Arguments Against Oil Drilling in Alaska's Arctic Wildlife Refuge
This paper reviews scholarly and peer-reviewed literature on the debate over oil and gas development in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). It traces the legislative history of the Refuge, from Interior Secretary Seaton's 1960 designation through the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, and examines the contested "1002 Area" at the heart of the drilling debate. The paper presents proponents' economic and energy-security arguments alongside critics' environmental and cultural concerns, including threats to caribou calving grounds, native subsistence practices, and long-term ecological stability. It concludes that alternative energy solutions and improved fuel efficiency represent more sustainable responses to U.S. energy demand than exploiting this irreplaceable wilderness.
- Introduction: Energy demand context and paper thesis
- Legislative History of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge: ANWR designation history and federal protections
- The 1002 Area and the Debate Over Development: Section 1002 ANILCA and coastal plain controversy
- Economic and Energy Security Arguments for Drilling: Pro-drilling jobs, revenue, and energy independence claims
- Environmental and Cultural Consequences of Exploitation: Wildlife, native culture, and ecological harm risks
- Conclusion: Alternative energy preferred over ANWR exploitation
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- Presents a balanced literature review by giving concrete space to both proponents and critics before reaching a clear conclusion, demonstrating intellectual honesty.
- Grounds the policy debate in specific legislation (ANILCA, Section 1002), which adds legal precision and credibility to the argument.
- Uses a structured list of pro-drilling points drawn directly from Arnold (2001) and then systematically counters them with peer-reviewed environmental evidence, creating a clear dialectical structure.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates effective use of a literature review to build a policy argument. Rather than relying on a single source, the author synthesizes more than a dozen scholarly and journalistic sources, using each to address a distinct facet of the issue — legislative history, economic benefits, ecological risk, and native cultural impact — before converging on a unified conclusion. This multi-source synthesis is a hallmark of graduate-level research writing.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with an introduction that frames the energy-security context and states the thesis. A combined review-and-discussion section then moves chronologically through legislative history, explains the 1002 Area controversy, enumerates pro-drilling economic arguments, and presents environmental and cultural counter-evidence. A concluding section restates the thesis and adds a forward-looking "future generations" framing. Works Cited follows MLA format throughout.
Introduction
As energy costs continue to increase, the demand for domestic sources of oil has become more pronounced than ever. The burgeoning economies of China and India are placing an enormous strain on the world's oil supplies, and many Americans are facing harsh realities at the gas pump. In this environment, developing and exploiting the country's domestic natural resources appears to make good sense, and the enormous resources available in Alaska in particular seem to represent a short-term solution to the growing demand for oil and gas. Nevertheless, while oil and gas are fungible products with known alternatives, the unique qualities of the environmentally fragile Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska are not replaceable. Exploiting these resources to solve a long-term problem is misguided and poses a significant threat to the viability of this vast region for generations of Americans to come. To determine what both sides have to say about this issue, this paper reviews the peer-reviewed and scholarly literature concerning further exploitation of Alaska's oil and gas reserves and its concomitant environmental impact, followed by a summary of the research and important findings in the conclusion.
Legislative History of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge
The long gas lines of the 1980s were just a fading memory when the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 took place. In response to these attacks, and based on a growing perception among Americans that the country's dependence on Middle Eastern oil was contributing to the nation's problems, there has been a groundswell of support for developing domestic sources of oil. As a result, many observers point to the known oil reserves and potential reserves in Alaska as a solution to this energy crisis. According to Herndon, "In the far northeastern corner of Alaska remains the last great wilderness in the United States. Calling this area the last great wilderness is a statement not made lightly; people have been calling it that for almost 50 years. The name of the place is so often mentioned that even the most ardent sociophobe has probably heard of it: the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge" (72).
The U.S. Congress established the ANWR in 1980 to prevent further development of oil and gas reserves on approximately 8 million acres by declaring the region a wilderness; an additional 9.5 million acres was placed off-limits to exploitation by declaring it a wildlife refuge (16 U.S.C., Section 3101). As Grover (1998) notes, "The Refuge, as ANWR is sometimes called, currently enjoys the relative protection of federal law. Since 1957, the United States Department of the Interior has exercised primary administrative authority over most of the land comprising modern-day ANWR. This fact has meant a great deal to people who care about the Refuge" (1169).
The existing protections are no accident. The legislation that set aside the wilderness and refuge areas of Alaska is the deliberate result of the U.S. government's decision to keep oil and gas development out of the ANWR specifically to preserve the region's wilderness. According to Stanke, "In 1960, Fred Seaton, as Interior Secretary for the Eisenhower administration, designated 8.9 million acres in the northeastern corner of Alaska the Arctic National Wildlife Range — a sanctuary for wildlife and wilderness conservation" (905). As Grover points out, Interior Secretary Seaton's 1960 withdrawal order clearly stated the purposes for which the new wildlife range was to be managed: preserving the "unique wildlife, wilderness and recreational values" of the region (1169). During the period from 1960 to 1979, the U.S. Department of the Interior managed the Range in a fashion congruent with the intent of that statement, in spite of the vast natural resources discovered near Prudhoe Bay (Grover 1169). According to Weaver and Asmus (2006), the Prudhoe Bay oil field is the largest oil field in the United States. Not surprisingly, these resources attracted a great deal of attention from commercial interests, but Stanke notes that the fact that the Refuge exists at all is "the deliberate result of United States wilderness-preservation policy in place since the 1950s" (906).
Works Cited
Arnold, Andrew. "Oil: America's Expensive Lifeblood — New Oil from Alaska?" World and I 16.9 (2001): 56.
Dombrowski, Kirk. Against Culture: Development, Politics, and Religion in Indian Alaska. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press, 2001.
Dunn, Seth. "Why Oil and Wildlife Don't Mix." World Watch 14.3 (2001): 2.
Gildart, Ben. "Hunting for Their Future: Alaska's Gwich'in Indians Fear That Proposed Oil Drilling on Caribou Calving Grounds Could End Their Ancient Culture." National Wildlife 35.6 (1997): 20.
Grover, Todd. "Arctic Equity? The Supreme Court's Resolution of United States v. Alaska." Environmental Law 28.4 (1998): 1169.
Herndon, Mark. "The Last Frontier: The Last True Wilderness Is Increasingly at Risk in the Current Political Climate, with Calls for Less Dependency on Foreign Oil Focusing Attention on the Alaskan Preserves." Forum for Applied Research and Public Policy 16.4 (2002): 72.
Hertsgaard, Mark. "Trashing the Environment: Kyoto Was Just a Start for Bush." The Nation 276.4 (3 Feb. 2003): 15.
Hoar, William P. "Setback for Energy Foes." The New American 21.8 (18 Apr. 2005): 42.
Lieberman, Ben. "Alaska Oil Drilling Myths." The Washington Times 20 Dec. 2005: 16.
Meadows, William H. "Q: Should Congress Allow More Drilling for Gas Deposits on Federal Lands? No — More Drilling on Public Lands Would Do Little to Answer Long-Term Energy Challenges." Insight on the News 30 Sept. 2003: 47.
National Wilderness System Preservation Act of 1964, Pub. L. No. 88-577, Section 2, 78 Stat. 890–96 (codified at 16 U.S.C. § 1131–36 (2000)), cited in Stanke at 906.
Stanke, Samuel. "Like Wilderness, but Need Oil? Securing America's Future Energy Act Puts Little between Accident-Prone Oil Companies and the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge." Environmental Law 32.4 (2002): 905–8.
Weaver, Jacqueline Lang, and David F. Asmus. "Unitizing Oil and Gas Fields around the World: A Comparative Analysis of National Laws and Private Contracts." Houston Journal of International Law 28.1 (2006): 3.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.