465 



both Maine and Massachusetts made a conditional finding of con- 

 sistency. One of the conditions was that the Department of the In- 

 terior conduct an equipment oil spill test deployment before drill- 

 ing began. 



That test was conducted in the summer of 1981 in Rhode Island 

 Sound, prior to the beginning of exploratory drilling. The States 

 had members present (I was present on one of the boats). That was 

 another way in which we were involved with the oil spill issue. 



With regard to the question of whether the task force should be 

 involved, I concur with Pat that the task force is set up best to do 

 other things, and that the regional response team and the States, 

 through their consistency reviews, will continue to have the kind of 

 overall oversight of the oil spill issue that I think is necessary. 



Mr. D' Amours. I will address this question to anybody on the 

 panel that wants to answer, perhaps all four of you. 



You have heard Interior's testimony today, and you have heard 

 the testimony of the current chairperson of the Biological Task 

 Force. 



As to the risks involved in exploratory drilling, why wait for the 

 results of tests before making a decision if you have already prede- 

 termined that there is very little risk? Are you folks satisfied that, 

 at least in terms of exploratory drilling, the risk is such that we 

 need not consider or balance the potential gain in energy with the 

 risks to the ecosystem? 



Mr. FoY. Well, I am not personally persuaded of that. I think it 

 is undoubtedly true that exploratory drilling, all things being 

 equal, may be less risky than production activity. I would note, 

 though, the Campichi well, for instance, that blew out, was I be- 

 lieve in a transition between exploratory and production activity, 

 and therefore it is not reasonable to conclude that something 

 cannot happen of major consequence before you actually go to full 

 production. 



It is also simply not clear how much exploratory activity has to 

 occur before you start to see some effects. 



I guess the point I would go back to, though, is that the balance 

 as presently structured is supposed to be struck before leasing. 

 Therefore, it is not enough to just say, well, don't worry about ex- 

 ploration, it is not going to cause any damage. 



When you are selling leases you have to worry about what is 

 going to happen all the way down the line in production as well, 

 because you are making the commitment for the full process. And 

 it seems to me pretty much a red herring to say well exploration is 

 safe and we will worry about production later. You are going to 

 have to worry about production since you are guranteeing it will 

 probably happen once you sell the leases. 



Mr. D' Amours. But as to the exploration phase itself, one of the 

 purposes of the Biological Task Force, as I understand it, was to 

 determine whether or not the discharges from exploration, the 

 muds and tailings and the like, did themselves present serious 

 danger to an ecosystem, especially one as fragile as Georges Bank. 



Are you all persuaded that the early findings in Georges Bank 

 are sufficient for at least the purposes of balancing the risks? 



Mr. FoY. Not at all. Because remember, as was stated earlier, 

 you had a very limited amount of exploration on Georges Bank. 



