Companies Get OK To Annoy Polar Bears

WASHINGTON — Less than a month after declaring polar bears a threatened species because of global warming, the Bush administration is giving oil companies permission to annoy and potentially harm them in the pursuit of oil and natural gas.

The Fish and Wildlife Service issued regulations this week providing legal protection to seven oil companies planning to search for oil and gas in the Chukchi Sea off the northwestern coast of Alaska if "small numbers" of polar bears or Pacific walruses are incidentally harmed by their activities over the next five years.

Environmentalists said the new regulations give oil companies a blank check to harass the polar bear.

About 2,000 of the 25,000 polar bears in the Arctic live in and around the Chukchi Sea, where the government in February auctioned off oil leases to ConocoPhillips Co., Shell Oil Co. and five other companies for $2.6 billion. Over objections from environmentalists and members of Congress, the sale occurred before the bear was classified as threatened in May.

Polar bears are naturally curious creatures and sensitive to changes in their environment. Vibrations, noises, unusual scents and the presence of industrial equipment can disrupt their quest for prey and their efforts to raise their young in snow dens.

However, the Fish and Wildlife Service said oil and gas exploration will have a negligible effect on the bears' population.

"The oil and gas industry in operating under the kind of rules they have operated under for 15 years has not been a threat to the species," H. Dale Hall, the Fish and Wildlife Service's director, told The Associated Press on Friday. "It was the ice melting and the habitat going away that was a threat to the species over everything else."

The agency made no secret that oil and gas operations would continue in polar bear territory when it announced May 14 that melting sea ice threatened the creature's survival. But Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne assured the public that the bear population would not be harmed.

Story continues below

advertisement

"Polar bears are already protected under the Marine Mammal Protection Act, which has more stringent protections for polar bears than the Endangered Species Act does," Kempthorne said.

Environmentalists already suing the agency over its determination that the bear's threatened status cannot be used to regulate global warming gases said Kempthorne's earlier assurances were misleading.

"Now, three weeks later, Interior issues a rule under the act that we view as a blank check to harass the polar bear in the Chukchi Sea," said Brendan Cummings, oceans program director at the Center for Biological Diversity. He added that his group believes the new regulations are illegal.

Exploring in the Chukchi Sea's 29.7 million acres will require as many as five drill ships, one or two icebreakers, a barge, a tug and two helicopter flights per day, according to the government. Oil companies will also be making hundred of miles of ice roads and trails along the coastline.

"We are poorly equipped to address those risks and challenges," said Steven Amstrup, one of the foremost experts on polar bears and a scientist at the U.S. Geological Survey's Alaska Science Center. "To assess what the impacts are going to be, we should know more about the bears."

Last year, the Marine Mammal Oversight Commission, an independent government oversight agency, told the Fish and Wildlife Service it lacked the information to conclude that exploration will not affect the bear population.

The seven companies will be required to map out the locations of polar bear dens, train their employees about the bears' habits and take other measures to minimize clashes with them. In exchange, the companies are legally protected if their operations unintentionally harm the bears. Any bear deaths would still warrant an investigation and could result in penalty under the law.

"These rules are essentially an insurance policy," said Marilyn Crockett, executive director of the Alaska Oil and Gas Association, an industry group that in 2005 requested the new regulation. "They say if you conduct your operations in accordance to the requirement in this rule, you will not be held liable for the take of the bears."

Administration and industry officials said oil companies enjoyed similar status in the Chukchi Sea from 1991 to 1996 and in the Beaufort Sea since 1993 and there was no effect on polar bear populations.

There is no evidence of a polar bear being killed by oil and gas activities in Alaska since 1993, according to the Fish and Wildlife Service. Since 1960, when the hunt for oil and gas began in Alaska, only two fatalities of polar bears have been linked to oil and gas activities in the state, the service said.

___

On the Net:

Fish and Wildlife Service: http://alaska.fws.gov/

Comments

[Bearangaria]

Sic 'em bears!

[RememberTheAlamo]

Hi All . . the bears will just fine . . . Let's worry about the seals !

[andj]

I thought cretin like you would rather be watching and enjoying faux news instead of commenting on serious things like bears and seals.

[RememberTheAlamo]

Hi Andj . . . Just showing my diversity!

As to bears . . . do believe Alaska is the only state with Polar bears (haven't seen too many in Philly, Detroit or San Francisco) . . . the population has increased over the last 30 years (to the seal's chagrin) . . . and do believe Alaska has a problem with the Federal Government meddling in their business . . . my bet is on Alaska . . . they have been doing a pretty good job so far.

Looks like the losers here will be both the bears and seals.

Though curious . . . when the seal is in California, it is cute and "protected" . . . but in Alaska, when they have an opportunity to escape the Polar Bears we decide we should side with the big ole bear?

Truly seems an environmental double standard . . . . oh wel!

Have a nice week,

Yours,

Rock Solid

[rkrenke]

The real criminals here are Pelosi and Reid - what does our Congress do to curtail any of these outrageous acts by the Bush Adminstration?

Nothing.

[JohnnieP]

I'm sure that a more than just a little bit of payola was involved in this matter. But, gee, who in the current adminisatration in Washington would happen to have an ongoing interest in the oil
industry?

[FanaticRealist]

Sow the wind, reap the whirlwind.

It's ironic that, in a year where nature has already given a significant area of the mid-west a beating, this administration dials up the karmic debt another level by authorising the harassment of an endangered species.

As for the pathetic argument that polar bears harass humans because they're attracted to our refuse, here's an idea: don't encroach into the polar bear's environment and then there won't be any refuse.

[dgscol]

We need oil, and the Alaskan pipeline requires maintenance along the few roads in the area. Your argument could be used to evacuate N America because of buffalo. This is ridiculous. What about the Chinese? They are killing almost anything to eat. If it moves, it might be edible. Your main concern about species ought to be a regard for all these endangered species, about which the Orientals have no policy, no regard.

The polar bear, however, is not an endangered species. In fact, they have survived the last two polar cap meltdowns and no doubt, they will again. The status they have acquired is political, not based on any actual danger.

[dgscol]

Hopefully they can be chased away. Thy are a known danger in the high latitudes. They commonly harass people involved in northern operations. They tend to collect around garbage sites and dumpsters, taking people by surprise.

[arkgrfx61]

THEY are not the danger...they are just trying to survive, and take care of their young.
It's the humans that are the danger.

[ROBOT8]

ten steps that "fascist, totalitarian, and other repressive leaders [employ to] seize and maintain power, especially in what were once democracies.” The ten steps are:
1. Invoke a terrifying internal and external enemy
2. Create a gulag
3. Develop a thug caste
4. Set up an internal surveillance system
5. Harass citizens' groups
6. Engage in arbitrary detention and release
7. Target key individuals
8. Control the press
9. Dissent equals treason
10. Suspend the rule of law
naomi wolfe

[izAriver]

She's very insightful, isn't she?

[dgscol]

We have no gulag.

[axt113]

Gitmo

[timeforachangenow]

we have lots of gulags....8(

just where do you think that they put the illegals???

go and visit Krome sometime...8(

[Blurp]

Too bad we can't tap the reserves of RSU. What a gasbag.

[Mort]

Let's see... become self sufficient, end dependence on mideast oil and the need to fight them for it, save thousands of lives and billions of dollars in the process..... or avoid inconveniencing a few caribou and polar bears. What to do... what to do....

[MysticInd]

Stop driving gas hog SUV's and realize there is more to life than destruction of the Earth...No contest!

[darthdarcy]

Why not the Energy Companies are allowed to hurt us We The American People why should they treat Polar Bears any better than Human beings..?

Nationalize the America Oil Companies..

[elcojonu]

BMW and Honda will be bringing out Fuel Cell (Hydrogen) automobiles soon.
GM, Toyota, Ford, Mercedes, etc., will not be too far behind.
Oil's day as a transportation fuel are numbered.
The Auto Industry is moving on into the 21st. Century for its own survival.
The Oil Industry will have to decide if it's going to be in the 'Oil' or 'Energy' business if it wants to survive and flourish.
It's a new Century and you can't stop progress.
.

[ohiomark]

Great!!! That's what capitalism is all about.

If it's affordable, then people will buy it.

[axt113]

I think Electric will beat out Hydrogen in the long run, either that or the air car will take over

[RedDogBear]

Hydrogen is a scam by the oil companies to maintain the status quo. Unlike electric which you can plug in from home hydrogen still requires fuel stations. Also, the technology is still experimental compared to electric cars which are proven and would be in wide spread use if GM hadn't taken them off the market and destroyed them (see the movie Who Killed the Electric Car). The long term vision is that hydrogen replaces gas and the oil companies still control it. The short term is to delay investment and use in electric (and other alternate fuels) and say "we are working on hydrogen" (the last time Bush had anything significant to say on alternative energy that is exactly what he said)

http://www.counterpunch.org/khan01302003.html

[caldarone]

this is sad, but will not be the last to die over there..

[RSU]

When will the NIMBY crowd ever be pleased?

You want off foreign oil but you don't want to drill for your own.

You want flex fuel but don't want to pay higher food costs.

We have a 100 mile moratorium that prevents us from drilling near our shores but allows China and Cuba to drill within 45 miles of Key West.

We can't install wind generators because they look ugly and they kill migrating birds.

We can't have solar power because it disrupts the rare desert tundra.

We can't cut down trees because of spotted owls.

We can't burn coal because the same CO2 that we exhale is bad for the atmosphere.

We can't go nuclear because of the hazardous waste it produces.

We can't go to hydrogen because it's too dangerous to store in cars and too expensive to produce.

To top it all off, Congress cut off filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve that when full only gives our nation 60 days worth of oil to operate on.

Now, we're worried about bothering polar bears that nobody sees much less cares about on any given day. It doesn't matter that the caribou thrived and multiplied along the entire length of the pipeline, because now we've created an overpopulation problem.

Two weeks ago most of Texas went on yellow alert because of higher than normal energy usage but we'll be damn*d if we'll allow any new electrical plants.

Thanks Dems, the fix is in and it's working perfectly!

[Guynemer]

Good post, but it's not all the Democrats fault.

Republicans are responsible for enacting protectionist laws in the form of tariffs on imported ethanol and state laws which prevent local solar and wind users from tying into the power grid and selling their surplus.

[Lindamae]

Check out the following in the House of Rep records. I watched them on cspan Thursday the 12of June.

Lynn Westforeland R Georgia 3rd
Tom Price R Georgia 6
Dan Butler(Burton?) Indiana 5

Comments made included:
>Sign the American Energy Petition, for legislation allowing drilling of oil
>the public expects its duly elected representatives to do something to help our country
>energy security is a national security issue
> we can and should be self sufficient
> 20 years ago we used 25% outside oil, now it is 65%
>Gas tax holiday can serve us

I add that the tax holiday will help the transportation industry more than the domestic driver. which will help the consumer of the goods and products being trucked.

These are Republicans who are asking Democrats to join together for the good of the nation - not the good of either party. When party politics determines what is done rather than the good of the nation then the party system is corrupt and the leaders of such parties owe it to the nation to resign.

[blueshield]

When you want to know who's behind something, just follow the money, RSU, follow the money.

Money motivates and influences what happens in this world. All the rest is for show and distraction.

So, who's reaping record profits and booming earnings with things the way they are?

The fix is in, all right.

[tcagle]

We can do a lot of the above, and we will. Just get the flat earth people out of Congress and the White House. Feed Jim Inhofe to the fish, who will feed the seals, who will feed the polar bears. I would love to see him turn into polar bear dung.

[Guynemer]

"Senator Obama's campaign has distributed flyers in Kentucky stating that "Barack Obama believes in clean Kentucky coal." The flyers show a picture of giant barges carrying coal down the Ohio River." ABC News, May 13, 2008

[peacekitten]

(part 1 of 2)

hello, my friend. long time no see.

i care about the polar bears, and every other living thing that we share this planet with.

polar bears are an apex predator, and as the apex predators go in any given ecosystem, so we go as well.

the overpopulation problem in the frozen areas isn't too many polar bears, it's too many people. the bears were there first, and it's us invading their territory.

the strategic petroleum reserve is now filled to 90% capacity, far greater than it ever was even during the oil embargo of the 70s. it will provide 90 days, not sixty, at current consumption levels.

nuclear energy is far too dangerous. period.

hydrogen would be far more doable, except for the fact that the major oil and gas companies locked up contracts to be the sole producers of hydrogen, and their source? more fossil fuels, instead of the cleaner, renewable and infinitely less expensive sources such as water.

there is no such thing as clean coal technology. period. the "mountain top removal" method that has been used with abandon in the appalachian mountains has hopelessly destroyed the landscape, rerouted streams and small rivers that the people who live there depend upon for their survival, and taken a section of the country already straining under the weight of poverty there and now made it an unbearable burden.

[RSU]

I have to tell you I've just about given up on posting here. There is no back and forth anymore as post's are being stripped out based upon political ideology alone. Most of my profile was stripped clean even though I've been one of the most respectful posters here.

I thought it was humorous (only slightly) that many of your own posts were being stripped out for no other reason than someone didn't like your political viewpoint. So much for the posting rules.

As a response to your post, I wonder when Congress will institute a one child policy like China has? Since there is no way they will allow any new form of energy production, I can only surmise that they must have plans to reduce the demand through population control. How else are they going to reduce demand if we are not going to allow production?

Biofuels took a huge hit this week with all the rain and flooding throughout the midwest. The last deliveries to the SPR end in July and whether it runs out in 60 days or 90 is irrelevant when it isn't even enough to carry us through a boycott should one happen.

We are at our most precariously dangerous situation since the 70's. Our infrastructure has been neglected and the economy is on the brink and all Dems want to talk about is raising taxes and spending money.

I swear, I just don't understand Dem's anymore.

[Guynemer]

"nuclear energy is far too dangerous. period"

Nuclear energy has been in constant use in the United States for almost 50 years. There are currently over 100 nuclear power plants operational. Still only one fatality (as a result of three-mile island) has ever been atributed to the civilian use of nuclear energy in the United States.

In other words, your statement that nuclear energy "is far too dangerous" is nothing more than the perpetuation of a Leftwing myth that was started eons ago for God knows what reason.

[peacekitten]

(part 2 of 2)

drilling in alaska, or any other continental reserve is not the answer to this problem. the fact of the matter is that we will run out sooner or later, no matter where we get it from, and our only alternative is going to be a safe, clean, renewable, and environmentally friendly fuel source.

you might be surprised to know i was not a particularly enthusiastic supporter of kyoto because it ignored the problem of developing nations consuming fossil fuels, namely india and china. their increased consumption alone will sink the energy market sooner rather than later, not to mention making the whole planet unlivable in the process.

solar and wind could be a good start towards cleaner energy sources. i have read scientific estimates that made the case that if wind mills alone were placed down through the great plains alone, enough energy would be produced twice over to satisfy ALL our energy needs. and personally, i don't mind the look of windmills all that much, knowing that they are doing their job and keeping things clean.

and once polar bears, or spotted owls, or any other such creature is extinct, it is gone forever. we cannot bring it back. one of these days, the creature that is endangered will be us. who's going to save us then?

[holyhandgrenaid]

While I strongly support the use of wind power, there is a problem with it; the power supplied by it has a spike in each rotation of the windmill, causing it to be rough on transformers and electronics.... a solution needs to be found to regulate this power spike, because the potential for electronic refuse produced by it is rather severe.

[levelshot]

A Headline I would love to read: A Group of Angry Polar Bear goes "Arctic" on ConocoPhillips Co., Shell Oil Co. and five other companies drilling for oil - No survivors!

http://thumbnail.search.aolcdn.com/vsthumb2/tn/23/BA/23BA6254B223E8AC6377E1_Large.jpg

[TUPHATT]

If that were to happen, what would you put in your car to make it go?

[timeforachangenow]

now THAT was funny...8)

[RSU]

When will the NIMBY crowd ever be pleased?

You want off foreign oil but you don't want to drill for your own.

You want flex fuel but don't want to pay higher food costs.

We have a 100 mile moratorium that prevents us from drilling near our shores but allows China and Cuba to drill within 45 miles of Key West.

We can't install wind generators because they look ugly and they kill migrating birds.

We can't have solar power because it disrupts the rare desert tundra.

We can't cut down trees because of spotted owls.

We can't burn coal because the same CO2 that we exhale is bad for the atmosphere.

We can't go nuclear because of the hazardous waste it produces.

We can't go to hydrogen because it's too dangerous to store in cars and too expensive to produce.

To top it all off, Congress cut off filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve that when full only gives our nation 60 days worth of oil to operate on.

Now, we're worried about bothering polar bears that nobody sees much less cares about on any given day. It doesn't matter that the caribou thrived and multiplied along the entire length of the pipeline, because now we've created an overpopulation problem.

Two weeks ago most of Texas went on yellow alert because of higher than normal energy usage but we'll be damn*d if we'll allow any new electrical plants.

Thanks Pelosi, your fix is in and it's working perfectly!

[tcagle]

We are entitled to destroy the earth's other creatures and resources because _____________.
I can't think why either.

[RSU]

Nature destroys creatures every day and it has nothing to do with resources. How many Chinese were displaced by the earthquake that damed a river? How many thousands more were killed? But, disrupt the wandering pattern of a few polar bears and watch out because the world is coming to an end!!!

Sheesh!!!