Jeffrey Patrick
Debate Paper 2
Should the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge be opened to oil drilling?
18 September 2012
1758 Words
The issue of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge began in 1960, when Eisenhower protected 19
million acres as a refuge. This was expanded to over 80 million acres in 1980 when congress passed a
conservation act. The real debate emerges in 1981 when the amount of oil contained within the refuge
was determined, and was expanded by more research done in 2001 which provided a more accurate
picture of the amount of oil in the ANWR (Bennett). There are many people, groups, and animals at
stake in this issue. The oil industry wants to drill in the ANWR because it would provide over 10 billion
barrels of oil that could be provided at only $30 a barrel, making it a very cheap source of oil. Locals in
the area would have a bittersweet involvement; hundreds of thousands of jobs could be created, but
groups of native Alaskans would be displaced and face larger issues as the wildlife is affected, who are
stakeholders in their own right (ANWR.org, Wallace, Bennett). The area that is being looked at for
development is considered one of the most ecologically sensitive areas of the refuge. The wildlife in the
area is quite diverse, and includes animals such as polar bears, wolverines, lemmings, etc. But beyond
just the locals and wildlife, there are many issues that must be addressed when looking at the
development of the ANWR for oil, primarily the economic and environmental impact (McDonnell).
Economically, the issue comes down to jobs, the price and supply of oil, and economic impact on the
local area, state, and country. The biggest factor of the three would be the supply and price of oil. The
United States may or may not be able to continue to import foreign oil, and the price of importing that
oil would be significantly higher than drilling and refining the oil within the ANWR. However, the issues
environmentally cannot be ignored. First, what will happen to the wildlife located in the areas within
area of land that is being considered for drilling, and can the effects of the drilling on the wildlife be
minimized or eliminated? Also, beyond just the immediate wildlife impact, the carbon footprint of
developing the area and the overall emissions from consuming the oil must be taken into account as to
whether or not we really need the oil reserves within the refuge, or if alternate energy should be
developed instead.
There are a variety of arguments that support drilling in the ANWR, some stronger than others.
Part of the arguments made by ANWR.org, and some of the strongest, are economic. By utilizing the oil
in the ANWR, we can supposedly contribute $50 billion to the nation’s economy. This money will be
“directly impacting each state in the union” (ANWR.org). With the large dependence on foreign oil in
the United States, this will also have a great effect in helping us be more self-sufficient, especially with
one of our major oil fields’ production declining. The ANWR would be the United States’ best
opportunity to find a large oil field to supply domestic oil. In addition, hundreds of thousands of jobs
can be created through the development of this area. Beyond these economic benefits to the United
States from developing the ANWR, the arguments supporting development are nearly non-existent.
ANWR.org only provides two other reasons that they claim would support drilling, and they are only
really survival reasons. They push that a “small” percentage (only 8%) would be considered for
exploration, and that wildlife would remain unaffected near drilling areas. However, these are not truly
arguments for exploration, but are there to quell some of the obvious arguments against (ANWR.org).
The real ideology behind the support for exploration of the ANWR is for economic reasons; basically
through exploration, the United States would make money, the states would make money, the people
will make money, the US would get more oil, and most importantly, the oil industry gets more cheap oil
that it can sell for large profits.
Clearly, the economic arguments for exploration are stronger than any of the other reasoning
that was outlined. The environmental arguments brought up, as stated before, are useless and really
don’t help when brought up. They only detract from the little actual support brought up. The major
flaw with the argument that the development doesn’t affect the wildlife in the area is that it is blatantly
false. The portion of the ANWR that is being looked at for development has been called one of the most
ecologically sensitive areas of the entire reserve. Even if the drilling was minimally invasive, the massive
construction projects necessary to create the infrastructure necessary for drilling/refining/pumping the
oil would have a negative effect on the environment. The drilling operation and the animals may
coexist, but there would definitely be an effect. In addition, the argument that only 8 percent of the
ANWR would be considered could actually hurt the opinion of the drilling. This is because 8 percent is
quite a large portion of a wildlife reserve. A better argument would show a small number of planned
drill locations, or knowledge of where the drilling would be done, as opposed to searching aimlessly over
1.5 million acres until you finally decide which 2000 acres they will develop. The economic arguments
are valid, and the drilling will help boost the economy a bit, but the jobs created are a double edged
sword. Either development must continue, or once the construction projects are done, a core crew to
maintain the area will remain employed while everyone else is out of a job (ANWR.org).
On the other side of the argument, there are also many points brought up. Primarily, the
arguments center around the environment and the effect drilling has on it, opposed to the side for
drilling, which centered on the economic impact. One of the core arguments is that we must preserve
the arctic landscape for future generations, which has been supported by Americans in the past, and
that the drilling and piping will deface significant amounts of the land and disrupt the fragile ecosystem.
However, beyond the environment, they make strong counterpoints to the oil industry’s arguments of
the economic impact of the oil. The amount of oil that is in the ANWR is very little compared to the
amount that the US imports to meet its energy needs. NRDC.org supports looking into alternate energy
options instead of supporting expansion of fossil fuel supplies (NRDC.org).
While NRDC’s arguments don’t number quite as many as ANWR.org’s, they are much stronger
and overturn many of the “facts” that ANWR uses. One such fact is the 2000 acres of land that ANWR
claims to be able to use to gather all or most of the oil in the refuge. However, the oil is not
concentrated to one area, and would require multiple drilling operations to gather all of it. Part of
NRDC’s position is based on a kind of “opinionated fact,” such as the need to preserve the arctic
landscape for future generations. This is an important thing to bring up, and is a very strong argument,
but could be considered an opinion. The arctic landscape doesn’t necessarily need to be preserved, but
future generations would prefer that it was. Similarly, the push for alternate energy sources is
important, and the oil located in the ANWR would only delay the inevitable disappearance of fossil fuels
and cause possibly more global warming, but this could also be construed as an opinion that we should
leave resources when we are eventually going to move off of them the future.
I consulted a third article from the Smithsonian Magazine. Its primary focus was on the people
in the area where the drilling and exploration would take place, the Gwich’in and Inupiat. They have
their own concerns about the possible drilling in the area where they live. The drilling could disrupt a
core food supply, caribou, for the Gwich’in. They survive by being caribou hunters, and the drilling could
affect the caribou population, location, and movement. This differs greatly form the Inupiat, who want
to encourage drilling to keep up their economy, which would allow them to keep their modern
comforts. When the oil industry first started its exploration in Alaska, it allowed the Inupiat to go from a
tribe/ village environment to developing a more modern society/community with modern schools,
indoor plumbing, etc. (Wallace).
After looking at all the facts and arguments, I have to agree with the NRDC, in that we should
not drill in the ANWR. The only motivating factor for drilling is short term economic gain, which is quite
stupid in the large scale picture, and the destruction to the environment would last a significant amount
of time. The landscape would be marred by pipelines and drilling rigs, and the wildlife and ecosystem
could be damaged beyond repair after the construction is started. Economically it is also an
unintelligent decision. Short term, it would employ several thousand, possibly several hundred
thousand, people, but the majority would be temporary construction jobs until they found the oil. The
amount of oil introduced to the US would do little to quench its thirst, as the total reserves in the ANWR
couldn’t meet one year of demand, and thus would have little impact on the price of oil and gas, but
would allow the oil industry a few more years to live. In the long term, the only benefiting stakeholder
would be the oil industry, because it would provide a few more years of oil, continue to fuel our
dependence on oil and fossil fuels, and basically give them more money. However, as the need to
develop sustainable energy sources increases, the increase in lifespan of the industry might not even be
as long as one generation.
Works Cited
"Anwr.org - Arctic National Wildlife Refuge." Anwr.org - Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. N.p., n.d.
Web. 14 Sept. 2012. <http://www.anwr.org/topten.htm>.
"Arctic Wildlife Refuge: Why Trash an American Treasure for a Tiny Percentage of Our Oil
Needs?" NRDC:. National Resource Defense Council, n.d. Web. 14 Sept. 2012.
<http://www.nrdc.org/land/wilderness/arctic.asp>.
Bennett, Mia. "ANWR Drilling Debate Reaches a New Low." Alaska News, Politics, Culture, and
Current Events. Alaska Dispatch, n.d. Web. 14 Sept. 2012.
<http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/anwr-drilling-debate-reaches-new-low>.
McDonnell, Tim. "Obama Administration Moves Against Alaska Oil Drilling." MotherJones.com.
Mother Jones, n.d. Web. 14 Sept. 2012. <http://www.motherjones.com/bluemarble/2011/08/anwr-wilderness-designation>.
Wallace, Scott. "ANWR: The Great Divide." Smithsonian Magazine. Smithsonian, Oct. 2005. Web. 14
Sept. 2012. <http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/anwr.htm>.