Michigan Votes Forum

Introduced in the House on October 2, 2001, to prohibit slant drilling for oil or gas beneath Great Lakes unless a state energy emergency has been declared by the legislature

The vote was 98 in favor, 7 opposed and 3 not voting

(House Roll Call 18 at House Journal 4)

Click here to view bill details.

Reps. Drolet, Vear, Bradstreet and Tabor made the following statement:

"Mr. Speaker and members of the House:

Slant drilling for oil and natural gas has occurred in Michigan for decades. It has been done safely, and all scientific examinations of the procedure indicate that the risk of harm to the Great Lakes ecosystem is tiny. Unlike off-shore oil platforms, an alternative that we do not allow in Michigan, this form of energy extraction bores deep beneath the lakebed from drilling sites located well back from the shoreline. Well-intentioned supporters of this legislation seek to avoid a repeat of the Exxon Valdez tanker spill in Alaska, but such a comparison is inapt. Tankers and oil platforms float oil on or pump it directly through the body of water. In the Great Lakes, oil and water are presently separated by a lot of rock and earth. Slant drilling is specifically designed to keep it that way.

Recreational boaters in Michigan cruise the waterways loaded with nearly a million barrels of gasoline every year. They purchase a lot of it from more than 200 Michigan marinas that are licensed to store fuel very close to the water. Meanwhile, commercial petroleum tankers now float 50 million barrels of petroleum across the Great Lakes every year. Tanker trucks carry more than six billion gallons of petroleum down Michigan highways, right past countless inland lakes and rivers, every year. While none of this activity is desirable in a perfect world, we could not survive economically without most of it. The logic that would have us ban slant drilling would apply with substantially greater force to each and every one of these activities.

The science and the timing of this proposal are wrong. Two months ago, President Bush signed House Resolution 2311, which prohibits Great Lakes' mineral extraction leases for two years. During this time, the Army Corps of Engineers will conduct yet more scientific studies regarding the safety of slant drilling. There has been no shortage of caution and care regarding this issue. Common sense and scientific study have and will continue to be applied to this matter before any decisions are made regarding future energy extraction from the fuel located deep underneath the Great Lakes. Though well intentioned, this legislation is irrelevant regarding both the problem and the solution."

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.

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.

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.

I rise to oppose House Bill No.5118. As someone who has lived in Michigan most of my life, I, too, am interested in protecting the Great Lakes. I don't think this should be a partisan issue. As Republicans, Democrats, Independents, or whatever party we belong to, it is something that is a precious resource, and we should protect it. However, this being an election year, I think that politics has gotten into the debate. We've seen the science and the science says it's okay to do this. Unfortunately, not everyone has all the facts, and as a result, the public has been led to believe that it is unsafe when actually the opposite is true. And while the scientific report did say that they could not guarantee that there wouldn't be any problems in the future, there are no guarantees in life except death and taxes, and we're trying to reduce taxes.

We have come to a point where we are once again trying to shape policy based on politics. I don't believe that's the way we ought to do it. If we were to tackle this issue, we should do it out of the spotlight of an election year where we can sit down. I appreciate the fact that we had a task force that put together some good work. I don't necessarily agree with all of their recommendations. I could support a moratorium, but unfortunately, that's not before us. When I'm faced with a choice of whether to ban or not to ban, this time I'm going to have to oppose the ban because the science says it's okay to do it, I'm afraid politics has gotten into it, and we shouldn't have had politics mixed up into this issue. So, therefore, I will be opposing House Bill No.5118.

I would agree with one thing the previous speaker said: It is an historic day. It's also a sad day for the Michigan oil and gas industry in this state. Mr.President, I rise to oppose this bill. There have been those who have argued that we ought to have a ban because directional drilling will spoil beaches and put at risk the ecosystems along our precious Great Lakes. They've also argued that there are only limited reserves, so why take the risk? Let's go ahead and ban it. They've argued that banning directional drilling will prevent another Nordhouse Dunes. So to prevent the loss of money by repeating Nordhouse Dunes, we ought to ban it. They've argued that we should ban directional drilling because the DNR and DEQ do not comply with all the 17 recommendations of the Governor's Environmental Science Board, so we should ban it. They've argued that 70 percent of the people are opposed as well as all five candidates for Governor, so therefore, we should ban it.

Mr.President and colleagues, I want to take each of these issues on frontally because there are distortions in each of them, and they're simply not true. Let's talk on the first one. Directional drilling will spoil the echo systems around and put at risk the beaches. There's been a number of articles written, in particular by those who were in a position to know. One, in particular, I want bring to your attention is from Mr.Harrison who wrote a letter to good Senator Sikkema. He was a member of the Michigan Environmental Science Review Board panel. They concluded in that panel that there was no risk or very negligible risk. The panel was emphatic and unanimous in its conclusion that there is little to no risk of contamination to the Great Lakes bottom or water through releases directly above the bottom hole portion of the well. In fact, thousands of wells of this type are drilled every year, and tens of thousands have been drilled since the technology was invented more than 50 years ago. In fact, the main purpose for directional drilling of wells in many locations is exactly to prevent problems in the sensitive surface environmental locations. The safety record for directional drilling wells is actually better than vertical wells. This gentleman was a member of that panel.

The panel concluded that it is possible to have directionally drilled wells in some areas along the coastal areas, providing certain technologies were applied and that permit requirements ensure reasonable protection to the environment. I am confident that the new regulations developed by the DNR and DEQ will satisfy the panel's concerns here. At no time did the panel feel that a total ban on drilling, as suggested by some, was a reasonable alternative and was certainly not in the spirit of compromise or intended. And he concludes as follows, which is telling, I think: "I realize that this issue has a lot of political ramifications, but being among the leadership of this wonderful state also demands responsibility to the truth, not to the distortions that are concocted to suit individual agendas."

So the fact of the matter is that it's just not my opinion; it's the opinion of a gentleman who is a professor and director of the Michigan Base and Core Research Laboratory who is suggesting to us that we ought to look at the science of this rather than the hysteria and emotions.

Mr.President, last night as I was thinking about directional drilling, they had a piece on the local television, and they were talking about how the Senate is about to take up this ban. What you saw on the background was a picture of the Great Lakes, and the suggestion was that the Senate is about to ban some risky activity that will drill right into the Great Lakes when, in fact, nothing can be further from the truth. Directional drilling is more than a quarter of a mile from the beaches off the Great Lakes. Every foot they drill is a foot farther from the Great Lakes, not closer. The science has proved itself over time. This state has drilled more than 13 wells, but Canada has been drilling wells since 1913. Thousands of directional drilling wells have occurred, and they've stood the test of time.

If, in fact, I would submit to you directional drilling had the potential to cause ecosystem disasters, where's is the smoking gun? For the past 30 years enterprising reporters have had an opportunity to turn their camera on some floating oil and say this is what will happen unless you ban directional drilling. But they haven't done it. Why? Because we haven't spilled any oil. Well, what we have on our beaches, and if you want to go out to Metro Beach and see it, is not muck caused from oil; it's muck caused from discharge from sewage systems. Why don't we ban that? If you go up to the Saginaw Bay and look upon the shoreline, do you see any oil coming over from Canada? No.An enterprising reporter can't even turn his camera on there and say this is what will happen if you allow directional drilling because it's all muck and discharges from sewer systems. We should ban that.

He said there are only limited reserves, so why take the risk? Well, we don't know what the reserves are. Canada would love for us to ban it. Ontario province has written to us and said they aren't going to ban it. They would love to have all that oil because they ship it back to us at 20,000 barrels an hour in two 24-inch diameter pipes coming right across the Straits. They ship it to us. They've been in the business since 1913, and they haven't spilled any oil. Their beaches are pristine and clean. But we should ban it here and then we can buy it from them or Muammer Khadafi. We don't know what the reserves are because we can't find it under the Great Lakes as we can on land, and that's how we determine what reserves are. So technology for determining the reserves under the Great Lakes simply doesn't exist.

Banning additional drilling will prevent another Nordhouse Dunes. Well, I want to refer you to another letter that was prepared by Mika, Meyers, Beckett & Jones, PLC. In that letter they said, "Michigan case law has expressly upheld the state's authority to deny a drilling permit as to lands covered by a state lease against the constitutional challenge based on the takings clause. The current form of oil and gas lease used by the MDNR contains a provision expressly stating that the granting of the lease is not an authorization to drill and that the issuance of a drilling permit is subject to a separate approval of the supervisor of wells, thereby excluding any right or entitlement to permit from the property interest conveyed by the lease." When we get down to the discussion of what does this have to do with Nordhouse Dunes, they say instead that the claim being Nordhouse Dunes was a claim based on the state's taking of privately-owned minerals and the oil and gas leasehold interests in those minerals. So Nordhouse Dunes has nothing to do with this issue at all.

Now, they've argued we should ban directional drilling because the DNR has not complied with all the 17 recommendations of the Governor's Environmental Science Board. Alright, let's put them in statute. Why ban directional drilling? We heat homes for ten million Michiganders here with Michigan oil and gas, so we're going to heat homes by banning seeking further oil and gas. That makes a lot of sense.

It's been argued that 70 percent of the people are opposed as well as the candidates for Governor. Well, if all the candidates for Governor are opposed to this bill, why do we need the bill? We're not going to directional drill. So you don't need to ban it because they're going to do it for you. If 70 percent of the people are opposed, I give credit to the media. Sometimes I call it Jed Clampett journalism, and Jed Clampett journalism is what we do is present one side of the story again and again and again. Then we ask somebody, "Do you want to ruin the Great Lakes?" They say, "No, I don't want to ruin the Great Lakes." And we ask another person, "Do you want to ruin the Great Lakes?" "No, I don't want to ruin the Great Lakes." Pretty soon we've got 70 percent of the people. Then we have politicians who run and they lift their finger and say, "Seventy percent of the people are against this." Science, right or wrong, truth right or wrong, we're going to vote to ban directional drilling. Well, I would hope the Senators here today would think long and hard before you press the green button because, in my judgment, when you press the green button today, you're pressing the button to export high-paying jobs out of this state to some other state. And you're saying to the Michigan public, the mining people up there who have lost their jobs, and the steel industry people we were fighting to try to keep their jobs, that's not important to us because we'll make our living on broadband. We'll make our living and do all sorts of things--maybe flipping burgers. But we ought to be about giving discounts to those who would risk their capital directional drilling rather than trying to ban them all together.

We're going at this exactly backwards. I rue the day that this came up because only three months ago this caucus was solid in its support, support of our friends, and support our public be ensuring that the gas and oil they need to heat their homes and move their vehicles would be there for them now and in the future. Today we put that at risk. Today we say to Michigan oil and gas that we're going to put a placard on you, and we're going to treat you the same way as our ancestors treated those in Salem, Massachusetts, some 300 years ago. If 70 percent of us declare you're a witch, you must be a witch, so we'll hang you. And the same thing with the Jim Crow laws that occurred not too many years ago in Alabama and Mississippi. Seventy percent of the surrounding people say we're going to hang you, let's hang you and make a criminal out of you. That's what we're doing today. We're putting a placard on Michigan oil and gas and saying we're going to hang you. We can't come up with any solution that would make drilling for oil and gas here to make sense to us, so we'll just ban it--it's easy. Get it out of mind; get it out of sight because we have an election to run. Seventy percent of the people are behind us; never mind the truth; never mind justice; let's just get elected. I say, "Phooey."

It would just seem to me that both sides in this debate are doing what they believe to be right.

It would occur to me that much of what we heard today--even if we pass this ban--should circumstance a change in the world that the public can respond and that the Legislature can respond. The threat to the Great Lakes, however, is something that everyone seems to have decided that any risk at this point in time is unacceptable. I think that it's truly the public sentiment. I believe every resident in the state of Michigan believes that the Great Lakes are in their back yard.

I have swam in these lakes as a child; I've watched my children swim in them. And while I have always prided myself on being a proponent of science and of rational thought, I do, myself, understand the public sentiment that at the present time, there is not acceptable risk to the Great Lakes that we should run the risk of incurring. That's why I'm going to support this, cognizant of the fact that the science is sound; cognizant of the fact that the public is aware of the minimal risk, but also personally aware that the public, in my mind, is correct that that is not a risk that we should incur at this time.

I rise in support of this legislation, and I think there are several things that have been said here which kind of brought me to an alarm.

I think the alarm is this: We do have a responsibility in many cases to provide leadership, and in many cases, we have the responsibility to show that a good leader is one who listens. There's no doubt, no matter what side you are on on this issue, the truth of the matter is that people don't feel that this should take place at this time. So if there's any kind of responsibility that should be laid upon us, especially for those who believe in this, it would be the lack of education around the issue of whether or not this will be safe or not. That became one particular point because then I began to listen to some of the other conversations which talked about the people from Wayne County.

I remember talking to people about this issue from all parts of this state, and some even saying, "Well, in Wayne County you have a river; you don't even have a lake." What came to my attention at that time was that there is a lack of understanding, geographically, about how people feel about specific resources of which we all share, regardless of where we come from. But the truth of the matter is that people in Wayne County want a young Wayne County, and the people of a young county, want a good Wayne County. A good Wayne County includes quality of life which includes clean, safe, drinkable water. I think we have to realize that this is projected throughout all of the water resources that we have in the state of Michigan.

I think what we fail to see here and what we need to look at is one particular thing: People at this point in time do not believe that we should directional drill in our Great Lakes, and I think we ought to follow their advice. For that reason, I would hope that we'd support this piece of legislation.

I support the bill and express purpose in this bill, but I take particular difference to the remarks made by the Senator from the 21st District when he repeated, "There is no problem with this type of drilling." But there is a problem. It is your perception of problems and my perception of problems. Think about the ecstatic value of that waterfront. Go on down to Kingsville, Ontario, or Leamington and see for yourself. Is this the kind of sight you want to see on the beautiful Great Lakes, oil drilling?

I rise in support of House Bill No.5118. This is an historic day for the Michigan State Senate in that we are taking up some legislation that has been in the works for a long time. In fact, I introduced this bill four years ago, and at the time that I introduced it, folks said this would never pass and that the oil and gas lobby in the state was too strong and we would never get a ban on directional drilling underneath the Great Lakes.

Well, it looks like today we may very well get that ban. I'm certainly very hopeful that the Senate will vote in favor of this bill, it will get signed into law by the Governor, and we will put in force some significant protection for the bottomlands of the Great Lakes.

It has always been my concern that it was essential to keep drilling operations and drilling rigs away from that shoreline of Michigan, which is some of the most fragile ecosystems that we have here in the state.

Also when you look at the reserves that we believe are underneath the Great Lakes, they are very small relative to what we even use here in the state of Michigan. If we were to open up drilling underneath the Great Lakes, it would have no meaningful impact on what consumers pay at the gas pump. It would have no impact on what consumers pay to heat their homes, but on the other hand, it would potentially put our Great Lakes at risk for contamination or certainly risk to some of the fragile ecosystems that exist along those shorelines. So it was important to put forward a ban on this practice.

It was something that was widely supported by the public of the state of Michigan. Most public opinion polls show that around 70 percent of the people of the state of Michigan believe very strongly and passionately that there should not be drilling underneath the Great Lakes. It also has the support of practically every editorial board of every major newspaper in the state of Michigan.

It took some work getting to where we are today. We've had a series of hearings across the state engaging the public in this issue. I think by the fact that this bill is before us today, we're having an opportunity to vote on it, and we're going to do it in a bipartisan fashion that shows the power of the electorate and that the voice of the people of the state of Michigan is important. I would urge adoption of this important piece of environmental legislation.

Senator Peter's second statement, in which Senator Smith concurred, is as follows:

I didn't intend to come up for a second time to talk about this issue, but I think it's important to perhaps address some of the issues that have been brought up by two of the previous speakers, which are arguments that I heard over the years as I've been working on this and have held hearings across the state of Michigan. We've heard these arguments, and some of these arguments have come before the Senate in the past. I think it's important to reiterate where this legislation is going, why it is important, and why the people of the state of Michigan rightly are opposed to it and I believe are doing it in good faith and are informed on the issue.

We have heard quite a bit of discussion about the importance of the oil and gas industry. This bill in not an attack on the oil and gas industry. There are plenty of opportunities throughout the state of Michigan to safely drill for oil and gas. The industry will continue to explore those areas and will continue to be profitable in the state of Michigan--not to mention the tremendous natural gas reserves that exist throughout the United States that are drilled on a daily basis that will continue. This is not a bill against the oil and gas industry.

There's also been a discussion about the importance of oil and gas, and anybody who is in support of this bill understands the importance of oil and gas, understands the importance of fueling our cars and of heating our homes. But we also understand another very important element of this and that's the importance of fresh water. Michigan is blessed with a tremendous reserve of fresh water, close to one-third of the reserves that are in this entire world reside around Michigan. Many members of the Senate may have read a recent New York Times article. In fact, it was a headline in the New York Times talking about fresh water is the oil of the 21st century. It is the most important commodity as we move forward in an increasingly thirsty world. People who support this bill are concerned about ensuring the integrity of that resource.

We've heard talk about sound science, and we do acknowledge that the science board mentioned that there was limited risk to the lakes themselves by drilling underneath the bottomlands, but it's important to know that they cannot guarantee that there is no risk. When you're dealing with a commodity as important as fresh water and the reserve as important as the Michigan Great Lakes from a drinking water standpoint, not to mention an ecstatics and recreation standpoint. People in the state of Michigan believe any risk at this point is unacceptable.

The science board also acknowledge in clear terms that there is risk to sensitive ecological areas along our shoreline properties that need to be dealt with, and the DNR needs to develop regulations. We've heard that the DNR will be able to develop those and will be able to enforce those. But as I've had hearings across the state the Michigan, I've heard a much different story from folks who deal with oil and gas drilling near their homes, who have to live with oil and gas wells. In fact, we heard some incredibly compelling testimony from Filer Township, just south of Manistee, where some directional drilling wells currently operate there and are continually putting out noxious fumes that have actually sent people to the hospital; noxious fumes that have actually created health problems that still linger today with those individuals; noxious fumes that have shut down streets and have forced the evacuation of neighborhoods. We have to ask ourselves is that a use that is compatible with fragile shoreline property in the state of Michigan? Is that a land use that we want to promote at this time? People who support this bill believe no, it is an incompatible land use, and it is not necessary. There are plenty of other areas to drill, certainly areas away from residential areas that tend to be along our coastal shorelines.

We've also heard that there is quite a bit of resource under the Great Lakes. We know from at least from our own Department of Natural Resources and state of Michigan geologist estimates that there's a very limited amount of oil and gas underneath the Great Lakes. It has been estimated that with just what we use in this state, there is less than a three-week supply of oil and less than an eight-week supply of natural gas. And it's fairly clear that if we were to open up the bottomlands for oil and gas exploration, it would have no impact on what people have at the gas pump. It will have no impact on what they pay to heat their home, but at the same time, there still will exist the risk to endanger not only valuable shoreline property, but the Great Lakes, the most precious natural resource that we have.

The previous speaker talked about Canada's drilling it out and sending it down through the Straits of Mackinac and that natural gas is coming into the states. What he didn't say is the gas that's coming through those pipelines isn't coming from the Great Lakes. It's coming from western Canada where there are tremendous reserves of natural gas that will be tapped for scores of years, maybe a 100 years plus, and we have those reserves in the western United States as well.

Regarding the discussions about sound science in drilling operations and how safe they are today, this bill does not preclude us from drilling at some point in the future. We may be in the situation where the people of the state of Michigan determine that that valuable resource should be exploited underneath the Great Lakes, and this law can change. Can you imagine what the science of drilling will be 50 years from now? It will be much better than it is today and may indeed even provide close to a guarantee of no danger. Just look at where drilling operations are today versus where they were 50 years ago. You know that the science of drilling has progressed at an incredible rate, and it will likely continue to progress over the next 50 years. That opportunity will exist for a future Legislature to debate and a future citizenry of the state of Michigan to debate as to whether or not to open it. What the people are saying here in the state of Michigan today in clear and no uncertain terms. As I've mentioned before, previous speakers, and nearly 70 percent of the people of this state are saying we do not need to open up those bottomlands to be drilled today. It is not necessary.

Now I heard a previous speaker, the Senator from the 34th District, say that the Republican Caucus in the past had held firm in support of our friends. I know we've debated this issue, and the oil and gas lobby is very strong in this state. The previous speaker talked about how the caucus was in support of our friends, and we all know that's politician-speak for special interest. Well, I hope that we look beyond those special interests, and we look to those people of the state of Michigan.

We heard the previous speaker talk about how gut wrenching it is for politicians to listen to the public and the public perceptions of what they would like done with their property--owned by the taxpayers of this state of Michigan the bottomlands of the Great Lakes. I take a different view. I don't think that's gut wrenching. I think it's refreshing that elected officials in the state of Michigan will listen to their constituents and will vote according to the wishes of their constituents. To me, that's the way the democratic system works. It's the way it's supposed to work. And as I mentioned in my first comments, this is an historic day in that we will see, I hope, the Michigan Legislature indeed voting along the lines of the people of the state of Michigan and their desires and ban directional drilling underneath the Great Lakes.

We certainly have a choice, and the previous speaker talked about the Natural Resources Trust Fund in that this may cost the fund some money. Well, the trust fund is designed that when we open up protected areas or sensitive areas that the people of the state of Michigan can still get some return from those reserves or even in nonprotected areas can get some return from those natural resources. That is one option we have as policymakers. With that trust fund we can buy land and permanently protect that land for future generations by having it owned by the state of Michigan, purchased with funds from the Natural Resource Trust Fund. However, the other option that we could use is to regulate or protect land with legislation, and that's what this bill is doing. The people of the state of Michigan are saying rather than getting some money in the Natural Resource Trust Fund and buying a few acres of sensitive land, why don't we protect all of the valuable shoreline along Lake Michigan and along our Great Lakes and permanently ban directional drilling under the Great Lakes. To me, that's a much more effective way of protecting this resource than perhaps buying a few acres and putting it in the public trust. We can put all of that area in public trust.

So in summary, this bill is complying with the voters of the state of Michigan and their strong desires. It is protecting a very valuable resource in our Great Lakes, as well as protecting the resource of oil and gas that are perhaps for future generations. It is not an attack on the oil and gas industry. It is prudent land management. It is using the Legislature to protect a valuable resource and following the wishes of the people of the state of Michigan, and I would urge adoption.

I've listened to the debate, and I certainly don't begrudge anyone for their position on this issue. Good people can differ. But I do think some of the comments need a response.

First and foremost is the issue that we ought to rely on sound science, in that sound science would lead you to allow directional drilling in the Great Lakes. The desire to rely on sound science is a good one. In fact, that's exactly what was attempted here.

A few years ago the Governor imposed a moratorium on any new leases of Great Lakes bottomlands and requested the Michigan Environmental Science Board to look at the issue and make some recommendations. That board did that. One of their recommendations and one of the more significant ones is that prior to leasing any Great Lakes bottomlands, we should do a major environmental impact study to identify prior to leasing where, if anyplace, you would allow drilling. That particular recommendation has been rejected by the Department of Natural Resources and the Department of Environmental Quality. They rejected it last fall. It just strikes me that you can't have it both ways here. You can't say let's rely on sound science, and then when the very scientists you asked to render an opinion and recommendations give that to you, you reject it.

It's also been said that the environmental impacts of directional drilling on the Great Lakes shoreline are minimal. The Great Lakes Conservation Task Force had eight public hearings last fall and took testimony on a variety of issues. Senator Gast, by the way, is right. The one issue that we got more public input on more than any other was the issue of sewage contamination. But, be that as it may, environmental impacts to shoreline from oil and gas are there. There are environmental impacts. There is considerable testimony about problems related to oil and gas development. This is not a risk-free business. Nobody pretends that it is. But it is not accurate to say or to assert that there are no or very little environmental impacts to the shorelands when you allow directional drilling.

It's also been said that if we don't drill these resources, Canada will take these resources. Well, that's inaccurate. The oil reserves under the Great Lakes bottomlands owned by the state of Michigan are not going to be subject to a risk that any other state or Canadian province will somehow get at those resources. Those reservoirs, those reserves, from everything we know from the oil and gas industry, are under the Michigan-owned bottomlands. Those oil reserves aren't going to go away. They will be there for any future emergency if we really do have an energy emergency.

Let me just take a couple of minutes on one of the more significant issues here. That is, if we allow the leasing of Great Lakes bottomlands today, we are subjecting the state taxpayers to a very significant financial risk. That is because of this bifurcated nature of allowing oil and gas development in Michigan, where we lease land and then months later, sometimes years later, we make decisions on drilling permits. The problem with that system, and we've run into it twice now in the last 30 years in this state, is that when you lease land for oil and gas development and you issue a development lease and the state agencies responsible for environmental protection pronounce when they do that that it's safe to drill for oil and gas, you create the presumption that we're going to allow drilling. Then, if months or years later, you deny a drilling permit for whatever reason, whether it's political or whatever, you subject the taxpayers of this state to enormous financial risk. This Legislature, this Senate and the House, experienced it a few years ago where we had to appropriate $90 million of taxpayer money in the famous Nordhouse Dunes case, or I should say infamous Nordhouse Dunes case. It would be foolish for us to ignore that.

Now the statement has been made that if we drill for oil and gas under the Great Lakes, somehow we're going to reduce our reliance on foreign oil. Ladies and gentlemen, Michigan is not a big producer of gas. We never have been. We never will be. Whatever oil and gas we take from state bottomlands or on shore is not going to reduce our reliance on foreign oil one iota. That same argument was made in the late '70s and early '80s when the then-famous oil controversy, the Pigeon River case, that if we didn't allow drilling in the Pigeon River, we were going to increase our reliance on foreign oil. We actually allowed it, and our reliance went up.

Now let me finish my comments by saying we have a long history in this state of protecting certain areas from oil and gas development. This is not unprecedented. You can't drill for oil and gas in the northern two-thirds of the Pigeon River Country. You can't drill for oil and gas in the Jordan River Valley. You can't drill for oil and gas in the Mason Tract. You can't drill for oil and gas in other parts of this state where we have said for environmental reasons, recreational reasons, aesthetic reasons, or cultural reasons that this area is going to be off limits. This is not a unique step. There's precedent for it. There's no question that the public sentiment is strongly against it. And when you add on top of that the fact we're not following all the recommendations of the Michigan Environmental Science Board, I think that seals the case. I hope you will join me in voting for this bill, getting it back over to the House where I assume they will concur in the changes we have made, and send it to the Governor for this signature.

I rise to support House Bill No.5118. Through the course of the discussion today, we have heard repeatedly that the Canadians have been drilling in the Great Lakes since 1913 and that they have been drilling without incident. Between 1997 and 2001, the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources has documented 51 oil and gas leaks from their rigs around the Great Lakes. So it isn't without incident. It isn't totally without risk.

If I can echo the Senator from the 9th District, the science may be there, but the public understanding of what it wants for its Great Lakes is that there be no drilling, that resources be protected for the future generations, that we as citizens do something different rather than drilling, and that we might consider conserving and alternative fuel sources and protect our natural resources into the future.

It isn't an emotional decision. It's a rational decision based on other factors and other priorities. I think the citizens have spoken. I think it's up to the Legislature to reflect that decision.

Looks like most of you legislators are the victims of a Michigan Public Schools education! Do you understnand slant drilling at all??? Do you understand that this does not impact the Lakes AT ALL? Do you understand you are simply bowing to your unthinking environmental gods once again . .and sacrificing the long-term economic health and well-being of your constituents by doing this? If you cant understand the very simple physics of slant drilling, perhaps you can understand THESE physics: I CAN SEE NOVEMBER FROM MY HOUSE!!!