Crystal's Home > Personal Links > Critical Essay

A note from me:
B Since this is a persuasive paper, I used persuasive techniques, meaning that I left out specific data that made my point look really bad. 
N Drilling for the oil isn't really as beneficial as I might have made it seem, and I feel bad because I don't necessarily support the drilling.  :( 
M My sources on this paper also weren't that great, so take everything for what it is worth.  


Crystal Schmidt

English 110

17 April 2002

Critical Essay 1

Black Gold Under Alaska's Tundra

Drilling oil in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) is an important issue for environmentalists, Americans, and the future of the United States. ANWR is the largest of Alaska's 16 national wildlife refuges (Lee). It contains 19.6 acres, and significant deposits of petroleum, which the drilling of has been disputed for many years (Lee). Harvesting this petroleum would not harm the environment or animal populations as people have speculated, and even though some accidents and spills are likely, new technology and methods will greatly reduce the risk (Lovins). Environmentalists have argued that the possible danger to the area is not worth the price of the oil, unless they are getting paid for it. Harvesting this oil would lessen the need for US intervention in other countries, save American lives, and provide us with 3.2 million barrels of precious oil (Lee).

Environmentalists claim that the refuge is the crown jewel of the American wilderness, and home for many caribou - the flagship species of the Arctic (Lovins). Drilling in this area could destroy its integrity, many animal populations, and especially the caribou population. For lovers of teeming wildlife, vast open spaces, and snowy vistas, a visit to the Arctic Refuge could be the trip of a lifetime (Scheer). The Refuge contains hundreds of species of mosses, grasses, wildflowers and shrubs, and it is a prime habitat for caribou, moose, wolf, lynx, fox, wolverine, musk ox, three species of bear, and many others (Scheer). Concerns remain that oilfield areas would displace caribou from the ANWR area, decrease productivity of the herds, and eventually lead to a decline in herd size (Cronin, et al).

The ANWR contains over 19 million acres, of which the oil drilling would only affect a small percentage (Lee). Of these 19 million acres, almost 18 million have been set aside by Congress; approximately 8 million as wilderness and 9.5 as wildlife refuge (Lee). Oil companies estimate that only 2,000 acres would be needed to develop the coastal plain, just 1% of the caribou's habitat (Lee). The caribou population in this area has been growing rapidly over the years and will most likely not be harmed by the oil drilling (Cronin, et al).

A good example is in nearby Prudhoe Bay, since 1972 the Central Arctic Heard has grown from 5,000 to 27,000 animals (Streever). Caribou density and calf production are as high in the oil fields as they are in undeveloped areas; these caribou do use and travel through the developed area (Streever). The oil from Prudhoe Bay and surrounding areas also supplies 80% of Alaska's unrestricted general revenue (Lovins). Alaskan Politicians have used every rise in oil prices since 1973 to advocate drilling beneath federal lands on the ANWR in order to gain more money for the state (Lee). Drilling the oil in the ANWR will not have any terrible effects on the environment, and will also help Alaska by providing money for the state and its people, while boosting its economy.

Despite an increase in revenue, and minimal changes to the environment, no matter how careful oil companies are, at least some small accidents are bound to occur. In an area where memories of the massive Exxon Valdez oil spill are still eminent, some people wonder if the amount of oil is worth the potential risk (Kaiser). Conservation groups claim that spills in the Refuge similar to the ones around it could have a devastating impact on sensitive wildlife species that live there (Higgins). A study of diesel spills in Alaska's Arctic found that, after 28 years, substantial hydrocarbons remained in the soil and most of the vegetation in the area of the spills had not recovered (Higgins). "The cleanups do not restore the environment to the way it was before hand," said Melanie Duchin, climate campaign director for Greenpeace (Higgins). "The bottom line is, if you don't want oil to spill into the environment, you shouldn't drill for it. There is no way to explore, produce and transport oil without spilling it" (Higgins).

With many new technological advances, and the experience gained at Prudhoe Bay, the risk of accidents and spills is lower. Now, over ten years after the Exxon Valdez incident, the largest oil spill in the United States, information about the long term effects of oil spills is now being put to use (Kaiser). Oil-recovery operations are now being done on gravel pads that provide a foundation that protects and insulates the underlying permafrost (Lee). Improvements in Arctic road construction that have been used in Prudhoe have eliminated the need for gravel access roads used in the development of oil fields. Instead of constructing a complex and permanent transportation system, roads are now made from ocean water pumped onto the tundra, where it freezes to form a road surface (Lee). These roads then melt without a trace in the summer months. Other cutting edge techniques would use fewer wellheads. Once underground, engineers can drill horizontally in several directions to reach oil deposits up to four miles away (Kelly). Oil companies have already spent millions of dollars and gone to great lengths to reduce any harm that may be caused to the environments and its inhabitants (Lee). The protection they have provided for wildlife at Prudhoe Bay has been in every way as effective and serious as those that many nature conservancies, and environmentalists have found acceptable in other areas (Lee).

Environmentalists argue that the value of the wilderness and natural beauty that would be spoiled by drilling ANWR exceed the value of the oil. This is a truly undisturbed wilderness -- a last vestige of the American frontier that helped shape and define our national identity (alaskawild). There are not many places where 9,000 foot mountains come right up to an ocean (alaskawild). Such a broad spectrum of different habitats occurring within a single protected unit is unparalleled in North America; no other conservation area in the north hosts such abundant and diverse wildlife (alaskawild). Covered with snow for much of the year, the Coastal Plain explodes with life during the brief spring and summer months, earning the nickname of "America's Serengeti" (alaskawild). Although most of the public generally likes to see beautiful things, it is the environmentalists that are set on arguing against the drilling and what it could do.

Environmentalist group's statements about oil drilling in ANWR and other publicly owned areas differ from their actions in wildlife areas they own. When people make decisions about the use of property they own, they take into account many more alternatives than they do when advocating decisions about the use of property owned by others (Lee). For example, the Audubon Society owns the Rainey Wildlife Sanctuary, a beautiful 26,000 acre preserve in Louisiana that provides a home for many animals, and migratory birds; exactly the type of habitat this society seeks to preserve (Lee). Yet, precisely because the society owns the land, it has been willing to accommodate the interests of those whose priorities are different from theirs. They allowed 37 wells to pump gas and oil from the Rainey Sanctuary, and in return have received royalties totaling more than 25 million (Lee). Maybe if some of these wildlife agencies owned the ANWR they would be more inclined to allow the drilling.

Drilling the oil in Alaska would reduce the US dependency on oil from overseas and lessen our involvement with these countries, causing less deaths. One of the goals that drives the US policy overseas is to secure oil for US industry. The United States Military presence in the Middle East is in large part because of the petroleum reserve there (Lee). It is doubtful that the US government would have mounted a large military action and sacrificed American lives to prevent Iraq from taking over Kuwait except to alleviate the threat to a major oil supplier (Lee). Nor would the United States have lost the nineteen military personnel in the barracks blow up in Saudi Arabia in 1996 or the seventeen killed onboard the USS Cole in a Yemini harbor in 2000 (Lee). Supplying some of our own oil would make America a more independent, and stronger country. If it is worthwhile to sacrifice American lives to protect oil supplies in the Middle East, is it not worthwhile to take a small risk of sacrificing the lives of a few caribou to recover oil in Alaska?

While opposing drilling in ANWR, mostly because we should not put caribou and other wildlife at risk for the sake of getting more petroleum, we are exposing humans to far greater risks because of federal policies motivated by concern over the existing oil supply. To save gasoline, the federal government imposes Corporate Domestic energy policy standards on automobile producers that require all new cars to average 27.5 miles per gallon (Lee). In order to achieve this standard the cars must be lighter, and it is widely known that heavier cars are safer because there is more bulk to protect the occupant. An interesting question is how many more lives might be saved by using more oil and driving heavier cars rather than using less oil and driving lighter, more dangerous cars? It has been estimated that increasing the average weight of passenger cars by 100 pounds would decrease mileage by 0.85 miles per gallon, and reduce highway fatalities by 200 a year (Lee). By doing the math we can make an estimate at how many lives would be saved by harvesting the approximated 185.3 billion gallons of gas from ANWR (Lovins). This amount of gas would be enough to save 200 lives for 90 years, equaling 18,000 lives (Lee). Are we willing to bear such a cost in order to avoid the risks, if any, to ANWR and its caribou?

Environmentalists, whose opinions are not always backed by their actions, question the protection of the wildlife, and especially the caribou if oil is drilled in the ANWR. There is much evidence that confirms the caribou herds are thriving, and the land is at minimal risk if the right precautions are taken. Harvesting oil from the United States, instead of overseas would save many lives and precious money in foreign affairs. The drilling would provide much needed oil, while using new technology would minimizes the land that is actually used, and there would still be millions and millions of acres of beautiful Alaskan wildlife; undisturbed, and untouched.

Email me at: [email protected]