Tag Archives: oil and gas development

Plan to drill for oil is one step closer for Arctic National Wildlife Refuge

A 40-year tug of war between oil wells and caribou in Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge could soon end with active drilling in one of the most fragile ecosystems in the world.

Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vermont, argues that the focus should be on climate change, not more oil.
Photo: Congressional video

The Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources endorsed legislation yesterday that would require the federal government to sell leases for at least 800,000 acres of land over the next decade. The measure, which divided Republicans and Democrats in the committee, could pass the full Senate with a 50-percent vote as part of a budget bill.

The committee discussion, shown in the video on this page, was quite revealing, as Democrats offered amendments to the Republican legislation. The hearing begins 24:05 minutes into the video.

The committee chairwoman, Sen. Lisa Murkowski, a Republican from Alaska, said developing oil wells in the northern part of ANWR was always the intent of the 1980 law that expanded the wildlife refuge. The drilling could generate more than $1 billion in federal revenues over the first 10 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Murkowski said oil development will create thousands of good jobs, keep energy affordable, reduce foreign oil imports and ensure national security. Drilling is supported by Alaskans of all political persuasions, including most public officials, she said.

Murkowski insisted again and again that the environment would be protected during any future oil production. No environmental laws would be waived, she said, and new oil-drilling technology will allow a much smaller footprint of development than in previous drilling projects in Alaska.

Democrats, led by Washington Sen. Maria Cantwell, the ranking Democrat on the committee, voiced indignation over the language in the legislation as well as the idea of drilling in a wildlife refuge.

Even though the legislation leaves the door open for environmental reviews — including an assessment of harm to endangered species — it clearly mandates drilling, regardless of the damage to any species or their habitats, the Democrats maintained. Attorneys for the committee concurred in that assessment.

In fact, the new legislation would the alter the original law that created the wildlife refuge by adding a new purpose: oil production in the 1.5-million-acre northern region, known as the 1002 Area. Leased areas would essentially become a petroleum preserve, governed by the National Petroleum Reserve Act.

“The purpose of the refuge was to protect the wildlife that live there,” Cantwell said. “You are taking a wildlife refuge and turning it on its ear.”

If approved, the legislation would remove lands to be developed from the jurisdiction of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and put them under the Bureau of Land Management.

Cantwell mentioned a letter signed by 37 scientists familiar with ANWR who objected to oil exploration and development in the refuge. They raised concerns for the wildlife that occupy the coastal plain where drilling is proposed.

“Decades of biological study and scientific research within the Arctic Refuge have confirmed that the coastal plain specifically is vital to the biological diversity of the entire refuge,” the letter says. “In fact, according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Arctic Refuge coastal plain contains the greatest wildlife diversity of any protected area above the Arctic Circle.”

Included in that diversity, the letter says, are “polar bears, grizzly bears, wolves, wolverines, caribou, muskoxen, Dolly Varden char, Arctic grayling, and many species of migratory birds.”

Cantwell also discussed a letter written by primate expert Jane Goodall that was sent to every U.S senator. The letter begs the senators to “demonstrate your commitment to the natural world and to future generations and stand with me to protect the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.”

Other Democratic and Independent senators on the committee also spoke out forcefully against the measure.

Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vermont, raised the issue of climate change and the hundreds of billions of dollars that the U.S. must spend because of more intense storms and hurricanes. In that context, the $1 billion to be raised from ANWR is insignificant, he said.

“I think that our children and our grandchildren are going to look back on meetings and markups like this, and they are really going to be shaking their heads and asking, ‘What world was the United States Senate living in when … responsible people were talking about more exploration for fossil fuels and not addressing the planetary crisis of climate change?’

“What this committee should be doing, working with people all over the world, is saying, ‘How do we transform our energy system away from fossil fuels, away from coal, oil and gas to sustainable energy?’” he added.

Sanders’ comments come at 2:02:38 in the video.

“This isn’t BLM land,” said Sen. Martin Heinrich, D-New Mexico, offering an amendment to protect wildlife. “This is a national wildlife refuge. … Does wildlife come first? You would think so from the name. But if we don’t make this change to the legislation, what we are saying is that oil and gas development comes first. That is a very, very dangerous precedent to make.”

Heinrich’s comments come at 2:17:30 in the video.

Information about the legislation can be found on the website of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.