In early January, President Obama refused several permits for companies seeking to explore oil and gas beneath the Atlantic Ocean—an action that environmental groups praised and industry leaders criticized. The subsequent Trump administration reversed that policy and in early June moved to allow up to five companies to conduct seismic surveys along the Atlantic seafloor from Delaware Bay south to Cape Canaveral, Florida. Those surveys could begin as early as this autumn and would use seismic air guns, a loud and controversial technique used to locate subsurface energy deposits before drilling.
The prospect of seismic blasting and eventual offshore drilling has drawn strong opposition from a wide array of stakeholders: environmental and scientific organizations, coastal businesses, commercial fishermen, and many members of Congress. More than 100 lawmakers from both parties sent a letter to Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke urging him not to grant permits for air gun surveys in the Atlantic, warning that seismic surveys and drilling threaten tourism, fishing communities, coastal economies and national security.
Offshore drilling disputes are longstanding, often pitting energy companies and their employees—who can earn higher wages working offshore—against residents and groups who argue the risks to wildlife, fisheries and shorelines are too great. In Florida, lawmakers recently sought to extend a ban on offshore drilling to protect beaches, tourism and coastal views, including areas near high-profile properties.
Seismic surveying uses air guns that fire powerful sound pulses into the ocean. Those sound waves reflect off rock formations and potential hydrocarbon deposits, and the returning echoes are recorded and analyzed to identify drilling targets. Underwater air gun blasts can reach extremely high levels: Greenpeace and scientific testimony have cited source levels as high as 180 decibels underwater, with some air gun arrays generating even higher measured levels. For context, such underwater pulses are comparable in intensity to large explosions and can be far louder than common loud events experienced on land.
Scientists warn these intense, repetitive sounds disturb marine life across many scales. Research published in Nature found seismic surveys cause significant mortality among zooplankton—microscopic organisms that form the base of the marine food web—resulting in two- to threefold increases in dead zooplankton and impacts that extend far beyond previously understood ranges. Damage to these foundational species can ripple up the food chain, affecting shrimp, juvenile fish, shellfish and the larger predators that rely on them.
Marine mammal experts describe the consequences in stark terms. Douglas Nowacek, a Duke University scientist, has likened the sensation to standing beneath an overwhelming blast that shatters windows and renders normal hearing impossible. In congressional testimony he noted that a typical air gun array can generate sound levels that, while difficult to compare exactly to air-based explosions, approximate the intense center of a grenade blast and pose risks of hearing injury. The continuous nature of surveys—air guns firing every 10 to 12 seconds, around the clock for days, weeks or months—means affected areas can experience near-constant noise for extended periods.
Years of studies show whales, dolphins, sea turtles, fish and squid react to seismic sounds by avoiding survey areas, altering feeding and mating behavior, and sometimes abandoning critical habitats. Other research has documented that air gun noise travels extremely far; recordings have picked up seismic blasts thousands of miles from the survey source, raising concerns that surveys off one coast could disrupt marine life far down the migration pathways.
These acoustic impacts have secondary consequences for recreational boaters and commercial fisheries. Displaced fish and scattered schooling behavior can reduce catch rates and temporarily eliminate favored fishing spots. Marine mammals driven into panic may behave unpredictably, increasing collision risks with vessels and interfering with the boating experience. Community and conservation leaders argue that if recreational boaters must take precautions to protect marine mammals—such as speed limits and safe-distance rules—industrial activities that generate far more intense impacts should face at least the same constraints.
Coastal economies reliant on tourism and seafood have voiced alarm. Organizations like the Chesapeake Bay Foundation and state conservation groups have highlighted specific regional risks—such as impacts to blue crab larvae near the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay—and commercial fishing representatives point to similar objections raised over seismic activity on the Grand Banks. In many coastal states, fishing, charter services and tourism are central economic drivers that could suffer from both the noise of surveying and the infrastructure associated with drilling.
Federal agencies have described potential mitigation measures if seismic surveys proceed. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the National Marine Fisheries Service have suggested observer programs, acoustic monitoring to detect marine mammals underwater, and mandatory shutdowns when protected species are detected nearby. Nevertheless, critics say these measures are unlikely to eliminate widespread impacts from intense, persistent sound that can be heard for long distances and over extended timeframes.
Scientists and conservationists point to biologically rich areas—such as a hotspot off North Carolina referred to by some researchers as the “Serengeti of the Atlantic”—as particularly vulnerable. That region supports multiple whale species, abundant fish, squid and sea turtles, and its productivity is driven by currents and seafloor features that concentrate nutrients and marine life. Many argue that certain places are too ecologically valuable to subject to disruptive industrial activity.
Beyond acoustic harm, concerns extend to industrialization of coastal zones: increased vessel traffic, restricted areas for recreation, heightened risk of oil spills and long-term changes to shoreline communities. Observers note that even in the absence of a catastrophic spill, the presence of drilling support infrastructure can transform waterfront towns and alter landscapes that currently support tourism and small-scale fisheries.
The Trump administration has framed expanded offshore development as part of a broader strategy to boost domestic energy production, lower costs and create jobs. Industry groups support reopening Atlantic waters to exploration and eventual drilling; opponents emphasize the economic and ecological costs to coastal communities and marine ecosystems.
As debate continues, coastal residents, scientists, fishermen and conservation organizations remain vocal in opposing seismic surveys and offshore drilling in the Atlantic, calling for careful consideration of the long-term risks to marine life, fisheries, tourism and the coastal economies that depend on a healthy ocean.
This article originally appeared in the November 2017 issue.