BP continues to show willful disregard for USA laws and environment

BP plc (NYSE:BP) has agreed to locate (hundred of) thousands of boom anchors left behind in the Gulf of Mexico and surrounding waters after the oil spill.

The anchors were used to secure the boom that lined portions of Louisiana’s coast, which helped to prevent the oil spewing from BP plc (NYSE:BP)’s Macondo well from reaching the marshes.

Once a proper location technique is decided upon, BP plc (NYSE:BP) is expected to examine the anchors left behind to determine whether it is necessary to remove them.

MR PRESIDENT - WE DO NOT ALLOW ANYONE TO ABANDON EQUIPMENT AND DUMP TRASH IN THE USA COASTAL ZONE - WE THE PEOPLE WHOM YOU REPRESENT EXPECT YOU TO ENFORCE USA LAWS. STOP MAKING BACK ROOM DEALS ! 

BP showed nothing learned in Exxon spill says Anchorage Daily News too

http://www.adn.com/2010/12/27/1621610/bp-showed-nothing-learned-in-exxon.html

Sharon Bushell and Stan Jones have compiled an excellent collection of personal stories from the Exxon Valdez disaster in "The Spill." Today, everyone concerned claims to have learned great lessons from this environmental tragedy. However, the handling of the Deepwater Horizon catastrophe in the Gulf of Mexico gives no such evidence.


An interesting account in "The Spill" comes from a Cordova fisherman, Tom Copeland:

"From day one, the commercial fisherman of Alaska should have been allowed to recover the oil. There is only one group that thinks recovering oil off the sea is an easy task, commercial fishermen ... but everybody thought it was impossibly difficult."

This astute observation brings up two disturbing points. Why were fishermen barred from helping to recover oil? And why did "everybody" think the task was "impossibly difficult"?

The justification for the first question would be: to maintain industry control due to special insider knowledge and skills, and secrecy for security purposes. However, any control and secrecy requirements that were necessary would have been encompassed at the immediate area of the spill; a cordoned "no-entry" circle with a 10-mile or so radius should have more than provided the operators with adequate room for security, logistical and non-interference purposes. Efforts outside of such a designated zone could really in no way hinder industry salvage and repair operations at the accident source. Nor could such efforts pose security threats or "classified" information breeches.

The second question can be understood as a "view from the ramparts" syndrome, or the limited perspective, or tunnel vision, which occurs in leadership during stressful situations: the inability to see outside of the industry. The oil industry leaders at the time of the Exxon Valdez disaster had obviously convinced themselves that they were operating with such safety and were so prepared for any eventuality that there was basically no immediate threat. They were proven catastrophically incorrect. They compounded the problem by erroneously believing that, once it began, they were the only ones who could manage the highly technical disaster that they had themselves manufactured. This is akin to stroking one's own ego to the detriment of all others. They were seeing the "view from on high" by excluding the validity of all other views since; after all, they were the ones with all the volumes of response plans clearly stated in black and white. Had Exxon executives had the capacity to comprehend the complexities, abilities, and special relationship with the sea environment that the fishing community possesses, they would have been able to utilize this segment of the population to everyone's benefit.

Was a lesson learned? The BP Gulf of Mexico disaster indicates absolutely not. The industry, fostered by the government, reacted by blocking out all considerations beyond its own. Has a lesson been learned from the Gulf "spill"? Most likely not. Industry seems to respond from the inside perspective of excluding outsiders. It is a reaction that works against lasting and realistic solutions. Grandiose, all-encompassing response plans are laid out to fulfill industry "standards" and safety regulations, but often prove to be ineffectual in real time. It all looks good on paper, and many issues receive legal coverage, but a false sense of security is perpetuated by this system.

Perhaps a more comprehensive response strategy is for exploratory companies to also investigate the people, skills and resources of their specific target areas, and with this information, formulate campaign plans that can be effective in case of a disaster. Now, that would be a response plan. In case of an oil spill, light, fast and plentiful response from local residents would be very effective, if the oil company was ready with light, easily portable recovery pumping and storage equipment and had a disaster plan in place to disperse and coordinate such action. It causes many problems when companies see themselves egotistically as martyrs carrying the entire load. It belittles everyone else. There should have been, and should now be, industry plans in place for rapid cooperation with local entities for recovery efforts away from primary incident zones.

---

Ken Green has worked in the oil industry as a geological field technician, drilling fluids engineer and pipeline inspection technician. He is retired and lives in Cooper Landing.

Read more: http://www.adn.com/2010/12/27/1621610/bp-showed-nothing-learned-in-exxon.html#ixzz19NQflu6T

Update on GOLDEN SEAS - Safe Harbor - KUDOS !!!

Unalaska Community Broadcasting, KUCB FM/TV, reported the successful conclusion to the Tor Viking II's 500 mile (804 km) tow of the crippled bulk carrier M/V Golden Seas.

She was secured in Broad Bay, Unalaska Island adjacent to Dutch Harbor on Tuesday afternoon, December 7th, at 1 PM Alaska Standard Time (UTC -9).

KUCB news reports, "Technicians from AllSeas Marine are traveling from Anchorage to Unalaska, and repairs to the Golden Seas are expected be done by the end of the week. The Coast Guard will be overseeing the repairs.

Hopefully the Golden Seas will be continuing its voyage to the United Arab Emirates after leaving Dutch Harbor on Friday December 10th, according to spokesperson Adam Baylor."

Well done! Through the combined efforts of the US Coast Guard and highly skilled professional mariners, a motor vessel was snatched from the jaws of the Bering Sea.

The "stars were aligned" on this incident. The Tor Viking II just happened to be in Dutch Harbor when the incident began, able to respond quickly. But the incident brings attention to the larger issue of maritime safety in the Aleutians.

Here is how our story began:

Port Townsend, Monday Dec 6th. Judging from the "headline" photo, Robert in Port Townsend has taken complete leave of his senses. What has this got to do with railroading?

Well, nothing. But saving the M/V Golden Seas from certain death in the Bering Sea is a real life drama where the stakes are high. And, just like with the "Deepwater Horizon" story, I promise you will find greater detail, right here on "Oil-Electric," than you'll ever find on the evening news!

Depending on the news station you watch, or newspaper you read, you may have heard about the high drama taking place in the Aleutian Islands concerning the rescue of the bulk carrier - not freighter, not tanker - bulk carrier M/V Golden Seas.

The M/V Golden Seas reported loss of power to the USCG at 12:15 AM on Friday, December 3, and was adrift north of Adak Island in the storm tossed Bering Sea.

Her turbocharger had blown. Initially powerless, the engineering department managed to restart the main engine. But without the turbocharger, she could only make 3 knots (3.5 mph). She was crippled and in immediate danger of drifting aground in the Aleutian Islands.

The M/V Golden Seas, owned and operated by Paragon Shipping, neeIolcos Destiny, built by Hudong-Zhonghua Shipbuilding for Iolcos Hellenic Maritime Enterprises, IMO number 9305104, launched in 2006. She is a bulk carrier with no loading or unloading appliances of her own. At 74,475 DWT (Dead Weight Tons), she is 738 feet long.

She departed Vancouver BC last week, destined for the United Arab Emirates (UAE) with 60,000 tons of rapeseed. [See footnote below.]

But if she was headed for the UAE, what the heck was she doing north of the Aleutian Islands in the Bering Sea?

When we were little kids, Mom always impressed my sister and I with "The shortest distance between home and your destination is a straight line!" In other words, no dilly-dallying around! Go directly where you are supposed to be going!

In traveling over the ocean, that straight-line rule holds true up to a certain point. However, as distance increases, strange things begin to happen due to the curvature of the earth. The result is, on a flat surface, a straight line, or in geometic terms, a loxodrome, is the shortest distance between two points. (You remember Mercator et al.)

In long-range intercontinental voyages; from the West Coast to the Far East or the East coast to Europe, an orthodrome, in geometric terms, on a globe, sphere or the earth, is the shortest distance between two points. This is more familiar to us as a "Great Circle Route."

Remarkably, the Great Circle track routes vessels departing British Columbia, Puget Sound, the Bay Area, or Los Angeles in an arc, north of the Aleutians into the Bering Sea, via Unimak Pass.

And this is a busy track. More than two thousand vessels transit this route annually.

So that explains how the M/V Golden Seas found herself in deep doo-doo in the Bering Sea, on a voyage from Vancouver BC to the United Arab Emirates.

As the drama with the Golden Seas was playing out, two vessels were in Dutch Harbor, both under charter by Shell Oil in support of oil exploration in the Beaufort Sea. The Norwegian "Tor Viking II" and the American "Nanuq."

If you are a fan of Discovery Channel's "Deadliest Catch," you have seen Dutch Harbor many times. The show never mentions the name of the town, Unalaska, located on Unalaska Island. Unalaska's harbor is named "Dutch Harbor."

Perhaps they thought it would confuse the viewers. The Aleut people first inhabited the island of "Ounalashka," meaning "Near the Peninsula." As with most indigenous names, settlers had great difficulty in spelling or pronouncing indigenous names, finding it easier to apply phonetics. Hence, "Unalaska."

The Tor Viking II is owned and operated by Viking Supply Ships, a Norwegian company. She is an impressive vessel rated for unlimited world wide service, fitted with an ice breaker bow. The lengthy open after-deck is a service platform for anchor handling and re-supply of offshore oil rigs.

She has an unusual state of the art power plant, referred to as a CODAD propulsion system - COmbined Diesel and Diesel - also known as "father-son" or "mother -daughter." This places a pair of engines of differing horsepower into a common gearbox. Parallel side by side, she has twin propellers and rudders.

CODAD allows various combinations of engines and horsepower to be brought on line to meet demand, while allowing non-essential engines to be idled or shut down, resulting in fuel and emission savings. We are seeing versions of this with modern hybrid locomotives. Tor Viking II's combined output, running all four diesels, is an impressive 18,300 horsepower.

The Nanuq, a 301-foot, Arctic A-1 ice class, oil recovery platform supply vessel, built by Edison Chouest of Houma Louisiana, owned by Shell, is assisting in the rescue. In a pretty neat public relations gambit, Edison encouraged the residents of the village of Kaktovik, Alaska, to named the boat. [See footnote below.] 

"Nanuq," translates as "polar bear" in their native Inuit language.

The 7,200 horsepower Nanuq was built to Shell's specifications by Edison Chouest Offshore, of Homana, Louisiana, and exceeds the highest standards of the United States Coast Guard for Arctic operations. To date, she is the most technologically advanced response vessel operating in the United States. With a crew compliment of 41, towing capabilities, and an onboard hospital, the Nanuq is the most uniquely equipped vessel of its kind.

Edison Chouest Offshore is no stranger to Oil-Electric. Remember the Joe Griffin story?

A US Coast Guard Sea King helicopter rendezvoused with the Tor Viking II, delivering a palletized Emergency Towing System.

The area is no stranger to marine casualties. Just to the south of Unalaksa, the PCC - Pure Car Carrier - Cougar Ace, came to grief when the engineering department accidentally caused the vessel to suddenly heel over, as they attempted to re-allocate ballast in stormy seas. The story of what to do with 4,703 new Mazda's is worthy reading.

The wreck of the M/V Seledang Ayu in May, 2005, claimed four lives and the downing of a US Coast Guard helicopter, stuck by a wave., The Seledang incident coated large areas of pristine and endangered environment with bunker diesel oil and hydraulic fluids.

Following the near grounding of the M/V Salica Frigo on March 9, 2007 the Mayor of Unalaska convened a Disabled Vessel workgroupto address the possibility of future groundings and to discuss local emergency response solutions. This initial meeting prompted the Emergency Towing System (ETS) workgroup; whose goal was to develop emergency towing capabilities for disabled vessels in the Aleutian Sub area.

CLICK TO READ

Through their efforts, an Emergency Towing System - ETS - was developed, containing all the equipment and lines required to connect locally available tugboats to distressed vessels, allowing them to be towed out of harms way. Talk about proactive, rather than rely on State or Federal assistance, The City of Unalaska put together the first ETS system, suitable for vessels up to 50,000 DWT, which became the model.

This prompted the State to act, with the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation purchasing a system capable of towing vessels greater than 50,000 DWT. ADEC maintains both packages staged in Unalaska, palletized and immediacy available to deliver to a causality by vessel or by helicopter.

Getting to the stranded vessel is the easy part. The trick is in passing a towline between the two vessels, bobbing erratically around in heavy seas. Included in that ETS package is a powerful rescue gun, used to fire a smaller diameter line to the distressed vessel.

Sounds easy. But it isn't. It very challenging. The smaller line is connected to the main towline, which the crew of the causality pulls aboard and secures. If they have power, like the Golden Seas does, that part in much easier, using a winch to retrieve the main towline.

By late Saturday, the Tor Viking had taken the Golden Seas in tow, with the Nanuq as escort and backup vessel.

To avoid continuing rough weather in the Bering Sea, the flotilla is in transit along a less direct route south of the Island Chain, with arrival in Dutch Harbor on Tuesday December 7th.

[Footnote rapeseed: Canola Oil is a Canadian invention. Rapeseed is used tomake Canola oil. Because advertising "rape" oil has the potential to discomfit people, "Canola Oil" was adopted. Pure rape oil is an industrial oil. It is not a food.

However, the rapeseed plant, part of the mustard family, was genetically engineered in Canada, creating a strain that produces a seed safe for human consumption. The name "Canola" was derived from,Canadian oil, low acid" in 1978."

Footnote Nanuq: Edison Chouest is active in the Gulf of Mexico and is now becoming a player in Alaska through Royal Dutch Shell, which has purchased theNanuq, and ordered a second from the company in support of its arctic oil and gas exploration program. When the icebreaker contract was announced in July 2009, Chouest spokesman Lonnie Thibodeaux told the Louisiana news site HoumaToday.com the project "could be small in comparison to what could come down the line."

Edison Chouest has become a major player in Shell's offshore exploration plans, with the company building state-of-the-art vessels equipped with the best technology available, said Curtis Smith, a Shell spokesman. The company built and operates Shell's existing ice-class anchor handler, The Nanuq, which Shell considers the centerpiece of its oil-spill response fleet, he said.

Shell is paying Edison Chouest $150 million for another arctic-class, ice-breaking supply ship, which will be the largest and most sophisticated vessel the company has ever built, according to Houmatoday.com. It's expected to take 1,000 employees two years and more than two million man-hours to build.

Shell's contract with Edison Chouest is not only an economic boom for the shipbuilder's home state of Louisiana but also for Alaska, where residents are helping operate Shell's ships, Smith said.

"The Nanuq was fully crewed by Alaskans and other Alaskans, including residents from Kaktovik and the North Slope, have been recruited to work/train on the (Edison Chouest fleet) around the world," Smith said in an e-mail. "It's our view this is a good example of the value proposition offshore exploration brings to the state -- especially coastal communities."

Contact Jill Burke at jill(at)alaskadispatch.com This e-mail address is being protected from spam]

Update: http://dec.state.ak.us/spar/perp/response/sum_fy11/101203201/101203201_index.htm

Shell Pushes Forward To Drill Well In Arctic - SHOW US A REAL "CLEAN UP" PLAN - NOT A BP CHEMICAL DISPERSANT 'HIDE IT' TECHNIQUE

Listen to the Story

Morning Edition

[4 min 48 sec]

• Add to Playlist
• Download
• Transcript

Shell's Nanuq was built especially for oil spill response cleanup in the Arctic Ocean. It can store 12,000 barrels of recovered oil. The 300-foot vessel is docked at Dutch Harbor, Alaska, for the winter.

December 24, 2010

The Deepwater Horizon accident last April put a halt to offshore drilling — not just in the Gulf of Mexico but in Alaska, too. Despite that, Shell is pushing ahead with plans to drill an exploratory well in the Arctic Ocean, in the Beaufort Sea off the north coast of Alaska.

The company has spent more than $3.5 billion on federal leases and preparations to drill in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas. So far, that investment hasn't returned a single dollar.

Lawsuits by environmental groups and Alaska native communities forced the company to scale back drilling plans in the Chukchi. Now, Shell is focused on an exploratory well in the Beaufort. The company hopes to drill this summer after the ice clears.

How It Would Respond To A Spill

Shell officials hope to demonstrate that the company is prepared to drill responsibly and it's ready to clean up an oil spill if something goes wrong.

Near the end of the Aleutian Island chain is Dutch Harbor and the city of Unalaska. Shell is storing equipment there over the winter, including the 300-foot cleanup vessel Nanuq.

"She's a wonderful vessel," says Geoff Merrell, the Alaska region emergency response coordinator for Shell.

The Nanuq can store 12,000 barrels of recovered oil and there are tools on board to collect crude from water. Merrell points to one that looks like a very thick feather boa.

"[It's] what we call a fox-tail skimmer and it's connected to a roller and a squeegee system," he says. "They're very effective at removing pockets of oil in and amongst ice flows."

There's also a huge roll of containment boom and another oil skimmer nearby. Merrell says the Nanuq could respond to a spill within an hour. And if it became necessary to drill a relief well, a second drilling rig would be standing by to do it.

Opposition To Drilling

Shell has a good safety record, but the Deepwater Horizon memory is still fresh, and environmental groups oppose the company's drilling plan.

"Our position is that right now we are not ready to drill in the Arctic Ocean," says Lois Epstein, Arctic program director for The Wilderness Society.

Epstein says more scientific research needs to be done in the Arctic before companies should be allowed to drill there.

EnlargeJeff Brady/NPR

Drilling rig Kulluk is specially built to work in the Arctic Ocean. Its round shape deflects ice floating in the water. If Shell is allowed to drill in the Beaufort Sea this summer, the Kullukwould be placed on standby to drill a relief well in case of a well blowout.

"We don't even know what animals are in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas in total, let alone how they interact and what they eat and at what times of year," says Michael LeVine, Pacific senior counsel for Oceana.

While 2,700 scientists around the world recently finished a decade-long Census of Marine Life, researchers admit there's still much to be learned about the Arctic Ocean.

When it came to oil and gas drilling, environmental groups felt ignored during George W. Bush's administration. The Obama White House appears to take their concerns more seriously, especially in the wake of the Deepwater Horizon accident. With indications that this administration is slowing down what had been an aggressive federal leasing program, environmental groups are asking big questions about the future of offshore drilling in Alaska.

"You might be able to run out and drill a well, or two wells, or three wells without having what happened in the Gulf of Mexico happen in the Arctic," LeVine says. "But is that a risk that you want to take?"

"We really need to decide, as a country, how important it is to get this oil," Epstein says. "We are not in an emergency situation where if we don't get this oil all of a sudden factories are going to have to shut down."

One Well Versus Hundreds Of Wells

Much of the concern from environmental groups appears to be less about the one well Shell wants to drill this summer, and more about what could happen if the company finds oil. If a production program were launched, that could mean hundreds of wells drilled in an area that is now mostly pristine.

"Any kind of a development would require a full-blown environmental impact statement," says Pete Slaiby, vice president of Shell Alaska. "It would be one of the most significant environmental impact statements that people have contemplated, probably, in North America."

You might be able to run out and drill a well, or two wells, or three wells without having what happened in the Gulf of Mexico happen in the Arctic. But is that a risk that you want to take?

- Michael LeVine, Pacific senior counsel for Oceana

Slaiby says Shell has plenty of experience working in the Arctic. The company started drilling in the Beaufort and the Chukchi seas in the 1960s. And he says the industry learned important lessons from the Deepwater Horizon accident about containing well blowouts and spills that could be applied to work in the Arctic.

While the exploratory well Shell wants to drill in the Beaufort next summer is similar to BP's Macondo well, Slaiby says, there are key differences.

"These wells have very, very different risk profiles," he says. "They're in shallow water pressure — a third of what we see in deep-water Gulf of Mexico."

And you can be sure, Slaiby says, the first well drilled is going to be under a lot of scrutiny. That's a point echoed by Michael Bromwich, the director of the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement (BOEMRE), the country's top offshore drilling regulator.

"We don't have a lot of activity in the Arctic," Bromwich says. "And so we are able to, even with limited manpower, make sure that we will be providing 24/7 regulatory oversight over the drilling of this well if we make the decision to approve the application."

Shell hopes to hear soon whether BOEMRE will approve its request for a drilling permit. The company says it needs time to prepare if it's going to drill this summer, though it hasn't set a hard deadline.

Bromwich says his agency feels no pressure to conduct its work faster in order to meet Shell's timeline.

"We understand that they would like to hear as soon as possible," Bromwich says. "We will try to let them know as soon as possible but our 'as soon as possible' is as soon as we've done the work that needs to be done."

'Our Whales Were Skittish'

Some of the native communities on the North Slope who hunt whales for food also oppose Shell's offshore drilling plan.

"In the past, when we've had a lot of activity, our whales were skittish," says Dora Leavitt from the village of Nuiqsut. "Our whalers were having to go 30 miles until they spotted just one whale."

That can be dangerous in the 20-foot boats Leavitt says are used for hunting. This issue is especially important for Leavitt because her 14-year-old son is among those going out in the boats to learn how to hunt whales.

"Now my 10-year-old, it's time for him to go and learn," says Leavitt. "I'm concerned for them because they're going to be going out with their dad and I want them to be safe."

Shell says it is working to address concerns of North Slope residents and the company has created programs to boost local economies.

Recently, Shell flew Leavitt and other North Slope leaders down to Dutch Harbor to see the company's equipment. As they were leaving for the bumpy plane ride back home, several of the visitors said they still oppose offshore drilling near their communities. But they hope the increased drilling will lead to good-paying jobs for their residents.

http://www.npr.org/2010/12/24/132257295/shell-pushes-forward-to-drill-well-in-arctic

Endangered Alaska: A time for understanding - A TIME FOR PUBLIC ACTION

Guest op-ed by Christopher Ives

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) was passed in 1973 during the height of the environmental movement, just after Governor Hickel left the Department of the Interior. At that time the overall concern was on the end effects of a listing and the changes that had to be made in order to fulfill the obligations of protection. Today the focus instead is whether a species should be listed at all.

This noticeable shift in perspective can be associated with a more recent push for listing Arctic-specific species, most of which have substantial populations and habitat in Alaska, to the Endangered or Threatened Species List. This push has arisen, notably, from the increased focus on global climate change and its exacerbated effects on Arctic ecosystems. The lack of definitive action by government and the private sector has driven nongovernmental organizations and environmental nonprofits to extremes, harnessing existing ESA legislation to support the regulation of green house gas emissions, and other causes of climate change. 
One such group, the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD), has been described as one of the most well-supported and formidable environmental groups in the country. The CBD has levied numerous lawsuits on state and federal government in recent years and collected thousands of public signatures for their campaigns to list Arctic species as endangered due to climate change. Their most notable achievement was the ‘preventative’ listing of the polar bear as ‘threatened’ in 2008—the only animal on the list whose numbers have remained stable and who occupies the full range of their habitat to this day.

Many in the resource development industries, however, view the CBD as irresponsible and ill-informed. For instance, they have supported the establishment of new restricted habitat areas in Cook Inlet for the Beluga whale, which could bring over 50 years of development to a standstill. An independent study commissioned by the Resource Development Council (RDC) suggested that there were no negative repercussions on the whales and that the original study’s estimate of a mere $600,000 in lost development revenue was grossly inadequate compared to RDC’s estimate of over $6 billion.

Further reports from Alaska’s communities have mentioned the ESA preventing vital economic development in and around rural villages. It is striking that Alaska and the United States have set a standard for development and success to which Alaska Natives are expected to aspire, yet the ESA—a preservation act—is now suppressing communities who have sustainably cohabitated with these animals for centuries prior to statehood.

The ESA states that economic analysis may not be used for determining the status of a species, yet oddlydoes allow its consideration in the designation of critical habitat areas, such as in the case of the Belugas of Cook Inlet. Like many regulations and laws developed in the lower 48, the ESA is probably not Alaska-specific enough and does not take into full account the importance of resource development to survival of the state.

There is indeed a disparity in the perceptions of what is best for Alaska. The potential for significant economic wealth within Alaska’s lands has fostered a limited visibility that does not always include long-term biodiversity needs. The support of a certain animal’s flourishing success, therefore, may be often mistakenly viewed as charitable rather than necessary to the overall health and sustainability of the vast, varied and often delicate state of Alaska’s ecosystems.

That said, the challenge is to find a way to address the efficacy of legislation that aims to support the overall resilience and stability of the entire ecosystem, inclusive of its many species, and the valuable natural resources it produces. It should not be a choice between economic growth and species preservation. There must be a middle way where the interconnectivity and mutual importance of both is recognized.

A middle way might include strengthening our partnership with stakeholder groups. By fostering a deeper connection with the federal government, for example, which is obliged under the ESA to work in unison with the State, Alaska might find itself in a position of leverage. Further research on species is also necessary to determine the real cost to industry and the industry’s effects on the environment, in both long and short terms.

With the news last week that the federal government will designate 187,000 square miles of coastal land and sea-ice as critical polar bear habitat—much of which could contain substantial reserves of oil—it is clear that the time for a clear, articulate understanding of our Arctic ecosystem (and the ESA) is now. Corporate profitability, propaganda, ulterior agendas, and ill-informed environmental conservatism appear to be hindering the cooperation needed to foster the sustainable development and vitality of Alaska’s environment and way of life.


http://www.anchoragepress.com/articles/2010/12/22/news/doc4d128ee67b91c082217242.txt





Adams's Defence can be read as an articulation of the classical republican theory of mixed government. Adams contended that social classes exist in every political society, and that a good government must accept that reality. For centuries, dating back to Aristotle, a mixed regime balancing monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy—that is, the king, the nobles, and the people—was required to preserve order and liberty.


Let us not forget that the PEOPLE need to be heard AND REPRESENTED - after all - it is their country.