It is described as the last great American wilderness and has been the battle ground between the US' most powerful oil interests and environmentalists for more than two decades. But last week the giants of the energy industry were celebrating a significant victory and looking forward to the chance to move into one of the most lucrative oil fields left in the US, following the Senate's narrow 51 to 49 decision to open up the pristine Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in northern Alaska
On the day that oil hit a record high of US$56.46 a barrel, the soaring price of oil and US energy insecurity were blamed for the decision. But Americans were divided on whether the decision made economic or ecological sense.
US President George W. Bush said that exploiting oil in the Alaskan wilderness was good for security and the national economy.
"This is a way to get some additional reserves here at home on the books. In terms of world supply ... demand is outracing supply, and supplies are getting tight. This project will make America less dependent on foreign sources of energy, eventually by up to a million barrels of oil a day," he said.
But for the Democrats and ecologists, who have fought the oil lobby to keep the arctic wilderness as a symbol of pristine America almost since it was first protected in 1960 by president Dwight Eisenhower, it was an irreversible tragedy.
"Is it worth forever losing a national treasure, one of our last great wild places, for a six-month supply of oil 10 years from now?" asked Senator Joe Lieberman, one of the refuge's staunchest defenders.
The oil is expected to be found on the northern Alaskan coastal plain, but drilling is not expected to start until 2007 at the earliest, taking 10 years to come fully on stream. The US Geological Survey estimates there could be anywhere between 5.6 billion barrels and 16 billion barrels of recoverable oil there, with the most likely amount being 10.4 billion barrels.
The US government expects US$2.5 billion in revenue from oil leases and taxes over the next 10 years, with production peaking at one million barrels a day by 2025.
But opponents said that the decision would not solve US energy problems. A 10 billion barrel find, said Charles Clusen, Alaska project director of the Natural Resources Defense Council, would represent only about six months' supply of oil for the energy-voracious US economy which currently uses 20 million barrels a day. The oilfield is expected to be roughly the same size as those of Norway or Algeria.
"It makes no sense to industrialize the few pristine wildlife areas left," Clusen said. "The United States has only 3 percent of the world's proven oil reserves and we use 25 percent of the world's produced oil. Do the math. We could destroy every last wilderness area in the country, but we will never be able to drill our way to oil independence. We have to wean ourselves off oil."
Senator Maria Cantwell, who led the attack against drilling in the refuge, said the US should focus on conservation and on developing alternative and renewable forms of energy instead of depleting the nation's last known onshore oil reserves.
"By simply encouraging proper tyre pressure on cars and trucks, the US could save more oil than the wildlife refuge could produce", she said.
However, Alaskan Senator Lisa Murkowski argued that the refuge could provide enough fuel to "replace all of our imports from Saudi Arabia for 25 years."
Backers of the drilling say there will be no damage to the environment because modern drilling methods are far less damaging.
"There will not be any damage to the environment and that is a fact," Senator Larry Craig said.
But major oil developments at Prudhoe Bay, to the west of the arctic refuge, suggest damage is inevitable. The coastal oil belt there is marked by industrial sprawl, the building of thousands of kilometers of roads and pipelines, as well as air strips, drilling platforms and gravel mines.
Because of the very short summer growing season, extreme cold and nutrient-poor soils, any physical disturbance such as bulldozer tracks, seismic oil exploration or spills of oil and other toxic substances can scar the land for centuries.
The gravest concern is for wildlife. Opponents say the area which has been opened up for oil exploration is the biological heart of the refuge and the impact will be devastating. The arctic refuge is home to 45 species of land and marine mammals, including polar bears, grizzly bears, black bears, musk ox and caribou, arctic foxes, wolverines and snow geese.
Millions of migratory birds use its coastal plain.
Although oil developments will initially be limited to a small part of the coastal plain, the US Fish and Wildlife Service has said oil activity there risks "irreversible" population drops for migratory geese, which rely on lakes there.
But environmentalists had not given up.
"The decision only strengthens our resolve to protect America's most pristine wildlife refuge for our children's future," said Larry Schweiger, president of the National Wildlife Federation.
Carol Browner, chair of the National Audubon Society, said: "There simply are some places that should be off limits to oil drilling and industrial development, and the arctic refuge is one of them. Since the days of Roosevelt, all Americans have shared a common ethic to protect our country's most beautiful places."
Senator John Kerry was more succinct: "It's a sad day when the Senate sells off America's public lands to the highest bidder," he said.
The White House’s decision to take a 9.9 percent stake in Intel Corp is looking like very shrewd business indeed. Since the government bought in at US$20.47 a share last August, the US chipmaker’s surging stock price has delivered the US a US$43 billion return. One of the reasons the investment has so far proved so sound is that the White House has made sure of it. According to The Wall Street Journal, Howard personally pushed deals on Intel’s behalf with some of the most lucrative clients imaginable. They include Nvidia Corp, the company at the heart of the AI
A single photograph can cut through a lot of noise, but it can also be used to misrepresent the truth. At the very least, it can concentrate the mind on something that requires further investigation. On Monday last week, Ma Ying-jeou Foundation CEO Tai Hsia-ling (戴遐齡) and former National Security Council secretary-general King Pu-tsung (金溥聰) held a news conference in which they showed a photograph of former foundation CEO Hsiao Hsu-tsen (蕭旭岑), now Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) deputy chairman. In the image Hsiao is seated next to Xiamen Taiwan Businessmen Association chairman Han Ying-huan (韓螢煥). The two men were holding
I first met Professor Ray Jiing (井迎瑞) as a film and documentary student at Shih Hsin University’s (SHU) Department of Radio Television and Film in 1988. The following year, he went on to become the director of the Chinese Taipei Film Archive — forerunner of the Taiwan Film and Audiovisual Institute (TFAI). Over his eight-year tenure, Jiing rescued and restored over 200 classic Taiwanese films. In 1997, he established the Graduate Institute of Studies in Documentary and Film Archiving at Tainan National University of the Arts (TNNUA), and I joined the program in his third cohort of students. Beyond a
President William Lai Ching-te’s (賴清德) May 20 second-anniversary address was not just a routine policy review; it was damage control. US President Donald Trump’s remarks — that he did not want to see anyone move toward independence and that the delivery of a major Taiwan arms package could depend on the progress of US-China relations — unsettled Taiwan’s public and created an opening for opposition parties to question whether Taiwan was being treated as a bargaining chip in Washington’s dealings with Beijing. Lai’s speech was designed to close that opening. The address covered the expected ground: sovereignty, cross-strait relations, defense spending,
RSS