The Arctic National Wildlife: Time to Say Enough

The largest oil field in the United States was discovered in the Prudhoe Bay area of Alaska in 1968. Major oil fields were also discovered in other areas of Alaska including Endicott and are believed to exist in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge also known as ANWR. Located in the northeast corner of the state of Alaska and surrounded by controversy is one piece of this 19 million-acre refuge known as the Coastal Plain. What lies beneath the tundra of this vast wilderness has been the center of a decades long debate about whether or not oil development should be allowed to proceed in this remote corner of the world. Although there are several advantages to oil development, the cost to the environment is too high particularly when there are better solutions available that will offer a preferred impact on the environment.

Those who are in favor of oil development in the ANWR claim that it can be done with minimal impact on the environment. A study of the history of oil development in Alaska will prove that the oil industry spends billions of dollars on a system that is based on profits rather than protection of the environment. Environmental studies document “the oil industry’s “disturbing record” of non-compliance with state and federal laws and regulations designed to protect the environment” (Chance par 3). For example, a BP Amoco subcontractor was found guilty in 1995 of illegally injecting hazardous waste back into the groundwater. The BP contractor instructed workers to put toxic materials into the drilling wastes that were re-injected as part of routine drilling operations in order to save BP $1,000 to $1,500 per barrel of waste (Stevens). The oil companies have a poor track record when it comes to protecting the environment.

We need to understand that “oil exploration and development have substantially changed the environments where they have occurred in Alaska’s central Arctic” (ARSL par 7). BP Amoco pled guilty in 1999 to a federal felony connected to illegal dumping of hazardous waste at the Endicott Oil Field near Prudhoe Bay (Manuel par 6). Furthermore, the Environmental Protection Agency accused Exxon Mobile of “nearly 200 violations of the Clean Air Act in 1998 alone” (Manuel par 10). Also, “Chevron pleaded guilty to 65 violations of the Clean Water Act” (Manuel par 10) and yet these are the companies whose spokesmen say that drilling can be done with minimal harm to the environment. How can they say that when the “North Slope oil development has left hundreds of open pits containing millions of gallons of oil industry waste” (Chance par 2)? Furthermore, the oil companies poorly maintain pipes, valves and other machinery necessary to drill for oil in a responsible way. Mark Kovac, vice chairman of a union the represents BP workers on Prudhoe Bay says that “BP has wanted to run the same equipment until the field runs dry, but we need this stuff in top shape for the life of the field” (Hopfinger par 20). The track record of these companies proves that we cannot place the care of the environment into their hands.

Supporters of oil drilling in the ANWR want America to become less dependent on foreign oil. But how do they think America is going to become less dependant on foreign oil when we use 25% of the world’s oil resources but only produce 2 to 3% of the supply? The amount of oil estimated to be in the ANWR is not enough to change our reliance on foreign oil because America has such a high rate of consumption. Alaskan senator Ted Stevens, who is a strong advocate of drilling, admits that ANWR “cannot produce oil soon enough to be of help” for our dependence on foreign oil (TAP par 12). The solution is not for more oil but for less dependence on the oil we already have by creating an economy that is based on conservation of existing supplies.

Air and water pollution, acid rain and global warming can all be attributed to this country’s dependence on fossil fuels. Unfortunately in Alaska, “tens of thousands of air pollutants were pumped into the fragile Arctic environment each year along with an equal number of spilled gallons of crude oil, diesel and toxic chemicals” (Chance, par 2). Burning fossil fuels creates carbon dioxide, which causes global warming by trapping heat in the earth’s atmosphere. The majority of oil used in this country is used for transportation and yet the fuel economy of new passenger vehicles is at a twenty year low mostly in part to the sale of gas guzzling sport utility vehicles. If we begin now to increase the fuel economy of all passenger vehicles, “by 2015 we could save as much oil as is economically recoverable from ANWR over 50 years” (UOCS Summary of Main Points par 9). A better solution would be to leave the oil from the ANWR in the ground and “keep 1.6 billion tons of carbon dioxide from reaching the atmosphere” (UOCS Real Energy Solutions par 9).

Instead of trying not to destroy and pollute precious land in search of more oil why not put some of these efforts towards a better solution? Policies that impact oil consumption are most likely to have the greatest impact and our dependence on foreign oil will begin to decrease as demand for oil decreases due to better fuel efficiency standards. The oil companies have a huge appetite when it comes to developing oil and I do not think they will be satisfied until they have run the well dry. Eventually there comes a time when we must draw the line. We must acknowledge that everything has its limits. I believe that former Secretary of the Interior Cecil Andrus said it best when he said: “In some places, such as the Arctic Range, the wildlife and natural values are so magnificent and so enduring that they transcend the value of any mineral that may lie beneath the surface” (USFWS Staff). By protecting the environment, we will come to understand that we are mere stewards of this land for our children and those who will inhabit this land in the years to come.

Works Cited

ARSL or Arctic Refuge Science Letter. Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Caribou Letter. 20 March 1997. 8 March 2002. http://www.peer.org/anwr/letter.html

Chance, Norman. Environmentalists and the Oil Companies. The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge A Special Report. 8 March 2002 http://arcticcircle.uconn.edu/ANWR/anwrenv-oil.html

Hopfinger, Tony. Workers Convince BP value is Faulty. ANWR News. 9 Jan 2002 10 March 2002 http://www.anwrnews.com/docs/20021209_Anchorage_Daily_News.asp

Manuel, Athan. The Dirty Four. The Case Against letting BPAmoco ExxonMobile Chevron and Philips Petroleum drill in the Arctic Refuge. Save the Artic.com. 22 March 2001. 11 March 2002. http://savethearctic.com/arctic.asp?id2=3831&id3=arctic&

Stevens, Stan. Poisoning the Well. Alaska Forum Press Release. 29 Jan 97. 11 March 2002. http://www.alaskaforum.org/rowhist/afer/105AFER.pdf.

TAP or The Associated Press. Attacks May Help Open ANWR. Alaska Journal of Commerce. 1 Oct 2001 11 March 2002

UOCS or Union of Concerned Scientists. The Artic National Wildlife Refuge: Is Loss of a Pristine Wilderness Worth the Oil that Might Be Gained? Summary of Main Points. 2001. 11 March 2002. http://www.ucsusa.org/environment/bio.anwr.update.html

UOCS or Union of Concerned Scientists. Will Drilling the Arctic Refuge Really Solve Our Oil Woes? Real Energy Solutions: Efficiency and Renewable Energy. 2001. 9 March 2002. http://www.ucsusa.org/index.html

USFWS Staff. Arctic Refuge: Oil & Gas Issues. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. 18 Oct 2000. 8 March 2002. http://arcticcircle.uconn.edu/ANWR/anwr_fws.htm

Written by Belinda - Bar2969@aol.com - Do not use without permision.