RUNNING HEAD: DRILLING IN ANWR Drill ANWR 1

Drilling in ANWR – A Clear

Decision
Gautam Parthasarathy
Herzing University
13 March 2011
 Drill ANWR 2

TITLE: Drilling in ANWR – A Clear Decision

The ultimate impact that the environment has on the economy is as simple as doing a

mathematical calculation. Short-term drawbacks should never justify long-term goals as well.

With the potential for conflicting viewpoints on a myriad of issues, the economy vs the

environment will be a likely scenario when it comes to dealing with the increasing cost of oil by

dealing with the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. We should not tap into the Arctic National

Wildlife Refuge in Alaska for specific reasons that favour the “pro” side of the issue and specific

reasons that favour the “con” side of the issue at hand.

The benefit of the economy versus the benefit of the environment will always be an

integral part of a discussion regarding oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Vocal

opponents of oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) have long maintained

that the safety, security and stability of the ANWR region is more important to the environment

than reducing the dependence on foreign gasoline for the United States.

“The Arctic Refuge contains one of the most fragile and ecologically sensitive

ecosystems in the world. It represents the only protected area in the world that includes

an intact arctic, subarctic, and boreal ecosystem, thus retaining the natural dynamics

that have existed for thousands of years” (Defenders of Wildlife, 2011).

Defenders of Wildlife is a reputed Washington, DC-based organisation that lobbies the

U.S government on the fact that wildlife must be given a voice in any decisions made by the U.S

Congress regarding their (the wildlife’s) future (Defenders of Wildlife, 2011).

With the more than 180 species of animal wildlife and plant fauna that inhabit the ANWR, we

have a unique, protected ecosystem that has been built-up in the Region (Burley & Juchem,
 Drill ANWR 3

2010). This is the basic, fundamental, building-block of the anti-ANWR drilling stance. The

benefits of the economy while drilling in ANWR do not outweigh the benefits of the

environment.

The pro’s of drilling in ANWR are very clear, distinct, and easily argued. Firstly, it

would create jobs for oil workers. Secondly, the ratio of affected land versus the benefit derived

from drilling the land, would be substantial. In regards to job creation, “…organisations that

help support large-scale employment, including groups like the Teamsters, were in support of

drilling in ANWR … create a large amount of newly formed jobs” (Burley & Juchem , 2010).

Job creation is always important for the economy as a whole, so this “pro” argument is definitely

very economy friendly. Secondly, regarding the ratio of affected land : “…only 8 %, or 1.5

million acres” (Burley & Juchem, 2010) are being affected, with a possible return of investment,

so to speak, of : “…trim about 1% from the cost of a barrel of oil … for almost 20 years” (Real

Time Economics, n.d). Both of these reasons can be argued by the “pro” side, but are rebutted

by the “con” side pretty easily.

The con’s of drilling in ANWR are clear, and make basically, common sense. One may

ask, what is the clarity of not drilling in ANWR? The region that the drilling would take place in

is one of the more sensitive areas in the entire ANWR. The proposed ANWR drilling “would

occur on the 1.5 million acre coastal plain found along the Beaufort Sea. This are is the most

sensitive of the entire refuge…habitat loss that occurs here will impact the entire Arctic Refuge”

(Defenders of Wildlife, 2011). How does it make more common sense to not drill in ANWR?

“The U.S Energy Information Administration (EIA) has concluded that at its peak in 2030, oil

from the Arctic Refuge would only lower gas prices by a few pennies per gallon” (Defenders of

Wildlife, 2011). If one has to wait till 2030 to get gas prices lowered from the current $3.50 per
 Drill ANWR 4

gallon to say, $3.48 per gallon, what is the benefit of spoiling a rich ecosystem and displacing

animals/plant wildlife?

In closing, drilling in ANWR is not the solution to America’s oil problems. The

reasoning proposed by the pro-side and con-side have been touched upon, however the decision

is up to our politicians in Congress who feel the need to constantly harp upon the domestic self-

sufficiency argument and pursue drilling in ANWR. I would NOT support drilling in ANWR

and am able to support my decision with clear reasoning , as per the con-side of this issue.
 Drill ANWR 5

REFERENCES

Burley, S and Juchem, B. (2010). Alaska Oil Drilling in the ANWR: Protecting the Arctic

National Wildlife Refuge. Retrieved on 2011, March 13 from

http://www.brighthub.com/environment/renewable-energy/articles/9274.aspx

Defenders of Wildlife (2011), Wildlife Impacts. Retrieved on 2011, March 13from

http://www.defenders.org/programs_and_policy/habitat_conservation/federal_lands/natio

nal_wildlife_refuges/threats/arctic/wildlife/index.php.

Real Time Economics (n.d). Don’t Expect Too Much From ANWR. Retrieved on 2011, March

13 from http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2008/06/18/dont-expect-too-much-from-anwr/