The matter of drilling offshore the island is one of cost/benefit balance, between the usefulness of production and the socio-economic costs if/when there is a problem, including in the balance an assessment of the probability of things going wrong.
In all likelihood, accessible gas/oil reserves off Kangaroo Island represent only a few years of world consumption, with economic benefits to the island practically nil.
Drilling at the bottom of the ocean is NOT the same thing as mining in a desert. Many more chances for all sorts of trouble: difficult access to the platform and also down there on the ocean floor, storms, fires harder to control (a platform is just like a ship), water is a much more difficult working environment for engineers and for humans generally than an air environment (try to pour concrete under water into a gushing oil-hole) — etc.
So chances of trouble are much higher than in usual mining situations, but that’s not all: once you spill it, the pollution doesn’t stay located in situ, ocean currents powerfully will disseminate it… and the direction is Kangaroo Island, where only the eastern coast would have a chance of being spared. So drilling at sea is a very different animal than drilling on land, both from an engineering and environmental point of view.
An oil spill has chemical and biological consequences, it pollutes and poisons the shores and the ocean bottom irreversibly, with oil droplets staying in suspension in the waters practically for ever. The island community would be devastated economically in addition to morally, tourism and the exploitation of the sea’s ressources being important to it.
So on the whole, objectively, the matter at hand is not so much a matter of personal inclination and philosophical vision of life, it’s a very practical one: offshore drilling would bring no advantage whatsoever to the island, only too high a probability of impending catastrophe.
Dr Gabriel Bittar, Kangaroo Island
see also:
Kangaroo Island threatened by oil drills (with a map)
Published in The Islander 2013.05.16
Gabriel,
I have to agree. At KIMAG we have deep unease about the drilling and have worked with the KI Council to get more information on the project. I believe that there is also deep unease in the KI community about the drilling. If this is so then KI really needs its citizens to speak up and be counted on this issue. If you disagree with the drilling then please get engaged and voice your concerns.
Paul
One only needs to read Colin Thiele’s Fight Against Albatross Two to see he was a visionary for the impact of offshore drilling for oil and gas on SA’s remote coastlines. He would be turning in his grave if he knew there was a rig planned off KI!! The book is set in a small town in the south east of SA, which is impacted upon by the arrival of a foreign owned oil rig that sets up with no consultation with the town and has a devastating oil spill within a few weeks. The oil spill WIPES OUT the coastline’s bird and animal populations, and the rig dismantles, moves down the coast and goes to drill again on the same seam. Oil companies have no care for the impact of offshore drilling on small communities like KI and for our remote and bountiful coastlines; they are there for their own immediate profit. We MUST stop offshore drilling off KI’s coast before it’s too late!!
Study demonstrates toxic impact of oil spill on dolphins
Health of Common Bottlenose Dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) in Barataria Bay, Louisiana, Following the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill
Schwacke et al. 2013
Publication Date (Web): December 18, 2013
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es403610f
Abstract:
The oil spill resulting from the explosion of the Deepwater Horizon drilling platform initiated immediate concern for marine wildlife, including common bottlenose dolphins in sensitive coastal habitats. To evaluate potential sublethal effects on dolphins, health assessments were conducted in Barataria Bay, Louisiana, an area that received heavy and prolonged oiling, and in a reference site, Sarasota Bay, Florida, where oil was not observed.
Dolphins were temporarily captured, received a veterinary examination, and were then released. Dolphins sampled in Barataria Bay showed evidence of hypoadrenocorticism, consistent with adrenal toxicity as previously reported for laboratory mammals exposed to oil. Barataria Bay dolphins were 5 times more likely to have moderate–severe lung disease, generally characterized by significant alveolar interstitial syndrome, lung masses, and pulmonary consolidation. Of 29 dolphins evaluated from Barataria Bay, 48% were given a guarded or worse prognosis, and 17% were considered poor or grave, indicating that they were not expected to survive.
Disease conditions in Barataria Bay dolphins were significantly greater in prevalence and severity than those in Sarasota Bay dolphins, as well as those previously reported in other wild dolphin populations. Many disease conditions observed in Barataria Bay dolphins are uncommon but consistent with petroleum hydrocarbon exposure and toxicity.
From http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/09/130925132211.htm
Mass stranding of whales caused by sonar mapping
Sep. 25, 2013 — An independent scientific review panel has concluded that the mass stranding of approximately 100 melon-headed whales in the Loza Lagoon system in northwest Madagascar in 2008 was primarily triggered by acoustic stimuli, more specifically, a multi-beam echosounder system operated by a survey vessel contracted by ExxonMobil.
In response to the event and with assistance from [the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW)], [the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS)] led an international stranding team to help return live whales from the lagoon system to the open sea, and to conduct necropsies on dead whales to determine the cause of death.
According to the final report issued today, this is the first known marine mammal mass stranding event of this nature to be closely associated with high-frequency mapping sonar systems. Based on these findings, there is cause for concern over the impact of noise on marine mammals as these high-frequency mapping sonar systems are used by various stakeholders including the hydrocarbon industry, military, and research vessels used by other industries.
The report concluded: “The potential for behavioral responses and indirect injury or mortality from the use of similar MBES [multi-beam echosounder systems] should be considered in future environmental assessments, operational planning and regulatory decisions.”
The full report can be found at: http://iwc.int/2008-mass-stranding-in-madagascar
(…) these conclusions (…) add to a mounting body of evidence of the potential impacts of anthropogenic noise on marine mammals. Implications go well beyond the hydrocarbon industry, as these sonar systems are widely used aboard military and research vessels for generating more precise bathymetry (underwater mapping). (…) marine mammal species (…) are particularly sensitive to increasing ocean noise from human activities.”
(…) the panel concluded that a multi-beam echosounder system, operated intermittently by a survey vessel moving down the shelf-break the day before the event was the most “plausible and likely behavioral trigger for the animals initially entering the lagoon system.”
From The Islander, 2013.12.12, an Editorial by Barbara Sibley
http://www.theislanderonline.com.au/story/1968169/senators-disappoint/?cs=2029
Senators disappoint
By Barbara Sibley
Dec. 12, 2013, 11:04 a.m
It is appalling that only one other SA senator (Sarah Hanson-Young) supported the motion by Senator Penny Wright. Those South Australians who voted against it were, Labor’s Don Farrell, Alex Gallacher, Anne McEwen, Liberals Cory Bernadi, Simon Birmingham, Sean Edwards, David Fawcett and Anne Ruston. Nick Xenophon was absent, along with Penny Wong. It’s a sad indictment on these senators that they did not see fit to support Kangaroo Island, the jewel in the crown of South Australian tourism. Locals should do whatever they can to be heard not only by Greg Hunt, Minister for Environment, but also it seems, by our own fellow South Australians.
Moving to the seismic testing situation, many people on the island have strong views regarding the proposed testing off to the west of KI. If the testing is as hazardous as is claimed, would it not be reasonable to ask Bight Petroleum to have insurance cover in place to compensate the various people/places that could be adversely affected. Insurance companies spend their time assessing risk, and would no doubt do the same in this case. If insurance cover was granted, then we could assume that the risk isn’t as great as some would tell you. If insurance cover was not granted, you could draw your own conclusions. Secondly, if seismic testing does go ahead, why not conduct an independent research review at the same time – in other words, send researchers out to test the surrounding seas as Bight Petroleum’s testing is being conducted. We all know we need fossil fuels to live on KI, but none of us wishes to put our marine environment at reckless risk.
In The Islander, 2013.12.19, a letter by Peter Wales
http://www.theislanderonline.com.au/story/1983053/letters-to-the-editor-19122013/?cs=2029
Opposition hysterical
Opposition on the island to proposed oil and gas exploration has been misleading, verging on hysterical.
Most Kangaroo Islanders are well aware that the island’s economy and their own well-being depend entirely on the availability of cheap oil and gas. Every person and item transported to and from Kangaroo Island, and every industry including fishing, farming, forestry and tourism, depend on reliable supplies of fuel, which depend in turn on responsible development of energy resources.
The seismic testing planned by Bight Petroleum is a well-established process which has been used for 50 years. It has been subject to repeated review. There has not been a single reputable study at any time in any part of the world which has shown any adverse impact on marine mammal populations. This research has been confirmed by studies in Australia which show no percentage difference in population growth in whale populations in Victoria and Western Australia where seismic testing has occurred, and similar populations where there has been no such testing.
Seismic testing is noisy, but no noisier than some natural sounds in the marine environment, with the difference that seismic testing is ramped up slowly and moves slowly, giving animals time to move away. Extensive research at Scott Reef in WA in 2007 further demonstrated that seismic testing causes no harm to sessile invertebrates or to small territorial fish.
The Greens’ slogans suggesting a likely major oil spill near Kangaroo Island are similarly misleading. The likelihood of a spill sufficient to form a slick even a few microns thick that could reach the shores of Kangaroo Island is about the same as the chance of a jumbo jet crash-landing here. Thousands of wells have been drilled in Australia. There has been one major spill, at the Montara wellhead in the Timor Sea. Despite dire predictions and intensive follow-up studies, it caused no recorded wildlife deaths, and had no long-term adverse effects.
A genuine commitment to the environment would encourage local development of energy resources to reduce oil spillage during transportation.
For the sake of the marine environment and the prosperity and welfare of Kangaroo Islanders and Australia, responsible oil and gas development should be encouraged.
Peter Wales
Kingscote
In The Islander, 2013.12.19, a letter by Sharon Zealand
http://www.theislanderonline.com.au/story/1983053/letters-to-the-editor-19122013/?cs=2029
Testing to affect fishing
I wonder if the fishing industry is aware that once seismic testing begins, no boats or divers will be allowed to enter that Western Coast area? If Bight say they will protect whales by blasting in summer, won’t that interfere with the cray season?
Seismic pulses generate 100,000 times more energy than a jet engine, and can travel hundreds of kilometres underwater. Not only will whale, dolphin, seal and penguin populations be affected, but all migrating fish species which happen to pass through the blasting zone. Even the Commonwealth Fishing Association has recognised there IS risk to the seafood industry from seismic operations. Jobs will be lost in all sectors of coastal industries, including tourism, especially when the extraction process begins.
I understand we still need oil to run boats and cars, but we are asking oil companies to invest their billions in alternative energy research, instead of continually sinking money into unsustainable offshore wells.
There is no financial gain for the island. No jobs will be created. The company is not even Australian. So why allow it? We have asked the Environment Minister to address the community to answer these questions, as his final decision will be made on December 24. This is our last opportunity.
I ask the entire community to stand at the rally and be counted. Come by boat if you have one. If you can’t be there in person, make a creative poster and stand it in your place. Food, music and face painting will be on site to mark a festive spirit. December 22, 1pm at the Kingscote jetty.
Sharon Zealand
Emu Bay
The author probably means “more energy per unit of time” (i.e. power), per unit of space — power density.
Just Remember The Golf of Mexico Oil Spill, Don’t Let Kids Watch :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSj_BhHqRy0