Ocean Drilling Opposition Mounts With Md. Attorney General Joining In

OCEAN CITY — With the federal government holding information sessions along the coast on a proposed lease of a vast area off the mid-Atlantic coast for offshore oil and natural gas drilling, the momentum continues to build against the idea from several sectors locally.

In January, the federal Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) announced a proposal to lease a 2.9 million acre swath of ocean off the coast off the mid-Atlantic coast for oil and natural gas exploration, and, eventually, excavation. As part of the Obama Administration’s strategy to expand safe and responsible domestic energy production, the Department of the Interior, through BOEM, announced the proposed lease program off the mid-Atlantic coast and opened a public comment period to allow citizens to weigh in on the proposal.

The public comment period on the proposed leases ended on March 30, but there is still ample time for the public and private sectors to weigh in on the proposal. On Wednesday, BOEM conducted another public meeting in Annapolis as part of its schedule for hearings up and down the mid-Atlantic coast. Locally, the Assateague Coastal Trust (ACT), along with the Maryland Coastal Bays Program and the Surfrider Foundation this week came out strongly opposed to the proposed leases offshore for oil and natural gas drilling.

In addition, Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh this week fired off a strongly worded letter to BOEM urging the federal agency to reconsider its plan. For all of the public and private sector agencies opposed to the plan, the issue boils down to preserving the natural resources along Ocean City and Assateague and protecting the economies that rely on them.

“Visitor spending in Worcester County accounts for about $1.5 billion and provides millions of tax dollars to both the state and county annually,” said ACT Outreach Coordinator Matt Heim, who has been leading the organization’s efforts in opposition to the proposal. “What would happen if even a small spill closed our beaches for a few weeks over the summer? That could make or break so many small businesses.”

While the proposed lease area includes the vast nearly three million acre swath off the Virginia coast, detractors warn future oil rigs could loom just 50 miles off the coast of Ocean City, Assateague and the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay. Many have already raised concerns about erecting massive offshore oil rigs in ecologically sensitive areas off the mid-Atlantic coast, while others are concerned the plan signals an expansion of non-renewable, fossil-based energy sources while there is growing momentum to move forward with renewable, sustainable energy, including the proposed offshore wind energy farm off the coast of Ocean City.

Locally, there is reason for concern on many levels. The area targeted off the coast of Virginia is just 50 miles from Assateague Island and, by extension, the Maryland coast including Ocean City. There are considerable 25- and 50-mile buffers in place between the easternmost edge of the target area and the Maryland and Virginia coasts, and the plan also includes a no obstruction zone at the mouth of the Chesapeake, but the proposed offshore drilling area is still a little too close for comfort for many in the area.

For many, the potential gains from opening the mid-Atlantic coast to offshore oil and gas drilling simply don’t outweigh the risks. For example, the estimated three billion barrels of oil and 25 trillion cubic feet of gas expected to found in the mid-Atlantic lease areas represent only four percent of the nation’s total reserves.

Because of the risks to the state’s waterways, coastline and economy, Maryland’s regulatory and enforcement authority will likely be triggered under state and federal law if the proposal moves forward. To that end, Frosh this week fired off a strongly worded letter to BOEM in opposition to oil and gas drilling in close proximity to Maryland’s Atlantic beaches and the Chesapeake.

“The idea of allowing oil exploration along the Atlantic coast is beyond foolish,” he said. “Half of the water in the Chesapeake Bay comes from the Atlantic Ocean. Beaches like Assateague Island National Seashore are some of the most unspoiled in the nation. We would be jeopardizing the very assets we are working so hard to preserve.”

Frosh’s comments to the Department of the Interior noted that many segments of Maryland’s economy would be placed at risk by the proposal, from the $4 billion mid-Atlantic fisheries to the $1 billion in tourism spending in Ocean City and Worcester County.

“There is just no way to eliminate the risk of spills and blowouts,” he said. “The cumulative effects of small leaks can be as damaging as huge disasters such as the BP Deepwater Horizon blowout. Maryland’s tourism economy, fishing economy and natural resources would all be at risk if this unnecessary plan moves forward.”

The Surfrider Foundation also weighed on the issue this week, urging its members to sign a petition to help stop the proposed offshore drilling.

“New offshore drilling would pollute our oceans and cause major impacts to marine wildlife including whales, dolphins and fish populations,” the petition reads. “It would also create the risk of a catastrophic oil spill that would damage coastal communities and tourism, recreation and fishing industries.”

While BOEM continues to hold public informational meetings up and down the mid-Atlantic coast, ACT Executive Director and Coastkeeper Kathy Phillips this week called into question that process.

“The way BOEM has run these meetings, it simply did not foster meaningful public education or dialogue,” she said. “Any verbal communication that did occur between BOEM and the public at these meetings was not recorded and we feel BOEM did not meet the requirement to hold official public hearings. In a true public hearing or town hall meeting, people hear each other’s perspectives, leading to greater knowledge, awareness and a much more, well-rounded and informed discussion. It’s something we deserve, considering the implications of this proposal.”