This alert has been edited to substitute Harkin & Grassley for WAs
Cantwell & Murray, Phyllis Mains
Subject: ARCTIC REFUGE ALERT!!! PLEASE ACT NOW!!
Date: Fri, Mar 11, 2005, 1:08 AM
Hello Friends of the Arctic Refuge,
Here we go again on the Arctic Refuge! This alert gives the latest
information about what is happening in D.C. Next week, the Senate will
take
up the budget bill which unfortunately came out of the budget committee
calling for drilling in the Refuge. We expect a major fight on the
Senate
floor within days. This may be the most important challenge facing this
pristine wild area. Please act TODAY!!
Here are some things that you can do NOW to help save the Arctic:
Calls, emails and faxes are needed to all Senators. Ask Senators Harkin
and Grassley to sponsor sponsor of this year's bill, S. 261, to designate
the critical coastal region of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, the
biological heart of the area, as Wilderness.
Sen. Charles Grassley: 202-224-3744 D.C office' 515-284-4890 DM office
Sen. Tom Harkin: 202-224-3254 D.C. office, 515-284-4574 DM office
IN ADDITION, please forward the message below to friends and relatives in
other states. Ask them to call or fax their Senators right away. They
can help to make a difference in this critical fight. To find out how
their Senators stand on the Arctic wilderness bills, and to find out
contact information of their Senators, you can direct them to website:
http://thomas.loc.gov/ A hotline number is also provided below--but it
only works to send particular messages to Senators. If folks call the
Senator's office number directly, they will be able to leave personal
messages with the staff.
Thanks very much for your help!
Karen Fant for
Alaska Coalition of Washington
-------------------------------
Arctic Vote Showdown Expected Next Week!!
Hello Arctic Activists, we'll be having a vote on drilling in America's
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge by next week!
WE NEED YOUR HELP! This week, the House and Senate budget committees
split
over whether or not to include proposals to allow drilling in America's
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to be included in the federal budget.
The
Senate is poised to vote next week on whether or not to allow the
drilling
provision to stay in the budget.
On the House side, the House budget resolution has no Arctic provision in
it. In fact, the House budget committee explicitly stated that they
did
not want the budget process from being used to open the Artic Refuge to
drilling. "We have tried to keep the budget free of policy. Things like
[drilling in the Arctic Refuge] immediately create a lightning rod," said
Sean Spicer, spokesman for the committee chairman, Rep. Jim Nussle
(R-IA).
Even though the entire Budget Committee is now on record saying that they
oppose using the budget to advance Arctic drilling, the budget resolution
is
a non-binding document and is only a recommended blueprint. Other
committees with jurisdiction over specific parts of the budget may ignore
the wishes of the budget committee and decide to include a drilling
proposal
anyway.
In the Senate, the Senate Budget Committee Chairman Judd Gregg (R-NH)
decided to include the controversial drilling provision in the Senate
version. Despite opposition from several Senators in his own party,
Senator
Gregg said he thought it was "reasonable" to assume that the drilling
provision would remain in the budget.
During the budget committee meeting, Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) offered
an
amendment to strip the Arctic drilling provision out of the budget
resolution. The amendment failed on a straight party-line 10-12 vote.
Next week, the Senate is scheduled to have a floor debate on the budget
resolution. Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA) will go to the Senate floor
with
an amendment to remove the provision that allows drilling in America's
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
CALL YOUR SENATOR'S OFFICE TODAY!
Arctic Hotline for capitol hill: 1-888-894-5325 or go to
http://capwiz.com/awc/dbq/officials/ and click on your state to get the
direct number for your Senator.
Ask your Senator to vote 'YES' on the Cantwell amendment to keep drilling
in
the Arctic Refuge out of the budget.
Send an action email here:
http://capwiz.com/awc/issues/alert/?alertid=7192016
Most importantly, PLEASE forward this email to everyone you know! It
will
be vital to flood offices with calls and emails over the next several
days
if we are to prevail next week!
Erik DuMont National Field Director
Alaska Wilderness League
122 C Street, NW, Suite 240
Washington, DC 20001
P: 202-544-5205
F: 202-544-5197
www.alaskawild.org <http://www.alaskawild.org/>
__________________
Here are additional points that you could make in your message:
There are some places that should be off-limits to oil drilling and
industrial development, and the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is one of
them. The harm to wildlife habitat for polar bear, caribou, and millions
of migratory birds would be permanent and irreparable. We have a moral
responsibility to save wild places like the Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge for future generations. Thats why our country has remained
committed to its protection for nearly 50 years.
Drilling in the Refuge wont solve our energy problems. It is not worth
damaging Americas greatest national wildlife refuge for what the U.S.
Geological Survey says would be far less oil than the U.S. consumes in a
single year. Its misleading and untrue to say that oil drilling wont
harm the environment, since the result would be a sprawling industrial
complex of drilling sites spread throughout one and a half million acres
of critical wildlife habitat. Hundreds of miles of pipelines and roads,
airstrips, power lines and pumping stations and housing for workers would
be needed, as well as tankers to transport this oil risking further oil
spills in critical habitat. And even the oil companies admit none of the
oil would reach the market for 10 years.
The best ways to reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil are to conserve
more, waste less, and develop more fuel-efficient cars so we use less oil
and gas. Energy experts agree that making cars more fuel-efficient, and
investing in renewable forms of energy, are the most effective things
that the U.S. can do right now to decrease dependence on foreign oil and
increase national security.
A bipartisan telephone poll of 1,003 registered voters conducted January
13-17, 2005, by Republican firm Bellwether Research and Democratic
pollsters Lake, Snell, Perry and Associates found that by a margin of 53
percent to 35 percent, Americans oppose proposals to drill for oil in the
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. By an even wider margin (73% v. 18%),
they believe Arctic drilling is too important to sneak through in the
budget process, and feel strongly that it should be considered on its own
merits.
The issue of oil drilling in the Arctic Refuge is too important to the
American public and future generations to be snuck through in the budget
bill in an attempt to circumvent the established process. If it is to be
considered at all it should be discussed and brought to a vote on its own
merits.
Frequently asked questions:
1) It is believed that the Coastal Plain may hold as much oil as
the 11 billion barrel field at Prudhoe Bay.
The U.S. Department of Energys Energy Information Administration (EIA),
in its March 2004 report: Analysis of Oil and Gas Production in the
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge,
(http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/ogp/pdf/sroiaf(2004)04.pdf)
details that the mean estimated size of oil resources in the Federal
portion of the Refuge coastal plain is 7.7 billion barrels of technically
recoverable oil, divided into many fields (page 3). The largest field in
the coastal plain is projected at 1.4 billion barrels, considerably
smaller than the field at Prudhoe Bay (page 5).
2) Safe production on just 2000 acres (or 0.01%) of ANWR will yield
more that 1 million barrels of oil a day for more than 30 years.
Assuming that drilling in the Arctic Refuge was authorized today,
approximately 300,000 barrels a day would be produced from the refuge in
2015. In 2020, approximately 800,000 barrels a day would be produced.
Oil production from the refuge would peak at 876,000 barrels a day in
2025 (EIA, page 10).
The 2,000 acre myth:
The entire 1.5 million-acre coastal plain would still be opened to
leasing and exploration. There is no requirement that the 2,000 acres be
contiguous. Development would sprawl over a very large area, as with the
North Slope oil fields west of the Arctic Refuge.
Supporting infrastructure would have to stretch across the coastal plain.
The U.S. Geological Survey said that whatever oil and gas is under the
coastal plain is in small deposits spread throughout the plain.[i]
<outbind://9/#_edn1> This is why the bill includes the entire coastal
plain and not a smaller portion of it. To produce oil from this vast
area, networks of pipelines and roads would be built, fragmenting
wildlife habitat.
Even if the 2,000 acres were contiguous, it would have a huge impact on
the wilderness. The 12-lane wide New Jersey turnpike stretches more than
100 miles across the state but covers only 1,773 acres.
The 2,000 acres does not include all oil industry infrastructure,
facilities, or operations. The bills 2,000 acres only included the area
where oil production facilities actually touch the ground, and excluded
gravel mines, roads, and pipelines (except their posts).[ii]
<outbind://9/#_edn2> It did not cover seismic or other exploration
operations done across the 1.5 million acre area. Air and noise
pollution are carried far from developments.
The National Academy of Sciences said impacts extend well beyond the
immediate footprint.
The effects of industrial activities are not limited to the footprint of
a structure or to its immediate vicinity, a variety of influences can
extend some distance from the actual footprint
The common practice of describing the effects of particular projects in
terms of the area directly disturbed by roads, pads, pipelines, and other
facilities ignores the spreading character of oil development on the
North Slope and the consequences of this to wildland values. All of
these effects result in the erosion of wildland values over an area far
exceeding the area directly affected
Nearly all the roads, pads, pipelines and other infrastructure ever built
are still in place. The environmental effects of such structures on the
landscape, water systems, vegetation, and animals are manifest not only
at the footprint itself (physical area covered by the structure) but also
at distances that vary depending on the environmental component being
affected. [iii]
3) To get the equivalent amount of energy from wind, we would need
a 3.7 million acre wind farm (thats the size of Rhode Island and
Connecticut combined) AND gale-force winds 365 days a year, every year,
for more than 30 years. To get the equivalent amount of energy from
solar power, we would need a 448,000 acre solar panel expanse AND
beach-worthy, sun-shiny days 365 days a year, for 30 years (Paul K.
Driessen, Atlas Economic Research Foundation).
The United States consumes about 25% of the worlds oil, but has less than
3% of the worlds proven oil reserves (www.eia.doe.gov
<http://www.eia.doe.gov/> ). We simply cannot drill our way to lower
prices and energy independence. Energy experts agree that the best way
to solve our energy problems is to use existing technology to make our
cars and trucks more efficient and to invest in renewable energy.
According to the Environmental Protection Agency, increasing the fuel
efficiency of our vehicles by just 3 miles per gallon would save more
than 1 million barrels of oil per day. Thats more oil than the Refuge
would yield in its year of peak production. Given the choice, voters --
by a margin of more than three to one choose an energy policy based on
greater efficiency and wasting less, and investments in clean renewable
sources of energy over more drilling in the US.
[i] <outbind://9/#_ednref1> U.S. Geological Survey. April 2001.
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, 1002 Area, Petroleum Assessment, 1998,
including economic analysis. USGS Fact Sheet FS-028-01.
Bird, K.J. 1998. Chapter AO. Assessment Overview. In: The oil and
gas resource potential of the 1002 area, Arctic National Wildlife Refuge,
Alaska, by ANWR Assessment Team, U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report
98-34. Figs. AO6-15.
[ii] <outbind://9/#_ednref2> Identical amendment in H.R.4 and H.R.6:
Ensure that the maximum amount of surface acreage covered by production
and support facilities, including airstrips and any areas covered by
gravel berms or piers for support of pipelines, does not exceed 2,000
acres on the Coastal Plain.
[iii] <outbind://9/#_ednref3> National Research Council. 2003.
Cumulative environmental effects of oil and gas activities on Alaskas
North Slope. National Academies Press. P. 4, 9,148; and Report Brief at
http://books.nap.edu/html/north_slope/reportbrief.pdf
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
To get off the IOWA-TOPICS list, send any message to:
[log in to unmask]
|
