Should We Drill in ANWR?
Drilling In ANWR and Its Affect On Soil And Wildlife
Since 1977, the question of whether to drill for oil in ANWR has been an ongoing political controversy in the United States. Proponents of this plan propose drilling for oil in a 1,500,000 acre subsection of the coastal plain known as the “1002 area.” Unfortunately, the debate is often only framed around the amount of economically recoverable oil, but rarely weighed against the potential harm oil exploration might have upon ANWR's ecosystem. This research shows the harmful threats to the environment that drilling truly poses while also refuting the notion that drilling for oil in ANWR will make the U.S. energy independent.
Countless research shows that global warming adversely affects ANWR (McCabe 1994, 35). Drilling for oil is directly linked to global warming because drilling emits CO2 (the main contributor to global warming). The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) predicts that Arctic Alaska will experience 1.5 C. of warming by 2040. If this happens, potential habitat will deteriorate significantly for many at-risk species such as the polar bear (Kotchen & Burger 2007, 4725). There are many other adverse elements of oil drilling besides the emission of CO2. For example, on the Arctic Coastal Plain, 7011 ha of tundra are covered by gravel that has been dug up in order to find oil. An additional 4300 ha of tundra receive indirect effects of oil drilling such as flooding, dust, and thermokarst (Myrberg 1990, 580). All three of these factors are deadly to Arctic plant life, which directly effect animal life.
While it is commonly believed that drilling in ANWR would only affect land species', drilling is also extremely harmful to marine animals. Drilling creates aquatic acoustical disturbances which have detrimental effects on marine life. Arthur A. Myrberg, Jr. (Myrberg 1990, 577) asserts that, "When such levels [sound levels] are then augmented by the noise of human activities, acoustical communication and interception could be precluded as well (Myrberg 1990, 575)" in his article The Effects of Man-Made Noise on the Behavior of Marine Animals. The very harsh and aggressive sounds of drilling in ANWR, made more harsh by the fact that sound carries better in water than in air, affects the detecting, recognizing, and localizing of companions, competitors, mates, predators, and prey for marine animals who communicate through acoustical signals.
These communication roadblocks are extremely harmful towards marine animals and several studies executed in the 1980’s prove that these acoustical problems cause high levels of stress for the animals. For species such as the bowhead whale who are close to extinction, industrial sound such as drill ships, production platforms, semi-submersible rigs, supply ships, icebreaking ships, and low-flying aircrafts cause irrevocable damage when the whales are seeking their mate, detecting oncoming predators, and so in. In short, drilling in ANWR would reek havoc in the water as well as on land.
Indeed, there are so many hazardous outcomes of drilling in ANWR, it might lead many to have a pessimistic outlook of the situation. It is hoped, however, that these scientific realities should make people want to take action rather than feel despair for the situation. Luckily, there are many groups attempting to counteract the harm that drilling under the Bush administration has done. One such group is The Wilderness Society (TWS), who concentrate their efforts on preventing oil spills in ANWR and educating people about their disastrous effects. The TWS assert that oil spills are inevitable and difficult to contain/clean up. Marine animals suffer the most because there exists no known clean-up technology for spills in icy water. Therefore, for species that tend to congregate in large groups such as fish, the effects of oil spills are disastrous.
Startlingly, each year an average of 450 oil and other toxic spills occur in ANWR as a result of oil drilling. Between 1996 and 2008, 5,895 spills occurred totaling more than 2.7 million gallons of toxic substances, more than 396,000 gallons of crude oil, 122,000 gallons of drilling mud, and more than 1 million gallons of process water (Fuller et al. 2008, 1553). Oil and gas companies defend themselves by proclaiming that they employ new technology that lessens the impact that drilling has had on the environment. Additionally, they assert that oil spills have short-term impacts rather than lasting effects. Unfortunately, these assertions are not scientifically based.
Drilling in the ANWR has disastrous effects on the precious wildlife reserve that is home to thousands of different species. Now that the Bush administration, which tripled the number of oil leases on public lands (Defenders of Wildlife), is over, it is time to find alternate clean energy resources that do not lay waste to one of the few remaining wildlife reserves left in the nation. The US should not completely deplete these resources while destroying precious life in the meantime, just because we can. Drilling for oil is clearly an inefficient solution to an ongoing problem. Not only would drilling put off a necessary discussion about alternative energy sources, it irrevocably damages our nation’s largest wildlife reserve.
Countless research shows that global warming adversely affects ANWR (McCabe 1994, 35). Drilling for oil is directly linked to global warming because drilling emits CO2 (the main contributor to global warming). The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) predicts that Arctic Alaska will experience 1.5 C. of warming by 2040. If this happens, potential habitat will deteriorate significantly for many at-risk species such as the polar bear (Kotchen & Burger 2007, 4725). There are many other adverse elements of oil drilling besides the emission of CO2. For example, on the Arctic Coastal Plain, 7011 ha of tundra are covered by gravel that has been dug up in order to find oil. An additional 4300 ha of tundra receive indirect effects of oil drilling such as flooding, dust, and thermokarst (Myrberg 1990, 580). All three of these factors are deadly to Arctic plant life, which directly effect animal life.
While it is commonly believed that drilling in ANWR would only affect land species', drilling is also extremely harmful to marine animals. Drilling creates aquatic acoustical disturbances which have detrimental effects on marine life. Arthur A. Myrberg, Jr. (Myrberg 1990, 577) asserts that, "When such levels [sound levels] are then augmented by the noise of human activities, acoustical communication and interception could be precluded as well (Myrberg 1990, 575)" in his article The Effects of Man-Made Noise on the Behavior of Marine Animals. The very harsh and aggressive sounds of drilling in ANWR, made more harsh by the fact that sound carries better in water than in air, affects the detecting, recognizing, and localizing of companions, competitors, mates, predators, and prey for marine animals who communicate through acoustical signals.
These communication roadblocks are extremely harmful towards marine animals and several studies executed in the 1980’s prove that these acoustical problems cause high levels of stress for the animals. For species such as the bowhead whale who are close to extinction, industrial sound such as drill ships, production platforms, semi-submersible rigs, supply ships, icebreaking ships, and low-flying aircrafts cause irrevocable damage when the whales are seeking their mate, detecting oncoming predators, and so in. In short, drilling in ANWR would reek havoc in the water as well as on land.
Indeed, there are so many hazardous outcomes of drilling in ANWR, it might lead many to have a pessimistic outlook of the situation. It is hoped, however, that these scientific realities should make people want to take action rather than feel despair for the situation. Luckily, there are many groups attempting to counteract the harm that drilling under the Bush administration has done. One such group is The Wilderness Society (TWS), who concentrate their efforts on preventing oil spills in ANWR and educating people about their disastrous effects. The TWS assert that oil spills are inevitable and difficult to contain/clean up. Marine animals suffer the most because there exists no known clean-up technology for spills in icy water. Therefore, for species that tend to congregate in large groups such as fish, the effects of oil spills are disastrous.
Startlingly, each year an average of 450 oil and other toxic spills occur in ANWR as a result of oil drilling. Between 1996 and 2008, 5,895 spills occurred totaling more than 2.7 million gallons of toxic substances, more than 396,000 gallons of crude oil, 122,000 gallons of drilling mud, and more than 1 million gallons of process water (Fuller et al. 2008, 1553). Oil and gas companies defend themselves by proclaiming that they employ new technology that lessens the impact that drilling has had on the environment. Additionally, they assert that oil spills have short-term impacts rather than lasting effects. Unfortunately, these assertions are not scientifically based.
Drilling in the ANWR has disastrous effects on the precious wildlife reserve that is home to thousands of different species. Now that the Bush administration, which tripled the number of oil leases on public lands (Defenders of Wildlife), is over, it is time to find alternate clean energy resources that do not lay waste to one of the few remaining wildlife reserves left in the nation. The US should not completely deplete these resources while destroying precious life in the meantime, just because we can. Drilling for oil is clearly an inefficient solution to an ongoing problem. Not only would drilling put off a necessary discussion about alternative energy sources, it irrevocably damages our nation’s largest wildlife reserve.
Drilling in ANWR also runs the risk of adverse effects of oil spills on the arctic soil. Petroleum products consist of complex mixtures of volatile hydrocarbons, and soil near drilling areas frequently falls victim to petroleum spills. The type and the extent of the environmental contamination is determined by the capacity of the soil to filter, retain, or release the hydrocarbons. Soil properties include: mineralogy, texture, and moisture status, and their effect on sorption, retention, volatilization, and transport.
If soil is contaminated by petroleum products then volatilization of hydrocarbon fractions will lead to changes in viscosity and density of the remaining nonaqueous liquid – these changes affect transport characteristics of residual liquid and porous media (The previous sentance is confusing, please write another sentance explaining what it means, also a Citation is probably needed). For example, interactions resulting in swelling or shrinking of clays can alter intrinsic permeability of porous medium (What is an intrinsic permeability? What is a porous medium?). The vapor phase and nonaqueous liquid phase transport can contribute to soil contamination (?). Soil moisture content is inversely proportional to soil retention of hydrocarbons, so if soil moisture content decreases, vapor phase transport increases and therefore soil retention of hydrocarbons increases (?). Research conducted by Kisic (what year?) shows that drilling fluids and their retention increased the soil pH as expected because drilling fluids are rich in calcium, as calcium is used as an additive to prevent corrosion of oil/gas pumping pipes and for raising fluid density during drilling (?). Increase in pH has negative effects on soil (In what way?): research by D. Waterer shows that the optimum pH range for potatoes in Canada was 5.5 to 7.5, and that higher pH levels caused significant reduction in yields in some fields (Okay, but what do potatoes have to do with plantlife in ANWR?).
Crude oil and petroleum products are complex mixtures of hydrocarbon compounds, ranging from light, volatile, short-chained organic compounds to heavy, long-chained, branched compounds (What does this have to do with the rest of the paragraph?). Soil contamination has been a growing concern due to its possibility of being a source of groundwater contamination. Contaminated soils reduce the usability of land and weathered petroleum residuals remain retained in soil for years. Kisic (year?) shows the inverse proportionality of winter wheat emergence to total petroleum hydrocarbon levels in soil (This sentence is ambiguous). Higher contamination caused formation of a thin film around the seed germ that prevented oxygen flow causing death of the embryo. The contaminated soil also becomes compact and less moist, with higher toxic content. Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon levels below 5g/kg soil had no significant effect on the yield, but the likelihood is that ANWR drilling would result in a higher level of oil spill on the soil (Citation needed), which would significantly reduce the soil productivity and the yield.
Oil drilling not only has an effect on the actual land itself but also the wildlife. Arctic tundra vegetation is used by herbivorous species such as caribou. Caribou have migrated to arctic coastal plain to calve at the onset of snowmelt and initial emergence of plant growth. The benefit of migrating to coastal plain has been high quality of tundra vegetation which is a nutrient resource to restore body reserves that have been depleted due to winter and pregnancy (This sentence is ambiguous). The disturbance that is associated with the disturbance may lead to caribou displacement from their traditional area of use (Needs clarification). Divelopment, like roads and infrastructure may displace caribou to areas where they have more predators, and secondly oil spills may have adverse effects on the productivity of the land on which the caribou feed.
Conclusively, displaced caribou is just one example of how drilling in ANWR drilling adversely effects the ANWR ecosystem. If one concerns himself more on the potential economic benefits of ANWR drilling and ignores the effect on wildlife – the reason why ANWR was created, then he is debunking the intention of the creators of ANWR. Oil can be drilled elsewhere, but wildlife in the Arctic can only be protected in certain areas. One must decide whether wildlife has a greater value than a ‘possibility’ of alleviation from importing oil from overseas, and it is clear that wildlife bears more weight.
