GALVESTON — Government officials, environmentalists and oil industry executives from four states meeting in Galveston on Wednesday agreed they should work together to lobby Washington to adopt a federal response plan for future Gulf oil spills.
They rearranged a planned meeting of America’s WETLAND Foundation to include a discussion on the economic, political and environmental damage to the coastlines of Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas of the crude oil leak caused by the Deepwater Horizon well’s destruction April 20.
Foundation Chairman King Milling said the decadeslong offshore drilling policies in the four states — referred to collectively as America’s Energy Coast — had been “financially beneficial but structurally damaging” and called on everyone involved in those policies to work together for a more economically and environmentally viable future.
Referring to the response to the BP incident, he said: “A lot of people are working their tails off but with no plan of action. It would be a disaster if that happened again, so we must focus on how to take (answers to the problem) to Washington.”
The meeting, conducted in an air of cordiality at Hotel Galvez, was not without moments of mild discord.
A member of Louisiana’s office of coastal protection and restoration said: “There are potentially 90 more days of oil spill, and we are working 72 hours in advance. We need a more proactive response from BP.”
Samuel Giberga, of Hornbeck Marine, was worried about the federal moratorium on drilling in the Gulf announced by Interior Secretary Ken Salazar.
“These ideas sound good, but we must not let sound bites turn tragedy into economic calamity,” he said. “The vast majority of independent oil producers — not the large companies like BP and Chevron — will be put out of business by this closure. Fifty wells are to shut in the next 30 days because of Salazar’s drilling moratorium.
“We have every sympathy for the Gulf shrimpers and fishermen who are affected by the spill, but the oil and gas industry is the lifeblood of our economy.”
Susan Kadera, of the National Wildlife Federation, said: “This affects millions of wildlife, a system already deeply in trouble before the BP incident.
“In forming a response, we have to consider their economic and intrinsic value to our society. One question is: What is an acceptable cost of doing business?
“We must address the responsibility of the oil industry and its contribution to recovery costs.”
Fiona Haranhan, of Chevron, replied: “Clearly this spill is unacceptable, and our industry recognizes that.”
Sandi Fury, of Chevron, added: “Our industry is here for the long term.”
Jim Quackenbos of Cajun Maritime said: “Who pays? Everyone is on the hook.”
Valsin Marmillion, of America’s WETLAND Foundation, who was chairing the ad hoc session, asked several rhetorical questions in an attempt to steer the meeting toward consensus on putting a proposal to the federal government.
He wanted to know the relationship between all the organizations involved in responding to the oil spill disaster.
“What authority do local governments have?” he asked.
Quackenbos responded: “Authority is quite unclear, and the funding is not there. Everyone is working on the problem not knowing whether they’re going to be paid.”
One note of particular interest to Galvestonians was a reference to the island as Texas’ “first line of defense — big wide beaches with well-developed lines of dunes.”
Scientist Robert Twilley, of Louisiana State University, spoke about the methods of preserving the Gulf coastline.
“Sand is no longer a renewable resource,” he said. “The rivers are pushing the sand into the deep water, while the oil is coming the other way. We are not managing our river sand movement properly, and it’s very frustrating.
“We must work with coastal navigation systems to conserve sand at our coastal barriers instead of allowing it to be sent offshore. The resources are there — it’s how we manage them.”
Quenton Dokken, of the Gulf of Mexico Foundation, said: “Unfortunately, dredge spoil usually goes to the cheapest site. We are now looking at putting it in the best place for coastal defense, even if it costs $1 million more.”
The session appeared to end without any concrete conclusions, an hour after Dokken had said of the Deepwater Horizon response: “We are having the same discussions now we had in 1979.”
