Oil Extraction in ANWR

When it comes to the question of ‘Oil Extraction in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR)’ just by mapping the problem, this subject’s complexity cannot be dismissed. In the above mind map this complexity is distinctly noticeable with the dim silver arrows. As they crisscross over the map, this visually showcases a great deal of entangled relationships among the key factors encompassing the debate at hand. Accordingly, at the very least, this insinuates a debate hard to settle.

Originated in 1980 when President Jimmy Carter signed the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA), such act’s 1002 section has since been the pseudonym and the root of the long-lasting debate surrounding ANWR; wildlife preservation vis-à-vis petroleum potential.⁷

Since ANILCA, cost benefit analyses have been carried out with the aim of settling the fate of ‘area 1002’. However, questioning of the results and diverging arguments by stakeholders have rocketed the dispute back and forth into, so far, 30 years of limbo. ⁹ Why?

Arguably because this is a wicked problem. In the mind map, the bright yellow arrows are an attempt to visually make this remark. Especially the central yellow relationship arrow which crosses the map entirely from one side to the other. This center arrow shows, in sync with the other silver connecting arrows, that the uncertainty about the infrastructure footprint and cost benefit verdict on oil exploration is highly taxing on the resolvability of this issue. For this uncertainty also, inevitably, heavily influences social factors and stakeholder’s say on the issue.

Since the U.S. produces 6 million barrels of oil a day domestically, and the mean total volume of recoverable crude oil in ‘area 1002’ is estimated to be around 10.4 billion barrels, adding ANWR oil won’t bring an increase in U.S. oil production.⁸ Further, only one exploratory well has been drilled in the ANWR; this in the mid-1980s before the Exxon Valdez spill of 1989 which halted first prospects of oil exploration.⁹ Available only to some just in 2006, the results are said to state that aside from a layer of gas hydrate the area was a dry hole.² Moreover, uncertainties continue with some arguing that the cost analysis estimates of recoverable oil does not factor in the economic costs ‘infrastructure’.⁶ This links to arguments which contest the total footprint of the exploration, as it would entail a greater area of biological damage than envisioned.⁶

Nevertheless, oil accounts for about 85% of the “unrestricted” revenue available to the Alaskan State.³ Thus the oil industry is estimated to account for about a third of Alaska jobs.³ Accordingly, when episodically U.S. leaders have diverged on the ‘promised issue’ of ‘area 1002’, Alaskan authorities have retaliated aggressively. In 2015 Senator Lisa Murkowski’s response to Barack Obama’s proposition to finally close of the debate over ANWR’s ‘1002 area’, was by declaring that such was “a stunning attack on [Alaskan] sovereignty.”²

Inherently the issue of oil extraction in ANWR has been from outset politicized – and primarily a North American geopolitical issue at that. Canada is also a stakeholder due to its location, and it has shared the view of the Gwich’in people who strongly advocate for the closure of ‘area 1002’ to oil prospects.⁴

For the Gwich’in Nation ANWR is an integral part of their social, economic, and cultural identities.⁴ Homeland subsistence comes primarily from hunting the Cariboo. Importantly to them, the Porcupine Caribou is assessed to likely be the most impacted biophysical factor if oil prospects are pursued; since the area is crucial to the species calving.⁶

Contrastingly the Inupiat Eskimos inhabiting Kaktovik, this being the only settlement within the refuge, have long equated oil development with financial well-being. Shareholders in Inupiat corporations could profit from oil development rights on 92,000 acres in the refuge if it is opened.¹ Moreover, the Alaska Permanent Fund Dividend Program-oil royalty investment gives a stipend to every inhabitant, reaching thousands.⁵

After outlying only a few facts about this issue, it is clear that it comprises biophysical, social, political, economic, cultural and other factors. Altogether along with the uncertainty about the oil reservoir, footprint and environmental impactability therein – this being crucial to livelihoods of stakeholders, makes this – as its longevity shows – a wicked problem.

References

1. Blum, Justin, ‘Alaska Town Split Over Drilling in Wildlife Refuge Oil Money Tantalizes, but Many Fear Effect on Way of Life’, Washington Post, April 23, 2005, retrieved from <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/04/22/AR2005042201832_pf.html>, (accessed 21 September 2015).

2. Bourne, K. Joel, Jr., What Obama’s Drilling Bans Mean for Alaska and the Arctic, National Geographic, 05 February 2015, retrieved from <http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2015/02/150205-obama-alaska-oil-anwr-arctic-offshore-drilling/>, (accessed 21 September 2015).

3. Gunnar, Knapp, Prof., ‘An Introduction to the Economy of Alaska’, Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of Alaska Anchorage, February 2012, retrieved from <http://www.iser.uaa.alaska.edu/Publications/presentations/2012_02-Introduction_to_Economy_of_Alaska.pdf>, (accessed 21 September 2015).

4. Gwich’in Human Rights Threatened by ANWR Drilling, Cultural Survival, [website],<http://www.culturalsurvival.org/news/united-states/gwichin-human-rights-threatened-anwr-drilling>, (accessed 21 September 2015).

5. Holton, M. Kristina, ‘Inupiat’, MIT, [website], (2003), retrieved from <http://web.mit.edu/12.000/www/m2007/teams/krimarin/status.html>, (accessed 21 September 2015).

6. Potential impacts of proposed oil and gas development on the Arctic Refuge’s coastal plain: Historical overview and issues of concern, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Webpage of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, Fairbanks, Alaska, 18 October 2000, <http://arcticcircle.uconn.edu/ANWR/anwr_fws.htm>, (accessed 21 September 2015).

6. Protecting the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, National Wildlife Refuge Association, [website], retrieved from <http://refugeassociation.org/advocacy/refuge-issues/arctic/>, (accessed 21 September 2015).

8. Schoen, W. John., Would Drilling More Alaskan Oil Cut Prices, NBC News, retrieved from <http://www.nbcnews.com/id/12993250/ns/business-answer_desk/t/would-drilling-more-alaskan-oil-cut-prices/#.VgMFHGRVikr>, (accessed 21 September 2015).

9. Shogre, Elizabeth, For 30 Years, a Political Battle Over Oil and ANWR, NPR, 10 November 2005, retrieved from <http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5007819>, (accessed 21 September 2015).