To Drill Or Not To Drill, That Is The Question

The question of whether to drill for oil in the Artic has been an ongoing political controversy since 1977.  The area under discussion is situated between the Beaufort Sea to the north, Brooks Range to the south, and Prudhoe Bay to the west.  This area was created by an act of congress in 1980.  The controversy over whether or not to drill refers to a particular area of the ANWR region.  No one is attempting to drill willy nilly in the artic.  Much of the debate over whether to drill in the 1002 area of ANWR rests on the amount of recoverable oil as it relates to the world markets, weighted against the potential harm of oil exploration on wildlife, water, and the calving ground of the Porcupine caribou.

Prior to Alaska's statehood, virtually all of the 375,000,000 acres of Alaska Territory was federal land and wilderness.  The act of statehood gave Alaska the right to select 103,000,000 acres for use as an economic and tax base.  To complicate matters, Alaska natives protested a Federal oil and gas lease sale of lands on an area that the Natives claimed.  Long story short, this has been a political football for the last 40 years.  The big question is whether drilling in ANWR will have any significant effect on the US becoming energy self sufficient, and how would this oil effect the world market.  The fact is, they don't really know.  What they do know is that the amount of oil they're talking about is is less than 1% of the world market, so there would be little economic impact. 

On and off for the past 40 years, presidents have been trying to do exploratory drilling.  During the 1980's a bill permitting drilling was expected to come up for a vote, when the Exxon Valdez oil spill delayed and ultimately derailed the process.  In 2008 President George W. Bush pressed Congress to reverse the ban on offshore drilling in the ANWR in addition to approving the extration of oil from shale on federal lands.  (fracking).  Despite his previous stance on the issue, President Bush cited the growing energy crisis as a major factor for reversing the executive order issued by his father in 1990, which banned coastal oil exploration and oil and gas leasing on most of the outer continental shelf. 

What it really comes down to, is whether you're on the side of conserving our precious land and wildlife, or if you want to drill for more oil to possibly improve our energy independance, at the risk of disrupting land and wildlife.  There are so many other alternatives to achieve energy independance today, I would hate to see massive drilling in ANWR.

The US Fish and Wildlife Service has stated that the 1002 area has a "greater degree of ecological diversity than any other similar sized area of Alaska's north slope."  Alaskans are all for the drilling.  After all, they participate in the oil profits.  Residents receive annual dividends from a permanent fund funded partially by oil-lease revenues.  In 2000, the dividend came to $1,964 per resident.

Anyone who has every seen the magnifigance of a herd of caribou racing across open land knows what I'm talking about.  We must be able to protect our parks, wildlife and open space.  We are innovative and creative and can find other ways reduce our energy dependance.