Posted: October 20th, 2022

lMPACTS OF OlL DRlLLlNG lN THE ARCTlC

Name lnstitution lntroduction There has been one major question about if to drill or not drill in Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) for several years now. The ANWR has been placed in a political agenda again due to the oil price doubling in the past two years and the ongoing war in lraq and threats of terrorism has raised concern in the USA considering their reliance on oil imported from the Middle East. With these aspects in play, measures in the House and the Senate have been attempted to permit the drilling of oil in the ANWR both attempts falling. However, the drilling question still remains open with many bringing their up their points of contention to support their point of view. The side on the proposing of drilling sees the main importance that the drilling will bring to the country is the decrease in oil prices and reduce the reliance on foreign importation. The proponents, however, argue that this can be accomplished without hostile impacts on the environment. However, the opposing sides argue that the oil in ANWR is not sufficient to neither reflect any actual benefit in the oil pricing nor can it much half the amount of oil US import from the Middle East. They see the move to drill oil from ANWR as just sizable profits to the oil industry which does not worth the risk of destroying one of the last important wilderness regions in the world (Kotchen and Burger, 2007). This piece, therefore, draws on the best available information in regard of being against the drilling of oil on the ANWR providing its answers based on the armful and potentially irreversible damages on the wildlife and environment in Alaska.
Background Arctic National Wildlife Range was established in 1960 after the federal government availed 8.9 million acres in Alaska with the intention of offering protection of unique wilderness, wildlife, and recreational areas. ln 1980, the land was extended by 9.2 million acres by the Alaska National lnterest Lands Conservation Act (ANlLCA) and declared the land off-limits to any kind of development (Smith, 2011). However, 1.5 million acres that lied on the coastal plain area was an exception due to its oil and gas potential vast. The area was closed by section 1002 of Act to oil or gas exploration unless through the approval of the Congress act. Although the 1002 Area can be developed for oil drilling, the ANWR has remained in contention with the concern of the large animals’ species that are supported by the habitat. The Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) stated that if the targeted habitat by oil drillers is invented, there would a large loss to animal species including musk oxen, wolverines, caribou, polar bears, and more than 135 different species of birds. The environmental conservationist and the oil drilling industry have in many years been competing on oppositional debates for the coastal plain (Fountain and Eder, 2018).
lmpacts on wildlife The area of focus is the coastal plain of the 1002 area which is a habitant of most endangered species in the world. This means that the oil drilling project would see most world important animal species suffer, and others even becoming completely extinct. The species that might the most affected in the porcupine caribou which depends on the coastal plain for calving each year. ln the late May, the coastal plain is always free from snow and contains a high amount of vegetation providing a nutrient-rich habitat that allows the caribous to give birth there and sustain their calves for up to three weeks of development (Bettino, Moylan, and Stukas, 2015). By establishing the drilling point in the 1002 area, it would mean that likeness of a decrease in population of caribous herd and even displace them to habitats that are less sustaining compared to the 1002 area.
There are different ways that would negatively affect the caribous if drilling is contacted in the 1002 area. The first is that the caribous would be affected by the human infrastructures as there is a high possibility of them negatively to other disturbances. Drilling oil in ANWR would mean that the construction of a large number of pipelines, roads, and wells would take place which would affect up to 37% of the habitat for caribous calving which would lead to calving to occur somewhere else as the parturient females and calves would be forced to dismiss the area and seek another temporary habitat. The new habitat may have less nutrient-rich land which cannot contain the large numbers of the porcupine caribou herd (Bettino, Moylan, and Stukas, 2015). This would result to decrease in calve survival with an estimated drop of 19% each year when the porcupine caribou herd fail to get enough calving habitat which means the growth rate would stop since a large number would be dying compared to the ones being born hence a potential distinction for the species would be real.
The musk ox is another major species that would be highly affected by drilling of oil in the ANWR. The musk oxen use the winter as their time to conserve energy as they restrict their movement and shut down their metabolism. During the winter, most of the musk oxen are in the 1002 area and any kind of disturbance from oil drilling would force them to flee from their most preferred habitat hence expending their all energy. The loss of energy would need to die of the musk oxen since that energy is the only thing that keeps them alive during winter (Bettino, Moylan, and Stukas, 2015).
The harmful consideration of the oil drilling in the ANWR is also attached to the polar bears which the largest land carnivore in the world. ANWR reside an approximate of up to 1,500 polar bears but this species may face a big threat on their existence if the Arctic oil drilling is to be conducted. Since ANWR is one of the most popular residing areas where bear den, the disturbances from the oil drilling especially in the winter would affect the bears as they prefer a more silent environment during the denning period. As much as others may see the bear displacement as not a major effect to them as they can use the offshore ice islands, banks or plains for denning, the reduction of Arctic sea has been a concern for the past few years with expectation of more reduction to occur in future which means that the best option for bear denning would remain the ANWR which would not be available due to oil drilling (Bettino, Moylan, and Stukas, 2015). Therefore, the impact of oil drilling in ANWR on wildlife would cause irreversible damage with loss of most species that depend on the 1002 area being a reality that would be hard to comprehend by most individuals.
lmpacts on the environment in Alaska There are several environmental impacts that might come in play if drilling in the ANWR is to take place. The first environmental concern is oil spills. Even with the best monitoring system in place that monitors oil spillage, it is impossible to prevent the spills from completely happening. Despite the pipeline spillage, the land transportation spills may occur from tankers from destroyed taps which pose an environmental threat. This might even be a more threaten circumstances when the oil spill occurs in the Arctic Ocean, with the consideration that even the Shell company cannot account for 100% oil spill in the water means that it would be catastrophic for marine animals such as the seals, whales, polar bears and bowhead ho have been residing in the region for generations (Juliette, 2012).
The other environmental concern for Alaska is the generation of greenhouse gases that would be produced during the Arctic drilling. Several studies have shown how the climate of the planet is changing on a faster rate, which has forced the global to come together to enhance different possibilities and measures to reduce and contain the emissions that need to climate change (Goodyear and Beach, 2012). The United States is one of the major countries in the push for regulations of these emissions should be in better condition to evaluate the effects that oil drill will cause on the environment change. lf the oil facilities are constructed in ANWR, there is a possibility of generation of 24,000 metric tons of methane and up to 40 million carbon dioxide tons a year, which when added to the fossil fuels produced during the industry other activities such as exploration, transportation and construction would increase the greenhouse gases in the environment which not only would affect the Alaska environment but also add the global warming effect in the planet atmosphere (Bettino, Moylan, and Stukas, 2015).
The other concern that is raised in consideration of the Alaska environment is the seismic analysis that would provide the actual location of oil and its quantities. The seismic analysis would involve different means that pose different environmental effects. There are two main agents that would pose more threat to ANWR environment; the vehicular travel and infrastructure that would have to be constructed and used for oil extraction and transportation. The seismic process involves the use of large and sound-wave emitting vehicles that are driven in a grid pattern over the landscape; this will cause many disturbances for residents in the area and animals that reside in the environment. The developments that would have to put in place such as drilling sites, pipelines, roads and houses for workers would automatically alter the land causing large effects on the animal population (Kotchen and Burger, 2007).
Conclusion Despite the United States being in much need for new oil supply to meet its energy supply, this paper opposes the proposal of deploying oil drilling from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. This is because there is much concern regarding the harmful and irreversible damage to wildlife and the environment in Alaska that the project would cause. There are already concerns about the effects of the oil drilling especially with the global warming issue being highly discussed on a global level, the species extinction issue that cannot be avoided if the oil drilling project goes on, the other issue is rampant destruction and disturbance of habitat that most species depend on, and on the other side the American society is confronted with social, political, ethical, moral, and environmental concerns regarding the integrity of protecting the planet for future generations. Therefore, with contemplation that the oil drilling in Arctic National Wildlife Refuge cannot even meet the needed demand of oil in the US, it is not of any importance to destroy the Alaska environments which will a big threat to plants and species that only exist in the ANWR environment.
References Kotchen, M., and Burger, N. (2007, May 24).

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/223707248_Should_we_drill_in_the_Arctic_National_Wildlife_Refuge_An_economic_perspective 50%
References Kotchen, M., and Burger, N. (2007, May 24). Should we drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge?
An economic perspective. Energy Policy; 35, 4720–4729. Retrieved from https://environment.yale.edu/kotchen/pubs/anwr.pdf
4writers.net order ID: ********** 44%
An economic perspective. Energy Policy; 35, 4720–4729. Retrieved from https://environment.yale.edu/kotchen/pubs/anwr.pdf
Bettino, L., Moylan, H., and Stukas, V. (2015, December 3).
lMPACTS OF OlL DRlLLlNG lN THE ARCTlC NATlONAL WlLDLlFE REFUGE.

lMPACTS OF OlL DRlLLlNG lN THE ARCTlC NATlONAL WlLDLlFE REFUGE. Debate Science. Retrieved from https://blogs.umass.edu/natsci397a-eross/impacts-of-oil-drilling-in-the-arctic-national-wildlife-refuge/ Goodyear, J. and Beach, B. (2012, August). Environmental Risks with Proposed Offshore Oil and Gas Development off Alaska’s North Slope. NRDC lssue Paper. Retrieved from https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/drilling-off-north-slope-lP.pdf
Juliette, H. (2012, February 24). 10 reasons why Arctic drilling is a really stupid idea. Green Peace. Retrieved from https://www.greenpeace.org/international/story/6893/10-reasons-why-arctic-drilling-is-a-really-stupid-idea/ Smith, N. (2011, December 15). An Argument Against Drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). Article Myriad. Retrieved from https://monkessays.com/write-my-essay/articlemyriad.com/argument-drilling-arctic-national-wildlife-refuge/
Fountain, H. and Eder, S. (2018, December 3). ln the Blink of an Eye, a Hunt for Oil Threatens Pristine Alaska. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/03/us/oil-drilling-arctic-national-wildlife-refuge.html

Order | Check Discount

Tags: AI Plagiarism free essay writing tool, Australian best tutors, best trans tutors, buy essay uk, cheap dissertation writer