A close look at proposed Arctic Refuge drilling legislation* shoots massive holes into drilling proponents’ claims that oil development could and would be done in the “right way” or in an “environmentally sensitive way.” If drilling could really be done without harming wildlife or the ecology of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, then why is the proposed legislation full of clauses that grant exemptions, weaken standards, cut out the regular checks and balances, and then dress it all up to look far more protective than it really is?

The story beneath the Arctic Refuge drilling legislation underscores what scientific study and common sense have already shown: large scale oil development is not compatible with a world class wildlife refuge.

Proposed Arctic Refuge drilling legislation (click on links for details)

• Opens the entire 1.5 million-acre Coastal Plain for oil development, and mandates a minimum of 200,000 acres for the first lease sale.
  This is a stark reminder of how deliberately misleading the drilling lobby’s “2,000 acre” rhetoric really is. (Click here for details on the “2,000-acre” scam.)
  
  
• Weakens and sidesteps important environmental protection laws and standards.
  The legislation mandates large-scale, accelerated leasing and paves the way by weakening or providing exemptions to environmental review requirements for the oil and gas program, while undermining the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s authority to impose conditions on leases to protect the land and wildlife.
  
  
• Dresses up weak or meaningless “protections” to sound good.
  The legislation is chock full of misleading language designed to sound like it provides significant environmental and wildlife protections. But the supposed “protections“ all contain major loopholes: leaving implementation to the discretion of the Secretary of Interior rather than making it mandatory, including qualifying words or phrases rendering it weak or insignificant, or specifying a weak or unenforceable standard of protection.
  
  
• Limits oversight by the public, the judicial branch, and the Fish and Wildlife Service.
  The legislation systematically undermines the public’s right to seek judicial review of agency decisions, minimizes public participation, and undercuts Fish and Wildlife Service oversight authority, all with an eye to fast-tracking oil and gas development in the biological heart of the Arctic Refuge.

* Identical legislative language that has appeared over and over again in the U.S. House of Representatives, including the recent 2005 House Energy Bill (H.R. 6)