Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Case Study

One of the biggest threats to the Bears Ears area is concentrated around the Cedar and Tank Mesas, which was recently approved as an ‘Energy Zone’ by the Utah legislation, who declared that the ‘highest and best use’ of Cedar Mesa and San Rafael Swell was for grazing, mineral extraction, and oil exploration. The Bears Ears Coalition contends that they are not against energy development; they feel that the land is too greatly valuable to deface.

Many people would find it easy to sympathize with the conservation of the natural, magnificent wilderness and all of its glory; and Subhankar Banerjee, the author of Arctic National Wildlife Refuge: Seasons of Life and Land, A Photographic Journey, uses that sympathy to gain the reader’s support in his claims. While his article does offer a very compassionate viewpoint with vivid imagery to capture the reader’s attention, it lacks strong logos arguments to back up his claims and falls victim to a few major logical fallacy points that injure his stance.

One of the last of the world’s true wilderness, the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge is “one of the largest sanctuaries for Arctic animals, (where)… it is a vital birthing ground for polar bears, grizzlies, Arctic wolves, caribou, and the endangered shaggy ox” (Document E). By drilling for oil on this land, we would potentially endanger the wildlife and the

The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) has been the center of a strident controversy and national debate that has raged for over 40 years. The question raising so much contention is whether the federal government should allow drilling for oil and natural gas with the levels of contention paralleling the rise and fall of gas prices. The National Democratic and Republican Parties have taken opposing positions in their national political platforms, with the debate emerging and re-emerging in Congress as a significant issue. The Republican are proponents of drilling whereas the Democrats are opposed. With Sen. Lisa Murkowski ascending to the top post of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee many observers believe that the Republicans will renew their push for drilling in the ANWR in the upcoming 114th Congress. This paper will explore the different arguments that are used to oppose drilling to protect the ANWR followed by arguments that are in support of drilling. As a result of a preliminary review of current literature outlining the pros and cons surrounding drilling, it is the thesis of this paper that drilling in the ANWR is unnecessary based on (1) the potential to cause irreversible damage to a very unique ecosystem that has not been adequately studied by scientists; and (2) the limited impact that drilling in the region will have on overall market prices and supplies due to the estimated small size of the ANWR’s oil and gas reserves. A brief history of the

In drilling for oil in ANWR, the destruction of the land will be kept to a minimum. Everything that can possibly be done to limit the destruction

A major claim from the supporters view is that there would decrease United States dependence on foreign oil. Although, it seems logical for the United States to drill on its own land to decrease dependence on imported oil, but that would not be the case in ANWR. According to the U.S. Geological Survey, there are 4-10 billion barrels of oil that can be recovered from the refuge’s coastal plain that is enough for another 4-10 months (Cunningham, 2009, p. 287). A poll from February 2000, Alaskans support opening ANWR

The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) is located in the northeastern part of Alaska and has been the topic of many recent political and environmental debates. Many of these

     Most individuals may think that drilling and transporting oil on the ANWR will put many animals in danger, when in all reality the animals and their environment will be subjected to little or no danger. There are many reasons for this. Firstly, a great deal of oil drilling experience has already been learned in the Arctic area because of previous drilling done at Prudhoe Bay, which has taught oil companies extensive safety precautions in the drilling and transporting of oil. Prudhoe Bay which is only couple miles from the ANWR and currently Americas largest source of oil is said to rival the amount of oil on the ANWR. Moreover, the ANWR stretches a vast 19 million acres and the only land that is going to be affected by the drilling is a mere 1.9 million acres, called the 1002 area. That is only 2% of the ANWR region. Of the 1.9 million acres only 2000 of those acres will actually be utilized for drilling purposes. Conclusively, this should in no way endanger the animals in this area.

     The Arctic National Wildlife Reserve (ANWR) is a beautiful 19.6 million acre coastal plain, and is located in the Northeastern part of Alaska. ANWR is home to numerous species of wildlife and one of the largest untapped oil preserves in the United States. There is an immense debate between the opposing environmentalists and the politicians who want to drill for oil on a section of ANWR, which is only 1.8% of the refuge. Environmentalists who oppose drilling for oil in Alaska say the wildlife and the native populations are threatened by drilling for oil in ANWR, even though most of the natives are strongly in favor of drilling. ANWR could save the US from having to import $800 billion worth

Legislation which would make this entire available for oil drilling. Ms. Norton has been given the right to impose necessary and appropriate measures to protect refuge resource while efficiently removing oil. Despite the remote location, it is the most attractive onshore petroleum exploration target in the United States (‘Resource Assessment '). It appears that the President, his Interior Secretary, and the Department of Interior have forgotten the first reason for creating this refuge. It was done by humans, who valued

     My argument in favor of opening up oil drilling in ANWR is based on two things: the questionable conclusions that the Lovins article draws from past energy policies and the latest factual and no-so factual data they had available to them at the time. I believe that given the world we live in today, the principles that the Lovins and other use to argue against oil drilling in ANWR can be applied to argue why oil drilling should be open in the tract of land in Alaska. By drilling for oil in Alaska the U.S. will become more self-efficient on fuel, and the opportunity for employment will cause the current unemployment rate to decrease. The drilling creates opportunities not only for oil companies, but also boating and airplane carriers.

Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, or ANWR, is a refuge geared toward preserving national wildlife in northeastern Alaska. ANWR is about 19 million acres, in space, and contains a potential drilling spot for oil and petroleum. The potential drilling spot is a small area known as the 10-02 Area. It is only 1.5 million acres, or 8%, of ANWR, would even be considered for development (What is ANWR). The controversy surrounding ANWR is whether to drill or not to drill into the 10-02 area. Some people want to preserve the wilderness and to find more fuel-efficient technologies. Others want to lower gas prices and to create more job opportunities. If the government decides to drill for oil, it could possibly lead to about 17 billion barrels of oil,

In believe we should not drill in Alaska to satisfy our fuel dependencies. As stated in the documentary “We can import minerals but we cannot import wilderness”, drilling begins a tradeoff; in exchange for minerals we get a damaged ecosystem. Some argue that Alaska has an immense supply of resources that would liberate us from foreign oil, however, there is no guarantee of vast quantities of minerals in Alaska, as the U.S. Department of Energy has stated that there is "considerable uncertainty regarding both the size and quality of the oil resources that exist”. Drilling damages the environment while possibly wielding disappointing results. Even if there is a reservoir of natural resources in Alaska it would not be immediately available

Drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, commonly referred to as ANWR has been the source of media and political controversy for the last twenty years and has only increased in recent years. President Eisenhower reserved this land in 1960 to preserve and protect the native and diverse plants and wildlife. When oil was discovered in the Prudhoe Bay a determined group consisting of large oil corporations, politicians and locals insisted that exploration in the wildlife refuge would lessen the United States dependence to foreign oil, there would be numerous economic benefits and could be achieved with an inconsequential effect on the environment. Opponents of drilling reject this argument citing grave environmental concerns. These adversaries that include many environmental groups argue that the various economic benefits associated with drilling in ANWR are not significant enough to warrant the destruction of one of the last remaining pristine wildernesses. The costs associated with drilling evident in oil spills, changes in habitat and the possible extinction of Polar bears and wolves demonstrate that the benefits of drilling for oil does not outweigh the negative consequences. In 2015, President Barack Obama pushed policy to ban oil exploration by designating more than 22 million acres in Alaska of which 12 million are part of the ANWR (Bourne).

With all the good the Arctic National Wildlife refuge has to offer as a safe haven for endangered animals and plant life, comes the burden of sitting on an oil reserve. As noted earlier in 1980, under President Carter, the protected area was doubled. However, the oil industry lobbies succeeded in having the U.S. Senate refuse to designate the critically important Costal Plain as wilderness. Instead, Section 1002 of the Alaskan National Interest Lands Conservation Act legislation directed the Department of Interior