SWA #20

Thesis:  A major debate that has been argued, discussed, and reconsidered multiple times over many years is the development of oil and gas drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska.  The topic has been visited by most of the mainstream media and big name politicians, and is currently being deliberated by Congress.  There are supporting and objecting opinions across the board on this topic, with perspectives ranging from the residents who will be most directly affected, to oil and gas companies who will profit from the drilling.  There is opposition from environmentalists who do not want to see the landscape contaminated by pipelines and support from those who believe drilling will help decrease our dependence on foreign companies.

Issue:  This debate has been ongoing for years over whether the United States should participate in oil and gas development in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) in the state of Alaska.  ANWR covers 19 million acres (approximately the size of the state of South Carolina), but only the coastal plain on the northern edge of ANWR, which is about 1.5 million acres, will be affected by drilling.  There are potentially billions of barrels of recoverable oil and trillions of cubic feet of recoverable gas.  In fact, ANWR “could produce more than 150 billion cubic feet of natural gas per year, which is about the volume of gas consumed by the state of South Carolina in 2000.”

Perspectives:

• Alaskan Residents:  Many of the residents that live near ANWR support oil and gas development in the coastal plain.  They believe that it will benefit their local communities through providing a local tax base, jobs and funding for schools, water, and sewage systems, and give local governments a bigger voice in permitting and environmental regulation.

• Oil Companies:  BP and Conoco, specifically, support drilling in ANWR for the profits but they also have proposals and ideas of how to drill without impacting the environment too much.

• Environmentalists:  The main cause of concern for environmentalists is the impact that drilling will have on the environment.  They do not want it to ruin the pristine location of ANWR or the beauty of the surrounding landscape.  Another major concern is the impact on the natural wildlife, such as caribou, that oil and gas drilling will have.

• Economists:  A major reason in support of drilling in ANWR is the decreased dependence on foreign oil companies.  This move, in their opinion, would not only help economically in terms of being able to have a bigger say in gas prices, but also in foreign affairs, like the “necessity” of becoming involved in overseas conflicts due to the United States’ need for large amounts of oil.

• My opinion:  I believe that the United States should begin oil and gas development in ANWR.  The coastal plain which will be affected by this project is frozen tundra, with little to no wildlife and very little vegetation.  The only animal life that would be affected by the pipelines and drilling would the caribou that travel through, and they go through that area for only weeks.  I also believe that drilling in our own country will help to lower gas prices and decrease our foreign dependency.

Conclusion:  It is very important for people to stay informed and aware of the issues that Congress is deliberating and, should any citizen feel the need, to contact their representatives to inform them of where they stand on those issues.  The decision that Congress makes about drilling in ANWR will have a lasting impact on Americans’ daily lives, no matter what the final decision is.  It will affect oil and gas prices and could possibly have a huge influence on our country’s foreign policies.  Therefore, it is necessary to inform the Congressmen and Congresswomen of this nation where its citizens’ stand on this issue.