Oil Drilling In Alaska: The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR)

The ongoing debate on whether or not to tap into our own domestic oil resource heightens with every penny spent on imported oil. Although oil prices are currently low at $43.60 a barrel, those who are proponents of drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska can now argue their case as preventative. Still, those who oppose the idea offer that, among other things, true preventative measures include the focus on alternative solutions.

Since 1977 the issue of opening up the ANWR has been used as a political device by Republicans and Democrats alike. When Carter signed the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, it was determined that this area of 19,800,000 acres would be the largest protected wilderness in the United States.

Yet, the bill still allowed drilling in the ANWR with prior approval from Congress. Thus the race began. Both sides swore they would see to changing it in their favor during next session of congress.

Currently, Republicans in Congress, supported by President Bush, are in favor of opening up lands such as the ANWR for drilling purposes but do not have the number of votes necessary.

However, President-elect Barack Obama happens to be against it. In a 2007 article titled “Presidential Candidates Views on ANWR”, he stated that drilling in the ANWR would “irreversibly damage a protected national wildlife refuge without creating sufficient oil supplies to meaningfully affect the global market price or have a discernible impact on US energy security”.

Although it is frequently seen as so, this hot button issue is not purely political. In fact the reason why it is so debated is due to the environmental implications combined with the fear of time running out for our current methods.

When considering the facts, both sides of the argument have valid points. Let’s start with the side of those pushing to dip into our domestic resource.

The proponents find that drilling in Alaska could be a solution (albeit short term) to our energy problem, and argue that the immediate effects will have worthwhile results.

Specifically, if the United States makes the decision to drill in the ANWR, it will send a message to the oil market that we are serious about domestic supplies. Therefore the sheer panic of international suppliers could bring down prices instantly.

Even though proponents are aware that the ultimate answer to this crisis is alternative energy, they strongly stress that in the interim domestic production is necessary to ease the pain of consumers and offset the huge amount of oil that we import.

On the flip side, opponents of drilling in the pristine Alaskan environment question whether or not it is all worth it.

Jim Presswood, an energy advocate at the Natural Resources Defense Council, sums up this viewpoint. “We need to be breaking our addiction to oil. What we can save by focusing on energy efficiency in our vehicles would dwarf [oil from the refuge]. That’s the direction we need to be headed.”

In addition to taking the focus off of the development of alternative energy, it is questionable as to whether or not there is enough oil in these reserves to make it necessary. In May of this year the Department of Energy released a statement regarding estimates of productivity regarding potential oil in the ANWR.

“The USGS oil resource estimates are based largely on the oil productivity of geologic formations that exist in the neighboring State lands and which continue into ANWR. Consequently, there is considerable uncertainty regarding both the size and quality of the oil resources that exist in ANWR. Thus, the potential ultimate oil recovery and potential yearly production are highly uncertain.”

The real opposition, however, lies in what opening up the ANWR to drilling will do to one of the most delicate and important environments in the United States. It could result in irreparable damage to both the land and species surviving on it.

The question remains to be, is it really worth it? Although it may temporarily improve our economic self-sufficiency, it will also destroy a detrimental portion of this environment on the basis of estimates.

Subscribe by RSS Subscribe by Email