DIRTY 4 REPORT - SUMMARY

Oil drilling and development are not compatible with the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. This fragile and pristine region simply can not withstand the pollution and pressures associated with oil and gas exploration and production.

The oil and gas industry is one of the dirtiest and most destructive industries on the planet. Onshore or offshore, in the United States or abroad, in Alaska or the lower 48, the environmental track record of the oil industry is a dirty one. But despite this record of pollution, President George W. Bush, Interior Secretary Gale Norton, and their allies in Congress support opening up the coastal plain of the Arctic Refuge -America’s Arctic - for oil drilling.

Pressure to drill in the Arctic is also coming from the oil and gas industry. On November 7, 2000, BP Amoco’s Chief Executive Sir John Browne announced that "BP is interested in exploring Alaska’s [Arctic National Wildlife Refuge] if Bush wins the White House." ExxonMobil, Chevron, and Phillips Petroleum would also like to get their hands on the coastal plain of the Arctic Refuge.

But these four companies - the Dirty Four - have an extensive track record of spills and pollution, ranging from the largest environmental disaster in U.S. history - the 11 million gallon Exxon Valdez oil spill - to a 9,700 gallon oil spill on February 20, 2001 caused by BP Amoco in Prudhoe Bay, Alaska, the area to the west of the Refuge and the starting point for the Trans Alaska Pipeline system (TAPS). An industry with a track record of spills, leaks, and habitat destruction should not be allowed access to the coastal plain of the Arctic Refuge.

The track record of the Dirty Four refutes the notion that drilling in the Arctic Refuge would only leave a small "footprint." In addition to the Exxon Valdez and the recent BP Amoco spills in Prudhoe Bay, the Dirty Four are responsible for a numbingly long list of accidents, including:

· BP Amoco, despite impressive environmental rhetoric, has their own list of shame. On Sept. 23, 1999, BP Amoco pled guilty to a federal felony connected to illegal dumping of hazardous waste at their Endicott Oil Field near Prudhoe Bay, Alaska. As part of a plea agreement BP Amoco agreed to pay $22 million in criminal and civil penalties. In 1995, the BP subcontractor working the Endicott Field was found guilty of illegally injecting hazardous waste back into the groundwater. The subcontractor was ordered to pay a $15 million fine for violating the Clean Water Act.

· On July 24, 2000, BP Amoco launched a new public relations campaign claiming that the company was " Beyond Petroleum." The same day they made the announcement, the company agreed to pay $10 million in penalties for environmental and pollution violations discovered by the EPA.

· BP is responsible for the second largest oil spill in California history, a 400,000 gallon spill that covered twenty square miles near Huntington Beach, in 1991.

· Phillips Petroleum is responsible for two lethal explosions in Pasadena, Texas that killed more than 20 people

· The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) accused Exxon of nearly 200 violations of the Clean Air Act, and demanded $4.7 million in fines, in 1998 alone.

· In August 1998, Exxon and Tosco agreed to pay $4.8 million in damages and for environmental restoration after discharging selenium, a carcinogen, into San Francisco Bay.

· Chevron has paid more than $70 million in fines, settlements, and penalties stemming from environmental violations.

· The President of Chevron U.S.A. appeared in federal court in May 1992 to plead guilty to 65 violations of the Clean Water Act and pay $8 million in fines, for illegal discharges from the company's offshore oil- and gas-production platform "Grace" off the California Coast.

· In the last 25 years there have been at least 36 spills, leaks, blowouts, or illegal discharges from Chevron oil fields, drilling rigs, or pipelines, including a spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

Overall, the Dirty Four have been ordered to pay close to $1 billion in fines, penalties and settlements. BP Amoco, ExxonMobil, Chevron, and Phillips Petroleum are responsible for more than 150 spills over the past ten years. They have demonstrated their inability to provide safe working conditions with over 40 deaths from explosions or accidents, and their disregard for community health is just as egregious. Finally, the Dirty Four are responsible for over 100 Superfund sites.

And this "footprint" of spills and accidents would not be confined to a small tract of land. The Interior Department estimated that 12,500 acres of the coastal plain of the Arctic Refuge would be directly impacted by a web of roads, drill pads, processing facilities and airports extending over hundreds of square miles, hardly a compact area. A recent US Geological Survey study concluded that the potential resources are located in many small accumulations in complex geological formation, instead of in one giant field like Prudhoe Bay, further debunking the myth that drilling in the Refuge as being compatible with the current ecosystem. ¹

Industrialization of Alaska's North Slope has already had significant consequences for the environment. Prudhoe Bay is now one of the world’s largest industrial complexes, with more than 1,500 miles of roads and pipelines and thousands of acres of industrial facilities. Development at Prudhoe Bay has permanently altered more than 400 square miles of formerly pristine wilderness.

Juxtapose the destruction associated with oil and gas drilling with the fragile ecosystem of America’s Arctic. Because of the very short summer growing season, extreme cold, nutrient-poor soils, and permafrost, vegetation grows very slowly. Any physical disturbance, from tractor tire tracks to large oil spills, can scar the land for decades.

Oil exploration and drilling would turn the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge into a sprawling industrial complex and would destroy wilderness, yet it would do virtually nothing to ease our energy problems. Five years ago Congress lifted the export ban on oil shipped through the Trans-Alaska Pipeline system, allowing oil from Prudhoe Bay to be exported to Asia. How does that help our national security?

The chances of finding commercially recoverable amounts of oil in the coastal plain appear remote. The latest U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) assessment of the coastal plain, released in May 1998, estimates that there are only 3.4 billion barrels of economically recoverable oil in the coastal plain. At current rates of consumption that’s less than six months, or 157 days worth of oil from the coastal plain. Any oil thought to be in the Refuge would probably take at least 10 to 12 years to reach American consumers.

A national energy policy that emphasizes energy efficiency and promotes renewable energy would help preserve sensitive areas like the Arctic Refuge, produce clean energy, slow global warming, reduce pollution, and create jobs.

Instead of allowing oil and gas drilling in America’s Arctic, the U.S. should increase fuel economy in all new cars to 39 miles per gallon within the next ten years, promote programs that provide tax credits to individuals who buy clean and efficient advanced-technology vehicles employing hybrid gasoline-electric drive, and mandate that SUVs meet the same clean air standards as passenger cars. Putting these solutions in place would save far more oil than what is estimated to lie beneath the coastal plain of the Arctic Refuge.

This report, part of the PIRGs’ Arctic Wilderness campaign, shows that BP Amoco, ExxonMobil, Chevron, and Phillips Petroleum have an abysmal track record when it comes to environmental stewardship. The report documents spills, explosions, and various degrees of poor corporate citizenship. More importantly, it documents behavior and corporate activity incompatible with an area as pristine, unique, and vital as the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.