Permanent Ban on Great Lakes Drilling

  • Many people are against oil and gas drilling in the Great Lakes because of environmental and safety concerns. (Photo courtesy of the USGS)

The recently passed Energy Bill contains an amendment that permanently bans
oil and gas drilling in the Great Lakes. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s
Celeste Headlee reports:

Transcript

The recently passed Energy Bill contains an amendment that permanently bans
oil and gas drilling in the Great Lakes. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s
Celeste Headlee reports:


Legislative committees spent days working out the differences between energy
bills passed separately by the House and the Senate.


In the final version of the bill, Michigan Congressman Bart Stupak proposed
an amendment to permanently ban drilling in and under the Great Lakes. A
vote in committee overwhelmingly supported Stupak’s amendment. The
representative says Congress finally affirmed that drilling in the Great
Lakes is not worth the risk to the environment or human safety.


“Since 1979 – when directional drilling began in Michigan – until 2004, the
amount of oil and gas drawn from the Great Lakes wells produced only enough
natural gas to fuel the United States for nine hours and only enough crude
oil to fuel the United States for a mere 35 minutes.”


The President is expected to sign the Bill into law when it reaches his
desk.


For the GLRC, I’m Celeste Headlee.

Related Links

Congressman Blocks Oil and Gas Drilling Ban

  • Republican Congressman Mike Rogers. (Photo courtesy of house.gov)

Some environmentalists say they’re outraged that a Michigan Member of Congress blocked a bill to permanently ban oil and gas drilling in the Great Lakes. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:

Transcript

Some environmentalists are outraged that a Michigan Member of Congress blocked a bill to permanently ban oil and gas drilling in the Great Lakes. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:


Republican Congressman Mike Rogers blocked a bi-partisan federal effort to ban drilling in the Great Lakes. Rogers’ office says taking state control away on drilling could lead to taking state control away on other issues such as water withdrawal. He doesn’t want the more politically powerful arid Southwest states using it as a precedent to take federal control of the Great Lakes.


Cyndi Roper is with the environmental group, Clean Water Action. Her group and others say under the guise of protecting the Great Lakes, Rogers is actually exposing the Lakes to new risks.


“By putting a ban on oil and gas drilling in the Great Lakes, this isn’t an issue of control of the Great Lakes, it’s an issue of protecting the Great Lakes.”


There is a moratorium on new drilling on the Lakes that expires in 2007. It will then be up to each individual state to decide whether to allow new drilling.


For the GLRC, this is Lester Graham.

Related Links

Legal Battles Over Oil and Gas Drilling

  • Oil drilling rigs similar to this one are popping up all over northeastern Ohio, and many residents and local governments are opposed to the drilling. (Photo by Tammy Sharp)

In some states, local governments have been able to stop developments they thought might be bad for the area or damaging to the environment. But across the nation, state governments have been taking some of those decision-making powers away from local governments. The latest battle is over drilling for oil and natural gas. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Julie Grant reports:

Transcript

In some states, local governments have been able to stop developments they thought might be bad for the area or damaging to the environment. But, across the nation state governments have been taking some of those decision-making powers away from local governments. The latest battle is over drilling for oil and natural gas. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Julie Grant reports:


A year ago Joel Rudicil, owner of Bass Energy Company, couldn’t drill an oil and gas well in Mayfield Heights, Ohio. He had a property owner with more than twenty acres who was willing to deal. But city officials would not permit it.


“I had met with city council here on many occasions dating back to 1998 and they simply did not want well-drilling to occur in their community. So we were really at a point of just walking away from this opportunity, or litigation.”


Instead, he joined the oil and gas industry to lobby for a bill that would take authority to regulate drilling away from local communities.


(Sound of pounding)


Today, his workers are placing piping down well number three on the Knollwood Cemetery property in Mayfield Heights. Once the oil and gas bill became law last fall, all local laws pertaining to oil and gas drilling were scrapped and the state took sole authority.


“In our case, we’ve drilled 28 wells since the bill was signed into law.”


Eight of the communities where Bass Energy dug those wells had had regulations or outright bans on oil and gas drilling.


“Of those 28 wells that I just mentioned, we would not have been able to drill 20 of those wells.”


Mayfield Heights has become the poster child for Ohio’s battle for control of oil and gas drilling. Margaret Egensperger is the city’s mayor.


“Our area’s all built up here. Anywhere you’re going to build a well, you’re going to hurt our residential areas.”


Northeast Ohio is the most densely populated part of the state, but also has much of the oil and gas companies want to extract. Mayor Egensperger says one of the wells Bass Energy dug at Knollwood Cemetery was next to townhouses, condominiums, and the street.


Egensperger: “And they are right up by the condos and the noise was absolutely awful. I believe they drilled for 5 or 7 days there. We have a noise ordinance. The city was told that if, once they start to drill, if we stop them, that we’d have to pay 5-thousand dollars a day. So, of course we didn’t enforce the noise ordinance. That’s a lot of money.”


Niehaus: “It is what’s called state pre-emption…”


Republican state senator Tom Niehaus sponsored the bill that gives the authority to the Ohio Division of Mineral Resources.


Niehaus: “The state has exercised its right to say that this is an important state resource. I personally feel, and my fellow legislators felt, that the state division was in the better position to evaluate whether or not drilling should be permitted in certain areas.”


Grant: “What to do you say when they say ‘we know our issues, we know our citizens, we know the land here and our planning better then the state could ever know it’?”


Niehaus: “I probably would agree that they know their local community better, but I would argue that they do not know the best way to tap the natural resources that exist underneath the land.”


Many local governments are like Mayfield Heights; they want to fight the state law in court, but worry it would cost too much money.
Some homeowners are also concerned that oil and gas wells will reduce their property values. But the oil and gas industry feels there are bigger issues at stake. Tom Stewart, Director of the Ohio Oil and Gas Association, says the nation needs energy.


“And you see how emotionalism is stifling what we need to do in this country to find the energy sources we need. And obviously we’re not doing the job, because you’re paying $2.30 for a gallon of gas. Right? We’re not doing the job. And we’re fighting wars. Meanwhile, we have this wonderful resource base in the United States, and every hole is a fight.”


It’s arguable whether the relatively small amount of natural gas or oil reserves left in the continental United States will make any real difference in the price of gasoline at the pump. Many city officials believe the trend tonward bigger government control will have much larger costs.


For the GLRC, I’m Julie Grant.

Related Links

Members of Congress Fighting Over Great Lakes Drilling

  • Many worry that drilling on the Great Lakes is not only unhealthy for the environment, but the residents who live near the drilling facilities as well. (Photo courtesy of the Michigan DEQ)

Two members of Congress are fighting over whether the federal government should ban drilling for oil and gas in the Great Lakes. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:

Transcript

Two members of Congress are fighting over whether the federal government should ban drilling for oil and gas in the Great Lakes. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:


Right now it’s up to each state to decide whether to allow drilling. Bart Stupak is a Deomcrat Member of Congress from Michigan whose district touches three of the Great Lakes. After an incident in his district where hydrogen sulfide fumes from a gas well head made residents and emergency workers sick… he’s for banning drilling altogether…


“We should just once and for all permanently ban oil and gas drilling in and on the shores of our lakes through a method called directional or slant drilling. There’s so little oil and gas there, it’s not worth it.”


Stupak introduced an amendment to ban drilling in the Great Lakes… but another Member of Congress from Michigan, Republican Mike Rogers blocked it. Rogers’ office says taking state control away on drilling could lead to taking state control away on other issues such as water withdrawal. He doesn’t want the more politically powerful arid Southwest states using it as a precedent to take federal control of the Great Lakes.


For the GLRC, this is Lester Graham.

Related Links

Drilling for Oil and Gas Near the Great Lakes

  • The AuSable River in Michigan is a popular destination for trout anglers. (Photo courtesy of Erin Hull)

A popular trout stream is the focus of a new battle over oil and gas development in the Great Lakes region. An energy company wants to drill for oil and gas under a publicly-owned natural area. The ensuing controversy is a complex round in an old debate over protection of wildlife habitat versus development of valuable mineral rights. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Sally Eisele reports:

Transcript

A popular trout stream is the focus of a new battle over oil and gas development in the Great
Lakes region. An energy company wants to drill for oil and gas under a publicly-owned natural
area. The ensuing controversy is a complex round in an old debate over protection of wildlife
habitat versus development of valuable mineral rights. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s
Sally Eisele reports:


The Mason Tract is one of the last semi-wilderness areas in Michigan’s lower peninsula. The
hilly, forested acres by the south branch of the Au Sable River are the historical playground of
Henry Ford, George Mason, and other early auto executives, who made the difficult journey
North to fish for the stream’s elusive trout. The land belonged to Mason and he bequeathed it to
the state when he died in 1955 with the condition that it remain undeveloped.


(sound of stream)


On this rainy autumn day, the land looks much as it did then. The river winds its way through 14
miles of red pine, aspen and birch. And the brown trout that lurk in the shadows of the stream are
still legendary.


“People come from all over the world to fish and recreate along this river system.”


Rusty Gates owns a small fishing lodge nearby and is founder and president of a group called
Anglers of the Au Sable. He has lived by the river most of his life.


“The Mason tract. You go over to the trails and they are the way they’ve been for the last 50
years. You’re just as likely to see deer, turkey bear. This is just one of the best special spots left
in northern lower Michigan and it’s worth preserving.”


Gates leads the way up a well-worn trail from the river here to a small open air chapel—a slate-
roofed sanctuary, basically—built in memory of George Mason. But just over the rise, the land is
part of the Huron National forest. It’s on that federal land that the Savoy Energy Company of
Traverse City wants to drill a two-mile deep slant well to access the mineral deposits it has leased
under the state-owned Mason Tract. Rusty Gates learned about the plan on June 10th.


“On the 15th , I sent out an email letting people see this notice. And within 20 minutes I had a
response back from Seattle, San Francisco, Atlanta and Vermont. People offering to help.”


The drilling proposal has drawn heavy opposition from environmentalists, sports enthusiasts and
some lawmakers who raise a host of concerns. If the well is drilled, a road will be built, trees will
be cut down and, at least initially, a well will be pumping oil or natural gas not far from the
chapel 24 hours a day. Opponents are worried about noise, possible spills and noxious odors.
They complain that the effect of any drilling will be to destroy the character of this unique tract of
land. Savoy Energy has refused repeated requests for interviews. The state Department of
Environmental Quality has twice rejected Savoy’s application for a drilling permit, asking the
company to consider other sites for the wellhead itself. But DEQ spokesman Hal Fitch says
legally, Savoy is on solid ground.


“The leases give the company the right to go in and explore for and develop and produce oil and
natural gas. We need to take into account the citizens concerns there. But we need to do it in a
way that honors those concerns as well as the property rights of Savoy Energy.”


Property rights are at the heart of this dispute. In a situation that goes back to the early settlement
of the country, land and the mineral rights are often owned separately. In Michigan, the mineral
rights dominate, and sometimes state, federal and private interests collide. A similar conflict over
proposed drilling along the Lake Michigan dunes ten years ago cost the state 90 million dollars to
settle. David Dempsey of the Michigan Environmental Council says the Mason Tract fight could
also be costly if a compromise isn’t reached.


“I think it’s part of a much bigger issue that’s going to continue until we live up to our
responsibilities as a people and as a government. The issue is, are there some areas that are
publicly owned either the surface or the subsurface that are so sensitive they should never be
developed?”


The Mason Tract issue has renewed calls for laws better protecting sensitive watersheds. But
University of Michigan geologist Steven Kesler cautions, there is no way to eliminate risk in oil
and gas exploration.


There’s no way you could drill a well and assure yourself there would not be an accident.
I think it would be fair to say the risks are small, but the risks are there.”


Kesler notes that with more than 11-thousand oil and gas wells currently in operation, Michigan’s
track record is good. And with increased demand for domestic fuel sources, he says conflicts
between the stewards of the land and the stewards of the minerals are inevitable.


“When I put on my geologists hat, I see a state with a pretty good distribution of oil and gas
resources and I see a country that desperately needs oil and natural gas. Looking at it that way, I
find myself thinking we’ve got to find ways to preserve land and at the same time, use it as
responsibly as we can.”


At this point, no one is saying Savoy Energy should not be allowed to drill for the oil and gas
deposits under the Mason Tract. In fact, with state and federal approval, drilling could begin this
winter. But if the wellhead isn’t located far enough from the river to address concerns about its
impact on George Mason’s legacy, the fight could escalate into yet another legal battle over
which is more important—protection of wild areas or extraction of the oil and gas far beneath
them.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Sally Eisele.

Related Links

Enviro Group Calls for Drilling Ban

An environmental group is calling on Great Lakes states to ban drilling for oil and gas under Lake Erie. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Natalie Walston reports:

Transcript

An environmental group is calling on Great Lakes states to ban drilling for
oil and gas under Lake Erie. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Natalie
Walston reports:


At least four drilling companies have tried to gain access to oil and gas
deposits under Lake Erie since 1998. That’s according to a study by the Ohio
Public Interest Research Group. The group found a significant amount of
cooperation between the Council of Great Lakes Governors in considering
allowing companies access to the lake. Bryan Clark wrote the report for the interest
group. He says there are a number of problems associated with drilling for
oil and gas.


“Drilling operations routinely utilize dangerous toxic chemicals. Many of
these chemicals, such as those found in drilling mud, can cause problems as
diverse as wildlife cancers, developmental disorders, and shortened life
spans.”


Ohio governor Bob Taft has stated he will sign an executive order banning
drilling under Ohio’s part of Lake Erie. The state of Michigan recently voted to ban
new drilling. Clark says New York, Wisconsin, Illinois, and Indiana need to
consider a drilling ban as well.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Natalie Walston.

Drilling Ban for Great Lakes

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.

Point: Safe Oil Drilling in Lakes Is Possible

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.

Related Links

Counterpoint: Drilling Not Worth Risk

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?

Related Links

The Fate of Slant Drilling

Far below the bottom of the Great Lakes, valuable pockets of oil and
gas sit waiting to be tapped. But laws prohibit offshore drilling. So
for the last twenty years, oil companies have been using another method
to get to the deposits; it’s called directional or slant-drilling. Up
until this point, there hasn’t been much opposition. But now a number
of bills are pending that could change oil and gas development beneath
the lakes. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Wendy Nelson reports: