Data Bases • Custom Term Papers • Free Term Papers • Free Research Papers • Free Essays • Free Book Reports • Plagiarism? Links • Top 100 Term Paper Sites • Top 25 Essay Sites • Top 50 Essay Sites • Search 97,000 Papers @ DirectEssays.com • Search 101,000 Papers @ ExampleEssays.com • Search 90,000 Papers @ MegaEssays.com Free Essays • Term Paper Sites • Chuck III's Free Essays • Free College Essays • TermPaperSites.com • My Term Papers • Get Free Essays • Essay World • Planet Papers	Search Lots of Essays Back to Subjects - Political Science Oil drilling Oil drilling Throughout American history, there have been a number of conflicts and disagreements among the populace over various issues. These conflicts of interest help to define political parties and allow people to distinguish themselves through party allegiance. One such item that is currently being debated is over the idea of drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. For years, environmentalist groups and oil industry supporters have been sparring over this stretch of land. And both sides have formed some pretty compelling arguments for their beliefs. As of February 1, 2000, the United States has imported roughly 10.5 million of barrels of oil a day. This translates to about 55 to 56 percent of the 19.3 million barrels U.S. citizens consume daily. According to experts and politicians, this dependence on foreign oil is damaging the energy industry in America as well as decreasing the amount fluidity we have in foreign markets. And the ever increasing need for oil has only lead to further importing. Many industries and government officials fear that if the consumption of imported crude continues to outweighing the production of domestic, it will eventually lead to jobs moving overseas and the flow of wealth in the energy industry, going towards To combat this threatening trend, many Republican oil lobbyists, who dub themselves “the Teamsters”, have drawn together an extensive oil producing plan. The plan calls for tapping oil and natural gas deposits in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (henceforth recognized as ANWR). According to the Teamsters and Alaskan senator Frank Murkowski, deposits in the ANWR region are highly extensive and readily available for tapping. Using estimates from 1998 made by U.S. Geological Survey, they believe there is a 5 percent chance of locating and collecting a probable 16 billion barrels of oil from the Alaskan wilderness. Of that 16 billion, there is an estimated 95 percent chance of locating and collecting at least about 5.7 billion barrels of oil. If the oil-producing process went unhindered, many ANWR drilling supporters believe that the new project would single handedly be able to supply the nation’s oil for a full three years and create upwards of 750,000 new jobs. These beliefs are being stringently refuted by environmentalist Ever since the August 2nd vote in the House, which approved of the ANWR project on President Bush’s Energy Bill, environmentalism activists have been in an uproar. As CorpWatch puts it: “As we hurtle into the twenty-first century, oil is still King. But it does not rule benevolently. Rather, the reign of those who control the politics of petroleum continues to undermine democracy while generating human rights violations and environmental disasters across the Earth.” And with that, many associated with the Democratic left, have been contesting the Teamsters’ stated facts. In a New York Times article from September 2nd, the League of Conservation Voters had shown that the alleged 750,000 new jobs that would be created by the ANWR project, were over exaggerated by far. A study done earlier by Dean Baker, co-director of the Center of Economic and Policy Research, had detected a major fault in the estimates used to come up with the 750,000 figure. According to a 1990 report made by the American Petroleum Institute, the ANWR region was figured to be able to produce about 3.5 percent of the world’s total oil output if drilled. But Mr. Baker’s study had concluded that even at top-capacity, oil produced in the Alaskan region would only account for 1.15 percent of the world’s supply. This translates to around just 46,000 new jobs being But beyond the job market, environmentalists don’t believe the ANWR is in reality economically sound. In another New York Times article, author James Brooke describes how the Canadian government is taking steps to launch a Canadian oil-producing campaign, this one being done by the collection and processing of oil-soaked sands in Alberta. Within five years, the Canadian initiative will be producing more oil than the Alaskan North Slope (approximately one million barrels a day). Moreover, by the time the ANWR drilling is expected to begin, Canadian production will probably be in full swing. The Alberta fields will be processing and distributing more oil daily than ANWR would at its peak, only for cheaper and at a closer distance to consumers. There is also concern over the environment. Environmentalists are none too pleased about having an industry, notorious for endangering the environment, drilling on a national wildlife reserve. While ANWR supporters have shown that indeed, herd sizes for several indigenous species in the region have peaked in recent years near the drill sites, environmentalists were quick to point out that herd sizes are again on the decline. Though it is too early to tell whether this decline is really the product of human intervention, many environmentally concerned citizens think of it as a warning sign. As the Senate begins to understand concerns voiced by the public on the issue, they have raised several questions with Interior Secretary Gale A. Norton. Among these questions included information related to the native Porcupine caribou herds that are in the area. But the responses she provided to the Senate committee have set off a fury of resentment among environmentalists, and have even raised a suspicious eye in the Press. To begin answering the questions, Gale had sought briefs from the agency in her department that was in charge of the refuge; the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. The reply she provided to the Senate committee was shown, however, to be lacking a good deal of scientific data that the USFWS had provided her department. The Washington Post reports “[Gale] left out the agency's scientific data that suggested caribou could be affected by oil drilling, while including data that supported her case for exploration in the refuge... Norton also added data that were erroneous, stating that caribou calving has been concentrated outside the proposed drilling area in 11 of the last 18 years, when the opposite is true.” Environmentalists say that this is directly conflicting to what USFWS has stated in those reports. Quoting from the actual survey, the Lycos Environmental News Service states, "there have been PCH [Porcupine caribou herd] calving concentrations within the 1002 Area in 27 of the last 30 years. The Interior Department changed those numbers to say ‘Concentrated calving occurred primarily outside of the 1002 Area in 11 The USFWS also provided the Interior Secretary with figures on which months caribou calving areas were most sensitive. These statistics were drawn together in regard to another of the Senate’s questions, concerning the caribou’s historic calving range. But noticeably, Norton’s reported statistics were different from those provided. Lycos Environmental News Service again pointed this out: “The USFWS also emphasized that the ‘calving and early summer seasons (late May to early July) are the periods of greatest sensitivity of caribou.’ The agency provided figures to Norton showing concentrations of caribou in the 1002 Area. Norton did not pass these figures on to Congress, instead offering a different figure showing only figures for a time period in which the caribou used less of the 1002 Area.” Reaction to this was shown in the Washington Post article. “...some Fish and Wildlife officials said that they were careful to send Norton a complete and balanced portrait of the science, regardless of personal biases, and that she cherry-picked the data that suited her.” Many environmentalist groups equate this action almost like catching the lobbyists with their pants down. They believe Norton’s conduct is clear indication that the whole project is concerned more with greed than conserving the refuge, adding fuel to an ever growing political fire. The argument still remains that the possibility of altering the life patterns of the native caribou might just be a necessary evil, however. Many middle-of-the-road Republicans believe that in order to stimulate the economy and to decrease foreign energy imports, ANWR drilling must commence. But many environmentalists contend that there is a fine line to walk between slightly altering the environment and destroying a lifestyle. Simply stated by Lycos, “For thousands of years, the Gwich'in relied upon the Porcupine River Caribou Herd to meet their subsistence needs.” The idea exists where removing or altering the behavior of the caribou herds in the region by allowing ANWR to take place, would adversely affect the Native American population. But the same could be said in The Inupiat people, who live in the same area and survive on the same herds of caribou as the Gwich’in, are supporting the industrial development. According to ANWR.org, the Inupiat people are supporting the oil drilling measure to stimulate their local economy (which was originally based upon trade to begin with). They find that the money to be derived from ANWR would be able to fund basic public services such as a fire department and police station as well. But the Inupiat aren’t the only ones endorsing Recently, in the interest of national security, President Bush has endorsed the bill that would allow drilling in the arctic. He claims "The less dependent we are on foreign sources of crude oil, the more secure we are at home.” But the deeply entrenched partisan sentiment still exists in Congress over the whole subject. Democrats recently suspended discussion of the bill because they wanted to "avoid quarrelsome, divisive votes in committee.” But Alaskan Senator Frank Murkowski believes otherwise, saying “Democrats did not want to bring up the bill because they knew they would lose and were trying to While the debate still carries on, many Americans find themselves beginning to take sides on the issue. According to ANWR.org, on a poll with the subject “Do you think the United States should allow oil production in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska?” 54% of Americans agreed, 38% disagreed, and 8% were not sure. But on a poll done by the Detroit News, 74% of Americans voted no to the drilling, and only 25% voted yes. At this point, to decide who is really winning the argument over ANWR is up for pure No matter who’s side anyone’s on, the ANWR drilling project is going to be a hot topic for discussion for many more months. A conflict that started between environmentalists and oil lobbyists is steadily forming a division among Democrats and Republicans up on Capitol Hill. At this rate, drilling in the arctic will become one of the most memorable and controversial subjects about the Bush Presidency. Bibliography: BIBLIOGRAPHY Detroit News article: http://detnews.com/2000/politics/0010/01/politics-127682.htm Lycos article on Norton case: http://ens.lycos.com/ens/oct2001/2001L-10-19-06.html ANWR.org http://www.ANWR.org/ New York Times articles: http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/02/politics/02LABO.html http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/12/politics/12ENER.html http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/14/national/14ENER.html http://www.nytimes.com/ Washington Post article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A1821 6-2001Oct18 Word Count: 1762
Copyright © 2005 College Term Papers, INC All Rights Reserved.