The Alaska congressional delegation often speaks as if all Alaskans want drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. On the contrary; many Alaskans want to see the Refuge protected.
Senator Murkowski claims that the physical footprint of drilling would be small. Her claims are misleading, as the 2,000 acres needed for development she often references would not be contiguous. Well pads, gravel roads, airstrips, pipelines for transportation and other components of industrial sprawl would be built spread across the narrow coastal plain, locking up this area as private land and preventing access to this area except for oilfield personnel.
Development would wreak havoc on wildlife that live in the refuge. Recent caribou population studies of the Central Arctic herd show they have decreased 70 percent in six years in the oilfield area. The Porcupine Caribou herd that calves on the coastal plain would be similarly impacted. Polar bears, already stressed by melting ice pack, that den on the coast will be affected.
The Arctic Refuge and the wildlife that depend on the coastal plain need to be protected. Why is the Arctic refuge even in the budget reconciliation process? The $1 billion revenue lawmakers claim will be generated by drilling in the refuge will not begin to make a dent in the $1.5 trillion in debt generated by the budget.
Dana Durham
Girdwood, Ak.
