EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Report: Toxic Chemicals Found in Thousands of Children's Products
- Move Over, Koch Brothers: A Bigger, Darker Rightwing Funder Is Out to Destroy Public Education
- You and Your Family Are Guinea Pigs for the Chemical Corporations
- The Life and Death of Words, People, and Even Nature
- After Boston, Eyes-Wide Open Hope?
Popular content
Today's Top News
Suit Seeks Ban on Oil Companies Disturbing Wildlife
ANCHORAGE, Alaska - Two environmental groups on Tuesday filed a lawsuit seeking to overturn new federal regulations that grants permission to oil companies working in the Chukchi Sea to disturb the polar bears and walrus that live there.
The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Anchorage, challenges regulations issued last month by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service that allow "incidental takes" of the animals, meaning permission to disturb or accidentally harass them as long as such actions do not result in physical injury or death.
Tuesday's lawsuit, filed by the Center for Biological Diversity and Pacific Environment, is the latest volley in legal challenges over protections for polar bears and other animals from expanded oil development in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas off Alaska.
"It may seem like we're filing a lot of lawsuits," said Brendan Cummings, oceans program director for the center.
"But the fundamental thing is they're all really focusing on the same fundamental issue, which is protecting polar bear habitat in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas."
A spokesman for the Fish and Wildlife Service declined to comment on Tuesday's lawsuit but defended the incidental-take regulations, which are meant to be in effect for five years.
"We believe that the incidental-take regulations are a valuable conservation tool," said Bruce Woods, spokesman for the service's Alaska headquarters.
Polar bears were listed in May as threatened under the Endangered Species Act, and a petition is pending that would give similar protections to the Pacific walrus.
The remote and ice-choked Chukchi, which lies between northwestern Alaska and northeastern Siberia, is emerging as a hot oil prospect.
After many years of scant industry activity, Royal Dutch Shell Plc and other oil companies earlier this year moved aggressively to pick up exploration acreage.
A lease sale held by the U.S. Minerals Management Service in February drew a record $2.66 billion in high bids, with $2.1 billion of that from Shell. Shell currently holds a permit from the MMS to do seismic testing in the Chukchi this year to evaluate the geology there.
Industry activity is also accelerating in the Beaufort Sea off Alaska's northern coast. Shell, which spent $44 million on leases there in 2005 and $39 million in 2007, is seeking to explore a prospect it calls Sivulliq.
BP Plc, meanwhile, has plans to develop its offshore Liberty prospect, a 100-million-barrel oil field that would be the first producing oil field located entirely in federal waters off Alaska.
But environmentalists and the area's Inupiat Eskimos are alarmed at what they consider to be an industry rush into critical habitat for whales, polar bears and other Arctic animals already imperiled by the warming climate.
"It's an unfortunate convergence that as global warming impacts in the Arctic are accelerating and putting polar bears and walrus under deep stress, the only thing keeping pace with that is the rate of authorizing oil development in their habitat," Cummings said.
Tuesday's lawsuit came just days after a federal judge in Anchorage rejected a similar complaint concerning impacts to whales and seals from planned seismic tests this year by BP and Shell.
U.S. District Court Judge Ralph Beistline last week dismissed that lawsuit, which had been filed by Inupiat villagers and environmental groups challenging permits granted by the National Marine Fisheries Service and the MMS.
The "balance of hardships" weighs in favor of the agencies, BP and Shell, "who have invested significant time and expense in preparing for the scheduled activities," Beistline said in his July 2 ruling. "Moreover, the public interest in energy development favors upholding the permits."
Cummings said an appeal has already been filed.
© Thomson Reuters 2008
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...

7 Comments so far
Show AllI don't suppose there is even any irony left in the Jeckyll and Hyde factor. BP (Beyond Propaganda) and (s)Hell have mounted huge tv ad campaigns using Central Casting's best crunchy granola, eco-scientist types to hype the good works these corporate marauders are doing to save the planet from burnt fossil fuel destruction.
.
The "balance of hardships"?! Exactly what kind of "hardships" would the bears (or humans, for that matter) have to endure to outweigh profitability considerations for "the agencies".
There you have it, folks. Survival on earth and life itself is secondary to financial investments. We knew that, of course, but it's now a legally established precedent.
These greed mongers won't rest until they destroy every last pristine wilderness on earth. georgie has been hellbent and determined to drill in the arctic and the more congress tells him NO the harder he fights. Bet he didn't share his toys or his monopoly money as babs little hellion. It's been reported that he used to enjoy blowing up live frogs with firecrackers. Fitting, ya think?
There have always been greed mongers. The problem arises when there the total population explodes and gives us more of them.
Luckily for the greed mongers, it now appears that they need only invest "significant time and expense in preparing for the scheduled activities", to make further pursuit of those activities unchallengable regardless of their nature or consequences.
It would seem that Catch-22's satirical commentary was highly prescient at many levels.
Once again most Americans will not understand what is at stake. This is more than about animal rights and habitat preservation, this is about our ability to search for efficient energy after oil - yet if there is potential for profit big oil won't let something like mammal welfare get in the way.
This should be front page news on every newspaper in America but, if it makes any newspapers at all, will be buried.
If you'll notice, at times, the "well to do" are putting up wind and solar (such as King Georges' dad). He has a Skystream producing electricity. Everyone knows Oil is finite. The Billionare in Texas (Pickens) is building a large wind farm to help wean america off foreign oil. We're told that we (america) do not have the capacity to move this electricity (the lines in place) IF we'd build where the wind is favorable. Well, GET TO BUILDING "EM". Maybe we the people should demand our government take over ALL power producers, under national security of course, since they (the politicians) continue to tell us that Energy is a national security issue (for over the last 30 years since they've done nothing about it). Personnally, I'd like to see this Billionare and our government start giving the people the means to have wind and solar erected at ALL home sites. But then again, this would be against the profit factor and unAmerican.