Sign in or 
| Version | User | Scope of changes |
|---|---|---|
| May 13 2009, 1:30 PM EDT (current) | jessw030 | 2931 words deleted |
| May 7 2009, 7:36 AM EDT | sciwrite | 25 words added |
Changes
Key: Additions Deletions
Note to group members: Please delete the current content of this page when you are ready to post your work. — Jim Collier, May 7Controversy Over Oil Drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife RefugeAbstract This current controversy stems from years of debate on whether to drill for oil in the northeast corner of Alaska. One stance supports drilling, illustrating how it will provide jobs, decrease imports, lower gas prices, and help our economy. Contrastingly, the opposing side stands against drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). This side of the debate mainly focuses on the negative environmental impact in the surrounding area. It also highlights the need for alternative energy, among many other key elements. This leads to both a scientific and technological debate within this article, which depicts reasons to oppose drilling in ANWR. It explains how the lack of knowledge and research causes people to support oil extraction in such a fragile ecosystem.IntroductionThe Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, commonly referred to as ANWR, can justly be called part of America’s last frontier. ANWR is a staggering 19 million acres of mountains, plains, tundra, rivers, lakes, and oceanfront. ANWR’s size, beauty, and isolation is truly breathtaking. Not only is ANWR considered a remote and pristine region, it is also thought to be a prime area for petroleum extraction [1]. As our country stands on the verge of economic crises, a central question is posed: should we drill for oil in ANWR? There is a multitude of factors in this case, including both environmental and economic aspects. Many believe that not enough research has gone into this case; this causes varying cost estimates and oil reserve approximations among researchers. Drilling for oil would cause an economic roller coaster drifting up and down to an even deeper recession. Concentrating on petroleum extraction will take away from our research on alternative energy, such as renewables. Natural habitat of wildlife (plants and animals) and the Gwich’in Indians would be destroyed. This could all be avoided by halting new oil extractions, especially in extremely sensitive areas, and moving our focus to better alternatives. In order to sustain our environment and aid economic growth, altering our focus from fossil fuels to renewable energy is a key element in our country’s future.Inadequate Research Causes Varying Estimates and an Economic CrisisSince there is insufficient research of the natural resources in the northeast corner of Alaska, the exact amount of oil is unknown. There might be millions of barrels of oil in this region; on the other hand, there might only be a few. The latter is completely possible considering the size of land that activists are proposing to drill. While the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) is around 19 million acres, the area in question spans a mere 8 million acres [1]. Although small, drilling for oil in this region can lead to extreme costs due to the climate and topography of the land. These costs far outweigh the benefits of drilling for petroleum. Putting increasing amounts of petroleum into our economy will undoubtedly cause an economic roller coaster. Our current economy should not be forced into economic turmoil if there are currently better alternatives [2]. The underlying source of these future problems is the lack of research and knowledge in this controversial subject matter. While various organizations and agencies have rendered oil reserve predictions, none have concluded the actual amount. Although it is very difficult to estimate the amount of oil underneath layers of land and ice, predictions should be fairly similar. Multiple discrepancies about the number of oil reserves between agencies, such as the U.S. Geological Survey and the Energy Information Administration [3], cause misconceptions and confusion to the lay public. Society is confused about who to believe, how much oil is actually available, and if there is enough oil to help our economy. The U.S. Geological Survey has completed the greatest amount of research, out of all U.S. agencies, describing the amount of oil in ANWR. The first few controversial reports came about in the late 1990s:“The 1998 U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) report did little to end the controversy. It estimated that there was significant oil in ANWR and that most of the oil would be found in the western part of the “1002 Area.” This differed from the 1987 USGS report which estimated that less oil would be found there and that it would be in the southern and eastern parts. Beyond the existence of the reserves, however, little was agreed upon by both sides of the debate. Supporters of the drilling claimed there were as many as 16billion barrels of oil to be recovered, but this number was at the extreme high side of the report and represented only a 5 percent probability of technically recoverable oil across the entire assessment area, which included land outside ANWR. Opponents of drilling pointed out that the USGS report actually estimated 7.668billion barrels of oil to be recovered [2].”This shows evidence of the misrepresentation of facts and probabilities in the case of ANWR.In the most recent ANWR report (May 2008), the Energy Information Administration concluded additional oil reserve estimates. It states that opening ANWR 1002 would begin increasing our oil production in 2018. Domestic oil production would peak in 2027 and decline there after. This would be a minute portion of total world oil production and would reduce the cost of crude oil.All of the above factors will undeniably hurt our economy due to extreme costs and economic turmoil. The main factor in this ordeal is the cost of drilling. It is extremely expensive to drill in a sensitive area covered in ice sheets and the climate and topography of the land make it very prone to oil spills. Clean up of the damage would be an added cost if this situation occurred. While extracting oil from ANWR may decrease “crude oil by 75 cents in 2025 [2],” it is unproven. It may be cheaper to import oil from other countries or organizations, such as the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC). While many energy researchers have concluded that world oil production has already peaked, U.S. energy researchers believe that ANWR oil production would peak in 2027 [2]. Skeptics find this estimate hard to believe, because of all the factors involved. Our population and energy consumption are only going to grow exponentially. These aspects make it very difficult to predict future oil consumption.Additionally, cycles of economic growth and recession are commonplace in this position. If oil production in ANWR is inexpensive, the U.S economy would then grow for a few years. This will be caused by lower oil costs and less imports. However, once ANWR oil production peaks, the economy will drastically decline. This will cause a dramatic recession that will be worse than the current state of our economy. We can avoid this economic catastrophe by completing more research on the topic of oil drilling in ANWR and considering alternatives. Without this important knowledge, the lay public is easily swayed by officials. Not only will drilling cost our government large sums of money, it will be costly to American citizens. Once oil production peaks in 2027, the American public will incur production costs through increased taxes, electric bills, and gas prices. In the case of ANWR, additional research will show that the costs far outweigh the benefits.Takes the Focus Away from Alternative ResourcesThe United States alone consumes 19.6 million barrels of oil a day, roughly 25% of the world’s total oil consumption, and is increasing at a rate of two percent annually. These estimates, from the year 2000, undervalue our current consumption; use has grown immensely due to increase in demand and population. Although the United States stands second, after China, in renewable resource production it seems that we have blinders focusing us on cheap power produced by petroleum. The case of oil extraction in ANWR only encourages the idea of using alternative energy [4]. Petroleum supplies forty percent of the energy that the U.S. consumes, compared to nuclear power and renewable resources that provide eight and seven percent of energy use, respectively. Renewable resource production is split into five parts: solar, biomass, geothermal, hydroelectric and wind. Currently, the two most commonly used are hydroelectric and biomass. Renewable resources are mainly used to produce electricity, but biomass is also used to produce a fuel called ethanol [5]. Due to the high costs associated with renewable resources, they are utilized in small portions. Until now, it was cheaper to produce a gallon of gasoline compared to a gallon of ethanol. Now that the world is feeling the constrictions of using nonrenewable resources, such as oil, it is time to look toward the future that will consist greatly of renewable energy. America, along with other countries, needs to discontinue investing large sums of money into current oil refineries and drilling for oil in new areas, such as ANWR. We must begin advancing research in resources that do not fade away as quickly as the petroleum stock pile. Even with this looming cloud above our heads, the government has spent only 15 billion dollars for research and development of renewable resources while spending about 31 billion dollars for fossil fuel programs between the years 1948 and 1998 [6]. Another study shows that fossil fuel production also gained the most tax breaks, reaching 10.2 billion dollars, compared to a mere .4 billion dollars for renewable resources. While prices and consumption of fossil fuels are skyrocketing and the remaining quantity is dwindling, we continue to pump increasing amounts of money into these programs. It is time our country’s money is spent on an energy source that will last five billion years, like solar power, rather than a source that may be depleted in thirty years, like oil [4]. So, would drilling in the ANWR help our current problem? The answer is it would only minimally help for a brief amount of time. Besides lowering gasoline prices by approximately 75 cents per gallon, it would once again take away our focus from renewable resources [2]. Drilling in ANWR would only provide a temporary security. We must remember, nonetheless, it is a fossil fuel which is an easily exhaustible resource. Additionally, congress depicts that oil extracted from ANWR will not even be available until the 2020’s. If the money spent on drilling could go towards the production of solar power (to create more efficient cells), then we could easily and quickly supply half the nation with solar-powered energy. Drilling for oil in ANWR would cause a longer delay of achieving additional and cheaper energy compared to beginning the transformation to renewable resources now [5]. Another problem facing us today is transportation energy. We can no longer depend solely on petroleum to provide fuel for our automobiles, airplanes, and other vehicles. Government spending should be funneled into solving this problem instead of delaying the ultimate outcome and leaving the mess for the next generation to clean up. If an enlarged expenditure was allocated to the development of hydrogen fuel cells, not only would green house gas emissions decrease, but more money could aid our staggering economy due to current financial predicaments. Hence, what would drilling in ANWR do for our current resource problem? It would only increasingly cripple us by creating a façade of hope that petroleum will get us through another century. It will fall short of those hopes, leaving the world in a crisis greater than our current predicament.Destroys Natural Habit of Animals and Gwich’in Indian ResidentsANWR has been dubbed “America’s Serengeti,” because of the presence of numerous herds of migratory animals that have trekked across the frosty landscape from time immemorial. Without a doubt, the presence of caribou, elk, moose, polar bear, wolves, foxes, musk oxen, snow owls, and countless other creatures enjoying life in their natural state, is unparalleled in America or anywhere in the world. According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, ANWR’s coastal plain contains the utmost wildlife diversity of any protected area above the Arctic Circle [7]. This area is also inhabited by Gwich'in Indians, who would lose their home to oil drilling.The oil fields in Alaska are important because the United States' dependency on petroleum imports has risen considerably in the past twenty years. Although, the question remains, is it more important than saving the homes of the animals and Gwich’in Indian residents? Unfortunately for the wildlife, ANWR happens to be sitting on top of billions of gallons of oil and trillions of cubic feet of natural gas that Congress has hesitantly approved for drilling and extraction. Exactly how much petroleum there is for sure is unknown at this point. Estimates put the range anywhere from a low of two billion barrels to a high of thirty-some billion barrels, but again, the actual amount is unclear. The expansion of the oil industry in the Northern Slope would create thousands of jobs and decrease U.S. dependency on oil imports from politically unstable Middle Eastern countries. However, in return it would wipe out the natural habit of animals and the Gwich’in Indian residents [8]. The ANWR regulations freeze development in all 19-million acres of Alaskan land. Anti-oil exploration congressmen and conservationists are getting the wrath for trying to keep legislators from repealing the ban on drilling in ANWR, mainly because they want to be able to develop the land to increase profits. Nevertheless, protests against oil drilling in the Northern Slopes have continued. Despite the fact that Senator Murkowski has repeatedly denied that oil exploration would have a noticeable effect on the environment, conservationists are worried that drilling, as well as potential accidents, would endanger animals that populate ANWR as well as the home of the Gwich’in Indians [8]. The following is a list of the human-life and wildlife that could be in danger of the potential drilling [7]:Animals American bison: Bison bison Black bear: Ursus americanus Dall mount. sheep: Ovis dalli Grizzly bear: Ursus Arctos Gwich'in Indians: Homo sapien Inupiat Indians: Homo sapien Killer whale: Orcinus orca Narwhal: Monodon monoceros Northern fur seal: Callarhinus ursinus Northern sea lion: Eumetopias jubatus Moose: Alces alces Porcupine caribou: Rangafer tarandus Sitka deer: Cervus nippon White whale: Delphinapteris beluga FishKing salmon Plants Balsam poplar: P. balsamifera Cotton wood: P. deltoids Dwarf willow: Salix chamaetia Paper birch: Betulaceae papyrifera Sitka spruce: Pinaceae sitchensis Western hemlock: Tsuga heterophylla Western red cedar: Cupressaceae nootkatensis White spruce: Pinaceae alba Willow ptarmigan: Lagopus lagopusGwich'in Indians inhabit the Northern Slope; therefore, repealing the ban on oil extraction would violate their human rights. The Gwich'in Indians, who have claimed that their rights are being violated under several international human rights covenants, sued the U.S. Department of the Interior for not sufficiently addressing environmental impact studies. One Gwich'in Indian, Tribal Leader Sara James, went as far as taking her case to Washington, D.C. in Congressional testimony [8].The hunting ground of the Alaska's Gwich'in Indians is protected by the 1973 law. Exposure of the Northern Slope and ANWR to drilling could have an immense impact on the thousands-year old culture of the Gwich'in Indians who live in the area. The porcupine caribou provides them with up to seventy-five percent of the protein in their diet. They use every part of the caribou they catch, including the small intestine and the stomach. One member of the Gwich'in tribe in Arctic village said, "[I]t is not just what we eat, is who we are. Our whole way of life as a people is tied to the Porcupine caribou. It is in our language, and our songs and stories." If the Porcupine caribou died out, the Indians' culture could be ruined which would force them to move [7]. This controversial commercialization of a wildlife refuge has been a political hot-potato for years, and unfortunately the American public does not have adequate or accurate information needed to make this very important decision. Hopefully the following information will give others the information needed to stop the destroying of natural habit of animals and Gwich’in Indian residents.ConclusionThe controversy over drilling in ANWR has been pondered by Congress for many years. The simple answer to this debate is that drilling would be detrimental for not only the United States, but also the world. It would invoke tremendous economic turmoil, causing gas prices to fluctuate due to a false sense of security. Also, it would take away monetary funds from the development of sustainable resources essential for our planet’s current energy demands. Lastly, it would disrupt the lives of countless animals, plant life, and indigenous peoples. Drilling in ANWR would cause disorder and chaos and should not be allowed.Sources:[1] Wikipedia. “Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.” 2008. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. June 25, 2008. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_National_Wildlife_Refuge>[2] Wikipedia. “Arctic Refuge Drilling Controversy.” 2008. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. June 24, 2008. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_Refuge_drilling_controversy>[3] Bird, Kenneth J. “Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, 1002 Area, Petroleum Assessment, 1998, Including Economic Analysis.” 2005. U.S. Geological Survey. June 25, 2008. <http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-0028-01/fs-0028-01.htm>[4] Ruskin, Liz. “Report: Laws Bar Drilling.” Anchorage Daily News. Oct. 26, 2005. The McClatchy Company. June 23, 2008. <http://www.adn.com/anwr/story/42977.html>[5] Izzo, Phil. “Don’t Expect Too Much From ANWR.” June 2008. The Wall Street Journal. June 25, 2008. <http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2008/06/18/dont-expect-too-much-from-anwr/>[6] Associated Press. “Study: ANWR Oil Would Have Little Impact.” March 2004. MSNBC. June 25, 2008. <http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4542853/>[7] Hank, Jeffrey A. “ANWR & Oil: What About the Wildlife?” 2005. MSU College of Law. June 25, 2008. <http://saveanwr.org/>[8] American University. “Alaska Oil Dispute.” 1999. North America Cases. June 25, 2008. <http://www.american.edu/TED/alaska.htm>
