Oil Brings Spotlight to America’s Northernmost Town | Newsweek Environment

‘A Whole New World’

Newsweek Web Exclusive

Email To A Friend

Please fill in the following information and we'll email this link.

SPONSORED BY

At issue is whether the United States should ratify a treaty that governs ocean rights extending off the coastlines of nations, and thus the natural resources and fisheries that lurk below. Under international law, the United States already holds a 200-nautical-mile zone from its shores. According to an international treaty called the Law of the Sea, the United States could claim an even larger swath if it can show that the Alaskan continental shelf extends beyond the 200-mile limit.

But the United States is the only Arctic nation that hasn't ratified the treaty. "We do expect to become a party in the near future, perhaps this year or in the next couple of years," Margaret Hays, director of the oceanic affairs office at the U.S. State Department, told reporters in a conference call last week.

This month, the Coast Guard has already dispatched its cutter, Healy, northward of Barrow to map the Alaskan shelf, which may extend more than 600 miles from the shore---three times farther than the current limit. "We have at least a California-size territory to claim," Treadwell notes.

Oil is the major prize hiding beneath that vast territory, as dwindling oil discoveries and record demand have pushed explorers into more remote and more hostile regions.

Last month, the U.S. Geological Survey released a survey estimating that the Arctic may hold 90-billion barrels of oil and 1,670 trillion cubic-feet of natural gas, with a third of this being undiscovered crude off the shores of Alaska. That's enough oil to supply Americans for 12 years.

Oil companies have known for decades of the Arctic's potential, and two firms have already sunk huge investments to find the black stuff. London-based BP is set to become the first company to develop an offshore oil field in federal waters in the Alaskan Arctic. The company announced last month that it will spend $1.5 billion to extract 100-million barrels at its Liberty oil field, located six miles offshore of Alaska. Much of Alaska's federal waters have been open to oil exploration for decades, but the spike in prices, coupled with new drilling techniques--BP says it will drill the world's longest wells to tap Liberty--have companies rethinking the Arctic.

Royal Dutch Shell is especially bullish. "We believe the Alaska offshore is home to some of the most prolific, undeveloped hydrocarbon basins in the world," said Pete Slaiby, Shell's Alaska general manager, in a statement. The company has spent $2.2 billion in recent years, acquiring offshore oil leases in Alaska. But exploring its prospects is proving near impossible. Not because of the Arctic's harsh conditions, but because of lawsuits. Environmentalists and the North Slope Borough have sued the company, claiming Shell is unprepared for an oil spill in icy waters, and that noise from its operations may harm whales and other marine mammals.

« Prev Page

Does the Democratic leadership under Barack Obama expect current electric power plants to provide all the huge electricity requirements to recharge and power all the new hybrid and electric cars will be coming on line. There will have to be new power plants built and these must be nuclear plants. If Democrats think that wind or solar will recharge all of these new cars, they have to be joking because the wind does not blow all the time. The new sources of additional electricity to charge up all these cars will have to come from nuclear energy.

Why is there such an ingrained irrational paranoia about nuclear energy and waste disposal among some Americans especially the Democratic leadership under the direction of Barack Obama. Importantly also why is it somehow okay for hundreds of thousands of Navy sailors to have served for nearly thirty-five years aboard nuclear power American aircraft carriers and nuclear powered submarines and air force personnel to handle nuclear bombs but Democratic leadership under Barack Obama will not consider to even remotely assume any risks involved with nuclear power. Is it okay for our servicemen to be exposed to alleged risks but not the Democratic leadership who oppose nuclear power. This paranoia is particular evident with the Democrats acceptance of risks that are associated with other aspects of modern American living. Forty thousand people die every year in the United States in auto accidents but there is no outcry to ban all automobiles in the United States. Bridges have collapsed recently in Minnesota and tunnels ceilings in Boston have fallen but there is no consensus on eliminating bridges or tunnels. There have been airplane crashes that have also involved injuries on the ground but there is no outcry to ban air travel. There have been repeated rail and ship accidents but no outcry to ban railroads or ship travel. The irrational fear involving nuclear power and waste disposal has no justification. American people undergo multiple medical and dental xrays and CT scans yearly and have no fear. TSA airport screeners and medical staff work daily around xray equipment, fluoroscopes, and CT machines and do not experience adverse health consequences as a result of their work exposure. There were no documented adverse health events associated with the Three Mile Island release of minor radiation in the 1970s and no payments for health losses were ever made involving lawsuits related to that accident. The containment vessel held at Three Mile Island. In light of most Americans acceptance of risks associated with automobiles, trains, planes, and ships, the fear on the part of the Democratic leadership of nuclear power can not be viewed as rational. John McCain's proposals to build 45 new nuclear power plants along with his other energy proposals on conservation and renewable energy will help America achieve relative energy independence in the near term and long term.

Member Comments

- Reply
- Report Abuse
Posted By: tedd @ 08/25/2008 10:28:40 PM

we're big fans of Earth Day. It is a wonderful scenic country area and home to Dinosaur World and a state park. There are dinosaur tracks from 100 million years ago along the riverbed that can be seen some say are heading in the direction of New York City

Tedd

<a href=http://www.drugtreatments.com/south-carolina>South Carolina Drug Treatment</a>
- Reply
- Report Abuse
Posted By: tedd @ 08/25/2008 10:24:26 PM

we're big fans of Earth Day. It is a wonderful scenic country area and home to Dinosaur World and a state park. There are dinosaur tracks from 100 million years ago along the riverbed that can be seen some say are heading in the direction of New York City

Tedd

<a href=???http://www.drugtreatments.com/south-carolina???rel=???dofollow???>South Carolina Drug Treatment</a>

tedd
- Reply
- Report Abuse
Posted By: mccainsupporter @ 08/25/2008 9:24:25 PM

Does the Democratic leadership under Barack Obama expect current electric power plants to provide all the huge electricity requirements to recharge and power all the new hybrid and electric cars will be coming on line. There will have to be new power plants built and these must be nuclear plants. If Democrats think that wind or solar will recharge all of these new cars, they have to be joking because the wind does not blow all the time. The new sources of additional electricity to charge up all these cars will have to come from nuclear energy.

Why is there such an ingrained irrational paranoia about nuclear energy and waste disposal among some Americans especially the Democratic leadership under the direction of Barack Obama. Importantly also why is it somehow okay for hundreds of thousands of Navy sailors to have served for nearly thirty-five years aboard nuclear power American aircraft carriers and nuclear powered submarines and air force personnel to handle nuclear bombs but Democratic leadership under Barack Obama will not consider to even remotely assume any risks involved with nuclear power. Is it okay for our servicemen to be exposed to alleged risks but not the Democratic leadership who oppose nuclear power. This paranoia is particular evident with the Democrats acceptance of risks that are associated with other aspects of modern American living. Forty thousand people die every year in the United States in auto accidents but there is no outcry to ban all automobiles in the United States. Bridges have collapsed recently in Minnesota and tunnels ceilings in Boston have fallen but there is no consensus on eliminating bridges or tunnels. There have been airplane crashes that have also involved injuries on the ground but there is no outcry to ban air travel. There have been repeated rail and ship accidents but no outcry to ban railroads or ship travel. The irrational fear involving nuclear power and waste disposal has no justification. American people undergo multiple medical and dental xrays and CT scans yearly and have no fear. TSA airport screeners and medical staff work daily around xray equipment, fluoroscopes, and CT machines and do not experience adverse health consequences as a result of their work exposure. There were no documented adverse health events associated with the Three Mile Island release of minor radiation in the 1970s and no payments for health losses were ever made involving lawsuits related to that accident. The containment vessel held at Three Mile Island. In light of most Americans acceptance of risks associated with automobiles, trains, planes, and ships, the fear on the part of the Democratic leadership of nuclear power can not be viewed as rational. John McCain's proposals to build 45 new nuclear power plants along with his other energy proposals on conservation and renewable energy will help America achieve relative energy independence in the near term and long term.