Over the past decennary. we have witnessed a go oning argument sing the issue of oil boring and geographic expedition in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The Congress has yet to do a major determination sing the subject. The Arctic Refuge covers 19 million estates of the northern part of Alaska. The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service indicate that the Arctic Refuge is home to 45 species of land and marine mammals. One of these is the polar bear. which has become one of the symbols of the country. There are 36 species of fish and 180 species of birds that can be observed in the safety from clip to clip. This lone shows that the safety is really of import to a broad assortment of life animals. The Alaska lands act in 1980 extended the range of the safety to 8 million estates of protected land. A part of the coastal field. which is around 1. 5 million estates. was placed under Section 1002 for its rating as a possible oil modesty. This part of the coastal field was subsequently named as the “1002 Area” ( Mitchell ) .
There are two opposing positions on the issue of oil boring in the Arctic Refuge. There are those who are in favour of tapping the crude oil resource. and there are those who are against it. On one manus. we have a possible crude oil resource that could bring forth one million millions of barrels. This could besides take to the diminution of the sum of oil imported from other states. On the other manus. we have a huge natural country that showcases a diverseness of wildlife and scenic characteristics. The writer decides to tilt toward the latter and the grounds that would back up this claim will be discussed in the succeeding paragraphs.
There is a large inquiry sing the sum of oil modesty in the country. Recently. the U. S. Geological Survey ( USGS ) conducted a survey on the sum of possible fuel resource in the 1002 Area. Based on the study. there is a 95 per centum chance of detecting 1. 9 billion barrels of oil. This is presuming that the monetary value of each barrel is at $ 24. The estimated measure is rather little and could be insubstantial given the country’s degree of ingestion. On the other manus. there is merely a 5 per centum chance of detecting 9. 4 billion barrels. It is rather interesting that when the monetary value is less than $ 16 per barrel. oil geographic expedition in the 1002 Area would non be cost-effective ( U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service 4 ) . The mean day-to-day oil fuel ingestion of the U. S. is at 19. 4 million barrels. About 57 per centum of these are from foreign states. If the Congress allowed the extraction of oil from the 1002 Area at this minute. production would merely initialise around 2010. The field is expected to bring forth oil at a rate of about one million barrels per twenty-four hours at peak production. This is non even expected to go on until 2030. Given the current rate of ingestion. the bing demand for oil imports will merely be reduced by 9 per centum ( Mitchell ) . A decennary ago. the Congressional Research Service noted that even the greatest conceivable sum of extra domestic oil production would merely be plenty to cut down the demand for oil imports to 40 per centum ( Mitchell ) .
A huge part of Arctic Refuge’s coastal field is covered by the 1002 Area. Since there is the demand for oil to be extracted from underneath the coastal field. certain excavation and boring activities would hold an consequence on the home ground of some 200 species of birds and mammals ( Mitchell ) . While there are technological progresss on the methods of oil and gas extraction. these procedures are still considered to be invasive. These activities would do perturbation to the natural environment. A recent appraisal of the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service indicate that oil geographic expedition in the country would do biological effects. These effects include “disturbing wildlife. change of natural drainage forms ( doing alterations in flora ) . and the taint of dirt and H2O from fuel oil spills” ( 8 ) .
Although there are possible economic benefits from oil geographic expedition and boring. the public assistance of the Arctic Refuge and its dwellers is more of import. Such activities pose menaces to ecosystem stableness. In fact. the existent net benefit that can be obtained in oil geographic expedition is still unsure. There are a figure of options to fossil fuel. It is more advisable to concentrate on developing these options instead than doing ecological jeopardies to a cherished sanctuary. Nature. when disturbed and destroyed. could make a big impact on the planet including world. The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge must be protected for the benefit of the future coevals. The value of nature and the environment should non be neglected merely to prefer political and economical aspirations.
“Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. ” 7 July 2007. U. S. Fish & A ; Wildlife Service. 4 December
2007 & lt ; hypertext transfer protocol: //www. United States Fish and Wildlife Service. gov/refuges/profiles/index. cfm? id=75600 & gt ;
Mitchell. John. “Rich in reindeer and in oil. Alaska’s coastal field is a hot subject in the nation’s
energy argument. ”National Geographic.1 August 2001. 4 December 2007 & lt ; hypertext transfer protocol: //www7. nationalgeographic. com/ngm/data/2001/08/01/html/ft_20010801. 3. hypertext markup language & gt ;
“Potential Impacts of oil and gas development on the Arctic Refuge’s Coastal Plain:
Historical Overview and Issues of Concern. ” U. S. Fish & A ; Wildlife Service. 4 December 2007 & lt ; hypertext transfer protocol: //library. United States Fish and Wildlife Service. gov/Pubs7/arctic_oilandgas_impact. pdf & gt ;