A Republican congressional candidate in North Dakota has suggested drilling for oil and natural gas beneath Theodore Roosevelt National Park. But then, Rick Berg is only the latest GOP candidate to cast eyes on a national park for energy exploration.
Two years ago Fred Thompson, then running for the Republican presidential nomination, thought it wouldn't be a terrible idea to drill for oil beneath Everglades National Park if the resources merited it. Mr. Thompson, whose campaign was short-lived, allowed that, "I don't think anybody really prefers to drill at all anywhere," before adding, however, that "(N)obody wants to see $100 oil, either."
And then, of course, just about two weeks ago the upstart Joe Miller, who defeated Lisa Murkowski for the U.S. Senate nomination in Alaska, dreamed about the federal government turning over its holdings in Alaska -- including the national parks there -- so Alaskans could mine them for what they're worth.
So, really, Mr. Berg is just catching on to this idea of throwing open park entrances to drilling rigs and roustabouts. The irony in his case, though, is that Theodore Roosevelt, though a Republican, was very much a conservationist when it came to natural resources.
"There can be nothing in the world more beautiful than the Yosemite, the groves of the giant sequoias and redwoods, the Canyon of the Colorado, the Canyon of the Yellowstone, the Three Tetons; and our people should see to it that they are preserved for their children and their children's children forever, with their majestic beauty unmarred." Theodore Roosevelt
Now, after Mr. Berg's comments to the Fargo Forum's editorial board -- “There’s a huge opportunity right now to take those mineral assets that are on the federal government’s balance sheet and shift them to Social Security” -- made the news, his staff quickly jumped in to qualify his statement.
"He never said we're going to put rigs up in a park; that's just ridiculous," Berg spokesman Tom Nelson told The Hill. "If there’s technology that would allow you to horizontally drill and it wouldn’t affect anything in the park, that would be something to talk about."
Apparently Mr. Nelson didn't hear the uproar when the Bush administration's Bureau of Land Management wanted to issue oil and gas leases near Arches and Canyonlands national parks and Dinosaur National Monument in Utah late in 2008.
Nor is he apparently up on drilling technology. Horizontal drilling has been around for decades, and back in the 1980s such techniques were being eyed for drilling beneath the surface of Canaan Valley State Park in West Virginia.
But as the recent boom in the practice in the East to tap natural gas deposits in Marcellus shales has indicated, there can be problems with waste-water and groundwater impacts.
And, as analysts have concluded, horizontal drilling isn't necessarily light on the land if hydraulic fracturing is part of the equation to stimulate oil and gas flows.
Hydraulic fracturing requires 3 million to 8 million gallons of water per well. The water must be trucked in and stored on site, and the wastewater containing drill fluids, brines and heavy metals must be disposed of properly. A typical 3 million gallon hydrofrack produces 15,000 gallons of chemical waste, according to the U.S. Geological Survey.
In Pennsylvania, this waste is stored on site in pits until trucks remove it. The storage ponds can produce noxious odors, harming neighbors’ use and enjoyment of their property. Disposal of the brine wastewater remains a problem. Spills are common.
Support Essential Coverage of Essential Places
Comments
George, the last GOP conservationist in Congress was killed off about seven months ago when he was run over by a huge tea bag outside his office. They were an endangered species, and now have been officially declared to be extinct.
I'm all for conservation, but the one thing that nobody really talks about is what is the best alternative to our energy needs? I don't pretend to have answers, but I understand that renewables forms of energy will not be enough in the near term (say 20-30 years) to make a significant in our energy needs. Since nobody wants to build nuclear plants, what options do we have? Conservation is great but will only go so far. It seems that we're stuck with importing more from around the world, which is basically akin to exporting our problems.
Drilling in national parks is definitely not appealling but is it better if the oil comes from some pristine par of Venezuela?
We *already* drill directionally for oil beneath [Theodore Roosevelt National Park (THRO)], from privately owned or leased lands around the park. As I understand it, these wells could suck THRO oil from a field even if they went straight down, so the NPS decided to allow more-efficient directional (diagonal) drilling and collect the royalties. Most of the rigs are hidden from view if you're inside the park, but you can't miss them around the boundaries.
Cell towers, I-94, airplanes, and many other things are visible from the heart of the backcountry. For what it's worth.
The price one pays for oil is determined by a global supply and global demand, not by how much oil is drilled under a National Park or Venezuela. Oil drilled in America does not stay in America. It goes right to the world market. There is no such thing as “our oil supply” The problem is oil. Not how and where we get it.
Random Walker, I disagree with your assessment. If all oil produced in the US goes on the world market, it would create additional exports, which would help our trade deficit, and de facto would reduce would reduce dependence on foreign oil. Figured that I'd point this out.
Like somebody said earlier, we got to be able to have some kind of middle ground between the "drill, baby drill" on one end, and the tree huggers on the other.
What a silly statement by "Barky." It is almost not worth the time to refute. These kind of generalizations don't hold water, and are easily disproved. For ex., John Warner has been a friend to preservation groups and the NPS. Lest we think that the Democrat Party has a monopoly on environmental issues, I remind you about an issue from 2001 involving the Homestake Mining Co., in SD. Homestake wanted to sell a mine but was concerned that if it did so, it could be held liable for environmental damages even years down the road. Congress agreed to relieve the company of any legal liability that it might have incurred for environmental damages done in digging gold from the Black Hills over the previous 125 years. The federal government (by provisions of the act) assumed liability for any environmental damage. Who was the person in Congress who pushed for the immunity so that this polluter could get off the hook to the tune of $30,000,000? U.S. Senator Tom Dascle. Now, Barky, this may come as a total shock to you, but Daschle is not an evil Republican but a Democrat. Imagine that!
Why can't CONSERVE-atives and CONSERVE-ationists get along? The common interest is clear!
We also musn't forget that former President Bill Clinton in his last days in office added millions of acres of western land to the Park Service (as I recall) that could have been tapped for oil. Therefore making the resources unavailable for use. Yosemite, my wife's and my favorite, Yellowstone, Zion, and many national lands deserve preservation for their beauty. But Clinton's land had no such value. It was just to make them inaccessible to anyone, visitors included, for anything. Which forces the question, "Why?"