Transcript Arctic National Wildlife Preserve

Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge
Alex Wolff
Stephanie Wege
Laura Hart
Bari Greenfeld
Shannon Cullen
 History of ANWR
 Pro-drilling view
 Government
 Oil companies
 Local population
 Anti-drilling
 Environmentalists
 Local Population
History of ANWR


1960 - Arctic National Wildlife Range created by
Secretary of the Interior, Fred Andrew Seaton
1980 - Alaska National Interest Lands
Conservation Act enlarges protected area and
renames ANWR
1)
2)
3)
4)
Conserve fish/wildlife populations and habitats
Fulfill U.S. international fish/wildlife treaty obligations
Provide continued subsistence use by locals
Ensure water quality/quantity within Refuge
 1.5 million acres of coastal plain called 1002
area
 Mandated studies of natural resources of the
area
 Congressional authorization required for oil
drilling
Managed by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Habitat for 36 land mammals, 36 fish, 9 marine
mammals, 160 bird species
Five ecological regions
Coastal marine
Coastal plain
Alpine tundra
Forest-tundra transition
Boreal forest
Pro-drilling Government view
 anywhere from 6 to 16 billion barrels would
decrease middle east reliance
 Creation of jobs
 At $100/barrel, would eliminate $1.6 billion in
imported oil
 Federal revenue would increase $4.2 billion
in five years
 $152-237 billion over life of project
 Most of proposed oil located in west near
already established oil fields







Fifty miles from mountains
No trees, deep water lakes
No sunlight for 56 days a year
.01% of ANWR land would be drilled
20% of our daily consumption
ice roads would be used, would melt in spring
Prudhoe Bay oilfields within Central Arctic
Herd area, where herds have increased from
5,000 in 1977 when oil drilling began to
31,000 today
Local Support
 Inupiat of Kaktovik
 Only village within boundaries of ANWR
 More westernized than other locals
 Represents opportunity for economic growth
 Add jobs and increase standard of living
 Concerned that drilling could affect hunting
and fishing abilities
Oil Companies
profit potential $$$
Surprisingly, however, most big oil companies have
pulled out of lobbying for ANWR drilling
Environmentalist Opposition
 would affect animal population migration patterns
 No requirement that 2,000 acres be contiguous
 Companies would have right to drill anywhere
 Roads, etc. would have to be built to get oil out
 Porcupine and Central Arctic herd
 Use area to give birth and raise young
 Polar bears, grizzly bears, and countless bird species
use area for breeding and feeding
QuickTime™ and a
T IFF (Uncompressed) decompressor
are needed to see t his picture.
Long-billed dowitcher
Peregrine falcon
Green-winged
teal
Qui ckT ime™ and a
T IFF (Uncompres sed) dec ompres sor
are needed to s ee this pic ture.
 Oil would take ten years to hit market
 Even at peak production, would only be 3% of US oil
consumption
 If used as 5% of US daily consumption, would last around
12 years
 If used as 100%, would last around a year
 Would cause around 1 cent drop of price for a gallon of
gasoline
 BP, ConocoPhillips, and ChevronTexaco have pulled out
(oil companies don’t even want to drill there)
 Takes focus off of real problem, our overconsumption issues
and lack of sustainability
 THE ANIMALS!
Local Opposition
 Gwich’in, live further south
 Rely heavily on hunting, fishing, and whaling
 Rely mostly on porcupine caribou who rely on
coastal plain in ANWR
 Have heavily opposed drilling with protests
and lobbying
 Present evidence that not everyone around
the area is on board
Important Notes
 Each side will use numbers that support their claims
more directly
 “If you torture data long enough, they’ll admit to anything”
 Each claim has a counterclaim
 Ie. Gwich’in sold their land for oil exploration in the 1980s
and now they oppose drilling in ANWR, where they don’t
even live
 Fields will affect animals vs. other areas drill already and
animal populations have grown over time
Current Developments
 2000, passed by Hour of Representatives
 Rejected by Senate in 2002
 2005, passed by Senate as part of federal budget
resolution
 Removed during reconciliation process by Democrats in
House who signed a letter pledging to reject anything
including ANWR drilling
 2005, drilling amendment attached to defense
spending bill
 Group of Democratic senators successfully filibustered bill
 Currently still unable to drill there
 As of three days ago, President Bush held a
press conference urging Congress to open
ANWR
 Chastised House and Senate, making claims of
lower gas prices and reduced reliance on middle
East for energy