Arguments Against Oil Drilling in Alaska's Arctic Wildlife Refuge

Introduction

As energy costs continue to increase, the demand for domestic sources of oil has become more pronounced than ever. The burgeoning economies of China and India are placing an enormous strain on the world's oil supplies, and many Americans are facing harsh realities at the gas pump. In this environment, developing and exploiting the country's domestic natural resources appears to make good sense, and the enormous resources available in Alaska in particular seem to represent a short-term solution to the growing demand for oil and gas. Nevertheless, while oil and gas are fungible products with known alternatives, the unique qualities of the environmentally fragile Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska are not replaceable. Exploiting these resources to solve a long-term problem is misguided and poses a significant threat to the viability of this vast region for generations of Americans to come. To determine what both sides have to say about this issue, this paper reviews the peer-reviewed and scholarly literature concerning further exploitation of Alaska's oil and gas reserves and its concomitant environmental impact, followed by a summary of the research and important findings in the conclusion.

The long gas lines of the 1980s were just a fading memory when the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 took place. In response to these attacks, and based on a growing perception among Americans that the country's dependence on Middle Eastern oil was contributing to the nation's problems, there has been a groundswell of support for developing domestic sources of oil. As a result, many observers point to the known oil reserves and potential reserves in Alaska as a solution to this energy crisis. According to Herndon, "In the far northeastern corner of Alaska remains the last great wilderness in the United States. Calling this area the last great wilderness is a statement not made lightly; people have been calling it that for almost 50 years. The name of the place is so often mentioned that even the most ardent sociophobe has probably heard of it: the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge" (72).

Legislative History of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge

The U.S. Congress established the ANWR in 1980 to prevent further development of oil and gas reserves on approximately 8 million acres by declaring the region a wilderness; an additional 9.5 million acres was placed off-limits to exploitation by declaring it a wildlife refuge (16 U.S.C., Section 3101). As Grover (1998) notes, "The Refuge, as ANWR is sometimes called, currently enjoys the relative protection of federal law. Since 1957, the United States Department of the Interior has exercised primary administrative authority over most of the land comprising modern-day ANWR. This fact has meant a great deal to people who care about the Refuge" (1169).

The existing protections are no accident. The legislation that set aside the wilderness and refuge areas of Alaska is the deliberate result of the U.S. government's decision to keep oil and gas development out of the ANWR specifically to preserve the region's wilderness. According to Stanke, "In 1960, Fred Seaton, as Interior Secretary for the Eisenhower administration, designated 8.9 million acres in the northeastern corner of Alaska the Arctic National Wildlife Range — a sanctuary for wildlife and wilderness conservation" (905). As Grover points out, Interior Secretary Seaton's 1960 withdrawal order clearly stated the purposes for which the new wildlife range was to be managed: preserving the "unique wildlife, wilderness and recreational values" of the region (1169). During the period from 1960 to 1979, the U.S. Department of the Interior managed the Range in a fashion congruent with the intent of that statement, in spite of the vast natural resources discovered near Prudhoe Bay (Grover 1169). According to Weaver and Asmus (2006), the Prudhoe Bay oil field is the largest oil field in the United States. Not surprisingly, these resources attracted a great deal of attention from commercial interests, but Stanke notes that the fact that the Refuge exists at all is "the deliberate result of United States wilderness-preservation policy in place since the 1950s" (906).

In his aptly titled essay "Like Wilderness, but Need Oil? Securing America's Future Energy Act Puts Little between Accident-Prone Oil Companies and the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge," Stanke (2002) reports that the U.S. Senate narrowly rejected a bill known as "Securing America's Future Energy," or SAFE, which would have lifted the oil drilling ban on an ecologically critical section of the ANWR in May 2002. Nevertheless, there remains a fundamental desire on the part of many Americans to become more energy self-sufficient, and the abundant oil reserves available in the ANWR suggest that this type of legislation is a matter of when, not if. For example, Hertsgaard (2003) reports that, "Even as environmental groups fundraise and Democratic senators threaten to filibuster over Alaska, the [Bush] Administration has pursued a less-noticed but equally destructive aspect of its energy plan: encouraging drilling and mining of millions of acres of public land in the West, including national monument areas. Court rulings have blocked much of the Administration's efforts — so far" (15).

When the ANWR legislation was passed, Congress decided to wait to determine whether the 1.55 million acres of ANWR's coastal plain should also be designated a wilderness, pending the outcome of additional research concerning the environmental impact of oil drilling on the Alaskan North Slope (Stanke 905). According to Herndon, "Most of the original Arctic National Wildlife Range was subsequently designated wilderness, but under the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA), part of it was placed in a sort of legal limbo, to further study its oil and gas potential" (72). Stanke further explains that "Congress included section 1002 of ANILCA, which requires the Interior Secretary to thoroughly research the environmental ramifications of developing the ANWR Coastal Plain, to help Congress decide whether to permit oil and gas leasing" (905).

The 1002 Area and the Debate Over Development

The ANWR Coastal Plain is commonly known as the "1002 Area," named after that section of the legislation. The research mandated by Section 1002 is intended to determine whether the plain will remain off-limits to future development as a federally protected wilderness or be transformed into an industrial oil development and production complex (Stanke 905). As Stanke notes, "Both sides of this controversy have strong arguments because the 1002 Area possesses both tremendous ecological significance and potential as an important source of oil and natural gas" (906).

Indeed, in the wake of September 11 and rising energy prices, the call has been made to use the nation's own resources to their best advantage. According to Dunn (2001), "The most controversial element of the new Bush strategy involves the opening of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling and development. Dubbed 'the Serengeti of Alaska' by biologists, the refuge is North America's most diverse, intact, naturally functioning community of arctic and subarctic ecosystems" (2). Stanke similarly notes that "Questions of national security were bandied about in reference to the ANWR oil issue at the time of SAFE's passage [by the U.S. House of Representatives] before September 11, 2001. Such concerns took on increased urgency following the terrorist attacks, which seem to have been motivated partly by the oil-guarding U.S. military presence in the Middle East" (905).

Conclusion

The research showed that ongoing efforts to open up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to further development of its known and expected oil and gas reserves have been supported by proponents claiming such development will have a minimal environmental impact and will help the United States become more energy self-reliant. While energy independence is a laudable goal, the answer is not Alaska but rather alternative energy sources and more fuel-efficient vehicles — initiatives that have been stalled by automobile manufacturers and politicians for the past several decades. The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is a one-of-a-kind region of the country and should not be treated as an energy piggybank to be exploited at the whims of politicians and industrialists. If that exploitation succeeds, future generations of Americans will likely regard it as a profound mistake, because the environmental damage will be irreversible and new technologies will likely have made such exploitation unnecessary. In the final analysis, the U.S. Congress set aside the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for sound reasons, and those reasons remain just as valid today.