by Rachel Beyeler
Thesis: If the United States is going to choose to conserve energy responsibly, then our government's energies should not be focused on developing oil in the ANWR, but rather on the topics of conservation through higher fuel efficiency standards in vehicles and by developing alternative energy sources. Conservation, fuel efficiency and alternative energy sources are the solutions that will lead us to a long term and sustainable energy future.
I.
Introduction
II.
ANWR History
A.
Musk Oxen
B.
Polar Bear
C.
Caribou
D.
Migratory Foul
IV.
Impacts on Vegetation
V.
The Oil Field
VI.
How Much Oil?
VII.
Renewable Energy
A.
Solar and Wind Power
VIII.
Electric and Hybrid Vehicles
IX. Conclusions
I. Introduction
The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) is located in the
northeastern part of Alaska and has been the topic of many recent political and
environmental debates. Many of these
deliberations have become more heated in the past year because of President
George W. Bush's National Energy Proposal, "Reliable, Affordable and
Environmentally Sound Energy for America's Future." The proposal included a plan to open up 1.5
million acres of the ANWR for petroleum and gas exploration. In the proposal President Bush states, "America is trying to meet future
energy demands and promote energy conservation, and do so in environmentally
responsible ways that sets standards for the world."[i] If we choose to conserve responsibly, then
our government's energies should not be focused on developing oil in the Arctic
National Wildlife Refuge, but rather on the topics of conservation through
higher fuel efficiency standards in vehicles and by developing alternative
energy sources. Conservation, fuel
efficiency and alternative energy sources are the solutions that will lead us
to a long term and sustainable energy future.
II.
ANWR History
Interest in oil resources in
the northern part of Alaska began in the early 1900's.[ii] In 1923 a 23 million acre plot of land,
known as the Naval Petroleum Reserve, later named National Petroleum
Reserve—Alaska, was established to secure supply of oil for future national
security. In the 1940's and 1950's,
Secretary of the Interior, Fred Seaton, designated 8.9 million acres of coastal
plain and mountains of northeast Alaska as a refuge.[iii] The remaining part of the 23 million acres
became multiple use land, which included uses such as oil and gas development
and exploration. In 1968 the largest
oil field in North America was discovered in Prudhoe Bay also in northern
Alaska. Reserves of oil were also
believed to exist in what is now known as Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. In 1978-79 the House of Representatives
passed legislation designating the refuge as wilderness. The Senate however, required studies of
wildlife and petroleum resources and potential impacts of development on the
wildlife.[iv]
In 1980 President Carter signed Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act
into law (ANILCA). ANILCA doubled the
size of the refuge, making it roughly 20 million acres and named it the Arctic
National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR).[v]
The area currently being
considered for drilling is also known as the '1002 Area.' These 1.5 million acres were not designated
as wilderness and were addressed in section 1002 of the ANILCA. Section 1002
discussed the information that Congress would need to obtain before deeming the
1002 area as wilderness.[vi] Inventories of fish, wildlife, and the
potential impacts of oil and gas exploration on the wildlife resources were
several of the requirements.[vii]
From these stipulations came the Legislative Environment Impact
Statement (LEIS), which stated that development and production in 1002 area
would have major effects wildlife, particularly on the porcupine caribou herd
and musk oxen.[viii] Eventually it was recommended that no
development occur in order to avoid these unnecessary adverse affects on the
environment. Despite these efforts, in
1995 Congress passed a provision to drill in the arctic; luckily Clinton vetoed
this bill citing a desire to protect the environment and wildlife.[ix]
No drilling is taking place
in the 1002 Area of ANWR currently, but there have been many exploration wells
dug and nearby fields such as Prudhoe Bay have been producing oil for years.
These examples and the studies conducted and reported in the LEIS give ample
citations of negative effects on the fragile arctic environment. Following is a summary of the impacts of
winter exploration for oil on the wildlife and vegetation.
III. Wildlife in ANWR
A. Musk Oxen—
Two hundred and fifty musk
oxen live year round in the 1002 Area.
The oxen have a considerably smaller range during the winter to conserve
energy. Musk oxen give birth 4-6 weeks
before summer foliage is available.
Therefore, females must maintain body fat throughout the winter to
successfully rear a calf. Calf
production and survival is significantly influenced by environmental
conditions. The oxen respond to
disturbance by moving into a defensive group, or if disturbed enough they will
run. Group stampedes often results in
the death of calves. Musk oxen are most
often found along large rivers flowing across the coastal plain of Alaska.
During
petrol exploration and development, large rivers are used for gravel and water
removal, as well as roads. Some
concerns associated with oil field activities along river corridors include:
·
Displacement
of oxen from preferred habitat
·
Increased
energy needs related to disturbance and displacement
·
Decreased
body conditions of females
·
Decreased
calf production and survival. [x]
In the spring the 129,000-member herd of porcupine caribou migrates to the
costal tundra of ANWR to give birth.
The caribou's preferred food during calving season is higher in
nutrition, more digestible, and more available within the 1002 Area than in
surrounding areas.[xiii] Caribou with newborns are particularly
sensitive and commonly move as much as one and a half miles away from human
disturbances. This was documented in
the Prudhoe Bay case. The 1002 Area is
only one fifth of the size of the area used by the caribou, but six times as
many caribou use the 1002 area.[xiv] This suggests that the 1002 Area is of great
importance to the porcupine caribou.
D.
Migratory Foul—
One hundred thirty-five
species of birds are known to use the 1002 area. A notable example are the snow geese. Fifteen to three hundred thousand birds feed on the Arctic Refuge
tundra for three to four weeks each fall.
These birds mostly come in from Canada and migrate to California's
Central Valley. Snow geese eat as much
as a third of their body weight everyday.
The tundra enables them to increase fat reserves by 400% while feeing up
to 16 hours a day. The geese feed on
small patches of vegetation that are widely distributed across the coastal
tundra, so a large grazing area is necessary to meet their needs. They too are extremely sensitive to disturbance
and will fly away from feeding sites when human activity occurs even several
miles away. [xv]
The landscape is
characterized chiefly by tundra, a thick spongy mat-like vegetation. Unseen
beneath the ground are rich oil and gas resources. The way in which geologists learn about the location of these
resources is through seismic exploration.
This involves sending sound
waves into the ground, recording how the sound reflects back, and interpreting
the results to construct an image of subsurface geology to determine if oil may
be present.[xvi] A seismic
exploration program on Alaska's North Slope is typically a large operation with
many people and vehicles driving across the tundra in a grid pattern.
Although such exploration is
conducted only in winter, snow cover on the 1002 Area is often shallow and
uneven, providing little protection for sensitive tundra vegetation and soils.
The impact from seismic vehicles and lines depends on the type of vegetation,
texture and ice content of the soil, the surface shape, snow depth, and type of
vehicle.[xvii]
Two-dimensional (2-D) exploration was authorized by Congress in the 1002
Area in the winters of 1984 and 1985. Monitoring of more than 100 permanent
plots along the 1,400 miles of seismic lines has documented that while many
areas recovered, some trails had still not recovered by 1999.[xviii] Some of the trails have become troughs
visible from the air. Others show changes in the amount and types of tundra
plants. In some areas, permafrost (permanently frozen soil) melted and the
trails are wetter than they were previously. [xix]
V. The Oil
Field
What exactly happens at a
drill site? What impacts does it have
and what does it look like? Much has been learned since the 1968 discovery of
the Prudhoe Bay oil field on the North Slope. Today, the impacts on the North
Slope's environment and wildlife are minimized based on new improvements in
exploration and development technology.
Newer technologies that are applied today in Alaska's expanding North
Slope oil fields include
·
Directional
drilling that allows for multiple wellheads on smaller drill pads
·
The
re-injection of drilling wastes into the ground, better delineation of oil
reserves using 3-D seismic surveys, which has reduced the number of dry holes
·
Use
of temporary ice pads and ice roads for conducting exploratory drilling and
construction in the winter.[xx]
Although technological
advances in oil and gas exploration and development have reduced some of the
harmful environmental effects associated with those activities, oil and gas
development remains an intrusive industrial process. The physical footprint
continues to grow as new oil fields are developed. The 100-mile wide 1002 Area is located more than 30 miles from
the end of the nearest pipeline and more than 50 miles from the nearest gravel
road and oil support facilities. According to the U.S. Geological Survey,
possible oil reserves may be located in many small accumulations in complex
geological formations, rather than in one giant field as was discovered at
Prudhoe Bay.[xxi] Consequently, development in the 1002 Area
could "likely require a large number of small production sites (around
100) spread across the refuge landscape, connected by an infrastructure of
roads, pipelines, power plants, processing facilities, loading docks,
dormitories, airstrips, gravel pits, utility lines and landfills".[xxii] In spite of this new technology, the damage
is still done on location and during transportation of the oil.
A substantial amount of
water is needed for oil drilling, development, and construction of ice roads.
Water needed for oil development ranges from eight to 15 million gallons over a
5-month period, according to the Bureau of Land Management.[xxiii]
If water is not available to build ice roads, gravel is generally used. Water
resources are limited in the 1002 Area. In winter, only about nine million
gallons of liquid water may be available in the entire 1002 Area, which is
enough to freeze into and maintain only 10 miles of ice roads.[xxiv]
Therefore, full development may likely require a network of permanent gravel
pads and roads.
Cumulative biological consequences of oil field
development that may be expected in the Arctic Refuge include:
1. Blocking, deflecting or disturbing wildlife
2. Loss of subsistence hunting opportunities
3. Alteration of natural
drainage patterns, causing changes in vegetation
4. Deposition of alkaline dust on tundra along road
5. Altering vegetation over a much larger area than the actual width
of the road
6. Local
pollutant haze and acid rain from nitrogen oxides, methane and
particulate matter emissions
7. Contamination of soil and water from fuel and oil spills
VI. How Much
Oil?
Exactly how much oil could
be extracted in exchange for all these wonderfully negative impacts? Estimates from the USGS indicate that there
is a 5% chance of there being 16 billion barrels of oil in ANWR and a 95%
chance of finding 5.7 billion barrels of oil.[xxv] Those figures seem large, but when
compared to how much oil the U.S. consumes in one year the potential amount
lessens in grandeur. The US burns 19.4
million barrels of oil per day and 7 billion barrels per year.[xxvi] The United States' oil import figures hover
around 57% of the total oil consumed each year. Energy use in the U.S. falls into the following percentages. Oil, gas and Coal supplies 84% of the U.S.'s
energy needs, "green" power
(solar, wind, etc.) provide less than 4%, hydroelectric power pumps out 4% and
8% is nuclear energy.[xxvii]
In the National Energy Policy, which was released on, May 16th
of this year President Bush claims that
"America in 2001 faces the most serious energy shortage since the
oil embargos of the 70's… consumption is going up but production is remaining
relatively the same."[xxviii] This is seemingly one reason to drill in
the ANWR. Another reason for drilling
in the ANWR is to lessen our dependency on foreign oil and thus increasing our
national security.[xxix] This has been an issue in the past and has
quickly become a very legitimate concern today. 57% of our oil is imported and the majority of that comes from
the Middle East, then fears of national security naturally come to the
forefront. Bush's policy states that by
increasing domestic oil production through drilling in the ANWR the predicament
will be fixed, at least for the time being.
"Renewable and
alternative fuels offer hope for America's energy future, but
they supply only a small
fraction of present energy needs. The
day they fulfill
the bulk of our needs is
still years away. Until that day comes,
we must continue
meeting the nations energy
requirements by the means available to us."[xxx]
The problem with this
statement is that the oil from ANWR will not be of use for at least 10 years.[xxxi] It has to be drilled and refined and
transported and this all takes time. In addition when the numbers are carefully
examined the estimated technically recoverable oil (after economic factors are
considered) will only fuel the US for a little under a year. This, therefore, does not seem beneficial in
the long term. Perhaps a better and a
more sustainable option can be found in renewable energy, or by making small
strides in the direction of conservation.
Being dependent on oil, foreign or domestic is a very huge lack of a
long-term comprehensive energy plan.
Any discussion of renewable
and sustainable energy must first deal with the more general concept,
energy. Science commonly represents
energy abstractly, referring to it as an ability to perform work. From a more technical scientific starting
point, the first law of thermodynamics states, "In all physical and
chemical changes, energy is neither created nor destroyed, but may be converted
from one form to another." Using science as a starting point, energy can
be defined as things around us that change forms in order to perform a task.
Discussions of energy as it relates to renewable energy commonly refer to the
types of fuels we use to perform the tasks associated with modern life. Fuels
run our transportation system and they produce the electricity for our homes
and offices and factories. Overwhelmingly, fossil fuels, coal, oil and natural
gas have been the fuels of choice for performing these tasks. Fossil fuels are
distinguished from renewables in the sense that they are finite resources,
i.e., there is 'x' amount on or under the earth and once used will run
out.
Renewable energy, on the other hand, refers to fuel sources more
consistently available than their fossilized counterparts. Sources for this
energy commonly fall under five categories:
biomass (organic matter), geothermal (heat from under the earth), solar,
water and wind. In theory these sources
are infinitely available. As long as the earth continues to revolve around the
sun, the sun will continue to produce harvestable energy. Heat from the sun
additionally creates atmospheric conditions conducive to wind and water production.
Finally, the sun produces the light necessary for growing the plants and trees,
which constitute the biomass category.
Long before the beginning of
the industrial revolution, humankind used the natural resources at hand to
serve as energy sources for every day tasks.
Today's versions of those same machines, while more technologically
advanced to meet the energy needs of a larger population, operate on similar
principles, harvesting the energy of the world around us.
Biomass, i.e. burning wood, renewable
because you can replant trees, geothermal, i.e., heat from earth, water, i.e.,
hydroelectricity, wind, and solar power. Which of these options would work best
for those of us who want to make electricity at home? Most of us don't have streams running through our properties to
take advantage of our own hydroelectric power.
For the most part people do not live in the hot springs; so geothermal
seems to be an unrealistic option. Organic fuels, such as wood chips, are
renewable, but polluting. That leaves
two choices for homegrown power: wind and sun.
For households, the most practical way to become grid-free is by
gathering solar or wind energy
Cleanliness is perhaps renewable energy's biggest draw. Whereas
fossil fuels require a combustion process to convert the energy into a form
capable of performing the task at hand, renewable energy sources require none.
No combustion means no emission byproducts that cause the most common types of
air pollution today, acid rain, smog and climate change. How much cleaner are
renewables? There's probably no single answer, however, consider the following
two examples related to solar (photovoltaic systems, or PV) and wind
energy. The National Renewable Energy
Laboratory reports (report no. FS-520-24596),
"An average US household uses 830 kilowatt-hours of electricity per month. On average, producing 1000 kWh of electricity with solar power reduces emission by nearly 8 pounds of sulfur dioxide, 5 pounds of nitrogen oxides, and more than 1,400 pounds of carbon dioxide. During its projected 28 years of clean energy production, rooftop system with a 2-year pay back and meeting half of a household's electricity use would avoid conventional electrical plant emissions of more than half a ton of sulfur dioxide, one-third a ton of nitrogen oxides, and 100 tons of carbon dioxide."
The French physicist Antoine
Cesar Becquerel discovered the PV effect in 1839. However, it was not until
1950's that solar power became even remotely practical.[xxxii] If the goal is to get off the conventional
electricity grid completely, then PV panels must be used to charge up some deep
cycle batteries (similar to car batteries, but with lower, steady outputs of
power). The power that comes off the PV
system or out of the battery is direct current, or DC. The electricity in homes, upon which all
appliances run, is alternating current, or AC.
The inverter changes the DC from solar panels into the AC needed to
power homes. If the owner chooses to
not store all that energy they can do what is called "net
metering." In net metering, energy
is gathered, converted to AC, the needed amount is used and any extra power
goes out to the utility company. At the
end of the month, the amount of electricity supplied to the company is deducted
from what has been used. The cost still
seems to be sky high, but some state and local governments have begun to offer
"buy down" programs, or rebates, for up to half of the cost. In 1997, President Clinton started a program
called Million Solar Roofs Initiative. The goal of MSR is to enable businesses
and communities to install solar systems on up to one million rooftops across
the US by 2010, primarily with financial assistance.[xxxiii] Additionally, many states have also set up
"buy back" rebate programs to make going solar more attractive.[xxxiv]
The cost of solar PVs which
convert sunlight into electricity will plunge eight-fold in the next twenty
years.[xxxv] Greenpeace estimates that PVs are still five
times more expensive than if they were mass-produced.[xxxvi] They also say that in order for PVs to
become competitive on the market it would cost only a half percent of the $89
billion spent by oil companies on exploration for new oil.[xxxvii] With this information it becomes
increasingly obvious that solar power will not catch on until it is funded more
fully by the government.
Before the era of cheap
fossil fuels, it was the norm to see windmills scattered across the
countryside. The American Wind Energy
Association claims,
"A single 660-Kw wind
turbine will displace emissions of 1,100 tons of carbon dioxide (the leading
greenhouse gas), 6 tons of sulfur dioxide (the leading component of acid rain),
and 4 tons of nitrogen oxides (the leading component of smog) every year, based
on the U.S. average utility fuel mix. 375 acres (more than half a square mile)
of forest would be needed to absorb the same amount of CO2."[xxxviii]
VIII. Electric and Hybrid Vehicles.
The explosion of cars and trucks around the world is the fastest growing source of carbon emissions, which in turn are threatening the global climate. There are more than 500 million cars on the world's roads, all pumping out smog-generating toxic fumes, and guzzling gas like there is no tomorrow. [xxxix] One of the main ways in which oil consumption can be lessened is by simply increasing the fuel efficiency standards for all vehicles. Average vehicle performance in the US has fallen steadily since 1987. The average high used to be only 26.6 mpg, but in the year 2000, the federal fuel-economy standard was 20.7 mpg for minivans and light trucks, and 27 mpg for cars. [xl] Higher gas prices and today's oil shortages are a result of this low standard.
Electric and hybrid (gas and electric, or fuel cells) cars have quickly become a feasible and more environmentally friendly option for car buyers today. Vehicles totally powered by electricity are somewhat stuck in their advancement by the battery development. The batteries are still too heavy and bulky to be very practical. For now, it appears that hybrid-electric vehicles (HEV's) stand a much better chance of electrifying the automotive world.[xli]
HEV's have a number of gas saving techniques. One is stop-start operation where an electric motor gets that car moving on its own, drawing power from the battery, then the gas engine takes over.[xlii] When the vehicles are standing still the gas engine shuts down, saving fuel consumed during idle periods. Another tool available to HEV's is called regenerative braking.[xliii] This system recovers energy used to slow down or stop a vehicle, converting mechanical braking energy from the combustion engine back to electrical energy, which is then stored in the battery.[xliv]
"Standing at the gas
pump, watching the dollar total spin up into the stratosphere,
haven't many of us dreamed
of owning an electric-powered car that can thumb
its hood ornament at the oil
companies as it whizzes us ever so quietly by their
filling stations?"[xlv]
Toyota came out with its new
HEV, the Prius in July 2000.[xlvi] The Prius gets 52 mpg on the highway and 45
mpg in the city.[xlvii] The Honda Insight put on the market in April
1999 gets 68 mpg on the highway and 61 mpg in the city.[xlviii] These cars, which have not been heavily
marketed in the U.S., are extremely popular in Europe.
One might question the logic behind the idea of an electric powered car by pointing out the fact that the electricity was probably produced by a fossil fuel and that puts us almost right back to where we started. However, the benefits of these cars far outweigh cars run totally on gasoline. The electric cars and HEV's do save gas and create fewer emissions, but for the extreme idealists there are also solar powered cars and cars fueled by hydrogen fuel cells adapted for vehicles.
William R Grove invented the hydrogen fuel cell in 1839.[xlix] The fuel cell is like a continually running battery, which chemically combines hydrogen and air to produce an electric current, which can then be used to power an electric motor. Amazingly the only waste it produces is pure water. Research energy is being put into adapting hydrogen energy for transport. Mass production of cars with this type of technology is scheduled to start in 2005.[l] Toyota and Honda intend to launch fuel-cell cars within the next few years. In terms of solar powered cars an excellent example can be taken from approximately two decades ago when a group of students form Crowder College in Neosho, Montana, built a car at the cost of $5,000 that traveled across the continental U.S. powered only by the sun.[li]
With the direct benefits of buying less gas and other fossil fuels,
creating fewer emissions, using less oil, creating a greater national security
and preserving environmental refuges why then are we as a country not taking
larger strides toward new technologies such as hybrid cars, fuel cells and
solar powered homes? Many attempts have
been made, but have either failed or lost power over the constant presence of
the oil companies.
In 1977 then President Carter stated he would pursue a "national goal of achieving 20% of the nation's energy from the sun and other renewable resources by the year 2000."[lii] In the late 70's however, oil companies had bought out many of the patents of PV cells, and the corporate giants like Amoco, Exxon, and Mobil took control of the solar power companies.[liii] This trend lead Alfred Dougherty, former director of the Federal Trade commission's bureau of competition to warn, "If the oil companies control substantial amounts of substitute fuels…they may slow the pace of production of alternative fuels in order to protect the value of their oil and gas reserves."[liv] From this point of view it looks as if there has been purposeful action on the part of oil companies to stop research in the field of alternative energy. Since the 70's there has been a "lackadaisical effort of develop alternative fuel sources and the continuous quest by the oil industry to discover more oil. Big oil has both money and power, and it shouldn't be any surprise how much can be accomplished, or prevented, with such a potent combination." [lv]
This country's loyalty to
fossil fuels runs deep and the amount of money that American oil corporations
are spending (millions of dollars) on oil exploration is a reflection of that
loyalty.[lvi] As our nation becomes increasingly dependent
upon oil controlled by unsympathetic suppliers, national security crises are
imminent—perhaps even wars will be fought, or are being fought to control the
remaining supply.[lvii] Perhaps our loyalty to oil needs to find a
new platform
. The renewable and sustainable energy options, conservation ideas
like increased fuel efficiency need to be funded and backed by the government
in order to gain any kind of clout in this society. These renewable energy sources are not affected by changes in
international politics, trade or inflation at home. They help to give consumers
control over our energy supplies, meaning more independence and self-reliance.
We don't have to get involved in offshore wars to secure these sources of
energy. Renewable energy sources like
solar power cut our utility bills and after the initial installation cost of
the system, it provides essentially free energy.
Probably the most difficult
opposing factor that must wrestled with is an economic model that does not
include the true cost of conventional energy in what each person pays each
month for the kilowatt-hours they consume. (The same can be said for the price
paid at the pump for oil and gas consumption by our cars and trucks.) In other
words, the health-related costs to humans and wildlife, the environmental
damage to rivers, lakes and streams, to the soil, to the very air we breathe
and to the life-protecting ozone layer around the Earth itself--these costs are
not included in our monthly bills. The
debate is not just about ANWR, but rather about all of the natural refuges that
have been or will be sacrificed in order to feed the oil companies of the
world, and like everything else about this debate, estimates of the impact of
drilling on the fragile environment and animal populations vary widely. But even if the impact is small, the
benefits from inflicting such damage on these unique natural resources appear
to be even smaller as we look beyond the present day and think of generations to
come. At some point an epiphany will occur,
and it will soon be realized that we can not go on depleting the earth of it's
resources, but instead we should be working towards a sustainable future
through the use of conservation and renewable energy.
[i] Reliable, Affordable, and Environmentally Sound Energy for America's Future: A Report of the National
Energy Policy Development Group. 16 May, 2001. 29 September 2001.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/energy/
[ii] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2001. Potential impacts of proposed oil and gas development on the
Arctic Refuge’s coastal plain: Historical overview and issues of concern. Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge. Fairbanks, Alaska. 17 January 2001.
[iii] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2001.
[iv] United States Geological Survey. "Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, 1002 Area, Petroleum Assessment,
1998, Including Economic Analysis. 24 April 2001. 29 September 2001.
[v] United States Geological Survey. 2001
[vi] Senator Frank Murkowski. 26 September 2001.
http://www.senate.gov/~murkowski/oped/anwrfacts.html
[vii] Senator Frank Murkowski. 26 September 2001.
[viii] United States Geological Survey. 2001
[ix] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2001.
[x] Nellemann, C.H. and P.E. Reynolds. 1997. Terrain preferences associated with patterns of late winter
distributions of musk oxen. Arctic and Alpine Research.
[xi] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1995. Habitat Conservation Strategy for Polar Bears in Alaska. Alaska
Region, Anchorage, Alaska.
[xii] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1995.
[xiii] Ballard. W.B., M.A. Cronin, and H.A. Whitlaw, 2000. Caribou and Oilfields. p85-104 in J.C. Truett and
S.R. Johnson, editors. The Natural History of an Arctic Oil Field—Development and the Biota.
Academic Press.
[xiv]Ballard. W.B., M.A. Cronin, and H.A. Whitlaw, 2000.
[xv] Brackney, A.W., and J.W. Hupp. 1993 Fall Diet of Snow Geese Staging in Northeastern Alaska. Journal
of Wildlife Management. 57:55-61.
[xvi] Felix, N.A., and M.K. Reynolds. 1988. The Role of Snow Cover in Limiting Surface Disturbance caused
by Winter Seismic Exploration. Arctic 42.
[xvii] Felix, N.A., and M.K. Reynolds. 1988.
[xviii] United States Geological Survey. 2001
[xix] Felix, N.A., and M.K. Reynolds. 1988.
[xx] http://www.directionaldrilling.com/magazine/feature.html
[xxi] United States Geological Survey. 2001
[xxii] http://www.directionaldrilling.com/magazine/feature.html
[xxiii] Lyons, S.M. and J.M. Trawicki 1994. Water Resource Inventory and Assessment, Coastal Plain, Arctic
National Wildlife Refuge: 1987-1992 Final Reports. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Water
Resource Branch Anchorage, AK.
[xxiv] Lyons, S.M. and J.M. Trawicki 1994.
[xxv] United States Geological Survey. 2001
[xxvi] United States Geological Survey. 2001
[xxvii] David, Case. Alternative Energy Comes of Age. Rolling Stone. 9/13/2001 Issue 877, p39 Straight Arrow
Publishers.
[xxviii] http://www.whitehouse.gov/energy/
[xxix] Shenot, Christine. "It's a New Era for Drilling." Orlando Sentinel. 3 September 2001. 4 September.
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/custom/science/orl-oil-k090301.story?coll=orl%2Dhome%2Dhea
[xxx] http://www.whitehouse.gov/energy/
[xxxi] Wostmann, Alexander. "Drilling for Oil in Alaskan Wildlife Refuge will not Solve Energy Despair."
Los Angeles Times 22 February, 2001. 26 September 2001.
[xxxii] Oil, Profits, and the question of alternative energy. Richard Rosentreter and Philip M. Morse
Humanist, Sep/Oct 2000, Vol. 60 Issue 5, 8, 5p.
[xxxv] Shifting Gears. New Internationalist, June2001 Issue 335, p26
[xxxvi] Shifting Gears. June2001
[xxxvii] Shifting Gears. June2001
[xxxix] Shifting Gears. New Internationalist, Jun2001 Issue 335, p26
[xl] Christian Science Monitor, 10/18/2000, Vol. 92 Issue 288, John Killin Christian Science Publishing
Society Public Wants SUVs to Guzzle Less.
[xli] Hybrid-Electric Vehicles Propel US Toward an 80-MPG Future. Electronic Design, 01/08/2001, Vol. 49
Issue 1, p88, 8p. Penton Publishing
[xlii] Hybrid-Electric Vehicles Propel US Toward an 80-MPG Future. 01/08/2001
[xliii] Hybrid-Electric Vehicles Propel US Toward an 80-MPG Future. 01/08/2001
[xliv] Hybrid-Electric Vehicles Propel US Toward an 80-MPG Future. 01/08/2001
[xlv] Hybrid-Electric Vehicles Propel US Toward an 80-MPG Future. 01/08/2001
[xlvi] The Eco-Cars. Business Week, 08/14/2000 Issue 3694, p62, 6p
[xlvii] The Eco-Cars. 08/14/2000
[xlviii] The Eco-Cars. 08/14/2000
[xlix] Shifting Gears. June2001
[l] Shifting Gears. June2001
[li] Oil, Profits, and the question of alternative energy by Richard Rosentreter and Philip M. Morse Humanist, Sep/Oct 2000, Vol. 60 Issue 5, 8, 5p.
[lii] Oil, Profits…Sep/Oct 2000
[liii] Oil, Profits…Sep/Oct 2000
[liv] Oil, Profits…Sep/Oct 2000
[lv] Oil, Profits…Sep/Oct 2000
[lvi] Oil, Profits…Sep/Oct 2000
[lvii] Oil, Profits…Sep/Oct 2000