You are here

Interior Department's Proposal To Open Offshore Areas To Drilling Could Impact National Park System

Share

Concern that units of the National Park System, such as Padre Island National Seashore, could be put at risk by increased oil and gas leasing offshore was voiced Thursday after Interior Secretary Zinke outlined a five-year leasing plan/Rebecca Latson

Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke's announcement Thursday that the Trump administration intends to open up some coastal areas to oil and gas leasing drew immediate condemnation from the National Parks and Conservation Association, which fears that could adversely impact national seashores and parks.

“Responsibly developing our energy resources on the Outer Continental Shelf in a safe and well-regulated way is important to our economy and energy security, and it provides billions of dollars to fund the conservation of our coastlines, public lands and parks,” Secretary Zinke said. “Today's announcement lays out the options that are on the table and starts a lengthy and robust public comment period. Just like with mining, not all areas are appropriate for offshore drilling, and we will take that into consideration in the coming weeks. The important thing is we strike the right balance to protect our coasts and people while still powering America and achieving American Energy Dominance."

But NPCA officials feared the five-year plan outlined by the secretary could greatly impact the park system, and pointed to past oil spills that did just that.

“National Parks Conservation Association opposes this sweeping proposal to open waters off our national parks for drilling. For the first time in decades, the waters, wildlife and local economies of coastal parks like Cape Hatteras National Seashore in North Carolina and Channel Islands National Park in California will be at risk to the dangers of drilling," said Nick Lund, the park advocacy group's senior manager for conservation programs.

“Communities surrounding our 88 coastal national parks, including Santa Barbara, Beach, Charleston and Baltimore, have formally opposed offshore drilling and exploration," he added. "National park lands and waters are imperiled from spills that inevitably happen when we industrialize our oceans with oil and gas production."

Mr. Lund noted that in 1969 Channel Islands was impacted by a spill of 200,000 gallons, while Alaskan national parks including Kenai Fjords and Katmai "still experience the Exxon Valdez spill impacts three decades later."

"And wildlife and recreation at Gulf Islands National Seashore continue to suffer the effects of the 2010 Deepwater Horizon spill, which cost coastal communities $22 billion in lost revenue," he added. "We cannot let the future of our coastal national parks include tar balls on Cape Cod’s beaches or oil-soaked birds at Point Reyes."

Also critical of Mr. Zinke's announcement was U.S. Rep. Raúl M. Grijalva, the top Democrat on the House Natural Resources Committee.

“President Trump wants you to know his oil rigs are bigger and work better than anybody else’s,” Rep. Grijalva said. “This will do nothing to put us on a sustainable energy path or decrease prices for Americans. Trump’s plan means more oil drilled here and then sold overseas. Oil companies get the profits while towns from Washington to California and Maine to Florida bear the enormous costs we know are coming.”

But Rep. Rob Bishop, the Utah Republican who chairs the committee, praised the move.

“The previous administration’s approach to offshore development started from the premise of considering ‘as little as possible.’ The Trump administration starts from the premise of considering ‘as much as possible.’ American energy dominance will only be achieved by taking the latter approach," said Mr. Bishop.

The Draft Proposed Program outlined by the Interior secretary includes "47 potential lease sales in 25 of the 26 planning areas – 19 sales off the coast of Alaska, 7 in the Pacific Region, 12 in the Gulf of Mexico, and 9 in the Atlantic Region. This is the largest number of lease sales ever proposed for the National OCS Program’s 5-year lease schedule."

“By proposing to open up nearly the entire (Outer Continental Shelf) for potential oil and gas exploration, the United States can advance the goal of moving from aspiring for energy independence to attaining energy dominance,” said Vincent DeVito, counselor for energy policy at Interior. “This decision could bring unprecedented access to America’s extensive offshore oil and gas resources and allows us to better compete with other oil-rich nations.”

Interior staff noted that "(I)nclusion of an area in the DPP is not a final indication that it will be included in the approved program or offered in a lease sale, because many decision points still remain. By proposing to open these areas for consideration, the Secretary ensures that he will receive public input and analysis on all of the available OCS to better inform future decisions on the National OCS Program. Prior to any individual lease sale in the future, BOEM will continue to incorporate new scientific information and stakeholder feedback in its reviews to further refine the geographic scope of the lease areas."

NPCA staff, fearing the worst, noted that the country's coastal areas are "home to 88 national parks, including icons like Acadia, Biscayne, and Channel Islands national parks, which protect unique coastal and marine environments. National seashores such as Cape Hatteras, Point Reyes, and Cape Cod serve as vacation destinations for beachgoers, whale watchers and birding enthusiasts. And historical sites including Fort Sumter National Monument, New Bedford Whaling National Historical Park and Cabrillo National Monument remind us of the important role our coastlines played in our shared American history."

The draft plan includes a 60-day public comment period, which NPCA considered too short. The group said it would join other organizations in requesting an extension, and would urge the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management to hold additional hearings in coastal communities to hear from the national park communities, fishing businesses, and others who would be most affected by offshore leasing and development.

“In addition to its proposal for offshore drilling," said Mr. Lund, "the administration has signaled its desire to weaken safety measures developed in the wake of the Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil spill. Such safeguards are crucial and commonsense measures to prevent future economic and environmental devastation.

“We must not forget past mistakes. We must make smarter decisions for our oceans and coastal national parks so that our children and grandchildren can visit and experience these places unspoiled."

Comments

Are the "real decisions being made by consumers," EC?

Our president would have us believe we should put "America first," and if that were the case, wouldn't we keep all that extra oil and gas in the country instead of shipping it offshore? Then we'd be paying $1.50 a gallon or less, not $2.55 or more, no? And because of all the surpluses of recent years, there'd be less need to drill more wells, no?

No doubt, there's truth to what you and Al both say regarding consumers. If gas costs too much, they'll drive less and exploration would retreat, and we need gas and fuel oil to heat homes.

Going back to my "happy medium" question of a couple days ago, should we as a society seek out as much oil and gas as technologically and economically possible and drain it before seeking alternatives, whether they are green energy or better public transportation, or something else that's less destructive and polluting?

That can be a tough question in the Intermountain West with its miles and miles of miles and miles, but it should be an easy one (in terms of public transportation, at least) along the Eastern Seaboard as well as areas of California. 

But now it seems everyone wants to be a Uber driver or customer, and that's adding to the congestion and fuelishness of the nation. It doesn't seem we can save ourselves from ourselves, whether that involves turning down the thermostat a few degrees, taking public transportation, or chasing that executive bonus by meeting production goals.


no?

No.  As I mentioned before, we are still a net importer and our exports are a small fraction relative to our total usage.  Furthermore, oil is a world market, unless you would like to put up trade barriers and start trade wars (BTW- one area I disagree with Trump)

should we as a society seek out as much oil and gas as technologically and economically possible and drain it before seeking alternatives,

No, and we aren't.  There are plenty of people seeking alternatives including those in the oil and gas industry.  As of now those alternative mostly are more costly or have other practical limitations.  What doesn't make sense is forcing these alternatives on the market while we have cheaper and more efficient fossil fuels available to us. 


I would be much happier if they didn't roll back the safety measures put up after the gulf spill just before doing this.  What kind of clows run this place?


James - what safety measures are they rolling back?



Another article on the safety measures being rolled back due to the Pres:

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/trump-administration-starts-rollback-o...


Do you think the elimination of third party inspection will materially alter the safety?  I would think the experience of the massive cost it took to clean Horizon would be enough to incentivise the drillers to go to the maximum to try to prevent a similar blowout. 


Looks like the someone just gave the oil companies a present. It sure is allot of money to forget about.  I hope they fix this because it sure does not help the public at all:

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/trump-administration-starts-rollback-o...

 


Add comment

CAPTCHA

This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.

The Essential RVing Guide

The Essential RVing Guide to the National Parks

The National Parks RVing Guide, aka the Essential RVing Guide To The National Parks, is the definitive guide for RVers seeking information on campgrounds in the National Park System where they can park their rigs. It's available for free for both iPhones and Android models.

This app is packed with RVing specific details on more than 250 campgrounds in more than 70 parks.

You'll also find stories about RVing in the parks, some tips if you've just recently turned into an RVer, and some planning suggestions. A bonus that wasn't in the previous eBook or PDF versions of this guide are feeds of Traveler content: you'll find our latest stories as well as our most recent podcasts just a click away.

So whether you have an iPhone or an Android, download this app and start exploring the campgrounds in the National Park System where you can park your rig.