Debate: Oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge

[]

[]

[]

[]

Should the United States Congress allow drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge?

Background and context

Since taking office in 2001, the Bush administration pushed for the opening of the ANWR to exploration and drilling and renewed debate in Congress on the issue.[2] Some legislative events have taken place that made drilling more likely. On March 16, 2005, for instance, the Senate endorsed oil-drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge through a vote of 51 to 49 for a budget resolution that assumes revenues of roughly $5 billion from drilling fees over the next decade, with the federal government and the state of Alaska to split the money. The Seattle PI wrote, "the [Senate] vote was a major victory for President Bush and his supporters in business and elsewhere who had long advocated drilling in ANWR as a way to ease the nation's dependence on foreign supplies...Until yesterday, the politics were never good enough to push the bill into law. In some years Democrats successfully blocked ANWR provisions on the Senate floor. In 1996, both the House and Senate approved opening ANWR only to see President Clinton veto it." Following this, the only measure necessary for drilling to actually take place has been a House and Senate bill that would explicitly open the ANWR to drilling. The Democratic victory in the November 2006 elections, however, may have made this legislative step less likely as the Democrats primarily oppose drilling. The opposition within the Democratic Party, on the other hand, is not a overwhelming majority, and the pro-drilling camp remains very strong in both the Senate and House. The complexity of the issue appears to make the issue less partisan than might be expected of an issue that ostensibly pits corporate and national security interests against environmental concerns.[3]

[]

[]

[]

[]

Environment: Would the environmental impact of drilling be small?

[]

Yes

• The area in the ANWR under consideration for drilling is relatively small.

• Technology has substantially reduced the environmental 'footprint' or impact of arctic oil development.

• Drilling would only be done in the winter months. ANWR.org - "Drilling activity in ANWR would be limited to winter months when wildlife does not frequent the coastal plain" -

• Wildlife has not been notably harmed by other drilling projects in Alaska.

• The ANWR drilling area under consideration is a baron land with little to protect.

• US ANWR production methods are cleaner than foreign methods, which are the only supply alternatives.

• Wildlife refuges typically allow for limited drilling projects.

• The effect of oil spills has "only local effects":

[]

No

• Prudhoe Bay's example demonstrates the risks of drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

• Drilling in ANWR would risk major oil spills and environmental harm.

• ANWR would require an infrastructure that would be environmentally invasive.

• ANWR drilling would harm polar bears.

• Drilling in ANWR would harm bird habitats.

• ANWR oil drilling would harm ANWR caribou.

• Drilling in ANWR will threaten muskoxen.

• ANWR oil drilling will lead to the exploitation of other protected areas.

[]

[]

[]

[]

[]

Economics: Would drilling in ANWR stimulate the US economy?

[]

Yes

• Drilling in ANWR would increase US GDP.

• Drilling in ANWR is a necessary means to reducing energy prices that are damaging the US economy and consumer.

• Drilling would create a substantial number of new jobs.

• ANWR drilling would result in many "trickle-down" economic benefits.

• Federal tax revenues would increase as as a result of drilling in the ANSWR.

• The US needs a diversity of energy sources involving green energy AND ANWR oil.

[]

No

• Many job-creation estimates are highly exaggerated.

• Job-creation would be better achieved by investing in green energy.

• Economic interests should not justify the exploitation of protected areas such as ANWR.

[]

[]

[]

[]

[]

Oil dependence: Would drilling in the ANWR reduce US oil dependence significantly?

[]

Yes

• ANWR has substantial oil reserves and is an important resource to tap.

• US domestic oil supplies are severely limited and create vulnerabilities that ANWR can help alleviate.

• Investing in green energy is not a solution to current US oil demand.

• Drilling in ANWR would help reduce the large US budget deficit.

• Drilling in ANWR is an essential part of reducing US foreign dependence on oil.

[]

No

• Added oil supply from ANWR would be a "drop in the bucket" for US consumption.

• The relative insignificance of ANWR oil supplies makes it a poor means to reducing US foreign oil dependencies.

• Drilling in ANWR would have a negligible effect on oil prices.

• Oil from the ANWR would not be available for a long time.

• Drilling in ANWR would only perpetuate the US addiction to oil.

• Reducing US foreign oil dependence would be best achieved through investments in green energy technology.

[]

[]

[]

[]

[]

Alaskans: Do native Alaskans and Native American Alaskans support the proposed drilling for economic and other reasons?

[]

Yes

• A clear majority of Alaskans support drilling in ANWR.

• Many of Alaska's native tribes support drilling in ANWR.

[]

No

• ANWR drilling is opposed by the majority of tribes in Alaska.

[]

[]

[]

[]

[]

American public: Where does the American public stand?

[]

Yes

• Increasing oil prices will increase pressure to drill in ANWR.

[]

No

• A clear majority of Americans oppose drilling in ANWR.

[]

[]

[]

[]

[]

US government: Where does the American government stand?

[]

Yes

Republican leaders have generally been more supportive of drilling in the ANWR.

The Bush administration has made drilling in the ANWR a major part of his energy policy since 2002.[4]

U.S. Secretary of the Interior Dirk Kempthorne has been very vocal in support of drilling.[5]

The House of Representatives: According to ANWR.org, House approval of HR 5429 in May of 2006 was the tenth time that the Republican led House has approved drilling in the ANWR.[6] The American-Made Energy and Good Jobs Act, authorizing drilling, was passed by a margin of 225 to 201. See the full voting record of House Reps

• Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA) introduced the "American Made Energy Freedom Act" (HR- 5890) to Congress in July, 2006 targeting the opening of the 10-02 Area Coastal Plain of ANWR.[7]
• Chairman of the House Resources Committee Richard Pombo authored H.R. 5429 (May, 2006), the "American-Made Energy and Good Jobs Act" that called for opening the ANWR.[8]
• Rep. Cliff Stearns, R-Florida has been a vocal proponent of drilling saying, according to CNN 2002, "that the threat to the environment has been overstated, noting that the drilling would take place on only a fraction of the refuge, which is the size of South Carolina. He likened the area to a 'frozen desert with few signs of life' instead of an 'ecological wonderland.'"[9]

The Senate and its key supporters of drilling: The Senate voted on March 16, 2005 to approve drilling in the ANWR by a margin of 51 to 49.[10]

• Alaska's Republican senators, Ted Stevens and Lisa Murkowski, have "led efforts"[11] to open the ANWR for drilling. Stevens, who has fought for 25 years to open ANWR to drilling. Stevens "has fought for 25 years to open ANWR to drilling."[12]
• Bill Frist voted "NO" on removing consideration of drilling ANWR from budget bill (Mar 2003) and "YES" on drilling ANWR on national security grounds (Apr 2002).[13]
• Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM) Chairman of the Senate Natural Resources Committee. He has said it is one of the four most important actions the United States needs to move on.[14] He stated in July, 2006 that "Opening ANWR is the most meaningful thing Congress can do for domestic oil production. I will continue to work hard in the coming months to ensure the domestic security of this nation by taking up ANWR legislation as soon as possible".

The Alaskan all-republican delegates in Congress favor drilling.[15] This inlcudes Alaska's Republican Sens. Frank Murkowski and Ted Stevens.

Department of the Interior, see "Environmentally Responsible Energy Production in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge"

Proposed development may need to be spread out, but drilling can be made seasonal to avoid disruptions to animal migration. Caribou herds move into ANWR during specific and predictable times, thus drilling can be scheduled, which would reduce the impact of human activity.

[]

No

Vocal Democrats on the Issue: - 57% of Democrats oppose allowing oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, according to February, 2006 poll data.[16]

• Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA), has "led the opposition" to drilling in the Senate, according to the Seattle PI.[17] Sparring with Alaska's Senator Stevens, Cantwell said in March 2005, "We can't drill our way to energy independence in the Arctic. ... Most Americans agree that drilling in a wildlife refuge -- to secure a six-month supply of oil a decade from now -- just isn't worth it."[18]She introduced legislation in 2005 to strip oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) from the Senate reconciliation bill - a budget budget trimming bill.[19]
• U.S. Sen. Joe Lieberman introduced legislation in 2003 to designate the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge's coastal plain as official federal wilderness and permanently make the area off-limits to drilling.[20]
• Hilary Clinton voted "no" on drilling in ANWR in Apr 2002, and "yes" on removing consideration for drilling from the budget bill in Mar 2003.[21]
• Ted Kennedy voted "YES" on removing consideration of drilling ANWR from budget bill (Mar 2003) and "NO" on drilling ANWR on national security grounds (Apr 2002)[22]
• John Kerry: Outside Online - "In the February 2005 issue of Outside, Senator John Kerry argues that oil development in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge would bring irreparable harm to a uniquely American treasure."

Republican Opponents of Drilling:

• John McCain voted "YES" on removing consideration of drilling ANWR from budget bill (Mar 2003) and "NO" on drilling ANWR on national security grounds.[23]
• Republicans for Environmental Protection Policy

Proposed “limited development” will still intrude hundreds of miles into pristine areas. Alaska doesn’t have a major reserve under ANWR; rather ANWR contains several reserves. Thus, even with “minimal” development, the damage would cover thousands of acres.

[]

[]

[]

[]

Activist organizations: Where do the other key players and organizations stand?

[]

Yes

Think-Tanks and Policy Institues:

• Competitive Enterprise Institute[24]
• The Heritage Foundation

Advocacy and Interest Groups:

• National Association of Manufacturers[25]
• National Grange[26]
• ANWR.org
• International Brotherhood of Teamsters
• The American Petroleum Institute

"National Organizations Rally for ANWR" - From ANWR.org - "Competitive Enterprise Institute along with a vast array of national organizations including among others, the US Chamber of Commerce, National Association of Manufacturers, the National Grange and 60 Plus seniors group released a joint letter to House and Senate leadership encouraging their support of opening the 10-02 Area of ANWR to energy exploration."

Positions of Major, Relavant Companies:

• BP Oil[citation needed]
• The Arctic Slope Regional Corporation (ASRC), which was formed as part of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act and owns 92,000 acres (370 km²) of subsurface mineral rights in ANWR, is in favor of drilling.

[]

No

Interest and Activist Groups:

• Sierra Club
• Environmental News Network
• Natural Resource Defense Council
• Save the ANWR
• Protect the Arctic
• Alaska Conservation Foundation
• Alaska Wilderness League
• Alaska Coalition of Oregon
• Defenders of Wildlife
• Arctic Connections
• Natural Resource Defense Council
• Northern Alaska Environmental Center
• Alaska Public Interest Research Group
• World Wildlife Refuge Fund
• U.S. Public Interest Research Group

Companies opposing or no-longer advocating drilling: Seattle PI 3/17/05 - "Another question is how eager oil companies will be to try their luck in ANWR. BP, ConocoPhillips and ChevronTexaco have withdrawn from Arctic Power, the business coalition formed to lobby for drilling in ANWR. Among big oil companies, only ExxonMobil Corp. remains."

See also

• Debate: Oil exploration and development in wildife refuges
• Debate: US offshore oil drilling
• Debate: Oil drilling in the Arctic
• Debate: Ban on Antarctic exploitation

External links and resources

• Pro drilling site, with good links
• US Department of Energy
• Save the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge
• The Wilderness Society
• Alaska’s Department of Natural Resources, Division of Oil and Gas report
• Speech by Alaskan Governor Frank H. Murkowski
• Indigenous Environmental Network (Native Americans against drilling)

Books

• Caribou Rising : Defending the Porcupine Herd, Gwich-'in Culture, and the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge : Rick Bass
• Arctic National Wildlife Refuge: Background and Issues : M. Lynne Corn
• Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR): Review, Controversies And Legislation : Barbara T. Lieland (Editor)
• Arctic coastal plain leasing: Hearing before the Committee on Resources, House of Representatives, One Hundred Fourth Congress : United States