The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Fisheries Service is dedicating two areas covering 3,016 square miles of Cook Inlet as critical habitat areas for the beluga whale, which NOAA states number less than 350 in Cook Inlet. This population segment was listed as endangered in October 2008.
Sen. Lisa Murkowski has spoken out against this area classification, arguing against the numbers involved. She states that NOAA estimates the costs to average out to $364,000 over the next decade. However, she says an independent economic analysis for the Resource Development Council puts the costs between $39 million and $400 million per year, depending on various economic scenarios.
“I understand the Beluga habitat needs protection, but I have serious concerns with NOAA’s figures to justify it,” the senator said in a release. “The costs involved are 100 times higher than they’re estimating. Beyond their bad math, I remain extremely concerned the critical habitat designation will lead to something all too common to Alaska: more delays in permitting, construction and protracted litigation.”
The critical habitat designation coincides with a deal that has just been finalized with Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority, Buccaneer Energy Limited and Ezion Holdings Limited to bring a jack-up rig into Cook Inlet.
AIDEA Spokesman Karsten Rodvik stated, “We haven’t had opportunity to review the decision in total, but we continue to move forward with the project. It is critical for Southcentral Alaska’s economy and for our future oil and gas supplies that we expeditiously and responsibly develop Cook Inlet resources. We are confident that these operations will be conducted in a safe and environmentally sound manner.”
Rodvik has said the tentative schedule is to drill the first well in late summer.
Under the Endangered Species Act, the critical habitat designations only affect activities involving federal permits, licensing or funding which may affect the habitat. NOAA states this can include construction and oil rigs.
• Contact reporter Jonathan Grass at 523-2276 or jonathan.grass@juneauempire.com.
Comments (8)
Add commentThis shows once again that
This shows once again that BO, & the Dem's are NO friends of Alaska, or the American, middle class consumer.
"Save the whales, kill the economy"!
Lisa stop defending the irresponcible oil industry!
The Cook Inlet area is critical Habitat Lisa and you are putting our state and economy at risk by ignoring the fact that this drilling rig that is to be used in Cook Inlet by Buccaneer Energy is being rented from the same company "TransOcean” responsible for the oil spill in the Gulf!
It has been determined that TransOceans "blow out protectors" basic design on their rigs are in fact FLAWED and simply DO NOT work and Lisa wants their rig to be used in our state???
TransOceans rig would be operating in the Cook Inlet without any ability what so ever to stop a blow out from happening just like what happened in the Gulf.
Lisa Murkowski should be working to protect our states fisheries and critical habitat areas and not arguing on behalf of the irresponsible oil industry.
TransOcean just gave their executives bonuses for safety performance! It is deplorable and tantamount to spitting on the graves of the 11 people killed when the infamous "Deepwater Horizon" oil rig exploded in the Gulf of Mexico. Transocean's CEO made $5.8 million this year which was a 34% raise from last year. $374,000 of it was a bonuse for safety performance in spite of the Gulf disaster.
Voting with your wallet, Lisa?
Leadership is not about money all the time, Lisa. Your FAMILY has always put scamming money before leadership and the environment.
Thumbs up!
Thanks for doing your homework SE Fisher.
"Projects with unacceptable
"Projects with unacceptable negative impacts can still be stopped. Other projects can be redesigned for better accountability, better returns to local government and communities, and better envrionmental standards."
We have to do things right today for our future generations
http://www.groundtruthtrekking.org/Issues/OtherIssues/ResourcesNPC.html
the economy myth
First, it is a myth that strong environmental protection hurts the economy. Studies demonstrate the opposite to be true:
http://www.rep.org/news/GEvol3/ge3.1_myth.html
Second, with all due respect Sen. Murkowski, a study presented by the Resource Development Council is hardly "independent."
Third, madison89, please come up with an original thought.
Thanks NOAA for doing your job and complying with the law.
Murkowski's Double Speak
Cook Inlet is critical for belugas. That means it's critical habitat regardless of whether oil company X finds beluga preservation difficult. The question NOAA biologists ask is whether belugas use and need those waters for their recovery.
Murkowski's grandstanding of alleged costs to Alaska of protecting belugas flies in the face of the fact that human activities like drilling occur in designated habitat of endangered species frequently. Yes, those activities require more planning and more consideration. They should put more effort into planning activities like drilling in Cook Inlet in part because it's beluga habitat.