In 1979 President Carter signed the Alaska National Interests Conservation Act (ANILCA), which set aside 104 million acres as national parks and refuges. Within this area, Congress noted the possibility of oil reserves in the coastal plain. They created section 1002, which set aside 1.5 million acres of coastal plain for further study and possible development.

Section 1002 is now the focus of a large energy debate due to its possible oil reserves. With up to 16 billion barrels of oil, equaling roughly five years of oil imports, the area could be productive. Yet, more likely as little as three billion barrels equaling five months consumption exist for potential recovery   (Carter 2000).

President George Bush is planning on passing an energy policy that includes drilling section 1002 of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). Drilling this land will lead to the destruction of an ecosystem that has been unharmed by man throughout its existence.

Contents:

Abstract

ANWR Oil Facts

Arctic wildlife/ecology

Environmental impacts of oil exploration

Human development in the arctic

Major spills

What can you do?

Form letters and addresses

References

Abstract

The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is the only place where three ecological systems: coastal plain, mountains, and boreal forest can be protected in so small an area   (Carter 2000). This Area is critically important to the ecological integrity of the whole Arctic Refuge, providing essential habitats for numerous internationally significant migratory species.   (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2000). Section 1002 of the ANWR contains as little as five months of oil,   (Carter 2000) making it more cost efficient to increase the fuel efficiency of cars and light trucks by one mile per gallon   (Natural Resource Defense Council 2000). On Alaska's North Slope, there has been an average of 427 spills each year since 1996 from oil industry activities, according to Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation records. Over 1.2 million gallons spilled between 1996 and 1998 . Diesel and crude oil spills are most common   (Alaska 1998). Drilling in the Arctic must stop in order to save this fragile ecosystem. Current technology provides viable alternative energy sources to petroleum. By increasing funding for Department of Energy programs such as Solar and Renewable Resources Technologies and Energy Conservation--that fund solar power and geothermal research as well as energy efficiency programs, we can begin the move away from oil as an energy source.

ANWR Oil Facts

In Section 1003 of ANILCA, Congress specifically stated 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"   (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2000).

Primary Oil Recovery "Primary oil recovery involves drilling a well and pumping out the oil that flows by gravity into the bottom of the well. After the flowing oil has been removed, water can be injected into nearby wells to force some of the remaining heavy oil to the surface, a process known as secondary oil recovery. On average, producers get only about 35% of the oil out of a reservoir by primary and secondary recovery before they abandon it because the heavy oil that remains is too difficult or expensive to recover"   (Miller 2000).

Figure 3 illustrates this situation clearly. In green are the resources in place. In blue are the resources technically recoverable. In purple are the resources economically available.



Figure 3. Recoverable Oil (USGS 1998)

---

At prices less than $16 per barrel, there is no economically recoverable oil in the 1002 Area. Present oil prices are ranging between $25 to $35 per barrel. Nearly 1 million barrels of oil a day are produced from the existing oil fields in areas west of the Arctic Refuge, and new wells are brought into production each year. Americans use 19 million barrels of oil each day, or 7 billion barrels of oil per year. There is, therefore, a 50% chance of finding a 9 month's supply of oil in the 1002 Area, at $24 per barrel  (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2000).

We can save more oil by improving the average fuel efficiency of all cars and light trucks by just one mile per gallon  (Natural Resource Defense Council 2000).

Crude oil is a fossil fuel often found trapped in the earth's crust. The oil is dispersed throughout pore spaces in rock formations like water is in a sponge. Sometimes water or natural gas trapped in the crust provides enough pressure to force some crude oil to the surface. Unfortunately, geopressurized wells are rare, leaving most oil to be pumped to the surface.

Oil is a non-renewable energy source. Using oil as an energy source requires energy. The oil must be found, pumped, transported, converted into useful forms (such as gasoline, diesel and heating oil), transported to the consumer and finally used in cars and furnaces. In the case of the ANWR additional steps must be taken to use the oil. The pipelines and pump houses used for transporting oil out of the arctic require insulation and protection against the extreme freezing and thawing of the permafrost.

The second law of thermodynamics states that energy can be neither created or destroyed. Yet, when energy is changed from one form to another, energy quality decreases. By going through all the steps listed above, the quality of energy is radically reduced. What is left is known as net useful energy. Suppose that for every 10 units of oil energy in the ground we have to use and waste eight units in order to find, extract, process, and transport the oil to consumers. We are left with two units of useful energy from every 10 units in the oil. Is that efficient? Clearly it is not.

back to the top

Arctic Wildlife/Ecology

Although the 1002 Area is only 10% of the total Refuge acreage, it includes most of the Refuge's coastal plain and arctic foothills ecological zones. The 1002 Area contains just 4% of Alaska's coastal plain and foothills zones. These are the only such lands where petroleum development is prohibited by Congress. This Area is critically important to the ecological integrity of the whole Arctic Refuge, providing essential habitats for numerous internationally significant migratory species. (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2000)


Figure 4. Porcupine Caribou.
(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2000)

The Porcupine Caribou herd of between 129,000 and 200,000 individuals migrate in the spring calving season to the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Between mid-May and mid-July they find food which is more abundant, offers more nutrition, and is more digestible than in other surrounding areas. To successfully find fresh food sources, mothers must be free to move about the Refuge. This in turn allows them to build up necessary fat reserves and milk for reproduction. Mothers commonly move up to 1.5 miles from any human presence when calving.

With the increasing presence of oil researchers in the refuge, the safe zone for calving mothers is rapidly shrinking. In addition to this problem, increased human presence limits the amount and quality of preferred grazing area in the calving season, exposes the herd to higher predation, and may alter ancient migratory routes which would have unforeseen negative consequences. The ANWR is in the northeast corner of Alaska, which lies within the caribou range. This is shown in figure 5  (Gibbons 1989).

Figure 5. Porcupine Caribou Ranges. (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2000)

back to the top

Environmental Impacts Of Oil Exploration

Alaska is already showing the effects of global warming such as permafrost melting, less snow cover, earlier spring snow melt and decreases sea ice thickness. The cumulative impacts of greenhouse gas emissions due to North Slope oil development (extraction, transportation and consumption of petroleum hydrocarbons) have not been analyzed.

A recent study in greenhouse gas emissions based on measurements at Prudhoe Bay estimated these to be 11.4 million metric tons per year, a rate four times greater than the total carbon emissions reported by the oil companies   (Brooks et al., 1997).

There is more than a spill a day in the Prudhoe Bay Oil Fields. Oil companys paid $3 million in EPA fines in 1998 for illegal drilling waste dumping at the Endicott oil field, touted as one of the most environmentally and technologically advanced   (Alaska 1998).

On Alaska’s North Slope, there has been an average of 427 spills between the years 1996 and 1998 from oil industry activities, according to Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation records. Over 1.2 million gallons spilled in this three-year period. Diesel and crude oil spills are most common   (Alaska 1998).

Emissions of nitrogen oxides range from about 60,000 to 80,000 tons per year (Dietrick 1987). In comparison, about 600 tons of sulfur dioxide, 17,000 tons of carbon monoxide, and 2,000 tons of suspended particulates enter the atmosphere each year from production activities (ARCO Alaska 1987).

About 40 different substances from acid to waste oil were spilled from routine oil field operations. Hydraulic oil, ethylene glycol, produced water, methanol, engine lube oil, drilling muds, sea water, corrosion inhibitors, and halon were frequently dumped. The largest spill occurred at a site where drilling wastes are injected below the ground; produced water seeped from nine well heads at a rate of 420-9600 gallons per minute resulting in the largest spill (994,400 gallons). There were also diesel, crude, and produced water spills greater than 5,000 gallons  (Alaska 1998).

Spills were most commonly caused by leaks, ruptured lines, valves that were faulty or left open, seal failures, tanker overfills, faulty connections, vent discharges, and corrosion. Spills were due to vehicles breaking through the ice, crashing, rolling over, and collisions; grounding, hull failure, explosion, fire, high winds, and other factors. Few of these spills received any detailed study   (Alaska 1998).

At the Endicott oil field, illegal disposal of drilling wastes by drilling contractors to British Petroleum took place for five years. Workers were instructed to violate environmental regulations and inject hazardous waste oil and solvents into unsealed outer well shafts where drilling muds can be legally injected  (Toomley 1998).

back to the top

Human Development In The Arctic

The effects of oil field development in the Arctic Refuge would extend far beyond the "footprint" of gravel pads and roads, and would cause many cumulative impacts including   (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2000):

Blocking, deflecting or disturbing wildlife, resulting in decreased numbers of wildlife in the area

Loss of subsistence hunting opportunities

Potentially fatal interactions between humans and polar bears and brown bears

Increased predation by arctic fox, gulls and ravens on nesting birds due to introduction of garbage as a consistent food source

Increased freezing depths of rivers and lakes as a result of water extraction (for ice road and pad construction and for oil well re-injection), killing overwintering fish and aquatic invertebrates

Alteration of natural drainage patterns, causing fisheries impacts and changes in vegetation

Deposition of alkaline dust on tundra along roads, altering vegetation over a much larger area than the actual width of the road.

Contributing to pollutant haze and acid rain from nitrogen oxides, methane and particulate matter emissions

Contamination of soil and water from fuel and oil spills

Major Spills

Information on the Valdez spill retrieved from(Carsosn 1998).

The devastating impacts of oil spills on wildlife are far too familiar for Alaskans. On March 24, 1989 the Exxon Valdez hit Bligh Reef in Alaska's Prince William Sound. Eleven million gallons of oil spilled into the ecosystem killing birds, marine mammals, fish, and an ecosystem that had sustained Alaskan natives for milenia.

The information below represents some of the damage caused by the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Damage to wildlife and habitat was extensive.

MARINE MAMMALS

Sea Otters - 3,500 to 5,500 died. Continued exposure to hydrocarbons in 1998. Populations in heavily oiled bays not recovered.
Harbor Seals - 300 died. Most seals and pups oiled at contaminated haulouts. From 1989 to 1997, the population has declined 35% and continues downward.
Killer Whales – Up to 22 died. Unprecedented mortality of females with calves. Males with collapsed dorsal fins subsequently died. Not recovered.

BIRDS

Common Murres - 175,000-300,000 killed. Minimum of 300,000 chicks lost, complete breeding failures at several large colonies from 1989 to 1991. El nino has set back recovery that was occurring.
Other Seabirds - 375,000 to 435,000 died. Declines of 16 species compared with earlier baseline surveys, including loons, black oystercatchers, pigeon guillemots, pelagic and red-faced cormorants, scoters, Barrow’s goldeneye, mergansers. Not recovered.
Harlequin Ducks - 400-1,000 died. Decreased molting populations and wintering survival for females in oiled areas, and evidence of exposure to hydrocarbons in tissues through 1998. Not recovered.
Marbled Murrelets – 12,800 to 14,800 died. A large part of the world’s population at risk from the spill; Prince William Sound numbers declined 67% since the 1970’s. Population continued to decline to 1991. Not recovered.
Loons - 395 carcasses, 4 loon species. Common loons have small, slow reproducing populations. Not recovering.

FISH

Pacific Herring - Most salmon spawning and feeding habitats in Prince William Sound were oiled, causing egg and larval mortality and physical deformities. Unprecedented population crash in 1993, first year eggs laid in 1989 should have returned. Not recovered.
Pink Salmon - Increased mortality of eggs in oiled streams. Lower adult survival and juvenile growth rates and gross abnormalities in young fish in oiled streams. Oil-spill related collapses in pink salmon populations in 1992 and 1993. Some spawning streams still oiled. Not recovered.
Dolly Varden - Lower adult survival through 1991 in oiled areas. Rate of recovery unknown.
Cutthroat Trout – At its northwest limit in Prince William Sound, its isolated ranges are highly vulnerable to pollution. Lower rates of growth persisted through 1991. Recovery rate unknown.
Rockfish, Other Marine Fish - Rockfish died from ingestion of oil and had sublethal injuries. Hydrocarbons were found in halibut; pollack; rock, yellowfin, Dover, and flathead sole; Pacific cod; and sablefish. Recovery rates unknown.

HABITAT

National Parks - Oiled Kenai Fiords, Katmai, and Aniakchak National Park and Preserve. Buried oil remains in park beaches.
National Wildlife Refuges - Kodiak, Alaska Peninsula/ Becharof, Alaska Maritime refuges oiled. Resources not recovered.
Chugach National Forest - Wilderness study area oiled. Forest resources still injured.
Designated Wilderness - Oiled Katmai National Park, Becharof National Wildlife Refuge, Kenai Fiords National Park wilderness study area, and Kachemak Bay State Wilderness Park. Invasion of more than 11,000 clean up workers, boats, and helicopters on remote beaches harmed wilderness values throughout spill area. Permanent loss.
Intertidal Communities – 1,500 miles of beaches harmed. Recent studies revealed that even on “cleaned-up” washed beaches, mollusks and other invertebrates were far less abundant than on comparable unspoiled beaches. Not recovered.
Subtidal Communities – Habitats providing shelter and food for an array of fishes, birds, and marine mammals were oiled, killing snails, clams, sea urchins, and invertebrates. Evidence of oil contamination in sediments, reduced abundance of clams and altered community composition persists. Not recovered.
Archeological Sites - 24 sites were damaged by the spill and cleanup

How many times do we need to pollute Alaskan shores with oil before we ensure that it doesn't happen again?
Do we need to see another spill?

back to the top

What Can You Do?

Be active! The ANWR will be developed and drilled for oil if U.S. citizens do not take action. If we do not voice our opposition to the proposed leasing of Section 1002 of the ANWR, a unique ecosystem will be lost. If you are concerned with the path George W. Bush is taking our country down, then do something about it. Select a form letter and write your representatives. Organizations like Patagonia offer grants to small groups concerned with environmental issues. If you need support for a cause like the ANWR, check out theie web site: Patagonia enviro-page. Another active site concerning the ANWR is the: Save bio gems page.

back to the top

Form Letters And Addresses

Politicians need to hear from hundreds of thousands of Americans now. Let your government know that the ANWR must not be developed further. Check out the sample letter below. You may use this, but remember personalized letters are more effective!

To write people in favor of drilling the ANWR, use letter 1.



Senator Frank H. Murkowski (R-Alaska)
Washington, D.C. office
U.S. Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510
(202)224-6665
(202)224-5301


Senator Trent Lott (R-Mississippi)
487 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
202-224-6253
202-224-2262 (fax)

To write people in favor of saving the ANWR, use letter 2.

Bernie Sanders
1 Church St. 2nd Floor
Burlington, VT. 05401
802-862-0697
802-860-6370
800-339-9834 (fax)

Bill Luther
651-730-4949
e-mail:bill.luther@mail.house.gov
www.house.gov/luther


Honorable Hillary Rodham Clinton
United States Senate
476 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
(202)224-4451
(202)228-0282 (fax)


I urge you to write your own representative and demand action on this issue. If you do not know how to contact your representative, use Write your Reps.

Return to default page
back to the top