In recent years, there has been furious debate between politicians, industry and environmentalists about the prospect of opening part of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska for oil drilling and development. Few issues get people in a tizzy as much as the environment or oil. When both issues collide, watch out.

The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) in Northeast Alaska is considered one of America’s greatest natural treasures. U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower had the foresight in 1960 to set aside this arctic treasure for future generations. Congress reaffirmed the value of the Arctic Refuge in 1980, expanding the refuge to 19 million acres and designating most of Eisenhower’s original Arctic Range as part of the National Wilderness Preservation System.

Also in 1980, in section 1002 of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, President Jimmy Carter and the U.S. Congress set aside 1.5 million acres of the coastal plain for potential exploration and development: the 1002 area. They did so because of initial indications of the area’s energy potential.

Currently, the world consumes nearly 85 million barrels of oil per day — with the U.S. using about a quarter of that, according to the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE).

So in recent years, there has been furious debate between politicians, industry and environmentalists about the prospect of opening the coastal plain for oil drilling and development to increase domestic production.

The debate about responsible and balanced exploration in a limited part of the ANWR, not surprisingly, continues on both sides.

——
Hands off!

The first argument, in appearance, is the simplest: “There isn’t very much oil in the refuge.” Those opposed to the drilling point to estimates by the U.S. Geological Survey that there is only a six-month supply of economically recoverable oil. Opening the refuge, these critics say, will have no effect on oil prices because the supply is too small and Persian Gulf oil too cheap.

And in reality, Arctic Refuge oil would amount to “a drop in the bucket of the oil market,” those on this side of the debate argue. They further point to the DOE’s own Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimates, which say that even 20 years down the road, when Arctic Refuge oil is at or near peak production, gas prices would be affected by about one cent per gallon.

Speaking of peak production, those against ANWR development are quick to note that any oil discovered in the refuge would be unavailable for at least a decade, information again based on the July 2005 EIA report:

• If oil is discovered in commercial quantities, it would take 10 years before a drop of Arctic Refuge oil could first be produced. In 2015, it would only make up 0.06 percent of world oil production.
• Even at or near peak production (in 2025), Arctic Refuge oil would make up only 8/10 of 1 percent (0.8 percent) of world oil production and only 3 percent of U.S. oil consumption.

Moreover, getting this oil down to where it needs to go will be no small feat, as it will require pipelines, pumping stations and sprawling industrial infrastructure, which anti-drillers claim will be environmentally destructive. Critics point to environmental safeguards that have already “been proven unreliable.”

According to the environmental organization the Sierra Club:

If nearby Prudhoe Bay is any indication, drilling for oil in the refuge will surely destroy it. At neighboring Prudhoe Bay, home to one of the world’s largest industrial complexes, 43,000 tons of nitrogen oxides pollute the air each year. Hundreds of spills involving tens of thousands of gallons of crude oil and other petroleum products occur annually. Decades-old diesel spill sites still show little regrowth of vegetation. Gravel fill, excavation and waste disposal alone have destroyed 17,000 acres of wildlife and marine habitat.

In January, 20,000 gallons of drilling “mud” — a petroleum-based lubricant used for drilling — spilled from one of Prudhoe Bay’s newest facilities. In February, a BP Amoco facility dumped thousands of gallons of oil into the environment.

Indeed, a few months later (August 2006), an oil spill from a leaking pipe forced BP Plc to shut down its operations at Prudhoe Bay, Alaska. The next month, Republican senators acknowledged that the controversy over BP’s management of its Alaskan oil pipelines “undermines their effort to open the ANWR to exploration.”

Finally, critics purport a major threat to a number of caribou, polar and grizzly bears, musk oxen and wolves, fish and birds, should drilling take place in the area. This does not include the native Alaskans, of which approximately 9,000 are Gwich’in (“people of the land”) who make their homes along the Yukon and Porcupine Rivers of the Arctic, scattered throughout 15 villages in northeast Alaska, and in the Yukon and Northwest Territories of Canada.

Instead, drilling critics propose quickening development of alternatives to end oil addiction. Says Republicans for Environmental Protection Policy Director Jim DiPeso:

Drilling the Arctic Refuge won’t cure our addiction to oil; it would perpetuate our addiction to oil and give away a spectacular wilderness to oil companies. Drilling the Arctic Refuge won’t lower prices and it won’t bring energy security. When the U.S. holds only 2 percent of the world’s oil but uses 25 percent of world oil production, an oil-centered energy policy is self-defeating.

——
Drill it!

Remember when we said drilling critics’ first argument, in appearance, is the simplest? Well, not even close to simple. Sometimes numbers can go either way.

As aforementioned, a constant refrain by those opposed to oil development is that ANWR contains only a “short-term speculative supply of oil,” as the National Association of Manufacturers notes. Like drilling critics, NAM also alludes to estimates by the U.S. Geological Survey — only to counter the critics’ argument:

The Coastal Plain is this nation’s single greatest onshore prospect for future oil. The USGS estimates that it contains a mean expected value of 10.4 billion barrels of technically recoverable oil with a 95 percent probability of 5.7 billion barrels and a 5 percent probability of 16 billion barrels. The potential daily production from the 1002 area alone is larger than the current daily onshore oil production of any lower 48 state.

The coastal plain of ANWR represents the highest petroleum potential onshore area yet to be explored in North America, says NAM.

Moreover, only the 1.5 million acres, or eight percent, on the northern coast of ANWR would be considered for exploration, proponents for drilling point out. The remaining 17.5 million acres, or 92 percent, of ANWR will remain permanently closed to any kind of development. If oil is discovered (still no guarantees), less than 2,000 acres of the 1.5 million-plus acres of the coastal plain would be affected. That’s less than half of one percent of ANWR that would be affected by production activity.

Those in favor of drilling claim that new environmentally friendly techniques will reduce the impact. Advanced technology has greatly reduced the “footprint” of arctic oil development, according to ANWR.org. For instance, “newer 3-D seismic methods have much less impact on the tundra than the older 2-D seismic tests.” Current practices now replace gravel roads with ice roads as a means of access to isolated drilling locations, and the use of low ground-pressure vehicles “addresses potential problems associated with exploration drilling in areas with limited freshwater supply or shortened ice road seasons.” Further, the development of new Arctic drilling platforms could reduce or eliminate altogether the need for ice roads or ice pads.

Notes NAM:

New technology offers ways of developing and producing oil without the web of roads now found on the North Slope. The greater reach of horizontal wells and the use of multilateral drilling both reduce the need for large pads. New technology allows extraction of oil from larger areas, reducing the number of pads needed to develop an oil field. Because the fields use more effective drilling and fewer wells, waste, mud and cuttings are less. Because fuel consumption is lower, there are fewer emissions.

And what of oil spills? The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) has found that, despite widespread concern about spills, most spills have had “only local effects,” NAM says. Large-magnitude spills generally have been avoided on the North Slope because of the system of monitoring and check valves in all pipelines. The NAS found that, as of its report, the effects of contaminant spills had not accumulated on North Slope vegetation.

Of ANWR development concerns about air quality on the North Slope, the NAS report also found that “air quality meets national ambient air quality standards.” In fact, NAM argues, arctic haze is “the most conspicuous air quality problem on the North Slope.” Research confirms that arctic haze is a common phenomenon in polar climates and results from distant emissions in temperate zones rather than local emissions.

What about the cute (though not nearly cuddly) animal inhabitants? According to those on this side of the debate, oil and gas development and wildlife are successfully coexisting in Alaska’s arctic. For example, ANWR.org claims that the Central Arctic Caribou Herd (CACH), which migrates through Prudhoe Bay, “has grown from 3,000 animals to its current level of 32,000 animals,” while “the arctic oil fields have very healthy brown bear, fox and bird populations equal to their surrounding areas.” North Slope development, “which is far more intense than any potential Coastal Plain development, has had no devastating effect on polar bears,” claims NAM. “To date, there have been no cumulative impacts on musk oxen from oil activities.”

Even more, drilling in the ANWR could create between 250,000 and 735,000 jobs, including those in new construction, service, manufacturing and engineering. Billions of dollars from bonus bids, lease rentals, royalties and taxes could enhance federal revenues.

So both sides frame the debate as fundamentally simple: either you hate animals and the environment or you hate America because of your unwillingness to optimize domestic oil production. If only it were that simple.

Resources

Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Coastal Plain Resource Assessment
Federal Subsistence Management Program

World oil supply still plentiful -U.S. think tank
Reuters, Nov. 14, 2006

Arctic Refuge Contribution to Meeting U.S. Oil Demand
Natural Resources Defense Council

Impacts of Modeled Provisions of H.R. 6 EH: The Energy Policy Act of 2005
U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, July 2005

Arctic National Wildlife Refuge: Just the Facts
The Sierra Club

Arctic National Wildlife Refuge – What’s At Stake?
The Sierra Club

Senators Say BP’s Alaska Problems Doom ANWR Chances
Defenders of Wildlife and Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund, Sept. 12, 2006

President Should Forget Arctic Refuge, Focus on Fuel Efficiency and New Fuels
Republicans for Environmental Protection, April 26, 2006

ANWR Backgrounder
National Association of Manufacturers

Top 10 Reasons to Support Development in ANWR
ANWR.org

ANWR: Drilling Technology
ANWR.org

Making the Case for ANWR Development
ANWR.org