long-term consequences for the community and the environment.
Back in my father's youth he lived in a dirt poor town which was a haven for the Mafia. Every month a couple of thugs would come by his houes of 9 kids and pass out food and clothing. As far as they were concerned, the Mafia was harmless and welcome. Not so for those who were negatively impacted by the crimes they committed.
I make this point because you seem to be focusing on the patronage that these oil companies pay to the nearby village of Kaktovik and others. Funding communities, as the account touts, is certainly a worthwhile enterprise, so is an income for disadvantaged residents there. But at what long-term cost to the community, state, and the environment? What will happen to these communities when the oil is depleted? What will be left of the land that many once relied on as a renewable resourse for food and substinence?
Further, we are talking about desecrating a national refuge. While native Alaskans may have a special interest because of their proximity and use of the refuge, the land is a preserve entrusted and bequeathed to all Americans.
I notice that
Arctic Power contributes 10 reasons at the bottom of the article to support drilling in the refuge. I would note that
Arctic Power is funded by the state government which gets 80% of its revenues from oil interests.
From a 2003 GAO report on the impact of oil exploration and production on refuges:
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-192TFirst, "The National Wildlife Refuge System is a national asset established principally for the conservation of wildlife and habitat."
"Constructing,operating,and maintaining the infrastructure necessary to produce oil and gas can harm wildlife by reducing the quantity and quality of habitat.Infrastructure development can reduce the quality of habitat through fragmentation,which occurs when a network of roads,canals, and other infrastructure is constructed in previously undeveloped areas of a refuge.Fragmentation increases disturbances from human activities, provides pathways for predators,and helps spread nonnative plant species.For example,officials at Anahuac and McFaddin National Wildlife Refuges in Texas said that disturbances from oil and gas activities are likely significant and expressed concern that bird nesting may be disrupted."
"Infrastructure networks can also damage refuge habitat by changing the hydrology of the refuge ecosystem,particularly in coastal areas.In addition,industrial activities associated with extracting oil and gas have been found to contaminate wildlife refuges with toxic substances such as mercury and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). Mercury and PCBs were used in equipment such as compressors,transformers,and well production meters,although generally they are no longer used."
" . . . improvements in technology may allow operators to avoid placing wells in sensitive areas such as wetlands.However,oil and gas infrastructure continues to diminish the availability of refuge habitat for wildlife,and spills of oil,gas, and brine that damage fish and wildlife continue to occur.In addition, several refuge managers reported that operators do not always comply with legal requirements or follow best industry practices,such as constructing earthen barriers around tanks to contain spills,covering tanks to protect wildlife,and removing pits that temporarily store fluids used during well maintenance."
From a 2003 National Academy of Science report on the 'Cumulative Environmental Effects of Oil and Gas Activities on Alaska's North Slope.'(
http://www.nap.edu/books/0309087376/html):
To gain diverse views and pers-pectives,
the committee traveled to
Alaska several times during the course
of its two-year study. The committee
heard from federal and state agencies,
representatives of the oil and gas
industry, environmental organizations,
and officials and community members
of the North Slope Borough and the
municipalities it visited: Barrow, Kaktovik,
and Nuiqsut. It also visited Arctic Village
and toured oil facilities at Prudhoe Bay,
Endicott, and Alpine, and flew over
Kuparuk, the offshore Northstar facility,
the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska
and the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
"For North Slope residents,
the current way of life of North Slope communities
made possible by oil and gas activities will be more
difficult to maintain when these activities cease as
oil is depleted because other sources of funds appear
to be modest. Eventual adjustments to reduced
financial resources are unavoidable. Their nature
and extent will be shaped by adaptations North Slope
communities have made to the accumulated effects
of the cash economy.
Most North Slope residents have positive views of
many of the economic changes that have resulted
from revenue generated by petroleum activities, such
as access to better medical care, availability of gas
heat for houses, improved plumbing, and higher
personal incomes. At the same time, however,
balancing the economic benefits of oil activities
against the accompanying loss of traditional culture
and other societal problems that can occur is often a
dilemma for North Slope residents. Without this
revenue, the North Slope Borough, the Alaska Native
Claims Settlement Act, and hence the Arctic Slope
Regional Corporation, would not exist or, if they did,
would bear little resemblance to their current form.
This discovery of oil and its development on the North
Slope has resulted in major, important, and probably
irreversible changes to the way of life in communities.
These effects accumulate because they arise from
several ongoing, interacting causes.
Cumulative Aesthetic, Cultural, and Spiritual
Consequences. Many activities associated with oil
development have compromised wildland and
scenic values over large areas. Some Alaska Natives
told the committee that they violate what they call
“the spirit of the land,” a value central to their
relationship with the environment. These
consequences have increased in proportion to the
area affected by development, and they will persist
as long as the landscape remains altered."