A seismic research vessel pulling research equipment (streamers). Seismic research ships map the submarine … [+]
As advocates of industrial wind development off the northeastern US Atlantic coast have discovered in recent years, the use of seismic surveys is an essential element of all energy exploration. But carrying out such surveys also often becomes a source of controversy and opposition from environmental and animal rights activists.
Opposition to offshore oil and gas development, drawing on allegations of seismic impacts on marine mammals and other wildlife, has proved fertile ground for opponents in recent years. In an April 29 article, the New York Times cites the example of a 2022 decision by South Africa’s Supreme Court to terminate Shell Global’s license to conduct deep-water seismic testing off the country’s eastern coast, what locals call the Wild Coast. Shell has since appealed the decision, which remains active in the courts.
South Africa has become a booming region for offshore oil and natural gas exploration in recent years, a topic I wrote about last November. Shell is just one of many companies with active concessions to explore energy not just on the Wild Coast, but along the entire length of the country’s coastline. Many believe that offshore South Africa could become a basin of vital resources to help the industry meet global demand for oil and gas in the coming decades.
Given the lack of adequate investment in the discovery and development of new oil and gas reserves in recent years, South Africa has the potential, like Guyana and Suriname in South America, to become a key strategic resource area. But this cannot happen without carrying out seismic surveys.
One problem producers face in defending seismic testing disputes is that it is very easy to mischaracterize the nature and impacts of the process. O New York Times The article states at one point that “Seismic testing can harm wildlife”, citing a paper published last September by the University of Tasmania. This article discusses concerns that noise from underwater seismic testing could cause “whales” [to] either to sing louder or to stop singing altogether, which can affect social structure and interaction.”
But experts from the EnerGeo Alliance, an international association for the geosciences industry, dispute these and other claims, saying: “Seismic surveys are carried out using low-frequency sound waves to map the seafloor. This technology is similar to ultrasound technology in that it uses sound to create an image in a non-invasive way. Despite extensive speculation about possible adverse impacts of seismic surveys, no scientific data supports these claims. Seismic surveys are comparable in intensity to many naturally occurring oceanic sound sources that are temporary and transient in scope, and most of the energy produced occurs at frequencies below the hearing range of many marine mammal species.”
No one in the oil and gas business, the offshore wind energy business, or any other segment of society wants to harm whales and other marine mammals. In fact, these and other industries have invested billions in research and development over the years to ensure that any impacts are minimal. And it should be pointed out here that regulators in the United States have consistently denied that there is any scientific evidence to support claims that seismic has these alleged impacts.
That was the conclusion of an extensive study conducted by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) during the Barack Obama administration in 2014. That effort grew out of a controversy at the time involving proposals to explore for oil and gas off the coast of South Carolina and others. southeastern Atlantic states. BOEM reiterated the same conclusion again in January 2024 as part of its rebuttal of claims that seismic surveys conducted by offshore wind developers were in part responsible for a series of more than 70 whale strandings off the coasts of New Jersey and from other northeastern Atlantic states. .
The end result
There is no doubt that the implementation of seismic testing in ocean waters will continue to be a source of controversy in the coming years. The playing field is too full of opportunities to create fear that opponents of energy development can ignore.
But the science as it exists today is clear, as confirmed by US presidential administrations of both political parties. Unless and until this statute changes, court victories by parties exploiting concerns about science will likely be short-lived.
