NM 1 Trans­Alaska Pipeline “There’s no such thing as free lunch. There are always some problems. There’s always some price to pay. But the price was cheap and the benefit was great.” (Chancy Croft). During the 1973 oil crisis, the price of oil rose sharply in the United States. In order to solve the demand of oil consumption, project TAPS (Trans­Alaska Pipeline) was implemented. This project met many challenges even before its construction. Legal issues, public controversy, environmental effects, and even ethics were brought up. The Trans­Alaska Pipeline was necessary to help further development in our economy; unfortunately, repercussions have been predicted. An 800 mile long pipeline that stretches from Prudhoe Bay to Valdez, this structure has shipped more than 16 billion barrels of crude oil since 2010. Since then, oil production has decreased after reaching its peak in 1988. During that time, Alaska produced about 25% of the United States’ oil. Now we have dropped to 7%, moving us from second to the fourth leading state in oil production. (www.eia.gov) Research says that the Trans­Alaska pipeline is now running three­quarters low. (​
akrdc.org​
) Based on the lower production numbers, was building the pipeline such a good idea? Alaska’s economy consists of three major factors: the federal government, small businesses, and most importantly, oil. Most of a country’s economic value comes from its natural resources. In the case of Alaska, about two thirds of its natural resources are from crude oil, NM 2 (www.alaska.gov). In order for the state’s economy to prosper and stabilize, further research and development of its natural resources is necessary. Although there was much opposition against building the pipeline, with time, the project was set in motion. As construction began, Alaska’s economy improved significantly, similar to that of a boomtown. Tens of thousands of workers from out of state flocked to the North Slope, lured by the prospect of a high­paying job at a time when the rest of the state was in recession. Population in local towns like Valdez and Fairbanks increased along with market prices. This was driven by the high­paid salary workers who were eager to spend their money in town. Residents benefited greatly, but Alaska wasn’t the only one who benefited from the Trans­Alaska Pipeline (TAPS). Between 1996 and 2004, about 95.49 billion barrels of oil was exported from Alaska to foreign countries. From then through April 2004, no Alaskan oil was exported outside of America. As it is, America is the world’s leading country in oil consumption. It is estimated that the US consumes about 6.89 billion barrels of petroleum products yearly. That is an average of about 18.89 million barrels per day. The Trans­Alaska Pipeline is an essential asset to America in order to meet the need of oil that is used daily. Considering how TAPS pulled America out of the oil crisis, this project had to take place. However, there are two sides to every story. Those opposing the idea of creating the pipeline were conservationists, politicians, and native groups. It is well known that Alaska is called “The Last Frontier,” which is because most of Alaska’s wilderness is untouched by man. Environmental enthusiasts compare the construction of the pipeline to Alaska being scarred. Adventurers exploring Alaska for the first time describe it as there being two Alaska’s. “One, the NM 3 stunning, pristine land of forests and mountains and magnificent glaciers, the other, a last frontier, being invaded by greedy, rapacious, and sometimes pathetic men, often living out a false dream of success.” (Coates, 40). Conservationist groups objected to the project so much that it was even brought before Congress. The project was therefore put on hold due to it violating legal laws such as the Mineral Leasing Act, which was put into place to limit the mining of resources on public land. An important minority group in Alaska is separated on this debate; the Alaskan Natives. Many recognized the benefits the pipeline brought to their community, especially the younger generations. Alaska has so much revenue from oil that the states give out a check each year to the citizens instead of paying income taxes. The Natives benefit greatly from oil considering legal land claims from ANCSA (Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act). Native corporations such as the Alaska Federation of Natives and the Aleut Corporation were created in order to help administer those claims. Those from the older generation are more concerned about conserving their culture and the historical landmarks where the pipeline is built. Representatives from Alyeska Pipeline Service Company negotiated with each village that was going to be affected by the pipeline and settled the issue in court. Those who opposed the construction of the pipeline even proposed alternative options. Constructing a port at Prudhoe Bay and transporting the oil by means of icebreaker tankers was one option that was discussed. In June of 1969, the SS Manhattan set sail to test this theory. Specially equipped with an ice­breaking bow, strong engines, and hardened propellers, the Manhattan was ideal for traversing the frozen ocean. The results were: the SS Manhattan NM 4 successfully transited the Northern Passage and was able to reach port. Unfortunately along the way, the ship was damaged and the cargo hold was flooded with seawater. The Manhattan required assistance from the Canadian Coast Guard in order to reach harbor. Due to the risk of this situation repeating, the idea of transporting oil by tankers was dismissed. Other ideas included Boeing offering 12­engine tanker aircrafts, General Dynamics proposed a line of tanker submarines, and another group even wanted to extend the Alaska Railroad all the way to Prudhoe Bay. Constructing more roads for freighter transportation was out of the question, research stating that it would harm the environment more than the pipeline would (www2.gi.alaska.edu). Vehicle exhaust that produces carbon is harmful for the environment, migrating animals are in danger of being hit and killed by traffic, and more habitats will be destroyed due to construction. All of these plans have high risks not only in accident scenarios, environmental issues, but financial also. In this, the risks outweighing the benefits. Therefore, the construction of the pipeline was the only feasible solution. The route planned out for the pipeline requires that it courses through a couple of native claimed lands. At first, workers from the Alyeska Pipeline approached the native communities and acquired permission to construct the pipeline through their lands. Afterwards though, they withdrew their approval, arguing the fact that almost none of the natives are being hired to work on the slope and that they aren’t benefitting from the deal. After a series of court cases, Congress finally issued the Trans­Alaska Pipeline Authorization Act which removed all legal barriers from construction of the pipeline. The Act also provided financial incentive and granted a right­of­way for its construction. NM 5 As oil production slowly declines, useless debates are being discussed. The topic surrounds whether building the pipeline was a good idea after all. For realists, they might say that what’s done is done, but people still criticize the project and how it has ruined the whole state of Alaska. True that it has created thousands of jobs and that the state’s economy has never been better, but certain groups argue that the pipeline has taken a piece of Alaska that can never be replaced again. Whether it’s land, culture, or ethics, these opinions have been voiced, but found irrelevant by policy makers to the advancement of Alaska’s economy. Before the construction of the pipeline, a group of scientists were sent up to the North Slope to evaluate the effect of the pipeline on the environment. They took into account how the pipeline would affect the migration of caribou and whether furbearers would lose their livelihood. Surprisingly, they predicted, and were proven correct, that the population of caribou and surrounding creatures were hardly affected. If anything, they seem to thrive from the warmth that the pipeline permeates. In 1976, the population level for the caribou was at 75,000. After the pipeline was built, their population started to increase by at least 13% annually. In 2011, they numbered at around 350,000, about four times larger than before the pipeline was built. (www.heritage.org) “The caribou love it (the pipeline). They rub up against it, and they have babies. There are more caribou in Alaska than you can shake a stick at,” (George Bush, 1988). And in the case of the furbearers, the route that the pipeline would course through would hardly affect their trapping spots. Sadly, it is inevitable that a few habitats must be destroyed. Though planning the route of the pipeline, they tried to minimize the damage the environment receives while keeping in mind the most efficient path. NM 6 Recent issues involve false accounting, stolen property, and even damage to the pipe. Sabotage has occurred, officials speculating that members of the opposing side who were against the project may be responsible. Bullet holes along sections of the line have caused disturbance to oil production, as the process for fixing an oil leak requires the generators to be shut down. Most of the issues don’t always involve outside interference. Human failure to do their jobs has caused disturbances, maintenance failure is alway present when involving machinery, and natural disasters were bound to happen. On the bright side, thanks to these faults, thousands of workers are required to keep the pipeline up and running. Through all of the problems and complications the project endured, their endeavor was successful. Errors were made, corrected, and still the project was completed. Currently, other than the declining production of oil, the TAPS project has opened doors to further oil development. Funding from the government is being provided in order to help stabilize our economy. As a citizen currently living in Alaska, I find that the pipeline plays a big part in a resident’s life. Alaska would never have advanced further if it wasn’t for the benefits the project provided. The results of all this: Alaska’s economy improved on a high margin. The United States’ want of oil is, for now, met and a steady income is secured for the citizens. Although there was/is opposition, it does not eliminate the fact that building the pipeline was essential not only for our financial need, but also our country’s ability to cooperate as a whole. “Resources exist to be consumed. And consumed they will be, if not by this generation then by some (in the) future. By what right does this forgotten future seek to deny us our NM 7 birthright? None I say! Let us take what is ours, chew and eat our fill.” ­Nwabudike Morgan, CEO Morgan Industries. ­
Works Cited Coates, Peter A. ​
The Trans­Alaska Pipeline Controversy: Technology, Conservation, and the Frontier​
. Bethlehem: Lehigh UP, 1991. Print. ­
Focused on the history and the controversies surrounding the Trans­ Alaska Pipeline. Also provides information on the construction of the pipeline "Environmental Effects of the Alaska Pipeline: Home." ​
Environmental Effects of the Alaska Pipeline: Home​
. Web. 09 Feb. 2015. ­
Effects of the pipeline on the environment. Provided information on opposing groups and their argument. Shows that the pipeline did minimal damage to the environment. NM 8 "U.S. Energy Information Administration ­ EIA ­ Independent Statistics and Analysis." ​
How Much Oil Is Produced in Alaska and Where Does It Go?​
Web. 12 Feb. 2015. ­
Statistical information on how much oil is produced, transported, and lost yearly. "Economy." ​
, Alaska Kids' Corner, State of Alaska​
. Web. 31 Mar. 2015. ­
Basic information on the economy of Alaska. "The Trans­Alaska Pipeline: Lessons for the Keystone XL Pipeline Debate." ​
The Heritage Foundation​
. Web. 01 Apr. 2015. ­
Provided insight to the debates on oil. Local opinions were found and how their voice affected political decisions.