Should Drilling be Allowed in the Arctic - Essay Example

Should Drilling be allowed in the Arctic Circle? The world has come to depend largely on oil. Oil powers our cars, our ships, our planes, and our various factories and industries. Oil is one of our primary sources of energy. The United States is one of the largest consumers of oil, representing about 68.9% of total oil usage in the year 2006 alone (Wikipedia,org., 2008). At present, our oil is being supplied not just by our domestic reserves but also by offshore drilling platforms, foreign countries in the Middle East, and other oil-rich countries like Canada, Venezuela, and Mexico. The United States, followed by Japan and China, is the largest importer of oil (Shin, 2008). This fact proves that our present domestic sources are not sufficient to meet the demands of our country. Considering the present increase in oil prices, the clamor for increase in domestic drilling has spiked the debate on allowing drilling in the Arctic Circle. Politicians have been divided on the issue with each side putting forth valid claims worthy of consideration and perusal. This paper explores the issue of whether or not drilling should be allowed in the Arctic Circle. It shall set forth this student’s position on the issue supported by firm and viable evidence from various researches. In order to lend objectivity to this paper, counter-arguments shall also be put forth, equally backed and supported by researches and relevant evidence. “The Arctic National Wildlife Reserve (ACWR) is the largest reserve and probably one of the most diverse areas in the National Wildlife Refuge System” (Burns, et.al., 2004). Oil exploration in the area started as early as the 1900s. Some parts of the Arctic Circle were declared as protected areas to safeguard the welfare of the wildlife in the arctic. Several oil explorers sought to drill oil in these protected areas, which prompted President James Carter in the 1970s to sign the Alaska National Interests Lands Conservation Act which effectively declared the area as wilderness, and therefore off limits to oil exploration. This area was designated as Area 1002. The oil drilling debate in the Arctic Circle is a typical battle between environmentalists and cost-effective minded politicians and interest groups. This student opposes oil drilling in the Arctic Circle. Research conducted at the Cornell University, revealed that drilling in the Arctic Circle would result to disastrous environmental consequences that would take years to undo and reverse. “Because a lot of the drilling would take place during the winter months, considerable damage would be done to the polar bear population due to human disturbance” (Burns, et.al., 2004). The slightest disruptions in the survival rates of the newborn polar bear population can lead to severe consequences to the polar bear population. Polar bears who may potentially give birth to cubs, build their dens in the winter time. Many of these dens are within the Arctic Refuge’s protected area. The present existing oil exploration and drilling in unprotected areas of the Arctic see numerous vehicles moving across the tundra. “Maternal polar bears with newborn cubs can be prematurely displaced from their winter dens by the noise, vibrations and human disturbance associated with oil exploration activities” (Arctic Refuge Staff, 2001). This displacement might lead to human-bear conflicts that would mostly prove fatal for the polar bear population. Consequently, motherless cubs would be exposed to “increased mortality due to harsh winter conditions for which they are not yet prepared” (Arctic Refuge Staff, 2001). The porcupine caribou breed in the Arctic Circle, and they are very much sensitive to human disturbances in their breeding areas. These disturbances can cause a massive decrease in the caribou herds. And the Native Americans in the area depend on these herds for their sustenance. The US Fish and Wildlife Service through their Arctic Refuge staff (2001) revealed that drilling and oil exploration in the protected areas of the Arctic Circle would bring pipelines, roads and other infrastructures that would lessen the quantity and quality of ideal forage available during and after calving. The staff also reported that oil exploration would limit the access to vital coastal insect-relief habitats. They also said that oil drilling in the area would expose the herd to more predators. They reported that oil exploration would disturb and change the ancient migratory pattern of the caribou, and the effects of that disruption would be hard to calculate. The muskoxen have been long-time inhabitants of the Arctic Circle. In cases of grave disturbances from predators and/or humans, they usually run. In these instances, the young are usually trampled or left behind. In instances of oil exploration and drilling, the rivers would be used for gravel, water supply, and for transport. Interest groups have expressed concern over oil activities along large rivers because these activities would displace the “muskoxen from [their] preferred winter habitat, increase energy needs related to disturbance and displacement, decrease body condition of females, increase incidents of predation, decrease calf production and animal survival” (Arctic Refuge Staff, 2001). According the US Fish and Wildlife Services, there are about 135 species of birds in the 1002 area. This includes various shorebirds, loons, songbirds, and raptors. The most notable birds in the area are the snow geese. They feed on the coastal tundra of the Arctic Refuge for three to four weeks each fall while on their way from their nesting grounds in Canada to their wintering grounds in Sunny California. During their three to four weeks in the Arctic Circle, they build fat reserves for their long journey south. These snow geese feed on a large area of vegetation; hence a large area is needed for them to feed on. They are very sensitive to disturbance, and they often flee their feeding sites when there are human activities in the area or even several miles from their feeding sites. When they are unable to fatten up for their journey south, their chances of surviving their migration are slim. In areas of the Arctic Circle, like the Prudhoe Bay where oil drilling is allowed, an average of one oil spill a day are regular occurrences that have devastating consequences to the environment. BP Amoco was fined for oil spills in Alaska, but this did not stop oil spills from occurring in the area. Nitrous Oxide-a toxic gas, is also released into the air as a result of oil drilling. According to the Alaska National Wilderness League, “since the recent rise in gas prices, poll after poll has shown that Americans strongly favor forward-thinking energy solutions that emphasize renewable energy and conservation over the dead-end proposals of the past…” (Keogh, 2006). Representative George Miller also expressed his opposition to drilling in the Arctic Circle. He said, “[w]hat they are telling us is that they have postponed conservation, they have postponed new technologies, and they have postponed new sources of energy” (Miller, 2006, as quoted by Shogan, 2006). He is of the opinion that our resources would be better spent in finding alternative sources of fuel and in improving our current resources. Athan Manuel, director of lands protection for the Sierra Club shares Miller’s position on the issue. According to Manuel, more drilling will not solve the oil problem crisis. He said that, “ …the worlds energy needs should first start with a serious commitment to conservation combined with expanded use of cleaner technologies” (Hargreaves, 2006). According to the Arctic Refuge (2001), “[a]lthough technological advances in oil and gas exploration and development have reduced some of the harmful environmental effects associated with those activities, oil and gas development remains an intrusive industrial process”. Various production sites for drilling, pipelines, power plants, roads infrastructure for oil transport, loading docks, gravel pits, utility lines, and landfills are just a few of the various introductions to the land that would result to oil drilling in the Arctic circle. This necessary equipment will clutter the landscape and displace wildlife in the area. A large amount of water is also needed for drilling. If water is usually not available to construct ice roads, gravel is used as an alternative. Water is definitely limited in the potential drilling areas in the Arctic Circle, hence, there is a greater possibility that more permanent gravel roads would be used to construct roads to make possible oil transport. The Arctic Refuge (2001) presented several possible effects of drilling in the Arctic Circle. Some of these were already previously mentioned. Other effects include: “deposition of alkaline dust on tundra along roads, altering vegetation over a much larger area than the actual width of the road, local pollutant haze and acid rain from nitrogen oxides, methane and particulate matter emissions, and contamination of soil and water from fuel and oil spills” (Arctic Refuge Staff, 2001). These potential results of oil drilling were proven and were seen in other areas where oil exploration was allowed. These effects were seen in Prudhoe Bay, parts of Alaska, Canada, and Russia. Opponents to drilling in the Arctic Circle argue that there is no firm evidence that the Arctic Circle would really yield the millions of barrels of oil that drilling proponents claim the Arctic Circle would produce. According to the Energy Information Administration (2005, as quoted by Fox News), "[t]here is considerable uncertainty regarding both the size and quality of the oil resources that exist in the refuge”. Weighing this uncertainty against the possible considerable damages that oil drilling in the Arctic Circle would bring, this student prefers to err on the side of caution. Opponents to drilling in the Arctic Circle also claim that the oil that would be recovered from the Arctic would only be good for several years. And when that supply dwindles again, we have nowhere else to drill and explore. The Arctic Circle is, after all, the so-called last frontier. The oil production and exploration process would be able to create jobs for various citizens. Opponents to this proposition argue that this job surge would only be temporary and would only exist during the initial phases of exploration. When said phase is over, jobs would again trickle to lower numbers. The jobs that would be generated from oil production and exploration are not long-term and sustainable solutions to the unemployment issue in the United States (Burns, et.al., 2004). The damages seen in areas where oil exploration has been allowed has proven to be devastating to the environment. Many oil companies have vowed their devotion to environmental safeguards that have not been delivered. Areas of Alaska where drilling has not been prohibited have suffered contaminated waters from oil spills and leaks. These oil spills and leaks proved to be devastating to flora, fauna, and to humans. A research established that in parts of Alaska where active and massive drilling is being conducted, their incidence for cancer registered higher numbers than the national average (Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, 2008). Many other disastrous incidents related to oil drilling and exploration clutters not just our history as a country, but the history of the world as well. Many environmentalists firmly put forth that “past environmental damage caused by drilling on Alaska’s north slope, identify major oil companies with poor environmental track records, give evidence that new horizontal drilling techniques are not able to minimize harm…” (Burns, et.al., 2004). Many proponents to drilling in the Arctic Circle put forth that the US should focus on domestic sources of oil in response to rising oil prices and dwindling Middle East supply of oil. They argue that the US has become so dependent on foreign sources of oil that it has also become vulnerable to fluctuations in world oil prices and all that it implies. Various interest groups who mainly advocate oil as a prime energy source argue that there would be “enhanced federal revenues and bolstered economies as a result of increased oil revenues and revenues from lease rentals and taxes” (Burns, et.al., 2004). According to them, it would be possible for the United States to generate more jobs for its citizens. It would also mean greater revenue from our domestic oil production. Millions of dollars paid to foreign countries for our oil imports would be minimized. They argue that, our increased domestic supply would not make us too vulnerable to the whims of oil-producing nations. Many drilling proponents set forth that the Arctic Circle would yield 16 billion barrels of oil (Burns, et.al., 2004). They further argue that this would be enough to substantially “supplement current extraction from other oil ventures at Alaska’s North Slope and Prudhoe Bay (Sierra Club, as cited by Burns, et.al., 2004)). According to the U.S. Geological Survey, about 25% of untapped oil supply in the areas which are said to contain oil are expected to be seen north of the Arctic Circle. They further claim that this percentage may possibly be higher because their original survey did not consider other unexplored regions of the Arctic. And those unexplored areas are vast. (Hargreaves, 2006). The proponents see a world of advantage in allowing drilling in the Arctic because with our current oil fields drying up, we need a new source of oil. The current worldwide demand for oil is increasing, and with oil supplies dwindling, oil prices are expected to increase within the next 25 years (Hargreaves, 2006). Drilling proponents in the U.S. Senate claim that a $5 billion budget for oil exploration and drilling would be set aside in order to ensure that modern and environmentally safe equipment shall be used in the process of oil exploration. According to Senator Lisa Murkowski, (as quoted by Stolberg, 2005), Republican of Alaska, "[w]e have the highest environmental standards of anywhere that you will find in the country. Drilling proponents also claim that the environmental impact of oil drilling can be minimized. Polar bear dens may be noted and marked in order to prevent any disruptions in their ecosystem. They claim that the same principle would be applied for the caribou, muskoxen, and other animals who consider the Arctic their home. They further argue that, with the rest of the world watching, and through environmental groups, it may be possible for America to benefit from oil drilled in the Arctic while still safeguarding the animals and the vegetation inhabiting the Arctic. In the end, according to them, a win-win situation may be ensured. These counter-arguments by proponents to oil drilling are easily countered by the discussions set forth by previous paragraphs. To further reinforce the position of this student, the Energy Information Administration claims that about 876,000 barrels of oil may be extracted from the Arctic Circle reserves daily. Comparing these numbers with the world market which produces 75 million barrels daily, the oil that may be potentially drilled from the Arctic Circle would only count for about 1% of the world’s supply. This contribution to the world market would not make a big impact on our oil supplies. But it would make a huge impact on our environment. With this realization, the time to focus on looking for and developing alternative energy sources has now come. While we continue to focus on oil as our energy source, other sources of energy will never see the light of day. It is time to think that we have no more oil reserves. While we are in that frame of mind, other possible sources of energy like solar, thermal, etc. may be developed and enhanced. Even if oil drilling were to be allowed now in the Arctic Circle, how long will that supply last? And when that supply is again consumed, where would we drill next? When do we stop drilling? We have to draw the line somewhere. This is the time to stop and to draw the line. The root cause of our foreign dependence on oil mostly revolves around our vast oil consumption. We, as Americans, can help reduce oil consumption and eventually contribute to decreased oil demand. “There are 130 million Americans who drive cars. If each just reduced the amount of gas in their cars by one gallon, we would save 130 million gallons of gas” (Readers’ Digest 2004, as cited by Burns). Various environmental groups also recommend the use of environmentally friendly cars that are not “gas guzzlers.” These simple conservation measures if adapted by every American can potentially and single-handedly reduce our foreign oil dependence without us having set a single foot in the Arctic Circle. The billions of dollars that may be spent for drilling and exploration in the Arctic Circle may be invested towards renewable energy sources. According to the Sierra Club, 2004 as cited by Burns), “Congress currently has significantly under-funded proposals for this sort of energy; however it may be a more sustainable option than drilling in our wildlife reserves” (Sierra Club 2004). These alternative measures are more sustainable and are wont to generate numerous and more long-term jobs. Oil drilling in the Arctic Circle will ultimately bring more harm than good. It will devastate our environment and will destroy our ecological balance. With the threat of global warming looming over our heads, it is time for us all to take the high road on this issue. Drilling in the Arctic will not solve our foreign oil dependence. It will only give us temporary relief that will eventually cause us long-term grief. Noah Matson (as cited by Burns, 2004) of the Defenders of Wildlife said it best when he remarked “It comes down to values – do you value a last great place or do you believe our public resources should be "put to use"”. Works Cited Arctic Refuge Staff (2001). Potential Impacts of Proposed Oil and Gas Development on the Arctic Refuges Coastal Plain: Historical Overview and Issues of Concern. US Fish and Wildlife Service Arctic National Wildlife Service. Retrieved 13 October 2008 from http://arctic.fws.gov/issues1.htm Burns, K., et.al. (2004). Drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve: A Policy Issue Worth Rethinking. Cornell University Department of Natural Resources. Retrieved 12 October 2008 from http://www.dnr.cornell.edu/saw44/NTRES331%5CProducts%5CSpring%202004%5CPapers%5CArcticdrilling.pdf Congress Continues Oil Drilling Debate (19 December 2005). Fox News. Retrieved 12 October 2008 from http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,179140,00.html Gwich’in Steering Committee (September, 2003). Preventing Drilling in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge: The Gwich’in Tribes and their Role in the National Policy Debate. Leadership for Change. Retrieved 14 October 2008 from http://www.leadershipforchange.org/insights/research/files/19.pdf Hargreaves, S. (25 October 2006). The Arctic: Oils last frontier. CNNMoney.com. Retrieved 13 October 2008 from http://money.cnn.com/2006/09/27/news/economy/arctic_drilling/index.htm Keogh, L. (August 2006). Alaska Policy: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly. Alaska Wilderness League News. Retrieved 13 October 2008 from http://www.alaskawild.org/wp-content/files/Newsletters/Newsletter_August_06.pdf Oil Price Increases. (3 August 2008). Wikipedia. Retrieved 15 October 2008 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_price_increases_of_2004_and_2005 Pollution and Cancer in Alaska. (2008). Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility. 15 October 2008 www.peer.org/docs/ak/06_6_6_pollution_&_cancer.pdf Shin, D. (2008). Africa China, the United States and Oil. Center for Strategic Environmental Studies. 15 October 2008 from http://forums.csis.org/africa/?p=34 Shogan, C. & Miller, K. (August 2006). Drilling the Arctic Refuge: A Bankrupt Policy. Alaska Wilderness League News Retrieved October 12 2008 from http://www.alaskawild.org/wp-content/files/Newsletters/Newsletter_August_06.pdf Read More