May 2001 Vol. 222 No. 5  International Politics

William Garland,  Contributing Editor

Industry counters environmentalist smear tactics on ANWR

WASHINGTON – Faced with mounting opposition and long yardage, U.S. industry groups were not giving up on opening a coastal sliver of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) this year. As early as late March, President Bush appeared to be willing to compromise on ANWR, potentially softening a cornerstone of an energy policy he brandished on the campaign trail and upon entering office.

While not acknowledging defeat, Bush said he would look elsewhere for petroleum if the initiative failed, possibly working with Canada to expand E&P in the Northwest Territories, adjacent to ANWR. All eyes by April were waiting for a comprehensive energy package based on Bush’s broad themes but crafted largely by a task force headed by Vice President Dick Cheney. The package will gauge administration backing on ANWR and other issues. It was to be released amidst still-heightened public awareness about energy.

Hot opposition, Alaskan backing. By early spring, environmental groups generated an onslaught of publicity against opening ANWR. They fueled opponents in Congress, who tried to convince a receptive press that the issue was a non-starter, even before Bush released his plan. Typical of fundraising letters that went out to millions of Americans, the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC) spoke of pristine wilderness, soon to be ruined beyond recognition by oil and gas. Screamed the NRDC, "If President Bush and the oil industry have their way, this extraordinary wildlife nursery may soon be turned into a vast, polluted oil field. The life-giving tundra will be crisscrossed by roads and pipelines, marred by refineries and sewage plants, and poisoned by oil spills."

Such extreme descriptions were countered by Washington-based industry groups, including API and Anchorage-based Arctic Power. The latter group is devoted full-time to the ANWR issue and has $1.5 million in Alaskan state funding, along with backing from industry and about 10,000 individual contributors. "This is the poster child issue of the national environmental movement," Arctic Power Executive Director Camden Toohey told World Oil. "There is no other issue that draws this kind of national funding and membership. They’re running a million dollars worth of ads just in the last two weeks. There’s no way we can compete with that."

But Toohey is convinced his group can make a difference, basing the state’s arguments on the environmental record in neighboring Prudhoe Bay, and projections for oil and gas recovery in the refuge that he said have been twisted into nonsensical claims by opponents. While NRDC and other groups have played up potential impact on wildlife ranging from polar bears and musk oxen to snow geese and other bird species, the spotlight in years of ANWR debate has been on the caribou that migrate to the region each spring for calving.

"The reality is that the (caribou) herds around Prudhoe Bay, which would be decimated (in environmental arguments), have grown from 3,000 in 1970, when development began on the North Slope, to 27,000 today," said Toohey. "Anybody who can say it’s going to be the reverse over here (in ANWR) is just lying through their teeth and generating emotion on the issue. . . . The animals are the primary concern of the state of Alaska and the Eskimos – they’re healthy just like they’ve been the last 30 years with development." He noted that all drilling, in a narrow coastal band on the fringe of the refuge, would be done in winter, using ice roads and platforms that would limit any presence.

Six months of production? One of the arguments most widely circulated by ANWR opponents has been repeated as fact on network newscasts, and in major newspapers and magazines. Environmental groups and Capitol Hill opponents unwaveringly offer the analysis that even if ANWR were fully developed, it would produce only six months of oil and gas usage. To those even vaguely familiar with U.S. energy supplies, the argument is "very misleading," said API spokesman Bill Bush. "It has the potential to be one of the largest oil fields ever developed by this country. If that’s the standard we’re using to decide whether to explore for oil . . . we’d basically be shutting down everything in operation now," because most domestic fields would account individually for only a handful of days of U.S. supply. "You don’t just use ANWR all at once until it’s all used up," said Bush. "It would provide a significant amount for years and years."

"What (significant) field have you ever heard of that produced only six months (and shut down)?" said Toohey. "If that were true, Texas could only produce a year-and-a-half of oil or some stupid number. It’s a ridiculous number when you talk to people that know oil and gas." The argument pictures the U.S. producing only Alaskan oil. To reach the six-month conclusion, opponents take the figure for annual domestic oil usage and compare it to the ANWR’s lifetime production figure, which, at the low end of projections, amounts to about half annual U.S. demand. But they ignore the obvious fact that no oil field is produced in isolation or all at once, and that each field adds incrementally to the nation’s daily production total. "(ANWR) would be the largest field ever discovered in North America . . . if you go by the mean estimate of the USGS (United States Geological Survey)," Toohey argued. "It would provide 20% of our domestic oil for 30 years."

Counting on Bush, Hill GOP and Alaskans. Toohey and other supporters said they would be looking for a strong push this year from the administration, GOP leaders on Capitol Hill and key Alaskan Republicans, especially Sen. Frank Murkowski, chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, and Rep. Don Young, chairman of the House Resources Committee. Citing reports that the issue already was dead by mid-spring, Toohey said, "What you’re hearing is the wishful thinking of the environmental community." He predicted the Senate would pass the measure by a slim majority, and Young and others, including House Republican leaders, would help carry the day in the House.

William Garland has covered energy for 20 years in Washington as a reporter and bureau chief for Texas newspapers, and also as editor of The Energy Wire. He is a regular contributor to this column.