Quantcast
No ANWR? Ok, We'll Take Yukon Flats! Print E-mail
Written by Charlie Lawton   
Friday, 28 March 2008

The oil and energy industry, accustomed to getting what it wants when it comes to untapped oil and gas fields to drill, has been repeatedly frustrated in its attempts to get its hands on the sweet, sweet petroleum lying under the ecologically sensitive tundra of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. But after years of failing to secure drilling rights, it looks like the industry might get a nice consolation prize from the Department of Fish and Wildlife.

DFW is considering a land swap with Doyon Corporation -- a Fairbanks-based concern owned by the Athabaskan tribe -- in which the agency would transfer outright 110,000 acres of oil-laden upland territory within the Yukon Flats National Wildlife Refuge to the energy developer, plus mineral rights to another 97,000 acres. In exchange, the refuge would gain 150,000 acres of wetlands now controlled by Doyon, plus 56,500 acres that fall under pending land claims owned by the company.

We're of mixed feelings on the matter. On the one hand, wetland protection is a great and necessary thing, and Alaskan wetlands are summer migration destinations for birds from all over North America and Asia. Some birds migrate from as far as Yunnan Province, China to southern Alaska.

On the other hand, we have to point out that despite industry assurances to the contrary, the impact of oil development extends far past the footprint of the drill pads, roads, and pipelines that are constructed. Roads and development chop contiguous habitat into smaller chunks, and small chunks of territory tend to support lower biodiversity than larger ones.

Also, the noise, human presence, and inevitable pollution of roads and rigs have lasting effects on the reproductive success of tundra animals and the health of tundra plants. In a tundra ecosystem that's already incredibly delicate in the best of times, and which stands to be affected worse and more rapidly by global climate change than more temperate areas, it's tough to support additional energy development.

Comments
Add NewSearch
Brian Siana - sensible   | 134.4.62.xxx | 2008-03-28 16:17:22
Well, it's obviously not great. It's clearly short sighted to go after the small amount of oil in ANWR. This will do nothing to mitigate rising oil prices, especially in the short term.

However, I'm all for actually expanding protected wetlands. Under this administration, this sort of compromise may be the best we can ask for.
TomSchwartz - Oil; the bane of human existan   | 71.56.133.xxx | 2008-03-30 15:24:00
Our society is in a horrible relationship with Oil, destroying the most beautiful places on earth just to get at some outdated, toxic sludge. Look at the Canadian Rockies; our addiction to oil is going to take us to the point of tearing down mountains and extracting Tar-sands, a terribly carbon laden form of oil which requires open pit mining, to make more of the substance we have already deemed unhealthy and politically harmful. I say we need to draw more attention to the terrible things the oil industry does to make a buck and start boycotting them more wide spread. Don't drive, cycle! don't pay the oil companies who don't care the slightest about you and turn your government against you!
Write comment
Name:
Email:
 
Website:
Title:
UBBCode:
[b] [i] [u] [url] [quote] [code] [img] 
 
 
 

Copyright (C) 2007 Alain Georgette / Copyright (C) 2006 Frantisek Hliva. All rights reserved.

 
< Prev   Next >

Hi, We're EnviroWonk

Yeah, OK, we can be the change that we want to see in the world. But unless powerful people in powerful positions want to be that change as well, nothing's going to change.

So now, finally, there's a place where you can go for news and analysis of politics from an environmental perspective.

Weekly Updates

RSS

rss