Alaskan+Oil

**Drilling for Oil In Alaska**


 * Arguments for Drilling **



 Drilling for oil in Alaska makes barrels of oil readily available to the rest of the United States was one of the big positives that the people of Alaska loved about the pipeline. It made gasoline and oil cheaper for citizens of the United States.

In the 1970's before any drilling in Alaska had gone into full force, the government did a study to see the environmental effects of building pipelines and drilling for oil. When the initial studies were conducted in the early 1970’s, Caribou and their habitats were the test subjects. Scientists studied the trails of the animals and how they moved without the presence of any mechanical disturbances. An imitation oil compressor was introduced in the area to see if the caribou trails would be disturbed. The results were positive, showing that the animals only moved their trails about a half-mile from where they were before the compressor was placed in the habitat. Regarding the caribou, the environmental effects of Alaska pipeline construction were less harmful than previously thought.

Many people don’t realize that the pipeline is a good thing in that it only involves the [|transportation of oil]. As a result, there are no removals of things such as agricultural products, natural metals and minerals and any other natural resources. This is one of the main positive environmental effects of the Alaska pipeline.

**Jobs to be Created** – Materials, services and infrastructure needed for oil production in the 10-02 will create hundreds of thousands of manufacturing and high skilled service jobs nationwide. [|Every state in the nation would be impacted by this].

**Economic Impact** – Between 1977 and 2004 the Arctic oil industries spent over $50 billion within the nation’s economy. Almost all products and infrastructure used in Arctic oil field production come from the lower 48 states.

**America’s Best Chance for a Major Discovery** – The [|United States Geological Survey (USGS) 1998 study] on ANWR shows the [|10-02 Area Coastal Plain of ANWR] has the highest potential for a super-large oil field of any other place on the North American continent. If you are going to explore for oil, the best chance to find it, in the largest quantity, with the smallest footprint would be the 10-02 Area.

**Imported Oil Too Costly** – [|Today the US imports 61% of our oil from] other counties. That represents over $400 billion dollars a year being sent abroad. Oil imports are the single largest contributor to our national debt. Every barrel of ANWR oil would replace a barrel imported from abroad. With ANWR oil the jobs, the money, and the infrastructure stay at home.

**No Negative Impact to Animals** – Oil and gas development and wildlife are successfully coexisting in Alaska’s Arctic. The Central Arctic Caribou Herd migrates directly through the Prudhoe Bay oil field has grown from 5000 animals in the early 70s to well over 66,000 animals today. The Arctic oil fields are monitored daily by State and Federal wildlife specialists and are home to a very healthy brown bear, fox, musk oxen, bird and fish populations equal or better to the surrounding area.

**Arctic Technology = Advanced Technology** – Arctic exploration technology is the most advanced in the world. It represents the cutting edge in minimal impact with maximum return. Advanced drilling technology has allowed the [|footprint of development to shrink over 64%] in the past 30 years while doubling technical rates of return to over 60%. ANWR development would increase and better this trend.

**Alaskans Support** – Over 78% of Alaskans favor exploration and production on the Coastal Plain of ANWR. Over the past 30 years almost every member of the democratically elected Alaska State Legislature, every single Alaskan Congressional delegate, and every single Alaskan Governor has supported environmentally sensitive development of the 10-02 Area of ANWR. ANWR development is not a partisan issue in Alaska, it is strongly supported by all.


 * Arguments Against Drilling**

Drilling Cannot Produce Enough Oil

A recent U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) assessment says there is "considerable uncertainty regarding both the size and quality of the oil resources that exist in ANWR." Even if 7.7 billion barrels a day could be recovered, "the current upper limit to ANWR oil production is the transportation capacity of TAPS" (Trans Alaska Pipeline System), or [|2.136 million barrels per day]. To put this in context, the U.S. burns [|21 million barrels per day].

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 19px; vertical-align: baseline;">It Would Not Lower Oil Prices <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12px; vertical-align: baseline;">EDF economist <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #004d91; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">[|Gernot Wagner] explained to me why drilling won't lead to lower oil and gas prices. What's mainly driving high oil prices today, he said, is increased demand. And the increase, in large part, is due to the newly mobile millions around the world who've been lifted out of poverty in the last few decades.

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #004d91; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">[|DOE predicts] that world oil demand between 2010 and 2015 will increase by over 7 percent, and 30 percent by 2030. The U.S. only has 3 percent of the world's oil reserves, and less than one-fifth of that is in federal offshore waters. So even if we were able to tap into the full 3 percent, it would scarcely make a dent in the demand-supply balance. <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12px; vertical-align: baseline;">Then there is this inconvenient fact: ** OPEC would have the final say on whether increased U.S. production lowered world prices. ** OPEC easily could scale back total production by the same amount to wipe out any price effects.\

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12px; vertical-align: baseline;">Drilling will not reduce fuel prices, and will not make us more energy independent. The only way to achieve these goals is to reduce our dependence on oil – foreign or domestic – through fuel economy, and a <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #004d91; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">[|cap on carbon emission].

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 19px; vertical-align: baseline;">It Would Harm the Environment



<span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12px; vertical-align: baseline;">If drilling for oil in ANWR could possibly do us some good, then perhaps one could make the argument that we should do it – even if it did bring harm to wildlife and ecosystems. But to harm ecosystems for no benefit at all is just plain stupid – and it // would // cause harm.

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12px; vertical-align: baseline;">The northern coastal plain of ANWR – the proposed area for drilling – has been characterized by the "drill, drill, drill" crowd as a "wasteland". But, says EDF geographer <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #004d91; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">[|Peter Black], it's in fact a vital part of the ANWR ecosystem. Just because it doesn't look like an appealing tourist spot doesn't mean it isn't worth protecting.

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12px; vertical-align: baseline;">Nor does it make sense to argue that the area opened for drilling would be very small. First of all, these areas tend to expand. The nearby Prudhoe Bay oil fields were originally supposed to comprise 2100 acres, but today they spread over 640,000 acres.

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12px; vertical-align: baseline;">And there's no question that it would do harm. There's another issue to consider: Drilling in a wildlife refuge is a slippery slope. What's next? Drilling in wilderness areas? National Parks? What's the value of a protective designation if the land isn't protected