Drilling Is Bad... Blah, Blah, Blah
by Piper Wallingford

When the Alaska Pipeline first divided the Alaskan peninsula, environmental activists prophesized the wanton destruction of the ecosystem (due to oil spills, according to their predictions) and the unavoidable declines of the caribou population and aesthetics—it would never be as pretty as it used to be. Were they right? Not really. The caribou seem to be smart enough to breed despite the pipeline. In fact, their numbers have grown from 6,000 to almost 30,000. The most destructive oil spill related to the pipeline occurred when the drunken captain of the Exxon Valdez ran his ship into a reef. And aesthetics? Well I suppose beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but the pipeline has a 48-inch diameter in a state more than 800 miles wide.

Admittedly, the pipeline is not perfect-nothing built by humans is. But, with minimal environmental impact, it provided a necessary commodity to a petroleum-based economy. And now environmentalists are once again drawing on the same used-up doom-and-gloom prophesies, while those interested in expansion can use the Alaska Pipeline as an "I told you so" argument to promote oil shale mining in Utah.

In October 2008, the Utah Bureau of Land Management proposed six resource management plans to develop oil shale resources. Oil shale produces oil similar to conventional crude oil. Unlike petroleum, however, oil from oil shale is trapped inside sedimentary rocks. Extraction is more expensive than typical mining processes, but the United States has one of the world's largest deposits of oil shale. The Green River formation, which underlies the area in Utah, holds close to 1.8 trillion barrels.

Proponents of the land management plans argue that developing an oil shale industry would decrease foreign oil dependence and lead to steady gas prices. Oil shale and energy independence would also provide economic benefits. Importing costs of foreign oil would be non-existent, and there would be new jobs in the extraction and refining processes-not glamorous jobs, but a job is a job, especially in this economy.

The environmentalists, however, maintain that the drilling will decrease wildlife protection and compromise the cultural and natural value of southeastern Utah. Run-off will poison ecosystems, mule deer and bighorn sheep populations will decline because of fragmented habitats, and mining will destroy the natural beauty of the area.

Does this sound familiar? Proponents were quick to point out that environmentalists had been wrong about complete environmental destruction before. Just look how many caribou there are now-bighorn sheep and mule deer will be just fine as well. Their populations will probably increase, right? And what about beauty and aesthetics? Open pit mines are the easiest and most economically viable option for extracting oil shale. The mining operations will certainly demolish some mountains; the majestic Rocky Mountains will never be the same. But then it is only a few mountains, not the entire mountain range. And the pipeline is only 48 centimeters in diameter, even though it stretches for 800 miles.

Realistically, oil shale processing in Utah could cause ecosystem destruction, wildlife endangerment, and a loss in natural beauty. Realistically, the same could have happened in Alaska. It didn't, but one situation has no effect on the other. Environmentalists' claims are repetitive missives of doom, but they are based on logical outcomes. If a leak had occurred in Alaska, the resulting spill could have affected hundreds of miles of fragile tundra. Realistically, the doom-and-gloom prophesies are based on science and probability. But when environmentalists apply the same predictions, made with practically the same language, they become easy to ignore. And when predictions do not come true, they can be used against the prophet.

Predictions about the Alaska Pipeline were wrong; predictions about Utah drilling have yet to be proved in either direction. But environmentalists who are trying to raise awareness should be careful about the language they use and the comparisons they make. Words are a potent tool: they have just as much power to enlist aid as they do to alienate.