Steve’s Say...

No radio commercial in the last month made me crazier than the Forest County Potowatomi ad which begins “Have you ever seen any oil wells in Wisconsin? How about coal mines?” and some other nonsense. As anyone familiar with Wisconsin politics knows, this ad, like most others of its kind, provides false and misleading information to try to sway public opinion to protect or enhance some political payout for an unnecessary, inefficient or ineffective product or service. In other words, a handout. Crony Capitalism. Welfare.

Here is the truth.

There is, in fact, a rather large and commercially viable deposit of OIL - that’s right - petroleum, Texas Tea, Black Gold right under Lake Michigan off of Ozaukee and Sheboygan Counties, in fact, all along it. How do I know? Don’t take my word for it.

DOI: 10.1306/03B59634-16D1-11D7- 8645000102C1865D geology of Central Lake Michigan R. J. Wold (2), R. A. Paull (3), C. AAPG Bulletin Volume 65 (1981)

The geology beneath Lake Michigan between 43°00^prime and 44°00^primeN and between 86°30^prime and 87°40^primeW is interpreted from a synthesis of 1,700 km of continuous seismic reflection profile data, bathymetry, grab samples, and onshore surface and subsurface information.

[Other Discussion]

The structural-stratigraphic cross sections also allow us to speculate about the petroleum potential beneath Lake Michigan. The possibility of oil occurrences within the Silurian is enhanced by major east-west facies changes, and other horizons with promise are present in Devonian and Ordovician rocks. Although Michigan and Wisconsin laws currently prohibit petroleum exploration in Lake Michigan, it is an area with future potential.

C’mon, Steve. This was 1981. Surely SOMEONE had to be interested and pursued this finding if it were so great. I think I can provide your answer by looking at the “CRS Report for Congress - Drilling in the Great Lakes: Background and Issues” (June 1, 2006). Let’s look at the report summary:

Drilling for oil and gas in or under the Great Lakes has generated interest among Great Lakes stakeholders, states, and Congress. Some opposed to drilling are concerned about the potential environmental, economic, and public health consequences. They contend that drilling will raise the risks of oil spills, hazardous gas leaks, and pollution that may harm lakeside residents and the Great Lakes ecosystem. Proponents of oil and gas drilling contend that drilling will increase local and regional tax revenues and employment, increase domestic energy production, and not be an environmental problem because of new technologies that lower the risks of oil spills and other accidents.

Issuing federal or state permits for new drilling operations under the U.S. portions of the Great Lakes was banned in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58, §386). Specifically, the provision enacts a permanent ban on the issuance of federal or state permits for new directional, slant, or offshore drilling in or under the Great Lakes. Congress had enacted a temporary ban on any new federal and state permits for drilling under the Great Lakes in 2001 (P.L. 107-66; Title V, §503) and extended it to 2007. This temporary ban was in addition to several state bans on drilling in or under the Great Lakes. In contrast to U.S. law, Canadian law permits onshore gas and oil drilling under the Great Lakes, and offshore gas drilling in the Great Lakes.

Some contend that the decision of whether to ban drilling is a state responsibility. The states have the authority to regulate the use of Great Lakes resources within their territory and have instituted a variety of approaches for dealing with oil and gas drilling. Yet Congress has broad authority to regulate both the navigable waters and oil and gas development. Some critics of federal action to prohibit drilling say that while Congress may have the authority to regulate or ban oil and gas drilling in or under the Great Lakes, such action might also constitute a “taking” of property for which just compensation would be required.

This report provides background information on historical and current drilling practices in the Great Lakes, and statistics on oil and natural gas production, where data are available. It describes state laws regarding drilling in the Great Lakes and analyzes the environmental, socioeconomic, and legal aspects of drilling in or under the Great Lakes. This report will be updated as events warrant.

Environmental concerns. Hmmm. I’ve heard this somewhere before. Let’s see what concerns these bureaucrats were concerned about. On page eleven of the report they explore the history of Oil and Gas releases in the Great Lakes:

Between 1973 and 2001, there were an average of 135 oil spills per year in the U.S. Great Lakes, ranging from 11 gallons to 179,912 gallons. The average total amount spilled per year in the Great Lakes is approximately 41,121 gallons. However, these spills originate from a variety of sources, including watercraft, shipping vessels, and power plants, and are not necessarily associated with drilling. To put these statistics in perspective, during the same period in the United States, there was an average of 1,712 spills per year in harbors along the eastern and western coasts of this country. In the State of Michigan, there have been no oil or gas spills associated with the 13 directionally drilled wells under the Great Lakes, according to insurance statistics. The Canadian Great Lakes have had 51 drilling-related natural gas spills from 1997 through 2001 and 83 reported petroleum spills (all sources) from 1990 to 1995. There has been one reported oil spill directly attributed to a drilling operation in the Canadian Great Lakes since 1959 and no reported oil releases from subsurface formations into overlying waters.

Call me a cold-hearted eco-destroyer, but that analysis sounds to me like a very LOW RISK activity with respect to the environment. One incident occurred, from the Canadian side mind you, since 1959 with no release to overlying waters.

What about todays technology. Is it safer? The next paragraph of the report states:

Advances in drilling technology have led to decreases in spills and releases, and lower footprints for drilling rigs, according to some industry advocates. Three-dimensional seismic imaging technology, for example, allows explorers to identify areas where commercial quantities of oil and gas may have accumulated. This technology provides a greater rate of success in finding oil and gas deposits and therefore could reduce the number of exploratory wells used to tap deposits. In some drilling operations, slimhole drilling is employed. Slimhole drilling is defined as drilling the smallest hole size to meet production objectives in the most cost-effective manner. This method decreases waste volumes and takes up as much as 75% less surface area than traditional wells. Other innovations include modular rigs which lower the footprint of drilling, as well as pipeline sensors that monitor for pipeline corrosion or wall defects.

Wow! Sounds pretty good to me. Let’s see what the report concludes from all of this analysis:

Oil and gas drilling under the Great Lakes is opposed by many who contend that the potential environmental risks associated with drilling do not justify the potential economic gain. Proponents of drilling, however, contend that risks associated with drilling are not high due to advances in drilling technology and safety, and that drilling would provide jobs and income for the states where it is done. Congress has weighed in on these issues and enacted a permanent ban on the issuance of new federal or state leases or permits for oil and gas drilling in or under the Great Lakes. This ban would only affect drilling in U.S.-controlled waters of the Great Lakes and would not affect Canadian production.

As this walk through the Great Lakes Drilling Ban shows, Congress resides in an alternative universe. (Note: this ban was enacted during the Republican led congress of 2006).

So back to the Forest County Potowatomi. You know, our good friends from Up North who are just looking out for all of us imbeciles in the state who are ecologically stunted. No oil wells. As you can see, it is not because the resources are not here, it is because good ol’ Uncle Sam has put them in his lock box. Sound familiar?

Now what about Coal? That dirty demon that has us by the shorts, providing Wisconsin with more than sixty-five percent of it’s electricity. Diverting all of that money to coal-mining states....Coal mining? It seems to me someone in Wisconsin does something with that....Let’s see.....

Here is a corporate statement of a South Milwaukee based company:

Bucyrus International, Inc. is a world leader in the design and manufacture of high productivity mining equipment for surface and underground mining. BUCYRUS surface equipment is used for mining coal, copper, iron ore, oil sands and other minerals, and underground equipment is used primarily for mining coal.

Wait! I know this company! It is one of the few remaining successful manufacturers left in Wisconsin. And it’s biggest operation is located right in the heart of Senator Jeff plale’s district. The same Senator plale that introduced the “Green Jobs” bill [Climate change energy efficiency omnibus bill SB-450] and co-chairs the senate committee responsible for public hearings and promulgating the legislation. The same bill that mandates 25% “Renewable” energy by 2025 and that the Forest County potowatomi claim will bring back money to Wisconsin that currently is leaving to those ruthless coal-mining states. Those same coal-mining states that are buying all of that atrocious mining equipment from Bucyrus International. You know, the guys with the very successful manufacturing facility in South Milwaukee, right in the heart of Jeff plale’s senate district.

Apparently coal-mining equipment manufacturing adds no value to the State of Wisconsin, at least according to the Forest County potowatomi. So you don’t need to be called Madam Joyce or be skilled at reading Tea Leaves to see that Senator Jeff plale is doing a better job of representing the Forest County potowatomi than the people of his own district.