Stephanie Nebel

Geology 206

April 15, 2005

The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge: To drill or not to drill

Abstract

The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, located in northeastern Alaska, has been identified as an area of interest for future oil drilling operations. This area has remained protected since 1960, but now it politicians in Washington DC are attempting to open up this region to oil companies. Groups remain divided on this issue. Some think that drilling would reduce our dependency on foreign oil sources and would be better for the economy. Others oppose this view and are concerned that drilling would have a significant impact on the environment in this protected area.

Introduction

Oil companies have long been seeking to gain access to the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) in order to explore the rich oil reserves believed to exist there. This topic has also been of hot debate amongst politicians in Washington D.C. However, there are serious concerns amongst environmental groups that feel drilling would both destroy the natural Arctic landscape, which until now has remained protected and further significantly effect the wildlife that reside within ANWR’s borders.

Background

ANWR, a 19 million acre wildlife reserve, is located in the northeastern corner of Alaska north of the Arctic Circle (Figure 1). It is one of the largest Arctic wildlife reserves in the world and is home to 46 different species of land and marine mammals, 36 species of fish, and 180 species of birds (“Overview” ). Eight million acres

Figure 1: Location Map of ANWR (From:http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/dayart/20010823/anwr.gif)

of this reserve is designated as wilderness (“Overview” ). Furthermore, the Sheenjek, Wind, and Ivishak rivers are designated as wild rivers (“Overview” ). Natural research areas are also present within the reserve (“Overview” ). Valleys, rivers, and other geologic features have been recommended as National Natural Landmarks (“Overview” ). ANWR is directly controlled by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service which is part of the Department of the Interior (“Questions and Answers” ).

In 1954, the National parks service identified lands in the northeastern section of Alaska and asked they be preserved (“Timeline” ). The Department of the Interior requested that an 8,000 square mile area of land identified in the 1954 study to be designated as a wildlife reserve in 1957 (“Timeline” ). In 1960, after congress denied the 1957 request the secretary of the interior designated 8.9 million acres as the Arctic National Wildlife Range via public land order 2214 which stated, “for the purpose of preserving unique wildlife, wilderness, and recreational values, all of the herein after described area in northeastern Alaska, containing approximately 8,900,000 acres is hereby… reserved for use of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service as the Arctic National Wildlife Range” (“Land order 2214” , “Questions and Answers” , “Timeline” ).

In 1978-1979 debated The Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) (“Questions and Answers” ). The house ended up passing legislation in order to allocate land in the northern section of the refuge as wilderness, however, members of the Senate wanted to include possible development of oil on the Coastal Plain (“Questions and Answers” ). As a result, much land on the coastal plain was not designated as Wilderness (“Questions and Answers” ). Furthermore, congress controlled the fate of oil exploration and drilling activities within ANWR (“Questions and Answers”).

Section 1002 of ANILCA called for a through inventory of fish and wildlife within the reserve, an impact analysis for oil and gas exploration and development, and studies to determine petroleum reserves within the coastal plain (“Land order 2214” ). This section of the coastal plain is now presently referred to at the 1002 area (Figure 2) (“Land order 2214”).

Figure 2: Zoomed version of the Coastal Plain (the 1002 area) From: http://geology.usgs.gov/connections/fws/Source%20Files/12-resources-erp-anwr/12-erpoilgas(2)_files/image009.jpg

Section 1003 of ANILCA states “production of oil and gas from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is prohibited and no leasing or other development leading to the production of oil and gas from the [refuge] shall be undertaken until authorized by an act

of congress” (“Questions and Answers”). ANILCA passed with four main objectives (“Land order 2214”). 1) “To conserve fish and wildlife populations and habitats in their natural beauty.” 2) “To fulfill the international fish and wildlife treat obligations of the United States.” 3) “To provide the opportunity for continued subsistence uses by local residents.” 4) “To ensure water quality and necessary water quantity within the refuge” (“Land order 2214”).

In 1971, President Richard Nixon gave surface rights to 69,000 acres along the coast of ANWR to the Kakovik Inupiat Corporation through the signing of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement (“Timeline”). In 1983, the refuge was expanded when 1 million acres were added to southern ANWR (“Timeline”). In 1988, congress once again expanded ANWR, bringing the total amount of land within the refuge to 19.3 million acres (“Timeline”). More recently, in 1997, the state of Alaska attempted to claim ownership of the barrier islands and lagoons along the coast of ANWR so as to lease them for oil and gas exploration and development (“Timeline”). The US Supreme Court denied their request, stating that this property was included in ANWR (“Timeline”).

Through the establishment of ANWR, the US government hoped to capture and retain entire arctic and subarctic ecosystems (“Overview”). Furthermore, evolutionary and ecological processes occur devoid of all human influence (“Overview”). The whole of ANWR remains without any road system and is the most diverse park within the arctic (“Overview”). ANWR is also home to the Inupiaq Eskimos and the Athabascan Indians

Within ANWR lies an area 100 miles across and 30 miles in width officially named the Coastal Plain (“What is ANWR”). This region is bounded to the north by the Beaufort Sea, to the east by the US-Canadian border, and to the west by the Canning River and has been identified as a site for potential oil exploration (“What is ANWR”). This 1.5 million acre section of ANWR is roughly equal in size to the state of Delaware (“What is ANWR”). It is estimated that the coastal plain of ANWR contains billions of barrels of oil, representing the largest reserve to be explored in the United States (“The Issue”).

Presently, the largest oil field in North America being exploited, Prudhoe Bay, is located about 100 miles west of ANWR (“The Issue”). Prudhoe Bay was discovered in 1968 and oil production began in 1977. The resources found in Prudhoe Bay, in addition to the oil found in the nearby Kuparuk, Lisburne, and Endicott oil fields presently supply the US with 25% of the US domestic oil supply. These North Slope facilities were designed to have the least impact on the wildlife that surrounds the nearby area (“The Issue”). Therefore officials argue that the proposed drilling in ANWR would have even less of an impact on wildlife because today’s drilling activities require stringent permits focused on environmental protection from local, state and federal government (“The Issue” ). The opening of the trans-Alaska pipeline system in 1977 has allowed for the transportation of 13 billion barrels of oil from the North Slope (“Making the Case”). Because of declining oil production on the North Slope, this pipeline is currently transporting less then half of its potential capacity (“Making the Case”).

Oil potential has been recognized in the ANWR region for quite some time (“How Much”). The earliest visitors to this area discovered oil stained sands and oil seeps, indicative to what lay below the surface (“How Much”). Petroleum has also been found in the nearby North Slope oil facilities located about 65 miles to the west of ANWR (“How Much”). East of ANWR, oil has been discovered near the Makenzie River Delta in Canada and in the Beaufort Sea (“How Much”).

After its inception in 1960, exploration activity within ANWR has been restricted to surficial geological studies, which reveal little regarding the oil hypothesized to exist in the area (“How Much”). According to the US Geological Survey, it is known that the total yield in ANWR represents 17 billion barrels of oil and 34 trillion cubic feet of natural gas (“How Much”). The Department of the Interior updated these USGS estimates in 1987 after several studies, including surface geological studies, seismic studies, and aeromatic surveys (“How Much” ). It was then estimated that 4.8-29.4 billion barrels of oil exists in total (“How Much”). Of this number, 600 million to 9.2 billion barrels would be economically recoverable (“How Much”). Furthermore, 26 prospective oil and gas sites were identified for future drilling activities (“How Much”). Because of limited data that presently exists, numbers remain uncertain (“How Much”). Certainty could only be gained through the drilling of exploratory wells (“How Much”).

Reasons to Drill

There are several groups which argue in favor for exploration and drilling on the coastal plain of ANWR. Economically speaking, drilling activities in ANWR are estimated to produce 250,000 to 735,000 new jobs (“Top 10 Reasons”). Furthermore, the money oil companies would pay in the form of lease rentals, royalties, taxes, and bonus bids would only serve to strengthen the federal budget by billions of dollars (“Top 10 Reasons”). Federally owned land currently holds an estimated 67% of oil reserves and 40% of natural gas reserves (“Making the Case”). If drilling in ANWR commences, an additional 30-50 years of oil could be obtained from ANWR (“Making the Case”). The oil drilled in the US has made up for $300 billion in the national trade deficit (“Making the Case”).

Since 1977, when North Slope production first began, to the present date, North Slope activities have injected $50 billion to the US economy (“Top 10 Reasons”). However, since 1980, North Slope oil production has been steadily declining from about 2 billion barrels/day to about 943,000 barrels/day presently, therefore, officials are eager to discover and begin drilling the next big oil reserve (“Top 10 Reasons” ).

The 9-16 billion barrels which have been hypothesized to exist underneath the Coastal Plain represents the last known significant oil field in the United States and therefore represents the best chance to produce domestic oil (“Top 10 Reasons”). In 2004, the US imported about 150 billion barrels from foreign markets representing approximately 58% of the oil consumed by Americans (“Top 10 Reasons”). Oil discovered in ANWR would therefore curb this number. Officials further argue that 8% of ANWR would be drilled for oil because of a 2000 acre footprint clause that was past with ANWR legislation (“Top 10 Reasons”). 75% of Alaskans support drilling in ANWR. Lastly, Drilling in ANWR would occur during the winter when wildlife is less prevalent on the Coastal Plain, thereby reducing the environmental impact (“Making the Case”).

Reasons Not to Drill

Several environmental agencies vehemently oppose drilling in ANWR for several reasons. Drilling in ANWR would do little to curb our need for oil from foreign sources (“Oil Development”). Dependence on foreign oil would remain about the same, since, at the height of ANWR production, the US would only be supplied with about 1% of what is needed (“Oil Development”).

Consumers would end up paying the same amount since drilling in ANWR would be so expensive, so there no savings involved (“Oil Development”). Furthermore, oil prices would remain fixed to world prices, so drilling in ANWR would have no effect on gas prices domestically (“Oil Development”). Said Jerry Taylor in late 2000, “even of all the oil we consumed in this country came from Texas and Alaska… prices would still be just as high today. The main reason is that domestic prices will rise and fall to world prices” (“Oil Development”). 75% of the world’s oil reserves reside in OPEC member countries (“Oil Development”). Furthermore, OPEC members produce 42% of what is consumed in the world (“Oil Development”). The members of OPEC meet several times a year and, based on supply and demand, set worldwide oil prices (“Oil Development”). Since the US is not a significant producer, any oil from ANWR would have little effect on worldwide price (“Oil Development”).

The amount of oil estimated in ANWR is far greater then the “Technically Recoverable Oil” (“Oil Development”). Total oil amounts are often published which represents the amount of oil that could be drilled if cost was not an issue (“Oil Development”). It is estimated that only about 3.2 billion barrels could be recovered for economic profit (“Oil Development”). People in the US expend about 19.5 million barrels of oil on a daily basis (“Oil Development”). When added up, that is about 7 billion barrels of oil a year (“Oil Development”). Therefore, oil recovered from ANWR would sustain American demand for about six months (“Oil Development”). The United States as a country consumes almost 26% of the worlds oil supply, yet only contains about 5% of the total population (“Oil Development”). Furthermore, The US contains 2% of the worlds crude oil reserves and supplies 2.1 billion barrels (in 1999), approximately 9% of the worlds total production (“Oil Development”). Leasing, exploration and building of infrastructure would significantly slow production down, meaning that oil would not be available for another 7-10 years (“Oil Development”).

The estimated 700,000 new jobs that would be created by drilling in actuality would not exist (“Oil Development”). This estimate was based on a report from the American Petroleum Institute, however this report is based on some questionable data (“Oil Development”). The report estimated that 9.2 billion barrels of oil would be recovered, and that this recovery would drop worldwide oil prices by 5%, even though ANWR oil would represent only about 0-.3% of the worldwide oil reserves (“Oil Development”). 6% of jobs estimated by API would actually be created, according to the Center for Economic Policy (“Oil Development”). The majority of these jobs would only exist for about 5 years (“Oil Development”). However, investments in energy efficiency would create approximate 10x as many jobs as drilling in ANWR (“Oil Development”). 750,000-1.3 million jobs would be created by 2020, according to the World Wildlife Fund, if the US adopted energy efficient policies and developed better alternative, renewable fuel sources (“Oil Development”).

Transportation, such as cars, trucks and jets represent 2/3^rds of America’s current demand (“Oil Development”). Therefore, creating fuel efficient cars would lessen dependency on foreign oil (“Oil Development”). SUV’s are required to go 20.7 mpg while regular cars are required to go 27.5 mpg (“Oil Development”). The US would save ~1 million barrels of oil per day if SUV’s were made to be more fuel efficient (“Oil Development”). 3.65 billion barrels less would be consumed per year, saving consumers and estimated $45 billion dollars a year (“Oil Development”).

On August 1, 2001, House Resolution 4 was passed opening ANWR to oil and gas exploration (“Oil Development”). An amendment was added confining drilling to 2000 acres (“Oil Development”). However, this number misrepresents the area of the coastal plain that would result from drilling (“Oil Development”). Since oil and gas fields are believed to exist in several areas, not just one big pool, drilling would stretch across the entire coastal plain, an area with an impressive array of wildlife (“Oil Development”). Roads, pipelines, and gravel mines would need to be constructed and are not included under the “2000 footprint” amendment. The burying of pipelines would excavate permafrost and seismic studies which involve large, heavy, and disruptive equipment would displace wildlife and ruin landscapes (“Oil Development”). The 2000 acre footprint would allow for 20-100 acre facilities, each of which would need a 150 acre gravel mine, 37+ miles of pipeline and many miles of roads sprawled across the coastal plain (“Oil Development”).

Oil drilling on the nearby North Slope covers an area of 640,000 acres (“Oil Development”). 2000 acres is equivalent to 1500 football fields, 5160 Statue of Liberties, 1350 Washington monuments or 20 mall of Americas (“Oil Development”). Tundra, river beds, wildlife populations, air, and native culture would all be affected by drilling activities (“Oil Development”). On the North Slope, companies have on average 1 oil spill daily which is responsible for significant natural degradation (“Oil Development”). Furthermore, Prudhoe Bay creates pollution equal to that of Washington DC (“Oil Development”).

Conclusions

1. Drilling in ANWR is a bad proposal for several reasons. 1) Oil drilled in ANWR would only sustain the American demand for about six months. 2) There would most probably be devastating impacts on wildlife in this area. 3) ANWR oil would do little to curb out need for foreign oil. 4) It sets a bad precedent. If ANWR is open to drilling, other reserves and national parks could soon follow suit. 5) In the long run, the US will have gained nothing. 6) The majority of new jobs created would not be there in the future.
2. Drilling in ANWR does not address the serious problem that exists presently. Petroleum resources represent a non-renewable source of energy that will run out in the near future. This being said, it is a much better idea to invest in alternative sources of energy now then to invest in a source of energy that will not be viable 100-200 years from now.

References:

1-“Wilderness Preservation” Natural Resource Defense Council. http://www.nrdc.org/land/wilderness/arctic.asp. Last Accessed 4/10/05

2-“What is ANWR” ANWR.org

http://www.anwr.org/backgrnd/where.htm. Last Accessed 4/11/05

3-“The Issue” ANWR.org

http://www.anwr.org/backgrnd/theissue.htm. Last Accessed 4/11/05

4-“Top 10 Reasons” ANWR.org

http://www.anwr.org/topten.htm. Last Accessed 4/11/05

5-“How Much” ANWR.org

http://www.anwr.org/backgrnd/potent.html. Last Accessed 4/11/05

6-“Making the Case” ANWR.org

http://www.anwr.org/case.htm. Last Accessed 4/12/05

7- “Overview” US Fish and Wildlife Services

http://refuges.fws.gov/profiles/index.cfm?id=75600. Last Accessed 4/13/05

8-“Questions and Answers” US Fish and Wildlife Services

http://arctic.fws.gov/faqs.htm. Last Accessed 4/13/05

9-“Purposes” US Fish and Wildlife Services

http://arctic.fws.gov/purposes.htm. Last Accessed 4/13/05

10- “Land order 2214” US Fish and Wildlife Services

http://arctic.fws.gov/plo2214.htm. Last Accessed 4/13/05

11-“Timeline” US Fish and Wildlife Services

http://arctic.fws.gov/timeline.htm. Last Accessed 4/13/05

12-“Oil Development” Sierra Club

http://www.sierraclub.org/wildlands/arctic/oil_development.asp. Last Accessed 4/13/05