This hearing compilation was prepared by the Homeland Security Digital Library, Naval Postgraduate School, Center for Homeland Defense and Security.

JULY 14, 2015

THE FUNDAMENTAL ROLE OF SAFE SEISMIC

SURVEYING IN OCS ENERGY EXPLORATION AND

DEVELOPMENT U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES, SUBCOMMITTEE

ON ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION

HEARING CONTENTS: MEMBER STATEMENTS: Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-CO) [no pdf available, see 36:08 of webcast] Chairman, Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources Rep. Alan Lowenthal (D-CA) [no pdf available, see 41:43 of webcast] Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources WITNESSES:

Dr. Robert Gisiner [view pdf] Director of Marine Environment – Science and Biology International Association of Geophysical Contractors Ms. Abigail Ross Hopper [view pdf] Director, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, U.S. Department of the Interior Mr. Richie Miller [view pdf] President, Spectrum Geo, Inc. Dr. Douglas P. Nowacek [view pdf] Repass-Rodgers Chair of Marine Conservation Technology Nicholas School of the Environment & Pratt School of Engineering Duke University Marine Laboratory

This hearing compilation was prepared by the Homeland Security Digital Library, Naval Postgraduate School, Center for Homeland Defense and Security.

Mr. Jim White [view pdf] President, ARKeX, Inc.

AVAILABLE WEBCAST(S):

Full Hearing: https://youtu.be/-eVeqTp0CjM?list=PLTb5lxCVSIx2Hle6TnfqyUrAGKmcEpulG&t=2168

COMPILED FROM:

http://naturalresources.house.gov/calendar/eventsingle.aspx?EventID=398949

* Please note: Any external links included in this compilation were functional at its creation but are not maintained thereafter.

Oral Testimony Dr. Robert C. Gisiner Director, Marine Environmental Science/Biology, International Association of Geophysical Contractors July 14, 2015; “The Fundamental Role of Safe Seismic Surveying in OCS Energy Exploration and Development.” H.R. Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources

Honorable Members and Staff: my name is Dr. Bob Gisiner, I am the Director of Marine Environmental Science and Biology for the International Association of Geophysical Contractors.

However, I am here today to speak to you as a scientist, with more than 40 years of scientific expertise in this field, including my most recent role as a member of the Sound and Marine Life Joint Industry Program, a program of independent scientific research funded by members of the offshore energy industry.

Thank you for this opportunity to provide you with some information about the sound generated by marine seismic surveys and its environmental effects.

First, a little on my background and expertise. I have a Ph.D. in Biology from the University of California, and have been actively engaged in cutting edge research in marine bioacoustics for over 40 years.

In 1993, I was invited to lead a newly-formed US Navy research program at the Office of Naval Research on the effects of sonar and other sound sources on marine life, a program that to this day continues to lead the world in research on this subject.

From 2010 until my retirement in 2014, I worked with the Chief of Naval Operations Environmental Command (CNO N45) at the Pentagon to implement a policy and environmental compliance plan based on the scientific knowledge generated by the ONR Marine Mammal program; a legacy of responsible environmental stewardship without loss of Navy mission readiness of which I am very proud and for which I was awarded the Navy Meritorious Civilian Service medal.

My service to our nation and its marine environmental stewardship goals also includes a term of service between 2006 and 2010 as the Scientific Program Director of the US Marine Mammal Commission.

Following my retirement from federal service in 2014 I was invited to assist IAGC with a similar program of research and application of the science to responsible environmental compliance practices, including participation in the Joint Industry Program of research. As a newcomer to this industry, my perspectives may be of help to others who are also new to the geophysical industry, its technologies and its practices.

I will start by stating categorically and confidently that there is at present no scientific support for statements that seismic sound kills or injures animals, causes them to beach themselves or disrupts their behavior to the extent that it affects the health and well-being of the individuals or the populations of which they are a part. This does not mean that we will not continue to actively search for possible undetected risks through our support of independent, third-party research, or that we will reduce our diligence in monitoring, mitigation and documentation of our activities and their environmental effects. It does mean that speculations of what could, might, or may potentially occur will be subjected to the same high standards of scientific verification and validation that would be expected of our own industry-funded research.

Let’s start with some scientific information about seismic sound sources or air guns. The term gun can be misleading; there is no explosion or “firing” of air. The compressed air is released in a bubble around the source through several ports. This can best be visualized through a video on the IAGC website: the link is provided in the supporting materials accompanying this testimony. The air inside the source is compressed to the same pressure as a scuba tank or a household pressure washer and when released, the expanding bubble produces sound. The largest sources hold a volume equivalent to a one

Dr. Robert C. Gisiner. July 14, 2015; “The Fundamental Role of Safe Seismic Surveying in OCS Energy Exploration and Development.” H.R. Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources.

or two liter soda bottle, and a full array of sources would have a compressed volume equivalent to a full-sized to mini-sized refrigerator. This is clearly not a sound source equivalent to 100,000 jet planes or an atom bomb, as some have claimed.

Current claims that seismic sound kills, injures or causes the beaching of marine mammals, fish or other species are speculation and are not supported by the available scientific evidence. Recent research has in fact shown that the sound exposure threshold at which some small hearing loss might occur would be greater than 210 decibels of total energy (SEL). That is equivalent to the cumulative sound energy from ten consecutive seismic air pulses at a distance of less than 100 yards from even the largest arrays.

Current regulatory thresholds of 180 dB SEL are thus clearly overestimating risk by several orders of magnitude, and the associated mitigation shutdown range of 500 meters or more is correspondingly over-protective by several hundred yards. Much has been made of the estimate for as many as 138,000 Level A (potentially injurious) “takes” in the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management’s (BOEM) Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) for the Atlantic. Using a more realistic risk criterion based on the above peer-reviewed research, and taking into account standard monitoring and mitigation practices employed by the seismic industry, the more likely estimate of risk is essentially zero; again, consistent with past experience in the Gulf of Mexico and other locations globally. Time does not allow for thorough scientific rebuttal of all the imaginative “what-ifs” that have been raised by political groups opposed to seismic surveys in the Atlantic. However, I will try to address some of the most commonly used arguments. In recent years there has been a tendency to ascribe any whale or dolphin stranding in the general area of a seismic survey as having been caused by the seismic sound. There are no diagnostic forensic symptoms of sound-related strandings, so lack of forensic evidence cannot be used to eliminate these arguments based solely on coincidence (past coincidence-based theories for otherwise unexplained strandings include sunspots, geomagnetic anomaliesand earthquakes). When we have had good data on the coincidence of strandings with manmade sound, strandings caused by military sonars, the conditions are very different than what would be encountered during seismic surveys: the sonar sound source is very different from seismic sound (prolonged mid-frequency sonar pings and not short, low frequency seismic impulses); the two different sound sources are operated in very different ways (sonars are typically operated with erratic movements, often at high speeds, compared to the long, slow, straight lines of seismic survey), the animals that strand in response to sonar rarely strand under any other circumstances (beaked whales but not sperm whales, pilot whales or other species that strand frequently for other reasons); the sonar-related strandings occur where deep water is very close to shore, and, finally, the strandings occur within minutes or a couple of hours of the close passage of the sonar (typically less than 20 miles), with the stranded animals spread out by ones and twos over miles of coastline, not bunched-up like most mass strandings. Most important when there is no forensic marker to implicate sound is the statistical recurrence of strandings in places where military sonar training regularly takes place. There is no similar recurrent pattern of stranding in any area where seismic surveys have been regularly conducted over decades. Recently, in Australia and New Zealand, attempts have been made to attribute mass strandings of sperm whales and pilot whales to seismic sound, at sites these species have stranded historically for centuries, even though the seismic surveys were more than 300 miles away! Attempts to link seismic sound to those strandings and to others in Peru, also ignored the much more plausible coincidence of unusually warm water temperatures associated with El Niño/Southern Oscillation (ENSO) in the Pacific Ocean, even though abnormal behavior and mortality of fish, birds, and other species were all indicative of an environmental cause of the strandings, not seismic sound. To date, despite all the clamor on the internet, none of the strandings attributed to seismic

Dr. Robert C. Gisiner. July 14, 2015; “The Fundamental Role of Safe Seismic Surveying in OCS Energy Exploration and Development.” H.R. Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources.

sound fit the criteria seen in strandings related to mid-frequency military sonars, the one and only manmade sound source currently known to cause strandings. A laboratory study of deformation of scallop larvae by prolonged sound exposure has been frequently cited as evidence that seismic sound can be bad for scallops and other shellfish fisheries. However, a close look at the study reveals many problems. Among the problems are the radical modification of the sound to meet the limitations of the laboratory sound source, and the use of continuous sound exposure for up to 90 continuous hours (5 days) based on the argument that seismic sound at a distance “fills in” the silent spaces between pulses (a circumstance that rarely, if ever, actually occurs). Most important is that the sound source was not miles away as it would be for a 140-160 dB exposure with real seismic sources; rather, the source was within 3-4 inches of the scallop larvae so that the particle motion component of the sound (the biologically relevant component for animals without ears) was equivalent to 195-200 decibels, and not the 140-160 decibels claimed in the paper. Additionally, in laboratory studies of this kind the standard measured effect is mortality, and the fact that this study did not use larval survival data suggests that there was probably no statistical difference in mortality between exposed and control samples of larvae. Instead a subjective measure of “abnormal” development was used, without clearly defined metrics for what constituted abnormal. Control samples are claimed to have produced 100% normal development, with not a single individual out of many thousands showing any abnormalities. A result of 100% in any biological study is always a warning sign that something may not be right. Even in the most normal, healthy sample of individuals, under the best of care, a few defective genetic combinations are to be expected. Yet in this study not a single defect was reported for the control group. This is clearly a study that bears repetition by an independent party. Furthermore, there is evidence of a much more convincing sort, from a study in which real, actual seismic surveys were conducted over the top of an active commercial scallop bed in Tasmania, with fishing before and immediately after the seismic survey. There was no effect from seismic sound on either the amount or the quality of the scallops harvested and larval recruitment was well within normal annual variation. Claims that seismic sound can or may have effects across hundreds or even thousands of miles are also based on hypothetical conditions that do not stand up under scrutiny. The low frequency component of seismic sound, indeed all natural and manmade low frequency sound, can and often does propagate hundreds or thousands of miles within an oceanographic feature called the Deep Sound Channel or Sound Fixing and Ranging (SOFAR) channel. While this channel may be at relatively shallow depths near the poles, over most of the world’s oceans the SOFAR channel is 800-1000 meters deep, about half a mile. In fact, the SOFAR channel figures prominently in the early history of this environmental issue, when some of the same people now claiming that seismic sound is louder than 100,000 jets and will deafen all the whales of the world, also claimed that an 11 Watt sound source (equivalent to a home stereo) was louder than 10,000 jets and would deafen all the whales of the world. The 11 Watt source was part of an experiment to measure the temperature of the deep ocean for climate change studies, the Acoustic Thermometry of Ocean Climate (ATOC) study of 1995-1999. While the study clearly did not deafen all the whales in the ocean, it did give birth to a thriving community of organizations opposing any and all manmade sound in the sea. Many of the watchwords and slogans still in use today, such as “a deaf whale is a dead whale” and comparisons to nuclear bombs, explosives and jet engines were invented during opposition to the ATOC study and still seem to attract donations and media attention today as well as they did 20 years ago when the sound source of concern was the equivalent of a home stereo.

The other problem for the hypothesis that sound in the SOFAR channel will disturb large baleen whales is that large baleen whales don’t dive that deep. In the predecessor to the ATOC study, the Heard Island Experiment, distant sperm whales appeared to respond with brief temporary silencing

Dr. Robert C. Gisiner. July 14, 2015; “The Fundamental Role of Safe Seismic Surveying in OCS Energy Exploration and Development.” H.R. Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources.

(listening) to the sound source. But sperm whales are deep divers and regularly enter the SOFAR channel: whales that use low frequency sound and are assumed to hear well at those frequencies, like blue whales, fin whales, right whales and other large baleen whales, rarely dive more than 100 meters deep, if that far. Even when the whales are just a few hundred meters above the SOFAR channel, less than half a mile, the amount of sound “leaked” from the SOFAR channel is below ambient noise levels, and is thus inaudible to the whales. In other words, it does not matter that the sound in the SOFAR channel is audible to whales if they don’t go into the SOFAR channel.

One should also ask what a whale would make of acoustic “information” that has travelled thousands of miles. Information about food, predators or prospective mates loses some of its immediacy if it would take 2-4 weeks to swim to the location of the sound source and, yes, whales can tell distant sound sources from nearby sound sources just as well as we can. Related to the idea of whales being affected by sounds hundreds or thousands of miles away are the claims that manmade sound might mask, or interfere with, social sounds like mother-calf calls and mating calls. Concepts like Acoustic Space, Soundscape, Acoustic Footprint, or Auditory Scene are not new and were first developed to characterize the challenges we humans have in understanding speech in a noisy environment. Not surprisingly, the most effective masking sound is the sound made by other members of your species, since the sound is at the same frequency and loudness of your own sounds of interest. Therefore all animals, including humans, have developed some pretty amazing abilities to remove potential masking noise from the sounds of interest to us; the Cocktail Party Effect perfectly describes the acoustic scene in which our hearing is most challenged and yet we still manage to hear the speaker of interest to us.

Confusion arises from misuse of the The Equal Energy Rule of masking, which states that an equal amount of noise energy within the frequency band of interest has the potential (and I emphasize the word ‘potential”) to mask a sound of interest in that same frequency band. It is a rule that works better for listening machines than for animals. All animals, including humans and whales, can and do muster a wide variety of sound processing abilities to hear sounds of interest within an auditory scene containing much louder sounds that are not of interest (noise). A typical listener gets anywhere from 10-30 dB of “signal gain” through spatial release from masking, temporal release from masking, out of band listening, auditory system gain, and other well-studied phenomena, along with more exotic forms of masking release like co-modulation release from masking. That is, a sound of interest can be heard in noise that is 10-30 dB louder than the signal. While some of these de-masking phenomena are acknowledged on paper by those claiming that manmade noise masks whale sounds, the de-masking abilities are for some reason never incorporated into the calculations of “acoustic footprints” for shipping, sonars, seismic and other sound sources. Actually, seismic sound is a very ineffective masker because of its short duration and intermittency. The seismic pulse is only 0.1 second long, followed by 10 seconds of silence. Even in highly reverberant or “echoic” environments, the echoes between pulses do not fill the entire sound space evenly and are typically 10-60 dB quieter than the pulses themselves. Given the redundancy of animal calling behavior and the rich harmonic content of most biological signals it is highly unlikely that seismic sound would ever, under any circumstances, provide significant masking of sounds important to the animals.

Playing on people’s emotions by invoking mother-calf separation due to masking of contact calls is an especially implausible overreach for masking. The close spatial bond of mother and dependent calf, where separation is rarely if ever more than a few hundred yards, is simply not going to be affected at all by seismic sound at any range, let alone hundreds or thousands of miles. In the end, Bill Brown, Chief Environmental Officer of the US Bureau of Ocean Energy Management says it best:

Dr. Robert C. Gisiner. July 14, 2015; “The Fundamental Role of Safe Seismic Surveying in OCS Energy Exploration and Development.” H.R. Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources.

“…there has been no documented scientific evidence of noise…from seismic activities adversely affecting marine animal populations or coastal communities. This technology has been used for more than 30 years around the world…with no known detrimental impact to marine animal populations or to commercial fishing.”

Confidence in our lack of environmental impact should not be taken to imply that we have ceased to look for potential risk factors or to explore alternative means of doing our job that seem to offer even greater assurance of no effect. Together with the Sound and Marine Life Joint Industry Program, we continue to invest in independent research, with over $18 million invested in the last three years alone; exploring the potential of alternative sound sources, improving the effectiveness of acoustic monitoring of marine life, assessing behavioral responses of whales to seismic surveys, and more. A link to the website where this research is featured has also been provided in the supporting materials submitted with this testimony.

STATEMENT OF

ABIGAIL ROSS HOPPER

DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF OCEAN ENERGY MANAGEMENT

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JULY 14, 2015

Chairman Lamborn, Ranking Member Lowenthal, and Members of the Subcommittee, I am

pleased to appear before you today to discuss the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management’s

(BOEM) oversight of geological and geophysical (G&G) surveys on the Atlantic Outer

Continental Shelf (OCS). Such surveys support BOEM’s mission to ensure the responsible

development of conventional and renewable offshore energy and marine mineral resources while

protecting the environment.

Background

Geological and geophysical data is critically important to understanding the bathymetry of the

ocean floor, as well as the vast area underneath. There are numerous technologies that can be

employed to gather this data, which is used for a variety of purposes, including hydrocarbon

exploration and production, aiding in siting renewable energy structures by characterizing the

ocean floor, locating potential sand and gravel resources for coastal restoration projects,

identifying possible seafloor or shallow depth geologic hazards, and locating potential

archaeological resources and potential hard bottom habitats that should be avoided. One

common method of procuring this data is with seismic surveys; those surveys use sound waves,

sent through the ocean floor, to map the subsurface. From 1966-1988, 2-dimensional (2D)

seismic data were acquired in all areas of the Atlantic OCS. This data, acquired over 30 years

ago, has been eclipsed by new acquisition techniques using more advanced instrumentation,

computer capacity, and technology. Industry seismic surveys in the Atlantic have not been

conducted since the 1980s because of a Federal moratorium on oil and gas activities off the

Atlantic coast, which expired in 2008. Additionally, BOEM decided not to begin reviewing

permit applications until the Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) was

completed and a decision made on its alternatives.

BOEM scientists are experts in the use of the newer survey data to make more informed

decisions concerning potential oil and gas lease sales, ensure appropriate development of OCS

energy resources, and assure the receipt of fair market value for any leasing of public lands.

Modern 2D and 3D acquisition techniques can provide data sets that significantly enhance

subsurface imaging, leading to improved oil and gas resource assessments and more informed

administration of regulatory responsibilities.

The Record of Decision (ROD) for Atlantic G&G activities was issued by BOEM in July 2014

and it established stringent protective measures and safeguards consistent with allowing survey

activity while reducing or eliminating impacts on the environment and marine life. Protective

measures include, but are not limited to, vessel strike avoidance, special closure areas to protect

the main migratory route for the highly endangered North Atlantic Right Whale, consideration of

geographic separation of simultaneous seismic airgun surveys, and Passive Acoustic Monitoring

to supplement visual observers and improve detection of marine mammals prior to and during

seismic surveys. While the ROD did not authorize any G&G activities, it established a

framework for additional mandatory environmental reviews for site-specific actions and

identified broadly-applicable measures governing any future G&G activities in the region. The

ROD also identified mitigation measures that may be supplemented by additional requirements

in individual permits or other authorizations as the reviews move forward. This builds upon the

groundwork laid in the OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program for 2012–2017, and is consistent with

BOEM’s frontier area strategy to increase our understanding of resource potential and develop a

suite of environmental studies for the purpose of establishing a baseline.

Additionally, the Governors of Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina requested that the

Mid-Atlantic and South Atlantic Planning Areas be included in the Draft Proposed OCS Oil and

Gas Leasing Program for 2017-2022 and indicated a desire to better understand the oil and gas

potential offshore their states. Georgia’s Department of Natural Resources, on behalf of the

Governor, expressed its interest in increasing access to domestic oil and gas resources while

detailing its issues and concerns with potential environmental impacts and conflicts with other

important ocean activities.

G&G surveys are not used exclusively for oil and gas exploration. Seismic surveys, which

include geologic coring, are also helpful in identifying sand used for restoration of our Nation’s

beaches and barrier islands following severe weather events and for protecting coasts and

wetlands from erosion. Recent examples of BOEM’s sand restoration projects include New

Jersey, where Long Beach Island has been restored in response to erosion caused by Hurricane

Sandy and Louisiana, where 1,100 acres of marsh, dune, and beach habitat at Whiskey Island

have been reconstructed. Seismic and geologic coring surveys also provide information that is

vital to the siting and development of offshore renewable energy facilities. G&G surveys also

help to advance fundamental scientific knowledge and are currently conducted in the Gulf of

Mexico and in countries around the world.

BOEM was one of the earliest Federal pioneers in sponsoring research on ocean sounds

beginning in the early 1980s. Since 1998, BOEM has partnered with academia and other experts

to invest more than $50 million on protected species and noise-related research. BOEM has

provided critical studies on marine mammals, such as evaluation of seismic survey impacts on

endangered sperm whales, and has conducted numerous expert stakeholder workshops to discuss

what is known and to identify further information needs on acoustic impacts in the ocean.

Current Status

As of this date, nine companies have submitted 11 conventional energy G&G permit applications

in the Atlantic OCS. Currently nine permit applications remain under review, as two

applications have been withdrawn. Of those nine, seven applications include deep penetration

seismic, one application is to collect airborne gravity and magnetic data only and one application

is for a high resolution multi-beam and sub-bottom profiler survey to collect sea floor and

shallow subsurface information. Before each permit can be issued, BOEM conducts careful

environmental analysis to ensure protection of the marine ecosystem. The permit applications

are also subject to coastal state consistency review determinations pursuant to the Coastal Zone

Management Act. Of the nine active permits, seven applications have completed the CZMA

review process (two applications did not require consistency review and five applications that

include seismic surveys have conditional concurrences or presumed concurrences from the

affected states). Further, applicants for seismic surveys need to secure additional authorizations

from the National Marine Fisheries Service under the Marine Mammal Protection Act and the

Endangered Species Act. BOEM will not issue permits until these processes are complete.

Conclusion

Balancing human activities with the protection of marine life is a difficult task. However,

BOEM remains steadfastly committed to funding and supporting the science needed to better

understand anthropogenic sounds and their impacts on marine life. Making decisions based on

sound science, public input, and the best information available is critical to environmentally

responsible development of the Nation’s offshore energy resources. BOEM, by using an

adaptive management approach, will consider new scientific information as it becomes available

during survey-specific environmental reviews.

BOEM’s goal has always been to provide factual, reliable, and clear analytical statements in

order to inform decision makers and the public about the environmental effects of proposed OCS

activities and their alternatives.

Mr. Chairman, thank you again for the opportunity to be here today. I am happy to answer any

questions that you or the Committee may have.

TESTIMONY OF RICHIE MILLER PRESIDENT, SPECTRUM GEO INC.

BEFORE THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY & MINERAL RESOURCES JULY 14, 2015

Chairman Lamborn, Ranking Member Lowenthal, Members of the Subcommittee: Good morning. I appreciate the opportunity to be here today to discuss the "The Fundamental Role of Safe Seismic Surveying in OCS Energy Exploration and Development" and the need for America to access its offshore oil and gas resources. I am President of Spectrum Geo Inc., a company engaged in acquiring non-exclusive seismic data, processing it, and licensing these products to oil and gas companies. The Spectrum Group is built on the company’s reputation as a reliable seismic service provider and serves a global clientele. The Group provides innovative non-exclusive services and high quality seismic imaging from regional offices in the US, the UK, Norway, Singapore, Brazil, and Australia. Spectrum is also a member of the International Association of Geophysical Contractors, a global trade association representing our industry, as well as the National Ocean Industries Association, the only national trade association representing all segments of the offshore energy industry. We are pleased that the Subcommittee is holding this hearing today. It could not be timelier. This is the third occasion I have testified before the Subcommittee. The first two were to discuss the potential role that seismic could play in helping the U.S. discover new oil and gas resources in the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf (OCS), in turn increasing America’s energy security and providing jobs and revenue to our economy. In those hearings, we discussed that while the US has been successfully exploring and developing its offshore oil and gas resources since 1947 and the deep water plays in the Western and Central Gulf of Mexico continue to be productive, the U.S. needs to begin exploring new areas in order to meet future demand. Those previous hearings also noted that past oil and gas seismic surveys conducted in Atlantic waters date back over 30 years, highlighting two important points: first, those surveys were conducted safely and without harm to marine life or coastal communities, consistent with scientific findings from more than 40 years of seismic surveying around the globe; and second, technology has advanced exponentially in that time, allowing for far greater clarity in identifying potential resources and demanding new data on which future decisions can be based. Since those hearings, Spectrum Geo and some of our industry colleagues have embarked on the process of obtaining the necessary permits and approvals to acquire modern seismic data in the Mid- and South-Atlantic. The process has been wrought with delays and uncertainty. Of particular concern is the process for the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) issuance of Incidental Take Authorizations (IHAs) under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), which is critical to the permitting of exploration and development activity throughout the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). Last summer, the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) approved a process for geological and geophysical survey firms to submit applications for seismic acquisition in the Mid- and South Atlantic. A few companies have filed applications with NMFS to obtain IHAs, a prerequisite of Bureau of Ocean Energy Management consideration of the applications to perform oil and gas seismic surveys in the Mid- and South Atlantic OCS, and this NMFS process is still ongoing nearly one year after application

submittal. We have now been told the earliest an IHA will be approved is late December, meaning the earliest a program can commence will be in spring 2016. Spectrum first met with NMFS to discuss our plans to acquire seismic data in December 2013. Since that time we have been in close contact with NMFS about the schedule for submitting necessary documents for approval. On August 15, 2014 we submitted our IHA and Environmental Assessment to NMFS. At the time, we understood that we would complete the process in the spring and could begin acquiring seismic this summer. That timeline has since slipped considerably until the end of 2015 and our application has still not been deemed complete. We also understand that NMFS has added a new, unprecedented “public review” period to the process in addition to the existing public comment period. Meanwhile, Spectrum also underwent several consistency determinations with coastal states under the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA). We successfully completed that process with the states and NOAA in a timely manner. In order for American consumers to benefit from our vast, untapped offshore energy resources, it is critical that seismic companies have sufficient lead time in knowing when their permits will be issued as personnel, vessels, equipment, and supplies need to be located and deployed. We are becoming increasingly frustrated that the IHA process is taking far longer than expected. These delays could ultimately jeopardize the timely acquisition of seismic data. Federally funded academic seismic surveys take place off the U.S East Coast virtually every year without IHA delays. In fact, one such survey secured an IHA from NMFS earlier this year and was just completed this past week, while another other survey that secured an IHA in roughly five months is ongoing and covers a huge area stretching from Massachusetts to Georgia, extends 350 nautical miles offshore, and spans a full year in duration. Another federally funded seismic survey conducted in 2014 secured an IHA from NMFS in about seven months and took place offshore North Carolina. None of these IHAs underwent a “public review” period in advance of the statutorily required 30-day public comment period, as is now expected to be required for Atlantic oil & gas survey applications. It is important to note that other countries permit seismic operations much more efficiently than the U.S. is doing for the Atlantic. For example, Mexico just recently opened up its OCS for non-Mexican explorers and to new seismic acquisition. Spectrum thereafter filed a permit for seismic acquisition in Mexico in February of this year and began acquiring data on June 10th. This took place after completing an environmental impact statement and a social impact study, submitting those applications and studies and receiving approval from three Federal agencies for a program using very similar mitigation techniques to those that would be used in the U.S. Atlantic. There are now eight seismic vessels and five companies operating in different areas of the Mexican Gulf of Mexico in a safe and efficient manner. Elsewhere, oil & gas seismic acquisition has been taking place offshore the Canadian Atlantic during the past six summer seasons without incident to marine life. Similarly, oil & gas seismic operations have been underway in the Bahamas, Cuba, and Alaska over the last few years. Like the surveying off the U.S. Atlantic coast in the 1970’s and 1980’s, this work is done only after necessary environmental permits are secured and is accomplished with no harm to marine life or coastal communities. The U.S. Atlantic thus lacks an effective system and schedule for the issuance of IHAs for seismic acquisition. Without such certainty, American consumers are thwarted from better understanding the true potential of this public resource. Under the status quo there are no deadlines, but rather seemingly

endless delays. This is an inefficient system that makes it difficult to arrange for vessels and services and has negative impacts on our budgets and those of our clients. Over the past two-and-a-half years, we have spent almost $1 million in pursuit of our permit. Spectrum and other companies continue to spend time and money on this broken process and we may never get the permits necessary to inform the public and decision makers on the Atlantic’s true resource potential. This system needs to be fixed. It is a hindrance not only to our industry’s ability to do business in the United States, but also to your ability as elected officials to make informed, science-based decisions. Furthermore, modern seismic imaging provides greater certainty for explorers. It increases the likelihood that exploratory wells will successfully tap hydrocarbons and helps us avoid drilling for oil and gas in areas where we won’t likely be successful. It also reduces the number of wells that need to be drilled in a given area, thus reducing the overall footprint for exploration. For these reasons, and to better understand the extent of resources that exist in areas like the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf and for the betterment of our national security and economic well-being, we need modern seismic data. In turn, we need a system that allows us to acquire that data. Let’s allow science and modern technology to help us discover what resources we have. We owe it to ourselves. Thank you for the opportunity to testify before the Subcommittee.

IHA TIMELINES FOR RECENT ATLANTIC SEISMIC RESEARCH SURVEYS Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory and NSF Seismic Survey offshore NJ (2015) 12/21/14 – permit request submitted 3/17/15 – FR notice of 30 day public comment period on proposed authorization 4/16/15 – 30 day public comment period concludes 5/7/15 – IHA issued 5/14/15 – IHA published in FR Effective dates: 6/1/15 through 8/31/15 NOTES: Survey concluded the week of July 6, 2015. This IHA is identical to that issued in 2014. The researcher (Rutgers Univ.) had to abort the 2014 survey when the vessel had mechanical issues. The survey was pushed to 2015, and the date change triggered a requirement for a new IHA process. The original 2014 process (found at the bottom of this page) took less than 7 months (application submitted on 12/16/13, IHA issued on 7/1/14).

USGS Marine Seismic Survey in the Atlantic Ocean off the Eastern Seaboard March 2014 – permit request submitted 6/23/14 – FR notice of 30 day public comment period on proposed authorization 7/23/14 – 30 day public comment period concludes 8/21/14 – IHA issued 9/2/14 – IHA published in FR Effective dates: 8/21/14 through 8/20/15 NOTES: covers an area stretching from Massachusetts to Georgia, extends 350 nautical miles offshore (see Figure 1, page 3), and spans a full year in duration. Lamont-Doherty/NSF Marine Seismic Survey in Atlantic Ocean off North Carolina 2/18/14 – permit request submitted 7/25/14 – very modest revision submitted 7/31/15 – FR notice of 30 day public comment period on proposed authorization 9/2/14 – 30 day public comment period concludes 9/12/14 – IHA issued 9/25/14 – IHA published in FR Effective dates: 9/15/14 through 10/31/14

Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for this opportunity to testify. I am a scientist with 20 years of training and experience on the use of sound by marine animals and the effects of sound on life in the ocean, and I am a Distinguished Professor in the Nicholas School of the Environment and the Pratt School of Engineering at Duke University. I have devoted a significant part of my career to research and investigation regarding the effects of noise on ocean life, particularly marine mammals. I have authored many papers specifically on the effects and mitigation of human-caused ocean noise on animals, including papers with coauthors from government, industry and NGOs (e.g., Nowacek et al., 2013). Furthermore, and specific to the topic of today’s hearing, I have served for more than 10 years on a panel of independent scientists, convened by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), focused on minimizing the risks of offshore oil/gas development (including seismic surveys) on Western Gray Whales. The ability to hear and to perceive sound is of the utmost importance for ocean animals. Many ocean animals, particularly marine mammals such as whales, rely for their very existence on their ability to use sound. For these animals, sound is central to their ability to find food, to locate other animals, to avoid predators, to reproduce, and thus to survive. Many species of fishes also rely on sound for carrying out vital life functions such as territory defense, mate attraction and mediating spawning aggregations. We also know that sea turtles are able to hear low frequency sounds, though we know less about they utilize sound in their every day lives. Given the transcendent importance of sound and hearing to many ocean life forms, noise that is out of the ordinary – that is louder than the normal background levels of sound – can disrupt the normal behavior of ocean animals. The best available science confirms this point. For example, a recently published paper reviews more than 20 years of peer-reviewed studies demonstrating that wildlife, including a range of marine mammals, are adversely affected by human-produced noise (Shannon et al., 2015). The studies reviewed document that adverse effects can include displacing animals, changing whale foraging patterns, predator-avoidance, feeding behavior, and silencing whales or otherwise causing them to alter their vocal behavior. Of utmost importance in the conclusion of this review is that the noise can and does ‘impact individual fitness (i.e., the basis of population level effects) and the structure of ecological communities’. In light of the proven adverse effects of human-generated noise in the ocean, it is important to recognize the power of seismic airguns to disrupt and harm marine life. Seismic airguns generate the most intense sounds that humans put in the ocean short of explosives. Firing a standard airgun array deployed behind a seismic survey vessel generates approximately 250-260 dB of sound, and while it is difficult to draw exact equivalents in air, these levels approximate the epicenter of a grenade blast and would easily cause the rupture of the human eardrum. Moreover, due to the efficiency with which sound travels underwater—many times more efficient than in air—the sound of seismic air guns can be heard greater than 2500 miles from the source under some propagation conditions (Figure 1 and Nieukirk et al., 2012). It is therefore possible that a seismic survey operating off Georgia or the southern Carolinas, for example, will be detectable and possibly disrupt marine life and degrade the marine environment off the state of Florida.

The seismic testing permits currently under consideration by the U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management would allow the continuous overlapping firing of seismic airguns along a broad range of the east coast from the New Jersey/ Delaware border to central Florida (Figure 2). Each survey would discharge its airguns approximately every 10 or 12 seconds, and would operate 24 hours per day. If these permits are granted, ocean animals located in that wide area of the Atlantic Ocean would be exposed to noise levels that are likely to cause impacts and to disrupt essential behavior patterns. I will now provide a more detailed discussion of the effects (documented and potential) of seismic airguns, along with suggestions for ways to avoid or mitigate those effects. Seismic airguns have been demonstrated to disrupt behavior of marine species over substantial distances. Several studies produced over the last three years (see Blackwell et al., 2013; 2015; Castellote et al., 2012; Cerchio et al., 2014; Di Iorio & Clark, 2010), including after the BOEM FEIS was released, demonstrate that seismic airguns affect vital behaviors of baleen whales—across a variety of biological contexts (migration, breeding, feeding)—over very large scales (e.g., > 100 miles). Baleen whales are the giants of the ocean, using low frequency sound to communicate and explore their environment, the same sound frequencies produced by seismic air guns; many baleen whales are listed as endangered. Notably, the endangered North Atlantic right whale, whose migratory path and calving grounds lie within the proposed seismic exploration area, are among the most vulnerable, with fewer than 500 individuals remaining. Other studies have documented significant foraging loss in toothed whales and porpoises exposed to even moderate received levels of seismic airgun noise (Miller et al., 2009; Pirotta et al., 2014). A number of studies have reported substantial horizontal and vertical displacement of some commercial fish species around seismic airgun surveys, resulting in loss of fisheries catch over large areas of ocean (Engas et al., 1996; Lokkeborg et al., 2010; Slotte et al., 2004). Studies of other predominantly low-frequency noise sources have reported decrements in anti-predator response and foraging success in a variety of fish and marine invertebrates (Holles et al., 2013; Purser & Radford, 2011; Voellmy et al., 2014). These studies implicate a wide range of marine taxa, from whales to invertebrates; affect behaviors that are essential to survival and reproduction; and operate, in some cases, at scales of marine populations. Population level consequences are calculated and modeled using these exact behaviors (e.g., reproductive success), therefore if we are documenting that such behavior is compromised by a disturbance, then the disturbances are having some affect on the population. The potential impacts of seismic surveys, as with other anthropogenic noise sources, are typically assessed as individual activities (e.g., a single survey) using relatively simple methods based entirely on expected sound exposure levels and decades-old guidelines (HESS Team 1999). Impact is assessed based on the number of animals estimated to receive a sound level high enough to possibly cause harm. It is clear that while sound exposure levels are important over very short spatial and temporal scales for individual animals, recent documentation of the areas ensonified by seismic signals indicate that a broader paradigm of assessment is required (Guerra et al., 2011; Nieukirk et al., 2012), specifically because the

natural, ambient noise levels in areas surrounding seismic surveys can be elevated by an order of magnitude or more even between the sound pulses produced by the array (Figure 3). For example, with regard to quantifying potential impacts of discrete activities on marine mammals, the impact threshold used by BOEM in its Environmental Impact Statement for the Atlantic and by NOAA in its forthcoming environmental review—a threshold that lies at the core of their analysis—is overly simple, artificially rigid, and hopelessly outdated. It proceeds on the demonstrably false assumption that animals do not respond to impulsive noise at levels below 160 dBRMS, and respond with 100% probability at higher levels, such that no impacts are presumed beyond 9 or 10 kilometers from the seismic source. This 160 dB “threshold” originated from a single report more than 15 years ago, based largely on studies conducted in the 1980s (HESS, 1999), but since then very considerable evidence has accumulated indicating that behavioral impacts (e.g., interruption of feeding, avoidance of the area) from pulsed sources can and do occur well below that threshold (Blackwell et al., 2013). For example, migrating bowhead whales showed acoustic responses when pulses were only just detectable, and they continued to respond as the levels increased, including showing behavioral responses at ~120 dB (Blackwell et al., 2015; Richardson, Miller, & Greene, 1999). In sperm whales, exposure to seismic surveys has been associated with a substantial decline in buzz rate [buzzes are part of the whale’s echolocation system and they occur when they are attempting to capture something], a proxy for prey-capture attempts, at received levels of 135-147 dBRMS (P. J. O. Miller et al., 2009). Research in the Arctic has shown that very few beluga whales occurred within 12 miles of a full-scale seismic survey, but that there was an unexpectedly high density of beluga whales 12 to 20 miles from such surveys (Miller et al. 2005). Based on site-specific propagation conditions, this suggests animals were displaced over quite large areas at distances for which the received level was < 130 dBRMS. A probabilistic risk function with a 50% midpoint at 140 dBRMS that accounts, even qualitatively, for contextual issues likely affecting response probability (e.g., whether the animal is feeding or traveling), comes much closer to reflecting the existing scientific data than the 160 dBRMS step-function that has been used (Southall et al., 2007). If such a function were used, it is likely that the agencies’ quantitative estimate of marine mammal impacts from Atlantic seismic surveys would very substantially exceed the already large number calculated in BOEM’s current impact assessment. Additional impacts of noise come in the form of masking and stress. “Masking,” the term used to describe a situation when the perception of one sound is affected by the presence of another, can occur at received levels that are just above the ambient noise level. The effects of masking on marine mammals have been largely ignored but should be integrated into impact assessments. This is important for seismic signals for two primary reasons. First, as distance from the source increases, the acoustic energy in the pulses, originally compacted into the impulse, becomes increasingly spread in time, such that it can fill the gap between the original pulses (Guerra et al., 2011; Nieukirk et al., 2012). Secondly, in the area nearer to the survey, the energy from one pulse reverberates and raises the ambient noise significantly for most of the time between pulses (Figures 1&3). For species whose hearing thresholds are close to the natural background levels (Clark & Ellison, 2004; Clark et al., 2009), any measureable change in the background noise floor from anthropogenic sources can potentially lead to masking. Seismic surveys have been demonstrated to mask frequencies used by whales and many

species of fish at hundreds and thousands of miles from the source (Nieukirk et al., 2004, 2012). Recently derived exposure metrics and methods to quantify loss of communication space are available to analyze such impacts (Clark et al., 2009; Hatch, et al., 2012). Noise from human activities also results in elevated levels of stress hormones in many vertebrates (Wikelski & Cooke, 2006), and such connections between noise levels and stress hormones have been measured in marine mammals, specifically North Atlantic right whales (Rolland et al., 2012). Prolonged elevated levels of stress hormones cause deleterious effects to vertebrate systems, including compromising reproductive capabilities (McEwen, 2000). Unfortunately, BOEM has not properly analyzed these serious, long-range effects. That these surveys affect animals is undeniable, and our ability to incorporate these documented short-term effects into population level impact assessments is also growing (Christiansen et al., 2015; King et al., 2015). Having established that impacts occur, it is prudent to move to a discussion about what can be done to reduce and indeed minimize those impacts if seismic surveys are to take place. To this end, I offer the following thoughts, which represent a logical, feasible and thorough set of recommendations that can be adopted by the responsible agencies (i.e., BOEM and NMFS):

1. Revise the programmatic EIS prepared by BOEM for the Atlantic G&G program a. There is a fundamental mismatch between the impact analysis and mitigation

measures in BOEM’s EIS and the spatial/ temporal reality of the environmental problem that the proposed high-energy seismic program represents.

b. The analysis of cumulative impacts and the potential ramifications for populations of marine animals in the Atlantic is inadequate. The EIS, to its credit, acknowledges the seriousness of these chronic, cumulative effects (EIS at 3-51 to 3-52), but does not address the problem in its analysis or mitigation.

The following recommendations would apply if, after a revised analysis, BOEM decides to let seismic airgun permitting proceed.

2. Minimize the energy being introduced into the water. The EIS, in failing to analyze the problem at the appropriate scale (instead deferring such considerations to the project-specific stage), did not engage in the creative thinking that is imperative here.

a. Scale the area(s) open to seismic surveys according to the lease areas included in the final Proposed Lease Plan, with seismic airgun surveys permitted to operate only in those areas and areas immediately adjacent (e.g., 5 nm from the potential lease boundary). Based on the draft plan, this would mean no surveys allowed within roughly 50 miles of the coast, north of Virginia, or south of Georgia

b. Require or strongly incentivize the use of noise-quieting technologies to reduce the amount of acoustic energy produced by seismic surveys

c. Enact market-based mechanisms to minimize the redundancy of surveys, e.g., multi-client surveys, which are common internationally (e.g., Norway).

3. Protect important and vulnerable species and habitats a. Establish seasonal closures for right whales at a biologically meaningful scale.

As noted above, several studies produced over the last two years (see Blackwell

et al., 2013; 2015; Castellote et al., 2012; Cerchio et al., 2014; Di Iorio & Clark, 2010), including before and after the BOEM FEIS was released, demonstrate that seismic airguns affect vital behaviors of baleen whales—across a variety of biological contexts (migration, breeding, feeding)—over very large ranges (e.g., > 100 miles). Given the distances over which behavioral impacts, masking, etc., are likely to occur, the time-area closures for right whales set forth in the EIS do not sufficiently mitigate harm to their target species.

b. Recently developed animal density and distribution models (Figure 4) identify an area off Cape Hatteras (know as ‘The Point”) as having the greatest marine mammal biodiversity of any area off the entire east coast of the United States; as BOEM recognizes, the area is also of high importance to fish, seabirds, and sea turtles. Yet this area falls within the survey area of all nine seismic applications that BOEM has received (though, notably, largely outside the potential lease area). The Point area, and possibly others (e.g., mid-Atlantic canyons and the Charleston Bump) represent significant areas of biodiversity and should be removed from consideration for seismic airgun surveys as well as future oil/gas development.

4. Establish a comprehensive marine animal monitoring program. The EIS provides only for mitigation monitoring, i.e., the monitoring of a small “safety zone” radius around each survey vessel, which is wholly inadequate as a means of detecting larger-scale and cumulative impacts on marine life. A comprehensive monitoring program should be enacted immediately. The program must have: i) a strong research component, including primary research on offshore species density, habitat use and diversity; and ii) a broad-scale monitoring component beyond near-array mitigation monitoring; and iii) required industry participation in the program, e.g., by submitting environmental data to the program and support analyses of those data to improve mitigation efforts. To be effective, the program must be multi-year and multi-institutional, making effective use of existing data and expertise. It does in no way substitute for the mitigation measures described above, but can inform mitigation and management over the long term (Nowacek et al., 2013). An integrated approach requires increasing both the breadth and depth of baseline data on the trends and health of marine animal populations, as well as including comprehensive analyses of aggregate sound exposures, potentially interacting effects, and the cumulative effects from multiple noise sources. These analyses need to be conducted on appropriate temporal and spatial scales.

Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to appear before the Committee. I would be glad to respond to your questions.

Figure 1. The sound field 60 seconds after the initial seismic survey pulse produced by the vessel near the Norfolk Canyon off the coast of Virginia. Pulses are produced every 10 seconds, a normal interval for seismic surveys. The close whale is 10 nm from the source, the distant one near Virginia Beach is ~50 nm from the source. The propagation conditions will affect the amount of energy reaching a given point, but these modeling tools are available and the pictured scenario is quite plausible. The levels experienced by the close whale are almost continuously at or above levels known to impact baleen whales, and the distant whale experiences these levels for the ~10 seconds around the time of the pulse. The dark red color maps to approximately 175 dB, the light green to 125 dB, and the light blue to 100 dB.

Figure 2. Permits under consideration at BOEM for geological and geophysical surveys in the Atlantic. The overlapping survey areas represent significant concern with respect to unnecessary and harmful repeated exposure to seismic surveys.

Figure 3. Noise levels at the time of, 2.5-5, 5-7.5 and 7.5-10 seconds after a seismic survey pulse. Note the significantly elevated noise levels even many seconds after the pulse. Ambient noise levels are shown with red and pink lines. It is important to remember that every increase of 10 dB represents an order of magnitude increase in sound intensity; so even between pulses the ambient noise is elevated by 1-2 orders of magnitude. This result is corroborated by published studies (Guerra et al., 2011).

Figure 4. The Hatteras Point area (inset) located ~35 miles offshore of the NC coast. The species richness (colormap) shows this to be a critical area for cetaceans. The use and importance of this area for many species of fishes, sea turtles and seabirds is also well established.

“Core area”, year roundComputed as species richness with 75%of abundance included for each species

Gulf Stream

Roberts et al. (in prep) Habitat-based cetacean density models for the Northwest Atlantic and Northern Gulf of Mexico

References

Blackwell, S. B., Nations, C. S., McDonald, T. L., Greene, C. R., Jr, Thode, A. M., Guerra, M., & Macrander, A. M. (2013). Effects of airgun sounds on bowhead whale calling rates in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea. Marine Mammal Science, n/a–n/a. http://doi.org/10.1111/mms.12001

Blackwell, S. B., Nations, C. S., McDonald, T. L., Thode, A. M., Mathias, D., Kim, K. H., et al. (2015). Effects of Airgun Sounds on Bowhead Whale Calling Rates: Evidence for Two Behavioral Thresholds. Plos One, 10(6), e0125720–29. http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0125720

Castellote, M., Clark, C. W., & Lammers, M. O. (2012). Acoustic and behavioural changes by fin whales (Balaenoptera physalus) in response to shipping and airgun noise. Biological Conservation, 147(1), 115–122. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2011.12.021

Cerchio, S., Strindberg, S., Collins, T., Bennett, C., & Rosenbaum, H. (2014). Seismic Surveys Negatively Affect Humpback Whale Singing Activity off Northern Angola. Plos One, 9(3), e86464. http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0086464

Christiansen, F., Bertulli, C. G., Rasmussen, M. H., & Lusseau, D. (2015). Estimating Cumulative Exposure of Wildlife to Non-Lethal Disturbance Using Spatially Explicit Capture–Recapture Models. Journal of Wildlife Managment, 1–14. http://doi.org/10.1002/jwmg.836

Clark, C. W., & ELLISON, W. T. (2004). Potential use of low-frequency sounds by baleen whales for probing the environment: evidence from models and empirical measurements. In J. Thomas, C. Moss, & M. Vater, Echolocation in Bats and Dolphins (pp. 564–582). The University of Chicago Press.

Clark, C. W., ELLISON, W. T., SOUTHALL, B. L., Hatch, L., van Parijs, S. M., Frankel, A., & Ponirakis, D. (2009). Acoustic masking in marine ecosystems: intuitions, analysis, and implication. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 395, 201–222. http://doi.org/10.3354/meps08402

Di Iorio, L., & Clark, C. W. (2010). Exposure to seismic survey alters blue whale acoustic communication. Biol Lett, 6(1), 51–54. http://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2009.0651

Engås, A., Løkkeborg, S., Ona, E., and Soldal, A.V., Effects of seismic shooting on local abundance and catch rates of cod (Gadus morhua) and haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus), Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 53: 2238-2249 (1996).

Guerra, M., Thode, A. M., Blackwell, S. B., & Macrander, A. M. (2011). Quantifying seismic survey reverberation off the Alaskan North Slope. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 130, 3046–3058.

Hatch, L. T., Clark, C. W., Van Parijs, S. M., Frankel, A. S., & Ponirakis, D. W. (2012). Quantifying Loss of Acoustic Communication Space for Right Whales in and around a U.S. National Marine Sanctuary. Conservation Biology, 26(6), 983–994. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2012.01908.x

HESS. (1999). High Energy Seismic Survey (HESS) review process and interim operational guidelines for marine surveys offshore southern California. (H. E. S. S. T. HESS). Camarillo, CA: California State Lands Commission and U.S. Minerals Management Service.

Hildebrand, J. A. (2009). Anthropogenic and natural sources of ambient noise in the ocean. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 395, 5–20. http://doi.org/10.3354/meps08353

Holles, S, Simpson, SD, Radford, AN, Berten, L, Lecchini, D 2013. Boat noise disrupts orientation behaviour in a coral reef fish. Vol. 485: 295–300 doi: 10.3354/meps10346

King, S. L., Schick, R. S., Donovan, C., Booth, C. G., Burgman, M., Thomas, L., & Harwood, J. (2015). An interim framework for assessing the population consequences of disturbance. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, n/a–n/a. http://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.12411

Løkkeborg, S., Ona, E., Vold, A., Pena, H., Salthaug, A., Totland, B., Øvredal, J.T., Dalen, J. and Handegard, N.O., Effects of seismic surveys on fish distribution and catch rates of gillnets and longlines in Vesterålen in summer 2009 (2010) (Institute of Marine Research Report for Norwegian Petroleum Directorate).

McEwen, B. S. (2000). Protective and damaging effects of stress mediators. New England Journal of Medicine, 338(3), 171–179. Miller, P. J. O., Johnson, M. P., Madsen, P. T., Biassoni, N., Quero, M., & Tyack, P. L. (2009). Using at-sea experiments to study the

effects of airguns on the foraging behavior of sperm whales in the Gulf of Mexico. Deep Sea Research I, 56, 1168–1181. Nieukirk, S. L., Mellinger, D. K., Moore, S. E., Klinck, K., Dziak, R. P., & Goslin, J. (2012). Sounds from airguns and fin whales

recorded in the mid-Atlantic Ocean, 1999–2009. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 131(2), 1102. http://doi.org/10.1121/1.3672648

Nieukirk, S. L., Stafford, K. M., Mellinger, D. K., Dziak, R. P., & Fox, C. G. (2004). Low-frequency whale and seismic airgun sounds recorded in the mid-Atlantic Ocean. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 115(4), 1832–1843. http://doi.org/10.1121/1.1675816

Nowacek, D., Bröker, K., Donovan, G. P., Gailey, G., Racca, R., Reeves, R. R., et al. (2013). Responsible Practices for Minimizing and Monitoring Environmental Impacts of Marine Seismic Surveys with an Emphasis on Marine Mammals. Aquatic Mammals, 39(4), 356–377. http://doi.org/10.1578/AM.39.4.2013.356

Pirotta E, Brookes KL, Graham IM, Thompson PM. 2014 Variation in harbour porpoise activity in response to seismic survey noise. Biol. Lett. 10: 20131090. http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2013.1090

Purser J, Radford AN (2011) Acoustic Noise Induces Attention Shifts and Reduces Foraging Performance in Three-Spined Sticklebacks (Gasterosteus aculeatus). PLoS ONE 6(2): e17478. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0017478

Richardson, W. J., Miller, G. W., & Greene, C. J. (1999). Displacement of migrating bowhead whales by sounds from seismic

surveys in shallow waters of the Beaufort Sea. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 106, 2281. Rolland, R. M., Parks, S. E., Hunt, K. E., Castellote, M., Corkeron, P. J., Nowacek, D. P., et al. (2012). Evidence that ship noise

increases stress in right whales. Proceedings of the Royal Society B-Biological Sciences, 279(1737), 2363–2368. http://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2011.2429

Shannon, G., McKenna, M. F., Angeloni, L. M., Crooks, K. R., Fristrup, K. M., Brown, E., et al. (2015). A synthesis of two decades of research documenting the effects of noise on wildlife. Biological Reviews, n/a–n/a. http://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12207

Slotte, A., Hansen, K., Dalen, J., and Ona, E., Acoustic mapping of pelagic fish distribution and abundance in relation to a seismic shooting area off the Norwegian west coast, Fisheries Research 67:143-150 (2004)

Southall, B. L., Bowles, A. E., Ellison, W. T., Finneran, J. J., Gentry, R. L., Greene, C. R., et al. (2007). Marine mammal noise exposure criteria: initial scientific recommendations. Aquatic Mammals, 33(4), 411–521.

Voellmy, I., Purser, J, Flynn, D, Kennedy, P, Simpson, S, Radford, AN. 2014. Acoustic noise reduces foraging success in two sympatric fish species via different mechanisms. Animal Behaviour 89:191–198.

Wikelski, M., & Cooke, S. J. (2006). Conservation physiology. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 21(1), 38–46. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2005.10.018

Testimony of

Jim White

On Behalf of the International Association of Geophysical Contractors

Oversight Hearing on

“The Fundamental Role of Safe Seismic Surveying in OCS Energy Exploration

and Development”

Before the U.S. House of Representatives

Committee on Natural Resources

Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources

July 14, 2015

Statement of Jim White

ARKeX

Before the

Committee on Natural Resources

Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources

U.S. House of Representatives

Hearing on

“The Fundamental Role of Safe Seismic Surveying in OCS Energy Exploration and

Development”

July, 14 2015

To Chairman Lamborn, Ranking Member Lowenthal and Members of the Subcommittee:

Good Morning. I appreciate the opportunity to be here today to discuss the role of safe

geophysical surveying in the exploration of the outer continental shelf energy, and specifically in

the Atlantic.

My name is Jim White, and I am President of ARKeX, a non-seismic geophysical company. We

provide multi-client and proprietary geophysical data and integrated workflows to oil and gas

exploration and production (E&P) companies in the United States and worldwide. We are

headquartered in Cambridge, UK with offices in Houston and Australia. ARKeX is a member of

the International Association of Geophysical Contractors (IAGC), the trade association of the

global geophysical industry and the International Airborne Geophysics Safety Association. I

would like to thank the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources for the opportunity to

testify at this oversight hearing regarding “The Fundamental Role of Safe Seismic Surveying in

OCS Energy Exploration and Development.”

We are pleased that Congress continues to look into this important matter that will provide for

the nation’s continued progress toward energy independence, economic vitality and energy

security. It is now time for us to move forward and take the first step in determining the resource

potential of the Atlantic OCS by allowing geophysical surveys to get underway. It has been over

a year since the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) released its Record of Decision

(ROD) authorizing permitting of geophysical activities on the Atlantic OCS.

Seismic and other geophysical surveys have been safely conducted in the U.S. and around the

globe for over 50 years. These geophysical surveys are the critical first step to better

understanding the resource base of the Atlantic OCS and providing policy makers and regulators

with the information they need to make informed decisions about oil and gas development based

on the best available data. Surveys do not necessarily lead to oil and gas development. In fact,

surveys determine both areas that are and are not likely to have recoverable oil and gas

resources. However, unless the surveys can commence, that information will never be available

to policy makers and the public.

Today, my comments will focus on the key role of geophysical surveys in determining the

resource potential, the safety of our technology and the difficult process of obtaining permits to

perform geophysical surveys of the Mid- and South Atlantic OCS.

I would first like to give a description of my company, ARKeX and our technology. ARKeX

acquires non-seismic geophysical data using Full Tensor Gravity Gradiometry, also known as

FTG and licenses these products to oil and gas companies. We also provide the same products to

the BOEM for its use in evaluating the OCS resource base, ensuring it receives fair market value

when it leases OCS lands, and makes the many conservation decisions required of the Bureau as

it administers its obligations under the OCS Lands Act.

I have mentioned non-seismic surveys a few times. It is important to note that the geophysical

surveying that would take place in the Atlantic OCS is not only seismic, which utilizes an

acoustic energy source, but non-seismic as well. ARKeX’s FTG survey data will be acquired

from a fixed-wing aircraft with no at-sea activities and no component of the survey being within

federal or state waters. The FTG surveys measures minute variations in the Earth’s gravitational

field. There is no sound source associated with gravity or magnetic surveys.

It should be noted that our flight paths and flight heights are generally the same as those planes

that fly advertisement banners daily along the Atlantic coastline. A typical survey acquisition

grid is similar to marine seismic surveys, generally with flight-line spacing of 0.5 – 3.0

kilometers. Surveys of 500 square kilometers can be completed in a few hours. The objectives of

the survey (such as the amount of area to be covered, the desired detail to be obtained, etc.) and

the cost determine three of the most important factors to be specified for any given survey: (1)

the altitude at which the survey will be conducted; (2) the flight-line separation; and (3) the

flight-line orientation, or direction. Similar surveys were recently completed offshore Greenland

and offshore Honduras.

By combining the broadband gravity data from an FTG survey with existing subsurface

knowledge, geologists can improve the confidence in their geological model and more accurately

target oil, gas and mineral deposits. FTG is a complement to seismic surveys and does not

replace seismic. Our data is used in conjunction with seismic data to provide an improved

interpretation and can also act as a stand-alone service that is often used in frontier areas to

effectively place seismic programs for a better understanding of the resource potential.

Why new seismic is needed for the Mid- and South Atlantic OCS

There is no question that geophysical surveys are greatly needed in the Atlantic. It has been

nearly 40 years since geological & geophysical (G&G) surveys were conducted in Atlantic

waters. BOEM currently estimates that the Mid- and South Atlantic OCS contains at least 4.7

billion barrels of oil and 37.5 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. These estimates are impressive,

but it is widely believed that modern seismic imaging using the latest technology will show

much greater resources than the 40-year-old estimates. Geologists and geophysicists believe that

the Atlantic OCS could have much more abundant oil and gas resources than we previously

believed based on the hydrocarbon productivity of the Atlantic Margin in areas like West Africa,

Brazil and Nova Scotia. Thus, current estimates are outdated and, in all likelihood, grossly

inaccurate.

When BOEM released its draft Five-Year Plan for offshore oil and gas leasing in January of this

year, Secretary Jewell stated interest in “learning more about the resource potential” in the

Atlantic OCS. Modern geophysical imaging is the only feasible technology available to make

this evaluation. The industry’s array of new tools—reflection, gravity, magnetics,

electromagnetic—can better help us understand the potential resource.

Today, geophysical surveys use modern data acquisition and data processing techniques using

massive computing power to produce sub-surface images which are much detailed and more

accurate than those from decades ago, or even five years ago. Better information enables the

government’s evaluation of the potential resource base as well as for prospecting for oil and

natural gas reserves offshore.

We know from experience that exploration and development activities generally lead to

increased resource estimates. In 1987, the Minerals Management Service estimated only 9.57

billion barrels of oil in the Gulf of Mexico. With more recent geophysical data acquisition and

additional exploratory drilling, that estimate rose in 2011 to 48.4 billion barrels of oil — a 500

percent increase.

Benefits of G&G Surveys

The benefits of modern geophysical surveys are numerous from environmental to economic.

They make offshore energy production safer and more efficient by greatly reducing the drilling

of “dry holes” (where no oil or gas is found). Because survey activities are temporary and

transitory, it is the safest and least intrusive and also the most cost-effective way to understand

where recoverable oil and gas resources are likely exist in the Mid- and South Atlantic OCS.

Additionally, it is expected that initial surveys will be non-exclusive or multi-client, meaning

they would be shared by all E&P companies. The data gathered in a one-time process can be

used again and again.

For the energy industry, modern geophysical imaging provides greater certainty by increasing

the likelihood that exploratory wells will successfully tap hydrocarbons and helping avoid

drilling for oil and gas in areas where we won't likely be successful. It reduces the number of

wells that need to be drilled in a given area, therefore reducing the overall footprint for

exploration.

In addition to modern survey techniques, another key technological advancement has come with

the help of the computing industry. This industry has helped to spur marked advancements in

computing not only for the oil and gas industry but for society as a whole. The development of

more powerful computers at diminishing prices allowed us to further leverage new acquisition

tools. Ever greater computing power freed the creativity and innovation of data processing

professionals to develop increasingly complex algorithms that address the vast number of

challenges offered by the complex earth. And these complex algorithms are now being applied

against an ever expanding number of data points.

With substantially larger amounts of data, and with more complex processing techniques that are

run on increasingly more powerful computers, we are now able to identify with accuracy drilling

targets the size of a parking lot three miles deep into the earth (and sometimes through a mile of

water!). This enables the drilling engineers to do what they do best – hit those targets.

This industry is also applying these new techniques in older producing areas – areas that are

known to generate and trap oil and gas. We are able to use the fine scale resolution offered by

today’s imaging techniques to find reserves that went unseen using the older techniques.

Additionally, to maximize production from existing reservoirs, another dimension in technology

– 4D – has been introduced. By acquiring 3D at the same location repeatedly, it is now possible

to have a motion picture visualizing the behavior and evolution of fluids in the reservoir as it is

produced.

Atlantic Permitting Process Challenges

Whether in private business or government, the best decisions are generally made when we have

the best available data. This is true of our nation's oil and gas resources. It only makes sense for

us to understand the resource base and its value.

It is very important to note that G&G activities under consideration in the Atlantic OCS will not

only be used to identify potential oil and gas resources, but also to identify suitable areas to place

offshore renewable energy facilities. Geophysical surveys enable our nation to reach its full

energy potential by truly using an “all-of-the-above” approach.

ARKeX applied for our permit in June of last year. Since that time, we have done our part to

properly inform and educate various state and federal agencies through numerous meetings and

presentations. We have completed every public and environmental review, state consistency

determination, and condition necessary to obtaining our permit. We have reviewed and

addressed every mitigation measure recommended by BOEM, NOAA Fisheries, the Department

of Defense, the Department of the Navy, State Coastal Management Offices, and the National

Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).

To our knowledge, every agency has approved and signed off on our permit and our plane is

sitting in North Carolina ready to commence operations, awaiting the administration’s final

approval.

Geophysical Survey Safety and Environmental Responsibility

There is no evidence that sound from geophysical acquisition activities is harmful to marine life.

The geophysical industry operates in every region of the world and works very closely with local

governments to ensure that geophysical operations do not disturb local marine life and coastal

communities. Experience shows that geophysical survey activities, tourism, fisheries, and

marine life can and do coexist successfully.1 Despite recent statements by critics who oppose

opening up the Atlantic OCS to oil and gas exploration, the geophysical industry has

demonstrated for over 50 years its ability to operate seismic exploration activities in an

environmentally safe and responsible manner that protects marine life.

The Federal government affirms that sound from geophysical surveys has not been found to be

injurious to marine life. In the March 4, 2014, publication of the Federal Register, the National

Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), stated the following (section 6): “To date, there is no

evidence that serious injury, death or stranding by marine mammals can occur from exposure to

airgun pulses, even in the case of large airgun arrays.” (NOAA - National Marine Fisheries

Service, Federal Register Notice March 4, 2014 -Vol. 79, No. 42, Page 12166).

Additionally, the BOEM substantiates the NMFS statement in its August 22, 2014 Science

Notes. In the publication, the BOEM states, “To date, there has been no documented scientific

evidence of noise from air guns used in geological and geophysical (G&G) seismic activities

adversely affecting marine animal populations or coastal communities. This technology has been

used for more than 30 years around the world. It is still used in U.S. waters off of the Gulf of

Mexico with no known detrimental impact to marine animal populations or to commercial

fishing.” The BOEM affirmed this fact in its March 9, 2015 Science Notes.

The geophysical industry takes a great deal of care and consideration of potential impacts to the

marine environment. Despite the lack of evidence that geophysical surveys pose a danger to

marine life and because this is a priority, we implement mitigation measures to further reduce

any potential impacts to marine mammals. Examples include the avoidance of important feeding

and breeding areas, demarcation of exclusion zones around seismic operations, soft starts

(gradual ramping up of a seismic sound source), and visual and acoustic monitoring by

professionally trained marine mammal observers. Any activity in the Atlantic would be done

with at least the same care and consideration for marine life.

The geophysical industry continues to support scientific research by investing millions of dollars

to fill any knowledge gaps that may exist in knowing how marine life interrelates to seismic and

other geophysical operations. Research studies and operations monitoring programs designed to

assess the potential impacts from seismic surveys have not demonstrated biologically significant

adverse impacts on marine mammal populations. Industry continually monitors the effectiveness

of the mitigation strategies it employs and funds research to better understand interactions

between E&P operations and marine mammals.

Conclusion

Now is the time for the nation to take the necessary steps toward continued energy security and

independence by allowing geophysical surveys to get underway in the mid- and south Atlantic

1 See, e.g., BOEM, Final EIS for Gulf of Mexico OCS Oil and Gas Eastern Planning Area Lease Sales 225 and 226,

at 2-22 (2013) (“Within the [Gulf of Mexico Central Planning Area], which is directly adjacent to the [Eastern

Planning Area], there is a long-standing and well-developed OCS program (more than 50 years); there are no data to

suggest that activities from the preexisting OCS Program are significantly impacting marine mammal populations.”).

OCS. We must equip our decision makers with the necessary information they need to make

sound decisions regarding the future of oil and gas leasing in the Atlantic. Americans deserve

public policy decisions that are made based on the best information possible, and modern

geophysical surveys provide that data.

If the Administration includes the Atlantic OCS in the next five-year lease plan and, based on the

geophysical data collected by our industry, lease bids are made, the geophysical industry will

play another critical role in providing the information necessary to safely and accurately explore

and develop these vital resources.

I hope this information is useful to your understanding the key role of geophysical surveys for

the Atlantic OCS. Thank you for your time and attention today. I look forward to any questions

you may have. IAGC and I are at your disposal if we can be of further service. I appreciate the

opportunity to testify before the Subcommittee.