Guest BlackJesus Posted October 19, 2005 Report Share Posted October 19, 2005 [quote][size=3][img]http://www.tara.qld.gov.au/images/images1-jpg/Page19a.jpg[/img] [u][b]Environmental Studies Waived in Oil Push By JOHN HEILPRIN Associated Press Oct 18, 2005 [/b][/u][/size] WASHINGTON - In an aggressive push by the Bush administration to open more public land to oil and gas production, the Interior Department has quit conducting environmental reviews and seeking comments from local residents every time drilling companies propose new wells. Field officials have been told to begin looking at issuing permits based on past studies of an entire project, even though some of those assessments may be outdated. The instructions are in a directive from the department's Bureau of Land Management expected to cover hundreds of anticipated new drilling applications. President Bush and Congress authorized the streamlining as part of a 1,724-page energy bill signed into law in August. BLM officials, saying the need for energy supplies is immediate, showed unusual speed implementing it. Kathleen Clarke, the agency's director, sent out the new guidance Sept. 30. "Yes, it is a priority of the White House," BLM Deputy Director Jim Hughes said in an interview. "We are moving expeditiously to implement the law. We think all these items will increase the supply this winter. However, everyone is saying it won't be enough to wipe out the impact of the hurricanes and all that." The energy bill created new "categorical exclusions" under the 1970 National Environmental Policy Act for allowing new oil, gas and geothermal wells without first conducting environmental studies or soliciting public comment on them. The exclusions from normal permit requirements cover instances when less than 150 acres and no more than five acres in any one spot are disturbed and where nearby drilling has occurred in the past five years. [b]"We don't think there will be any environmental degradation," Hughes said. "It's basically going into areas where you've already got stuff happening[/b], where you've got existing NEPA work that had been completed. We think in many cases this is just duplicative work." Energy producers would still be required to comply with other environmental laws, such as those intended to protect endangered species, air and water quality and cultural artifacts. So far, no new permits have been issued under the new guidance. [b]But Interior officials expect it to spur more drilling on open ranges and the foothills of the Rocky Mountains. Those include Powder River Basin of Wyoming, the Uintah Basin of Utah and the San Juan Basin of New Mexico and Colorado, all areas where drilling has already boomed in recent years.[/b] Other areas ripe for the expedited permits are near parkland, such as Colorado's Canyons of the Ancients National Monument, though not within national parks or wilderness areas. Last year, the bureau approved 6,052 drilling permits from about 7,000 applications submitted  a 60 percent jump in new permits over those issued in 2003. This year, BLM expects it will approve 7,000 of the 8,000 new applications, Hughes said. Environmentalists say they will continue to insist that environmental reviews are up-to-date. "They have to have a fairly recent analysis of the impacts before they can apply these categorical exclusions," said Dave Alberswerth, public lands director for The Wilderness Society. "If they're planning to improperly apply these exemptions ... in places where there are old land use plans that are out of date, then they are asking for legal trouble." The government had 55,385 square miles of public lands leased out for oil and natural gas production last year, but only a third of it  18,236 square miles  was involved in actual energy production. Nearly all the leases BLM considered nonproducing have never had an exploratory well drilled, or even a single application for a permit to drill filed with BLM. "If you look at the actual facts on the ground, they have thousands of more drilling permits in their pockets than they can even drill on," Alberswerth said. [b]"So why is Congress or the administration always looking for ways to exempt the wealthiest companies in the world from their environmental responsibilities?"[/b] [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons//41.gif[/img] Lee Fuller, a spokesman for the Independent Petroleum Association of America, said environmental groups have misused the law to delay drilling permits. But Fuller also said the administration's hoped-for boost in energy production might not occur until later. "It's hard to judge anything in terms of what might happen this winter," he said. "I don't think anybody has a clear sense of things. But whether it happens this winter, or it's available next spring or summer when there's also a demand for it, you have to be ready."[/quote] [url="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/drilling_public_lands;_ylt=Aris2J_VQppmpSivxGJ_gi9hr7sF;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl"]http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/drilling_public...HNlYwMlJVRPUCUl[/url] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Dan_Bengals_FL- Posted October 21, 2005 Report Share Posted October 21, 2005 One of the main reasons I never voted for George Bush. Keeps fucking over the environment and trying to ease the burdens of the already extremely wealthy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Bunghole| Posted October 21, 2005 Report Share Posted October 21, 2005 Fuck the fucking enviornment. It's fucked anyway, so fuck it... Seriously, the Earth has cyclical aspects that offset the bad behavior of it's inhabitants. Hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes...? Just Mother Earth shakin' off some fleas.... The Earth has survived far greater pollution in the past due to volcanoes, it can suffer our meager existence.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BlackJesus Posted October 21, 2005 Report Share Posted October 21, 2005 [b]Bung, don't you think that all of that Oil inside the earth was there for a reason or that it served a purpose? What about the ice caps, do they serve a purpose? Yes Nature left to it's own behavior will fuck shit up ...... but Nature has a purpose and a cycle to what it does.... People on the other hand have never shown the ability to regenerate or fix our mess.... if anything the entire world is just a fleeting buffalo herd in the Old West... and as we kill them all off, we move to the next thing.... Eventually there won't be any clear skys or clean water.... and we won't have the cash or resources to get to the Moon to live in our space bubble.... I guess on the bright side we might be dead.... but damn kids in 300 years (if humans are still around) will read through their gas mask in school about how the world wasn't always like this and wonder what the fuck we did to it [/b] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bengalrick Posted October 21, 2005 Report Share Posted October 21, 2005 if you are pissed about this, then don't even try to bitch about oil prices... SERIOUSLY... explain how taking a natural resource out of the ground in america, is worse than the saudis taking the oil out of their ground? the saudis have old equipment, and don't have the resources (or at least don't use them) to upgrade their equipment to be better for the environment... in our country, we have rules out the ass to make sure we are as safe as possible w/ the envionment... i mean, 1. you get cheaper oil (we would have more supply, therefore prices would go down) 2. little or no dependance on the middle east for oil 2. better regulations, therefore more environment friendly... this argument is starting to make ZERO sense to me... what is the environmental problems w/ taking the natural resource out? seriously... don't give me the big business bull shit, and the "its just bad" shit... give the real reasons why its bad for america to build a refinery and pump our own oil... what is the fucking difference from the kuwaitis doing it and us doing it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BlackJesus Posted October 21, 2005 Report Share Posted October 21, 2005 [b]I couldn't make this crap up [/b] [quote][size=3][u][b]Arctic Map Vanishes, and Oil Area Expands By FELICITY BARRINGER October 21, 2005 New York Times[/b][/u][/size] WASHINGTON, Oct. 20 - Maps matter. They chronicle the struggles of empires and zoning boards. They chart political compromise. So it was natural for Republican Congressional aides, doing due diligence for what may be the last battle in the fight over the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, to ask for the legally binding 1978 map of the refuge and its coastal plain. It was gone. No map, no copies, no digitized version. The wall-size 1:250,000-scale map delineated the tundra in the biggest national land-use controversy of the last quarter-century, an area that environmentalists call America's Serengeti and that oil enthusiasts see as America's Oman. The map had been stored behind a filing cabinet in a locked room in Arlington, Va. Late in 2002, it was there. In early 2003, it disappeared. There are just a few reflection-flecked photographs to remember it by. All this may have real consequences. The United States Geological Survey drew up a new map. On Wednesday, the Senate Energy and Commerce Committee passed a measure based on the new map that opened to drilling 1.5 million acres of coastal plain in the refuge. The missing map did not seem to include in the coastal plain tens of thousands of acres of Native Alaskans' lands. On the new map, those lands were included, arguably making it easier to open them to energy development. The measure is scheduled to be in the budget reconciliation bill to be voted on next month. "People have asked me several times, 'Do you think someone took this intentionally?' " said Doug Vandegraft, the cartographer for the Fish and Wildlife Service who was the last known person to see the old map. "I hope to God not. So few people knew about it. I'm able to sleep at night because I don't think it was maliciously taken. I do think it was thrown out." Mr. Vandegraft said he had folded the map in half, cushioned within its foam-board backing, and put it behind the filing cabinet in the locked room for safekeeping. He said he was distraught when he learned of the loss. In its place in the original nook, he said, he found a new, folded piece of foam board similar to the old one - but with no map attached. "I felt sick to my stomach," he said. "I queried everyone here. I think people could tell that I was angry about it." No one admitted knowing what had happened. "It infuriated me," he said. "It was in no one's way. Why would someone take it on themselves to say no one needs this? "No one knew where the foam-core boards came from." The implications of the contours on the new map, at least for the native lands, are in dispute. Some people argue that the native owners, the Kaktovik Inupiat Corporation, which controls much of the surface rights to the land, and the Arctic Slope Regional Corporation, which controls the mineral rights, would be able to offer energy leases no matter where the lines are drawn, as soon as Congress opens the plain. The legislative counsel of the Interior Department, Jane M. Lyder, did not go quite that far, but did say the new map might make the question moot. "It's a very circular kind of thing," Ms. Lyder said. "Changing the line on the map makes it a lot easier." In addition, she said, the inclusion of the native lands within the coastal plain ensures that they will be covered by the bill's requirement that no more than 2,000 acres of the plain be used for drilling platforms, airstrips, roads and other surface disturbances. By including the native lands in the plain, any work there would count to the 2,000-acre limit, she said. Mr. Vandegraft, the cartographer, said the experience had changed his habits. "Anything I considered historic, we scanned them and took them to the National Archives," he said.[/quote] [url="http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/21/politics/21map.html?ex=1287547200&en=9d977ffbe85285c6&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss"]http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/21/politics...serland&emc=rss[/url] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bengalrick Posted October 21, 2005 Report Share Posted October 21, 2005 bj... taking that oil out of the ground really has hurt the environment... in mars [img]http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/mgs/newsroom/pressreleases/images/PIA04290_th200.jpg[/img] [url="http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/solarsystem/mgs-092005-images.html"]nasa.org[/url] [i]And for three Mars summers in a row, deposits of frozen carbon dioxide near Mars' south pole have shrunk from the previous year's size, suggesting a climate change in progress.[/i] there really is global warming, but to think its b/c we are taking oil out of the ground is a laugh... how does that effect mars? the sun is in one of its cycles and it is hotter... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BlackJesus Posted October 21, 2005 Report Share Posted October 21, 2005 [b]Rick.... cmon Bro - I know you can read.... where in the fuck do I say that taking oil out of the ground has caused the earth to warm.... I merely ask the question [/b] [quote]don't you think that all of that Oil inside the earth was there for a reason or that it served a purpose?[/quote] [b]I make no judgement on whether that reason is climatic, or in relation to other factors.... All I know is that the world evolved for millions of years and was building up trillions of gallons of Liquid inside of it.... I am not convinced that it didn't serve a purpose... that's all But the issue isn't taking out the oil, it is the pollution that then results from burning it and setting emissions into the sky... As for why we don't want refineries built in the U.S. - they are extremely damaging to the environment.... thus we were before Bush happy to have that damage happen in the Middle East....[/b] [img]http://www.mediaculture-online.de/fileadmin/module/rs_multi_gogh/mona_im_smog.jpg[/img] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bengalrick Posted October 21, 2005 Report Share Posted October 21, 2005 my bad then... i thought you were sort of answering my question when i asked to give me a real reason why we shouldn't do it... i don't know the problems w/ the enviornment b/c of refineries... but wouldn't it HELP the environment if we could pump our own oil, instead of asking the saudis to pump out more and more oil for us? seriously, we have better regualtion than they do... that woudl cut production and therefore be safer than our current process... as far as the oil being burned and hurting the environment, i do agree... cars hurt the environment... i wish that we would do many things to fix that... one thing, create more public railroads or subways (things like that)... cut down on people using cars... another would be to utilize nuclear power better.. but in the mean time, lets solve the pricing problem and push for to get the cars off the roads... creating public transportation, like japan has done very nicely, would cut pollution, car wreck deaths, and be safer for everyone... it almost is inevidably the way to go... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BlackJesus Posted October 21, 2005 Report Share Posted October 21, 2005 [size=4]Maybe Bushs friends will wake up when they can no longer see outside of their highrise window ......[/size] [img]http://visualpalate.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/towers_and_smog.jpg[/img] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bengalrick Posted October 21, 2005 Report Share Posted October 21, 2005 [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/37.gif[/img] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Lucid| Posted October 26, 2005 Report Share Posted October 26, 2005 [quote name='Bunghole' post='173701' date='Oct 20 2005, 11:24 PM']Fuck the fucking enviornment. It's fucked anyway, so fuck it... Seriously, the Earth has cyclical aspects that offset the bad behavior of it's inhabitants. Hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes...? Just Mother Earth shakin' off some fleas.... The Earth has survived far greater pollution in the past due to volcanoes, it can suffer our meager existence....[/quote] Bung you are right... The Earth doesn't care about pollution.. and in the end, regardless of what happens, the earth will still be the earth.. It's [i]people[/i] that require the earth to be in a specific condition in order to continue surviving. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Dan_Bengals_FL- Posted October 27, 2005 Report Share Posted October 27, 2005 [quote name='Lucid' post='176823' date='Oct 26 2005, 08:43 AM']Bung you are right... The Earth doesn't care about pollution.. and in the end, regardless of what happens, the earth will still be the earth.. It's [i]people[/i] that require the earth to be in a specific condition in order to continue surviving.[/quote] Exactly. But people won't care until it gets to the point where it is no longer fixable and there are tremendous consquences to humankind. With the way things are going now, that point won't be too far off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.