Discover

(Redirected from 1002 area)


The question of whether or not to allow 'drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge' (ANWR) has been a political football for every sitting American president since Jimmy Carter. The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is just east of Prudhoe Bay in Alaska's "North Slope," which is North America's largest oil field. Currently, the Prudhoe bay area accounts for 17% of U.S. domestic oil production.^[1] Over the years, studies performed by the US Geological Survey have shown that large deposits of crude oil reside within the land designated as the "1002 area" of ANWR, as well.^[2]U.S. Geological Survey Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, 1002 Area, Petroleum Assessment, 1998, Including Economic Analysis
Oil interest in the region goes back to the late 1960s. Since the 1979 energy crisis, the question of whether or not to drill for oil has become a hot-button issue for various groups. Traditionally, Alaskan residents, trade unions, and business interests have supported drilling in the refuge, while environmental groups and many within the Democratic Party have traditionally opposed it. Among native Alaskan tribes, support is mixed.
In the 1990s and 2000s, votes about the status of the refuge occurred repeatedly in the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate, but as of 2007 efforts to allow drilling have always been ultimately thwarted by filibusters, amendments, or vetoes.

Contents

The village of Kaktovik

History

1987-1999

2000-present

Technical projections and estimates

Estimates of oil reserves

See also

References

External links

The village of Kaktovik

The small village of Kaktovik, located in area 1002, was originally cited as one of the reasons for drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge due to a believed overwhelming support for economic growth. When sixty-eight villagers responded to a 2000 survey, 78% believed that the Arctic Refuge should be opened to oil and gas exploration, while 9% believed it shouldn't.^[3] However, the people of Kaktovik are strongly against offshore oil development for fear of it affecting whale migration.
On May 9, 2006, a resolution was passed in the village of Kaktovik calling Shell "a hostile and dangerous force" which authorized the mayor to take legal and other actions necessary to "defend the community". The resolution also calls on all North Slope communities to oppose Shell's offshore leases until the company becomes more respectful of the people. Mayor Sonsalla says Shell has failed to work with the villagers on how the company would protect bowhead whales which are part of Native culture, subsistence life, and diet.^[4]

History

1987-1999

In 1987, Canada and the U.S. signed the Agreement on the Conservation of the Porcupine Caribou Herd treaty which was designed to protect the herd and its habitat from damage or disruptions in migration routes. Canada's Ivvavik National Park and Vuntut National Park borders the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The Canadian government believes that any oil development in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge could disrupt migratory routes of the herd in the region.
In 1989, many in the United States Congress were interested in exploratory drilling in and around the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. That interest waned shortly after the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Prince William Sound.
In the 1990s, President George H.W. Bush's National Energy Bill authorized drilling in ANWR, but a filibuster by Senate Democrats kept the measure from coming to a vote. In 1995, Republicans prepared to take up the battle again and included a provision for ANWR in the federal budget. President Bill Clinton vetoed the entire budget and expressed his intention to veto any other bill that would open ANWR to drilling.
The 1998 US Geological Survey report did little to end the controversy. It showed that there was more oil than previously thought in ANWR, and that it was heavily concentrated in the western part of Section 1002. Beyond that, however, little was agreed upon by both sides of the debate. Supporters of the drilling claimed there were 16 billion barrels of oil to be recovered, but this number was at the extreme high side of the report and represented only a 5% probability of technically recoverable oil across the entire assessment area. Opponents of drilling claimed there were only 3 billion barrels of oil to be recovered, which was at the extreme low end and rounded downward from 3.4 billion barrels. It represented a 95% probability of technically recoverable oil only on federal lands and only the part of ANWR's section 1002 lands nearest the Canning River.
In 1998, the average West Coast price for Alaska crude oil was $12.54 per barrel and by September 2000, it had climbed to $37.22. This resulted in Clinton ordering a release of oil from the nation's Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
Environmentalists pressed U.S. President Clinton to declare the Arctic Refuge a U.S. National Monument. Doing so would have banned drilling within the refuge. However, it would not have banned slant drilling (also known as directional drilling) around the perimeter of the land. While Clinton did create several refuge monuments, most at the very end of his tenure, the Arctic Refuge was not on the list.

2000-present

In December 2000, a Coast Guard report charged Alyeska with repeated safety violations at a Valdez terminal, causing prices to jump again. The administration of U.S. President George W. Bush pushed to perform exploratory drilling for oil and gas in and around the refuge. The House of Representatives voted in mid-2000 to allow drilling. In April 2002, the Senate rejected it.
Arctic Refuge drilling was again approved by the House of Representatives as part of the Energy Bill on April 21, 2005,^[5] but the Arctic Refuge provision was later removed by the House-Senate conference committee. The Senate passed Arctic Refuge drilling on March 16, 2005 as part of the federal budget resolution for fiscal year 2006.^[6] That Arctic Refuge provision was removed during the reconciliation process, due to Democrats in the House of Representatives who signed a letter stating they would oppose any version of the budget that had Arctic Refuge drilling in it.^[7]
On December 15, 2005, Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK) attached an Arctic Refuge drilling amendment to the annual defense appropriations bill. A group of Democratic Senators led a successful filibustering of the bill on December 21, 2005, and the language was subsequently removed from the bill.

Technical projections and estimates

Estimates of oil reserves

A 1998 United States Geological Survey (USGS) study indicated at least 5.7 billion (95% probability) and possibly as much as 16.0 billion (5% probability) barrels (0.9 to 2.5 km³) of technically recoverable oil exists in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge 1002 area, with a mean value of 10.4 billion barrels (1.7 km³). This area covers not only land under Federal jurisdiction, but also Native lands and adjacent State waters within three miles. Technically recoverable oil within just the Federal lands of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge 1002 area is estimated to be at least 4.3 billion (95%) and as much as 11.8 billion (5%) barrels (0.7 to 1.9 km³), with a mean value of 7.7 billion barrels (1.2 km³). Economically recoverable oil within the Federal lands assuming a market price of $40/barrel (constant 1996 dollars - the highest price included in the USGS study) is estimated to be between 3.4 billion (95%) and 10.4 billion (5%) barrels (0.5 to 1.7 km³), with a mean value of 6.8 billion barrels (1.1 km³).
The 10.4 billion barrel figure and an estimate of 1.4 million barrels per day were used in publications by the U.S. Department of the Interior while it was headed by Gale Norton, a proponent of drilling in the Arctic Refuge.^[8]
The U.S. consumes about 20 million barrels daily. If the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge oil reserves were used to supply 5% of the U.S. daily consumption -- most is imported from Canada (19%) Mexico (15%), Saudi Arabia (11.5%), Nigeria (10.5%) and Venezuela (10.5%)^[9] -- the reserves, using the low figure of 4.3 billion barrels, would last approximately 4300 days, or almost 12 years. Using the high estimate, the reserves would last approximately 11800 days, or 32 years.

See also

''National Petroleum Reserve–Alaska''

References

1. [1] Columbia University Prudhoe Bay
2. Columbia University Geology
3. [2] Arctic National Wildlife Refuge webpage: City of Kaktovik (not to be confused with the official website)
4. Petroleum News Kaktovik accuses Shell of insincerity
5. [3]The Library of Congress: Thomas Bill Number H.R.6 for the 109th Congress
6. [4] The congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2006
7. [5] Washington Post: House Drops Arctic Drilling From Bill
8. [6] U.S. Department of the Interior: ANWR Oil Reserves Greater Than Any State
9. [7] Energy Information Administration: Crude Oil and Total Petroleum Imports Top 15 Countries



★ Audubon Society

External links

★ ANWR

★ ANWR's official website at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

★ Sierra Club Map for Google Earth of the Proposed Drilling

★ A meeting place for Alaska Advocates

★ ''Oil on Ice'', an award winning anti-drilling documentary

★ Website of Arctic Slope Regional Corp, owned by the Native Alaskan Inupiat tribe

★ Information and research site created by Alaska oil expert Richard Fineberg

★ Read Congressional Research Service (CRS) Reports regarding the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge

★ Website of Arctic Power "Jobs and energy for America", Pro-drilling information site

★ Alaska Inter-Tribal Council

★ Canadian embassy website describing Canadian government's position opposing ANWR oil development

★ BEING CARIBOU THE FILM

★ Anthropology and the ANWR drilling controversy