A leaky pipeline at BP Plc's Prudhoe Bay oilfield gives fodder to environmental groups opposed to drilling in the nearby Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and they say it will be harder for drilling supporters to convince Congress to open the area to energy companies.
WASHINGTON — A leaky pipeline at BP Plc's Prudhoe Bay oilfield gives fodder to environmental groups opposed to drilling in the nearby Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and they say it will be harder for drilling supporters to convince Congress to open the area to energy companies.
The Bush administration, Alaska's congressional delegation and other backers of ANWR drilling have said for years that advanced drilling technology would make it environmentally safe to search for oil in Arctic refuge, which may hold 16 billion barrels of crude to help satisfy America's oil addiction.
However, green groups that have lobbied in Washington to keep ANWR off limits to drilling say BP's actions show that oil companies can't be trusted to safely drill in the refuge.
"It can be new technology, but if it's not maintained, if it's not tested, if it's not safeguarded by the companies, it's worthless," said Athan Manuel at the Sierra Club.
"Whatever goes into the refuge ... it's going to have to be operating for 10, 20, 30 years or more. And you're still going to have the same problem where oil companies are going to be remiss in terms of upkeep and maintenance," said Melanie Duchin at Greenpeace.
BP admits it did not provide the best maintenance for its transit pipeline that moved about 400,000 barrels of oil a day from Prudhoe Bay, the largest U.S. producing field.
The pipeline became corroded and leaked oil, forcing the company to begin shutting it down to make repairs. Some U.S. lawmakers have demanded that Congress investigate.
Green groups fear that if BP, which promotes itself as a pro-environment company, could be so careless, then it proves no oil firms should be allowed in ANWR.
"BP is the good company. If this is what you see from the good company, we don't want to see what happens if somebody else goes in there," said Manuel. "We think it helps our case against drilling in the Arctic."
Greenpeace's Duchin agreed, saying, "If oil companies who are making record profits ... can't spend the money and the resources to upkeep their pipeline infrastructure in Prudhoe Bay, well that's the model they're going to use for the Arctic refuge."
However, ANWR drilling supporters in the Congress say the shutdown of Prudhoe Bay shows the United States needs more oil supply sources like the refuge's billions of barrels of crude.
"ANWR would have certainly offset this problem in Prudhoe Bay," said Brian Kennedy, spokesman for Rep. Richard Pombo, who chairs the House Resources Committee.
"This is yet another example that's going to shine a lot of sunlight on the fact that we virtually have no new American supplies and we need to create them," Kennedy said.
Alaska Governor Frank Murkowski said the impact of losing Prudhoe Bay's oil would be limited if President Clinton had not vetoed ANWR drilling legislation in 1995. "We'd have that (ANWR oil) online today and we wouldn't be in this pickle," he said Tuesday on CNBC.
Environmentalists dispute how much oil might be in ANWR, and they argue it is not worth the risk of harming the habitat of polar bears, caribou and other wildlife living there.
"What we do know is we had a (corroded pipeline and oil spill) in the North Slope just 30 miles away from where we would have pipelines in the Arctic refuge," said Kristen Miller, legislative director of the Alaska Wilderness League.
Pombo is backing new legislation to allow drilling in ANWR and use some of the bonus bids and oil royalties paid by companies to fund research into alternative energy sources.
The House may vote on the bill in September and Kennedy expects the legislation to have even more lawmaker support than previously passed ANWR drilling bills.
The Sierra Club's Manuel said that was wishful thinking for the House and believes BP's actions will not win enough votes in the Senate to stop a filibuster of an ANWR drilling bill.
"This doesn't help them get votes to open the Arctic," he said.
"I would hope that it would prompt members of Congress to reevaluate their belief that (ANWR) drilling could be done in an environmentally safe manner," Miller said.
With Republicans worried they may lose control of Congress in November's mid-term election, Manuel said it's too risky to reward negligent oil companies by giving them ANWR.
"Why do something that only benefits Big Oil? I don't think that's the message they want people to think about when they're pulling the (voting booth) lever," he said.
Source: Reuters
Contact Info:
