ANWR: Unraveling a Political Issue 

Abstract:

The purpose of this paper was to clarify the current political debate about oil drilling in the Artic National Wildlife Refuge. The original legislation signed into law in 1960 put aside section 1002, a 1.5 million acre plot for oil exploration and possible drilling. It has been a political debate for 80 years. With the election of George W. Bush, oil exploration has once again become proposed legislation. Because of the current relevance most of my research was done online. I used polls, US Geological Surveys and some information from environmental groups and political lobbying groups. The two sides in the debate are in a stand off because the facts that they are arguing about are all theoretical. No one knows for sure exactly how much oil could be extracted from the refuge. It could be enough to last for 25 years or it could last for nine months. The argument for drilling points out that it is a small portion of ANWR to open; about 82% of the refuge would remain untouched. It has great oil potential and there is no reason not to use it. There is no way to know the extent of the environmental impact that drilling would have on the artic. The second opinion is that the oil it is a short term solution to a larger energy problem and it would damage permanently invaluable habitat.

Introduction

The Artic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) has been a topic of debate and contention for years. The 19 million acre refuge is located in the Northwest corner of Alaska. It is one of the largest areas of preserved wilderness in the world. In Section 1003 of ANILCA, which was signed into law in 1960 by President Carter, Congress stated that the “production of oil and gas from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is prohibited and no leasing or any other development leasing to the production of oil and gas from the [refuge] shall be undertaken until authorized by and act of Congress.” As the availability of foreign oil has become less secure, and the need for oil greater, the topic of oil exploration in ANWR has recently been brought back into the political lime light. Part of the problem is that the argument is theoretical. There has been no drilling. Therefore no one knows for sure how much oil exists. No one knows for sure the environmental impact if the drilling did occur. The point of this paper is to detach from the emotional and political aspects of the issue and state the facts about the refuge and the plans for drilling as well as to outline the both the arguments for and against drilling. 

Methods and Procedure:

In order to best understand the political debate, I needed very current sources. Because this is a current topic in political debate and has been a topic for debate on and off for the last twenty years there is a lot of information about ANWR on the internet. For this reason, I used internet sources. I am interested in the opinion of both conservationist and people in favor of drilling. The internet is a place where groups publish their own current beliefs. This is not a highly technical subject that involves a lot of book resources. I needed recent surveys and reports that were available online.

Results:

The Artic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) is 19 million acres in the northwest corner of Alaska. It is bigger then ten states; roughly the size of South Carolina. The refuge was created after WW2. Because of the increased need for fuel and the increased insecurity of acquiring it from overseas during WW2, there was extensive government sponsored exploration for oil and gas in Alaska in the 1940-50s. WW2 opened public and government eyes to the undeveloped land in Alaska and so after the war was over, in 1954-53, government scientist conducted a comprehensive survey of potential conservation areas in Alaska. Their report, “The Last Great Wilderness”, identified the undisturbed northeast corner of Alaska as the best opportunity for protection. The refuge was established in 1960. The refuge became as big as it is today when President Carter signed the ANILCA into law in 1980. This act doubled the size of the refuge, renamed it the Artic National Wildlife Refuge, and designated most of the original range as wilderness. Currently, ANWR is a part of a larger international network of protected area. In Canada’s Yukon Territory, they have protected the adjacent coastal tundra and mountains by establishing Ivvavik and Vuntut National Parks where oil exploration and production are not allowed.

The section of the Refuge that is being considered for oil exploration is Section 1002 of ANWR, the Coastal Plain Area. It is 1.5 million acres, an area slightly larger then Delaware, on the northern edge of ANWR. In the legislation the President Carter signed, section 1002 outlined additional information that would be needed before Congress could designate the area as Wilderness, or permit oil development. There would have to be studies of the area that would include a comprehensive inventory and assessment of the fish and wildlife resources, an analysis of potential impacts of oil and gas exploration and development on those resources, and a delineation of the extent and amount of potential petroleum resources. Beginning in 1981 the US Fish and Wildlife Service conducted a fish and wildlife baseline study which gave its final report in 1986. In 1984-85 there was a research done on how much oil was in section 1002. The information gathered from these biological, seismic and geological studies were used to complete a Legislative Environmental Impact Statement(LEIS) that described the environmental effects of oil drilling in the Coastal Plains. It said that there would be “widespread, long-term change in habitat availability or quality which would likely modify natural abundance or distribution of species.” The Caribou were expected to be dramatically effected. Moderate effects were expected for wolves, wolverines, polar bears, snow geese, sea birds and shore birds, artic grayling and coastal fish. In the report the Secretary of the Interior recommended that Congress authorize oil and gas leasing programs that would avoid unnecessary adverse effects on the environment.

Map 1: Alaska with ANWR and Coastal Plain

The ANWR coastal plain lies within the White Hills section of the arctic coastal plain. The landscape consists of rolling hills underlain by permafrost believed that is to be average about 2000 feet deep. In many locations, seasonal thawing of the surface area has resulted in the formation of polygonal patterned ground. At the surface, the tundra serves to insulate the soils by limiting the depth of thaw during the summer months. If the tundra is disturbed, deeper seasonal thawing may occur. Once the thermal balance is destroyed, it may take years to stabilize again. During that time ponds may develop as ice wedges melt and soils subside altering the terrain, changing the vegetative cover, or in extreme cases, resulting in erosion. This area has been said by some to be critical important to the ecological integrity of the whole artic refuge by providing essential habitat for numerous significant migratory species.

Map 2: Ecological Zones OF ANWR

As mentioned earlier, oil exploration took place in the winter of 1983-84 and 1984-85. The explorations have thus far been limited to surface geological investigations, aeromagnetic surveys, and two winter seismic surveys. There has only been one exploratory drilling which occurred in the winter of 1984-85 on Kraktovik Inupiat Corporation and Artic Slope Regional Corporation lands southeast of Kraktovik on the Coastal Plain. This well is called the KIC will and it was drilled on private (Native) land by BP and Chevron and the results of this well are highly controversial and have not been released. Trails from the exploration in 1984 and 85 some are still visible today. That means that the land has not yet recovered 15 years after the disturbance. Some trails have become troughs visible from the air. Others have permanently changed vegetation and still more have permafrost melt and the trail remained wetter then they had previously.

Picture 1: Trail Scars

There have been two US geological surveys done since the exploration in the 1980s. In the US Geological Survey of 1980, they estimated that section 1002 contained up to 17 billion barrels of oil and 34 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. The US Geological Survey 1998 increased the estimate for technically recoverable mean crude oil resources. The mean average is that about 10 billion barrels (a little less than Prudhoe Bay, the largest oilfield in North America has produced in the last twenty five years.) According to anwr.org, the geological community’s consensus is that the Coastal Plain represents the highest petroleum potential onshore yet to be explored in America.

In 1996 the North Slope fields produced about 1.5 billions of barrels of oil per day (which was about 25% of the US domestic oil production). However, Prudhoe Bay, and is North America’s largest oil field which accounts for over half the North Slope Production, began its decline in 1988, and no new fields have yet been discovered with the potential to compensate for that decline.(anwr.org) At Prudhoe Bay the recovery factor(the percentage you can actually extract) is over 60% the USGS says that ANWR will likely have a 37% recovery rate.

Figure 1: Oil Recoverable in Section 1002

Using the updated report and recent oil prices, the USGS estimated that, assuming a price of $24 per barrel, there is a 95% chance of finding 1.9 billion barrels (BBO) of economically recoverable oil in the Arctic Refuge's 1002 Area; a 5% chance of finding 9.4 BBO; and a 50% chance of finding 5.3 BBO.

However, as the above graph shows, even if there is 10 billion barrels of oil, the amount of oil and gas that can be extracted that will actually be usable is more complicated. Present oil prices are between 25 to 35 dollars. Americans use 19 million barrels of oil each day or 7 billion barrels of oil per year. There is a chance that there would only be a nine months supply of oil in the Artic. However it is important to recognize that all of these calculations are based on the probability calculated from the geography of the area that there is oil. Using 3D seismic data you get success rates of 40 or 50 % of predicting oil. 2D seismic has 10-20% success rate. 3D is more intrusive, and was not used for the explorations in 1983 and 84. Only drilling can actually find oil. Then, if oil is actually found, it will be an estimated 15 years or more before the production of oil and gas from ANWR reaches the market. That is fifteen years from the day of discovery.

Of the 19 million acres of the refuge, 82% would remain closed to any kind of oil exploration. Less then 2000 acres would be affected by production activity (according to anwr.org). The 1002 area is located more then 30 miles from the end of the nearest pipeline and more then 50 miles from the nearest gravel road and oil support facilities. It looks like the oil reserves are located in many small accumulations rather then one big oil field. This means that it would need a number of small production sites spread over a large region and connected by an infrastructure of roads, pipelines, power plants, processing facilities, loading docks, dormitories, airstrips, gravel pits, utility lines and landfills. In addition, a large amount of water is needed for oil drilling and site development. In section 1002 water resources are more limited then in Prudhoe Bay. In the winter only 9 million gallons of water are available for this area. That is enough to freeze ten miles of ice roads. Therefore full exploration would require permanent gravel roads. The North Slop oil fields provide a good example of sprawl. While the physical base of the existing North Slope oil facilities and roads covers about 10,000 acres, the current industrial complex sprawls across an 800 square mile region, extending nearly 100 miles from east to west, and it continues to grow as new oil fields are developed in the area.

Map 3: Potential Development Map of ANWR

The people of Alaska are varied in their opinions about the drilling. There are about 220-210 Native residents who live in a village at Barter Island which is adjacent to the coastal plan and actually within the boundaries of ANWR. Most of these people are Inupiat Eskimos whose families have lived in the region for centuries. According to anwr.org, the residents of Katovik support the oil and gas development. The oil in the North Slope has provided a “tax base for the local government, oil development has provided jobs, funding for water and sewer systems and schools.”(anwr.org) Organizations such as the City of Kraktovic, Kraktovik Inupiat Corporation, North Slope Borough, Artic Slope Regional Cor., Doyon Regional Corporation and Alaskan Federation of Natives have all endorsed development based on their experience with Pruhoe Bay. In a poll by the Dittman Research Corporation in April 1995, more the 75% of all Alaskans supported oil exploration of the Coastal Plains.

Figure 2: Alaskan Opinion on Oil Exploration of ANWR

However according to the Harris Poll, US citizens do not follow the same trend lines as Alaskan residents. In the Harris Poll # 9 (survey 2,209 adults online by Harris Interactive between Jan 11 and 16^th 2005) “ a strong majority(91%) said they would support reform to emphasize more conservation by consumers and to encourage more innovation by energy producers for alternative sources of energy, with over half(52%) strongly supporting this idea. Interestingly, only slightly more then half(53%) at least somewhat support(26% strongly support) energy reform that would allow companies to drill for oil in such areas as the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) which is the proposal President Bush and Republicans in Congress desire. In fact, just less the one third(30%) of the public strongly oppose the idea of energy reform that allows drilling.” However in contrast, in a poll conducted by the Luntz Research Companies, 52% of adults surveyed said they were interested in opening the ANWR reserve for oil exploration.

Caribou are the most numerous large mammals in the Artic Refuge. There are two herds that live with in the refuge; the Porcupine Herd and the Central Artic Herd. ANWR is within the main range of the Porcupine Herd, which is about 15200 animals. The Central Artic herd lives on the periphery of the refuge and has 23,400 animals. Calving takes place between the last week of May and the first two weeks in June in the foothills and the Coastal Plain. Caribou are not distributed evenly across the area; instead they gather in more limited locations which vary from year to year. The caribous preferred food during the calving season needs to be higher in nutrition and more digestible and highly available. They have to build up their fat reserves and milk. They have to be able to move freely through an area to find this necessary food. Cows with newborn calves are particularly sensitive and commonly move as much as 1.5 mile away from human disturbance. This has been well documented in the North Slopes Oil fields. The Central Artic Caribou use the northwestern part of the Coastal Plain during the summer, and in most years several hundred to a thousand spend the winter near the Sadlerochit Mountains. The caribou in the two herds which utilize portions of ANWR during their migration are an important subsistence food source for Inupiat Eskimos and Athabascan Indians who live in communities near the migratory routes of the caribou herds. The other large mammals in the refuge are polar bears, grizzly bears, wolves. musk oxen and moose. Based on studies of collared polar bears of the Beaufort Sea population between 1981 and 2000, 53 dens were located on the mainland coast of Alaska and Canada. Of those 3 dens 22(42%) were within the Artic Refuge’s 1002 area.

Discussion:

ANWR is not simply a wildlife refuge. It has become a rallying point in the environmental movement. It has become a part of the Bush Administration’s Energy Agenda and thus been the center of political debate. An example of its current position in the spotlight, is that right now anyone can go to the Sierra Club website (sierraclub.org) and sign a petition to protect the refuge, which is their “in focus issue”. There are two basic sides to the debate concerning ANWR. The side for oil exploration thinks the economic and foreign policy benefits outweigh the environmental loss. The problem with this debate is much of it is theoretical. No one knows for sure how much oil there will be. No one knows exactly how much damage will be done to the environment. The side for preservation disagrees that the benefits from the oil will be significant and that the damage done to the environment will be tragic.

These two views have cycled through the US government. When the original Artic Refuge was established by the Eisenhower Administration in 1960, Secretary of Interior Seaton described it as; “one of the world’s great wildlife areas. The great diversity of vegetation and topography in this compact area, together with its relatively undisturbed condition, led to its selection as…one of our remaining wildlife and wilderness frontiers.” In 1995 Congress passes budget legislation that included a provision to allow drilling in the refuge. President Clinton vetoed the bill, stating “I want to protect this biologically rich wilderness permanently.” Currently President Bush National Energy Report states the administration’s goal to “open a small fraction of the Artic National Wildlife Refuge to environmental exploration and production using leading edge technology,”(National Energy Policy xiv).

As one would expect, local politics is also very involved and vocal in this debate. Ken Boyd, the former Director of Alaska Division of Oil and Gas, responds to the conservation argument with the statement; “The notion that Alaska is somehow “short” on wild places is simply wrong. If Alaska’s wilderness lands were made into a state it would be the 11^th largest in the nation.” Oil is a large base of the Alaskan economy. The Prudhoe Bay oil field is on lands owned by the state of Alaska. The proportion of the state budget utilizing petroleum revenues is very high (85%). However there are Alaskans who are not for opening the refuge up for exploration. The most apprehensive are the Gwich’in Athabeascan Indians of northeastern Alaska and northwestern Canada. There are about 7,000 of them. They depend on the Porcupine caribou as their subsistence food source.

I did not get learn about the Gwich’in Athabeascan Indians from anwr.org. I used two main informational data base type websites. One was anwr.org and the other was artic circle.uconn.edu. All of their facts agreed with each other, but the information they chose to present and how they chose to present it varied dramatically. The first, anwr.org was maintained by Artic Power. “Arctic Power is a grassroots, non-profit citizen's organization with 10,000 members founded in April of 1992 to expedite congressional and presidential approval of oil exploration and production within the Coastal Plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. “(anwr.org) It is not a propaganda group. It is very well organized lobbying group. The information in it is correct. “The Alaska congressional delegation, Alaska Gov. Frank Murkowski, and the 20th Alaska Legislature has endorsed Arctic Power and works closely with the board and staff of the organization. Arctic Power and the State of Alaska work together in their congressional outreach efforts in Washington, D.C., and across the nation. Some of the tnterest groups represented on the Arctic Power board and through its membership are: Alaska Support Industry Alliance, Alaska State Chamber of Commerce, Resource Development Council, Alaska Trucking Association, Alaska Oil & Gas Association, Anchorage Chamber of Commerce, Alaska Miner's Association, and the Alaska Forest Association.

The other website I used was maintained by Artic Circle. Their goals were different then Artic Powers, therefore although the information was the same as Artic Power’s, it was displayed a little differently. “The overall goal of Arctic Circle is to stimulate among viewers a greater interest in the peoples and environment of the Arctic and Subarctic region. As stated on the Welcome page, this 'electronic circle' has three interrelated themes: natural resources; history and culture; social equity and environmental justice…. Specific topics include discussions of Sustainability, Equity, and Environmental Protection; Northern Development and the Global Economy; Ethnographic Portraits of indigenous peoples in Alaska, Canada, Northwest Siberia, etc.; and specific studies dealing with the impact of petroleum, gas, hydroelectric, and other forms of large scale natural resource development in selected regions of the Circumpolar North.”(articcircle.uconn.edu)

Similarly the results you get on public opinion depend on the poll you look at which makes true public opinion hard to gage. Both polls that I choose to look at are recognized as legitimate. The first, Harris Interactive Inc., is the 15^th largest and fastest-growing market research firm in the world. The second, the Luntz Research Companies are the premier corporate and public affairs communications firm in Washington. They were awarded the Crystal Ball Award in 1992 for accurate punditry. They brag on their website that; “The largest financial services company in America, the largest electric utility company in America, the largest business organization in America, the largest manufacturing organization in America, and the magazine read by more men than any other in America all use Luntz Research.” This contradictory evidence on public debate makes it possible for both sides of the argument to claim the public as backing their beliefs.

Conclusion:

The two sides of this debate are not going to be reconciled by adding more information to the debate. One side sees oil exploration as short sighted. For example and article in the artic circle web site pointed out that: If you hold relatively constant the production of automobiles, a gradual change in fuel economy standards from the present 27.5 miles a gallon to 40 mpg will reduce oil demand by two million barrels a day by the year 2005. That is a lot more then can be produced in the same period by extracting oil from the coastal plain of the Arctic Refuge. The opposite side does not see a significant problem in getting the oil. They do not see the impact that current oil fields as being negative in fact some argue that the Alaska’s North Slope have increased the scientific understanding of Artic ecosystem and have also shown that wild life and petroleum development can coexist. Everyone is looking at the same picture. Everyone has seen the same facts. Some see it as good that there are still caribou existing with the oil fields, others see it as a problem that their population has decreased. The way they interpret these agreed upon facts is the where the argument starts and why it has been such a long discussion.  During the ANILCA deliberations in the late 1970s, Secretary of the interior Cecil Andus said: “ In some places such as the Arctic Range, the wildlife and natural values are so magnificent and so enduring that they transcend the value of any mineral that may lie beneath the surface. Such mineral are finite. Production inevitably means changes whose impact will be measured in geological time in order to gain marginal benefits that may last a few years.” To others the benefits seem bigger, and the environmental impact not so drastic. These two differing points of view are now arguing in Washington as the Bush administration tries to pass a budget that includes oil exploration in the Artic Refuge.

Bibliography

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. Potential impacts of oil and gas development on the Artic Refuge’s coastal plan: Histoical overview and issues of concern. Web page of the Artic National Wildlife Refuge, Fairbanks, Alaska. 18 October 2000.

anwr.org

“What is ANWR and Where is the Coastal Plain?” http://www.anwer.org/backgrnd/where.htm

“Alaskans Support Development” http://www.anwr.org/archives/alaska_support_development.php

“1002” is Where the Oil’s At!” http;//www.anwr.org/archives/1002_is_where the_oils_at.php

“Caribou in the Artic Refuge” http://ARTICCIRCLE.UCONN.EDU/anwr/ANWRCARIBOU.HTML

The Artic National Wildlife Refuge, A Special Report by Norman Chance

http://articcircle.uconn.edu/ANWR/anwrpreface.html

Luntz Research & Strategic Services The Public Opinion Company Luntz Corporate Luntz Worldwide
120 South Payne Street, Alexandria, VA 22314 703-358-0080
©Copyright 2004http://www.luntz.com/aboutlrc.htm

© 1998-2005 Harris Interact

copyright 1998-2005 Harris Interactive Inc. http://www.harrisinteractive.com/

National Energy Policy Report of the Energy Policy Development Group May 2001