Speak Outs
Speak Out
Should the U.S. open up Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for oil drilling?

Have you filled up your car with gas lately? It’s getting expensive, right?

Unrest in the Middle East – citizen uprisings in Libya and Egypt – is one of the factors driving up fuel prices this spring. Experts believe fuel could hit $5 a gallon on average by this summer. President Barack Obama set a national energy goal last week in a speech at Georgetown University: reduce the country’s consumption of foreign oil by one-third before 2025. If we find sources of energy within our own shores, the president suggests, our country’s cost of oil will not be determined by turmoil elsewhere.

Within days, Republicans in the U.S. Senate forwarded a plan: reduce foreign oil consumption by opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil exploration and drilling. The area in northeastern Alaska is oil-rich but vastly unexplored. Oil harvested from that region could be piped across Alaska to the contiguous 48 states. In a letter to Ken Salazar, U.S. secretary of the interior, Gov. Sean Parnell called Alaska “the United States' most important and abundant domestic source of future oil and gas.”

Domestic drilling projects are the domain of the U.S. Department of the Interior – part of the executive branch that is charge of both environmental conservation and management of natural energy resources. A slogan on its Web site illustrates this dual role: “Our mission [is] protecting America’s great outdoors and powering our future.”
Obama’s call for energy reduction, however, was broader – in his speech at Georgetown, he called for more natural gas exploration, increased production of biofuels, more electric cars and higher fuel-efficiency standards. Obama has grown more open to domestic drilling, however. In turn, Republican drilling advocates have suggested a plan to set aside 25 percent of royalties from oil found in Alaska and put it toward renewable energy research projects.

But Obama also cautioned against what he called the “shock and trance” reaction to oil prices. Americans’ cries to reduce consumption of foreign oil – or their cries for “energy independence,” the catchphrase for it – are the loudest when an international conflict has inflated prices at an extreme rate. When those prices stabilize, the president suggests, energy independence is no longer a priority. In an op-ed article in the Huffington Post, Marilyn Heiman of the Pew Environmental Group echoed this point, saying the Deepwater Horizon spill in the Gulf of Mexico is an example of what can happen when the country rushes into a new drilling project without adequate plans and oversight.

Heiman illustrated the massive difficulty of cleaning up an oil spill in icy waters: “Shifting sea ice, sub-zero temperatures, extended periods of fog and frequent storms with strong winds could shut down spill response altogether. The U.S. Arctic Ocean has no resident Coast Guard vessels; additionally, the nearest air station is 950 air miles away. There are virtually no roads connecting remote villages to each other or to the rest of the state.” This could create a lingering environmental disaster that has repercussions from points north on the rest of the country. Environmentalists also fear drilling would damage the fragile ecosystem that supports a vast array of wildlife, including caribou, muskoxen, arctic foxes and migratory birds.

Additionally, a poll in The Financial magazine suggested that Americans priorities could contribute to the problem through an unwillingness to change their own behavior and consumption. In the poll, 50 percent of adults agreed that the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge should be opened for new drilling projects. But only 25 percent agree that the country should cut back on its energy consumption by lowering the speed limit to 55 m.p.h.


What do you think?

Should the U.S. open up Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for oil drilling? Will it help meet President Obama’s goal of reducing oil imports by one-third? What about Republicans’ plan to set aside money from the drilling to pay for renewable energy projects – will that help the U.S. achieve energy independence? How can the country provide adequate oversight to prevent oil spills in the Arctic? Would you be willing to lower the national speed limit to 55 m.p.h. to reduce our consumption of oil? Join the discussion!
Join the Discussion
 
 
 
limited to 2000 characters including spaces  



Thank you for commenting.
Your comment is awaiting approval.
Click here to view all Speak Outs
Comments
5/4/2012
Porterville/CA
Mario
Smith/Monache
In a way, I am both for and against drilling in these lands. These lands do indeed contain oil in which we can drill for and make money. We wouldn't need to spend on foreign oil and we would also create jobs since drilling needs manpower to operate it. This course of action would help our economy however it would also come with side effects. This drilling will surely pollute the land since drilling release do produce fumes and gases not beneficial for our environment. In addition, it would also make living conditions more difficult to nearly impossible for natives of the land, such as animals and Alaskans.

3/8/2012
Perry,Georgia
Shentory "Papa Bear" W.
Mr.James/Perry High School
Listen to how stupid that sounds, open a Wildlife Refuge for oil drilling. COME ON AMERICA WAKE UP AND SMELL THE GIANT SULFUR BREEZE YOU JUST CREATED. Don't do that then you might be facing Genocide.

1/5/2012
Montgomery/ Texas
Ty Taliaferro
Metzger/Montgomery High School
I don't believe that the U.S. should open up Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for oil drilling. Yes it will help, but by doing this it will not solve our problem in the lack of energy. You have to think about all the peope that have lived in Alaska all their lives and how it would destroy their pride to see there amazing state be destroyed by drilling oil. Also you can't forget about the wildlife their. So in my opinion i think that we should look elsewhere to solve our problems.

5/17/2011
Montgomery/ Texas
Kyle Reaper
Metzger/Montgomery High School
I feel we should drill responsibly with respect to the environment as well as the native people. Most of the argument about not drilling is the very real concern of pollution of land and sea. The area their thinking of opening is a remote northern region of Alaska. Approximately 90% of the area is land. This is a section of land called the NPRA which stands for National Petroleum Reserve Alaska. There are very few people in this area its mainly wildlife. If we involved enviromental groups while drilling in this region as well as observe saftey protocal and native goverment involvement. This could benefit everybody. As fragile as the ecosystem is the concerns would be a potential blowout(Like the gulf of mexico) where gas and oil would escape ,and contaminat the land. A clean-up in this area would be extremly costly ,but with the cooperation of the enviromentalist and goverment agencies we could lower potenial impact on the animals.

5/13/2011
sidney, MT
Landon
SHS
i believe that this would be a very bad idea, and would open up a dangerous prospect for National Parks in the future. this would be only a temporary fix for our oil dependence, and is not worth destroying natural land that has been protected for decades. many species of plants and animals would be threatened by the intrusion of oil companies and would either have to relocate or perish.

5/13/2011
Sidney Montana
Cody
Sidney High School
I think the wildlife refuge should stay closed to oil drilling. If it were to be opened up, roads and pipes and rigs would destroy habitat set aside to keep wildlife safe.

5/5/2011
Montgomery,TX
Meggo
Karaoke Master/MHS
Imagine being an Alaskan citizen, constantly surrounded by mother nature's wildlife and beauty, unlike America's artificial ambience. Why would they want outsiders to invade what they've tried so hard to preserve. Yes, oil, as we are today is a necessity, but the fact is we're abusing the small amount that is left. One of America's great qualities is thinking outside of the box. So why not use that to our advantage and find other renewable resources that will suffice instead of demolishing a part of us that is still pure.

5/4/2011
Sidney, MT
Brooke B
Sidney High School
I dont think the U.S. should be able to open up Alaska's Artic National Wildlife Refuge for oil drilling. Alaska is a pure state and it is too dangerous to let an oil spill go into the ocean. It would hurt many animals on land as well as out in the ocean. Although the oil and gas prices would go down the drilling could create a lingering enviromental disaster.

4/29/2011
Sidney, MT
Rihana
Sidney high School
I dont think that oil drilling should be allowed on National Wildlife refuges because that was set aside by the government to help protect the wildlife. If they did drill there wouldn't be anyone around to help clean it up. We can come up with alternative fuels instead of using up our national parks land.

4/29/2011
Sidney, MT
Krissy H
Sidney High School
No we shouldn't drill in Alaska. It may lower our dependance on foreign oil, but the chances for oil spills like the one in Mexico is too high. Another big spill like that in the frozen Alaska weather would be difficult to clean and would hurt the oceans and the wildlife. Alaska is one of the few pure places left in the US and should be kept that way.

4/11/2011
Anchorage/Alaska
Zachary
Sharron
I'm with Sarah Palin 'DRILL BABY, DRILL!'

4/11/2011
anchorage/alaska
seouquiahunt-campbell
koester/wendlermiddle
i live in alaska and i believe that we should find other ways to get oil.the reason why i say this is because we should keep alaska as pure as possible,and the one thing about alaska i love the most is our animals,and if you open up the refuge you run the risk of exposing the animals to harmful things.i think they should find somewhere else to drill

4/9/2011
Little Rock, AR
Anne
UALR
Yes! YES! YES!

4/8/2011
Greencastle, PA
Gabe
Greencastle-Antrim HS
Honestly, most of the money I make goes to gasoline. I am frustrates at the high gasoline prices. But drilling in Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is not the answer to the energy crisis that we are in. If we did drill and there was a disaster, it is highly probable if we rush in there and start drilling as soon as we can, it would be hard to respond to that disaster. Simply, because the disaster would be in the most remote area of the US; drilling would damage the ecosystem. In my opinion the answer starts with the American people. We the people need to drastically reduce our oil consumption. We need to drive less, buy fewer trucks, buy electric cars and fuel cell cars, and use biofuels. According to CNN.com, the gasoline prices in the United Kingdoms are nearly double that of our current prices in the US. So, a lot of countries are worse off than the US. We need to adapt our lifestyle, because the world’s oil reserves are quickly running out. One possible way that can be done, is putting a tax high tax on oil. The American people will be furious, but it is what needs to be done to get the point across that they can not continue to live like this. Maybe the federal government should use all the gas tax money to research and invest in renewable resources. Drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is simply not the answer to the energy crisis.

4/8/2011
Greencastle
Aaron
Greencastle-Antrim High School
I believe that the U.S. should open up Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for oil drilling. However, I also believe that the U.S. should look for alternative energy options and expand natural gas production. By increasing our domestic oil production and allowing oil drilling in Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge we could begin to work toward meeting President Obama’s goal of reducing oil imports by one-third. I agree with the Republicans’ plan to set aside money from drilling to pay for renewable energy projects, that money would certainly help achieve energy independence. The sticking point is preventing oil spills in the Arctic and particular Northern Alaska which is one of the most inhospitable and grueling places to live. The extreme weather conditions and isolation is a major issue and could cause spills to wreck major havoc on the environment. I am with the 70% of Americans that would not be willing to lower the national speed limit to 55 M.P.H., and one reason is that it did not work the first time and it will not work again. I support expanding our domestic production but we need to get away from oil altogether.

Related News
Related Resources
Share