Alaskan oil and wildlife

• Article
• Comments ()
• Click-2-Listen
• Videos

By

"This battle is far from over," environmentalists vowed, after the Senate voted to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to drilling. Indeed, the 51-49 margin underscores the passion of drilling opponents, the misinformation that still surrounds this issue, and a monumental double standard for environmental protection.

Many votes against drilling came from California and Northeastern senators who consistently rail against high energy prices, unemployment and balance of trade deficits -- while opposing petroleum exploration in Alaska, the Outer Continental Shelf, Western states and any other areas where it might actually be found. Rarely if ever, do they recognize these bans send American jobs and dollars overseas, reduce U.S. royalty and tax revenues, and harm the environment.

Government geologists say ANWR could hold up to 16 billion barrels of recoverable oil. That's 30 years' of imports from Saudi Arabia. Turned into gasoline, it would power California's vehicle fleet for 50 years, and hybrid and fuel cell cars would stretch the oil even further. ANWR's natural gas could fuel California's electrical generating plants for years.

At $50 a barrel, ANWR could avoid importation of $800 billion worth of foreign oil, create up to 700,000 American jobs and generate hundreds of billions in royalties and taxes.

No matter, say environmentalists. Drilling would "irreparably destroy" the refuge. Nonsense.

ANWR is as large as South Carolina: 19 million acres. Of this, only 2,000 acres along the "coastal plain" would actually be disturbed by drilling and development. That's 0.01 percent -- one-twentieth of the District of Columbia -- 20 of the buildings Boeing uses to manufacture its 747 jets.

The potentially oil-rich area is a flat, treeless stretch of tundra, 3,500 miles from D.C. and 50 miles from the beautiful mountains seen in all the misleading anti-drilling photos. During eight months of winter, when drilling would take place, virtually no wildlife are present. No wonder. Winter temperatures drop as low as minus 40 F. The tundra turns rock solid. Spit, and your saliva freezes before it hits the ground.

But the nasty conditions mean drilling can be done with ice airstrips, roads and platforms. Come spring, they would all melt, leaving only puddles and little holes. The caribou would return -- just as they have for years at the nearby Prudhoe Bay and Alpine oil fields -- and do just what they always have: eat, hang out and make babies. In fact, Prudhoe's caribou herd has increased from 6,000 head in 1978 to 27,000 today. Arctic fox, geese, shore birds and other wildlife would also return, along with the infamous flies and mosquitoes.

But the Wilderness Society, Sierra Club, Alaska Coalition, Defenders of Wildlife, and Natural Resources Defense Council still oppose ANWR development -- even as they promote wind energy as an alternative. Electricity from wind is hardly a substitute for petroleum -- especially for cars, trains, boats and planes. And swapping reliable, revenue-generating petroleum for intermittent, tax-subsidized wind power is a poor tradeoff. On ecological grounds, wind power fails even more miserably.

A single 555-megawatt gas-fired power plant on 15 acres generates more electricity each year than all 13,000 of California's wind turbines -- which dominate 106,000 acres of once-scenic hill country. They kill some 10,000 eagles, hawks, other birds and bats every year.