Should the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge be open to oil drilling - Research Paper Example

(school) Should the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge be open to oil drilling? Introduction This study shall discuss whether or not the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge should be open to oil drilling. The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) lies in the northeast corner of Alaska and is home to hundreds of wildlife and its species. It is currently considered protected land maintained as a wildlife refuge. Prospectors consider it also an area rich in oil with thousands of barrels of oil as potential yield from this region. These prospectors believe that such yield would serve as a major source for domestic oil for the US, thereby reducing its dependence on foreign oil. Environmentalists and other interest groups however argue that allowing oil drilling in the region would endanger the wildlife in the region, disrupting their reproductive cycles, their communication, and their endangering their lives. Advocates for oil exploration in the region however insist that the impact of oil drilling in the region on the wildlife would be minimal at best. Opponents to the drilling are not convinced of such contention. Hence, much controversy in this issue is apparent. This paper shall explore this issue and establish a clear and comprehensive discussion on the topic. It shall draw its discussion based on information gathered from scholarly materials and compare it with newspaper and materials from the print media. The discussions in both types of sources shall be analyzed and assessed based on reliability and their applicability to this subject matter. These sources shall serve as both informal and formal scholarly sources for this issue, establishing clear support for the topic based on clearly defined and clearly identified arguments from well-supported write-ups. Side A: Oil drilling should not be allowed in the ANWR Scholarly articles are also polarized on the issue with studies discussing the environmental and others the economic aspect of the issue. In a study by Brown (2005), the author discussed the value of the wilderness which is protected by the ANWR. The author further argued the importance of maintaining the area as a wilderness – an area which must be unexplored and untrammeled by humans (Brown, 2005). These environmentalists are firm in expressing that allowing oil exploration in the ANWR would ruin its pristine condition because human activities would blemish the landscape. The US Congress has even acknowledged the fact that “beauty is in part the glory of seeing moose, caribou, and wolves living in natural habitat, untouched by civilization” (as cited by Brown, 2005). Various studies on environmental positions on the issue set forth that preservation is a priority over any other considerations, and that lands which have been set apart from human exploration must be preserved as such. Most Americans seem to agree with this stance because surveys throughout the years indicate that majority of them do not support drilling in the ANWR. A paper by Kaye (2005) also sets forth similar positions by environmentalists on the issue. This paper also discussed the importance of preserving the ANWR as a wildlife refuge. This study points out that the ANWR provides sanctuaries and benefits which cannot be seen in any other region in the world. They describe it as a place to exercise restraint. It therefore implies that human activities must be fiercely restrained and restricted in this area because it represents the power which people seem to have over the area – a power which must be held back and controlled to a certain extent (Kaye, 2005). In effect, these studies point out the importance of controlling human activities, allowing it to be carried out elsewhere, but to be avoided in this region which has for millions of years been allowed to flourish and to exist as an area untouched by human hands. Other scholarly articles discuss how government officials are clearly recognizing the need for the US to explore its domestic sources of oil, and therefore the need for the US to explore regions within its territories for oil drilling and exploration (Cleveland and Kaufmann, 2003). The studies however believe that even if the domestic sources for oil are explored, this would still not resolve the US demand for oil. “Even if allowed, production from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge will have a negligible impact on the world oil markets” (Cleveland and Kaufmann, 2003, p. 485). In effect, the study seems to claim that allowing human activities in the ANWR may not fully solve the oil issue in the US. Clements (2003) discusses in his study that it would not be possible for the US to improve its domestic oil supply to a point where it would actually meet its significant oil demands and thereby be independent of foreign oil demands. Therefore, the author claims that it would be pointless for the US to exploit its last remaining wilderness “in lieu of the available alternatives” (Clements, 2003, p. 124). The author however warns that without any alternative fuel sources, the US may still come to a point where it would have no choice but to drill in the ANWR. And this would be an unfortunate choice in the face of other options that the country can actively consider. In an article published by MSNBC (2004), the news site explained that the opening of the ANWR to oil exploration would only decrease oil prices slightly, would reduce our dependence on foreign oil to an insignificant degree. Based on a report from the Energy Information Administration, allowing oil exploration in the ANWR would yield about 876,000 barrels of oil per year. However, even with such production rates, the US would still have to access about two thirds of its oil from foreign sources. A similar contention was made in an article in the Wall Street Journal which claims that the ANWR would likely fill 10% of the US oil need. The rest would still have to be gained from other sources of oil. Such supply would not even significantly affect oil prices in the US (The Numbers Guy, 2005). The article also emphasizes that oil drillers claim that only about 2000 acres of the ANWR would be explored for oil, leaving about 19 million acres free. However, environmentalists insist that this claim has no basis because there is no way to exactly point out and determine where oil can be drilled (The Numbers Guy, 2005). Oil wells would also likely be spread out, thereby affecting more areas of lands for pipelines and roads. And these technologies introduced into the region would disrupt the normal patterns of behavior of the wildlife in the area. Another article also sets forth that oil drilling in the ANWR, based on a national survey is disfavored by majority of Americans. Those who oppose drilling believe that there should be limits to oil drilling and there should be areas which must be off limits to oil drilling – the ANWR is one of these areas (Longley, 2005). They further express that the people have a moral responsibility to protect these areas where wildlife abound; moreover, people must seek to prevent irreparable harm from befalling these areas. Without such actions, explorations would leave no habitat safe for the wildlife and other natural resources. Side B: Oil drilling should be allowed in the ANWR On the other side of this argument – the side which supports oil drilling in the ANWR, there are few literature which consummately supports such oil drilling. Most of these articles highlight the impact that ANWR drilling would bring to our domestic oil supply; however, most of these articles acknowledge the fact that ANWR drilling would not solve America’s oil demands. Nevertheless, these articles shall be discussed herein to express the opposite side of the argument on ANWR drilling. In an article by Nelson, (2005) the author expressed how our foreign sources of oil are not anymore stable. Since the US imposed restrictive policies on Iraq, less oil production from the nation has been seen. Moreover, old Iraqi oilfields are not as productive anymore and only massive investments can restore these oilfields to their former productive glory. Another issue is that Russia and the US have not always been on the same page in terms of oil support; and this has worsened with the confiscation of the assets of Yukos for the payment of back taxes (Nelson, 2005). The US relies on Venezuela for heavy crude oil; however its oil trade agreements with this country has not been favorable for the US. Based on these considerations, the author pointed out that it is time for the US to explore the ANWR and to establish the potential of this region. In a study Cohen (2006), the author discussed how the US dependence on foreign oil is based on so many uncontrollable variables. For one, the US is the major oil user as it accounts for about 49% of the world’s overall oil demand. About half of this demand is filled by the Western hemisphere and 18% is filled by suppliers from the Persian Gulf (EIA, 2011). A small percentage left is filled by domestic sources. The sources coming from the Middle Eastern region is clearly volatile with crisis and conflicts in these areas impacting largely on oil supplies and on viability (Toman, 2002). Cohen (2006) discusses that these security and political risks provide clear support for the need to drill in the ANWR. The author claims that drilling in the area would add about 5% to the US oil supply. Although minimal, it is a comparably more reliable and stable source of oil. Other studies which support the oil drilling in the ANWR set forth that for as long as the oil drilling is maintained and well monitored, it would safely yield oil to fill our needs. These studies also point out that the world’s supply of oil is already running low and that there is a need to consider all possible sources of oil, including the ANWR. In a study by Lynne, Gelb, and Baldwin (2003), the authors set forth that drilling in the ANWR should be allowed because it would potentially decrease the US vulnerability to Middle-East crisis. It would also increase the production of North Slope oil and create many jobs in Alaska. These developers also insist that the ANWR can be improved and developed with hardly any environmental damage and only about 2000 acres of the land used for oil exploration (Lynne, Gelb, and Baldwin, 2003). In the discussion of Utley, he sets forth various points which make the ANWR a strong necessity. He points out that it is important for the US to explore other domestic sources because the Alaska pipeline will run dry in the next decade or so. Drilling in the ANWR can yield an extensive oil supply for the US and can help relieve oil supply issues for the country. Drilling in the ANWR can cut imported oil to a significant degree, about a total of 10 million barrels per day and even end America’s dependence on Middle East oil (Utley, 2005). Oil drilling in the ANWR would also be of lesser cost for the US and would create more jobs for Americans. An article from the Baltimore Sun (Nelson, 2010) sets forth similar arguments. This article claims that President Barack Obama missed out on some important opportunities in the ANWR oil exploration. The article firmly points out that the ANWR is a major point of contention among many environmentalists and interest groups with their claims of Obama’s lack of political commitment on his election stance -- that of allowing drilling in the ANWR. Due to such weak political commitment, Obama is said to have missed out on the opportunity to increase the oil yield for the US by about 10.4 barrels (Nelson, 2010). This translates to about $800 billion in oil revenue; with transportation and production costs accounted for, potentially the ANWR oil drilling profit would have exceeded $500 billion. This translates to federal shares exceeding $250 billion. Such profits cannot be gained at all without considerations given for ANWR exploration. These articles therefore provide an economic basis for oil drilling in the ANWR. Analysis: Language In the scholarly articles, the language is more formal, and in some instances, technical and highly specific for the subject matter and for related practitioners. In so many ways, the language seems to be built around an audience which has a discipline similar to that of the writer’s. On the other hand, the news releases use language which seems to be aimed at informing the general public, without any distinction between those who have a special or technical knowledge about the topic. The language used for scholarly articles is couched in fully supported terms with the claims and the conclusions reached by the authors being well supported by strong and logical materials. On the other hand, for newspaper articles, the language and the ideas behind the language are not fully supported by materials and resources. The author’s claims are based on his personal analysis – analysis which is not adequately supported by other sources or by clear and experimental applications of research. The language patterns for both types of research are important because it is important for scholarly articles to strike a formal and technical tone. Such themes in the language help provide support for the academic and the professional setting. These articles are after all peer-reviewed by fellow professionals (within similar lines of work and research) who would easily understand the language used. This language is meant for the academic circles and for the more theoretical applications of learning. The language, on the other hand, for the news articles are meant for the more informal and less technically informed crowd. It is used to inform them of general knowledge and conceptualizations of issues. In general, it is meant to provide more casual data about a topic; for everyday use, and not for the more formal academic or even research settings. Course themes or theories This topic relates very much to the theory on technological development, particularly on the fact that “necessity is the mother of invention.” This theory takes on a more economic approach to technological development; in other words, technological inventions or ventures are considered in order to fulfill the needs of society. In this case, there is a significant need for oil by American society. As was mentioned, the US oil demand comprises 49% of overall global demand. This need is crucial in powering our industries, our cars, our streets, and our numerous activities. Petroleum oil is our primary source of fuel; and our sources for such products are largely found in foreign oil producers. But these foreign sources are proving to be more costly and more unstable for the US to avail of, hence the need to find alternate sources of oil. This is when the need to explore oil reserves in the ANWR sets in. The need to come up with more viable and stable sources of oil is dictating the technology – or the new activity – that of oil exploration in the ANWR. When analyzed as an economic necessity, the exploration in the ANWR is justified and very much logical. The theory chosen here assumes that technological development seeks a fixed path and can only be supported by the laws of supply and demand. This theory is however, rich in criticism. One of the most essential criticisms is founded on the fact that it can lead to unintended consequences; such unintended consequences mostly relate to the more selfish goals which people seek to fulfill. Such goals may include honor, pride, greed, power, fame, and similar selfish and lofty aims. In any case, these goals often usher in acts which may prove destructive to the greater good. Noticeably, this necessity also establishes a pattern of behavior – a cycle – wherein one fulfilled need leads to the creation of other needs. In the ANWR context, as our needs for oil are temporarily assuaged in the ANWR, it also leads to more demands for oil and fuel. Eventually, this need shall never actually be fulfilled and technology and inventions would actually run out of avenues to turn. In assessing the different materials presented previously, there is a strong similarity between the scholarly and the popular press articles on this issue. The findings in both the scholarly and popular press articles acknowledge the possible role of the ANWR in reducing foreign oil dependence; however, these articles also highlight the fact that the ANWR would not significantly reduce foreign oil dependence and fill in our significant oil demands. These articles establish a glaring fact that even if oil drilling in the ANWR would be allowed, it would not resolve our issues in relation to oil supply. In effect, these articles establish that it would be patently pointless for us to explore the ANWR for oil when its impact would be largely unfavorable for the wildlife in the region, and when its expected benefits would not impact on the status quo. The scholarly articles provide references for the materials included and quoted within their text. The popular presses, however, do not provide references. Since, the claims of the articles from the popular presses do not significantly contradict the claims and results in the scholarly articles, there is no apparent discrepancy seen in these materials. It is also important to acknowledge the fact that based on different perspectives, it is possible to have different positions on this issue. From an economic standpoint, much support can be gleaned from the materials on oil exploration in the ANWR. However, from an environmental standpoint, it is clear to see that support for drilling in the ANWR cannot be found. Even then, on an economic scale, some of the studies already point out that the benefits which can be gained from the ANWR oil exploration would not be completely lucrative. Hence, it is important for those considering policies in the oil exploration to be discerning and prudent in their choices. Conclusion The discussion above sets forth important details on oil exploration in the ANWR. The various articles have explored both sides of the issue – the positive and the negative. The discussions which favor oil drilling in the ANWR point out its economic benefits. They also point out its security benefits for the US, as well as the reduced dependence of the US on foreign oil. On the other hand, those who oppose drilling in the ANWR point out that drilling in the region would impact negatively on the wildlife and on the pristine and untouched quality of the area. They also point out that whatever benefits that oil drilling would bring would not significantly reduce our oil dependence. It would therefore indeed be pointless for us to drill for oil in the region. Based on these points, I am highly inclined to agree with those who oppose drilling in the ANWR. I oppose drilling in the ANWR because as was mentioned, it would not significantly reduce our foreign oil dependence. And why should we endanger and destroy something which would not give rise to definite solutions? Drilling in the ANWR must not be carried out because it is one of the last remaining untouched frontiers in the world. There must indeed be a point where we must control and curb our needs and demands and consider what our actions would mean based on economic or even political levels. It is time for us to consider alternative sources of fuel. As long as we are considering the ANWR as a source of fuel, we would find it convenient to keep ignoring the call for alternative fuel sources. I believe that drilling in the ANWR should not be allowed because based on overall benefits and cost analysis the financial as well as environmental costs would weigh in heavily towards the negative end. Our goals must be driven towards goals and ends which would benefit us now and would benefit the generations who are to follow. Works Cited Brown, P. (2005). Preserving Wilderness vs. Stimulating Economic Growth and Ensuring the Security of U.S. Oil Supplies: A Study of the Arguments for and Against Drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, pp. 30-56. Retrieved 11 July 2011 from http://www.rw.ttu.edu/2302_phillips/Debatearticles/ANWR/ANWRPro1.pdf Clements, C. (2003). No Blood for Oil? United States National Security, Oil, and the Arctic Wildlife Refuge. William & Mary Environmental Law and Policy Review, volume 28(1), pp. 87-125 Cleveland, C. & Kaufmann, R. (2003). Oil supply and oil politics: Deja vu all over again. Energy Policy, volume 31, pp. 485–489. Cohen, A. (2006). Reducing U.S. Dependence on Middle Eastern Oil. The Heritage Foundation, number 1926, pp. pp. 1-9. Retrieved 11 July 2011 from http://s3.amazonaws.com/thf_media/2006/pdf/bg1926.pdf Corn, M., Gelb, B., & Baldwin, P. (2003). Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR): Controversies for the 108th Congress. Congressional Research Service. Retrieved 11 July 2011 from http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/IB10111_20030819.pdf Energy Investment Administration. (2011). How dependent are we on foreign oil? Retrieved 11 July 2011 from http://www.eia.gov/energy_in_brief/foreign_oil_dependence.cfm Kaye, R. (2000). The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge: An Exploration of the Meanings Embodied in America’s Last Great Wilderness. USDA Forest Service Proceedings, volume 2, pp. 73-80 Longley, R. (2005). Majority Oppose ANWR Oil Drilling, Survey Says. About.com. Retrieved 11 July 2011 from http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/technologyandresearch/a/anwrsurvey.htm MSNBC. (2004). Study: ANWR oil would have little impact. Retrieved 11 July 2011 from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4542853/ns/us_news-environment/t/study-anwr-oil-would-have-little-impact/ Nelson, R. (2005). Is ANWR The Answer to Our Energy Riddle? Pipeline & Gas Journal, pp. 1- 2. Retrieved 11 July 2011 from www.pipelineandgasjournal.com Nelson, R. (2010). ANWR: Obama's missed opportunity on energy”. Baltimore Sun. Retrieved 11 July 2011 from http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2010-02-17/news/bal-op.anwr0216_1_anwr-oil-fields-natural-world The Numbers Guy. (2005). Both Sides Massage the Data In the Debate Over ANWR. Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 11 July 2011 from http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB111159700308887683,00.html Toman, M. (2002). International Oil Security: Problems and Policies. Resources for the Future, number 02-04, pp. 1-8. Utley, J. (2011). The Case for Increasing Domestic Oil Production. Reason.com. Retrieved 11 July 2011 from http://reason.com/archives/2011/03/30/the-case-for-increasing-domest Bibliography Berman, D. & Geman, B. (2005). ANWR: Arctic tour sets stage for Capitol Hill Showdown. Environment and Energy Daily. Brown, P. (2005). Preserving Wilderness vs. Stimulating Economic Growth and Ensuring the Security of U.S. Oil Supplies: A Study of the Arguments for and Against Drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, pp. 30-56. Retrieved 11 July 2011 from http://www.rw.ttu.edu/2302_phillips/Debatearticles/ANWR/ANWRPro1.pdf Clements, C. (2003). No Blood for Oil? United States National Security, Oil, and the Arctic Wildlife Refuge. William & Mary Environmental Law and Policy Review, volume 28(1), pp. 87-125 Cleveland, C. & Kaufmann, R. (2003). Oil supply and oil politics: Deja vu all over again. Energy Policy, volume 31, pp. 485–489. Cohen, A. (2006). Reducing U.S. Dependence on Middle Eastern Oil. The Heritage Foundation, number 1926, pp. pp. 1-9. Retrieved 11 July 2011 from http://s3.amazonaws.com/thf_media/2006/pdf/bg1926.pdf Corn, M., Gelb, B., & Baldwin, P. (2003). Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR): Controversies for the 108th Congress. Congressional Research Service. Retrieved 11 July 2011 from http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/IB10111_20030819.pdf Energy Investment Administration. (2011). How dependent are we on foreign oil? Retrieved 11 July 2011 from http://www.eia.gov/energy_in_brief/foreign_oil_dependence.cfm Energy Information Administration. (2004) Analysis of Oil and Gas Production in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Retrieved 11 June 2011 from http://resourcescommittee.house.gov/Press/reports/energy/eia_anwrreport.pdf Kaye, R. (2000). The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge: An Exploration of the Meanings Embodied in America’s Last Great Wilderness. USDA Forest Service Proceedings, volume 2, pp. 73-80 Michael Klare. 2002. Resource Wars: The New Landscape of Global Conflict. New York: Owl Books. Longley, R. (2005). Majority Oppose ANWR Oil Drilling, Survey Says. About.com. Retrieved 11 July 2011 from http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/technologyandresearch/a/anwrsurvey.htm MSNBC. (2004). Study: ANWR oil would have little impact. Retrieved 11 July 2011 from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4542853/ns/us_news-environment/t/study-anwr-oil-would-have-little-impact/ Nelson, R. (2005). Is ANWR The Answer to Our Energy Riddle? Pipeline & Gas Journal, pp. 1- 2. Retrieved 11 July 2011 from www.pipelineandgasjournal.com Nelson, R. (2010). ANWR: Obama's missed opportunity on energy”. Baltimore Sun. Retrieved 11 July 2011 from http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2010-02-17/news/bal-op.anwr0216_1_anwr-oil-fields-natural-world The Numbers Guy. (2005). Both Sides Massage the Data In the Debate Over ANWR. Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 11 July 2011 from http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB111159700308887683,00.html Toman, M. (2002). International Oil Security: Problems and Policies. Resources for the Future, number 02-04, pp. 1-8. Utley, J. (2011). The Case for Increasing Domestic Oil Production. Reason.com. Retrieved 11 July 2011 from http://reason.com/archives/2011/03/30/the-case-for-increasing-domest Read More