Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Rhiannon12866

(205,523 posts)
Mon Jul 29, 2019, 03:51 AM Jul 2019

How Science Got Trampled in the Rush to Drill in the Arctic

Every year, hundreds of petroleum industry executives gather in Anchorage for the annual conference of the Alaska Oil and Gas Association, where they discuss policy and celebrate their achievements with the state’s political establishment. In May 2018, they again filed into the Dena’ina Civic and Convention Center, but they had a new reason to celebrate. Under the Trump administration, oil and gas development was poised to dramatically expand into a remote corner of Alaska where it had been prohibited for nearly 40 years.

Tucked into the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, a bill signed by President Donald Trump five months earlier, was a brief two-page section that had little to do with tax reform. Drafted by Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski, the provision opened up approximately 1.6 million acres of the vast Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil and gas leasing, a reversal of the federal policy that has long protected one of the most ecologically important landscapes in the Arctic.

The refuge is believed to sit atop one of the last great onshore oil reserves in North America, with a value conservatively estimated at hundreds of billions of dollars. For decades, the refuge has been the subject of a very public tug of war between pro-drilling forces and conservation advocates determined to protect an ecosystem crucial to polar bears, herds of migratory caribou, and native communities that rely on the wildlife for subsistence hunting. The Trump tax law, for the first time since the refuge was established in 1980, handed the advantage decisively to the drillers.

One of the keynote speakers at the conference that afternoon was Joe Balash, a top official at the Department of the Interior. Balash, who grew up in a small town outside Fairbanks and describes himself as “a local kid,” referred to the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge as a “jewel,” and predicted that the entire North Slope region was “about to change in some pretty astounding ways.” The executives were there to hear him talk about what was going to come next: Before development could begin, Interior needed to complete a review of potential environmental impacts, and then get the first leases sold to industry. He recounted for the audience that on his second day on the job—right around when the tax bill was passed—then-Deputy Secretary David Bernhardt sat him down and told him that he would be “personally responsible” for completing the legally complex environmental review process for the wildlife refuge and “having a successful lease sale.”

“No pressure,” Balash said to audience laughter.

The pressure, in fact, couldn’t be greater.


Much more: https://www.politico.com/interactives/2019/trump-science-alaska-drilling-rush/




Top: The Arctic Village is a Gwich’in Athabaskan community reliant on the caribou that calve on the coastal plain of the Refuge each spring. Bottom Left: Two bull musk oxen face off in the land that will be leased. Bottom Right: The proposed drilling area is located across from the bed of the Canning River, where it flows close to its delta into the Arctic Ocean in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Nathaniel Wilder for Politico Magazine

2 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
How Science Got Trampled in the Rush to Drill in the Arctic (Original Post) Rhiannon12866 Jul 2019 OP
This forum should be required reading. Duppers Jul 2019 #1
I have to agree with you Rhiannon12866 Jul 2019 #2

Duppers

(28,125 posts)
1. This forum should be required reading.
Mon Jul 29, 2019, 05:17 AM
Jul 2019

This sez it all:

"Before development could begin, Interior needed to complete a review of potential environmental impacts, and then get the first leases sold to industry."


"A review of potential environmental impacts"?! Just a minor inconvenience for the given outcome: getting the damn leases sold.

Rhiannon12866

(205,523 posts)
2. I have to agree with you
Mon Jul 29, 2019, 06:22 AM
Jul 2019

Though I'm glad to see it's a very active forum. I hate always posting negative articles here, so I'm always pleased to find the positive stories, like the increased use of wind and solar power and how it's becoming more cost effective all the time.

I think of the great lengths President Carter went to - decades ago - to protect unprecedented acres of land in these areas and it's my great hope that Trump and his greedy minions are out of business before they can spoil these pristine areas forever.

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»How Science Got Trampled ...