More Oil Drilling in Michigan, Great Lakes at Possible Risk
Look out Michigan. Rising oil prices are causing some of our legislators to get creative. There was talk on WXYZ about scouting around for more places to drill for oil in Michigan. Isn’t that going to be a lovely sight for tourists to see, or us for that matter? Erie, Michigan thought they had a big fight over Eminent Domain with the railroad; wait until the oil industry sets their sights on a spot to drill. They got their way with millionaire ranchers out west, forcing one of them to build a new home in a corner of his own ranch to get away from the noise and scenery of the oil drilling operations. He found out the hard way that he only owns the dirt on top. The government owns the mineral rights below. He was told to move over.
And don’t think the oil price squeeze isn’t squeezing out the idea of drilling in the Great Lakes again. After all, Canada does it. Just because we think that Congress permanently banned drilling in the Great Lakes in 2005, doesn’t mean a thing. Look at the past 7 years in this country. What was in place is nada now. Endangered species, wildlife habitats, national parks, clean air, clean water, and even private property have been challenged when we thought, well, they were protected.
I’ve run across several articles about Canada’s drilling in the Great Lakes. One of them, in the Detroit News stated:
While Canadian authorities maintain drilling has been safe, “Dirty Drilling,” a 2002 report by the Public Interest Research Group in Michigan, calls spills common, producing ’significant’ pollution that endangers wildlife. The environmental group said drilling in Lake Erie led to 51 natural gas leaks between 1997 and 2001 and 83 oil spills between 1990 and 1995. “‘Drilling has been neither safe nor risk-free,” the report concluded. The report was part of the arsenal used by U.S. drilling foes to push for a ban.
And that ban to drill in the Great Lakes passed in Congress. It is law, yet there are reverberations in Michigan right now about drilling again. I found another environmental blogger that has been watching some of our Michigan Republicans relative to Great Lakes oil drilling. Check it out: http://classwarnotes.blogspot.com/2007/06/why-does-rep-tim-walberg-mi-7-love-big.html.
If you’re concerned about our Great Lakes, or the future scenario for Michigan, better nip this oil drilling in the bud, especially after the ruckus over BP wanting to expand their operations in Indiana relative to Lake Michigan pollution. We need to remind our legislators, we’re serious about moving forward, away from fossil fuels altogether, not just foreign oil.
Another good article to read going back to the 90’s when the issue of drilling in the Great Lakes came to the forefront:
http://www.opensecrets.org/newsletter/ce76/oilside.asp.
About Canada’s oil drilling in the Great Lakes read the whole Detroit News article:
January 22nd, 2008 at 1:23 pm
Can we agree that our energy concerns are real and the solution will envolve, among other things, new sources of energy, new ways of using it, electirc cars etc, conservation, and new sources of domestic production for energy?
I’m interested in why new sources of energy, such as drilling for oil in our country and creating more nuclear power, draw such a big NO from so many people.
January 23rd, 2008 at 6:41 pm
Drilling for oil is not a new source of energy. We are not advancing away from fossil fuels and are quite capable of doing so Keith. If I could send you the entire series called EcoTech you would not believe what our engineers and scientists have ready to roll! We are literally dinosaurs in our thinking about energy. Europe is advancing ahead of us on green energy and in the not so distant future will reap an advantage no different than the advantage Asian automakers have had with hybrid cars.
January 24th, 2008 at 9:40 am
My last paragraph was saying new production of energy. This while we are devoleping new sources of energy. We should develope new kinds of energy but while doing so get more of what we need right now as cheaply as possible. Today that would include oil & nuclear.
You’d be interested to know I am an owner of a company that is creating a system for a windows which is highly “green.” We’re not to a sellable product yet but are 60% - 70% there. Our lead guy is the guy who invented the dimming mirrors that are now in most cars. Remember how you used to have to flip the review? Now it dims itself. http://www.Ploetint.com
for the full presentation. Let the little presentation on the right side run its course.
January 25th, 2008 at 11:51 am
I’m interested in those windows Keith. And I can tell you are concerned about environmental issues, animal welfare, and alert to our media presenting biased news, so I’m not surprised you’ve got a green business going. It’s the future. The reason I do not want to let legislation pass that allows any more oil drilling that is already happening is because it will be like opening floodwater gates. A year ago I blogged about Star Energy invading one of the wild corners of the AuSable River in N. Michigan with slant oil drills. They destroyed the area. How they got permits is beyond me because a tract of land that was donated by a family to keep that area wild, and free from commerce was affected. We’re surrounded by the oil industry right now, granting them any more rights is ludicrous. I’ve printed many blogs about slant oil drilling invading our National Parks. I read an article long ago, about 4 years I think, that holes have been punched all over Wyoming looking for natural gas. Many times they hit spring water. It was left gushing. And we’re going to have water shortages in the future. Atlanta is not recovered from the drought at all. Drilling for oil in the Great Lakes will just pig them up more. The article I sighted showed all the oil spills Canada has had. Besides, we already drill at 7 different places in the Great Lakes. See what I mean. What more is needed there? Surely some of this energy can be supplemented right away. But it’s not happening. Not in Michigan anyway. This proposition is too oil friendly.
January 25th, 2008 at 12:02 pm
You know I wrote that and just checked my e-mail. The oil industry is already doing what they want. We don’t need to add to it.
These are some of the alerts I’ve got:
The Bush Administration is set to begin a national rulemaking that could weaken regulations currently protecting more than 4.4 million acres of Colorado’s undeveloped national forest roadless areas.
These areas currently enjoy protection under the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule, but through this process, the door could be opened to mining, logging, road construction, oil and gas development as well as other corporate special interests.
Anchorage, AK—A coalition of Alaska native and conservation groups, joined by a retired U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service biologist, denounced a proposed land swap that would remove 110,000 acres of critical and irreplaceable wildlife habitat and wilderness from the Yukon Flats National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska to allow oil and gas development on the land. The coalition responded to a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) posted yesterday by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS).
See what I mean?
January 25th, 2008 at 5:17 pm
How about the nuclear?
January 25th, 2008 at 5:19 pm
Also, we are very excited about the windows.
January 29th, 2008 at 4:31 pm
You ought to be excited about a new product Keith. You could one day be an entrepreneurial millionaire and achieve it with a “good” product. That’s got to feel good. Most of our energy waste is out our windows. If you’ve got something new, it’s a go, and despite the housing crunch which will be around for awhile. People are choosing to improve their homes instead and windows are on that list.
To answer the nuclear question, I have to say it isn’t as bad as people think. I worked at the Fermi II plant for 8.5 years. Inside I worked for the Asst. Project Mgr, and Chief Field Engineer, and later for the QA manager of the entire site, and also a Mr. David Bell in charge of bringing in the turbine on the barge from England. So I experienced the engineering part of the whole thing, and understand the basics. Later on I went to work in the field for more money. As a construction worker I was inside of the actual reactor for months. I climbed around every inch of that place as well. What can I say. It’s still running fine.
I think boiling water reactors are the best scenario, since there is less issue with bursting pipes from pressurized steam. As far as a meltdown, not likely. Too many controls in order. That’s what everyone gripes about in the U.S. It takes too long to build them because of the safety parameters. And terrorism, good luck. Someone would have to nuke a nuke to really cause trouble, in which case we’re nuked either way.
The biggest issue is the radioactive waste being buried. It’s about the same issue as burying the liquified CO2 from gasified coalburners. How much is too much, and how long will it stay there? We’re going to see a big push for “clean” coal soon, an oxymoron if I ever heard one. The coal is still filthy as ever, but we just trap it instead, force it into a liquid and inject it into the earth. My question is how much before we have a big KABOOM of pressurized liquid CO2?
The latest I’ve read about the radioactive situation is that scientists worldwide are doing some really promising work toward stabilizing those wild molecules. I caught the end of a program about it. Once we are able to tame radioactivity, it may open the doors for all kinds of ways to use it. After all the sun is radioactive.