View Single Post
  #17  
Old 03-16-2005, 03:50 PM
dissention's Avatar
dissention dissention is offline
Addicted Ledgie
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 26,612
Default

The amount of oil that the U.S. Geological Survey estimates could be recovered from the Arctic Refuge would amount to less than a six-month supply for American consumers. Even less natural gas occurs under the Refuge relative to U.S. demand.

At no time would oil from the refuge be expected to amount to more than 2 percent of U.S. demand. It will take 7 to 10 years for any oil to make it to market. 95% of the Alaska's North Slope is already available for oil and gas exploration and development.

Even if the highest predictions of oil in the refuge were to come true, oil from beneath the refuge would provide no more than a blip on the global oil market and would therefore have a negligible impact on the price of oil. Nor would drilling for oil in the refuge address our country's long-term energy problem.

http://www.enn.com/news/wire-stories.../reu_46823.asp
U.S. government study says Alaska drilling is harmful
Tuesday, April 02, 2002

Opening Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling could harm caribou, snow geese, and other wildlife, a new U.S. government study said Friday, despite the Bush administration's assurances that oil exploration would have little impact.

The report, written by the Interior Department's U.S. Geological Survey, was published 10 days before the U.S. Senate is due to launch a contentious debate on whether to allow drilling in the pristine refuge on Alaska's northern coast.

According to the government report, drilling in the refuge could especially hurt the Porcupine River caribou herd, which travels some 400 miles from Canada's Yukon Territory to the Alaskan coastal plain for calving in May and June. The herd, which has dwindled to an estimated 123,000 animals, uses the entire coastal plain area which the Bush administration wants to open to drilling.

Pregnant caribou avoid roads and pipelines and calves have ''repeatedly shown to be sensitive to disturbance," it said. "Oil development will most likely result in restricting the location of concentrated calving areas, calving sites, and annual calving grounds," the report said. "Expected effects that could be observed include reduced survival of calves during June, reduced weight and condition of (pregnant) females, and reduced weight of calves in late June."

While Bush and many Republicans have repeatedly endorsed drilling, the U.S. Energy Information Administration said recently that it would take about two decades before any crude oil pumped from the refuge could reduce U.S. oil imports.

Sen. John Kerry, a Massachusetts Democrat, said the new report showed why drilling is a bad idea. "The administration should take to heart the conclusive scientific findings of the U.S. Geological Survey and finally put aside plans to drill in the pristine wilderness of the Arctic," Kerry said in a statement.
__________________

Reply With Quote