Anwr

As the price of gas increases and the economic struggle continues, the need for cheap, reliable fuel is a demand. One way to lower the price of gas is to begin drilling in the Northern part of Alaska, known as ANWR. ANWR stands for Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. It is believed to have large amount of oil that could decrease the prices of oil. ANWR is also a place with great wildlife that is unlike any other. So that is where the debate begins. Are the American people willing to sacrifice the wildlife in this area for oil that will eventually lead to more pollution around the world' On the other hand, are people willing to sacrifice oil, which is becoming more and more important to our society, for just wildlife' In this paper, I will discuss the pros and cons of drilling in ANWR. Before I go into the positive and negative effects of drilling in ANWR, I will discuss the area. ANWR is located in northeastern Alaska. The area of ANWR encompasses approximately19 million acres(4). The area is almost equivalent to the size of the state South Carolina. ANWR at 19 million acres is bigger than 10 other states. The area is split up into two different regions, the coastal plain and the wilderness area. The area that we would drill in would be in the coastal plain. This area would only be 2,000 of the 19 million acres. These area contains coastal lagoons, barrier islands, salt marshes, and river deltas (2). Drilling in ANWR could possibly lead to some devastating effects. ANWR is home to a wide variety of animals and plants, these include: caribou, polar bears, wolves, migratory birds, sea ducks, geese, swans, shorebirds, and whales and seals along the coastline (4). Polar bears are already being affected by the loss of ice, and ANWR’s coastal plain is home to a large population of polar bears. By increasing population to this region adds only another problem that the animals will face (3). Are the American people willing to sacrifice these animals for oil' That is the question that we need look at. Not only would we be altering with their environment, but we would also risk the possibility of a oil spill if we began drilling in the region. Oil fields in the Prudhoe Bay were originally intended to take up 2,100 acres, but today it spread out over 640,000 acres. Oil spills are often common in the Prudhoe Bay and the effects there have been harmful (7). ANWR is the largest remaining wildlife refuge (2). The region is already being impacted by burning of fossil fuels around the world, so why would we want to drill more oil so we can pollute the area even more' The average temperature increased 7 degrees over the past 30 years, and the arctic ice pack has thinned 40% since 1960 (5). By drilling in the ANWR region you will need to build roads and oil pads which only take up more of the space for the wildlife. The roads would take a great amount of gravel, which will permanently alter their ecosystem (6). Transporting the oil will only add another danger to the list. Almost 250 indigenous people live in the ANWR area. People there fish and hunt to survive (5). By drilling in the area, we would alter with their lifestyle and potentially hurt their food supply. Why would we want to drill here when we cold drill elsewhere. There are a many misconceptions when discussing about drilling in ANWR. Many people believe that oil prices will drop if we begin to drill there. The Department of Environmental Services (DOE) predicts that “oil demand will increase by over 7 percent between 2010 and 2015, and 30 percent by 2030.” Oil demand is what increases gas prices, and the demand is rising due to the millions of people around the world who have been lifted out of poverty the last few decades (7). Drilling will not lower gas prices, and it will not make our country more energy independent. To reduce the dependence on oil we will need to switch to a better alternative, green fuel. Studies have shown that 7.7 billion barrels a day would be produced from the ANWR coastal region (7). The limit to ANWR oil production, is the transportation capacity of the Trans Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS). The limit of the TAPS is about 2.136 million barrels per day (7). People are still unsure about the quantity and the quality of the oil production in the region. The DOE also predicts that if oil was pumped out of the ANWR region, through the Trans Alaska Pipeline System, that it wouldn’t be realized in the economy until 2026 (7). The ANWR region has been a popular discussion in politics for decades now. In 1960, President Dwight Eisenhower signed off a document that stated 9 million acres in the northeastern corner of Alaska was to be a protected wildlife refuge. Twenty years later, Congress expanded the wildlife refuge area to 19 million acres. In 1995, Congress authorized oil drilling in the coastal plain, but it was vetoed by President Clinton. Two years later, Clinton signed the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act. The Act was intended to administer the lands and waters of refuge, so that it would benefit future generations of Americans. In 2002, the House approved drilling in ANWR, but the Senate rejected it. In November of 2008, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals blocked Shell from drilling in Sivulliq, which is just off the shore from Northern Alaska. The court required Shell to re-apply for permission to drill, which needed to be more comprehensive about the potential consequences of drilling in the region. December of 2008, Shell canceled plans to create an offshore rig. On January 14th, 2009, Senator Joe Lieberman and 23 other senators created a bill which, if passed, would prohibit the drilling in ANWR. Today, the debate on whether we should drill or not in ANWR continues. Each and every time the price of oil increases, the area of ANWR will be discussed in the political arena. (used 1, entire paragraph). There are a lot of negative effects that drilling in ANWR could bring, but there plenty of positive effects too. The economic impact drilling could have would be great. Between 250,000 and 750,000 jobs would be created by the development of the ANWR Coastal Plain. The reason for increase in jobs, is because oil has to be found, extracted, transported, and refined, and then transported again. The people that would benefit most from it would be the independent oil and gas companies, as well as the oilfield service companies. All the oil companies involved in the drilling would benefit from this. Another reason why we should drill is because it would only be 8 percent of the entire area. Imported oil is costly; the US imports 60 percent of our oil from other countries, and 400 billion dollars a year is spent abroad on oil. Oil is that largest contribution to our national debt (which is almost 12 trillion). The United States Geological Survey in 1998 conducted a study that indicated the ANWR region has the best potential for a super large oil field than any other place in North America. Some studies have shown that it would not have a negative impact on animals. The number of animals that lived near the Prudhoe Bay oil fields in the 1970’s was around 5000. The number has increased to over 32,000 today. The oil fields of ANWR would be monitored by State and Federal wildlife specialists, to reduce the risk of harming the animal’s environment. The oil from the Prudhoe Bay has been declining for almost a decade now, and currently the Trans Alaska Pipeline System is only a third full. Soon enough the oil in the pipeline will be empty, and we will be looking for another place to drill in that area, and ANWR is the best fit. More than 72 percent of Native Alaskan’s support drilling in the ANWR Coastal Plain. Don’t you think we should listen to citizens of Alaska' (used 1, entire paragraph) My personal opinion on drilling in the ANWR region, is that we should not drill. There are too many things that could go wrong and it would be catastrophic to the entire refuge. Yes, I know that by drilling in the coastal region, it will create jobs for approximately 500,000 people. But shouldn’t we be putting our money and our human resources toward the development alternative fuels' The legislative support for renewable energy grants would decrease because of the money going towards the oil drilling. ANWR is the biggest wildlife refuge remaining, why would we put it in danger of an oil spill' Past experiences have shown that oil spills are frequent, and it will be difficult to keep the area clean. We should focus on other areas that we could drill, not on in area of a wildlife refuge. The actual price of oil will not decrease at all, and it will take more than a few years until we see it effect gas prices. By that time the price of gas will be a dollar maybe two higher than it is now. We aren’t quite sure how much oil we can produce in the region, nor do we don’t know anything about the quality of oil in the area. Why don’t we focus on other things such as conserving oil' We can save oil by creating alternative fuel sources and by reducing how much energy we use. Not only is drilling bad for the area, but it will only generate more pollution. Drilling in ANWR will increase our country’s reliability on oil. If we begin drilling here, then what is going to prevent us from trying to drill in other refuges or in National Parks. The oil that we would get out of ANWR would only be temporary. We would burn this fuel in a few years and the wildlife would be ruined. If we would let it be, and not drill, it would continue to be one of the best wildlife spectacles in the world. So now you know the positive and negative effects on drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. You have a basic understanding on why this region is important to our country. ANWR will always be a popular discussion in politics, and hopefully years from now it will be in the same condition as it is presently. Now it is your turn to choose which side you will take. Do you think that drilling in the ANWR region is worth the potential consequences it could have' Works Cited 1. ANWR.org. (2009). Retrieved November/7http://www.anwr.org/ 2. David P. Mikleson. The truth about ANWR. Retrieved November/7, 2009, from http://www.snopes.com/politics/gasoline/anwr.asp 3. Dawn M. Smith. ANWR oil drilling threat delayed. Retrieved November/7, 2009, from http://ecosystem-preservation.suite101.com/article.cfm/anwr_oil_drilling_threat_delayed 4. M. Lynne Corn. (2002). Arctic national wildlife refuge (ANWR).http://www.policyalmanac.org/environment/archive/crs_anwr.shtml 5. Oil on ice. Retrieved November/7, 2009, from http://www.oilonice.org/ 6. Patrick Leahy. Major issues. Retrieved November/7, 2009, from http://leahy.senate.gov/issues/environment/anwr.html 7. Sheryl Canter. Why drilling in alaska's ANWR is a bad idea. Retrieved November/9, 2009, from http://blogs.edf.org/climate411/2008/09/11/anwr_oil_drilling/