Alaska Drilling Petition?
I talked to a student today who was looking for some folks to sign his petition. The petition, as I read it, is in favor of the Department of Interior’s plan for drilling for oil, amongst other locations, in Alaska.
The MMS (Mineral Management Service – a branch of the Department of Interior) continually updates what it calls the 5-Year plan. It is the Department’s plan to manage, and regulate offshore drilling.
It turns out that the public comment portion of the next 5-year plan’s proposal is coming to a close later this week, hence the petition.
Let me be clear that I don’t have a position on this one. Nor do I want you to sign petitions that you don’t want to sign.
I told the student I would post his petition – should students be interested in signing the petition, I said I would make it available for signing. The kicker is that it needs to be signed by Thursday morning at the latest, according to the student.
Here is (most of the) text of the petition. I’ve done some editing for brevity, but I don’t think I’ve altered the thrust. You are welcome to read/sign the whole petition outside my office. The typos are probably mine…
My signature below signifies support of allowing greater access to our nation’s offshore oil and natural gas resources during the 2007-2012 time period.
Currently, more than 80 percent of our nations’s offshore natural resources are off-limits to devlopment. With more than 85 billion barrels of oil and 420 trillion cubic feet of natural gas estimated to be available, the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) stands ready to provide a major component of domestic resources for this country. To expedite devlopment of these critically needed resources, the 5 Year Plan must be as broad as possible and organized in a manner that provides reliable leasing schedules for companies to access these resources in a safe and environmentally sound manner.
I urge the MMS to expand the 5 Year Plan to include any areas that present a potential for oil and gas devlopment. All available acreage in the Gulf of Mexico, Alaska – particularly in Bristol Bay and the Beaufort and Chuckchi Seas – and the Atlantic shoudl be offerred for lease.
…would provide a tremendous benefit to state and local communities helping to build roads, schools, hospitals, and to address other vital local needs.
…The Draft Environmental Impact Statement does a good job of identifying potential environmental and social impacts.
Other Information:
MMS website for the 5-year Plan:
A short brochure on the MMS and 5-year Plan:
And, a petition that Sierra Club wants you to sign instead.
–CT
November 29th, 2006 at 9:27 pm
I understand the concern some people may have with drilling in Alaska for oil. Many people are concerned with disterbing wildlife in the area which is something to have concern over, but what gets me is the fact that in the mid 1900’s when the oil rush in louisiana began oil companies traveled the marshes throughout louisiana in search for petrolum products not realizing that their exploring was tearing up the valuable coastline. The coastline of louisiana is much more importatnt than some wild animals in alaska, for one the coastline protects millions of louisiana residents from hurricane year after year and two louisiana has probably the number one commercial fishing grounds in the country which depend on the wetlands to harbor and nuture the aquadic lifeforms which some many state citizens rely on for incomes each year. If the u.s. goverment can remove oil from alaska then they should they did it down here and tore up louisiana so why should alaska be any better than louisiana, and also the exploring done in louisiana in the mid 1900’s was done in a much more primative style than now. Technology has changed since then so why should we run our gulf of mexico drilling platforms dry, instead the hugh amounts of oil spoken about in alaska should be execavated to better the u.s ecomomy and it dependence for foreign oil and lower the price for american citizens.
December 6th, 2006 at 11:42 pm
I thought this would be a great entry to reply to being that congress will be voting on LA faith on this Thurs of Fri. Initally one would want to attact the notion of drilling in Alaska by taking the front of wildlife refuge. I would attack this with physical evidence that proves that the wildlife inparticular the caribou have not been distured in the least bit. The migratory patterns as well as the mating rituals of the caribou have been preserved through proper planning by the oil contractors. Certain precations were taken to preserve natures creatures such as rasing the pipline to allow the wildlife access to ALL of the vast wilderness. With that being said I say we DRILL BABY DRILL.
Other oppostions of the drilling will take the social front and claim it would ruin the social cultures of the Alaskan natives. Well you know what let the Alaskan natives decide this after they have seen the royalties the US woudl be prepared to issue them. In a similar situation states such as CA and FL are firmly entrenched on the fight to keep drill platforms off their coast. Is this really fair to the rest of the nation? Siesmic data has proven that there are vast oil reserve off the coast of each of these states, yet we cont to deplete the resources off the coast of LA. I ask you this: What has LA gained from allowing this drilling? Poor education rates, a low standard of living, similar gas prices to the rest of the nation, etc…DRILL BABY DRILL
Jacob Charpentier 255 2M