Lingenfelder 1 Chad R.

Lingenfelder Professor Linderman Introduction to College Writing 17 April 2005

Arctic National Wildlife Refuge: More than just land

Are you a gambling man? That is exactly what the congressmen, the oil industry, the president and his administration are acting like when it comes to developing and exploring the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) for oil. There is only a 1 in 5 chance of the existence of oil in ANWR. Does the country want to take that chance? There is also a 1 in 6 chance of shooting yourself in Russian Roulette. Is the country ready to take the chance of destroying an untouched, preserved land that is home to many species of life? Or does America take a roll of the dice and drill to harvest the oil that might not be there? Is America ready to take that gamble? The wildest place left in America, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is often called the American Serengeti (Learn More). The reason ANWR gets this name is for its freedom. This is one of the last places, not only in the United States, but also in the world that is untouched by human hands. All major types of arctic species are abundant in the area. In fact, according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Arctic Refuge coastal plain contains the greatest wildlife diversity of any government protected land (Learn More). The creation of ANWR was first started in 1960 by President Dwight D. Eisenhower. He signed a Public Land Order that established nearly 9 million acres of Alaskan tundra to be protected government property, creating the Arctic National Wildlife

Lingenfelder 2 Range. In 1980, under Jimmy Carter, the range doubled in size to about 18 million acres. The Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILC) renamed the lands the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, designated eight million acres as Wilderness, designated three rivers as Wild, and called for wildlife studies and an oil and gas assessment of 1.5 million acres of the Refuge coastal plain. The one hindering section of ANILC was Section 1003. In this section, the U.S. Senate dubbed the coastal lands of ANWR not wilderness. Section 1003 goes on to state that 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 (Q & A). On March 16th, 2005, the U.S. Senate voted 51-49 to allow drilling of oil in ANWR. The provision for the exploration of oil in ANWR will be part of the presidents 2006 proposed budget. The last measure will be the actual vote on the budget. If the budget passes both the U.S. House and Senate, then the ANWR will be open to government controlled contracts to begin drilling for oil. There are many reasons to not allow this to happen to the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. First, the projected amount of oil that ANWR will produce is a problem. The average amount of oil that is estimated to be refined from drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is around 3.5 billion barrels of oil. If compared to the needs we as America has for oil, the 3.5 billion would only last for 7 months. As author Debbie Millar says, While the oil and fuel will be gone, the wildlife and nature of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge will last for generations (Arctic Refuge). The oil that is projected to be produced from ANWR is not enough to soften the dependency on oil. With the estimated

Lingenfelder 3 3.5 billion barrels, that will decrease imports on foreign oil by one barrel per shipment. One barrel of oil per shipment is like a bullet hitting a tank, no affect what-so-ever. Oil development of ANWR would likely have no permanent effect on the trade balance on oil (Cogwell 45). The oil companies want Americans to believe that their private estimates of 20 billion barrels of usable oil in ANWR are the right number. The biologist and ecologist that have studied the area are being conservative and cautious with their projections. The country listened to the oil companies when Prudhoe Bay was established about 30 miles west of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Prudhoe Bay oil fields were originally estimated to produce anywhere from 11 to 13 billion barrels of crude oil. Those predictions were off. Prudhoe Bay has produced around 4 billion barrels to-date and is 90% tapped out. Another drawback to drilling in ANWR is the time and resources it will take to produce the oil. It is unlikely that oil would be produced until 7 to 12 years after any congressional approval of exploration (Cogwell 15). The oil companies feel that tapping into ANWR will help relieve the stress we are suffering now with high oil prices. We wont see this oil for 10 years. It will have a minimal impact stated Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Washington in a press conference (Senate). Trust the government experts and specialist in the field of conservation, not the oil industry. I dont think we can wait any longer to explore for oil and petroleum in this countryfor security, balance of trade, and all the economic reasons as well as national security. I just dont think it is prudent to wait James Weeks, Senior Vice President for Arco Alaska said in an interview (Arctic Refuge). Drilling in ANWR is not a matter of Homeland Security or a desperate need to balance the trade deficit. Russia is not going to

Lingenfelder 4 invade Alaska and start drilling, nor is the stock market going to crash do to lack of American exports. The argument is about protecting nature, protecting habitat, protecting wildlife. The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is home to many different types of birds, fish, and mammals. The act of drilling would affect not only the projected 2,000 acres, but the entire 1.2 million acres of coastal plain within the ANWR. Government studies prophesize a grim future for wildlife if oil development is allowed in the refuge (Arctic Refuge) Some of the major animals that could be harmed the most, even forced towards extinction, are the Polar Bear, Musk Ox, Spectacled Eider, Arctic Wolf, and Caribou. The Polar Bear is one who dens with her young for the majority of winter. Development of drills, service roads, and development could cause the Polar Bear to lose direction, abandon her young, or even be shot by employees. The low birth rate of the Polar Bear is already a concern for environmentalist. These added dangers could lead to worsen those low numbers. The Musk Ox spends most of its time roaming the Arctic Refuge. The development of the Arctic Refuge would cause this animal to abandon his habitat for one with less vegetation, warmth, and protection. This disturbance would decrease reproduction and threaten the species. The Spectacled Eider uses ANWRs Northern Slope as part of its breeding ground. The Spectacled Eider can not live among development and industrialization. According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the number of Spectacled Eider in the Prudhoe Bay area declined 80 percent from 1981 to 1991 (Fun Facts). An already endangered animal could be pushed towards extinction if drilling is allowed.

Lingenfelder 5 The Arctic Wolf has gone through systematic extermination throughout its existence by human expansion westward. The Arctic Refuge is one of the last places where this creature is protected. The Arctic Wolf relies on the Caribou, Musk Ox, and other creatures that live in ANWR to survive. If its food supply is pushed away, the Arctic Wolf will have no way of survival. The Caribou is the life pillar of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Animal and man prosper off this sacred animal. The Caribous birthing area is near the coastal lands of ANWR. During the summer months, the Caribou migrate throughout ANWR to feed and graze off the land. Drilling will cause the core temperature of not only ANWR, but Alaska as a whole to increase. This will disrupt the animals, the vegetation, and climate of Alaska. According to the U.S. Department of the Interior, oil development in the Arctic Refuge would displace the herd of 180,000+ Caribou to an area where the number of predators is higher, reduce the amount and quality of forage available, and restrict access to important coastal insect relief habitat (Fun Facts). Not only are animals are risk from drilling, but the native people are as well. As one native describes his people in a documentary, We are the caribou people. Caribou are not just what we eat; they are who we are. They are in our stories and songs and the whole way we see the world. Caribou are our life. Without caribou, we wouldnt exist (Lentfer 3). These are the Gwichin Indians. They are the last true people who live solely off the land. They use the land to make a living off of as well as to survive. With the changes that drilling will have on the wildlife, the Gwichin Indians will have to migrate as well. The wilderness of the ANWR is a complex pattern of interconnected life that has evolved over

Lingenfelder 6 centuries. To alter one section, one species, without disturbance to the whole, is impossible (Arctic Refuge). The risk of exploration and development of drilling in the ANWR far outweigh the benefit. Most of Alaskas northern coastline and North Slope is already devoted towards drilling. The entire North Slope of Alaska, except for the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge has been dedicated to oil and gas development. There is a 23 million acre petroleum reserve and millions of developed acres near and around Prudhoe Bay (Arctic Refuge). To be exact, 95 percent of Alaskas North Slope is open to the development and exploration of oil and petroleum. In addition to the lands already open to drilling, accidents will always happen. The question is can the accidents that do occur be prevented? In the Arctic Refuge, the answer is yes; no drilling. Spills regularly occur during oil operations. At the Prudhoe Bay oil facility, there are over 400 spills of crude oil and other toxic substances every year. These spills are minor, but should the risk be taken? What happens when a big one occurs? That is exactly what happened. On March 24, 1989, the oil tanker Exxon Valdez ran around in Prince William Sound, Alaska, spilling an estimated 11 million gallons of crude oil across 1,300 miles of coastline. The spill killed an estimated 700,000 birds, fish, and both sea and land mammals. Also, an estimated $100 million in financial losses were suffered, mostly towards the commercial fishing, hunting, and other enterprises that the natives of the land thrive on. The affects of that spill are still seen today by biologist, ecologist, and wildlife experts. Even if accidents are kept to a minimum, what are the ramifications of exploration and development on the land now? According to John Keeble, author and

Lingenfelder 7 environmentalist, the footprints that will be created by drilling are enormously detrimental to the refuge. They not only are going to build oil wells and pumps, but there will be dumping sites for waste, warehouses, compressor plants, dormitories, power generating plants, desalinization plants, 798 miles of pipeline, an airport, harbors, and 350 miles of road. Despite improved drilling technology, there is the significant probability that industrial development would change the coastal plain the biological heart of the refuge from a wild, naturally functioning ecosystem to a human dominated, industrial development (Lentfer 42). Are there any other methods to use besides drilling? Of course there are. The only problem is that drilling in the ANWR is more of a priority than conservation. New innovations dealing with carbon, hydrogen, wind, water, solar, and other types of power are being discovered to help fight the addiction to fossil fuels. These steps in conservation and innovations in different types of power need funding, which under this president and administration is being cut. Bushs proposed budget for 2006 would cut funding for research into energy conservation by 2.5 percent, from $868 million to $847 million (Bush). These alternative sources of power could constitute around 50 percent of Americas power, but are neglected by society; for society would have to adapt towards new types of cars, heaters, light bulbsadapt. Creations such as super windows are leading the way in preservation of energy. These windows have 10 times more insulation then regular windows, cutting down wasted heat and energy. The amount of oil heat that is wasted through cracked, open, or leaky windows and doors in one year in America equals the projected amount of oil production of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (Arctic Refuge).

Lingenfelder 8 So members in Congress have another suggestion for oil price relief, more oil. Several senators have made proposals to release oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. This would help relieve gas spending. This reserve is where fuel is stockpiled for emergencies that might affect the nation. The Petroleum Reserve provides the President with a powerful response option should a disruption in commercial oil supplies threaten the U.S. economy. President Bushs refusals to open the Strategic Petroleum Reserve amount to a gift to the oil companies (Bush). If the argument that is being made is flawed or overstated, it has been backed up by scientists who have spent years in the field and common everyday Americans. On February 14, 2005, more than 1,000 U.S. and Canadian scientist wrote a letter questioning assertions that oil could be safely extracted from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and urged President Bush to support permanent protection of the coastal plains wildlife and wilderness. In addition, the non-partisan League of Conservation Voters hired two pollsters; the Republican based Terrance Group and the Democratic based Greenberg Quinlan Research, Inc. Both pollsters performed an assessment of voters views on a number of environmental issues. The results were two-to-one that our nation should declare the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge a national monument and prevent oil drilling. The choice to not drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is not only to preserve wildlife, but to save our own way of life (Arctic Refuge). America must protect natures true gems and find other ways of developing energy. If drilling is allowed in the Arctic Refuge, where will the line be drawn? Will America drill in the deserts of Arizona and New Mexico or will it destroy the Grand Canyon so it can be lived on? As Teddy Roosevelt said about nature and the park service he created, Love it as it is. The ages

Lingenfelder 9 have been at work on it, and man can only mar it. All you can do is keep it for your children, your childrens children, and for all who come after you (Lentfer 8).

Works Cited

Lingenfelder 10 Arctic Refuge. National Audubon Society V. III. 1998. Bush renews call for Alaskan oil drilling. AllPolitics. 2005. CNN. 9 March 2005 <http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/03/09/bush.energy/index.html> Cogwell, Mathew T. Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. New York: Nova Science Publishers, 2002 Fun Facts. Arctic Refuge. 2005. NRDC BioGems. 17 April 2005 <http://www.savebiogems.org> Learn More. Defenders of Wildlife. 2005. ANWR. 17 April 2005 <http://www.savearcticrefuge.org> Lentfer, Mark, and Carolyn Servid. Arctic Refuge. Canada: Milkweed Editions, 2001. Q & A. Overview. 2005. Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. 17 April 2005 <http://www.arctic.fws.gov/faqs.htm> Senate votes for ANWR oil drilling. AllPolitics. 2005. CNN. 16 March 2005 <http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/03/16/arctic.drilling.ap/index.html>