Should drilling be
allowed in the
Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge?
Carling Spelhaug
November 18, 2005
Background of the Issue
• In 1980, Congress set aside 1.5 of the 19 million acres of land in
Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for possible oil exploration
• Oil companies and Alaskans have been eager to start drilling in
the area ever since the land was set aside
• Opening the area to oil production has been a top goal of the
Bush Administration and a key part of its energy plan since it took
office in 2000
• The House of Representatives has passed bills in various forms
authorizing drilling five times, but the proposal has been
filibustered in the Senate each time because supporters of drilling
haven’t been able to come up with the 60 votes necessary to
stop the filibuster
Prudhoe Bay
• North America’s largest oil
field
• Located less than 100
miles west of ANWR
• Accounts for about 25% of
U.S. domestic oil
production
• Millions of dollars have
been spent in the region
to increase scientific
understanding of Arctic
ecosystems and to show
that oil production and
wildlife can co-exist
Arguments for drilling
• Geologists have
estimated that 10.4 billion
barrels of oil lie beneath a
coastal strip of the
Alaskan tundra
• Because of the war with
Iraq, supporters of drilling
have emphasized the
need for energy security,
arguing that drilling in the
refuge would reduce
American dependence
on foreign oil sources
Drilling Supporters
• Alaskan politicians have also supported the plan because
of one estimate that drilling would bring approximately
700,000 new jobs to the area.
• Alaska’s Republican Senator Ted Stevens has called for
Congress to follow through on the commitment it made in
1980 to eventually begin extracting oil from the region.
• He and other drilling supporters argue that with strict
government regulations and the use of modern
technology, the oil could be pumped without significant
damage to the wildlife of the area.
• They emphasize that the amount of land actually used
would be small, and the “footprint” left by the oil drilling
equipment would cover less than 2,000 acres.
Environmental Concerns
• Environmentalists are not
convinced that the area
affected by the drilling would
be limited to 2,000 acres.
• They feel that the entire 1.5
million acres of coastal
tundra would be touched,
affecting polar bears in their
dens, calving grounds for
caribou, and migratory birds
in the area.
• 160-180 birds species, 36
types of land mammals, 9
types of marine mammals,
and 36 kinds of fish.
Opponents of Drilling
• Many Democrats who are against drilling in the
refuge argue that the oil extracted from the
region would not be enough to significantly
impact imports.
• Although geologists have estimated that the
region could hold 10.4 billion barrels of oil, some
environmentalists say there may be no more
than about 3.2 billion barrels.
• Some have argued that the United States could
save more oil than drilling would produce just by
passing regulations for SUV fuel economy.
Important Figures
• The United States currently imports over
50% of its oil, with complex political and
security consequences.
• The U.S. is expected to rely on foreign
sources for 70% of its oil by 2025.
• The United States is the world’s largest
consumer of oil, using about 20 million
barrels each day.
My Conclusion
• Allow drilling, but with regulations and careful
monitoring.
• The only way to know for certain how much oil
could be produced in the region is by beginning
drilling. If there isn’t enough available to lessen
U.S. demand for foreign oil, the oil companies
could be removed from the region.
• The experience gained at Prudhoe Bay has
provided drilling techniques that minimize the
damage done to the environment and the total
area affected by the process.
•As long as the government sets up a system of monitoring
the practices of oil companies in ANWR, the region is a
potentially valuable source of oil to be explored.
•Only 1.5 million acres, or 8%, of the refuge is being
considered for development. The remaining 17.5 million
acres would be permanently closed to development,
meaning the home of the diverse wildlife would remain
largely unaffected.
•It will take 10-15 years for contributions from ANWR
reserves to reach U.S. market. There is no telling what U.S.
relations will be like with the Middle East in a decade, so it
makes sense to start cultivating our own energy sources
now.
•Opening oil production will create many new jobs,
especially for Alaskans. 75% of Alaskans support exploration
and production in ANWR.
Most Recent Developments
• On November 10, 2005, the proposal for drilling in
the refuge was dropped from the House budget
bill because of issues unrelated to ANWR.
• The battle is by no means over, and it is
extremely likely the issue will resurface because
of the commitment of senators like Ted Stevens
and others who support drilling, and the
necessity of lessening our reliance on foreign oil.
The fact that the nation has a viable option of
doing so with ANWR means this issue is going to
demand attention, and soon.
Sources
• “Arctic refuge drilling on ice, for now.” MSNBC.com. 11
Nov. 2005. http://msnbc.msn.com/id/9984545/
• Anwr.org. Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
http://www.anwr.org
• “Senate rejects oil drilling in Alaska wildlife refuge.” CNN.
19 Mar. 2003.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/03/19/anwar.vote
.ap
• Watson, Traci and Tom Kenworthy. “Obstacle to drilling for
oil in ANWAR is removed.” USA Today. 17 Nov. 2004.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-11-17-oidrilling_x.htm
• Waller, Douglas. “Some Shaky Figures on ANWR Drilling.”
Time. 13 Aug. 2001.