Legislation watch
Most Recent Comments
1) Journal Statement by Senator McManus [by Admin002 on February 20, 2002]Senator McManus' second statement, in which Senator Shugars concurred, is as follows:
I just wanted to make a little point of clarification here to keep the debate on track.
My good buddy, the Senator from the 14th District, indicated that the Trust Fund was a few dollars and bought a few acres, and I kind of wanted to see what the definition of the word "few" was. People define words, you know, differently.
I find that Oakland County has received $45,592,000 from the Trust Fund. The good Senator's district has received $4 million from the Trust Fund. I know property in Oakland County is expensive, but I hope for $45 million, it got more than a few acres.
Reply
Senator McManus' first statement, in which Senator Shugars concurred, is as follows:
I would like these remarks printed in the Journal so that my children and my grandchildren and my great-grandchildren can read the stand that I took on this particular issue and the reasons why today.
First reason that I rise in opposition to this bill has to do with the Natural Resources Trust Fund, which is part of the Natural Resources Department budget that I happen to work on. This money that comes from oil and gas that's owned by the state of Michigan, which is all the oil and gas that happens to be under the Great Lakes bottomlands, will go into the Natural Resources Trust Fund. The income on that has been estimated to be possibly as high as $100 million. This money is used for preservation of farmland, for preservation of open space, sand dunes, wetlands, and so on.
I am from Traverse City, and for several years was on the rotary trust fund board for rotary charities in Traverse City, which back in the '30s bought land for a Boy Scout camp. On that land today there are five oil wells pumping--only five. The trust fund of rotary has given away $30 million to charity in our area--to hospitals, to the community college, to public schools, for environmental projects, and so on--and has $38 million in the corpus heading for $100 million. That's on five wells. By the way, we still conduct the Boy Scout camp amongst the oil wells and are not all concerned about the hype, the hits, and the 30-second media sound bites. This is a serious loss to the Natural Resources Trust Fund of this state, money which could be put away and the interest and the earnings used for preservation projects.
Secondly, this bill today is an insult to intellectual integrity. Are we going to lead by sound science or by the way the reeds blow in the wind? Sound science indicates that there is no problem with directional drilling. It's essentially gas; there's not much oil we are talking about. It's gas that we're after under the Great Lakes bottomlands. Why do we insist on vilifying an industry, the oil and gas industry of this state. That's the industry that provides the heat for our homes. You want to shut off your heat? That's the industry that cooks your food. You want to eat it raw? That's the industry that provides the gas for power plants to make electricity. You want to turn out the lights? That's the industry that provides fuel for your automobile. In the case of gas, it has to all come from a gas well someplace. Now I've stood on oil and gas well sites. I've seen the technology. I don't know how many of you have taken the time to do that. But if you think a heart catheter down at the University of Michigan is technology, where you stick something in a vein and go up through the vein and get to the heart and take a picture of what's going on, you ought to see oil and gas technology. They go down over 5,000 feet and make a turn and go laterally up to a half mile. Today their technology is superb, safe, and scientifically sound. Remember, that heart catheter only goes about four feet; they go a mile and a half.
Third, I oppose this because it's gut wrenching to see politicians make a decision based on public perception. Let's talk about that. I want to start with Galileo in the 1600s. Galileo, by scientific deduction, decided that the Earth revolved around the Sun. The Sun did not revolve around the Earth which was the public perception at the time. All those Italian politicians sat around smoking their cigars, and drinking their Chianti and decided that 90 percent of them said this guy doesn't know what he's talking about. So they called in the Inquisition and the Inquisition declared Galileo a heretic that he would put forth this scientific dogma that the Earth revolved around the Sun, rather than the other way around. They declared him a heretic, and put him under house arrest for the rest of his life because he talked sound science. Now in the end, who was right? Fifty years after he died, they finally woke up and erected a monument in front of the church. About 400 years later, the church finally removed his definition as a heretic. That's public perception.
Let's take Columbus in 1492. Public perception: The Earth is flat. If you get in the boat and sail west, farther than we can see from the land, you're going to drop off. All the politicians in that day said, "By golly, public perception is the Earth is flat." Except Columbus. He decided to give it a try. Found out that public perception, they really didn't know what they were talking about.
Let's take the women's right to vote. That's a good one. In 1776, the great forefathers of our country said, "All men are created equal." That didn't include women. Women didn't have the right to vote in this country until about 1920. It took 150 years for public perception, or public opinion, to come around to giving women the right to vote.
It's already been mentioned, but let's talk about slavery in the South. In the South, from about the 1600s until Abraham Lincoln come along in the 1860s, slavery was, under public perception and public opinion, the right thing to do. We fought a civil war over the issue. Hundreds of thousands got killed, finally making the point that it wasn't all right to do. But public perception from 1620 until 1860 thought it was the right thing to do.
So when you start making decisions based on sticking your finger up to the wind and determining what public perception is, we don't really need the Legislature. We'll just hook everybody up to a computer and the media can put out their 30-second sound bites and we will vote on the issue.
Now, it's interesting to me that the author of this bill comes from Sault Ste.Marie. There isn't any gas and oil under the Upper Peninsula, Lake Superior, upper Lake Michigan, or upper Lake Huron. It's interesting to author a bill from the bunker where you're not concerned. Now how will that U.P. legislator feel when public perception and opinion decides we can't cut down any more timber, we can't have any more iron mines because we don't like the look of the landscape, and we can no longer shoot Bambi? Where are we going to be then?
I want to, again, raise my voice in opposition, and say that if you do it here, who's going to be next? Are you going to ban farmers who produce the food because you don't like the fact--I'm not talking about you; I'm talking about the public. I realize that as politicals perception is reality, and we have to do what we have to do. This is fair warning. When they're done with the oil industry, I would say farmers will be next. Then loggers will be next, who provide the timber to build your houses with. Then the automobile people are going to be next because they pollute the atmosphere and so on and so forth. As Senators, I think you need to think carefully over this issue. Do you want to lead by sound science, or do you want to vote public opinion? If you vote public opinion, we might as well do that by computer.
Reply
I rise against House Bill No.5118 to ban directional drilling for oil and gas under the Great Lakes based on environmental, scientific, economic, and philosophical reasons.
Drilling at an angle from on shore to tap resources of gas and oil under the Great Lakes is environmentally sound, encourages greater American independence from foreign oil, and reduces the traffic of oil tankers on the Great Lakes. As we all know, Ontario has safely drilled over 2,200 natural gas wells under Lake Erie since 1913 without an environmental incident--2,200 natural gas wells under Lake Erie since 1913 without an environmental incident!
We seem to have focused on phantom environmental threats to our Great Lakes. More than 3,800 directional well bores have been drilled in Michigan without an incident, including 13 wells beneath the Great Lakes. The only risk identified with directional drilling cited by the Michigan Environmental Science Board was contamination at the wellhead, far from the water's edge. Our efforts should have been focused on a better process, and yes, explored further safeguards at the wellhead. But instead, for political motives, we condemn the whole directional drilling process, which has been proven safe.
Leaks from oil tankers pose a greater risk to the Great Lakes and our shoreline than directional drilling does. In 1999, five million tons of oil and oil-based products moved across the Great Lakes. This also includes boat fueling activities such as offshore refueling and marina-based fill-ups. If we ever suffer a tanker incident even remotely like the Exxon Valdez, let supporters of this ban explain how it's better than directional drilling.
Reply
View Full Conversation
