September 1, 2015 - 16:13 — Guest Editorial
An Open Letter to the South Shore on Offshore Oil and Gas Exploration and Extraction
Dear South Shore,
The issues I raise in the enclosed “Final Open Letter” are of extreme importance. The regulatory review process for Shell’s oil planned exploration activity on the Scotian Shelf is off on the wrong foot. If Shell and its partners are allowed to proceed under this lack of regulatory oversight then our fishing industry and our South Shore communities will never recover and will never have adequate standing in any contentious interaction with offshore oil producers.
The oil reserves available to Shell’s lease sites on the Scotian Shelf are estimated at 8 billion barrels, (Hibernia’s Estimates were about 980 million barrels) If the estimates hold then, based on Shell’s own statements they could be extracting oil at the Shelburne Gull site for 70 to 90 years.
There will be spills.
My experiences in both the North Sea and the Gulf of Mexico indicate that all sectors of the South Shore fishing industry are about to be marginalized. I don’t care whether you are a single boat owner a Comeau Seafoods or a Clearwater or whether you are a fisherman’s organization attempting to represent the best interests of your members. Once the royalties start to flow and the cash starts to pile up in government coffers the voice you once had will no longer be heard in Halifax or in Ottawa. I have worked out of Aberdeen, Scotland and out of Corpus Christi, Texas in the Gulf of Mexico. I’ve spoken with both fishermen and fish companies. The oil companies are expert at lobbying and usurping the primary position that the fishing industry once held in the offshore.
The cash they provide governments, the lawyers and lobbyists they employ and their single minded, aggressive efforts to promote their own interests over the needs and requirements of the fishing industry are well documented. This reality is to be expected. Like many in the fishing industry, Shell Canada is a corporation which is responsible to its shareholders. Their effort is to generate the highest possible profit and to do so at the lowest possible cost. Their concern for the well being of Nova Scotia’s South Shore communities and fishing industry is well down on their list of priorities.
The fishing industry and the communities of the South Shore need our Provincial and Federal regulators to step forward and to actually protect, to the fullest extent possible, the ocean environment on the Scotian shelf. I see no indication that our regulators are prepared to meet this standard without clear demands being made. It is now our responsibility to push them to do their jobs.
Let’s get to Work,
Best Regards
John Davis
Clean Ocean Action Committee
Clean Ocean Action Committee
Background
Georges Bank has supported the communities and fishing industry on Nova Scotia’s South Shore for over 300 years. The Bank is the main nursery for all of the important commercial species that form the backbone of our South Shore economy. Since 1988 Georges Bank has been protected by a moratorium on drilling for offshore oil and gas. This moratorium is in place because of the richness of the Georges Bank environment and because the attributes that make Georges Bank such an important renewable economic generator also make it exceptionally susceptible to hydrocarbon pollution. In three separate votes by our Provincial Legislators the Georges Bank Moratorium has been upheld. In the last house vote there was, all party, unanimous consent on the legislation and I know the people of the South Shore wholeheartedly thank all ridings and municipal units in the Province for their support on this extremely important Provincial issue.
It is imperative that all Nova Scotians fully understand that the fishing industry on the South West Shore has honored the support and the trust that the moratorium represents over these last three decades.
The South Shore fishing industry has carefully and sustainably utilized the resources on Georges Bank in all aspects of harvesting. The recent Lobster catches are the largest ever recorded. The last several year classes of Haddock are the largest they’ve been in over 50 years. The Scallop landings are at all time highs. Georges Bank is functioning at a high level as an economic generator of immense Provincial importance.
In our efforts to utilize the resources on Georges Bank in a sustainable fashion, no sector of the commercial fishery in Southwest Nova is harvesting at its full capacity. All sectors are limiting catch rates to sustainable levels and are treating these resources with the care required to maintain healthy stocks. There has been a full and complete response to the Province wide trust and assistance in protecting Georges Bank by our careful harvesting and by our sustainable use of these resources.
All on the South Shore realize that our responsibility to protect Georges Bank and to sustainably utilize its resources goes beyond the present day. Generations have depended on Georges Bank to sustain themselves and their families over 100’s of years. There is a clear responsibility to protect the Bank, not just for today but for our children and for all future generations. This is a trust that cannot be ignored or neglected. Everyone that I know on the South Shore is thankful for the support of all Nova Scotians.
The benefits of all these efforts are reflected in South West Nova’s substantial input to the provincial economy. If you look at the contribution the South Shore makes to Provincial exports, or if you look at the South Shore’s input to the Provincial GDP you will see, that as a percentage of population, this area contributes at very significant levels. This important contribution is based solely on a well regulated, healthy and productive Georges Bank and requires continued diligence.
The Known South Shore Position on Shell Canada’s planned activity at their Shelburne Gully site.
All Nova Scotians, including those of us on the South Shore, are fully apprised of the disastrous condition of our Provincial economy. Decades of fiscal mismanagement have left the Province in absolute dire straits. Everyone that I have conversed with understands the need to utilize all of our Provincial offshore resources and the requirement to generate income from oil and gas royalties which will accrue to the Province once Shell’s extraction phase begins. It is extremely important for all Nova Scotians to realize and understand that, with appropriate spill mitigation methods in place, the fishing industry and the communities of Nova Scotia’s South Shore are fully prepared to welcome Shell Canada and its partners into our offshore community.
It is also exceedingly important for all the people of the Province to realize that when an oil spill occurs, 100% of the risk arising from highly toxic hydrocarbon pollution will fall solely to the fishing industry and the communities of South Shore Nova Scotia. Everything for which we have worked, and our sole economic generator could be destroyed by a catastrophic oil spill on the Scotian Shelf. Those who I have spoken with understand this fact and are prepared to accept reality but there is one clear and non-negotiable demand that has been enunciated over and over again and that is that Shell Canada and its partners be required to make every effort to clean up and remove spilled oil from our ocean environment and this cleanup effort does not include the use of toxic dispersants.
It is Georges Bank, our other fishing grounds and the resources upon which the South Shore depends to support our communities and our families that are solely at risk as Shell prepares to explore and extract oil on the Scotian Shelf. No one I have spoken with on the South Shore and elsewhere feel that our demand for real efforts to clean up spilled oil at Shell’s Shelburne Gully site is in any way unreasonable. In fact it is perceived that these requests represent the absolute minimum effort required to allow the Shell project to proceed.
These efforts will benefit both Shell Canada and all Nova Scotians. I look forward to the full support of this position of every person in Nova Scotia as Shell’s environmental review process works toward completion.
Our South Shore Fishing Industry is both highly successful and highly regulated. These regulations, when well thought out and well applied; benefit every community on the South Shore and, by proxy, all of Novas Scotia. Our fishing industry fully deserves that the oil companies working in Nova Scotia’s offshore also face a fully functional regulatory regime that actually demands real efforts to clean up the oil when a spill occurs. To date there is no indication that any functional regulation related to Shell’s planned activities at their Shelburne Basin site has been put in place.
Here’s the position of the Clean Ocean Action Committee:
In order to obtain the right to explore for and extract oil and gas on the Scotian Shelf Shell Canada and all oil companies must comply with the following:
1. Do not spray the dispersant “Corexit” or any other toxic chemicals in or on to our ocean
2. If you spill oil clean it up and get it out of and off our ocean and show us the procedures and the equipment you will use to accomplish this task.
This means that our regulators have to begin to actually regulate and that those who are paid to protect our workers, our communities, our existing industries and our environment actually have do their jobs.
Shell Canada’s Environmental Impact Statement does not contain a functional plan for cleaning up a large offshore oil spill.
Shell has made clear in their “Dispersants Operations Plan” on page 8.8 that, with their currently available equipment and response plan, and with their lack of effort to assess and use any newer technologies, mechanical recovery is impossible for larger scale spills offshore. This is true for any` spills offshore. Since the window of opportunity to use ISB, (In Situ Burning of oil) is only 24 hours, and ISB requires calm seas, it is absolutely clear that the Shell OSRP (Oil Spill Response Plan) for larger spills is completely dependent on the large scale use of chemical dispersants. Please understand when you read this that “Dispersants” do not clean up anything.
They simply put the oil in a more toxic state and drive it below the ocean’s surface so that it permeates the whole water column but is out of sight.
There is no “Net Environmental Benefit” that could possibly justify the introduction of dispersant laced oil into the Labrador Current or during our winter months when strong North Easterly winds often blow. There are no other considerations that could in any circumstance outweigh the immense potential damage that dispersant laced oil will do when introduced to Georges Bank or any of our nearby fishing banks.
In the Deep Water Horizon spill in the Gulf of Mexico the high risk of dispersant use was justified by the perceived requirement to protect their very large tourism industry by attempting to keep oil off the beaches. It was a very risky trade off and the full, devastating, impacts are still not fully understood. Shell has never made clear what, if any, environmental benefits would accrue from the use of dispersants on the Scotian Shelf. The site is 250 Kilometers offshore.
By Shell’s own reckoning there is less than a 10% chance of an oiling event on the shoreline. Sinking as much oil below the surface and into the water column as quickly as is possible and getting it out of sight seems to be Shell’s primary reason for the big push for dispersant use.
Shell states that dispersants are safe to use. This is not true. Shell bases its statements on data from as far back as the 1990’s and disregards the information available since the Deep Water Horizon spill.
Based on my readings, Stantec, the consulting firm which Shell and other oil and pipeline companies use to promote their projects to the regulating bodies, is really good at misdirection and misinformation. They have blown a lot of smoke about the specifics of some of the research done since the DWH spill but they have not spoken to the clear reality that oil laced with dispersants is more damaging than oil alone.
Below is the link to section 8 of the Environmental Impact Statement, Shelburne Basin Venture Exploration Project. Section 8 of the plan covers “Accidental Events.”
Below is a small representation of scientific comments since the Deep Water Horizon spill:
Dr. Robert Mathis, an M.D. and doctor of environmental medicine in Santa Barbara, California, described how several of the chemical ingredients of the dispersants that are regularly used on oil spills remain unknown because they are "trade secrets," but that even the known chemicals in the dispersant cocktails are extremely dangerous to humans; they contain an "emulsifier that allows chemicals deeper penetration into tissues and cells." "Dispersants disrupt both bacterial and human cell membranes," Mathis explained. "Damage disrupts cell functions, leading to cell failure, and may cause cancers and death. All living things are damaged."
Mathis also stated that many of these chemicals, when mixed together like the dispersants and oil were during BP's disaster, "are many times more toxic than the individual chemicals are by themselves." Dr. Susan Shaw, a marine toxicologist and director of the Marine Environmental Research Institute, stated. "We already know that dispersants are less toxic than oil if you compare the two," says Shaw. "But because Corexit contains a petroleum solvent, we're actually putting petroleum solvent on top of a petroleum spill. So it's increasing the hydrocarbons in the water column." Furthermore, says Shaw, the dispersant can increase the toxicity of the oil for those marine organisms that encounter it. "It's like a delivery system," says Shaw.
"The [dispersed] oil enters the body more readily and it goes into the organs faster," says Dr. Samantha Joye, Biogeochemist at the University of Georgia in response to the theory that dispersant use augments bacterial breakdown : "It assumes that the dispersant doesn't impact the microbial community, and we have no idea if that's true or not. There's just as good a chance that this dispersant is killing off a critical portion of the microbial community as there is that its use is stimulating the breakdown of oil."
Dr. Peter Hodson, Aquatic Toxicologist from Queen's University in Ontario,
http://www.queensu.ca/ensc/faculty/reg-faculty/peter-hodson.html stated the following, “Dispersed oil has a more toxic effect than non-dispersed oil since toxic components like polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) are spread around more widely in the water.”
Nature reported on his presentation at a Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry in Portland, Oregon in 2010.
Official Statements by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have reported that the oil–dispersant mix resulting from the Deepwater Horizon spill is no more toxic than the oil itself. Although that is technically true, it is misleading, says Hodson, who has been studying the effect of dispersed oil on Atlantic herring embryos. The problem, explains Hodson, is that the dispersed cloud of microscopic oil droplets allows the PAHs to contaminate a volume of water 100–1,000 times greater than if the oil were confined to a floating surface slick. This hugely increases the exposure of wildlife to the dispersed oil. "EPA was presenting only part of the risk equation," he told the meeting. "They're trying to sugar-coat the message. In trying to understand the risks of dispersed oil, we need to understand exposure." Hodson's research suggests that fish embryos, still in their eggs, are extremely sensitive to dispersed oil. "Exposures as brief as an hour can have a negative effect on embryonic fish," he says. That, combined with the fact that for any some species, large numbers of fish can spawn at about the same time of year, means that an entire hatch could be decimated by a plume of contaminated water: "You could have a very large portion of the fish stock affected."
This is stunning information: The potential death of fry and spat at levels of contamination as low as 1 to 10 parts per million with exposure times as low as a single hour.
The empirical evidence gathered in the Gulf of Mexico over the last 40 months since the Deep Water Horizon spill indicate that the quick bacterial breakdown of dispersed oil, projected by Ken Lee and other oil company scientists, is not taking place and that blankets of dispersed oil have covered large, now lifeless, areas of the sea floor. Dr. Samantha Bell, alone has recorded nearly 1,300 square Kilometers of absolutely lifeless ocean bottom covered in 3 to 4 inches of dispersant laced oil. A large winter time spill at the Shell site accompanied by our very common strong North Easterly winds along with the Labrador Current could place dispersed oil on Georges Bank in a matter of hours.
Dr. David Valentine and his colleagues from the University of California have found in their studies of the ocean floor in the Gulf of Mexico a 1,235 square mile oil covered area that is about the size of the U.S. State of Rhode Island.
Dr. Jeff Chanton from Florida State University has just reported finding approximately 10 million gallons of oil from the Deep Water Horizon spill buried in the sediments about 60 miles Southeast of the Mississippi Delta. This is 4 years after the DWH spill.
It is really important to note that this is only the oil that the scientists have had the time and money to search for and find but one thing is becoming very clear, when you add dispersants to oil the stuff does not just neatly disappear through bacterial action as oil companies would like us to believe.
In direct contradiction to the oil company assertions, the empirical evidence gathered in the Gulf of Mexico over the last 40 months since the Deep Water Horizon spill indicate that the quick bacterial breakdown of dispersed oil, projected by Ken Lee and other oil company scientists, is not taking place and that blankets of dispersed oil are now covering large, now lifeless, areas of the sea floor.
According to research work done by Dr. Terry Snell, chair of the School of Biology at Georgia Institute of Technology after the Deep Water Horizon blow out dispersants mixed with oil are substantially more toxic than oil alone. The study found that mixing the dispersant with oil increased the toxicity up to 52-fold. In toxicity tests in the lab, the mixture’s effects increased mortality of rotifers, a microscopic grazing animal at the base of the Gulf’s food chain. The findings are available online by the journal Environmental Pollution and appeared in the February 2013 print edition. Dr. Snell has stated: “What remains to be determined is whether the benefits of dispersing the oil by using Corexit are outweighed by the substantial increase in toxicity of the mixture,” “Perhaps we should allow the oil to naturally disperse. It might take longer, but it would have less toxic impact on marine ecosystems.” It is interesting to note that Stantec and Shell have jumped on this research because it is possible that Dr. Snell was potentially incorrect about the cause of the increased toxicity. He opined that the increase in toxicity was caused by the combination of oil and dispersant acting synergistically.
In fact, it seems that the increase was caused by the dispersant breaking down the oil and in doing so increasing the toxic surface area available for interaction with the test animals (Rotifers) The Shell-Stantec report tries to discredit Dr. Snell’s findings by pointing out this potential error but this is just a “Red Herring” argument. The fact is, no matter what the actual cause, dispersant and oil together proved to be 52 times more toxic than oil alone. Most unfortunately, this much more relevant point seems to have slipped by those at the CEAA (The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency.)
Notes : Phone discussion with Dr. Terry Snell, Chair, School of Biology,
Georgia Institute of Technology, Friday, February 20, 2015
In Dr. Snell’s research assessing the impact of oil and dispersants on Rotifer populations the following findings were confirmed:
a. Oil alone is toxic to Rotifers
b. Dispersants alone are more toxic to Rotifers than oil alone
c. Dispersants combined with oil are 52 times more toxic than oil alone
Dr. Snell stated:
1. When commercial fisheries are at risk from hydrocarbon pollution the use of Dispersants is not an advantage. Dispersant use would, in fact, be a disadvantage in trying to protect commercial fish or shellfish species from the toxic impacts of hydrocarbon pollution.
2. The dispersants provide spilled oil a direct entry into the water column in its most toxic state. Dispersants, once they have emulsified the oil into small droplets provide a greater surface area for the oil to negatively interact with all life forms in the water column.
3. Dispersants provide the oil an opportunity to stay afloat in the water column for a longer period of time and to cover a substantially larger area than oil which is not combined with dispersants.
4. The massive use of dispersants in the Gulf of Mexico was rationalized by the perceived requirement to keep oil off the beaches in an effort to protect the critically important tourism industry in the Gulf. If it is commercial fisheries that are most at risk then the use of dispersants is contraindicated.
5. Although specific research has not yet been done, Dr. Snell indicated that his research assessing toxicity of oil combined with dispersant strongly indicates that dispersant laced oil would be highly toxic to commercial fish and shellfish species, particularly in their egg and larval stages.
6. Although specific research has not yet been done, Dr. Snell indicated that his research assessing toxicity of oil combined with dispersant strongly indicates that dispersant laced oil would be toxic to aerobic bacteria.
7. Dr. Snell concluded, that given the information he had available at this point, he saw “No Scientific Rational” for the use of dispersants at a site which was approximately 250 kilometers offshore with low potential for shoreline oiling and a higher potential for negative impacts to important commercial species.
The ECRO is an inadequate resource for offshore oil spill clean up.
Comments made recently by personnel from the Canadian Coast Guard state that there hasn’t been an advance in offshore oil cleanup in over 40 years. There must be reasons why this is true. Before looking at the role of our “Regulators” it is important to take a look at the company that oil companies rely on when a spill occurs. “The East Coast response Organization” is the officially contracted agency responsible, by contract with the oil companies for oil spill response. The ECRO is based in Ottawa and maintains a depot in Dartmouth Nova Scotia. They are a “For Profit” company and their shareholders are; Imperial Oil (subsidiary of US based Exxon Mobile), Ultramar (100% owned by Valero Corp. based in the USA), Shell Canada (100% owned by Royal Dutch Shell based in the Netherlands), Suncor (Canadian based multi-national). Their interest in creating new equipment and new expenses for their clients (who are their owners) is totally suspect. (No new clean up technology in 40 years)
If anyone thinks for a minute that this company would hold the Canadian public interest above their own corporate requirement for profit then I really believe they better think again. You will not see any expensive innovation in offshore oil spill cleanup coming from this group. They don’t even own a vessel capable of delivering equipment to an offshore spill and they don’t have any equipment that works effectively in seas over 1 meter or tides and currents over 1 knot. Our Federal and Provincial Regulators and their mandate.
The Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board is the independent joint agency of the Governments of Canada and Nova Scotia responsible for the regulation of petroleum activities in the Nova Scotia Offshore Area. The Board's principal responsibilities include:
“The protection of the environment during offshore petroleum activities”
You would think that one of their primary efforts would be to keep up with all of the efforts to create new and innovative equipment and to be certain that those in the oil and gas industry requesting regulatory clearance to work in Nova Scotian waters would be required to use the latest and best oil spill cleanup equipment available. In fact if you look at the draft guidelines that oil companies are required to follow you will see that the draft guidelines demand that oil companies will provide both a list of oil spill mitigation methods they plan to use. And further, they are asked to assess and list oil spill mitigation methods that they choose not to use. The guidelines demand in that the final “Environmental Impact Statement” provided by the oil company include the following;
Draft Guidelines for the Creation of an EIS: Section 11 subsection 1.1 page 29 Methodology
“The EIS will indicate what other technically and economically feasible mitigation measures were considered, including the various components of mitigation, and explain why they were rejected.”
Most unfortunately Shell was never required to respond to this requirement so no one will ever have a chance to evaluate any of the oil spill cleanup equipment that Shell rejected prior to selecting dispersants as their primary response to offshore oils spills. This is the first of a number of regulatory failures. There is technology that Shell should have considered for offshore oil spill cleanup and they should be held accountable and made to describe in detail why they have chosen to ignore this technology. The Atlantic Canadian Company E.S.T. has cleanup equipment capable of capturing and containing spilled oil from the ocean surface in Beaufort scale wind and sea states 6-7. Once this equipment is in place there are companies which supply absorbent materials which could also be used which keep the oil from sinking into the water column until the EST barge could collect and contain that oil coated material.
When the Canada Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum review Board was asked why this deficiency was allowed and why they did not request that this and other equipment be considered by Shell they replied that they cannot promote any equipment that has not been previously “Peer Reviewed” by the oil and gas industry. In other words if the oil and gas companies don’t want to go to the expense of providing equipment to more fully protect our Nova Scotian offshore environment from their own potential spills all they have to do is not review any new technology and regulators, whose mandate it is to protect our environment are perfectly OK with this reality.
Canada Environmental Assessment Agency and Canada Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board, final acts
After Shell’s Environmental Impact Statement is initially reviewed by the Canada Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board the EIS is sent to the Canada Environmental Assessment Agency for its final assessment. Once CEAA OK’s Shell Canada’s (EIS) it is then returned to the CNSOPB for final assessment and determination of the exact regulatory regime that Shell will be required to follow. This last review process is now underway. The “Canada Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board has stated that it will complete its review process and make a final determination this fall. At this point the “environmental Impact Statement” put forward by Shell Canada does not constitute a “High quality environmental assessment”, as per the mandate of the “CEAA”. The report’s near total reliance on the use of toxic dispersants disqualifies it as environmentally sustainable in any way.
The (EIS) put forward by Shell and initially reviewed by the CNOPB is fatally flawed and in its current form it is totally unacceptable. In fact, if Shell Canada’s “EIS” is accepted in its current form it will be the first such statement in history to approve “Mitigation Methods” which are more damaging to the environment and more toxic to commercial fish stocks than simply doing nothing at all and letting the spilled oil simply weather and sink on its own. Anyone familiar with South West Nova Scotia’s winter months knows that Nor Easters are an exceedingly common occurrence. An 80 km North East wind over the Labrador Current with a 2 meter breaking sea could put the dispersant laced oil in the top 2 or 3 meters of the water column onto Georges Bank in a matter of hours. Winds from the South East would do the same to Browns Bank and La Have Bank, Winds from the South West would place the toxic oil and dispersant mix on Emerald, Western and Sable Banks. We refuse to accept any plan spreads highly toxic dispersant laced oil on our fishing grounds. What mitigation tools, plans and equipment are required for the EIS to truly provide the maximum protection available to protect the environment on the Scotian Shelf and surrounding area?
1. Shell must drop the use of dispersants as its primary plan for dealing with oil spills at their Shelburne Basin site.
Dispersants do not cleanup anything. They simply put the spilt oil in a more toxic form and sink it into the water column where it can negatively interact with all life forms.
a.) The dispersed oil sinks into the water column immediately giving the oil no chance to naturally weather on the surface and to evaporate off some of its most toxic PAH’s.
b.) The dispersed oil droplets exponentially increase the surface area of the oil making it more available for negative interaction with all biological forms
c.) The dispersed oil, in micro-droplet form, sinks much more slowly in the water column making the toxins available for a much longer timeframe and over a much larger geographic area than oil alone.
d.) The dispersant is an emulsifier which acts on “lipids”. The dispersant acts as a delivery system for the toxins in the oil by breaking down cell membranes and allowing the PAH’s direct access to internal organs.
e.) the gills are extremely susceptible to this process of lipid breakdown because of the very thin membrane required for oxygen exchange. (dispersed oil accumulates on gill structure, See Hodson research, Queens university) Shell Canada must not be allowed to spray “Corexit” or any toxic dispersants into our ocean.
2. Shell must work with the communities and the fishing industry on the South Shore to create a “South Shore Response Organization” that has the required equipment available to actually clean up offshore oil spills from the ocean surface.
This newly formed “Response Organization will be based in Shelburne Harbour. This changes the minimum response time from well over 72 hours to about 12 hours (less than that with an oil spill recovery barge stationed at the drill site). This makes oil cleanup actually possible.
These two points must form the basis of the Shell Canada oil spill response plan. Anything less is criminally irresponsible. These are totally reasonable requests.
Shell Canada can dynamically position an unanchored vessel 250 kilometers off the Nova Scotian shore. They can send drilling pipe thousands of meters down to the ocean floor. They can then drill thousands of addition meters into the earth to a previously determined oil bearing formation. We as a world society can place men on the moon and landers on Mars. Surely we can develop functional procedures and equipment capable of cleaning up spilled oil in our offshore environments.
Bookmark/Search this post with
