bechtelANWR

The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) has been a subject for debate for many years. It has been viewed both as a critical point for oil drilling and for environmental protection. Many believe that if drilling takes place in ANWR it will jeopardize the fragile wildlife populations the live there and cause more harm than it is worth. Drilling could cause major damage to the environment, not only through the mining and production of oil, but with possible oil spills and pollutant discharges into the environment. After many years of back and forth political battle over the issue, it had appeared to have fallen off of the table. It wasn’t until recent elections and greater instability in the Middle East that this issue was once again brought up for discussion. The reason for such hot debate over the issue is the United States’ current lack of energy security. We are heavily reliant upon third world countries for oil and this causes many international difficulties for us. The hope is that in opening up ANWR to oil drilling we can alleviate some of this. While geologists think that more accessible oil deposits reside in ANWR than in any other part of the US it is not certain how much oil is really there or if it can even be harvested effectively. Those holding stake in this debate are the U.S. Government and different offices, oil companies, the local wildlife, wildlife organizations (especially the US Fish and Wildlife Services), those who depend on oil products, and the Alaskan citizens. Some of the sub-issues that must be addressed are: How will wildlife populations be affected? Can the oil be recovered safely and efficiently from the reserve? What infrastructure must be put in place first? Who will benefit from this resource? What externalities might it create? What problems will it alleviate and exactly how helpful will it be? None of the questions can be answered easily, but we do provide evidence in support of both sides and compare their effectiveness. The best source of pro-drilling information is anwr.org. This site was produced by a lobby group supported by four major oil corporations operating on Alaska's North Slope (BP, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, and ChevronTexaco). It is very persuasive, but has a few holes. The site goes into a rather extensive analysis of the potential economic benefits that every single state could see from oil drilling in the region. The article also states other facts such as, “In 1980, the U.S. Geological Survey estimated the Coastal Plain could contain up to 17 billion barrels of oil and 34 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.” However, further down it states that nothing is certain on what the real quantities of fossil fuel in ANWR are and that only actual drilling will tell. Unfortunately, the exploration drilling alone could have a huge impact on the environment. Some of the most useful information found on this site is found in the “Top Ten Reason to Open the Coastal Plain” section, but these have some problems too. The number one reason presented is that only 8% of ANWR would be considered for oil exploration. This is referring to a 1.5 million acre on the [|northern coast of ANWR]. It also states that “less than 2000 acres of the over 1.5 million acres of the Coastal Plain would be affected” and that Alaska has a world-class oil spill response plan. 1.5 million acres is pretty tough to actually imagine is not something to sniffle at. Nevertheless, this is only the tip of the iceberg. The second reason given is that revenues to the State and Federal Treasury would be enhanced. Estimates are $4.2 billion, but based on the economic instability of other oil producing regions, this is not a very strong point. The third reason given is that between [|250,000 and 735,000 jobs] are expected to be created by development of the Coastal Plain. Another reason to open up the reserve to drilling that is given is that it would have no negative impact on animals. The evidence given for this is that caribou population which migrates through Prudhoe Bay has grown from 3000 animals to 32,000 animals and that the arctic oil fields have very healthy brown bear, fox and bird populations equal to their surrounding areas. Not surprisingly, fish are not part of this list. Also a different hypothesis for the explosive number caribou could be the killing off of one of their main predators. Lastly, a couple of other reasons given on the site are that advanced technology has greatly reduced the “footprint" of arctic oil development, but no examples of these great technological breakthroughs are given. Also apparently more than 75% of Alaskans favor exploration and production in ANWR including the Inupiat Eskimos who live in and near [|ANWR] support onshore oil development on the Coastal Plain. I’m sure this has somehow been economically motivated.  It is relatively easy to make a strong case against oil drilling in ANWR, especially after everything we have learned in class. Our oil addiction has caused an enormous amount of environmental and other problems. Hopefully ANWR won’t be the next. To provide the best argument against drilling I searched through sources that contained information which I did not already know about that could add another dimension to the problem. The best on I could find was an article called // ANWR Minority Views // and can be found in the Thirteenth edition of __Taking Sides__. What I liked about this article is that it looks at the very important legal issues surrounding drilling in the refuge. The last source dodged this subject. The meat of this document is a compilation of nine different pieces of regulation that are either in place now and oppose drilling or have been proposed and have major problems. The first legislation considered is the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 and the rules adopted by the Bureau of Land Management under the act. It is unclear whether this act is applicable to ANWR, but it could give leasing power to the bureau if applied. The second piece considered is what is known as “compatibility” determination. Under current law, the Secretary of the Interior may permit oil and gas development in a national wildlife refuge if it is “compatible” with the purposes for which the refuge was established. That is, if oil drilling can take place without harm of the wildlife populations. This point is still up for debate and impossible to actually prove, but proponents clearly don’t see it as a problem. Third, the National Environmental Policy Act requires that federal agencies contemplating a major federal action prepare an environmental impact statement and that it is kept up to date if changes to proposed action occur and considers reasonable alternatives. The first impact statement on oil development in ANWR was in 1987, which later had to be updated in 1992. Several groups, however, claim that the 1987 impact statement is sufficient for leasing purposes and that alternatives need not be considered in this case. Another piece of legislation opposing development of the refuge is the current laws requiring a comprehensive process for approving any transportation or utility system within conservation areas. This is obviously in place to protect the environment, but still many groups are looking for exemptions to speed up the process. Also, much of the legislation being proposed to allow drilling in ANWR contains a 2,000 acre limitation clause, restricting the surface acreage covered by oil and gas production. This appears to minimize the footprint the operations, but contains many loopholes. This only counts the area covered by pipeline supports and oil rigs, but does not account for the rest of the pipeline or the roads connecting the potential very spread out drill sites. Lastly, under current law, 90% of bonus, renal, and royalty receipts made through oil drilling on the reserve should go to the State of Alaska and the remaining to the US treasury. Groups are trying to flatten this out to be 50-50, however, which is a clear violation of the Alaska Statehood Act. As you can see there are many legal issues surrounding the plan to drill for oil in ANWR that have to be addressed and this is only the tip of the iceberg. Ultimately, most of these issues will be decided within the judicial system, which by itself can be problematic as we have already seen. The last source which I reviewed was the US Fish and Wildlife Service’s ANWR site. The US Fish and Wildlife Service is the federal agency responsible for managing the area. Their purpose is to protecting and maintaining and preserve the refuge. Despite what one would expect to be a strong bias against oil drilling this group takes a very neutral stance on the issue. In 1978 and 1979, as the U.S. House and Senate were debating the [|Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act] (ANILCA), the House passed legislation to designate the north part of the Arctic Refuge as wilderness, but the Senate wanted to keep the options open for oil development on the north coast of the Refuge. When ANILCA became law in 1980, most of the Refuge coastal plain was not designated wilderness. Instead, it was decided that only Congress could decide whether to allow oil exploration and drilling in the area. Section 1003 of ANILCA reads "production of oil and gas from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is prohibited and no leasing or other development leading to production of oil and gas from the [Refuge] shall be undertaken until authorized by an act of Congress." Because of this 1980 law, the decision about development or protection of this northern part of the Arctic Refuge rests in the hands of the US Congress. Another interesting fact is that scientists don’t believe there are any species in the refuge that are at risk of extinction. This can be used in an argument by the affirmative side because the area is clearly not as sensitive as many others. Sources: Arctic Power. "Background." // Arctic National Wildlife Refuge //. 2005. Web. 01 Apr. 2011. . Arctic Refuge. "Questions and Answers." // Arctic National Wildlife Refuge //. US Fish and Wildlife Service, 07 Oct. 2010. Web. 01 Apr. 2011. . Bingaman, Jeff, et al. "ANWR Minority Views." // Taking Sides //. Ed. Thomas A. Easton. Thirteenth ed. NY: McGraw-Hill, 2010. Print.