Arctic Refuge drilling controversy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Map
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Map

The question of whether to allow drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) 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] In 1987 and again in 1998 studies released by the U.S. Geological Survey have estimated significant deposits of crude oil exist within the land designated as the "1002 area" of ANWR, as well.[2][3][3]

Oil interest in the region goes back to the late 1960s. Since the 1979 energy crisis, the question of whether to drill for oil has become a hot-button issue for various groups. Most Alaskan residents, trade unions, and several 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.

In the 1990s and 2000s, votes about the status of the refuge occurred repeatedly in the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate, but as of 2007 efforts to allow drilling have always been ultimately thwarted by filibusters, amendments, or vetoes.

Contents

[edit] The village of Kaktovik

Support from the chiefly Inupiat Eskimo residents of the village of Kaktovik, located in area 1002, is cited as one of the reasons for drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.[4] Sixty-eight villagers responded to a 2000 survey, 78% strongly agreed or agreed that "The coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge should be open to oil and gas exploration." [5]

In May 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".[6] The resolution also calls on all North Slope communities to oppose Shell owned offshore leases unrelated to the ANWR controversy 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.[7]

[edit] History

[edit] 1987-1999

A drilling rig near Nuiqsut, Alaska
A drilling rig near Nuiqsut, 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. Energy Bill authorized drilling in ANWR, but a filibuster by Senate Democrats kept the measure from coming to a vote. In 1995, Republicans prepared to take up the battle again and included a provision for ANWR in the federal budget. President Bill Clinton vetoed the entire budget and expressed his intention to veto any other bill that would open ANWR to drilling.

The 1998 U.S. Geological Survey report did little to end the controversy. It estimated that there was significant oil in ANWR and that most of the oil would be found in the western part of the "1002 Area". This differed from the 1987 USGS report which estimated that less oil would be found there and that it would be in the southern and eastern parts.[3]

Beyond that reserves existed, however, little was agreed upon by both sides of the debate. Supporters of the drilling claimed there were as many as 16 billion barrels (2,500,000,000 m³) of oil to be recovered,[citation needed] but this number was at the extreme high side of the report and represented only a 5 percent probability of technically recoverable oil across the entire assessment area, which included land outside ANWR. Opponents of drilling pointed out that the USGS report actually estimated 7.668 billion barrels (1,219,100,000 m³) of oil to be recovered.[3]

Environmentalists pressed U.S. President Clinton to declare the Arctic Refuge a U.S. National Monument. Doing so would have banned drilling within the refuge. While Clinton did create several refuge monuments, most at the very end of his tenure, the Arctic Refuge was not on the list.

[edit] 2000-present

In December 2000, a Coast Guard report charged Alyeska with repeated safety violations at a Valdez terminal, causing prices to jump again. 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 again approved by the House of Representatives as part of the Energy Bill on April 21, 2005,[8] 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.[9] 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.[10]

On December 15, 2005, Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK) attached an Arctic Refuge drilling amendment to the annual defense appropriations bill. A group of Democratic Senators led a successful filibustering of the bill on December 21, 2005, and the language was subsequently removed from the bill.[11]

[edit] Technical projections and estimates

[edit] Estimates of oil reserves

 This article or section uses citations that are either broken or outdated.
This article or section uses citations that link to broken or outdated sources, and are deemed unreliable. Please improve the article or discuss this issue on the talk page. Help on using footnotes is available. This article has been tagged since June 2008.

A 1993 United States Geological Survey (USGS) study indicated at least 4.3 billion (95% probability) and possibly as much as 11.8 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 7.7 billion barrels (1.7 km³).[3] In addition, in the entire assessment area, which covers not only land under Federal jurisdiction, but also Native lands and adjacent State waters within three miles (5 km), technically recoverable oil is estimated to be at least 5.7 billion (95%) and as much as 16.0 billion (5%) barrels (0.7 to 1.9 km³), with a mean value of 10.4 billion barrels (1.2 km³).[3] 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] (current market prices are over $120 and using inflation rate between 1996 to 2007 it comes out to $89 dollars in 1996)[3]

The U.S. consumes about 20 million barrels (3,200,000 m³) 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%)[12] -- the reserves, using the low figure of 4.3 billion barrels (680,000,000 m³), would last approximately 4300 days, or almost 12 years. Using the high estimate, the reserves would last approximately 11800 days, or 32 years. Using the increasing price of oil this supply (with 10.5 billion barrel mean and crude oil at over $120 a barrel) would be worth $1.26 trillion.

In total, the oil deposits in ANWR contain as much oil to solely support U.S. consumption for 7 months (4.3B estimate) to 2 years (16B estimate).

[edit] See also

[edit] References

[edit] Footnotes

  1. ^ [1] Columbia University Prudhoe Bay
  2. ^ Columbia University Geology
  3. ^ a b c d e f g h U.S. Geological Survey Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, 1002 Area, Petroleum Assessment, 1998, Including Economic Analysis
  4. ^ [2]Arctic National Wildlife Refuge webpage: Native Residents Support ANWR Drilling
  5. ^ [3] Arctic National Wildlife Refuge webpage: City of Kaktovik
  6. ^ [4] Juneau Daily News
  7. ^ Petroleum News Kaktovik accuses Shell of insincerity
  8. ^ [5]The Library of Congress: Thomas Bill Number H.R.6 for the 109th Congress
  9. ^ [6] The congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2006
  10. ^ [7] Washington Post: House Drops Arctic Drilling From Bill
  11. ^ Senate blocks oil drilling push for Arctic refuge. SFGate.com (2005-12-22). Retrieved on 2007-10-29.
  12. ^ [8] Energy Information Administration: Crude Oil and Total Petroleum Imports Top 15 Countries

[edit] External links