ANWR- To Drill or Not to Drill

To Drill or Not to Drill:

An In-Depth Look at the Ethical Dilemma of Drilling for Oil in the
Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge

Jeremy J. Peichel

Buena Vista University

Paper Prepared for Presentation at

Midwest Political Science Student Convention,

Omaha, NE




President Eisenhower established the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge
(ANWR) in 1960. In 1980, ANWR doubled in size to 19 million acres,
with 1.5 million acres of coastal plain set aside for drilling and
study.1 The issue under dispute in Congress is whether to utilize
approximately 1500 acres of that 1.5 million to find oil. The House
of Representatives and Senate proposed numerous amendments to this
legislation, forcing a conference committee to negotiate the final
compromise. Having passed the House of Representatives, the Senate
Democrats initiated a filibuster in late November 2003 to prevent the
revised bill from passing on to the President. As of today, the bill
remains tabled indefinitely in the Senate.2 The proposal has special
stipulations to not only open up the area to exploration and drilling,
but also to use all the fees and lease revenues to fund alternative
energies.3

My goal is to attempt an objective point of view on this issue by
discussing first the arguments for drilling in ANWR and then those
against drilling. In critically examining these two arguments,
through the lenses of utilitarian and deontological frameworks, we
should be closer to determining the most ethical course of action.

The main reason to develop the Coastal Plain of is that drilling in
ANWR is economically beneficial. Drilling will provide money to fund
the development of alternative energy sources. It will boost our
economy through the creation of jobs and reduce our trade deficit. It
will also give us more negotiating power in the oil market and reduce
our dependence on foreign oil as well. By looking out for these
interests, we also further national security goals.

The Bush administration’s plan for the Coastal Plain of ANWR states
that half of the federal revenue generated by opening the refuge will
be invested in the development of alternative energy sources.3 When
Republicans proposed this program in 1995, estimates for the lease
sales were around $2.6 billion over a period of seven years. All
these would go toward furthering the development and promotion of
alternative energy such as hydrogen fuel cells and hybrid cars.4

This increased development could not only benefit the environment, but
could possibly give the United States an edge in the alternative
energy industry. If we were to invest significant amounts of money in
the research and development of alternative energy, we could very well
lead that industry in new technology. With an advantage such as that,
we would be able to steer the course of that industry as nations try
to keep up with our alternative energy hegemony. That would be a
great benefit to our economy.

These new developments would also allow us to gain more negotiating
power in the world market. This power would be gained, not only
through development of alternative energies, but also just simply from
increased oil production through ANWR. The United States is the
largest consumer of oil in the world, and, in 2001, we consumed 19.6
million barrels per day, with 10.6 million of that coming from imports.
5 Right now, our foreign dependence is over 50% and expected to reach
65% within 5 years (see Chart 1). As we depend more and more on other
nations for supplying us with energy, we give them more and more
control over our economy.6 Those foreign nations are the ones who,
increasingly, dictate what the U.S. will pay per barrel of crude oil,
and how much we will receive based on their production. Indirectly,
then, these nations have the power to encourage and to discourage
domestic resource development by adjusting their supply. Since it is
inherently more costly for us to develop our older wells that have
slowed in production, it is not economically viable to produce oil
from them when it drops below a certain price. In this way, we place
our domestic energy industry and all the jobs associated with the
transportation, construction, and refining of domestic oil in the
hands of those nations.

Chart 1. 2001 U.S. Oil Imports by County (millions of barrels per
day)

Source: Michigan Public Service Commission. Summer 2002. Michigan
Energy Appraisal: Oil Imports. ONLINE. Michigan Department of Labor
and Economic Growth. Available: http://www.cis.state.mi.us/mpsc/reports/energy/02summer/oilimports.htm
[28 November 2003].

Therefore, it would be wise to try to improve the negotiating ground
by reasonable means. If not solely to protect economic interests,
then we should do so to protect national security interests as well.
The Middle East is an unstable region, and with the current war on
terrorism, we are not making more allies in that area. It seems as
though it would be in our nation’s best interest to fulfill one of
government’s primary obligations, and that is security. Government
was created to fulfill the need for men to join in societies, as John
Locke said, “for the mutual preservation of their lives, liberties,
and …property.”7 That can be accomplished by not placing America’s
economic well being at the whims of oil sheiks in Middle East nations,
such as Saudi Arabia, who have in the past been connected to terrorist
groups as financiers.8

Our nation currently imports approximately $55.1 billion dollars a
year in oil.6 That is just the cost of importing the crude oil.
Other costs include the processing and the military protection for
that supply.8 Without even looking at those “hidden costs,” the trade
deficit in oil is close to the total deficit with the entire nation of
Japan. Drilling in ANWR would not, however, eliminate the trade
deficit altogether. By drilling in ANWR, we increase our domestic oil
production by 25 percent, effectively reducing that trade deficit in
oil by $14 billion dollars per year.6

Finally, drilling in ANWR would benefit our economy by increasing jobs
in the United States. The trade deficit not only represents money we
send to other nations, but it is also representing the exportation of
potential jobs. By drilling in ANWR, we reclaim a portion of those
jobs for Americans. According to the Secretary of Energy, Spencer
Abraham, this action will “create thousands of jobs for American
workers.”9 Less than five percent of the jobs created would be in
Alaska, with other states picking up an average of 18,800 jobs.10
Refineries, processing plants, transportation, and other industry-
related jobs would be sprouting up all around the nation to deal with
the increased supply of domestic oil. Overall, this move would reduce
the federal unemployment rate by about 0.36 percentage points,
effectively reducing the number of people on welfare, and boosting our
economy universally.6

ANWR is projected to have anywhere between 5.7 and 16.0 billion
barrels of oil in its coastal plain. Not only would our nation
benefit from extracting that oil, but our nation would also benefit
through the extraction of the 34 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.
11 This cleaner fuel could be used to warm our homes, and would
create more jobs related to the extraction and processing of this
natural fuel. Though the focus is mostly on the in-place oil
resources, it is important to remember that there is a great deal of
natural gas, which is also beneficial, lying beneath the coastal
plain.

The economic, security, and technological developments that would
follow from development in ANWR are great in value, but there are
other factors that must be examined, such as the potential for
environmental damage and the effect on the local people and all those
entitled to the land. We should examine the effect this drilling
would have on the local population.

Although the drilling in the refuge has a 75% approval rating among
the Alaskan population, according to a February 2000 poll conducted by
the Dittman Research Corporation,12 it is not necessarily popular
among the people directly affected for several reasons. First, the
drilling would occur on the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Since
this is land owned by the federal government, it is not just up to the
Alaskan people to decide. All Americans should have their say in this
issue. The input of Alaskans is just as valued as the input of New
Yorkers on this issue. The key difference is information about the
issue. Though it is possible that the Alaskans surveyed were
uninformed on the subject of drilling, we would like to think
otherwise. Logically, Alaskans would be more likely to know about the
area, about the land, and about the animals that live there, simply
because of their first-hand experience.

The second reason lies within the dissident Alaskans, made up of
mostly native people. The poll showed 23 percent opposed to drilling,
with 3 percent unsure. Due to Native American opposition, it is
likely that within that 23 percent that opposed drilling is a portion
of the native population. Two native tribes live in and around ANWR,
the Gwi’ichens, and the Inupiats. These tribes each have some land
allotted to them on the coastal plain, the area proposed for
exploratory drilling. The Inupiats are very much in favor of
drilling, where as the Gwi’ichen people oppose the move
diametrically. Proponents of drilling suggest that the Gwi’ichen
people are simply bitter about Exxon and British Petroleum letting the
leases on tribal lands expire.13 Though this may be true, it still
shows that the native population that holds this land sacred does not
want drilling, regardless of the motives behind it. Our sense of
justice should ring out since we have already taken so much from
Native American tribes; it seems like the right idea to let them have
what they want, keeping in mind, however, that another native tribe
wants to drill. The Inupiats are still on very good terms with Exxon
and BP, so they are the ones in favor of drilling.

Finally, the environmentalists and those who study and appreciate ANWR
are also opposed to drilling. Though pictures of the coastal plain of
ANWR show it to be desolate arctic tundra, a segment of the human
population still enjoys visiting there and calling it their own
pristine wilderness.14 These people would lose something sacred and
valuable to them if we were to develop on the coastal plain. Even
though technological advancements in drilling have reduced the
footprint of drilling, there will still be oil derricks and pipelines
on the horizon in that section of the refuge. That is devastating to
those who did not take for granted a pristine, though desolate most of
the year, wilderness.

Opponents of drilling are most adamantly opposed on the basis that it
harms the environment. Regardless of how safe oil companies claim to
be, there will still be spills in this area. Spills are primary tools
that oil drilling uses to spoil the environment. Nevertheless, there
are other types of pollution besides contamination. Landscape
pollution and human interference will also contribute some degree of
damage to the wilderness of the area. Oil companies claim, however,
that new technology and advancements in drilling will reduce the
amount of infrastructure and the size of facilities built.15 The fact
that only fifteen hundred acres (equivalent to an average-sized
regional airport) will be directly affected by pipeline, road, or
drilling facilities is a very handsome number, even for some
environmentalists (see Table 1). With a refuge larger than 10 states,
a regional airport seems like a small cost, but the effects could
potentially strike farther than that.

Table1. Land Use in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge



Source: U.S. Geological Survey. 1998. Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge, 1002 Area, Petroleum Assessment, 1998, Including Economic
Analysis. ONLINE. U.S. Geological Survey. Available:
http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-0028-01/fs-0028-01.htm [15 November 2003].

The transportation and construction, in addition to human pollution,
garbage, and other waste would possibly disrupt the balance of nature
in that area. With a human population drawing on resources in the
refuge, there is also the potential for damage to delicate balances
like the watershed and predator-prey cycles. These factors are
potential harms to the environment that need to be examined and
properly addressed by the drilling authority if any drilling is to be
environmentally acceptable. In the end, however, we realize that some
things, like the spills, are inevitable and are consequences inherent
in the process of drilling and transporting oil.

The animal population is the final consideration to examine in the
case of ANWR. How does this affect the animals? Magazines like
National Geographic show pictures of polar bears casually strolling
along the top of a pipeline.14 We have seen from the case of Prudhoe
Bay that animal populations flourish with the introduction of these
oil platforms. In fact, at Prudhoe Bay, the caribou population
increased sevenfold.4 This is an obvious affect of human interaction
on the caribou, and may not necessarily be a positive consequence.
Overpopulation and disruption of the predator-prey cycles may be the
result if such was the case. Overpopulation of animals is a serious
hazard to local towns and even the drilling facilities itself, as
caribou may begin to interfere with the normal operation of the rig
and the transportation of workers and oil. These problems may cause
accidents, which in turn harm the natural environment. It is also
possible that these animals have become somewhat dependant on the
human interaction and our development for their existence. What will
happen to them when we leave eventually? Our departure may even throw
the balance into disruption. Although, the effect these drilling
operations have on the animal population may seem beneficial on the
surface, but after looking a little deeper, we see that effects such
as exponential growth, which has now leveled off, may do more harm
than good.

Using Vincent Ruggiero’s criteria laid out in Thinking Critically
about Ethical Issues, all of these circumstances and consequences need
to be taken into consideration when evaluating which of our
obligations and ideals take the highest priority.16 Ruggiero lays out
a strategy for objective evaluation of ethical issues by breaking it
down into four main steps. The first step is to build the background
details of the issue. The key, he states, is to present information
from all sides, not only for research and for information, but also to
illustrate the importance of objectivity in ethical evaluation. The
second step, according to Ruggiero, is to develop the underlying
questions of the issue. What obligations need to be fulfilled when
solving this issue? Which of society’s ideals are involved and what
will bring about the “greater good”? What are potential consequences
involved in the issue? After addressing these questions generally,
Ruggiero urges the critical thinker to move on to step three and
develop potential courses of action. Being specific is the key.
Finally, he says we need to examine the ideals, obligations, and
consequences to determine the most ethical course of action and the
act accordingly.16

Having laid the groundwork of information on the issue, the next step
is to determine the obligations, ideals, and consequences.16 In this
instance, the main obligations are contractual agreements, self-
improvement, and non-malfeasance. The government has a contract with
the Native American populations; they should respect their wishes when
it comes to land allotted to them. The oil companies have a
contractual obligation to the government, consumers, and workers to
provide safe and environmentally conscious drilling facilities in
order to do the least damage to the land. We as a society have the
obligation to try to improve ourselves, and the development of
alternative energies accomplishes that. Improving our fuel supply,
while caring for the future of our environment, is a prime example of
self-improvement. Finally, we have an obligation to non-malfeasance.
All parties involved must avoid infringing on the rights, or the well-
being of any other group to preserve the integrity of that obligation.

The main ideals involved in this issue are fairness and social-
responsibility. The government would need to be as objective as
possible in evaluating the motives of those opposed to drilling along
with allowing them to air their concerns about the issue. We promote
social responsibility by being aware of the rights of those involved.
We also promote it by taking that knowledge and ensuring that the
oversight committees consist of people from both sides of the issue.
Through this equal representation, not only will future developments
be secured, but also they will be executed with the cleanest, safest
means, under strict observations, since it is the most ethical way to
execute such an action.

This moral and political debate seems to boil down to one choice: to
drill or not to drill. The choices are not limited to just that,
however. There are questions of what to do with the money gained from
taxes, lease sales, and other revenues. Should we put the lease sales
revenues toward conservation, alternative energy, or searching for
more drilling sites domestically? Should we invest the money in a
completely different sector of the government or economy? We can pose
other questions regarding limits on the amount of drilling
facilities. We can decide whether to use ice roads or paved roads.
We can decide whether to truck the oil to the Trans-Alaskan Pipeline,
or whether to build an extension of it to the sites themselves. The
possibilities are endless, but these are the main questions for the
basis of the reasonable courses of action when it comes to drilling.
Of course, if we were not to drill that would be no different from the
status quo and therefore the sole course of action on that side.

After having established potential courses of action, Ruggiero says we
should review the significant questions, and determine which course,
within our ethical framework, is the most ethical.16

This issue was examined from both a utilitarian view and a
deontological view. The perspectives are significantly different both
in scope and in thought-process; therefore, it is no surprise that the
two frameworks have separate conclusions. Based on different
situations, however, they could have the same end-result.

First is the utilitarian view. According to John Stuart Mill, the key
to ethics is the greatest happiness principle. Utility, or happiness,
is derived from pleasure and the decided absence of pain.17
Philosophers using utilitarianism examine the result of actions, in
order to determine whether a course of action is ethical. In the case
of drilling in ANWR, a utilitarian would take a look at what benefits
come from drilling. Economic prosperity, future technology, and
reduced foreign dependence would seem to produce a significant
increase in the total overall happiness for a utilitarian. More
people would have jobs and, with alternative energy development, we
work to save the environment. The utilitarian would be pleased if
that were the extent of the consequences. Drilling in ANWR is not
without sacrifice, though. Environmentalists, native populations, and
other people who disapprove of drilling would be unhappy with the
results, because they would no longer have their pristine wilderness
or sanctuary. Drilling also has potential to harm animals, to harm
plants, and to poison the land. Utilitarian perspective forces such
philosophers to look for the greatest increase in total happiness,
thus they would believe that drilling in ANWR is an ethically correct
course of action. Since the environmentalists and natives are unhappy
make up a smaller population than those benefited by drilling, their
collective unhappiness is required to provide the greater happiness
for the rest of the population. Nevertheless, we should do what we
can to reduce the unhappiness of those groups. Such provisions as
temporary roads, restrictions on facilities, or increasing funding for
alternative energy, are morally acceptable, so long as they do not
reduce the total happiness produced.

The deontological perspective comes to a different conclusion.
Drilling is not ethically viable for deontologists for one main
reason: it is unjust. According to Mary Anne Warren, our primary
moral principle is “Respect for life: Living organisms are not to be
killed or otherwise harmed, without good reasons that do not violate
principles 2-7.”18 She then goes on to detail the other moral
principles establishing ground rules for how to act ethically. As a
deontologist, Warren examines the motives for actions, and not the
consequences themselves. Onora O’Neill expands on this “respect for
life as regards means” in her Simplified Account of Kant’s Ethics
talking about the Formula of the End in Itself. “Act in such a way
that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person, or in the
person of any other, never simply as a means but always at the same
time as an end.” Kant was opposed to using people as mere means.19
If a person neither benefits from an action nor gives consent, but was
used anyway, they were mere means. These actions form an injustice,
which is ethically unacceptable to a deontologist.19 Thus, it is
unethical for us to drill in ANWR. We would be using the native
population as mere means to our own economic gain and would therefore
be acting unethically. The only way that drilling could be ethically
acceptable, is if those whose well-being is directly affected by
drilling gave consent to those actions. Since that is unlikely,
drilling is unethical according to the deontologists.

If the native population did consent to drilling, then the most
ethical course of action would be to drill. The proceeds from the
lease sales would be devoted only to the development of alternate
energy. It is probable that our government could use the same idea of
the lockbox that was part of the rhetoric regarding social security in
the Presidential campaigns of 2000.20 It would also be appropriate for
ice roads to be built, since the roads would melt back in the summer
when drilling is not occurring, and no permanent infrastructure would
remain on the land. The exception for infrastructure being a
pipeline: the most ethical solution would be to build a pipeline to
the refuge so that we save energy by not trucking the oil to the
current pipeline. We would build an extension to the existing Trans-
Alaskan pipeline that would allow us to use “in-place infrastructure”
to limit spending and prevent damaging the environment further. To
address regulation concerns, there could be an oversight committee to
examine and inspect the oil companies’ environmental protection plans
and safety programs. This ensures that neither worker, nor animal,
nor is its environment harmed through unsafe or risky practices.

By implementing environmental practices and looking out for the
future, we can ensure that companies drill safely, and in such a way
that environmentalists could agree that the gains outweigh the
losses. With employment opportunities around the nation, reduced
foreign oil dependence, alternative energy development, and
environmental protection measures, the United States would be sitting
better economically, environmentally, and technologically.




Bibliography

Abraham, Spencer. 10 September 2003. To Pete V. Domenici, Chairman,
House, Senate Conference on H.R. 6. ONLINE. Department of Energy.
Available: http://www.anwr.org/docs/SAP9-10-03.pdf [30 November 2003].

Arctic Power. 1997. Top Ten Reasons to Support Development in ANWR.
ONLINE. Available: http://www.anwr.org/topten.htm [10 November 2003].

. 1997. What is ANWR? ONLINE. http://www.anwr.org/backgrnd/backgrnd.htm
[10 November 2003].

. 2002. Features: Players in ANWR. ONLINE. Available:
http://www.anwr.org/features/players/inupiat.htm [10 November 2003].

. March 2003. ANWR Poll Results. ONLINE. Available:
http://www.anwr.org/features/results.htm [10 November 2003].

Author Unknown. 12 April 2002. Fact ***: ANWR Debate
.