Technically difficult exploration and environmental costs:

Supply: new sources As oil prices remain high, and fears of ‘peak oil and gas’ increase the search is on for new sources: ExampleSourceTechnical challengeEnvironmental impacts Canadian (Athabasca) tar sands Bitumen combined with sand / rock under boreal forests; close to surface MODERATE Strip mining or extraction by steam; gas is used to heat the sands and extract oil. HIGH Energy intensive extraction and destruction of ecosystems Arctic oil Conventional oil in fragile wilderness region, both on and offshore LOW Conventional drilling and extraction; Arctic oil has been taken from Prudhoe Bay for decades. MODERATE Fragile environment but production has relatively small footprint West of Shetland, Foinaven field Conventional oil in deep ocean water HIGH Production began in 1997, but using ‘floating’ rigs LOW Low risk of spills and limited impact on sea bed USA (Green River) oil shale Bitumen encased in solid rock MODERATE Opencast mining, then can be directly burnt or heated to drive off oil. HIGH Large areas mined, scarring landscape and energy intensive production

Viable alternatives? The chart below shows the estimates oil price required for each energy resource to be competitive with oil and gas without any form of State support or subsidy Source: the FT 2009

Read p Oxford and very interesting p 34-35) (and p Pearson sheet)

The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Protected … but … there are oil reserves there … And the Prudhoe Bay oilfield is nearly exhausted.

Varying Views u8Q The truth about ANWRhttp:// u8Q M0A4&feature=related Don’t believe the lies- against ANWR drillinghttp:// M0A4&feature=related 65Y&feature=related as above longer versionhttp:// 65Y&feature=related Qao&feature=related ANWR blood and oilhttp:// Qao&feature=related

our-ANWR-Flash-Movie.php

Opinions “I hope people understand, in a 20,000-square-mile area, this is 2,000 acres. It is a plot of land the size of LAX that we would want to drill to explore.," Sarah Palin- John McCain's running mate for 2008 us PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

“ANWR Drilling could keep [America]'s economy growing by creating jobs and ensuring that businesses can expand [a]nd it will make America less dependent on foreign sources of energy, scientists have developed innovative techniques to reach ANWR's oil with virtually no impact on the land or local wildlife."

"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 discernible impact on US energy security."

“We support the drilling- it will provide jobs for locals and Americans all over the country- it will enable Alaska to further develop energy security and it doesn’t affect us or the caribou migrations we rely on” “Me not want any of your dirty oil spilling on me food or land- my calves might eat it or step on it”

Other arguments in favour A June 29, 2008 Pew Research Poll reported that 50% of Americans favor drilling of oil and gas in ANWR while 43% oppose (compared to 42% in favor and 50% opposed in February of the same year). A CNN opinion poll conducted in August 31, 2008 reported 59% favor drilling for oil in ANWR, while 39% oppose it. A large majority of Alaskans support drilling in ANWR, including every governor, senator, representative, and legislature for the past 25 years. In the state of Alaska, residents receive annual dividends from oil-lease revenues. In 2000 the dividend came to $1,964 per resident. Rep. Richard Pombo, R-Calif., chairman of the Resources Committee, seized on the finding Tuesday that development of the refuge would boost domestic oil production by 20 percent over what it otherwise would be in “Given America’s energy crunch, ANWR production is a must,” Pombo, who requested the analysis, said in a statement.

The economic impact would be negligible, thus meaning no financial reason to drill there as the amount is not thought to be enough for mass production levels Environmentalists state that the required network of oil platforms, pipelines, roads and support facilities, not to mention the threat of foul spills, would play havoc on wildlife. The US FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE has stated that the 1002 area has a "greater degree of ecological diversity than any other similar sized area of Alaska’s north slope." The FWS also states, "Those who campaigned to establish the Arctic Refuge recognized its wild qualities and the significance of these spatial relationships. Here lies an unusually diverse assemblage of large animals and smaller, less-appreciated life forms, tied to their physical environments and to each other by natural, undisturbed ecological and evolutionary processes."[[ The Gwich'in tribe adamantly believes that drilling in ANWR would have serious negative effects on the calving grounds of the Porcupine Caribou herd that they partially rely on for food. Other arguments against

The debate is about the environment (conservation) Compared with the economy (exploitation) About local, national and even global interests ‘But … You can’t eat the scenery’

The Arctic Tundra is a treeless plain by the Beaufort Sea Here you can see patterned ground made by the seasonal melting of the upper ground.

“Depending on whom you listen to, ANWR’s coastal plain is either a bleak, buggy land of misery deserving no special protection or a precious piece of America’s natural history.”—James Balog Is this place really so special? Outdoor enthusiasts think it is … and are against drilling for oil

Like Alaska’s Prudhoe Bay (pictured above), ANWR may soon bear the scars of modern oil extraction. In summer the hollows fill with midge infested swamps.

The oil companies love photos like this - some environmentalists had feared that the pipeline would disrupt normal wildlife migrations. It turns out, however, that not only does the pipeline not bother the local wildlife, but some of the critters like to scratch their backs on the supports. Do the nature lovers overstate the threats to the environment?

Polar bears, the largest bear and terrestrial predator, find prime habitat in Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. There are risks to endangered species if drilling is allowed… Shouldn’t we cut back on fossil fuels anyway … to slow Global Warming?

The Inupiat of Kaktovik, Alaska The village of Kaktovik in 1995 What local people are affected?

Tool for survival: Kaktovik whaling captain Charlie Brower displays the harpoon he uses when his village goes after its quota of three bowhead whales in the fall (Autumn). Kaktovik is next to the Beaufort Sea and within the northern boundaries of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. They tend to support the development – they want the money from the oil companies

Adeline Raboff, is a member of the Gwich’in tribe The Gwich’in Tribe live inland

They are Caribou hunters Some of their land is Taiiga – forested with pine conifers

Arctic Village home of the Gwich’in Native Americans

The Gwich’in have the inherent right to continue our own way of life; and this right is recognized and affirmed by civilized nations in the international covenants on human rights. The Gwich’in object to the proposed oil development because the fear the caribou will be disturbed

Back in mainland USA Some ‘right wingers’ back their government And the oil industry And the troops in Iraq And hate the other protesters who try to stop ‘progress’.

Environmentalists also campaign in Washington DC

The gist of the sales pitch was "we haven't spilled much oil up here, we haven't spilled much along the pipeline, the Exxon Valdez was someone else's fault... oh, and we're starting to run out of oil up here, so could we please please PRETTY please be allowed to start exploration in the wildlife refuge next The Oil Industry has been ‘persuading people’ for years to try to get permission to drill in ANWR

More research