ANWR development arguments and their limitations

Meanwhile, the Gwich'in people, who live in villages and towns along the southern borders of ANWR and (mainly) in adjacent Canada, depend heavily upon the porcupine caribou and have a stated position adamantly opposed to development in the 1002 Area, where the herd usually calves.² Yet, the Gwich'in are themselves involved in petroleum operations elsewhere, leasing tribal land and providing oilfield services in neighboring Canada (Mackenzie Delta area), for precisely the same reasons that the Inupiat favor development on their lands—building a modern economic base for the long-term benefit and advancement of their people.³

Such realities show that the controversy cannot be reduced to a crude "people vs. animals" antagonism. Oil there certainly is, but not oil alone—there is also the Alaskan economy, jobs in the US, import dependence, and consumer protection. Wildlife, too, embodies much else: opportunities for research; preservation and conservation; unique experience; a nation's self-image.

None of these considerations is trivial; all, to varying degrees, are essential to a vital, advanced society. Thus, if there be an overriding theme to consider, it might be this: What course of action is likely to provide the maximum benefit to public welfare? Or, in terms once posed by the social philosopher John Stuart Mill: What choice might offer the greatest good to the greatest number?

At this point in the history of the debate, it makes good sense to stand back and evaluate some of the principal arguments that have had and will continue to have a direct impact on this theme. It is to further such effort that the following discussion is intended in this, the conclusion of this 4-part series.

Development arguments

Arguments for development tend to focus on economic and political benefits, and on technological advances that would presumably minimize impacts on wildlife.

They begin with the importance of petroleum, which constitutes a commodity unlike any other, one whose integrated use in nearly every aspect of daily life bestows upon it a very high value.

From this perspective, it is argued, petroleum is a form of crystallized power in advanced society. Thus, the US needs to maximize its reserves, and its ability to produce those reserves, and to keep them affordable to its citizens.

Economic arguments

Economic arguments invoked from this view claim that development of Area 1002 will:

*Provide new jobs for the US—estimates have varied from less than 50,000 to over 730,000⁴—through the direct and indirect effects of bringing online a major new hydrocarbon complex.⁵

*Improve the balance of trade for the US through reduction in the nation's import bill (every barrel of oil produced from Area 1002 = one less that must be bought overseas).

*Provide a strong stimulus to the Alaskan economy (including the Inupiat people), which has seen a significant decrease in revenue since 1988, when North Slope production peaked. Estimates include up to 25,000 jobs and annual revenues of up to $1.5 billion (using a 90-10 royalty split with the federal government, and a price of $24/bbl).⁶

*Pose a needed buffer against future oil supply crises and price spikes, which, history assures, are likely to happen.

Political arguments

These suggest that development would achieve or promote the following:

• Reduce dependence on overseas sources of oil, especially "problem states" mainly outside the western hemisphere.
• Strengthen national security, by increasing domestic supply and thus the reliability of energy resources.
• Recognize that Alaskan citizens favor development, including the entire Alaskan delegation to Congress, plus (as polls indicate) a majority of the state population.

Technological arguments

Past and present advances in petroleum-related technology have been used to support the following points:

• Prudhoe Bay and the Trans-Alaska Pipeline, after 35 years, have not seriously degraded native wildlife. In particular, the Central Arctic caribou herd, which calves partly in the developed area, has grown from 5,000 in the early 1970s to over 31,800 in 2003.
• Prudhoe Bay therefore shows the success of regulated, restricted, and monitored development, with technology continually adapted to minimize impacts.
• In 1002 Area, impacts would be even smaller, due to these advances:

—Use of horizontal drilling, including multilateral wells with long-reach boreholes, that would lessen the total number of pads, roads, and infrastructure.

—Reduction in drilling pad size, to as small as less than 10 acres from 65 acres initially.

—Reduction of the total development area to 2,000 acres.

—More precise targeting, through use of 3D seismic, raising drilling success and thus decreasing the total number of wells.

—Re-injection of most drilling wastes, thus reducing need for waste pits.

—Restriction of activity to the winter months, with use of ice roads (Fig. 1) that melt in spring (this is already done) and low-impact, flat-tire vehicles (rolligons).

—Other advances (e.g., ice pads for drilling, airports) stimulated by need to improve operations within limits posed by environmental restrictions.

Difficulties, limitations

What problems might exist for these claims?

Let us take them in order. There are no strong counter-arguments to the importance of petroleum in the contemporary world. Certainly it is a limited resource, and other energy sources need to be advanced. Yet no amount of wishful thinking can change the realities of current use or how such use seems likely to remain strong for several decades at least.

The argument for maximized production and lower prices, meanwhile, is not necessarily a strong one for the industry. Much of the 1990s saw energy companies suffer direly from the effects of low prices—loss of jobs, reduced profits, a fervor for acquisitions and mergers, decline in both domestic and foreign investment, and, at the same time, consumer complacency and a reduced level of federal support for alternative energy sources. The result has been a reduced ability overall to deliver resources.

Opening the 1002 Area to development would undoubtedly create new jobs for the US, but how many?

Again, debate surrounds the question. The figure of 735,000 (produced in 1990) has been seriously questioned and now appears exaggerated.

The US Bureau of Labor Statistics has estimated that 3.89 jobs are "required" per $1 million of sales by petroleum producers, and 16.53 jobs per $1 million of sales by oil-gas service companies: These numbers suggest that for development costs of around $6.5 billion (for a 2.4 billion bbl recoverable resource, representing the USGS 95th fractile), roughly 60,000 jobs would result, while a $14 billion outlay (5.24 billion bbl resource = mean fractile) would hypothetically yield 130,000 jobs.⁷

Obviously, at greater development costs, more employment would presumably occur. A suggested overall range might be 75,000-150,000—much or most of which would be absorbed by already employed (qualified) personnel.

As for the claims regarding improved balance of trade, stimulus to the Alaskan economy and Inupiat welfare, and an increased buffer against future supply crises, there are no real counter-arguments to be offered. These points must stand pretty much unqualified.

Would production from Area 1002 reduce imports?

Yes, but not a great deal. First, let us do away with the idea that "1002 reserves equal only six months' supply for the US." This is misleading and irrelevant; no major industrialized nation would ever cease all imports in this fashion.

A more meaningful comparison is between current import levels and possible production scenarios. Average imports of crude for the US, at yearend 2002, were 1.5-1.2 million b/d for major suppliers (Saudi Arabia, Mexico, Canada, and Venezuela, in descending rank) and 570,000-230,000 b/d for second-tier suppliers (Nigeria, Iraq, UK, Norway, Angola, and Colombia).⁸

Thus, based on the scenarios discussed in Part 2 of this series, production at 600,000 to 1.3 million b/d from Area 1002 would "replace" either one major supplier or 2-4 second-tier suppliers for 12-20 years. This is significant, to be sure.

Will it eliminate or reverse long-term growth in imports?

Hardly. These are predicted to increase from 9.1 million b/d at yearend 2002 to 12.4 million b/d by 2015.⁹ At peak production, the 1002 Area might be able to offset about 10% of all imports for a few years.

Such estimates cast doubt on some political arguments. Area 1002 production would not really lessen US overall dependence on foreign sources (including the Middle East), especially in the long-run. Thus, the national security claim is also dubious—except with regard to protection against temporary supply crises.

On the other hand, however, the assertion that Alaskans tend to favor drilling (carried out in an environmentally sensitive manner) appears true, based on recent polls. Certainly, the issue of development is a national one, concerning federal lands, yet Alaskans are surely those most directly affected by any decision either way.

What, then, of the technology arguments?

There is much truth to them, with important qualification. Prudhoe Bay has had many small-scale spills and, through construction of roads, pads, and facilities, as well as seismic operations, has altered the coastal plain tundra over a total area of several hundred square miles.

Yet, it remains true that no serious detriment to wildlife, at the herd level, appears to have occurred. Improvements in drilling and production technology, meanwhile, do indeed promise a smaller footprint overall, as pioneered at Alpine field (discovered 1995; see Fig. 2). However, there are important limits to this:

1. Use of 3D seismic in Area 1002 would involve more dense surveys, thus the potential for increased tundra impacts;

2. Production facilities would likely be more dispersed than at Prudhoe Bay due to smaller and more numerous fields (see Part 2);

3. This would mean a more complex network of pipelines, raising the total land area affected by development.¹⁰

Finally, an important consideration left out of many discussions is reclamation—what is generally referred to as "dismantlement, removal, and restoration" (DR&R). Most DR&R is related to gravel pads and roads and, to a lesser extent, local oil spills.

Studies show that, due to the very brief growing season and nitrogen-poor soils, tundra recovery is slow and often requires significant assistance (e.g., use of fertilizers, re-planting). Research has identified successful strategies and indicates that recovery can be achieved to high levels.¹¹ However, this has not been the case in all situations. Moreover, policy questions remain.

As highlighted by a recent GAO report, the target condition for DR&R remains poorly defined in state and federal regulations;¹² thus, so do related costs. In all likelihood, standards would be specified for 1002 Area development (e.g., as per GAO recommendations, "to a condition that will sustain previous uses").

The move in recent years away from gravel-based operations and toward use of ice roads, ice pads, and ice airstrips defines an effort by the industry to reduce environmental impacts significantly, and thus the costs of reclamation. This has raised questions of water availability. Yet, the more pressing issue appears to be that of DR&R target condition, which, for the entire North Slope, remains unresolved at present.

Nondevelopment arguments

There are two basic positions within the nondevelopment stance.

One of these focuses on wildlife specifically, and its major concern is the disruption of habitat and native species. The other position argues on behalf of wilderness (wildlife + landscape); its concern is the loss of a pristine wild area, whose essential value would be destroyed by any level of development.

These two positions are sometimes mixed. Both maintain the unique, largely irreplaceable value of the 1002 Area. However, whereas the wildlife position emphasizes mainly scientific and ethical worth, the wilderness perspective stresses a complex blend of recreational, aesthetic, moral, and cultural-symbolic values.

Both positions, it should be noted, are more intangible than the pro-development stance, tending to be supported not by numbers, dollars, and percentages but instead by concepts, ideals, and deep-seated sentiment.

This does not in the least render their arguments slight or frivolous—on the contrary, it gives them great weight within the larger context of American cultural and historical attitudes toward nature. Indeed, the values involved are no less powerful and enduring than are those in favor of "progress" and resource exploitation.

Wildlife arguments

This position begins with the reality that the 1002 Area is a major nexus of biological activity on the North Slope and, as such, merits these claims:

• The 1002 Area offers study of a special, largely intact ecosystem, a "natural laboratory." The complexity of this ecosystem, as well as its restricted aerial extent, render it of high research interest and potential vulnerability.
• Because of its wildlife resources, the area deserves to be put high on the list of those lands whose stewardship should focus on conservation and preservation.
• Preserving the 1002 Area as refuge promotes the US, domestically and internationally, as "doing good works," as deeply concerned with the environment, with preserving the living heritage of the natural world.

Wilderness arguments

If the wildlife position argues from the combined standpoint of research and ethics, claims made in favor of wilderness come at the issue from a more individualistic perspective.

These arguments start with the idea that the 1002 Area is worth far more to humankind in its pure, wild form (the form it has had for millennia) than as a temporary "container" of natural resources. Its preservation in an undeveloped state would:

• Conserve for future generations a setting where wilderness exists in a wholly special way (e.g., compared with other wilderness areas), including use for subsistence by the Gwitch'in people.
• Preserve an important source of moral lessons, such as

—Humility—as a counter to ready gratification, overaffluence.

—Beauty—the sense of awe, wonder, the sublime (scenic values).

—Appreciation for one's place in nature, the cosmos.

—Virtues derived from solitude, exploration, self-challenge.

• Provide a place of spiritual retreat, for

—Meditation, on the realities and qualities of nature, its cleansing, regenerative powers, forces that govern the earth.

—Inspiration, through contact with timeless, universal realities and values.

—Rebirth, by getting in deeper touch with the world, one's self.

• Offer a "museum of cultural heritage" for all Americans, a piece of the frontier, the pioneer past.
• Protect a landscape that embodies many specifically American qualities, such as self-reliance, hardiness, simplicity, freedom, and individualism.¹³
• Conserve a place that poses a much needed counter to an otherwise wasteful, overconsuming, and acquisitive society.

Difficulties and limitations

What important shortcomings do these arguments have?

For the wildlife position, the assertions made are durable, positive claims, based to an important degree on the fact that the refuge is currently the most biologically diverse conservation unit in the northern circumpolar region. In this respect, counterclaims that the 1002 Area represents only a very small portion of ANWR (7.7%) are largely irrelevant.

Science, stewardship, and ethical image are all declarations made on behalf of a large public. Moreover, given the focus of this position—on protecting wildlife and habitat—there is room for compromise. The wildlife position, that is, allows that development may occur if conducted in a manner that minimizes impacts and uses the best DR&R strategies.

The wilderness position, on the other hand, is opposed to any such weighing of risks and benefits. There are several limitations to this position, as specifically applied to the 1002 Area.

First, though most of the area is wild, and certainly helps support the Gwitch'in, it is not pristine terrain; it has a town (Kaktovik), with businesses, homes, and an airport. Moreover, the exceptional qualities of the area must be measured against the fact that there are already over 58 million acres of designated wilderness in Alaska—55% of the total for the US as a whole and 15.4% of the total state. This does not at all erase the argument for exceptionalism of the 1002 Area, but it does raise the bar for such a claim. This may indeed occur, if all of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska is opened to development (as of this writing, the northeastern portion has been made available to leasing and drilling), as this would leave the 1002 Area the only remaining section of the North Slope off-limits to development.

Second, the richness of moral and spiritual values to be gained from this tract of land—a richness that cannot be denied—is available only to actual visitors, a very small part of the public consisting mostly of affluent individuals. Moreover, the relevant values are not themselves universal—they are not shared by all cultures, nor are they necessarily relevant to significant portions of the American public (e.g., inner city populations, rural poor, recent immigrants).

Finally, all of these considerations, as well as the scenic value of the 1002 Area, are greatly reduced for three-quarters of the year, from September to May, when the area is frozen, snow-covered, and inhospitable. This does not, in and of itself, curtail the aesthetic or symbolic worth of this terrain (beauty is certainly not a required trait of "wilderness"). Yet it does place limits on the strength of this claim as applied against the value of resource extraction.

What, then, of the cultural arguments? These, too, have their strengths and their limitations. Again, they are not trivial in appeal. Yet they often employ a kind of para-religious or biblical terminology ("Uuntrammeled by the touch of modern manU" "Utype of setting where American identity was forgedU") and thus pose ANWR, in however contradictory fashion, both as a type of sacred garden and lost fragment of a heroic past.

While these are certainly images that resonate with a sizable segment of the American public, they are problematic, too. Ideas of "frontier" and "pioneer" connect with a period of westward expansionism, the destruction of native peoples, and colonization of their lands. There is not much in the evocations of "our rugged past" that seems pertinent to black, Asian, or Latino ethnic groups, either.

An even more difficult aspect to the wilderness position, in the specific case of Area 1002, is its tendency to defend ANWR in terms of antimodern sentiment (e.g., "Uour profligate, overconsuming society, with its lust for autos and oilU"). This type of rhetoric suffers from its rejection of the very civilization on which any refuge must inevitably depend for its existence.

Nostalgia for a hardier, simpler, more elemental past may have its attractions, but it can easily become a source of historical distortion, sanctimony, and aggressive sentimentality that ultimately weaken the overall case for protecting Area 1002.

Some of the arguments regarding moral, spiritual, and aesthetic values have been used to support wilderness generally. They are powerful, important claims, applied successfully and with reason in many cases. But the 1002 Area is indeed unique and shifts the relevant terms a bit.

Such claims, after all, must be measured against the probability of an enormous natural resource of great value to a very large public. From this perspective, the wilderness position may appear too uncompromising, the burden of justification too high. In a complex and uncertain world, where petroleum is of crucial value, wilderness purism may not be a sustainable argument in the long run.

A final point

The main arguments in favor of development appear practical, concrete. Those supporting the pro-refuge stance seem based on "intangibles"—beliefs, philosophy, ethics. In fact, however, all positions are value-laden and value-driven, whether one places the "higher good" in resource development, state's rights, wildlife conservation, or wilderness.

The fundamental question therefore becomes either how to choose between these competing value systems—which offers the greater public benefit?—or, how to find and manage compatibility between most of them. In real world terms, none of these value systems seems innately superior to another.

Prudhoe Bay has proven that it is possible for development and wildlife to coexist on some portion of the coastal plain. Technology has made significant gains, and these cannot be realistically denied.

Are there real vulnerabilities for the 1002 Area? Certainly there are, and these, too, cannot be brushed aside. The facts, and the best interpretations from them, do not make the choice any clearer today than in the past.

One final point of realism should be made. No withdrawal of the 1002 Area from development, even if by "wilderness" designation, is truly final. Future conditions may lead Congress to reverse or amend any decision of this type—if sufficient urgency or reason is felt to exist.

There are those who maintain (quietly or not) that the ultimate destiny of Area 1002 is already determined: Development will one day occur, perhaps after world depletion begins and the value of oil reaches an unforgivable height, for there is simply too much of it here.

Whether this be true, one thing is certain: Debate over this area will not cease, no matter what decision is eventually made, or not made. Fifty years of postponed policy over its dispensation is proof enough of this. The issue of ANWR and the 1002 Area will be with us for some time yet. F

References

1. Information relevant to the Inupiat position can be found online: (http: //www.kaktovik.com/arctic.htm).

2. The Gwitch'in position on development is online: (http://www.alaska.net/~gwichin/).

3. Park, Gary, "Gwich'in, Ensign link up for new Mackenzie Delta drilling company," Petroleum News Alaska, Vol. 6, No. 10 (Sept. 30, 2001); available online: (http://www.petroleumnewsalaska.com/pnarch/010930-01.html). Also see article by Tom Knudsen, Sacramento Bee, online: (http: //www.bluecorncomics.com/stype1c8.htm).

4. The number of jobs that might result from development has itself been a topic of much controversy, as suggested by this wide range in estimates. A fairly balanced discussion of the subject in general can be found in: Gelb, B.A., "ANWR Development: Economic Impacts," Congressional Research Service Report, RS21030, updated Dec. 3, 2001, 6 p.

5. A number of major labor organizations support development. A list of these organizations, along with relevant documents outlining their stance, is online: (www.anwr.org). This is a strongly prodevelopment site.

6. These figures are taken from the 24-page report, "ANWR and the Alaska Economy: An Economic Impact Assessment," produced by the McDowell Group in September 2002, available online: (http://www.anwr.org/ features/pdfs/McDowell_ANWR_ Final.pdf).

7. These figures are from Gelb, B.A., 2001 (see Reference 4).

8. "Petroleum Supply Monthly," US Energy Information Administration, March 2003, available online: (http://www.eia.doe.gov/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/petroleum_supply_monthly/psm.html).

9. The Energy Information Administration, in its Annual Energy Outlook 2003 (available online: http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/index.html), estimates that imports will grow overall to 12.4 million b/d by 2015 from 9.1 million b/d at yearend 2002.

10. The "2,000 acre" figure for total development, included in recently proposed congressional legislation to allow drilling, includes pipeline infrastructure only to the degree that it is in actual contact with the ground surface—in other words, only the pedestal contacts used in permafrost areas. Thus, this acreage number may well significantly underestimate the total area actually covered by development.

11. Much of the relevant research in this area has been conducted by Jay D. McKendrick, professor emeritus, University of Alaska, Fairbanks. See, for example, his recent article: McKendrick, J.D., "Arctic tundra recovery from crude oil after 24 years, Prudhoe Bay," Agroborealis, Vol. 31, No. 1, 1999, pp. 28-35. In addition, an excellent summary of related information, with helpful links, can be found online: (www.hort.agri.umn,edu/h5015/01papers/peterson).

12. US General Accounting Office, "Alaska's North Slope: Requirements for Restoring Lands After Oil Production Ceases," Report GAO-02-357; Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 2002, 114 p., available online: (www.gao.gov).

13. The arguments based on "Americanness" and nationalism are expressed in the writings of the original founders of the ANWR vision (e.g., Lowell Sumner, Olaus and Margaret Murie), whose works continue to inspire contemporary proponents of wilderness. Such claims also exist in many recent opinion pieces and speeches. See, for example, the presentation by Roger Kaye and Jim Kurth (former manager of ANWR for the US Fish & Wildlife Service, 1995-2000) before the 6th World Wilderness Conference in 1998, available online: (http://alaska,fws.gov/nwr/arctic/indiacon.html).