Oil and Gas Exploration at ANWR - Assignment Example

Oil and Gas Exploration at ANWR 0. Introduction: This paper is a and analysis surrounding a controversial issue on whether to allow the exploration of gas and oil at the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. This paper identifies and explains this issue, in detail. It further identifies the various laws governing the ANWR, and the necessary changes in these laws. The main argument contained in this paper, is that oil and gas exploration at ANWR should be prohibited. 2.0 Identification and Description of the Issue: Oil is a very important natural energy that United States depends on, for purposes of improving its economy. Through oil, the country is able to promote its manufacturing, transport, and service industry. Without oil, the economy of United States would fall, and therefore, it is a very important commodity. Most of the United States oil supply comes from Middle-East, with Saudi-Arabia being its highest supplier. Other countries that supply oil to United States include Nigeria, Kuwait, and Iraq. Currently, the United States is engaged in the process of drilling oil in its shores. For example, as of the year 2011, there were approximately 1057 rigs, responsible for drilling oil in the United States (Kaye, 11). These were found in states that are associated with oil presence, such as Louisiana, Texas, and North Dakota. With the emergence of new drilling technologies, the government of President Bush lifted a ban on oil drilling in the arctic and initiated measures aimed at increasing the production of oil in the United States. The major and new technologies that have led to an increase in oil drilling are the hydraulic fracturing technique, and the horizontal drilling techniques. These technologies make it possible to drill oil, from tight shale rock formations. Cogwell (11) therefore explains that these technologies will manage to increase the production of oil in United States by approximately 30%. This is by the year 2015. However, there is a considerable debate on whether to allow offshore drilling in the United States. The issue of offshore drilling gained a wide media coverage, when President Bush cancelled an executive, issued by the then President in the year 1990. Furthermore, President Bush was calling for an increase in the oil drilling of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. There is a considerable debate that surrounds this issue, on whether to drill or not to drill oil in this region. President Obama is against the drilling of oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), citing the fact that it would lead to environmental damage and pollution. On the other hand, President Bush was an avid supporter of drilling of oil in this region. His argument was that it would help in meeting the oil demands of the country. Despite the existence of this debate, this paper takes a stand that drilling of oil in the ANWR is harmful to the environment, and there is a need of regulating companies responsible for drilling oil in this region. 3.0. Description and analysis of the Problem. 3.0.1: The Problem and the ANWR site The problem and issue under consideration is that the drilling of oil in the ANWR is harmful to the environment of United States. The question on whether to drill oil at the ANWR is a political issue, and is constantly used by the democrats and the republicans, as a campaign issue (Lieland, 37). The ANWR is an important ecological site in the United States, and it comprises of 77,000 km2 of the Northern side of Alaska. This region is situated on the Northern side of the Beaufort Sea, and on the southern side of the Brooks Range (Cogwell, 11). It is also situated on the Western side of Prudhoe Bay. The ANWR is the biggest protected wilderness in America, and it achieved this status through the 1980 Conservation Act of the Alaska National Interest Lands. This act was able to create a mechanism, which made it possible for the government to protect the area, and all wildlife that were living in the region. This is an indication that the ANWR is an important ecological and geographic region in United States; hence there is a need of protecting it. It is important to explain that any regions that are protected by parliamentary acts or laws, are national treasures, and important to the country. Under this act, there was section 1002 which was talking exclusively on the need of preserving the area, from unwarranted oil and gas exploration (Cogwell, 21). Section 1002 of this act was able to defer the decision by the government to manage oil, and explore gas in approximately 1500,000 acres of the region. This area is known as 1002 area. Based on this fact, the controversy exists on whether to drill oil in this region, or not. Majority of debate, on whether to drill oil in the 1002 area, of the ANWR centers on the volume of economically recoverable oil, and how it relates to the world oil markets. This is weighted against the potential harm, the exploration would cause to the environment (Cogwell, 17). This is particularly, its impact on the habitat of thee wildlife, and specifically, the calving grounds, of the Porcupine. This means that there are two positions to this debate, on whether it is necessary to allow oil exploration on area 1002. One side, views it as economically viable, and the economy of United States would improve, if oil exploration is allowed (Conley, 17). The other side opposes the exploration of oil, based on the fact that it plays a role in the destruction of the natural habitats of wildlife. Wildlife preservation and conservation is an important environmental issue in United States, and this is because, these animals play a considerable role in maintaining and balancing the ecosystem. In an effort to protect the wildlife, section 1002 of the act requires that studies have to be constantly conducted, for purposes of providing information to the congress, with the aim of assessing the wildlife and fishery resources found in this region (Kaye, 27). This is for purposes of analyzing the impact of oil and gas exploration to these natural resources. It is this provision in this act, that normally makes politicians to strongly debate on whether to allow oil and gas exploration in the ANWR region or not. Despite the political debates that surround on whether to allow for exploration or not, oil exploration normally has negative impact on the environment. To allow such kind of an exploration, there is a need of balancing its economic benefit, with the environmental impact, for purposes of coming up with a solution on whether to explore or not. 3.0.2: Why it is important for the government not to allow the drilling of oil and gas in ANWR. One of the major reasons, that is advocated against the drilling of oil in this region, is based on the fact that it would lead to the destruction of the environment. For example, in his speech to the league of Conservation Voters, President Obama denoted that there is n o need of drilling oil in the ANWR region, if it would not have an impact on the global oil supplies, affecting the prices of the commodity (Conley, 19). Furthermore, President Obama denoted that there is no need of drilling oil in the arctic region, if it would cause an irreversible damage to the environment and the habitats of the national wildlife found in the arctic. Oil exploration in the region is dangerous, and unwarranted. Furthermore, the department of energy is of the view that there is little knowledge on the volume of oil and gas that is found within the region (Lieland, 37). Based on this fact, there is uncertainty on whether, the oil and gas that is contained in this region, has the capability of affecting the global prices of oil, and also improving the American economy. Cogwell (22) disagrees with this assertion, and he denotes that the projected oil, at the ANWR region is too small, and it does not have the capability of affecting the global oil prices, without being offset by some production, outside of United States. In an estimate carried out by the department of energy, in the year 2006, the results denote that the average annual consumption of petroleum and crude oil products in United States stood at 7.55 billion barrels (Conley, 27). On the other hand, the United States Geological survey indicates that the estimated amount of oil that is found in the arctic region could amount to 10.4 billion barrels. This means that the production would only be used to serve the American economy, with very little left for export. Based on this fact, the drilling of oil and gas in the region, does not meet the conditions established by the government, and environmental groups on the need of drilling oil and gas (Kaye, 33). This is because the environmental damage would be so great, with little economic impact in United States and the world (Conley, 28). Furthermore, environmental activists believe that oil drilling in a given area requires a substantial amount of pipelines, oil platforms, support facilities and roads. Furthermore, there is also a threat of oil spills, which can play a role in the destruction of the habitats of the wildlife. For example, the ANWR is a calving ground, for approximately 129,000 porcupines (Conley, 17). This means that oil exploration would result to the destruction of these calving grounds, affecting the ecosystem of the area. Furthermore, environmentalists claim that the effects of oil and gas exploration would be felt across the entire arctic region, and not area 1002 as claimed. This is because airports would be built, roads constructed, and there would be gravel mines across an area of approximately 1000 square miles (Conley, 22). Furthermore, the destruction of the arctic region would lead to a change in the lifestyle of the Native Americans. This is because they rely on the region for their foods, and particularly, the caribou porcupines which they depend on, for their sustenance. Based on these facts, the notion that exploring the region, in search of oil and gas, would help in promoting the economy cannot be comparable with the adverse effects that this activity may have on the environment (Kaye, 31). People who support this idea of drilling oil and gas at the ANWR argue that it would reduce the American dependency of foreign countries, for oil. However, it is important to denote that the Americans consume approximately 7.7 billion barrels of oil per year. On the other hand, the ANWR has approximately 10.4 billion barrels of oil (Cogwell, 28). This means that Americans would only be independent of foreign oil, for a period of one year. It is therefore not worth it, to damage the ecosystem at ANWR, for short term gains. This is because oil explorations at this region, will only benefit the Americans, within a short term. On the other hand, environmental damage, that emanates from oil and gas exploration is irreversible, and it will negatively affect the American ecosystem (Lazzari, 13). It is therefore important to prevent the exploration and drilling of oil and gas in this region. 3.0.3. Goals of US Energy regarding Environmental Conservation. The following are the goals of the US Energy department regarding environmental conservation. Reduction of carbon emissions in the air. Promotion of activities aimed at protecting the health of people. Conserving and protecting the natural habitats and resources of America. Reduction of pollution. By looking at these goals, it is important to denote that they can only be achieved when the government does not authorize the drilling of gas and oil at the arctic region (Cogwell, 33). For example, when drilling oil and gas, this means that industries would be established in the region. These industries play a great role in emitting carbon emissions in the atmosphere. Furthermore, prohibition of the drilling of oil and gas, would result to the protection of the natural habitats, hence protecting and conserving wild animals (Conley, 19). This is one of the major goals, of the US energy department. 4.0. Identification and Description of the Current State of Law: The ANWR is administered by the department of fish and wildlife service. This area is protected by the various laws that govern use of natural resources and energy. The process of protecting these lands began in November 1957, with an application of creating the Arctic National Wildlife Range (Conley, 22). This land was to be found in the North Eastern side of the State of Alaska. In the year 1960, the state secretary of Interior was able to issue a Public Land Order number 2214, for purposes of defining this region as the Arctic National Wildlife Range, and reserving the area. This analysis describes and analysis the current laws that regulate and protect the ANWR region. It also analyses the role of the Fish and Wildlife department in protecting this region. 4.0.1. The Native Claims Settlements Act of Alaska (1971) This is a law enacted by congress, and it aims at providing monetary payments to people and natives who may be affected by the government activities in the region. This law is also responsible for the creation of village cooperation’s, which have the responsibility of managing approximately 22 million acres of land, across the state of Alaska (Lazzari, 13). This means that the native people heavily depend on the natural resources and wildlife in the region, and tampering with them, would negatively affect their culture (Cogwell, 44). Based on this fact, the villagers and natives are allowed to participate in the management and conservation of natural land in the Arctic region. Section 22 of this act denotes that the land which is chosen for management by this village cooperation must be done under the various laws that regulate the use of the particular land or region under consideration. The ANWR is also a region where village cooperation was given the mandate to manage. For example, the Kaktovik Inupiat Corporation has a mandate to manage and use three townships, which are located within the coast of the ANWR (Conley, 21). Furthermore, this act is able to create a regional Corporation, which had the power of creating a subsurface right to some of the lands. However, the law prohibited this cooperation from providing subsurface rights to the Atlanta National Wildlife Refuge. This means that it was a protected area. 4.0.2. The National Interest Land Conservation Act of Alaska (1980). This law was enacted in the year 1980, and it talked about several issues that touch on the ANWR. This law was able to rename the arctic range, to the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (Kaye, 27). This law further expanded this region by including an additional 9.2 million acres. Section 702, subsection 3 identified most of this region as a wilderness, however, the coastal plain was not categorized as a wilderness. It therefore did not enact any measures aimed at protecting the coastal plain, until the development of section 1002 of the act, which authorized a study on the region (Cogwell, 43). This study was to identify the resources found within the region, and whether there was a need of protecting those resources. Section 1003 of the act was developed for purposes of preventing the exploration and drilling of gas and oil in the region. This made the region to be a protected area, and its intention was to protect the environment from irreversible damage that could be created because of the exploration activities of the oil and gas companies (Cogwell, 51). Furthermore, this act denoted that oil and gas exploration could only occur in this area, unless congress authorized it. In 1996, Congress tried to allow the exploration of gas and oil in the region. However, the move was vetoed by the then President, President Clinton. 4.0.3 The SAFE Act (2001) This was a law sponsored by the administration of President George Bush, and it sought to allow the exploration and drilling of oil in the ANWR. This bill, prohibited thee exportation of oil, which is removed from this region, and the exploration work should be conducted by trade unions (Kaye, 27). Furthermore, the proponents of this bill believed that the exploration will provided hundreds of jobs to Americans, and it would improve the economy of the nation (Conley, 21). However, this bill and law faces stiff opposition from environmentalists, who believe that it would lead to the destruction of the environment, hence there, is no need of implementing it. 5.0. Departments Responsible for Managing the Arctic Region, The department responsible for the regulation and protection of this arctic region is the department of Fisheries and Wildlife. This is a federal government agency that is under the office or directorate of interior. It is dedicated for the preservation and management of wildlife, natural habitats, and fish. The mission of this agency is to protect, conserve and enhance wildlife, fish, and plants. This is for the benefiting the American people (Cogwell, 11). Through this action, the department denotes that it would help in conserving the environment, and ensuring that there is an ecological balance of the ecosystem. This department is also responsible for enforcing the various laws, regarding the use of the arctic region. This includes the SAFE act of 2001, which is a law that authorized the drilling and exploration of oil in the arctic region. Furthermore, this department has the responsibility of protecting endangered species, restoration and conservation of wild life habitat, and managing migratory birds (Conley, 17). It is therefore important to denote that this department plays an important role in ensuring that the ANWR region is well protected, and nobody breaks the law, by engaging in activities that are prohibited in it. 6.0. Changes in the Underlying Law: One of the proposed changes touches on the Native Claims Settlements Act of Alaska. This law has allowed for the creation of village cooperation, which is responsible for protecting and using land that is designated to them (Conley, 21). This also includes land which is found within the region of thee ANWR. Based on this fact, there is a need of changing this law, for purposes of removing this provision, regarding the creation of village cooperation. This is mainly because the natives are known for destroying the environment; hence, there is a need of limiting their participation in this process of environmental control. However, this does not mean that the natives should be prevented from using the named sites (Conley, 11). They should be allowed, but under supervision from the concerned regulatory agency. This would ensure that the federal government manages to conserve and protect the ANWR. Another change is on the 2001 SAFE act. There is a need of repelling this act, and introducing new legislations aimed at prohibiting the exploration of oil and gas in the region. 7.0 Conclusion: Oil and gas exploration normally has adverse effects on the environment. This exploration would lead to the emission of carbon into the atmosphere, destruction of forests and natural habitats, possible oil spillage, etc. The ANWR is an important ecological site in United States, and it is a home to numerous animals, including bears, porcupines, gazelles, etc. Allowing for the exploration of oil in this area will affect their habitats, resulting to an irreversible destruction of the environment. It is prudent to initiate policies that would prevent the exploration of oil and gas at the ANWR. Works Cited: Cogwell, Mathew T. Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. New York: Nova Science, 2002. Print. Top of Form Bottom of Form Conley, Heather A. Arctic Economics in the 21st Century the Benefits and Costs of Cold. Lanham: Center for Strategic & International Studies, 2013. Print. Top of Form Bottom of Form Kaye, Roger. Last Great Wilderness the Campaign to Establish the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Fairbanks, AK: U of Alaska, 2006. Print. Top of Form Bottom of Form Lazzari, Salvatore. Possible Federal Revenue from Oil Development of ANWR and Nearby Areas. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, 2008. Print. Top of Form Bottom of Form Lieland, Barbara T. Arctic National Wildlife Refuge a Review. New York: Nova Science, 2009. Print. Read More