The ANWR Oil Drilling - Essay Example

Stephanie Stricker Amy Dyer Position Essay English 112 March _, Oil Drilling Should be allowed in the ANWR In the northern coast of Alaska lies the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. It is a wide stretch of land that is in the Alaska North Slope region and spans 19,286,482 acres. The ANWR or the Arctic Refuge is the habitat of a wide variety of arctic wildlife. This includes more than forty species of fish, more than thirty kinds of land mammals, more than a handful of marine mammal types, and nearly 200 hundred migratory and resident bird species. (US FWS) A portion of the ANWR has been discovered to have potential gas and petroleum reserves. Section 1002 of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, which was passed by the United Congress and signed into law by President Jimmy Carter in 1980, deferred a previous decision of opening up 1.5 million acres for gas and petroleum exploration though. Nevertheless, since this portion, called ‘1002 Area’ after the ANILCA section, has been considered as probable source of oil and gas because of its proximity to the Mackenzie Delta, an area which has been found to have such resources by Canadians. In 1995, the two legislative bodies of the US government passed into law the Budget Act, which also includes an approval of the development of the ANWR 1002 Area. However, President Bill Clinton, under pressure from environmentalist groups, decided to veto it. Since then, the issue of further exploration and the possibility of extraction of oil and gas in the ANWR have become the subject of intense debates among environmentalist groups and proponents of petroleum and gas exploration. With the constant fluctuations and increases in the prices of crude oil in the world market, the increasing domestic demand for it, and the recurring peace and order problems in the Middle East, the debate on the issue has intensified even further. The ANWR oil drilling issue has even reached the point that it has become an agenda for national elections. Both the Republicans and the Democrats have used their respective stand on this subject as part of their strategies in gathering political support for every electoral contest they participate. The Democrats have held the stand of opposing oil drilling in the area since President Clinton. (Douglas) On the other hand, the Republicans have been pushing for the opening of the 1002 Area for exploration and eventual extraction. However, the political noise generated by the debate on this issue between the Republicans and the Democrats have only blurred further the merits and demerits of oil drilling in the ANWR. Therefore, people are led to choose which political party line they should follow instead of basing their stand on the issue on the concrete evidences and logic. If provided an objective view on the issue, however, minus the This resolution is one that takes into consideration of the merits of both sides of the argument and one that also bears in mind the immediate and long-term needs of the American economy. There is no reason why oil and gas exploration and, eventually, extraction should not be allowed in the ANWR. The necessity, however, has continually become more compelling in an annual basis. Isolating the issue from partisan politics, those who oppose it out of genuine concern for the wildlife and natural conservation, as a whole, will surely agree to the drilling if they consider the immediate necessity and are guaranteed that what they fear will not ever happen. Necessity dictates that the issue should no longer be between proponents and opponents. Instead, it should be on the least damaging methods in exploration and extraction. The opponents of ANWR drilling, however, have to compromise their myopic views first. The issue on the ANWR oil drilling can essentially be divided into opposing bases. One camp declares it to be an environmentally destructive activity while the other cites the undeniable need for sources of oil and gas to satisfy the country’s increasing consumption. The environmentalists point out that any extractive activity, such as oil drilling or mining for ores in the area will lead to a massive displacement or even reduction of both flora and fauna. They insist that that the value of the ANWR is in its being pristine. For being unspoiled, the place has provided safe refuge for many animals, especially the caribous. Allowing oil exploration and extraction will eventually lead to the elimination of wildlife. (Mitchell) A significant part of the 1002 Area has always been the Porcupine caribous’ calving grounds. They explain that oil drilling will lead to the isolation of the calving grounds from the herds. However, in 1986 the United States Fish and Wildlife Services itself, a federal bureau tasked in wildlife conservation, produced a report that recommends the entire ANWR coastal plain to be opened for gas and oil drilling. (Shabecoff) Despite the objectivity of the report, the recommendation was never realized after meeting heavy opposition from congress. Instead, some house representatives even advocated that the entire coastal plain be declared a protected area for all forms of wildlife. This would only strengthen legal provisions that would block all efforts in oil drilling in the future. According the environmentalists, it is not just areas affected directly by the drilling that will be damaged permanently. They insist that “the drilling in the area, because the required network of oil platforms, pipelines, roads and support facilities, not to mention the threat of foul spills, would play havoc on wildlife.” (Douglas) In response to arguments that only minor portions of the ANWR will be affected, they replied that the oil wells are not isolated production units. These will be connected with a network of pipelines that will cover an expansive part of the Arctic Refuge. This web of pipelines will be aboveground. This will be an unusual feature seen by the wildlife and will prompt them to vacate the area instead. The opponents to the ANWR oil and gas exploration and instruction have also refuted the claims that the area’s petroleum deposits will provide the solution to the US’s insufficient energy sources. While they recognize the fact that country is indeed in dire need for a stable supply of energy sources, they reason out that the ANWR does not have capability to solve such inadequacy. In fact, they insist that there are no conclusive evidences that that 1002 Area does have vast oil and gas reserves. The National Resources Defense Council, one of the country’s most influential environmental organizations, said that “whatever oil the refuge might produce is simply irrelevant to the larger issue of meeting Americas future energy needs.” (ANWR: Why Trash…) They explained that it will still take about ten years for the any oil extracted from the ANWR to enter the market. Once production reaches its peak, which is said to occur seventeen years from now, it will only supply only 3 percent of the nation’s daily need for fuel or energy source. They also said that, even if production reaches at 2 million barrels per day, the ANWR will only supply a measly 2 percent of the country’s needs. The NRDC’s line of reasoning got a major boost when the US Department of Energy came up with a report that questions the US Geological Survey’s estimates on the oil and gas reserves in the area as well as the its potentiality in affecting world prices of oil and satisfying the country’s energy needs. It said that there is no yet substantial knowledge about the presence of oil in the ANWR. It also said that, if indeed there is any, the quantity of the production may not be enough to affect the international prices of oil in favor of the US economy. (US DOE) The result will not likely be enough to decrease to a significant degree the dependence of the US to sources abroad. They point out that the USGS’s estimates and findings were all merely rooted in their studies of geological formations, which include the examination of rock and soil compositions. Proponents of a more extensive and subsequent exploration of the ANWR insisted that the 1998 US Geological survey over the area was enough to prove that the benefits far overwhelm the damages feared by the environmentalists and others in the opposition. The report stated the possibility of 5.7 billion barrels, at the minimum, and 16 billion barrels, at the most, of oil of recoverable oil in the 1002 Area alone. Most of the oil will be found on the west side of the Marsh Creek anticline. (USGS) Although, the Bush administration was filled with hesitance in opening the area for drilling during the early parts of its rule, it soon decided to push through with it. It pointed out once again on the urgency of making the country reduce its dependence on foreign sources of energy. Facing serious economic crisis, which brought about the loss of employment of hundreds of thousands of Americans, the development of the oil industry and the opening of ANWR for oil extraction was seen by the Bush administration as a means of creating job opportunities. In response to arguments from conservationists that such extractive industry will just lead to ecological destruction, it said that “scientists have developed innovative techniques to reach ANWRs oil with virtually no impact on the land or local wildlife." (Bush) While this particular agenda of the Bush administration clearly has merits, the opponents of oil development in the ANWR can easily highlight other issues and turn away the public’s attention from the benefits that such project would have done. The Bush administration was suffering from unpopularity and every policy it decided on was always met with skepticism and criticism from the public. Aside from this, Bush was heavily identified with the capitalist giants in America’s oil industry. Therefore, if the idea of pushing for oil extraction in the ANWR comes from Bush, it was automatically seen as just another self-serving move. The Democrats found it convenient to include the issue in their arsenal of criticisms against the Bush administration and Republican Party in general. The public, on the other hand, heavily disappointed with the economic, political, and geopolitical failed policies of the Bush administration might not have seen the need to analyze this particular issue. They might have just considered the proposal to extract oil in the ANWR as another potential failure of George W. Bush and his administration. There are several points that must be considered before handing out judgment on the necessity of oil and gas exploration and extraction in the Arctic Refuge. After carefully weighing the benefits against the environmental and social costs, if any, the verdict indicates that drilling for oil in the ANWR is necessary and advantageous. The fears of the environmentalists may not totally be unfounded but these have been blown so much out of proportions that the existence of practical solutions has been largely ignored. The environmentalist camp claims that the exploration and extraction of the entire ANWR will be disastrous for the animals inhabiting the area. Such claim is, however, very misleading. The entire ANWR is not the target for oil production. In fact, only 8 percent of the refuge has been considered for the activity. With such small area coverage, there is still a much bigger portion of the refuge that can still be allocated for wildlife protection. Opposing sectors have stated that current exploration efforts in the several oil wells that already exist in the area have already badly affected the animals. However, this is just another false claim. There has yet to be a conclusive study that says that wildlife in the area has indeed suffered because of the current level of oil exploration. The truth is that while there are some successes in developing the oil and gas industry in the Arctic region of Alaska, wildlife remains healthy and unaffected. It is observed that both the oil industry and the arctic wild animals have cohabited successfully in the area. (Arctic Power) With the conservation of animals also in mind, it is possible to avoid the environmentally destructive methods and machineries while extracting oil and delivering these though pipelines towards the refineries. The requirement for an advanced and environment-friendly technology can easily be met prior to a more extensive extraction activity. The current oil exploration technology in the arctic is already considered the most advanced internationally. There have been no reports of negative impact on fauna in the area with its use. While the over-all destruction of the Arctic Refuge and the dislocation and subsequent eradication of the wildlife in the area can be prevented through technological innovation, there is no solid argument that says that the oil production there will not in any way benefit the American economy and the people. Once production begins, a good portion of the proceeds of the industry will certainly be channeled to the state and federal treasury as collected revenues. These will be in the form of lease rentals, taxes, royalties, and bonus bids. At the current rates of $60 per barrels, it is estimated that the taxes and royalties that can be collected can be, at least, $48 billion. At most, it may even reach $142 billion. If the barrel of crude oil reaches $100 though, the amount can even be much higher; $85 billion at the minimum and $237 billion at the most. (Arctic Power) To prove that a more extensive and intensive oil extraction in the area can boost the economy, the contribution of the existing oil wells in the North Slope should be a case in point. Since 1977 until 2004, these already infused more than $50 billion already to the economy. Because Alaska could not provide the materials and infrastructure for these, many states benefitted from the sale of such necessities to BP Exploration, Conoco Phillips, and ARCO, the companies doing the limited oil extraction during aforementioned period. Therefore, not only will the state and federal governments benefit from the development of oil extractive industry in the ANWR. The market itself and the economy, in general, will be provided with a much needed lift. With both private and public sectors enjoying the proceeds of the industry, there can be no more doubts about the advantages being optimized once the ban on oil exploration and extraction is lifted. Should the extractive industry be finally allowed, the ANWR will give the employment situation in the country with a valuable shot in the arm. According to Arctic Power, the number of jobs that can be created by the industry can range 250,000 to 750,000. Alaska alone is guaranteed to have 38,000 jobs during the peak of the ANWR oil drilling industry. (McDowell Group) These job opportunities will not only be provided to the people of Alaska. The upstream part of the oil industry, from exploration and extraction to delivering the crude oil to the refineries, may be manned mostly by Alaskan workers but, with the state’s low population, there will certainly be a need to employ thousands of non-Alaskans as well. The downstream portion of the oil industry, which involves refining, wholesale distribution, and retailing, will grant more job opportunities in other states. There maybe a degree of truth in the claims of ANWR oil drilling opponents that the oil reserve there is not actually big enough to entirely offset the country’s dependence on foreign sources of oil. However, this does not mean that the country should not proceed in looking for more sources within its borders. While the US continues to import at least 60% of its petroleum and gas needs from abroad, the prices of such items have become more expensive than ever. Generally, this has hurt the economy, especially in terms of trade deficits. The North Slope oil well production has begun to decline. With another local source depleted, the import volumes of oil and gas products will certainly increase. During these times when the biggest oil reserves located in the unstable or unfriendly Middle Eastern countries, such as Iraq and Iran respectively, an energy crisis continues to loom over the country. In 1989, a Senate committee already gave its approval on leasing the ANWR coastal plain for oil companies who wish to extract oil. However, only ten days after the Senate approval the Exxon Valdez oil spill occurred. Over 10 million gallons of crude petroleum was spilt in Prince William Sound, leaving loons, pigeons, seals and other kinds of wildlife destroyed. (Shogren) The devastation that happened to the environment due to the oil spill scared the legislators into withdrawing their support of the oil drilling. Since then, all other efforts in pushing for oil exploration and extraction in the ANWR have failed. The urgency of finding a source of energy available domestically has become more pronounced. The problem of unemployment has hit the country in ways nearly comparable during the Great Depression. The federal government is embarking on an agenda based on social welfare even as it needs additional revenues to support this financially. The economy has yet to fully recover after a recession that battered it in 2008. The wars in the Middle East and Central Asia, areas with possible oil reserves, still continue to rage. The ANWR is certainly not the panacea for all these problems. If the country is seriously bent on solving these, it should start by seizing the opportunities offered by natural resources recoverable in its own backyard. Instead of waiting or even waging wars just to ensure a stable supply for America’s energy needs, the ANWR should be developed to satisfy it, at least partially. In weighing between the importance of conservationism and the survival of the nation, the latter naturally comes first. However, this does not mean that the wildlife and other natural wonders within the ANWR will be neglected. America has achieved a very advanced technological level. It already has developed oil extraction mechanisms that do not damage much the environment. In fact, this technology can still be developed further. However, the more urgent need must be addressed first and that is the survival of the economy and the country. Works Cited Arctic Power. "Top ten reasons to support ANWR development." News ANWR.Org. 23 March, 2010. Bush, George W. "Energy for Americas Future." Whitehouse.gov. 19 March, 2010. Douglas, Waller. “Some Shaky Figures on ANWR Drilling.” Time 13 August, 2001. 23 March, 2010. http://www.time.com/time/columnist/waller/article/0,9565,170983,00.html McDowell Group, Inc. “ANWR and the Alaska Economy: An Economic Impact Assessment.” Supporting Alaska Free Enterprise. Mitchell, John. “Oil Field or Sanctuary.” National Geographic 1 August, 2001 (46-55). 23 March, 2010. http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/data/2001/08/01/html/ft_20010801.3.html National Resources Defense Council. "Arctic National Wildlife Refuge: Why Trash an American Treasure for a Tiny Percentage of Our Oil Needs?" NRDC Issues. 23 March, 2010. Shabecoff, Philip. "U.S. Proposing Drilling for Oil in Arctic Refuge." New York Times 25 Nov. 1986. 19 March, 2010. http://www.nytimes.com/1986/11/25/us/us-proposing-drilling-for-oil-in arctic-refuge.html Shogren, Elizabeth. For 30 Years, a Political Battle Over Oil and ANWR. All Things Considered. NPR, 2005. US Department of Energy. “Potential Oil Production from the Coastal Plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge: Updated Assessment.” Report #. SR/O&G/2000-02. 23 March, 2010. US Department of Energy. “Analysis of Crude Oil Production in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.” Energy Information Administration. SR/OIAF/2008-03. Washington, DC: GPO. 2008. US Fish and Wildlife Service. "Wildlife and Wild Landscapes." Arctic National Wildlife a Refuge. 24 March, 2010. US Geological Survey. “Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, 1002 Area, Petroleum Assessment 1998, Including Economic Analysis.” USGS Fact Sheet FS-028-01 Apr. 2001. Read More