Exploration firm, opponents, now await DNR decision

Human failure identified as common causes of spills, accidents

An exploration licenses process initiated by Cassandra Energy Corp. in April 2015 to explore for oil and gas in the Katalla area of the Gulf of Alaska is now a waiting game.

The Oct. 4 deadline for comment has come and gone on a controversial license that would still need to go through the processes of acquiring additional permits to do the work, said Sean Clifton, with the Alaska Division of Oil and Gas in Anchorage.

State officials aren’t saying just how many comments they’ve received nor whether comments are predominantly in favor or opposed to the project, but a few of those who did comment, including the Eyak Preservation Council and Cordova District Fishermen United, shared their opposition to the project. Bill Stevens, president of Cassandra Energy Corp., said in a telephone interview on Tuesday, Nov. 12, that he did not wish to comment at this time.

A number of comments were expected however, on the preliminary findings of best interest, compiled by The Alaska Division of Oil and Gas in early August.

Clifton said there is no statutory timeline restriction on how long the agency can take to determine whether or not to issue the permit.

The Eyak Preservation Council told Alaska Division of Oil and Gas Director Jim Beckham in its written testimony of Nov. 4 that “it would not be wise by any measure to issue an exploration permit to Cassandra, because of potential adverse impact of such operations on wildlife and bird migrations, plus salmon habitat.”

Advertisement

Carol Hoover, executive director of the council, told Beckham that the ecological values of the proposed exploration area “are staggering.”

“The Bering River is a sub-watershed within the larger Copper River Delta basin,” she said. “The revenue that these renewable fisheries generate outweighs the potential revenue of oil and gas development or our local communities.”

Hoover pondered concerns including how to clean up an oil spill in the area, a concern that stems partially from the fact that the Copper River Flats, Bering River and Controller Bay region are not currently included. The area is part of the path of the largest annual bird migration in the world, with 20 million shorebirds and waterfowl of the Pacific flyway feed passing through.

“Many adverse effects could be lessened by mitigation but would not be eliminated completely,” said Kendra Zamzow, of Chickaloon, an environmental chemist who is the Alaska representative for the Center for Science in Public Participation.

Zamzow said that in reading Appendix A of the preliminary Best Interest Findings, a summary of public comments and the agency’s preliminary responses to those comments, she didn’t find a single comment in support of the exploration license, with the possible exception of comment from the Trust Land Office representing the Alaska Mental Health Trust Authority, a significant land owner in the Icy Bay area. Trust Land Office stated its strong advocacy of oil and gas development in the Gulf of Alaska.

“Many of those who spoke out against the project have long time first-hand knowledge of the extreme weather that occurs in the area,” Zamzow said. “While DNR says they ‘acknowledge’ the ‘natural hazards,’ they do not appear to seriously consider the frequent extreme storms and high waves. These are not the offshore waters of the North Slope, but rather are on the receiving end of waves that build up across an entire ocean, slamming into this corner of land.”

According to the preliminary Best Interest Findings “Many adverse effects could be lessened by mitigation but would not be eliminated completely. Existing and future oil and gas extraction carry the risk of spills, both small and large, within and outside the boundaries of the license area, she said.

Zamzow also noted the preliminary BIF’s statement that one of the most common causes of spills and accidents is human failure.

“Experience tells us that some mitigation will work, some will be sloppily implemented, and some will fail,” she said. “Experience tells us that regulators will not be living on site, and there will be multiple opportunities to miss events less spectacular than a major spill, but still damaging.”

Read the entire package of comments and responses to the preliminary findings online.

Advertisement