http://thechronicleherald.ca/opinion/1568266-opinion-offshore-drilling-too-risky
[Disclosure: I have met John Davis.]
OPINION: Offshore drilling too risky
JOHN DAVIS
Published May 5, 2018 - 5:00am
Last Updated May 5, 2018 - 5:10am
On April 21, BP was granted permission by the Canada Nova Scotia
Offshore Petroleum Board (CNSOPB) to begin drilling an exploration well
on the edge of the Scotian Shelf.
Our minister of environment and climate change and our “experts” at the
CNSOPB aren’t worried. Should you be? You bet you should.
BP’s lease sites take in the southeastern corner of the “Haddock Box”
which is an important haddock spawning and nursery ground that is closed
to fishing. The sites are about 50 km from our exceedingly beautiful and
unique Sable Island National Park. The sites are also within a few
kilometres of the Gully Marine Protected Area, which is home to rare
deep-water corals and the endangered northern bottlenose whales.
The Labrador current and the Nova Scotia current flow down the Scotian
Shelf and the Scotian Slope to the southwest. These currents, combined
with easterly prevailing winds at the lease sites, place the entire
Scotian Shelf and all of our major fishing banks and lobster spawning
grounds in jeopardy from any major spill.
The fact is BP is not a good neighbour. John Hofmeister, industry
consultant and past president of Shell Oil has stated: “Without
question, BP’s safety record in North America is viewed as at the
bottom. It’s an embarrassment to the industry.”
In 2010, BP pleaded guilty to 14 counts of criminal negligence related
to the actions that caused the Deepwater Horizon disaster in the Gulf of
Mexico. The magistrate found BP liable for causing the blowout and
stated that BP’s corporate decisions were “primarily driven by a desire
to save time and money” and that these decisions were “dangerous” and
“motivated by profit.”
From 1999 to 2010, as drilling moved to deeper waters, the number of
blowouts increased threefold. In the face of this reality, BP attested
that they were fully prepared to meet all regulations requiring that
they be capable of controlling a blowout and any subsequent release of
oil as quickly and thoroughly as possible and that they had the capacity
to conduct all of their response operations in a way that ensured the
safety and protection of personnel, equipment, natural resources and the
environment.
BP certified that they could effectively manage a blowout approximately
three times the average daily output of the actual 2010 oil spill.
The unfortunate reality is that BP was not up to the task. Expert
findings during the court case contradicted all BP’s initial assertions.
Oil industry veteran Robert Bea, risk assessment expert and chair of the
“Deepwater Horizon Study Group” stated BP simply failed to plan or
prepare for a deep-water blowout or oil spill.
The National Oil Spill Commission, established by then U.S. President
Barack Obama, also found BP had no plan in place. BP attempted to stop
the blowout using methods meant for shallow-water wells, and the failure
of these approaches was predictable.
It is clear that BP misled regulators about their capabilities. Eight
years later, the Gulf of Mexico is still paying the price.
It is important to note that BP did not have a capping stack near the
Deepwater Horizon in case of a blowout. A capping stack is a tool that
can temporarily stop the oil flow from a blowout while a relief well is
drilled. Former BP CEO Tony Hayward stated under oath that BP “certainly
didn’t have all the tools that were necessary to shut in a well.”
Further, he stated, “(w)e didn’t have a capping stack that would go
instantly into place. We didn’t have some of the things that you would
ideally want.”
It is painfully important to note that due to inadequate regulation, and
the assessment that it is simply “too expensive,” BP does not have a
capping stack immediately available again here on the Scotian Shelf. The
nearest capping stack is in Norway and our regulators feel this is just
fine.
Eight years later, in the face of protests by the seafood industry and
environmentalists, BP still does not have, “all the tools that were
necessary to shut in a well.”
So just what does BP plan to do in the event of a major offshore oil
spill? Six strategies are listed in their spill impact mitigation
assessment:
• Natural attenuation (no intervention)
• Shoreline protection and recovery
• On-water mechanical recovery
• In-situ burning
• Aerial surface dispersant application (ASD)
• Surface dispersant application in combination with subsea dispersants
injection (SSDI)
Let’s consider the implications for the Scotian Shelf:
“Natural attenuation” refers to simply stopping the flow and leaving the
spilled oil. This doesn’t sound like a great concept.
“Shoreline protection and recovery” requires the use of containment
booms. Sea states and tides in the open ocean around Sable Island will
render booms useless. It is heartbreaking to consider rakes and shovels
removing oil from the pristine sands of Sable Island. It is possible
that spilled oil could also reach the Nova Scotian shore.
“On-water mechanical recovery” is not possible on the Scotian Shelf and
slope due to the primitive skimming technology currently used by the oil
industry, which requires booms to contain the spilled oil. A report
published by The American Petroleum Institute, the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, the U.S. Coast Guard, and the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency states that “boom effectiveness drops
significantly because of entrainment and/or splash-over as short period
waves develop beyond 2 to 3 feet (0.6 to 0.9 metres) in height.
Containment and recovery decrease rapidly as slick thicknesses drop
below a thousandth of an inch.”
A separate report from the United States Coast Guard, marine safety and
environmental division, states that, “Oil will be lost under a boom when
the current exceeds about .75 knots. This value is independent of boom
skirt depth.”
Waves under 0.9 metres and tides and currents under 0.75 knots are
almost non-existent at the BP lease sites. No effective mechanical
recovery will be possible.
“In-situ burning” requires that spilled oil be first contained by booms.
As stated, this is not possible at the BP lease sites.
Unsurprisingly, the only items left in BP’s response list are aerial
surface dispersant application and subsea dispersant injection. This is
the big science experiment BP inflicted on the Gulf of Mexico in 2010.
At that time, Hofmeister stated, “I think we are relying on old
technologies for the control of surface oil. I think we have to change
our mindset. We have to change our mindset, put a new paradigm in place
and instead of dispersing and burning and booming, what about collecting
that oil, setting up barges with high-volume pumps that get the oil off
the sea to start with?”
Eight years ago, it was recognized that the industry needed to stop
pretending that the use of dispersants is equivalent to cleaning up an
oil spill. BP and the rest of the industry, however, chose instead to
spend millions on research and lobbying efforts to convince regulators
that spraying dispersants is acceptable rather than investing in
technology to actually clean up the spilled oil.
It is clear their efforts have succeeded. This is the very dangerous
regulatory environment to which we are now being subjugated.
It is important to note that NOAA and 16 other U.S. government agencies
list dispersants as a “contaminant.” They do so for good reasons.
Dispersant-based chemicals persist in the environment. Additionally,
dispersants act as a vector, a delivery system, for the highly toxic
polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in the oil, allowing these toxins to
have much greater negative impact.
Terry Snell, chair of the school of biology at Georgia Tech, has stated
unequivocally that, “When commercial fisheries are at risk from
hydrocarbon pollution, the use of dispersants is not an advantage.
Dispersant use would, in fact, be a disadvantage in trying to protect
commercial fish stocks or shellfish species from the toxic impacts of
hydrocarbon pollution.”
These facts are well established in the greater scientific community but
have apparently escaped the attention of our regulators.
BP is now approved to drill in waters much more treacherous than the
Gulf of Mexico at depths approaching twice the depth at their Deepwater
Horizon site. Spraying dispersants onto spilled oil on the fishing banks
of the Scotian Shelf is unacceptable. This means they effectively have
no cleanup plan.
The Nova Scotia seafood industry has grave concerns. We contacted risk
assessment expert Robert Bea. In a preliminary assessment of BP’s
proposed exploratory drilling, he states, “The results clearly
demonstrate the risks of an uncontrolled blowout are not as low as
reasonably practicable (ALARP). Given international guidelines for
determination of ‘tolerable risks,’ the risks of an uncontrolled blowout
are not acceptable.” He further states, “these results do not
substantiate the statement issued by your environment minister that the
proposed drilling ‘is not likely to cause significant adverse
environmental effects.’ ”
The Scotian Shelf and Georges Bank comprise the richest multi-species
fishery in North America. The Nova Scotia seafood industry in 2016 had
an export value of just under $2 billion. The fishery directly and
indirectly employs over 25,000 Nova Scotians. The landed value of
lobster in 2016 was $600 million. Using a conservative economic
multiplier, lobster alone generates $3 billion in annual economic activity.
No public hearings were held during the BP assessment process. Nova
Scotian stakeholders and impacted communities need real participation in
environmental-impact decision-making to ensure regulatory oversight
actually reflects the value of the renewable resources being put at risk.
Nova Scotians now require a full public inquiry similar to the fracking
inquiry. In the interim, a moratorium on offshore hydrocarbon resource
development should be put in place until all Nova Scotians can be
assured that a fair and rational regulatory system has been instituted.
John Davis is the director of the Clean Ocean Action Committee and a
resident of Shelburne County.
