The governor is promising to spend another $800,000 for outside legal help and he’s putting money into next year’s budget for a new attorney in the Alaska Department of Law. That attorney’s only job? Dealing with endangered species.
(Photo courtesy of the US Fish And Wildlife Service)
The Governor of Alaska plans to fight
the Endangered Species Act protection
of the polar bear. Rebecca Williams
reports the governor plans on hiring
more lawyers:
Transcript
The Governor of Alaska plans to fight
the Endangered Species Act protection
of the polar bear. Rebecca Williams
reports the governor plans on hiring
more lawyers:
Governor Sean Parnell is picking up where Governor Sarah Palin left off and suing the federal government over the polar bear. Polar bear protections could get in the way of drilling for oil.
He’s now promising to spend another $800,000 for outside legal help and he’s putting money into next year’s budget for a new attorney in the Alaska Department of Law. That attorney’s only job? Dealing with endangered species.
“We’re going to continue to take this fight to the mat to protect our jobs and our economy so that the ESA, the Endangered Species Act, is used to truly protect species and not lock up our opportunities here.”
The Governor says those opportunities are jobs and money connected to oil and gas drilling in the polar bear’s habitat.
Governor Parnell will have more than the polar bear to worry about. Environmental groups are also trying to get several other species on the endangered list – including three types of ice seal.
The Rulison device at insertion, 1969 (Photo courtesy of the US Department of Energy Digital Photo Archive)
There are proposals to drill for oil
and gas very close to the site of a
nuclear explosion. The device was
exploded underground in western Colorado
40 years ago this month. Natural gas
from wells near the site could be
distributed throughout the U.S. Some
experts are concerned the natural gas
could be radioactive. Conrad Wilson
reports regulators could allow drilling
closer to the blast site in the next
couple of years:
Transcript
There are proposals to drill for oil
and gas very close to the site of a
nuclear explosion. The device was
exploded underground in western Colorado
40 years ago this month. Natural gas
from wells near the site could be
distributed throughout the U.S. Some
experts are concerned the natural gas
could be radioactive. Conrad Wilson
reports regulators could allow drilling
closer to the blast site in the next
couple of years:
On September 10, 1969 the Atomic Energy Commission detonated a 40-kiloton
nuclear bomb a mile and a half under ground. It was called Project Rulison. The
bomb was three times the size of the one dropped on Hiroshima.
The idea was to find peaceful uses for nuclear weapons. The federal government
hoped that nukes could be used to free up pockets of gas trapped below.
(sound of video)
The nuke did free up gas.
The government tested the gas by flaring it – burning it in the open – over the next
year. They discovered the natural gas was radioactive.
Marian Wells is a long time resident of Rulison. Her parent’s home was close to
the detonation site and the gas flares. Both of her parents died of cancer. So did
many of her neighbors.
She spoke before the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission.
“My parents were given no notice that you were flaring contaminated gas. And
yet both my parents died of cancer. Cancer is prevalent in this area. And yes, no
one has studied those cause and effect. You don’t really care about us.”
There’s been no government studies connecting cancer and the Rulison blast,
but the community remains fearful and suspicious.
Gas drilling is allowed as close as three miles of the blast site. That natural gas
is piped around the country.
Now some companies say they want to drill for natural gas within a half mile of
ground zero.
The Department of Energy maintains that, for the most part, the gas near the
blast site is safe, but there’s some uncertainly.
Jack Craig heads up the Rulison site for the Department of Energy. Craig says
drilling closer to the nuclear blast site should move forward slowly.
“What we’re saying is do it in a sequential manor. So that you come in slowly
testing the wells as you go in for contaminants – specifically tritium – and, if you
don’t find anything, move in closer.”
Tritium is a radioactive substance produced by the blast. Breathing tritium can
cause cancer.
Chris Canfield works on environmental protection for the state oil and gas
commission. He heads up an annual audit on the Rulison site.
Canfield: “Simply put, everything that’s coming out of the ground is being
sampled, being analyzed.”
Wilson: “If someone were to come to you and say they want to drill within the
half mile of the Rulison blast site, would you say that’s safe?”
Canfield: “I wouldn’t really know at this time.”
Canfield says that the state would require a special hearing before it would
approve any drilling permits any closer.
Oil and gas commissioner Jim Martin says there are still too many unanswered
questions to allow drilling that close to the blast site.
“There are significant information gaps and that makes is very difficult to really
understand the risks either to the workers or to the public who live within some
distance of the drill site.”
Martin says he understands why people are skeptical. He says the United States
has made a lot of mistakes with radioactive materials. Navajo uranium miners
got cancer because of radio exposure. People downwind of above ground
detonations suffered. Martin says skepticism is warranted.
“So it’s not unreasonable to ask some pretty tough questions of the federal
government before we go further into that half mile perimeter and produce more
gas.”
Gas that could be burned to heat homes across the U.S.
Drilling for natural gas includes pumping water and chemicals at high pressure into the ground to force out pockets of gas (Photo courtesy of Argonne National Laboratories)
The federal law that protects drinking water allows companies drilling for natural gas to inject chemicals into the ground. The exemption for gas drilling operations also allows the companies to keep the chemicals they use a secret. Conrad Wilson reports environmentalists want the exemption removed:
Transcript
The federal law that protects drinking water allows companies drilling for natural gas to inject chemicals into the ground. The exemption for gas drilling operations also allows the companies to keep the chemicals they use a secret. Conrad Wilson reports environmentalists want the exemption removed:
For decades, drilling for natural gas includes pumping water and chemicals at high pressure into the ground to force out pockets of gas.
Environmental groups believe the chemicals are contaminating wells and aquifers here in the western U.S. Now gas drilling is moving east to places closer to cities such as Philadelphia and New York.
Several Democratic Members of Congress have introduced legislation to repeal the exemption in the Safe Drinking Water Act.
Randy Udall is a co-founder of the Association for the Study of Peak Oil-USA, an environmental group. He says as more gas is found, people in the East can expect more drilling.
“For better or worse, whether you like it or not, as time goes on, were going to be drilling in places where people are living.”
The oil and natural gas industry says the chemicals they force into the ground are “trade secrets.” They say the process is safe.
Oil is a global commodity, so oil drilled in the US would not have to stay
here (Photo courtesy of the Minerals Management Service)
There’s been a lot of talk lately
about drilling for more oil off the American
coasts. Rebecca Williams reports that oil
is not required to go to the US markets:
Transcript
There’s been a lot of talk lately
about drilling for more oil off the American
coasts. Rebecca Williams reports that oil
is not required to go to the US markets:
Oil is a global commodity. Oil drilled in the US would not have to stay
here.
But most of it probably would.
Alan Good is with Morningstar. He analyzes the oil and gas industries.
“It would generally go straight to America because it would incur the lowest
transportation costs to get to the United States refineries.”
But Good says it would be at least a decade before that oil would come
online. And even then it’s not clear how much offshore drilling here would
reduce imports from the Middle East.
“It will help somewhat with imports but it’s not likely to make a huge dent.”
And he says it’ll probably have little effect on the price you pay at the pump
because world demand drives oil prices.
The President already has lifted an executive ban on offshore drilling. He now wants
Congress to lift its ban.
(Photo courtesy of the US Department of State)
President George Bush says Congress
should remove the ban on offshore drilling
because there might be a decade’s worth of
oil off the US coasts. Lester Graham
reports that might be an optimistic estimate:
Transcript
President George Bush says Congress
should remove the ban on offshore drilling
because there might be a decade’s worth of
oil off the US coasts. Lester Graham
reports that might be an optimistic estimate:
The President already has lifted an executive ban on offshore drilling. He now wants
Congress to lift its ban.
At an Ohio factory, President Bush talked about wanting to find more oil in the U.S.
“One place where there is, the experts say is, a bountiful supply of oil, perhaps as much
as 10 years’ worth at current consumption rates, is the Outer Continental Shelf. That
would be offshore America.”
But the President’s numbers don’t add up.
The Energy Information Administration estimates off-shore there’s 18-billion barrels of
crude oil that are currently off-limits. The U.S. consumes more than seven-and-a-half
billion barrels a year. That means 18-billion barrels would only last the U.S. less than
two-and-a-half years – not the ten years the President suggests.
Oil companies are legally protected from any accidental harm caused by trucks, boats and experiments that alter the polar bear’s environment (Photo courtesy of the US Fish and Wildlife Service)
Just when you thought polar bears in the United States were safe under the Endangered Species Act… they’re facing a new threat. The Bush Administration has announced regulations that allow oil companies to harass polar bears while they explore for oil off the coast of Alaska. Richie Duchon has more:
Transcript
Just when you thought polar bears in the United States were safe under the Endangered Species Act… they’re facing a new threat. The Bush Administration has announced regulations that allow oil companies to harass polar bears while they explore for oil off the coast of Alaska. Richie Duchon has more:
Oil companies can’t kill polar bears. That still brings a penalty. But they are legally protected from any accidental harm caused by trucks, boats and experiments that alter the polar bear’s environment.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Bruce Woods says oil exploration is not much to worry about.
“Believe me, you won’t find more concern for the polar bear anywhere than you will in this office, but we just don’t really believe that this activity at this level poses any significant threat. The threat to the polar bear is the loss of sea ice.”
Environmental groups are furious. They say the loss of sea ice from global warming is a threat to the polar bear, but they say we need to minimize other threats with a moratorium on oil exploration.
There is concern that new noises from energy research will disrupt the sage grouse's mating patterns (Photo courtesy of the US Fish and Wildlife Service)
The push is on to find more energy in
western states. And wildlife experts are trying
to figure out how some rare birds will react to
the increase in mining and gas exploration. Bob
Beck reports biologists studying sage grouse are
introducing new sounds into their research:
Transcript
The push is on to find more energy in
western states. And wildlife experts are trying
to figure out how some rare birds will react to
the increase in mining and gas exploration. Bob
Beck reports biologists studying sage grouse are
introducing new sounds into their research:
Gail Patricelli is a researcher from the University of California at Davis. She studies the
mating habits of birds. And she says the habits of the sage grouse are the most
interesting. The males gather each spring on their traditional mating grounds,
known as a lek.
“The males gather during the spring, puff up and strut around. The females come
down to the leks during their breeding season, to pick
a mate. So they basically comparision shop. You will see females move along the lek,
sometimes by themselves, sometimes with big groups of females. But then they pick who they are
gonna mate with, they mate with them, and then they leave. And that’s the end of their
relationship.”
Beck: “What’s odd about this, is this all sounds vaguely familiar.”
Patricelli: (laughs) “A lot of people say that, but humans are very different. It’s sort
of analogous to a singles bar where people are just going to hook up.”
(sage grouse sound)
Patricelli watches and listens to these birds at a mating ground in Wyoming. She’s
learning how males get the attention of females.
“They have some particularly cool behaviors where they produce a sound that
radiates from vocal sacks on their chests – which are very bizarre looking
structures. But the sound comes out of the vocal sack, so the male has to aim the
sound appropriately at the female in order to impress her to mate.
(sage grouse sound)
So it’s not just his ability to
have the biggest, loudest, flashiest signal, but also to actually aim it appropriately at the
female. He has to know how to put on a good show, but respond appropriately and
be sensitive to what the female is doing.”
But the search for more energy is bringing new gas drilling and big trucks closer to
sage grouse mating grounds. This is happening at the same time the birds’ numbers
are declining. Researchers’ fear is the noise from energy development is disrupting
the sage grouse’s ability to hear each other, which is critical.
(truck sounds)
To find out, Patricelli is introducing recordings of gas rigs and trucks into her
research. She wants to see if sage grouse can adapt to the noise.
“So, there’s things that a lot of animals do to deal with noise in the environment.
And sage grouse may or may not be able to do that. They are not the brightest
(laughs) birds in the world.”
Wildlife Biologist Stan Harter works for the Wyoming Game and Fish department.
He’s watching the research with interest. Biologists worry that the birds are leaving
their mating grounds, trying to get away from the noise. His fear is that if the birds
are relocating they might be putting themselves at risk.
“In my mind, the birds can maybe move over here and strut okay, but are they
getting good nesting conditions over there? Maybe not. Is there a way we can allow them to co-exist more friendly?”
Harter openly admits that the sage grouse has declined in the West to the point
where it could show up on the endangered species list. If that happens, it could shut
down major portions of the state’s important energy economy. Similar to how the
spotted owl shut down logging in the Northwest.
So, wildlife officials are trying to find ways to make the birds and energy
development co-exist. They’re hoping that Patricelli’s research will guide them, not
just in reducing the noise, but in developing a plan to protect the sage grouse
population into the future.
George Washington's dentures (Photo courtesy of the National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research)
Some consumer advocate groups say there’s
another reason to fear a trip to the dentist. They
say dentists should stop using mercury to make some
types of metal fillings. Mark Brush reports the
groups recently settled a lawsuit with the Food and
Drug Administration:
Transcript
Some consumer advocate groups say there’s
another reason to fear a trip to the dentist. They
say dentists should stop using mercury to make some
types of metal fillings. Mark Brush reports the
groups recently settled a lawsuit with the Food and
Drug Administration:
Moms Against Mercury and several other groups sued the FDA. They said the agency
was failing to inform the public about the dangers of mercury in dental fillings.
Mercury can do damage to the nervous system. But people’s exposure from fillings has
long been debated.
Charlie Brown is a lawyer for the groups who sued the FDA. He says getting mercury
out of dental offices will protect those most at risk.
“It’s permanent damage to the developing brain. Not like a guy like me losing brain cells
everyday, but to the child whose potential is being destroyed by neuro-toxic damage.”
As a result of the lawsuit, the FDA changed its message about mercury exposure from
dental fillings. They now say the exposure might hurt the nervous systems in developing
children and fetuses.
The agency plans take a closer look at the science and issue a final rule next year.
Members of Dooda Desert Rock. From left, Alice Gilmore, Elouise Brown, her son JC, her brother-in-law and her grandfather, Julius Gilmore. Her grandparents Alice and Julius lived their whole lives just down the hill from here. They would have to be relocated if the power plant is built. (Photo by Daniel Kraker)
The protestors’ make-shift camp in Burnham, New Mexico on the Navajo Nation at the proposed power plant site. (Photo by Daniel Kraker)
The Navajo coal mine would be expanded if the Desert Rock power plant is built. Desert Rock would be a "mine mouth" facility, meaning that coal would not have to be brought to the power plant by train or truck. The Navajo coal mine already provides coal to the nearby Four Corners Power Plant. (Photo by Daniel Kraker)
The Four Corners Power Plant is about ten miles north of the proposed Desert Rock plant. Another giant power plant, the San Juan Generating Station, is just north of here. Four Corners is one of the largest coal fired plants in the country with 2000 MW of generating capacity. It’s also one of the dirtiest based on its emissions of nitrogen oxide, carbon dioxide and mercury. (Photo by Daniel Kraker)
To meet the country’s growing demand for
energy, there are about 150 new
coal-burning power plants on the drawing board.
But not everyone is thrilled about relying on
coal as a future energy source. Daniel Kraker
takes us to a place where people have
lived next to these power plants for decades.
And now they’re fighting plans to build another
one:
Transcript
There’s been a lot of talk about developing clean energy sources, like wind and solar
power. But coal is still king. And to meet the country’s growing energy demand there are
about 150 new coal fired power plants on the drawing board. But not everyone is thrilled
about relying on coal as a significant future energy source. Daniel Kraker takes us to a
place where people have lived next to these power plants for decades. And now they’re
fighting plans to build another one:
In northwest New Mexico, the Navajo Indian reservation is a spectacular other-worldly
landscape of mesas and giant sandstone rock formations jutting out of the red earth.
Underneath the ground are huge reserves of coal. This is where the Navajo government
and a company called Sithe Global Power want to build a 1500-megawatt power plant
called Desert Rock, and it’s here where a small group of Navajos who oppose the project
have set up their base of resistance.
“It’s called Dooda Desert Rock, Dooda means ‘no’ in Navajo.”
That’s Elouise Brown. She’s president of a group of Navajos who live near the proposed
construction site. They’ve been camped out there since December, in a small plywood
shack attached to a trailer. Brown says she’s quit her day job to protest the project full-time:
“I think this whole coal plant is just, people are just looking at dollar signs. They don’t
care about their people, they don’t care about their mother earth, global warming…And I
think it’s about time that we be heard, we’re going to stand here and stay here until
somebody listens to us.”
Brown walks outside the shack with her son and grandfather, Julius Gilmore. He points
out in Navajo where the power plant would go.
“You see the drill down there? It’s just northeast of there…”
“And that’s your grandfather’s house right there?”
“Yes.”
Her grandparents have spent their entire life there. They’ll have to be relocated if the plant
is built.
From the protestors’ camp the tips of two giant smokestacks are visible. The Four Corners
and San Juan Generating Stations were built in the 1970s during the last big construction
wave of coal fired plants. Desert Rock would be the third power plant in this area. Frank
Maisano is a spokesman for Desert Rock:
“Already in the region there is 2300 megawatts of new requests for power, and that is just to
satisfy massive growth in the region right now. Those who say that, ‘Oh we just won’t use
coal.’ They’re not looking at the larger picture, which says we really do have to have a
balanced approach, not just that we don’t like this one little carbon dioxide emission that
comes from this plant.”
Maisano says Desert Rock would be one of the cleanest coal fired plants in the country.
He says scrubbers would remove many of the harmful chemicals that can lead to health
problems and smog. And it would cough up less carbon dioxide than the older generation
of coal-fired plants.
“It’s a higher heat rate so that the coal is heated up so it combusts more completely,
basically what you’re doing is, you’re getting more efficiency, you’re getting more
megawatts out of less coal.”
Still, Desert Rock would emit about 10 million tons of CO2 every year. That’s only about
15% less than older plants. There are 150 coal fired plants like this one on the
drawing board across the country, and 40 of those are likely to start up in the next five
years.
Many environmentalists worry if Desert Rock and other coal plants are built, we’ll be
saddling the country with growing greenhouse gas emissions for decades to come.
Roger Clark is Air and Energy Director with the Grand Canyon Trust:
“As a nation we should consider a ban on all new coal plants. We’re at a point now where
we need to start reversing the amount of greenhouse gasses that we’re putting into the
atmosphere. It’s 19th century technology here in the 21st century that is something that we
don’t need.”
The country’s population is growing, and our thirst for energy is growing right along with
it. Roger Clark and others believe we can meet that growing demand through energy
efficiency improvements, combined with investments in renewables.
Here in the southwest, the Navajo Nation is in the early stages of developing a wind farm.
But that would only produce 200 megawatts of electricity; Desert Rock would be seven
times that size.
The tribe’s primary focus in this debate isn’t CO2 emissions, or climate change, it’s
revenue. Desert Rock would generate an estimated 50 million dollars annually for the
impoverished tribe. If the plant gets its final environmental approvals, and it isn’t taken to
court, that money could start flowing as early as 2012.
The U.S. Coast Guard has abandoned its plan to conduct “live fire” weapons training on the Great Lakes. Steve Carmody has more:
Transcript
The U.S. Coast Guard has abandoned its plan to conduct “live fire” weapons training on the Great Lakes. Steve Carmody has more:
The Coast Guard had wanted to establish 34 “live fire” zones across the Great Lakes. The proposal ran into opposition partly involving concerns over the potential environmental impact.
Michigan Congressman Bart Stupak says thousands of rounds of spent ammunition would have been dumped onto the bottom of the Great Lakes.
“We’re not going to let the Coast Guard dump 7,000 pounds of lead in the Great Lakes. No other industry could do it, so they certainly were not going to be allowed to do it. And, they still really haven’t answered the real basic question, ‘why is it necessary to do it now?'”
In a written statement, the Coast Guard said it would reconsider its “live fire” proposal, including the location of water training areas and the use of “environmentally friendly alternatives to the lead ammunition” currently used.
Congressman Stupak says it will probably be several years before the Coast Guard tries to put forward a new “live fire” proposal.
The governor is promising to spend another $800,000 for outside legal help and he’s putting money into next year’s budget for a new attorney in the Alaska Department of Law. That attorney’s only job? Dealing with endangered species. (Photo courtesy of the US Fish And Wildlife Service)
