

And, in fact, they just told me you went into an operating room, 

something with which you are familiar—and you go in there—everything except for the steel comes from some source that is oilbased product. Jobs are oil-based product. I am not sitting on leather up here, these are all oil-based products. If indeed we do not 

come up with an American source to supply those types of needs 

in the chemical and the medical and the plastics area, what product are we going to—how are we going to replace that? What is the 

process that goes through that? We are not just talking about fueling automobiles when we talk about oil production, we are talking 

about a whole series of issues: jobs, input, things that have made 

life better. 

Mr. COUSTEAU. Well, if I may, Congressman, I think in answer 

to your first question, there are several acts that govern management of the oceans. However, since the moratorium was not reinstated, there is no comprehensive management legislation for the 

Outer Continental Shelf. And the research is inadequate. We know 

for sure that the research that exists right now—and I am not 

making a comment on what has happened in the past, it has hapVerDate Aug 31 2005 15:01 Mar 19, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\47302.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
56 

pened—but going forward, the research of the Outer Continental 

Shelf, the knowledge of the ecosystems there and spatial planning 

is inadequate today in many, many places. 

I will also say that in answer to your second question, to replace 

some of the tax revenue from that, I think renewable energy will 

certainly—there will be taxes on renewable energy in the development of that, certainly in offshore and domestic on the land. And 

I think that we forget, too, that there are negative costs to developing and our reliance on oil. 

As I said earlier, 1 out of 4 children in New York City have asthma. I think that we must balance the negative impacts to our 

health, to our health care industry—we have some of the highest 

costs in the health care industry in the world. I believe there are 

multiple estimates that I have seen, various different research 

studies, but certainly numbering in the thousands of deaths that 

occur from air pollution in this country. So, if you want to fully factor the costs in, you need to factor those in as well to the costs on 

taxpayer dollars for health care and for other things that are negatively impacted by oil. 

And to the third point. I agree with you, I think it is not going 

to be realistic for a very long time to fully eliminate oil from our 

economy. I think that the critical—and what we must embark upon 

now is a drastic reduction with the goal of eventually eliminating 

it. But we can’t wait any longer, we have to start now. And continuing to drill and continuing to focus on this issue of drilling is 

not, I think, the way to do it. 

Mr. BISHOP. I think there are some serial things where we can 

actually work together on this. 

I appreciate the very eloquent answer that is there. And I realize 

that Pampers come from oil, and that they do cause problems in 

landfills. But as somebody who had three kids under 3 in the cloth 

diaper era, I like Pampers. And I may like them in the future a 

lot more; who knows? 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The gentleman from California, Mr. Costa. 

Mr. COSTA. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Cousteau and Mr. Danson, are either of you familiar with 

the last evaluation of research that was done by the National Academy of Sciences in 2002 that talked about the impacts of pollution 

in the seas throughout the world? 

Mr. DANSON. Probably not. 

Mr. COSTA. Well, it is my understanding one of the last comprehensive compilations of all the different information that is put 

out there, some of the information has already been discussed this 

morning. I guess you put me somewhere out in the middle. I mean, 

you talked about, earlier this morning, about a comprehensive approach. And if there is going to be some additional expansion of offshore oil and gas resources, that the revenues from that ought to 

be used to get us off of fossil fuels. We had such a bill last year, 

Congressman Abercrombie and myself, on a bipartisan basis, I 

would suggest you look at it. 

But basically what the National Academy of Sciences concluded 

in this report was that today accidental spills from platforms represent about 1 percent of the petroleum inputs in North America 

57 

waters and about 3 percent worldwide. And it goes on to stipulate 

that when you look at the impacts around the world, that over 85 

percent of the contributions of decline of fisheries that we have 

talked a lot about today is a result of nonpoint sources. And I want 

to use all the energy tools in our energy toolbox to get us off of fossil fuels. But what you haven’t talked about today is how we get 

there, how you develop an orderly process. Because there is a nearterm, there is an intermediate-term, and there is a long-term strategy. And just wishing or saying that offshore drilling or oil and gas 

exploration in this country is bad, when we have the highest standards—and I would take issue with you, Mr. Cousteau, because the 

moratorium has been lifted, that in fact there are not the protections that Mr. Bishop—you prefer a moratorium, I understand 

that, and we may agree to disagree on that, but all the protections 

are still in place in terms of all the requirement and permits that 

have to be done. 

Do you agree that nonpoint source, both of you, is the primary 

source of decline of fisheries and degradation of the oceans of the 

world? 

Mr. DANSON. I would say, you know, I don’t know the facts and 

figures exactly, but absolutely it plays a huge part of it. 

Mr. COSTA. It is 85 percent. 

Mr. DANSON. Huge part of it. But then when you add what happens—— 

Mr. COSTA. Do you agree, Mr. Cousteau? We had 1.5 billion 

people living on the planet 200 years ago, we have 6 billion people 

living on the planet today. Do you know where a lot of them live? 

Around the world, around the coast. And they have all of that 

nonpoint source pollution going into the oceans. 

Mr. COUSTEAU. Correct. 

Mr. COSTA. And what my point is, I think that your efforts are 

misplaced. I mean, if I want to correct an ecological nightmare that 

is taking place, I would be focusing on the nonpoint source pollutions that we do in this country, that we require cities and counties 

with tertiary treatment facilities and with waste disposal and all 

of the like, and every time it rains—I am one of those that does 

sail the coast of California and sails the Caribbean. I am a passionate sailor. And my Portuguese compatriot, Juan Rodriguez 

Cabrillo’s notes I have read when he sailed the coast of California 

400 years ago. And obviously we can’t go back 400 years. But I 

think trying to see where our differences lie is an acknowledgement, as you made a point of with ANWR, that it just seems to me 

you want to get us off of fossil fuel. I want to get us off of fossil 

fuel, but no one is talking here about an orderly process on how 

we do that. 

Mr. DANSON. It feels to me that the reason why we are not at 

this particular moment is because I feel, from my point of view, we 

are putting out the fire of opening up the Outer Continental Shelf 

to oil drilling. I mean, that is the conservation that—I agree with 

you wholeheartedly; to sit back and say no, no, no is not responsible. I agree. 

Mr. COSTA. We are going to have to continue, for the near term, 

I believe, extraction of oil and natural gas not only along our 

coasts, but around the world. And we do it better—I mean, do you 

58 

spend the same focus on the impacts of this offshore activity in Nigeria and along the Arabian coasts as we are talking about 

here—— 

Mr. DANSON. I respect the fact that we do it really well. I am not 

denying that. 

Mr. COUSTEAU. If I may add—— 

Mr. COSTA. Your grandfather spent a lot of time around the 

world, Mr. Cousteau, and talked about that pollution occurring in 

other places where they didn’t have very good management practices, whether it be from oil or nonpoint sources. And I haven’t 

heard you comment about the nonpoint sources. 

Mr. COUSTEAU. Well, because—I mean our discussion today is for 

management of the Outer Continental Shelf. I agree the nonpoint 

source pollution is a challenge, but—— 

Mr. COSTA. And what percentage of the challenge do you believe 

it to be on the Outer Continental Shelf in North America, where 

we have some of the best management practices, so that we stay 

focused on this morning’s topic. 

Mr. COUSTEAU. Can you repeat the question? 

Mr. COSTA. What percentage of the problems of degradation of 

the oceans on the Outer Continental Shelf in North America is contributing to the decline versus nonpoint sources versus activity of 

offshore oil and gas? 

Mr. COUSTEAU. I don’t have any of those figures in front of me. 

Mr. COSTA. Well, don’t you think a good comparative analysis 

would be appropriate if we are talking about concerns about good 

science, best management practices? 

Mr. COUSTEAU. I am sure if they don’t exist—— 

Mr. COSTA. We have limited dollars, and it just seems to me that 

we ought to put our dollars for the best bang for the best buck. And 

so we should do a quantitative analysis on how much the nonpoint 

source pollutions are contributing to the decline of the Outer Continental Shelf off North America versus the impacts of oil and gas. 

That is all I am asking. 

Mr. COUSTEAU. I don’t disagree that we don’t know enough about 

the oceans, and I think I have been saying that all day. But—— 

Mr. COSTA. But we know that the overwhelming majority comes 

from nonpoint source to the decline of the fisheries. 

Mr. COUSTEAU. Well, today what we are advocating is the management of the Outer Continental Shelf, not to the exclusion of focusing—— 

Mr. COSTA. I understand. But I just want to know, you as a very 

high-minded citizen, and you, Mr. Danson, I mean, you live off— 

Mr. Danson, did we, for the record, substantiate—by the way, they 

say you and I look a lot alike. I love your Arctic blonde hair. 

Mr. DANSON. That is very kind of you. 

Mr. COSTA. I think it is very becoming. Mine is actually naturally 

black, but I do this to get more gravitas for people—— 

The CHAIRMAN. On that point, I think we ought to tell the gentleman his time has expired. 

Mr. COSTA. Well, it has expired. But just for the record, I think 

that it would be helpful in terms of ocean management studies— 

of which I have read some—that we do the kind of comparative 

analysis on this, because we have 27 platforms off the California 

59 

coast. And I know tourism is a big thing in California, because I 

live there. And I don’t think those 27 platforms have turned anyone away from wanting to visit California. 

Mr. COUSTEAU. I agree that more research is needed on all 

fronts, Congressman. 

Mr. DANSON. And I hope that today’s conservation is giving the 

impression that we are not just looking at oil rigs per se, we are 

looking at the whole process of oil; what happens when you drill 

it, what happens when it gets spilled in transportation, what happens when we burn it in our cars and it gets washed off in 

nonpoint into the coastal zone, and what happens when it falls 

back down into our oceans. So, we are trying to look at it from a 

complete point of view of what are the risks and costs of drilling 

and continuing our addiction to oil. 

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will recognize the gentleman from 

South Carolina just quickly for a UC. I believe you want to submit 

a statement. 

Mr. BROWN. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. If it is in order, I 

would like to submit an opening statement. 

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Brown follows:] 

Statement of The Honorable Henry E. Brown, Jr., a Representative in 

Congress from the State of South Carolina 

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that you have scheduled this oversight hearing on 

the Federal Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas leasing program. 

It is not only the first hearing of the Natural Resources Committee this year but 

it is the first time we have reexamined the benefits of the OCS program since the 

110th Congress wisely ended the 27-year old leasing moratorium. 

The U.S. Mineral Management Service has estimated that the Federal OCS contains as much as 86 billion barrels of oil and 420 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. 

As a representative of the 1st Congressional District of South Carolina, I proudly 

represent 75 percent of the coastline of my State and some 140 miles that includes 

some of the finest beaches in the world. 

Every year, millions of Americans, Canadians and other visitors travel to my District to enjoy these beaches and I would never support any Federal action that 

would put our pristine beaches in peril. 

Yet, the real facts of the OCS Program are frequently ignored and blatantly misrepresented. Despite the heated rhetoric, the OCS Program has an outstanding environmental record. It is our Nation’s safest energy extraction program. In fact, 

urban runoff dumps more oil into the ocean than offshore rigs. 

We will also hear from a witness today who will testify that 70,000 barrels of oil 

and 3 billion cubic feet of methane are seeping into California coastal waters each 

and every year. These annual seeps are equal to the volume created by the 1969 

Santa Barbara oil spill. 

Furthermore, let’s be clear. The greatest threat to my beaches and those in California, Florida and New Jersey is not the Federal OCS Program but oil spills from 

leaking foreign tankers. Of the 50 largest oil spills, not a single one was the result 

of the Federal OCS leasing program. 

In the Gulf of Mexico, which is the site of the greatest amount of OCS activity, 

commercial energy production and fishing activities have co-existed for decades. In 

2006, commercial fishermen landed 1.3 billion pounds of fish and eight of the top 

25 ports for commercial landings were in the Gulf of Mexico. We know that offshore 

rigs provide habitat for millions of fish and the potential of using rigs for offshore 

aquaculture is a huge untapped source of protein for this nation. 

In the final analysis, the choice is clear. We can continue to obtain our vital 

energy resources from foreign governments that hate the United States and are 

more than willing to strangle our economy or we can develop our resources in a safe 

and responsible way. We can continue to have our imported energy resources transported on foreign tankers which sometimes foul our beaches or we can increase the 

amount of production on the Federal OCS which is our safest energy extraction program. 

60 

I choose to support the Federal OCS program and would remind my colleagues 

that in a recent Rasmussen nationwide survey, 68 percent of Americans indicated 

they support offshore oil drilling. Since our witnesses did not walk from their homes 

to this hearing and visitors to my State need gasoline to drive their cars to the 

Grand Strand, it is essential that we move forward with the OCS Program and not 

reinstate the short-sighted and ill conceived leasing moratoriums. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. By way of housekeeping, the Chair intends to 

recognize the remaining members on the majority side, including 

the gentlelady from New Hampshire next, who was here early on 

in the hearings for some time and did not get recognized. And then, 

with the forbearance of the panel, there are some that still would 

like to go through a second round of questions, but if the panelists—yes, I will leave it up to your discretion after we go through 

our Democrats. 

Mr. DANSON. I would love to stay here all day. Next time I will 

learn not to be nervous and drink a lot of water. 

Is it possible to—— 

The CHAIRMAN. We shall have a 5-minute break. 

Mr. DANSON. That is so kind of you. 

The CHAIRMAN. OK. The Committee will be in recess. 

[Recess.] 

The CHAIRMAN. The Committee will resume. And the Chair and 

all members of the Committee certainly want to extend our appreciation to Ted and Philippe for their patience and willingness to 

share so much time with us today. We deeply appreciate it. 

The Chair will now recognize the gentlelady from New Hampshire, Ms. Carol Shea-Porter. 

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Thank you very much for being here. 

I grew up along the oceans of New York and New Hampshire. 

And there can be no doubt that the oceans are degraded and that 

they are greatly stressed. So, I am concerned that there is not universal consensus about the conditions of the oceans right now. 

And I am particularly concerned by the statistic that you used, 

Mr. Danson, when you were saying that half the people in the 

world depend on the ocean for their protein as a major source of 

food. And it occurred to me that the argument that we are having 

here and other places would just be wiped off the map if we started 

to argue about the food and the loss of food if our oceans continue 

being degraded. 

The question that I wanted to ask, I first wanted to talk about 

Georges Bank, and that obviously is in New England. If they did 

develop it, it could only give maybe 3 percent of the recoverable oil 

for the Nation’s preserves, 3 percent. And I have concerns because 

it is such a rich fishing area. Would you comment on the possible 

damage that could be done to Georges Bank? 

Mr. DANSON. I think you just said it. I just keep going back— 

sorry, I don’t know the specifics of Georges Bank, so it is hard to 

for me to sound intelligent about that. 

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. In the Gulf of Maine, Massachusetts, New 

England area. 

Mr. DANSON. But spills do happen, oil spills do happen. And the 

fact that we keep burning fossil fuels and contributing to climate 

change and that carbon dioxide is falling into the oceans and creVerDate Aug 31 2005 15:01 Mar 19, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\47302.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
61 

ating something that we haven’t talked about a lot, which is acidification, so that your fishing areas are getting stress from overfishing, they are getting stress from pollution, and now if they start 

getting stressed from the bottom of the food chain being eradicated 

by carbon dioxide getting in and acidification, then you could seriously lose your fisheries completely. 

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Right. In New Hampshire we have a great 

deal of concern. We call ourselves—and, indeed, all of New England—the tailpipe of America. We don’t feel good about that, and 

I know you know what that means. And we do see the effects of 

acid rain from coal and others. And we are seeing the impact, if 

you go up to the top of some of our mountains and you can see the 

damage to the leaves, and you see damage in the environment just 

in general because of the climate change and because of our addiction to fossil fuels. 

Now, I think it is interesting also that we are having this discussion, but we haven’t brought up the fact that at some point we are 

probably going to run out of this. So, I want to talk to you about 

what T. Boone Pickens had to say when he came and spoke to the 

Democrat Caucus, and I know you have seen his ads on television. 

And he has a lot of faith in our ability to harness the wind and 

solar and use other renewables. And what I am hearing from a certain segment of the population is a kind of scorn that we actually 

could change our use of fuels and we could use the alternatives. 

I am sure that you have looked at what our predicted energy 

needs will be. And we all agree that for the short term we have 

to continue in oil. But having looked at all of this, do you think 

that, along with T. Boone Pickens and so many of us, do you think 

that we are capable and that there will be enough energy that we 

could harness to meet our needs, not this generation, but next generation maybe? 

Would you like to take a crack at that? 

Mr. COUSTEAU. Well, thank you, Congresswoman, for your question and insight. 

I think that we have the capability to overcome any challenge in 

this country. And I have great faith in the ingenuity and the ability 

of the workers in this country, of our economy, the resiliency of us 

to be able to do so. 

We have put people on the Moon. I think we can solve our energy 

crisis if we dedicate ourselves and start now with a really vigorous 

approach to do so and a vigorous commitment to doing so. 

The technology exists. It may take some hardship as well. Maybe 

we don’t need to have two SUVs in our garages, or three. Maybe 

we don’t need to have 50,000 square foot homes. Maybe we don’t 

need to be flying around just a few people on massive private jets. 

Maybe we don’t need some of these things; I would argue that we 

don’t. 

I think that there are multiple factors that will be required for 

us to continue to live sustainably on this planet. And I think that 

the answers to that is myriad. And I think we can do it. I have 

great faith that we can do it, because I am not a big fan of the alternative. Because the alternative, I do believe, is for us to literally 

wipe ourselves off the face of this Earth. 

62 

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Well, I have always told my children, little 

house, big world. And I think that is a safe philosophy for all of 

us, because conservation is not being talked about and it is not 

being respected yet, so we are not really addressing it. 

I also wanted to talk a moment about what happened with 

Valdez. For many, many years the fishermen and those who relied 

on that industry tried to get the oil company to settle up and pay 

their bills. And it finally went to the Supreme Court and the fishermen lost. Is there some kind of warning here for people who live 

along the coastline who are thinking, well, maybe that would be 

the answer, maybe that would help us if we did get more oil? Is 

there some kind of lesson for them as small business and people 

who rely on tourism, et cetera, to take a look? What are the lessons 

there? 

Mr. COUSTEAU. I think that is a great quote. I am actually a student of history. And I believe it was Churchill who said, ‘‘Those 

who do not learn from the past are doomed to repeat it.’’ And I 

think that all we need to do is look back at the past. Have our reliance and continued exploitation of oil led us to anywhere positive? 

I would say no. 

I think that it is incumbent upon us to develop renewable energy 

and to get off of oil or we will continue to repeat the mistakes of 

the past. And I think we only need to look at oil spills of the past 

and how we still have 16,000 gallons, I believe, of oil in Prince William Sound from Exxon Valdez. I mean, these legacies live for a 

long time. 

Mr. DANSON. It is probably not just that the oil companies are 

stingy about giving their money to the fishermen, it is probably 

that it is so overwhelmingly expensive that it is probably impossible to clean up the damage, that you do not have enough money 

to make it right. It is not just that they don’t want to part with 

their money, it is probably an impossibility to make it right with 

money, which I think is a lesson. If you have a disastrous spill, 

there is nothing that can mitigate that; it is forever. 

Mr. COUSTEAU. And immediately, if you begin to hold oil companies accountable for the entire cost of their actions and the entire 

cost of the oil and what they do, then you start to get into the question of do you start to account for all of the health care costs that 

come from air pollution from exploitation of these resources? I 

mean, do you start to charge them for the full life cycle? That 

would drive up oil costs tremendously. I mean, we pay for everything. It is just where we end up paying for it. So, they probably 

don’t want to open Pandora’s box and set a precedent. 

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. OK. And so for those that are looking at that 

as maybe a temporary relief, there is definitely a lesson to be 

learned, what the actual experience was, that people lost their livelihood. And it takes us right back to the beginning of the hearing 

when we were talking about we need this for jobs, we need this for 

a food source, and we can use it for an energy source as well. 

And on that note, I will say thank you and yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Hawaii is recognized, Mr. 

Abercrombie. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And gentlemen, 

thank you for being here. 

63 

Mr. Costa indicated that we had a bill—when I say ‘‘we,’’ this 

was a broad consensus of Republicans and Democrats. We didn’t 

call it even bipartisan, we called it nonpartisan. We developed a 

bill; it is H.R. 6709 from last year. We are going to reintroduce it 

again this year, the National Conservation Environment and 

Energy Independence Act. It came out of an effort that Mr. Peterson of Pennsylvania—since retired I am very, very sorry to say— 

and myself put together originally, H.R. 2784, which had to do 

with the development offshore of natural gas absent oil production. 

And it might be useful to you just to read what we originally wrote 

some years ago, it took us years to put this together, ‘‘to enhance 

the Nation’s environmental energy, economic and national security 

by terminating longstanding Federal prohibitions on the domestic 

production of abundant offshore supplies of natural gas.’’ 

This is where we started. I was converted to this, by the way. 

I supported the moratorium that you speak of for many years. I 

didn’t think much about it. Offshore oil, OK, I am against that, and 

I didn’t think about it. But I listened to Mr. Peterson at the time 

about the crisis that we faced in terms of being able to go from a 

carbon-based fuel economy now to an alternative energy, and how 

would we get there, what kind of alternative energy bridge could 

we use? And I concluded that we had to have exploration and extraction of carbon-based fuels now to fund and make the transition 

period. So, we started with natural gas. ‘‘To dedicate fixed percentages of the resultant royalties for environmental restoration 

projects, renewable energy and carbon sequestration research, 

weatherization and energy assistance for those in need, and to 

share a portion of such royalties with the producing States, and for 

other purposes.’’ 

That is how we started out with this. We tried to figure out, how 

do we get to restoration of various areas? And some of the things 

that we did were to take the revenues from—this was just from 

natural gas leases before we got to oil—energy efficiency and renewable reserves, $32 billion; carbon capture and sequestration reserve, $32 billion; Chesapeake Bay restoration reserve, $20 billion; 

Great Lakes restoration reserve—the Great Lakes get forgotten all 

the time in all the discussion that takes place. I was born in Buffalo, and I watched Lake Erie become inert liquid, not H20. It 

didn’t qualify as a lake anymore, it was inert liquid. I watched rivers catch on fire in Buffalo. 

Great Lakes restoration. Everglades restoration reserve, $12 billion; Colorado River Basin restoration, $12 billion; San Francisco 

Bay restoration reserve, $12 billion. LIHEAP and Weatherization 

Service. 

We put all this in because we tried to say, well, what can we do 

to get the transition period from gas. And then we moved to 6709— 

I give you these numbers because I am going to ask you to refer 

to them because this hearing—and I want to say parenthetically 

about the Chairman and Mr. Bishop, there could not be better legislators in terms of fairness and openness and dialogue that we 

have with one another about how to get to the solution. We will 

get new numbers for what was 6709 before, but I want to refer to 

you because if we are going to get to where you want to go, you 

are going to have to work through the Congress and work through 

64 

this Committee, in particular, and the members on it and the members associated with it who came in. 

We went into a room, no lobbyists—including yourselves, no offense—no lobbyists, no leadership from either party, members, no 

staff—and we worked this out among ourselves to try and get this 

transition. 

So, what I am going to ask you to do, you needn’t comment further on it, the bill itself, 6709, essentially says the same thing: to 

dedicate fixed percentages of royalties received for conservation 

programs, environmental restoration projects, renewable energy research development, clean energy technology research and development, increased development of existing energy sources, energy assistance to those in need, and to share a portion with the States 

and with the Federal Treasury to enable us to do these renewable 

energy and alternative energy products, including giving money for 

hybrid electric cars and energy stations and so on. In other words, 

a complete spectrum out there. 

And if you just give me one more minute, Mr. Chairman, what 

we did is we took ANWR off the table because we knew that those 

of us who have been against the ANWR and those who supported 

the ANWR drilling knew that that was such a volatile political 

issue that it would get in the way of us trying to move forward. 

I then, and people like myself who were for raising the CAFE 

standards, we took that off the table because that caused so much 

political difficulty. So, we tried to zero in on those things where we 

could get agreement that it had to be faced up to, like carbon sequestration and carbon capture, and put money behind it, real 

money. Because out where I am from in Hawaii, we are trying to 

do wind right now, we are trying to do geothermal, we are trying 

to do biofuels. I am a strong supporter of all that. But we have to 

get the money for all that. We have to be able to invest it. Where 

are we going to get the money? We wanted to use the carbon-based 

energy culture that we have now to finance the alternative energy 

future that we want to get to. 

The final thing was that we wanted to stop the hemorrhaging of 

money leaving this country to supply the energy that we have right 

now by developing these domestic resources offshore and on land 

here, so that whatever arguments we were having and whatever 

conclusions we would make would at least be over domestic supply 

that we control so the money stayed here. And the money that we 

were generating from the extraction of domestic oil and natural gas 

would be invested in alternative energy here in this Nation rather 

than seeing those dollars flow out to the Saudis or Venezuelans, or 

whomever; and also because we felt the Chinese were going to try 

to corner every possible energy resource that they could get to fund 

their own domestic concerns, so that it would cause the price of 

carbon-based fuel—particularly oil—to, on the whole, rise regardless of fluctuations such as we see now. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. So, I am going to ask you to kindly take a 

look at what we started out with, which was called the NEED Act. 

That was 2784, which evolved into the National Conservation and 

Energy Independence Act, 6709, because we are going to try to introduce it again because I think there is common ground here that 

if we can figure out a way to do domestic production in as safe a 

65 

way as possible, and I am not going to argue with anything you 

have put forward here as to what the difficulties are, that we will 

actually be able to have a path for investment for alternative energy, and that is essentially what I am asking, 6709 and 2784. 

And I just want to conclude because everybody says it personally, 

I want to say to you, Mr. Danson, that there are two national 

media resources that we have in terms of entertainment. One was 

‘‘The Wire,’’ which is, I thought I was the only person watching it 

in the country, and it turns out, I think it is Shakespearean. It was 

wonderful. But the other is ‘‘Damages.’’ And I want to tell you, I 

fail to completely understand why it doesn’t get the recognition it 

deserves, and right now if there is any contribution being made on 

a mass media basis—you know, C-SPAN or something covers us. 

We are just politicians and all the rest. But in terms of credibility, 

‘‘Damages,’’ that series, is doing more to create environmental 

awareness right now with the present story structure that is going 

on now and with the premises that were established there, I think, 

than anything else that is being done in the Nation right now. 

So, I, for one, am not one who dismisses the idea that people who 

have a national cultural resource to explore are somehow 

disenabled from being able to comment or to participate in the national discussion. On the contrary, I think it is the quality of the 

presentation that counts; and the quality of the presentation with 

which you are associated, I believe, enhances your capacity to 

speak authoritatively and to comment as a citizen. I welcome that 

and, on the basis of goodwill and good intentions, hope that you, 

in turn, with the Ocean Conservancy will take a look at 6709 and 

our intentions and purposes and perhaps we can begin a dialogue. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your indulgence. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

The gentleman from American Samoa, Mr. Faleomavaega. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And I personally welcome our two distinguished witnesses this 

morning, Mr. Danson and Mr. Cousteau. 

If my numbers are correct, and please correct me if I am wrong, 

I think between 4 to 5 percent of the world’s population is from the 

United States, and in doing so, I think we consume about 25 to 30 

percent of the world’s energy. From that, I am told that we import 

approximately $700 billion worth of fossil fuel every year to meet 

the demands of our country’s need, and I say with tremendous 

pride that our country also contributes tremendously to the world’s 

needs. And as Mr. Costa has said earlier, Mr. Danson, that while 

I respect your efforts in seeing that we continue the moratorium 

in doing any offshore drilling, I think it raises the same question 

about what we can do to make up for the $700 billion worth of oil 

that we have to purchase from foreign countries and foreign companies in order to meet our own consumer demands? Have you 

given—we talked about wind, solar energy, and all the others, but 

do you think that will make up substantially the $700 billion worth 

of fossil fuel that we need, Mr. Danson? 

Mr. DANSON. I am not an expert on how to and I hope that is— 

and clearly that is what this Committee will be looking into. But 

I feel fairly confident that the figures that say 1 percent, that if we 

do open up the Outer Continental Shelf, we will get 1 percent of 

66 

our daily need. So, it is not going to come from us drilling on our 

Continental Shelf. That won’t happen. 

So, the hope would be that over time you do find ways to supplement your energy needs with alternative sources of energy. But you 

will not drill your way out of it, and you certainly won’t in the Continental Shelf. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Cousteau? 

Mr. COUSTEAU. I agree with Ted. 

Thank you, Congressman. 

I certainly think we won’t be drilling ourselves out of that problem. It certainly won’t come from the Outer Continental Shelf. 

Only 27 percent of U.S. Oil production currently comes from the 

Outer Continental Shelf, and any new drilling will not bring new 

oil production into the country for at least a decade. So, I think we 

need to vigorously and aggressively now say, well, we have 10 to 

15 years, even if we drill in the Outer Continental Shelf, before we 

get any oil from there. How much oil can we get? I think we can 

challenge ourselves. I know we can challenge ourselves to develop 

alternatives in that same period of time that I think we should 

challenge ourselves that will equal more than any of the production 

that would come from the Outer Continental Shelf. And I have 

great faith that we could do that. All we do is lack the will to do 

so. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. So, do you suggest that we ought to continue importing fossil fuel to meet our own consumer demands? 

Mr. COUSTEAU. I think that we will never not import fossil fuels. 

I mean, we cannot—at least, currently, we don’t produce. We import 70 percent of that oil from other countries. That is not going 

to change by drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf. We have to 

find other ways to get off our addiction, period, to oil and develop 

other energies and energy efficiency for us to be able to reduce our 

dependence on foreign oil. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Are both of you supportive of nuclear energy? 

Mr. DANSON. I don’t know enough about it. I hesitate because of 

the problems that we all talk about. What do you do with the 

waste? How do you deal with that? If we found a safe way to do 

that, but I certainly have nothing intelligent to contribute on that. 

Mr. COUSTEAU. I hesitate as well with nuclear energy, but we do 

not have a formal position currently on the development of nuclear 

energy. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Cousteau, I, too, am a great admirer of 

your grandfather. 

Mr. COUSTEAU. Thank you, Congressman: 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I have here a photo that looks like a beautiful flower. It happens to be a nuclear explosion that took place 

on the island of Moruroa in French Polynesia on which I was able 

to visit. And the question that comes to mind was that the French 

government conducted some 200 nuclear explosions of this island 

and made a cheese hole, literally, out of this island of Moruroa. 

Your grandfather was commissioned by the French government to 

go under the island to see if there had been any nuclear leakages 

coming out of this because what the French government did was 

drill 3,000 feet below the islands and then conducted their nuclear 

67 

testing. Supposedly the nuclear blast fuses, whatever, nuclear radiation, whatever the thing that comes out of it, and there was a real 

serious question about the danger of leakages coming out of it from 

what the French did for some 20 years. 

And what I wanted to ask you is that your grandfather did the 

research, but, unfortunately, I am told, according to scientific reports, he only went halfway down the atoll; so he never was really 

able to find out exactly the leakages that have come out of the contamination that the French did on this island. And I would like to 

ask you, sir, if you could do this by following your grandfather’s 

legacy, go to Moruroa Island to find out if, in fact, that we have 

some real dangers here from the fact of what the French government did some years ago? Would you might be able to conduct a 

survey by going down there and finding out if this nuclear—you 

know, some 10,000 Tahitians were subjected to nuclear radiation 

because of what the French did. Some 1.5 million Kazakhs in 

Kazakhstan were exposed to nuclear radiation because of what the 

Russians did in conducting some 500 nuclear explosions during its 

testing period. We conducted about 67 nuclear tests in the Marshall Islands. I am probably one of the few Members who has ever 

visited all of these islands, and I can say to you gentlemen, it is 

not a very pretty sight to see. 

But I just wanted to offer that challenge to you, Mr. Cousteau, 

since you have such a famous name to go with it, if you could follow your grandfather’s legacy, find out what happened, because to 

my understanding, the French government does not allow people to 

go down there to see. It is still nuclear, if you want to put it in 

those terms. This island is still prohibited for visits. I know this 

has nothing to do with offshore drilling, but since I come from an 

island, I have a real sense of appreciation of what it means to live 

in an island community. And I sincerely hope you two gentlemen 

may want to go visit this island called Moruroa. It is about 500 

miles south of Tahiti. 

Again, I want to thank you, Chairman, and thank you gentlemen 

for making the effort to come and testify. 

Mr. COUSTEAU. Thank you, Congressman. 

I think that underlines the concerns about nuclear and why both 

Ted and I are reticent about it as a technology, and it certainly has 

left a terrible legacy and a lasting legacy there that I appreciate, 

that I think you have a great point, we don’t know enough about, 

like so many things in the ocean. 

So, thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Utah, Mr. Chaffetz. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

You will find that I am a bit more conservative than Mr. Bishop, 

and I will be using just one microphone, but thank you. 

I am a fired-up freshman. I didn’t create this problem, but I want 

to help solve it. We may disagree on some points, but the commitment to our long-term future, our kids, our grandkids, I am there 

with you on that. And again, I appreciate your passion. 

I believe we have established several times that your testimony 

is that because we can get, again plus or minus a little bit, 1 percent, only 1 percent is the number I keep hearing, 1 percent of our 

national energy needs out by drilling off the Continental Shelf, that 

68 

that is insufficient. It is not going to make a difference. It is not 

going to be impactful and whatnot. Clearly that has been the position that you have taken along the way. And yet when I also look 

at the situation, and according to the National Academy of Sciences 

and whatnot, it is roughly less than 1 percent of the challenges and 

problems that we have with oil being dumped into our oceans; less 

than 1 percent of the problem is caused by offshore drilling. So, 

why is the 1 percent number important when it is, well, it is not 

going to do anything, just ignore it; and on the other hand, when 

we talk about 1 percent, well, that is so critical, that is so important? Why the discrepancy between the importance of the 1 percent 

on both sides of this argument? 

Mr. DANSON. I don’t know. I mean, it seems like almost a trick 

question if I don’t—— 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. It probably is. But you see, from the hypocrisy 

that I see, and I use that word a little strongly. I mean it as softly 

as possible. 

Mr. DANSON. It just feels to me that this is coming in a climate 

of, we need to be independent of foreign oil. We need to create jobs. 

People are hurting. So, that has been offered as the reason to drill 

on the Outer Continental Shelf. And none of those things, to my 

mind, which is why I bring up the 1 percent or I bring up that you 

create more jobs per million investment doing green investments, 

that you will not see a significant lessening at the pump as a result 

10, 11 years from now of this coming online, 10 or 11 years from 

now. It seems like we are not telling the American people what 

they really need to know right now. Drilling is not going to make 

a difference. If drilling were to make a difference to you, it wouldn’t 

make a difference in the next 10 to 20 years. It would make pennies at the pump difference if that oil actually made it to us in this 

global market. And the cost of—continuing to make all of our 

energy effort, this is what this feels to me. It is like, if you open 

up the Outer Continental Shelf, you are really saying we are going 

to work on clean energy. We are. We will. It is important. But not 

as important as getting that last drop of oil. So, you are sending 

the wrong signal to people who are desperate. So, that is why I 

bring up 1 percent. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Again but—— 

Mr. DANSON. Because it is not just the spills. Sorry. It is not just 

the spills. It is the burning of—it is our whole addiction to it. It 

is the whole cycle, our whole use of it. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. So, if we know that the problem of the oceans is 

99 percent other than drilling off the Outer Continental Shelf— 

boating, it is interesting. If we look at the history of the world, 

transportation and shipping, it was all very eco-friendly, right? We 

would have ships, and they put up sails. It was later that we developed a quicker, more efficient way, and you could argue all the 

positive things of turning our boats into diesel-oriented vehicles. 

Are you advocating or would you support—are you saying we 

should abolish diesel or fossil fuel propelled shipping in this country? Because we have an alternative that is totally eco-friendly. 

Mr. DANSON. But—no, of course not. I am not saying that. But 

I will say that that shipping fleet actually puts off as much carbon 

dioxide as Great Britain does or something like that. 

69 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. It is huge. 

Mr. DANSON. Huge. So, find the technology to scrub it, to clean 

it, to make sure that, like you do with coal-burning plants, when 

you do it, that you find ways to clean up that pollution. You are 

not going—— 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. So, even though it is a bigger, I mean, by a multitude, it is exponentially bigger than the 1 percent, you are fine 

with that. You are comfortable with that, our shipping, and you 

wouldn’t advocate a change there? 

Mr. DANSON. My mind is a little confused. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. It is late, I know. 

Mr. COUSTEAU. I think that one of the points—I think that percentages can be deceiving, certainly, and I know a lot of them have 

been discussed today. And 1 percent can equal a lot of damage. 

Maybe 1 percent sounds like, in the abyss, in space, in air, as we 

talk about it, not a lot. But when you talk about an oil spill in the 

Arctic or critical habitats that have impacts on the entire ecosystems, that 1 percent or fraction of the 1 percent can be very, 

very serious. So, I think 1 percent is deceiving in that it sounds 

small, but it can have a tremendous impact, even for multiple 

years, as we have seen with Exxon Valdez. 

And I think it comes down to the point of why we are here. The 

specific recommendations that any kind of development on the 

Outer Continental Shelf must be subject to planning, process, a 

special planning that is not currently in existence and must be subject to science and research that we don’t have enough investment 

in, we invest a thousand times more money in space exploration 

than we do in ocean conservation exploration. That is mind boggling to me. I love the idea of knowing whether there was ever 

water on Mars, but we don’t need to know that to live on this 

planet. We do need healthy oceans and safe oceans to live on this 

planet. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. I buy that. 

Mr. COUSTEAU. So we don’t have enough investment in the 

oceans, and we don’t know enough to make many decisions about 

how to use that. So, I think it comes back to the idea that fundamentally what we need is good planning, good science, and I 

think that it is deceiving to throw small numbers around like 1 

percent because that 1 percent can have a massive impact on very 

critical areas but then have a compound impact. I mean, if we destroy the Arctic ocean, that has consequences for fisheries and ecosystems throughout the entire Pacific ocean and fisheries that support economics for many, many, many people. And I think that that 

is important to remember. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you. 

Mr. COUSTEAU. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. That concludes episode one. 

The Chair wishes to certainly express his deepest appreciation to 

both of you, Ted and Philippe, for the tremendous amount of time 

you have given us today, of patience, of facts, of knowledge, intelligence, and passion. And I certainly commend you for being true 

champions of our oceans and the manner in which you fight for the 

sustainability of our oceans and the irreplaceable resources therein. 

70 

I commend you in every stretch of the imagination, and thank you 

so much for being with us today. 

Mr. DANSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. COUSTEAU. Mr. Chairman, thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Safe travels. 

Mr. DANSON. Thank you. Thank you all. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Episode two. Our panel number two is composed 

of the following individuals: Ms. Carolyn Esther McCormick, Managing Director of the Outer Banks Visitors Bureau in North Carolina; Mr. D.T. Minich, Executive Director, St. Petersburg/Clearwater Area Convention and Visitors Bureau; Mr. W. F. ‘‘Zeke’’ 

Grader, Jr., Executive Director of the Pacific Coast Federation of 

Fishermen’s Associations; Mr. Bruce Allen, Co-Founder of SOS 

California; and Mr. Jefferson M. Angers, President of the Center 

for Coastal Conservation. 

Lady and gentlemen, we do have your prepared testimony and it 

will be made part of the record as if actually read, and you are 

given 5 minutes to proceed as you desire. And I assume we will go 

in the order in which I introduced you if that is your desire, starting with you Ms. McCormick. 

STATEMENT OF CAROLYN ESTHER McCORMICK, MANAGING 

DIRECTOR, OUTER BANKS VISITORS BUREAU, NORTH 

CAROLINA 

Ms. MCCORMICK. Good afternoon and thank you for being here. 

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, again, thank you 

for this opportunity to be here today. My name is Carolyn McCormick, and I have been serving the public as a tourism and travel 

director since 1987, beginning in Gary, Indiana, to the State of Indiana, to West Texas, and now to Nags Head, North Carolina, for 

the last 11 years. 

We are here today to help preserve and protect one of America’s 

National treasures, our beaches. We must encourage thoughtful 

and responsible discourse that recognizes the importance of our 

coastal tourism centers and our Nation’s economic needs. 

The tourism industry generates trillions of dollars in income and 

provides memorable experiences to individuals and families worldwide. Tourism brings people and families together outdoors. Working families use the beaches of North Carolina’s Outer Banks for 

vacations with children and their grandchildren and their great 

grandchildren. Half of all leisure travelers emphasize the importance of natural settings in deciding their family vacations. 

In North Carolina, tourism is a $15.4 billion industry with employment at 184,000 people. The Outer Banks accounts for expenditures of over $1 billion last year and 20,000 jobs. Dare County’s 

Outer Banks hosts over 5 million visitors from all over the world 

annually. 

The Outer Banks Visitors Bureau’s staff and I speak with thousands of visitors and their families every year. In overwhelming 

numbers, they tell us that the natural, cultural and historic resources, primarily the 130-mile stretch of barrier islands along the 

Outer Banks, are the main reason they visit us. The Outer Banks 

71 

are truly America’s beach, a free and open-access chain of barrier 

islands off the northeastern coast of North Carolina. 

Oil and gas development threatens coastlines, harms ecosystems, 

and directly impacts our tourism, fishing, and real estate economies. The people of Dare County have a long and strong history of 

opposing drilling along the Outer Continental Shelf. The towns of 

Duck, Nags Head, Kill Devil Hills, Kitty Hawk, Southern Shores, 

Manteo, the County of Dare, and the Dare County Tourism Board 

have all filed resolutions opposing drilling off the Outer Continental Shelf. The well-documented socioeconomic and environmental risks outweigh the rewards. We need policies that help us 

cope with climate change on the Nation’s coastline. 

On January 29, Winston Salem Journal editorial staff put in an 

op-ed piece. I am going to read a couple of excerpts: ‘‘The Interior 

Department has issued a detailed proposal for oil and gas drilling 

off both the Pacific and Atlantic Coasts, including the fragile, already-threatened North Carolina coast. Efforts and human ingenuity should concentrate on making the country more energy independent thus seeking alternative fuels that do not, in fact, increase 

levels of greenhouse gas emissions.’’ 

‘‘There’s been talk for years about drilling off the North Carolina 

coast. Many of the State’s top leaders have resisted such proposals, 

fearing that drilling could hurt the tourism this State increasingly 

depends upon. But when gas prices shot up to record highs last 

year, some of our elected leaders, like their counterparts nationwide, relaxed their resistance.’’ 

‘‘The Interior Department issued its proposal in the last days of 

the Bush administration, which had pushed for more drilling off 

America’s coasts. The draft plan would allow drilling from New 

England to Florida and off the California coast...these areas were 

recently declared off-limits by Congress. Ken Salazar, the new Interior Secretary, indicated to the Associated Press that he likely 

would be receptive to scaling back his department’s proposal for 

more oil drilling.’’ 

‘‘Drilling rigs would require nearby refineries and storage facilities and create increased traffic between the rigs and refineries. 

The rigs would threaten the environment especially, if one was 

knocked over in a hurricane. With the Outer Banks jutting right 

out into the path of so many storms, that danger would be very, 

very real.’’ 

In January of 2009, the State of North Carolina legislative body 

appointed a group to examine economic and environmental impacts 

of gas and oil exploration off the coast of North Carolina. That review is expected to be completed in 6 to 8 months. 

Again, the industrial character of offshore oil and gas development is often at odds with the existing economic base of the effective coastal communities, many of which rely on tourism, coastal 

recreation, and fishing. In Dare County, North Carolina, the Outer 

Banks Visitors Bureau has been fighting efforts to lift the ban on 

coastal drilling precisely because we realize what a crushing effect 

coastal drilling could have on our Great Barrier Islands, a $1 billion tourist and fishing economy. If there is one spill, one disaster, 

the Outer Banks can be impacted for a long time. The powerful 

hurricanes that battered the Gulf Coast have destroyed drilling 

72 

platforms, underwater pipelines, and coastal storage tanks, dumping millions of gallons of oil. Drilling in hurricane and stormplagued waters has proven to be disastrous. 

In addition to potentially catastrophic effects on the tourism industry, drilling for gas and oil off our coast could have significant 

negative impacts on commercial and recreational fishing, our fisheries, marsh lands, and marine habitat. Jobs and the environment 

are not mutually exclusive. A balanced economy is based on a 

clean, healthy marine environment, and efforts need to be focused 

on restoring our marine environment and sustaining our fisheries. 

According to the U.S. Travel Association, tourism in America is 

a $1.7 trillion industry, with coastal communities representing over 

$700 billion annually. Last year, travel and tourism generated over 

$100 billion in tax revenues for State, local, and Federal Governments. The world tourism industry has identified climate change as 

key to future strategic planning. United Nation’s World Tourism 

Organization Secretary General Frangialli, addressing climate 

change, said, ‘‘We,’’ the tourism industry, ‘‘are part of the problem,’’ 

global warming, ‘‘and we will be part of the solution.’’ 

Social scientists recognize the need to create innovative responses to projected impacts of climate change on tourism. It is incumbent upon all industries, governments, nongovernmental organizations to work together to find solutions to our current energy 

needs and place a higher emphasis on seeking alternative fuels, 

wind, reintroducing efficient railway systems, encouraging smarter, 

more fuel-efficient transport vehicles, while reducing greenhouse 

gas emissions. We must create real incentives that motivate and 

drive the ingenuity of all of us to find a cure, not just a treatment, 

that will keep America working, traveling, and living. 

Again, gentlemen, thank you and the staff for giving me this opportunity today, and I respect each of your efforts to help to identify solutions to our energy needs during these very, very challenging times. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. McCormick follows:] 

Statement of Carolyn Esther McCormick, Managing Director, 

Outer Banks Visitors Bureau, Travel and Tourism Industry 

INTRODUCTION: 

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for this opportunity to 

testify at the Committee on Natural Resources oversight hearing; ‘‘Perspectives on 

the Outer Continental Shelf’’. 

My name is Carolyn Esther McCormick, and I have been serving the public as 

a tourism and travel professional since 1987. My public service experience began in 

Lake County: Gary, Indiana then to The State of Indiana as Deputy Director of 

Tourism in Indianapolis; to Lubbock, Texas, (1993) as Director of Culture, Leisure 

and Recreational Services and now serve as the Managing Director (since late 1997), 

of the Outer Banks Visitors Bureau, Dare County Tourism Board. a North Carolina 

Public Authority. I am a resident of Nags Head, North Carolina; which is located 

along the Outer Banks and a mother of two girls. 

You and I are here today to help preserve and protect one of America’s national 

treasures, our pristine beaches. We must encourage thoughtful and responsible discourse that recognizes the importance of our coastal tourism centers and our nation’s economic needs. 

The tourism industry generates trillions of dollars in income and provides memorable experiences to individuals and families worldwide. Tourism brings people and 

families together outdoors. Working families use the beaches of North Carolina’s 

Outer Banks for vacations with children and grandchildren. Half of all leisure travVerDate Aug 31 2005 15:01 Mar 19, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00076 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\47302.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
73 

elers emphasize the importance of natural settings in deciding their family vacations. 

In North Carolina tourism is a $15.4 billion industry with employment at 184,000, 

and North Carolina’s Outer Banks accounts for expenditures of over 1 billion dollars 

and 20,000 jobs. Dare County’s Outer Banks host over 5 million visitors to our National Seashore, and National parks. The Outer Banks Visitor’s bureau staff and I 

speak with thousands of visitors and their families every year. In overwhelming 

numbers they tell us that the natural, cultural and historic resources; primarily the 

130 mile stretch of beaches of the Outer Banks are the main reason they visit us. 

The Outer Banks are truly America’s Beach; a free and open access chain of barrier islands off the northeastern coast of North Carolina. The birth place of English 

speaking America in 1587—Ft. Raleigh National Historic Site; home of man’s first 

powered flight in 1903—Wright Brothers National Memorial; Cape Hatteras National Seashore Recreation Area, the Nation’s first national seashore established in 

1953; Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge, and Alligator River National Wildlife 

Refuge. Seventy percent, (70%) of our dynamic barrier islands are owned by the 

people of the United States and managed by the United States Department of the 

Interior. 

Oil and gas development threatens coastlines, harms ecosystems, and directly impacts our tourism, fishing and real estate economies. The people of Dare County 

have a history of strongly opposing drilling along the Outer Continental Shelf. The 

Towns of Nags Head, Kill Devil Hills, Kitty Hawk, Southern Shores, Duck, Manteo, 

the County of Dare and the Dare County Tourism Board have filed resolutions opposing drilling. The well-documented socio-economic and environmental risks outweigh the rewards. 

The Outer Banks is particularly vulnerable to storms, beach erosion near our 

homes, and loss of our fish habitat. It is clear to us that a changing climate and 

a rising sea level could have a tremendous impact on tourism in all coastal communities. Researchers, businesses, and government agencies in the Outer Banks and 

throughout North Carolina are cooperating to develop solutions to the effects of climate change including storm severity. We need policies that help us cope with climate change on the nation’s coastline. 

On January 29, 2009 the Winston Salem Journal, editorial staff printed an oped on the issue of drilling along the coast of North Carolina, The paper stated: 

‘‘The Interior Department has issued a detailed proposal for oil and gas drilling 

off both the Pacific and Atlantic coasts—including the fragile, already-threatened 

North Carolina coast. Efforts and human ingenuity should concentrate on making 

the country more energy independent thus seeking alternative fuels that do not in fact 

increase levels of green house gas emissions.’’ 

‘‘There’s been talk for years about drilling off the North Carolina coast. Most of 

the state’s top leaders have resisted such proposals, fearing that drilling could hurt 

the tourism this state increasingly depends upon. But when gas prices shot up to 

record highs last year, some of our elected leaders, like their counterparts nationwide, 

relaxed their resistance.’’ 

‘‘The Interior Department issued its proposal in the last days of the Bush administration, which had pushed for more drilling off America’s coasts. The draft plan 

would allow drilling from New England to Florida and off the California coast, The 

Associated Press reported last week. These areas were recently declared off limits by 

Congress. Ken Salazar, the new Interior Secretary, indicated to The Associated Press 

that he likely would be receptive to scaling back his department’s proposal for more 

oil drilling. 

‘‘The N.C. legislature announced last week the formation of a committee to study 

the effects of drilling off our coast. One can’t imagine a scenario in which the economic benefits of such a plan could outweigh the damage to the environment and 

scenery—and, consequently, tourism.’’ 

‘‘Drilling rigs would require nearby refineries and storage facilities, and create increased traffic between the rigs and refineries. The rigs would threaten the environment, especially if one was knocked over in a hurricane. With our Outer Banks jutting right out into the path of so many storms, that danger would be very real.’’ Winston Salem Journal, North Carolina 

In January 2009 the State of North Carolina legislative body appointed a group 

to examine economic and environmental impacts of gas and oil exploration off the 

coast of North Carolina. ‘‘The Offshore Energy Exploration Study Committee will be 

co-chaired by Dr. James Leutze, former University of North Carolina at Wilmington 

chancellor, and Dr. Doug Rader, chief oceans scientist for the Environmental Defense Fund. The committee—comprised of university researchers, industry and environmental representatives, coastal residents and other members of the public. North 

Carolina Senate President Pro Tempore Marc Basnight and Speaker of the House 

74 

Joe Hackney will name a legislative panel that will review the study committee’s 

findings and develop any legislation that might be needed as a result of the committee’s work ‘‘In our nation’s effort to move toward energy independence, we must take 

a long, careful look at how energy exploration off our shores could affect our coastal 

economy as well as our environment,’’ Basnight said. ‘‘This study will be thorough 

and balanced reviews that will help us better understand all possible risks and benefits that might be associated with drilling off our coast.’’ 

‘‘People on both sides of this issue have already declared what they believe the 

right thing to do is, but there has been only a limited scientific examination of what 

the true benefits and dangers would be,’’ Speaker Hackney said. ‘‘We cannot head 

down this path halfway. Drilling along the coast is irreversible and we must fully 

appreciate what we’re doing before we take such a step.’’ 

The North Carolina Committee shall study the following and the review is expected to be completed in 6 to 8 months: 

The implications of leasing federal waters off North Carolina’s coast in the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf to energy companies for oil and natural gas exploration. • Relevant federal law and the legal authority of the State of North Carolina with 

regard to offshore drilling. • The potential impacts on the nation’s energy supply, including documenting the 

best-unbiased estimates available for what oil and natural gas might exist. • The potential financial impact of proposed exploration on the State of North 

Carolina, including effects on the economy, tourism, the commercial fishing industry, the impacts of a more industrial coastline, and ensuring a share of state 

profits. • The environmental impacts of exploration on North Carolina’s coastline, including possibilities of spills, effects on water quality, air quality, marine life, and 

contributions to global climate change. • The environmental impacts of the infrastructure that would be associated with 

exploration and drilling for oil and natural gas. 

The industrial character of offshore oil and gas development is often at odds with 

the existing economic base of the affected coastal communities, many of which rely 

on tourism, coastal recreation and fishing. In Dare Country, NC, the Outer Banks 

Visitors Bureau has been fighting efforts to lift the ban on coastal drilling precisely 

because it realizes what a crushing effect coastal drilling could have on the Outer 

Banks’ 1 billion dollar tourist and fishing economy. If there’s one spill or one disaster, the Outer Banks could be devastated for a long time. The powerful hurricanes 

that battered the gulf coast have destroyed drilling platforms, underwater pipelines 

and coastal storage tanks, dumping millions of gallons of oil. Drilling in hurricane 

and storm-plagued waters has proven to be disastrous. 

In addition to potentially catastrophic effects on the tourism industry, drilling for 

gas and oil off our coasts could have significant negative impacts on commercial and 

recreational fishing, our fisheries, marshlands, and marine habitat. Jobs and the environment are not mutually exclusive. A balanced economy is based on a clean 

healthy marine environment and efforts need to be focused on restoring our marine 

environment and sustaining our fisheries. 

The U.S. tourism industry is one of America’s major retail industries employing 

7.7 million people. Tourism creates jobs, adds to income, spurs economic development, promotes economic diversification, introduces additional products, spawns 

new businesses, increases tax revenue, and contributes to economic integration. 

Global tourism, $7.1 trillion industry, is a large fast growing industry that employs 

more than 232 million people. According to the U.S. Travel Association, tourism in 

America is a 1.7 trillion dollar industry with coastal communities representing over 

700 billion dollars annually. Last year travel and tourism generated over 100 billion 

dollars in tax revenues for state, local and federal governments. 

The world tourism industry has identified climate change as key to future strategic planning. United Nations World Tourism Organization’s Secretary General, 

Francesco Frangialli, addressing climate change said: ‘‘We (tourism industry) are 

part of the problem (global warming) and we will be part of the solution’’. Social 

scientists recognize the need to create innovative responses to projected impacts of 

climate change on tourism. Climate change presents a special challenge to the Atlantic Ocean coastline of the Outer Banks of North Carolina. Stakeholders along 

this dynamic chain of barrier islands are planning strategies now to mitigate future 

negative climate change impact. The beautiful environmental coastline is a major 

reason why five million visitors from more than 50 countries visit the Outer Banks 

each year. 

It is incumbent upon all industries, governments and non-governmental organizations to work together to find solutions to our current energy needs and place a 

higher emphasis on seeking alternative fuels, reintroducing efficient railway sysVerDate Aug 31 2005 15:01 Mar 19, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00078 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\47302.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
75 

tems throughout the entire United States, encouraging smarter more fuel efficient 

transport vehicles while reducing green house gas emissions. We must create real 

incentives that motivate and drive the ingenuity of all to find a cure not just a treatment that will keep America working, traveling and living. 

Thank you for this opportunity today and I respect each of the committee’s efforts 

to identify solutions to our energy needs during these very challenging times. 


47302.001.eps
76 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. Minich. 

STATEMENT OF D.T. MINICH, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ST. 

PETERSBURG/CLEARWATER AREA CONVENTION & VISITORS 

BUREAU 

Mr. MINICH. Good afternoon. 

Being from the great State of Florida, I don’t think I need to tell 

you that we rely on tourism very heavily. It is our number one industry. It has been since day one when the Spanish Conquistadors 


47302.002.eps 47302.003.eps
77 

visited our State, we have been welcoming visitors. It is a $3.9 billion industry for the State. It represents 18 percent of our total tax 

revenues. 

I come from a place called St. Petersburg/Clearwater, which is on 

the west coast of Florida, about halfway down, and we are known 

for our beaches. In fact, last year, Dr. Beach, the national expert 

on beaches, named Caladesi Island the number one beach in the 

world. And Fort DeSoto was ranked by visitors to tripadviser.com 

as—Fort DeSoto is in the southern part of our county—as the number one beach in North America. So, beaches are our backbone. 

That is what brings in the tourism for our area, and for our area, 

it is a $7 billion industry, with 84,000 jobs related to tourism. So, 

you can see how important it is. 

We are very opposed to offshore drilling off of our coast because 

of these beaches and the importance of the beaches. And I think 

what is important is there are a lot of States represented here, and 

every one of you—we welcomed guests from all 50 States and from 

over 100 different countries last year. So, your constituents are 

coming to our beaches and they are experiencing those kinds of experiences that they want in a beach vacation. So, it is very important to point that out, I think. And 180 million Americans made 

2 billion visits to the ocean last year, so it is very, very important. 

We cannot afford a risk of some sort of a spill like you heard of 

earlier this morning. We can’t afford any of those kinds of things 

for our tourism industry. But, in fact, in 1993, we did experience 

a spill. Two tankers collided right off of our coast, and I am going 

to read to you what happened. 

The incident resulted in oiling of birds, sea turtles, mangroves, 

salt marches, sea grasses, mud flats, oyster beds, seawalls, and finger canals within Boca Ciega Bay, and miles of shoreline, including 

sandy recreational beaches. Some of the fuel oil sank, forming mats 

on submerged sediments in offshore depressions, in the Passes and 

in Boca Ciega Bay. This spill was very small in number. It sounds 

big, but it was really only about 360,000 gallons of jet oil and other 

oils. What it did, though, was 366 birds were injured or killed. 

More importantly, on the endangered and threatened list, 2,177 

loggerhead sea turtle hatchlings and eggs were injured by oiling, 

and this resulted in death. And hatchling success was just completely obliterated for the year on our beaches. 

The resulting cleanup—we had to remove 39,000 cubic yards of 

sand from our public beaches. Out of our 35 miles of beaches, 18 

miles of our beaches were closed for months to get this cleaned up. 

We were fortunate, and I say fortunate, but this happened in August and September, when it is starting to slow down. September 

is our slowest tourism month. If this would have happened in February, or March or April, our high season, it would have been devastating to the industry. We saw a lot of people stay away from the 

beaches for months after that. We had huge occupancy decreases 

for months. And just the perception alone, the media, it was detrimental to our industry for quite some time. 

The other thing that you heard this morning that I would like 

to address is, why the need for these additional leases; why the 

need for this exploration? Out of the 43 million leased acres, there 

is only 8 million in 2006 that the oil companies were using. They 

78 

were using 8 million of the 43 million leased. Big Oil has not 

drilled three-quarters of the territory that Congress has made 

available for exploration. And so we say, when we rely on tourism, 

why now? Why do we need to do this? There should be no reason 

for this. We can’t take the risk. 

The other argument that I have heard is that this will be a quick 

fix. And it will not. And I think you heard plenty of that this morning, but I just want to reiterate that this would not be a quick fix. 

Why open this up when we don’t have the rigs? A $700 million oil 

rig being built today is going to be taken away to other countries. 

You heard 10 years. I have heard up to 30 years before this would 

even slightly make an impact by opening up these waters. It is just 

not worth—it is just not worth it. We are very opposed to this exploration or from opening this up. It just—everything that we have 

seen, all of the information that we have and from our past experience with just a small, small spill, it makes us very frightened for 

our number one industry in Pinellas County and the number one 

industry in Florida. 

And you also heard—just to finish up here—about what happened with Katrina and the rigs and all of the things that washed 

off of those rigs during these storms. We do get hurricanes in Florida, as you know. We don’t like to talk about those in the tourism 

business, but that is another factor in here that is very worrisome. 

We have enough worries with hurricanes that we don’t need a component on top of that, of what is going to happen to our beaches 

with these rigs off of our coast. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Minich follows:] 

Statement of D.T. Minich, CDME, Executive Director, 

St. Petersburg/Clearwater Area Convention & Visitors Bureau 

Travel and tourism is big business. The numbers speak for themselves. 

The tourism industry is the world’s largest, with the broad measure of economic 

activity—Travel and Tourism Economy (TTE)—contributing $5.4 trillion in 2007 to 

the world’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP), according to the World Travel and Tourism Council. It exceeds the GDP of all countries other than the United States. Similarly, TTE contributes $1.4 trillion to America’s GDP, or 10.2% of U.S. output and 

the largest contribution to GDP just ahead of durable goods manufacturing. Travel 

and tourism also is the world’s largest employer, with 231 million people working 

in the industry worldwide. 

In the U.S., travel generated $739 billion in domestic and international expenditures in 2007; and $116 billion of that figure went to federal, state and local governments as tax revenue. Moreover, the tourism industry is America’s largest employer, 

with 7.7 million direct travel generated jobs and $186 billion direct travel generated 

payroll. One of every eight U.S. non-farm jobs is created directly or indirectly or is 

induced by tourism. 

In Florida, 82.4 million travelers visited the state in 2007. That’s more than the 

combined populations of New York, California and Texas. They generated more than 

$65 billion in taxable sales. To put that into perspective, 65 billion dollar bills endto-end would circle the world 247 times! 

Tax-related revenue to the state was $3.9 billion, which is 18% of the state’s annual sales tax revenue for schools, transportation, museums and more. With an annual payroll of $16.4 billion, nearly one million Floridians are employed by the tourism industry. That’s seven jobs for every 2006 Florida high school graduate. Just 

think, a 1% increase in visitors to Florida generates an additional $39 million a 

year—more than $1 a second! 

In St. Petersburg/Clearwater on the Gulf Coast of Florida, tourism is the engine 

that drives the local economy. Total direct and indirect visitor expenditures are approximately $7 billion. That is more than $19 million per day, about $800,000 per 

hour, more than $13,000 per minute and about $220 per second. For perspective, 

79 

a line of 7 billion dollar bills laid end to end would wrap around the Earth at the 

equator 26 times. 

The impact of the tourism industry on the local job market is just as dramatic. 

With a 25% drop in tourism, Pinellas County would lose about 21,000 jobs; at 50%, 

it would lose about 42,000 jobs; at 100%, about 84,000 jobs would be lost. And with 

lost jobs would come closed businesses. When a local business closes, hundreds are 

affected not just its employees. This trickle-down effect can devastate a community. 

Suppliers rely on small local business for their income. So when a business closes, 

its suppliers feel the pinch as well. 

For instance, just a 25% drop in tourism would cause 300 local restaurants to 

close. Tourist dollars are vital to their success, not only to keep the doors open, but 

also to give these restaurants the revenue necessary to provide everything residents 

enjoy most. From sitting on the deck, listening to a live steel-drum band, to enjoying 

social event nights and parties, tourist dollars make it all happen. 

Not to mention the tax revenues. Tourism contributes almost $300 million in 

taxes annually to Pinellas County. Fuel taxes alone equal roughly $15 million. That 

means visitors to the county save the average household more than $600 per year 

in taxes. 

So tourist revenue is vital to the success of the county’s businesses and the community. It keeps restaurants and retail locations open, taxes down, and gives residents conveniences such as low-cost flights and world-class entertainment. It supports beach nourishment programs and helps fund transportation, public safety programs and more. 

Quality of Life Benefits 

But tourism revenues are only part of the story. Not only do people benefit from 

the economic impact of the travel industry in dollars and cents, but they also benefit 

from the quality of life to which it contributes. So, the industry’s impact is actually 

measured in two ways. 

The ‘‘value in exchange’’ measurement considers expenditures, jobs, taxes and the 

like; AND the industry’s ‘‘value in use’’ takes into account the quality of life that 

tourism gives not only to visitors but also to residents who reap the rewards of tourism expenditures on local infrastructure. This latter measurement of tourism’s impact reframes the industry’s purpose from an ends—meaning the dollars spent—to 

a means—meaning what is done with those dollars locally. In essence, tourism is 

a tool for enhancing what residents love about their region. 

From performing arts to low cost travel, tourism affords a better quality of life. 

It also impacts parts of the community that are far beyond the obvious. The Penny 

for Pinellas program in Pinellas County would suffer without tourism. Visitors contribute approximately 35% of Penny for Pinellas revenues, which equals roughly $40 

million annually. This program adds value to the county by funding roads, bridges, 

parks, drainage and other capital improvement projects. 

And because of tourism, Ruth Eckerd Hall performing arts center has recordbreaking ticket sales. The Palladium Theater in St. Petersburg offers year-round 

musical performances. And the Salvador Dalı ́ Museum continues to provide worldclass exhibits due to its tourist revenue. Plus, its visitor dollars do more than enhance the museum. The museum’s profits fund educational programs for local youth. 

All of this paints a clear picture of the contributions that tourism makes to every 

community around the world that it impacts and the trickle down benefits of visitor 

expenditures. Yet another relevant part of the picture is the economic value of 

beaches. 

Leading Tourist Destination 

Beaches are the key element of U.S. travel and tourism, since they are the leading 

tourist destination. Coastal states receive about 85% of tourist-related revenues in 

the U.S. largely because beaches are tremendously popular. It is estimated that 

each year approximately 180 million Americans make 2 billion visits to ocean, gulf, 

and inland beaches. This is almost twice as many visits as the combined 1.06 billion 

visits made to properties of the National Park Service (272 million), Bureau of Land 

Management (55 million), and all state parks and recreation areas (735 million). 

The 2 billion beach visits also dwarf the 138 million visitors to all theme parks in 

the U.S. 

Given these facts, it is not surprising that beaches make a large contribution to 

America’s economy. Beach tourism in Florida made a $52 billion contribution to the 

economy in 2007 dollars, and U.S. beaches currently contribute $322 billion annually to the economy in 2007 dollars. This is more than 25 times the $12 billion contribution of the National Park Service system to the national economy. 

80 

In order to protect the lucrative tourism industry and the beaches that are a cornerstone of that industry, we must not risk the potential damages of off-shore drilling in Florida. Despite the impressive technological advances the oil industry has 

made, there still are too many potential risks. Two of the major hazards are pollution from every day operations and oil spills from platforms, pipelines and tankers. 

When oil is brought up from beneath the ocean floor, other things are too. Chemicals and toxic substances such as mercury and lead can be discharged back into the 

ocean. The water pumped up along with the oil may contain benzene, arsenic and 

other pollutants. Even the exploration that precedes drilling, which depends on seismic air guns, can harm sea mammals. 

And while large spills are rare, smaller spills are still too common. The biggest 

pollution risk involved is in transporting the oil back to shore—by pipeline, barge 

or tanker. A 2002 National Research Council report found that marine transportation was responsible for one-third of worldwide petroleum spillage, about eight 

times the amount caused by drilling platforms and pipelines. 

First-Hand Experience 

Pinellas County has first-hand experience with this fact. In 1992, the local convention and visitors bureau hired a Tampa firm, Research Data Services, to study 

how a major oil spill would affect Pinellas County. Although the figures are dated, 

at the time the company’s founder, economist Walter Klages, estimated a major spill 

could cause a 45% decrease in visitors over two years. It also could result in the 

loss of 7,392 tourism-related jobs in the county, Klages estimated. 

His predictions seemed prophetic a year later, when in August 1993, the beaches 

of southern Pinellas County suffered a minor oil spill that nonetheless caused beach 

hoteliers major headaches. The spill occurred after two barges and a freighter collided in the shipping channel west of the Sunshine Skyway Bridge south of Mullet 

Key in Tampa Bay, Florida. After the accident, a few large resorts reported that 

their occupancy rates fell by double digits when compared with the previous year. 

Furthermore, the environmental impact not to mention the clean-up efforts for 

what would be considered a ‘‘minor spill’’ were significant. Systematic shoreline surveys were conducted and oil was found buried by two to eight inches of clean sand 

deposited during high tide. Cleanup crews focused on manually removing the band 

of surface oil high on the beach. A plan was developed to remove the subsurface 

oil without generating large volumes of sediment for handling, disposal, and replacement. The plan called for mechanical removal of the heavy buried layers, manual 

removal of moderately oiled sediments, and mechanically pushing stained sand onto 

the lower part of the beach for surf washing. 

Meanwhile, cleanup crews were contending with very thick oil that had been deposited around some mangrove islands. Tarmats formed when sediment was mixed 

with oil along the shallow flats surrounding the islands. Large thick mats coated 

mangrove roots, oyster and seagrass beds, and tidal mud flats. 

Roughly 14.5 miles of fine-grained sand beach from St. Petersburg Beach north 

to Redington Shores Beach were affected by this spill. Sand beaches on Egmont Key 

at the entrance to Tampa Bay were also oiled. Additionally, four mangrove islands 

inside the entrance to Boca Ciega Bay at Johns Pass and two small areas of 

Spartina Marsh were oiled. Jetties, seawalls, and riprap within the bay and at 

Johns Pass and Blind Pass were also oiled to varying degrees. It is estimated that 

more than 30 miles of residential seawalls were oiled within Boca Ciega Bay. Some 

impact also occurred on the northern side of Mullet Key at Bonne Fortune Key in 

fringing mangroves. 

Oil Spills 

And that’s just one spill. The U.S. Coast Guard estimates that more than 200,000 

small spills occurred in the Gulf of Mexico from 1973 to 2001. The Minerals Management Service, the federal agency that regulates offshore oil production, thinks 

spills will continue and projects about one oil spill per year of at least 1,000 barrels 

in the Gulf of Mexico over the next 40 years. Every three to four years, it says, a 

spill of at least 10,000 barrels can be expected. Having seen what happened in 

Pinellas County, one can only imagine the extensive impact on this grander scale! 

How badly the Tampa Bay area would suffer would depend on where a spill took 

place, according to Robert Weisberg, a physical oceanography professor at the University of South Florida-St. Petersburg. If a spill occurred in the deep water of the 

Gulf, the currents likely would sweep it south to the Florida Keys and carry it to 

the east coast of Florida. It might not affect the Bay area much, he contends. However, if the spill occurred over the West Florida Continental Shelf—an area of relatively shallow water that extends as much as 100 miles out from Florida’s coast— 

he thinks the currents could sweep it to the Bay area and rest of the West Coast. 

81 

When determining the impact of a spill, he believes the distance offshore is much 

less important than whether the drilling is on the continental shelf. 

The potential risks are magnified by the Gulf’s well-known propensity for annual 

hurricane activity. In 2005, hurricanes Katrina and Rita destroyed 113 oil platforms 

and damaged 457 pipelines near Louisiana, according to the Minerals Management 

Service. The agency reported 124 spills totaling 741,000 gallons of petroleum from 

offshore rigs, platforms and pipelines. 

Damages from those two storms are a prime example why the moratorium on new 

offshore drilling should not be lifted. That moratorium can trace its roots to the industry opposition ignited by the Santa Barbara oil spill of 1969. Roughly 3.4 million 

gallons of oil were spilled, spreading across 800 square miles of ocean and spoiling 

35 miles of shoreline. It was our nation’s worst oil spill until 20 years later, when 

the Exxon Valdez struck a reef and lost almost 11 million gallons. Let’s not let time 

erase the sting of those two catastrophic environmental and economic disasters. 

And, closer to my home, let’s remember the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico in 1979 

that caused tar balls to wash up on Texas beaches and resulted in a 60 percent decline in the state’s tourism business. It is a clear historical precedent of how detrimental and catastrophic an oil spill could be to Florida’s tourism industry. 

Central Debate 

Beyond environmental and economic impact concerns, the central debate regarding offshore drilling focuses on where to drill for more oil. Democrats in Congress, 

led by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California, say areas where drilling already 

is permitted should remain the bull’s eye. Only about 8 million of 43 million leased 

acres were producing oil in 2006. Big Oil has not drilled three-quarters of the territory that Congress has made available for exploration. Why endanger our beautiful, 

economically lucrative beaches if the oil industry refuses to explore the areas already open for drilling? 

And why open up the 574 million acres now off limits along the outer continental 

shelf, when tight supplies of equipment and labor will severely constrain exploration 

in the next decade. Only a limited number of shipyards are capable of building the 

necessary $700 million drilling rig, and many of the rigs being built today are going 

to other countries where the oil business is also booming. Even then, it usually 

takes at least seven to 10 years for the oil to start flowing, with some estimates 

placing the economic impact of exploration around 2030. Not to mention the Department of Energy estimates that, even if Congress removed all restrictions on offshore 

drilling, the impact on global oil prices would be ‘‘insignificant.’’ Witness that domestic drilling permits have increased 361 percent since 1999, yet the price of gas continues to climb to record-breaking plateaus. 

One final point. Finding oil has become more costly. The oil boom has led to a 

surge in exploration and drilling activity, which has pushed up the price for skilled 

workers and equipment. Furthermore, new supplies of oil are increasingly difficult 

to find and generally tend to be located in harder to reach—and hence more expensive—places. Yet surely the oil companies can find ways to utilize their existing 

leases, no matter the costs. 

Exxon Mobil, the world’s largest publicly traded oil company, made history on 

January 30, 2009, by reporting the highest quarterly and annual profits ever for a 

U.S. company, boosted in large part by soaring crude prices. Exxon said fourth-quarter net income rose 14% to $11.66 billion, or $2.13 per share. The company earned 

$10.25 billion, or $1.76 per share, in the year-ago period. The profit topped Exxon’s 

previous quarterly record of $10.7 billion, set in the fourth quarter of 2005, which 

also was an all-time high for a U.S. corporation. Exxon also set an annual profit 

record by earning $40.61 billion last year—or nearly $1,300 per second in 2007. 

That exceeded its previous record of $39.5 billion in 2006. 

Similarly, America’s second largest oil company Chevron Corp. has reported soaring annual profits of $23.9 billion for 2008, a whopping 28% jump from its 2007 annual profits of $18.7 billion that were lifted by sky-rocketing oil prices. 

Exxon and Chevron aren’t the only two oil giants to report impressive earnings 

recently. Conoco, the nation’s third-largest oil company, trounced profit estimates by 

nearly 25% when it reported in late January. And Royal Dutch Shell PLC, Europe’s 

largest oil company, reported a 60% increase in profits on January 29 of this year. 

National Treasure 

Florida’s beaches are a national treasure, and their preservation should be a top 

priority. Yet, because the tourism industry is so interwoven into the fabric of the 

community, the state, the country and the world, it is sometimes taken for granted, 

especially the beaches. We cannot afford to do that. 

82 

Travel and tourism is America’s leading industry, employer, and earner of foreign 

exchange; and beaches are America’s leading tourist destination. Few Americans realize that beaches are a key driver of America’s economy and support U.S. competitiveness in a world economy. 

One reason why Americans do not appreciate the importance of tourism to the national economy may be because 98% of the 1.4-million tourism-related businesses in 

the United States are classified as small businesses. That makes the industry extremely fragmented and not well represented. Hence, the importance of the tourism 

industry to the national economy has not been communicated to the American 

people. 

Until there’s a fundamental shift in awareness of the economic and quality of life 

contributions of travel and tourism to the world, our beaches will not be adequately 

protected and the infrastructure that sustains them will not be effectively managed. 

And ultimately, the U.S. will risk relinquishing its dominant worldwide lead in its 

most important industry. 

References 

Barge Bouchard 155—History’s 10 most famous oil spills—gCaptain publication for 

Maritime Professionals retrieved February 3, 2008 from http:// 

www.gCaptain.com. 

Ellis, D. (2008, February 1). Exxon shatters profit records. CNNMoney. Retrieved 

February 3, 2008, from http://www.CNNMoney.com. 

Houston, J.R. (2008, Summer). The economic value of beaches: A 2008 update. Shore 

& Beach, 76, 22-26. 

Jervis, R., Welch, W. M., & Wolf, R. (2008, July 14) Worth the risk? Debate on offshore drilling heats up. USA Today. Retrieved February 3, 2008 from http:// 

www.usatoday.com 

Sasso, M. (2008, June 19). Tribune taps experts on drilling for oil off Florida. The 

Tampa Tribune. Retrieved February 3, 2008, from http://www.tampatribune.com 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. Grader. 

STATEMENT OF W.F. ‘‘ZEKE’’ GRADER, JR., EXECUTIVE 

DIRECTOR, PACIFIC COAST FEDERATION OF FISHERMEN’S 

ASSOCIATIONS 

Mr. GRADER. Thank you, Chairman Rahall and Mr. Hastings, 

and thank you very much for the opportunity to provide testimony 

here today regarding potential impacts to the commercial fishing 

industry from opening up new lease sales off of our coast. 

As I mentioned in my written testimony, among our members 

along the West Coast are fishermen in Santa Barbara who not only 

experienced the major spill in 1969 but have, for 40 to 50 years 

now, experienced offshore drilling right in their waters. They know 

firsthand what the impacts are. And it is largely based on what 

their experiences have been, not mere speculation on our part that 

has given rise to many of our concerns here today. We have heard 

it here this morning being said that at best that the most optimistic projections are that any of the oil developed from new leases 

off of our shores will probably get to market in about 10 years. So, 

the effect to the consumer is about 10 years out. However, for the 

fishing industry, the impacts are going to be almost immediate. 

And that is primarily from the seismic testing that goes on. And 

this isn’t spoken about. I don’t think I heard it mentioned here 

once this morning, but it is a very real impact on fishery resources. 

I served on a committee in the 1980s looking at the impact of seismic testing on anchovy and it did. It had a mortality in those 

stocks of up to 30 to 40 percent of a particular population. So, we 

know that seismic surveys do kill fish. Moreover, they also scare 

fish. They make it impossible for fishing operations to be held. So, 

83 

while everybody talks about, well, we put these rigs out there and, 

gosh, what great fishing sites they are, nobody discusses the fact 

that since we had these seismic boats operating, it is impossible to 

fish. And that was certainly true in the 1980s, when the California 

Coastal Commission actually had to set up areas where the seismic 

boats could operate, so they would not interfere with fishing activities. So, this is an almost immediate impact, and if you look at 

what just recently happened in Norway where, if you listened to 

Speaker Gingrich, you would think everything was hunky dory 

there, as far as oil and fishing, well, in fact, it wasn’t. Fishermen 

were offering civil disobedience because of the problems specifically 

with seismic testing in some new areas that were being developed 

offshore there. 

The second problem of course is, what happens when the development occurs? Now, again here, fishermen are going to be the first 

to feel the impacts. First, it is going to be in their ports as the materials are brought in to begin setting up to build the offshore 

structures. But then there is also the building of the pipeline. So, 

there is that spatial interference that directly has an impact. But 

probably the other thing is, again, what people don’t discuss is 

these rigs particularly as you are drilling in deeper water, the anchors and cables extending out for them extend out a great deal of 

distance. There are precautionary zones that are placed around 

these rigs. So, if you are trolling for salmon, or you are trolling for 

sole, you cannot operate in these areas. That is a large area that 

becomes a no-fishing zone for you. And if you put enough of them 

out there, pretty soon it becomes impossible to operate. This is 

really something else that has to be looked at. 

Now, we have heard a lot this morning about the contamination, 

the problem with pollution spills. Frankly, the spill issue is not a 

big one for us because we recognize that most of the spills have 

come from tankers. They do, in fact, come from runoff offshore. And 

that is one of the reasons why we ask that they have better cleanup of our municipal runoffs and deal with other nonpoint source 

pollutions. But there is contamination that comes about, again, 

which wasn’t discussed here this morning, is the problem with the 

toxic drill muds that are oftentimes dumped right nearby those 

sources. Fishermen may go fish near those rigs. But what nobody 

is telling them is often those fish are very toxic, particularly heavy 

laden with mercury, more so than in background areas, and that 

has to be considered. Now, if a moratorium is not going to be reinstated, and we think it should be, we think certainly certain areas 

of the coast need to be taken off limits, made permanently off limits. And the big three we think are, first of all, going to be Bristol 

Bay, and I would agree with Mr. Hastings that all of the Arctic 

should be taken off limits. We just heard that the North Pacific 

Council last week said we are not going to fish there. That was a 

unanimous vote. The fishing industry people called for no fishing 

there. So, that should be taken off limits. 

The second place is Northern California. The area there, it is one 

of the greatest upwelling areas in the world. It is just too rich for 

fisheries. It has the Nation’s only roadless area in the ‘‘Lower 48.’’ 

It is just not an area to be drilling. 

84 

And finally, Georges Bank, which we heard talked about this 

morning. Those three areas need to be taken off the—off limits 

being made permanently. 

If you are going to go ahead and do some planning, you also have 

to develop some mitigations and better protections. The existing 

system does not work well, and so we need to have that. 

And finally, I think in looking at this whole issue, because we 

are looking at our oceans, and I will be quick here, is it really call 

for a national oceans policy. If we are moving—even if we are moving to nonrenewables, we need to know how to space wave and 

wind energy out there. It is incumbent upon the administration 

and the Congress—administration through an executive order— 

that we put in place a national ocean policy that is the policy of 

the country to protect our oceans. Then we need to call for the Federal agencies to better coordinate so that we can protect those 

oceans, and then finally put in place a trust fund. 

Thank you, and I apologize for going over. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Grader follows:] 

Statement of W.F. ‘‘Zeke’’ Grader, Jr., Executive Director, 

Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations 

Chairman Rahall, members of the Natural Resources Committee, thank you for 

the opportunity to testify before you here today on the perspectives of my organization and many in the commercial fishing industry on new offshore oil and gas development on the Outer Continental Shelf, 

By way of introduction, the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations 

(PCFFA) represents working men and women in the U.S. West Coast commercial 

fishing fleet. Its offices are in San Francisco with a Northwest branch office in Eugene, Oregon. PCFFA is a member of the Marine Fish Conservation Network and 

the newly-formed Commercial Fishermen of America. 

PCFFA was founded in 1976 bringing together mostly port-based fishermen’s marketing associations to address with a single voice common issues facing mostly the 

small to mid-sized family fishing operations. PCFFA is currently comprised of 16 

fishing associations, mostly in California. The fishing men and women in PCFFA 

member organizations are engaged in a number of different fisheries, including 

salmon, crab, herring, rockfish, halibut, sablefish and swordfish, utilizing a variety 

of different gears including, troll, trawl, trap, longline, hook-and-line, seine and 

gillnets. Among PCFFA’s members are the Commercial Fishermen of Santa Barbara, Inc., and the Southern California Trawlers Association. Both those organizations have had first hand experience with offshore oil development in the Santa Barbara Channel. 

My background is in the commercial fisheries, having worked part-time in fish 

buying and processing plants while in high school and college and managing a fish 

processing plant while in law school. I joined the PCFFA at the time of its founding 

in 1976, shortly after graduation from law school and passing the California Bar. 

In addition to my role for the past 33 years as PCFFA’s executive director, I was 

the first chair of the Pacific Council’s Salmon Advisory Subpanel, served on the 

board of the West Coast Fisheries Development Foundation (President—1985) for 

nearly a decade, was a member of the Secretary of Commerce’s Marine Fisheries 

Advisory Committee (MAFAC) during the Reagan and first Bush Administration, 

and currently serve on the executive committee for the Marine Fish Conservation 

Network. Since 1993, I have served as executive director for the Institute for Fisheries Resources, in addition to my work with PCFFA, and am a member of the California Bar’s Environmental Law Section. 

A few years after PCFFA’s founding, California fishermen were confronted with 

an issue none, at least north of Santa Barbara, had ever dealt with before—the 

prospect of oil and gas drilling offshore along California’s narrow shelf. Lease Sale 

53 was initially proposed to extend from the Santa Maria Basin—just north of 

Santa Barbara to the Oregon Border. There was a strong temptation by PCFFA’s 

member groups to support offshore drilling. 

The oil embargo had affected commercial fishing as it had the rest of the nation, 

with shortages and price increases. Oil industry jobs, we were told, could help our 

coastal communities already beginning to reel from the downturn in the timber inVerDate Aug 31 2005 15:01 Mar 19, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00088 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\47302.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
85 

dustry. Oil industry representatives assured our members there would be no conflicts—even promising the rigs would be good habitat for fish. Our members were 

told there were no conflicts between commercial fishing and oil drilling in the Gulf 

of Mexico. 

PCFFA’s Board, however, wanted to hear what California fishermen who had 

lived with offshore oil in the Santa Barbara Channel had to say. The Santa Barbara 

Channel fishermen they called on had experienced the major spill from a Union Oil 

platform a decade before, as well as day-to-day offshore oil and gas activities 

Surprisingly, that major oil spill was not the problem for Santa Barbara fishermen. It was rather, the small, unreported spills they said would foul their gear and 

contaminate catches. There were even instances where fishermen were cited for pollution when they sought to clean their gear that had been in oily waters near the 

rigs. 

There was a problem with fishing gear becoming snagged on debris left by oil 

companies in their operations ranging from old washing machines disposed overboard from the rigs to tractor tires. While the rigs may act as fish attraction devices, 

this did most fishermen little good due to the precautionary zones established 

around many of the rigs where fishermen could not operate. Trawlers, in particular, 

were affected losing much of their fishing grounds, over sandy and soft bottoms, for 

the catch of halibut, sole and flounder. Although California banned bottom trawling 

in state waters for decades, it did open some state waters in sandy and soft bottom 

areas off Santa Barbara for halibut and flounder to partially mitigate losses of fishing area in federal waters to oil and gas development. 

Considering California’s narrow shelf—considerably different than the wide shelf 

in the Gulf of Mexico—the PCFFA Board felt the potentials for conflict with offshore 

drilling operations were just too great. That, and the fact that the oil reserves off 

central and northern California, along with Oregon and Washington, were not expected to be that large, made it seem the prudent course to oppose drilling off central and northern California. 

Then-Secretary of Interior Cecil Andrus subsequently reduced the scope of Lease 

Sale 53 to the Santa Maria Basin. PCFFA, along with other West Coast commercial 

fishing groups, supported Congressional appropriations language thereafter prohibiting oil and gas development off central and northern California—Lease Sale 73 for 

example, and later for Oregon and Washington. New England fishermen fought 

plans for oil drilling off Georges Bank and Alaska fishermen sought to stop drilling 

from going ahead in Bristol Bay where a lease sale had already been held (the 

leases were later bought back at a cost of $100 million to the federal government). 

Offshore drilling has taken a back seat in recent years among the issues fishermen have to contend with. The 27-year old congressional moratorium and the Presidential offshore oil moratorium established by the first President Bush took away 

the threat. All that changed when the last President Bush lifted the executive order 

against drilling this past July 14th and the Congressional moratorium was allowed 

to lapse. 

Times change and certainly the cost of diesel fuel the past two years was cutting 

deeply into fishermen’s meager profits and made it just too costly to untie the boats 

where a great deal of running for fish was necessary or the anticipated catches too 

small to offset the cost of fuel. So, thirty years after first voting to oppose new drilling along the coast, the issue was brought back to the PCFFA Board this past year. 

After a full discussion of the issue, the vote was unanimous to stay the course, to 

oppose new drilling. We know of no other fishing groups along the West Coast that 

have changed their positions in opposition. 

Problems for Fishing from Offshore Drilling 

The conflicts between commercial fishing and offshore oil and gas operations can 

be summed up as 1) seismic surveys; 2) spatial and gear losses; and 3) pollution/ 

contamination. Before I detail the nature of the conflicts, let me state that much 

of this is a repeat from testimony I gave the Congress in the 1980’s and from various correspondence to members at that time. 

Seismic Surveys. While the American public may not see any of the oil developed from new offshore leases for a decade or more, the impact on commercial fishing will be almost immediate, as soon as the companies decide to go ahead with 

drilling they will be wanting to update information to give them information on 

where the most likely deposits of oil and gas are likely to be under the seabed. To 

find this out they will deploy seismic vessels to explore areas both before and after 

any lease sale. 

The powerful sound waves generated by seismic surveys can have a variety of 

harmful effects on fish. Within close range, seismic surveys have been found to kill 

adult fish as well as larvae and fish eggs. More than 20 years ago research in the 

86 

Santa Barbara Channel found seismic surveys were lethal to anchovy populations. 

Scientific studies have also shown that air gun blasts can cause a variety of sublethal impacts on fish such as damaging orientation systems and reducing their 

ability to find food. Researchers have noted disturbances in the migration routes of 

salmon and other anadromous species as a result of seismic operations. 

Seismic surveys can cause physical damage to fish ears and other tissues and organs such as swim bladders. Although such effects may not kill fish immediately, 

they may lead to reduced fitness, which increases their susceptibility to predation 

and decreases their ability to carry out important life processes. Furthermore, if important prey species in the food web such as squid and zooplankton are harmed by 

seismic testing, the fish dependent on these creatures may also be negatively affected. 

Seismic surveys not only threaten commercial and subsistence fishing by harming 

fish resources, but also by interfering with fishing operations and dramatically affecting catch rates. Seismic ships tow streamers that can be miles long. These can 

get tangled up with crab pots, set nets and trawl nets causing damage and decreasing crucial fishing time. The best time to conduct seismic surveys in Arctic and subarctic environment is during the summer, which is also prime season for many Alaskan fisheries. As a result, seismic survey operations can end up competing with fishing for time and space on the water. 

In California, the state’s Coastal Commission was forced to utilize its CZMA authority to end a conflict between the hook-and-line fleet in the Santa Barbara Channel by prohibiting seismic surveys during key fishing seasons. There seismic surveys 

were making it impossible for fishermen to operate. Even then the one of the companies, Exxon, sued to try to keep operating with full knowledge of what their seismic 

surveys were doing to fishing. 

Even if these kinds of conflicts can be avoided, several studies have shown that 

seismic operations have greatly reduced catches of fish around areas where air guns 

were being fired. These studies have demonstrated reduced catches over 20 miles 

away from the source with catch reductions continuing five days after the testing 

was complete (see table below). Researchers believe these catch reductions are a result of altered fish behavior due to seismic operations which cause them to be less 

likely to take hooks and/or to move down and away from the seismic firing. 

The conflicts with seismic surveys are not unique to the U.S. fishing industry. 

This past year, the Norwegian Association of Fishing Boat Owners threatened to 

initiate civil disobedience action around oil installations in the Barents Sea, where 

they said increased oil and gas related activities in the area scare the fish away 

from their fishing fields. In 2006 and 2007, 800 tons of Atlantic pollock were caught 

off the Vesteralen and Lofoten Islands. By comparison, in 2008 just 83 tons of the 

fish have been caught. The fishermen say that drop off in catch was primarily due 

to oil and gas operations. Unfortunately, former Speaker Gingrich, it seems, didn’t 

talk to any fishermen before returning from his trip last year to Norway proclaiming 

how well offshore oil was working for that nation. 

Spatial Conflicts (Including Gear Loss and Construction and Presence of 

OCS Infrastructure). The second problem for commercial fishing with offshore oil 

and gas is the displacement of fishing by oil on either the fishing grounds, in the 

ports, or both. While looking at a chart, it may seem that the ocean is large enough 


47302.004.eps
87 

to accommodate a myriad of uses. However when looking at where fishing takes 

place, mostly on the shelf, and where oil and gas development occurs, they tend to 

be in the same places and the footprint of the rigs is not limited to the area covered 

by a platform. 

The rigs have precautionary zones around them, precluding most fishing. Thus, 

the area taken from fishing tends to be quiet a bit larger than the platform. Cables 

and anchors can extend out making fishing, particularly trawling impossible. 

The spacing of the rigs can also hinder fishing operations where the fishing is mobile, such as a trawler working a tow, or trollers on a tack. The rigs may not present 

a spatial conflict, as I mentioned, where there is a wide shelf, but along the West 

Coast the shelf is narrow and most fishing occurs along that shelf, thus there is a 

real potential for displacement of fishing. 

In the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the 5-Year (2007-2012) 

Offshore Oil and Gas Leasing Program for Alaska, the Minerals Management Service found: 

‘‘Some exploration, development, and production activities have a potential 

to result in space-use conflicts with commercial fishing activities. Commercial fishing vessels could be excluded from normal fishing grounds to avoid 

the potential for gear loss.’’ (IV-256) 

‘‘Offshore construction of platforms could infringe on commercial fishing activities by excluding commercial fishing from adjacent areas due to safety 

considerations.’’ (IV-257) 

‘‘Fishing activities could be temporarily excluded from some areas during 

construction of offshore pipelines. Once pipelines are put into place, they 

could result in entanglement hazards for some types of fishing gear...’’ (IV257) 

Pipelines, during construction and once in place, can act as snags for fishing 

gear—thereby displacing fishing. Making matters worse, as fishermen experienced 

in the Santa Barbara Channel, is the fact some oil and gas operators treated the 

ocean as if it were there own personal landfill where they could dump old machinery, tires used for bumpering and other materials that then snagged fishing gear— 

from trawl nets to troll lines. That has been the experience in the Santa Barbara 

Channel. Of course, pipelines and their construction affect not just fishing, but fish. 

For the Bristol Bay area, MMS concedes in its FEIS for the 5-year leasing plan: 

‘‘Pipeline installation would include trench excavation through intertidal 

and shallow subtidal areas.’’ (IV-204) 

‘‘Trenching and excavation for pipeline installation could directly disturb 

tidal and mud flats, eelgrass beds, marshes, or other coastal habitats (depending on the location of the pipeline route) resulting in direct habitat 

losses.’’ (IV-204) 

‘‘Pipeline crossings (onshore) of streams could affect EFH for several life 

stages of managed anadromous salmon, including eggs, larvae, juveniles, 

and adults.’’ (IV-184) 

‘‘Onshore facility construction (e.g. pipelines, processing facilities, service 

bases, etc.) causes definite short-term and long-term changes, with localized 

long-term effects on coastal habitats along onshore pipeline corridors.’’ (IV522) 

The spatial problem is not limited to fishing grounds. Fishing activities in ports— 

ranging from areas for berthing, processing fish, mending fish gear and other space 

required to support commercial fishing have been displaced by offshore oil and gas 

support operations and vessels. This is not a problem where there is adequate space, 

space not used to support fisheries, but it becomes a real problem in smaller ports 

where space may be at a premium. 

Some of the areas where drilling is planned are relatively remote with little infrastructure in place, thus the impacts will be far greater. The area of northern 

Mendocino, southern Humboldt Counties in California—known as the Lost Coast, 

for example, is the one area in the lower continental U.S. where there is no coastal 

road, yet the area (around Shelter Cove) is under consideration for development. 

Much of Alaska is equally as remote. 

Pollution/Contamination. As mentioned earlier, the concern voiced by commercial fishermen from the Santa Barbara Channel has been with the small, but chronic, unreported spills and leaks that caused the oiling of fishing gear or catch. That, 

however, was before the Exxon Valdez spill in 1989 or a number of other spills that 

have occurred subsequent where there is a greater understanding now of the impacts of a major spill on certain key species. 

The Prince William Sound herring fishery has still not recovered from the Exxon 

Valdez spill and even the small herring fishery in San Francisco Bay seems to have 

88 

been affected by the November 2007 spill of bunker fuel by the Cosco Busan, judging from the size of the biomass now in the Bay. While both the Exxon Valdez and 

Cosco Busan were spills from ships, not rigs, it does point out to the danger posed 

by oil to the marine environment. Again, quoting from the MMS’ 5-Year FEIS: 

‘‘...localized areas of shellfish essential fish habitat (EFH) could be affected 

by leaks from offshore pipelines.’’ (IV-186) 

‘‘...contact with some EFH [Essential Fish Habitat] resources from an oil 

spill would probably be unavoidable.’’ (IV-188) 

‘‘Valuable shellfish species, including various crabs and weathervane 

scallops, could be affected by oil spills that occur when planktonic life 

stages are present in surface waters.’’ (IV-186) 

Oil spills, however, are not the only pollution source from offshore oil and gas. 

Santa Barbara fishermen complained of the disposal of drill muds on the seafloor 

containing diesel fuel. The State of California has banned the disposal of drill muds 

in state waters and requires them to disposed of safely onshore. The problem identified by the Santa Barbara fishermen with diesel fuel in the drill muds may be far 

greater with findings in the Gulf of Mexico of mercury and heavy metals in the drill 

muds and fish sampled from the nearby rigs. In its FEIS, MMS stated: 

‘‘Depositions of sediments could smother more sedentary invertebrates (e.g. 

clams or scallops) located within a given radius of discharge points.’’ (IV182) 

‘‘Settling of discharge cuttings on the seafloor could smother some prey 

species, displace some managed groundfish species, and change substrate 

composition in the area where the cuttings settle.’’ (IV-184) 

‘‘Eggs, fry, and small prey occurring or entering the mixing zone during the 

discharge of muds and cuttings could experience lethal and sublethal effects 

if they are within 1-2 m of the discharge point and if the volumes of muds 

and cuttings are released at the rates permitted by the U.S. EPA (500-1,000 

bbl/hour).’’ (IV-182) 

‘‘...approximately 522 tons of drill cuttings would be released into the environment for each exploration well constructed. Up to 20 exploration wells 

are anticipated, which could result in the release of up to 10,440 tons of 

cuttings.’’ (IV-181) 

Major Fishing Grounds Threatened 

As we are discussing offshore oil drilling here today, the clock is already ticking 

under the previous 5-year plan for Lease Sale 214, the North Aleutian Basin, which 

includes Bristol Bay—with the largest salmon fishery in the world. After the lifting 

of the moratorium, under the revised plan, the clock is also ticking for lease sales 

of the Northern and Central Coast of California, Georges Bank and the Virginia 

coast. 

Some of the nation’s most productive fishing grounds are now threatened. They 

include: 

Bristol Bay. In its October 16, 2008 letter to the Minerals Management Service 

regarding the EIS for Lease Sale 214 in the North Aleutian Basin, which affects 

Bristol Bay, the United Fishermen of Alaska described the area as ‘‘the most important economic driver of the region, the commercial fishing industry has impacts extending throughout Alaska and the Pacific Northwest. As shown by National Marine 

Fisheries Service statistics, over 40% of the commercial U.S. fisheries catch including the nation’s richest crab, Pollock, cod, halibut, and salmon fisheries come from 

the Bering Sea region with annual harvests worth more than a half a billion dollars. 

‘‘Both groundfish and shellfish fisheries completely overlap the proposed 

lease sale area 214. Shellfish harvested in significant numbers include Bristol Bay red king crab, Bering Sea tanner crab, and Bering Sea snow crab. 

Commercially harvested groundfish species include Pacific cod, Alaska Pollock, Pacific halibut, flatfish species, rockfish species, Atka mackerel and 

sablefish. The Bristol Bay and north Alaska Peninsula salmon fisheries depend on the large numbers of all five species of Pacific salmon that utilize 

the area for feeding and migration. Subsistence fisheries, while not economically comparable to the region’s commercial fisheries, are vital to local 

communities.’’ 

An earlier letter sent to President Bush by six Alaskan organizations (Bristol Bay 

Native Association, Bering Sea Fishermen’s Association, Bristol Bay Economic Development Corporation, Alaska Independent Fishermen’s Marketing Association, 

and Bristol Bay Reserve) stated, ‘‘[t]he economics of the fisheries that depend on the 

North Aleutian Basin have sustained an annual average wholesale value of about 

$450 million dollars; we estimate the retail value to be nearly $2 billion annually. 

89 

The snapshot of oil and gas development for this area does not compare to the longevity of these fisheries or to the future value. The Bristol Bay salmon fishery alone 

maintained an average annual catch value of $105 million from 1980-2003. This represents a 20-40% total value of Alaska’s salmon fisheries. Jobs in Bristol Bay that 

depend on fisheries and wildlife provide an annual payroll of about $175 million. 

The economic benefits and impacts of Alaska’s fishing industry extend far beyond 

the region in which they are located as the Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission 

reports 41% of the Bristol Bay Drift and Set Gillnet permit holders to be residents 

of states other than Alaska. 

‘‘Even though the North Aleutian Basin does not directly overlap with the 

Bristol Bay salmon fisheries, it provides significant habitat for salmon. 

Salmon smolt outmigrate through the area and adult salmon migrate 

through the area on their way to spawn in Bristol Bay Rivers. Juvenile 

salmon also feed and grow to maturity within and surrounding the area. 

Clearly, leasing in the North Aleutian Basin poses serious risks to salmon. 

Even a small spill or contamination event could damage the ability to market Bristol Bay salmon and could harm new efforts to increase their value.’’ 

Northern California. Although much of the Central California coast enjoys protection in one of four national marine sanctuaries, the area from Sonoma Coast to 

the Oregon border remains vulnerable. North of San Francisco the coast is increasingly remote, to the roadless area of the Lost Coast. The shelf is narrow and the 

area is frequented by treacherous winter storms with few ports of refuge. The fishing and tourism industries that support this region of the coast would be devastated 

by offshore oil and gas development. 

In his recent letter to you, Mr. Chairman, Representative Mike Thompson stated 

the coastal part of his district, ‘‘is remote, pristine, and rocky. It is also host to one 

of four major upwelling regions in the world. Upwelling regions are coastal areas 

that support extremely abundant and productive marine life. This is because 

upwelling brings cold, nutrient-rich waters up from the ocean depths that, when 

combined with sunlight, enhance seaweed and phytoplankton growth. The seaweed 

and phytoplankton provide energy for some of the most productive ecosystems in the 

world, including many of the world’s most important fisheries, such as the North 

Coast fisheries. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 

while upwelling regions make up only one percent of the world’s oceans, they contribute to approximately half of the world’s fish catch. 

‘‘Northern California’s coast brings biological and economic benefits to the 

entire country as a result of the incredibly productive and diverse ecosystem found within its waters. Drilling activity off the Northern Coast of 

California could cause serious harm to the unique ecosystem and abundant 

marine life found off my district. The impact this would have on the California fishing industry and the coastal communities that depend on it could 

far exceed any benefits we would hope to gain by drilling. 

‘‘Even if the price of oil were to skyrocket again, the Minerals Management 

Service’s own estimates show that the amount of oil we could expect to recover would only be enough to satisfy about 100 days of national demand.’’ 

Georges Bank. Part of MMS’ proposed North Atlantic lease sale, includes the 

fishing rich ground of Georges Bank. Representative Ed Markey reflects the feelings 

of most fishermen in New England, when he says Georges Bank is vital to New 

England’s economy. New Bedford, Massachusetts is the most productive fishing port 

in the United States, raking in $268 million in catch value. The collective catch of 

New Bedford, Gloucester, and Provincetown-Chatham-all of which rely on Georges 

Bank-is worth nearly $350 million annually. 

‘‘From the boats and wharfs to the markets and restaurants of New England, the unique habitat of Georges Bank is a key economic engine for Massachusetts and the region and an important part of our cultural heritage,’’ 

said Congressman Markey. ‘‘In this economic crisis, the preservation of 

Georges Bank is vital to not just the environmental integrity of New England but also the stability of its economy.’’ 

In the case of all three areas identified above, if the fishing is well-managed these 

areas will continue to provide economic benefit to the nation well into the future. 

But these areas are now at risk in order to pursue finite oil and gas reserves, whose 

extraction will affect fish and fisheries for, at best, a short supply of carbon-based 

fuel. 

If Drilling Were to Go Ahead 

It is PCFFA’s position supporting reinstatement by Congress and the Administration of the offshore oil and gas moratorium. However, if a moratorium is not reinstated, PCFFA recommends at minimum the following actions are taken: 

90 

1. Remove Bristol Bay, Northern California and Georges Bank immediately from 

any lease sales. We would also ask for consideration of much of the rest, if not 

all, of the lease sales planned for offshore Alaska, as well as Oregon and Washington, any unprotected areas of Central and Southern California, the remainder of the North Atlantic and the Mid-Atlantic be protected from oil and gas 

exploration. We cannot comment on the South Atlantic and Straits of Florida, 

but those areas, too, may be worthy of protection from offshore oil. 

2. Consolidate oil and lease sales around areas where existing oil and gas development is taking place to minimize disruption to fishing and coastal communities. 

3. Establish mitigation measures to protect fishing where new drilling is to occur. 

To this end, we support the recommendations made by the United Fishermen 

of Alaska for fishery protection and mitigation including: 

• Creation of Regional Citizens Advisory Councils for states, following approved OCS lease sales, to be funded by the approved leaseholders • Zero discharges from drilling installations. • Establishment of oil and gas spill response and mitigation plans, to be 

developed in consort with a regional citizens advisory councils. • Establishment of an adequate fisheries disaster fund to provide compensation to the fishing industry and coastal communities in the event 

of disruption of fisheries. 

• A commitment from the oil and gas industry and the federal government 

to develop and implement a long term scientific monitoring program to 

assess potential impacts to the marine environment and the fisheries. 

• A prohibition of any use of offshore energy facilities for open ocean 

aquaculture. 

• Inclusion of commercial fishing organizations in the planning process as 

stakeholders on par with the status of other cooperating municipal, 

state and federal agencies. 

• Restrict lease-related use will to prevent conflicts with local commercial, 

subsistence, and sport harvest activities. All OCS operations, both onshore and offshore, must be designed, sited and operated to ensure that: 

(a) adverse changes to the distribution or abundance of fish resources do not 

occur; 

(b) fish or shellfish catches are not adversely impacted by OCS activities; 

(c) all exploration, construction and operation activities is coordinated with 

the fishing community to maximize communication, ensure public 

participation, and avoid conflicts; 

(d) ballast water treatment is required to remove or eliminate non-indigenous 

species. 

(e) fishermen are not displaced or precluded from access to fishing areas, 

unless they are adequately compensated for the displacement; 

(f) fishermen are not precluded from participating in designated fishing 

seasons, unless they are adequately compensated for the lost season(s); 

and 

(g) fishermen are compensated for damage to fishing equipment, vessels, gear 

and decreased harvest value from OCS operations in a timely manner. 

Why Offshore Drilling is Not a Good Move 

When PCFFA formulated it policy 30 years ago to oppose new offshore drilling, 

it did so unaware of climate change or its implications, including the acidification 

of ocean waters. We felt there was a compelling case to be made then for not expanding offshore drilling beyond the high yield basins where it was then taking 

place. 

From what we have learned in the past decade, certainly the past year and even 

month, it is evident that we need to phase out carbon-based fuels as quickly as possible. We say that knowing our fishing boats currently rely on diesel fuel for power. 

But if we don’t stop putting carbon into the atmosphere from burning coal and oil 

there won’t be any fish in the ocean for our members to harvest. This is a problem 

that needs fixing now. 

This past summer was particularly disturbing for those of us who remember the 

summers of the late 1960’s, when many of the nation’s cities were burning. We 

heard then the chants of ‘‘Burn, Baby, Burn.’’ Most of us understood the frustration 

of those rioting, torching buildings. The years of Jim Crow, inequality, lack of opportunity, and brutality at the hands of police and vigilante groups set off a powder 

keg. Understandable as it was for many of us, looting and burning was no answer. 

When the President lifted the executive order on the offshore moratorium, when 

Congress allowed the moratorium to lapse, when we heard people shouting ‘‘Drill, 

91 

Baby, Drill,’’ we felt for our fisheries the way a shop owner must have felt in those 

hot summers of the late 1960’s as the mob converged. We understood the frustration 

with the prices at the pump. The cost of diesel had taken the profit out of fishing, 

keeping many tied to the dock. And, we understood the frustration with paying for 

fuel imported from nations that are openly hostile to our interests. 

But drilling for a small amount of oil and gas, putting at risk America’s oldest 

industry, to further exacerbate global warming—which may not be reversible for a 

century, is no solution. It is no more an answer to our energy needs than burning 

the cities was in the 1960’s in response in discrimination and inequality. Are we 

now prepared to loot and burn the planet, chanting ‘‘Drill, Baby, Drill?’’ 

There is no doubt that immediate action is needed on the energy front, but in so 

acting we should not threaten our food supplies, nor life on Earth. Prompt and 

thoughtful action, based on good science, is what’s needed. It’s time to ‘‘Think, Baby, 

Think.’’ 

Mr. Chairman we urge you and committee members to rethink our offshore drilling policies, both in terms of damage to the environment and industries such as 

fisheries that rely on a clean environment, as well as damage to the planet from 

continued reliance on carbon based fuels. 

A better course I would suggest is to focus on the development of renewable 

energy sources—continue to push solar and wind and development of alternative 

fuels that can safely power everything from fishing vessels to jet aircraft. We do not 

expect any of the oil from development of new offshore leases to be available for a 

decade. Wouldn’t we be better off spending this next decade working to be free of 

not just foreign oil, but oil as a fuel altogether? 

Thank you Mr. Chairman for this opportunity to testify and I’ll be happy to 

answer any questions you or members of the Natural Resources Committee may 

have. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. Allen. 

STATEMENT OF BRUCE ALLEN, CO-FOUNDER, 

SOS CALIFORNIA 

Mr. ALLEN. I would like to thank Chairman Rahall and the Committee for the invitation to speak here today. I am Bruce Allen, a 

co-founder of SOS California, a nonprofit dedicated to educating 

the public about how offshore oil and gas production can actually 

improve the marine environment and provide a bridge to our renewable energy future. 

Due to advances in subsea wellhead, platform and pipeline technology, according to the National Academy of Sciences, less than 1 

percent of hydrocarbon pollution in all U.S. waters now comes from 

drilling and extraction, while natural oil seeps contribute 63 percent. 

Published studies document that, in the Gulf of Mexico, natural 

hydrocarbon seepage may far exceed the environmental significance of production and transportation of oil and gas. Surprising to 

many is the fact that California offshore oil and gas production has 

been drying up seepage pollution. Similar seepage productions also 

appear to be occurring in other oil and gas resource basins. 

Natural oil and gas seeps off the California coast are the second 

most active in the world, seeping 70,000 barrels of oil into coastal 

waters and 3 billion cubic feet of methane into the air every year. 

This annual oil seepage volume equals the entire 1969 oil spill and 

equals the Exxon Valdez oil spill amount every 4 years. Local 

beaches are washed with oil seepage from State and OCS waters 

for 100 miles of Central California coastline. 

These seeps pollute the ocean and beaches, sicken surfers, and 

are a significant source of air pollution in Santa Barbara County. 

92 

For example, in January 2005, an increase in this seepage killed 

or oiled as many as 5,000 seabirds that washed ashore from Santa 

Barbara to Huntington Beach, creating a 25-square-mile oil slick, 

which went largely unreported. 

These seeps are being reduced by offshore oil and gas production. 

It is well known to longtime Santa Barbara residents that over the 

last 40 years, the amount of oil washing up on their beaches has 

been declining and is commonly assumed that offshore oil production is the reason. These observations are supported by research 

documenting a 50 percent reduction in the seepage near an offshore oil platform that was studied for 20—over 20 years. If after 

the 1969 spill all California offshore oil production had been 

stopped, these long-term seepage reductions would never have occurred. 

In the last 40 years, there have been only 872 barrels of oil 

spilled offshore California due to offshore oil production, with no 

lasting long-term environmental impact, compared to the 2 million 

barrels of oil seepage into the same coastal waters. A 2008 opinion 

poll shows that, by 62 percent to 29 percent, Santa Barbara County 

residents support more offshore production in California, a population that follows this subject more closely than any other. The 

Gulf of Mexico offshore production also has an excellent safety and 

environmental record even in the face of Hurricanes Katrina and 

Rita. 

Modern technology and 3-D seismic allows reserves to be accurately targeted, including seep zones and resources at risk from 

earthquakes. For example, the 1925 Santa Barbara earthquake 

caused a massive flood of crude oil from seabed fissures to pour 

into coastal waters and onto California beaches. 

Pacific OCS resources are estimated by MMS to be at least 13 

billion barrels of oil equivalent. Discovered resources in the California OCS and State waters—which are not allowed to be produced—amount to about 1.8 billion barrels, are near existing infrastructure, and are producible within 18 months—given permitting 

approvals. Eleven of 13 reservoirs are overlaid by active seeps in 

State and OCS waters, seepage which could be permanently reduced by offshore extraction. Royalties from these resources could 

fund conversion to electricity use by 20 million Americans for solar 

electricity and cut California oil imports in half. 

This would reduce the risk of a large spill in coastal waters since 

studies show the risks from large oil tanker spills are greater than 

from offshore platforms or pipeline spills. Total 2006 MMS estimated OCS resources are 160 billion barrels of oil equivalent. Royalties from these resources exceed $3 trillion, which in terms of renewable energy, could buy 1,000 gigawatts of solar electric-generating power—an amount equal to all U.S. electric-generating capacity. 

Assertions that new offshore oil production will slow conversion 

to renewable energy are not correct. More OCS production will actually accelerate the conversion. SOS California believes new offshore production royalties should be tied directly to funding renewable energy infrastructure to accelerate the transition to solar electric vehicles and other renewables. The U.S. will not be able to borrow overseas money for 30 years to pay for building a renewable 

93 

energy infrastructure while running a $600 billion a year trade deficit due to primarily imported oil moratorium. 

I urge Congress not to reimpose an OCS moratorium. New OCS 

production will allow Americans to benefit from safe extraction of 

domestic energy resources with royalty revenues accelerating the 

transition to renewable energy. For coastal Californians, intelligently expanded production in the OCS and State waters would 

further reduce coastal seepage pollution for future generations. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Allen follows:] 

Statement of Bruce Allen, Co-Founder, SOS California 

I would like to thank Chairman Rahall and the Committee for the invitation to 

speak here today. I am Bruce Allen, a co-founder of SOS California, a non-profit 

dedicated to educating the public how offshore oil and gas production can actually 

improve the marine environment and provide a bridge to our renewable energy future. Due to advances in subsea wellhead, platform and pipeline technology, according to the National Academy of Sciences less than 1% of hydrocarbon pollution in 

all U.S. waters now comes from drilling and extraction, while natural oil seeps contribute 63%. 

Published studies document that in the Gulf of Mexico natural hydrocarbon seepage may far exceed the environmental significance of the production and transportation of oil and natural gas. 

Surprising to many is the fact that California offshore oil and gas production has 

been drying up seepage pollution. Similar seepage reductions also appear to be occurring in other oil and gas resource basins. 

Natural oil and gas seeps off the California coast are the second most active in 

the world, seeping 70,000 barrels of oil into coastal waters and 3 billion cubic feet 

of methane into the air every year. This annual oil seepage volume equals the entire 

1969 oil spill and equals the Exxon Valdez oil spill amount every 4 years. Local 

beaches are washed with oil seepage from state and OCS waters for 100 miles of 

central California coastline. These seeps pollute the ocean and beaches, sicken surfers, and are a significant source of air pollution in Santa Barbara County. 

For example, in January 2005 an increase in this seepage killed or oiled as many 

as 5000 seabirds that washed ashore from Santa Barbara to Huntington Beach, creating a 25 square mile oil slick, which went largely unreported. 

These seeps are being reduced by offshore oil and gas production. It is well known 

to long time Santa Barbara residents that over the last 40 years the amount of oil 

washing up on their beaches has been declining, and it is commonly assumed offshore oil production is the reason. These observations are supported by research 

documenting a 50% reduction in seepage near an offshore platform studied for over 

20 years. 

If, after the 1969 spill, all California offshore oil production had been stopped, 

these long term seepage reductions would never have occurred. 

In the last 40 years there have only been 872 barrels of oil spilled offshore California due to offshore production with no lasting long term environmental impact 

compared to the 2 million barrels of oil seepage into the same coastal waters. A 

2008 opinion poll shows by 62% to 29% Santa Barbara County residents support 

more offshore production in California, a population that follows this subject more 

closely then any other. 

Gulf of Mexico offshore production also has an excellent safety and environmental 

record, even in the face of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. 

Modern technology and 3-D seismic allows reserves to be accurately targeted, including seep zones and resources at risk from earthquakes. For example, the 1925 

Santa Barbara earthquake caused a massive flood of crude oil from seabed fissures 

to pour into coastal waters and onto California beaches. 

Pacific OCS resources estimated by MMS are at least 13 billion barrels of oil 

equivalent. Discovered, but not allowed to be produced resources in California OCS 

and state waters are about 1.8 billion barrels, near existing infrastructure producible within 18 months given permitting approvals. 11 of 13 reservoirs are overlaid 

by active seeps in state and OCS waters, seepage which could be permanently reduced by offshore extraction. Royalties from these resources could fund conversion 

of electricity usage by 20 million Americans to solar electricity and cut California 

oil imports in half. This would reduce the risk of a large spill in coastal waters, 

94 

since studies show risks from large oil tanker spills are greater then from offshore 

platform or pipeline spills. 

Total 2006 MMS estimated OCS resources are 160 billion barrels of oil equivalent. 

Royalties from these resources could exceed 3 trillion dollars, which in terms of renewable energy, could buy one thousand gigawatts of solar electric generating 

power, an amount equal to all U.S. electric generating capacity. 

Assertions that new offshore oil production will slow conversion to renewable 

energy are not correct; more OCS production can actually accelerate the conversion. 

SOS California believes new offshore production royalties should be tied directly to 

funding renewable energy infrastructure to accelerate the transition to solar, electric 

vehicles and other renewables. 

The U.S. will not be able to borrow overseas money for 30 years to pay for building a renewable energy infrastructure while running a 600 billion dollar a year 

trade deficit due primarily to imported oil. 

I urge Congress not to re-impose an OCS moratorium. New OCS production will 

allow Americans to benefit from safe extraction of domestic energy resources with 

royalty revenues accelerating the transition to renewable energy. For central coast 

Californians, intelligently expanded production in OCS and state waters would further reduce coastal seepage pollution for future generations. I would be pleased to 

answer questions. Thank you. 

Response to questions submitted for the record by Bruce Allen, 

Co-Founder, SOS California 

I submit this memo to the House Committee on Natural Resources Chief Clerk 

to be forwarded to all House Natural Resource Committee Members and request its 

inclusion and the attachments in the Congressional Record in response to questions 

to me at the February 11, 2009 Natural Resources hearing and the request for citation for the Record by Rep. Capps regarding my comments on the source of California Monterey County beach seepage tar and the chemical typing of this seepage 

tar. 

I also would like to request a copy of the letter by Bruce Luyendyk regarding SOS 

California that Rep. Capps indicated she would submit to the Record, and request 

that I be given the opportunity to include my comments on the letter in the Congressional Record. I was not offered an opportunity to see the letter to which Rep. 

Capps referred before or after the hearing. 

I would note for the Committee that Bruce Luyendyk did submit a letter to the 

Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors in August 2008 (a copy of which I have 

attached), in which the letter points to ‘‘clarifications’’ in regard to SOS’s position 

on offshore oil. In his letter, Luyendyk stated, 

‘‘Their premise is based on interpretation of two 1999 UCSB studies on oil seeps 

offshore Coal Oil Point in Goleta, the location of Venoco’s platform Holly. As a member of that UCSB research team I want to point to several qualifications in this SOS 

argument. The relationship between ongoing production and decreasing seepage remains a hypothesis that is not fully tested. The relationship is well established for 

the Coal Oil Point field under current production methods but not tested by scientific studies elsewhere in the Channel.’’ 

SOS California’s ‘‘premise’’ is NOT solely based on the two 1999 studies, and is 

not restricted to the Santa Barbara ‘‘channel’’. Our analysis includes other published 

research which includes seep zones in California, reservoir engineering opinions, 

analysis of the advances in offshore drilling technology and discussions with many 

petroleum geologists and researchers that did not include Luyendyk and he was not 

been privy to any of those discussions. That the ‘‘hypothesis has not been fully tested’’ merely states the obvious fact that to be ‘‘fully tested’’, the offshore oil fields 

in seep zone areas that are currently off limits would need to be produced and seepage reductions measured. Petroleum geologists with current offshore oil production 

technology experience have consistently given opinions that if extraction of hydrocarbon resources from many reservoirs in undeveloped active seep zone areas offshore California occurred, it is highly likely that extraction with modern technology 

would reduce this existing seepage pollution. 

In his letter Luyendyk states, ‘‘It is true that natural oil seepage may be the 

major source of oil in the ocean: to what degree is uncertain. However, labeling this 

natural floating oil to be pollution is not so simple.’’ 

I believe it is clear that natural seepage emissions, including oil, tar and ROG 

(reactive organic gases) emissions off the coast of southern and central California 

are considered pollution sources per definitions by the EPA, California Air ReVerDate Aug 31 2005 15:01 Mar 19, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00098 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\47302.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
95 

sources Board, and other agencies. I believe it is clear these seepage emissions harm 

the environment, and are responsible for wildlife deaths. 

Bruce Luyendyk also stated in the August 2008 letter, ‘‘Even if drilling were to 

go forward as a means of decreasing seepage, some seeps are located where oil drilling would not occur either because of non-economic deposits or legal restrictions.’’ 

SOS California believes that drilling and extraction are clearly a means of decreasing seepage. If the resources are not economic to produce, they will likely not 

be produced and SOS has never said otherwise, and SOS California believes many 

of the seep fields off the coast of California are economic, based on existing known 

resource estimates and many detailed seep field studies. With respect to legal restrictions, this is the very policy issue SOS California is addressing through public 

education and hearings. 

SOS California has not changed its position since Luyendyk’s letter was sent to 

the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors, dated August 18, 2008. I believe 

the conclusions of the 1999 UCSB studies speak for themselves, and I encourage the 

committee to read their conclusions, including the conclusion ‘‘...oil production here 

has resulted in an unexpected benefit to the atmosphere and marine environment.’’ 

The 1999 studies are a notable set of studies, but implying that our policy position 

is solely based on those findings is incorrect. 

SOS California does not consider the other studies we have reviewed and analyzed to constitute ‘‘evidence’’ as was asked by Rep. Capps at the hearing, but rather 

these other studies and geologists opinions to be significant factors in our assessment of the potential for seepage reductions along the California coast due to oil 

reservoir extraction. 

With respect to the request by Rep. Capps to provide for the record a source for 

my reference to the fact that tar from Santa Barbara area seepage washes up on 

Monterey County beaches, and the issue of their chemical typing, I include below 

a USGS (United States Geological Survey) April 2008 Sound Waves article citing 

chemical analysis of tar ball samples by the California Department of Fish and 

Game, Oil Spill Prevention and Response (OSPR) and titled: 

‘‘Tar Balls from Southern California Seeps Appear on Central California 

Beaches’’ By Helen Gibbons, Bob Rosenbauer, Tom Lorenson, and Randy Imai 

(CDFG Office of Spill Prevention and Response) April 2008: 

Excerpt: ‘‘Tar balls that appear on central California shores during the winter 

months mostly originate in southern California seeps, as evidenced by their chemical fingerprints. These tar balls are believed to be carried northward by the Davidson Current, which periodically flows northward along the California coast, often 

aided by winter storms that bring southwesterly winds to the region.’’ 

http://soundwaves.usgs.gov/2008/04/fieldwork2.html 

Attached also to this memo is a published news article dated March 6th, 2007 

that gives some additional context regarding the question of natural oil and tar 

seepage flowing up the coast of California and deposition on Monterey and San 

Francisco area beaches. 

I would note for the Committee that Santa Barbara and California residents over 

the last 40 years have clearly observed the major improvement of their coastal environment due to less natural oil and tar on their beaches that has always been 

present even before offshore oil production began in California. The best scientific 

evidence points to offshore oil and gas production as the cause of this benefit. I believe the potential to even further reduce natural offshore seepage pollution through 

expanded offshore oil and gas production is a significant potential benefit that the 

Committee should seriously consider as a factor in evaluating the benefits of offshore oil and gas resource development. 

96 

1Quigley, D. C., J. S. Hornafius, B. P. Luyendyk, R. D. Francis, J. F. Clark, and L. Washburn 

(1999), Decrease in Natural Marine Hydrocarbon Seepage near Coal Oil Point, California Associated with Offshore Oil Production, Geology, 27 (11), 1047-1050. 2 Hornafius, J. S., D. C. Quigley, and B. P. Luyendyk (1999), The world’s most spectacular 

marine hydrocarbons seeps (Coal Oil Point, Santa Barbara Channel, California): quantification 

of emissions, Journal Geophysical Research - Oceans, 104 (C9), 20703-20711.2 

Attachment 2 

August 18, 2008 

TO: Board of Supervisors, Santa Barbara County 

RE: Statement on oil seeps and drilling for August 26 meeting, ‘‘State and National 

Energy Crisis—Discussion’’ 

The local group Stop Oil Seeps (SOS) has gained a lot of traction lately as 

alarmed southern Californians react to sharply increasing gasoline prices. Part of 

the SOS agenda is to promote offshore drilling and oil production as a means of reducing natural oil and gas seepage and their effects in the Santa Barbara Channel. 

Their premise is based on interpretation of two 1999 UCSB studies1 2 on oil seeps 

offshore Coal Oil Point in Goleta, the location of Venoco’s platform Holly. As a member of that UCSB research team, I want to point to several qualifications in this 

SOS argument. 

The relationship between ongoing production and decreasing seepage remains a 

hypothesis that is not fully tested. The relationship is well established for the Coal 

Oil Point field under current production methods but not tested by scientific studies 

elsewhere in the Channel. Many oil reservoirs offshore in fact are not seeping so 

drilling them would have no effect. Those reservoirs that are seeping, to my knowledge, are discharging far less that the Coal Oil Point field, minimizing any effect 

of drilling on seepage. Even if drilling were to go forward as a means of decreasing 

seepage, some seeps are located where oil drilling would not occur either because 

of non-economic deposits or legal restrictions. Further, any relationship between ongoing production and decreasing seepage could only apply in the early history of an 

oil field during a phase known as primary production where natural subsurface conditions allow easy extraction of hydrocarbons. As oil fields age more elaborate Enhanced Oil Recovery measures are required, and these could have the opposite result of increasing seepage. 

The argument is also made by SOS that most of the oil floating on the surface 

of the ocean today is of natural origin, not industrial, and that therefore our enemy 

is really natural seepage. It is true that natural oil seepage may be the major source 

of oil in the ocean: to what degree is uncertain. However, labeling this natural floating oil to be pollution is not so simple. Ecosystems have adapted to ongoing hydrocarbon seepage as they have done at Coal Oil Point. On the other hand, a sudden 

accidental spill of even a small magnitude is something that natural systems experience as acute stress and could have far greater impact than continual natural 

sources. 

The Coal Oil Point field emits gases that are classified as noxious air pollutants 

and precursors to ozone. These are likely of large magnitude offshore but are highly 

dispersed once they blow onshore to Goleta. That area is rarely beyond state or federal air quality (ozone) standards according to our county monitoring records. 

Our 1999 UCSB studies were made on a special case of marine seeps; one of the 

world’s most active. However, these seeps occur over a limited area. To extrapolate 

the findings of our studies beyond the Coal Oil Point area cannot yet be substantiated, and there are many reasons to caution against generalizing our study results 

to the greater Santa Barbara Channel, much less to the California continental shelf. 

Sincerely, 

Bruce P. Luyendyk 

Professor of Marine Geophysics 

UC Santa Barbara 

97 

Attachment 3 

http://www.mcpost.com/article.php?id=695 

Winter Storms Wash Santa Barbara’s Tar onto Central Coast Beaches Thick 

Tar Balls from Naturally Occurring Seepage 

By Monica Woelfel March 6, 2007 

On Feb. 23, the state Department of Fish & Game’s Office of Spill Prevention and 

Response (OSPR) identified the source of the tar balls that have been washing up 

on local beaches. The tar, according to OSPR information officer Rob Hughes, is 

‘‘Monterey formation crude’’ from a natural seep, and does not originate, as some 

had feared, from offshore drilling or from an oil tanker spill. 

‘‘There isn’t much we can do about that except monitor it,’’ Hughes said of the 

natural source. ‘‘We’re waiting for nature to clean itself up.’’ 

Fortunately, according to Hughes, ‘‘There hasn’t been any wildlife impact and 

there haven’t been any [human] health concerns.’’ 

Petroleum and environmental geochemist Fran Hostettler has been working with 

the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary Project for years. 

‘‘There are no known seeps in the Sanctuary,’’ she said. ‘‘That’s why people pay 

attention whenever tar shows up, because it could be from an oil spill.’’ 

The findings of the OSPR lab, however, are no surprise to Hostettler. For decades, 

she and other researchers have documented the presence of tar balls on Monterey 

Bay beaches that come from natural seeps as far south as Santa Barbara. 

In the latest instance, the tar started washing up on the Central Coast from 

Asilomar at Pacific Grove to San Francisco’s Ocean Beach on Feb. 10 and continued 

to come ashore for about a week. 

Aside from the tar balls, no other evidence of a potential oil spill (such as oiled 

wildlife) was found. 

‘‘It was reported to our department from the public,’’ said local Fish and Game 

warden Jess Mitchell, of the tar washing up. ‘‘I collected a few samples down at 

Asilomar State Beach. They were flat, like a pancake and pliable. They ranged from 

the size of a dime to about 4 inches by 8 inches.’’ 

According to Hostettler, past reports have documented flattened tar balls as large 

as three feet in diameter. 

Tar Balls Date Back Thousands of Years 

In addition to Mitchell’s samples from Asilomar, OSPR, San Mateo County and 

State Parks staff collected recent tar balls in February from Fitzgerald Marine Reserve, and Manresa and Sunset State Beaches. 

Fish and Game officers sent the samples to OSPR’s Petroleum Chemistry Laboratory in Rancho Cordova for analysis. The lab was able to ‘‘fingerprint’’ the oil, using 

gas chromatography-mass spectrometry analysis. 

Any sample of oil has a mix of specific chemicals within it, explained Hostettler. 

‘‘The ratio of the amounts of different chemicals within the sample,’’ she said, 

‘‘gives you that oil’s fingerprint.’’ 

Two samples of oil from the same source, she said, even if they are collected from 

locations far apart, will give exactly the same fingerprint. 

Scientists can pretty easily distinguish natural-seep tar from that which has been 

drilled out, according to Hostettler. 

‘‘The stuff that comes up from deep down is not as degraded,’’ she said. ‘‘These 

seeps are very close to the surface.’’ 

As a result, microbial systems have degraded it. 

For those who have known the Central Coast beaches well over the years, the appearance of tar balls is not all that surprising. Last year, Mitchell said, he saw a 

similar event happen. 

Hostettler’s historical re-search turned up interesting results. 

‘‘These tars have been showing up here for thousands of years,’’ she said.’’ 

In fact, she found reports that some boats of the original Indian residents of the 

Monterey Bay area were sealed for waterproofing using tars from the same source. 

‘‘Essentially what happens,’’ said UCSC earth sciences professor Gary Griggs, director of the Institute of Marine Sciences, ‘‘is those hydrocarbons seep out of the sea 

floor. The light stuff evaporates and the heavier tar balls form and move with the 

currents.’’ 

He said that currents bring the tar north in winter. 

‘‘During the summer and fall the coastal current is going south,’’ Griggs said. ‘‘But 

in the winter months the Davidson Current, which is near shore, is going north. 

And that is a mechanism to move tar balls from the Santa Barbara Channel up to 

the Monterey, San Mateo, and Santa Cruz coast.’’ 

98 

Weathered tar balls are not very sticky while they’re in the ocean, therefore they 

pose a minimal threat to marine life, according to the Department of Fish and 

Game. Once on shore, however, the sun’s warmth melts the tar some, making it 

sticky and potentially a hazard to marine life and pets. 

Fish and Game officials remind the public that oil, even from natural sources, 

contains hazardous chemicals, and the public should avoid contact with the tar 

balls. The tar must be removed from beaches by people with personal protective 

equipment, and disposed of at a licensed hazardous waste facility. 

If someone has reliable evidence that an oil spill may have taken place (in this 

or any other instance), they should contact the Department of Fish and Game’s 

CalTIP (Californians Turn In Poachers and Polluters) toll-free at 888-DFG-CALTip 

(888-334-2258). 

Attachment 4 

February 20, 2009 

The Honorable Nick J. Rahall II 

Chairman 

Committee on Natural Resources 

1324 Longworth House Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

RE: Natural Resources Committee hearing Wednesday February 11, 2009 

Dear Chairman Rahall, 

Thank you for providing me the opportunity to testify before the Committee on 

Natural Resources on February 11. I hope that my testimony and answers were 

helpful to the Committee’s work. I would also like to respond to several aspects of 

a letter sent to you by Bruce Luyendyk regarding me and the organization SOS 

California, and references to the letter by Rep. Lois Capps which were directed to 

me in the February 11 Committee hearing. I only have had an opportunity to view 

the contents of the letter after the hearing. 

The statement in the letter from Dr. Luyendyk that I represent ‘‘the industry 

group Stop Oil Seeps (SOS)’’ may suggest that I and SOS represent an industry, 

which is not the case. The issues we are addressing as an independent non-profit 

are a confluence of offshore oil and gas, the marine and coastal environment, long 

term quality of life issues, renewable energy and responsible governance. 

The statement in the letter that ‘‘The SOS premise is based on interpretation of 

two 1999 UCSB studies’’ is misleading for several reasons. It has been overwhelmingly obvious to long time Santa Barbara and ‘‘South Central Coast’’ residents, and 

members and supporters of SOS California that the amount of oil and tar on their 

beaches has been declining for decades and their belief is that offshore oil production has been the cause of this benefit. These very long term environmental benefits 

have previously received virtually no public acknowledgement and are even resisted 

by some organizations that apparently do not wish the public and policy makers to 

be aware of these benefits. I addressed SOS California’s view of the economic benefits and safety aspects of California and U.S. offshore oil development in my written 

testimony. 

The likely connection between the reduction in seepage pollution and offshore oil 

and gas production has been known to many geologists not associated with the 

UCSB 1999 study and they have expressed the opinion that the 1999 study findings 

of seepage reduction and net environmental benefit are ‘‘no surprise’’ and also the 

expected result of resource extraction in many other seep areas offshore south central California. SOS California would be pleased at your request to provide the Committee on Natural Resources a portfolio of information documenting the seepage oil 

and tar pollution reductions along California’s south central coast beaches and ocean 

waters over the past 50 years independent of the above referenced 1999 studies. 

We believe that the benefits of seepage pollution reductions through offshore oil 

and gas production should be a significant factor in the policy consideration for resource planning for future offshore oil production. I would note that the issue of long 

term seepage pollution reduction and the associated environmental benefits appears 

to have never been a federal or state policy consideration for offshore oil and gas 

production and SOS California believes this has been a policy deficiency that should 

be corrected. 

The letter from Dr. Luyendyk further states, ‘‘To assume that natural marine 

seeps are a source of pollution that needs to be controlled ignores the fact that they 

have coexisted with the natural environment of the Santa Barbara Channel for 

99 

more than half a million years. Ecosystems have developed around them and are 

fully adapted.’’ I would note that if the current seepage rates in the major seep 

zones off the coast of California which have not been explored with modern 3-D seismic were to continue in time for only an additional 20% longer, then there are offshore resources well beyond 7 billion barrels equivalent (BOE). These resources 

would be within close proximity to coastal infrastructure and extractable through 

safe slant drilling which would eliminate all California oil imports for 30 years 

(400,000 barrels per day) and provide an additional 260,000 barrel per day surplus. 

With respect to the ecosystem, there is no evidence that humans, other mammals, 

birds and many other species are ‘‘fully adapted’’ to oil and gas pollution. The suggestion that the seepage pollution is benign defies common sense and ignores standard environmental regulatory agency policies concerning pollution sources and hazardous substances. 

I have attached a front page newspaper article, dated August 28, 2008, in which 

a surfer describes a typical experience surfing in ocean waters contaminated with 

natural seepage near Santa Barbara. The surfer states, ‘‘It’s been pretty bad out 

there. When I go out surfing for an hour I can literally feel the tar and oil in the 

back of my throat. I actually get a sore throat if I go surfing too long,’’ The EPA 

and CARB (California Air Resources Board) define geogenic (seepage) emissions to 

be pollution whether natural or man made. The California Department of Fish and 

Game treats oil and tar seepage collected on California beaches as a hazardous substance and requires its disposal at a hazardous waste facility. Bird death estimates 

off the south central coast of California from natural seepage pollution in the last 

40 years significantly exceed bird death estimates due to all California offshore oil 

spills, including the 1969 oil spill. In January 2005 there were 1400 oil covered 

birds that were injured or dead collected on California beaches in one incident alone 

due to ‘‘natural’’ offshore oil seepage. Generally total bird casualties far exceed the 

number of birds actually collected. 

Dr. Luyendyk’s letter then states, ‘‘Fumes from seeps, although noxious up close, 

are barely detectable onshore.’’ I find this statement to be surprising and contradicted by the facts in detailed peer reviewed published research, including studies 

sponsored by the U.S. Minerals and Management Service on California South Central Coast Air Quality. In a series of studies published in the Journal of Applied 

Meteorology, May 1991, the issue of geogenic (seepage) air pollution emission levels 

in the region was studied. In one of the papers, titled ‘‘Factor Analysis of Hydrocarbon Species in the South-Central Coast Air Basin’’, page 733, the paper identifies 

two major sources of hydrocarbon air pollution in the region, surface transportation 

vehicles and geogenic (seep) sources. The study summary states ‘‘The second major 

source is high in methane, ethane, and propane, but also contains reasonable 

amounts of butane and pentane. This type of composition suggests a geogenic 

source.’’ I have attached the abstract and first page of the study. 

I would encourage that the Committee staff read the full set of studies that detail 

the levels and sources of hydrocarbon air pollution that are estimated from the air 

sample data which is the basis for the estimates and air quality modeling over the 

regional population centers. It is clear that the seep emissions are a major source 

of the regions air pollution. I would also note as a Santa Barbara Air Pollution Control District Community Advisory Council Member that the 2007 Santa Barbara Air 

Pollution Control District (APCD) Air Quality Plan Inventory estimates total ROC 

(reactive organic compound) seep emissions to be 6,075 tons per year, compared to 

ROC’s from all on-road vehicles of only 4,846 tons, and note that man-made ROC’s 

are heavily regulated due to their environmentally damaging health effects. 

I also believe the statement in Dr. Luyendyk’s letter, ‘‘This natural phenomenon 

contrasts sharply with industrial oil spills, which are sudden acute events of obvious 

stress to the marine environment.’’ may not be entirely representative for California 

south central coast oil pollution. I have attached a published, July 4th, 1925 eyewitness account of the 1925 earthquake offshore oil release in an area previously 

free of seepage which speaks for itself. Other eyewitness accounts corroborate the 

nature of the massive and sudden 1925 earthquake release of offshore oil. 

In the last 40 years, there have been only approximately 872 barrels of oil spilled 

due to offshore production versus 2 million barrels from natural seepage in that 100 

mile region. The offshore area near Coal Oil Point near Santa Barbara is estimated 

to contain approximately half of the south central coast oil and gas seeps, with most 

of the other half concentrated in the Santa Maria Basin state and OCS waters off 

the coast of northern Santa Barbara County. Many of the Santa Maria Basin seepage areas are also very active with high concentrations of oil, tar and gas seepage 

pollution in proximity to discovered but off limits oil and gas resources (‘‘Geological 

Controls of Hydrocarbon Seeps in Santa Maria Basin, Offshore California’’, Dr. 

Peter J. Fischer, Joseph M. Saenz, AAPG 2003) 

100 

In response to the statement in Dr. Luyendyk’s letter, ‘‘If it is successfully argued 

that seeps need to be controlled, then indiscriminate drilling offshore is not the clear 

solution. This is because not all oil reservoirs in the offshore are seeping. Therefore 

drilling them would have no impact on seepage.’’ I would note that in my Committee 

testimony in reference to California offshore, I referred to ‘‘11 of 13 reservoirs are 

overlaid by active seeps in state and OCS waters’’. Most of these reservoirs are in 

the Santa Maria Basin and surrounding area, which has very active oil, tar and gas 

seeps, including areas near Point Conception that have very extended areas offshore 

encompassing seabed oil and tar seeps and tar mounds covering the ocean floor that 

are 12-15 feet thick. The beaches all along the coast in this region are also heavily 

impacted from oil and tar from natural seepage pollution. 

In the same letter the statement that ‘‘It is also important to realize that the 

drilling-seepage relationship could be in question if aggressive artificial means to 

enhance subsurface production were employed, as is often the case for mature oil 

reservoirs. Seepage could in fact increase over time negating the expected positive 

effects.’’ fails to note that the offshore platform (Holly) in the 1999 study has seen 

major reductions in surrounding seepage, even with the use of standard re-injection 

practices for aging fields. 

This issue should be viewed in the context that reservoir pressures can indeed be 

managed by offshore field operators, and as part of the regulatory process, consideration for maximizing field production while maximizing seepage reductions can be 

included in the approval process. In this light, the seepage reductions due to reservoir extraction can be even greater then would otherwise be the case. 

Most of the discovered, but off-limits California state and OCS hydrocarbon resources and seepage zones are within reach of land based slant drilling which would 

have no new risk of an offshore spill. In the case of offshore production, a single 

offshore platform now has the capability to drain a hydrocarbon resource basin and 

seep zone area covering 80 square miles. 

In addition to offshore oil and gas resource potential, resource size, proximity to 

infrastructure, economic potential, potential adverse environmental impacts and 

safety, SOS California believes that the potential for seepage pollution reductions 

is a significant policy consideration that heretofore has not been recognized. We also 

strongly encourage that future royalties from any new offshore production be directed to funding solar electricity and electric vehicles and other renewable energy 

programs. 

I would be pleased to provide any additional information on the issues of energy, 

natural resources and the environment that may be helpful for the Committee’s 

work. 

Sincerely, 

Bruce Allen 

Co-Founder 

SOS California 

[NOTE: Additional attachments have been retained in the Committee’s official files.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Angers. 

STATEMENT OF JEFFERSON M. ANGERS, PRESIDENT, 

CENTER FOR COASTAL CONSERVATION 

Mr. ANGERS. Mr. Chairman and members, my name is Jeff Angers. I am the President for the Center for Coastal Conservation. 

I am a native Louisianian. 

We have talked a lot about Louisiana here this morning and this 

afternoon, and I am a recreational fisherman. The center is a coalition of the leading advocates for marine recreational fishing and 

boating. Our mission is to promote good stewardship of America’s 

marine resources. 

I was asked to discuss today the compatibility of recreational 

saltwater fishing with the oil and gas industry. Not only do the two 

industries coexist in Louisiana, but they both thrive. To start, I 

would like to quote from the Accord for New Sustainability for 

America’s Energy Coast, which is an initiative sponsored by America’s WETLAND: ‘‘Host to almost 90 percent of America’s offshore 

101 

oil and gas supply and a third of all oil and gas consumed in this 

country, the region is connected to 50 percent of the Nation’s refining capacity. It is home to the largest port system by tonnage in 

the world, moving the bulk of America’s waterborne commerce. The 

region also provides habitat for dozens of endangered and threatened species and millions of migratory waterfowl and songbirds. 

The region produces more than a third of the fish caught in the 

Lower 48, and our coastal wetlands serve as a nursery ground for 

marine life throughout the entire Gulf of Mexico.’’ 

Mr. Chairman, one of the addendums to my testimony was this 

accord published by America’s Wetlands, which was a collaborative 

effort brought together by government, industry, the national conservation community, academia, and all the major stakeholders. 

And as this Committee discusses a collaborative process to move 

forward, this would be a model that I would commend to the Members of the Committee. 

Though I am not an energy expert, I can give you a couple of 

facts about the oil and gas business in Louisiana. Louisiana ranks 

first in crude oil and second in natural gas production. The total 

direct and indirect economic impact of the oil and gas industry in 

Louisiana is $65 billion. Clearly, it is a big business. 

There is a companion big business in Louisiana about which I 

am here to testify today, and that is the recreational saltwater fishing industry. Just last month, NOAA reported that Louisiana was 

one of the top five States in economic impact of saltwater angling; 

$2.9 billion pumped into the Louisiana economy just from recreational saltwater fishing. The other States that were atop that 

list were: Florida, $16.7 billion from recreational saltwater fishing; 

Texas, $3.2 billion; California, $3 billion; Louisiana, as I said, $2.9 

billion; and North Carolina with $2 billion. The overall $31.4 billion 

in total U.S. expenditures in 2006 contributed $82 billion in total 

sales; $39 billion to the gross national product; $24 billion in personal income; and supported nearly 534,000 jobs. 

Commercial fishing is another big business in Louisiana that coexists and thrives with the recreational fishing industry and the oil 

and gas business. The commercial fishing industry generated $2.1 

billion in sales in 2006, $1.1 billion in income, and supported 

46,000 jobs. 

Structure and infrastructure is something that we have talked a 

lot about today. Ninety percent of the more than 4,500 oil and gasrelated structures in the Gulf of Mexico are in Louisiana waters or 

in our adjacent waters. Since the first offshore platform was built 

in the 1940s, these structures have been very important. First, 

they have, in recent years, provided the United States with a quarter of our oil and gas requirements. They have also served as hard 

structures in an otherwise soft bottom environment for reef fish to 

grow and prosper. Thanks in large part to the leadership of former 

Senator John Breaux, who sponsored the National Fishing Enhancement Act of 1994, coastal States began to establish artificial 

reef programs, converting many of these rigs into permanent artificial reefs. The ‘‘Rigs-to-Reefs Program’’ has been nothing but an 

overwhelming success in the entire Gulf of Mexico. 

Beyond the structure offshore, which anglers target—because 

clearly you want to go to where the fish are—we like to tell everyVerDate Aug 31 2005 15:01 Mar 19, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00105 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\47302.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
102 

one, ‘‘Come to Louisiana because we have all the fish’’—we target 

fish on the structure but also the infrastructure that we enjoy onshore really comes about in large part because of what the oil and 

gas industry has created for themselves, and we are somewhat of 

a secondary beneficiary. There would not be four-lane highways to 

many of the coastal fishing destinations in rural Louisiana were 

there not a bigger business, and that indeed is what the oil and 

gas industry has been. 

There has been a lot of talk about wetlands loss in Louisiana and 

coastal erosion. Surely all of the industries that operate on Louisiana’s coast have contributed to the wetlands loss, but thanks to the 

foresight of the Members of this Committee and of the Congress in 

2006 passing the OCS revenue sharing bill, Louisiana is seeing 

some of the revenues that are going to be able to help us to restore 

our coast. 

Going forward, one recommendation that I would like to recommend to the Committee would be the inclusion of a process similar to the permitting of offshore LNG terminals that was established years ago. The reliance on adjacent State Governors for 

input added a very positive dimension to the policy debate around 

LNG sighting and permitting in the Gulf of Mexico. 

That concludes my testimony, and I will be happy to take any 

questions, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Angers follows:] 

Statement of Jefferson M. Angers, President, 

Center for Coastal Conservation 

Good morning Mr. Chairman. My name is Jeff Angers, and I am the President 

of the Center for Coastal Conservation, a native Louisianian and a recreational fisherman. I would like to thank the Chairman for this opportunity to address the Committee as it begins its consideration of the measures to facilitate offshore energy development. 

The Center is a coalition of the leading advocates for marine recreational fishing 

and boating. It is dedicated to promoting sound conservation and use of ocean resources. Our mission is to promote good stewardship of America’s marine resources. 

I was asked to discuss the compatibility of offshore energy development with recreational fishing in coastal areas. Not only do the two industries co-exist in Louisiana, but they both thrive. 

Coastal Louisiana is the portal for 27 percent of America’s oil and gas. It is home 

to the largest port complex in the country. Coastal Louisiana produces over half of 

America’s shrimp and is the leading producer of oysters. It also supports a recreational fishing industry for 1.2 million American anglers which pump $2.9 billion 

into Louisiana’s economy. 

Oil and Gas: Big Business 

Although I am not an energy expert, a couple facts and figures about oil and gas 

in the ‘‘Sportsmen’s Paradise’’ should be set forth at the outset: Including current 

Outer Continental Shelf production, Louisiana ranks 1st in crude oil and 2nd in natural gas production. Excluding OCS production, Louisiana ranks 4th in crude oil 

and 5th in natural gas production. 

According to Mid-Continent Oil and Gas, the total direct and indirect economic 

impact of the oil and gas industry on Louisiana is approximately $65 billion. The 

direct impact comes from the taxes, royalties, fees, salaries, and other money spent 

in Louisiana by the oil and gas industry. The indirect impact results from the salaries and wages earned by oil and gas employees being spent in the state as well 

as service companies. 

The offshore industry operating in the Gulf of Mexico just outside the state’s territorial boundaries has a huge impact on the state. A study conducted by Applied 

Technology Research Inc. shows that the offshore industry has a direct impact of 

$3 billion on the state. The offshore industry pays more than $500 million in salaries and wages to people working in the Gulf of Mexico. Another $2.5 billion is spent 

103 

with companies operating in Louisiana and doing business with the offshore industry. It is important to remember that everything used on an offshore platform has 

to come from somewhere onshore. 

Recreational Fishing: A Companion Big Business 

Just last month, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reported 

Louisiana was one of the top five states in economic impact of saltwater angling: 

$2.9 billion pumped into the state’s economy. Nationally, saltwater anglers are estimated to have spent $5.8 billion on trip-based expenses, such as ice, bait, and fuel, 

and another $25.6 billion on fishing equipment and durable goods like fishing rods, 

fishing tackle, and boats. The top five coastal recreational fishing states were Florida ($16.7 billion), Texas ($3.2 billion), California ($3.0 billion), Louisiana ($2.9 billion), and North Carolina 

($2.0 billion). In addition to quantifying angler expenditures, this study examines 

how these expenditures circulated through each state’s economy and the national 

economy using a regional assessment. The $31.4 billion in total U.S. expenditures 

in 2006 contributed $82.3 billion in total sales, $39.1 billion to gross national product, $24 billion in personal income, and supported nearly 534,000 jobs.) 

Commercial Fishing: Another Big Business 

Louisiana’s commercial fishing industry generated $2.1 billion in sales (mostly menhaden, shrimp and oysters), $1.1 billion in income and supported 46,000 jobs. 

The fishing and oil and gas industries in Louisiana are strong economic engines. 

Structure and Infrastructure 

Ninety percent of the more than 4,500 oil and gas-related structures in the Gulf 

of Mexico are in Louisiana waters or adjacent waters. Since the first offshore platform was built in the 1940s, these structures themselves have been very important 

to America: 

1. They have in recent years supplied our nation with 25% of its oil and gas requirements, and 

2. They have served as hard structures in an otherwise soft-bottom environment 

for reef species to grow (including barnacles, corals, and all sorts of other reef 

animals). This species growth, in conjunction with the cover provided, makes 

the structures an ideal habitat for all sorts of commercial and recreational fish, 

especially snapper, grouper, cobia, amberjack and various mackerels. 

The presence of these fish gives them economic importance, since fishing is big 

business. When large numbers of scuba divers who frequent the rigs and nearby 

commercial fisheries are included, the result is the creation and maintenance of 

many jobs and a large tax base. 

Thanks in large part to the leadership of former Senator John Breaux, who sponsored the National Fishing Enhancement Act of 1984, coastal states began to establish artificial reef programs converting many of these rigs into permanent artificial 

reefs. The rigs-to-reefs program has been nothing but an overwhelming success in 

the Gulf of Mexico. 

Beyond the structure offshore which anglers target having the largest aggregations of fish, the onshore infrastructure provided mostly by the oil and gas industries provides access to coastal waters that anglers would otherwise not enjoy. 

Wetlands Loss 

Louisiana has lost 1,900 square miles of land since the 1930s (an area roughly 

the size of Delaware). Still the state has 30 percent of the total coastal marsh and 

accounts for 90 percent of the coastal marsh loss in the lower 48 states. Coastal 

Louisiana is losing about 10.3 square miles of vegetated wetlands per year (one football field every 90 minutes). The primary culprits: 

• Levees have cut off sediment replenishment from the overflow of the river. 

• Oil and gas exploration and pipeline canals have allowed salt water intrusion 

into freshwater areas. 

• Navigation channels have also allowed the distribution of salt water into fresh 

areas. 

• Natural sinking of the sediments and natural sea level rise. 

Coastal restoration efforts are more important than ever to Louisiana and its estuarine environment. Thanks to OCS revenue sharing legislation championed by 

Sen. Mary Landrieu and former Rep. Bobby Jindal, Louisiana will see substantial 

federal revenues to help save its coast. 

Compatibility 

The fishing and oil and gas industries have co-existed in Louisiana for half a century. And they’ve worked well together. 

104 

Going forward, I would like to recommend to the Committee the inclusion of a 

process similar to the permitting of offshore Liquefied Natural Gas terminals. The 

reliance on adjacent state governors for input added a positive dimension to the policy debate around LNG citing and permitting. 

TRCP’s ‘‘CAST’’ Principles 

Continued offshore energy exploration and development is an important augmentation to the nation’s plan to become energy independent. Oil, gas, wind and 

wave power facilities are all technologically and economically feasible. We must be 

mindful in the development of any program that the citing and impact of these efforts could be crucial to existing uses of the ocean. 

Recently the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership adopted a set of principles to guide in the development of offshore energy development. The coalition recognized that offshore energy development of all kinds is an important part of our 

energy security. It also recognized that marine recreational fishing is part of America’s heritage and highly dependent on a healthy marine ecosystem. In addition to 

the fundamental environmental protections needed to protect that ecosystem, the coalition endorsed four concepts, called their ‘‘CAST Principles.’’ 

Conservation: Conservation concerns must top all others. A network of conservation areas important to recreational fishing and conservation must be established 

before offshore energy leasing and development should proceed. Those places crucial 

to the vitality of fish populations, recreational anglers and coastal economies should 

be restricted. Concurrently, the Minerals Management Service, the agency responsible for overseeing offshore development, should adopt and adhere to a new standard operating procedure that strives to balance the concerns of all ocean users. 

Allocation: Allocations of the royalties paid to the federal government by industry 

for offshore energy development must be used primarily to benefit aquatic resources. 

A significant portion of any such royalties must be directed to marine research and 

recreational fisheries conservation. Several vehicles already exist to ably deliver 

these funds. 

Science: Science-based, adaptive management strategies that respond continually 

to emerging information should be required for all offshore energy development 

projects. These strategies should begin with species inventory, include population 

monitoring and analysis, and carry through to any mitigation phase. Where gaps 

in data exist, they must not be used to justify development. Rather, they must serve 

to highlight areas where additional study is immediately necessary. 

Transparency: Transparency must characterize the management of all public 

trust resources. Not only does this mean that the decisions affecting our shared 

aquatic species must be made in a manner that allows public oversight, it also 

means that public comment must be addressed and integrated during the decisionmaking process. 

These principles represent a responsible way forward as the nation develops its 

offshore resources. Recreational anglers, like all sportsmen, have always been the 

first line of defense for coastal and marine environments, and their voice must be 

heard when considering the future for these special places. 

The coalition believes that the development of these offshore resources can be 

done in an environmentally responsible manner that protects the traditions of recreational anglers. In that regard I would like to point out how oil and gas development have worked together with Louisiana recreational fishermen to provide a 

healthy resource and additional habitat. 

OCS Revenue Sharing 

In 2006 while still with the Coastal Conservation Association, I testified on 

H.R.4761, the Domestic Energy Production through Offshore Exploration and Equitable Treatment of State Holdings Act of 2006, a bill designed to increase offshore 

energy development while protecting important fisheries habitat. The principal elements of that bill facilitated the recovery of one of Louisiana’s most important resources, its coast and coastal habitat. 

Most of the fish species harvested in the Gulf of Mexico are estuarine dependant. 

And coastal habitat loss along the Gulf has a direct correlation to the health of fishery stocks. Louisiana is the Sportsman’s Paradise because of the productivity of this 

habitat, which coexists with oil and gas industry. Improvement of habitat and reversing the degradation of our wetlands provides a multiplicity of benefits, one of 

which is better stewardship of these nursery grounds. 

As we all know, the Gulf of Mexico has successfully been the site of oil and gas 

extraction for the last 50 years. One of the unintended benefits of that extraction 

has been the creation of fisheries habitat, particularly for reef fish. The most wellknown reef fish in the Gulf is red snapper, a prized recreational fish and the priVerDate Aug 31 2005 15:01 Mar 19, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00108 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\47302.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
105 

mary target species for a number of charter boat fishermen in the upper Gulf. The 

members of this Committee are familiar with the ongoing efforts to restore and rebuild the red snapper fishery. What members may not realize is the importance of 

the habitat created by the offshore oil and gas industry to that rebuilding process. 

Red snapper have been commercially harvested in the upper Gulf for over 100 

years. As early as the 1880s, there were federal research efforts to find harvestable 

quantities of red snapper. Today the fishery is rebuilding from being overfished by 

the directed fishery and particularly by extensive bycatch from the shrimp fishery. 

After World War II, three events occurred which impacted red snapper. The first: 

a dramatic expansion of the shrimp fleet resulting in an incredible bycatch of snapper. Secondly, an influx of people to coastal communities, many of whom were—or 

were to become—anglers. Both of these events increased the mortality of red snapper. The third event (more of a journey) has helped increase the abundance of red 

snapper. The structures facilitating extraction of the oil and gas from the Gulf have 

created habitat. And better and more habitats have created more fish. 

Many of the rigs now in place are nearing either the end of their useful life or 

the end of their license period. When they were put in place, most companies and 

regulators thought well heads ought to be capped; structures removed; cleaned up, 

and disposed of on shore. For a number of years, recreational interests have supported the use of oil and gas rigs as artificial reefs. Gulf recreational fishermen continue to be beneficiaries of rigs converted to reefs much closer to shore. 

Many scientists have studied the impact of this method of habitat enhancement 

to determine if it creates more fish or simply aggregates fish from surrounding habitat making them easier to catch. The debate for the most part seems to be endless, 

but the red snapper example seems to produce the most definitive long-term result. 

Yes, new habitat creates more fish. Sound fishery management is necessary to address the health of the entire stock, but more fish is still better than less. Artificial 

reefs are new habitat or continuing habitat, and we support their use inshore and 

off. 

We would like to work with the Committee to ensure that the fishery management system now in place is included in determinations. State fish and game agencies, regional Fisheries Management Councils and the National Marine Fisheries 

Service all have responsibilities that will be impacted by the decisions made to allow 

offshore energy development. All of them have a positive role to play in these decisions. 

Mr. Chairman, that concludes my testimony, and I would be happy to take questions. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. The Chair would advise the panel 

just by the way of House announcement that we are voting on the 

Floor now. So, in about 5 minutes, we will recess the Committee 

for approximately 15 minutes, more like 20, so we can go over and 

answer these votes, and then we will come back and resume the 

Committee hearing. 

Let me begin. 

Ms. McCormick and Mr. Minich, I certainly appreciate all that 

you had to say about the benefits of travel and tourism industry 

as it relates to your coastlines. Probably any summer or anytime 

during our miners’ vacation in West Virginia, you will find as many 

license plates from my home State of West Virginia at your respective places as you will from your own home State. So, it is a very 

popular area. 

And of course, Mr. Minich, as I grew up as a youngster my family had a chain of radio and TV stations. The corporate headquarters was in St. Petersburg—WLCY TV and radio—and I always went down with my father during the summers and spent 

summers as a kid at the old Don CeSar Hotel in St. Petersburg 

Beach. I don’t know if it is still there or not. So, I certainly know 

of benefits of tourism to your area and how popular it is. 

Mr. Grader, I was particularly struck by the comparisons you 

made between the current efforts to expand offshore oil drilling 

106 

with your experiences in the late 1970s, when oil companies promised that new production off the California coast would provide 

multiple benefits with virtually no risks or conflicts with the fishing industry. Clearly, your industry rejected that as a false promise 

then and continues to reject the cry of ‘‘drill, baby, drill’’ today, urging us instead to ‘‘think, baby, think.’’ 

With that in mind, can you elaborate on the actions that you 

think at a minimum must be taken to ensure that any new drilling 

that is allowed to occur does not undermine the economy of the 

fishing industry in California and elsewhere? 

Mr. GRADER. As I said, I think there are some areas that if we 

do—if the moratorium remains lifted, that is, we proceed ahead 

with drilling, that there are some areas that permanently need to 

be taken off the table. And again, I say Bristol Bay and part of the 

Arctic, certainly Northern California area, and the Georges Bank. 

And then there are certainly some other areas that may be under 

consideration, for example, the Outer Banks. I don’t know those 

areas as well. But I think certainly—and you have a copy of my 

testimony—some mitigation measures that were suggested by the 

United Fishermen of Alaska, which I think are very good. Now, 

this is no left-wing conservation group. They have year-in and 

year-out endorsed Senator Stevens, and all that. These are pretty 

rock ribbed—many of them rock-ribbed Republicans, so there are 

no leftists out there, and I think they came up with some very good 

suggestions on the measures that need to be taken—both as far as 

preplanning the type of standards we have to put in place for oil 

drilling that is going to occur where fishing is, and then the types 

of mitigation and compensation that have to be put in place. I 

think those are there at a minimum. 

The other thing I should point out, and it came up this morning, 

is that there has been a lot of discussion—we are certainly very enthusiastic about developing offshore renewable power sources. I remember Mike Patching at the time about 30 years ago was first 

proposing wave energy to develop hydrogen to power fishing boats. 

Mr. GRADER. Unfortunately, I think he came along 30 years too 

soon. But we do need to do some really good planning for that, because right now what we have is a very dysfunctional planning 

service. We are going through this right now in Northern California—and certainly in Oregon and Washington they are, too— 

about planning for these renewables, and it really is a mess. You 

have the Minerals Management Service doing one thing, the Federal Regulatory Commission doing something else. We really do 

need to consolidate the process and make it comprehensible and 

make it make sense, because right now that process doesn’t— 

certainly, that is one of the alternatives that we need to come up 

with to offshore drilling. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

I believe we will recess at this point for 15 minutes so we can 

go vote. The Committee stands in recess. 

[Recess.] 

The CHAIRMAN. The Committee will resume. 

The Chair will recognize the gentleman from Washington Mr. 

Hastings. 

Mr. HASTINGS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

107 

Let me correct a statement that Mr. Grader made. He referenced 

a Mr. Hastings coming out with a statement on the Antarctic, and 

that was not Mr. Hastings, it was Mr. Inslee. But I just wanted 

to correct that for the record. We are both from Washington. 

I just want to ask a question of all of you, and just a ‘‘yes’’ or 

‘‘no’’ question, if you would. Do you support the reinstatement of 

the Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas moratoria that was put in 

place in 1982? 

And I will start with Ms. McCormick. 

Ms. MCCORMICK. Yes, we do support. 

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Minich? 

Mr. MINICH. Definitely, yes. 

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Grader? 

Mr. GRADER. Yes. 

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Allen? 

Mr. ALLEN. No. 

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Angers? 

Mr. ANGERS. No. 

Mr. HASTINGS. Just for the record, Mr. Chairman, I note that we 

have had seven panelists on these two panels today. And I know 

this is the first of three meetings on OCS, and I know we will go 

into a lot more detail, but I just note for the record that five of the 

Majority witnesses were ‘‘no,’’ and two of the Minority’s were ‘‘yes’’ 

as far as the moratorium. 

The CHAIRMAN. Would the gentleman yield quickly? 

Mr. HASTINGS. I would be happy to yield. 

The CHAIRMAN. As you mentioned, this is the first of our hearings, and we will have the other side amply represented before all 

is said and done. 

Mr. HASTINGS. I may save that question even for them, too, but 

thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I would like to ask Mr. Minich and Ms. McCormick a question. 

When we had the high gas prices last summer, did that affect your 

industry in your respective areas? I know, Mr. Minich, yours is a 

different time of the year, but nevertheless, I am sure there are 

people who go to Florida in the summertime. Did it affect your industries? 

Mr. MINICH. We targeted the instate market very heavily, a drive market. And even with the $4-a-gallon gas prices, people were not 

ready to give up their vacation because the tank of gas was going 

to be $70, versus $30 or $40. Where we were concerned was with 

the airline industry, because a good portion, 70 percent, of our folks 

come in by air, and we were concerned about the airline prices. 

But overall, our summer business was stable, and we actually 

picked up or gained 25 to 35 percent over the summer each month 

with European visitation because of the weakness of the dollar. So, 

overall, our summer was good, despite the fact that there were $4- 

a-gallon prices. 

Ms. MCCORMICK. Thank you. That is a very good question. 

June, July and August represent 66 percent of the revenue of the 

Outer Banks, which includes three counties where revenues come 

from. And we were certainly blessed that we did see an increase 

in visitation, but due to the same things that my colleague here 

did, we refocused our advertising efforts and spoke to people within 

108 

a tank’s drive. Now, it did have an impact on our camping industry 

and those that use recreational vehicles because the cost was so 

high. 

There is another thing that we had put into place and continue 

to put in place, and that is advocating carpooling. Instead of bringing three cars to one of those big houses on the beachfront, we 

push and promote the fact that people need to actually leave a couple cars at home and come on vacation. Now, that is not to say that 

the current state of today’s economy is not going to have an impact 

on our summer—— 

Mr. HASTINGS. I was talking specifically on gas prices. So, you 

didn’t see much of one because of your advertising? 

Ms. MCCORMICK. Yes, sir. 

Mr. HASTINGS. And, Mr. Minich, you said that your increase 

came from overseas. Did I hear you correctly? 

Mr. MINICH. The majority of our increase came from overseas, 

but then the instate made up for—we did see losses from our core 

markets in the Midwest and Northeast. 

Mr. HASTINGS. How did the Europeans get there? 

Mr. MINICH. All by air. And it is primarily through the gateway 

cities of Orlando and Miami, and then they rent cars. 

Mr. HASTINGS. And just to make a point, how do the airplanes 

get from Europe to Orlando and Tampa? 

Mr. MINICH. How did they get there? 

Mr. HASTINGS. Yes. 

Mr. MINICH. They flew. 

Mr. HASTINGS. What powered them? 

Mr. MINICH. Fuel. 

Mr. HASTINGS. I just wanted to make that point. 

I might also make another point on this, and that is, with the 

new generation of airplanes, specifically the 787, it is all carbon 

composites, which is a derivative of oil and gas. Now, we had a bit 

of a discussion earlier on here about the byproducts of oil and gas, 

and it is something that is going to be with us in our economy for 

a long time. And thank you for answering that way. 

Mr. Allen, you mention in your testimony—and I will be very 

brief here, Mrs. Capps—you mentioned in your testimony about an 

oil spill here some—let us see, what year was that? I think it 

was—well, in your testimony you mention that. And you mention 

there were some 5,000 sea birds that were washed up, and it was 

quite a slick—25 miles, or something like that. But yet, I think in 

your testimony you also said that there was not a whole lot of discussion on that. Now, why do you think that was the case? 

Mr. ALLEN. Yes. That was 2005, in January. There was an oil 

seep event off the coast of Santa Barbara. It is not well understood. 

They are not sure why it happened, but it did happen. It created 

an estimated—there are photos as well, which I brought—about a 

25-square-mile oil slick. There were a few reports in the Los Angeles Times and the local paper, but that was about it. It was not 

reported nationally, at least that I saw. And that oil seep event 

caused birds to wash ashore from Santa Barbara, from Huntington 

Beach. They collected approximately 1,400 birds, and the estimates 

were as many as 5,000 birds or more may have been oiled or killed 

from that oil seep event. That was in 2005. 

109 

Now, that wasn’t widely reported, and yet if the same event had 

occurred, but it had been tied to an oil spill, I believe it would have 

gotten national recognition and—a lot of national recognition—and 

been reported extensively in the newspapers. And yet from our perspective, our organization’s perspective, it killed just as many birds 

as a spill would have done and was the same basic oil. 

So, it is essentially a pollutant in the ocean, and we view that 

as a significant issue with respect to our marine environment off 

the Central California coast. And so, in that sense, because the 

word ‘‘seep’’ is attached to it or ‘‘natural,’’ it gets no recognition 

within the media. But if a spill is attached to the word, then it gets 

a lot of attention. 

And there are several mentions. In December, there was a 27- 

barrel spill from Platform A, the same one from the 1969 spill that 

was mentioned. That got a lot of media attention, both in California and nationally. And I would just point out that spill, which 

was rare, but that spill was the equivalent of 3 hours’ worth of natural seepage along the central coast. So, today, during this hearing, 

there will be about 200 barrels of oil seepage, and that is, of course, 

not going to be reported, but that is almost 10 times as much oil 

in our environment as has occurred from that December spill. 

Mr. HASTINGS. If I may continue on this line, how was that 

cleaned up? What is the response, I guess I should ask, when there 

is a substantial seepage like the one you cited in 2005? I mean, you 

are getting enormous seepage all the time, but how is that cleaned 

up, or does Mother Nature take care of it? 

Mr. ALLEN. That is a good question. It is not. The December 

spill, for example, was immediately cleaned up. And there was a 

lot of attention, and in a matter of days, it was essentially cleaned 

up. But the oil seepage, in essence, is never cleaned up, except 

when it washes up on the beaches. Then it does need to be addressed. And California Fish and Game, for example—the seeps 

also wash up tar balls as far north as San Francisco and the Monterey Bay. And actually, there it is required to use protective suiting to clean up those tar balls, and it is required to be put in a 

hazardous waste dump. And yet that is natural seepage, but it is 

only cleaned up essentially when it washes up on California beaches. 

Mr. HASTINGS. So, that spill that did not wash up on the beaches 

then, somehow Mother Nature took care of that? 

Mr. ALLEN. In the 2005 event, because in the winter the currents 

generally flow north—and it takes the oil seepage and deposits, 

much of it, along the Monterey coast—that wasn’t noticed as much 

by Santa Barbara County or Ventura and L.A. Counties because 

the currents were taking it north. If it would have happened during another time of year, and it would have flowed south, much of 

that would have washed up on Southern California beaches. 

Mr. HASTINGS. And finally, how much washed up on the beach? 

Is there any way to estimate that? 

Mr. ALLEN. No, that would be difficult to estimate. From the 

2005 event, there were no published statistics on how much there 

was, but I would point out that there were 1,400 birds that were 

washed up on California beaches. 

110 

Mr. HASTINGS. So, what was washed up was taken care of, and 

what wasn’t washed up was—Mother Nature took care of it-however Mother Nature takes care of those things. 

Mr. ALLEN. Correct. It eroded over time. 

Mr. HASTINGS. Right. Thank you very much for your indulgence 

for the time. 

Mrs. CAPPS. [presiding.] And to my colleague from Washington, 

I am fine with the fact that you went over time because I intend 

to do the same. Since I am sitting in the chair, I was going to take 

the Chair’s prerogative to do that. 

And I appreciate the testimony of all of the witnesses here. And 

I do have questions for several of you, so I will go as quickly as 

I can, and perhaps we will have some succinct answers as well. 

But I do want to start with Mr. Minich and Ms. McCormick. This 

question is addressed to both of you, but, Mr. Minich, like the coast 

of Florida, Santa Barbara, where I hail from on the Pacific Coast, 

is an international tourist destination. Many of my constituents are 

concerned by the amount of onshore infrastructure that is needed 

to support offshore drilling operations. 

In Santa Barbara County, we have several treatment and processing plants—one right next to a luxury hotel—and dozens of storage tanks and public stations, miles and miles of pipelines. Even 

without an oil spill, much of this infrastructure is at odds with the 

nature and economy of our local community, and the tourist industry especially, but for all kinds of purposes. And my question to you 

both, would increasing the industrialization of the Florida coast affect your existing economic base which relies on tourism and coastal recreation? If you could each give a brief answer to that question. 

Mr. MINICH. Absolutely. We actually don’t have room for it. 

While we are home to some of the world’s most famous beaches, we 

are also one of the smallest, geographically, counties in the State 

of Florida and the most highly densely populated, so we really don’t 

have room. And all of our areas now that are protected, that would 

be the only place you could move into. 

And I think especially on the Gulf Coast of Florida, you look at 

places like Sanibel Island and down in Naples and that area, and 

all the way up our coast, Sarasota, we are renowned for the natural beauty, ecotourism, all those kinds of activities. And this counteracts everything that we have been known for and promoting 

over the years. 

Mrs. CAPPS. And Ms. McCormick? 

Ms. MCCORMICK. Along the coast of the Outer Banks of North 

Carolina—as you know, that is a very thin strip of barrier islands, 

arcs into the Atlantic Ocean. The mainland is 50 miles away. So, 

when you take a look at land mass—also 7 percent of the land on 

the Outer Banks is owned by the Department of the Interior—we 

don’t have the land available. 

Now, Wilmington, North Carolina, which is a port town that 

doesn’t have the problems that we face as barrier islands, could 

probably support that meshing of those land-based refineries with 

their tourism-based economy. But to succinctly answer your 

question—probably our biggest issue is the land-based. 

111 

Mrs. CAPPS. All right. I appreciate that information from each of 

you. 

I want to turn now to my constituent. I welcome you here, Mr. 

Allen, and I am very familiar with your work, and also the work 

that your organization, Stop Oil Seeps—SOS, as you call it—has 

been doing in the community that we both hail from. 

Much of your referencing points to work that has been done by 

Dr. Luyendyk and others at UCSB regarding how drilling can reduce oil seeps. In fact, the references are primarily made to one 

study, not to an additional study. And I am now referring to a 

study from Dr. Luyendyk in which he looked at natural seepage at 

Coal Oil Point, which is right off the shore, actually very near 

UCSB, from 1996 to 1999. And it is important to note that, despite 

drilling at Platform Holly right there during all that period of time, 

the seepage did not decrease during that time. It remained pretty 

much constant. 

Yesterday, Dr. Luyendyk sent this Committee a letter refuting 

the conclusions that your group draws from his research. And I ask 

consent now to include that letter, which I have here, into the 

record of this hearing. And in it he says, and I am quoting now, 

‘‘I feel that SOS, Stop Oil Seeps, has both overstated the adverse 

effects of this phenomenon and the overall applicability of the drilling seepage relationship to offshore oil development policy. The marine seeps issues that have been raised by SOS are, at best, not 

relevant, and at worst, a red herring in a much larger debate.’’ And 

here is another quote from him. He notes that, ‘‘To attribute our 

findings to the broader offshore with the present state of knowledge is an extrapolation that is not justified either scientifically or 

as a matter of national energy policy.’’ 

And I have a question at this point. Given that Dr. Luyendyk 

emphatically claims that his research cannot be used to bolster 

these claims, do you have other scientific evidence that can be used 

to do so? 

Mr. ALLEN. Well, first of all, I think it is a misperception that 

our work is based on the studies and set of studies that Professor 

Luyendyk was one of six professors they participated in. 

First of all, as you may know, I have been in Santa Barbara 

since 1984 and have been visiting Santa Barbara since the 1960s. 

And as Representative McClintock said, it is very clear to long-time 

Santa Barbara residents that over the last 50 years, oil seepage 

pollution that washes up on Santa Barbara beaches has been declining, and has been declining significantly. 

Mrs. CAPPS. Could I interrupt you to ask you, I listened to Mr. 

McClintock’s testimony, and I have lived on the same coastline 

since 1964, and I know what it is like to get the vegetable oil out 

when you come back from a day’s outing at the beach with your 

kids. But that is anecdotal evidence that he gave. And what you 

are citing to me is not a study either; it is anecdotal evidence. 

Mr. ALLEN. What I am saying is that anecdotal evidence, taken 

with the set of studies from 1999 that were published that Professor Luyendyk was one of six professors of, he also said to me 

personally and has also said that he stands by the conclusions in 

those published studies. And if I may just quote from one of those 

studies, the conclusion in the study was, ‘‘The effect of the offshore 

112 

oil drilling there was an unexpected benefit to the environment.’’ 

That was in the conclusion of the study. 

He also said, at the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors 

hearing in August, when the County Supervisors voted to support 

more offshore drilling, he said he stood by the conclusions of that 

report. 

Mrs. CAPPS. Of that particular study. OK. I am just going to 

make sure that we get this letter inserted. 

[The letter submitted for the record by Bruce Luyendyk, 

Professor of Marine Geophysics, follows:] 

February 9, 2009 

The Honorable Nick J. Rahall II 

Chairman 

Committee on Natural Resources 

1324 Longworth House Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

RE: Natural Resources Committee hearings Wednesday, February 11, 2009 

Dear Congressman Rahall; 

I recently learned that on Wednesday February 11, 2009, Bruce Allen, representing the industry group Stop Oil Seeps (SOS) will be testifying before your 

Natural Resources Committee. Because he will be speaking about research that I 

was part of, I want to be sure my comments are taken into account. 

Part of the SOS agenda is to promote offshore drilling and oil production as a 

means of reducing natural oil and gas seepage and their effects in the Santa Barbara Channel and offshore generally. The SOS premise is based on interpretation 

of two 1999 UCSB studies [1],[2] on oil and gas seeps offshore Coal Oil Point in 

Goleta (California), the location of Venoco’s oil platform Holly. We documented a decrease in gas seepage over a period of 23 years that we hypothesized was due to 

continuing oil and gas production from platform Holly (the drilling-seepage relationship). We further speculated that this relationship might be found elsewhere in 

similar geologic situations should further investigations take place. 

The SOS group has been representing our research as a rationale for increased 

offshore oil drilling as a means of decreasing marine seepage and its effects. As a 

member of the UCSB seep research team I want to point to several qualifications 

in this SOS argument. I feel that SOS has both overstated the adverse effects of 

this phenomenon and the overall applicability of the drilling-seepage relationship to 

offshore oil development policy. 

The marine seeps issues that have been raised by SOS are at best not relevant 

and at worst a red herring in the larger debate about offshore drilling and national 

energy policies. 

To explain: 

• To assume that natural marine seeps are a source of pollution that needs to 

be controlled ignores the fact that they have coexisted with the natural environment of the Santa Barbara Channel for more than half a million years. Ecosystems have developed around them and are fully adapted. Fumes from seeps, 

although noxious up close, are barely detectable onshore. This natural phenomenon contrasts sharply with industrial oil spills, which are sudden acute 

events of obvious stress to the marine environment. 

• If it is successfully argued that seeps need to be controlled, then indiscriminate 

drilling offshore is not the clear solution. This is because not all oil reservoirs 

in the offshore are seeping. Therefore drilling them would have no impact on 

seepage. 

• Other offshore reservoirs with seeps are being drilled now but these have small 

seeps in comparison to Coal Oil Point. Any drilling-seepage benefit is unknown 

but is likely small. 

• Some seepages are located where oil production would not occur or be possible; 

e.g. the National Marine Sanctuary. Drilling elsewhere offshore would not affect 

these seeps. 

• It is also important to realize that the drilling-seepage relationship could be in 

question if aggressive artificial means to enhance subsurface production were 

employed, as is often the case for mature oil reservoirs. Seepage could in fact 

increase over time negating the expected positive effects. 

113 

• Finally, the Coal Oil Point field is by far the largest seep source in the California offshore, if not the world, and it already is being drilled with a resulting 

decrease in seepage, so I consider this ‘‘seep problem’’ as being dealt with now. 

It is unnecessary and ineffective to drill elsewhere offshore if controlling seepage is the goal. 

The Coal Oil Point field is the only California seep field where the drilling-discharge relationship has been proposed. To apply this more broadly to other potential 

offshore oil reservoirs would require additional investigations. To attribute our findings to the broader offshore with the present state of knowledge is an extrapolation 

that is not justified, either scientifically, or as a matter of national energy policy. 

Our studies at Coal Oil Point are on a special case marine seep field, one of unusually large discharge from a limited area. I do not feel our findings at Coal Oil 

Point can be applied elsewhere in the offshore without increased levels of study. 

Sincerely; 

Bruce Luyendyk 

Professor of Marine Geophysics 

llll 

[1] Quigley, D. C., J. S. Hornafius, B. P. Luyendyk, R. D. Francis, J. F. Clark, and 

L. Washburn (1999), Decrease in Natural Marine Hydrocarbon Seepage near 

Coal Oil Point, California Associated with Offshore Oil Production, Geology, 27 

(11), 1047-1050. 

[2] Hornafius, J. S., D. C. Quigley, and B. P. Luyendyk (1999), The world’s most 

spectacular marine hydrocarbons seeps (Coal Oil Point, Santa Barbara Channel, 

California): quantification of emissions, Journal Geophysical Research - Oceans, 

104 (C9), 20703-20711. 

Mrs. CAPPS. I have another question to ask you. A portion of the 

tar on Santa Barbara beaches does come from seeps, but I am wondering how you conclude, particularly when you are talking about 

San Francisco Bay, that all of the beach tar is attributable to seepage? According to another UCSB-produced study and recently confirmed by the State Lands Commission, samples collected from natural seepage cannot be differentiated from Platform Holly. In other 

words, if you see the beach tar, you make the inference that it is 

seepage, but the tar itself is indistinguishable from that which 

Platform Holly, in this particular instance, produces. 

To me, this implies that artificial sources of oil, such as leakage 

from platforms and ships, also can contribute to tar. And I am wondering again, do you have scientific evidence, not just anecdotal, 

but scientific studies that documents the fact that the tar that we 

see on the beaches or the tar that was collected in San Francisco 

and had to be specially disposed of is actually seepage tar and not 

some other kind of tar that comes from a platform or a pipeline? 

Mr. ALLEN. On that point, the MMS has sponsored studies where 

they have done chemical typing of the oil emissions to be able to 

trace it back to the sources. And California Fish and Game, it was 

actually published March 6, 2007, at least that I recall, where they 

stated that, based on the chemical typing of sending those samples 

to a lab, they traced it back to Monterey formation oil that—at 

least California Fish and Game believed—came from Santa Barbara oil seepage. 

Mrs. CAPPS. So, this is documented? Are you able to get that 

study for us and to include it with the record here? 

Mr. ALLEN. I will do so. 

Mrs. CAPPS. All right. We will make that a point in the recording 

of the hearing that this documentation will be added to it, but we 

don’t have that at this time. 

114 

Mr. ALLEN. But if I may just say for the record, I have also spoken both with the MMS and the State Lands Commission, Paul 

Thayer, who is the Executive Officer of the State Lands Commission, requesting that studies be done to take the 1999 studies that 

UCSB did and actually extend them and try to determine to the 

extent how much—if more offshore oil production were done along 

the coast, how much more reduction in seepage would there be, and 

would there be benefits? I was told there is no money for such studies, so we have endeavored to have additional studies on this point. 

Mrs. CAPPS. But, right now, there are no studies that we have 

documented, right here, for this hearing. 

Mr. ALLEN. I would point out there was a letter published by 

Professor James Boles, who was the Chair of the Crustal Studies 

Institute of UC Santa Barbara, of which Professor Luyendyk is a 

member, and he published a letter in which he said—— 

Mrs. CAPPS. Was that a study or a letter? 

Mr. ALLEN. He published a letter where he said there should be 

no surprise that oil production above seep zones would decrease the 

seepage. That is the same conclusion that was actually reached in 

the study you are referring to. The study concluded you would expect that production of offshore oil above seep zones, it should be 

no surprise that you would reduce seepage. 

Mrs. CAPPS. OK. We will look for documentation of those studies, 

because I agree with our new Secretary of the Interior that we are 

going to try to base our energy policy on scientific knowledge, and 

we will hold for that. 

I do have questions now for Mr. Grader, if I could. 

I want to refer to the Cosco Busan spill in the San Francisco 

Bay. I believe it illustrates—and it is very pertinent to our discussion today—how close to impossible it is to control oil spills once 

they have occurred. And you were a firsthand observer, I understand. What consequences did you observe to the severe oiling of 

the shorelines and mortality to marine life of that spill from that 

barge? 

Mr. GRADER. In spill terms, it was fairly small. It was bunker 

fuel from a container ship. We were totally unprepared to handle 

it, although California has in place its OSCA program to clean up 

oil, but they were ill prepared for it. We did finally get the fishing 

boats out there working it, doing the clean-up. And thank God they 

did, because they were the only ones who really knew what they 

were doing, as opposed to the professional responders. 

Mrs. CAPPS. I guess we should add that that is your profession 

then. 

Mr. GRADER. Yes. There was a little bit of anger that a Coast 

Guard committee, when they were out there in November, heard 

some of our wrath. 

But the problem we have seen is that it looks like some of the 

other species of fish have recovered, but we have seen no recovery 

of our herring. There has been virtually no herring fishery this 

winter, which is supposed to be going on right now, in San Francisco Bay. And this pretty much follows up what happened in 

Prince William Sound after the oil spill there. The herring fishery 

to Prince William Sound has just not responded. So, it hits at the 

herring, which are important because they are critical to the—not 

115 

the exact base of the food chain, but they are important for such 

things as salmon. 

Mrs. CAPPS. I hear you. 

I want to ask you one more question. And to my colleague, Mr. 

Cassidy, I hope you realize that I have gone way over time, and 

that you are entitled to the same privileges—— 

Mr. CASSIDY. I am a freshman. I just show up when I am supposed to. 

Mrs. CAPPS. Your questions are as credible as anybody else’s. 

And if I could add, Mr. Hastings and I were both freshmen once, 

too. 

Mr. Grader, one more question—by the way, I am so pleased that 

we do have a fisherman on the panel here. 

Practically all stages and operations of offshore oil and gas production are accompanied by discharges of waste. These pollutants 

include drilling muds and mounds, which contain toxic metals like 

mercury. Our local fishers association, which belongs to the Pacific 

Coast Fishing Association, worked with you—I think you have been 

part of that consortia—to have the oil companies reduce the 

amount of these wastes. 

Could you elaborate, if you would, just for a couple minutes on 

the impacts these wastes might have on water quality, or, more importantly, actually—well, equally importantly on the fish? 

Mr. GRADER. Yes, exactly. And this is something that tends to 

get overlooked in these discussions on offshore oil. 

A number of years ago the Santa Barbara fishermen, the Commercial Fishermen of Santa Barbara as well as the Southern California Trawlers Association, expressed to us their concern that in 

these drill muds, that they were using diesel fuel, and that they 

were saying, ‘‘Look, we are getting more and more hydrocarbons 

into the water column; some of the fish are picking up the contaminants.’’ It wasn’t necessarily killing them, but certainly it was making them so you couldn’t market them. 

Mr. GRADER. And so we did go, and fortunately we have a good 

Coastal Commission. We went to our Coastal Commission, and 

they demanded that at least in State waters that all drill muds had 

to be then taken and disposed of properly onshore. And that is a 

condition that we did get put in place, and I believe the Minerals 

Management Service then extended that to the area—to the west 

of that in the Federal waters. 

I don’t know if that occurs elsewhere. Certainly in my reading of, 

for example, the lease sale for Alaska for Bristol Bay—that is one 

of the issues that actually MMS concedes—is that what happens to 

those drill muds and cuttings—and this really came out of some 

news clippings that we began getting out of Alabama about what 

was going on in the Gulf of Mexico—was the fact that it wasn’t just 

the diesel fuel and the hydrocarbons, but there were actually heavy 

metals, and that they were detecting much higher levels of mercury 

and other heavy metals in fish found around the platforms down 

there. And indeed, they did some samples of blood testing of people 

fishing around those and found it higher. 

At the very least, if we are going to go ahead with more drilling, 

I would say one of the strict prohibitions that have to be put in 

place is you cannot dispose of drill muds on the seabed. It has got 

116 

to be brought back to shore and disposed of properly, because—forget the discussions about oil spills and seeps and how much gets 

in. We have to do something about those drill muds if they are contaminated. 

Mrs. CAPPS. Thank you very much, and I beg the indulgence of 

my colleagues for going so far over the line. 

And, Mr. Cassidy, you can have all the time you wish. Sorry. I 

am getting a little pushback from staff. A reasonable amount of 

time. 

Mr. Chairman, I will never be asked to take the chair again. I 

can tell that. 

Mr. CASSIDY. I missed your testimony, much of it, but I read it 

so I am familiar with it. And, Mr. Angers, you have to put an ‘‘L’’ 

in your name—‘‘Angler.’’ What a great guy for a fishing organization. 

But what I hear from you is that tourism is fantastic around 

where they are doing offshore drilling. We are spending about $2.9 

billion on fishing tackle. 

Mr. ANGERS. The economic impact in 2006 of recreational saltwater fishing in Louisiana, $2.9 billion and, truly, people come to— 

Louisianians fish in Louisiana because that is where the fish are, 

and people come to Louisiana because that is where the fish are. 

We love to go to Florida because they have beautiful water, and 

they have plenty of fish there, too, but we know there is plenty of 

fish in Louisiana and doing good things for the economy. 

Mr. CASSIDY. And I will vouch for it. I caught 100 speckled trout 

with my son and two other people. It is important to specify we 

were under the limit, but 100 speckled trout, and we did very well. 

So, Mr. Minich, it comes to mind that there is already offshore 

drilling off of Florida, and as I remember—I don’t have the map, 

and I can’t remember precisely, but I think that offshore drilling 

is somewhere west of Tampa Bay, St. Pete. Is that currently negatively impacting your tourism industry? 

Mr. MINICH. There is no drilling anywhere near our coast. 

Mr. CASSIDY. But it is considered off the coast of Florida, and if 

you grandfathered it in before the moratorium—I just researched 

this when I was running for office, and it is out there. 

Mr. MINICH. It is way out there. It is not what you are talking 

about. Where the protected area was went out, I believe, 150 miles. 

Mr. CASSIDY. This is within 150 miles. 

Mr. MINICH. It is way farther out. 

Mr. CASSIDY. And it is considered to be in the eastern Gulf. So, 

the fact that you are unaware of it makes me think, my gosh, it 

is not even impacting your tourism. I know that because the pipelines go under the Gulf to Louisiana. 

Mr. MINICH. Yes. 

Mr. CASSIDY. They go up under Port Fushon. 

Mr. MINICH. Yes. 

Mr. CASSIDY. So, your concern is you don’t have room for this industrial complex. 

I think, ma’am, your observation was perfect. We will just take 

it not over the barrier islands, but rather through Wilmington. Let 

them have the economic bonanza of a pipeline company, but it 

would avoid bringing it onshore where you are. Similarly, I would 

117 

love for your oil and gas to come to Louisiana. It would be great 

as far, as I am concerned. 

Mr. MINICH. We just don’t want any drilling off of our coast, because if you look at the currents in the Gulf of Mexico—— 

Mr. CASSIDY. But you have drilling. 

Mr. MUNICH. We do not—— 

Mr. CASSIDY. I promise you. I will—— 

Mr. MINICH. There is drilling in the Gulf, yes. There is absolutely 

drilling in the Gulf. 

Mr. CASSIDY. It is in the eastern portion. 

Mr. MINICH. But it is not in the currents—if you look at the way 

the currents flow in the Gulf of Mexico, the waters do not come 

from that area and come down. 

Mr. CASSIDY. So, you don’t mind if there is drilling as long as—— 

Mr. MINICH. There is no effect from those wells that are hundreds and hundreds of miles from our coast. 

Mr. CASSIDY. So, whatever that distance is off the coast, you 

would be OK with drilling at that point, I presume, because it apparently has had no impact whatsoever upon your tourism. 

Mr. MINICH. That drilling is there already. There is—— 

Mr. CASSIDY. But would you mind its expansion? Because apparently it has had no impact. I mean, the fact that we are having a 

debate whether it even exists tells me it hasn’t had an impact. 

Mr. MINICH. Because it is too far away. 

Mr. CASSIDY. But it still is considered the eastern segment—it is 

still subject to the moratorium, just grandfathered in. 

So, my question is if it is already there, and it is not bothering 

you, and pipelines go through Louisiana, could we have more of the 

same however far off that is? 

Mr. MINICH. We don’t want it off of our coast. If a hurricane 

moves off of our coast 300 miles, that is one thing. If it moves within 20 miles or 50 miles of our coast, that is a totally different thing. 

I think you are familiar with hurricanes. So, we don’t want those— 

that kind of activity—within close proximity of our beaches. 

Mr. CASSIDY. I see what you are saying, but I am not seeing a 

rationale now because it is already there, and so even if we didn’t 

move it in further, but kept it at that distance from the coast 

where it is currently, and apparently it has had no impact—so I 

guess I am—you say, ‘‘We don’t want it,’’ but I don’t understand 

why not, if it hadn’t had a negative impact, but indeed would give 

cheaper gasoline for the people coming into your State. 

Mr. MINICH. No. There is no—we don’t want it close to our coast. 

There is nothing close to our coast right now and—— 

Mr. CASSIDY. Let me just stop you right there. But if it is no further in than it is currently, are you OK with that? 

Mr. MINICH. Well, it is already there. We can’t—— 

Mr. CASSIDY. And are you OK with expanding it, as long as it 

stays that far out? 

Mr. MINICH. We can’t change what is already there. 

Mr. CASSIDY. OK. Then my next question is, are you OK with expanding it, as long as it remains that far from the coast? 

Mr. MINICH. I am only—my information and what I have knowledge of is near my coast, so I can’t address whether the expansion 

118 

is good or bad. But I think you heard this morning time and time 

again that opening up this area is not going to affect gas prices—— 

Mr. CASSIDY. It is going to affect natural gas prices. Natural gas 

prices are, of course, very important for many things, and they are 

also a source of BTU. You may have noticed that the buses that 

go through Washington, D.C., use natural gas because it has a 

lower carbon footprint. So, one of the things people argue to help 

with global warming is converting to natural gas, and much of 

what we produce in the Gulf is natural gas. 

One more thing. I am a little curious that everybody is concerned 

about the negative impact on tourism. My wife is from Mobile. We 

go over to the Eastern Shore, go to the Orange Beach. Man, it is 

booming. The only thing that keeps that from being any bigger is 

that it is so small. And huge—you can see oil rigs off the Mobile 

Gulf Coast. You can see the platforms out there. You can see the 

boaters out there boating. That has had no negative impact, as far 

as I can tell. Hurricanes do, but not offshore drilling. 

Any comment on that? I mean, there seems to be a real fear that 

it is going to keep people from the beach but, in Alabama, their 

beach is within eyesight of it, and they are having a great old time. 

Mr. MINICH. I think that our customers are used—they have 

been coming for 100 years to the St. Pete beaches, and they are 

used to what we have to offer, and that is not what we have to 

offer. 

Mr. CASSIDY. So, it is almost more a fear of change. I mean, I 

am not trying to minimize what you are saying, but it does seem 

as if we fear change. 

Mr. MINICH. And I don’t want our hotels to have to put as part 

of—you know, hotels have little bottles of shampoo and little bars 

of soap. You look at hotels in some of those areas, and along with 

the shampoo and along with the soap are little packets to remove 

tar from the bottom of your feet from the beach. 

Mr. CASSIDY. It is interesting because when I was a kid, we used 

to go to Pensacola and Panama City, and there used to be tar balls 

all over the place. So, I read Mr. Allen’s testimony, and it all of a 

sudden made sense. The physics make sense to me. The physics 

make sense that here you have a pressure-filled volume. Pressure 

is equal to flow times resistance. So, you have something set there. 

And you plug a hole in it, and you start to remove it on a graduated basis, and you would relieve that pressure. 

There are fewer tar balls now in Panama City beach than there 

was when I was a kid, even though they are now doing offshore 

drilling, you know, 30 miles away, because obviously Pensacola is 

right next to Mobile. 

Actually, Mr. Allen, I like the physics of what you are talking 

about. Intuitively it makes sense. So, I will just comment on that. 

I am not sure that you would have that. Actually, we used to have 

that on the Panhandle of Florida. Now we don’t. 

Mr. MINICH. Our beaches are pure white. There is no tar whatsoever on our beaches because we don’t have natural seepage, and we 

don’t want to open up anything that could—— 

Mr. CASSIDY. The panhandle does. 

Mr. MINICH. I am not here speaking on behalf of the panhandle. 

I am speaking on behalf of Pinellas County beaches. 

119 

Mr. CASSIDY. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. MCCORMICK. Just one comment. You had made the comment 

that tourism is booming, sir. Tourism is not booming right now 

anywhere except here in Washington, D.C., over the last couple of 

weeks. I did—very quickly, went to Biloxi 6 months after Katrina 

and helped clean up, and I did visit some of those refineries, and 

was saddened to see the history that was destroyed and not put 

back. 

And what you have in Biloxi is you have an emergence and a realignment of casinos that have gone from being water-based casinos to land-based casinos, and that is why Biloxi has been able to 

revive themselves. It is not because of the drilling. 

But I do want to set the record straight. We have a problem in 

America today. Tourism is not booming. This is a challenge for all 

of us. 

Mr. CASSIDY. Biloxi does not have offshore oil; so if you heard me 

say that that is the reason Biloxi is coming back, that is not true. 

Ms. MCCORMICK. You said tourism was booming. I just wanted 

to make sure that you understood—— 

Mr. CASSIDY. Tourism is booming on Orange Beach. It is interesting because I look at the downfall in tourism as when gasoline 

went to $140 a barrel. Now, in Louisiana it was great for the coffers, but it was bad for the people taking trips outside of their 

hometown. 

Ms. MCCORMICK. Absolutely. 

Mr. CASSIDY. And so it is interesting, and I think you are agreeing with that. So, I think actually our energy crisis, which has persisted, has thrown us into this recession, which now has people 

staying at home. So, actually I would like to think that you are 

supporting my argument that we need to diversify, not just offshore drilling, do everything, but on the other hand, oil platforms 

make a nice place for a windmill. 

Ms. MCCORMICK. They sure do, and I support a good portion of 

your argument, but I do not support drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf. 

Mr. CASSIDY. I am not quite sure why not, because whenever I 

come up with a specific, it is just, ‘‘Well, we don’t want it,’’ as opposed to, ‘‘No, we have documentation,’’ and such. 

Ms. MCCORMICK. Well, the gentlemen this morning did a very 

good job, and one thing I stated in my paper, and I may not have 

stated that as clearly as I would like to, what I would like to encourage us to do is to find alternatives, find renewables, put those 

energies and those efforts—in 1933, man first flew in Kitty Hawk; 

66 years later we landed on the moon. We can do so much, so much 

together, and I would hate to see that we feel, or you feel, that 

opening oil and drilling along the Outer Continental Shelf is going 

to fix the problems that we are facing today. 

Mr. CASSIDY. There is no one fix. It is an amalgamation. 

Mr. MINICH. And in terms of the expansion, they are only using 

8 million of the 43 million acres that they have under lease; so 

there is your expansion. Go where you have already got these lands 

leased. There are 43 million acres of leased land with the Big Oil 

companies, and they are currently only using 8 million of those 

acres. So, that is where you go. 

120 

Mr. ALLEN. Can I make a comment on that? Santa Barbara has 

about almost 2 billion barrels. They know exactly where they are. 

It is close to infrastructure, and it is producible in the near term 

safely, and it is off limits. And that would be the quickest oil that 

could be produced in this country offshore, and it would make a 

significant impact at least with respect to the revenue that could 

be generated for the local economies, Santa Barbara and California. And that money taken as royalty revenue could actually, in 

the case of Santa Barbara County sharing that revenue, in 4 years 

pay for the build-out of an entire electric grid infrastructure based 

on solar energy, but it is not being done because it is off limits. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Colorado Mr. Lamborn. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And I apologize I didn’t get to hear all of your testimony earlier 

because I was in another committee. So, I am going back and forth. 

But I do have your written statements here that I can look at later. 

To follow up on what you were just saying, sir, could you talk 

to me about the litigation climate? Maybe you have already addressed this, but I see that sometimes there is talk about why 

aren’t all the acres being used that are leasable, or why does it 

take so many years? And I am aware a little bit how litigation can 

really slow that down, snarl that up. Do you have any insights on 

that? 

Mr. ALLEN. Yes, litigation is actually—in the case of offshore 

Central California—what stopped a number of leases from being 

produced. And then there was a moratorium imposed, and those 

leases to this day have not been produced. Exploratory drilling was 

done. There were resources discovered. But they have been off limits and remain off limits both in the OCS and in California State 

waters. 

There was recently a PXP, a deal with Plains Petroleum from a 

platform in the California OCS to slant drill with no new infrastructure into State waters to produce those State resources, and 

that was voted down by the California State Lands Commission 2 

to 1. And the primary reason—I was at the hearings given by the 

Lieutenant Governor—was that it would send the wrong signal 

that California was open to offshore drilling. 

Mr. LAMBORN. As a follow-up, do the duration of time that these 

leases are available sometimes run out while litigation is being 

pursued? 

Mr. ALLEN. Well, in the case of those leases, that is actually a 

subject—I believe ongoing litigation and potential resolution, and I 

haven’t really followed in as much detail as I should have exactly 

the current legal status of those particular OCS leases that were 

subject to litigation. And I believe it is between the oil companies 

and the courts and the Federal Government now. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Well, it just strikes me that if the litigation climate was a little easier to navigate, faster and so on, then we 

wouldn’t have as many problems with needing to look for—because 

I do believe we need to look for more sources of domestic energy, 

and if we could somehow get on top of the litigation issues, whether to expedite the lawsuits or whatever it takes, then we would not 

have some of these problems that we are talking about, where existing current leasable land is not being used, and then some of us 

121 

want to look to expand that. So, maybe if you all could help me 

with suggestions on how we could—while protecting everyone’s 

rights—but expedite the whole legal process. 

Mr. ALLEN. Well, there is one note that perhaps you would be 

much more knowledgeable than I, but I believe there is a 1990 congressional action that was signed into law that where pollution 

sources are identified, there should be efforts made to mitigate 

them or reduce them. And we view, because of the coast of Central 

California, by far the largest source of hydrocarbon pollution are 

the natural oil seeps. 

The best peer-reviewed science to date shows a strong connection 

that the seeps are being reduced by oil production in that seep zone 

in that study that Representative Capps referred to. So, the best 

science strongly suggests that is the case. So, we would ask or encourage that future studies be conducted, or funded, or supported 

by Congress to explore better whether or not that is indeed true 

for the whole central coast/OCS areas that are subject to the seeps 

that would reduce the offshore pollution and be in line with that 

legislation for reducing pollution sources. 

And in Santa Barbara County, the offshore emissions are the single largest source of ROCs, reactive organic compounds, in the 

county. They exceed automobile and surface transportation air 

emissions by 50 percent, 6,000 tons per year. And in the research 

that Representative Capps cited, it clearly states there has been a 

reduction of those emissions, apparently due to the offshore oil production. So, it is a net benefit to the environment. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Thank you. 

In the short time remaining, anyone else would care to comment—— 

Mr. GRADER. I am a little bit disturbed that thinking that litigation somehow is slowing everything down. Everything I read, and 

in particular in preparing for this, is that in some of the most recent papers, it indicated that one of the biggest impediments right 

now, one of the reasons it would take 10 years or more before any 

of these, if we did lease some of these new areas, to come on is just 

the infrastructure, the physically—the shipyards, the building of 

the rigs and all that, the demand you have elsewhere. 

So, I think if you are going to be doing further hearings on this 

issue, that is certainly something that should be posed to the oil 

companies is what is the nature right now? What are those impediments? Stop blaming the lease processes or claiming that it is litigation, but just that the technical or the physical aspects of getting 

these places into production. I think that really is the bigger issue. 

It is not litigation or States being intransigent. I think it is just 

the oil company itself—with its infrastructure—of how quickly it 

can put new oil into production. 

Mr. MINICH. And I think I heard this earlier this morning that 

the third session of this will be with the oil companies, and I think 

what needs to be asked of the oil companies is that they should 

give you a cost comparison on some of these leased lands that they 

do not want to use, and are not using, versus a cost comparison if 

they drilled in the shallow Gulf of Mexico, because some of the information that we have is that it is cheaper in these waters that 

are currently out of bounds than on some of the leased lands that 

122 

they have to their liking. And if you look at the profit and loss 

statements, and the profits of the oil companies, I think they can 

afford to drill in some of these other areas. 

And, yes, he is correct. I mean, you know, it would take some- where between 10 to 30 years to get rigs built, a $700 million rig, 

and most of those rigs that are under construction right now at 

shipyards are being shipped off to other places in the world for use 

in other places. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Thank you very much. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Washington, Mr. Hastings. 

Mr. HASTINGS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I just have one question. Mr. Minich, I just want to ask you one 

question here. How does your position, which you have very well 

enunciated, differ from that of the Florida Association of Convention and Visitors Bureaus? 

Mr. MINICH. The Florida Association of Convention and Visitors 

Bureau did last fall release a report, and they are saying that they 

are supportive of offshore drilling. I do not agree with the Florida 

Association. I have adamantly not agreed with them, and I do not 

understand why they are taking that position. 

Mr. HASTINGS. Well, I just wanted to, because I understand at 

least your local association is probably a part of that, and I just 

wanted, for the record, to denote that in Florida there are some 

that have a different view than yours. So, thank you very much. 

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to submit for the 

record—and I have a list here that I can read off or just give to 

you, whichever way you want to do that. 

The CHAIRMAN. Just throw it in. 

Mr. HASTINGS. OK. I will just throw it in. With that, there are 

seven statements, including Mr. Lamborn’s opening statement, and 

I ask unanimous consent that that be submitted for the record. 

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, so ordered. 

[A CRS memorandum entitled ‘‘Possible Federal Revenue Estimates From Oil and Gas Production in Areas Currently Off-Limits 

(under leasing moratoria or inaccessible)’’ submitted for the record 

follows:] 

Memorandum September 12, 2008 

TO: House Committee on Natural Resources 

Attn: Kevin V. Kennedy 

FROM: Marc Humphries 

Analyst in Energy Policy 

Resources, Science, and Industry 

SUBJECT: Possible Federal Revenue Estimates From Oil and Gas Production in 

Areas Currently Off-Limits (under leasing moratoria or inaccessible) 

This memorandum is in response to your request for estimates of revenues from 

royalties and corporate income taxes if the public lands, now off-limits, (i.e., outer 

continental shelf moratoria and onshore inaccessible areas) were open and available 

for oil and natural gas leasing and development. 

Resource estimates in Table 1 are from the Department of the Interior Statement 

of Stephen C. Allred before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Resource Estimate Table, January 25, 2007 and onshore resource estimates 

in Table 2 are from the Interagency report: Inventory of Onshore Federal and Natural Gas Resources and Restrictions to Their Development, 2008. 

I hope this information meets your needs. If you have any further questions, 

please call me at ext. 7-7264. 

123 

1The Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as amended, established a minimum royalty rate of 12.5% 

for federal leases. The most recent offshore lease sales contained a royalty rate of 18.75%. MMS 

Congressional Affairs representative Lyn Herdt indicated that MMS would likely continue to impose the 18.75% rate on offshore leases in the foreseeable future. 2For a more detailed discussion of revenue sharing see CRS Report RL33493 Outer Continental Shelf: Debate Over Oil and Gas Leasing and Revenue Sharing by Marc Humphries. 

Background 

The federal government currently collects revenues from oil and gas leases on 

public lands in the form of bonus bids, annual rents, and royalties. Bonus bids are 

upfront payments made to secure a lease in a competitive lease sale. Leases are 

awarded to the highest bidder. Royalties are based on the value of production. Annual rental payments are made by lessees on a per acre basis. Once commercial production begins, rental payments are no longer required. The primary lease term for 

onshore leases is ten years. For offshore leases the primary term is 5 years for shallow water (<400 meters), 8 years for mid-depth water (400-800 meters) and 10 years 

for deep water (>800 meters). Leases continue as long as commercial production 

takes place. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) administers the onshore leasing program and the Minerals Management Service (MMS) administers the offshore 

leasing program. The MMS collects and disburses all revenues from federal leases. 

The MMS and BLM are agencies within the Department of the Interior. In FY2007, the MMS collected about $11.5 billion from leasing activity on public 

lands. About 90% came from royalty payments. A royalty rate of 12.5% applies to 

onshore leases and up to 18.75% applies to offshore leases. 1 All states except Alaska 

generally receive 50% of the revenue generated from leasing activity within their 

state for onshore leases. Alaska receives 90%. The Reclamation Fund receives 40% 

of onshore receipts and the General Treasury receives 10%. Revenues from offshore 

leases are statutorily allocated among the coastal states, the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), the National Historic Preservation Fund (NHPF) and the 

General Treasury. Revenue sharing among the coastal states is limited to revenues 

generated within an area three miles beyond the state’s boundary and revenues 

from leases identified in the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006 (P.L. 109- 

432). 2 Despite the statutory allocations, the vast majority of revenues from offshore 

leases go to the General Treasury. 

Assumptions 

A number of assumptions are made in this memo to simplify a very complex process of making revenue projections. Supportable projections of revenue generation 

would require complex economic modeling and would likely include many more variables. A simplified approach here assumes that leasing restrictions were lifted and 

once those restrictions were lifted, discovery and production of all possible undiscovered technically recoverable resources (UTRR) estimated by Department of the 

Interior in the OCS and onshore would be produced over a 58-year time horizon 

(2010-2068). Federal revenue projections are over the entire recovery cycle (58 

years), until oil and gas is no longer recoverable. Production rates, however, are beyond the scope of this memo. It is assumed that once legislation to open withdrawn 

lands is enacted, it could take at much as 5 years or longer for lease sales in the 

newly opened areas to be held. Production might begin 5-10 years from the lease 

sale if commercial quantities were found. However, in certain areas of the OCS, production, if resources are discovered, could come onstream much sooner, thus, revenues might be generated as soon as 2010, assuming there is known geological data 

and infrastructure requirements, among other variables, are in place. To receive 

revenues as early as 2010, an assumption is made that the administration would 

begin its new 5-year OCS leasing program in 2010. Further, a lease sale would need 

to occur in 2010 along with drilling and development. According to assumptions in 

this memo, most of the revenues would likely be generated beyond 2018. The revenue estimates are based on the mean resource estimates provided by the Department of the Interior and the base forecasted price ($113/barrel oil, $10.34/thousand 

cubic foot of natural gas) by the Energy Information Administration within the Department of Energy. Price and revenue estimates are in nominal dollars. Revenue 

estimates are not discounted to reflect present value. These revenue projections are 

very rough and meant to reflect what might happen, not what will happen. Data 

in Tables 1 and 2 reflect receipts to the General Treasury only and do not include 

bonus bids and rents collected or revenues to the states. 

Royalty revenue estimates in Table 1 assume the federal government (General 

Treasury) would receive a 50% share and the coastal states would receive 50%. Statutory allocations to the NHPF and the LWCF would come out of the revenues allocated to the General Treasury. This assumption reflects a distribution formula that 

124 

3For more details on corporate income tax rates and production costs see CRS Report 

RL34547 Possible Federal Revenue from Oil Development of ANWR and Nearby Areas by 

Salvatore Lazzari. 

is included in nearly all of the legislation proposed to lift the moratoria in the outer 

continental shelf (OCS). The royalty revenue estimates in Table 2 are based on the 

current onshore distribution allocation that distributes 50% to the states, 40% to the 

Reclamation Fund, and 10% to the General Treasury. This formula also includes 

revenue estimates from ANWR. Alaska would also receive 50% of the estimated royalty revenues. 

Corporate income tax estimates are based on calculating pre-tax profits from assumed oil production in the newly opened areas, then multiplying that amount by 

an estimated effective federal corporate income tax rate for large integrated oil companies that would have an interest in oil and gas development. Net pre-tax profit 

for those companies averaged 31% of revenue and the average effective tax rate for 

the years 1998-2005 was 33%. 3

Caveats 

These rough estimates should be used with caution. There are major uncertainties 

involved. First, the amount of recoverable resource is an estimate based on assumptions and probabilities; in fact, they are educated guesses. Second, projecting the 

price of oil for a few years is difficult and complex; projecting for decades is highly 

uncertain. Lastly, the possible legislation and its terms are not known at this time. 

Results 

Given the above caveats, OCS leases might generate royalty revenue, (over a 50- 

year period), of about $518.5 billion of which 50% ($259.25 billion) might go to the 

states and 50% ($259.25 billion) might go to the General Treasury. Corporate income tax revenue is estimated to be about $283 billion. 

Onshore leases (excluding ANWR) in areas that might be opened might generate 

an estimated total royalty revenue of about $280 billion, of which about $28 billion 

would flow to the General Treasury, $140 billion to the states and $112 billion to 

the Reclamation Fund. Corporate income tax revenue is estimated at about $230 billion. 

ANWR leases might generate royalty revenue of about $114 billion of which $11.5 

billion might go to the General Treasury, $57 billion might go to the states, and 

$45.5 billion might go to the Reclamation Fund. Corporate income tax receipts could 

total about $95 billion. 

125 


47302.005.eps
126 

[A Florida Association of Convention & Visitors Bureaus’ paper 

entitled ‘‘Position on Offshore Oil Drilling’’ follows:] 

FACVB 

FLORIDA ASSOCIATION OF CONVENTION & VISITORS BUREAUS 

Position on Offshore Oil Drilling 

Introduction 

Serving as the single unifying voice for all of Florida’s convention and visitor bureaus, the Florida Association of Convention and Visitors Bureaus (FACVB) strives 

to provide insight and direction on emerging trends that may impact the effectiveness of Florida CVBs’ destination management efforts. Energy availability is a key 

factor in Florida’s tourism industry. Affordable and available fuel makes it easier 

for consumers to consider Florida as their vacation destination. 

The FACVB has been monitoring impacts on Florida’s tourism industry associated 

with recent trends in energy affordability and reliability. The FACVB recognizes 

that a comprehensive, long-term energy policy, including conservation, efficiency, renewable and alternative fuels as well as increased U.S. domestic oil and natural gas 

production, is essential to maintain a healthy, vital Florida tourism industry. 

Tourism Trends in Florida 

During 2007, Florida tourism generated $65.5 billion in revenues from 84.5 million visitors and was responsible for directly employing 991,300 Floridians, according to VISIT FLORIDA research. Over the five-year period between 2003 and 2007, 

revenues increased 21.4 percent and visitors increased 11.7 percent. Effective marketing efforts combined with Florida’s attractions and natural resources continue to 

make Florida a favored destination throughout the world and tourism a prime contributor to Florida’s growing economy. However, the five-year growth trend statistics 

also indicate a flattening of the growth trend between 2005 and 2007. In particular, 

visitor and revenue growth grew only 0.8 percent during 2007, and visitors arriving 

via automobile actually declined 2.3 percent during 2007. It is important to note the 

correlation between the flattening growth in Florida tourism and the concurrent rise 

in energy costs. Energy in Florida 

Florida’s tourism industry heavily relies on consistently affordable energy from 

dependable sources. The state’s residents and visitors consume approximately 23 

million gallons of gasoline per day, more than 8 billion gallons per year. In addition 

to meeting the transportation needs of Floridians, products are necessary to fuel vehicles for more than 40 million tourists arriving via automobiles; to fuel cruise 

ships, fishing and recreational watercraft; and to fuel the airplanes servicing Florida’s numerous airports. 


47302.006.eps
127 

While U.S. demand has slowed over the past decade, global demand for crude oil, 

the raw material of most refined transportation fuels, has increased dramatically 

due to emerging markets in Asia and other parts of the world. This has led to a 

tightening of supplies. Many of the congressional and presidential moratoria that 

prevented domestic oil and natural gas exploration and production were either recently withdrawn or expired; however, the long-term status of the moratoria will 

probably remain unclear for some time after the elections in November. During the 

duration of the various moratoria over the previous three decades, our country’s dependence on imported oil has increased from 40 percent to 60 percent of our total 

consumption. 

Significant state and federal legislation and efforts of the Governors Climate Action Team are designed to address global climate change and have established aggressive renewable fuel mandates for transportation fuels. Florida has been a leader 

in recognizing the importance of alternative fuels, and this year has mandated that 

by December 31,2010, all gasoline must contain at least 10 percent ethanol. Additionally, federal mandates dictate that 9 billion gallons of renewable fuels must be 

blended with transportation fuels in 2008, expanding to 36 billion gallons by 2022. 

Further, increasing amounts of the renewable fuels must originate from cellulosic 

sources beginning in 2011; however, it is questionable as to whether adequate commercial cellulosic fuel refining plant production will be available to meet the mandate. No commercial cellulosic product is available in Florida or the United States 

at this time. 

Florida is committed to taking a new direction in energy production, requiring 

utilities to meet stringent air emission guidelines amid concerns about global climate change. Florida utilities have always been more reliant on natural gas for 

power generation than our surrounding states; this commitment to clean-burning 

natural gas will only grow stronger through the next decade. According to Florida 

Public Service Commission statistics, total utility generation capacity that uses natural gas will increase from 29 percent to 44 percent by 2014. Many sources for natural gas fall under the same moratoria that had been issued for oil production; 

therefore, the industry has had to rely more on imported natural gas to meet growing demand. Recent tightening of supplies in the natural gas markets, evidenced by 

the increased price of natural gas and the subsequent rise in utility rates, ultimately increases operating costs of airlines, cruise ships, attractions, convention 

centers and hotels. 

FACVB Position on Offshore Oil and Natural Gas Production 

The state and federal governments, along with entrepreneurs and major energy 

companies, have made a long-term commitment to the development of alternative 

energy sources; the FACVB endorses the diversification of energy sources, particularly lower carbon alternative and renewable fuels, as a means to address global climate necessities. However, petroleum products will remain a key energy source for 

our country as we make necessary technological advancements so alternative energy 

sources become cost efficient. Recognizing that affordable and reliable energy is essential to nourish the future growth of Florida tourism and the state’s economy, the 

FACVB evaluated domestic oil and natural gas access, including off Florida’s coasts. 

The FACVB conducted an Offshore Oil Drilling Summit on October 2, 2008, allowing members to discuss issues in depth with representatives from the environmental 

community and the petroleum industry. The discussions covered long-term energy 

projections, the local and global environmental impacts of drilling, impacts to fishing 

industries, advanced drilling and production technologies, mitigation of risks 

through redundant systems, regulatory oversight, revenue sharing, impacts of hurricanes, and the availability of oil and natural gas based on previous seismic and geophysical data. 

After carefully considering all factors, the Florida Association of Convention and 

Visitors Bureaus (FACVB) endorses state and federal energy policies allowing the 

production of oil from existing leases within the Gulf of Mexico out of sight of Florida’s coast (at least 30 miles offshore), with the following conditions imposed by 

state and federal lawmakers: 

1. Any Florida offshore drilling must be a component of a comprehensive energy 

policy dedicated to reducing America’s dependence on foreign oil. 

2. Production facilities must incorporate the most advanced zero discharge natural gas and oil production systems. 

3. The federal revenue sharing plan affecting Gulf of Mexico resources, which currently does not include revenue sharing to Florida, must be changed by the 

U.S. Congress to include significant revenue dedicated to the state for 1) beach 

renourishment projects; 2) alternative energy investments for the state of Florida; 3) tourism promotion to attract more visitors to Florida to bolster the 

128 

state’s economy and tax collections; and 4) a catastrophe fund to reimburse 

Florida for expenses related to any oil release into the environment as a result 

of these oil production activities; 

4. A five-year moratorium on new leases in the eastern Gulf of Mexico must be 

established so state officials can evaluate oil production safety and evaluate 

any impact on Florida’s natural resources. This moratorium should permit exploration by seismic and geophysical scientific testing to identify potential future reserves. 

The military mission of the U.S. Department of Defense shall have the first priority in the offshore in the Gulf of Mexico. 

Conclusion 

Changes in global energy markets have affected the price and supply of oil and 

natural gas and subsequently may have a future impact on Florida’s tourism industry. The FACVB recommends that environmentally responsible exploration and production of domestic oil and natural gas from current leases be an essential element 

of state and federal energy policies. Experts expect production from existing leases 

could commence as early as within 2 years from the date leaseholders are permitted 

to proceed. 

[A list of documents retained in the Committee’s official files 

follows:] • American Petroleum Institute booklet entitled ‘‘Strengthening Our Economy: 

The Untapped U.S. Oil and Gas Resources’’ dated December 5, 2008 

• U.S. Department of Energy / Office of Fossil Energy booklet entitled ‘‘Environmental Benefits of Advanced Oil and Gas Exploration and Production 

Technology’’ 

• U.S. Department of the Interior/ Minerals Management Service fact sheet 

entitled ‘‘OCS Oil Spill Facts’’ dated September 2002 

• The National Academies report entitled ‘‘Oil in the Sea III’’—Copyright 2002 by 

The National Academy of Sciences 

Mr. HASTINGS. And with that, Mr. Chairman, thank you very 

much for the indulgence. And I want to thank the panel very much 

for their time, and especially for the break that we had when we 

had to go do our business on the Floor of the House. And I appreciate your being here. 

The CHAIRMAN. Per our usual unanimous consent requests, all 

Members will have a right to submit statements for the record. 

[The prepared statement of Mrs. Capps follows:] 

Statement of The Honorable Lois Capps, a Representative in Congress from 

the State of California 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I’m pleased the first hearing before this Committee will deal with the impacts of 

offshore oil and gas drilling on the environment and coastal communities. 

I have been a long time opponent of new offshore oil and gas development. 

It’s no surprise that I don’t want to see more oil rigs off my congressional district. 

I witnessed firsthand the devastation of the Platform A blowout in 1969. 

The disastrous spill created an 800 square-mile slick and marred 35 miles of California’s coastline. 

I saw the dead birds and seals, the beaches covered with oil, the land that I love 

so much nearly destroyed. 

In the years since oil accidents and drilling-based pollution in my congressional 

district has been an ongoing story. 

In December, more than 1,400 gallons of oil spilled into our coastal waters from 

the same location as the infamous 1969 spill nearly 40 years ago. 

Also last year, Exxon-Mobil agreed to pay millions in fines for releasing dangerous 

PCBs into the Santa Barbara Channel from Platform Hondo. 

Spills of course are not limited to offshore locations on California’s Central Coast. 

Greka Oil has been polluting our local creeks with toxic runoff and countless oil 

spills, looking like it got its environmental policies straight from the movie There 

Will Be Blood. 

129 

There was also the Torch pipeline explosion in 1997 and the decades-long pollution that required rebuilding the entire town of Avila Beach. 

And that’s not even including the impacts on our local air and water quality we 

deal with every day. 

So, yes, my constituents and I don’t want more of that. 

Even so, my opposition to new offshore drilling is mostly because it is simply not 

in the best interests of this country. 

It is the slowest, dirtiest, and most expensive way to produce energy. 

And the longer we try to fool ourselves into believing that new drilling will bring 

us lower gas prices and that we still have plenty of time to get ourselves off this 

oil addiction, the tougher the day of reckoning will be. 

Mr. Chairman, America’s coastal waters and economies should not be sacrificed 

for campaign sound bites. 

That’s why I was pleased by the Obama Administration’s responsible decision to 

take a fresh look at the 5-year offshore leasing plan that former President Bush released on his last day in office. 

Future leasing decisions must be based on the strongest, most objective science 

available, especially in areas that have previously been off limits to drilling for decades. 

While we need to take a more reasoned approach to managing our public energy 

resources, I continue to believe there are cheaper, cleaner, faster, and more sustainable energy solutions than more drilling. 

Energy efficiency and clean, renewable energy will start saving consumers and 

businesses money today. 

Improved vehicle standards on their own would do more to lower gas prices than 

wiping out sea otter habitat to drill for more oil. 

I’m hopeful this Committee will invest its time, energy and creativity into real solutions that put us on the right path, toward renewable energy solutions for our future. 

Our nation shouldn’t be known for chasing after yesterday’s energy solutions, but 

for its leadership toward the clean energy solutions of today and tomorrow. 

Thank you again for calling this hearing and I look forward to the testimony from 

our knowledgeable witnesses. 

The CHAIRMAN. Gentlemen, lady, thank you very much for being 

here. I know some of you have traveled long distances, and your 

input into our deliberations will be very useful. And I appreciate 

the facts you have presented, and the manner in which you presented it, and this story shall be continued. Thank you. 

The Chair wishes to thank all Members, too, on both sides of the 

aisle, I might add. I think we had a very good attendance record 

today, and I appreciate so many Members attending. Let that be 

on the record. 

The Committee is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:46 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

[Additional material submitted for the record follows:] 

130 

[A letter submitted for the record by Brant Branham, Chairman, 

and Brad Dean, President & CEO, Myrtle Beach Area Chamber of 

Commerce, follows:] 


47302.007.eps
131 

[A letter submitted by Faith Gemmill, REDOIL, follows:] 

Resisting Environmental Destruction on Indigenous Lands (REDOIL) 

P.O. Box 74667 * Fairbanks, AK 99701 * PH: 907-456-2181 * 

Fax: 907-456-2184 * Email: redoil1@acsalaska.net 

February 11, 2009 

Chairman Nick Rahall (D-W.Va.) 

House Natural Resources Committee 

1324 Longworth House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20240’ 

Respectful Greetings; 

Today we submit these comments for the record to the House Natural Resource 

Committee on behalf of Resisting Environmental Destruction on Indigenous Lands 

(REDOIL) an Alaska Native Network of the Inupiat, Yupik, Aleut, Tlingit, Eyak, 

Gwich’in and Denaiana Athabascan Tribes. REDOIL is a movement of Alaska Natives who are challenging the fossil fuel and mining industry and demanding their 

rights to a safe and healthy environment conducive to subsistence. REDOIL aims 

to address the human and ecological health impacts brought on by unsustainable 

development practices of the fossil fuel and mining industry, and the ensuing effect 

of catastrophic climate change. REDOIL supports the self determination right of 

Tribes in Alaska, as well as a just transition from fossil fuel and mineral development to sustainable economies, and sustainable development. 

The Alaskan Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) provides an abundance of marine life, 

and is adjacent to some important terrestrial public resources in Alaska. Alaska Native coastal communities have depended on marine subsistence resources since time 

immemorial. The Beaufort and Chukchi Seas, North Aleutian Basin (Bristol Bay), 

Cook Inlet and other offshore areas are critical to Alaska Natives subsistence. 

REDOIL is deeply concerned with the risks posed to sensitive marine and coastal 

environments from oil and gas activities in the Alaskan OCS. Vital subsistence resources that are intrinsic to the livelihood of coastal Alaska Native communities 

within the Alaska OCS area are at risk. Due to the serious risk posed to these ecological areas and the communities that are within these areas or in close proximity 

who rely upon coastal resources, REDOIL strongly recommends the entire Alaska 

OCS be suspended from the Federal OCS Energy Plan. Considering that the Bush 

Administration imprudently pushed through a massive expansion of oil and gas activities in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas, North Aleutian Basin and Cook Inlet in 

the face of opposition from federal expert agencies, conservation groups, Alaska Native entities, and commercial fishing organizations. These experts and others correctly asserted that there is too little information known about the existing biological conditions in the Arctic, especially in light of changes wrought by climate 

change, to be able reasonably to understand, evaluate and address the adverse impacts of oil and gas activities on those environments. Therefore we recommend an 

immediate suspension and cancellation of oil and gas leases and activities within 

the Alaska OCS and other conservation priority areas in the NPRA and we also support the strongest possible protection for the coastal plain of the Arctic Refuge. 

Existing international law already protects subsistence rights. This right is recognized and affirmed by civilized nations in the international covenants on human 


47302.008.eps
132 

rights. Article I of both the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 

and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights read in 

part: ‘‘...In no case may a people be deprived of its own means of subsistence.’’ 

The Outer Continental Shelf of Alaska—Each of Alaska’s OCS regions contains important subsistence resources that would be threatened by oil and gas development. Subsistence use of fish and other marine animals is both an established 

economy of Native coastal communities and is absolutely central to the survival of 

Alaska’s indigenous cultures. Unlike oil and gas resources, the marine resources of 

the Alaska OCS can last indefinitely, and should therefore not be jeopardized by 

non-renewable resource development. 

Beaufort Sea—The Arctic Ocean’s Beaufort Sea is the primary marine subsistence use area for the Inupiat of the North Slope. The Beaufort provides critical 

habitat for polar bears, walruses, seals, migratory birds, threatened spectacled and 

steller’s eiders and the endangered bowhead whale. In this vulnerable and harsh 

environment, spilled oil will concentrate in restricted open water such as the leads 

and breathing holes where marine mammals surface and birds congregate, and 

along the sensitive coasts. The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, with its incomparable wildlife and wilderness, adjoins the eastern portion of the Beaufort Sea in 

the United States. Critical bowhead whale spring migratory pathways in the lead 

zone are located east of Barrow, and fall migratory and feeding habitats are located 

offshore of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. 

Chukchi Sea—Lease Sale 193, would allow oil and gas exploration and development for almost 30 million acres of the Chukchi Sea. The Chukchi Sea is an important primary subsistence use area for Inupiat that live in nearby coastal communities. Oil leasing in Arctic waters of the Chukchi Sea threatens critical spring migration route for bowhead and beluga whales, important feeding areas for gray 

whales and other Whales and Pacific walruses, staging and molting areas for migratory birds, polar bear and walrus habitats. In Government to Government consultations the Native Village of Point Hope has consistently objected to any offshore activities toward oil and gas development, despite this, the Minerals Management 

Service has consistently approved offshore leases for exploration and development 

of the Chukchi Sea and this has been perceived as blatant disregard of government 

to government consultation. 

North Aleutian Basin (Bristol Bay)—President Bush lifted a longstanding 

presidential order that specifically prohibited oil and gas drilling in Alaska’s pristine 

Bristol Bay. In light of the lifting of the moratorium, as part of the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) five year plan offshore oil and gas development in Bristol Bay 

by as early as 2010 has been included. Bristol Bay supports the world’s largest sockeye salmon run, other important fisheries, and abundant seabirds and marine mammals. Offshore drilling in this sensitive place would put fisheries, marine life, traditional subsistence livelihoods, and economies at risk. 

Cook Inlet—Cook Inlet is the birthplace of commercial oil and gas development 

in Alaska. With that we observe the ensuing effects of underwater seismic blasting, 

toxic dumping from offshore platforms, and regular leaks and spills which are the 

primary threats to the Cook Inlet Beluga Whales and their habitat. The U.S. Army 

also retains a presence in Cook Inlet, and its bombing range at Eagle River Flats 

on Fort Richardson regularly showers toxics and other pollutants into areas that 

support belugas and their prey. Cook Inlet is also a major shipping hub and fishing 

center, and ship traffic, noise, port dredging and prey disturbance may be affecting 

belugas. The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) listed the beluga whale as 

‘‘endangered’’ in October 2008 after an exhaustive scientific review. The State of 

Alaska announced its intent to challenge the listing in a January 12, 2009, letter 

to NMFS. We support maintaining the ‘‘endangered’’ listing of the Beluga. 

It is an undisputed fact that the burning of oil, gas, and coal (‘‘fossil fuels’’) is the 

primary source of human-induced climate change. The United States appetite and 

high consumption of energy creates a stubborn insistence upon the use of non-renewable sources of energy, particularly, unsustainable and highly polluting, fossil 

fuels. Pristine and un-recoverable ecosystems are being assaulted in the shortsighted quest for new sources of fossil fuel. Indigenous communities are disproportionately impacted by fossil fuel exploration and extraction/drilling activities, and by 

the resulting effects of pollution, global warming, and climate change. Here in Alaska this is our reality. We are living with unsustainable fossil fuel extraction, and 

dealing with ensuing cumulative impacts of loss of our subsistence resources, detrimental impacts to human and ecological health and this is compounded by climate 

change. Further pursuits into pristine ecosystems of which Alaska Native peoples 

depend on for subsistence such as the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas, North Aleutian 

133 

Basin (Bristol Bay) and Cook Inlet is a threat to Alaska Native subsistence livelihoods, culture, spirituality and social systems. 

If these critical offshore areas within the Alaska OCS are pursued and allowed 

to proceed and development of these critical subsistence use areas ensues, the harm 

to Alaska Native cultures and subsistence livelihood would be severe and in some 

cases irreparable. 

In regard to Federal OCS plans specifically in Alaska’s OCS we strongly encourage the Department of the Interior to fulfill and honor their government to government responsibilities and work collaboratively and in good faith with Tribes in Alaska on these important issues. It is unfortunate that the federal agencies have disregarded the federal government to government meeting outcomes in which Tribes 

have consistently opposed any development activity within the oceans which provide 

the very lifeblood of their communities. The experience thus far of tribes in Alaska 

on these issues with the MMS has been a clear erosion of federal trust responsibility. 

We are also gravely concerned with the threat of an oil spill in Arctic waters if 

development is allowed within the Alaska OCS—the MMS itself has stated that the 

risk of a significant oil spill can be as high as 51 percent. Because of the remoteness 

of these areas and the extremely harsh environment it may be near impossible to 

have immediate response to any spill or accident that occurs due to oil and gas development. The detrimental impacts that may occur to key subsistence species may 

create a situation where they may never be able to recover from the stresses that 

oil and gas development will cause. It has become clear that if an oil spill occurs 

within the Alaska OCS, there is no proven technology to clean up oil spills in Arctic 

waters. Demonstrations have shown that oil cannot be cleaned up in Arctic waters. 

The fact remains that we cannot drill our way to oil independence. The U.S. must 

break its insatiable dependence on oil—be it foreign or domestic—if we are to 

achieve true energy independence and national security. Limiting leasing and development could have an even more profound impact on this country’s energy landscape if coupled with a re-direction of billions of dollars in federal subsidies, tax 

breaks and incentives away from fossil fuels and toward renewable energy sources, 

energy efficiency and conservation. The United States generates about 25 percent 

of world petroleum demand. This fact alone indicates that Americans can have a 

much larger impact on global markets on the demand side than on the supply side. 

This conclusion is strengthened by the fact that there are large untapped energy 

efficiency resources, yet the United States government continues to focus almost exclusively on exploiting non-renewable oil and gas resources. Energy efficiency alternatives to opening up these sensitive areas are numerous. Using available technology, we could save an average of 3.2 million barrels of oil per day within 10 

years. 

Today’s profit driven economies are not sustainable and threaten the existence of 

our future generations. Our actions as humanity are creating an imbalance within 

the natural order and natural laws created for all our benefit. The decisions that 

are made today by government leaders will effect the rights of the unborn and this 

responsibility cannot be taken lightly. Though Alaska Natives are hit first and hit 

hardest by climate change, we now share the consequences together. We have to 

take action now to implement genuine measures of a just transition toward clean 

renewable energy and an energy efficient economy that supports sustainable jobs 

and communities. We ought to be weaning our addiction to fossil fuels now, not allowing more development in areas that are critical to the survival of Indigenous 

Peoples such as within the Alaska OCS. 

We strongly recommend that Congress begin taking concrete serious measures 

now to address the Climate crisis we are in, such as imposing a moratorium on all 

new exploration for oil, gas and coal as a first step towards the full phase-out of 

fossil fuels with a just transition to sustainable jobs, energy and environment. We 

take this position and make this recommendation based on our concern over the disproportionate social, cultural, spiritual, environmental and climate impacts on Indigenous Peoples in Alaska 

Should drilling in Alaska’s OCS move forward without regard to the serious and 

profound concerns for the very survival of Alaska Native Peoples the dire implications of that decision would harm untold generations. We request that Congress 

by any means necessary suspend and cancel leases within the Alaska OCS. 

Thank You. 

K’eegwaadhat Noohaa Ooli’ 

Faith Gemmill, Executive Director 

Resisting Environmental Destruction on Indigenous Lands (REDOIL) 

134 

[The response to questions submitted for the record by Jefferson 

M. Angers follows:] 

Response to questions submitted for the record by Jefferson M. Angers, 

President, Center for Coastal Conservation 

1. Mr. Angers, do you believe that offshore wind turbines could also 

provide similar fish habitat benefits to what you ascribe to oil and gas 

platforms? 

From a fishery perspective, most structures do benefit the fishery. My testimony 

focused on the actual conditions related to offshore oil and gas production and the 

Gulf of Mexico fishery. I attempted to share with the committee my observations 

regarding the co-existence of energy activities and fish stocks. We currently do not 

have experience with offshore wind turbines; however, I think it important to note 

that one of the first offshore wind projects in the nation (Cape Wind) has been subject to significant opposition and delay. 

2. Mr. Angers, in your testimony you mention four primary culprits for 

wetlands loss, and two of them, exploration and pipeline canals and 

navigation channels, are either directly related to oil and gas activity, 

or are a consequence of the increasing industrialization of the coastline. 

Since you also mention that most of the fish species in the Gulf are 

estuarine dependent, can we be sure that the habitat destruction being 

caused in the estuaries by the oil and gas industry isn’t much more 

significant than the habitat creation due to the platforms? 

I believe that it is important to clearly understand our coastal challenges in the 

Gulf. Numerous studies have confirmed that the primary cause of coastal wetlands 

loss (and associated ecosystems) in Louisiana was due to the installation of levees 

on the lower Mississippi River system. The levees achieved the goal of establishing 

a certain navigation channel and improved flood protection, but cut off the river 

sediment that provided for the accretion of land in Louisiana. Prior to this time, our 

state—and the estuary—was actually growing in size. Today, more than 30 states 

benefit from the maritime commerce accommodated by the levees and the navigation system they protect. 

Many have predicted a collapse of the marine fishery if domestic offshore oil and 

gas production were allowed to expand into new production areas. Based upon the 

experiences in the Gulf of Mexico, this is not the case. The states of Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas remain as some of the most productive waters in the nation. 

I do believe that there were some important lessons learned in the oil and gas 

industry as it relates to coastal sustainability and proper stewardship of our marine 

resources, but in my opinion, these pale in comparison to the extraordinary impact 

that river levees have had on Louisiana’s coast. 

Future offshore oil and gas development both in the Gulf of Mexico and in potentially new lease areas in other parts of the U.S. exclusive economic zone, must be 

done in the most environmentally sound manner taking into account critical habitat 

and the overall protection of fishery resources. 

3. Mr. Angers, could you elaborate on the new operating procedure that 

you believe the Minerals Management Service should adopt in order to 

balance the concerns of all ocean users? How would it be different from 

how they operate now? 

First, I believe it critical that decisions be based upon the most accurate information possible. In many cases, extraordinary claims are made related to the adverse 

impacts of offshore energy production. Many of those claims are not supported by 

actual conditions in the Gulf of Mexico and should be challenged. 

In regard to improved operating procedures, balance is appropriate. Blanket policies, such as moratoria, are not appropriate in today’s challenging economic climate. 

Commercial and recreational fishermen are affected in pursuing their vocation and 

their avocation by the price of fuel. Similarly, all the concomitant businesses that 

service the fishing industries feel that pain. Efforts to increase domestic energy production will help to temper future fuel price spikes that prevent America’s fishermen from ever leaving the docks. 

There are some areas where any potential disturbance to a sensitive or threatened 

fishery may outweigh any benefits ascribed to the expansion of offshore energy production. In some cases, an area with promising energy potential may require innovative recovery techniques to ensure proper balance with other resource needs. I beVerDate Aug 31 2005 15:01 Mar 19, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00138 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\47302.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
135 

lieve that current technologies are available to allow for win-win situations in most 

cases. 

4. Mr. Angers, you mention the need for a network of conservation areas 

for fishing before offshore energy leasing and development should proceed. Do we have the information we need to make the determination 

of what areas need to be protected? And what kinds of protections are 

you talking about? 

Information does exist related to essential fish habitat and productive marine 

wildlife areas. Rather than first trying to survey the entire exclusive economic zone 

of the United States for potential conservation area designations, prioritization may 

be appropriate. Reviewing areas that have attractive volumes of oil and gas, wind, 

wave and other energy potential to identify marine resources pressures would be a 

wise approach to balance our needs. 

The type of protections to be placed upon areas would depend upon the conditions 

of those areas. Again, blanket prohibitions preventing access to our marine resources is inappropriate in most areas. 

5. Mr. Angers, you call for additional transparency in the management of 

the oceans. Coincidentally, that was one of the goals of Oceans-21. Are 

you supportive of that legislation, and if not, what are you calling for 

that is different from what is in that legislation? 

Over the past 33 years since the passage of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA), there have been many well-intended proposals to alter this unique federal/state fisheries management law. While not perfect, the legal structures under the MSA that created the eight regional councils 

have provided for important regional and local input on how best to manage the 

unique fishery resources in a particular ocean region. 

I believe the single biggest failing of the Oceans 21 proposal is its mandate to provide an overarching national ocean policy that would effectively subordinate the regional councils to a subcommittee status reducing substantially the critical input 

from the various regions. Oceans 21 proposes to enforce this national ocean policy 

by establishing another strata of ocean governance comprised completely of governmental officials from the federal, state, local and tribal level. This would take out 

all input and recommendations from user groups and local insights on the best management of unique regional ocean resources. 

I would suggest that fisheries management and ocean conservation is complex 

enough without an additional layer of governmental oversight. Rather than create 

more government, I would suggest providing greater transparency and public process in the ocean laws we currently have and make sure the best science available 

is used to make informed ocean management decisions. 

6. Mr. Angers, you describe vehicles that already exist to enable royalties 

to be directed towards marine research and recreational fisheries 

conservation. Could you specify which vehicles you’re talking about, and 

explain how they currently direct funds to marine research and 

conservation? 

The Coastal Impact Assistance Program authorized in the Energy Policy Act of 

2005 and the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006 are two examples of vehicles that could be used to fund marine research and conservation activities. While 

I would not call either of these perfect, they do demonstrate a structure through 

which outer Continental Shelf revenues could be reinvested into under-resourced 

coastal needs. Other examples that have been proposed include the Conservation 

and Reinvestment Act (CARA) and the Coastal and Ocean Assistance for States 

Fund developed by Senators Inouye, Stevens, Kerry and the Coastal States Organization. 

[The response to questions submitted for the record by Philippe 

Cousteau follows:] 

Response to questions submitted for the record by Philippe Cousteau 

1. Mr. Cousteau, can you describe in more detail how an ocean investment 

fund would work, and if it were established how it could be used to support ocean planning. 

Congress could establish a permanently appropriated, dedicated fund that is capitalized through a percentage of revenue derived from offshore energy development. 

136 

Funding sources could include OCS oil and gas development, wind, tidal and wave 

energy production projects, and potentially other revenue-generating uses of marine 

resources in federal waters, especially those that include fixed structures and/or preclude other uses. The Ocean Investment Fund (the Fund) should be used to pay for 

activities and projects that protect, maintain, and restore ocean, coastal and Great 

Lakes ecosystem health including the necessary research, planning, and management. 

Planning for the use of submerged areas is needed for both marine areas and the 

Great Lakes. For now, I will refer to it collectively as ocean planning. 

I would recommend that planning within state waters be voluntary. States should 

be able to access the Fund if they are willing to engage in ocean planning that is 

comprehensive and takes into account whole ecosystems including humans. Planning must be done in a way that anticipates the cumulative effects of given policies 

rather than focusing on single species, sectors, activities or concerns. It needs to entail spatial planning that allocates three-dimensional marine and freshwater spaces 

(ecosystems) for specific uses to achieve ecological, economic, and social objectives. 

These objectives would need to include: safeguarding ecological processes and ecosystem services, protecting special and sensitive areas, improving the resilience of 

ecosystems to disturbances, increasing the adaptability of ecosystems to climate 

change, and providing for sustainable economic development. 

Regional planning should be mandatory (for EEZ areas beyond state jurisdiction) 

and should be done in a manner similar to that described above for state waters. 

There should be incentives for states to participate in regional planning and to coordinate state plans with regional plans. Consideration should be given to using existing regional structures such as the West Coast Governors’ Agreement and the 

Northeast Regional Ocean Council as the geographical basis for regional ocean planning. Areas where human activity is concentrated should be prioritized. 

2. Mr. Cousteau, if we were to pursue the ocean investment fund concept, 

would the revenue be generated from just oil revenue or renewable 

energy revenue as well? 

The Fund could be established and credited with a small percentage of existing 

oil and gas revenue that is collected by MMS and deposited into the Treasury. A 

portion of revenue from any new development of oil and gas production facilities in 

the OCS should also go toward this fund, but it should be structured so that it does 

not provide an incentive for such development. 

If such facilities are paying fees, a percentage of funds from leasing fees and/or 

a portion of revenue from renewable energy projects such as wind and/or 

hydrokinetic energy generation facilities should also be collected for the Fund since 

these facilities will impact the OCS ecosystem and will need to be properly sited. 

However, whether these facilities are paying substantial fees in the short term is 

a question related to our larger energy strategy, which ought to include encouraging 

renewable energy sources. 

In addition, consideration should be given to other offshore business ventures 

such as aquaculture facilities, transatlantic cables and other fixed-structure ocean 

activities being subjected to fees, of which a portion could be collected and deposited 

into the Fund. 

3. Mr. Cousteau, you mentioned on a number of occasions that we don’t 

know enough about the oceans, and that more scientific studies are 

needed. Could you elaborate on what types of studies, and where, you 

would like to see take place on the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf? 

The first step would be to compile existing data and make it available in a spatially explicit form wherever possible. There should be a common framework for information such as a multipurpose marine cadastre, which could be an expansion of 

the cadastre currently being used by MMS. The data needs for a particular area will 

be a function of what data is available and what data gaps exist. 

Data on the geophysical and biological characteristics of an area as well as data 

on current and future human activities must be collected, as they are intertwined. 

Currently the greatest demand on the OCS is for the development of energy resources, and some have argued for seismic studies to determine as precisely as possible the location, extent and types of hydrocarbon resources that may exist. However, with respect to more preferable renewable energy development, studies are 

needed to assess the locations of potentially exploitable wind, wave and tidal energy. 

For example, wind speed, water depth, distance from shore (to determine visual impact), bottom type (to determine if piles can be driven) are some of the physical variables that need to be understood to site a wind facility. These studies will allow predictions of where additional exploration and development activities may occur inVerDate Aug 31 2005 15:01 Mar 19, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00140 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\47302.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
137 

cluding the transport of energy via ships, pipelines or transmission lines to the 

shore. 

Data on other human activities must also be complied in a spatially explicit, scientific, and standardized way. In many cases, data exists but it is patchy and/or anecdotal. Information is needed on activities such as shipping, sand and gravel mining, dredging and dredged material disposal, recreational and commercial fishing, 

recreational boating and diving, scientific research, and cultural and historic preservation such as shipwrecks and submerged artifacts. 

With respect to marine species, studies are needed to understand abundances, distributions and migration patterns. For example, more information is needed about 

endangered marine mammals such as the northern right whale and the humpback 

whale. Sea turtles comprise another group that merit further study including migration routes and juvenile and foraging habitats. 

In many cases, even basic maps of habitat distributions are unavailable. In order 

to conserve critical habitats and communities we need to know where they are. The 

submarine canyons and shelf edges are structurally complex and support diverse 

benthic and pelagic communities. Deepwater corals and golden tilefish (that construct extensive burrows that drive ecological processes) are examples of species 

that must be mapped in order to inform decisions about development of OCS resources. 

In terms of where these studies should take place, with finite resources it might 

be expedient to focus the effort on the OCS within 25 miles, and locations where 

leases for oil and gas activity are being considered for areas between 25 and 200 

miles. Human activities are currently concentrated within 25 miles of shore. At 

least for the near term this is also where development of renewable energy projects 

are expected based on transmission limitations. Some proposed oil and gas leases 

are extensive but if development of an area is a possibility, it should be adequately 

studied. 

Finally, the science of ‘‘ecosystem services’’ (the delivery of benefits from natural 

ecosystems to humans) needs to be advanced rapidly. It is impossible to evaluate 

the benefit of a project that provides economic benefit against the environmental impacts without understanding the economic value of the ecosystem itself. 

4. Mr. Cousteau, you talked about the need to initiate marine spatial planning to avoid the ‘‘suburban sprawl’’ of the oceans, but won’t this type 

of national marine planning take many years to implement? Is it worth 

starting such a protracted national process now, when the industrialization of our oceans is already upon us? 

It’s never too late to start planning for, and managing development, whether on 

land or in the ocean. The alternative is a continuation of poorly planned uses contributing to the degradation of marine resources. 

With adequate funding, marine spatial planning can be accomplished relatively 

quickly. In Massachusetts the Oceans Act was signed into law May 28th, 2008, the 

draft plan is due June 2009, and the entire plan must to be completed and promulgated by December 31st 2009. Rhode Island is developing a marine spatial plan 

within a similar 18-month time frame. Proper planning is expected to actually expedite the siting of projects such as renewable energy facilities by increasing the certainty of permitting outcomes. It might be possible to provide funding first to those 

states and regions that have the most pressing needs based on pending permit applications for offshore projects. 

Industrialization of our oceans may be upon us, but it is expected to accelerate 

in the near future. Existing uses, especially those that include fixed structures, have 

been permitted without comprehensive planning. However, that is no reason to 

allow all future uses to be sited without a plan. Some states may choose to hold 

permit applications for projects in state waters until a plan is complete. This is the 

approach that Rhode Island has taken but federal legislation should not mandate 

this approach for either state or federal waters. 

5. Mr. Cousteau, you mentioned the need for more consideration to be 

given to siting issues in the leasing process. Do you think the current 

MMS and NEPA processes provide sufficient safeguards to ecosystem 

health? Do you think they look comprehensively at all marine activities 

and their cumulative impacts on the oceans? 

The current MMS siting process does not take a comprehensive look at all marine 

activities. The process focuses on oil and gas exploration and development and evaluating the impacts of those activities on the marine environment. It does not consider how oil and gas development might preclude other ocean uses, and the process 

was not designed to accommodate renewable energy siting. Furthermore, when deVerDate Aug 31 2005 15:01 Mar 19, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00141 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\47302.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
138 

1 California I, 668 F.2d, p.1317. 

termining the long-term economic value of fossil fuel development there is no consideration given to whether a renewable energy project in the same area would have 

comparable economic returns with fewer environmental impacts. The value of ecosystem services is also not considered. 

Among the criteria examined for siting are key geographic and geological features 

of these regions. But, MMS does not examine whether these regional features might 

be better suited to a different use. Given the increased competition for ocean spaces, 

it is imperative that we manage ocean energy uses in concert with all other economic development uses and conservation. The MMS process is insufficient to address this need. Marine Spatial Planning is needed to ensure that each use is sited 

in an environmentally appropriate manner, and that ocean space is used efficiently. 

The NEPA process was designed to evaluate the impacts of a particular project 

and does not consider the cumulative impacts of multiple projects, nor does it require specific actions to be taken to mitigate environmental harm. It is entirely reactionary—driven solely by competing uses that apply for permits. A developer proposes a location usually based on a dearth of knowledge as opposed to knowing what 

locations might be appropriate for the project based on an understanding of the ecosystem including current and future human uses. The NEPA process also does not 

have the capacity to consider any future ecosystem changes such as shifts due to 

climate change. 

Putting an ocean plan in place does not eliminate the need for the NEPA process 

or intrude on the authority of MMS or any other agency for siting projects. A full 

NEPA process that evaluates environmental impacts would still need to be done. 

However, many of the environmental variables, for example the locations of sensitive habitats, would have already been identified during the planning process. 

Ocean planning is intended to streamline the NEPA process. 

6. Mr. Cousteau, some points were made in the hearing about the number 

of environmental reviews that must occur before oil and gas production 

can begin on the OCS. Does that seemingly intensive review process give 

us the information that we need to make informed decisions about 

where to make new drilling decisions? 

There is no doubt that the MMS process is both time consuming and intensive, 

but that alone does not lead to sound decision-making. The MMS process starts with 

proposing specific planning areas, then after a period of comment the agency issues 

a final proposed program along with a draft EIS for that program. The process 

hinges on the initial planning areas that are proposed. If those are not evaluated 

correctly, it does not matter how thorough the EIS is. When MMS decides which 

sites to initially propose they look at eight key factors ranging from energy interests 

to environmental and predictive information for the area. The decision on where to 

locate leases in the OCS is made by balancing those eight factors and MMS uses 

a comparative analysis to evaluate potential sites. The problem is that key data is 

not included or not factored into the comparative analysis. 

For example when evaluating potential environmental costs of offshore drilling 

they do not calculate the costs from catastrophic events or impacts on unique resources such as endangered species—both of which are two of the primary concerns 

with offshore drilling. Even when they assess the risk of incidental oil spills, they 

present an incomplete estimate. When MMS assesses the risk of incidental oil spills 

they evaluate shoreline sensitivity. Shorelines are ranked according to their sensitivity to oiling, the natural persistence of oil, and the ease of clean up. It is important to note biological productivity and sensitivity only applies to the physical shoreline and not biological habitats that are on or adjacent to the shoreline. What is 

not included is whether or not a wetland shoreline serves as a habitat for endangered birds, or whether a beach is a haul out site for endangered seals. 

The comparative analysis is only used to rank the planning areas; the final decision is still at the discretion of the Secretary. Several court cases have elaborated 

on the Secretary’s role in decision-making stating, ‘‘The environmental and coastal 

zone considerations are undoubtedly important, but the act does not require they 

receive a weight equal to that of potential oil and gas discovery.’’ 1 No part of the 

OCSLA requires MMS to give equal weight to environmental impacts. 

139 

1 Committee on Oil in the Sea (2003) Oil in the Sea III: Inputs, Fates, and Effects, Ocean 

Studies Board, Marine Board, and Transportation Research Board, National Research Council 

http://books.nap.edu/catalog/10388.html 2Luyendyk, B. (2008) Statement on oil seeps and drilling. Presented to the Board of Supervisors, Santa Barbara County at the August 26 meeting. State and National Energy Crisis— 

Discussion. http:// www.geol.ucsb.edu/faculty/luyendyk/seeps%20pubs/luyendyklBOS.pdf 3Luyendyk, B. (2008) Statement on oil seeps and drilling. Presented to the Board of Supervisors, Santa Barbara County at the August 26 meeting. State and National Energy Crisis— 

Discussion. http:// www.geol.ucsb.edu/faculty/luyendyk/seeps%20pubs/luyendyklBOS.pdf 4Quigley, D. et al. (1999) Decrease in natural marine carbon seepage near Coal Oil Point, 

California, associated with offshore production. Geology, 27(11):1047-1050 5Luyendyk, B. (2008) Statement on oil seeps and drilling. Presented to the Board of Supervisors, Santa Barbara County at the August 26 meeting. State and National Energy Crisis— 

Discussion. http:// www.geol.ucsb.edu/faculty/luyendyk/seeps%20pubs/luyendyklBOS.pdf 

7. Mr. Cousteau, if, as was cited during the hearing, there are dozens of 

law overseeing our oceans and protecting the natural resources of the 

outer continental shelf, why do we need a new planning process? Aren’t 

the current laws sufficient? 

There are many laws that were designed to protect the natural resources of the 

outer continental shelf and a myriad of agencies that implement them. That is part 

of the problem. Authorities are fractured and there is no coordination of the various 

efforts. Each agency has responsibility for a particular sector or issue but there is 

no overarching plan that connects them nor is there a common vision or a set of 

goals. The underpinning of ocean planning is the coordination of existing planning 

efforts. Upon that is built a spatially explicit, comprehensive plan that is based on 

adequate information. 

[The response to questions submitted for the record by Ted 

Danson on behalf of Oceana follows:] 

Response to questions submitted for the record by Ted Danson 

1. Mr. Danson, could you elaborate a bit on the difference between natural 

seeps and man-made spills, and why we should be concerned about the 

small fraction of the oil in the ocean that comes from manmade spills? 

First, according to the National Research Council, more than half the oil released 

into the world ocean comes from the extraction, transportation and consumption of 

petroleum, so this is not really a ‘‘small fraction’’ as stated in the question. 

Crude oil can seep naturally from beneath the sea floor into the marine environment. While these seeps do release oil, the rate of release is very slow, and it tends 

to be in fixed locations, two factors which allow the surrounding ecosystems to adapt 

to the oil in their surrounding environment. Many mobile animals such as fish and 

marine mammals are able to avoid these slow releases. Additionally, while some 

species can adapt, others may be unable to do so, even given the slow release and 

the fixed location. 1 Unlike natural oil seeps, however, human caused spills, and 

even relatively small ones, can cause considerable harm in areas that have not 

adapted to oil. Even animals with some degree of prior oil exposure tend to be unable to cope with the impacts of a spill which generally will involve more oil than 

what they may have been exposed to naturally. 2 Most animals, which are not naturally exposed to oil seeps, will be even less able to cope, including the marine mammals that I described in my written testimony. 

It is important to note that there is very little evidence that oil drilling reduces 

natural seeps. 3 In fact, we are aware of only one study, in one specific location, that 

has linked oil drilling to a reduction in natural seeps. 4 Even in such a case, reductions in natural seep rates may only occur at the early stages of drilling, when oil 

is easily extracted. Beyond this point, as an oil field ages, oil recovery becomes more 

difficult and more advanced technology and drilling techniques are required. Importantly, these more advanced techniques may in fact, increase the likelihood of seepage, rather than decreasing it. 5 Therefore, the suggestion that drilling reduces seeps 

requires much more evidence to back it up. 

The bottom line is this: natural oil seeps are largely out of our control. However, 

the impacts from unnecessary offshore oil exploration, production and transportation are entirely in our control. 

140 

6 Energy Information Agency, Energy Kids Page (2009) http://www.eia.doe.gov/kids/ 

energyfacts/sources/non-renewable/oil.html#Howused 

2. Mr. Danson, there was a comment made in the hearing about the percentage of a barrel of oil that goes to fuel and the percentage that goes 

to plastics and other materials. Could you provide the exact data on the 

breakdown of products that are derived from a barrel of oil? 

First, we must recognize that while oil provides resources, it has become more obvious that we must move away from a carbon-based society. The costs associated 

with drilling and producing petroleum products are increasing as our climate 

warms. These costs are even more dramatic with regard to offshore oil production. 

According to the U.S. Energy Information Agency, a 42-U.S. gallon barrel of crude 

oil provides slightly more than 44 gallons of petroleum products. This is largely 

made up of finished motor oil, diesel fuel, propane and other energy producing fuels. 

Other products that can be made from components of oil include, according to EIA, 

things like ink, dishwashing soap, deodorant, tires, and even heart valves. 6 EIA reports that about 16% of a barrel goes to these ‘‘other’’ uses though it is unclear 

whether that includes only non-energy-related purposes. 

It is important to keep in mind, however, that none of these products requires 

drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf, and each can and will continue to be produced regardless of whether the OCS is opened to additional drilling. The OCS provides such a small fraction of our oil needs, its use is irrelevant to the manufacture 

of the above products. In fact, our ability to continue to use oil to make these products in the future is furthered by implementing the shift away from oil use as fuel, 

and towards alternatives, as I recommended in my testimony. Finally, it is important to keep in mind that many of the products that are made with petroleum components can be made using alternative materials. 

3. Mr. Danson, following up on a line of questioning from the hearing, 

could you describe the differing environmental impacts between a properly sited wind tower and a properly sited oil rig? During the hearing, 

it sounded as if you and Mr. Cousteau were saying that the environmental impact of the rig itself is no different than the impact of the 

tower. 

There are tremendous differences between offshore oil production and offshore 

wind production. The impacts of oil rigs are numerous, beginning with siting the 

rig, the oil production process, the transportation of the product, and ultimately the 

use of the product itself. I discussed each of these steps in my written testimony, 

including the impacts associated with each of them, for the record. Wind turbines, 

on the other hand, do not require the same siting process; they produce only minimal impacts and present no risk of oil spills. 

While it may appear that the physical infrastructure is the same, there is a big 

difference between building a structure that drills into the earth’s crust, injecting 

and extracting materials through it constantly, and one that is anchored to the 

ocean floor, harnessing the wind that passes above it. 

In addition, there are a variety of factors associated with oil drilling that present 

risks to marine life and coastal economies. Accidents, for example, inevitably accompany all stages of offshore production. The most typical causes of accidents include 

equipment failure, personnel mistakes, and extreme natural impacts from seismic 

activity, ice movements, hurricanes, and so on. Besides accidents, offshore oil and 

gas activities create a myriad of other threats to marine life including routine spills, 

and disposal of wastes such as drilling muds and produced water, and noise 

pollution. 

Furthermore, daily offshore drilling operations create a variety of pollutants that 

affect marine and other wildlife. Offshore rigs can dump tons of drilling fluids, 

metal cuttings, including toxic metals (lead, chromium and mercury) and carcinogens (such as benzene, xylene and toluene and especially polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons) into the ocean. Drilling muds are used to lubricate and cool the drill bit 

and pipe. One drilling platform normally drills between seventy and one-hundred 

wells and discharges more than 90,000 metric tons of drilling fluids and metal 

cuttings into the ocean. Some studies suggest that drilling-related chemicals can 

stunt fish growth and affect breeding patterns. 

Wind, on the other hand, creates little if any pollution surrounding the site. While 

some concerns exist with the impact of wind turbines on wildlife, we believe these 

concerns can be alleviated through a proper environmental review process prior to 

siting. However, the overall suggestion that a rig is the same as a wind farm is a 

‘‘red herring’’ designed to distract attention from the myriad of risks clearly and indisputably associated with offshore oil and gas drilling and production. 

141 

4. Mr. Danson, in your opinion, how would you like to see Congress moving 

forward to address ocean acidification? 

First of all, it is crucial to recognize that the only way to avert ocean acidification 

is to stabilize and ideally reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. 

No other plausible technological fixes exist. The most important thing that we can 

do now is to cap and reduce carbon dioxide emissions in our atmosphere. 

Preventing the expansion of offshore oil and gas drilling on the Outer Continental 

Shelf is a first step. We also need to stop ongoing activities in the Arctic until we 

develop a comprehensive conservation and clean energy plan as I described in my 

testimony and as I discuss further below. 

We must shift toward a future in which we rely upon affordable, carbon-free, renewable energy; a future in which our oceans and the environment are healthy. 

Part of this effort must include an emphasis on development of carbon-free technologies such as wind and solar and improved energy efficiency. 

To make this shift, we will need to strengthen the infrastructure for energy alternatives such as solar and wind. We also need to increase the efficiency of cars, 

trucks, trains, planes and ships, as well as homes, office buildings and industrial 

processes, while cutting down on deforestation and promoting reforestation efforts 

to help ‘‘draw down’’ carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere. 

As I stated in my written testimony, there are many conservation measures that 

could be put in place immediately to reduce our energy needs and that will help 

us lower the demand that needs to be filled by renewables. The United States Department of Energy has projected that we can generate 20% of our electricity demand from renewables by 2030. Offshore wind could provide 20% of this amount. 

This effort has started, as the United States added enough wind power in 2007 

alone to provide electricity to more than a million homes. 

As you can see clearly from my testimony and from my answers to these questions, Oceana is not opposed to harnessing energy from the oceans. We must do so 

based on sound science and a thorough assessment of the ecosystem, risks, and benefits. At this point, an objective assessment of the comparative risks and benefits 

of oil and wind clearly demonstrates that wind can better help us solve climate 

change with minimal impacts to marine resources. In shifting to clean, renewable 

energy, we are reducing our reliance on carbon dioxide emitting energy sources that 

put our oceans at risk from climate change and ocean acidification. 

5. Mr. Danson, in your testimony you mentioned the need for the development of a comprehensive conservation and energy plan for the Arctic. 

Could you elaborate on the unique characteristics of the Arctic that you 

believe would necessitate such a plan? And also, who do you think 

should be in charge of putting together such a plan? 

The Arctic is home to vibrant communities of indigenous peoples and provides 

vital habitat for some of the world’s most iconic wildlife species. The region is warming at approximately twice the rate of the rest of the planet, and the resulting 

changes—particularly the loss of sea ice—have created the potential for rapid industrialization. Science-based, precautionary management should be implemented 

through an interagency task force charged with developing an Arctic conservation 

and energy plan. 

Tens of thousands of people inhabit the Arctic region of the United States, which 

is entirely in Alaska. The majority of these residents consider themselves to be Alaska Natives and, though organized into towns and villages like elsewhere in the 

country, inhabitants of the far north lead a much different life. For many Arctic 

residents, culture is dependent on subsistence harvesting, sharing of food, travel on 

snow and ice, traditional knowledge, and adaptation to Arctic conditions. 

In addition to the vibrant communities that have adapted to the top of the world, 

the Arctic also supports some of the last remaining relatively pristine terrestrial 

and marine ecosystems. The Arctic Ocean provides important habitat for 23 species 

of marine mammals, including polar bears; bowhead, beluga, and gray whales; narwhal; walruses; and bearded, ringed, and ribbon seals; 100 species of fish including 

Arctic cod, capelin, and herring; and more than 50 species of seabirds, including 

spectacled Eiders, Arctic terns, and Ivory Gulls. 

In addition, the Arctic plays an important role in regulating our climate. The long 

periods of little to no sunlight and high reflectivity of snow and ice during periods 

of sunlight result in a net loss of heat. These factors help drive the circulation of 

the Earth’s atmosphere and ocean currents which transport heat from the tropics 

to the poles where it is released from the planet. Thus, the health of the Arctic is 

important to the Earth’s atmospheric and oceanic circulation patterns, which affects 

climate, weather, and natural systems worldwide. 

142 

The changes to the Arctic are occurring in an area that is not well understood 

by scientists. According to the U.S. Arctic Research Commission Report on Goals 

and Objectives for Arctic Research, the Arctic is ‘‘the least studied and most poorly 

understood area on Earth,’’ and, in particular, the Arctic Ocean is the least understood of all the world’s oceans. Scattered efforts are underway to gather data on Arctic Ocean ecosystems, but no comprehensive, reliable database of this and other relevant information exists to inform federal policies and agency actions with regard 

to the American Arctic. 

Further, the reduction in Arctic sea ice over the last few years also is opening 

the Arctic Ocean to the possibility of unprecedented industrialization. The expansion 

of high-risk activities such as large-scale commercial fishing, shipping, and oil and 

gas exploration and development would add additional pressures to the alreadystressed communities, animals, and ecosystems of the far north. Of particular concern is the 70 million acres opened for drilling in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas 

in the current 5-year OCS leasing plan (2007-2012). Leasing has occurred, and there 

is ongoing seismic exploration in many of these areas. 

These leasing decisions were made despite an acknowledged, substantial risk of 

a major oil spill and the direct recognition that there is no proven technology to 

clean up such a spill in icy Arctic conditions. The same environmental conditions 

that contribute to oil spill risks in the Arctic—lack of natural light, extreme cold, 

moving ice floes, high winds and low visibility—can make spill response operations 

extremely difficult or totally ineffective. 

Current drilling activities must stop until a comprehensive, science-based, precautionary approach to any industrial activity is developed. The federal government 

must design a comprehensive Arctic conservation and energy plan based on a full 

scientific assessment of the health, biodiversity, and functioning of Arctic ecosystems to guide decisions about whether, when, where, and how industrial activities are permitted. Creating a comprehensive plan would begin with a gap analysis 

and research plan developed by independent scientists, such as the National Research Council. Further, the plan could be created in conjunction with broader climate and energy plans for America. 

An interagency task force comprised of federal agencies regulating activities in 

Arctic and those with expertise in the region should oversee the creation and implementation of an Arctic conservation and energy plan and could be headed by a new 

position in CEQ or by the NOAA Administrator. In addition to federal agencies, creation of an Arctic conservation and energy plan will require participation from local 

governments, Native tribes, and other local entities. 

[The response to questions submitted for the record by W.F. 

‘‘Zeke’’ Grader follows:] 

PACIFIC COAST FEDERATION 

OF FISHERMEN’S ASSOCIATIONS 

14 March 2009 

The Honorable Nick J. Rahall II 

Chairman 

House Natural Resources Committee 

Washington, DC 20515 

RE: Response to Questions for Testimony Presented 11 February 2009—‘‘Offshore 

Drilling: Environmental and Commercial Perspectives?’’ 

Dear Chairman Rahall: 

The following are my responses to written questions sent me in your 2 March 

2009 letter: 

1. The precautionary zones our members in the Santa Barbara Channel are subject to are 1,000 feet in diameter around each platform. Those zones were imposed 

following the attacks of 11 September 2001. They appear to be fairly well enforced 

for commercial fishing craft, but perhaps less so for smaller recreational fishing vessels. Prior to 9/11 there were precautionary zones placed around rigs in the North 

Sea and at times off Santa Barbara. These are the ones I am aware of and that 

were reported to me. For trawlers operating around rigs in deeper waters such as 

the Santa Barbara Channel and the North Sea there have been de facto closed areas 

to fishing around the rigs due to cables and anchor extending out from the platforms that can snag or destroy fishing gear. 

143 

2. Pipelines create a problem for fishing gear, including trawls, troll lines and 

traps, where the pipelines are not covered over and create snags - for gear either 

being towed through the water near the bottom or gear is being dropped to the bottom (e.g., traps). I have not had reported to me any instance where fishing gear encountering a pipeline has caused a leak, but it is reasonable to expect that as pipelines age they will be more vulnerable to leaks, particularly if hit by a hard, heavy 

piece of fishing gear such as the weighted metal door used to keep a trawl net open. 

Conflicts between fishing gear and pipelines can be kept to a minimum as long as 

the pipelines are adequately buried or, if not buried, as long as they have smooth 

surfaces and no protrusions that may snag fishing gear. 

3. Yes, there are three reasons why we do not believe offshore oil platforms should 

be converted to offshore aquaculture facilities. 

First, there are the lease agreements requiring platforms to be removed at the 

end of their useful life in oil and gas production. This was the legal condition on 

the leases and from a fishing industry perspective we expect them to be removed, 

the seabed cleaned-up and the area returned as it was so it may again be used, 

among other things, as fishing grounds. As far as we’re concerned the oil industry 

has a legal obligation to remove those platforms and we expect nothing less. 

Second, offshore aquaculture is highly problematic (excepting perhaps certain 

types of mollusks) from the standpoint of feed (i.e., demand on wild fish for feed, 

conversion ratios of feed to edible protein), pollution, spread of disease/parasites, 

and escapes. The thrust for aquaculture development at this time should focus on 

completely-contained, land-based facilities utilizing non-carnivorous species as 

stocks for such operations. 

Third, the water quality around oil and gas platforms may not be suitable for 

raising edible fish/shellfish products, where there are increased hydrocarbon levels 

in the water column or seafloor sediment around a platform or increased levels of 

heavy metal toxicity. The whole point of eating seafood is that it is supposed to be 

healthy—good for you, not kill you. 

4. Yes, we know there will be spatial conflicts with other types of offshore development, including renewable energy generation, such as wind and wave. We are generally supportive of renewable energy development (e.g., as replacement power to 

help facilitate removal of salmon-killing hydro electric dams), particularly since it 

is non-carbon based and does not contribute to green house gas emissions which, 

in turn, make the oceans more acidic. Currently we are having to deal with a number of wave energy proposals along the west coast—mostly from San Francisco north 

to the Canadian Border—that would either displace fleets from traditional fishing 

grounds and/or create navigation hazards. We have called for a better mechanism 

than the current conflicting authorities between FERC and the Minerals Management Service for siting offshore energy development to minimize conflicts with fishing and other maritime activities. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify. If there are any further questions, 

please do not hesitate to contact me. 

Sincerely, 

W.F. ‘‘Zeke’’ Grader, Jr. 

Executive Director 

[The response to questions submitted for the record by Carolyn 

McCormick follows:] 

March 10, 2009 

The Honorable Nick J. Rahall, II, Chairman 

Committee on Natural Resources 

1324 Longworth House Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Dear Chairman Rahall and U.S. Congressional Members, Committee on Natural 

Resources: 

Once again, I would like to personally thank each of you for the opportunity and 

your time to discuss our nation’s future energy needs and pleased the Committee 

on Natural Resources has recognized that tourism based economies are part of the 

discourse and will be part of finding solutions to our energy needs. 

I have addressed your three (3) questions as succinctly as possible and would welcome the opportunity to elaborate if needed. 

144 

1. ‘‘I’ve heard the term, sustainable tourism used in the past and wonder 

if you could elaborate on what exactly this means?’’ 

The classic definition of sustainable tourism is: ‘‘...sustainable tourism is achieving quality growth in a manner that does not deplete the natural and built environment and preserves the culture, history, and heritage of the local community.’’ 

(Managing Sustainable Tourism: A Legacy for the Future by David L. Edgell, Sr., 

PhD, page 4). Further: ‘‘Managing sustainable tourism...depends on forward-looking 

policies and sound management philosophies, including a harmonious relationship 

between local communities, the private sector, and governments in developmental 

practices that protect natural, built, and cultural environments in a way compatible 

with economic growth’’ (Ibid, page 4). 

‘‘It means handling tourism in such a way that the place is not degraded, so that 

future generations can also enjoy it—historically, culturally, environmentally, and 

visually.’’ Jonathan B. Tourtellot, Director, Center for Sustainable Destinations, National Geographic Society; and Geotourism Editor, National Geographic Traveler 

2. ‘‘And you could also give concrete examples of things being done in your 

community to address these issues.’’ 

• GOSPL—Green Open Space Preservation of Land grant program created in 

2000 by the Dare County Tourism Board, a public Authority. The Dare County 

Tourism Board recognizes the natural resources that have attracted citizens 

and visitors to Dare County and the physical beauty of our coastal environment 

is Dare County’s greatest asset. The GOSPL program is available to all Governmental Municipalities in Dare County as well as the County of Dare. 

Written proposals are required and must demonstrate applying organizations’ 

ability to meet the GOSPL criteria., and N.C.G.S. 121-34 et seq., the Uniform Conservation and Historic Preservation Agreements Act (hereinafter ‘‘the Act’’) provides 

that public bodies of the State, including subdivisions thereof such as the Dare 

County Tourism Board may enter into preservation and conservation agreements; 

and whereas, N.C. House Bill 225, Section 7, provides that the Dare County Tourism Board may expend funds on services or programs subject to certain limitations; 

and whereas, governmental partnerships to preserve and protect land is in the best 

interest of the entire community directly benefiting citizens and visitors for generations to come. Adopted the 21st Day of September 2000. 

The Dare County Tourism Board is proud to have recently purchased nineteen 

(19) acres of land in critical mass areas that have been placed with conservation 

deeds. 

• The (Short Term) Restricted Fund Grant is designed to help Dare County based 

Municipalities and nonprofit organizations with projects such as highway beautification, beach and sound accesses, or hike/bike walk trails. Grants are disbursed on a 50/50-match basis. 

Since 1994 the Dare County Tourism Board, doing business as the Outer Banks 

Visitors Bureau, funded fifty (50) public and sound beach accesses and multi-use 

paths. These projects were funded in order to increase non-motorized mobility and 

encouraging park and walk, bike ride run, skate and free and open access to America’s beaches. 

In addition to the above adaptation and mitigation concrete projects that in fact 

minimize carbon emissions, the State of North Carolina is currently working on an 

adjustment to coastal development due to the ever changing nature of these barrier 

islands and sea level rise. 

• The State of North Carolina Coastal Resource Commission (CRC) has set forth 

new set back rules for building along the coast and although these rules have 

not been approved by the NC legislature there are ardent steps being taken to 

protect property, the economy and the environment. 

Current rules: 

Residential buildings: 30 times erosion rate setback or if greater than 5000 sq ft 

then 60 times erosion rate or minimum of 120ft. 

Commercial structures: 60 times erosion rate. 

Buildings less than 5000 sq ft: 30 times erosion rate is rate less than 3.5 ft/yr 

but if greater than 3.5ft/yr then 30 times rate plus 105 ft. 

Proposed rules adopted by CRC and in public hearing stage: 

Building size: less than 5000 sq ft 60 feet or 30 times erosion rate whichever is 

larger. 

Greater than 5000 but less than 10,000 sq ft: 120 feet or 60 times erosion rate 

whichever is larger. 

145 

Greater than 10,000 but less than 20,000 sq ft: 130 feet or 65 times erosion rate 

whichever is larger. 

Greater than 20,000 but less than 40,000 sq ft: 140 feet or 70 times erosion rate 

whichever is larger. 

Greater than 40,000 but less than 60,000 sq ft: 150 feet or 75 times erosion rate 

whichever is larger. 

Greater than 60,000 but less than 80,000 sq ft: 160 feet or 80 times erosion rate 

whichever is larger. 

Greater than 80,000 but less than 100,000 sq ft: 170 feet or 85 times erosion rate 

whichever is larger. 

Greater than 100,000: 180 feet or 90 times erosion rate whichever is larger. 

Other projects that the County and several towns have spent millions of dollars, 

years and countless hours; concrete projects needed but have not been funded due 

to lack of federal funding and limited local funds are: 

• Beach re-nourishment. - Currently there is a 1% occupancy tax in place to build 

this fund and the project is on the Army Corps of Engineers list. 

• Public Transportation system. Task force met for four years and disbanded in 

late 2008 due to lack of funding. 

3. ‘‘And explain how that relates to this issue of energy development.’’ 

Energy that contributes to global warming and sea-level rise pose an obvious longterm threat to any barrier island destination, not to mention the still-undetermined 

risk from changes in storm patterns, as well as risk to portions of the marine food 

chain that are dependent on back-bay wetlands and supply the area’s seafood. Pollution risk is an obvious hazard. Visually, industrial-style activity close within eyeshot 

and land based infrastructure for refineries would have an obvious negative impact 

on the desirability of the locale for a vacation. 

Dare County and the Towns of Duck, Southern Shores, Kill Devil Hills, Kitty 

Hawk, Nags Head and Manteo, along with the State of North Carolina, are working 

together to revise wind generated energy opportunities along the coast and also in 

preliminary discussions on hydro technology. 

Energy development is critical to the mobility of humans and diversification and 

innovation should remain the driving force to find alternative ways to keep American’s working and traveling while understanding the perils barrier islands face as 

we dance with Mother Nature. 

As always, I remain, 

With best regards, 

Carolyn E. McCormick 

Enclosures (5) 

cc: Dare County Tourism Board 

CLIMATE CHANGE AND TOURISM: THE CASE FOR THE 

COASTLINE OF THE OUTER BANKS, NORTH CAROLINA 

David L. Edgell, Sr., PhD, Department of Hospitality and Management, East 

Carolina University 

Carolyn E. McCormick, Managing Director, Outer Banks Visitors Bureau, 

North Carolina 

Introduction 

The tourism industry generates trillions of dollars in income and provides memorable experiences to individuals and families worldwide. Tourism brings people outdoors and so is heavily dependent on changing climates and ecologies. Coastal areas 

are amongst the world’s most important tourism destinations and are especially vulnerable to climate change. This paper discusses planning, public perception, climate 

change and tourism on the Outer Banks of North Carolina. 

Tourism creates jobs, adds to income, spurs economic development, promotes economic diversification, introduces additional products, spawns new businesses, increases tax revenue, and contributes to economic integration. Global tourism, a U.S. 

$7.1 trillion industry, is a large fast growing industry that employs more than 232 

million people. The U.S. tourism industry is one of America’s major retail industries 

with $700 billion in total expenditures, employing 7.5 million people. In North Carolina tourism is a $15.4 billion industry with employment at 184,000, and North 

Carolina’s Outer Banks accounts for expenditures of $705 million and 15,000 jobs. 

146 

The tourism industry has identified climate change as key to future strategic 

planning. United Nations World Tourism Organization’s Secretary General, 

Francesco Frangialli, addressing climate change said: ‘‘We (tourism industry) are 

part of the problem (global warming) and we will be part of the solution’’. Social 

scientists recognize the need to create innovative responses to projected impacts of 

climate change on tourism. Climate change presents a special challenge to the Atlantic Ocean coastline of the Outer Banks of North Carolina. Stakeholders along 

this dynamic chain of barrier islands are planning strategies now to mitigate future 

negative climate change impact. The beautiful environmental coastline is a major 

reason why five million visitors from more than 50 countries visit the Outer Banks 

each year. 

Impact 

The tourism industry consists of an integrated set of private businesses, privatepublic partnerships, and public agencies. Tourism and travel are nearly synonymous 

and many of its key businesses are highly dependent on fossil fuels; which emit 

large amounts of greenhouse gases (GHGs). Forecasted growth in tourism suggests 

that these emissions are likely to increase. These interactions between climate 

change and tourism have to date not been examined on a large scale (Viner and 

Becken, 2003). 

Researchers from four North Carolina universities collaborated on a scientific 

study entitled ‘‘Measuring the Impacts of Climate Change on North Carolina Coastal Resources.’’ The scientists considered the impacts of sea-level rise on coastal 

recreation and tourism. Their study, using 2004 data, measured the impact of climate change on ‘‘beach recreation and tourism’’ in four southern North Carolina 

counties (Carteret, Onslow-Pender, New Hanover, Brunswick; excluding the high 

density tourism counties of Dare and Currituck) and on marine recreational fishing 

(along the entire North Carolina coastline). This study estimated, in 2004 dollars, 

that the value lost to local beach goers would be $93 million a year by 2030 and 

$223 million a year by 2080 and for local anglers, $15 million a year by 2030 and 

$17 million a year by 2080 (Bin et al, 2007). 

In a February, 2007, interview, Dr. Stanley Riggs, a geology professor at East 

Carolina University, stated that ‘‘The Outer Banks is one of the most important 

coastal systems in the world, there is no other place like this one’’ (Bragunier 2007). 

Dr. Riggs pointed out that climate change along the coast has been taking place for 

thousands of years but it is only recently that we have good geologic records of such 

changes. He presented diagrams showing substantial loss of shoreline from the 

years 1962-2005 on the Outer Banks. He concluded his presentation with the following remarks: ‘‘There is a lot of human modification to the Outer Banks without 

understanding the dynamics of the system...Conflict of natural dynamics and human 

dynamics and they are on a collision course. We have to start to understand the 

natural dynamics and work with them, work in partnership with nature.’’ 

The research reviewed and developed for this paper suggests that much of the 

tourism industry does not understand the present and future impact of climate 

change on tourism. ‘‘Tourism administrators must undertake a paradigm shift away 

from overuse of natural resources toward environmental stewardship...Additionally, 

as global warming comes to the forefront in environmental concerns, tourism managers will need to stay attuned to forecast changes...Individual regions need to 

address their potential climate changes and the effects on international inbound 

travel.’’ (Edgell, et al, 2008, p. 351). 

The Changing Coastline 

The authors of this study (Edgell and McCormick) made an aerial reconnaissance 

to review and better understand the dynamics of coastal changes. We noted damages to tourism related facilities that had taken place in the recent past due to 

beach erosion, storms, and hurricanes. From this aerial view, there was no visual 

evidence of transformations resulting from climate change. 

The authors met with Research Hydraulic Engineer Bill Birkemeier at the Field 

Research Facility, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer Research and Development Center for Dare County’s Outer Banks. This facility, considered the finest such 

center in the U.S., measures the level of the coastal waters and climate change. According to Mr. Birkemeier, ‘‘over the past twenty years there has been a slight rise 

in both sea temperatures and sea levels due to climate change. Because the Outer 

Banks are dynamic and ever changing, and since sea-level rise is at present small 

and gradual, relative to twice-daily tidal variation and surges caused by frequent 

storms, it is difficult to determine what changes on the coastline are due directly 

to sea-level rise. A more immediate concern would be whether climate change may 

147 

increase the number or severity of storms on the coast as storms have a major impact on coastlines’’. 

Dr. Nancy White, Director, University of North Carolina Coastal Studies Institute 

has been studying water quality and coastal sustainability. Tourism, which is waterdependent and an important coastal industry, is of concern to the Institute. Dr. 

White suggests that ‘‘currently there is not enough research or evidence to suggest 

that climate change is impacting tourism in a negative way in the Outer Banks’’. 

In an interview with Dr. Patrick Long, Director, North Carolina Center for Sustainable Tourism, and a researcher on climate change and tourism, he stated that ‘‘We 

need to further our knowledge about climate trends and projections, the impacts of 

variability and seasonality on federal, state, local, and private sector tourism communities, and the development of strategies to adapt to and mitigate effects of climate change’’. 

While it is not clear whether Outer Banks tourism is being impacted by climate 

change, the issue has generated serious discussion and some concern amongst private business interests, government agencies and the public. Carolyn McCormick, 

in an article in The Island Breeze, and Outer Banks newspapers, said: ‘‘Before the 

concerns about climate change and the effort by some to make us a symbol for climate change became part of the public debate, Outer Banks officials, including 

those of us at the Visitor’s Bureau and the members of the Tourism Board, worked 

with state and federal officials and environmental groups on climate change discussions and helped to shape policy for coastal dwellers and visitors’’. A colleague working with Ms McCormick on related issues, Dr. Stephen A. Smith stated ‘‘I believe 

that the tourism industry can become a leading voice to help educate visitors about 

the vulnerabilities of the Outer Banks and other important natural areas’’. 

Conclusion 

Few industries are more dependent on climate change than tourism. Paradoxically, climate change may not be totally negative to beach tourism; certain coastlines may be able to extend their seasons due to higher water and air temperatures. 

Regardless, we must better understand the interactions of climate change and tourism and respond with responsible plans and policies. 

The Outer Banks is particularly vulnerable to storms, beach erosion near homes, 

and loss of fish habitat (due to erosion and the increasingly close link between the 

land and near shore waters causing decreased water quality). These changes affect 

the quality of the environment, the experience of tourists, and, finally, the number 

of visitors. It is clear that a changing climate and rising water levels could have 

a tremendous impact on tourism in the Outer Banks. Researchers, businesses, and 

government agencies in the Outer Banks are cooperating and developing ideas to 

respond to climate change and storm severity. Tourism stakeholders need to seek 

solutions now in order to cope with the impact of climate change on tourism in the 

future. 

Recommendations 

With respect to climate change and tourism along the Outer Banks coastline., the 

tourism industry (business and government) should: 

1. Work with individuals and institutions to improve data collection and communication of climate trends /projections to the community. 

2. Help to develop, monitor and test climate change models and assess the effect 

of individual storms over a substantial time period. 

3. Sponsor open forums of discussion on climate change and tourism to seek longterm sustainable solutions. 

4. Develop strategies to lessen the impact of tourism and travel on greenhouse 

gas emissions. 

5. Embrace sustainable programs that encourage efficient usages of energy and 

land resources in tourist destinations like the Green Open Spaces for People 

and Life program in Dare County. 

6. Investigate solutions to the impact of climate change and storm severity with 

respect to long-term erosion of the coastal beaches. 

7. Improve emergency planning and crisis management with regards to the evacuation of coastal areas. 

References 

Bin, O., C. Dumas, B. Poulter, and J. Whitehead (2007). ‘‘Measuring the Impacts 

of Climate Change on North Carolina Coastal Resources.’’ National Commission 

on Energy Policy. March 2007. Washington, DC. 

Birkemeier, B. (2008). Personal Interview. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer 

Research & Development Center. January 18, 2008. Duck, NC. 

148 

Bragunier, V. (2007). ‘‘Geologist: Climate Change Will Impact Banks.’’ Sentinel, February 27, 2007. Nags Head, NC. 

Edgell, Sr., D.L., M.D. Allen, G. Smith, and J. R. Swanson (2008). Tourism Policy 

and Planning: Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow. London: Elsevier. 

Frangialli, F. (2007). Keynote address on ‘‘Tourism Can Help in Global Action on 

Climate Change and Poverty’’, Bali, Indonesia, December 13, 2007. 

Long, P. (2008). Personal Interview. North Carolina Center for Sustainable Tourism. 

January 23, 2008. Greenville, NC. 

McCormick, C. (2007). ‘‘Climate and the Coast’’, The Island Breeze, September 2007. 

Outer Banks, NC. 

Smith, S. (2008). Interview by telephone and email. Executive Director, Southern 

Alliance for Clean Energy. February 2, 2008. 

Viner, D. and S. Becken (2003). ‘‘Climate Change Mitigation Policies and the Global 

Tourism Industry.’’ Climate Change Management, 12 (December). 

White, N. (2008). Personal Interview. University of North Carolina Coastal Studies 

Institute. January 20, 2008. Manteo, NC. 

David L. Edgell, Sr., PhD 

Department of Hospitality Management 

East Carolina University 

RW-325 Rivers Building 

Greenville, NC 27858-4353 

Ph 252-328-4962 

Fax 252-328-4963 

Email Address: edgelld@ecu.edu 

Carolyn E. McCormick 

Managing Director 

Dare County Tourism Board 

Outer Banks Visitors Bureau 

One Visitors Center Circle 

Manteo, NC 27954 

Ph: 252-473-2138 

Fax: 252-473-5777 

Æ