Arctic Reality Check: Drilling Into The Legislation
If drilling in the Arctic Refuge could really be done without harming wildlife or the ecology, 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?
>> Get the details here

Massive Oil Spill Belies Drilling Lobby Rhetoric
The largest oil spill in the history of Alaska's North Slope, approximately 267,000 gallons, went undetected by British Petroleum for five days. The spill is an important reminder that oil drilling is a dirty business and has no business in a world class wildlife refuge. In fact, Prudhoe Bay oil fields and the trans-Alaska pipeline average more than one spill per day of oil and other toxic substances, with spills totaling more than 1.9 million gallons between 1996 and 2004.

The 2,000-Acre Hoax
The suggestion that only 2,000 acres of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge would be needed for oil development neglects to include associated development of roads, airstrips, living quarters and other impacts.
>> Download the factsheet [pdf]

Arctic Refuge Drilling and Gas Prices: Drilling Nets About two Pennies per Gallon, 20 Years From Now
Proponents of drilling Arctic National Wildlife Refuge point to rising gasoline prices as a reason to drill one of America’s last wild places. But in reality, Arctic Refuge oil would amount to a drop in the bucket of the oil market. The U.S. Department of Energy’s own Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimates that even twenty years down the road, when Arctic Refuge oil is at or near peak production, gas prices would be affected by about two pennies per gallon.
>> Download the factsheet [pdf]

Technology Scam
In the push to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil development, the big oil companies and their allies in the Congress, Administration, and Alaska state government say drilling on Alaska’s North Slope has been clean and environmentally benign. This is misleading because industry has caused significant environmental damage, the benefits of dubious “new” technologies are often exaggerated, and state of the art practices are often not used due to economics or practical reasons. The result: cumulative harm to the pristine environment.
>> Download the factsheet [pdf]

Americans Want Arctic Refuge Protected
A bipartisan national survey has found that by a margin of 53 percent to 35 percent, Americans oppose proposals to drill for oil in the Arctic Refuge. And an overwhelming majority – 73 percent v. 18 percent – agreed with a statement that the issue of drilling in the Arctic Refuge is “too important to the American public and future generations to be snuck through” in the budget process.
>>  Find out more about the survey results