Murdering Alaskan Wildlife For Dummies
author: by Bek Kendra, repost from www.cascadiaconnections.com
|
Fragile Alaskan arctic ecosystems are still being threatened by oil drilling as the Obama administration implements new drilling plans and continues to move forward with drilling planned by the Bush administration.
|
Alaska. Frost-covered hues of blue and white in the winter, bursting with vivid colors in the summer. Wild, pristine, icy, beautiful, dazzling, ancient, unique, delicate. And below the surface of this incredible place, there resides a substance that has caused wars. Oil. The oil companies do not care how many beautiful and amazing creatures depend on Alaska for survival; they are willing to destroy ecosystems to obtain oil.
Probably the most well known threat is drilling the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge, or ANWR. Today, ANWR's current size is more than 19 million acres. Unfortunately, excavations in 1988, and again in 1998, have confirmed an estimated 10 billion barrels of recoverable oil residing below of the surface of an area called region 1002 (1). The oil companies attempt to tell us that ANWR looks like flat, ugly, uninhabitable landscape with no real life existing on it. This is a lie. Animals like caribou, wolves, foxes, eagles, grizzly bears, polar bears and many other species of mammals, fish and birds call this place home. The Gwich'in Native Americans, who live on this land and depend on it for survival, would tell us it is anything but ugly. In winter months, this sanctuary glitters white and pearl, with blue mountains standing in the distance proud and powerful. Animals run across the surface, many of them with their coats turned white to camouflage with their surroundings. In the summer, ANWR erupts into flowers of dazzling colors, blanketing across the ground. Animals of all
shapes and sizes, from vast herds of caribou to tiny lemmings, come out to feed in this nutritious, intense growing period (2).
One of the biggest problems with drilling in ANWR is that the proposed drilling area is right on the caribou's only calving ground, and they depend on this area for their species survival (2). One of the oil companies' main arguments is that there are new, less invasive technologies that will not disturb animals because they can drill from only one location. This is untrue for ANWR, the oil being located in over 30 different sites, and requiring a network of roads and pipes (3). Even the seismic testing, which is done in the winter and used to find where the oil is exactly, disrupts the polar and grizzly bears, causing them to come out of their dens early, "almost certainly killing baby cubs (by freezing) if they leave their dens in alarm before they are ready." (4). Another thing people do not realize is that it will take 10 years before the oil can be accessed (3). And also, the
total amount of oil estimated in ANWR is only enough to supply 1% or 2% of what America consumes for a year. ANWR oil will not help the real problem (2). Drilling and seismic testing is very noisy. Caribou detest noise, and in the case of Prudhoe Bay, just west of ANWR and the largest oil field in North America, the caribou moved out of the area when drilling commenced. At least, the Prudhoe Bay area had a coastal plain on either side that allowed for migration east or west. In ANWR's case, the
caribou could only be forced into the foothills and mountains, where there are more predators, and less quantity and quality of food. This would lead to a major decrease in caribou population (5). And since so many species rely on them for their survival and livelihood, so goes the population of other species as well (2).
Drilling in ANWR was a major threat in the Bush administration's time. However, President Obama said during his campaign for Presidency that, "I strongly reject drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge because it would irreversibly damage a protected national wildlife refuge without creating sufficient oil supplies to meaningfully affect the global market price or have a discernable impact on U.S. energy security" (6). Hopefully, President Obama will stick to this opinion, though as of yet, he has not taken any actions to protect ANWR from all future harm. Some people have suggested that ANWR should be turned into a national monument, so it will be completely protected.
However, on October 19th this year, the Obama Administration gave the okay to Shell for offshore drilling in Beaufort Sea located North of Alaska. This is the home of large numbers of endangered animals, including bowhead whales, polar bears, walruses, and ice seals. (7) Does anyone remember the EXXON Valdez disaster? Where, on March 24th, 1989, in Prince William Sound in the port of Valdez, a major oil tanker hit bottom and broke the hull, spewing 11 million gallons of oil into the
Sound. The affects on the wildlife were devastating. Oil coated birds' wings, fish scales, or any mammals which came by. The fish suffocated and died. Oil coated bird's wings, making them unable to fly or hunt, so they would drown or slowly starve to death. If emergency rescuers were able to make it to the scene to give them baths, the birds, once released, would get released back into the exact same situation. The oil was still there. But as devastating as that was, the immediate affects
were not the most harmful. Substances in the oil, called polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons, cause serious reproductive problems. "They cause long term reproductive damage in fish, birds and mammals. The problem is, that you're not still seeing carcasses, but you're seeing decreased productivity in our coastal ecosystems over time" (2). And the oil, even today, still is buried underneath layers of sand, leeching toxic chemicals into the surrounding water. Red herring, a cornerstone of food for many fish, birds, mammals and fisherman, had a major crash in population. The repercussions have transmitted up the food chain, and these problems still persist today (2). So, what happens if drilling in Beaufort Sea kills populations of endangered species? And what if these polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons create reproductive problems so these species cannot survive?
And there is yet another danger to Alaska's waters—the new 2010-2015 Outer Continental Drilling Plan, which has been proposed by the Department of the Interior (12). This drilling plan threatens Bristol Bay, the North Aleutian Basin, and various other marine-rich areas in the Bering Sea area. The ironic part here is that 40% of the nation's seafood comes from there (8). And, "Drilling in this area jeopardizes a major Alaskan industry that generates an annual $2 billion, more jobs in the state than oil, gas, and mining combined, and thousands more [jobs] down along the Western U.S." (9) Oil and gas would create 7.7 billion dollars over the 25 to 40 year period it would take to drill it all up. Fisheries would create 50 to 80 billion (9). There are those who are comparing the spill off of Australia, which is gushing 300 to 4,000 gallons of oil into the Timor Sea for nearly six weeks now, to what a spill in the Bristol Bay area would be like. So what happens if oil drilling creates a disaster in this area? To a place that holds 40% of nation's fish market? In this case, there is a little time to protect these places. Secretary of the Department of Interior, Ken Salazar, has the power to remove, at least, Bristol Bay from the 2010-2015 Outer Continental Drilling Plan, if not completely stop the plan all together (8).
One of the biggest questions that should be asked is: why do we trust these people? The oil companies do not deserve our trust after all the things they have done. The above problems are bad enough, but oil companies have shown complete irresponsibility with the drilling in Prudhoe Bay. Prudhoe Bay is the biggest oil field in North America. "... the Interior Department filled out an Environmental Impact Statement of predicted impacts to the region. Gravel mines have extracted four
times more gravel than listed in the EIS; five times more wells have been drilled; twice the road mileage has been constructed." (10). The damage to this area has been tremendous, affecting the land, air and fauna with their average annual oil spills of 400 gallons. "A study of diesel spills in Alaska's arctic found that 28 years after an initial spill there were still substantial hydrocarbons in the soil and little vegetation recovery." (10). And the oil companies are not correcting their mistakes, either. "Since 2001, numerous employees for British Petroleum have come forward alleging that the company does not operate within guidelines, and fails to report oil spills and repair failing equipment." (11) They have been found guilty by Alaska's Department of Environmental Conservation of oil spills, toxic and garbage dumping, and not maintaining equipment and safety regulations. Yet, BP was let off the hook with just a slap on the wrist (11). And now the government is dropping fish-rich waters right into the greedy clutches of those who seek only to exploit it. What happens if they destroy more incredible, unique ecosystems?
All right, so American needs oil. And oil companies think that risking ecosystems is the answer. People do not realize that we cannot control where the companies sell the oil they drill. This oil could be sold anywhere, even abroad, to whomever is the highest bidder. Drilling in Alaska will not necessarily help the oil need in the U.S. (2). The real problem is that America has an addiction to oil. Instead of feeding this addiction, making oil companies even richer, destroying ecosystems, and not really solving our problem, humankind should be putting every effort and technology into making safe alternative energy. Hybrid cars, electric cars, solar panels, wind power, and water power are a few of these methods.
The bottom line in oil drilling is that Alaska has a very delicate ecosystem. There are so many animals, fish, birds and people that rely on the balance that Alaska creates. It's a rich, beautiful, wonderful, and amazingly fragile place. America's oil addiction is no small thing. Almost all of our technology, communication, and transport comes from, somewhere along the line, fossil fuels. This is destroying the Earth in many ways, including global warming. Humans need to find alternative methods, green power, and a way to coexist on this planet with all the other species, instead of destroying everything they touch. If these oil drilling plans continue, we will be causing environmental disasters through oil spills, causing reproduction problems in fish, destroying the calving grounds of caribou, possibly wiping out groups of endangered species, and destroying an incredible wild land. Do we really want to do this? For something as unsustainable, destructive, poisonous and unhealthy as oil?
(1) Haugen, David. (Ed.). (2008). Should Drilling Be Permitted In The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge? Farmington Hills: Greenhaven Press. Print.
(2) Oil On Ice. Dir. Dale Djerassi and Bo Boudart. Exec. Pro. Steve Michelson. Wri. Stephen Most. Nar. Peter Coyote. DVD. Lightyear Entertainment, 2005.
(3) National Resources Defense Council. (2008). "Drilling in the ANWR Will Not Reduce America's Dependence on Foreign Oil." David Haugen (Ed.), Should Drilling Be Permitted In The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge? (pp. 15-19) Farmington Hills: Greenhaven Press. Print.
(4) Sherwonit, Bill. (2001). "Arctic Refuge: Polar Bears and Seismic Testing." Hank Lenter and Carolyn Servid (Comp.), Arctic Refuge. (pp. 33-36). Washington Avenue South: Milkweed Editions. Print.
(5) Whitten, Kenneth. (2008). "Drilling in the ANWR Would Likely Endanger Caribou Herds." David Haugen (Ed.), Should Drilling Be Permitted In The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge? (pp. 20-25). Farmington Hills: Greenhaven Press. Print.
(6) "Presidential Views on ANWR - The Democrats." anwr.org.  http://www.anwr.
org/archives/presidential_candidates_views_on_anwr_a_the_democrats.php
(7) Ed Pilkington. "US gives Shell green light for offshore oil drilling in Alaska." EnvironmentGuardian. Oct. 20, 2009. http:
//www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/oct/20/us-shell-drilling-arctic
(8) "Bristol Bay News." Alaska Marine Conservation Council. Sept. 29, 2009. http://www.akmarine.org/our-work/protect-bristol-bay/latest-update
(9) Mullaley, Michael. "Drilling in Alaska to rob the Nation of Fish, Jobs and Money." Sierra Club. Sept. 18, 2009. http:
//sierraclub.typepad.com/greenlife/2009/09/drilling-in-alaska-to-rob-nation-of-fish-jobs-and-money.html
(10) "Oil Development in America's Arctic, Prudhow Bay." Inforain.org http://www.inforain.org/northslope/anwr_2.html
(11) Leopold, Jason. (2008). "The Risk of Oil Spills Should Deter Drilling in the ANWR." David Haugen (Ed.), Should Drilling Be Permitted In The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge? (pp. 41-47). Farmington Hills: Greenhaven Press. Print.
(12) Herron, David. "Offshore drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf, an interior department hearing, held in San Francisco, April 19th 2009." Seven Generational Ruminations. April 17th, 2009. http://www.7gen.com/blog/20090417/25550-ocean-
dead-zones
from: link to www.cascadiaconnections.com
|
homepage: http://www.cascadiaconnections.com/index.html
contribute to this article
contribute to this article
add comment to discussion
|
As the output of the Pruhdoe Bay wells diminish, there reaches a point when the pumps in the Trans-Alaska pipeline will begin to simply try to pump more air than crude, which they can't do -- i.e., the pipeline becomes useless. In order to "save" the pipeline, new sources of feedstock need to identified and brought to readiness -- to "save the pipeline.
Consistent with industrial civilization, the enterprises and institutions of capitalism become "species of concern" -- after all, have they not been accorded personhood? As the industrial and return-on-investment motivated pestilences metastasize into manifold, complex relationships with other corporate creations, the survival of the precious corporate creations -- even if only for the immediate near future, with no practical spirit of endurance and sufficiency (contrasted with the hoax buzzword "sustainability") -- becomes the sole, paramount goal.
At the other end of the "assembly line" existing levels of consumption, and even new "greener", "sustainable" uses of resources are required to be cultivated in order to goose discovery of and clearance for exploitation of future sources of raw material -- in effect, to "save the pipeline". (This is why petroleum discoveries are called "reserves" -- they're held in reserve for the time they will be needed to keep the industrial contraption running, if only for "a little longer.")
This becomes an exemplar for the whole rotten industrial-capitalist-consumer-landfill "economy", amounting to the manufacture and marketing of more and more land-fill feedstock, presumably until there is nothing left that can be made, owned, sold for a profit (a straw-grab for immortality, in contrast with meeting the needs of a reasonable life and ultimately death, in the cycle of life) and throw away". This becomes the "Happiness" following on "Life, Liberty, and the Purfuit of . . ." slogan of the beatified Founding Conmen, as the more civilized, "advanced" morph of our species manages to make a veritable commodity of even itself for the "survival" of the enterprise structures growing out of mad visions of war with the natural world, indeed, the drive itself to destroy the very planet and biosphere it evolved in. To improve on existing or find new technologies to solve the last problem, which themselves graciously become the next problem, supporting the perpetuation of the pestilence of industrial capitalism.
To "save the pipeline".