|
2000 ACRE
SCAM
| "The
proponents of drilling add insult to injury with
their spurious arguments in favor of drilling. It
is only a few thousand acres, they say. That is
like saying, do not worry, the tumor is only in
your lungs. The drilling will have impacts that
will affect wildlife throughout the area."
-- Rep.
Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY) April 10, 2003, CR H3251 |
Energy bills that
narrowly passed the House of Representatives (H.R. 4
August 2, 2001; H.R. 6 April 11, 2003) contain language
designed to make oil development in the Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge sound more palatable. One scam was an
amendment claiming development would be confined to a
2,000 acre area.
The entire 1.5
million-acre coastal plain would still be opened to
leasing and exploration.
The scars of oil
exploration on the Arctic Refuge's coastal plain from
the 1980's are still visible today. Modern
"3-D" seismic exploration is even more damaging
to fragile tundra vegetation than what was used in the
past. Proponents of drilling know that their phony acreage
scam is designed to open the entire coastal plain of the
refuge to drilling.
There is no
requirement oil development be contiguous.
Oil corporations want you
to think its one compact area. But, as with the North
Slope oil fields west of the Arctic Refuge, development
would sprawl over a very large area.
Supporting
infrastructure would have to stretch across the coastal
plain.
The U.S. Geological
Survey said that whatever oil and gas is under the coastal
plain is in small deposits spread throughout the plain.i
This is why the bill includes the entire coastal plain and
not a smaller portion of it. To produce oil from this vast
area, networks of pipelines and roads would be built,
fragmenting wildlife habitat.
Even if the oil
development was contiguous, it would have a huge impact on
the wilderness.
The 12-lane wide New
Jersey turnpike stretches more than 100 miles across the
state but covers only 1,773 acres.
The 2,000 acre scam
does not include all oil industry infrastructure,
facilities, or operations.
"My amendment did
not address roads."ii -- Rep. John E. Sununu
The bill's development
accounting only included the area where oil production
facilities actually touch the ground, and excluded gravel
mines, roads, and pipelines (except their posts).iii It
did not cover seismic or other exploration operations done
across the 1.5 million acre area. Air and noise pollution
are carried far from developments.
The National Academy
of Sciences said impacts extend well beyond the immediate
"footprint."
| "The
effects of industrial activities are not limited
to the footprint of a structure or to its
immediate vicinity, a variety of influences can
extend some distance from the actual footprint…The
common practice of describing the effects of
particular projects in terms of the area directly
disturbed by roads, pads, pipelines, and other
facilities ignores the spreading character of oil
development on the North Slope and the
consequences of this to wildland values. All of
these effects result in the erosion of wildland
values over an area far exceeding the area
directly affected…Nearly all the roads, pads,
pipelines and other infrastructure ever built are
still in place. The environmental effects of
such structures on the landscape, water systems,
vegetation, and animals are manifest not only at
the "footprint" itself (physical area
covered by the structure) but also at distances
that vary depending on the environmental component
being affected." vv |
New technology does not
make drilling compatible with wildlife conservation on the
Arctic Refuge. Read more:
References
1. U.S. Geological Survey
April 2001. Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, 1002 Area,
Petroleum Assessment, 1998, including economic analysis.
USGS Fact Sheet FS-028-01.
Bird, K.J. 1998. Chapter
AO. Assessment Overview. In: The oil and gas
resource potential of the 1002 area, Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge, Alaska, by ANWR Assessment Team, U.S.
Geological Survey Open File Report 98-34. Figs.
AO6-15.
2. Rep. John E. Sununu.
August 15, 2001."Environmental extremists just say no
to any new energy production." Union Leader.
3. Identical amendment in
H.R.4 and H.R.6: "Ensure that the maximum amount
of surface acreage covered by production and support
facilities, including airstrips and any areas covered by
gravel berms or piers for support of pipelines, does not
exceed 2,000 acres on the Coastal Plain."
4. National Research
Council. 2003. Cumulative environmental effects
of oil and gas activities on Alaska's North
Slope. National Academies Press. P.4, 9,148;
and Report
Brief.
|
