Oil+on+Ice

** Director: ** Bo Boudart, and Dale Djerassi ** What is the central argument of the film? **  There has been growing pressure to begin drilling in ANWR, this is a wild life refuge in northern Alaska. This push to drill has been off and on for many years, now it has come back to the top of the debate. This part of Alaska has never been developed, it is one of the last pristine areas in the nation. The film is making a point against drilling in this area. It shows the value of this untarnished area and the animals that inhabit it. Also it goes into the economics of developing the field, there would be very little change to the world oil market with this production. There are the social changes that were shown, the lives of the people in the area would be drastically changed with oil development. ** What does the film convey about the matrix of factors that contribute to our dependence on oil? **  People are convinced that an oil economy is the key to continuing economic growth. This has been the mentality in this country for several decades. People are always looking for lower fuel prices and the next big oil discovery to solve the world’s problems. The government and society have neen shaped around these ideas. This thinking has been allowed to continue because oil has been inexpensive for many years and there is always another big oil discovery. This trend will eventually fail, but people have not begun to realize this fact. Another reason for the continued dependence on oil is the oil industry’s substantial influence on the government. In Alaska almost 85% of the government budget is played for by oil revenue. Money is something that no person or organization can ignore, it is reasonable that Alaska wants to continue this flow of money but they need to consider the other effects of their actions before making a decision. ** What does the film convey about the matrix of problems caused by our dependence on oil? **  Even though the area under the title of ANWR has not been developed yet there has been significant development of other areas of the north shore of Alaska. In Prudhoe Bay there is a 1000 square mile industrial area. Pipelines and storages tanks are scattered across the region, along with roads to service those facilities. These systems have their own inherit problems that contaminate the environment with toxic chemicals. It is expected that there will be 500 oil spills of some size in Alaska every year. After years of such exposure there will be devastating damage to the surrounding life. The oil facilities also disrupt the migration patterns of animals in the area. The caribou are disturbed by the noise of the refineries and the positioning of the pipelines. The wales have changed their migration routes to avoid the drilling rigs off the coast. Native people that rely on the animals and their migration patterns are finding a lack of food when there are no institutions for them to fall back on. There are no other jobs that are reliable enough to provide a living for these people. Not only are people’s lives being destroyed but one of the last untouched places on the planet is being disrupted. This should be one place saved to preserve the way the world was before human development. ** What does the film convey about the matrix of affects that would be mobilized by a shift away from oil? **  The film is not discussing the global problems with the use of oil, but rather the local problems in Alaska. It goes through the problems that would arise for the locals and the environment in the area proposed for oil production. Also it discusses how little this new oil supply would change the world market for oil. It is and insignificant amount of oil compared to the world demand. For Alaska there are many people in the state who support the development of further investment in oil. This is partially because ever Alaskan resident receives a yearly check for the state investment in the oil industry. People are interested in continuing this cash flow with further investment in oil. Also a majority of the people in the state live on the southern coast far from the proposed oil development, people can easily disconnect themselves from the issues. For Alaska to move away from oil investment people of the state would need to understand the long term effects of their decision. They need to understand how the environment of the northern coast will be changed forever after oil development. Also if the world and residents of the rest of the U.S. would begin to use less oil the people of Alaska would not be interested in such a decision. In the end everyone in the U.S. needs to understand the consequences of oil use on the world as a whole. ** What part of the film did you not find compelling or convincing? **  One of the main arguments against oil development in the area was that the wild life would be devastated. The animals and plants that inhabit that area do so because they are very sturdy creatures that have been able to adapt. One example was the fact that the caribou did not like going near the refineries, however they have not been given proper time to adjust to them, this man take several years before they begin approaching. Also the people should be able to adapt to follow the new migration of the herds. Also the film tries to show how the oil industry cannot operate without contaminating the area. There is always a way to leave no trace, but the cost may not be feasible. The great demand for water was used as a reason against development of the oil industry in that area. When in reality there is a great deal of natural readily available water in the area. This is water that precipitates in large quantities on a regular basis. Continuing the proper use and maintenance of the Trans Alaskan pipe line was another reason for drilling. The fields that are supplying it currently are drying up. To continue the operation of the pipe line new fields must be developed. The pipe line is nearing the end of its expected life. The company that manages it should have never expected to continue using it. ** What part of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? **   It was very interesting to hear that there is several billion barrels of oil in the field and it would still have a negligible effect on the world oil market. This appears to be the most persuasive reason against drilling. Many politicians are calling to open the area in an attempt to lower fuel prices. When in reality the price would only change by a few cents and it would take over a decade for the field to be producing at full capacity. The natural reserve is one of the last to be completely undeveloped. If the government allows this to be developed what will stop other companies from developing other national treasures. People need to be able to see the value in pristine untouched land. This land was not given to the people of the U.S. to deplete every resource but to manage and care for. ** What kind of corrective action are suggested by the film, if the film itself does not suggest a corrective action, describe actions that you can imagine being effective? **  The film goes through the reason for not developing the area. Many of the reason area looked at from the wild life’s perspective, to climate changed to the lives of the local people. To stop drilling in ANWR the people making the decision must understand how life in the area will change for a relatively small amount of oil. If the demand for oil was decreased there would be less pressure to develop ANWR. This would come from a change in the way society operates. Changes like this would only come from large shifts in government policy and social thinking. ** What additional information has this film compelled you to seek out, provide two examples of what you learned? **  I became interested to see what the people of Alaska were saying, or at least what the papers were saying about their opinion. The people appear to be very interested in drilling in ANWR. However it is interesting to look at where these people live, most are on the southern coast many miles from the new development. One point raised in the article is that Alaskans generally have to drive great distances and have large cars because of the rugged nature of the landscape. The people are hoping that drilling in ANWR will lower fuel costs or at least continue their yearly oil investment check. All these may be valid reasons for Alaskans wanting to drill, but there are many people in the rest of the country who have similar situations and understand that drilling in ANWR is not the solution to the energy crisis. []
 * Title: **Oil on Ice