Should The Us Drill For Oil In Alaska Essay

Should we drill for oil in Alaska's wilderness?

879 words4 pages

Show More

Should we drill for oil in Alaska’s Wilderness?

The world, as we know it, is in the midst of having an oil crisis. Our nation starves and bends at the will of this dreadful calamity. Our deprivation for this atrocious corruption has led us to look for oil deposits in the Alaskan Wilderness. The US needs oil and by drilling for oil on our own land, we would help our economy, but in doing so would destroy the beauty of the wilderness and harm many others. The matter on hand is that should we drill for oil in Alaska’s wilderness? My opinion and answer to this question would simply be no. The United States of America should not drill for oil in the Alaskan wilderness. I hold strongly to this belief for I am someone who does not tempt to…show more content…

The fragile tundra would turn into an industrial zone with pipes and roads that would stretch across the refuge, disturbing the wildlife. We have have to clear the environment to form roads, pipes, and oil rigs. The refuge is supposed to remain a pristine refuge for wildlife, not an industrial zone. The oil deposits are “spread across the coastal plain in more than 30 small deposits, which would require vast networks of roads and pipelines that would fragment the habitat disturbing and displacing wildlife.” (Document E) If we wish to preserve the small amount of true wilderness we have left on this world, we would not drill for oil in the Alaskan Nation Wildlife Refuge. In conclusion, I hold a firm grasp on the belief that we should not drill for oil in the Alaskan Wilderness. It would not help us economically for its effect is too small for the consequences that would follow. It could potentially anger the indigenous people of the land and ruin their traditional way of life. Not only that but it would turn the refuge into a sprawling industrial zone, disturbing, harming, and displacing the wildlife. The only way for the US to satisfy our starvation and deprivation for fuel and oil is to spend that money that we were going to use to drill on researching and developing, safer, cleaner, and better

U.S. oil companies already have permission to drill in millions of unexplored acres, but there is a push now to drill in one area where they don't have permission: the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). A terrible idea, drilling in ANWR would:

  • Not produce much oil.
  • Not lower gas prices.
  • Harm the environment.

If you (or someone you know) does not believe this, read on!

Drilling Cannot Produce Enough Oil

A recent U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) assessment says there is "considerable uncertainty regarding both the size and quality of the oil resources that exist in ANWR." Even if 7.7 billion barrels a day could be recovered (as estimated in one government study), "the current upper limit to ANWR oil production is the transportation capacity of TAPS" (Trans Alaska Pipeline System), or 2.136 million barrels per day. To put this in context, the U.S. burns 21 million barrels per day.

Plus, DOE says that the maximum potential capacity – accessing all the oil that's available to be pumped – would not be realized until 2026.

ANWR oil would be too little too late. Our planning for 2026 should not be centered around oil, but rather on new energy technologies. As Thomas Friedman said in a recent interview, we should be shouting "Invent, invent, invent!" not "Drill, drill, drill!"

I'm actually not against drilling. What I'm against is making that the center of our focus because we are on the eve of a new revolution, the energy technology revolution. It would be, Tom, as if on the eve of the IT revolution, the revolution of PCs and the internet, someone was up there standing and demanding, "IBM Selectric typewriters, IBM Selectric typewriters." That's what "drill, drill, drill" is the equivalent of today.

It Would Not Lower Oil Prices

EDF economist Gernot Wagner explained to me why drilling won't lead to lower oil and gas prices. What's mainly driving high oil prices today, he said, is increased demand. And the increase, in large part, is due to the newly mobile millions around the world who've been lifted out of poverty in the last few decades.

DOE predicts that world oil demand between 2010 and 2015 will increase by over 7 percent, and 30 percent by 2030. The U.S. only has 3 percent of the world's oil reserves, and less than one-fifth of that is in federal offshore waters. So even if we were able to tap into the full 3 percent, it would scarcely make a dent in the demand-supply balance.

Then there is this inconvenient fact: OPEC would have the final say on whether increased U.S. production lowered world prices. OPEC easily could scale back total production by the same amount to wipe out any price effects. They did it just this week in response to falling oil prices.

Drilling will not reduce fuel prices, and will not make us more energy independent. The only way to achieve these goals is to reduce our dependence on oil – foreign or domestic – through fuel economy, and a cap on carbon emissions. A carbon cap will spur innovation and shift us into a green energy economy.

It Would Harm the Environment

If drilling for oil in ANWR could possibly do us some good, then perhaps one could make the argument that we should do it – even if it did bring harm to wildlife and ecosystems. But to harm ecosystems for no benefit at all is just plain stupid – and it would cause harm.

The northern coastal plain of ANWR – the proposed area for drilling – has been characterized by the "drill, drill, drill" crowd as a "wasteland". But, says EDF geographer Peter Black, it's in fact a vital part of the ANWR ecosystem. Just because it doesn't look like an appealing tourist spot doesn't mean it isn't worth protecting.

Nor does it make sense to argue that the area opened for drilling would be very small. First of all, these areas tend to expand. The nearby Prudhoe Bay oil fields were originally supposed to comprise 2100 acres, but today they spread over 640,000 acres. Plus, as EDF wildlife expert Michael Bean notes, "The effects of development extend well beyond the physical limits of that footprint."

And there's no question that it would do harm. Oil spills in nearby Prudhoe Bay are common and the consequences are devastating (see this Wilderness Society report [PDF] for pictures and statistics).

There's another issue to consider: Drilling in a wildlife refuge is a slippery slope. What's next? Drilling in wilderness areas? National Parks? What's the value of a protective designation if the land isn't protected?

There Are Other Places to Drill

ANWR isn't our only option for domestic drilling. There are millions of acres already open to drilling where oil companies have not yet explored. As my Mom used to say, finish what's on your plate before you ask for seconds.

This post is by Sheryl Canter, an online writer and editorial manager at Environmental Defense Fund.

This entry was posted in Energy, Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *