Erin Flynn

November 27, 2001

The horrific events of September eleventh initially united our nation.  Political differences faded and there was an unprecedented wave of partisanship throughout the government.  A month later, this sense of unification has begun to crumble.  The Bush administration has opportunistically used this vulnerable time to further their agenda of opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for drilling.  The Refuge is not the solution to our country's grave oil dependency problems.  Our country needs to decrease our dependency on nonrenewable resources and increase energy efficiency.  It is imperative that the Refuge is not opened for oil exploration under the guise of national security.

The Refuge

Unfortunately, most of our nation's citizens will never have the opportunity to experience the Refuge for themselves so it is difficult to imagine the magnitude of what could be sacrificed.  The Refuge is 19.6-million acres,[1] one of the largest sanctuaries for Arctic animals on the planet.[2]  The oil industry has coveted one section of the Refuge for years - the Coastal Plain.  The Interior Department refers to the Coastal Plain as the "biological heart" of the Refuge.  The Coastal Plain consists of 1.5 million acres of the Refuge and offers critical birthing ground for Arctic wolves, polar bears, grizzlies, foxes, wolverines, golden eagles and snowy owls.[3]  Around 160 species of birds, including species that travel to all of the lower 48 states, rely on the coastal plain for nesting or breeding.[4]  The Refuge is also vital birthing ground for the vast herd of 130,000 Porcupine River caribou and the "highly" endangered shaggy musk ox.[5]

Not only animals depend on the vast wilderness of the Refuge for their existence.  The most passionate group against drilling are the Gwich'en people.  The Gwich'en people of Northeast Alaska and Northwest Canada have depended on the Porcupine River caribou herd for thousands of generations.[6]  The Gwich'en rely on the caribou herd for their existence including: food, tools, medicine, clothing, and an important link to their traditional culture.  The Gwich'en coexist with the caribou herd in the Refuge with the exception of the Coastal Plain, which the Gwich'en consider sacred.

The Industry's "Footprint"

Drilling advocates have glossed over potential problems, made grandiose promises about clean, improved technology, and insisted that the oil companies' presence will be a mere "footprint" on this vast Arctic wilderness.  Proponents of drilling have difficulty conceptualizing how the expansive Refuge and its inhabitants could be harmed by the oil industry's mere "footprint" presence in the comparatively small area of the Coastal Plain.  However, according to the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, even though oil and gas development has reduced some detrimental environmental effects, the industry still "remains an intrusive industrial process."[7]  The oil industry cannot gloss over what oil facilities really entail.  Prudhoe Bay, only sixty miles west of the Refuge, is indicative of the industry's "footprint."  A few decades ago Prudhoe Bay was a pristine wilderness similar to the Refuge.  Now, this gigantic oil complex has transformed 1,000 square miles of the fragile tundra ecosystem into a "sprawling industrial zone containing 1,500 miles of roads 1,400 producing wells, and pipelines and three jetports."[8]  Each year this "footprint" has produced numerous oil and petrochemical spills and vast amounts of drilling waste and garbage.[9]  These activities have an extremely detrimental impact on the surrounding ecosystem.

Indeed, the oil industry's track record is indicative of its dainty "footprint."  The four companies that have proposed drilling in the Refuge (Exxon, Mobil, Phillips Petroleum and Chevron) have a history of leaks, spills, violations, explosions and accidents.[10]  This dirty history has required the four companies to pay nearly $1 billion in penalties, fines and settlements.[11]  Together the four companies can claim responsibility for more than 150 oil spills over the past ten years and more than 100 Superfund sites.[12]

The Fish & Wildlife Service also paints a grim picture for the industry's potential "footprint" in the Refuge.  The coveted region of the Refuge is referred to as the 1002 area, after a section number in the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980.[13]  The U.S. Geological Survey indicates that, unlike the single massive field discovered at Prudhoe Bay, the potential oil reserves of the Coastal Plain may be located in "many small accumulations in complex geological formations."[14]  The Fish & Wildlife Service has determined that the 1002 area is likely to "require a large number of small production sites spread across the Refuge landscape, connected by an infrastructure of roads, pipelines, power plants, processing facilities, loading docks, dormitories, air strips, gravel pits, utility lines and landfills."[15]  The Fish & Wildlife Service has also expressed concern about the limited water resources in the 1002 area since oil drilling requires a substantial amount of water.[16]

The Fish & Wildlife Service expects that some of the cumulative biological consequences of oil industry's "footprint" in the Refuge will include: blocking, deflecting or disturbing of wildlife, loss of subsistence hunting opportunities, contamination of soil and water from fuel and oil spills, local acid rain and pollutant haze from methane, nitrogen oxides and particulate matter emissions.[17]  Biologists anticipate seismic exploration could agitate denning polar bears, which would result in the bears abandoning the cubs.[18]  Biologists also believe that the Porcupine caribou birthrate may decline by forty percent if the Coastal Plain is opened to drilling.[19]  Accordingly, drilling in the Coastal Plain could destroy a 20,000-year-old culture developed around the Porcupine River caribou.[20]

Current Political Environment

Drilling advocates have coveted the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for over a decade.  However, these advocates know that the Refuge can only be open for drilling with congressional approval.  Thus, drilling advocates gained an important new ally when President Bush began supporting their position.  President Bush included a provision to open the Refuge to oil exploration and development in the energy plan he submitted to Congress in May.  Bush refers to the Refuge as "the country's major untapped source of petroleum" and has confidently insisted that the Refuge can be drilled with no harm to the environment.[21]  Early August the House of Representatives passed an energy bill that called for opening the Refuge to oil and gas exploration drilling and production.  This provision was not too surprising in the Republican-controlled house.[22]  The drilling advocates' victory was partially a result of unions lobbying heavily in favor of drilling.  The Democrat-controlled Senate was initially much more supportive of protecting the Refuge but there is still concern that the unions' influence will split the Democrat's loyalty between labor and the environment.

After the September eleventh terrorist attacks, Congress underwent unprecedented partisanship.  A month later, this sense of unity has begun to crumble and in the words of Senate Majority leader, Tom Daschle, "[w]e're seeing Democrats and Republicans being Democrats and Republicans."[23]  Drilling advocates are opportunistically using the public's current fears about national security to further their goal of drilling in the Refuge.  Republican Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma made the first serve by attempting to attach the energy bill the House passed (which includes the drilling provision) onto the Defense Authorization bill to avoid a debate on the controversial energy bill.[24]  The Senate refused to add the energy provision onto the defense bill.[25]  Republican Senator Frank Murkowski, a huge proponent of drilling in the Refuge, uncharacteristically stated that including the energy provision in the defense bill "would be inappropriate and in poor taste" under current circumstances.[26]

On October 9th, Committee Chairman Senator Jeff Bingaman, a New Mexico Democrat, suspended the Senate Energy & Natural Resource Committee hearings on the energy legislation that includes the provision on drilling in the Refuge.[27]  Mr. Bingaman suspended the hearings by request of Senate Majority leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota.  Mr. Bingaman stated that they were suspending the discussion of the bill because they wanted to "avoid quarrelsome, divisive votes in committee," and that energy matters were beginning to occupy other committee's jurisdiction.[28]  Mr. Murkowski, Republican of Alaska, said that Democrats knew they were going to lose and accused them of attempting to rob President Bush of a victory.[29]  In response to the suspension, President Bush has begun promoting drilling in the Refuge as a national security issue in order to appeal to the nation's mixed emotions of vulnerability and patriotism.[30]  The Senate has a full schedule before its late autumn recess and it is unclear whether the bill will come to the floor before then.

The Refuge is Not the Solution to Our Nation's Oil Dependency

President Bush has stated, "the less dependent on foreign sources of crude oil, the more secure we are at home."[31]  In reality, the less dependent we are on any source of crude oil, foreign or domestic, the more secure our society is overall, war or not.  America's solution to energy problems is not to produce more but to consume less.  The United States has just five percent of the world's population yet accounts for more than one quarter of the world's total consumption.[32]  Other industrialized countries (without their own oil fields) have kept their import levels flat over the years through conservation measures and high fuel taxes.[33]

Opening the Refuge to drilling offers, at best, a band-aid solution to an enormous problem.  The most effective response to America's energy crisis is to boost the energy efficiency of homes, factories, vehicles, appliances and offices.[34]  Cleaner fuels from America's farms, better gas mileage and faster deployment of hybrid and fuel cell technologies will reduce our nation's demand for oil and gasoline.[35]  It is imperative to wean our dependency on nonrenewable sources and increase reliance on renewable energy sources such as solar and wind power.[36]  Drilling in the Refuge does not guarantee our national security or energy security.  At some point we are going to have to reduce our oil dependency - why not before the oil industry causes irreversible damage to pristine wilderness of the Refuge?

Number Discrepancy

There is a wide discrepancy in the numerical estimates that the opposing sides offer, as with any environmental controversy.  The first point of controversy is the number of gallons available for drilling.  The price of oil and the drilling cost are important factors in determining the amount of oil that is economically recoverable from the Refuge.  Drilling advocates claim that sixteen billion barrels are available for extraction, although the Fish & Wildlife Service explicitly states that the sixteen billion figure does not take the costs of developing the oil field into consideration.[37]  Environmentalists claim that the economically recoverable oil from the Refuge would only supply our country with nine months worth of oil.  This figure is based on present oil prices of $24 a barrel, which is subject to fluctuation.[38]

The second point of controversy is how quickly our oil-dependent country can benefit from the production.  According to environmentalists if we opened the area to oil development today, it would take seven to ten years for refuge crude to begin arriving at refineries.[39]  According to Marianne Kah, a chief economist at Conoco Company, there is a large lag time between drilling exploratory wells and production.  Delivering oil from the Refuge would entail "expanding the oil pipeline in Alaska to handle the extra volume, and then you would be sending the oil down at the soonest in three or four years."[40]  Senator Murkowski, long time drilling advocate who has joined the Bush administration's national security bandwagon, offers a remarkably short time to open the Refuge.  "Americans can respond to today's challenges and get the huge oil reserves under the Arctic coastal plain flowing safely in a minimum of one to two years."[41]  Since the Alaska's congressional delegates are advocating resumed sales of Alaskan oil to foreign countries, American consumers may never see the oil produced in Alaska.[42]

Number of gallons and numbers of years until production aside, the question of drilling in the Refuge comes down to our environmental principles as a country.  Mr. Murkowski is willing to oversimplify the issue as obligations to national security versus obligations to extreme environmentalists.[43]  Senator Murkowski's oversimplification is an attempt to appeal to the country's vulnerability and surge of patriotism right now.  Opening the Refuge can do nothing for the immediate national security issues, even if we used Senator Murkowski's numbers.  It is imperative that the Refuge is not opened to oil exploration and drilling under the guise of national security.

Conclusion

The fate of the Refuge at this time is unpredictable due to political uncertainty.  It is imperative that our citizens do not complacently allow the Bush administration to make drastic sweeping changes to the status of the Refuge under the guise of national security.  Our government should not be allowed to sacrifice one of the most expansive sanctuaries for Arctic animals in the world.[44]  Our country's pristine Arctic wilderness could be destroyed for the profit of the oil industry and the benefit of foreign consumers.  The Refuge is not the solution to our energy security or national security problem.  Our country needs to respond to our energy security problems by decreasing dependency on nonrenewable resources and looking to more effective, long-term solutions.  As New York Republican Representative Sherwood Boehlart recently stated, "I would suggest that the ultimate symbol of a patriot is to protect our precious natural resources.  This is not a time to abandon our principles."[45]

______________

[1] Don't Allow Big Oil to Drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, at http://www.defenders.org/wildlife/arctic/print/overview.html, (last visited Oct. 15, 2001) [hereinafter Defenders].

[2] Natural Resource Defense Council, Arctic National Wildlife Refuge: The Bush, NRDC, at http://www.nrdc.org/land/wilderness.arctic.asp (last visited Oct. 14, 2001) [hereinafter NRDC].

[3] Defenders, supra note 1.

[4] Defenders, supra note 1.

[5] NRDC, supra note 2.

[6] Alaska Wilderness League, The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, People of the Caribou: The Gwich'en, at http://www.alaskawild.org/arcticrefuge_intro.html#people, (last visited Oct. 14, 2001) [hereinafter Alaska Wilderness League].

[7] U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Potential Impacts of Oil and Gas Development on Refuge Reserves, at http://arctic.fws.gov/issues1.htm, (last visited Oct. 14, 2001) [hereinafter FWS].

[8] NRDC, supra note 2.

[9] Id.

[10] Press Release, State PIRG's Arctic Wilderness Campaign, Dirty Four Told to Stay Out of the Arctic Refuge (Mar. 22, 2001) at http://www.pirg.org/enviro/arctic/caribou/media/release3_22_01.html.

[11] Id.

[12] Id.

[13] US Geological Society, Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, (Apr. 2001), at http://geology.cr.usgs.gov/pub/fact-sheets/fs-0028-01/fs-0028-01.pdf.
[14] FWS, supra note 7.

[15] Id.

[16] See id.

[17] Id.
[18] Defenders, supra note 1.
[19] Id.

[20] Alaska Wilderness League, supra note 6.
[21] H. Josef Hebert, Bush Savors Victory on Energy Bill, Speakout.com (Aug. 2, 2001), at http://speakout.com/cgi-bin/udt/im.display.printable?client.id=speakout&story.id=10022.
[22] See Platts, US House of Representatives passes ANWR energy bill but Senate Democrats promise a filibuster to halt process, at http://www.platss.com/features/ANWR/index.shtml, (Aug. 20, 2001).

[23] Adam Clymer, Congress Resumes Partisan Warfare, N.Y. TIMES, (Oct. 14, 2001), available at http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/14/politics/14MEMO.html?searchpv=nytToday&pagewan.
[24] Environment New Service, U.S. Senate Rejects Arctic Drilling Amendment, (Oct. 3, 2001), at http://ens.lycos.com/ens/oct2001/2001L-10-03-04.html [hereinafter ENS].

[25] Id.

[26] Jeff Benner, Alaska Refuge Drilling May Ride on Military Funding Bill, Wired News, (Sept. 20, 2001), at http://ens.lycos.com/ens/sep2001/2001l%2009%2020%2004.html.
[27] Katharine Q. Seelye, Bush Promotes Energy Bill as Security Issue, N.Y. TIMES, (Oct. 12, 2001), available at http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/12/politics/12ENR.html?searchpv=past7days&pagewan.
[28] Id.

[29] Id.

[30] See id.

[31] Robert Schlesinger, Citing oil need, Bush pushes energy bill, BOSTON GLOBE, (Oct. 12, 2001), available at http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/285/nation/citingoilneedBushpushesenergybill.
[32] Neela Banerjee, Fears, Again of Oil Supplies at Risk, N.Y. TIMES, Oct. 14, 2001, available at http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/14/business/14OILL.html?searchpv=nytToday&pagewan.
[33] Id.

[34] ENS, supra note 24.

[35] Natural Resource Defense Council, Reducing U.S. Oil Dependence: A Real Energy Security Policy, at http://www.nrdc.org/air/energy/fensec.asp (last visited Oct. 14, 2001) (offering many valuable suggestions for short and long term solutions for U.S. Energy Security).
[36] Id.
[37] U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, How Much Oil is in the Arctic Refuge, at http://arctic.fws.gov/issues1.htm, (last visited Oct. 14, 2001).

[38] See id.  (stating that there is a 50% chance of finding a nine month's supply of oil in the 1002 Area, at the present $24 per barrel).

[39] Reducing U.S Oil Dependence, supra note 35.

[40] Banerjee, supra note 32.

[41] Frank H. Murkowski, Editorial, Alaska Oil and Security, N.Y. TIMES, (Oct. 4, 2001) available at http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/14/opinion/L14MURK.html?searchpv=nytToday&pagewan.

[42] Defenders, supra note 1.

[43] See Katherine Q. Seelye, Maneuvering Continues on Plan to Drill for Oil in Arctic Refuge, N.Y. TIMES, (Oct. 14, 2001), available at http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/14/national/14ENER.html?searchpv+nytToday&pagewan (quoting Murkowski as saying that "each senator is going to have to recognize his obligations to our national security as opposed to environmental extremist").
[44] NRDC, supra note 2.

[45] Latest Action Update, sponsored by LeaveItAlone! http://www.arcticwildlife.org/alertnow.htm.