A Line in the Snow

This book is about whether the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR)should be opened for hydrocarbon development or forever preserved as a wilderness refuge. The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge consists of more than 19 million acres of federal territory situated in northeast Alaska, bordering Canada's Yukon Territory. While the vast majority of the Refuge is already protected from development, two million acres are potentially available for exploration, subject to Congressional authorization. Energy companies have maintained that vast oil reserves, as much as 10 billion barrels, may lie within ANWR. These companies have petitioned the federal government for access. Environmental organizations proclaim that the Coastal Plain of ANWR represents a unique and delicate ecosystem that would be irreparably damaged if hydrocarbon exploration and production were allowed. They want the land in question to be declared a Wilderness Area, which would effectively prohibit development. The debate has raged in Congress since the 1980s, with no end in sight. Bills were frequently introduced in the Republican dominated Congress prior to 2007 to open ANWR to exploration licensing, but to no avail. Oil closed above the $140 per barrel mark for the first time in the summer of 2008 and gas prices continue to hover around $4.00 per gallon. Yet, despite the public outcry for relief and the efforts of the Bush administration and the Republicans in Congress to produce an energy policy that reduces US dependence on foreign oil, no bills have succeeded in passing. How was this possible? What is it about ANWR that seems to have galvanized public opinion to declare it off limits for petroleum exploration? Have environmental organizations succeeded in portraying ANWR as the last great American frontier and achieved the political support required to defeat what appeared to many energy advocates as a sure thing? Has ANWR become the definitive “Line in the Snow” between opponents and advocates of further energy exploration in the US? This book addresses this very question in a thorough and objective manner. It is non-partisan in its approach. Rather, the purpose is to undertake a comprehensive examination of ANWR, the stakeholders, their claims and possible biases, and to present this information to the reader so that they may have an informed basis for determining the outcome of this monumental debate. At the same time, however, one cannot help but express dismay and even outrage at the inability of the Congress, past and present, to act on this critical issue. ANWR has been debated in Congress for more than two decades without resolution. Countless hearings have been held, a plethora of bills introduced, vast sums of money and time wasted on study after study; all to no avail. One begins to suspect that our country’s leaders do not truly seek a solution, preferring instead to continuously employ ANWR as a political litmus test for determining environmental versus energy policies. It is as if ANWR has become the proverbial “third rail” of environmental politics. The debate over whether to open the Coastal Plain of ANWR for development has enveloped far more than energy companies and environmental groups. Although it is federal territory, Alaska and its citizens would benefit greatly from development, both in terms of jobs and revenues. As the oil fields at Prudhoe Bay steadily decline, threatening to permanently shut down the Trans Alaskan Pipeline, additional production from ANWR of as much as one million barrels per day would breathe new life into Alaska’s North Slope and provide a major boost to the Alaskan economy. Conservative think tanks whose agenda is to promote energy security have joined forces with the pro-development groups, lobbying hard in Washington for favorable action. However, environmental organizations have also found unlikely allies in some Native Alaskan communities and amongst national sporting associations. The Gwich’in of Alaska and Canada have expressed concerns about the impact of development on their way of life, especially as it might impact the viability of the Porcupine Caribou herd as the herd migrates and calves along the Arctic Coastal Plain. The sportsmen view ANWR as a paradise for hunting and fishing and feel that any development would impinge on the wilderness aspect of the entire Refuge. Although individual motives may be disparate, the ultimate objective is the same: a ban on drilling. Senators and Congressional Representatives from states on the Pacific and Atlantic coasts are particularly sensitive to discussions regarding ANWR. They have come to view ANWR as the front line in the war against further offshore development. So much effort has been expended in portraying ANWR as America’s last great frontier that it would be difficult to oppose exploration leasing in federal waters offshore California, Florida and elsewhere along the US Outer Continental Shelves if ANWR was legislated for development. As ANWR goes, so goes the rest. Hence, even when the question of more drilling arises in Congress, ANWR is usually the very first item stricken from the discussion. What would it take for Congress to act decisively on this matter? Only one thing seems to galvanize Congress: a crisis. Not just any crisis, but one that cuts across party lines. A crisis so large that it cannot be simply studied and debated, or ignored, until it goes away. A crisis that will throw them out of office come the next election cycle if something is not done now. And that crisis is now upon us: the rapid, skyrocketing cost of energy. All the eloquent speeches and fiery debate over the past twenty years about energy security and achieving independence from foreign oil meant little until Americans directly felt the economic impact at the pump and in their utility bills. It is truly unfortunate that an issue must take on crisis proportions before it is genuinely addressed by our nations’ leaders. When this occurs, one side of the debate generally is given far more weight than if it could be deliberated under calmer conditions. Since this crisis is on energy and the economy, environmental concerns may be downplayed. Had the crisis been another oil spill along the lines of the Exxon Valdez, energy security concerns would most likely be overlooked. While there may be an energy shortage, there is certainly no shortage of rhetoric coming from all sides. The distortions and misrepresentations have made it nearly impossible for the interested observer to distinguish fact from fiction. An entire chapter is devoted to addressing the rhetoric and exaggerated claims that emanate from the stakeholders. Yet the biggest stakeholder remains largely silent. It is the American public. They are the true property owners. ANWR may reside in Alaska, but it is federal, not state, territory. ANWR is not the excusive domain of the energy companies or the environmental groups with their respective alliances. ANWR belongs to us. It is ours to decide the outcome. This author maintains a deep and passionate interest in ANWR. As both an exploration geologist and environmentalist, I feel it is critically important that we address the complex issues that surround the Refuge in a straightforward, comprehensive manner. The reason I undertook this challenge was simply because one could not find a single source that was both thorough and unbiased. There are publications by the Congressional Research Service on the legislative aspects of ANWR, as well as reports by the US Geological Survey and the US Fish and Wildlife Service. All of these focus on a single aspect of the great debate. There are also articles by various interest groups, but the objectivity is often lacking. There simply does not exist a thoroughly comprehensive and objective treatise on the complex issues regarding ANWR, until now.