Helinski+Oil+on+Ice

Oil on Ice Bo Boudart 2004

This film goes into great detail about the negative perspective of promoting the opening of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, also known as ANWR, to the rights for crude oil and natural gas drilling. This has been a heated topic since the creation of the Refuge because they knowledge of the resources that lay below were known upon its creation. The specific set or regulations under clause 1002 in the creation of ANWR allow for this to be discussed and changed for the future, which has been disputed about since the day it was set aside as national land. Oil on Ice talks about the negative effects such actions may take on the wildlife refuge itself including the environment as well as the wildlife, ans then traces these alterations through the chain of events and brings in the social aspect of the issue and how the native people in the area will be affected.

The first and most directly affected stakeholder in this film is the ecosystem and wildlife that reside within the boundaries of the 1002 area of the ANWR reserve. These animals and plants will be directly involved with the opening of the grounds to drilling. The other direct party is the oil companies who are petitioning to allow the ANWR resources to be tapped. Besides the two directly involved as a whole, the native people who live in the northern Alaskan country are the other group that will be affected by this decision. Although not all native people live within this area, all of them do depend on the land and the environment for their way of life. If this environment is altered and the wildlife migration patterns are changed, these people then become directly affected for better or worse. Outside of these direct stakeholders, ever country that is involved in the world oil market will feel the decisions to drill within in ANWR or not. If ANWR is passed for drilling there will be additional supplies entering into the oil market which will change prices as well as foreign production. This in turn will alter the rate and amount of oil imported into the US.

This film touches upon the delicate topic of what to do in a time of crisis, and what is held at more importance; the preservation of the environment or the exploration to support the oil dependency of not only the US but the world as well. Bo Bordart does an excellent job of showing the two sides of the story. Although the environmental safety is at risk, it is clear that the oil companies are willing to take the risk of destruction in order to continue oil exploration. Even with the dirty track record of the oil industry, money powers these companies and causes them to stop at nothing. Even when the oil is located in a fragile ecosystem that a group of humans directly depend on, money is the motive behind everything in their eyes. It is the way which we live our lives that have allowed the oil companies to obtain so much power and pull and ultimately put them in the position where they are, deciding if our National lands so be exploited for their resources. These decisions display how we as a country and world have become so desperate on a limited fossil fuel that we are willing to harm or even destroy the world that we live in instead of trying to kick a destructive habit. The possibility of disturbing not only and entire ecosystem but altering the way native people have been living for hundreds of years, should ultimately deter such a decision as this, yet unfortunately all of these are effects that may be worth suffering in order to support our oil demands. Everyone is aware that oil is a limited resource in the world and that the reserves are beginning to deplete, yet instead of investing in alternatives, the world is compelled on staying with what is familiar and risking all that has been mentioned to do what is easier. With the government beginning so havy with big Oil support, it is hard to change our ways when the government in turn rewards its citizens for the exploration of their lands.

Although a direct response to moving away from oil was not outlined within the film, it did touch upon the history or fuel regulation within automobiles. As a current means of moving away from our oil dependency, changing the regulations on the largest consumer of oil would be the best first step. There have been several times where the government mandate on miles per gallon for automobiles has been increased, yet another demand in higher efficiency would allow for a direct easing of dependence. Besides the mentioning of increasing automobile efficiency, there was not much else discussed about the matrix of affects that would be mobilized by a shift away from oil.

Throughout the film there were many things that I found to be very interesting, yet out of everything I was most compelled by the statements from Exxon about the Valdez disaster that stated that the environment in much more robust than many people think and that the Prince William Sound environment has returned to normal. Unfortunately to the general public this may seem to be the truth, but throughout studies we are all aware that this is far from the truth. The countering footage of the expeditions in the area that show the oil residue remaining underneath the surface layers of rocks should be the images that the general public are exposed to in order for them to understand the magnitude of the situation. It is amazing the power and false sense of trust that is put within the oil companies due to the propaganda images and videos that they provide to the video, which is why they are still able to get away with what they do. I was honestly shocked when the Exxon representative with a educated British accent began explaining how Exxon took all of the proper steps in the response to the Exxon Valdez spills. If the truth was released, the debate about opening ANWR would not be a question right now understanding the environmental consequences.

Although I do agree with the argument that was expressed within this film, I do not completely agree with all of the angels that were taken in order to support the message. The first issue at hand was that the film did not provide any direct methods which ANWR could be protected or how the dependency could ease with alternative methods of energy harnessing. Although the options are general known by the majority of those who view this film, the first time viewer may be left wondering how? In addition, the film expressed the burning of oil to be the sole reason for the effects of global warming that we are experiencing. As it is a large reason for the global warming effects, there are many other sources of greenhouse gases that are accelerating these changes. Even with being against the drilling within ANWR and the crude oil extraction practice as a whole, I feel as though there is possible development to make the process safer and more responsible although the film suggests this is impossible.

The largest action promoted by this film is to support the raise of automobile standards due to transportation consuming the large majority of the world oil supplies. With a fairly large portion of the population driving personal automobiles, asking for higher standards and allowing people to choose what to drive would be a significant and easy method of dependency reduction. Although this would not be the only thing that is required to making a significant change, it is a starting point.

After viewing this film and not knowing much of what is current occurring about the ANWR debate, I decided to look into the future presidential candidates and what a few of them though about the topic. It can be clearly seen from ([]) that the Republican party is very supportive of drilling. It can be seen that at least Tim Pawlenty is in support of Americanizing the resources in order to benefit our country and people, while blatantly calling out the environmental approach saying that “ "If you look at the Democratic party and what [Mr. Obama] believes, they're mostly beholden to what I would consider to be militant or unreasonable environmentalists," Pawlenty added. "Of course we have to be protective of the environment, but at the same time we've got to meet this country's energy needs. “

In addition to the debate on ANRW, I was curious about other Alaskan drilling that was occurring and came across an article that talk about a Shell offshore drilling project that was shut down by the EPA by failing to meet the air quality requirements. I was intrigued to find out that this entire project was shut down due to the emissions of an ice breaking vessel to not be considered. It is interesting that the EPA took such a strong action against this yet has allowed for so many slip ups in other accidents including the BP deep water horizon spill. Although they cancelled the project the statement “ Not only do you have to be below the legally required emission limits but you must also not even be “close” to the limits, as defined by unelected officials, one of whom is a former attorney for the Environmental Defense Fund.” Makes me wonder what really occurred for the project to be shut down. []