Kristina Halmai

May 24, 2001

English 305B

I recently read an article in Scientific American (May 2001) titled “the arctic oil & wildlife refuge.” The article addresses the issue of whether or not science has the ability to clarify the potential economic benefits and the ecological risks of drilling into the nation’s last great coastal wilderness preserve. What I began to wonder after reading the article is, if we humans should continue our scientific and technological petroleum endeavors eventhough we are causing irreversible harm to our earth. My feeling is that we should not drill in Alaska’s Arctic.

In the early twentieth century, science and technology brought the automobile. In less than one hundred years, humans especially Americans have grown increasingly dependant on the conveniences born from widespread use of the automobile. In turn Americans are the most reliant population in the world on petroleum. Last year, Americans consumed 19.5 million barrels per day. It is estimated that our use will rise to 23 million by 2010 (Gibbs 2001)! Our insatiable appetite for petroleum has sparked a fiery debate within this country and this congress on whether or not taping into the Arctic oil supply is necessary. Proponents of drilling cite that exploration and production can be done without causing any adverse impacts on the Arctic wildlife. Critics however believe drilling will cause unretractable consequences on the pristine Arctic ecosystem. The debate is now in the hands of Congress to decide.

Senate bill S.389 could potentially open the 1002 Area of Alaska to oil and gas exploration and production. The bill would allow for the Bureau of Land Management to control activities to ensure that activities “will result in no significant adverse effects on the fish, and wildlife, their habitat, subsistence resources and the environment.” I wonder if regulation can effectively prevent such damage? Can the most high-tech, compact, thoroughly monitored development still pose an unacceptable risk to the wilderness? In a situation such as this where the natural environment is at a serious risk and the public and decision makers are in a dispute, we must all turn to trained scientists in order to more precisely determine what is at risk and which outcome will serve all parties the best.

In the case of the Arctic over the past twenty-five years, biologists have been studying and have quantified how underground petroleum activities disturb the life on the surface. For the past thirty-years, petroleum geologists have worked to create less destructive methods of locating and removing oil. Typically people think of science and technology working together to better our lives. In the Arctic situation it is more a case of science versus technology. These two groups of scientists, biologists and geologists, have been pitted against one another. It is difficult to determine who to believe and in that decision, it depends on what one feels to be more important: nature or need. What we must also consider is who the funding for the studies is coming from.

Who funds scientific studies is a critical point and one worth taking a look at. Whoever is providing the money for studies has a vested interest in what the final outcome will be. Skewed science is looked down upon by the professional scientific community but is highly common. Private petroleum companies who are eager to begin drilling in the tundra employ the petroleum geologists working in Alaska. The biologists studying the Alaskan ecosystem are mostly working for both governmental (US Geological Survey) and private (Audubon Society) organizations. Final outcomes of scientific projects are also an issue of the agendas of private interests. What sadly becomes apparent to me is that funding and competing interests blur an issue of ecological preservation and technological supply. It is amazing how compounded and multifaceted a scientific and technological issue becomes.

When I look at the photographs of Alaska’s Arctic Wildlife Refuge, I am absolutely amazed at the beauty of the environment. Snowcapped mountains surrounded by dark green valleys are sprinkled with lakes and meandering streams and of course the fauna that lives in one of the earth’s most harsh climates. I can not help but feel that the wildlife refuge be preserved and remain untouched. Life has evolved over millions of years dancing a delicate dance with nature and resulting in a fine ecological balance. Humans have also danced this same dance with nature and we too have found our niche but unlike the rest of the natural world, we continue to alter and remake the natural world in order to fulfill our created needs. We have taken on the role of nature and despite warnings, we continue determining what will become of ecosystems.

Human’s impact on the natural world is becoming a more popular issue as we are extending our influences from infrastructure development to gene splicing. It is difficult to say when and if at all we should stop our quest. The issue becomes a moral issue for many concerned people but again it depends on which side of the field we come from. Environmental issues are increasingly creeping into the American conscious however we are also so reliant on petroleum that for some, awareness fades away. It is simple to place a price tag on something like petroleum that has a market value. But for the environment, it is difficult to determine a price because terrain and wildlife, are not commodities.

If the Alaskan Arctic escapes drilling then life there will continue to function as it has for thousands of years and non- Alaskans will continue to see photos and films of Alaska’s untouched beauty. It is most likely that most people will never even get to experience the Arctic first hand. So why save it? According to biologists it should be saved as it serves as a living experiment. An area, that if it remains in tact, will continue to be a laboratory where scientists can measure ecological changes and sort dramatic changes from subtle changes through radio collars and satellite imaging. With global warming looming over the earth, it is known that some of the first signs of climate change will occur in the northern latitudes. Places like the Arctic Refuge will magnify global climate change and allow scientists to make important assessments. In my mind global warming assessment is a good reason to hold on to the virgin land.

Hydrologists and petrologists and engineers site technological advancements in petroleum machinery as a way nature and pipelines can co-exist. The actual process of petroleum extraction is rather long but interesting as it is technologically impressive. Before supercomputers can produce images geologists must first look for reserves beneath the surface. To date looking for reserves is what has been done. 2.2 million pound mobile drill rigs must be moved to a potential location thus requiring roads to be built on tundra. A layer of ice chips six-inches-deep is laid down and then cemented with water. Enter the problem: the water can only be brought short distances so as to avoid it freezing en-route. Ice road development leaves nearby streams and rivers and lakes open to prey. The problem is that most of the bodies of water are small in volume and are also home to fish that feed waterfowl and in turn continue to feed the food chain. Once ice roads are built and drilling rigs are in place, drills and sensors produce data that is quantified through supercomputers. The process of locating petroleum reserves beneath the surface is interesting but no less destructive.

I am firmly grounded in my belief that the Alaskan Arctic remains untouched. Area 1002 is part of one of this country’s last remaining wildlife refuges and also the farthest away from our mainland. Perhaps distance is why many people do not feel it imperative that we leave it be, out of sight out of mind. If more people had the opportunity to visit the land and see just how impressive natural life is there maybe more people would see a need in preserving the environment. I do take into consideration that Alaskan communities are also eager to tap into the reserves because the development would create much needed jobs and boost the local economy. However, not all-good intentions lead to positive consequences. For the locals to develop the land their ancestors have lived off of or not is a tough situation. I also know that this country would probably stop functioning if we ran out of oil and that a steady supply to meet our demand is necessary. I have heard in some of my college courses through the years that the US produces enough domestic oil to meet our demand in addition and we do import a great deal from the Middle East and Latin America. If our demand is currently being met then why seek more?

Since I was a little girl, I have been taught to enjoy and respect the living world. I do love the environment and do not hesitate to call myself “green” but at the same time I am also a humanitarian and do place the needs of the world’s people before all else. In knowing that our country’s population is reliant on science and technology to get us through the challenges we face, I know that we can develop other means to meet our needs, conservation being the key. More Americans must learn to accept conservation as a science. Conservation on practices that require enormous amounts of petroleum and conservation of our environment must be adopted. It is amazing that the US, the most developed country in the world, is so far behind our friends in terms of conservation. It is about time we drill into the American conscious and extract conservative practices. While humans remain here on Earth we will further science and technology and hopefully our betterment will not come at the cost of our world.

Work Cited

Gibbs, W. Wayt. “the arctic oil & wildlife refuge.” Scientific American May 2001:pages 62-69.