Drilling in the Wild

[Nut]

Here is what was in the latest issue of Field and Stream.

Is he right about all the added wells and roads and etc?

Field and Stream Article

 

[mtmiller]

There is a lot of truth in that article.

On another note, I just denied two leases today that area located in crucial mule deer range. I can't wait until Friday when I get to battle with the state oil and gas leads why our current resource management plan doesn't adequately protect the wildlife resource from gas leasing.

 

[cjcj]

Go gettum Miller.

 

[lilbiggun]

I'm surprised it didnt mention ANWR. I think I know why. Probably up on the slope (prudoe (sp) bay and surrounding areas) wildlife has actually increased in numbers. Maybe its the way they do it, or there strict policies, I dont know. Whatever they are doing its working. Will there be an impact sure, but I think a bigger impact is from people moving farther and farther into wilderness areas. Atleast energy eploration is heavily regulated.

 

[Nut]

There seems to be a trend of relaxing all the standards and measures to allow for more pollution and such.
Here is a couple of links that are interesting to read with a little copy and paste (LMAO at the fact I copied and pasted)

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d03517.pdf

The GAO study released Tuesday said one-fourth of the nation's 575 wildlife refuges have a history of oil and gas production, in some cases dating back to the 1920s. There are 1,806 active drilling rigs in refuges today, producing nearly 24 million barrels annually, said the report by Congress' auditing agency. At some refuges the environmental impact has been negligible, but at others there have been "large scale" spills, disruption of wildlife habitat, abandoned infrastructure and equipment, soil and groundwater contamination, and other ecological damage.

It also said the service, which is charged with protecting refuges, does not have enough people, including managers, with the technical training to "properly oversee oil and gas activities" on many refuges. "Federal management and oversight of oil and gas activities varies widely among refuges," the GAO said. "Some refuges take extensive measures, while others exercise little control or enforcement."

The GAO investigators based their report on interviews, records and visits to 16 refuges. Among those that they visited, investigators cited:

- Soil and vegetation damage from brine spills, mercury contamination and "numerous abandoned wells" at the D'Arbonne refuge in Louisiana. It has 139 wells, 51 of them active.

- Abandoned equipment and infrastructure at the Delta refuge in Louisiana, which has 338 wells, including 178 in use.

- Soil and water contamination from "numerous spills" and the loss of more than 800 acres of wildlife habitat at the Kenai refuge in Alaska, where there are 164 wells, 121 of them active. Contamination from mercury and PCBs also was found there as well as at other refuges.

-At the Anahuac refuge in Texas, which has 50 active wells, there have been seven oil spills reported since 1991, including one that killed more than 800 large fish and 180,000 menhaden, a small but ecologically important fish.


Rep. Billy Tauzin, R-La., a strong supporter of ANWR drilling and a leader in the energy bill negotiations, frequently has cited oil and gas development in other wildlife refuges, including several large ones in Louisiana. If it can be done there, he has said, why not in the Alaska refuge?

Louisiana refinerys cited for air pollution violations most regarding leaks of benzene and other chemicals.
http://www.shellfacts.com/pdfs/Emissions&Releases.pdf

 

[1_pointer]

LBG- I agree that human encroachment into habitat is a bigger problem. The problem I had with the ANWR issue was that in the same session Congress voted down a law on increasing SUV efficiency standards. Doesn't make sense to me, as fossil fuels are a non-renewable resource. It would appear (at least to me) that a better plan may be to be more efficient so that we can get longer use out of the resource.

 

[ELKCHSR]

After that resource is totally used up, then the auto manufacturers will be forced to make some thing different...

 

[Nut]

Why should we wait until the resource is gone before finding somthing different?

Chugging along and acting like there isnt a problem only complicates the future generations energy sources. Plus it isnt only the auto manufacturers that need to do something NOW

 

[ELKCHSR]

Theres a lot of dollars going every year into the exploration of a new power source that is as cheap, I suppose some day, some one will stumble across what that will be, but until then, I suppose we as a species will have to just keep up the apetite for more crude!!!

 

[JoseCuervo]

More on the Bush Energy Policy.... Look at the following points....

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>GOP’s energy plan said to favor industry
Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) – Congressional Republicans are cobbling together an energy blueprint substantially more favorable to industry than a Senate-passed bill hailed by Democrats as a victory this summer.


From drilling in an Alaska wildlife refuge to electric utilities’ use of renewable fuels, pro-industry views are winning consistent support in negotiations on a final bill.

Democrats are complaining about being shut out from decision-making as the talks move toward a conclusion – possibly by the end of this week – on the first overhaul of the U.S. energy agenda in a decade.

Trying to avoid gridlock
Sen. Pete Domenici, chairman of the House-Senate negotiations, dismisses the Democrats’ complaints. The GOP staff has “worked closely” in “open and bipartisan negotiations,” said Domenici, R-N.M.

But he also said he wants to avoid the type of gridlock that prevented passage of a bill last year.


A senior Democrat involved in the talks said he is dismayed at the way Republican leaders are putting together the bill after the House and Senate approved different versions this year.


“Republicans ... expect (us) to ratify a final product that we have not yet seen,” said Rep. John Dingell of Michigan.


The emerging plan reflects a greater tilt toward the energy industry, is more to the White House’s liking and more represents the priorities of conservative House Republicans.


It is largely replacing the legislation passed by the Senate in July when GOP leaders, facing an impasse over their own bill, resurrected a measure approved in 2002 when Democrats were in the majority.


Domenici promised to rewrite the Senate-passed bill in negotiations with the House – and that is what he is doing with Rep. Billy Tauzin, R-La., head of the House delegation.


“This bill will be a Christmas wish list for the oil, gas, coal and nuclear industry,” predicts David Alberswerth, a natural resource specialist for the Wilderness Society.


Final drafts
As an example, Democrats point to the Senate bill’s attempt to spur use of renewables in electricity generation. The Senate had approved, despite vigorous opposition by the industry, a requirement that electric utilities produce 10 percent of their power from renewable fuels. This plan, however, never made the drafts during negotiations and will be abandoned. (The Senate thought renewable fuels was a good direction, and the House abandons it???)


Senators from both parties had supported a ban on the gasoline additive MTBE, which has been found to contaminate drinking water. A four-year phase-out was in the Senate bill, though not the House’s.

Leading House members, including Tauzin and Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, insisted on dropping the ban and giving makers of the petroleum-based additive a liability waiver in water contamination lawsuits.


The issue remains under discussion, though Tauzin and DeLay are close to getting what they want, according to industry sources following the talks.

Lee Fuller, a lobbyist for the independent oil and gas industry, says many of the measures included in the final bill are needed “to grapple with this longer term question” of developing adequate energy supply. He acknowledges that the Senate-passed bill largely is being abandoned.

One of the biggest beneficiaries will be the oil and gas industry.


The emerging bill renews the push to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling, which the Senate has repeatedly rejected.


Domenici has said he will pull this provision if he is convinced that it will lead to a successful Democratic filibuster and jeopardize the entire bill.

But there is no such worry among Republicans over other pro-industry measures.

For example, Domenici and Tauzin have resurrected an idea, omitted from both the House and Senate bills, to order an inventory of oil and gas resources in coastal waters. Leading House opponents fear the inventory is a prelude to lifting bans on offshore drilling that have been in place for years.

The GOP drafts, which are unlikely to be significantly changed, also include:

Increases in money for nuclear research, including construction of a $1.1 billion reactor for making hydrogen. These proposals were not in either earlier bill.

An incentive to make vehicles that run on either gasoline or an alternative fuel. Critics say this only helps automakers meet fuel economy requirements because buyers end up using gasoline in the vehicles anyway.

Measures to speed approval for oil and gas development permits in the Rocky Mountains.

Federal loan guarantee of up to $800 million to help a Minnesota utility built a coal-burning power plant, a subsidy found in neither the House or Senate legislation.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>