ANWR Drilling

Over 40 years ago, the Artic National Wildlife Refuge(ANWR) was created. Since that time, oil was discovered in the nearby Prudhoe Bay. In the last few years, oil companies have looked towards the pristine 19 million acres of protected wildlife for further development of fossil fuels. Currently, there has been proposals for having 1.5 million acres of the ANWR be dedicated for development. The debate has been raging in congress since Mr. Bush has taken office. This website will take a closer look at both sides of the issue.

What the Proponents Say

Proponents for drilling in the ANWR have primarily two reasons for this cause of action. Namely, economic development & national security.

Most supports of development usually cite the Wharton Econometric Forecasting Associates (WEFA) report of possible job growth. The report commissioned by the American Petroleum Institute states that development in the ANWR can possibly create 250,000 to 735,000 jobs.¹ Also, under optimal conditions, the price for a barrel of oil can drop $3.60.

Another attractive feature proponents contend is that the area of development would be relatively small. Just 1.5 million of the 19 million acres of the ANWR or about 8% of the entire ANWR. Consequently, supports calculate that the area coverage or "footprint" would be just 2,000 acres.

According to anwr.org, the U.S. imports about 55% of the nations petroleum needs. This high percentage forces the U.S. to depend on OPEC nations for it's fuel. This depedence invariably weakens compromises American foreign policy towards these OPEC nations. In light of recent terrorists attacks, this position, proponents say, becomes untenable.

What the Opponents Say

Interestingly, environmentalist and other opponents to development of ANWR use the same arguments as proponents not  to drill.

The WEFA report they say, have been discredited by a number of independent analysis over the last decade.² The rationale of the WEFA reports conclusions are not plausible. A recent U.S Geological Survey of ANWR suggests that the world reserves would only increase by .03 percent. Hardly enough to influence the price or quantity of oil.

The National Resources defense council (NRDC) points to a study that indicates it is far better to make efforts and gains on energy efficiency rather than development of the ANWR.

Moreover, it would take at least 10 years from the start of development before we could see the benefits(if any) realized in the economy or at the pump. However, the potential ecological damage to the environment may never be remedied.

Opponents point to the fact that oil companies cannot guarantee that there will be no more oil spills. According to defenders.org, there’s more than one spill a day of crude oil, refined oil products or hazardous substances on Alaska’s North Slope at Prudhoe Bay. In 1999 alone, these spills released 45,000 gallons of crude oil, diesel fuel, propane and ethylene glycol, among other toxic substances.³

1.The WEFA Group, "The Economic Impact of ANWR Development," Prepared for the American Petroleum Institute, May 1990, p. 3.

2. www.nrdc.org, "Fuelish Claims Drilling the Arctic won't create a significant number of jobs." http://www.nrdc.org/land/wilderness/artech/farcjobs.asp.

3. www.defenders.org, Issue in Detail:Saving the "American Serengeti", http://www.defenders.org/wildlife/arctic/arissue.html.