memfree's Journal: ANWR info (Arctic National Wildlife Refuge)

There is oil in ANWR. We need oil. It is a cheap fuel, and an overwhelming amount of facilities and engines are geared to use it. Yet we know it won't last forever.

I have seen FAR too many people come down on one side or the other when it comes to what to do with land management. Towards the end of 'fixing' that, I am posting some links that may help people see the good and bad of the situation. Unfortunately, and like the gold mine arsenic spill, much of the most interesting information does not seem to be online.

You can either go straight to the links under "ANWR info:", or read about my POV in the next bit.

Disclaimers -- or: My love/hate relationship with Big Oil.

Pros: If we drill in ANWR, my family will get thousands of free dollars, job security, and indirect benefits of a better economic outlook for their region (more and better choices for shopping, entertainment, and the like). I believe oil companies tend to TRY to be responsible -- the PR risk of being irresponsible is too great to intentionally pollute -- but I acknowledge that when mistakes are made, the damage can be enormous. Big business makes our economy strong. Increasing the country's production and lowering our need for foriegn oil is a Good Thing.

Cons: When all is said and done, Big Oil (like any sensible business) is out to make the biggest profit they can. It is often cheaper to take shortcuts than to clean up one's own mess. While environmentalists seem to constantly overstate their points FAR beyond the truth, they occasionally have a valid point buried in the their rants. Prudhoe Bay evidences some of that, but quite a bit of the damage was done before regulations got tight. Simply having a large influx of humans is going to have an impact on any area. Too many folks litter, and otherwise spoil things.

General View: We need to produce oil, and it will always have risks. Before we go in to any site, we should be fully aware of the risks so we can weigh the issue properly.

Personal:
My ex-husband is a geological engineer, and when I was married, most our friends worked for U.S.G.S. or were otherwise involved in geological exploration. This allowed me to visit places first-hand, or see personal pictures with stories from folks working in the field. Almost all their efforts were towards mineral exploration/extraction and hazardous waste contaiment/removal (the latter was my ex's speciality -- he is a Hydrologist and deals with groundwater).

I favor gold mines using arsenic extraction EXCEPT when it is likely to contaminate drinking water that would not OTHERWISE be contaminated. In Fairbanks, many people have wells where the natural arsenic levels are piosonous. I remember a pretty massive spill at a mine near Fairbanks in the early 90s that killed lots of non-human stuff -- but none was irreplaceable, and the whole incident seems undocumented on the web ... it may have been the Fort Knox gold mine, but I no longer recall). That was okay in my book. Nothing vital was threatened. Similarly, I favor drilling for oil EXCEPT when doing so is likely to threaten other unrecoverable resources.

Last year (2001), I went on a boat trip in an area that is reportedly impacted by the Exxon Valdez oil spill. I've been through the area four previous times, and was distraught over how little wildlife we saw. Some of the short-term migrating species seemed to be doing well, but I'd never seen so few longer-term species in evidence. Here's a map that suggests a huge affect. Not sure if the map is completely accurate (it is from a biased site...which kills me because they actually do have some accurate and factual information, but it is couched in emotional rhetoric -- pdf example). I can attest that my casual observation seemed to show that there was an impact along the coast.

You:
Any links or credible information others may have is welcome. In the future, I may want to copy or link the information to/from other sites.

ANWR info:

  - Good, overview map of Northern Alaska and Canada

- The second image on this page is a decent Map of the "1002 Area" of ANWR. The page also contains some good information on the probability of recovering oil, and how the "oil is expected to occur in a number of accumulations rather than a single large accumulation." That is, we won't have a row of wells in a small areas, we'll have a smattering of wells, roads, buildings and interties dispersed across a large region. Note the page's comment about its information versus other studies: "One cannot make a meaningful comparison with previous assessments without knowledge of differences in assessment methodology, assumptions, and data. That information is not always available for the previous assessments of the ANWR 1002 area. Among previous assessments of ANWR 1002 area petroleum resources, only the 1987 USGS assessment of in-place resources is directly comparable."

  - Variations in calving grounds of Porcupine Caribou herd. Frequently, pro-Green sites will ONLY show a map of a year where the herd calved within the 1002 area. From this, it can be seen that in any given year, a drilling infrastructure is unlikely to have any impact at all on this particular herd -- and this is only one of many herds. Note that the uneven boundary indicates native lands. I doubt it surprises anyone that natives settled in the exact areas with the largest documented numbers of potential game animals.

- The above link is just one of several maps. When viewing, note that natives wisely settled in the best hunting grounds.

- There are other herds with LOTS of caribou -- like the Fortymile Caribou Herd or the Central Arctic Herd. The latter has been in an upswing since oil drilling started within its calving grounds.

- The Kaktovik Inupiat Corporation posted a survey on what the locals think. They favor oil development. See the pro/con question, #7. Perhaps compare a picture of the village proper with one of a good chunk of Prudhoe Bay (from here)or some pro-selective (from here) and con-selecitive (from here) portions of it.

- Natives living elsewhere have different opinions.

- Overview of Prudhoe Bay from a mostly green site, but a) the picture is not lying, and b) they have some info/links to pollution settlements for the existing oil field.

- Taken as a group, Alaskans loved the oil boom of the 70s, and would love to see a return to the Glory Days. As such, they favor more drilling (editorial): "We lived through the Exxon Valdez oil spill, many of us experiencing it firsthand. We understand the danger, but we also have witnessed firsthand the amazing advances in exploration and drilling technology in the past couple of decades. We value our wilderness and wildlife, we understand the risks, and still we feel confident in our support of ANWR development."

- There are some exceptions to the above (editorial): "So let's stop the posturing of politicians and recognize that at this time development of ANWR's oil and construction of an in-state gas line are not being held up by environmental concerns. The real issue is they aren't economical."

I've mentioned this site in other places, but it bears adding into the list: "Areas of Special Environmental Significance. The wildlife debate has focused mainly on the migratory Porcupine Caribou Herd. However,some believe other species, such as polar bears, grizzly bears, wolves, or migratory birds, may be at greater risk. Congress could consider special protection...of the most important habitats. "

- The Commerical Vistitor's Guide for Alaska has some good state-wide info (not federal) and good maps (but not ANWR specific).

- Though ANWR is not BLM land, the BLM is great! :-)

- Alaska Pipeline's link Alyeska - shot of the very common Showshoe Hare. The Arctic Hare is far less common.

- May 2001 in Kuparuk - from Prudhoe Bay's site.

- PDF of Existing sites -- also give a more obvious portrayl of one ANRW river basin, but the more important one is not contained. Full list of PDFs from this site is here.

As someone who was there...

[Zarf]

I've found myself becoming more and more of an environmentalist nut-job.

My family owns a bit of land in Kodiak, Ak and I was in Kodiak during the spill. Obviously noone is going to debate how horrible the Exxon Valdez spill was at the time, nor how it profoundly affected fisheries in the area devistating a livelihood that supported generations. Noone in their right mind would even decide that the fisheries have "recovered" to previous levels.

What is debatable is how much of the current problems with fisheries was caused by the "Exxon Valdez" and how much was caused by general poor management of natural resources. Currently the most immediate problem for fisheries in Kodiak is the fact that they can't catch each individual fish cheaply enough to turn enough profit to keep folks employed. The price per fish problem is caused by the fact that it is now more expensive to fish and that the fish caught are sold more cheaply from other sources driving the price down.

What makes salmon different from oil? Why shouldn't there be a salmon OPEC? Can the lessons learned from salmon be applied to oil... can the lessons learned from oil be applied to salmon? I think so.

I own a portion of land on the Russian River in Kodiak. It used to be a rich salmon river until a mining operation upstream from my land started dumping waste into the river. I don't dare eat the salmon from that river now. My family subsisted on the fruit of that river. Now it's threatened. (I get this information second hand from my mother who still lives on the land with my brother) I'm afraid we will be forced to simply abandon the land since no one will dare to buy it now. Would you want a plot of land down stream from a toxic mine?

Actually I'm not certain if the mine has started operations just yet... only that it is pending and actually I'm living on the other side of the planet right now so I'm being a bit dramatic.

Now why would Kodiak consent to such a thing. If you look at employment [state.ak.us] in the area I think you'll get the picture... and my point is related to this. I hope I've wrent your heart just a bit with my personal plight but now Kodiak is fighting for its survival as an entity. Unless a new source of jobs is found for the area (and I mean hundreds of jobs) the city may very well cease to exist... as a city anyhow.

So let me relate this back to ANWR.

Oil seems to dominate Alaska. Oil is facing or about to face the same crisis that fisheries has faced (I'm not convinced Oil is entirely faultless reguarding that) and when people begin to get despirate for money they will begin sloughing off old protections to try and grab for it. I fully believe that ANWR could be opened and exploited without significant damage to the ecology of the area... but what happens when the money begins to run thin?

You gotta make a buck. You gotta get by. Whenever you've got a business you've gotta milk every transaction. Look at Microsoft. Seriously. When MS needs money it just milks harder. I'll bet that's just what Big Oil will do... is doing... has done. I'm mostly out of the loop now but I'll bet that's what's going on back home.

So, ANWR isn't about ANWR, ANWR is about milking a cow. Sure, ANWR could be entered, sure Alaska has learned the hardway about managing Natural Resources. I'm even certain that Alaska would allow the use of ANWR only on a temporary baisis and with a watch-dog council to enforce a reasonable "exit plan" like the one enforced on the Fort Knox mine in Fairbanks. (I hope it plays out all nice like everyone plans.)

If we allow the use of ANWR it sets a precedence and other places will get opened by other states which aren't as practiced with fending off Big Oil. Because Alaska's done such a good job of it haven't we?

But what happens when the money gets tight? Ecological morality goes out the door when money gets tight. When the money gets tight people do despirate things.

I hope one day to have a job in Alaska so I can go home again and actually be able to afford living there. I, however, don't hold out much hope for things going that way since I have yet to see Alaskan government shift the area's economy from a "Gold Rush" model to a more stable and maintainable model of growth. Alaska was founded on big booms and big busts... quisically like the tech industry I work in now... it's time to grow up and make a long-term plan.

I say open ANWR, but don't do it for another ten or twenty years. Force research and development of new techniques of drilling and transport that are safer. Don't make another oil boom... cap the gusher and force the industry into a more stable long-term path.

Long-term. Long-term. Long-term. My father warned of over fishing shrimp (he was a NOAA scientist) now there is no shrimp fishery. Folks warned about the crab... scarce now... folks warned about salmon... I'm going to beat the dead tree about Oil. Oil just seems to screw everything up... just look at Iraq.

I'll stop spouting off now. Unlike you I don't actually have a good argument... just a lot of emotional blather and deep seeded skepticism when it comes to Big Business.

BTW: I'm pretty certain that the Fort Knox mine didn't open until after 1995 or so... I was in Fairbanks at the time and it was a major source of new employment. I'm certain that the management of the new mine was affected deeply by the mistakes made on the old one. I really hope businesses start to take a longer term view of things.

Also in Europe Exxon (aka Esso) is still going strong. Favor with the US Government has ensured it a healthy future. I don't think that bad publicity has hurt them too badly.

Re:As someone who was there...

[memfree]

My father warned of over fishing shrimp (he was a NOAA scientist) now there is no shrimp fishery. Folks warned about the crab... scarce now... folks warned about salmon... I'm going to beat the dead tree about Oil.

This reminded me of a radio interview (in this story [npr.org]* a bit over a minute into the audio file) with a Maryland crabber complaining that he used to only put out 350 crab pots, but now, the numbers are so low that he has to put out 600 "because we really haven't had the crabs to catch". I laughed out loud. Yes, it will give a short-term gain, but it is not a solution for staying in business -- just for staying in business one season. What did you say about long term? ;-)

The way it is now, conservation is actually foolish because it is not required. Someone will always be willing to do their best to take the most RIGHT NOW before someone else beats them to the bank. When supplies are abundant, our means of retrieval is more efficient than our means of production, so whomever gets the most fish/crabs/whatever the fastest wins. I wonder what it'd be like if a given person/family/group had exclusive rights to the catch -- tribal rights to a whole bay or such -- there might be incentive to conserve. I mean: when the population is healthy, the cost to catch each fish is reduced as the harvest increases. So if we could ensure that its more profitable to take fish later -- and that those fish would still be around -- wouldn't everyone be better off? It'd require international efforts (we'd have to keep the foreign ships away, too), so it surely won't happen. Perhaps we could brand fish, and hang rustlers :-).

Of course, none of that helps the case where one industry is destroying the resources for another. It'd be nice if your family could sue for destruction of merchandise, but I expect that won't fly -- I'm betting that there are laws protecting mines from 'frivolous' environmental lawsuits. Compare with the Mississippi wetlands problem [americanradioworks.org] where trying to revert 'damaged' land to its original state resulted in destruction of shrimp habitat, the death of farmed oysters, and loss of jobs. People *are* suing [americanradioworks.org] -- but only for the oysters -- the case against lost shrimp habitat was deemed a no-winner (details in audio link of 1st wetland url).

On ANWR: I actually expect that we WILL destroy the environment when we develop the region. At some point, I'll probably be OK with that, but I agree with you that now is not the right time to start. I see the eventual need, but would rather keep ANWR in reserve for now.

*Visit page, note graph showing huge catch variance each year, and ponder media sensationalism.