498 



accompanying a smaller chance of an oilspill. The point is that the 

 relative weight in the balance changes. 



If there is one oilspill and the resource potential is high, you 

 could make the argument — I would not — that that oil is worth 

 taking that risk. If there is very little oil out there, and you are 

 taking that same huge risk to the fishery, you have to ask the 

 question is it worth it. And I would say no, it is not in this case. 



Mr. D' Amours. But isn't it true the less drilling you do, the less 

 apt you are to have an oilspill? 



Ms. RiGG. It would depend on how the oil is concentrated. I don't 

 think that they have any sense of how it is concentrated. If you 

 could get the entire resource potential of Georges Bank off of one 

 tract, it would be an entirely different situation than if you have 

 that amount of oil spread out over 53 tracts, for example. 



Mr. D' Amours. Ms. Chapman. 



Ms. Chapman. I pretty much endorse what Kelly just said. I 

 think we should also bring up the fact that the Georges Bank area 

 contains certain areas that are particularly sensitive, such as 

 spawning areas. In those areas we may not be concerned so much 

 as to the magnitude of what we are doing, but simply the fact we 

 are doing anything there at all, any level of discharges at all. And 

 that would not particularly relate to the resource estimates. 



Mr. D' Amours. I will ask this of Ms. Rigg, if I may. You have 

 said in your testimony, on page 2 specifically, that the BTF has 

 taken a fragmented approach to a complex ecosystem. Could you 

 expand for us, in view of the testimony of the other witnesses we 

 have had today, on how an ecosystemwide study might be more 

 informative, more valuable, and how you would design such a 

 study, given earlier on the Biological 'Task Force did attempt to 

 craft some kind of a study that would be on a more ecosystemwide 

 pattern but could not do it. How would you improve on their proce- 

 dures? 



Ms. Rigg. I am not personally a scientist. In preparation for this 

 testimony, I have read all of the studies. I have brought my com- 

 ments and questions to several different scientists that I have the 

 occasion to work with. This was one of the problems brought out by 

 one of the scientists. 



Mr. D' Amours. But are you looking for something — it is like my 

 discussion with Dr. Ayers; you make a statement and then say you 

 are not qualified to discuss it. 



Ms. Rigg. I cannot personally say how to design a particular 

 study. I don't think it is my job to design a study. 



Mr. D' Amours. I agree. Let me ask you this. Are you saying that 

 you would like there to be a study that would be based on a more 

 ecosystemwide basis than we currently have? Is that what you are 

 saying? 



Ms. Rigg. Yes. 



Mr. D' Amours. What I am saying is, that is great if you can do 

 it. But can you do it? The Biological Task Force said it could not. I 

 take them at their word, unless you have information that there is 

 something they could have done or should have done that they 

 didn't do. 



Ms. Rigg. What I am saying is that the benthic infauna has been 

 studied, for example, but as somebody said earlier, there have been 



