Against Oil Drilling in Alaska's Arctic Wildlife Refuge
This paper examines two competing perspectives on oil drilling within Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). Drawing on articles by Bourne (2015) in National Geographic and Jans (2015) in USA Today, the paper assesses the economic and environmental arguments presented on each side. Bourne emphasizes Alaska's fiscal deficit and the precedent set by other Arctic nations expanding drilling operations, while Jans stresses habitat preservation, wildlife vulnerability, and the uncertain extent of recoverable oil. The paper evaluates how each author frames their argument, identifies the rhetorical strategies and omissions employed, and concludes that Jans presents the stronger case, given the irreversible nature of ecosystem damage compared with the option of deferring drilling indefinitely.
- Introduction: Context on ANWR drilling debate and sources
- Bourne's Economic Case for Drilling: Alaska's fiscal deficit and Arctic competitor drilling
- Jans's Environmental Case Against Drilling: Wildlife habitat and lack of confirmed oil reserves
- Comparing the Two Arguments: Rhetorical strategies, omissions, and bias in both articles
- Conclusion: Personal verdict favoring environmental protection
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- It uses a clear compare-and-contrast structure, examining each source article on its own terms before evaluating them side by side.
- It identifies rhetorical strategy and selective omission as analytical tools, showing that both authors deliberately exclude counterpoints that would weaken their positions.
- The conclusion takes a reasoned personal stance — favoring environmental protection over economic gain — and justifies it with a logical asymmetry: ecological damage is irreversible, while the option to drill can always be revisited later.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates source analysis and bias identification. Rather than simply summarizing what each author claims, it interrogates what each author omits — Bourne ignores environmental costs while Jans ignores economic ones — and uses those omissions as evidence of bias. This move from description to critical evaluation is a foundational undergraduate analytical skill.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with background context on declining U.S. oil reserves and ANWR's significance, then dedicates one section each to summarizing Bourne and Jans. A comparative analysis section weighs both arguments for rhetorical balance and factual completeness, and a brief conclusion delivers a personal verdict with justification. The structure is compact and linear, suitable for a short analytical essay at the undergraduate level.
Introduction
The subject of oil drilling in Alaska has long been controversial. With declining oil reserves, attention has turned — among both the public and the oil industry — toward identifying potential new sources of supply. Although oil drilling in Alaska currently accounts for only about 7% of U.S. oil production, surveys have indicated there could be sizable reserves within the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) (Bourne, 2015). Articles have been published both supporting and opposing the idea of granting new drilling licenses in the region.
An article by Bourne (2015), published in National Geographic, presents a number of arguments broadly in favor of drilling. Conversely, an article by Jans (2015), published in USA Today, supports a ban on drilling within ANWR. Each article is reviewed below and its arguments assessed in turn.
Bourne's Economic Case for Drilling
Bourne (2015) examines how recent legislation expanding the protected boundaries of ANWR would prevent oil drilling in the area. He notes that the decision has angered many Alaskans; Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski described it as a "stunning attack on our sovereignty" (Bourne, 2015). Bourne's argument is primarily economic: Alaska needs the revenue, and while drilling is being curtailed there, other Arctic nations are accelerating their own development. He cites Norway's plans to open additional areas in the Barents Sea, and Gazprom of Russia's announcement that it will drill four more wells in the Pechora Sea (Bourne, 2015).
Alaska has already suffered from declining production at existing oil wells, and with falling prices the result has been a state deficit of $3.5 billion, driven by lower tax revenues (Bourne, 2015). Bourne concedes that most recoverable reserves are likely to be offshore and that significant uncertainty remains regarding the actual volume of oil that may be present. Nevertheless, he maintains that the economic case for permitting drilling is compelling. His argument gains a degree of apparent balance from this acknowledgment of uncertainty, though he stops short of suggesting the reserves could prove minimal or nonexistent.
Jans's Environmental Case Against Drilling
Jans (2015) argues against drilling and in support of the extended ANWR boundary. He begins by noting that a central issue may not be whether drilling should be permitted, but who has the right to decide — acknowledging lingering Alaskan resentment over what many view as a federal land grab dating to the 1970s. However, Jans goes on to argue that there is no confirmed evidence oil exists in the area beyond cursory geological surveys, making the economic justification speculative at best.
Jans's stronger emphasis is on environmental protection. He notes that while the region may appear to be a frozen wasteland in winter, polar bears excavate dens there to give birth to their cubs. In summer, the refuge transforms into a vital habitat: it supports the Porcupine Caribou herd, serves as a nesting ground for numerous migratory bird species, and sustains many other animals that are intolerant of industrial human activity. Jans argues that all of these species would be harmed if drilling proceeded, and he reports that scientists have warned that polar bears — already in decline — could disappear entirely if development goes ahead (Jans, 2015).
Conclusion
From a personal perspective, Jans's argument is stronger: more facts are presented, and the case is more compelling overall. Bourne bases his argument solely on economic considerations — and while those considerations are real and significant, one may reasonably argue that irreversible damage to an Arctic ecosystem represents a cost that cannot be offset by fiscal gains. Choosing not to drill now preserves future options; choosing to drill forecloses them permanently.
References
Bourne, J. K. (2015). What Obama's drilling bans mean for Alaska and the Arctic. National Geographic. Retrieved from http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2015/02/150205-obama-alaska-oil-anwr-arctic-offshore-drilling/
Jans, N. (2015, January 29). Why Obama is right to spare ANWR. USA Today. Retrieved from http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/01/29/obama-spare-anwr-nature-wilderness-animals-oil-drilling-sell-column/22553125/
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.