State Energy Plan - Draft Comments Regarding Offshore Energy
In 2006 the Georgia General Assembly considered several single-chamber resolutions focused on the offshore energy issue.
House Resolution 1635 requested that the Southern States Energy Board inventory and study the possibility of exploring for
natural gas in the coastal areas of Georgia. House Resolution 1636 urged Congress and the President to lift the moratorium on
offshore oil and gas drilling. Finally, Senate Resolution 1129 urged the Minerals Management Service to include all outer
continental shelf planning areas in its proposed five-year plan for 2007 through 2012 and to approve the broadest possible
five-year plan for offshore development. The General Assembly did not pass any of these resolutions.
With the passage of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct 2005), Congress returned to the question of OCS mineral leasing and
commissioned a comprehensive inventory of oil and national gas reserves on the U.S. OCS. The Mineral Management Service's
study said the OCS "remains a significant potential domestic source of new natural gas resources from fields yet to be discovered"
(Minerals Management Service [MMS], 2006, p. ix), yet acknowledged that these resources "are in environmentally sensitive areas
and the development of those resources must be balanced against potential environmental impacts" (MMS, 2006, p. xiii). More research
is needed on the potential environmental impact of OCS exploration before the State of Georgia encourages it.
Although the prospects of finding offshore fossil-fuel reserves (oil and/or gas) are largely unknown, we strongly believe
that the Energy Plan's endorsement of lifting the ban on offshore exploration is unwise public policy, in large part due to
the adverse implications for Georgia's coastal water resources, living resources dependent on those waters, and the vital
role they play in the coastal economy.
Once the ban was lifted, if any recoverable energy resources were found, undoubtedly they would be "developed." This stage
of the process would include installation and use of massive industrial equipment, shoreside facilities, and - potentially -
onshore energy processing, including oil refinement, which is among the most undesirable of all industries. Any creation or
expansion of "heavy" (basic) industrial operations triggered by local energy development is likely to have disruptive consequences
for both water resources and the native landscape - both of which are essential to the coastal region's nature-based economy (worth more
than $1 billion annually), as well as our treasured quality of life.
Risks of spills from industrial accidents or natural events, either offshore or shoreside, would bring catastrophic worst-case scenarios,
including sustained damage to estuaries, with corresponding loss of fisheries - both commercial and recreational - that depend on the prolific
nutrients of these inter-tidal areas. Furthermore, as we face the widely predicted prospect of major coastal storms of greater intensity and
frequency, any development of such facilities in Georgia's coastal region would impose avoidable hazards from such events. If major energy
facilities for fossil fuel extraction, processing and storage were built in the region, hurricane storm surges and winds could inflict even
more destruction - with threatening implications for our communities, water quality, nature-based businesses, and essential habitat of fish,
birds, and other wildlife.
Moreover, energy independence can never be achieved through the exploitation of domestic fossil fuel reserves. Even the most generous projections
of the attainable yield from these resources could not keep pace with the rate of increase in U.S. energy demand. Further, generating electricity
using fossil fuel resources require large amounts of water for processing and cooling, which would further compound Georgia's water management
problems, both within the state and beyond. (See statement of the Georgia Water Coalition.)
The only way to achieve responsible energy independence is to rapidly develop sustainable alternatives, and to reduce waste through accountable,
well-coordinated conservation efforts. It's likely that by the time any of these potential offshore reserves were available as fuel for consumers,
emerging energy technologies already in progress would be competitively priced and far more compatible with the needs of our growing state.
A decision with such potentially sweeping statewide implications ought to be decided by the legislature instead of being advocated in a policy
document. This point is especially relevant in this instance, because the General Assembly considered but did not pass several resolutions that
would have advanced the unwise position on this issue now being endorsed in the Energy Plan.
In the unlikely event that objective, thorough examination of the issue supports lifting the ban, prior to taking any such action, dedication of
leasing revenues should be ensured as a means for compensating individuals when their interests are adversely affected. This would include making
adequate funds available for resolving legitimate damage claims resulting from property and/or business losses caused by accidents, errors, or
malfunctions linked to offshore energy operations. Considering the rapidly rising value of coastal real estate and the diversity of incomes
derived from healthy coastal ecosystems, such claims could be in the many billions of dollars, which is one important reason for keeping the
ban intact.
In short, fossil fuel development offshore, whether oil, natural gas, or both, is a precarious policy that fails to pass any reasonably objective
evaluation of the public interest test for this aspect of the State Energy Plan.
We therefore strongly advise against adopting any proposal to remove the ban on offshore fossil fuel exploration and development. At the
very least, comprehensive study of the prospective impacts, risks, and long-term consequences of the proposal must be conducted prior to
any action. Such an investigation must be done through a transparent, accountable process offering ample opportunity for public dialogue
to avoid the pitfalls of policies dominated by special interests.
~ David C. Kyler
Executive Director
Center for a Sustainable Coast
|
