ANWR+Drilling

Chris Knortz 4/4/2011 Drilling in ANWR The Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) is suspected to be covering billions of barrels of oil. Many believe that taping into this source could significantly change the energy landscape of the U.S. by creating more stability and supporting extensive economic growth. This can also extend to include nations around the world. With lower oil prices, they too could continue economic growth as they have in the past decades. There are others who suggest that there is not nearly enough oil to change anything important to the national economy. The only thing that would be changed is the destruction of a pristine natural environment. This issue involves everyone in the nation because there is potential to lower fuel costs and create many new jobs. It also involves everyone in the nation because ANWR is national land. Every citizen has a stake in its wellbeing. The lives of the local residents of Alaska may change profoundly with new drilling. On one hand, they would continue receiving payment for the state’s oil investments. However, they could also be forced to live with a tarnished environment and possibly another disastrous spill. Those who support new drilling in ANWR cite economic growth and energy independence as the main issues. One such person is Darren Goode, as he writes in his article “GOP Goal: Securing Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge for Drilling” for Politico.com. In the article, he goes through the Republican Party’s reason for wanting to reopen ANWR to drilling. The Republican Party has been trying to drill in ANWR for almost 20 years. Now, with political unrest in the Middle East and high oil prices, they feel the time is right to reopen the area for drilling. New drilling would work toward reducing American political vulnerability since it currently depends heavily on oil from unstable areas of the world. New drilling would also create a great deal of jobs in the area and easy economic growth for the nation. This is a necessity in this time of economic uncertainty. Drilling is to be just a piece to the energy puzzle though. It is not expected to solve all the energy independence problems, just part of them. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said, “…we need to have a robust energy program that includes a number of different sources of energy.” Another issue involved in new drilling is the continued use of the Trans Alaskan Pipeline. Some Alaskan politicians are working hard to extend the life of the pipeline. Many of the politicians in the article were looking for the ANWR drilling to make a significant impact of the nation’s economy. The same article however, cites an EIA study that shows that this drilling would only reduce the price of a barrel of oil by 75 cents. This small of a percentage could be absorbed in natural fluctuations of the market and not be noticed. Also this reduction in price would take almost 20 years to be realized because of the time it would take to develop the area. The article talks about the economic growth and new jobs that would be created, but it does not mention the potential benefits of investing that money into renewable sources of energy instead of one that is known to have a limited life span. Investment in oil is an easy and established way of creating jobs. This is one of the main issues that politicians campaign on every year; they must be known for creating jobs. Politicians do not yet believe that renewable energy investment will create jobs. The people quoted express concern about the vulnerable political position of the U.S. because of its dependence of foreign oil. They never relate that vulnerability to oil in general. The nation would be much more secure with an energy source other than fossil fuels. There are many reasons for opposing the drilling in ANWR. Many are presented in the article “Arctic National Wildlife Refuge: Why trash an American Treasure for Tiny Percentage of Our oil Needs?” which was written for the Natural Resource Defense Council. There has been a struggle among politicians for years to defend this land, and in the past, they have been successful. However, President Bush has tried to reopen the issue of drilling on ANWR. This article was written at a similar economic time as the present: oil prices are raising and there is pressure in the government to do something to lower those prices. Even with significant development of the area, there would be no new oil on the market for 10 years and peak production would not occur for another 10 years after that. The potential oil reserves are also small compared to the nation’s consumption. U.S. Geological Service estimates that the total oil would only be about one year’s worth of oil for the country. Drilling in one of the world’s last pristine areas could cause irreparable damage to the fragile ecosystems. One example that is given is the destruction caused in Prudhoe Bay by the oil industry when 1,000 square miles of land were converted into an industrial zone. In ANWR, the development would possibly be more extensive because the oil is not located in one area but in up to 30 separate fields. This would require many miles of roads and pipelines. Supporters of drilling claim that only 2,000 acres out of 1.5 million would need to be altered. This number is an extreme under estimation of the required land. The nation needs to look past oil as the solution to energy independence and invest in renewable energy and efficient use of energy. This could provide far more energy than ANWR could ever produce. One of the arguments against drilling in this area would be the inevitable damage to the natural environment. There are always ways to reduce or eliminate byproducts of industry. They may not be economically feasible, but they can be done. Job creating, which is a big issue in most other discussions of drilling, is not mentioned. This appears to be a big turning point for many involved. The author appears to only see the negative in oil exploration. At the end of the article, the author suggests increasing efficiency of automobiles by using more hybrids as a way to reduce the use of oil. However there is no consideration to the other host of problems that are caused by the life cycle of the batteries used in hybrids. Many people do not see this as a clear-cut issue; there are many benefits and hazards with any decision in this area. The article “Alaska’s Drilling Debate Moves Offshore” by Kim Murphy goes through several of these issues that affect those involved in the area. This article discusses drilling in Alaska as a whole, but ANWR is still part of the discussion. Many of the existing wells in the area are reaching the end of their production life and will be forced to shut down. The new possibilities in ANWR would allow the Trans Alaskan Pipeline to continue operating, extending the hopes for the nation’s energy independence. On the other side, the area is under great environmental stress because of global climate change, for example the ice pack has been shrinking in the past decades. This stresses the animals that rely on it as a hunting ground. A significant oil spill could destroy vast areas of natural habitat further stressing the environment. Many of the local people depend on these animals for survival. These same people also receive up to several thousand dollars per person per year from the state investment in oil. Also they have been paid for industrial operations in their area that are harmful to the environment. It is not known whether these payments are equal to the price of the destruction caused by the drilling operations. Even with all the known risks there are still many Alaskans and others from the rest of the nation who support drilling in ANWR. Drilling in ANWR will not drastically change the price of oil in this country. This is a stated fact in both articles. Therefore, this should not be considered as part of the solution to the nation’s energy crisis. I do not say no to drilling because of the destruction of the pristine environment, which is something that not many people are ever going to see, and the vast amount of land would probably be able to handle some development. The major environmental issue that convinces me that drilling is not the answer is global warming. Neither article mentioned it extensively when it should be the main argument against the further development of any fossil fuel. This is a problem that will change every person’s life on the entire planet in the years to come. Even with possible economic growth for the nation with inexpensive oil for several more years, the nation will eventually encounter this same problem. There will be a lack of oil and no new technology or resources to pick up the energy demands. At that point, there could be an energy panic, causing a greater economic recession. The money that would be used to develop ANWR should therefore be invested into renewable energy and greater efficiency in society. Improvements in efficiency could easily reduce energy consumption by 5%, which is about the amount that ANWR would provide to the nation’s oil consumption. Supporting drilling in ANWR: [] Against drilling in ANWR: [] Neutral: []