2020 updates to the bibliography —
*Cordes, E. E., Jones, D. O. B., Schlacher, T. A., Amon, D. J., Bernardino, A. F., Brooke, S., . . . Witte, U. (2016). Environmental impacts of the deep-water oil and gas industry: A review to guide management strategies. Frontiers in Environmental Science. [PDF] [Cited by]
“The industrialization of the deep sea is expanding worldwide. Increasing oil and gas exploration activities in the absence of sufficient baseline data in deep-sea ecosystems has made environmental management challenging. Here, we review the types of activities that are associated with global offshore oil and gas development in water depths over 200 m, the typical impacts of these activities, some of the more extreme impacts of accidental oil and gas releases, and the current state of management in the major regions of offshore industrial activity including 18 exclusive economic zones. Direct impacts of infrastructure installation, including sediment resuspension and burial by seafloor anchors and pipelines, are typically restricted to a radius of ~100 m on from the installation on the seafloor. Discharges of water-based and low-toxicity oil-based drilling muds and produced water can extend over 2 km, while the ecological impacts at the population and community levels on the seafloor are most commonly on the order of 200–300 m from their source. These impacts may persist in the deep sea for many years and likely longer for its more fragile ecosystems, such as cold-water corals. This synthesis of information provides the basis for a series of recommendations for the management of offshore oil and gas development. An effective management strategy, aimed at minimizing risk of significant environmental harm, will typically encompass regulations of the activity itself (e.g., discharge practices, materials used), combined with spatial (e.g., avoidance rules and marine protected areas), and temporal measures (e.g., restricted activities during peak reproductive periods). Spatial management measures that encompass representatives of all of the regional deep-sea community types is important in this context. Implementation of these management strategies should consider minimum buffer zones to displace industrial activity beyond the range of typical impacts: at least 2 km from any discharge points and surface infrastructure and 200 m from seafloor infrastructure with no expected discharges. Although managing natural resources is, arguably, more challenging in deep-water environments, inclusion of these proven conservation tools contributes to robust environmental management strategies for oil and gas extraction in the deep sea.”
*Gorchov Negron, A.,M., Kort, E. A., Conley, S. A., & Smith, M. L. (2020). Airborne assessment of methane emissions from offshore platforms in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico. Environmental Science & Technology, 54(8), 5112-5120.
“Methane (CH4) emissions from oil and gas activities are large and poorly quantified, with onshore studies showing systematic inventory underestimates. We present aircraft measurements of CH4 emissions from offshore oil and gas platforms collected over the U.S. Gulf of Mexico in January 2018. Flights sampled individual facilities as well as regions of 5–70 facilities. We combine facility-level samples, production data, and inventory estimates to generate an aerial measurement-based inventory of CH4 emissions for the U.S. Gulf of Mexico. We compare our inventory and the Environmental Protection Agency Greenhouse Gas Inventory (GHGI) with regional airborne estimates. The new inventory and regional airborne estimates are consistent with the GHGI in deep water but appear higher for shallow water. For the full U.S. Gulf of Mexico our inventory estimates total emissions of 0.53 Tg CH4/yr [0.40–0.71 Tg CH4/yr, 95% CI] and corresponds to a loss rate of 2.9% [2.2–3.8%] of natural gas production. Our estimate is a factor of 2 higher than the GHGI updated with 2018 platform counts. We attribute this disagreement to incomplete platform counts and emission factors that both underestimate emissions for shallow water platforms and do not account for disproportionately high emissions from large shallow water facilities.”
*Meyer-Gutbrod, E., Kui, L., Nishimoto, M. M., Love, M. S., Schroeder, D. M., & Miller, R. J. (2019). Fish densities associated with structural elements of oil and gas platforms in southern California. Bulletin of Marine Science, 95(4), 639-656. [PDF] [Cited by]
“There are thousands of offshore oil and gas platforms worldwide that will eventually become obsolete, and one popular decommissioning alternative is the “rigs to reefs” conversion that designates all or a portion of the underwater infrastructure as an artificial reef, thereby reducing the burden of infrastructure removal. The unique architecture of each platform may influence the size and structure of the associated fish assemblage if different structural elements form distinct habitats for fishes. Using scuba survey data from 11 southern California platforms from 1995 to 2000, we examined fish assemblages associated with structural elements of the structure, including the major horizontal crossbeams outside of the jacket, vertical jacket legs, and horizontal crossbeams that span the jacket interior. Patterns of habitat association were examined among three depth zones: shallow (<16.8 m), midwater (16.8–26 m), and deep (>26 m); and between two life stages: young- of-the-year and non-young-of-the-year. Fish densities tended to be greatest along horizontal beams spanning the jacket interior, relative to either horizontal or vertical beams along the jacket exterior, indicating that the position of the habitat within the overall structure is an important characteristic affecting fish habitat use. Fish densities were also higher in transects centered directly over a vertical or horizontal beam relative to transects that did not contain a structural element. These results contribute to the understanding of fish habitat use on existing artificial reefs, and can inform platform decommissioning decisions as well as the design of new offshore structures intended to increase fish production.”
Questions? Please let me know (firstname.lastname@example.org).