The ANWR Controversy

Published on January 2017 | Categories: Documents | Downloads: 61 | Comments: 0 | Views: 202
of 6
Download PDF   Embed   Report

Comments

Content

THE ANWR CONTROVERSY
Tucker Van Lier Ribbink
ASEM: Environmental Controversies
Professor Christina Foust

This argumentative research paper discusses the contested site of Alaska’s Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge (ANWR)—its pristine and striking landscapes, its rare and fragile ecosystem,

and the billions of barrels of oil and natural gas that reside beneath its surface. To drill, or not
to drill: that is always the question. ANWR and its oil reserves have been a source of intense
political controversy since it was first signed into law in 1980. When I initially chose to write

about ANWR, I thought I already knew everything I needed. Drilling in ANWR had been in the
foreground of the 2008 presidential election, and news channels aired many live broadcast

debates on the subject. It wasn’t until I conducted my own research that I realized the news
media are not always reliable sources of information.

My hope in this essay is to shed some light on the current state of the ANWR controversy and
to encourage readers to research political issues deeply before drawing conclusions.

The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR)
is a biodiverse, 19.6 million acre area of pristine,
federally owned and protected land in Northeast Alaska. The area consists of lowland tundra,
coastal marshes, freshwater wetlands, mountains, rivers, lakes, and valleys. It is home to 45
species of land and marine mammals, 36 species
of fish, and 180 species of birds (US Fish and
Wildlife Service).
It also happens to be home to an estimated
7.7 billion barrels of oil that is technically recoverable, according to a study conducted by the
US Geological Survey (USGS) in 1998, making
the area a hot button issue for political and environmental debate. The 7.7 billion barrels of oil
reside in a 1.5 million acre coastal plain known
as the 1002 area. Opponents to drilling in the
area suggest that drilling would devastate the
coastal plain’s extraordinary environment and
fragile ecosystem. Drilling advocates argue that
opening the area to development would reduce

gas prices, ensure energy independence, sustain the Trans-Alaska Pipeline (and, in effect,
the Alaskan economy), and significantly benefit the US economy, all while having little to no
adverse effect on the area’s environment. Based
on my research of the various arguments for and
against drilling in ANWR, I have come to the
conclusion that the 1002 area should be opened
for further research and exploration.
The 1002 area got its name from the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act
(ANILCA) of 1980, as Section 1002 of the act
deferred a decision on the management of the
coastal plain due to the vast oil and gas reserves
the area potentially held. Section 1002 of the
ANILCA reads as follows:
The purpose of this section is to provide for
a comprehensive and continuing inventory and assessment of the fish and wildlife
resources of the coastal plain of the Arctic
National Wildlife Refuge; an analysis of the
VOLUME 4

25

(left) Tucker Van Lier Ribbink /
photo provided by author
(right) © Mike Clime /
Shutterstock.com

Tucker was born and raised in Kaneohe,
Hawaii, where he grew up surfing, hiking,
paddling, kayaking, and sailing. Without

ever having owned a jacket or pair of
jeans, he somehow decided snowy Colorado would be a great place for him to

pursue his college career. While at DU,
he was active with the kayaking club.

Tucker graduated from the University of
Denver in the fall of 2014 with a degree

in marketing, and he has recently moved

to Seattle, where he now needs to find a
good rain jacket.

impacts of oil and gas exploration development, and production, and to authorize
exploratory activity within the coastal plain
in a manner that avoids significant adverse
effects on the fish and wildlife and other resources. (Sullivan)

So while Congress does have an obligation to protect the region’s habitat, it also has an obligation
to authorize exploratory activity for the prospect
of oil and gas development.
Those who oppose drilling argue that Congress met such obligations with the USGS assessment of 1998. Recent advances in exploratory and drilling technologies, however, make
the 1998 estimates irrelevant. As indicated in the
State of Alaska’s 2013 Exploration Plan and Special Use Permit Application, advances in technology, including “today’s high-power computer hardware, cutting edge interpretive software
[and] the 3-D imaging technology…will provide
26

WRIT LARGE: 2015

a vastly improved understanding of the 1002 Area’s geology and oil and gas resource potential”
(Parnell and Sullivan 17-18). 3-D seismic data are
said to be “vastly superior” to the 2-D seismic
data that were recorded in the mid-1980s. Those
30-year-old data were used in the USGS’s 1998
assessment and happen to be the most recent
data we have from the region. The assessment
concluded that the area contains an estimated 7.7
billion barrels of technically recoverable oil. A
similar study of Prudhoe Bay (located 600 miles
west of Section 1002) estimated the Prudhoe
field to hold 9.6 billion barrels of technically recoverable oil. The field has now yielded over 12
billion barrels of oil and is estimated to contain
6 billion more barrels (Parnell and Sullivan 110).
My point is not to say that the 1002 area holds
more oil than originally estimated—for all we
know, the amount of technically recoverable oil is
considerably less than the USGS survey concluded. My point is that until we have a more accurate
understanding of how much oil and gas there actually is in the 1002 area, there is very little value
in continued debate regarding the area’s future.
To ensure minimal and negligible adverse
effects to the tundra, fish, and other wildlife
during exploration, the state of Alaska is seeking to conduct its study only during the winter
months when wildlife is scarce. Ice pads and ice
roads used for drilling and transportation in the
winter would then melt in the spring, having little or no impact on the environment. This, along
with Alaska’s high environmental standards and
advanced low-impact technologies, promises an
effective and safe exploration of Area 1002.

© Jeff McGraw /
Shutterstock.com

Environmentalist groups, including Defenders of Wildlife, protest that any impact is too
much impact for an area so pristine and beautiful. The area has been portrayed as having a lush,
mountainous landscape, complete with fields of
flowers, clean springs, and gently flowing rivers.
This is certainly true for parts of the 19.6 million
acre land of ANWR. However, in the 1002 area
where drilling is being proposed, “there are no
mountains and no trees, just a flat frozen tundra”
(Fallin). The blatant use of false imagery and description for political gain is deceptive, unethical, and somewhat condescending. To appreciate
the area for its unique and untouched characteristics is one thing, but to claim it as something
it is not is another. Not only does this gimmick
engender distrust of future anti-drilling rhetoric,
but it also highlights the coastal plain’s aesthetic
as a major focus in the debate, which is certainly
not one of the area’s strengths.
In discussing environmental effects of oil development, both sides of the debate focus heavily on the Porcupine Caribou Herd, which uses
the 1002 area as their main calving ground. The
most recent photocensus of the Porcupine Caribou Herd has estimated the herd’s population
at 197,000 caribou, up 28,000 caribou since the
last estimate conducted in 2010 (Rogers). The
herd spends two months of its 930-mile yearly
migration in Section 1002 because it is nutrient
rich and offers relief from mosquitoes and other
insects that harass the herd.
Drilling opponents fear that oil development
in the coastal plain would displace the herd,
forcing them out of their preferred habitat and

into areas with more predators and less nutrition.
However, sizeable increases in the Central Arctic Caribou Herd would suggest otherwise. This
herd has flourished despite (or possibly due to)
the introduction of a vast network of oil development infrastructure, roads, and facilities in the
herd’s primary calving ground of Prudhoe Bay,
located 600 miles east of the 1002 area.
In 1975, years before oil production began,
the Central Arctic Caribou Herd totaled less than
5,000. By 2002, the herd had grown to 45,000. Six
years after that, the herd size increased to 67,000
(“Co-existing”). Since the 1002 area is one-fifth

A future without the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System has
frightening implications for the US economy and terrifying
implications for Alaska and its citizens.

the size of Prudhoe Bay, and the Porcupine Caribou Herd is much larger than the Central Arctic
Herd, some argue that the Porcupine Caribou
Herd is more vulnerable as suitable alternative
habitats “might not be available” (Jacobs). However, in the past fifteen years of investigations,
VOLUME 4

27

© Jonathan Nafzger /
Shutterstock.com

the US Fish and Wildlife Service has found that
the herd roams over a vast expanse and that the
caribou have historically calved “over a fairly
large area of the North Slope and the Yukon Territory” (Urquhuart, qtd. in Jacobs).
While certain studies suggest that oil facilities and structures in Prudhoe Bay have displaced some Central Arctic Caribou, recent aerial studies show otherwise, with “many caribou
on and around surface structures,” walking under pipelines with ease during summer migration (Jacobs). In The Natural History of an Arctic
Oil Field, the researchers note that while earlier
“radio-collar” studies suggested a tendency to
avoid oil-field facilities, more frequent aerial surveys indicate that the caribou distribution “on
the larger scale was largely unrelated to the distribution of oil-field infrastructure” (Truett and
Johnson 99).
Furthermore, other studies have concluded
that the caribou actually seek out gravel pads
and oil field structures in order to escape insect
harassment and take sanctuary in the structures’
shade and cooler environments. One scientist
remarked that “even when disturbed by moving
vehicles, caribou most commonly just move to
another location on the pad rather than leaving
the pad” (Lynn, qtd. in Jacobs). The authors concluded that, “with clear identification of management objectives and common-sense applications
of mitigation measures, caribou can coexist with
oil fields” (Truett and Johnson 101).
Lastly, in their most recent assessment, the
USGS and the US Fish and Wildlife Service have
declared that, based on the most likely ANWR
28

WRIT LARGE: 2015

development scenarios, “there is a 95% degree of
certainty that there is a nearly negligible impact
on calf survival” (“Policy Area: ANWR”). While
the negative impact of drilling would be nearly
negligible, its positive impacts on Alaska’s economy would be staggering.
The state of Alaska has always been a major source of oil production within the United
States. At its peak of 2.2 million barrels per day,
“Alaska provided about 25 percent of the nation’s
domestic crude oil production” (Magill). That
oil was transported through the Trans-Alaska
Pipeline System (TAPS), which travels 800 miles
down the oil fields of the North Slope to Valdez on Alaska’s southern coast. Unfortunately,
the flow of oil through the pipeline has been diminishing at an alarming rate of 5 percent per
year (Parnell and Sullivan 117). Decreases in oil
lead to decreases in velocity, which then lead to
decreases in temperature, which finally lead to
increases in wax, bacteria, and ice buildup. This
buildup erodes the pipe and constricts the flow
of oil, which then increases costs, making it less
and less economical for oil companies like BP
to continue supplying domestic oil from Alaska.
According to ANWR.org, “America will lose the
possibility to supply 10% of its current daily consumption of oil.” At its current rate of depletion,
some studies predict the end of TAPS as early as
2032, while others predict it may last until 2065.
A future without the TAPS has frightening implications for the US economy and terrifying implications for Alaska and its citizens.
According to the Alaska Oil and Gas Association (AOGA), “the petroleum industry sup-

I believe that we can and should drill the
area in an effective yet environmentally
safe manner. Prudhoe Bay serves as
evidence that we are capable of drilling
for oil with a minimal and negligible
impact on the environment.

© archigraf /
Shutterstock.com

ports one-third of all Alaska jobs, generating
110,000 jobs throughout the state.” Despite decreases in production, the oil and gas industry
still provides 90 percent of the state’s revenue.
Should the TAPS shut down, much of this revenue will disappear, taking with it the jobs and
livelihoods of many Alaskan citizens. Not only
would oil in ANWR sustain the pipeline and
these livelihoods, it would also generate “from
about 20,000 to over 170,000 jobs…according
to analyses based on data from the Bureau of
Labor Statistics” (Parnell and Sullivan 193). At
the most optimistic estimates, drilling in ANWR
would maintain 110,000 existing jobs and provide 170,000 new jobs.
Assuming the USGS mean estimate from its
1998 study, the amount of recoverable oil would
have “a production period of nearly 40 years”
(Parnell and Sullivan 203). While hydraulic fracturing and other advances in oil production have
recently enabled the US to produce more than it
imports for the first time in nearly 20 years, we
still import 40 percent of the petroleum we consume as of 2012 (“How Much”). Assuming the
mean estimate for technically recoverable oil is
10.4 billion barrels, the 1002 area could produce
one million barrels per day, which would make
Area 1002 the single largest producing field in
North America. In fact, the oil production potential of the 1002 area is about equal to the production of 41 states combined (“Policy Area”). At
one million barrels of oil per day, ANWR drilling
would provide the US with 20 percent of its daily

domestic production. While drilling in ANWR
would only produce an estimated 3 percent of
Americans’ daily consumption, the area is believed to hold the greatest potential for onshore
crude oil in America (Freudenrich). With US
debt approaching $18 trillion, it’s important that
we not close ourselves off from natural resources. After all, each barrel produced domestically is
a barrel not purchased with foreign money.
The controversy of opening or closing
ANWR to drilling is somewhat useless since
the most current research was gathered using
2D seismic technology as opposed to the vastly superior 3-D tech. Until we have a better understanding of the resources that reside in Area
1002, we can expect little progress toward a fair
and educated decision. That being said, should
exploration reveal oil reserves greater than in the
1998 USGS assessment, I do believe that we can
and should drill the area in an effective yet environmentally safe manner. Prudhoe Bay serves
as evidence that we are capable of drilling for
oil with a minimal and negligible impact on the
environment. Since Prudhoe Bay development
began, exploration and drilling technologies
and methods including ice roads, ice pads, and
horizontal drilling have advanced to a stage that
would have even less impact on the environment
and, more specifically, on the Porcupine Caribou
Herd. With the TAPS’s unknown future and the
US still recovering from a devastating economic
crisis, it is imperative that we keep our energy
options open.

VOLUME 4

29

© Lavinia Bordea /
Shutterstock.com

WORKS CITED
“10 Years to TAPS Shutdown?—America’s Rejected Oil.” ANWR.org. Frontier Communications-Alaska. n.d. Web.
14 May 2014.
“Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, 1002 Area, Petroleum Assessment, 1998, Including Economic Analysis.” US
Geological Survey. Web. 17 May 2014.
“Co-existing with Oil Development, Central Arctic Caribou Herd Thrives, Population at Record High.” Resource
Development. Resource Development Council for Alaska, Inc. n.d. Web. 13 Apr. 2014.
“Facts and Figures.” AOGA: Alaska Oil and Gas Association. Alaska Oil and Gas Association. 2014. Web. 18 Nov.
2014.
Fallin, Mary. “ANWR’s Place in Our Energy Picture.” Townhall.com. Salem Communications. 24 Jul. 2008. Web. 03
June 2014.
Freudenrich, Craig. “How ANWR Works.” How Stuff Works. InfoSpace. 19 Nov. 2008. Web. 29 Apr. 2014.
“How Much Petroleum Does the United States Import and From Where?” EIA: U.S. Energ y Information Administration. US Department of Energy. 3 Jun. 2013. Web. 18 Nov. 2014.
Jacobs, Deborah. “The Caribou Question: The Caribou and Alaskan Oil.” PERC: Property and Environment Research
Center. The Property and Environment Research Center. 2001. Web. 13 Apr. 2014.
Magill, Bobby. “How Much Time Does the Trans-Alaska Pipeline Have Left?” Popular Mechanics. Hearst Communication, 1 Feb. 2013. Web. 17 Apr. 2014.
Parnell, Sean, and Daniel S. Sullivan. The State of Alaska’s ANILCA Section 1002(e) Exploration Plan and Special Use
Permit Application and Supporting Materials. July 2013. PDF file.
“Policy Area: ANWR.” IER: Institute for Energ y Research. Institute for Energy Research. 21 Jul. 2003. Web. 18. Nov.
2014.
Rogers, Jillian. “Porcupine Caribou Population Peaks at 197,000.” The Arctic Sounder. Alaska Media. 28 Mar. 2014.
Web. 18 Nov 2014.
Sullivan, Daniel S. “Fact Sheet: Alaska’s ANILCA 1002(e) Exploration Plan and Special Use Permit Application
for the ANWR 1002 Area.” Alaska Department of Natural Resources. State of Alaska. n.d. Web. 18 May 2014.
Truett, Joe C., and Stephen R. Johnson. The Natural History of an Arctic Oil Field: Development and the Biota. San Diego:
Academic, 2000. Google Books. Web. 15 May 2014.

30

WRIT LARGE: 2015

Sponsor Documents

Or use your account on DocShare.tips

Hide

Forgot your password?

Or register your new account on DocShare.tips

Hide

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link to create a new password.

Back to log-in

Close