next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
Index of Subjects
Dear Mark If there is indeed a threat to Sable Island, as a consequence of increased heman traffic, through industry or tourism, then I would share your concerns. I have never been to Sable Island, but it is not called the "Graveyard of the Atlantic" for nothing. It would appear to me that the violent weather patterns in the area would do far more damage in one day with one good storm than would the footsteps of thousands of people over hundreds of years. With respect to the threatened Terns on Sable Island, you only tell part of the story. The major threat to the Terns is the seagulls which breed extensively on the Island, and rob the Tern eggs. Perhaps you will recall the "Seagull Sandwich" program, proposed about several years ago, but which was cancelled because of objections by Environmentqal Activists. I don't have a position on eitherr issue, because I know so little about them. I would propose a Debate, to enable all the sides of the stories to be presented, so that the sust-mar readers will be adequately informed, so that they can take a position based on fact and reason. I would propose the Resolution be presented as follows: "It is resolved that the violent veather patterns at Sable Island can do more Environmental damage in one day than can thounands of people visiting daily over hundreds of years. "Accordingly, we support the use of Sable Island for Geophone test work, and the opening of the Island to supervised tourism." Mark Butler wrote: > Keep oil and gas activity > off Sable Island > > For Immediate Release May 26, > 1999 > > The Ecology Action Centre is strongly opposed to a proposal by Mobil Oil > and its partners to conduct seismic work on Sable Island. Says, Mark > Butler of EAC, "some areas are too sensitive, too important in which to > allow oil and gas activity to take place". Which areas are too sensitive? What kind of damage will the proposed exploration work do? > Mobil, Shell, and Imperial, the major partners in the Sable Offshore > Energy Project, want to put a crew of 20 people on Sable Island from late > June until October. The crew would slowly move across the island, > continuously laying down and picking up sensor cables. Geophones attached > to the cables would pick up seismic signals produced by equipment on the > island and vessels offshore. The intent is to determine whether there is > oil and gas under and around the island. This does not seem like very destructive behaviour. I would guess that hundreds of horses would do far more foot traffic damage than would the oil exploration crews, or supervised tourists who would only go is suitable areas. > People walking over the island, daily helicopter traffic, motorized > vehicles, and sound generating equipment could adversely affect nesting > birds on the island as well as the fragile vegetation. Won't the young birds mostly have left the nest prior to, or in the early stages of the proposed Exploration period? Storm energy is many, many orders of magnitude larger than would be the paltry energy levels produced by the exploration equipment. Has there ever been a benefit/cost analysis on the consequences of possible incremental damage to vegetation occasioned by increased human activity? > Sable Island is a > breeding area for a number of seabirds, including three species of tern, > one threatened, and the only nesting site in the world for the Ipswich > Sparrow, a subspecies of the Savannah Sparrow. Would the "seagull sandwiches" be beneficial to the Ipswich Sparrow, as it was stated to benefit the threatened terns? > During the Joint Public Review Panel of the Sable Gas Projects the same > companies, as part of the Sable Offshore Energy Project, solemnly stated > that they did not anticipate frequent landings on the Island. (See p. 40 > of the Panel's Report.) del.... Wouldn't changing of crews once every two weeks, be classed as "infrequent?" > This is not the first time the oil industry has been on the island, but > the growing amount of oil and gas activity in the area, plus the interest > by the tourism industry in landing on the island should signal > caution--lots of it. Approval of this project would be used to justify > more activity on the island. I would totally agree that caution is indeed necessary. Prohibition of any development whatsoever is not "caution."del... > EAC is asking that the Petroleum Board, > and in particular the Federal Fisheries Minister, David Anderson, not > allow the companies to do seismic work on the island. > > At present Sable Island is a Migratory Bird Sanctuary, Is the planned activity scheduled for the period between migrations? Mark, thanks for the opportunity you have provided for issue to be discussed. I do hope that we can all learn sufficient facts to justify taking a rational position on the issue. Kevin Chisholm -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- You received this because you are subscribed to "sust-mar", the Sustainable Maritimes mailing list. To unsubscribe, send email to <majordomo@chebucto.ns.ca> with "unsubscribe sust-mar" (without quotes) as the body of your message. To post a message to sust-mar subscribers, send it to <sust-mar@chebucto.ns.ca> Posts that are off-topic or excessive length (10K) will be rejected. For help contact <sust-mar-owner@chebucto.ns.ca>
next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
Index of Subjects