Tucker Van Lier RibbinkASEM: Environmental ControversiesProfessor Christina Foust

THE ANWR CONTROVERSY

25VOLUME 4

The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) is a biodiverse, 19.6 million acre area of pristine, federally owned and protected land in North-east Alaska. The area consists of lowland tundra, coastal marshes, freshwater wetlands, moun-tains, 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 recov-erable, according to a study conducted by the US Geological Survey (USGS) in 1998, making

the area a hot button issue for political and en-vironmental 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 plains extraordinary environment and fragile ecosystem. Drilling advocates argue that opening the area to development would reduce

gas prices, ensure energy independence, sus-tain the Trans-Alaska Pipeline (and, in effect, the Alaskan economy), and significantly bene-fit the US economy, all while having little to no

adverse effect on the areas 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 Alas-

ka 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 invento-ry and assessment of the fish and wildlife

resources of the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge; an analysis of the

This argumentative research paper discusses the contested site of Alaskas 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 wasnt 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.

(left) Tucker Van Lier Ribbink /photo provided by author

(right) Mike Clime / Shutterstock.com

26 WRIT LARGE: 2015

impacts of oil and gas exploration devel-opment, 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 re-sources. (Sullivan)

So while Congress does have an obligation to pro-tect the regions habitat, it also has an obligation to authorize exploratory activity for the prospect of oil and gas development.

Those who oppose drilling argue that Con-gress met such obligations with the USGS as-sessment of 1998. Recent advances in explor-atory and drilling technologies, however, make the 1998 estimates irrelevant. As indicated in the

State of Alaskas 2013 Exploration Plan and Spe-cial Use Permit Application, advances in tech-nology, including todays high-power comput-er hardware, cutting edge interpretive software [and] the 3-D imaging technologywill provide

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 Col-orado 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.

a vastly improved understanding of the 1002 Ar-eas 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 USGSs 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 re-coverable 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 estimatedfor all we know, the amount of technically recoverable oil is considerably less than the USGS survey conclud-ed. My point is that until we have a more accurate understanding of how much oil and gas there ac-tually is in the 1002 area, there is very little value

in continued debate regarding the areas future. To ensure minimal and negligible adverse

effects to the tundra, fish, and other wildlife

during exploration, the state of Alaska is seek-ing 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 lit-tle or no impact on the environment. This, along with Alaskas high environmental standards and advanced low-impact technologies, promises an effective and safe exploration of Area 1002.

27VOLUME 4

Environmentalist groups, including Defend-ers of Wildlife, protest that any impact is too much impact for an area so pristine and beauti-ful. 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 de-scription for political gain is deceptive, unethi-cal, and somewhat condescending. To appreciate the area for its unique and untouched character-istics 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 plains aesthetic as a major focus in the debate, which is certainly not one of the areas strengths.

In discussing environmental effects of oil de-velopment, both sides of the debate focus heav-ily on the Porcupine Caribou Herd, which uses the 1002 area as their main calving ground. The

most recent photocensus of the Porcupine Car-ibou Herd has estimated the herds 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 Arc-tic Caribou Herd would suggest otherwise. This herd has flourished despite (or possibly due to)

the introduction of a vast network of oil devel-opment infrastructure, roads, and facilities in the herds 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

the size of Prudhoe Bay, and the Porcupine Car-ibou 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). How-ever, in the past fifteen years of investigations,

Jeff McGraw / Shutterstock.com

A future without the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System has

frightening implications for the US economy and terrifying

implications for Alaska and its citizens.

28 WRIT LARGE: 2015

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 Ter-ritory (Urquhuart, qtd. in Jacobs).

While certain studies suggest that oil facil-ities and structures in Prudhoe Bay have dis-placed some Central Arctic Caribou, recent ae-rial studies show otherwise, with many caribou on and around surface structures, walking un-der pipelines with ease during summer migra-tion ( 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 sur-veys indicate that the caribou distribution on the larger scale was largely unrelated to the dis-tribution 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 con-cluded that, with clear identification of manage-ment 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

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 Alaskas econ-omy would be staggering.

The state of Alaska has always been a ma-jor 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 nations

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 Val-dez on Alaskas southern coast. Unfortunately,

the flow of oil through the pipeline has been di-minishing 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 con-sumption 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 im-plications for the US economy and terrifying im-plications for Alaska and its citizens.

According to the Alaska Oil and Gas Asso-ciation (AOGA), the petroleum industry sup-

Jonathan Nafzger / Shutterstock.com

29VOLUME 4

ports one-third of all Alaska jobs, generating 110,000 jobs throughout the state. Despite de-creases in production, the oil and gas industry still provides 90 percent of the states revenue.

Should the TAPS shut down, much of this rev-enue 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 jobsaccording

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 pro-vide 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 frac-turing 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 con-sume 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 po-tential of the 1002 area is about equal to the pro-duction 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 be-lieved to hold the greatest potential for onshore crude oil in America (Freudenrich). With US

debt approaching $18 trillion, its important that

we not close ourselves off from natural resourc-es. 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 vast-ly superior 3-D tech. Until we have a better un-derstanding 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 en-vironmentally 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 TAPSs unknown future and the

US still recovering from a devastating economic

crisis, it is imperative that we keep our energy options open.

archigraf / Shutterstock.com

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.

30 WRIT LARGE: 2015

WORKS CITED

10 Years to TAPS Shutdown?Americas 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. ANWRs 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 Administra-

tion. 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 Communi-

cation, 1 Feb. 2013. Web. 17 Apr. 2014.

Parnell, Sean, and Daniel S. Sullivan. The State of Alaskas 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: Alaskas 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.

Lavinia Bordea / Shutterstock.com