Oil Drilling in Alaska Wilderness

Drilling in Alaska will not help stop the oil crisis. Many colonial Americans weren’t concerned about protecting natural resources because they thought they had a lot but they also knew that they needed to preserve the oil. Should the United States drill for oil in Alaska’s wilderness? America shouldn’t drill in Alaska because of the environment wilderness, protecting environment, and economics.

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.

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

Oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is a very controversial topic. On one end you have the people who want to drill for oil to help out our economy, and on the other end there are the environmentalists and the Alaskan natives who do not want their land destroyed. Our economy needs help; oil prices keep rising, gas prices have reached an all time high, and America is depending too much on foreign trade. Drilling for oil in Alaska will solve these problems. There are ways of drilling without disturbing the environment and keeping the animals in their original habitat.

Senator Everett Dirksen once noted “The oilcan is mightier than the sword”. In today’s world, it is easy to see why oil can be considered the most important resource to hold. Without oil, many of the common day occurrences we take for granted would be impossible. Oil is used for almost everything; from the fuel used to drive our vehicles, to the plastics used in every facet of life, and providing the heat needed to live through the winter. In fact, the United States depends so much on oil that as a nation it uses over 20 million barrels a day. Importing oil increases the total costs because of the need to transport it from around the world. It is estimated

Throughout paragraph five he describes the protections put into place during 1960 by Eisenhower, protecting an 8.9 million acre area of the preserve that was future extended to more than 100 million acres during Carter's presidency. And he states since he left office there have been repeated proposals to open the coastal plain to oil drilling which he states “those attempts have failed because they met tremendous opposition… especially from the Gwich’in Athabascan Indians.” He also refutes the proposal directly, describing how the economical benefits from industrializing the arctic refuge would be minute at best, expressing that “at best the artic refuge might provide one to two percent of the oil our country consumes

“Since I have left office, there have been repeated proposals to open the Arctic Refuge coastal plain to oil drilling.” This direct quote makes me feel like we, as humans, could do some severe damage to the environment. How much damage could we do? Who would be the ones to clean up the irreversible damage we have done? Without the persistence of the indigenous people, this great refuge would not be what it is. “There are few places on earth as wild and free as the Arctic Refuge.” This statement has so much truth and should hit us on a personal level because it makes you wonder how many places are there left like this on the earth? How long can we preserve this place? We should be more careful and use our resources

The question is should we drill for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve. While there are downfalls to drilling the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve, the benefits to the country and to Alaska far outweigh them. These benefits include lower gas prices, more jobs, energy independence.

Lee, Professor of Economics. In his argument claims, “that the Economic of Arctic National Wildlife Refuge oil is so great that even environmentalist should agree to drilling, and they would probably stand to benefit.” There would be many benefits as compared to the cost. He does not deny the fact that there would be risks associated with the drilling. In spite of this, he feels that they do not begin to compare the benefits. Lee explains that the main reason that this has become such an intense issue is because of high prices of oil and gasoline. Lee goes on to explain that technology has having fewer risks involved with the drilling. This is why it is an important issue. Drilling would help reduce the U.S. dependence on foreign sources. Richard Pombo, a Republican from California argued that “there is no logical reason” to oppose ANWR drilling (Easton, 2009).

The area currently being considered for drilling is also known as the '1002 Area.' These 1.5 million acres were not designated as wilderness and were addressed in section 1002 of the ANILCA. Section 1002 discussed the information that Congress would need to obtain before deeming the 1002 area as wilderness.[vi] Inventories of fish, wildlife, and the potential impacts

Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), the crowned jewel of the nation’s 544 refuges is in danger of destruction (Lamar and Markey 12). ANWR has been in existence since 1960 and has slowly become one of the most controversial topics to hit Congress. ANWR is composed of 19 million acres on the northeast coast of Alaska. Although the government has been provided with this immense land they are fighting to gain more land. Why? ANWR is the second biggest oil field that is owned by the U.S. Now the government wants more land to construct oil reserves. The refuge is home to many endangered species such as migratory birds, polar bears, and wolves (Lynne and Roberts 1). Most of ANWR’s designated oil area is owned by indigenous Alaskan

He mentions that the Montana Yaak Valley has not been included in the “already in effect” Wilderness Act of 1964 and so far “not a single acre” (5) has been designated. The Yaak is public land and falls under the government’s passed Act, but it is thought by a good majority of the opposition as “private land.” He also explains that because his “home valley of the Yaak grows big timber and for this reason primarily was excluded from earlier Montana wilderness protection bills in the 1960’s, 70’s, and 80’s” (3). He states why the timber industry is against bills for the protection of wild lands, and that is because it needs the woods to produce labor opportunities. Bass also mentions a strategy formed, which pertained to assigning specific areas within the protected land to be used for recreational purposes, in order to please the opposition. Lastly, he insists that the Yaak, as one of the United States’ lungs, is worth protecting because “it nurtures the greatest biodiversity in the state” (2). The reality is that the Yaak Valley is a relative large area with minimum human involvement, which is perfect to maintain the existence of many fauna and

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

In 2004, Questar sent a proposal to BLM to invest in directional drilling that would minimise the land occupied by wells, required roadways and distribution pipes. The innovation would reduce any harmful effect on the wildlife. However, the drilling method is costly but can be justified by continuous drilling all through winter.

I am writing to you in regard to the Bridger -Teton National Forest. I write to you as someone who believes in preservation. I believe that the forest should be preserved and not conserved. The Bridger -Teton National Forest is a landmark and should be kept that way. “It is a place where locals find solitude in huge tracts of forest backcountry when nearby wilderness areas and national parks are crowded with out-of-state visitors. It’s also a place that supports traditional, sustainable activities such as outfitting, guiding, ranching, and recreation” (“Wyoming Outdoor Council” 2009-2013). All of these values are being threatened because the forest is being considered for oil and gas development. While oil and gas may be useful to us, I do not think that the forest should suffer the consequences. The natural resources should be left alone for everyone to enjoy in its natural state. To upset this would be environmentally incorrect.