Arctic Refuge drilling controversy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Map
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Map

The question of whether or not to allow drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge has been a political football for every sitting American president since Jimmy Carter. The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is just east of Prudhoe Bay in Alaska's "North Slope," which is North America's largest oil field. Currently, the Prudhoe bay area accounts for 17% of U.S. domestic oil production.[1] Over the years, studies performed by the US Geological Survey have shown that large deposits of crude oil reside within the land designated as the "1002 area" of ANWR, as well. [2][3]

Oil interest in the region goes back to the late 1960s. Since the 1979 energy crisis, the question of whether or not to drill has become a hot-button issue for various groups. Traditionally, Alaskan residents, trade unions, and business interests have supported drilling in the refuge, while environmental groups and many within the Democratic Party have traditionally opposed it. Among native Alaskan tribes, support is mixed.

Contents

[edit] Supporting views

Drilling proposals anticipate drilling in less than 8% of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge's 1.5 million acre (6000 km²) "Coastal Plain" area (which is only a fraction of the 19.8 million acre (80,000 km²) refuge)—leaving most of the refuge undeveloped. The remaining 17.5 million acres or 92% of ANWR would remain permanently closed to any kind of development. If oil is discovered, less than 2000 acres of the over 1.5 million acres of the Coastal Plain would be developed[citation needed] The 2,000 acre (8 km²) "footprint" is for the impact of drilling infrastructure, not temporary roads or elevated pipelines.[citation needed]

Federal revenues would be increased from billions of dollars from bonus bids, lease rentals, royalties and taxes. Estimates on bonus bids for ANWR by the Office of Management and Budget and the Department of Interior for the first 5 years after Congressional approval are 4.2 billion dollars.[citation needed]

Between 250,000 and 735,000 ANWR jobs are estimated to be created by development of the Coastal Plain[4]. An estimate [5] compiled in a 1990 study by the Wharton Economic Forecasting Group often cited by proponents of oil exploration including the International Brotherhood of Teamsters headed by Democrat James P. Hoffa, Jr.,[6] predicts the direct creation of up to 735,000 jobs. Opponents dispute these claims arguing that much of the infrastructure required for oil exploration is already in place in Alaska and would simply be repurposed. Even so, Democratic Congressmen opposed to the proposed drilling endorsed an estimate that up to 65,000 new jobs might be created.[5]

Between 1977 and 2004, North Slope oil field development and production activity contributed over $50 billion to the United States' economy[citation needed].

The Coastal Plain of ANWR is America's likeliest possibility[citation needed] for the discovery of another giant "Prudhoe Bay-sized" oil and gas discovery in North America. U.S. Department of Interior estimates range from 9 to 16 billion barrels of recoverable oil.[7]

The North Slope oil fields currently provide the U.S. with nearly 16% of its domestic production and since 1988 this production has been on the decline. Peak production was reached in 1980 of two million barrels a day, but has been declining to a current level of 943,000 barrels a day.[citation needed]

In 2004 the US imported an average of 58% of its oil and during certain months up to 64%. That equates to over $150 billion in oil imports and over $170 billion including refined petroleum products.

Oil and gas development and wildlife are currently coexisting in Alaska's arctic. For example, the Central Arctic Caribou Herd (CACH) which migrates through Prudhoe Bay has grown from 3000 animals to its current level of 32,000 animals.[citation needed] The arctic oil fields have brown bear, fox and bird populations equal to their surrounding areas.[citation needed]

Advanced technology has greatly reduced the 'footprint" of arctic oil development. If Prudhoe Bay were built today, the footprint would be 1,526 acres, 64% smaller.[8]

More than 75% of Alaskans favor exploration and production in ANWR. The Inupiat Eskimos who live in and near ANWR support onshore oil development on the Coastal Plain.[citation needed]

[edit] Opposing views

Opponents of drilling in the Arctic Refuge cite the wildlife of the Coastal Plain and the incompatibility of oil drilling with the wildlife refuge habitat. The 1002 area is the calving ground of the 123,000 member Porcupine Caribou Herd, and is also the most important onshore polar bear denning habitat in North America.[citation needed] There are 180 bird species that visit the Coastal Plain of the Arctic Refuge and 70 species that nest there. Millions of birds use the Coastal Plain for breeding during the winter and migrate there from all over the United States.[9]

Conservationists also argue that oil from the Arctic Refuge would have no significant impact on gas prices. If drilling were authorized, it would still take 10 years for oil from the Arctic Refuge to reach the market, and 20 years for it to hit peak production[10]. Even in the year of peak production, oil from the Arctic Refuge would amount to less than eight-tenths of one percent (0.8%) of the world’s oil production.[citation needed] The U.S. Department of Energy’s own Energy Information Administration predicts that Arctic Refuge drilling would reduce the price of gas by no more than a few cents per gallon when it is at or near peak production twenty years down the road.[11] Conservationists maintain that using existing technology to make cars and trucks more efficient and investing in renewable energy would be more effective than drilling.[citation needed].

While supporters of Arctic drilling claim that oil drilling would only open 2,000 acres of the refuge to development, opponents state that this “2,000-acre footprint” provision is misleading[12]. Opening the Refuge to drilling, they predict, would result in industrial development across the entire 1.5 million acre Coastal Plain of the Refuge.[citation needed] To calculate the “footprint” of an oil pipeline, the numbers only include the area where a support touches the ground.[citation needed] In addition, roads, airports, gravel mines, and the like are excluded from the 2,000 acre calculations.[citation needed]

The danger of oil spills is another argument against drilling. While supporters of drilling claim that new technologies, such as ice roads and directional drilling, have greatly reduced the risk of spills, most experts[Who?] agree that the benefits of these new technologies have been exaggerated[13]. The Prudhoe Bay oil fields, located directly west of the Arctic Refuge and touted by many drilling advocates[citation needed] as the prime example of an eco-friendly drilling site[citation needed], in 2006 had 267,000 gallons of oil spill from a pipeline. [14]

On August 8 2006, BP was forced to shut down the eastern half of its Prudhoe Bay oil field after severe corrosion was found in the company’s low-pressure transit lines. The corrosion was discovered after a court-ordered testing of its pipeline system, the first cleaning and testing of the low-pressure transit pipe system since 1992.[15]

Prudhoe Bay and its Trans-Alaskan Pipeline System average over 500 reported spills every year of oil and other toxic substances[16]. Although many of the oil industry’s anti-spill technologies have been around for decades, they are often not employed for economic or practical reasons.[citation needed]

The Alaska Inter-Tribal Council, which represents 229 Native Alaskan tribes, officially opposes any development in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge [17]. In March, 2005, Luci Beach[18], the executive director of the steering committee for the Native Alaskan and Canadian Gwich'in tribe, while speaking for a unified group of 55 Alaskan and Canadian indigenous peoples, said that drilling in the Arctic Refuge is "a human rights issue and it's a basic Aboriginal human rights issue."[19] She went on to say, "Sixty to seventy percent of our diet comes from the land and caribou is one of the primary animals that we depend on for sustenance." The Gwich'in tribe adamantly believes that drilling in the Arctic Refuge would have serious negative effects on the calving grounds of the Porcupine Caribou herd that they depend on for food.[20]

Five thousand to seven thousand Gwich’in peoples feel that their lifestyle would be disrupted or destroyed by drilling[21]. The Inupiat from Point Hope, Alaska, recently passed resolutions[22] recognizing that drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge would allow resource exploitation in other wilderness areas, which they do not support. The Inupiat, Gwich'in and other tribes are calling for sustainable energy practices and policies.[citation needed] The Tanana Chiefs Conference, representing 42 Alaska Native villages from 37 tribes, oppose drilling, as do at least 90 Native American tribes.[citation needed] The National Congress of American Indians representing 250 tribes and the Native American Rights Fund as well as some Canadian tribes and International Tribal Organizations also oppose drilling in the 1002 area.[citation needed]

According to polls, the majority of residents of the United States[23] and Canada[24] are also opposed to drilling in the Arctic Refuge. A poll conducted by the Los Angeles Times and published on August 4, 2006 reported that 51% of Americans were opposed to drilling in the Arctic NWR and 45% were in favor of drilling.[25]

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has stated that because of its compact size, the 1002 area has a "greater degree of ecological diversity than any other similar sized area of Alaska's north slope."[citation needed] The USFWS also states, "Those who campaigned to establish the Arctic Refuge recognized its wild qualities and the significance of these spatial relationships. Here lies an unusually diverse assemblage of large animals and smaller, less-appreciated life forms, tied to their physical environments and to each other by natural, undisturbed ecological and evolutionary processes."[26]

[edit] The village of Kaktovik

The small village of Kaktovik, located in area 1002, was originally cited as one of the reasons for drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge due to a believed overwhelming support for economic growth. When sixty-eight villagers responded to a 2000 survey, 78% believed that the Arctic Refuge should be opened to oil and gas exploration, while 9% believed it shouldn't. [27] However, the people of Kaktovik are strongly against offshore oil development for fear of it affecting whale migration.[citation needed]

On May 9, 2006, a resolution was passed in the village of Kaktovik calling Shell "a hostile and dangerous force" which authorized the mayor to take legal and other actions necessary to "defend the community". The resolution also calls on all North Slope communities to oppose Shell's offshore leases until the company becomes more respectful of the people.[citation needed] Mayor Sonsalla says Shell has failed to work with the villagers on how the company would protect bowhead whales which are part of Native culture, subsistence life, and diet.[28]

[edit] History

[edit] 1987-2000

A drilling rig in Alaska
A drilling rig in Alaska

In 1987, Canada and the U.S. signed the Agreement on the Conservation of the Porcupine Caribou Herd treaty which was designed to protect the herd and its habitat from damage or disruptions in migration routes. Canada's Ivvavik National Park and Vuntut National Park borders the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The Canadian government believes that any oil development in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge could disrupt migratory routes of the herd in the region.

In 1989, many in Congress were interested in exploratory drilling in and around the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. That interest waned shortly after the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill in Prince William Sound.

Environmentalists pressed U.S. President Bill Clinton to declare the Arctic Refuge a U.S. National Monument. Doing so would have banned drilling within the refuge. However, it would not have banned slant drilling (aka directional drilling) around the perimeter of the land. While Clinton did create several refuge monuments, most at the very end of his tenure, the Arctic Refuge was not on the list.

[edit] 2001-present

The administration of U.S. President George W. Bush pushed to perform exploratory drilling for oil and gas in and around the refuge. The House of Representatives voted in mid-2000 to allow drilling. In April 2002, the Senate rejected it.

Arctic Refuge drilling was approved by the House of Representatives as part of the Energy Bill on April 21, 2005,[29] but the Arctic Refuge provision was later removed by the House-Senate conference committee. The Senate passed Arctic Refuge drilling on March 16, 2005 as part of the federal budget resolution for fiscal year 2006.[30] That Arctic Refuge provision was removed during the reconciliation process, due to Democrats in the House of Representatives who signed a letter stating they would oppose any version of the budget that had Arctic Refuge drilling in it.[31]

On December 15, 2005, Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK) attached an Arctic Refuge drilling amendment to the annual defense appropriations bill. A group of Senators led a successful filibustering of the bill on December 21, 2005, and the language was subsequently removed from the bill.[citation needed]

[edit] Technical projections and estimates

[edit] Estimates of oil reserves

A 1998 USGS study indicated at least 5.7 billion (95% probability) and possibly as much as 16.0 billion (5% probability) barrels (0.9 to 2.5 km³) of technically recoverable oil exists in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge 1002 area, with a mean value of 10.4 billion barrels (1.7 km³). This area covers not only land under Federal jurisdiction, but also Native lands and adjacent State waters within three miles. Technically recoverable oil within just the Federal lands of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge 1002 area is estimated to be at least 4.3 billion (95%) and as much as 11.8 billion (5%) barrels (0.7 to 1.9 km³), with a mean value of 7.7 billion barrels (1.2 km³). Economically recoverable oil within the Federal lands assuming a market price of $40/barrel (constant 1996 dollars - the highest price included in the USGS study) is estimated to be between 3.4 billion (95%) and 10.4 billion (5%) barrels (0.5 to 1.7 km³), with a mean value of 6.8 billion barrels (1.1 km³). [3]

The 10.4 billion barrel figure and an estimate of 1.4 million barrels per day were used in publications by the U.S. Department of the Interior while it was headed by Gale Norton, a proponent of drilling in the Arctic Refuge. [32]

The U.S. consumes about 20 million barrels daily. If the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge oil reserves were used to supply 5% of the U.S. daily consumption--most is imported from Canada (19%) Mexico (15%), Saudi-Arabia (11.5%), Nigeria (10.5%) and Venezuela (10.5%)[33]), the reserves, using the low figure of 4.3 billion barrels, would last approximately 4300 days, or almost 12 years. Using the high estimate, the reserves would last approximately 11800 days, or 32 years.

[edit] See also

National Petroleum Reserve–Alaska

[edit] References

  1. ^ [1] Columbia University Prudhoe Bay
  2. ^ Columbia University Geology
  3. ^ a b U.S. Geological Survey Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, 1002 Area, Petroleum Assessment, 1998, Including Economic Analysis
  4. ^ [2]
  5. ^ a b U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Press release: Reports Compare Jobs To Result From Dem, Republican Energy Plans
  6. ^ Teamster Alaska Oil Drilling Not at Odds With Environmentalism
  7. ^ [3]
  8. ^ [4]
  9. ^ [5]US Fish and Wildlife Service: Arctic National Wildlife Refuge
  10. ^ [6]Energy Information Administration: Annual Energy Outlook 2006
  11. ^ [7]Energy Information Administration. Impacts of Modeled Provisions of H.R. 6 EH: The Energy Policy Act of 2005
  12. ^ [8]Hannity, Interior secretary presented misleading claims on ANWR drilling as "fact"
  13. ^ [9]The "New Technology" Scam
  14. ^ [10]Alaska Oil Spill Fuels Concerns Over Arctic Wildlife, Future Drilling
  15. ^ [11]Congressman Slam BP Executives at BP Oil Leak Hearing
  16. ^ Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, 1996-1998. Oil Spill Database. Spills for the North Slope Borough region were analyzed, excluding spills in villages and the Chukchi Sea.
  17. ^ [12]Alaska Inter-tribal Council Position Papers: Arctic National WildLife Refuge
  18. ^ [13] The Wilderness: Society Faces of Conservation
  19. ^ [14] Indianz.Com: Gwich'in leader blasts Senate vote on ANWR drilling
  20. ^ [15]Columbia University: Native Communities
  21. ^ [16] Gwichʼin Steering Committee - Gwichʼin Niintsyaa (Resolution)
  22. ^ [17] Episcopal Public Policy Network - FACTS: Native Opposition to Drilling
  23. ^ [18] Majority Oppose ANWR Oil Drilling, Survey Says
  24. ^ [19]WWF: Majority of Canadians oppose drilling in Arctic National Wildlife Refuge
  25. ^ [20]Bush's Grade on Environment Falls
  26. ^ [21] U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – Alaska Arctic National Wildlife Refuge
  27. ^ [22] Arctic National Wildlife Refuge webpage: City of Kaktovik (not to be confused with the official website)
  28. ^ Petroleum News Kaktovik accuses Shell of insincerity
  29. ^ [23]The Library of Congress: Thomas Bill Number H.R.6 for the 109th Congress
  30. ^ [24] The congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2006
  31. ^ [25] Washington Post: House Drops Arctic Drilling From Bill
  32. ^ [26] U.S. Department of the Interior: ANWR Oil Reserves Greater Than Any State
  33. ^ [27] Energy Information Administration: Crude Oil and Total Petroleum Imports Top 15 Countries

[edit] External links

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/r/c/Arctic_Refuge_drilling_controversy_6e27.html"