Abstract The ArcticNationalWildlifeRefuge is the most promising onshore area for oil exploration and one of the wildest areas remaining in the United States. Therefore, the conflict between the need to develop energy resources and the desire to preserve wild areas has led to the prolonged debate over the merits of programs to lease the region for oil exploration and development. According to the paper, drilling in the ArcticNationalWildlifeRefuge would cause environmental costs that include some elements that are essentially certain, as well as elements that are uncertain, such as the unpredictable effects on the number and health of certain important species. The paper concludes that development is environmentally damaging no matter the cautions, because it alters the wild state of the region forever.
From the Paper "When Alaska entered the Union in 1958, Congress transferred an exceptionally large amount of land to the new state, and at the same time, the Department of the Interior used its authority to administratively reserve land for federal use, resulting to decades of controversy and disputes (Grover). Since 1957, the United States Department of the Interior has exercised primary administrative authority over most of the land comprising modern-day ANWR Grover). This fact has meant that a great deal to people who care about the Refuge (Grover). Federal management has produced a land that is valued as much for its unique wilderness character as it is prized for its suspected mineral wealth, and in particular, it has precluded significant petroleum exploration and development of the Refuge (Grover)."
Abstract This paper presents a detailed examination of the debate over drilling in the ArcticNationalWildlifeRefuge. The writer explores both sides and presents the argument that drilling will not negatively impact the environment and will support wildlife there. The writer uses the example of Purdhoe Bay to illustrate how drilling without harming the environment can be effectively done.
From the Paper "Experts in the field of environment and science have been warning the world for years that the earth's resources are not unlimited and would eventually run dry. It has only been in the past few decades however that the world's population began to listen. In the panic about dwindling resources there has been a rush to locate new sources of energy and other needed materials. Environmentalists have moved in to block hasty projects while those who support them try to push them through and the end result is often a standoff. In the midst of this occurring the last American frontier, Alaska, has moved to the forefront of controversy. One such controversy is the proposed drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Proponents believe it will provide the world with a much needed energy source, while detractors of the drilling insist it will destroy the environment and harm local wildlife, in particular the caribou porcupines. Once one studies the facts, the past, and similar projects one will find that drilling can be done in an environmentally safe manner and provide the world with a much needed source of natural resources."
Abstract This paper examines proposals to initiate Oil Drilling and Development in the ArcticNationalWildlifeRefuge. It opposes these initiatives. It outlines the potentially disastrous environmental impacts. It proposes alternative sources. Most importantly, it argues that American national energy policy, particularly with the present situation in the Middle East, must move away from a reliance on fossil fuels to alternative sources.
Abstract This paper looks at the pros and cons of drilling for oil in the ArcticNationalWildlifeRefuge (ANWR). It looks at issues and conflicts of the drilling argument and the need for oil in the U.S. as opposed to the quality of life issue for certain animal species.
From the Paper "One of the most controversial environmental issues being discussed recently is whether or not to drill for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The ANWR was first set aside as ..."
A look at claims made by geologists that oil could be found in other locations, and the argument against drilling for oil in the ArcticNationalWildlifeRefuge.
Abstract This paper describes how geologists and oil companies have proposed that research drilling should be carried out in the ArcticNationalWildlifeRefuge (ANWR), in the hope that it will cease US reliance on foreign oil sources. While this has become a hot-button issue on many of the campaigns for the 2008 hopefuls, this paper argues against the idea.
From the Paper "With the 2008 elections looming, many politicians are jumping on one bandwagon or another. With anti-war feelings at an all-time high, even the staunchest conservative has been looking to alternate forms of energy for American consumers in an effort to decrease our dependence on foreign oil. To that end, geologists and oil companies have proposed that we research drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), stating that drilling for oil here will cease our reliance on foreign oil sources. This has been proven time and again not to be the case; nevertheless, it has become a hot-button issue on many of the campaigns for the 2008 hopefuls. Democrats like Obama, Clinton, and John Edwards oppose drilling in ANWR, while Republican candidates Fred Thompson, Sam Brownback, and Ronald Paul support the movement."
This paper examines the ongoing debate between those who support the oil industry and those who wish to protect the Alaskan coastal plains from being drilled in search of oil.
Abstract This paper summarizes the argument against drilling for oil in the ArcticNationalWildlifeRefuge on the basis of damage that would be caused to the environment and the wildlife inhabiting the region. The topic is connected to the events of September 11th which nearly allowed the Republicans to push through an emergency Energy Security Bill, allowing for the extraction of oil from the ANWR.
From the Paper "In the past 10 months many people have claimed that the world as we knew it a year ago has been profoundly and irreversibly transformed with the events of September 11th, 2001. Others have attacked these claims as being yet another example of American ethnocentrism and egocentricity: the world has not changed, the USA simply got a taste of reality. However, whether the United States was living in a sheltered state of denial in which true poverty, destruction and war never found a home on its shores, or whether the world truly has changed entirely, is a subject for a different debate and a different paper."
Abstract This paper explains that the northern slopes of Alaska's one hundred fifty million acre coastal plain, which is part of the ArcticNationalWildlifeRefuge (ANWR), is abundant in both oil and gas reserves and is the number one prospect for United States' oil and gas development. The author points out that the use of wildliferefuges and wilderness areas for energy development has become a very hot topic, especially in Alaska, because of the United States' dependence on foreign oil. The paper relates that researchers and developers are seeking new technologies to drill for and transport the oil without hurting the surrounding environment in the process.
From the Paper "According to government estimates, the equivalent of one billion, four hundred million barrels of oil are tucked away under Teshekpuk Lake. This lake is Alaska's third largest lake. Teshekpuk, which means big enclosed coastal water. This is where the Pacific Black Brant migrates for its annual molt. Migratory birds, as well as moose, bear and fish take full advantage of this wild life refuge. Many make their home there and
others migrate to this placid lake every year."
Abstract Discusses pros & cons of limited oil drilling in the ArcticNationalWildlifeRefuge (ANWR). History of attempts to protect ANWR and attempts to open up the refuge for oil drilling & gas exploration. Impact on environment. Economic factors (fuel prices, creation of additional jobs). Other forms of energy. Quality of life issue.
From the Paper "Introduction
Although it was first discovered in 1799, Alaska was not officially admitted into the union as a state until 1959. Up until that time, Alaska's history had been littered with settlers from all over the world who found opportunity in the harsh climate of the land, during the gold rush, when oil was first discovered, and even now in its thriving fishing industry. Alaska's shores were also the sight of a sustained attack by Japanese forces during World War II that took two years to beat back (ExploreNorth 2001). Now, Alaska is also known for its wildlife, massive spaces, the pioneering and independent attitudes of its residents, as well as the brutality of its seasons. Indeed, Alaska has been called the last frontier of the United States."
Abstract The paper examines the issue of drilling for oil in the ArcticNationalWildlifeRefuge from an environmental standpoint and discusses the harm greenhouse gases cause. The paper discusses how drilling would cause irreparable damage to animals and the wilderness, especially considering the relatively small amount of oil that is available in the area. The paper looks at the arguments of proponents of drilling but strongly disagrees with their view. The paper maintains that the country should be aggressively developing alternative fuels that will be cleaner and more economic.
From the Paper "Proponents of drilling in the area note the 1002 area, where drilling would occur, is just a small area of the entire Refuge, and that wildlife in the area will not be harmed by drilling in so small an area. Americans now know how dangerous greenhouse gases from fossil fuels can be, and alternative energy sources are what the country should be investigating now, rather than more dependence on national (or foreign) oil. Drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is a stopgap measure at best, and ruining one of America's last pristine wilderness areas is not worth the cost of a few barrels of oil."
Abstract This paper explores the importance of porcupine caribou and other keystone species of Alaska's ecosystems. It revisits past oil spills and shows the negative effects oil drilling has and will have on the environment.
From the Paper "Fish habitats are also in danger if drilling takes place in the refuge. Erosion, sedimentation, or alteration of drainage flow or wetland habitat can result from inadequate cross-drainage structures. Gravel removal from a floodplain can also affect fish by changing the patterns of flow or water quality. Water withdrawal can reduce the flow of a stream and potentially raise the temperature to dangerous levels if it becomes low enough. Causeways may inhibit the movement of fish, and change the quality or quantity of movement of sediment. Oil in water bodies will coat fish - making it impossible for them to eat, mate, or breathe - it also poisons them and makes them inedible for other predatory animals. "
Abstract This paper describes what the Alaska NationalWildlifeRefuge actually is. It covers the pros and cons of drilling for oil in the refuge from political, economical, religious perspectives. It gives the writer's opinion on the topic, which is NOT to drill in the refuge. It then gives alternative ideas to drilling and backs them up with facts from credible sources like the U.S. Geological Survey.
From the Paper "An environmental masterpiece to be preserved, or an economic opportunity waiting to be tapped? This is the debate that has been persistent around the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for over 40 years. It is also a mainstream argument for many environmental philosophies. Pro-drilling advocates tend to take on Judeo-Christian beliefs, while anti-drilling organizations stick with conservation or preservationist values. These two groups portray their views over the internet using many types of representation, false or not, to convince readers their position is correct. Both sides have their pros and cons, but my opinion on the topic is that drilling for oil in the ANWR is a poor idea due to inevitable environmental complications."
Abstract This paper takes a look at the Alaskan oil reserves and how these reserves offer a potentially large resource and a possible solution to the energy needs of the United States. This paper also reviews how using these reserves could mean possible exploitation of the ArcticNationalWildlifeRefuge.
From the Paper " The National Petroleum Reserve of Alaska (NPR-A), is situated between the foothills of the Brooks Range and the Arctic coastline, and is about 120 miles from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). (Rosen, Y. 2003. ) The Bureau of Land Management ( BLM) estimates the area will"... supplement production from the Alpine fields, which hold 429 million barrels and have a daily oil output of about 100,000 barrels." (US OKs Commercial Drilling in Alaska Oil Reserve) In terms of geography the oil in the petroleum reserve" lies in reservoirs only about 50 feet thick, stretched across an area 300 miles wide and 200 miles from the coast inland to the Brooks Range. In ANWR, the oil is largely concentrated in reservoirs as thick as 300 feet." (Big oil numbers for Alaska)
At first glance there seems to be very little reason not to make use of these oil reserves. The US Geological Survey estimates that the reserve contains between 5.9 billion and 13.2 billion barrels of oil. (US expands oil exploration in Alaska). Other estimates are that the area "... is expected to produce between 5.7 billion and 16 billion barrels of oil for decades." (Murkowski L. 2005)"
The paper attempts to show that exploitation of Alaskan oil and gas reserves would be detrimental to the environment of the region and, effectively, destroy it.
Abstract The author of the paper contends that, as energy costs continue to increase, many Americans are facing harsh realities at the gas pump. The paper's writer says that enormous resources available in Alaska appear to represent a short-term solution to this growing demand for oil and gas. The paper's author contends, however, that the unique qualities of the environmentally fragile ArcticNationalWildlifeRefuge are endangered by such exploitation. To determine what both sides have to say about this issue, the author of this paper provides a review of the peer-reviewed and scholarly literature concerning further exploitation of Alaska's oil and gas reserves and its concomitant environmental impact, followed by a summary of the research and the authors findings in the conclusion.
From the Paper "The existing protections that are in place are no accident, though. The legislation that set aside the wilderness and refuge areas of Alaska are the deliberate result of the U.S. government's decision to keep oil and gas development out of the ANWR specifically to preserve the region's wilderness. According to Stanke, "In 1960, Fred Seaton, as Interior Secretary for the Eisenhower administration, designated 8.9 million acres in the northeastern corner of Alaska the Arctic National Wildlife Range -- a sanctuary for wildlife and wilderness conservation" (Stanke 905). As Grover points out, Interior Secretary Seaton's 1960 withdrawal order clearly stated the purposes for which the new wildlife range was to be managed: preserving the 'unique wildlife, wilderness and recreational values' of the region" (1169). During the period 1960 and 1979, the U.S. Department of the Interior managed the Range in a fashion that was congruent with the intent of this statement in spite of the vast natural resources discovered near Prudhoe Bay (Grover 1169). According to Weaver and Asmus (2006), the Prudhoe Bay oil field is the largest oil field in the United States. Not surprisingly, these resources have attracted a great deal of attention from commercial interests, but Stanke notes that the fact that the Refuge exists at all is not a matter of chance or luck, but rather is the ". . . deliberate result of United States wilderness-preservation policy in place since the 1950s" (Stanke 906)."
Abstract Peripheral to the concern and implications of the melting arctic regions is the concern about the wildlife supported by the region. The author of the paper focuses his study on the arctic fox. The writer attempts to build an understanding and image of this creature about which very little attention has been given in discussions on environmental concerns. This paper examines the role of the arctic fox in the environmental balance of the arctic region; because in the harsh environment of the arctic where it becomes very easy to forget about global warming and endangered habitats in sub zero temperatures, every life form, including the arctic fox, is but a component in the balance of nature and life in the region.
From the Paper "Concerns about the lemming population as a vanishing food source upon which the arctic fox relies is probably less of an issue than what the access to the region will mean to the arctic fox as a species. With the changing weather, it can be expected that mankind will expand his own habitat into regions previously unpopulated in the arctic. A region where the harsh weather itself, the frozen tundra, the snow, are the roaming grounds of the arctic fox, it can be expected that we might see a decline in the numbers of artic fox as a result of man's presence over the environmental changes. The artic fox, described as a "hardy" animal, is no doubt, like foxes in other regions, able to sustain itself as a small predator and as a scavenger of bigger animals; but it probably cannot stave off the harm it faces by the presence of mankind in its environment."
Abstract This nine page paper examines why global warming has become the primary threat facing polar bears. The writer looks at the Arctic polar bear population, which has been estimated to be approximately twenty-five thousand, of which about fifteen-thousand are in Canada, and has been impacted in a number of negative ways by climate change caused by air pollution. For example, the writer notes studies which have documented measurable effects in the body sizes and reproductive success of bears at Hudson's Bay and in other Arctic regions, and data that indicates that these changes are due to gradual climate change in the Arctic because of global warming.
From the Paper "Based upon studies conducted over the last twenty years, many scientists have concluded that global warming has become the primary threat facing polar bears. The Arctic polar bear population, which has been estimated to be approximately twenty-five thousand, of which about fifteen-thousand are in Canada, has been impacted in a number of negative ways by climate change caused by air pollution. (Stirling 12) For example, studies have documented measurable effects in the body sizes and reproductive success of bears at Hudson's Bay and in other Arctic regions, and data indicates that these changes are due to gradual climate change in the Arctic because of global warming."
