You don't say anything about how long this is supposed to be.
The answer is pretty much up to you. This is the kind of question where the teacher wants your point-of-view and to see that you have the ability to make it sensible.
The argument for staying out of the Alaskan Wildlife Reserve goes something like this:
The Alaskan Wildlife Reserve is irreplaceable. We have other ways of getting to oil and of transporting it. Yes, various oil companies have made it clear that the pipeline is very safe, that the chance of an accident is almost impossible. But that's the issue. There is a huge difference between impossible and almost impossible. Unlikely things happen: The Hindenburg explodes, the Titanic Sinks, the Exxon Valdez spilled its contents. For a place like the Alaskan Wildlife Reserve, even an unlikely incident is too much risk to take.
The argument for going in to the AWR is something like this:
Oil is vital to our national security. And it is essential to our economy. When we have to weigh the huge value of how we live our life against the miniscule risk of harming a national park, no matter how lovely, we must come down on the side of humanity. If we have the access to oil that the pipeline will provide, we can raise our standard of living, and create a happier populace. Our economy will improve, too; and that will give us the chance to afford improving the environment in the future. It's simply a matter of what is really the greater good for our citizens -- and that means running a pipeline through the Alaskan Wildlife Reserve.
Make your choice and go with the one you like better.