492 



serve on the Georges Bank Monitoring Program Scientific Review 

 Board. 



I have four points that I would Hke to make. 



Point No. 1. I beHeve that the task force and Interior both acted 

 in a very responsible manner. The monitoring program is well de- 

 signed, well manned, scientifically valid, cost effective. It is being 

 carried out by some of the best scientists on the east coast. They 

 are doing an exceptional job. 



Point No. 2 is that industry supported this program from its in- 

 ception. Our position was based on the belief that the program 

 would show that exploratory drilling could be accomplished on the 

 Georges Bank without significant environmental impact. 



And this belief, of course, was based on results of several million 

 dollars worth of studies conducted in other Outer Continental Shelf 

 areas as well as the historical evidence of 26,000 wells drilled off- 

 shore with no significant adverse impact on fisheries. This is 40 

 years in the Gulf of Mexico and about 80 years in California. 



Furthermore, we believed the results from a scientifically sound 

 study of this type, funded by government, would be more accept- 

 able in the eyes of the public than a similar study funded by indus- 

 try. 



Point No. 3 deals with the results of the program itself. So far 

 the only changes in chemistry observed are low-level increases in 

 barium content near the well site. These are low levels. I think the 

 highest level of increase we have seen was up around a factor of 4. 

 You can contrast this to the other studies in the OCS in low-energy 

 environments, where we see increases by a factor of 20 to 30. 



Again, the barium we are talking about is barium sulfate. This is 

 insoluble; it is inert; it results from the barite discharges. 



More importantly, no biological impacts have been detected at 

 any station which could be attributed to drilling activity. Now, 

 these findings are consistent with and substantiate earlier site spe- 

 cific studies conducted in other high-energy environments. 



My point is there is no question that the Georges Bank area is a 

 very productive one, but now we are finding it is very insensitive to 

 drilling discharge, and this is what you would expect in this type of 

 environment. 



Point No. 4 is this program can be of great value to both policy- 

 makers and industry. Many of the fndings have application outside 

 the North Atlantic and can serve as an aid for anticipating effects 

 in many other undeveloped areas of the Outer Continental Shelf by 

 those responsible for preparing lease sale stipulations and dis- 

 charge permit conditions. 



I would like to add a little bit, just on what I heard today. I think 

 Interior is getting a little bit of a bad rap about not taking care of 

 the resources. Drilling discharge effects, there is no question, when 

 they occur, are highly localized. Interior does have lease sale stipu- 

 lations in areas of special biological significance. The one that 

 comes to mind is the Flower Garden Reefs, about 100 miles off- 

 shore Texas. Corals are the most significant species that we have 

 found as far as sensitivity to drilling discharges. They are most 

 sensitive. There are lease sale stipulations that limit how close you 

 can drill to the reefs as well as other mitigating measures that 

 have been imposed by Interior, and additionally by EPA. 



