Support
for the Bush administration’s attempt in opening up ANWR to oil exploration.
The Bush administration and its
supporters have pointed to several different reasons as to why it wants to open
up the Artic National Wildlife Reserve to oil and gas exploration. These reasons
include providing jobs and revenue for the nation as well as a greater sense of
security as we become less dependent on foreign sources of oil and gas. In 1998
a geological survey was done by the United State Geological Service, which
found that there were between 4.3 – 11.8 billion barrels of technically
available oil and gas. Technically available oil and gas does not result in
economically feasible oil and gas, but that cannot be determined at this time.
The economic feasibility of oil and gas drilling changes over time as world
prices change (http://www.anwr.org/features/pdfs/
mcdowell_anwr_final.pdf).
Supporters of oil and gas exploration
of ANWR advocate that allowing exploration to occur would result in the
creation of jobs and revenue for the area and the nation. In an economic impact
assessment by the McDowell Group of Anchorage Alaska, it was concluded that the
state of Alaska would see 11,000 jobs created during the construction phase of
the ANWR development project. Once completed, oil would create between 17,000 –
38,000 jobs depending on the price per barrel at that time. This same economic
assessment found concluded that at peak performance, ANWR oil and gas
production could be producing nearly $800 million dollars a year for the state
of Alaska (www.anwr.org/features/pdfs/mcdowell_anwr_final.pdf).
Alaska congressmen Al Adams supports oil and gas development in the ANWR region
for these same reasons. He points to the fact that oil and gas development in
the Prudhoe Bay area has increased the general standard of living standards by
creating better schools, homes and healthcare (http://www.anwr.org/people/aladams.htm).
Other groups such as the AFL-CIO have also voiced their support for oil and gas
exploration in the ANWR region due to the potential for jobs (http://www.anwr.org/features/pdfs/chris.pdf).
Bush and his supporters also promote
oil and gas development in the ANWR region because they feel that oil and gas
production would make this nation less dependent on foreign fuel. Presently,
the Middle East holds nearly two thirds of all the world’s oil reserves. This
allows them a great advantage in determining the allocation of their oil
resources and at what prices these resources are allocated. According to
proponents of ANWR oil and gas exploration, increasing the amount of oil that
we produce ourselves would make us less dependent on these Middle Eastern
nations. This would also be beneficial to our own nation in times of crises,
when our foreign supply of oil could be cut off in certain oil producing
nations (http://www.anwr.org/features
/issues/energy-nat.htm).
The Bush administration has rebuffed
claims that oil and gas development would harm the environment inside of the
Artic National Wildlife Refuge. They point out that recent technological
advances would enable oil and gas exploration to occur through responsible
development while leaving very little of a footprint on the environment. One
way in which oil companies are decreasing their footprint is in the creation of
ice pads and ice roads. Using ice as roads alleviates the need for gravel in
many areas and when the temperature rises, the ice simply melts away (http://www.anwr.org/techno/
techno1.htm). Another way in which technology is improving is in
drilling techniques. New advances in 3D seismic technologies and advances in
multi-directional drilling are also being shown to decrease the environmental
footprint that drilling would have in the ANWR region (http://www.anwr.org/features/pdfs/tech-facts.pdf).
With these new advances in technology, oil proponents feel that there is very
little environmental risk in exploring ANWR’s oil and gas reserves.