Bush Administration Departing Proposal Slammed As “Fire Sale” For Oil And Gas Industry

If the Bush Administration has its way, iconic views across the country could be sullied by oil rigs and other machinery owned by oil and gas companies. The U.S. Bureau of Land Management has announced a December 19th auction of more than 50,000 acres of oil and gas parcels alongside or within Arches National Park and two other redrock national parks in Utah – Dinosaur and Canyonlands – in what environmentalists are slamming as a “fire sale” for the industry.

One of the landmarks that could be affected is the Delicate Arch natural bridge in Utah, a scene so treasured it’s on Utah license plates. The top National Park Service official in Utah is justifiably angry about the announcement, given that his agency wasn’t even properly notified, calling the sale “shocking and disturbing”.

From The Huffington Post:

Officials of the BLM, which oversees millions of acres of public land in the West, say the sale is nothing unusual, and one is “puzzled” that the Park Service is upset.

“We find it shocking and disturbing,” said Cordell Roy, the chief Park Service administrator in Utah. “They added 51,000 acres of tracts near Arches, Dinosaur and Canyonlands without telling us about it. That’s 40 tracts within four miles of these parks.”

Top aides to Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne stepped into the fray, ordering the sister agencies to make amends. His press secretary, Shane Wolfe, told The Associated Press that deputy Interior Secretary Lynn Scarlett “resolved the dispute within 24 hours” last week.

A compromise ordered by the Interior Department requires the BLM to “take quite seriously” the Park Service’s objections, said Wolfe.

However, the BLM didn’t promise to pull any parcels from the sale, and in an interview after the supposed truce, BLM state director Selma Sierra was defiant, saying she saw nothing wrong with drilling near national parks.

Selma Sierra went on to say that there are many parcels leased around parks, and this is nothing new. But Cordell Roy and conservationists have a bone to pick with that statement, saying the bureau has never before put so many drilling parcels directly on the fence lines of national parks. Franklin Seal, a spokesman for the environmental group Wildland CPR, says you can see drill pads on the hillside when standing at Delicate Arch.

It’s obvious enough what this is: Bush’s final gift to the oil and gas industry. They know they won’t be getting this kind of special treatment from Obama, so they’re asking for as many favors as they can get away with before Bush is gone for good. Environmental reform is coming, like it or not!

Link [The Huffington Post]
Photo credit: Wikimedia Commons

Bush Admin Wants To Open Thousands Of Acres Near National Parks For Drilling

In yet another act seemingly bent on cementing the Bush Administration’s reputation as worst ever on the environment, the Bureau of Land Management is giving even more land over to oil and gas companies for drilling. And this time, it will include tens of thousands of acres on or near the boundaries of three national parks.

From The New York Times:

National Park Service officials say that the decision to open lands close to Arches National Park and Dinosaur National Monument and within eyeshot of Canyonlands National Park was made without the kind of consultation that had previously been routine.

The inclusion of the new lease tracts angered environmental groups, which were already critical of the bureau’s original lease proposal, made public this fall, because they said it could lead to industrial activity in empty areas of the state, some prized for their sweeping vistas, like Desolation Canyon, and others for their ancient petroglyphs, like Nine Mile Canyon.

The bureau’s new maps, made public on Election Day, show not just those empty areas but 40 to 45 new areas where leasing will also be allowed.

Park managers are concerned about how the proximity of industrial activity might affect the air, water and wildlife within the parks. The Park Service was not given time to comment on the leases. The tracts will be sold at auction on December 19th, the final lease sale before Bush leaves office. If any leases are sold that day and delivered to buyers before Inauguration Day, Obama’s new administration may not be able to reverse the decisions.

Bush sure does love oil, doesn’t he? We’ve been so happy about the fact that he is about to leave office, but it seems as if he’s cramming another 4 years of bad decisions into these last few months. Bush is doing all he can to give his buddies in the industry a few last favors before Obama takes over, since Obama will be unlikely to put their needs above those of the environment and the people.  Sickening, but not surprising at all.

Link [The New York Times]

Sarah Palin’s Record on the Environment? Not so great.

We all know that Republican VP pick Sarah Palin questions global warming science and favors drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. But after last night’s Vice Presidential debate in which Palin’s answer to a direct question about climate change was vague to say the least (see below), we thought we’d give her environmental record another look.

Palin in response to climate change question in the VP debate:

I’m not one to attribute every man — activity of man to the changes in the climate. There is something to be said also for man’s activities, but also for the cyclical temperature changes on our planet.

But there are real changes going on in our climate. And I don’t want to argue about the causes. What I want to argue about is, how are we going to get there to positively affect the impacts?

We have got to clean up this planet. We have got to encourage other nations also to come along with us with the impacts of climate change, what we can do about that.

[Trascript via New York Times]

Russia Threatens to Seize Part of Supposedly Oil-Rich Arctic

Ever since the energy crisis began and evidence of global warming forced politicians around the world to consider the future more carefully, five countries have been fighting over control of an area of the world still thought to be rich with oil and natural gas: the Arctic.  This week, Russia threatened to claim part of the Arctic for themselves despite the dispute over who really owns it.  Russian president Dmitry Medvedev told a meeting of the Security Council that Russia must “finalise and adopt a federal law on the southern border of Russia’s Arctic zone”, saying it was their responsibility to their descendants to secure the country’s interests in the Arctic.

From The Telegraph:

Last August, a Russian mini-submarine carrying politicians and scientists plunged to the depths of the Arctic and claimed to plant a Russian flag to mark Moscow’s stake in the territory.

Footage of the alleged planting was widely broadcast on Russian television – but later turned out to be images taken from the Hollywood blockbuster Titanic.

Under international law, each of the five countries that lay claim to the Arctic own a 320-kilometre zone that extends north from their shores. That arrangement is up for UN review in May next year.

Vladimir Putin, now Russia’s prime minister, has said global warming is good for Russia – melting its vast icy territories to reveal previously inaccessible oil and gas reserves.

Sounds like a good old fashioned super power war is brewing… over resources.  How fun.  Russia isn’t exactly know for playing well with others, and considering that many countries are desperate for oil (despite the fact that what we should be focusing on is clean alternative energy sources), Russia’s oil-fueled power will likely continue to grow.

Link [The Telegraph]
Photo credit: Reuters

McCain Falsely Claimed that Oil Rigs Can Withstand Hurricanes

Republican presidential nominee John McCain’s camp already made a misstep on the subject last week when Nancy Pfotenhauer, his senior policy advisor, mistakenly claimed that Hurricanes Katrina and Rita “did not spill a drop of oil”. Pfotenhauer admitted later to being misinformed, but that didn’t stop McCain from making another false statement about oil rigs and hurricanes the following day.

From Think Progress:

Q: I’ve been listening to your comments around renewable resources – solar, tide, and wind – you’ve talked a lot about that, but you keep peppering your comments with offshore drilling. But I’m not sure what you think the impact on our environment is based on that.

A: Keep the microphone. I’m aware that off the coast of Louisiana and Texas there are oil rigs, as we well know, and those rigs have survived, very successfully, the impacts of hurricanes – hurricane Katrina as far as Louisiana is concerned.

McCain is wrong. According to press reports, Hurricanes Katrina and Rita “tore through the Gulf of Mexico’s offshore oil and gas fields, toppling production platforms, setting rigs adrift and rupturing pipelines.” The U.S. Minerals Management Service reported that the hurricanes totally destroyed 113 offshore oil platforms.

Think Progress further explains that the hurricanes cost the largest offshore driller, Transocean, about $135 million in repairs, downtime and equipment upgrades. In fact, damage to offshore rigs accounted for 77% of the oil industry’s storm costs. The photos above show some of the damage.

So, is McAddled intentionally lying so that offshore drilling sounds like a good idea, or is he just confused? I know the internet is really hard to use, so it might be tough to find the right websites that tell you what actually happened. There there, Senator. Your frightening journey through the world of modern technology is almost over.

Link [Think Progress]

Congressman Calls Energy Crisis More Threatening Than Terrorism

Rep. John Peterson (R-Pa.) called the nation’s energy crisis “more important and threatening to America’s future than terrorism”. We agree and – wait – wha? That guy has an R after his name. What’s the deal here?

From The Hill:

Amid the partisan bickering on Capitol Hill, Peterson and Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-Hawaii) are leading a bipartisan group of lawmakers seeking consensus on energy legislation.

On Wednesday, the lawmakers said that their plan will not call for drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR).

Drilling in parts of the United States, however, is expected to be a key part of their plan. Peterson has indicated that provisions on natural gas and shale oil in the West will likely be included in the bipartisan bill.

Aha. Drilling. I see. Of course, they’re right that something needs to be done, and it’s big that people are realizing how important it is. It’s just annoying that somehow, drilling is always the answer.

More people stuck on oil. What’s that about? Why can’t people seem to comprehend the idea that there are other, cleaner sources of energy out there? The issue here isn’t just the environmental impacts of drilling, it’s the idea of continuing to rely on oil for energy. Everybody’s looking for that quick fix for high gas prices, but if we’re going to move beyond the age of unsustainable, polluting forms of energy, we’ve got to change our habits during this transitional period. This will undoubtedly piss off the selfish “You can’t tell me what to do” types, but conservation on everybody’s part is what it’s gonna take to push through to the other side.

Link [The Hill]
Photo credit: Flickr user Nestor Galina

Photos of the Mud Volcano in East Java, Indonesia

Last week, we told you about the mud volcano that has destroyed a huge section of East Java, Indonesia as it bubbles forth an astonishing 100,000 cubic meters per day. The mud volcano, caused by oil drilling, has displaced tens of thousands of people and caused millions of dollars in damage. These amazing photos, taken by Reuters photographer Sigit Pamungkas, depict the wasteland that the affected area has become and attempts by villagers to salvage materials left behind in the wreckage.

From Boston.com:

Link [Boston.com]

Green Thriller ‘Burn Up’ Too Hot for TV, or So Bad Nobody Wants it?

British-Canadian co-production Burn Up has alternately had gushing reviews in the British press and giggles here in America at the overly dramatic trailer. Treehugger wonders whether the plot is just too controversial for American TV, while Ecorazzi noted that the tone of the voiceover and music might be a signal of B-movie status.

From Treehugger:

Some conspiracy theorists suggest that “Burn Up” is only available in Canada or Britain because the content is too controversial and anti-big oil, and too hot for the American networks to touch; Others point out that it is a British-Canadian co-production and therefore it is logical that Canadians get to see it first. Conspiracy or not, this might have been pitched as Al Gore meets John Grisham, with Rupert Penry-Jones and Neve Campbell smack in the middle of a pileup of Bradley Whitford (of West Wing fame) as a lobbyist, oil executives, environmental activists and politicians stabbing each other in the back or blowing each other up. Rupert Penry-Jones is terrific as the head of Arrow Oil, who quickly finds out that things are not quite what they seem. Kate Taylor at the Globe and Mail writes “This new thriller is hot, hot, hot!” ::Globe and Mail More tomorrow after Part II.

Watch the trailer, below, and form your own opinion. “Friends become enemies in a deadly game of greed and conspiracy!” Dun dun dun!

Link [Treehugger] + [Ecorazzi] + [Canada.com] + [The Globe and Mail]

Oil Drilling, Not Earthquake, Caused Deadly Java Mud Volcano

Two years ago, a mud volcano in East Java, Indonesia caused millions of dollars worth of damage and displaced more than 30,000 people. That mud volcano – which is still spewing huge volumes of mud today – has found to have been caused by oil drilling, rather than an earthquake as was originally thought. The video below shows the mud flow, which reaches volumes of 100,000 cubic meters per day – enough to fill 53 Olympic-size swimming pools.

From the Environmental News Network:

Graduate student Maria Brumm and Prof Michael Manga of University of California, Berkeley undertook a systematic study to test the claims that the eruption was caused by this earthquake. They found that none of the ways earthquakes trigger eruptions could have played a role at Lusi.

Prof Michael Manga, of University of California, Berkeley, said: “We have known for hundreds of years that earthquakes can trigger eruptions. In this case, the earthquake was simply too small and too far away.”

The new report concludes the effect of the earthquake was minimal because the change in pressure underground due to the earthquake would have been tiny. Instead, scientists are “99 per cent” certain drilling operations were to blame.

Prof Davies, of Durham University’s Centre for Research into Earth Energy Systems (CeREES) explained: “We show that the day before the mud volcano started there was a huge ”˜kick’ in the well, which is an influx of fluid and gas into the wellbore. We show that after the kick the pressure in the well went beyond a critical level.”

Naturally, the oil company denied that their drilling was responsible for the environmental disaster.

The Java mud volcano is the largest in the world, and is beginning to show signs of potentially catastrophic collapse which could sag the vent area by up to 150 meters in the next decade. Mud volcanoes usually occur naturally, caused by geo-excreted liquids and gases.

Link [ENN] + [YouTube] + [Wikipedia]

The Collapse of the Arctic Ice Shelf Could Mean the End of Life As We Know It

Via the BBC: Satellite image of Ward Hunt Ice Shelf.
(Red lines: new cracks; yellow lines: cracks from 2002; blue lines: extent of the ice shelf)

In April of this year, scientists accompanied the Canadian military to remote areas of the Arctic ice shelf to evaluate any changes that may have occurred since the previous assessment in 2007. What the team found was shocking: a network of cracks in the largest remaining ice shelf, Ward Hunt, stretched more than 10 miles.

The Ward Hunt ice shelf is 433 square kilometers in size – over seven times as large as the Ayles ice shelf, which broke off in 2005 from Ellesmere Island’s western coast. The 3,000-year-old ice, which is 40 meters thick, was found to be fractured by dozens of deep cracks.

A single crack in the Arctic ice shelf was first noticed in 2002, and the deterioration that has occurred since then is astounding. The cracks seem to all but guarantee that yet another large landmark in the Arctic is destined to break up and disappear. Scientists theorize that, since the cracks are so dramatic and appeared so quickly, climate change in the area must have crossed some kind of threshold. Rapid changes in the Arctic are considered the main harbinger of climate change.

BBC News reporter David Shukman interviewed two of the scientists after the expedition, and their shock was apparent:

“I was astonished to see these new cracks. It means the ice shelf is disintegrating, the pieces are pinned together like a jigsaw but could float away,” Dr Mueller explained.

According to another scientist on the expedition, Dr Luke Copland of the University of Ottawa, the new cracks fit into a pattern of change in the Arctic.

“We’re seeing very dramatic changes; from the retreat of the glaciers, to the melting of the sea ice. We had 23% less (sea ice) last year than we’ve ever had, and what’s happening to the ice shelves is part of that picture.”

Some experts are painting an undeniably gloomy scenario: one in which the entire Arctic ice cap melts by the end of this summer. More conservative estimates place it happening sometime between 2013 and 2030. Scientists will be watching nervously to see if last year’s record melting will be matched or exceeded. Since so much ice melted so quickly last year, it seems feasible.

One effect of a large decrease in the arctic ice cap would be a corresponding decrease in sunlight being reflected away from the region, which would cause temperatures to rise. As the sunlight grew more intense, it could increase the rate of glacier loss in Greenland, which would raise sea levels – most notably in Asia, where a one meter rise would affect nearly 100 million people and cause nearly 400 billion U.S. dollars in damage.

The biggest threat to us as a result of the melting is changes in our weather patterns. It’s a sort of catch-22 that we’ve already perpetuated on ourselves, like it or not. Our bad habits have contributed greatly to global warming. Now, as the atmosphere gets warmer and Arctic summers get clearer and sunnier, the ice continues to melt. As it does, it will set changes in motion that will further change weather patterns all over the world.

NASA’s Earth Observatory explains it:

While these large shifts in temperature and ice cover appear to be tucked far away in the Arctic, our Earth’s processes are dynamic and interconnected. In other words, rapid loss of sea ice and a warming Arctic will undoubtedly have far-reaching and serious effects for everyone. “Societies have developed and gotten used to climate the way it is now, and changes will very likely be highly disruptive,” Rind says.

For starters, as sea ice melts, Arctic waters warm, greatly altering ocean processes, which in turn have an effect on Arctic and global climate, says Michael Steele, senior oceanographer at the University of Washington, Seattle. As the oceans warm and ice thins, more solar energy gets absorbed by the water, creating a positive feedback that leads to further melting and warming.

Such mechanisms can change the temperature of ocean layers and impact ocean circulation and salinity, Steele says. For example, the Arctic Ocean during winter is usually very cold and produces lots of sea ice, which creates cold, salty water that sinks to deep levels and drives ocean circulation. But if surface waters warm and ice does not form as well in winter, these processes involving salinity and circulation could be reduced or eliminated. “Then the Arctic Ocean and the North Atlantic Ocean will look very different,” Steele says.

As the Arctic continued to warm, the soil would begin to thaw, releasing frozen natural gases like methane and carbon dioxide, which would act as greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Additionally, many areas of the world depend upon Arctic air masses during the winter for many reasons, not the least of which is the vernalization of crops. Many plant species require low winter temperatures in order to produce flowers the following spring, and a difference of even a few degrees could be catastrophic. Humans and livestock depend upon these crops, and widespread famine could result. Imagine the chaos that would result in that scenario: absolute and utter panic over food shortages.

Those aren’t the only disastrous weather-related effects that could occur as a result of the Arctic ice caps melting. As illustrated in Al Gore’s celebrated documentary An Inconvenient Truth, abrupt climate changes could lead to a shut-off of the Gulf Stream current, increased insect infestations and tropical diseases and loss of coral reefs. Each of these scenarios would have very dangerous effects of their own.

The Arctic region’s ecosystems are already incredibly fragile. Exactly how the ecosystems would respond to dramatic weather changes is unpredictable. One thing that’s for certain is that these changes could wipe out hundreds or even thousands of species, which would, beyond the shadow of a doubt, have a major effect on the ecology of the entire world in a sort of ‘butterfly effect’.

Also ominous is the fact that as the sea ice melts, numerous superpowers in the world are eyeing the territory for its untapped resources. The Northwest Passage could become more navigable, providing a quick and easy route through the Arctic Ocean connecting the Pacific and Atlantic. Sea journeys would be reduced by thousands of miles.

Russia drew the ire of other Arctic countries last year when it planted its flag on the seabed under the North Pole, which as of now cannot be claimed by any governing entity. The nation’s lead explorer, Artur Chilingarov, claimed the 460,000 miles of ocean floor as belonging to Russia. Greenland, Denmark, Canada and the United States responded by increasing military presence in the region. Canada flies their flag on snowmobiles lined up around Ayles Ice Island as a display of control.

Last week, Greenland hosted a meeting to resolve the dispute, and the five countries involved agreed to follow the 1982 Law of the Sea as they seek resources like oil and natural gas. Under this law, countries only own the seabed 200 miles out from their respective coasts if it’s part of their continental shelf. Naturally, each country decided to interpret the law in their own special way, making sure that it worked out to their advantage – so, the United Nations has a battle ahead of them in maintaining peace.

So, what exactly is the root of this deepening conflict? Mostly, oil. Las Vegas-based company Arctic Oil & Gas has stated that according to new geological data, the Arctic might contain up to 400 billion barrels of it. That’s over twice as much as the largest known oil field in the world, located in Saudi Arabia.

It hasn’t been confirmed, but it’s got an awful lot of people panting like dogs. Politicians and corporate businessmen alike are chomping at the bit to get in there and drill. As you may have guessed, they’re not overly concerned about what the melting ice means to the fate of the world, or how drilling could worsen the situation. It’s all about greed, power and the status quo. People just can’t seem to let go of oil, regardless of what it might mean to the future of the planet. Environmentalist groups are pushing to keep the Arctic protected from drilling, but with the current energy crisis, that seems highly unlikely.

What does the possibility of oil drilling in the Arctic mean to us? It’s obvious to many that such news will be greeted by the average consumer with relief. If there’s more oil, it will be assumed that prices will go back down and they can go on living their normal every day oil-consuming lives. The movement toward sustainable energy will be slowed down considerably. It would create a false sense of security that would lull people into wasting more time continuing the bad habits that have helped get us into this jam in the first place. At least, until we really ran out of oil and were forced to deal with the situation, ready or not.

Why, when we practically have neon warning signs flashing in our faces, are we not changing faster? To survive, we must adapt. We’re facing dramatic changes at this point, no matter what we do – but that doesn’t mean we should just give up and continue living the selfish, wasteful lifestyle that helped cause all of these problems. We are evolved beings with a conscience and an understanding of the concept of the future, and we’re wasting it, ensuring that the generations that come after us – those who will really have to deal with the worst of all of this – will have it even harder.

It almost seems as though the current situation in the Arctic, and what it illustrates about how we’ve treated the planet over the past few generations, is a test. A test to see if we as a species can learn an important lesson for the sake of our own kind’s survival as well as that of so many other species that still have a delicate grip on existence. Where are the instincts that should be pushing us toward action? So many of us go through life as if in a dream state, thinking only of the plots of our favorite television shows and what we’ll have for dinner instead of the big picture. Evidently, whether our current lifestyle affects the future of the planet isn’t as important as what designer Sarah Jessica Parker wears to a movie premiere, or whether we get that job promotion.

Though we currently lord over the earth, serving as the top predators in the food chain, we can’t assume that we’ll remain that way forever. We’re dooming ourselves with the arrogant belief that no matter what we do to our surroundings, we will not just survive, but continue to thrive and dominate. That’s a very dangerous assumption, and one that may well be the end of us. Once climate change takes over, life will go on. Planet Earth will survive. But we may not be there to see it happen.