‘This bill protects our precious waters': how a Florida environmental group scored a win against big oil
The Florida state congressman Jason Shoaf remembers how the threat affected the bay.
'It harmed our commercial fishing, aquaculture operations, and just the threat of oil kept tourists away for months,' Shoaf recalls. 'Businesses were forced to close, jobs were lost, and the disaster reshaped our region forever.'
Related: How Trump is targeting wind and solar energy – and delighting big oil
Those memories were freshly triggered in April 2024, when the Florida department of environmental protection (DEP) granted a permit to Louisiana-based Clearwater Land and Minerals for exploratory oil drilling on the Apalachicola River basin. So area residents, along with environmental and business groups, formed a Kill the Drill coalition to oppose the permit.
A year later, the coalition's efforts and an administrative challenge to the DEP's permit by the non-profit Apalachicola Riverkeepers prevailed when Judge Lawrence P Stevenson recommended the department deny the permit.
In May, the DEP reversed course and denied the permit.
But that was not enough to convince those seeking to preserve the region's environment. Shoaf, who represents Florida's north-eastern Gulf coast region, applauded the DEP's decision but says the threat of oil exploration and drilling near north Florida's inland waterways would only be ended by a permanent ban. So to prevent future threats and the DEP from issuing other oil exploratory drilling permits, Shoaf and state representative Allison Tant co-authored House Bill 1143.
'While the permit to Clearwater Land and Minerals was denied, we can't assume the next one will be,' Shoaf says. 'HB 1143 protects our precious water resources and the ecosystems that depend on them by prohibiting drilling, exploration and production of oil, gas and other petroleum products within 10 miles of a national estuarine research reserve in counties designated as rural areas of opportunity. It also requires the Florida department of environmental protection to ensure natural resources are adequately protected in the event of an accident.'
This region has a deep collective memory of how the gulf oil spill devastated the regional economy
Adrianne Johnson
In April, the legislature overwhelmingly passed HB 1143 with only one dissenting vote in the Senate. It was presented to Florida's governor, Ron DeSantis, on 18 June. And, despite a poor recent record on protecting the environment, DeSantis signed the bill last week – handing the coalition that lobbied for it a cheering victory.
The area now saved from the oil industry is invaluable both to nature and the people who live there. The Apalachicola River, formed by the meeting of the Chattahoochee and Flint rivers, flows 160 miles (258km) to the Apalachicola Bay and the Gulf. Both the river and bay are critical to the region's tourism and seafood production industries.
For environmental campaigners, the success of their efforts might help lay to rest the ghosts of the Deepwater Horizon oil rig explosion, which released nearly 3.19m barrels of oil into the gulf.
'Oil from the BP spill didn't reach our coasts, but the damage caused by the threat was enough,' Tant says. 'We've seen what can happen. We've lived it. This is not theoretical. It was a perilous time for small businesses and for those who lived in the area. It stopped tourism and shuttered small businesses. So it defies logic to think it's a good idea to drill for oil along the Apalachicola River.'
Adrianne Johnson is executive director of the Florida Shellfish Aquaculture Association which represents more than 350 shellfish farmers in Florida. Johnson, an Apalachicola native, became involved in the Kill the Drill movement for personal and business reasons.
'This region has a deep collective memory of how the Gulf oil spill devastated the regional economy and collapsed the oyster industry in Apalachicola Bay,' Johnson explains. 'And that was just the threat of oil. The majority of the state's oyster farms operate across Wakulla, Franklin and Gulf counties, and these areas downriver would be most impacted by oil drilling upriver (at the proposed site in Calhoun county). If there were to be a spill upriver because of drilling in the basin, it would have catastrophic environmental and economic impacts on the area that would be felt for generations.'
Johnson also points to the region's frequent weather-related natural disasters, such as hurricanes, as another reason why drilling had to be banned in the region.
'Our shellfish farmers are still recovering from the multiple hurricanes of 2024,' she explains. 'But the reality of being a Florida farmer is having to contend with these weather-related events. Hurricanes and natural disasters are outside of our control. Permitting oil drilling in ecologically sensitive areas is very much within our control and is an unnecessary threat to our industry.'
Tant agrees.
'We are a hurricane-prone state,' she says. 'We can't get away from that. It's not a question of will we get hit by a hurricane because we know it's going to happen. But an oil spill caused by a hurricane would make the disaster 100 times worse.'
According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (Noaa), the Deep Horizon oil spill caused the loss of 8.3 billion oysters, the deaths of nearly 105,400 sea birds, 7,600 adult and 160,000 juvenile sea turtles, and a 51% decrease in dolphins in Louisiana's Barataria Bay.
Related: Ron DeSantis's fall from grace: 'He's completely crashed to the ground'
Craig Diamond, current board member and past president of Apalachicola Riverkeeper, says another factor behind the ban was the river system itself.
'A spill would be highly impactful given the existing stresses in the system,' says Diamond, who has worked with the Northwest Florida Water Management District and taught graduate courses on water resources at Florida State University. 'Apalachicola Bay Riverkeeper and its allies believe the long-term risks of fossil fuel exploitation in the floodplain or bay (or nearshore) far outweigh the short-term benefits.'
Shoaf says he was inspired to write HB 1143 by the community's grassroots efforts to defend the region's natural resources.
'This bill is essential to prevent unnecessary and irreparable harm to Apalachicola Bay, as well as the economies and ecosystems that depend on it,' he says.
After DeSantis signed the bill into law, the threat of drilling has now receded into the distance for the foreseeable future.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


San Francisco Chronicle
an hour ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Hong Kong firm appeals for legal protection of investors as its Panama Ports contract faces lawsuits
HONG KONG (AP) — A subsidiary of a Hong Kong conglomerate entangled in U.S.-China tensions appealed on Friday for legal protection for businesses in Panama after the company's contract over its Panama Canal port assets has been faced with lawsuits in the Central American country. Respect for the rule of law is essential to assure businesses that Panama is a safe place to invest in, Panama Ports Company, under Hong Kong-based CK Hutchison Holdings, said in a statement. Panama's Comptroller General filed two lawsuits on Wednesday, seeking to declare unconstitutional a contract that granted the operation of ports at both ends of the canal to the Hong Kong subsidiary, and to nullify its renewal four years ago, saying it was 'abusive' of Panama's interests. In turn, Panama Ports Company said its operations have had a positive impact, from building world-class ports to creating more than 25,000 direct and indirect jobs and contributing billions of balboas — Panama's currency — to the country's economy. It said it wants to work with the government in Panama for a better future. 'Regarding the ongoing legal actions, we firmly believe that respect for legal protection and the rule of law are essential in order to provide businesses and investors with the certainty that Panama is a safe country to invest in,' it said. The company operates the ports of Balboa, in the Pacific, and Cristobal, in the Atlantic, under a concession contract approved in 1997 and renewed in 2021 for 25 more years. CK Hutchison is controlled by the family of Li Ka-shing, the southern Chinese city's richest man. Panama's comptroller authority in April said that an audit of Panama Ports Company found irregularities in the renewal of the concession. But the company denied allegations that it had failed to pay about $1.2 billion to the Central American country. Panama President José Raúl Mulino said during his weekly news conference on Thursday that he fully supported the comptroller's case and would await the court's verdict. 'We have all seen what that contract has costed the Panamanian nation over time,' Mulino said without elaborating. He alluded to some sort of public-private partnership for the ports, saying there was a lot of interest from private companies, but that it was in the early stages and provided no details. CK Hutchison Holdings' initial plan, announced in March, to sell its port assets in dozens of countries to a group that includes the U.S. investment firm BlackRock Inc., also got caught up in tensions between Beijing and Washington. U.S. President Donald Trump, who has alleged that China interferes with the canal, initially welcomed that plan. However, it apparently angered Beijing and drew a review by Chinese anti-monopoly authorities. After months of uncertainty, Hutchison said on Monday that it may seek a Chinese investor to join a consortium of buyers, which also includes BlackRock subsidiary Global Infrastructure Partners and Terminal Investment Limited, a subsidiary of the Mediterranean Shipping Company. The initial deal, valued at nearly $23 billion, including $5 billion in debt, would have given the consortium control over 43 ports in 23 countries, including the two at the Panama Canal. Panama Ports Company said Friday it would communicate with the Panamanian government 'at the appropriate time,' affirming that it believes engaging with the government 'is vital to discuss the way forward for' the company.

an hour ago
Hong Kong firm appeals for legal protection of investors as its Panama Ports contract faces lawsuits
HONG KONG -- A subsidiary of a Hong Kong conglomerate entangled in U.S.-China tensions appealed on Friday for legal protection for businesses in Panama after the company's contract over its Panama Canal port assets has been faced with lawsuits in the Central American country. Respect for the rule of law is essential to assure businesses that Panama is a safe place to invest in, Panama Ports Company, under Hong Kong-based CK Hutchison Holdings, said in a statement. Panama's Comptroller General filed two lawsuits on Wednesday, seeking to declare unconstitutional a contract that granted the operation of ports at both ends of the canal to the Hong Kong subsidiary, and to nullify its renewal four years ago, saying it was 'abusive' of Panama's interests. In turn, Panama Ports Company said its operations have had a positive impact, from building world-class ports to creating more than 25,000 direct and indirect jobs and contributing billions of balboas — Panama's currency — to the country's economy. It said it wants to work with the government in Panama for a better future. 'Regarding the ongoing legal actions, we firmly believe that respect for legal protection and the rule of law are essential in order to provide businesses and investors with the certainty that Panama is a safe country to invest in,' it said. The company operates the ports of Balboa, in the Pacific, and Cristobal, in the Atlantic, under a concession contract approved in 1997 and renewed in 2021 for 25 more years. CK Hutchison is controlled by the family of Li Ka-shing, the southern Chinese city's richest man. Panama's comptroller authority in April said that an audit of Panama Ports Company found irregularities in the renewal of the concession. But the company denied allegations that it had failed to pay about $1.2 billion to the Central American country. Panama President José Raúl Mulino said during his weekly news conference on Thursday that he fully supported the comptroller's case and would await the court's verdict. 'We have all seen what that contract has costed the Panamanian nation over time,' Mulino said without elaborating. He alluded to some sort of public-private partnership for the ports, saying there was a lot of interest from private companies, but that it was in the early stages and provided no details. CK Hutchison Holdings' initial plan, announced in March, to sell its port assets in dozens of countries to a group that includes the U.S. investment firm BlackRock Inc., also got caught up in tensions between Beijing and Washington. U.S. President Donald Trump, who has alleged that China interferes with the canal, initially welcomed that plan. However, it apparently angered Beijing and drew a review by Chinese anti-monopoly authorities. After months of uncertainty, Hutchison said on Monday that it may seek a Chinese investor to join a consortium of buyers, which also includes BlackRock subsidiary Global Infrastructure Partners and Terminal Investment Limited, a subsidiary of the Mediterranean Shipping Company. The initial deal, valued at nearly $23 billion, including $5 billion in debt, would have given the consortium control over 43 ports in 23 countries, including the two at the Panama Canal. Panama Ports Company said Friday it would communicate with the Panamanian government 'at the appropriate time,' affirming that it believes engaging with the government 'is vital to discuss the way forward for' the company. Panama's government maintains it has full control over the canal and that the operation of the ports by Hutchison does not mean Chinese control of it.


Hamilton Spectator
an hour ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Enbridge says federal support for oil and gas not yet clear
The head of Enbridge Inc. says he's encouraged by conversations in both Canada and the U.S. on building more energy infrastructure, but that it remains to be seen what concrete action will result at home. 'I'm optimistic about our ongoing conversations and the alignment we're seeing today on both sides of the border to advance projects and legislation,' said Greg Ebel, chief executive of Calgary-based Enbridge on a Friday call to discuss second-quarter results But while both governments are talking, project plans and customer demand is being drawn more to the U.S., he said. 'Our customers at this point in time really want to go south,' said Ebel. 'That's the premium market.' The company reported earnings of $2.18 billion for the quarter ending June 30, up from $1.85 billion in the same quarter last year, as Ebel touted its stable returns and wide array of potential projects to take on. As Enbridge completes capacity expansions to the U.S. Gulf Coast, it could look to projects to serve the Canadian West Coast, but it's still not clear how much government support there is for such projects. 'The issue is one of government policy setting the conditions for that to get investment to occur. Let's be honest, the government has not done that yet, and it's not clear they intend to, at least from our perspective.' He pointed to both the oilsands emissions cap and the West Coast tanker ban as barriers to building a new oil pipeline. A natural gas pipeline would have been slightly easier, but the issue is also that any Canadian project will have to compete on returns with projects in the U.S., he said. 'Only those projects and those jurisdictions that provide better returns, i.e., lower build multiples, are going to get serviced, right? So I would tell you right now, that's a challenge to do more in a place like British Columbia or even Ontario relative to Ohio or, say, Texas.' The U.S. both has more export capacity to global markets, while the Trump administration is also working to strip environmental reviews and open up protected land to boost oil and gas production. The U.S. government is also actively cutting funding and permits for renewable projects, but Ebel said the actions aren't expected to affect Enbridge's already sanctioned projects. 'The One Big Beautiful Bill Act is not expected to impact any of our sanctioned projects, but we'll continue to monitor future developments in this fast moving policy environment.' Enbridge said its adjusted earnings worked out to $1.42 billion for the quarter, up from $1.25 billion last year. Adjusted earnings was 65 cents per common share, compared to 58 cents per share last year. The mean analyst estimate had been for earnings of 57 cents per share, according to LSEG Data & Analytics. Ebel said steady demand and low-risk commercial frameworks have led to predictable results despite geopolitical and macroeconomic volatility. This report by The Canadian Press was first published Aug. 1, 2025. Companies in this story: (TSX:ENB)