IES5001/ISAT510 Foundations of Sustainability

30 September, 2012

Position Paper: Drilling for Oil in the Alaskan Arctic

Various arguments can be made both in favour and against oil drilling in the Alaskan Arctic. This position paper will look into oil drilling in the Alaskan Arctic from the perspective of the three pillars of sustainability as well as the principles of sustainability. The decision against drilling for oil in the Alaskan Arctic will be made following these pillars and principles. The consumption of oil should be reduced to levels which allow the environment to naturally deal with the impacts it creates. The current levels of consumption by far exceed this threshold; this is made evident by the current environmental problems such as air pollution and global warming. If the level of consumption had to be reduced to this ideal level which nature can handle, the demand for oil wold decrease and the amount of oil that is presently being extracted and the current oil wells would be capable of satisfying it. Prospecting for more oil and drilling for its extraction is therefore unsustainable as it leads to the consumption of oil. Moreover, fossil fuels are not renewable; the Earth will eventually run out of them. If humanity keeps using fossil fuels at the rate that they are currently being used, it is likely that they will run out. Efforts should be made to reduce the consumption of fossil fuels, find means of burning fossil fuels more efficiently and to find alternative sources of energy. Humanity in general should be focusing on switching to alternative, renewable, clean sources of energy; human effort to come up with innovative ideas should be placed in this field rather than in oil drilling. The consumption of fossil fuels causes the release of noxious gases which degrade the quality of the air as well as the creation of carbon dioxide which is a greenhouse gas. Many experts agree that greenhouse gases are the cause for global warming.

Possibility of drilling for more oil

Burning of fossil fuels

Melting of sea ice (rise in sea level)

Release of Carbon Dioxide

Rise in Greenhouse temperatures/ Oil drilling in the Alaskan Arctic has only Global Effect Warming become possible due to the melting of sea-ice caused by the rising temperatures. Extracting more oil will lead to its consumption which in Figure 1 Destructive cycle turn leads to the creation of more carbon dioxide and more global warming. One can easily see the destructive cycle that humanity is getting itself into (Figure 1).

Concern over oil drilling in the Alaskan Arctic arises from the fact that this area is very ecologically sensitive and the conditions in this area make drilling very difficult and dangerous. Given the great risks that such operations involve, it would be wise if this activity was put on hold until technology has developed to a point where the risk involved is reduced from the current levels and oil drilling companies have a higher level of confidence in the safety of their operations.

Mireille Micallef 0472890(M)

Page 1

IES5001/ISAT510 Foundations of Sustainability The Three Pillars of Sustainability: Economic, Environmental, Social The economic aspect of oil drilling in the Alaskan Arctic:

30 September, 2012

The Alaskan economy heavily depends on the oil industry; one third of Alaskas economic base is oil production and oil related activity [1]. Oil drilling in the Alaskan Arctic also creates several jobs; not only jobs directly linked to the oil drilling operations but also other jobs which are indirectly related. The production of oil in the Alaskan Arctic has been on the decline for the last few years [2]. This has had a negative impact on the Alaskan economy. Further decline could impact the feasibility of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS) and could cause problems such as lower pipeline temperatures which eventually cause unsafe wrinkles and kinks in the underground pipes, water separation and holdup, increased wax deposition and ice formation [2] [3]. The solution to this problem might be offshore drilling. However, it should be noted that the State of Alaska does not reap as much oil and gas revenue from offshore federal leases as it does from onshore state lands under the current revenue system [4]. Therefore it is not necessarily the salvation for Alaskas economy. In light of these facts, one can say that even though the State of Alaska will benefit economically from offshore drilling, the economic benefit is not as high as one imagines it to be. Additionally the oil extracted from the Alaskan Arctic is placed on the world market therefore one can argue that it is not actually helping the local economy. The environmental aspect of oil drilling in the Alaskan Arctic: Oil drilling in the Alaskan Arctic has been the source of much environmental concern because of the sensitivity of the region. The Sierra Club has referred to the Alaskan Arctic as one of the most pristine places on earth [5]. Lloyds, the insurance company, has stated in an insurance report about Arctic oil drilling that The Arctic environment is, in general, highly sensitive to damage. Relatively simple ecosystem structures and short growing seasons limit the resilience of the natural environment, and make environmental recovery harder to achieve. Damage to the Arctic environment, if it occurs, is likely to have long-term impacts [6]. Alaska has also been viewed as Americas last wilderness [1] and arguments have been brought forth that it should be preserved for generations of humans yet to come. The Alaskan landscape could be severely affected by the visual impacts associated with oil drilling which necessitates the use of heavy, unsightly machinery. Bowhead whales, polar bears and walruses are all endangered species that live in the Alaskan region [7]. These species are already being affected by global warming which is partly to blame for them being endangered. Greenhouse gases are created both during the production and through the use of fossil fuels therefore drilling for oil will further harm these already threatened species [8]. Oil drilling will result in the disturbance of habitat due to drilling vibrations as well as other by-products of drilling such as gravel which can contaminate the Alaskan waters and create muds and foggy water. Additionally, habitat will be lost since pipelines and roads will have to be built in order to satisfy the communication and transport needs of the oil industry. The U.S Department of the Interior and the National Marine Fisheries Services still have to issue permits to allow Shell to start drilling in the North Slope. The permit that needs to be issued by the National Marine Fisheries Services regards accidental harm to Arctic marine Mireille Micallef 0472890(M) Page 2

IES5001/ISAT510 Foundations of Sustainability

30 September, 2012

mammals [9]. According to the Alaska Department of Fish and Game and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service no animal has been harassed as a result of oil drilling in the North Slope so far. Additionally, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) has stated in its report that Too little is known about Arctic ecosystems to predict response to spills [8]. The Alaskan Arctic presents various challenges with regards to oil drilling due to the demanding physical conditions. These conditions increase the likelihood of spills and provide limitations on oil spill mitigation procedures [10] [8]. Oil spills in Alaska are not a rare occurrence [8]. Curtis Smith, spokesman for Shell in Alaska has claimed that The relatively shallow wells Shell plans in the Arctic present an entirely different risk profile. The kind of pressure the company expects to find in the wells means the likelihood of a blowout is very low [9]. However, Marilyn Heiman, director of the U.S. Arctic program for the Pew Environment Group in Seattle has expressed her concern by saying that There is nothing that is different in the regulations for the Arctic than what exists in temperate, warm, calm waters [9]. Recent events surrounding Shells plans for offshore drilling in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas have shown that the oil company is not yet ready for taking up this challenging venture. The equipment and personnel needed in case of a spill are located far away from the drilling site. In case of an emergency, the U.S Coast Guard, whose base is more than 1,000 miles away in Kodiak, would oversee the clean-up [6]. Admiral Robert, J. Papp, Jr. has admitted himself that the U.S. Coast Guards Arctic response capabilities are limited; that there is no infrastructure on the North Slope for aircraft, no moorings for boats and no facilities to provide sustenance for crews and that only one operational icebreaker is present [6]. The nearest supply of spill-response gear is in Seattle which is found 2,000 miles away [6]. Additionally Shell was allowed to start some exploratory drilling before authorities were ascertained of its capability to respond to a spill. Later, Shell had to give up its drilling efforts after an oil-spill containment dome was damaged during testing. This raised a lot of questions; people started to wonder if problems arose during testing in a calm environment, what would happen during an emergency situation in the harsh conditions of the Arctic? [11] The impact caused by an oil spill in the Alaskan Arctic highly depends on the season during which the spill would have occurred. During the summer open water season, a spill would be easier to clean but in spring or late autumn the ice and the harsh weather would make it almost impossible to clean up. One would have to wait for months before a spill that occurred at the end of summer or when the waters are frozen, can be cleaned up. This is due to the fact that oil could become trapped within the ice and would not be accessible until the ice melts [12]. During this time severe damage can be done to ecosystems. Another environmental concern surrounding the issue of oil drilling in the Alaskan Arctic is that if one company manages to find substantial amounts of oil, other companies will be attracted to the area and thus, what some have called a new Arctic Gold Rush, could occur [6]. Some have argued that this could actually be beneficial since safety and infrastructure goes to where the oil is [13]. Others however, feel that it would only be a matter of time before something happened [5]. Exceptions have already been made to allow Shell to start drilling offshore in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) this has set a precedent. The wellbeing of wildlife species has already been compromised to favour economic growth. At this rate, since one

Mireille Micallef 0472890(M)

Page 3

IES5001/ISAT510 Foundations of Sustainability

30 September, 2012

exception has already been made to allow drilling in one part of the ANWR, it is only a matter of time before the rest of it is opened up for further drilling. The increase in the number of companies drilling for oil in the Alaskan Arctic will lead to a rise in the need for transportation of oil. It has been speculated that the rise in production will lead to the construction of an undersea pipeline that would connect to the TAPS [9]. This could combat the problem of the decline in flow in the TAPS but will also lead to the pipelines being exposed to higher stresses [8]. Companies such as Shell are prospecting to drill in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas which have unstable sea floor sediments [8] that could be eroded thus exposing the originally buried pipelines [14]. Exposure of the pipelines will leave them susceptible to damage by ice [14]. Higher sea levels and waves, storms and greater erosion are expected due to climate change [15] these can all have a negative impact on the pipeline. An increase in flow will raise the temperature of the oil flowing in the pipeline which will lead to melting of permafrost and eventually sagging of pipelines [8] thus increasing risks for spills. Additionally, issues surrounding the TAPSs structural integrity already exist since it is aging [12]. Minor accidents due to corrosion, failure of a relief valve control circuit and an oil spill at a pump station have already occurred [12]. It is thus unwise to continue stressing this system by increasing the flow through it. The social aspect of oil drilling in the Alaskan Arctic: The initial reaction of Alaskans to Shells 2007-2009 offshore exploration plan for the Arctic was one of shock; citizens were worried about the protection of subsistence resources and the environment. In response to these fears, Shell has held more than 450 meetings with stakeholders [9]. These meetings were indeed fruitful since Shell made some changes to its plans such as pulling certain rigs during the fall whale hunt season and ensuring muds and cutting debris do not cross the route of whales during their migration. The Alaskan natives are now in favour of development such as oil drilling since it is a source of income for them. This allows them to continue living their lives traditionally but at the same time brings comfort and conveniences [13]. It will also lead to better transport infrastructure and better communication technologies in the region. However, since finding oil is becoming more and more difficult, prospecting for oil and drilling is moving to areas which provide a greater challenge. Drilling and safety technologies are struggling to keep up with these challenging conditions thus increasing the risk of accidents. In the event of an accident it is wildlife and the people whose subsistence depends on it (such as native Alaskans) that suffer most [6]. Another problem associated with oil drilling in such a delicate environment is the increase in population numbers it will bring with it. More people will be attracted to the area due to employment and advancement in technology and transportation. It is also possible that people will start having more children because they will be more economically secure. This raises the question of whether the local resources and ecology will be able to cope with the increase in population numbers or whether the balance will be upset. If the environment is not able to handle the increase in the population numbers, it will start degrading. The wellbeing of man depends largely on the environment he lives in and its state. A negative environmental impact will lead to a reduced quality of life. Therefore this potential societal problem should be taken into consideration when deciding whether to allow further drilling in the Alaskan Arctic.

Mireille Micallef 0472890(M)

Page 4

IES5001/ISAT510 Foundations of Sustainability The Principles of Sustainability

30 September, 2012

Oil drilling goes against the principle of stewardship which basically states that we must take care of the environment and that we do not own it and thus cannot exploit it carelessly. The precautionary principle should be applied in this situation since it is not known what the impacts of an oil spill in the Alaskan Arctic could be and since the technology available so far for oil drilling is not suitable enough for the conditions of the Arctic. Even if the polluter pays principle was applied and the polluter was made to clean up and pay for the damage caused, the damage done to the environment would still be irreversible. Allowing drilling in the Alaskan Arctic would not be in line with the principle of procedural and areal equity since it would be like choosing to sacrifice the Alaskan environment and wilderness so that the American economy at large could reap the benefits. This would be unfair on the Alaskan community since they would be the ones to suffer the majority of the consequences. The principles of sustainability call for improvement of the quality of human life. Drilling for oil in the Alaskan Arctic can be detrimental to human life in various ways among which are further air pollution through consumption of the oil and drilling itself, and threats to wildlife species which are crucial for the livelihood of local communities Considering the plans of Shell to drill in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas, the principle of social learning was applied; Shell held meetings with locals and made amends to its plans to ensure that the locals become more comfortable with the idea of offshore drilling. This is also somewhat in line with the principles of subsidiarity and empowerment since the people were given the opportunity to affect the decisions that would impact them directly. Drilling for oil, no matter where it occurs, is not in line with intergenerational equity since oil is not renewable and current generations are using it all up and thus risking not leaving any for future generations. By destroying habitats of endangered species and aiding global warming and causing pollution by burning fossil fuel, the duty of care and respect for every living thing is not being fulfilled. Mankind can survive without fossil fuels; however, if fossil fuels keep being available there will not be enough push for innovation and discovery of sustainable sources of energy. The use of fossil fuels is simply unsustainable. What happens when all the oil has been extracted from the Alaskan Arctic? Irreversible damage will have been done to the environment which will not return to its original condition a permanent scar will be present on the Earths surface and society will be left to deal with the problems of a declining economy and unemployment. At this stage Alaska wont have much more to offer its resources will be finished; its oil will be gone and so will its formerly beautiful natural environment and wildlife. In light of these facts, wouldnt it be wiser to invoke the precautionary principle and cease to drill for oil in the Alaskan Arctic?

Mireille Micallef 0472890(M)

Page 5

IES5001/ISAT510 Foundations of Sustainability

30 September, 2012

Works Cited
[1] Alaska Humanities Forum. (2012, September) The Alaska History & Cultural Studies. [Online]. http://www.akhistorycourse.org/articles/article.php?artID=140 [2] Greg Jones, "Letter to Commission Chairmen," November 1, 2010. [3] Kim Murphy, "The flow has slowed through the trans-Alaska oil pipeline," Los Angeles Times, August 10, 2010. [4] "Interview with government official," November 7, 2010. [5] (2012, September) CNN U.S. [Online]. http://articles.cnn.com/2012-09-09/us/us_arcticoil_1_sea-ice-beaufort-sea-ice-data-center/2 September) The Huffington Post. [Online]. [6] (2012, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rocky-kistner/in-the-icy-north-risk-of_b_1818765.html September) USA Today. [Online]. [7] (2012, http://www.usatoday.com/money/business/story/2012/09/10/shell-begins-oil-gasdrilling-off-alaska-coast/57720768/1 [8] Aurora Environmental Research, Ltd., Ben Beach Jeff Goodyear, "Environmental Risks with Proposed Offshore Oil and Gas Development off Alaska's North Slope," NRDC Issue Paper, ip:12-08-a, August 2012. [9] Zaz Hollander, "Shell Poised for Alaska Prospects," Alaska Business Monthly, pp. 6669, June 2012. [10] Hearing before the National Commission, Ocean Conservancy, "Written testimony of Dennis Kelso," September 22, 2010. September) The New York Times. [Online]. [11] (2012, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/18/business/global/shell-delays-arctic-oil-drillinguntil-next-year.html?_r=3& [12] "Offshore Drilling in the Arctic: Background and Issues for the Future Consideration of Oil and Gas Activities," National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling, Staff Working Paper No. 13, February 7, 2011. [13] (2012, September) anwr.org. [Online]. http://www.anwr.org/Headlines/There-is-a-Jobthat-Needs-to-be-Done-That-we-Expect-to-be-Done.php [14] G.S. Lewbel, "Environmental hazards to petroleum industry development," in NOAA Ocean Assessments Division, Barrow Arch Synthesis, Anchorage, pp. 31-46. [15] L. Holland-Bartels and B. Pierce (eds.), "An evaluation of the science needs to inform decisions on outer continental shelf energy development in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas, Alaska," U.S. Geological Survey, Circular 1370, 2011.

Mireille Micallef 0472890(M)

Page 6