Transcript Presentation

Offshore Seismic and the
Regulatory Tidal Wave
Shawn L. Rice
Board of Directors, IAGC
NOIA Annual Meeting
April 20, 2016
[email protected]
5 Year Lease Plan
March 15th, 5-Year Plan Released (2017 – 2022)
–
–
–
–
Excludes Leasing Offshore Atlantic
Limited Leasing Offshore Alaska (3 Potential Sales)
Western/Central Gulf of Mexico (10 Potential Sales)
BOEM is Holding Public Hearings & Accepting Comments
Geophysical Industry Pursuing Atlantic Permits
– 4 Member Companies have Permits Pending
– 2 Years and Waiting
• Statue Requires a 45 Day Timeline Once Applications are Received
2
Atlantic IHAs
NOIA Joined IAGC & API in Sending a Letter and
Meeting with NOAA/BOEM
– Concerns Over Delays and Potential Precedent for GOM
– Use of Non-publically Available Data
NMFS Continues Delays
–
–
–
–
Duke University Density Models
Exclusion Zones
Seasonal Restrictions
Ongoing Requests from NMFS to Applicants
3
Examples of Excluded Areas
Expanding Ideas of “Critical
Habitat”
– To include current and
“potential” habitat
– To anticipate climate change
Essential Fish Habitats
– Originally designed as a
protection against fishing
Marine Sanctuaries
– Protections expanded to include
sound
– Commercial fish species
– Increased focus on marine
invertebrates
4
Regulatory Trends
The Challenges:
• Increasing the number of species of concern
• Expanding protected areas on land and sea
• Increasing focus on other effects; masking, stress
• Additional mitigation requirements (e.g. PAM, certification)
• Possibly restriction on “duplicative surveys”
• Sound source verification measurements
• Caps on anthropogenic sound
More
Burdensome
Compliance
The Advancements:
• Funding of national data and research needs
• Alternative sound source technologies (e.g. marine vibrators, passive
seismic)
• Quieting technologies (e.g. bubble curtains)
5
Additional On-board Mitigations
• PSO and PAM mitigation are not “100% effective”.
– Industry is actively involved in efforts to improve PSO and PAM
training, technology standards and operator certification.
• The industry is also sponsoring research to explore
additional mitigation tools like infrared cameras, active
sonar, unmanned vehicles
– These technologies, if found to have added benefit, also
represent added cost and added demands on vessel ops.
• Good News: due to industry investment, PAM monitoring
has increased regulator comfort with night operations.
6
Caps on Manmade Sound
• As the public and regulators become more aware of the expanding
production of sound from human marine activities, emphasis is
shifting from managing single types of sound (sonar, seismic,
shipping)
• Concepts of acoustic ecology and sound zoning from urban and
recreational land areas are being transferred to thinking about
marine noise management, with or without legal basis.
» EU “Good Environmental Status” guidelines from the
marine environment include noise measurements and
metrics (Descriptor 11)
» NOAA NMFS maintains a Cetaceans and Sound website
where marine acoustic data are archived and mapped.
There are no laws for managing sound as a totality, but
regulators are increasingly invoking cumulative effects
arguments. http://cetsound.noaa.gov/sound_data
7
Research and Data Funding
Attempts to regulate seismic have revealed shortfalls in the
regulator’s marine environmental data
– E.g., knowledge of abundance and distribution of non-commercial species is
typically insufficient to assess potential risk from allowing activities
The actual effects of noise (versus speculated effects) remain
uncertain
– Regulators may attempt to fill those gaps by encouraging directed research by
industry applicants: recent examples include Brazil and US Gulf of Mexico.
Regulators may also seek to have the E&P industry fund their
general needs
– E.g., stranding programs, acoustic data libraries, and monitoring data services.
Challenges
– The desire to obtain permits by making concessions,
– Other relevant stakeholders (fisheries, shipping, renewable energy) may
not be assessed equitably with E&P industry,
– Control of quality & independence of the work.
8
Good News: Some Dying Myths
•
•
Marine seismic remains a poorly understood technology
and commercial enterprise.
“Duplicative Surveys”
–
•
Vessel Spacing
–
–
•
While regulators may try to limit the number of overlapping surveys
(e.g. multiple 2D surveys) there is increasing understanding that
different companies provide different proprietary work products that
are not “duplicative”.
Initially applied in the Chukchi Sea as a “walrus corridor”,
BUT--Spreading multiple sources may actually increase durations of
exposure, more important than additive loudness.
Least Practicable Source Level
–
Operators who are prepared to defend their array designs are more
likely to prevail with regulators seeking a “quieter” source.
INDUSTRY MUST BE PREPARED TO PUSH BACK!
10
Marine Compliance
Common Mitigation & Monitoring:
•
•
•
•
•
Pre-survey planning
Geographic and seasonal restrictions
Visual observations
Soft-start or ramp-up
Shut down or delay of activation of
sources for animals within exclusion zone
• Requirements or restrictions during
nighttime / low visibility
11
Gulf of Mexico Settlement
Original Settlement (June 2013 – Dec 2015)
– Plaintiffs Challenged Lack of Regulations in GOM
February 10th, Settlement Agreement Extended through
September 21st 2017 with Added Provisions:
– 5km Buffer Zone of Areas of Concern
– Jan 1 through Apr 30 Seasonal Restriction
– Incentivizes the use of “Noise Reduction Technology”
– Extension of Permit Terms when Affected by
Seasonal Restriction
12
GOM Regulation Timeline
• NEPA - Environmental Impact Statement
– Draft Provided for Comment in Summer 2016 (est)
• MMPA - Incidental Take Regulation
– BOEM will Submit to NMFS in May 2016 (est)
• ESA - Consultation/Biological Opinion
– IAGC Requesting Applicant Status to Review Draft
Geophysical Industry Working to Ensure Nonscientific Settlement
Provisions & Atlantic Delays are not Applied in GOM Regulation
Note: Public comment and final EIS/ITR through record of decision due by
September 2017 (based on settlement agreement)
13
Gulf of Mexico Monitoring
• Incidental Take Regulation (Monitoring &
Mitigation)
– IAGC is Working with BOEM to Ensure Monitoring
Requirements are Limited to Specific Permitted
Activities
– Statute Only Allows the Agency to Require Specified
Activities be Mitigated
– IAGC is Seeking Flexibility for Members so Advances
in Technology can be Implemented for Mitigation
14
NMFS Acoustic Guidance
– Current guidance (created in 1995) is out of date and has been for
over a decade
– NMFS has produced and failed to adopt THREE prior revisions
• 2007, 2013 and July 2015
• All prior drafts were externally peer reviewed and open for public review for 30
days or longer.
– Significant Revisions from Prior Drafts were issued mid-March 2016
• No external peer review
• 14 Day Comment Period – Inadequate
– Latest Revisions Pose Major Problems for G&G
• Produces a Major Increase in the size of Exclusion Zones over July 2015 draft
(A comparable increase in the Number of Level A Takes)
– IAGC/NOIA/API/AOGA Has Submitted Comments Opposing the
Brevity of the Comment Period and the Reliance on Non-Peer
Reviewed Information
– IAGC is Engaging Congress to Oppose the Revisions as Improperly
Prepared and Inadequately Reviewed
15
No evidence of biological
consequences from behavioral
response to seismic surveys!
 US Gulf of Mexico
 ~50 years of E&P activities
 sperm whale population stable
 West Coast Australia
 ~35 years of E&P activities
 humpback whale population increasing
 Chukchi Sea and Beaufort Sea
 30 years of E&P activities
 bowhead whale population increasing
16
In Summary
Continued Attention on Atlantic:
• Unacceptable Delays Cannot be Duplicated in GOM
• NMFS Must Make Permitting Decisions
• IAGC Urges Continued Support from NOIA in Applying
Pressure for G&G Permit Decisions
Gulf of Mexico Regulatory Focus:
•
•
•
•
Draft EIS, ITR, Monitoring Plan, and ESA Consultation
Manage Regulatory Impacts on G&G Activities
Engage Congress Throughout the Process
Work with Stakeholder Industries to Support Offshore
17
18