Election could alter the battle for oil in ANWR Election could alter the battle for oil in ANWR (June 30, 2004)

By Renee Batti
Almanac News Editor

The ongoing battle over whether to allow oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge gained a fierce momentum when George W. Bush took office in 2001.

It is likely to fizzle out if Mr. Bush is replaced this November. That's because his Democratic rival, Sen. John Kerry, for years has been an outspoken opponent of drilling in the refuge, and if a bill were to pass during his tenure, a veto is a near certainty.

At issue are about 1.5 million acres of the 19.6 million-acre refuge, widely known as ANWR, located in the northeast corner of Alaska. The 1.5 million acres, known as area 1002, is a coastal plain that contains much of the oil geologists say can be extracted from the refuge's lands.

After Democrats lost control of Congress in 1994, a bill to allow drilling for oil in area 1002 was revived and pushed through, but was vetoed by then-President Clinton. Attempts during the Bush administration have been narrowly defeated. Congressional support and opposition to the bill are to a great extent along party lines.

Rep. Anna Eshoo, D-Atherton, said last week that Republicans tried a new maneuver earlier this month to push the bill through, "but it fell apart." With the presidential election only four months away, "They're really running out of options (on successfully) pushing their poison," she said.

Proponents of the measure, including both U.S. senators from Alaska, say drilling in ANWR can occur without harming the environment, and that it would help an ailing economy by creating jobs. They say extracting oil from the region would significantly ease the country's dependence on foreign oil.

The Department of the Interior, under Secretary Gale Norton, estimates the amount of oil in the area at about 5.5 billion barrels to 16 billion barrels, according to a CNN news report. Environmental groups fighting the drilling proposal say the amount of recoverable oil in the area is closer to 3.2 billion barrels or less.

Opponents argue that the amount of oil to be had would barely make a dent in meeting the needs of this oil-hungry country, which uses nearly 20 million barrels a day. The oil in ANWR, they say, amounts to a six-month supply or less for the United States' consumption, based on current usage.

The question of the amount of oil that can be taken from the refuge is not likely to be resolved anytime soon. But there is no question about the value of the area as a teeming habitat.

According to the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service: "The arctic coastal plain stretches southward from the coast to the foothills of the Brooks Range. This area of rolling hills, small lakes, and north-flowing, braided rivers is dominated by tundra vegetation consisting of low shrubs, sedges, and mosses. Caribou travel to the coastal plain during June and July to give birth and raise their young.

"Migratory birds and insects flourish here during the brief arctic summer. Tens of thousands of snow geese stop here during September to feed before migrating south, and muskoxen live here year-round."

Among the opponents of drilling are the indigenous people living near the targeted area. The Gwich'in Indians subsist on the land, and they depend on the annual caribou migration. A majority of Alaskan residents, however, favor drilling because the oil industry generates a significant portion of Alaska's revenues.

Terry Anderson of the Hoover Institution and the Property & Environment Research Center said he believes drilling can be done "with little harm or risk to the environment." But he has publicly criticized the Bush administration, which aggressively advocates drilling, for not crafting a better plan that would calm some of the fears of the indigenous people and environmentalists.

In a segment of the PBS program "Uncommon Knowledge" filmed in January 2003, Mr. Anderson said the administration could have said, "if we're going to drill for these resources that are on public lands, that we reinvest the revenues from those resources in the things that get hurt in the process. And if we are hurting the environment, then put the money back into restoring that which we have harmed."

Congresswoman Eshoo is not likely to be convinced that revenue from oil production in ANWR would be shared for environmental repair or to assist the indigenous people. "This is not a debate about sound public policy -- it's about money," she said last week.

Referring to the close connections of both the president and vice president to the oil industry, she added, "Their friends would make billions of dollars."

E-mail a friend a link to this story.