that New England is going to benefit by its governors supporting offshore 

 drilling. Because the odds are against finding oil and gas in the North 

 Atlantic, the oil companies simply can't make any guarantees that would make a 

 governor's policy-making easier if he or she decides to endorse a drilling 

 program. 



The voters know the fishermen and the environmentalists. They don't know 

 the oil and gas explorationists. The oil and gas explorationists don't have a 

 permanent presence in New England. When criticisms of the industry are made 

 or issues arise, there is no spokesperson for them to provide a counterpoint 

 to advocates for the fishermen and environmental groups. Public opinion 

 responds accordingly. 



These are the political realities. And decisions are made by elected 

 officials--who are very sensitive to public opinion. 



So, although I hope science will continue to play an important role in 



the submarine canyon controversy, we have to keep in mind that science is not 



the only thing that will be considered if the canyons are ever offered for 

 lease. 



DISCUSSION 



Aurand: Considering that exploratory drilling on Georges Bank didn't 

 cause any damage, why has this fact been unsuccessful in reducing tension? 



Vild: I'm not convinced that opposition hasn't lessened, at least from 

 some of the fisherman's groups, but there seems to be a consolidation of 

 interest around certain points--the submarine canyons, for example. 



Hughes: For various reasons, including increased public awareness of the 

 Georges Bank fishery with passage of the 200-mi limit, research funded by DOl 

 that has helped to better define the Georges Bank system (for example, 

 described features that make Georges Bank "special"), reduction in resource 



76 



