ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY
by Aline Aceiro
ANWR drilling – an analysis exclusive to the Alaskan context.
Alaska as a stakeholder, research into factors at stake.
(Grey Literature)
Committee on Natural Resources. (2011). Local Alaskan Witnesses Highlight Job Creation, Deficit Reduction, and Economic Growth from ANWR Energy Production. Retrieved on October 10, 2015 from http://naturalresources.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=260919
The Alaskan Committee on Natural Resources Webpage offers a variety of information pertaining to their area of responsibility in the state. In this exact page, it provides a bullet point list of the key points – which it deems important – from their Full Committee oversight hearing in September 2011 on ANWR: Jobs, Energy and Deficit Reduction. Such points show the consensus on the benefits of ANWR drilling, in accordance to the perspective of debate stakeholders. They agree that ANWR drilling is a viable possibility which should be pursued given all the knowledge on its sensitive requirements. For a true analysis of the validity of this ‘quote selection’ one should go through the entire official hearing transcript. Arguably the showcasing of the consensus on the ‘benefits’ of drilling in ANWR by this governmental database is unsurprising – as the general state government’s stance on the topic is akin to that of the quoted stakeholders (pro-ANWR drilling).
Fried, N. (2013) Alaska’s Oil and Gas Industry A look at jobs and oil’s influence on economy. ALASKA ECONOMIC TRENDS. Retrieved on October 10, 2015, from http://laborstats.alaska.gov/trends/jun13art1.pdf
Neil Fried’s scrutiny on Alaskan oil production profitability and the industry’s employability potential, makes it exuberantly clear just how crucial oil production is for the Alaskan economy. Via the presentation of statistical charts and graphs, Fried denotes the proportions – geographically and historically – of employment and profit in the industry comparatively with other key Alaskan industries. This results in the overarching argument that the industry has essentially been continuously key for the prosperity of the state and its citizens. Further, Fried puts such an analysis in the context of the U.S. nation – therefore exhibiting Alaska’s oil industry national importance. Such focus on and effectiveness in ‘showcasing Alaskan potential’ in this industry sector, is arguably unsurprising for after all this source is coming from the Alaskan Government database. Altogether Fried’s analysis results in Alaska being both one of the fastest growing industries in the state generating immense profits at a state level, but which its employment is growing slower than in many oil-producing U.S. states.
Hobson K. M., (2015, August 31). ARCTIC: Natives embrace drilling at ground zero for climate change. Environment & Energy Publishing. Retrieved on October 10, 2015, from http://www.eenews.net/stories/1060024122
Margaret Hobson’s report on E&E brings forth the discussion of misperception on stakeholder’s positions, when it comes to the 30-year long debate over ANWR and oil. Hobson’s report focuses on how Alaska Inupiats, both as individuals and via native representative organizations – such as the North Slope Borough and the Arctic Slope Regional Corp. – have a different view on the issue than that which environmentalists claim to be when they enter the debate representatively. Hobson makes acknowledgement that for various North Slope native communities, oil production is crucial for development. So for her, it is “little wonder…that the North Slope leaders are concerned that oil production is steadily declining at the Prudhoe Bay and Kuparuk oil fields [and in favor of opening ANWR]”.
Parnell, S. & Sullivan, S. D. – State of Alaska Department of Natural Resources. (2013, July 9). The State of Alaska’s ANILCA Section 1002(e) Exploration Plan and Special Use Permit Application and Supporting Materials. Retrieved on October 10, 2015, from http://dnr.alaska.gov/commis/priorities/ANWR/ANWR_Exploration_Plan_7_9_13.pdf
This resource evaluation proposal provides an in-depth analytical study of the vast array of factors which encompasses the long and complex debate of ANWR oil drilling. Sean Parnell and Daniel Sullivan, recognize the limited nature of available data and interpretations of the geology and petroleum potential in ANWR. They also denote just how crucial oil production is for the Alaskan state, and thus accordingly the benefits of understanding the resources available in Area 1002 and the exploitation of such for the state’s prosperity. This leads to their ‘Proposed Exploration Program’ which is to allow for a controlled investigation of the resources, leading up to the extraction of resources with the most environmentally conscientious methodology limiting detrimental impacts from start to finish. Through precisely carried out examination, the work altogether presses for the true legitimate and necessary – as per ANILCA’s 1002 section – further study of area 1002, in order for uncertainties to be erased and the profitable and viable exploration of oil in the area to be finally pursued. This being an Alaskan government endeavour, clearly signifies the intent for such a thorough and conscientiously effective work prompting for ANWR oil exploration.
(Peer review)
Ganapathy, S. (2013). Imagining Alaska: Local and Translocal Engagements with Place. American Anthropologist, 115(1), 96-111. doi:10.1111/j.1548-1433.2012.01538.x
This piece is the result of Sandhya Ganapathy’s six-year (2004-2010) ethnographic fieldwork conducted primarily in Vashraii K’oo Alaska. Ganapathy presents a historical overview of translocal visual and textual representations of Alaska, which have prompted geographically dispersed publics to think about (and act on) Alaskan landscapes in particular ways. Particularly focusing on the Gwich’in peoples livelihoods, Ganapathy aims to examine the ways in which dominant and broadly circulating imaginative framings of place translate locally. The work showcases the Gwich’in peoples livelihoods in the context of the ANWR and its oil debate, disclosing their position as stakeholder’s. The article reveals that essentially, in the Alaskan context, oil development is “framed as a matter of “states’ rights” and efforts at wilderness protection are often viewed as misguided or the work of “non-Alaskans.””(p.105) When it comes to the debate on ANWR’s oil – “[the political decision making and debate is] largely decentered from the landscape at question and the people residing there, instead taking place “elsewhere” and rooted in the economic interests and ideological imperatives of multinational oil companies, national [and] state politicians with national ambitions, and broad-based environmental NGOs.”(p.99)
Schlosser, K. (2006). U.S. National Security Discourse and the Political Construction of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Society & Natural Resources, 19(1), 3-18. doi:10.1080/08941920500323096
This article has as its focus to examine state-centered notions of U.S. national security with the debate of ANWR oil development as its case study. This is a great initial source for, essentially, every central aspect of the debate. Kolson Schlosser presents and theoretically discusses the issues of 1) conceptualizing ANWR as both wildlife refuge and oil field; 2) the stakeholders’ positions in the context of the former; and 3) provides a take on the frequently analyzed statistics regarding profit returns on ANWR oil extraction. The good thing about Schlosser’s article is that he does not provide an overarching argument. In other words, he does not aim to give an opinion on which decision he reasons as best, given the debate. The article is thus ultimately a deliberation on the focal information pertaining to the debate. When it comes to the overarching theme, the keynote is that “applying concepts of security to [ANWR] controversy is especially slippery because the [debate’s] stakeholders have varying notions of what constitutes ‘‘security’’”. (p.10)
Swensen, T. M. (2015). Of subjection and sovereignty: Alaska native corporations and tribal governments in the twenty-first century. Wicazo Sa Review, 30(1). Retrieved on October 11, 2015, from http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/wicazo_sa_review/v030/30.1.swensen.pdf
Thomas Swensen’s article focuses on recounting the important history of the formation of both the Alaska tribal governments and Native corporations, attempting to then analyze how both interlink and are different to one another as agencies for Alaskan natives. Such comparison becomes key to understanding such representative bodies’ importance for the Alaskan Natives say in both regional and federal politics. Swensen ultimately argues that, while the corporations and the tribes are compulsory legal constructions that regulate Indigenous activities, they both prove useful to Native Alaska’s political endeavors within the national and state political system. Moreover, with the corporations having economic power, while the tribes administer political authority, Alaska Native Indigenous sovereignty functions through both. This sources becomes important for understanding how Alaskan natives are given agency in politics. Swensen’s analysis, only accounting for two representative bodies, shows how such dynamics, and the topic all-throughout, are hard to understand even by those who are being represented.
Wernham, A. (2007). Inupiat Health and Proposed Alaskan Oil Development: Results of the first integrated health impact Assessment/Environmental impact statement for proposed oil development on Alaska’s North Slope. Ecohealth, 4(4), 500-513. doi:10.1007/s10393-007-0132-2
According to the author, this is the first formal effort to undertake an Health Impact Assessment (HIA) within the legal framework of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Addressing the proposed oil and gas leasing in the 4.6- million-acre Northeast NPR-A, and accounting for the North Shore Borough’s eight Inupiat villages, this in-depth study’s results identifies a variety of possible health detriments if oil and gas development in Alaska’s North Slope region is pursued. In this study a qualitative HIA methodology was employed, “involving a combination of stakeholder input, literature review, and qualitative analysis, through which we identified potential health effects.” (p.500) Because of the role played by oil revenue in the North Slope economy and accordingly the support for oil development in the region, Wernham believes this study is of great value – as with such an HIA, he provides anticipation and proactive preparation for addressing the potential health consequences of the project; maximizing the potential benefits and minimizing adverse outcomes.
(Pertaining to statistics)
State of Alaska Department of Revenue: Permanent Fund Dividend Division. (n.d.). 2015 PFD Amount. Retrieved October 10, 2015, from https://pfd.alaska.gov/
This source states – a year’s – Annual Dividend exact amount received by those eligible individuals who reside or have resided in the Alaskan state. Such Alaska Governmental webpage also provides historical data on this matter, allowing for an analysis – if desired – to be carried out about the topic – which can be important for the study of Alaska’s socio-political relations in the context of the oil industry’s existence and influence in Alaska. 2015’s dividend figure is of $2,072.
State of Alaska Department of Revenue: Tax Division. (n.d.). Annual report 2014. Retrieved October 10, 2015, from http://www.tax.alaska.gov/programs/documentviewer/viewer.aspx?1139r
This thorough evaluative statistical document, provides crucial information pertaining to Alaskan industries state profitability. Such annual report(s) supply critical statistics denoting the imperative relevance of ‘oil’ for the Alaskan state economy. Via graphs and comparative charts (both between Alaskan industries and with industry’s yearly-records), the work shows two key conditions concerning Alaska and oil production. 1) Oil production has been irrefutably the pivotal industry for government revenue – at least in the last three years – accounting for over 50%.2) Notwithstanding, such revenue has been very rapidly decreasing in the last three years; as we compare 2014’s $2,718,297,646 (75.41%) to 2013’s $4,112,265,118 (79.08%) and further 2012’s $6,131,605,503 (83.39%). Both factors arguably makes it clear as to why Alaska is such an ardent stakeholder in the ANWR’s oil debate. This report is essentially numerical, and understanding is to be predominantly deducted via the reader’s capability for interpreting the data being presented.
U.S. Department Of Commerce Bureau Of Economic Analysis. (2015, September 30). ALASKA – Personal Income. Retrieved on October 10, 2015, from http://www.bea.gov/REGIONAL/bearfacts/pdf.cfm?fips=02000&areatype=STATE&geotype=3
This document reports Alaska’s 2014 GDP. It indicates Alaska’s GDP position within the U.S. nation and evaluates its contraction and growth juxtaposed to 2013’s results. It also inevitably reports a breakdown evaluation on Alaskan personal income. This is all conveyed via graphs, charts and tables and their interpretations. Alaska ranked in the 2014 report 43rd place in the U.S. nation (with a $57.1 billion GDP) given its per capita personal income (PCPI) of $54,012 in 2014. In the evaluation of the top state industries as a percent of total GDP, in 2014, the largest industry in Alaska was mining – accounting for 25.8% of Alaska GDP.
(Scholarly)
Buchanan, T. G. (2010). One company, two worlds: The Case for Alaska Native Corporations. Alaska Law Review, 27(2), 297. Retrieved on October 11, 2015, from http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA260138028&v=2.1&u=ubcolumbia&it=r&p=LT&sw=w&asid=7b3400b65061273dd60271da44087ca3
Travis Buchanan’s article essentially thoroughly articulates the following: 1) the nature of the Alaska Native Corporations (ANCs); 2) a review and understanding of The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) and the Small Business Act in relevance to their relationship with the former; 3) the fundaments pertaining to the 8(a) Small Business Development Program; and 4) The debate over ANCs’ participation in the 8(a) program. This is all serves as a backbone for Buchanan’s argument regarding the debate just mentioned. According to Buchanan, such a debate stems essentially from a narrow understanding of all of the first three elements aforementioned. Buchanan ultimately advocates for thinking of ANCs in its true broader conception – ANCs are communities and not just businesses. In this view the current model of ANC participation is recognized to be the result of complex intermingling policies. This source therefore serves as a good base for understanding some of the background of precisely these elements discussed by Buchanan, which are important for discussions surrounding Alaskan socio-political topics.
Remarks on Research: Research shows the paramount position which oil has for Alaska’s development and state profit. Unequivocally this factor painstakingly engulfs Alaska’s stake in the debate over ANWR drilling prospects – precisely since ANWR is within Alaska’s state border. This factor as a result has both prompted the longstanding governmental stance on the matter, and also heavily affected and influenced Alaskan citizens’ positions on the debate.
*Note: Due to the nature of the topic – as engendered by the longevity and ‘circular’ history of the debate, contemporary fast-changing livelihoods and oil’s non-linear value – sources were chosen based on publication date. The aim therefore was for no source to be dated older than the early 2000s. More research should be done in the future for a more thorough discussion on ‘Alaska as a stakeholder’. This will arguably require older sources. For the time being, these will be the first reference.