Should We Drill in ANWR?

There has been much debate in the past few years over whether or not we should be drilling for oil in ANWR (Arctic National Wildlife Refuge). Many people are oppopsed to it outright for environmental reasons. Other people support it outright for its potential contribution to the economy regardless of cost. However, few people are actually concerned with what impact this would really have.

Ted Stevens of Alaska, the most senior Republican in the Senate, has been fighting to open parts of the refuge to drilling since the early 1980s. Senator Lisa Murkowski, also a republican from Alaska, says, "We need ... to open up the small area of the coastal plain (of the refuge) for oil exploration and development." Their proposed legislation anticipates about $5 billion in federal revenue from oil leases.

According to the Alaskan Wilderness League ANWR is comprised of about 19 million acres. Currently this vast area is protected by the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA), passed in 1980. SEction 1003 states that the “production of oil and gas from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is prohibited and no leasing or other development leading to production of oil and gas from the [Refuge] shall be undertaken until authorized by an act of Congress.” This sounds like the ban was not meant to be permenant, but is it now the time for drilling to be "authorized by an act of congress"? The Senate did pass a bill allowing ANWR to be drilled in the 90s but it was vetoed by then President Bill clinton.

Critics of the drilling bill offer up alternative methods of energy which could lower our dependence on oil such as wind, solar, hydrogen, and even human feces, however these are not going to impact our oil usage in the immediate future. The main objection to using ANWR for oil is the possible impact to wildlife, such as caribou, which are prevalent in the area. They also point to a U.S. Geological Survey which estimates that the energy that could be gained would be about what the U.S. consumes in six months. They say that only six months worth of oil is not worth it.

Supporters of drilling counter that argument by putting that six months worth of oil in perspective. The six months estimate means all the energy consumed, not just petroleum, so the U.S. Geological Survey is really saying we could get the amount of oil equivalent to about thirty years of imports from Saudi Arabia. That figure is hard to dismiss. They also look to current drilling efforts in Alaska, such as Prudhoe Bay, where the caribou herds have prospered.During debates over the drilling bill Senator Frank Murkowski pointed out in a floor speech that "This area, called ANWR, is pretty big, 19 million acres; 19 million acres is the size of the state of South Carolina... This area [the refuge's coastal plain] is 1.5 million acres out of 19 million acres. The House bill said we could only make a footprint of 2,000 acres. That is what we are asking in the amendment [that] we will offer in this bill – 2,000 acres of 19 million acres. Somebody in South Carolina that has a 2,000-acre farm can relate to that. Gee, only 2,000 acres out of our whole state. The rest of the state will be either a wilderness or a refuge." To put that into perspective the picture to the right shows ANWR as the gray area and the proposed 2000 acres as the red dot in the center.

Everyone agress that we need to diminish our dependence on foreign oil, it is just how to go about it that is up for debate. Perhaps Congress needs to allow a small amount of drilling to take place as a temporary fix and at the same time provide funding so we can actually put into place an alternative form of fuel, not just talk about it happening "some day".