Tweet
Well, folks, here's some news from the great white north ... I've added italics to a quote in the article (from the Fairbanks News-Miner).
Bush lifts ban on Bristol Bay drilling
By Sam Bishop
News-Miner Washington Bureau
Published January 10, 2007
WASHINGTON — President Bush on Tuesday lifted a ban on offshore oil and gas drilling in Bristol Bay, drawing mixed reviews from local leaders and cautious support from Alaska’s statewide politicians.
Secretary of the Interior Dirk Kempthorne said the president’s action may allow petroleum leasing in a “small” portion of the bay, which supports a fishing industry worth up to hundreds of millions of dollars annually.
The Interior Department briefly opened part of the region to oil companies 19 years ago before reaction to the Exxon Valdez oil spill brought congressional and presidential moratoriums. Congress removed its ban in 2003.
Dan O’Hara, Bristol Bay Borough mayor in Naknek, said he had advocated lifting the presidential moratorium as well because development possibilities can now be studied.
“This is just a very small step in the process that’s going to take place in even the next five years,” O’Hara said Tuesday.
Although the borough supports the president’s action, O’Hara said, it may change its view if evidence indicates that petroleum work will endanger the area’s fishing economy.
Ralph Anderson, chief executive of the Bristol Bay Native Association, said the evidence already tells him that.
“At this point, I’m really disappointed with the president’s decision,” Anderson said.
Bush’s action lifts a presidential moratorium that covered all of Bristol Bay from Unimak Island, in the south, to a point in the ocean about 100 miles off Goodnews Bay, in the north.
Kempthorne said the Minerals Management Service, a division of his Interior Department, will consider selling leases in the same 5.6 million acres just east of the Aleutian Islands that the agency offered in 1988’s lease Sale 92.
The bulk of the triangular sale 92 area lies north of Unimak Island and the western end of the Alaska Peninsula. It narrows eastward to a point just north of Port Moller.
Oil companies paid the federal government $95 million in 1988 for rights to explore and develop 122,000 acres in the area. However, they drilled no wells before Congress and President George H.W. Bush imposed moratoriums on the entire North Aleutian Basin after the 1989 Exxon Valdez spill. The federal government bought back the blocked leases.
President Bill Clinton, in 1998, extended the presidential leasing moratorium through 2012. Tuesday’s action by Bush eliminates Clinton’s order.
O’Hara, the borough mayor, said he thinks people in his borough are divided over the proposed lease sales, with less support in the Dillingham area than around Naknek, where he lives.
O’Hara is also a board member with the Bristol Bay Native Corp., the for-profit regional company set up after the Native claims settlement of 1971.
Oil companies might want to use the Naknek area’s facilities, which include an ocean dock and a large runway at King Salmon built by the military, O’Hara said.
Still, “we may not be at the center of this thing,” he said. “It may be Cold Bay or Dutch Harbor.”
Anderson, whose nonprofit Native association delivers health care and other services, said the region’s pristine land and water is a provider for many people.
Lifting the moratorium “really threatens not only our culture and our traditions and our way of life, but also our primary economy, which is a fishing economy here in Bristol Bay,” he said.
Spilled oil carried on tides could threaten nearshore salmon spawning areas, he said. Sea mammals “would definitely suffer” in a spill, he added.
“Those concerns haven’t changed since 1988,” he said.
The industry has not yet demonstrated that it can clean up oil spills in broken ice conditions, Anderson said.
Two years ago when the M/V Selendang Ayu broke apart off Unalaska Island, he noted, no one was able to stop much of the ship’s 336,000 gallons of fuel oil from washing ashore. Cleanup crews removed oil from 37 miles of coastline after that incident, according to the latest U.S. Coast Guard information.
“In my mind, jiminy, we simply don’t trust the oil industry,” Anderson said.
He said he hoped the newly Democratic Congress would consider reinstating the moratorium. “That’s the first thought that came to my mind,” he said.
The president’s decision drew no opposition and some support from Alaska’s state and congressional leaders, though.
In a news release, Gov. Sarah Palin said it was “gratifying” that the nation is again looking to Alaska for energy.
“If we can be sure it will not threaten the fisheries that are the foundation of the region’s economy and way of life, I’m all for it,” she said.
Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, said Bush’s decision was “welcome news” to the people of Bristol Bay.
Stevens sponsored the first congressional moratorium in 1990. Thirteen years later, though, he helped repeal it at the request of the state, Native groups, local governments and Bristol Bay residents.
“Imported farmed salmon, high energy costs, and the area’s remoteness have limited economic development and contributed to high poverty in the region,” Stevens said in a news release Tuesday. “The possibility of oil and gas development in Bristol Bay presents a series of new opportunities to the people of this region.”
The Bristol Bay Economic Development Corp. reported in 2003 that the value of Bristol Bay salmon, which averaged close to $200 million a year in the 1980s and early 1990s, had fallen to less than $50 million despite strong runs.
Last year, the ex-vessel value of salmon rose on a strong sockeye run to about $94 million, about 80 percent of the 20-year average value, according to the Alaska Department of Fish and Game.
Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, offered no praise for Bush’s decision and requested that Alaskans continue to make themselves heard on the “merits and dangers” of oil development as the process unfolds.
The Minerals Management Service, which handles offshore leasing for the federal government, proposed leasing the old Sale 92 area in a five-year plan that it issued in August. Secretary Kempthorne is expected to make a final decision on the plan this spring.
Murkowski said she spoke with Kempthorne about the issue.
“I received an assurance from the secretary that if leasing is ultimately proposed for the waters, that it will only be conducted with stringent environmental safeguards to protect not just salmon, but also any crab, cod, pollock and whales, marine mammals and birdlife that live and pass through the Bristol Bay region waters,” she said.
Bush’s decision was anticipated for months. A variety of fishing, environmental and community groups from Alaska and around the nation in late November reported he was close to lifting the ban and appealed to him to drop the idea.
In a Nov. 29 letter to Bush, they said the moratorium is “vital” to protect marine life, fishermen and local communities from the “potentially devastating ecological, economic, social, and cultural impacts of offshore oil and gas development.”
Mayors of the Aleutians East, Bristol Bay and Lake and Peninsula boroughs disputed the assessment in their own letter to Bush a few days later.
“That Nov. 29th letter does not reflect the will of our local families, commercial fishermen or the wishes of the vast majority of our local communities,” the mayors said. “We urge you to immediately lift the presidential withdrawal impacting oil and gas production in the North Aleutian Basin.”
They said “a clean environment and healthy fisheries can co-exist” and that petroleum development would diversify the region’s economy.
The three mayors, in a news release announcing their letter, also said that “although (the Sale 92 area) is sometimes identified as Bristol Bay, it is located well from Bristol Bay salmon fisheries.”
The Minerals Management Service, in its proposed lease plan, estimated the “net benefits” to the nation from oil production in the proposed sale area at $7.7 billion. The agency said petroleum development could create “up to” 11,500 jobs and $340 million of income.
The agency said expanding the lease area to include not just the old Sale 92 but also the entire North Aleutians Basin wouldn’t add much to the net benefits.
“The location of the largest untested prospects with the vast majority of economic resource potential occurs in the Sale 92 area,” the agency explained.
The agency proposed two sales between 2007 and 2012. Each would require the federal government to write an environmental impact statement and open the proposals to more public comment as part of the process.
The area’s greatest potential is in natural gas, not oil, the Minerals Management Service said. The area could produce up to 5 trillion cubic feet of gas, which would be delivered to shore by pipeline, the agency said.
Murkowski said that natural gas, if it escapes, poses fewer environmental problems than oil.
Contact Washington, D.C., reporter Sam Bishop at (202) 662-8721 or sbishop@newsminer.com.
Bush lifts ban on Bristol Bay drilling
By Sam Bishop
News-Miner Washington Bureau
Published January 10, 2007
WASHINGTON — President Bush on Tuesday lifted a ban on offshore oil and gas drilling in Bristol Bay, drawing mixed reviews from local leaders and cautious support from Alaska’s statewide politicians.
Secretary of the Interior Dirk Kempthorne said the president’s action may allow petroleum leasing in a “small” portion of the bay, which supports a fishing industry worth up to hundreds of millions of dollars annually.
The Interior Department briefly opened part of the region to oil companies 19 years ago before reaction to the Exxon Valdez oil spill brought congressional and presidential moratoriums. Congress removed its ban in 2003.
Dan O’Hara, Bristol Bay Borough mayor in Naknek, said he had advocated lifting the presidential moratorium as well because development possibilities can now be studied.
“This is just a very small step in the process that’s going to take place in even the next five years,” O’Hara said Tuesday.
Although the borough supports the president’s action, O’Hara said, it may change its view if evidence indicates that petroleum work will endanger the area’s fishing economy.
Ralph Anderson, chief executive of the Bristol Bay Native Association, said the evidence already tells him that.
“At this point, I’m really disappointed with the president’s decision,” Anderson said.
Bush’s action lifts a presidential moratorium that covered all of Bristol Bay from Unimak Island, in the south, to a point in the ocean about 100 miles off Goodnews Bay, in the north.
Kempthorne said the Minerals Management Service, a division of his Interior Department, will consider selling leases in the same 5.6 million acres just east of the Aleutian Islands that the agency offered in 1988’s lease Sale 92.
The bulk of the triangular sale 92 area lies north of Unimak Island and the western end of the Alaska Peninsula. It narrows eastward to a point just north of Port Moller.
Oil companies paid the federal government $95 million in 1988 for rights to explore and develop 122,000 acres in the area. However, they drilled no wells before Congress and President George H.W. Bush imposed moratoriums on the entire North Aleutian Basin after the 1989 Exxon Valdez spill. The federal government bought back the blocked leases.
President Bill Clinton, in 1998, extended the presidential leasing moratorium through 2012. Tuesday’s action by Bush eliminates Clinton’s order.
O’Hara, the borough mayor, said he thinks people in his borough are divided over the proposed lease sales, with less support in the Dillingham area than around Naknek, where he lives.
O’Hara is also a board member with the Bristol Bay Native Corp., the for-profit regional company set up after the Native claims settlement of 1971.
Oil companies might want to use the Naknek area’s facilities, which include an ocean dock and a large runway at King Salmon built by the military, O’Hara said.
Still, “we may not be at the center of this thing,” he said. “It may be Cold Bay or Dutch Harbor.”
Anderson, whose nonprofit Native association delivers health care and other services, said the region’s pristine land and water is a provider for many people.
Lifting the moratorium “really threatens not only our culture and our traditions and our way of life, but also our primary economy, which is a fishing economy here in Bristol Bay,” he said.
Spilled oil carried on tides could threaten nearshore salmon spawning areas, he said. Sea mammals “would definitely suffer” in a spill, he added.
“Those concerns haven’t changed since 1988,” he said.
The industry has not yet demonstrated that it can clean up oil spills in broken ice conditions, Anderson said.
Two years ago when the M/V Selendang Ayu broke apart off Unalaska Island, he noted, no one was able to stop much of the ship’s 336,000 gallons of fuel oil from washing ashore. Cleanup crews removed oil from 37 miles of coastline after that incident, according to the latest U.S. Coast Guard information.
“In my mind, jiminy, we simply don’t trust the oil industry,” Anderson said.
He said he hoped the newly Democratic Congress would consider reinstating the moratorium. “That’s the first thought that came to my mind,” he said.
The president’s decision drew no opposition and some support from Alaska’s state and congressional leaders, though.
In a news release, Gov. Sarah Palin said it was “gratifying” that the nation is again looking to Alaska for energy.
“If we can be sure it will not threaten the fisheries that are the foundation of the region’s economy and way of life, I’m all for it,” she said.
Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, said Bush’s decision was “welcome news” to the people of Bristol Bay.
Stevens sponsored the first congressional moratorium in 1990. Thirteen years later, though, he helped repeal it at the request of the state, Native groups, local governments and Bristol Bay residents.
“Imported farmed salmon, high energy costs, and the area’s remoteness have limited economic development and contributed to high poverty in the region,” Stevens said in a news release Tuesday. “The possibility of oil and gas development in Bristol Bay presents a series of new opportunities to the people of this region.”
The Bristol Bay Economic Development Corp. reported in 2003 that the value of Bristol Bay salmon, which averaged close to $200 million a year in the 1980s and early 1990s, had fallen to less than $50 million despite strong runs.
Last year, the ex-vessel value of salmon rose on a strong sockeye run to about $94 million, about 80 percent of the 20-year average value, according to the Alaska Department of Fish and Game.
Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, offered no praise for Bush’s decision and requested that Alaskans continue to make themselves heard on the “merits and dangers” of oil development as the process unfolds.
The Minerals Management Service, which handles offshore leasing for the federal government, proposed leasing the old Sale 92 area in a five-year plan that it issued in August. Secretary Kempthorne is expected to make a final decision on the plan this spring.
Murkowski said she spoke with Kempthorne about the issue.
“I received an assurance from the secretary that if leasing is ultimately proposed for the waters, that it will only be conducted with stringent environmental safeguards to protect not just salmon, but also any crab, cod, pollock and whales, marine mammals and birdlife that live and pass through the Bristol Bay region waters,” she said.
Bush’s decision was anticipated for months. A variety of fishing, environmental and community groups from Alaska and around the nation in late November reported he was close to lifting the ban and appealed to him to drop the idea.
In a Nov. 29 letter to Bush, they said the moratorium is “vital” to protect marine life, fishermen and local communities from the “potentially devastating ecological, economic, social, and cultural impacts of offshore oil and gas development.”
Mayors of the Aleutians East, Bristol Bay and Lake and Peninsula boroughs disputed the assessment in their own letter to Bush a few days later.
“That Nov. 29th letter does not reflect the will of our local families, commercial fishermen or the wishes of the vast majority of our local communities,” the mayors said. “We urge you to immediately lift the presidential withdrawal impacting oil and gas production in the North Aleutian Basin.”
They said “a clean environment and healthy fisheries can co-exist” and that petroleum development would diversify the region’s economy.
The three mayors, in a news release announcing their letter, also said that “although (the Sale 92 area) is sometimes identified as Bristol Bay, it is located well from Bristol Bay salmon fisheries.”
The Minerals Management Service, in its proposed lease plan, estimated the “net benefits” to the nation from oil production in the proposed sale area at $7.7 billion. The agency said petroleum development could create “up to” 11,500 jobs and $340 million of income.
The agency said expanding the lease area to include not just the old Sale 92 but also the entire North Aleutians Basin wouldn’t add much to the net benefits.
“The location of the largest untested prospects with the vast majority of economic resource potential occurs in the Sale 92 area,” the agency explained.
The agency proposed two sales between 2007 and 2012. Each would require the federal government to write an environmental impact statement and open the proposals to more public comment as part of the process.
The area’s greatest potential is in natural gas, not oil, the Minerals Management Service said. The area could produce up to 5 trillion cubic feet of gas, which would be delivered to shore by pipeline, the agency said.
Murkowski said that natural gas, if it escapes, poses fewer environmental problems than oil.
Contact Washington, D.C., reporter Sam Bishop at (202) 662-8721 or sbishop@newsminer.com.
Comment