Development of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge should not be
used as a smoke screen for an unwillingness to focus on harder
long-term energy issues. The Arctic refuge would only provide the
equivalent of what the United States consumes in less than six
months, it would not enhance our nation's energy security, lower
prices for consumers, or create a substantial number of new
long-term jobs. The Bush Administration's focus on drilling in the
Arctic refuge has been a distraction from real energy solutions that
would actually help consumers, protect the environment, and
decrease our dependence on foreign sources.
Supply
The Arctic refuge would provide less than a six-month supply
of oil - which would not be available for ten years. According to
the 1998 U.S. Geological Survey study, the mean estimate of
economically recoverable oil from the Arctic refuge is 3.2 - 5.2 billion
barrels. This is equivalent to the amount of oil the U.S. consumes in
about six months. According to the Congressional Research
Service, production from the Arctic refuge would not come on line for
ten years or more (RS21030, October, 1, 2001).
The much higher figure of 10.4 billion barrels of available oil often
quoted by the Bush Administration and others refers to the estimated
amount of technically (not economically) recoverable oil in the
coastal plain of Arctic refuge. Even using this inflated estimate, the
Arctic refuge would provide less than one year of oil for the U.S.
The Arctic refuge would not reduce U.S. dependence on foreign
oil. According to a March 12, 2001 report issued by the Energy
Information Administration (EIA), "the increased production from the
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is projected to reduce the net share of
foreign oil used by the U.S. in 2020 from 62 percent to 60 percent."
We cannot drill our way out of dependence on foreign oil. According to the EIA, the
U.S. currently relies on foreign imports for about 56 percent of its oil and domestic
production accounts for 44 percent. The U.S. consumes about 19 million barrels of oil
daily. Of this consumption, domestic production accounts for 8.1 million barrels of oil a
day; 10.9 million barrels of oil per day is imported. The U.S. has approximately three
percent of the world's oil reserve but consumes 25 percent of the world's oil. This is
compared to 65 percent of the world's total reserve held by the OPEC nations.
Arctic refuge production would not affect current oil or gasoline prices. The price
of oil is a world price, and is largely determined by the international market. For
example, last year's gasoline price spikes were the result of a decision by OPEC
producers to cut production when demand dropped following the Asian economic crisis,
not because of changes in domestic oil production. Price stabilization likewise has
occurred through addressing the international market. Given the U.S. share of the
global market, no amount of available Arctic refuge production would significantly
impact current global oil prices, or current U.S. oil or gasoline prices.
Ninety-five percent of Alaska's North Slope is already open to oil and gas
drilling. Ninety-five percent of the potential oil reserves of Alaska's North Slope are
already designated for potential leasing or open to exploration and drilling. The last five
percent - the coastal plain of the Arctic refuge - is the only wild stretch of the coast of
Alaska's North Slope that remains off-limits. First established by President Dwight
Eisenhower in 1960, the Arctic refuge remains the only conservation area in North
America that protects a complete range of arctic and sub-arctic landscapes.
Construction of the Alaska natural gas pipeline. There are more than 35 trillion
cubic feet of natural gas immediately available in existing oil fields on the Alaska North
Slope. Currently, natural gas is produced with this oil but is reinjected back into the
ground because there is no pipeline to bring it to the lower 48 states. Building a
pipeline would create more than 400,000 new jobs, provide a huge opportunity for the
steel industry, and ensure that the U.S. would not become as dependent on imported
liquified natural gas from OPEC.
Better supply options available. The oil industry should explore and develop western
and central portions of the Gulf of Mexico and the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska
(NPRA) before there is any discussion of opening the Arctic refuge. There are 32
million acres in the western and central portions of the Gulf of Mexico under lease but
not developed. In addition, the oil industry is extremely optimistic about the prospects
of finding additional oil reserves in the NPRA. In May of 2001, the three largest oil
discoveries in the last ten years were made in the NPRA.
Impacts
Drilling would hurt wildlife. According to a March 29, 2002 report issued by the U.S.
Geological Survey, "oil development will most likely result in restricting the location of
concentrated caribou calving areas, calving sites and annual calving ground" and lead
to fewer calves being able to survive. The caribou herd has been in a steady decline
from a peak of 178,000 in 1989 to 123,000 today.
On April 5, 2002, Interior Secretary Norton issued supplemental information on potential
development scenarios and the impacts to the Porcupine caribou herd. The
supplemental information does not consider the seven other wildlife species included in
the earlier report. In addition, the supplemental information fails to consider the impact
oil field development would have on caribou calving areas after the calving period.
Musk oxen and snow geese are among the other wildlife that also could be affected.
Snow geese and millions of migratory birds have a small area for feeding on the coastal
plain, making them vulnerable to oil drilling activities. Oil exploration may also hurt the
musk oxen in the refuge by having to expend too much energy moving from human
industrial activities, making it harder for them to withstand the winter.
The March 29 report stated that "musk oxen in the refuge are vulnerable to disturbance
from activities associated with petroleum exploration and extraction because of their
year-round residency, their small population numbers and their need to conserve
energy throughout the long winter if they are to successfully reproduce."
2,000 acre "footprint" would create a spider web of industrial facilities. Claims by
the Bush Administration that the 1.5 million acre coastal plain of the Arctic refuge could
be developed using only 2,000 acres are simply false. The potential oil deposits under
the coastal plain are not concentrated in one large reservoir but are spread across the
entire coastal plain in many small deposits. To explore and drill for oil from this vast
area, roads and pipeline would have to stretch across the Delaware-sized coastal plain
and would fragment wildlife habitat.
The 2,000 acre "footprint" concept would not require that roads, pipelines, production
facilities and airports be in one 2,000 acre area. Under the House-passed energy bill,
for example, the 2,000 acre limit does not apply to the 93,000 acres of native regional
corporation land within the boundaries of the Arctic refuge, where unlimited
development would be permitted.
According to the Department of the Interior's 1987 Environmental Impact Statement,
"infrastructure of any oil production on the coastal plain area requires many facilities
including central production facilities, drilling pads, roads, airstrips, pipelines, water and
gravel sources, base camps, construction camps, storage pads, powerlines,
powerplants, support facilities and possibly a coastal marine facility."
Jobs
60,000 jobs, not 735,000 jobs. Drilling proponents cite a 1990 report prepared for the
American Petroleum Institute (API) by the Wharton Economic Forecasting Association
(WEFA) Group that projected 735,000 jobs would be created if full development were
allowed in the Arctic refuge. Inaccurate assumptions and model inputs provided by the
oil industry, however, resulted in a biased WEFA analysis that dramatically overstated
the potential job creation from drilling in the Arctic refuge. In September 2001, WEFA
admitted that flawed assumptions were used in the report.
CRS estimates 60,000 jobs. According to the Congressional Research Service,
(RS21030, October, 1, 2001) under the most likely scenario, full development of the
Arctic refuge would result in 60,000 jobs.
JEC estimates 65,000 jobs. On March 14, 2002, the Joint Economic Committee
issued a report which found that drilling in the Arctic refuge would produce relatively few
economic benefits and that the oil resources would not be large enough to enhance
national security. Drilling in the Arctic refuge would "create 65,000 jobs nationwide by
2020, an employment gain of less than one tenth of one percent of the U.S. workforce
as a whole."
