The Willow Project: Approval and Potential Impacts

Following much controversy and resistance, The Willow Project was finally passed on March 13th. Over the next 30 years, the project, led by the oil giant ConocoPhillips, plans to extract approximately 600 million barrels of crude oil from Alaskan petroleum reserves. The project initially faced harsh backlash from environmental activists, as the effort would involve destruction of a large portion of Alaskan land. Activists held protests, meetings with federal officials, and at-home efforts like phone calls and letters to prevent the passing of the project. Despite these efforts, however, the project was still passed with minor restrictions on the extent of the land disruption. Not only does oil extraction involve the destruction and deforestation of the petroleum reserve area, it also results in the production of a vast amount of carbon emissions. The Willow Project, specifically, will result in an estimated 280 million tons of carbon emissions.

Even as global warming continues, proponents of the project argue for the economic benefits that would come from oil drilling. Some include Alaskan lawmakers, who believe that passing the project will bring needed economic gains for the state. A rough estimate suggests that the project could generate a revenue of around $17 billion. The project will ultimately produce substantial revenues, even despite the funding requirements of $8 billion. Along with profits from drilling, the proposed sites are also estimated to create a total 2,500 jobs for local Alaskans. Over one third of Alaska jobs are in or linked to the oil-industry, which is why many argue for the importance of the location of this project on Alaskan reserves. The project also plans to be a significant contributor to domestic energy reserves, helping to meet increasing American demand.

Two of the main environmental concerns regarding the project are its emissions and impact on the immediate area surrounding the drill sites. Thus, many environmentalist groups posed strong opposition to the project. Their primary arguments focused on the project’s disruption of the surrounding area, carbon emissions, disruption of Native American land, and lack of immediate economic benefit. Located in the North Slope of Alaska and areas of the Arctic Ocean, the project poses a threat to species that are specially adapted to the icy conditions of this location. Leaks or spillage from oil extraction have the potential to contaminate nearby water sources, disrupt local ecosystems, and pose danger to species like migratory birds, caribou, and whales. The location itself is the largest expanse of pristine natural land in the United States, with no roads or developments in the area. Environmentalists argue that disruption of this area would be a near irremediable mistake. In addition, it is likely that economic benefits would be too slow to take into effect. The project is set to take into effect over the next 30 years, meaning progress on development will likely happen gradually over this time. Of the jobs created, there are an estimated 300 permanent jobs included. The potential economic impact provides gains for Americans, but also ignores the plight of the Native Americans whose lands are disrupted—one of the final and indisputable arguments of opponents of the project. As the project disrupts local ecosystems and populations of animals like the caribou, the livelihoods of and food sources for indigenous peoples are fundamentally disrupted. While this problem could have been remedied or negotiated prior to approval of the project, Native American groups such as the Nuiqsut have expressed, the leaders of the project failed to communicate with local indigenous groups, causing the issue to continue. The combination of environmental, economic, and social issues spurred by the creation of the project explain clearly the opposition that the project has faced.

By Celia Hughes