Whale of a problem
  from: Offshore Engineer
  by: Andrew McBarnet
  Monday, April 07, 2008

Not everything is plain sailing in the marine seismic business, especially when it comes to environmental objections to man-made sounds disturbing the world’s marine mammal community. Andrew McBarnet fishes deeper.

The E&P offshore industry, including the marine seismic business, is looking increasingly ensnared in the net of environmental ‘concern’ with regard to the impact of anthropogenic (man-made) sound on marine life, particularly mammals. It’s a kind of exquisite torture. The more the industry wriggles to explain itself, the tighter the net becomes. Public sympathy for its plight? There is none.

What’s worrying the seismic business is the insidious growth in environmental protection measures imposed on behalf of the oceans’ marine mammal population by regulators around the world. These can be operational in terms of the precautions to be taken before starting a survey, for example, making sure that there are no mammals in the vicinity which rules out operations in poor visibility and at night. More serious are the growing number of seasonal prohibitions and calls for permanent ‘keep out’ marine protection areas (MPAs) at locations which are potential oil and gas prospects. This of course has deeper societal issues ultimately pitting economic need for hydrocarbon resources against human empathy for mammals and the marine environment.

The real frustration for E&P operations is that this growing raft of regulations, as well as proposed international agreements on promoting ‘silent oceans’ are for the most part based on the precautionary principle. There is no dispute about the fact that marine mammals rely on sound for social interaction (including breeding), feeding, predator avoidance, and spatial orientation (navigation), and that anthropogenic sound may interfere with these vital functions. It is also clear that the source signal for seismic surveys generates a range of frequencies that overlaps with those used by different species of whales. But no-one so far has been able to come up with any convincing scientific evidence of damage caused to mammals by exposure to the noise of airguns.

A case in point would be the 2003 report by Carolyn J Stone for the highly reputable UK-based Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC). JNCC was the first body in the world to issue operational guidelines for seismic survey activity to minimise disturbance to mammals, which have been in force in the UK since 1995. Stone’s report was based on 1625 sightings of marine mammals (28,165 individuals) in UK waters between 1998-2000 plus a couple of surveys in 1997. A total of some 44,551 hours of observation time was involved, of varying quality depending on whether trained marine mammal observers (MMOs) or vessel crew members were responsible for the reporting. The conclusion was typical, suggesting ‘some level of disturbance of cetaceans from seismic activity, although to what extent this poses a serious threat to the health of mammals is not known’. Stone identified that small ondontocetes took most avoidance action, baleen and killer whales showed some localised avoidance, while pilot whales displayed little and sperm whales no observed effects. Noting that ‘other potential effects of seismic activity remain largely unknown, for example long-term effects, effects on vocalisations, social behaviour and physiology, consequences of auditory masking and the potential damage to hearing’, she advocated that ‘precautionary guidelines to minimise disturbance continue to be applied’.

High-profile strandings

In as much as environmental lobbying has been responsible for governments taking action to preserve the marine mammal environment, the first high profile activity was seen in UK waters in the mid-1990s. But environmental non-government organisations (NGOs) were offered huge leverage by a series of mainly beaked-whale strandings in Greece (1996), the Bahamas (2000) – where evidence of acoustic trauma was found, Madeira (2000), and the Canary Islands (2002). In each case recent operation of naval military sonar (not comparable to seismic shooting) was implicated. But proximity to seismic surveying has been associated with incidents in Brazil and Mexico in 2002, and western grey whales off Sakhalin Island, Russia were reported to have been disturbed from a primary feeding ground as a result of seismic surveying.

The best quick reference to the whole issue is to be found in the 2006 Report of the Federal Advisory Committee on Acoustic Impacts on Marine Mammals made to the US-based Marine Mammal Commission in which environmental NGO heavyweights such as the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), the Ocean Mammal Institute (OMI) and the Whale & Dolphin Conservation Society (WDCS) were all represented.

Their submission, which explores the above-mentioned incidents in some detail, ends with a familiar call to precautionary action, stating: ‘Undersea noise is a serious threat, although it is not possible to ascertain the scope of the problem at this time. Because of the limitations of marine mammal science, precaution is called for in regulation of noise to adequately protect marine mammals. Immediate and effective mitigation measures, such as geographic exclusion zones, must be implemented to distance marine mammals from noise sources. Efforts must be made to reduce the “acoustic footprint” of human activities in general.’

In the same report the Energy Producers Caucus, in which the International Association of Geophysical Contractors and some of its member companies were prominently represented, offers a completely different perspective. It categorically denies any ‘environmental crisis’ or scientifically established ‘threat’ to mammal populations caused by anthropogenic sound and suggests that the focus on this issue is essentially misguided. For context, it quotes the US-based National Research Council Report (2005) which found that anthropogenic sound was only linked to four marine mammal stranding incidents (less than 100 animals over several years) on the US coast compared with on average 3700 whales a year that strand for other reasons. The Caucus also points to the estimated 300-500,000 marine mammals killed annually as a result of fishing ‘by-catch’ and the statement by the environmental NGO World Wildlife Fund that ‘unintentional death of whales and dolphins in fishing gear is pushing some cetacean species to the brink of extinction’.

Simply stating that the sound of marine seismic and, for that matter, other offshore operational noise such as drilling, pile driving etc, should not be a priority issue in protecting the welfare of marine mammals cannot escape one reality. Seismic surveys are an easy target: there can’t be more than 150 vessels of any kind working in the ocean at any time and their operations are already subject to numerous regulations, so adding on another few isn’t much of a problem. The global fishing industry is on a completely different scale and is far less effectively regulated. This is well understood by both the International Association of Oil & Gas Producers (OGP) and the IAGC which have been working together to present an industry view agreed by oil companies and their contractors. It is not an easy assignment.

The fatal flaw of research

The gist of the reports from government agencies, environmental NGOs, academia, and the oil industry all come to at least one agreed conclusion: more research is needed to understand the issues involved. In principle this is very logical, yet from an industry perspective there is a fatal flaw. Given the nature of the research, mammals in the ocean, it is highly unlikely that scientifically-based conclusions that everyone can agree on are going to emerge anytime soon. In the report to the Marine Mammals Commission, the environmental NGOs call for unbiased research, implying that the industry will pay to get the results it wants. Questions have also been asked about the ethics of some mammal research. This is not a good omen, but there is a far more fundamental issue. How on earth is anyone going to prove that mammals are insufficiently disturbed by seismic surveying noise for us to not worry about it? An interview with a whale might do the trick, but otherwise the ‘potential’ harm of noise argument will always win the day.

There’s no doubt that the E&P industry has been slow to recognise the implications of increasing debate about anthropogenic sound and its possible effect on mammals. It may be that the JNCC guidelines promulgated in the UK in 1995 seemed sufficiently benign not to cause any undue threat to exploration. As well as various pre-survey planning measures, JNCC requirements include a 30 minute pre-start check for the presence of marine mammals within 500m of vessel operation. If any mammals are detected, use of airguns has to be delayed. Whenever possible operations are also expected to ‘soft-start’ by ramping up the airguns pressure gradually to give additional time for mammals to clear the area. Mitigation options also include the use of trained observers (MMOs) and acoustic monitoring systems to detect the presence of whales in the vicinity, especially when visibility is limited.

Similar guidelines have been implemented in a number of key hydrocarbon provinces of the world such as the US, Canada, Australia and Brazil, and the assumption must be that other countries, for example in West Africa and Southeast Asia, will follow suit. Over time the requirements appear to be becoming more onerous, and of course, at international level, environmental NGOs are pressing governments for the creation of quite extensive marine protection areas where no E&P operations would be allowed.

This summer the Irish government published its code of practice which was expected by the industry to be similar to the JNCC regulations in the neighbouring waters of the UK. In fact they turned out to be more restrictive. Offshore Alaska the recent mitigation requirements for seismic surveys in areas of significant whale populations have been controversial with stipulations that can only be met with airplane surveillance and/or multiple vessel observation which pose health and safety as well as cost issues.

A concerted response

Two years ago a concerted response from the oil and gas industry began to evolve with phase one of a Joint Industry Programme (JIP 1). Nine oil companies originally formed the JIP to sponsor a survey of existing knowledge gaps about underwater sound and its effects on animals. JIP 1 conducted a review of knowledge gaps, regional regulations, relevant international treaties and laws, potential funding partners, and existing research programmes on sound and marine animals.

Simultaneously, plans were laid to characterise a 3D airgun array and to develop a passive acoustic mitigation system called PamGuard, a subject in itself. In many circumstances MMOs visual methods are unable to verify whether mammals are close to survey vessels. The idea of developing PamGuard is to improve on the existing passive acoustic systems for identifying mammals. This is intended to be open source software attached to some form of hydrophone listening device towed in the water which can provide a sound picture of the ocean surrounds. The project is currently being undertaken by Heriot- Watt University, Ecologic and the Sea Mammal Research Unit at St Andrews University, all in Scotland, along with Oregon State University and Scripps Institution of Oceanography in the US. This collaboration has enabled PamGuard to incorporate the functionalities of two long standing systems (Rainbow Click/Whistle and Ishmael) and also recently developed capabilities such as Scripps 3D localisation.

High expectations have been placed on the value of PamGuard by all parties, but it is only a mitigation measure and word is that it has a lot of challenges to overcome in terms of range and accuracy. Other research is ongoing. For example, the OceanEar subsidiary of the UK-based WGP Group which organises training programmes for MMOs, is working with the University of Plymouth on enhanced hardware for passive acoustic monitoring systems. In fact one of the main categories for funded research in JIP 2 which was initiated in May 2006 involves ‘mitigation and monitoring methods’ such as PamGuard. Other key research priorities include ‘sound source characterisation and propagation’ with the idea of establishing more precisely the spread and frequency range of seismic airguns given that the compressed air from the guns is initially forced downward to the seabed. There is scope too for investigating alternative less invasive seismic sources, such as the electrical marine vibrator in development by Petroleum Geo-Services for use in environmentally sensitive areas. ‘Physical, physiological and hearing effects of sound’ and ‘behavioural reactions and biological significance’ are the other categories of the research programme now budgeted in excess of $10 million.

Facing the challenge

The declared goal of JIP 2 is to fund research to address gaps in our knowledge about the sound created by seismic surveys and its effect on marine life. Once this is done the hope is that the evidence will demonstrate that responsible compliance with existing or improved mitigation measures are sufficient to ensure the continuing welfare of marine mammals without further restriction on E&P operations. In this instance the adage that such knowledge will convey the power to convince is probably misplaced. Research results have a habit of raising more questions than they answer and, if any funding is available, there will be plenty of academics willing to join the fray with further research.

More to the point, the industry has to challenge one of the most powerful contemporary lobbies – environmental protection – which has the ear of politicians and is in tune with the thinking of many people. In this instance the industry is ill-equipped to get its message across. Like it or not, public distrust of Big Oil and those who serve it is widespread for all sorts of reasons which we don’t need to rehearse here. A further handicap is that the industry does not speak as one voice, there is no ‘go to’ organisation for opinion. Environmental NGOs, for example, are much better organised in this respect and more effective in influencing discussion on marine environmental issues which take place at international meetings where it is hard for the oil industry to present a united front. For example, the UN and UNEP (UN Environmental Programme) working with the WDCS declared 2007 the ‘year of the dolphin’!

For the time being, therefore, marine seismic contractors look to be stuck with increasing regulation until some genius can come up with an alternative to the precautionary principle when it comes to disturbance of the world’s whales and other marine mammals. OE

Click here to register to receive your own copy of Offshore Engineer each month.