The Soapbox Chronicle: Drilling in the ANWR...

Okay, so just a note of caution before I start this little pondering. First and foremost, I'm basing my opinions on the article published in the May issue of National Geographic. While not an extremely liberal journal, it does frequently have a liberal slant to it. However, I believe it has enough neutrality to not light a fire under too many conservative backsides.... Secondly, don't barrage me for not doing other "research" into this topic because, quite frankly, I have many other things to do in life than surf the web and look for obscure documentation that might make an opposing person happy. Enough said. If you don't like my opinion, go read someone else's blog.

So, back to National Geographic... While I am vaguely familiar with the issue of drilling in the Arctic, I had never read anything in depth on it until this article was published. Wanting to make sure I could devote enough focus to it to really understand it, it ended up taking me several months to finish that particular issue. LOL. However, I did finally read it and I admit I still have to go back and reread paragraphs at times. It's complex and I think many will claim to walk the middle road on this issue. I, myself, a self-proclaimed democrat on most issues, have to waver a bit on this one. First, I completely agree that we need to be less reliant on foreign oil. Secondly, I agree that we absolutely must step up on our research on alternative fuel sources. While ethanol is a partial solution, I'm positive I read somewhere that the production of ethanol is nearly as pollutive as using gasoline. If this is accurate then it's like a two-step-forward-one-step-back type of deal. We have such incredible potential for technological research, we can do this if we assign enough resources to the task. Overall I understand the determination to drill in the Arctic, however I think the Bush Administration is jumping into this as a "grand solution" a little too quickly.

So what are the ramifications of Arctic drilling? Well, let's look at the result of the first drilling sites. In the 40's & 50's the Navy started drilling sites in order to have an emergency supply of oil. One particular site, called Umiat now, is the location of "a multimillion-dollar toxic cleanup". If you're standing on the ridge near Umiat Well Number 9, you can see a vista of green plateaus and benches. "The bluffs along the river provide some of the most important nesting areas in the Arctic for peregrine falcons... It's easy to forget that the military once left thousdans of barrels of oil, diesel, DDT and PCB to rot here.... It's difficult to imagine it full of pipes, pump stations, and gravel roads..... Federal agencies are still trying to clean up the contaminated soils at Umiat, nearly 60 years after the Navy drilled it." However, with the anticipation of new leasing opportunities offerd by the Bush Administration, the area is once again "busy with oil-field geologists and other experts". It is estimated that "100 million barrels of light, sweet crude...and 60 trillion cubic feet of natural gas (a by-product of oil reserves)" lie in the foothills of Umiat Mountain. This is apparently enough fuel to satisfy American demand for ONLY three years. Some say that we can harvest the natural gas instead but some companies reinject the gas back into the oil reservoir to "keep the pressure up" when the oil supply is slowing. There's a bit of a problem....which do you want - natural gas or oil? How long will natural gas production continue once the oil is gone? How can tapped oil reservoirs produce enough natural gas to satisfy the public? You take away natural gas, you slow oil production. Slow oil production results in decreased natural gas production. Oh quandries, quandries. :)

So what exactly is the Bush Administration opening up that wasn't formerly available for drilling? Well, it isn't so simple as that. As much as I hate to say it, it isn't all Bush's fault that the area is opening up. Every presidential administration since drilling first commenced has "reevaluated" the area for species and land protection which inevitably lead to the release of additional lands for drilling. It seems despite the increase in endangered species, "new evidence" is found to support claims that less land is needed for wildlife and other environmental needs. In the late 1990's, under the Clinton Administration, 87% of the then-protected lands in the Northeast Planning Area were released for drilling. Only 13% of the area near Teshekpuk Lake remained protected but even that disappeared under the Bush Administration. Only the lake itself is now under "protection" from drilling with 6% of it's coastline protected within the area known as ANWR. So let me ask this, if contamination occurred somewhere in the 94% of coastline area NOT in ANWR, how exactly does the government intend to protect the lake and 6% of coastline? The land up to the lake itself is open for drilling...yeah, right. It won't happen...it would be a "tragic accident", so sorry, too bad for the wildlife. So what exactly is relevancy of Teshekpuk Lake? It's the largest body of freshwater on the slope and is home to flocks of geese, birds, swans, and nearly 45,000 caribou who calve there each year. It's the hunting grounds for native Inupiat who kill about 10% of the herd each year for meat for several villages. Should anything happen to this lake, it's not just the wildlife that will suffer. People will suffer as well and the Arctic will become a barren land abandoned to the elements and toxic contamination.

One of the most troubling part of this whole situation is that there are no provisions for clean-up once an area is dry of oil and gas. Giant turbines, operating 24/7, pump out "more of some air pollutants" than the entire city of Washington, DC! "A 2003 report by the National Research Council concluded that because of exorbitant cost and lax oversight, most of the tundra will never be restored..." Toxic contamination.... If a company was responsible enough to restore what they damaged, even if imperfectly, they'd have my devotion for life.

Does our greed for oil justify the destruction of the tundra? Does it justify the loss of wildlife species? What about the cultural traditions of native populations? Americans claim to be the embodiment of humanity, of democracy and "life, liberty & happiness"....how humane are we to pursue this destruction? How humane are we when we see the wildlife stained and glistening from an oil spill that resulted from our greed? When the wildlife is gone and we moan and groan about what a great loss it is to lose yet more species, how well will you be able to face yourself in the mirror?

Despite my questions, I don't have a solution. We can encourage Americans to conserve energy in whatever ways are possible -- carpooling, alternative energy (solar, wind, geothermal), etc. while we move forward on alternative fuel research. We can do a lot of things, but until we can set aside our greed for cheap oil, I don't see much hope for avoiding additional drilling. Give me $4...$5/gallon for fuel...whatever. I'd pay it if it meant no new drill sites. At least I'd be able to face eacy day knowing that my small part contributes to saving life.

_________
Tried to keep this from being a book and unfortunately it ended up a bit choppy but I don't care. LOL. I'm posting it as is.