Arctic National Wildlife Refuge
The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is in northeastern Alaska, north east of Fairbanks, and approximately the same size as South Carolina. The Inupiat Eskimo and Gwich'in Indian peoples have lived in the area for centuries.
According to the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge was established "to preserve unique wildlife, wilderness and recreational values; to conserve caribou herds, polar bears, grizzly bears, muskox, dall sheep, wolves, wolverines, snow geese, peregrine falcons, other migratory birds, dolly varden, and grayling; to fulfil international treaty obligations; to provide opportunities for continued subsistence uses; and to ensure necessary water quality and quantity." It was established in 1960 and expanded in 1980. In 1980 the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) mandated an analysis of potential impacts of oil and gas exploration and development on those resources on the coastal plain portion (calling it the "1002 Area"). Section 1003 of ANILCA declared that the "production of oil and gas from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is prohibited and no leasing or other development leading to production of oil and gas from the [Refuge] shall be undertaken until authorized by an act of Congress." The coastal plain takes up 1.5 million acres
The USGS produced its "Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, 1002 Area, Petroleum Assessment, 1998, Including Economic Analysis" as an update of an analysis carried out in 1987. It looked not only at the federal portion of the 1002 Area, but on native lands and 3 miles out to sea. The USGS reported, "The total quantity of technically recoverable oil within the entire assessment area is estimated to be between 5.7 and 16.0 billion barrels (95-percent and 5-percent probability range), with a mean value of 10.4 billion barrels. Technically recoverable oil within the ANWR 1002 area (excluding State and Native areas) is estimated to be between 4.3 and 11.8 billion barrels (95- and 5-percent probability range), with a mean value of 7.7 billion barrels." The oil was not expected to be uniformly distributed about the area (most of it would be in the west) and was likely to be in 10 separate accumulations. Between 3 and 10.4 billion barrels were estimated to be commercially extractable if the price of oil were $30 per barrel in 1996 money.
Drilling in the area would not just introduce oil wells and pipelines. There would also be roads, houses and sewage plants for workers. Fragmentation of habitat can considerably reduce its value for some species, even if the overall amount of land loss is relatively small. Conservationists say that the amount of oil extracted would be small for the amount of damage, perhaps enough to satisfy America's needs for 7 months, and that it woud set a worrying precedent of non-protection of national treasures. It would take 10 years to extract the oil. Conservation of energy would be a much better strategy.
Drilling advocates say that it would reduce dependence on the hurricane-prone Gulf of Mexico oil supply and foreign oil, reduce fuel shortages and price spikes, and provide jobs. They say that it would take around 8 years to bring the oil online and that it could "tally Alaskan oil to equal one third of US domestic production, surpassing output in the Gulf".
According to Rep. Richard Pombo, R-Calif., selling oil leases in the refuge would generate $2.5 billion.
The Energy Information Administration estimates that "the opening of the ANWR 1002 Area to oil and gas development is projected to increase domestic oil production starting in 2013. In 2025, the coastal plain of ANWR is projected to reach 0.9 million barrels per day under the USGS mean oil resource case, and 0.6 and 1.6 million barrels per day under the low and high resource cases, respectively. Petroleum imports are projected to decline one barrel for every barrel of ANWR production. Opening the coastal plain of ANWR is projected to reduce 2025 oil import dependence from 70 percent in the AEO2004 reference case to 66 percent in the mean resource case. The high and low oil resource cases project a 2025 oil import dependency of 64 percent and 67 percent, respectively. Expenditures on foreign oil and petroleum products are also projected to be lower in 2025 by $8 billion dollars (2002 dollars) in the mean oil resource case, and by $15 and $6 billion dollars in the high and low oil resource cases, respectively."
Total U.S. oil production is about 6 million barrels a day at present and is projected to fall to 5 million barrels a day in 2021 (EIA figure 92). That excludes Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. EIA predicts that, "if drilling were allowed, production would start 10 years later and reach 900,000 barrels per day in 2025 if the area contains the mean level of resources (10.4 billion barrels) estimated by the U.S. Geological Survey".
Please see the following message for more.
Recent news stories involving the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge include:
This article relates to a news wire in the October 03 Environmental Roundup.
Index of topics in this series.
[Views expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect those of CompuServe, Netscape, any government, agency, or news organization. External Websites are "At Your Own Risk," and no endorsement is expressed or implied.]
Sorry Sue
The amount of land hmmm disturd by this would be MICROSCOPIC... compared to the entire area....
I would rather buy oil from Alaska then oil from the KSA.
Hi Dusty,
The refuge covers a wide variety of habitats. This would affect a fair amount of the coastal plain habitat, by the look of it, and an area that was considered special enough to be designated part of the refuge. How much of that kind of habitat does the USA have left untouched?
<<The amount of land hmmm disturd by this would be MICROSCOPIC... compared to the entire area....
I would rather buy oil from Alaska then oil from the KSA.>>
Consider this: you would be buying the KSA anyway. The ANWR fields are estimated to contain maybe 9 billion of recoverable barrels of oil. It might be as much as 15 or it might be much less, estimates vary and the 9 billion figure is the most oft quoted. That represents a 12 month supply to the United States at our current consumption rate of 20 million barrels per day. Of course, it will take many years to extract that oil, you can pull oil out of strata only so fast without damaging it and trapping (making it inaccessible) what's left.
That is what has happened in Saudi Arabia by the way.
In any case, yes, you are right. Ice roads in the winter, helicopter access only in the summer. Possibly a 100 acre pad where the wells are set while slant drilling down for thousands of feet at all kinds of angles. It is being done in other areas and has become a proven technology.
Whatever happened to preservation? A footprint is a footprint, and on the tundra it is essentially permanent. If everything goes perfectly then all is well. In the vast wilderness of Alaska's wildlife refuge a single pipeline leak could go on for days before it is discovered. An accident, which is bound to happen sooner or later, would almost certainly result in long term environmental damage. Oil field accidents occur due to equipment failure, human error, negligence, catastrophic blow outs, safety violations, etc. It would be folly to assume these things wouldn't happen eventually.
This isn't just typical BLM land. It is a preserve for our descendents. We make trade offs every day, but our resolve and dedication to a principle is only truly tested during times like these. Alaska has a great many oil deposits already open to development. Why this place? Why do we have to allow our unquenchable thirst for minerals trump our desire to truly protect and preserve the last few pristine places in our nation?
I disagree with the ones who say we are not putting such places at risk. Some places should be simply left alone.
George
Hi George,
What do you think are the best ways to stop our dependence on oil, which is driving us to eye more and more sensitive areas?
I think there are quite a few people who are quietly using modern technology to become more self-sufficient, particularly those in remote areas. It'll be interesting to see how prices for solar panels vary - increased demand, economies of scale, subsidies of it and its competitors, the cost of raw materials, and the cost of oil will all have an effect.
[Views expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect those of CompuServe, Netscape, any government, agency, or news organization.]
Sue [sysop in NewsForum, World Issues, All Animals forums]
Hi, George
Those who are self sufficient in energy, food and water should be able to weather any problems. It is the people crowded into the towns and cities who will suffer most if the infrastructure breaks down.
A power grid would still be useful, as the sun doesn't shine 24/7, nor the wind blow, in any particular area. Whether it would be economical would be another matter. We really need technology to continue to develop better batteries and other ways to store energy.
Current housing is not so much archaic as unsuitable, IMO. There is a lot we can learn from the design and construction of older cultures who had adapted better to their environments, perhaps improved by modern glass and ingenuity.
It makes sense for the population to drop, but looking at past trends, and at how the populations keep growing in the poorest of places, I'm not convinced that it will drop, unfortunately. Instead there will simply be more and more people living below the poverty level, and more and more violence as people fight to survive.
The arctic and antarctic are certainly warming faster than the rest of the world. Snow and ice reflect the sun (have high albedo), keeping the surface cooler. Once there has been enough warming to melt some, then they are replaced by soil, vegetation or sea which reflect less warmth and absorb more, hastening the process.
It is depressing for the short term, but hopefully all will adjust itself in due course, or a new factor will enter the mix. Mankind is too tenacious to give up.
You raise an interesting point about the economic impact of our finding an alternative energy source. However, the assumption is that it would be used to power vehicles and machines, so we could still extract oil to serve the other industries that you mentioned. Right now about 45% of our oil consumption is used to power motor vehicle engines so that alone would be a significant saving.
As far as the many jobs that would be lost that would be true with respect to the industries impacted by the new alternative source. However, consider how many new jobs might be created by this new industry. I guess a lot of livery related jobs were lost when the automobile replaced the horse but think of how many new jobs have been created as a result. Bottom line is, whoever invents/controls this new industry will also control the world's next biggest industry.
As far as drilling the ANWAR reserves, it would help relieve our dependance on foreign oil but contrary to your point that it could contain the worlds largest reserve (ANWAR reserves = 10.4 billion barrels, Saudi Arabia = 260 billion barrels) the fact is that at our present rate of consumption it would last less then 1 1/2 years if we were totally dependent on it.
We use a lot of oil because we have already used up a lot of the coal and trees that we used to depend on, and our population and energy used have increased dramatically even since the discovery of oil. The world population has more than quintupled since the world's first oil well was sunk, and SUVs have replaced most horse-drawn vehicles.
Any alternative energy source would have to be compared with alternatives for safety, cost and practicability, of course, but as oil is going to run out, we need to choose one or more alternatives. Many jobs would switch from oil to the alternative energy.
There will always be a demand for oil as it is used to make many things, and as supplies run out, the price will rise again. Oil producing countries are not likely to lose out unless they run out of oil. If they have any sense, they will be using oil revenues to encourage alternative energy use in their countries so that they can export a greater proportion of their oil.
If you read the first message in this discussion you will see that there is not much oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Maybe you were thinking of the Athabascan tar sands?
How much energy does catalytic reforming take, and how is it preferable over bio oils?
Do you think it is better to focus our energy (no pun intended) on the technologies that are nearest to being commercially viable, or on those which will, if proven, provide the best results in the long term?
