Alaska currently finds itself in the middle of a hotly debated issue over whether or not to drill for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). The ANWR, 8.9 million acres of federally protected mountains and coastal plain in northeastern Alaska, is also connected to 1.5 million acres that has been designated by the Department of the Interior (DOI) as an area of possible future oil exploration (Shanahan, 1995).
These areas, first set aside in 1957 by Secretary of the Interior, Fred B. Seaton, were also associated with the 20 million acres of the North Slope of Alaska that was leased for commercial oil and gas exploration and drilling in the 1970s and has helped bring money into the Alaskan economy (Issue in Detail, 2001). In the midst of this apparent wealth of fossil fuel is one of the last vestiges of wildlife refuge in the United States, a fact that has been consistently recognized for almost fifty years (Issue in Detail, 2001). This paper will explore these apparent conflicts and discuss the reasons for supporting drilling for oil in the ANWR, reasons for opposing oil and gas exploration in the ANWR, as well as reasons that many have for reaching some type of compromise.
Proponents for drilling in the ANWR assert that since the land that is set aside for oil exploration is to take place only within a specified 1.5 million acres, a mere fraction of what has been set aside for wildlife refuge, that this exploration would be the most responsible thing that our country could do. Some of the reasons for this are that current technology creates less impact on the environment, thus a smaller "footprint", approximately 2000 acres, roughly the same size as Dulles Airport in Washington D. C., would be all that was effected. Additionally, an astounding number of jobs would be created in a lagging economy, and the amount of oil recovered could help offset what is currently imported from overseas and ease fuel prices (Shanah...