| Arctic Refuge Drilling Controversy |
Article Index for Arctic |
Website Links For Arctic |
Information AboutArctic Refuge Drilling Controversy |
| CATEGORIES ABOUT ARCTIC REFUGE DRILLING CONTROVERSY | |
| national wildlife refuges in alaska | |
| energy in the united states | |
| petroleum | |
| political controversies | |
| SHOPPER'S DELIGHT | |
|
The question of whether or not to allow '''drilling in the have shown that large deposits of Crude Oil reside within the land designated as the " 1002 Area " of ANWR, as well. [http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-0028-01/fs-0028-01.htm 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 amongst 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. Some native Alaskan tribes have come out in support of ANWR drilling, while other tribes have actively lobbied against it. SUPPORTING VIEWS The National Defense Council Foundation , a Republican organization chaired by Rep. Dan Burton (R-IN) estimates 2,000,000 US jobs would be created, directly and indirectly, by opening ANWR to oil drilling including 1,000,000 from oil development and 1,000,000 from often cited by proponents of oil exploration including the International Brotherhood of Teamsters headed by Democrat James P. Hoffa, Jr. ,[http://www.teamster.org/01news/hn_010731_3.htm] 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. {Link without Title} Former Alaskan Senator, Frank Murkowski , in 2001, stood on the floor of the Senate and held up a large piece of white cardboard. He said "that" is all you can see in winter on the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge's coastal plain. "It's flat, it's unattractive, it's not pristine -- this is what it looks like. Don't be misinformed." Drilling proposals, described below, anticipate drilling in approximately 0.01% of ANWR's area - leaving virtually all of the refuge untouched. The 2,000 acre (8 km&2) "footprint" is for the impact of drilling infrastructure, not temporary roads or elevated pipelines. OPPOSING VIEWS The Alaska Inter-Tribal Council, which represents 229 Native Alaskan tribes, officially opposes any development in ANWR. In March, 2005, Luci Beach, [http://www.wilderness.org/AboutUs/FacesOfConservation2005.cfm the executive director of the steering committee for the Native Alaskan and Canadian Gwich'in tribe (a member of the AI-TC), during a trip to Washington DC, while speaking for a unified group of 55 Alaskan and Canadian indigenous peoples, said that drilling in ANWR is "a human rights issue and it's a basic Aboriginal human rights issue."[http://www.indianz.com/News/2005/007098.asp She went on to say, "Sixty to 70 per cent 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 ANWR would have serious negative effects on the calving grounds of the Porcupine Caribou herd that they partially rely on for food. [http://www.columbia.edu/~sp2023/scienceandsociety/web-pages/Native%20Communities.html] A part of the recently passed resolutions {Link without Title} recognizing that drilling in ANWR would allow resource exploitation in other wilderness areas. The Inupiat, Gwitch'in, and other tribes are calling for sustainable energy practices and policies. The Tanana Chiefs Conference representing 42 Alaska Native villages from 37 tribes oppose drilling, as do at least 90 Native American tribes. 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. According to polls, most residents of the United States and Canada [http://www.wwf.ca/NewsAndFacts/NewsRoom/default.asp?section=archive&page=display&ID=1399&lang=EN are also opposed to drilling in the wildlife refuge. However, the Arctic Slope Regional Corporation (ASRC), which was formed as part of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act and owns 92,000 acres (370 km&2) of subsurface mineral rights in ANWR, is in favor of drilling. Lobbyists with ASRC do not represent all Alaska Natives nor do they represent any Alaska tribes, they represent only the ASRC. The US 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 ." 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." {Link without Title} It is because of this great diversity, and fear of its harm or outright destruction, that many environmental groups argue against drilling for oil in the 1002 area. On March 2, 2006, British Petroleum reported a leak in the 34 in (860 mm) transit line which sends oil to the trans-Alaska pipeline. Reports vary as to the amount spilling. The situation report of Alaska's [http://gee.pennnet.com/news/news_display.cfm?Section=OGJNEWS&ArticleID=250737 [http://www.petroleumnews.com/pdfarch/743454029.pdf]. THE VILLAGE OF KAKTOVIK The small village of Katovik , located in area 1002, was originally cited as one of the reasons for drilling in ANWR due to a believed overwelming support for economic growth. In a 2000 survey administered to the village, 78% believed that ANWR should be opened to oil and gas exploration, while 9% believed it shouldn't. However, the people of Katovik are strongly against offshore oil development for fear of it affecting whale migration. As of recently, the belief that off-shore oil development would occur if ANWR were to be opened has propogated through the village due to comments by Gov. Murkowski (R-AK). Murkowski had stated that it would be economical for the oil companies to pipe the oil back to shore. The stance of the majority of the town is still officially unknown. Fifty-seven of 188 of the town's adults signed a petition against oil drilling in ANWR for mainly this reason.[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/04/22/AR2005042201832_pf.html HISTORY 1987-2000 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 ANWR. The Canadian government believes that any oil development in ANWR could disrupt migratory routes of the herd in the region. In 1989, many in Congress were interested in exploratory drilling in and around ANWR. That interest waned shortly after the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Prince William Sound . Environmentalists pressed U.S. President Bill Clinton to declare ANWR a Refuge 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, ANWR was not on the list. 2001- 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. Although drilling approval is not yet final, Congress has had language in H.R.6 PCS (Section 2207 paragraph (a)3) that authorizes production equipment and infrastructure to occupy an above ground "footprint" of no more than 2,000 of ANWR's 19 million acres ((8 km&2 of 77,000 km&2), or approximately 0.01%. {Link without Title} Other language in the bill (Section 2204 paragraph d) allows exploration and drilling companies to lease underground oil rights in at least 200,000 acres (800 km²), or approximately 1% of ANWR. The difference in area is technically feasible by using Directional Drilling methods. ANWR Drilling was approved by the House of Representatives as part of the , 2005 as part of the budget (Section 304 a) for fiscal year 2006. {Link without Title} But because this was a budget bill, and not the energy bill, drilling approval is not final. ANWR drilling was removed from the Energy Bill (H.R.6) prior to final Senate passage during House-Senate reconciliation under threat of a Democratic filibuster in the Senate. On , 2005 , when 24 moderate Republicans in the House signed a letter stating they would oppose any version of the budget that had ANWR drilling in it {Link without Title} . Budget bills require only a majority vote and are not subject to Filibuster s. The approval is authorized only if "the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources reports a bill or joint resolution, or an amendment is offered thereto, or a conference report is submitted thereon, that permits exploration and production of oil in the 1002 Area of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and such measure is enacted" and "the reconciliation instruction set out in section 201(a)(4) is met." Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK) on December 15 , 2005 attached ANWR drilling language to the annual defense appropriations bill. This House-Senate conference committee compromise bill had provisions for both Hurricane Katrina and for defense spending. Unlike the budget, however, the defense bill can be filibustered, allowing opponents to stop the bill with fewer votes than were needed for removing it from the budget bill. Stevens is the chairman of both the Senate Appropriations Committee's defense subcommittee and chairman of the House-Senate conference committee appointed to work out the differences in this annual bill. On December 21 , 2005 the U.S. Senate refused to end debate on legislation on the bill. The Senate fell three votes short of invoking cloture on the matter, leaving the debate open on the annual defense appropriations bill. The vote went as follows: Fifty-three Republicans as well as four Democrats voted unsuccessfully to end debate; Two Republicans, 41 Democrats voted to block. By a vote of 48-45, the Senate then blocked this attempt to drill the wildlife reserve by removing the ANWR language added by Senator Ted Stevens to the Department Of Defense Appropriations Bill. {Link without Title} TECHNICAL PROJECTIONS AND ESTIMATES Estimates of oil reserves There have been conflicting reports as to the amount of oil in ANWR. 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) exists in ANWR, with a Mean value of 10.4 billion Barrels (1.7 km³). Technically recoverable oil within the ANWR 1002 area (excluding State and Native areas) 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). {Link without Title} A 2002 USGS study found "likely ranges between 5.9 and 13.2 billion barrels, with a mean (expected) value of 9.3 billion barrels. An estimated 1.3 to 5.6 billion barrels of those technically recoverable oil resources is economically recoverable at market prices of $22 to $30 per barrel. Technically recoverable, undiscovered nonassociated natural gas for the same area likely ranges between 39.1 and 83.2 trillion cubic feet, with a mean (expected) value of 59.7 trillion cubic feet." {Link without Title} 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 ANWR. {Link without Title} The U.S. consumes about 20 million barrels daily. Using the lower estimate of 4.3 billion estimate, the math computes to the reserves lasting 215 days (if all the oil was used only in the U.S. and the ANWR reserves were the sole source of oil for the United States). Using the higher estimate of 11.8 billion barrels, the oil would last for 590 days beyond the exhaustion of other oil reserves. {Link without Title} If the ANWR oil reserves were used to supply 5% of the U.S. daily consumption (most is imported from Canada (19.5% of all imported oil), Mexico (15%), Saudi-Arabia (11.5%), Nigeria (10.5%) and Venezuela (10.5%) {Link without Title} ), 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. REFERENCES EXTERNAL LINKS
|