Two of the more important issues facing Americans today are terrorism and our dependence on foreign oil. To make matters worse, one is tied in with the other as a large portion of middle east oil money goes to fund terrorism. There are several solutions to this dilemma with the ultimate solution being alternative forms of energy, but until technology for such energy catches up to science fiction we are stuck with fossil fuels. In the meantime another alternative is to explore and extract more oil domestically. In this essay I will put forth a valid and factual argument for oil exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge(ANWR). I will set the record straight as to the misinformation campaign being waged by so-called environmentalist and their hidden agenda and the mainstream media’s willingness to convey their half-truths and blatant lies.

The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is roughly 10 million acres of barren tundra which is frozen and covered with ice three quarters of the year and a spongy wasteland the rest of the year. ANWR’s landscape has been likened to recent NASA pictures of Mars.(Peltier, "Power" Jul/Aug2004) The concession must be made that ANWR is a temporary home to migrating caribou and several species of migratory birds, but with over 24 years of oil production in Prudhoe Bay the population of caribou and birds has more than doubled. I am not saying this is because of Prudhoe Bay, but it says a lot about how the drilling in Prudhoe Bay has virtually no effect on the wildlife. Experience has shown us that oil wells can coexist with wild life, that sound environmental practices can go side by side with active drilling. This has been the case in numerous wildlife refuges in the lower 48. The environmental problems that have occurred have been the result of the federal government's owning the mineral rights and not controlling the leases therefore having limited control of forcing developers to use modern safe, technologically advanced methods to avoid environmental hazards. The argument about the effects any ANWR exploration would have on wildlife is just one of many put forth by enviromentalist.

Another misleading piece of information being put out by enviromental groups is the amount of area that is being proposed for development of oil extraction. Out of the 10 million acres that comprise ANWR only two thousand are being proposed for development. That is equivalent to the space a postage stamp would take up in Manhattan.(Forbes, "Forbes" 11/24/2003) Another little nugget of information being left out of envirometalists argument is the actual classification of the proposed area. Congress created ANWR in 1980, it also declared sizable parts of the refuge as wilderness, a designation that allows no development or motorized access. But the northernmost part of the refuge, where the proposed drilling would take place, was withheld from wilderness designation.(Bradner, "Alaska Oil&Gas" 7/8/2003) Another argument enviro’s are using against drilling in ANWR is the amount of oil that is ready for extraction. One example is an article in Rolling Stone magazine where they say"ANWR’s total proven reserves (roughly 3 billion barrels) is less than what the U.S. consumes in six months."(Griscom, Rolling Stone, 8/21/2003) This is a blatant lie. First of all there is no "proven reserves" data available, there are various estimates with the United States Geological Survey (USGS) estimating reserves between 10 billion and 16 trillion barrels of oil.(USGS, ANWR Petroleum Assessment Report, 1998) Now I must admit I am not good at math, but the Rollingstone 3 billion barrels and the low-ball USGS estimate of 10 billion barrels are two very different numbers. The USGS report was compiled by forty scientist. I wonder how many scientist the Rollingstone used. The enviro’s tried, and failed, to use the economic argument as well. They put forth reports stating that for the oil companies to make a profit off of ANWR oil, the price per barrel would have to be $19, with oil being over $40 per barrel in recent markets this argument is no longer valid. I must concede that this argument was made when oil was $12 a barrel. It was a valiant attempt, and to shake the sting of defeat the enviromentalist advanced conspiracy theories that president Bush was being controlled by "big oil."

One piece of evidence put forth and readily spread by mainstream media is the infamous energy summit held by the U.S. Energy Department and headed up by Vice President Dick Cheney. The enviromentalist accused the Bush administration of allowing only "big oil" and large campaign contributers to attend the summit, but what the enviro’s didn’t reveal and the media knew was that this was just not true. The Washington Times reveals "The Bush administration sought the advice of enviromental groups in drafting its energy plan, but several declined to participate. The Energy Department contacted Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, Environmental Defense, the World Resources Institute, Resources for the Future, and four other groups to discuss conservation and energy efficiency."(Bozell, "Weapons", p.36) This information was in documents released to the media and environmental groups by the Energy Department under pressure of law suits. Contrary to popular belief, conservatives do want to protect the environment. But conservatives don’t base their arguments on emotions, hysteria, or junk science. A great conservative mind, Dinesh D’Sousa, says it best: "Conservatives like trees, rivers, and baby seals as much as the next guy, but caring for the enviroment does not require Americans to walk lockstep with the radical environmentalist agenda."(D’Sousa, "Letters") Conservatives are conservationist, but the need for something to be done on our dependence on foreign oil is urgent.

The U.S. Energy Information Administration(EIA) concluded that by the year 2025 ANWR could be producing more energy than the largest oil field discovered in the world in the past 40 years-Prudhoe Bay, Alaska. Using USGS estimates the EIA calculates that in nine years ANWR could produce as much as 1.6 million barrels a day. The EIA also reports that if ANWR is opened up it would increase domestic oil production by 20% reducing oil importation from 64% to 60% and save the U.S. 15 billion dollars a year. The EIA also said that ANWR production would extend the life of the Trans-Alaskan Pipeline which could become uneconomical if oil throughput falls to between 200,000 to 400,000 barrels a day.(Dinesh, Oil Daily, 3/16/2004) This would take some of the leverage out of OPEC’s hands which in turn could lower oil by fifty cents a barrel. Another advantage to opening up ANWR is the explosion of jobs created. The National Defense Council estimates state that 2.2 million jobs would be created nationwide and thousands of jobs in economically depressed Alaska.(Peltier, "Power" Jul/Aug 2004)

With new hybrid automobiles advancing in both technology and appearance and work being done on hydrogen fuel cells the future is looking promising for alternative energies. But until it becomes economically feasible and all safety concerns are addressed we will still be dependent on fossil fuels. In this day, with the threat from terrorism emanating from the middle east, and our reliance on middles east oil the profits from which are known to fund terrorist activity, it has become urgent to lessen our dependence. One viable way of doing this would be to open up a small sliver of ANWR for oil production. This solution is a valid one that has and will stand up to the campaigns of misinformation put forth by the environmentalist groups.