Arctic National Wildlife Refuge:  Alternative Solutions to Drilling 

                                by Rachel Beyeler


Thesis:  If the United States is going to choose to conserve energy responsibly, then our government's energies should not be focused on developing oil in the ANWR, but rather on the topics of conservation through higher fuel efficiency standards in vehicles and by developing alternative energy sources.  Conservation, fuel efficiency and alternative energy sources are the solutions that will lead us to a long term and sustainable energy future.




I.                     Introduction

II.                   ANWR History

III.                 Wildlife in the ANWR

A.      Musk Oxen

B.      Polar Bear

C.      Caribou

D.      Migratory Foul

IV.                Impacts on Vegetation

V.                  The Oil Field

VI.                How Much Oil?

VII.              Renewable Energy

A.      Solar and Wind Power

VIII.            Electric and Hybrid Vehicles

IX.         Conclusions


I. Introduction

The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) is located in the northeastern part of Alaska and has been the topic of many recent political and environmental debates.  Many of these deliberations have become more heated in the past year because of President George W. Bush's National Energy Proposal, "Reliable, Affordable and Environmentally Sound Energy for America's Future."  The proposal included a plan to open up 1.5 million acres of the ANWR for petroleum and gas exploration.  In the proposal President Bush states,  "America is trying to meet future energy demands and promote energy conservation, and do so in environmentally responsible ways that sets standards for the world."[i]  If we choose to conserve responsibly, then our government's energies should not be focused on developing oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, but rather on the topics of conservation through higher fuel efficiency standards in vehicles and by developing alternative energy sources.  Conservation, fuel efficiency and alternative energy sources are the solutions that will lead us to a long term and sustainable energy future.    

II.   ANWR History

Interest in oil resources in the northern part of Alaska began in the early 1900's.[ii]  In 1923 a 23 million acre plot of land, known as the Naval Petroleum Reserve, later named National Petroleum Reserve—Alaska, was established to secure supply of oil for future national security.   In the 1940's and 1950's, Secretary of the Interior, Fred Seaton, designated 8.9 million acres of coastal plain and mountains of northeast Alaska as a refuge.[iii]  The remaining part of the 23 million acres became multiple use land, which included uses such as oil and gas development and exploration.  In 1968 the largest oil field in North America was discovered in Prudhoe Bay also in northern Alaska.  Reserves of oil were also believed to exist in what is now known as Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.  In 1978-79 the House of Representatives passed legislation designating the refuge as wilderness.  The Senate however, required studies of wildlife and petroleum resources and potential impacts of development on the wildlife.[iv] In 1980 President Carter signed Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act into law (ANILCA).  ANILCA doubled the size of the refuge, making it roughly 20 million acres and named it the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR).[v]

The area currently being considered for drilling is also known as the '1002 Area.'  These 1.5 million acres were not designated as wilderness and were addressed in section 1002 of the ANILCA. Section 1002 discussed the information that Congress would need to obtain before deeming the 1002 area as wilderness.[vi]  Inventories of fish, wildlife, and the potential impacts of oil and gas exploration on the wildlife resources were several of the requirements.[vii] 

From these stipulations came the Legislative Environment Impact Statement (LEIS), which stated that development and production in 1002 area would have major effects wildlife, particularly on the porcupine caribou herd and musk oxen.[viii]  Eventually it was recommended that no development occur in order to avoid these unnecessary adverse affects on the environment.   Despite these efforts, in 1995 Congress passed a provision to drill in the arctic; luckily Clinton vetoed this bill citing a desire to protect the environment and wildlife.[ix] 

            No drilling is taking place in the 1002 Area of ANWR currently, but there have been many exploration wells dug and nearby fields such as Prudhoe Bay have been producing oil for years. These examples and the studies conducted and reported in the LEIS give ample citations of negative effects on the fragile arctic environment.  Following is a summary of the impacts of winter exploration for oil on the wildlife and vegetation.


III. Wildlife in ANWR

A.     Musk Oxen—

Two hundred and fifty musk oxen live year round in the 1002 Area.  The oxen have a considerably smaller range during the winter to conserve energy.  Musk oxen give birth 4-6 weeks before summer foliage is available.  Therefore, females must maintain body fat throughout the winter to successfully rear a calf.  Calf production and survival is significantly influenced by environmental conditions.  The oxen respond to disturbance by moving into a defensive group, or if disturbed enough they will run.  Group stampedes often results in the death of calves.  Musk oxen are most often found along large rivers flowing across the coastal plain of Alaska. 

            During petrol exploration and development, large rivers are used for gravel and water removal, as well as roads.   Some concerns associated with oil field activities along river corridors include:

·         Displacement of oxen from preferred habitat

·         Increased energy needs related to disturbance and displacement

·         Decreased body conditions of females

·         Decreased calf production and survival.  [x]


B.     Polar bear—      

According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife service, the ANWR's coastline provides the most important land denning habitat for the polar bear.[xi]  Studies of radio-collared polar bears revealed that between 1981 and 2000, 53 dens were located on the mainland coast of Alaska.  Of these dens, 22 (42%) were within the 1002 area.  Polar bears that are ready to give birth to cubs build dens in the winter.  These females den on either ocean ice or land.  Bears that choose to den on land select sites along shoreline or creek banks and therefore would certainly be adversely effected in much of the same ways as the oxen.  [xii]


   C.   Caribou--

In the spring the 129,000-member herd of porcupine caribou migrates to the costal tundra of ANWR to give birth.  The caribou's preferred food during calving season is higher in nutrition, more digestible, and more available within the 1002 Area than in surrounding areas.[xiii]   Caribou with newborns are particularly sensitive and commonly move as much as one and a half miles away from human disturbances.  This was documented in the Prudhoe Bay case.  The 1002 Area is only one fifth of the size of the area used by the caribou, but six times as many caribou use the 1002 area.[xiv]  This suggests that the 1002 Area is of great importance to the porcupine caribou.


D.    Migratory Foul—

One hundred thirty-five species of birds are known to use the 1002 area.  A notable example are the snow geese.  Fifteen to three hundred thousand birds feed on the Arctic Refuge tundra for three to four weeks each fall.  These birds mostly come in from Canada and migrate to California's Central Valley.  Snow geese eat as much as a third of their body weight everyday.  The tundra enables them to increase fat reserves by 400% while feeing up to 16 hours a day.   The geese feed on small patches of vegetation that are widely distributed across the coastal tundra, so a large grazing area is necessary to meet their needs.  They too are extremely sensitive to disturbance and will fly away from feeding sites when human activity occurs even several miles away. [xv]


IV.   Impacts on vegetation

The landscape is characterized chiefly by tundra, a thick spongy mat-like vegetation. Unseen beneath the ground are rich oil and gas resources.   The way in which geologists learn about the location of these resources is through seismic exploration.  This  involves sending sound waves into the ground, recording how the sound reflects back, and interpreting the results to construct an image of subsurface geology to determine if oil may be present.[xvi] A seismic exploration program on Alaska's North Slope is typically a large operation with many people and vehicles driving across the tundra in a grid pattern.

            Although such exploration is conducted only in winter, snow cover on the 1002 Area is often shallow and uneven, providing little protection for sensitive tundra vegetation and soils. The impact from seismic vehicles and lines depends on the type of vegetation, texture and ice content of the soil, the surface shape, snow depth, and type of vehicle.[xvii]

             Two-dimensional (2-D) exploration was authorized by Congress in the 1002 Area in the winters of 1984 and 1985. Monitoring of more than 100 permanent plots along the 1,400 miles of seismic lines has documented that while many areas recovered, some trails had still not recovered by 1999.[xviii]  Some of the trails have become troughs visible from the air. Others show changes in the amount and types of tundra plants. In some areas, permafrost (permanently frozen soil) melted and the trails are wetter than they were previously. [xix]    


V.  The Oil Field      

What exactly happens at a drill site?  What impacts does it have and what does it look like? Much has been learned since the 1968 discovery of the Prudhoe Bay oil field on the North Slope. Today, the impacts on the North Slope's environment and wildlife are minimized based on new improvements in exploration and development technology.  Newer technologies that are applied today in Alaska's expanding North Slope oil fields include

·         Directional drilling that allows for multiple wellheads on smaller drill pads

·         The re-injection of drilling wastes into the ground, better delineation of oil reserves using 3-D seismic surveys, which has reduced the number of dry holes


·         Use of temporary ice pads and ice roads for conducting exploratory drilling and construction in the winter.[xx]



Although technological advances in oil and gas exploration and development have reduced some of the harmful environmental effects associated with those activities, oil and gas development remains an intrusive industrial process. The physical footprint continues to grow as new oil fields are developed.  The 100-mile wide 1002 Area is located more than 30 miles from the end of the nearest pipeline and more than 50 miles from the nearest gravel road and oil support facilities. According to the U.S. Geological Survey, possible oil reserves may be located in many small accumulations in complex geological formations, rather than in one giant field as was discovered at Prudhoe Bay.[xxi]  Consequently, development in the 1002 Area could "likely require a large number of small production sites (around 100) spread across the refuge landscape, connected by an infrastructure of roads, pipelines, power plants, processing facilities, loading docks, dormitories, airstrips, gravel pits, utility lines and landfills".[xxii]   In spite of this new technology, the damage is still done on location and during transportation of the oil.

A substantial amount of water is needed for oil drilling, development, and construction of ice roads. Water needed for oil development ranges from eight to 15 million gallons over a 5-month period, according to the Bureau of Land Management.[xxiii] If water is not available to build ice roads, gravel is generally used. Water resources are limited in the 1002 Area. In winter, only about nine million gallons of liquid water may be available in the entire 1002 Area, which is enough to freeze into and maintain only 10 miles of ice roads.[xxiv] Therefore, full development may likely require a network of permanent gravel pads and roads.

Cumulative biological consequences of oil field development that may be expected in the Arctic Refuge include:

1.  Blocking, deflecting or disturbing wildlife

2.  Loss of subsistence hunting opportunities                                                                                         3.  Alteration of natural drainage patterns, causing changes in vegetation

4.  Deposition of alkaline dust on tundra along road

5.  Altering vegetation over a much larger area than the actual width of the road     

6.  Local pollutant haze and acid rain from nitrogen oxides, methane and

                  particulate matter emissions


7.  Contamination of soil and water from fuel and oil spills


VI.  How Much Oil?

Exactly how much oil could be extracted in exchange for all these wonderfully negative impacts?   Estimates from the USGS indicate that there is a 5% chance of there being 16 billion barrels of oil in ANWR and a 95% chance of finding 5.7 billion barrels of oil.[xxv]    Those figures seem large, but when compared to how much oil the U.S. consumes in one year the potential amount lessens in grandeur.  The US burns 19.4 million barrels of oil per day and 7 billion barrels per year.[xxvi]   The United States' oil import figures hover around 57% of the total oil consumed each year.  Energy use in the U.S. falls into the following percentages.  Oil, gas and Coal supplies 84% of the U.S.'s energy needs,  "green" power (solar, wind, etc.) provide less than 4%, hydroelectric power pumps out 4% and 8% is nuclear energy.[xxvii]

 In the National Energy Policy, which was released on, May 16th of this year President Bush claims that  "America in 2001 faces the most serious energy shortage since the oil embargos of the 70's… consumption is going up but production is remaining relatively the same."[xxviii]    This is seemingly one reason to drill in the ANWR.  Another reason for drilling in the ANWR is to lessen our dependency on foreign oil and thus increasing our national security.[xxix]  This has been an issue in the past and has quickly become a very legitimate concern today.  57% of our oil is imported and the majority of that comes from the Middle East, then fears of national security naturally come to the forefront.  Bush's policy states that by increasing domestic oil production through drilling in the ANWR the predicament will be fixed, at least for the time being. 

"Renewable and alternative fuels offer hope for America's energy future, but

they supply only a small fraction of present energy needs.  The day they fulfill

the bulk of our needs is still years away.  Until that day comes, we must continue

meeting the nations energy requirements by the means available to us."[xxx] 


The problem with this statement is that the oil from ANWR will not be of use for at least 10 years.[xxxi]  It has to be drilled and refined and transported and this all takes time. In addition when the numbers are carefully examined the estimated technically recoverable oil (after economic factors are considered) will only fuel the US for a little under a year.  This, therefore, does not seem beneficial in the long term.  Perhaps a better and a more sustainable option can be found in renewable energy, or by making small strides in the direction of conservation.  Being dependent on oil, foreign or domestic is a very huge lack of a long-term comprehensive energy plan. 


VII.  Renewable Energy

Any discussion of renewable and sustainable energy must first deal with the more general concept, energy.   Science commonly represents energy abstractly, referring to it as an ability to perform work.  From a more technical scientific starting point, the first law of thermodynamics states, "In all physical and chemical changes, energy is neither created nor destroyed, but may be converted from one form to another." Using science as a starting point, energy can be defined as things around us that change forms in order to perform a task. Discussions of energy as it relates to renewable energy commonly refer to the types of fuels we use to perform the tasks associated with modern life. Fuels run our transportation system and they produce the electricity for our homes and offices and factories. Overwhelmingly, fossil fuels, coal, oil and natural gas have been the fuels of choice for performing these tasks. Fossil fuels are distinguished from renewables in the sense that they are finite resources, i.e., there is 'x' amount on or under the earth and once used will run out. 

               Renewable energy, on the other hand, refers to fuel sources more consistently available than their fossilized counterparts. Sources for this energy commonly fall under five categories:  biomass (organic matter), geothermal (heat from under the earth), solar, water and wind.  In theory these sources are infinitely available. As long as the earth continues to revolve around the sun, the sun will continue to produce harvestable energy. Heat from the sun additionally creates atmospheric conditions conducive to wind and water production. Finally, the sun produces the light necessary for growing the plants and trees, which constitute the biomass category.

Long before the beginning of the industrial revolution, humankind used the natural resources at hand to serve as energy sources for every day tasks.  Today's versions of those same machines, while more technologically advanced to meet the energy needs of a larger population, operate on similar principles, harvesting the energy of the world around us.

                        Biomass, i.e. burning wood, renewable because you can replant trees, geothermal, i.e., heat from earth, water, i.e., hydroelectricity, wind, and solar power. Which of these options would work best for those of us who want to make electricity at home?  Most of us don't have streams running through our properties to take advantage of our own hydroelectric power.  For the most part people do not live in the hot springs; so geothermal seems to be an unrealistic option. Organic fuels, such as wood chips, are renewable, but polluting.  That leaves two choices for homegrown power: wind and sun.  For households, the most practical way to become grid-free is by gathering solar or wind energy


    A.  Solar and Wind Power

 Cleanliness is perhaps renewable energy's biggest draw. Whereas fossil fuels require a combustion process to convert the energy into a form capable of performing the task at hand, renewable energy sources require none. No combustion means no emission byproducts that cause the most common types of air pollution today, acid rain, smog and climate change. How much cleaner are renewables? There's probably no single answer, however, consider the following two examples related to solar (photovoltaic systems, or PV) and wind energy.   The National Renewable Energy Laboratory reports (report no. FS-520-24596),

"An average US household uses 830 kilowatt-hours of electricity per month. On average, producing 1000 kWh of electricity with solar power reduces emission by nearly 8 pounds of sulfur dioxide, 5 pounds of nitrogen oxides, and more than 1,400 pounds of carbon dioxide.  During its projected 28 years of clean energy production, rooftop system with a 2-year pay back and meeting half of a household's electricity use would avoid conventional electrical plant emissions of more than half a ton of sulfur dioxide, one-third a ton of nitrogen oxides, and 100 tons of carbon dioxide."


The French physicist Antoine Cesar Becquerel discovered the PV effect in 1839. However, it was not until 1950's that solar power became even remotely practical.[xxxii]  If the goal is to get off the conventional electricity grid completely, then PV panels must be used to charge up some deep cycle batteries (similar to car batteries, but with lower, steady outputs of power).  The power that comes off the PV system or out of the battery is direct current, or DC.  The electricity in homes, upon which all appliances run, is alternating current, or AC.  The inverter changes the DC from solar panels into the AC needed to power homes.  If the owner chooses to not store all that energy they can do what is called "net metering."  In net metering, energy is gathered, converted to AC, the needed amount is used and any extra power goes out to the utility company.  At the end of the month, the amount of electricity supplied to the company is deducted from what has been used.  The cost still seems to be sky high, but some state and local governments have begun to offer "buy down" programs, or rebates, for up to half of the cost.  In 1997, President Clinton started a program called Million Solar Roofs Initiative. The goal of MSR is to enable businesses and communities to install solar systems on up to one million rooftops across the US by 2010, primarily with financial assistance.[xxxiii]  Additionally, many states have also set up "buy back" rebate programs to make going solar more attractive.[xxxiv]   

The cost of solar PVs which convert sunlight into electricity will plunge eight-fold in the next twenty years.[xxxv]  Greenpeace estimates that PVs are still five times more expensive than if they were mass-produced.[xxxvi]  They also say that in order for PVs to become competitive on the market it would cost only a half percent of the $89 billion spent by oil companies on exploration for new oil.[xxxvii]  With this information it becomes increasingly obvious that solar power will not catch on until it is funded more fully by the government.  

Before the era of cheap fossil fuels, it was the norm to see windmills scattered across the countryside.  The American Wind Energy Association claims, 

"A single 660-Kw wind turbine will displace emissions of 1,100 tons of carbon dioxide (the leading greenhouse gas), 6 tons of sulfur dioxide (the leading component of acid rain), and 4 tons of nitrogen oxides (the leading component of smog) every year, based on the U.S. average utility fuel mix. 375 acres (more than half a square mile) of forest would be needed to absorb the same amount of CO2."[xxxviii] 



VIII.   Electric and Hybrid Vehicles.

            The explosion of cars and trucks around the world is the fastest growing source of carbon emissions, which in turn are threatening the global climate. There are more than 500 million cars on the world's roads, all pumping out smog-generating toxic fumes, and guzzling gas like there is no tomorrow. [xxxix]  One of the main ways in which oil consumption can be lessened is by simply increasing the fuel efficiency standards for all vehicles.   Average vehicle performance in the US has fallen steadily since 1987.  The average high used to be only 26.6 mpg, but in the year 2000, the federal fuel-economy standard was 20.7 mpg for minivans and light trucks, and 27 mpg for cars. [xl]    Higher gas prices and today's oil shortages are a result of this low standard. 

Electric and hybrid (gas and electric, or fuel cells) cars have quickly become a feasible and more environmentally friendly option for car buyers today.  Vehicles totally powered by electricity are somewhat stuck in their advancement by the battery development.  The batteries are still too heavy and bulky to be very practical.  For now, it appears that hybrid-electric vehicles (HEV's) stand a much better chance of electrifying the automotive world.[xli] 

HEV's have a number of gas saving techniques.  One is stop-start operation where an electric motor gets that car moving on its own, drawing power from the battery, then the gas engine takes over.[xlii]  When the vehicles are standing still the gas engine shuts down, saving fuel consumed during idle periods.  Another tool available to HEV's is called regenerative braking.[xliii]  This system recovers energy used to slow down or stop a vehicle, converting mechanical braking energy from the combustion engine back to electrical energy, which is then stored in the battery.[xliv]

"Standing at the gas pump, watching the dollar total spin up into the stratosphere,

haven't many of us dreamed of owning an electric-powered car that can thumb

its hood ornament at the oil companies as it whizzes us ever so quietly by their

filling stations?"[xlv]  

Toyota came out with its new HEV, the Prius in July 2000.[xlvi]  The Prius gets 52 mpg on the highway and 45 mpg in the city.[xlvii]  The Honda Insight put on the market in April 1999 gets 68 mpg on the highway and 61 mpg in the city.[xlviii]   These cars, which have not been heavily marketed in the U.S., are extremely popular in Europe.  

One might question the logic behind the idea of an electric powered car by pointing out the fact that the electricity was probably produced by a fossil fuel and that puts us almost right back to where we started.  However, the benefits of these cars far outweigh cars run totally on gasoline. The electric cars and HEV's do save gas and create fewer emissions, but for the extreme idealists there are also solar powered cars and cars fueled by hydrogen fuel cells adapted for vehicles. 

William R Grove invented the hydrogen fuel cell in 1839.[xlix]  The fuel cell is like a continually running battery, which chemically combines hydrogen and air to produce an electric current, which can then be used to power an electric motor.  Amazingly the only waste it produces is pure water.  Research energy is being put into adapting hydrogen energy for transport.   Mass production of cars with this type of technology is scheduled to start in 2005.[l]  Toyota and Honda intend to launch fuel-cell cars within the next few years.  In terms of solar powered cars an excellent example can be taken from approximately two decades ago when a group of students form Crowder College in Neosho, Montana, built a car at the cost of $5,000 that traveled across the continental U.S. powered only by the sun.[li] 

With the direct benefits of buying less gas and other fossil fuels, creating fewer emissions, using less oil, creating a greater national security and preserving environmental refuges why then are we as a country not taking larger strides toward new technologies such as hybrid cars, fuel cells and solar powered homes?  Many attempts have been made, but have either failed or lost power over the constant presence of the oil companies. 

In 1977 then President Carter stated he would pursue a "national goal of achieving 20% of the nation's energy from the sun and other renewable resources by the year 2000."[lii]  In the late 70's however, oil companies had bought out many of the patents of PV cells, and the corporate giants like Amoco, Exxon, and Mobil took control of the solar power companies.[liii]  This trend lead Alfred Dougherty, former director of the Federal Trade commission's bureau of competition to warn, "If the oil companies control substantial amounts of substitute fuels…they may slow the pace of production of alternative fuels in order to protect the value of their oil and gas reserves."[liv] From this point of view it looks as if there has been purposeful action on the part of oil companies to stop research in the field of alternative energy.  Since the 70's there has been a "lackadaisical effort of develop alternative fuel sources and the continuous quest by the oil industry to discover more oil.  Big oil has both money and power, and it shouldn't be any surprise how much can be accomplished, or prevented, with such a potent combination." [lv]

This country's loyalty to fossil fuels runs deep and the amount of money that American oil corporations are spending (millions of dollars) on oil exploration is a reflection of that loyalty.[lvi]  As our nation becomes increasingly dependent upon oil controlled by unsympathetic suppliers, national security crises are imminent—perhaps even wars will be fought, or are being fought to control the remaining supply.[lvii]  Perhaps our loyalty to oil needs to find a new platform

.  The renewable and sustainable energy options, conservation ideas like increased fuel efficiency need to be funded and backed by the government in order to gain any kind of clout in this society.  These renewable energy sources are not affected by changes in international politics, trade or inflation at home. They help to give consumers control over our energy supplies, meaning more independence and self-reliance. We don't have to get involved in offshore wars to secure these sources of energy.  Renewable energy sources like solar power cut our utility bills and after the initial installation cost of the system, it provides essentially free energy.

Probably the most difficult opposing factor that must wrestled with is an economic model that does not include the true cost of conventional energy in what each person pays each month for the kilowatt-hours they consume. (The same can be said for the price paid at the pump for oil and gas consumption by our cars and trucks.) In other words, the health-related costs to humans and wildlife, the environmental damage to rivers, lakes and streams, to the soil, to the very air we breathe and to the life-protecting ozone layer around the Earth itself--these costs are not included in our monthly bills.  The debate is not just about ANWR, but rather about all of the natural refuges that have been or will be sacrificed in order to feed the oil companies of the world, and like everything else about this debate, estimates of the impact of drilling on the fragile environment and animal populations vary widely.  But even if the impact is small, the benefits from inflicting such damage on these unique natural resources appear to be even smaller as we look beyond the present day and think of generations to come.  At some point an epiphany will occur, and it will soon be realized that we can not go on depleting the earth of it's resources, but instead we should be working towards a sustainable future through the use of conservation and renewable energy. 















[i] Reliable, Affordable, and Environmentally Sound Energy for America's Future: A Report of the National

       Energy Policy Development Group.  16 May, 2001.  29 September 2001.

[ii] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2001. Potential impacts of proposed oil and gas development on the 

        Arctic Refuge’s coastal plain: Historical overview and issues of concern. Arctic National Wildlife 

        Refuge. Fairbanks, Alaska. 17 January 2001.

[iii] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2001.

[iv] United States Geological Survey.   "Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, 1002 Area, Petroleum Assessment,

        1998, Including Economic Analysis.  24 April 2001.  29 September 2001.   

[v] United States Geological Survey. 2001

[vi] Senator Frank Murkowski.  26 September 2001.

[vii] Senator Frank Murkowski.  26 September 2001.

[viii] United States Geological Survey.  2001

[ix] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2001.

[x] Nellemann, C.H. and P.E. Reynolds. 1997. Terrain preferences associated with patterns of late winter  

          distributions of musk oxen.  Arctic and Alpine Research.

[xi] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1995. Habitat Conservation Strategy for Polar Bears in Alaska. Alaska

         Region, Anchorage, Alaska. 

[xii] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1995.

[xiii] Ballard. W.B., M.A. Cronin, and H.A. Whitlaw, 2000. Caribou and Oilfields. p85-104 in J.C. Truett and

S.R. Johnson, editors.  The Natural History of an Arctic Oil Field—Development and the Biota.

Academic Press.

[xiv]Ballard. W.B., M.A. Cronin, and H.A. Whitlaw, 2000.

[xv] Brackney, A.W., and J.W. Hupp. 1993 Fall Diet of Snow Geese Staging in Northeastern Alaska.  Journal

              of Wildlife Management. 57:55-61.

[xvi] Felix, N.A., and M.K. Reynolds. 1988.  The Role of Snow Cover in Limiting Surface Disturbance caused

             by Winter Seismic Exploration.  Arctic 42.

[xvii] Felix, N.A., and M.K. Reynolds. 1988. 

[xviii] United States Geological Survey.  2001

[xix] Felix, N.A., and M.K. Reynolds. 1988. 


[xxi] United States Geological Survey.  2001


[xxiii] Lyons, S.M. and J.M. Trawicki 1994. Water Resource Inventory and Assessment, Coastal Plain, Arctic

National Wildlife Refuge: 1987-1992 Final Reports. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Water

Resource Branch Anchorage, AK.

[xxiv] Lyons, S.M. and J.M. Trawicki 1994.

[xxv] United States Geological Survey.  2001

[xxvi] United States Geological Survey.  2001

[xxvii] David, Case. Alternative Energy Comes of Age.  Rolling Stone. 9/13/2001 Issue 877, p39 Straight Arrow



[xxix] Shenot, Christine. "It's a New Era for Drilling." Orlando Sentinel. 3 September 2001. 4 September.


[xxxi] Wostmann, Alexander.  "Drilling for Oil in Alaskan Wildlife Refuge will not Solve Energy Despair." 

     Los  Angeles Times 22 February, 2001.  26 September 2001.

[xxxii] Oil, Profits, and the question of alternative energy.  Richard Rosentreter and Philip M. Morse        

              Humanist, Sep/Oct 2000, Vol. 60 Issue 5, 8, 5p. 



[xxxv] Shifting Gears.  New Internationalist, June2001 Issue 335, p26

[xxxvi] Shifting Gears.   June2001

[xxxvii] Shifting Gears.   June2001


[xxxix] Shifting Gears.  New Internationalist, Jun2001 Issue 335, p26

[xl] Christian Science Monitor, 10/18/2000, Vol. 92 Issue 288, John Killin Christian Science Publishing

Society Public Wants SUVs to Guzzle Less.

[xli] Hybrid-Electric Vehicles Propel US Toward an 80-MPG Future.  Electronic Design, 01/08/2001, Vol. 49

Issue 1, p88, 8p.  Penton Publishing

[xlii] Hybrid-Electric Vehicles Propel US Toward an 80-MPG Future. 01/08/2001

[xliii] Hybrid-Electric Vehicles Propel US Toward an 80-MPG Future.  01/08/2001

[xliv] Hybrid-Electric Vehicles Propel US Toward an 80-MPG Future.  01/08/2001

[xlv] Hybrid-Electric Vehicles Propel US Toward an 80-MPG Future. 01/08/2001

[xlvi] The Eco-Cars.  Business Week, 08/14/2000 Issue 3694, p62, 6p

[xlvii] The Eco-Cars.  08/14/2000

[xlviii] The Eco-Cars.  08/14/2000

[xlix] Shifting Gears.  June2001

[l] Shifting Gears.  June2001

[li] Oil, Profits, and the question of alternative energy  by Richard Rosentreter and Philip M. Morse  Humanist, Sep/Oct 2000, Vol. 60 Issue 5, 8, 5p. 

[lii] Oil, Profits…Sep/Oct 2000

[liii] Oil, Profits…Sep/Oct 2000

[liv] Oil, Profits…Sep/Oct 2000

[lv] Oil, Profits…Sep/Oct 2000

[lvi] Oil, Profits…Sep/Oct 2000

[lvii] Oil, Profits…Sep/Oct 2000