One of the most controversial environmental issues being discussed recently is whether or not to drill for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). The ANWR was first set aside as 8.9 million acres of protected mountains and wilderness in 1957 by Secretary of the Interior, Fred B. Seaton (Issue in Detail, 2001). Seaton also set up 20 million acres of Alaska's North Slope specifically for commercial oil and gas leasing at the same time (2001). Since then, the question of whether or not to drill for oil in the ANWR as been an issue, the most current conflict being a close call in the senate with a vote of 52-48 against drilling in that area (Fialka, 2003). This paper will examine the arguments both for and against oil and gas exploration in the ANWR, concluding with a recommendation
Argument For Drilling for Oil in the ANWR
In a time when the economy is in a slump, and United States' oil supply is dependent on nations that may not be very stable, it is argued that it would be of best interest to this country if the government used as many domestic natural resources as possible. The need for oil in the United States has steadily increased over the years and while it is less than it was 20 years ago, it still uses up 25% of the world's crude oil (Banerjee, 2003). In addition, while other energy options are being explored, it could take up to 15-20 years for these new energies to be fully used. In the mean time, this area could produce 10.3 billion barrels of oil and replace the oil purchased from the Middle East over the next 20 years, while still only leaving a "footprint" about the same size as Dulles Airport in Washington D.C. (Langenkamp, 2001). Meanwhile, while "world oil markets are more volatile and unpredictable than they have been in a decade" making it increasingly more difficult to have easy access to inexpensive oil (Banerjee, 2003, p. 3.1). Terrorist threats and national security have also incr
...