Jump to content

Arctic Refuge drilling controversy

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 69.229.121.85 (talk) at 05:09, 12 March 2008 (→‎The village of Kaktovik). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Map

The question of whether or not 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 or not to drill for oil 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.

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.

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. When sixty-eight villagers responded to a 2000 survey, 43% strongly agreed or agreed that "The coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge should be open to oil and gas exploration." [4]

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".[5] 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.[6]

History

1987-1999

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 of oil to be recovered, 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 of oil to be recovered.Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page). 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.[7] 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.[8]

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.[9]

Technical projections and estimates

Estimates of oil reserves

A 1998 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). 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, 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). 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 was 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.[10]

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%)[11] -- 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. If the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge was used to meet 100% of U.S. demand, it would last for 215 days under the low estimate, and 525 days or just 1.4 years if it contained 10.4 billion barrels.

See also

National Petroleum Reserve–Alaska

References

  1. ^ [1] Columbia University Prudhoe Bay
  2. ^ Columbia University Geology
  3. ^ a b c d U.S. Geological Survey Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, 1002 Area, Petroleum Assessment, 1998, Including Economic Analysis Cite error: The named reference "USGS" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  4. ^ [2] Arctic National Wildlife Refuge webpage: City of Kaktovik (not to be confused with the official website)
  5. ^ [3] Juneau Daily News
  6. ^ Petroleum News Kaktovik accuses Shell of insincerity
  7. ^ [4] The congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2006
  8. ^ [5] Washington Post: House Drops Arctic Drilling From Bill
  9. ^ "Senate blocks oil drilling push for Arctic refuge". SFGate.com. 2005-12-22. Retrieved 2007-10-29. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  10. ^ [6] U.S. Department of the Interior: ANWR Oil Reserves Greater Than Any State
  11. ^ [7] Energy Information Administration: Crude Oil and Total Petroleum Imports Top 15 Countries
Wikinews has related news:
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arctic_Refuge_drilling_controversy&oldid=197653806"