Republicans in Congress are preparing for another salvo in their ongoing battle to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to oil and gas development. The 1.5 million acre region of northeastern Alaska may hold anywhere from zero to 16 billion barrels of recoverable oil, depending on who you ask. It is also home to a major caribou herd that supports the subsistence lifestyles of local Alaska Natives, and is the primary habitat of many internationally recognized endangered species.
The government’s concerns over the nation’s dependence on foreign oil and the fallout of a possible upcoming war with Iraq, and Alaskan concerns over diminishing tax revenue from the Prudhoe Bay oilfields, are cited by some as reasons for supporting the opening of the wildlife preserve. Environmentalist groups warn that drilling will irrevocably damage the already fragile ecosystem, and some Alaskan Native and Canadian aboriginal groups have emphasized the severe threat development would pose to the porcupine caribou herd, on which they rely heavily for subsistence.
Legislative efforts to open ANWR have a long history. President Clinton vetoed a spending bill that would have allowed drilling in the refuge, and last year another effort failed with a 54-46 Senate vote against the plan. Joseph Lieberman and John Kerry, Democratic presidential hopefuls, have both stated that they will filibuster any bill to open ANWR. With a Republican majority of only 51 seats, it is unlikely the GOP would be able to muster the 60 votes needed to defeat such a move. However, many speculate that the Republicans will attach ANWR drilling to a federal budget reconciliation bill, which may not be filibustered. In that case, the Democrats would have to garner 51 votes to stop the legislation. Alaska Senator Ted Stevens, renowned since Alaska gained statehood for bringing oil money into the state, has pledged to make opening ANWR his top priority in 2003.
Public opinion in Alaska is mixed, with many Alaskans, including Alaska Natives, coming down in favor of opening ANWR, and many against it. There is widespread concern over the economic repercussions of the decline in oil production in Prudhoe Bay, one of the richest, most profitable fields ever discovered. Lord John Brown, chief executive of BP, which recently pulled out of a consortium exploring development in ANWR, has called Alaska a “declining oil province” that has become “too expensive.”
With the threat of diminishing Prudhoe Bay oil reserves and oil company layoffs, the state is searching for other ways to address its tax revenue shortfall. A proposed natural gas pipeline, discussed for decades, has been deemed uneconomical by BP, ExxonMobil, and Philips Alaska. A recent extension of the federal lease for the 800-mile Trans Alaska Pipeline from Prudhoe Bay to Valdez offers hope, but the pipeline is now running at less than half capacity, delivering only one million barrels a day (about 17% of current U.S. oil production). Drilling in ANWR, many Alaskans hope, could help fill the pipeline again and bring jobs and much needed investment.
Opposition to drilling has come from a wide range of influential environmental groups and from many residents, especially Gwich’in tribes in Alaska and Canada’s Northwest Territories (NWT). William Greenland of Inuvik, NWT, recently traveled across the U.S. as part of the Caribou Commons project to raise awareness of Gwich’in ways of life, and the serious threat development of ANWR poses to them. The traditional Gwich’in diet is 75% caribou. Without a pristine ANWR, the porcupine caribou herd critical to Gwich’in subsistence would likely be diminished and diverted, Greenland says. Polar bears and other species would also be at risk. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service agrees, noting that area “1002,” the official designation of the region, is essential to subsistence hunting and “ecological integrity” and would be threatened by development.
A critical issue, and one of contention, is just how large the oil reserves in ANWR actually are. A recent EPA study found that media reports have generally exaggerated the size of reserves by as much as a factor of three, with news agencies citing numbers as high as 16 billion barrels. In truth, the range is much lower, the EPA says, somewhere between zero and 5.6 billion barrels at 1996 prices. The U.S. Geological Survey has produced similar numbers.
However, with the current higher prices and more advanced drilling and exploration technology developed since 1996, some claim the amount of recoverable oil could increase to 10 billion barrels or possibly more, still far lower than numbers cited in most media reports. With an optimistic estimate of 5.3 billion barrels, the entire production from ANWR would supply U.S. oil needs for nine months. A common misconception is that drilling removes all the oil from a field. Instead, the numbers applied to oil reserves reflect how much oil it is economically feasible to extract at current or expected prices, given the most recent technology. This is why, even if substantial reserves in ANWR are found, the amount of recoverable oil could in fact turn out to be zero.
Many environmental groups have pointed out that the U.S. could meet its goal of reduced reliance on foreign oil in any number of other ways, most involving efforts at conservation and limiting wasteful energy usage. Joy Bergey of the Pennsylvania Interfaith Global Climate Change Campaign argues that more efficient car tires, or even simply ensuring existing tires are properly inflated, would save as much oil as ANWR would produce. Also, if corporate average fuel efficiency (CAFE) were increased from 27.5 mpg to 39 mpg, we would have no need to develop ANWR, Bergey claimed.
