Congress has passed a measure banning drilling for oil or natural gas in the Great Lakes. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham has the details:
Transcript
Congress has passed a measure banning drilling for oil or natural gas in the Great Lakes. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports.
The legislation includes a two-year moratorium on new oil and gas drilling in or under the Great Lakes. US Senators Debbie Stabenow, a Democrat from Michigan and Peter Fitzgerald, a Republican from Illinois came up with the plan. They say the measure was needed in order to protect the waters of the Great Lakes from environmental damage. In Michigan, Governor John Engler denounced the measure. Engler is a long-standing supporter of drilling under the lakes for new energy sources. Susan Shafer is the governor’s press secretary.
“We’re concerned about the federal government coming in and telling us that Michigan and other Great Lakes states: ‘This is what you will do; you don’t have a choice on this.’ And, in the past there have been no federal statutes that have governed control over oil or natural gas in the bottomlands of the Great Lakes. And, so, that’s always been governed by state statute.”
Michigan was preparing to issue new drilling permits. Because of term limits, Engler leaves office at the end of next year. The candidates running for governor in Michigan all oppose new drilling permits. For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, this is Lester Graham.
Before the terrorist attacks on the U.S., environmental groups were often critical of the Bush Administration’s policies. But since September 11th, most of the environmental organizations have erased all traces of criticism of the White House. Some politicians, though, see opportunities to push through energy policies in the name of national security – policies that could damage the environment. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:
Transcript
Before the terrorist attacks on the U.S., environmental groups were often critical of the Bush Administration’s policies. But, since September 11th, most of the environmental organizations have erased all traces of criticism of the White House. Some politicians, though, see opportunities to push through energy policies in the name of national security, policies that could damage the environment. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports.
If you’d visited the Sierra Club Internet web site before September eleventh, or that of the Natural Resources Defense Council, or any of a dozen or more major environmental groups’ sites, you likely would have seen sometimes harsh criticism of the Bush Administration’s energy policies, environmental policies, and a host of other complaints the groups had against the White House. Some environmental groups were also running TV ads attacking the Bush Administration’s policies. But, after the terrorist attacks, the ads were pulled and many of the environmental groups removed those criticisms from their web sites in the name of national unity.
Joe Davis is editor of a tip sheet compiled for environmental journalists. He’s watched as most environmental groups have stifled their criticism since the attacks.
“I think everybody’s waiting just to see, you know, what’s going to happen in the next few days and weeks. And, of course, environmental groups are, for the most part, as patriotic as everybody else and people do understand that national unity is important.”
Some journalists have questioned whether the environmental groups are backing down from their positions or merely lying low for a little while. The environmental groups aren’t saying much. But behind the scenes, there’s concern that environmental protection will get trampled in the name of national security.
Meanwhile, some politicians have seen opportunities in the wake of the tragedy. Immediately after the attacks, the Alaska congressional delegation began pushing harder for oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The members said such drilling would reduce America’s dependence on oil from the Middle East. They were admonished, though, for being opportunists in the wake of tragedy. The Alaska politicians quickly backed off and took the fight for drilling behind the scenes.
Outside of Washington, it’s a different story. Some state politicians have become even more vocal in their support of oil and gas exploration. Just before the terrorist attacks, Michigan’s Natural Resources Commission lifted a moratorium on drilling for oil and natural gas under the Great Lakes. The Michigan Legislature could still step in to block any such drilling. But some of the lawmakers say because of the terrorist attacks, Michigan should drill. Dale Shugars is a Republican State Senator who supports drilling under the lakes.
_____________
“With the sustained war that we’re going to be going into, I think it’s very important from a national security point of view that the country be more independent for oil and gas.”
Environmentalists in Michigan are appalled that Senator Shugars and some of their colleagues are taking that tact. James Clift is the policy director for the Michigan Environmental Council. He says the reserves under the lakes are so miniscule they’ll have next to no effect on the nation’s energy security and using the terrorist attacks to justify drilling under the Great Lakes is wrong.
“We do not believe that the unfortunate incident of the terrorist attack has changed anything as far as energy policy in the United States. The same conditions that applied before apply afterwards. And, even more so, I believe, is the importance for energy conservation. The United States only has four percent of the world’s reserves of oil and gas. Using those reserves up faster isn’t going to make the United States any more secure.”
But Senator Shugars thinks it is naïve to believe using less fuel will be enough. He says now that we’re at war with terrorists, it’s important to drill for fuel for the military and needs at home.
“It’s a fact that we’re going to be having a war against terrorism for a long time and I think that if one is going to look at a national energy policy, it has to include increasing supply and definitely – definitely has to be environmentally sensitive.”
Senator Shugars and others using the terrorist attacks to justify the energy and environmental policies that they want might be walking a tight rope. History shows Americans tend to frown on opportunism during times of national crisis. Environmental journalist Joe Davis says if politicians and energy industry leaders do use that approach, it could backfire. Especially since environmental groups are being quiet for the sake of a united patriotic front.
“Any party who tries to make short-term advantage out of a national crisis like this, I think, is very quickly going to be perceived as being exactly what it is: opportunistic. I don’t think the environmentalists will lay low forever and I don’t think they’re alone in questioning these things.”
But for now, most of the environmentalists are not saying much – at least publicly – about their opposition to the government’s energy and environmental policies. At least not until the nation begins to get past the shock of the terrorist attacks on the U.S.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, this is Lester Graham.
Prices spiked at some
gas stations around the region after September 11th, and many drivers felt
compelled to wait in long lines to fill their
tanks.
Despite the patriotic fervor that has marched across the country, the first test of the war against terrorism found many Americans taking a “me first” attitude. When rumors were flying that gasoline shipments might be disrupted, people lined up to fill up their tanks before supplies dried up. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham has more:
Transcript
Despite the patriotic fervor that has marched across the country, the first test of the war against terrorism found many Americans taking a “me first” attitude. When rumors were flying that gasoline shipments might be disrupted, people lined up to fill their tanks before supplies dried up. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports.
On September tenth, the Energy Department reported that gasoline prices fell almost two cents per gallon. It was the first drop since early August and nearly three-and-a-half cents a gallon cheaper than the same time last year. Supplies of gasoline were plentiful and cheaper, but no one seemed to be in a particular hurry to filler up.
That all changed on September eleventh.
“… breaking news from New York City where planes, two planes have hit both towers of the World Trade Center in lower Manhattan” (voice fades under)
As the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington D-C unfolded rumors of refineries shutting down started circulating. Some suppliers told service station retailers that they weren’t sure when or even if they could deliver the next shipment. Word quickly spread that the price at the pumps was going up.
(Natural sound of service station)
Sharon Cameron lives and works in a small town in Illinois. She heard from a co-worker that the price might go up to five dollars a gallon. When she got near the convenience store. She found a long line of cars and trucks.
“I had about a 35 minute wait to get gas.”
And some in line weren’t happy about what they saw in front of them.
“There was a gentleman that was pretty upset because another guy had pulled his truck in there and had filled up both tanks on his truck and then proceeded to fill up about five or six gas tanks in the back of his truck.”
People appeared to be hoarding gasoline because of rumors that speculated supplies would be cut off because of the terrorist attacks.
Some retailers took advantage of the situation. Scott Mulford is a spokesperson for the Illinois Attorney General’s office. He says about 1500 people from around the state called in complaints that stations were price gouging.
“Prices at the stations increased in some cases as high as five dollars a gallon.”
The Illinois Attorney General is filing suit against one convenience store chain, charging that the price spikes violated the state’s Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act.
Other states in the Midwest had similar incidents. Ohio is filing suit against at least four station owners. There were reports of price gouging in Wisconsin. The Michigan Attorney General has plans to file suit against 13 retailers. Some retailers say in their defense that it wasn’t greed that motivated them. But concern about gas supplies. Some of those gas station owners who hiked prices on September eleventh say they were simply trying to discourage a mad rush for gasoline by raising the price. Stanley Pruss is with the Michigan AG’s office.
“There was something of a panic. There were gas lines. The gasoline station retailer can close down, limit hours, ration gasoline, or spike the price or raise the price to control demand. I mean, those are all options within their purview. Price increases to control demand that double the price of gas are just unconscionable.”
Pruss says it’s somewhat understandable that people wanted to rush to fill their tanks when they heard that gas prices were going up to five-dollars-a-gallon or that supplies might be disrupted.
A marketing professor at the University of Illinois says it’s to be expected. Brian Wansink says instead of conserving in times of crisis. Americans have a tendency to stock up. “Just in case.”
“Any time there’s a crisis or any time that uncertainty is magnified in one direction or another, this basic tendency that we have gets expanded, you know, two, three, or even four-fold.”
Wansink says part of this tendency is a leftover from another national crisis, the depression. He says our parents and grandparents who lived through the Great Depression in the 1930’s have instilled in us the stories of their terrible struggles.
“About how, you know, they only had bread to eat, and how things were really, really tight, and how dire things were. And so, there’s essentially this trace in our mind that ‘My god, things could be really, really bad and I don’t know.’ And I think it’s this threat that drives some of this hoarding also.”
So, storing up or hoarding is part of our culture. At least this time the impulse to hoard gasoline was short-lived. The lines dwindled in just a few hours. Hiked prices were lowered to more reasonable levels by the next day. Hoarding quickly gave way to an outpouring of generosity toward relief efforts for the victims of the terrorist attacks. It’s evident that Americans have another tendency: that is, to pull together in times of tragedy. After they’ve had a little time to reflect on the bigger picture.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, this is Lester Graham.
A Michigan Department of Natural Resources proposal to lease Great Lakes bottomlands for oil and gas development has prompted a lot of discussion regarding the risks and benefits of drilling near the Great Lakes. As Great Lakes Radio Consortium commentator Michael Barratt explains, those resources can be developed now in an environmentally safe manner:
Transcript
A Michigan Department of Natural Resources proposal to lease Great Lakes bottomlands for oil and gas development has prompted a lot of discussion regarding the risks and benefits of drilling near the Great Lakes. As commentator Michael Barratt reveals, those resources can be developed now in an environmentally safe manner.
People around the Great Lakes have seen quantum jumps in the price of energy within the last few months. Gasoline prices in Michigan for example are approaching $2.00/ gallon, natural gas prices have increased 40-60%, and propane prices have increased markedly.
Since Michigan only produces 4% of its crude oil demand and 30% of its natural gas demand, we need to find ways to both conserve and maintain our energy supply.
The Michigan Department of Natural Resources has proposed to lease land under the Great Lakes for the purpose of drilling wells from onshore locations. The proposed procedures require new wells to be located at least 1,500′ from the shoreline. They also require that sites be screened, and no drilling is to be permitted in dune areas, floodplains, or environmentally sensitive areas.
Additional wells drilled under Great Lakes waters may encounter significant reserves to help Michigan have a secure energy supply. Using a safe and proven technology known as directional drilling, it is possible to reach and produce these reserves with little to no effect on the surrounding areas. There have been 13 wells drilled under Great Lakes waters from onshore locations since 1979. Seven of those wells, which are still producing, have produced 439,000 barrels of oil and more than 17 billion cubic feet of gas. There have been no spills, accidents, or incidents associated with the wells since they have been drilled.
New wells drilled under Great Lakes waters, if drilling is allowed , could produce an additional 90 billion cubic feet of gas, and 2 million barrels of oil; enough to heat more than 1 million homes and fuel 157,500 cars for a year. We now have a window of opportunity to use existing infrastructure associated with the currently producing wells to develop some of the additional reserves under the Great Lakes. Drilling pads, roads, pipelines, and production facilities are in place that can be used to drill new wells under the Great Lakes.
Besides energy security, the people of Michigan benefit from royalties paid to the State of Michigan. That money is put into the Michigan Natural Resources Trust Fund to develop and extend parks, and to purchase wetlands and other environmentally sensitive areas. The seven wells currently producing have contributed more than $16,000,000 to the Fund. Additional wells drilled under the Great Lakes could contribute another $85,000,000-$100,000,000
Let’s develop the State’s Bottomland resources now in a safe and environmentally friendly way to ensure that Great Lakes waters and shorelines can be enjoyed by future generations and also to make sure we have the energy supplies here to maintain our quality of life.
As the debate on a national energy policy intensifies, the hunt for more places to drill and dig for new energy is escalating. States are now turning their attention to prospecting in one place that hits close to home: the Great Lakes. As Great Lakes Radio Consortium commentator Cameron Davis of the Lake Michigan Federation explains, drilling under the continent’s largest body of fresh surface water is not something to be taken lightly:
Transcript
As the debate on a national energy policy intensifies, the hunt for more places to drill and dig for new energy is escalating. States are now focusing their attention on prospecting for one place that hits close to home: the Great Lakes. As commentator Cameron Davis of the Lake Michigan Federation explains, drilling under the continent’s largest body of fresh surface water is not something to be taken lightly.
No matter which estimate you believe – that there’s only enough oil and gas to power a Great Lakes state for 2 minutes or 8 weeks – opening the Great Lakes to new oil and gas drilling is simply not worth the risk. Hydrogen sulfide, known to exist in lakebed oil and gas reserves, can escape during drilling causing far-reaching human health problems. Wellhead and pipeline leaks can contaminate groundwater and surface water in streams, often without adequate cleanups by the state agency responsible for drilling oversight. And, drilling can damage some of the most fragile fish and wildlife habitat known, habitat that exists along Great Lakes coasts.
The argument that drilling means more royalties to states doesn’t even hold up. One state Auditor General recently found that oversight of leasing and royalty payments from drilling operations continues to be lax. What does this mean? It means that taxpayers aren’t getting the financial benefits from drilling that they’re supposed to get.
Last, it’s not unusual for the same state agency to serve as subjective promoter of drilling while at the same time supposing to be the objective regulator. States such as Michigan, which is leading the charge for new drilling, can’t have it both ways and maintain their credibility. If they try to have it both ways, it’s inevitable that Congress will step in – as it did this summer with its own legislation.
President Bush, legislative leaders from both sides of the aisle, and a majority of citizens have all said that Great Lakes oil and gas drilling isn’t worth the risk. So why does a bad idea keep moving forward?
A new study suggests wind power is cheaper to produce than coal or natural gas. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Jonathan Ahl reports:
Transcript
A new study suggests wind power is cheaper to produce than coal or natural gas. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Jonathan Ahl reports.
The report from Stanford University shows creating electricity using wind power costs about three and a half cents per kilowatt-hour. That compares to coal and natural gas costs of almost four cents per kilowatt-hour. Mark Jacobson is an engineering professor at Stanford, and the author of the study. He says the government needs to pursue using more wind power over coal and natural gas.
“ …and also, wind energy is more efficient than solar, or other renewable energy sources. So all of the renewable energy sources, you would want to exploit wind first.”
Jacobson says wind power is even a better deal when the environmental costs of pollutants from coal and gas plants are taken into consideration. But there is a downside. To convert two thirds of the nation’s coal generated electricity to wind power would take an up front investment of more then 330-billion dollars. For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Jonathan Ahl.
In the next few years, homeowners across the Great Lakes region could get a new, environmentally friendly way to power their homes – thanks to an automaker. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Bill Poorman reports:
Transcript
In the next few years, homeowners across the Great Lakes region could get a new, environmentally friendly way to power their homes – thanks to an automaker. For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, Bill Poorman reports.
General Motors has announced that it’s going to begin selling fuel cell power plants for use in homes or in offices in the next two or three years. Daniel O’ Connel is a staff engineer with GM’s fuel cell program. He unveiled the new system at a recent automotive conference.
“The unit we demonstrated this morning is a 5 kilowatts. That would be about enough to provide for an average home. The unit we showed this morning was about the size of a conventional refrigerator.”
All of Detroit’s automakers are working on fuel cell systems for their vehicles, not for homes. They are considered something like a Holy Grail that will let car companies escape environmental criticism. When they’re perfected, fuel cells will take in hydrogen from some source – perhaps methane, natural gas, or even everyday gasoline. Through a chemical process, they will produce electricity, and the main waste product is water.
But fuel cells have been a long time coming. Automakers are working to reduce the weight, size, and cost of the systems so that they can be put into cars. Auto analyst Paul Eisenstein of the car web site thecarconnection.com says that car companies moving into the home seems unusual at first. But it has some basic business reasons behind it.
“The automakers are hoping that they can use the home fuel cell technology to learn a lot about it, and to get it into mass production, and lower the costs of on-the-road or mobile fuel cells, as well.”
Plus, Eisenstein says, the move could help speed up research into fuel cells for all applications.
“This way they might be able to go to market much sooner and develop a revenue source that could fund further fuel cell development efforts.”
But GM still has to put a lot of pieces into place before it starts selling home fuel cell units. GM’s Daniel O’Connel says the company is still looking for the best way to jump into an unfamiliar business.
“Currently GM does not have the distribution network to set up a non-automotive applications, so we’re looking for partners to help us out in that arena.”
Of course, the ultimate goal for GM is to be the first company to mass produce affordable fuel cell powered cars and trucks. But the timeline for that is a bit longer. Most automakers believe it could be up to a decade before the cars are ready. For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Bill Poorman.
New ethanol plants are under construction since the White House has mandated that California use ethanol to replace MTBE as an additive to reduce smog. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham has more:
Transcript
New ethanol plants are under construction since the White House has mandated that California use ethanol to replace MTBE as an additive to reduce smog. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports.
Farmers in the Midwest have seen depressed prices for corn in recent years. That’s why they were thrilled to hear the demand for ethanol might double because California will be required to use corn-based ethanol to replace the now banned MTBE. The requirement came despite the fact that technical staff at the EPA found California could have cleaner air without ethanol. Frank O’Donnell is with the environmental group, Clean Air Trust.
“The Bush administration came in and made a totally political decision to discard the technical information of the EPA’s best scientists and said, essentially, California had to use an ethanol mandate.”
The Clean Air Trust says the Bush Administration was under pressure by Archer Daniels Midland’s lobby engine. ADM produces more than half the ethanol used in the U.S. and was a major contributor to the Bush Campaign. The EPA’s administrator, Christine Whitman, says the decision was simply about enforcing the Clean Air Act. For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, this is Lester Graham.
The EPA last week denied California’s request to avoid using the gas additive Ethanol to lower emissions from cars and trucks. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Jonathan Ahl reports that some environmentalists are criticizing the decision:
Service stations that
went out of
business rather than pay for upgrades of underground storage tanks have left
some small towns without anyplace in town to buy gasoline. That's affected
some small towns' economy.
Across the nation some small towns are hurting because of
environmental regulations that have led to economic problems. The Great
Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:
