Merdes
1
Brian Merdes
Melaine Thorne
English 1010
8-3-10
Finale Version
Stop Drilling In Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Now
Oil is such a part of our society that we forget the risk that comes with the
benefits of oil drilling. Oil drilling by it’s very nature is evasive against the environment,
Twenty-five percent of U.S oil comes from Alaska since the trans-Alaskan pipeline was
completed in the 1970’s running from Prudhoe Bay on the North Slope all the way south
to Valdez. Alaska was the site of the largest domestic oil spill in 1989 when an Exxon oil
tanker ran into a reef. Now the spill in the Gulf of Mexico on the off shore platform has
taken the top spot also owned by BP. With a company responsible for the two worst oil
spill in U.S history, BP are now looking to expand their operation on the North slop in
Alaska to include the Arctic Wildlife Refuge also know as (ANWR). The minimal
benefits of drilling in section 1002 of Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge do
not justify the danger and potential ecological disaster.
The biggest benefits would be to the oil company themselves, for they would
stand to make millions if not billions of dollars from drilling this site. Second benefactors
would be the Alaskan economy and it’s people from the profit share of the oil company.
Alaskans receive a check from the permanent fund. This year that check was $1,700 per
person (Ring, Begley). When residents receive their checks it’s normal, for residents and
even socially expected, for them to spend their free money on snowmobiles and four
wheelers. These machines use oil to lubricate their engines and run off gasoline, a by-
Merdes
2
product of oil. The majority of the money received goes right back into the states
economy and BP’s pocket. While the benefits to Alaskans help improve their bank
accounts temporality this does not offer a long-term solution and doesn’t out weigh the
danger of drilling to human and wildlife.
Dangers of oil drilling to human life are made more acceptable to put themselves
at risk because of the high pay. Next is the danger to wildlife. The oil company is
endangering the caribou by changing their migration route and endangering where they
give birth and where they come to fatten up and raise their young before moving South
for the Winter. By endangering the caribou it creates chain reaction that affect smaller
animals such as wolverines and wolves. The cycle continues on the Alaskan Native
communities, because they rely on these animals for food. Drilling changes the
environment. By drilling in this area, the oil company would be creating a ripple effect.
The caribou would feel it the most because they are at the center of the issue. The others
involved would just take a little longer to reach before they feel the effect of that rock
thrown in the pond.
Polar Bears are identified with the Arctic and would be dramatically affected by
an oil spill. They are land and water based animals. Much of their daily activities are in
the ocean. They swim and hunt in the water. Their main food source, such as the leopard
seals is in the ocean. If an oil spill occurs, the polar bear will be forced to adapt to a new
habitat or starve. Because they are already endangered, drilling in this area could push
them to the brink of extinction or wipe them out completely.
Another example of possible extinction is the Arctic Grayling Fish. Section 1002
of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is identified as the migration and spawning
Merdes
3
grounds for this fish. A spill in this area would potentially wipe out future grayling
population.
The major problem with the Gulf Coast clean up and response lies in the depth of
the location and the size of the spill. The drill site is over five thousand feet below the
water of the Gulf of Mexico. This is a problem because no human can go down that far
thus we have to rely on machines to do the work. Coast Guard Admiral Thad Allen is in
charge of the government response clean up on the Gulf Coast. Allen hopes to collect
twenty thousand barrels of crud oil per day. According to Allen this is the “worst spill in
U.S history which has now affected one hundred and twenty miles of coast line”. Allen
said, “Clean up will take four to six weeks after the well is sealed”(Mason/Driver). This
seems highly optimistic considering the amount of oil, and the fact that the well won’t be
sealed until August. The Gulf spill shows that the dangers of oil drilling are very real and
very costly, and still fallible in the process of managing and containing oil. Drilling and
clean up affects whole communities.
The oil company is impairing people’s ability to put food on the table for their
families. When the average American gets hungry he can simply get in his car and drive
to his local Smith or Fresh Market grocery store and buy his food for that night’s dinner.
The average Alaskan Natives, more specifically the Gwich people, who inhabit the North
Slope do not have the ability to hop in their car and head to their local grocery store.
Instead they rely on the caribou herds of the North Slope and ANWR in particular for
their food, which they kill in bulk and eat through out the long winter on the North Slope.
If BP drills in ANWR it will directly affect the native’s ability to hunt the caribou and
Merdes
4
provide food for their family through the winter. The potential hazard BP is making is
even greater by the remoteness of the area (Tim Dickinson).
Dickinson points out that help would not reach BP’s drill site in time to make a
difference. The people who can make a difference are the Coast Guard stationed on
Kodiak Island, over one thousand miles away. Additionally, they don’t have the proper
equipment for cleanup. The proper equipment for cleanup is sitting in the port of Seattle,
over two thousand miles away. Once word reaches Seattle it would take about a week to
reach the spill site. Add to that the time required needed to set up the equipment, all the
while the oil would be spewing out nonstop. This clearly shows that help is out of reach
and BP is handicapping themselves by proceeding to drill in ANWR, all for an estimated
amount of recoverable oil, (King). The environmental groups say there is three point two
billion barrels below ANWR. That is only six-month supply in the U.S. The oil
company, on the other hand, says there is anywhere from five point seven to sixteen
billon barrels below ANWR. Their estimate works out to be a thirty-month supply for the
U.S. The proposed oil in ANWR would take up two years before the average American
could put it in their gas tank and up to ten years for it to be felt nationally where gas
prices are affected. Drilling in (ANWR) would have no affect on gas prices at all on a
national level, and presents a higher risk because of its lower depth.
BP claims its well in the Arctic Ocean would be safer because it’s at a shallower
depth of one hundred and fifty feet, opposed to their Gulf well that is at five thousand feet
below the surface. The government’s own data shows that most blowouts occur in
shallow waters. Last fall the blowout in shallow water off the coast of Australia is proof
Merdes
5
that catastrophe can strike at any depth…There are some place you should not drill period
(Dickinson).
After gathering the research for oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge, we can conclude that it presents too many high risks. The caribou and its
predators are at risk. The Polar Bears is at risk. The Arctic Grayling is at risk. The
Alaskan Natives way of life is at risk. The environment is at risk with a potential spill. A
spill also puts other nations at risk of losing their fishing industries. The nations that
would suffer are Russia, Canada, US, and could reach as far as Norway and Greenland.
The oil company represents a fat child that is habituated in getting his way and
doesn’t care about the consequences of his actions or the impact others as long as he gets
that cookie he demands. The People making the decisions on oil drilling in Alaska are not
the ones truly affected by it. We need to take a harder look at those that are, and in the
process, see the bigger picture and what we all stand to lose if we go ahead with drilling
in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. We as a Nation need to recognize that drilling in
the Arctic Wildlife Refuge do not justify the ecological disaster it would bring.