Group 4

[djohnston]

Group 4's debate forum

[sneas]

        The first thing that needs to be considered in this debate is the fact that the United States is in significant need of oil.  We are going to be using oil anyways, so we might as well create American jobs, support our nation’s economy, and not be dependent on foreign imports from unstable governments in the process.  Drilling exploratory wells will almost undoubtedly guarantee success:  ANWR is estimated and expected to have a high potential for considerable findings of oil and gas.  
        While environmental arguments arise, the majority of Alaskans support exploration and only a small area of ANWR will actually be explored.  The negative ecological impact of drilling is much smaller than it was 30 years ago.  The surface area covered for roads, drilling, and production facility sites has had a 60% reduction over the past 30 years, leaving a lesser ecological footprint.  The drilling has also been designed to accommodate the wildlife.  No signs of negative impact have occurred on the arctic oil fields’ local animals.

Anwr.org

[rmaher]

        In our modern world of depleting resources, the key focus of environmentalists and corporate business people alike should be sustainable practices.  While sustainability is a term ordinarily found in environmental jargon, it should also be considered in economic decisions.  
        The Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge protects the greatest diversity of animals above the Arctic Circle and is the last area left un-drilled along the Alaskan coast.  The artic tundra is a very fragile biome, important to scientific research and vulnerable to major ecosystem changes.  For example, the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge is home to over 130 species of migratory birds, so drilling in this region could disrupt their migratory pattern.  
        In contrast to the rich sustainable diversity of the Wildlife Refuge, the prospected profits from drilling for oil are remarkably small.  There is only a 19% chance that enough oil will be found to fuel all of the United State’s needs for 7 – 24 months.  Once oil companies use this land for such a brief period of time, the land may never be completely reclaimed, because invasive machinery and possible accidents such as oil spills could devastate the region.
        Thus, it is not a sustainable practice to drill in the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge from both an environmental and an economic perspective.  The drilling of the land will not reduce oil imports in the long run, but it could forever alter the biodiversity of the region.  Therefore, instead of drilling in the Wildlife refuge, it would be more advantageous to all parties involved to find an alternate method of energy production, or towards increased fuel efficiency.  

Miller, Tyler G., Living in the Environment, Fourteenth Edition, pgs. 359-360.

http://www.savearcticrefuge.org/scientist.pdf 

[qyanaga]

While I agree that the US needs to find some way to get away from its dependence on foreign oil, drilling in ANWR is not an effective solution. The oil it could potentially provide would last only a limited amount of time. It would be like putting a band-aid on something that needed surgery- it only solves the problem for the present, not into the future. Also, even if the environmental impacts are less serious now than they were 30 years ago, they are still highly impactful. According the to Alaska Wilderness League, drilling in ANWR would have much the same impact as drilling in Alaska's North Slope has caused. In that region, drilling has contributed to higher greenhouse gas emissions, smog and acid rain. Hundreds of old reserve pits remain uncleaned, holding hundreds of thousands of gallons of waste. Oil spills happen on a daily basis, contaminating the region with over 1.2 million gallons from 1996-1999.

http://www.alaskawild.org/wp-content/files/Fact_Sheets/fs-drilling_impacts.pdf

All this being said, it is pretty obvious that while environmental impacts have perhaps lessened, they are by no means gone. Significant damage of natural habitat would ensue if drilling is allowed in ANWR. It would suffer the same pollution as Prudhoe Bay has.

http://arcticcircle.uconn.edu/ANWR/arcticconnections.htm

[CBriglio]

Rebute

        In my opinion, the United States’ need for oil is not the biggest factor to be taken into consideration at all because the amount of oil that ANWR’s refuge would provide is close to nothing. Studies have shown that  the oil will supply less than 3% of US annual oil use. The bigger problem of this oil crisis is Americans actual use and over consumption of oil. Even if we did drill on the refuge to get as much oil as possible, how is it really helping us? It’s not even close to a lifetime supply. I think people really need to start focusing on the real issue here, which is the fact that we need to find a reliable source to replace oil, or somehow cut the amount we use at least in half. Not to mention what drilling on this refuge would do to the animals and wildlife that live throughout it. All in all, it would be a huge mistake to go through will drilling on ANWR’s wildlife because the destruction it would cause is simply not worth just a fraction of the oil that we actually use.

http://www.sibelle.info/oped15.htm

[mranton]

While America does need to become less dependent on foreign oil, is the solution for that to deplete the remainder of one of our resources? Or should we find an alternate source of energy that would benefit us in the long run? The ANWR is a wildlife reserve, meaning it is prohibited to extract any resources from that land, what would be the purpose of setting up these boundaries if we can always just break them down if we have some kind of justification. In a a world already highly dependent on oil, to drill for more would further strengthen this dependency. This dependency has put strain on America's military, with rising oil prices, to mobilize the military is an increasingly expensive task. This inability to make way across the world to hot spots would limit the military in the long run. thank you for your time.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/05/01/pentagon_study_says_oil_reliance_strains_military/

[howen ()]

    While there are many species of migratory birds and animals that migrate though this area, drilling should not have a large effect on them.   The drilling techniques used are more environmental friendly then they used to be.  There is another drilling site called Prudhoe bay, which is 100 miles east this area which the birds and nest and migrate through as well.  Studies have found that the birds have been able to nest, reproduce, and migrate through these areas without trouble.  Scientists have agreed that the amount of oil that we find in ANWR will rival the initial reserves of Prodhoe bay, which is americas Largest oil field.  The geological community have come to a consensus that there is a 95% chance that we will find a super field somewhere in ANWR which will contain around 500 million barrels.  While I do agree with you that we need to find an alternate method of energy production, and/or increase our fuel efficiency we must also keep in mind that this will not happen overnight and we must make sure America can have enough oil and depend of the unstable middle eastern nations as least as possible until we figure something else out.


www.anwr.org

[howen]

      The advantages of drilling oil in this area far outweighs the disadvantages.  First of all only 8% of the ANWR is being considered for drilling, leaving the other 92% for the environment.  Of course it will effect the environment to a small extent, but our construction and drilling methods have changed drastically (our "footprint" should be 64% smaller then it used to be), and will not disrupt migratory patterns of birds and other mammals.  Also between 250,000 to 750,000 new jobs will be created which will help our unemployed.  This area also has a very large chance of being a huge discovery that contains lots of oil which will strengthen our weak economy.  In all drilling in this area have huge benefits which our country needs to take advantage of.

www.anwr.org

[mranton]

While it is obvious that carbon emissions have been exponentially increasing in our country, as well as world wide, it seems that to solve this ever increasing concern would not be to fuel this oil machine and release more detrimental fumes into the atmosphere. The US is responsible for 22% of the worlds CO2 emissions, putting of 6 million metric tons of it into the air annually, and since the 1900’s Global carbon emissions have increased from 500 million metric tons to nearly 7 billion metric tons. With carbon emissions continuing to increase it would quicken the effects of global warming on the world, causing many more environmental issues. To drill in Alaska it would continue the trend that America and the rest of the world set by raping and pillaging the earth, risking not much to be left for future generations.

http://www.govspot.com/issues/anwr.htm

http://www.earth-policy.org/Indicators/CO2/2004.htm

[rmaher]

While land other than the proposed drilling site could be used by the Porcupine Caribou Herd, 1002 area - the proposed drilling site- is the area most often used for the herd's calving ground.  This is because the area has high quality forage, insect relief areas, early snowmelt, and less dense predator populations.  This area is ideal for the caribou because by this time in their breeding season, mothers have used up nearly all of their fat reserves.  Since mothers feed the calves with their milk, the health of the calves depends upon the health of the mother, which is in turn dependent on the abundant vegetation located in 1002 area.  Furthermore, studies show that mother caribou with young calves are the most sensitive to development, because they stay away from foreign objects to protect their young.  Thus, oil drilling in the ANWR could directly affect the health and the dynamics of the Porcupine Caribou Herd.

Besides obvious environmental effects, drilling in the ANWR will also cause cultural damage.  To the Gwich'in, the indigenous people of the area, the ANWR is Izhik Gwats’an Gwandaii Goodlit, “The Sacred Place Where All Life Begins."  These people have always maintained a sustainable relationship with the land, and their way of life is intricately related to the caribou.  Not only do they depend on the caribou for food, but these animals are also one of the most important elements of their culture and spirituality.  

Drilling in the ANWR provides only a temporary solution to a major energy problem.  While I agree that we need to rely less on foreign oil, we also need to move towards sustainability, and by drilling in the ANWR, we would disrupt the successful, spiritual, and sustainable relationship that the Gwich'in people have established with the land.  Being their home, they know the land better than anyone, and they feel that drilling would disrupt the wildlife.  Thus, I feel that ultimately, drilling in the ANWR would yield much greater long term damage than benefit.

http://www.gwichinsteeringcommittee.org/GSChumanrightsreport.pdf

http://worldwildlife.org/news/displayPR.cfm?prID=234

[rmaher]

I agree that we do need a stable oil source until we are able to switch to a more efficient source of energy.  However, I disagree with a couple of your justifications for drilling.  First of all, while the environment would not be devastated, migratory species would be affected.  The Porcupine Caribou Herd, for example, uses the very site in which drilling is proposed for calving (see my other post for details).  Furthermore, the idea that wildlife will be unaffected is a hypothesis based on nearby oil drilling sites such as Prudhoe Bay.  However, the Gwich'in people have first hand experience with the land, and they feel that drilling would disrupt wildlife.

Furthermore, you stated that the geological community have come to a consensus that there is a 95% chance that we will find a super field somewhere in ANWR which will contain around 500 million barrels, but this fact comes from the Department of Interior's 1987 resource evaluation of ANWR's Coastal Plain.  In contrast, the Department of Energy's 2004 analysis of the site states that there is "considerable uncertainty regarding both the size and energy quality of the oil resources that exist in ANWR" because their is little first hand experience in the area and most information comes from comparisons to neighboring sites.  

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/FTPROOT/service/sroiaf(2004)04.pdf
http://www.anwr.org/Background/How-much-oil-is-in-ANWR.php

[sneas]

For over 40 years, local caribou have co-existed with development in the area.  The Central Arctic Herd, for example, has increased its population from 3,000 to 23,400 while calving in the Prudhoe Bay and Kuparuk oil fields.

Both herds that migrate through the Coastal Plain, the Pocupine Caribou Herd and the Central Arctic Herd, have proved to be "biologically healthy" and "in excellent physiological condition."

anwr.org

[qyanaga]

If what you say is true, and there is the potential to find initial reserves like those at Prudhoe Bay as well as a possible discovery of a super field, then the potential of environmental damage also increases. It has been argued that this will be a relatively small drilling. lasting the US 6 months min. of oil. If there is the potential to have over 500 million barrels of oil, however, the environmental dangers are more serious than what you are admitting to. According to Pamela Miller's article, Prudhoe Bay has suffered greatly from the drilling, due to daily oil spills, waste contamination, etc. If ANWR is supposed to be so similar to Prudhoe Bay, then it is in for a similar degradation.

http://arcticcircle.uconn.edu/ANWR/arcticconnections.htm

[sneas]

There are a substantial amount of reasons for drilling for oil in the ANWR.  First and foremost, only 8% would be used for drilling.  This area also has a great chance of becoming one of America’s largest oil discoveries, which will provide hundreds of thousands of jobs for Americans while pumping money into our economy and allowing us to be less dependent on the unstable governments of the Middle East.  
        While the environment is certainly a concern, drilling will only affect the ecosystems to a small extent.  Our drilling methods have advanced drastically and we have reduced the ecological footprint by 64%.  It has also been proven with nearby drilling sites that nesting, migration, and reproduction patterns of local animals can still coexist without any problems.  We believe that the benefits to drilling overwhelmingly outweigh the disadvantages.

[qyanaga]

While there are many valid arguments for drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, the arguments for refraining from drilling are stronger.  Drilling may temporarily provide many jobs for local citizens, but not drilling will permanently protect the culture of the native people.  Drilling might yield enough oil to aid our economy in the short run, but not drilling and focusing our efforts on alternate energy sources instead will aid our economy in the long run.  Most importantly, while drilling only might yield a profitable amount of oil, not drilling will definitely protect our environment and keep it a valuable natural resource for the future.

In a day in age where we are so caught up in improving our quality of life through technological advances such as cars, airplanes, and appliances, it is important that we remember the natural world around us. To maintain and protect what unharmed nature that is left, it is crucial that we consider its wellbeing along with our own. We admit that drilling in ANWR has short term benefits for us. Long term affects, however, would mean degradation of a currently pristine yet fragile ecosystem. Ultimately, we feel that the environmental risks of drilling in ANWR outweigh any economic/social benefits it might bring us.