Western Oregon Journal

[Click to enlarge]

On March 16th, 2005, the Senate rejected an amendment sponsored by Senators Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) and John Kerry (D-Mass.) that would have removed oil-drilling provision from next year's budget in the Artic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR).

The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) is the largest wildlife refuge in the United States, located in the northeast corner of Alaska, covering 19.8 million acres. The Refuge was recognized for its biological significance in the 1950s, which eventually led to President Eisenhower's order that first declared it a National Wildlife Refuge in 1960. However, the potential of oil and gas reserves beneath the tundra soil of ANWR has fostered much debate over whether the Refuge should be destroyed for oil, or oil desires should be ignored for the sake of natural beauty. Ecologically speaking, the Refuge is mainly comprised of tundra, which lies on top of a layer of permafrost. Numerous populations of wildlife roam the frozen tundra of the Refuge: caribou, grizzly bears, polar bears, wolves and moose are just a few examples. ANWR has unique aesthetic and economic value, which has put it at the forefront of America's energy debate.

Pro-drilling Arguments

Supporters of the drilling cite, according to www.anwr.org, that only 8% of ANWR would actually be considered for exploration. In other words, only 1.5 million acres would actually be subject to the oil drilling, which would leave approximately 17.5 million acres to be permanently closed to any kind of development. Thus, the impact on animal life would effectively be zero. Proponents also argue, according to www.anwr.org, that ANWR holds a large domestic oil supply which could be equivalent to the Alaska Prudhoe Bay oilfield. Yet, others still argue that it would lessen our (the United States') dependence on foreign oil, especially in the Middle East. Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-Ark.) said, "Some decried that ANWR won't produce much oil. There is enough fuel to run every car and home in Washington State for 68 years."

"It is enough to replace all of our imports from Saudi Arabia for 25 years," she said. "It is enough to double all the oil taken our of East Texas in the past 75 years. And it is enough oil to save America from writing a check for $56 million a day to OPEC or other foreign producers, every day at current prices."

Overall, proponents base their arguments on America's need for oil and energy independence, and they consider any environmental damage to be relatively insignificant in the big picture.

Con-drilling Arguments

The first and most important issue for opponents with the drilling is not so much the environmental concerns but rather the amount of oil that is actually economically recoverable within the Refuge. Proponents, such as Murkowski, of the drilling argue that there is a bountiful supply of oil available. But, according to a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Artic National Wildlife Refuge Report, opponents argue that Murkowski is basing these statistics on a report by the United States Geological Study (USGS) that there is only a 5% chance of claims coming true. The USGS concluded that, given America's rate of consumption, ANWR would in all likelihood only be a 6-month supply of oil, according to the report. Opponents also cite in an Energy and Information Agency Article from 2002 that the Department of Energy expects that ANWR would contribute only about 0.7% to the world's total oil output in 2020. Opponents believe that the main issue is whether it is time for the United States to stop thinking it can drill its way to energy independence. Some critics of Bush's plan to drill in the Refuge bring attention to the point that if the goal of a national energy policy is truly to reduce the United States' dependence on foreign oil, then why doesn't the administration focus its debate on conservation, research into alternative fuels and more clean energy technologies?

Dr. Molly Mayhead, Western Professor of Speech Communication, said the opening of ANWR for drilling is another example of George Bush's failure as a President. "He has failed to understand the significance of our natural environment," she said. "He has failed to inspire and support the development of alternative fuel, and once again, he has failed to say no to his rich oil buddies."

Another criticism of the administration's drive to drill in ANWR is the potential ecological impacts. In 1987, a report to Congress from the Department of the Interior concluded that oil development would not only have major impacts on the caribou and muskoxen, but also moderate impacts on polar bears, wolves, and many other species. Although proponents of the drilling claimed there would be little or no damage to animal life, a Department of the Interior study determined that there would be major lasting impacts.

Senator Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) said, "We can't drill our way to energy independence in the Arctic. Most Americans agree that destroying a natural treasure forever--to secure a six-month supply of oil a decade from now--just isn't worth it. There are far better options on the table that rely on American ingenuity, strategic investment and revitalizing existing sources of oil supply."

Recent Developments

If Congress agrees on the budget, then it will clear the way to allow drilling in the Refuge later this year. When asked about his reaction to the rejection of the amendment, senior Political Science Major Bob Estabrook replied, "The refuge is a beautiful place and it's a shame that it will be destroyed. But that's what you get when you have Republican leadership: bad policy."

Gordon Smith (R) and Ron Wyden (D) both voted for the amendment that would have prohibited the drilling. To find out how other Senators voted a roll call vote list is available:
1. Go to www.senate.gov/
2. Click on the "Legislation and Records" link.
3. Type in "S.Amdt. 168."

Article Tools