Senate Votes to Feed the Need
The Senate today voted to open the Alaska wildlife refuge to oil drilling, despite the fact that 95% of Alaska’s coastline was already open to oil exploration. The government’s Fish and Wildlife Service has this to say about it:
Information gathered from the biological, seismic and geological studies was used to complete a Legislative Environmental Impact Statement (LEIS) that described the potential impacts of oil and gas development. … The report concluded that oil development and production in the 1002 Area would have major effects on the Porcupine Caribou herd and muskoxen. Major effects were defined as “widespread, long-term change in habitat availability or quality which would likely modify natural abundance or distribution of species.” Moderate effects were expected for wolves, wolverine, polar bears, snow geese, seabirds and shorebirds, arctic grayling and coastal fish. Major restrictions on subsistence activities by Kaktovik residents would also be expected.
But we don’t have to rely on mere studies and theory, since there’s already a precedent. The Prudhoe Bay oil field (near the arctic preserve) has been in production since the 70s, and has been an incredible success, if, by success, you mean making an absolute a mess of things.
Drilling proponents say that “only” 2000 acres would actually be used for a new facility, but other studies have argued this to be fallacious. In the New York Times Paul Krugman wrote:
…that picture is a fraud. Development won’t be limited to a small enclave: according to the U.S. Geological Survey, oil in ANWR is scattered in many separate pools, so drilling rigs would be spread all across the coastal plain. The roads linking those rigs aren’t part of the 2,000 acres: they’re not “production and support facilities.” And “surface acreage covered” is very narrowly defined: if a pipeline snakes across the terrain on a series of posts, only the ground on which those posts rest counts; bare ground under the pipeline isn’t considered “covered.”
Finally, let’s look at the proponents’ other projections: The time it would take to set up a production facility–around 10 years–as well as the minimal yield–around 2% of demand–all point to this being more of a short-sighted political move than an effort to mitigate our need for foreign oil.
