Center Initiative: Energy Independence

Harmonizing Energy Production and Wildlife Conservation
Energy Independence and the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge

February 4, 2003

Interior Secretary Gale Norton used a visit to the Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge near Olympia, Washington to reaffirm the Bush administration's energy policy, which includes oil exploration and production in another federal property thousands of miles north, Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). National wildlife refuges are not game sanctuaries, but by law allow hunting, fishing and other recreation. The Interior Department's U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service manages 540 units in the national wildlife refuge system. President Bush is proposing a $25.5 million increase for fiscal 2004, above 2002's $400 million nationwide refuge budget.
 

Secretary Norton toured the unit on a rare sunny day with media and guests including Center Executive Vice President Ron Arnold. The group saw abundant wildlife, including 5 bald eagles eyeing salmon in the Nisqually River, which originates in a glacier on 14,414-foot Mount Rainier - impressively visible 50 miles away.

In a personal meeting with Secretary Norton after the tour, Ron Arnold expressed the Center's approval of the job she's doing. The Center's Energy Independence Initiative relies on strong leadership to counter opponents of oil production in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Norton has stood firm in the face of outrageous lies and partisan bickering. It's an issue that affects not only national security in an uncertain world, but also our economic recovery.
 

Secretary Norton's visit to the Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge attracted a handful of environmentalists protesting against oil production in ANWR. An Associated Press reporter on the tour gave the protesters the headline and the lead, even though reporters outnumbered protesters.

çWRONG. Major news outlets, including ABC-NBC-CBS-CNN, have represented ANWR with footage of caribou grazing in lush meadows – actually in the Brooks Range, a congressionally designated wilderness area with no oil, located over a hundred miles from the proposed exploration site. ANWR is 19 million acres – larger than Massachusetts, New Jersey, Hawaii, Connecticut and Delaware combined. The oil-rich non-wilderness coastal plain, called the "10-02 Area," contains 1.5 million acres. The oil can be reached from a winter-only base of less than 2,000 acres by using slant drilling technology. It's misleading to picture that with this.

çREAL. This is an actual oil exploration rig on the Arctic coastal plain. It's in the Prudhoe Bay oil field, very similar to the 10-02 Area. The picture was taken in winter, the only time of year proposed for exploration, using ice roads that melt in summer. In February 2002, Norton responded to the misleading footage by sending film of the proposed drilling site, made for the pro-oil group Arctic Power, to the networks and also posted it on the department's website. Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA) said the law prohibited her action. She issued a denial, saying no law was broken.
 

PARTISAN BICKERING. Markey said that a provision in a 2001 appropriations law states that “No part of any funds appropriated in this or any other Act shall be used by any agency of the executive branch” for the distribution of any “film presentation designed to support or defeat legislation pending before Congress, except in presentation to the Congress itself.”

The Interior Department responded that the video “was approved by one of the most senior career attorneys of our solicitor’s office.” Markey is misinterpreting the law, Norton’s spokesman, Mark Pfeifle, told MSNBC.com, because “the video shows nothing more than the actual area ... where energy exploration would occur.” Markey also asked how much federal money was spent on the film. The Department spent $95.81 to make copies of the video and $43.55 in postage to distribute it.

COMPETING IMAGES. Markey also pointed out that the film was made for pro-oil lobbying group Arctic Power. Arctic Power receives over 60 percent of its funding from the Alaska state government, with the remainder coming from oil companies, labor unions, citizen groups and private individuals. The competing footage was made for the Alaska Coalition, an anti-oil lobbying group made up mostly of non-Alaskan environmental groups, many of which are supported by foundations that pay their grants from investments in oil companies, such as Pew Charitable Trusts. Below is a comparison of the competing images. Left, Alaska Coalition; right, Arctic Power:

WHAT IT'S REALLY ABOUT. Environmental groups don't like fossil fuel consumers. Environmental groups don't like for-profit corporations. Environmental groups don't like capitalism.

WHAT IT'S NOT ABOUT. Wildlife. See below:

Caribou running in terror from coastal plain oil rig

Nesting bird ready to chase away photographer
who came too close to her oil rig

RETURN TO INITIATIVES TOP PAGE

RETURN TO CENTER FOR THE DEFENSE OF FREE ENTERPRISE HOME PAGE