helinski+debate2



Debate #2: Should ANWR be open to oil drilling? Nick Helinsk Word Count: 1879

With varying estimations of how much oil is actually contained in the Artic National Wildlife Refuge, also known as ANWR, there is much debate as to what should be done in this wildlife sanctuary in terms of attempting to relief the country from its foreign dependency and guzzling thirst for crude oil. Ever since the creation of ANWR in 1980 under President Carter, there has been great debate about the mineral rights that lay within the 19 million acres of designated wildlife refuge. Early speculations in 1988 claimed that there were between 5.7 billion and 16 billion barrels of crude oil within the refuge but these numbers have since been decreased by more recent individual projections to less than 90 percent of original estimations, due to the severe underestimation of natural gas quantities found within this area.

Now although there have been drastic cuts in the projections of how much crude oil is truly obtainable within the Federal ANWR boundaries, the controversial issue still arises wither or not ANWR should be open for gas and oil drilling with such uncertainty remaining. The largest argument about allowing drilling within ANWR is the violation of what the refuge stands for and provided great risk to the native wildlife of the area. Conversationalists have speculated that it would cause unnecessary damage to the existence of the Porcupine Caribou by disrupting migratory patterns and eliminating important calving areas. There has also been worry that the process will erode the fragile ecosystems in the area that support the entire wildlife base in the Arctic Tundra. Not only has this become an issue within the US, but Canada as well, who has two national parks sharing a border with ANWR that would be equally affected by this decision to drill. On top of the environmental issue, the economic feasibility and actual obtainability of the oil is also called into question. Even if able to be drilled, how much with this oil actually help the US in its energy crisis? This debate has been a constant battle between the Congress, House of Representatives, The Senate, current Presidents, environmentalists as well as Oil Tycoons and has reach different levels of approval at varying time yet has failed to pass entirely.

An interesting perspective that is in support of ANWR drilling Is the concept that it is the American government and it’s regulation on environmental issues that has placed the US into the oil dependency situation that we are currently. With production of oil within ANWR projected to take seven to ten years after approval, Jon Utley shows great detest to this slow rate of productions where foreign countries such as Brazil have begun deep-water oil production in two years or less. With an area the size of Dulles Airport required for this proposed drilling operation out or the size of roughly South Carolina, Utley expresses frustration of understanding why there is such disapproval for the operation. This oil field has the potential to provide 36 billion dollars’ worth of crude oil that our country would no longer depend on unstable and foreign countries for. The debate of environmental safety is a result from “extreme environmentalists”, Utley expressing the issue of wildlife endangerment as the land being flat and desolate for most of the year only feeding birds and caribou in the summertime unlike how it is portrayed by environmentalists as being portrayed as packed with active wildlife where as other portions of the massive state are teaming with animals. Ultimately Utley blames our oil crisis on government control in foreign countries and expresses how the drilling of ANWR would finally be a step in the right direction for this country’s wellbeing.

Throughout his argument Utley expresses a very opinionated view on the issue of opening ANWR open for drilling, although his defense is filled with many loopholes that call many of his statements to question. With the basis on the reasoning for ANWR to be used to help America’s wellbeing, his argument that government is too regulated just contradicts his support for the American society. It is almost as if Utley is suggesting that the government bypass the voting process and just make executive decisions on issues such as these to avoid environmentalist support to be expressed, yet this is been the basis of our government and its actions since the beginning of America’s existence. On top on this huge contradiction, the numbers of oil reserves projected to be underneath of ANWR are using numbers that were released over a decade ago and has not mentioned the possibility of the sheer volume of natural gas that is within this overall prediction. Utley’s expression of the economic potential uses these estimations which are 90 percent higher from current speculation. Another faulty expression comes from his overall comparison of the required drilling area to the total area of ANWR, because as it has been proven especially with the recent BP oil spill and the Exxon Valdez, it is not the relative area that is the issue at hand but the devastating chain of events that happens in the situation of an accident. This links to the severe downplay of the amount of wildlife that relies on the wildlife refuge for their survival including the protected Porcupine Caribou.

A very contradicting opinion such as the one expressed within Michael Klare’s argument, state that regardless of the estimation of oil reserves located within ANWR, the US government is doing little to relieve the US from its foreign oil dependency and based on current consumption trends, the drilling on ANWR will provide little to no relief from our ways regardless. Even at the highest expectations, ANWR would be capable of producing a millions barrels of oil a day in 2015, which at the time would only represent four percent of anticipated US oil consumption. These numbers are based on the current increase of energy consumption while current Department of Energy predict that US reliance on imported petroleum will rise from 58 percent in 2010 to 68 percent in 2020 [1]. At these rates ANWR would be providing even less overall support which would place the risks much higher than the rewards. In addition to these increasing dependency rates, the 2005 Energy Plan claimed for additional steps to be taken to ensure that the US’s interest in foreign oil is protected which only shows that the government is preparing for continual foreign dependency, although the main claim of ANWR is that it will help to lessen and come closer to eliminating foreign dependency. Best summarized by Klare, he states that “ Until this country adopts a serious program of energy conservation and transformation, including tough automotive fuel-efficiency standards and the development of alternative sources of fuel, we will remain deeply dependent on foreign oil — ANWR or no ANWR.” (Klare, 2005)

Again the largest discrepancy within the arguments that I am finding is the quantity of oil that is predicted to be held within ANWR. Depending on the side of the argument, the far ends of the prediction spectrum are being used as the standard for the potential that ANWR has. On top of that, the article only faces in a single alternative method for oil relief that is being pursued by the government, the investment into hydrogen fueled cars, even though there are many other alternative ongoing projects that would aid in the oil relief. Transportations in one of the largest consumers of crude oil within this country, yet there are many other sectors that could be fueled by sustainable methods of energy generation that were not mentioned throughout this argument. A final accusation within this argument is the referencing of the National Energy Bill from 2005 that calls for continual investment into foreign oil as a contradicting statement of the purpose of ANWR. Although this is not the direction that the country should be headed in order to solve its energy crisis, this report is released on an annual basis to outline the actions that need to be taken in the upcoming year for the best interest of the country. With ANWR projected to take seven to ten years to being oil production, there is nothing within a years’ time that could be mentioned to show immediate foreign oil relief which would require he continuation of previous actions such as protect foreign investment.

The third argument released by MSNBC shows support and information that defends both sides of the argument as well as some points that were mentioned in the previous arguments. The largest concern that was mentioned in the ant-drilling defense is that overall increase of American consumption as a function of time. Regardless of how much oil is able to be produced out of ANWR, there will always be a dependency on foreign oil, ANAWR would only lessen it to projections of 66% instead of the estimated 70% in 2025 without the support of ANWR [2]. The economic life of the Alaskan pipeline is also brought into play in support of ANWR drilling in stating that without the opening of the refuge to future drilling investments, the volume of oil transported through the pipeline is project to decrease dramatically over the next ten years, bringing the functionality of the pipeline into question. I do not understand how this is a point of support for ANWR drilling, but feel the fact that produced oil could be transported with previous infrastructure does not change the playing field in any significant manner. The largest flaw with this information is the time sensitive information that they are using which us understandable with the article being released years ago. The article downplays the economic impact of ANWR stating that it may decrease the price of oil around 50 cents a barrel, but when current barrel prices are $108.25 compared to the $37.48 a barrel at the time of the article, the economic impact could be much more significant [2].

Weeding through the information and understanding both side of the debate, I am still holding my grounds in the overall protection of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge from the development and production for oil and natural gas drilling. The strongest argument that has been brought into play is that regardless of the amount of oil that we are capable of producing within the boundaries of ANWR, the US will continue to remain dependent on foreign oil. With the foreign dependency remaining a constant in the energy future of the US, the potential risks involved with drilling in ANWR significantly outweigh the benefits. The potential for environmental destruction is not worth the investment of decreasing to foreign dependency through drilling while other areas of sustainable energy sources could provide even more relief yet are being overlooked. The decision to drill within ANWR is a viable option with today’s technologies, yet these are not the technologies that we should be dependent on. The US cannot continually rely on the methods and technology that is being used today. We are in the current energy crisis because of the continuation of their usage. The investments that would be required to turn ANWR into and operational drilling facility could be much more productive and proactive in the relief of the US foreign oil dependency if spent in a varying of alternative sources.

Bibliography [1] Klare, Michael T. "Arctic Drilling Is No Energy Answer." //Los Angeles Times//. Los Angeles Times, 3 Apr. 2005. Web. 03 Apr. 2011. . [2] "Study: ANWR Oil Would Have Little Impact - US News - Environment - Msnbc.com." //MSNBC//. Associated Press, 16 Mar. 2004. Web. 03 Apr. 2011. . [3] Utley, Jon B. "Open ANWR Already!" //Reason Magazine//. Reason.com, 14 Aug. 2008. Web. 02 Apr. 2011. .