The Communique

Issue date: 4/29/04 Section: Opinion

Alex Catron: Copy Editor

Drilling for oil in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) is not the answer to U.S. dependence from foreign energy. Such drilling would undeniably put the native wildlife in jeopardy and provide only a temporary source of fuel that would take at least ten years to harvest.

When President George W. Bush entered the oval office three years ago big oil companies found an ally in the White House. Bush's election campaign (then and now) has benefited greatly from oil contributions, so when the President urged the "need" to intrude upon one of the countries most celebrated national wildlife refuges for oil few were surprised.

The debate is not a new one; oil companies have pushed for drilling rights in the ANWR for years. But with the current political climate in Washington they know now is the time to act and the attack has been relentless.

Days after the 9/11 terrorist attacks Sen. James Inhofe (R - Oklahoma) attempted to attach the entire ANWR drilling bill to a defense authorization bill, a slimy attempt to slip drilling rights through Congress on the coattails of a bill intended to keep the country safe.

Inhofe and other proponents of drilling claim that Alaskan oil could significantly reduce our independence from Middle-Eastern oil and drilling in the ANWR would do little or nothing to disturb wildlife in the area.
This position is flawed for three reasons.

First, the cost of oil would not be significantly altered. A March Energy Information Administration press release stated the price of oil would likely drop by only 30 to 50 cents per barrel.

Second, it offers only a short-time solution to the energy production process. "There's only about six month's worth of economically recoverable oil in the entire NPR-A [National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska]," Charles Clusen, director of the Alaska lands project for the Natural Resources Defense Council stated on NRDC.org, an environmental actovist group website.

While some other professionals disagree with Clusen's assessment of the amount of oil in the ANWR it is undeniable the supply would provide only a temporary solution and would take years to obtain.

Rather than commiting so much time and resources to drilling in a federal reserve America would be better off developing better emission standards for car manufacturers and pushing for the production of hydrogen-powered vehicles.

The technology exists to produce cars that get over 70 miles to the gallon, which would not only make for a cleaner environment but also greatly reduce U.S. dependence on oil. Unfortunately most manufacturers have failed to make this a priority.

An even better solution would be to seriously push for the production of hydrogen-powered vehicles, which emit absolutely no pollution what so ever, running on the explosive power of hydrogen.

The third reason not to let oil companies exploit the ANWR is because of the sensitive wildlife of the region. Polar and grizzly bears, wolverines, wolves, arctic foxes, whales and nearly 160 species of birds are a few of the animals residing in the area.

Despite claims by oil companies, no drilling comes without a price. Perhaps the most famous example of this is what happened in 1989 when the Exxon Valdez spilled over ten million gallons of crude oil into Prince William Sound killing more than 250,000 seabirds, 2,800 sea otters, 300 seals, 250 bald eagles and 20 whales.

While this is the extreme example, defenders.org states that at the Prudhoe Bay oilfield, 60 miles away from the current proposed drilling area, oil spills occur every day and noise and air pollution has had a dramatic effect on the wildlife in the region.

Considering the damage drilling of the ANWR would have on the wildlife and the small impact it would have on costs of oil one can't help but wonder why the issue is being debated at all.

Page 1 of 1

Article Tools