Myths about ANWR.

[likwid]

Myth: Oil development in Prudhoe Bay is compatible with caribou and other wildlife. There are no impacts to caribou.

Fact: Scientific studies have detected significant impacts to calving habitat use and disruption of caribou movements. Although caribou numbers in the Central Arctic Herd have increased over the past 30 years, as have populations throughout the Arctic during this period, this regional trend has masked significant changes in habitat use and reproductive success. As oil field roads grew closer in the Kuparuk oil field, concentrated calving disappeared.

Fact: During the early 1990's biologists from the Alaska Department of Fish & Game found that caribou inhabiting the oil fields had lower calf productivity compared with members of the same herd that seldom encountered oil-related facilities. This herd has been largely split by the Trans-Alaska Pipeline into two groups, and a sharp decline recorded in 1995 surveys occurred entirely in the part of the range in the vicinity of oil, with 41% declines found in the Kuparuk oil field. Female caribou generally avoid the North Slope oil fields where there is a network of roads, pipelines, and other facilities.

Fact: Caribou use of preferred habitat declined exponentially as the density of oil field roads increased (Nellemann and Cameron, 1998). This loss of habitat continues to increase as new roads and pipelines expand across the North Slope.

Fact: In Prudhoe Bay, decreased nesting populations of eight species of shorebirds were found along oil field roads.

Myth: The experience at Prudhoe Bay shows we don't need to worry about impacts to the migratory Porcupine caribou herd.

Fact: The industry's argument about caribou is not valid. It ignores important differences between the two herds, and disregards concerns raised by scientists about the growing evidence of the effects of North Slope oil development on the herd in that area. The potential impacts from oil exploration and development to the Porcupine caribou herd that relies on the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge could be far greater than seen in the Prudhoe Bay area.

Fact: The refuge coastal plain area provides essential calving and post-calving habitat for a herd that is nearly six times as large as the Central Arctic Herd in a birthing and nursery grounds that is one-fifth the area. Over the past 25 years, the most consistently and heavily used calving area for the Porcupine caribou herd has been in the coastal plain area of the refuge proposed for oil development. Nearly every year, all females and calves in the herd use this area for post-calving, and in most years the majority of males also join them. There is no alternative habitat for the herd to move, according to the International Porcupine Caribou Board.

Myth: They don't allow anything on the tundra in the summertime. We are only going to allow activity in the wintertime.

Fact: This ignores the fact that oil development and production operations will occur all year round. Even during winter, oil exploration will impact denning polar bears, disturb sensitive muskoxen, which are year-round residents, and cause lasting harm to tundra vegetation. Polar bears are especially sensitive to disturbance during denning.

Fact: There is nothing in Senator Murkowski’s drilling legislation mandating any seasonal restrictions, and the option for seasonal closures only applies to exploratory drilling, not development and production. His drilling bill concedes that oil development and the purposes of the Arctic Refuge would not be compatible, by overriding the law governing all national wildlife refuges requiring any commercial activities be compatible.

Fact: Even during the winter, seismic oil exploration caused significant damage to vegetation from the heavy tracked vehicles. This occurred despite regulations and permit stipulations developed to minimize impacts to vegetation. Even after a decade, recovery was not complete following a limited 2-D program during the mid-1980's mandated by Congress in the Arctic Refuge. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service concluded that the impacts that remained on medium and highly disturbed trails, such as changes in thaw depths, trail subsidence, changes to wetter conditions, distinct ruts, invasion of grasses and decreases in shrubs may easily persist for another decade. The newer 3-D seismic oil exploration surveys would result in much more intensive and long-lasting damage.

Myth: Oil development would not harm polar bear habitats.

Fact: The coastal plain of the Arctic Refuge is the most important onshore denning area for the entire Beaufort Sea polar bear population. Senator Murkowski says, "only a few polar bears come ashore," and has even stated that none use the coastal plain. Scientists are concerned about oil spill impacts, degradation of habitat and potential disturbance from industrialization of the area.

Fact: Females may abandon their dens if disturbed, and early den abandonment can be fatal to cubs unable to fend for themselves. In 1985, a female polar bear abandoned her maternity den after seismic exploration vehicles tracked within 700' of it -- even though regulations at the time required a 1/2-mile buffer from known dens. This occurred despite the most extensive monitoring program ever in place for seismic exploration on the North Slope. Most maternity den sites are never known, and therefore cannot be avoided. The U.S. has committed to protection of polar bear denning habitats under international treaty.

Myth: The coastal plain is not "pristine" wilderness due to the Cold War military DEW line sites, Inupiat people living in the village of Kaktovik on Barter Island, and other activities.

Fact: The Arctic Refuge is one of the wildest places left on earth. Those small, discrete sites are not proposed for wilderness. The rest of the area is one of the last, large wilderness areas in the world with its biological systems left intact. The Arctic Refuge protects the globally important natural phenomenon of large aggregations of mammals and the migratory caribou herd.

Myth: Another Prudhoe Bay field?

Fact: The fact is that no one knows for sure what is below the ground, whereas we know for certain the values of the natural landscape. The most recent study done by U.S. Geological Survey in 1998 predicted that an average of 3.2 billion barrels of economically recoverable oil might be found in the Arctic Refuge coastal plain. This estimate takes into account the costs of producing the oil as well as the expected price that it would fetch on the market.

The 16 billion-barrel estimate touted by development proponents is the low probability (5% or 1 in 20 chance) for “technically recoverable” oil, i.e. without taking into account economic factors. When just the federal lands in the Arctic Refuge coastal plain are considered, the correct low-probability estimate of oil is 11.8 billion barrels of undiscovered oil — 25% less. The mean estimate for technically recoverable oil is considerably lower and the figure for oil that is economically recoverable is lower still.

The Interior Department pointed out that the 1998 USGS study concluded that it is unlikely that there is a Prudhoe Bay-size oil field in the refuge—the opposite of what industry claims. In fact, the USGS concluded that it would expect to find four fields scattered across the refuge capable of producing, altogether, approximately 3.2 billion barrels of oil — one fifth the amount of oil Senator Murkowski claims.

The giant Prudhoe Bay oil field has already pumped more than 10 billion barrels, and the State of Alaska estimates 3 billion more will be produced from that field by 2020. In contrast, USGS estimated the largest potential field size that may occur in the refuge is likely estimated to be just 1 billion barrels and the geology is more complex. [USGS 1998 Fact Sheet] Most potential fields in the refuge are considerably smaller; if they were developed, the required infrastructure would be scattered in many industrialized zones spread across the area, according to the Interior Department.

To date, all of the North Slope fields together have produced a total of 12.5 billion barrels of oil. The state of Alaska projects that another 5.7 billion barrels of oil will be produced from 1999 to 2020 from Prudhoe Bay, seven other nearby oil fields, and new development of 50 satellite fields -- without going into the refuge. This additional production alone roughly doubles the most likely economically recoverable oil that may be found in the Arctic Refuge. The state’s projection does not take into account significant production that may take place from the 15-20 billion barrels of known heavy oil deposits at West Sak field, which overlays Kuparuk and other North Slope fields.

Myth: Drilling the Arctic Refuge is necessary to access cleaner burning natural gas?

Fact: There is at least 35 trillion cubic feet of natural gas available from North Slope fields already under development – that’s the energy equivalent of 6 billion barrels of oil.

Myth: Drilling the Arctic Refuge will lead to lower gas and home heating oil prices for American consumers?

Fact: Prices are determined by global supply and demand factors – not the presence of absence of an individual field. Consider the history of Prudhoe Bay. In 1976 — the year before the nation's largest oil field entered production, a barrel of West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude oil sold for $12.65 and standard gasoline averaged $0.59 per gallon. Two years later, with Prudhoe Bay adding more than a million barrels per day to domestic supply in 1978, WTI had increased by more than 15% (to $14.85 per barrel) and gasoline averaged nearly $0.63 per gallon. During the next two years, as Prudhoe production increased, oil prices skyrocketed to $37.37, while gasoline nearly doubled, to $1.19 per gallon. In 1985, with Prudhoe Bay and Kuparuk both operating at full throttle, a barrel of WTI sold for more than $28.00 per barrel and gasoline averaged $1.12 per gallon.

Fact: Alaska oil is not shipped East of the Rocky Mountains nor is it used in refined home-heating oil sold in the Northeast.

Fact: In 1995, Senator Murkowski led the effort to lift a two-decade-old ban on the export of North Slope oil. Just last year, 28 million barrels of Alaska crude was shipped to China, Taiwan, Korea, and Japan – this is almost as much as the President just released from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. While it’s true that British Petroleum suspended exports a few months ago, after it acquired Arco’ refineries on the West Coast, no law prevents exports from resuming again in the future.

[likwid]

Myth: Without drilling in the refuge, there will be increased risks of oil spills at American ports from foreign tankers.

Fact: Tankers bring oil to American ports regardless of whether it is from Alaska's North Slope or imported from foreign countries. Oil from Alaska's North Slope is pumped down the Trans-Alaska Pipeline and shipped by tanker from Prince William Sound to lower 48 ports.

Fact: Besides our Nation's largest oil spill which devastated over a 1,000 miles of Alaska's pristine coastline, tankers carrying North Slope oil have sullied the ports and coasts of Washington, Oregon, and California. A number of such major spills have occurred since the Exxon Valdez.

Fact: Today, 11 years after the Exxon Valdez spill, the vast majority of oil shipped from Alaska is carried in aging tankers with higher risk of leaking. Only 3 of 26 have double-hulls and those are more than 20 years old. The first of Phillips’ four new Millenium Class double-hulled tankers to be built was christened in October, 1999, but will not carry North Slope crude oil until 2001. The first of BP’s three newly ordered double-hulled tankers will not enter service until 2003. Exxon has yet to order any double-hulled tankers.

Fact: In the wake of the Exxon Valdez spill, Congress passed the Oil Pollution Act of 1990. It includes stringent requirements for safety for all tankers calling at U.S. ports, regardless of their country of registry or Flag State. Prior to OPA 90, rules for the design and safety of the international tanker fleet rested with the countries that registered the tankers. By passing OPA 90, The United States shifted the balance of power for tanker safety to the countries where the world's tanker fleet delivers oil.

Fact: Under the terms of OPA 90, "unsafe foreign tankers" are no longer allowed to deliver oil to any U.S. port. Regardless of a tanker's flag state, it must meet all the standards for safety, crew manning and training, vessel inspection and spill prevention and response. They also must meet requirements of financial responsibility that mandate that the vessel owner demonstrate a capability to pay for the cost of cleaning up an oil spill, before the tanker can deliver oil to U.S. ports. The tankers must also meet the requirements to convert to a fleet of double hulls pursuant to a conversion schedule outlined in OPA 90.

Fact: Senator Murkowski said during the debate on lifting the ban on exports of Alaskan North Slope oil (1995):

“All tankers serving U.S. ports, whether American-made or foreign-flag, are subject to the same requirements under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 and are subject to the same safety and navigation requirements of the U.S. Coast Guard.”

“The fact is, there is simply no basis to assert that … foreign-flag tankers in Puget Sound waters are environmentally risky.”

Myth: Between 250,000 to 735,000 jobs nationwide could be created by oil development in the Arctic Refuge.

Fact: These numbers are from a flawed study done a decade ago. Most of the findings of the 1990 study (commissioned by the American Petroleum Institute) have been widely refuted by the Congressional Research Service and other economists.

Fact: The API study used unrealistic assumptions: that the price of oil would be over $48 per barrel [2000 dollars]; that the highly improbable 9.2 billion barrels will be extracted; and that the output will drive down world oil prices by nearly 5%, thus spurring economic activity nationwide.

Fact: The Congressional Research Service said, "only a magnitude of oil production that would be associated with a very large discovery could produce conditions that could lead to readily apparent benefits to the economy… Oil and gas producers that do not participate in ANWR development, their suppliers, and their local economies in the contiguous 48 states would be harmed by a price drop" (CRS, 1992, ANWR Development: Analyzing its economic impact).

Fact: Re-analysis of the economic estimate based on more realistic assumptions showed that industry's estimate was exaggerated 10-fold (Tellus Institute 1993). Ten times more jobs nation-wide would result from energy efficiency than from drilling in the refuge.

Myth: This is an issue for Alaskans to decide.

Fact: All Americans own the refuge lands. All Americans have a stake in our national wildlife refuges and parks. The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is the crown jewel of the National Wildlife Refuge System. The refuge, including its coastal plain area, is a federal conservation system unit under the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (ANILCA).

Fact: Recent opinion polls show a solid majority of Americans support protecting the Arctic Refuge coastal plain from oil drilling.

Fact: The State of Alaska owns 104.8 million acres in Alaska and was granted more lands -- and a higher proportion of lands within its state -- under the Statehood Act than any other state in the U.S. The State owns the valuable Prudhoe Bay oil fields and many other known fields on the North Slope, including huge ones such as West Sak that are largely untapped, in the vicinity.

Myth: An overwhelming majority of Alaskans support drilling in the Arctic Refuge.

Fact: Statewide public opinion polls show Alaskans to be closely divided on this issue. In a recent poll, 45% of Alaskans agreed that "the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, or ANWR, should be protected from oil drilling" while 49% disagreed and 6% were neutral or didn’t know (Alaska Conservation Alliance, July 2000). In response to the statement "the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge should be protected from British Petroleum's oil drilling and development plans," 41% agreed, 43% disagreed and 16% were neutral; Alaska Conservation Alliance, November 1999).

Fact: Most Alaska residents polled in rural areas, Southeast Alaska, Fairbanks, Democrats, moderates, and women by a wide margin agree that the refuge should be protected from oil development (November 1999).

Myth: There is little concern for oil drilling impacts to subsistence uses by Native Alaskans.

Fact: The Gwich'in (Athabascan Indian) people in the U.S. and Canada are united in their support for wilderness protection for the one area most important to the survival of their culture, the calving and nursery grounds of the Porcupine caribou herd in the coastal plain of the Arctic Refuge. The 7,000 Gwich'in people are one of the most traditional of surviving native cultures today. Their 15 villages are located along the migratory paths of the caribou. Arctic Village is located just outside the southern boundary of the refuge. If the Porcupine caribou herd is disrupted, even for a few years, many people may have to leave their communities to survive. Over the past decade they have subsisted on an average of 3-5,000 caribou each year.

The Canadian government at the highest levels, the National Congress of American Indians, representing over 200 tribes, the Tanana Cheifs Conference, the Council of Athabascan Tribal Governments, and the Episcopal Church and other religious organizations support the Gwich'in position. The Canadian government, along with the Inuvialuit and Vuntut Gwich'in First Nations have protected the Canadian calving and post-calving grounds of the Porcupine caribou herd in Ivvavik and Vuntut National Parks.

Fact: The Inpuiat (Eskimo) people living on the North Slope are primarily dependent on the bowhead whale and marine resources. They have strenuously opposed offshore oil development in the Arctic Ocean for decades, including in the area off the coast of the Arctic Refuge due to concerns about impacts to their subsistence resources from noise disturbance and oil spills. There are about 250 residents in the village of Kaktovik on Barter Island on the north boundary of the refuge. Although the community of Kaktovik supported wilderness protection for the Arctic Refuge until the early 1980's, they have come to support onshore drilling. They average about 100 caribou harvested annually.

Fact: The North Slope Borough is one of the richest local and regional governments in the U.S. and will continue to have the power to tax the oil industry as it further develops known fields in the vicinity of Prudhoe Bay.

Fact: There are about 6,300 Inupiat stockholders in the Arctic Slope Regional Corporation (ASRC) which owns nearly 5 million acres on the North Slope, most of which is available for oil leasing and development. They have leased lands in the Alpine oil field which will begin production soon and in adjacent areas within the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska. ASRC is the State's largest Alaska-owned Corporation, and a Fortune 500 Corporation with $887 million in revenues in 1998.

ASRC received the subsurface title to lands beneath the Kaktovik village lands within the Arctic Refuge in a 1983 land exchange signed by Interior Secretary James Watt. The exchange agreement expressly prohibits oil development of ASRC lands unless the Federal coastal plain area is opened to the oil industry. When ASRC signed the agreement, it was clearly aware of the high risk that Congress might not open the coastal plain for oil and gas development. ASRC has already gained at least $39 million from oil lease agreements -- a value six times the Interior Department's calculated value of the exchange, which the GAO found was not in the government's interest.