Bush Lifts Ban on Oil Drilling in Alaska’s Bristol Bay
Some elected officials and local communities in Alaska had asked for the ban to be lifted, but environmentalists warned that allowing oil and gas drilling in the fragile waters of Bristol Bay could do serious damage to both the marine environment and the fisheries-based economy.
Environmentalists Respond to Drilling in Bristol Bay
"Bristol Bay is one the most important fisheries in America and in the world,” said Carl Pope, Sierra Club executive director. “It's incredibly reckless to risk such an outstanding natural resource just to satisfy Big Oil. Most Alaskans and Americans would agree that it doesn't make sense to sacrifice the world's largest salmon run and an entire local economy to give the oil industry another gift on its wish list.
"This move will do nothing to lower gas prices for American families or energy costs for American businesses, and will keep our nation dangerously dependent on oil,” Pope explained. “By contrast, if our cars, trucks and SUVs together averaged 40 miles per gallon—something that is achievable with existing technology—we would save as much oil as the United States currently imports from the Persian Gulf, with another million barrels to spare."
Gulf of Mexico Also Opened to Oil and Gas Drilling
In a separate action, President Bush also lifted a ban on drilling in an area of the Gulf of Mexico known as Lease Area 181, which is part of 8.2 million acres in the Gulf that the outgoing GOP-led Congress approved for oil and gas drilling before it adjourned in December.
The Economic and Environmental Value of Bristol Bay
Bristol Bay is home to the world’s largest wild salmon run as well as red king crab, large pollock and cod fisheries, and huge herring schools that sustain the Bering Sea. Bristol Bay is also a primary halibut nursery ground. The lush wetlands around Bristol Bay support large bird populations and the bay provides essential habitat for the endangered Right whale.
The Sierra Club and other environmental groups argue that the rich marine life of Bristol Bay could be harmed by the seismic testing, potential oil spills, and contaminated drilling mud and water associated with offshore drilling. Residents of the region are heavily dependent on local marine life for both direct sustenance through subsistence and for sustainable livelihoods through commercial fishing.
Bristol Bay is an economically critical salmon fishery, with a current estimated net value of as much as $10 billion. The area is also important to sport fishermen for its salmon and halibut. More than 25 million fish are harvested (commercial, sport and subsistence) annually, contributing more than $300 million and providing some 12,500 jobs. Sport fishermen spend about $120 million a year.
The Background of Drilling Bans in Bristol Bay
Congress ordered Bristol Bay to be protected from oil and gas drilling in 1990, but the ban was lifted in 2003 at the request of Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, who argued that the region’s oil and natural gas reserves could be developed without harming fisheries.
A separate presidential drilling ban, ordered by former President Bill Clinton, was not set to expire until 2012. Bush rescinded that ban by executive order today.
Comments
Maybe he finally realized that global warming is happening anyway, and decided we might as well kill off all the fish in pursuit of more oil before rising water temperatures do the job.
This is wrong. We do not need more oil. Instead, we need to invest more time and more money into alternatative fuel options. I think this is a step back for the U.S. and not a stop foward.
We don’t need oil. Question? If everyone stopped buying and leasing new gasoline powered cars, how long would it take before the Government and car manufacturers roll out the hydrogen powered fuel cell cars and hydrogen fueling stations? If money is power, loss of revenue is the most powerfully persuasive tool.
Again the President showing his disregard to our world, and what the oceans mean to life. Ignorance
Dixie chicks made a good point, now didn’t they. He is an embarassment, to us and in the eyes of the world. Total disregard to our world , yee ha big oil.
Thank God Bush is doing this. We need to develope our own resorces. I live in an area that has oil wells. There seems to be very,very little if any invironmental impact.
Wow,this is a pretty stubborn evil empire,the Bush family is.How is it a group of people like this are aloud to defy the very laws of nature and dis-respect the cycle of life.Are they even human?They must run on oil because there is no soul or warm blood in these people.We just might be doomed afterall,surprise!Not like anyone really cares with all the cool cellphones, T.V stations and other traps and distractions.How did we get so far removed from nature and what is really important?A big thank-you to all these politicians for destroying the future relations of the world.
Did you vote for Bush? Once, twice? I didn’t. If you did you’re getting just what those of us who didn’t vote for him knew you’d get. Trouble is, your vote has put all of us in the same rolling, tossing boat. That sound you hear is even more white water ahead…and, uh, the falls? Hang on!
Nothing this president does surprises me anymore. drilling in alaska..I can’t wait to see the tidal shifts. Common sense and experience tells us if you stick a hole in something it will either deflate, weaken the structure or cause pain…I think this decision has all 3 covered..
Perhaps Bush has some secret he is keeping hidden from the rest of us: that there is some other planet we can all move to once he completely destroys this one, and we can make a nice fresh start. I will never understand how anyone can justify destroying the very world we all live in and depend on to make a few bucks. Even if the drilling wasn’t to have much of an impact on Bristol Bay, it will nevertheless put more pollution into our air and inevitably lead to global warming. People all over the world need to start taking more responsibility. Bush isn’t the only person helping to destroy this planet, but his latest decision certainly is a huge step back for us.
Having read the comments of others, I wonder WHY you people do not get some real, factual infromation about the invironmental impact of drilling for oil in Alaska. As I have stated before, I live in an area where oil wells are very comon place. This is also one of the largest and richest agriculture areas in the US and there is virtually NO impact on on agriculture from the practice of drilling for oil. Could you hate Bush so much that you are blinded by facts?
Dear Carol Atkinson,
If you know so much about the “invironment” then why can’t you spell it?
Well all you tree huggers, now you have really done it! Being a tree hugger and knowing nothing about the economy is a formula for disaster. Oil is a world commodity that when supply falls short goes up in value (it’s called Economics 101). Now with the economy in the crapper because of high oil prices we have to cut back on our budget. That means we cut back on our parks, and wildlife maintanance hence your precious wildlife goes in the crapper. We had a chance all through the 90’s and up to today to drill for oil and have all the supply we need to keep oil down but no you guys who don’t understand the economic impact just didn’t get it. Now you have no one to blame but yourselfs.
Wow, its amazing how you so-called “tree huggers” just don’t get it. Most of you have not a clue about nature, etc.. Also, drilling for and gathering oil uses advanced and very reliable technology these days. Hundreds of oil platforms were wiped out by hurricane Katrina, but zero leaks…..but you don’t want to talk about that, why is that?
This article is chock full of lies and misrepresentations: ?GOP-led Congress- Nancy Pelosi would be surprised to know that. ?40mpg average on existing technology- not unless we get everybody on motorcycles. ?Risky for the environment- they said the same thing about the Alaskan Pipeline, which has proved to be safe.
OTOH- they miss two huge points:(1) that oil field will only provide about 6 months worth of fuel for the US and will have zero impact on gas prices. There’s still no one talking about conservation: just don’t drive so much!
And (2) A nature preserve is supposed to be a PRESERVE- ie- not to be touched! White man still talk with forked tongue.
I need to address your “lies and misrepresentations” comment, Guido. You object to my mention of the “GOP-led Congress,” but if you read that paragraph a little more closely you’ll see that this article was written in January 2007 and the reference was to the “outgoing GOP-led Congress” that took the noted action in December 2006 after the November election gave Democrats control of Congress. So, no, Nancy Pelosi wouldn’t be surprised to hear that.
It’s common knowledge that technology currently exists that could boost fuel economy to an average of 40 mpg or more, but automakers have lobbied hard for years to keep the requirements low because of the cost involved in making the transition.
I know from your other comments that you’re unlikely to agree that there is any significant environmental risk to drilling for oil in Bristol Bay, so we’ll have to just disagree on that point.
You’re correct that one good argument against opening new areas to oil exploration is that the amount of oil we could likely recover would do little to lower gas prices or increase America’s energy independence. And I agree conservation is key, although I disagree when you say no one is talking about it. A lot of people are talking about it, including me.
As always, thanks for your comments.