[ exact phrase in "" • results by date ]

[ Google-powered • results by relevance ]


News Home

Subscribe to RSS feed

Add NWW headlines to your site (click here)

Sign up for daily updates

Keep Wind Watch online and independent!

Donate $10

Donate $5

Selected Documents

All Documents

Research Links


Press Releases


Publications & Products

Photos & Graphics


Allied Groups

Federal official defends 50-mile offshore buffer  

Credit:  By John Murawski | The News & Observer | 04/21/2015 | www.newsobserver.com ~~

North Carolina’s annual State Energy Conference kicked off Tuesday with a federal official’s defense of a controversial proposal not to allow offshore drilling closer than 50 nautical miles of the state’s coastline.

Abigail Ross Hopper, director of the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, expounded on her agency’s proposed safety buffer just a week after Gov. Pat McCrory warned a congressional committee in Washington, D.C., that such a distance “unnecessarily puts much of North Carolina’s most accessible undiscovered resources under lock and key.”

Hopper was the keynote speaker at the two-day energy conference that attracts industry, investors, academics and public officials to N.C. State University’s McKimmon Center. The conference includes sessions on high-efficiency buildings, energy storage, private financing and public policy.

After her speech, Hopper said the proposed drilling buffer for the Southeast – which is equivalent to 57.5 standard miles – would be by far the widest off-limits exclusion zone in the country.

With the exception of a 25-nautical mile drilling restriction in the Chukchi Sea off Alaska, there are no buffers imposed in federal offshore drilling zones, Hopper said. Offshore energy exploration can typically be conducted where state waters end and federal waters begin, which is as close as 3 miles from shore.

The distance of 50 nautical miles is supported by Virginia officials and would be compatible with Defense Department needs, commercial fishing and environmental concerns, she said. Hopper also noted that barring offshore drilling closer than 50 nautical miles would accommodate offshore wind farm development.

“One of the reasons we proposed a 50-mile buffer is to allow an area for renewable energy,” she said. “It makes sense for each to have its own space to develop.”

Last week McCrory told the House Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources that a 50-mile exclusion zone would put as much as 40 percent of the state’s oil and gas out of reach. He also said the continental shelf drops off sharply within 50 miles of the coastline, so that drilling farther out would be in deep water and more expensive.

The regulatory process for offshore wind farm development is about five years ahead of offshore drilling. The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management’s lease auction for offshore wind farm development could take place as early as next year, which would allow energy companies to assess the extent of offshore wind resources.

Auctioning federal leases for offshore drilling wouldn’t happen until 2021, and the Southeastern area – comprising North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia and Georgia – is one of 14 lease sales proposed. A federal lease would grant the bid winners rights to conduct energy exploration; actual drilling would require a separate approval for oil-and-gas production.

“We don’t have a great sense of how much oil-and-gas resource is out there,” Hopper said in her speech.

She said later that the issue is pertinent to North Carolina because offshore waters here contain greater energy potential than other Southeastern states. For that reason her agency to hold frequent public meetings here for offshore drilling and offshore wind farms.

“This is a frontier region,” she said. “North Carolina is in the running for a state that requires the most attention after Alaska.”

Source:  By John Murawski | The News & Observer | 04/21/2015 | www.newsobserver.com

This article is the work of the source indicated. Any opinions expressed in it are not necessarily those of National Wind Watch.

The copyright of this article resides with the author or publisher indicated. As part of its noncommercial effort to present the environmental, social, scientific, and economic issues of large-scale wind power development to a global audience seeking such information, National Wind Watch endeavors to observe “fair use” as provided for in section 107 of U.S. Copyright Law and similar “fair dealing” provisions of the copyright laws of other nations. Send requests to excerpt, general inquiries, and comments via e-mail.

Wind Watch relies entirely
on User Funding
Donate $5 PayPal Donate


News Watch Home

Get the Facts Follow Wind Watch on Twitter

Wind Watch on Facebook


© National Wind Watch, Inc.
Use of copyrighted material adheres to Fair Use.
"Wind Watch" is a registered trademark.