Alaska Oil Drilling

Drilling in Alaska will not help stop the oil crisis. Many colonial Americans weren’t concerned about protecting natural resources because they thought they had a lot but they also knew that they needed to preserve the oil. Should the United States drill for oil in Alaska’s wilderness? America shouldn’t drill in Alaska because of the environment wilderness, protecting environment, and economics.

Oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is a very controversial topic. On one end you have the people who want to drill for oil to help out our economy, and on the other end there are the environmentalists and the Alaskan natives who do not want their land destroyed. Our economy needs help; oil prices keep rising, gas prices have reached an all time high, and America is depending too much on foreign trade. Drilling for oil in Alaska will solve these problems. There are ways of drilling without disturbing the environment and keeping the animals in their original habitat.

Today corporate profitability outweighs any environmental consequences and certainly takes precedence over implications to future generations. Canadas situation can be accurately surmised in a quote from Alanis Obomsawin, an Abenaki from the Odanak reserve, located northeast of Montreal and is quoted as saying:

Senator Everett Dirksen once noted “The oilcan is mightier than the sword”. In today’s world, it is easy to see why oil can be considered the most important resource to hold. Without oil, many of the common day occurrences we take for granted would be impossible. Oil is used for almost everything; from the fuel used to drive our vehicles, to the plastics used in every facet of life, and providing the heat needed to live through the winter. In fact, the United States depends so much on oil that as a nation it uses over 20 million barrels a day. Importing oil increases the total costs because of the need to transport it from around the world. It is estimated

A major claim from the supporters view is that there would decrease United States dependence on foreign oil. Although, it seems logical for the United States to drill on its own land to decrease dependence on imported oil, but that would not be the case in ANWR. According to the U.S. Geological Survey, there are 4-10 billion barrels of oil that can be recovered from the refuge’s coastal plain that is enough for another 4-10 months (Cunningham, 2009, p. 287). A poll from February 2000, Alaskans support opening ANWR

Con: No, America is heading towards a better way to produce energy, a clean renewable energy that is not dangerous to the environment.

     In 2004, the US imported an average of 58% of its oil and during certain months up to 64%. That equates to over $150 billion in oil imports and over $170 billion including refined petroleum products, which is approximately $19.9 million dollars an hour, according to ANWR supporters. Current legislation calls for responsible development on no more than 2000 acres of the 1.5 million acre coastal plain. That is 0.01% of ANWR's total acreage of 19.6 million. The remaining 99.9% would remain off limits to development (anwr.com).

Is developing the Arctic for oil and natural gas worth the powerful negative impact on the environment and native communities? The article published on September 20th, 2013 by Jennifer Weeks titled, “Future of the Arctic” examines the Arctic and the controversies within it. In the pro/con section of her article, Weeks asks the question, “Should the United States suspend Arctic offshore drilling?” Senator Mark Begich argues that the resources in the Arctic are too great of an opportunity to miss out on. Although Arctic drilling is a controversial topic, many people believe it should continue because of the financial and ethical circumstances; however, evidence to support this is lacking, which leads to the other side of the debate to be in

Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), the crowned jewel of the nation’s 544 refuges is in danger of destruction (Lamar and Markey 12). ANWR has been in existence since 1960 and has slowly become one of the most controversial topics to hit Congress. ANWR is composed of 19 million acres on the northeast coast of Alaska. Although the government has been provided with this immense land they are fighting to gain more land. Why? ANWR is the second biggest oil field that is owned by the U.S. Now the government wants more land to construct oil reserves. The refuge is home to many endangered species such as migratory birds, polar bears, and wolves (Lynne and Roberts 1). Most of ANWR’s designated oil area is owned by indigenous Alaskan

Hydraulic fracking in the United States is a current environmental hazard that has to be addressed by the American people and by the federal government. Fracking in America has opened up millions of acres of lands that were once not economically viable to produce oil and gas. While the Bureau of land Management has paved the way for hydraulic fracturing on public lands, there is a need for retaliation. Fracking is a dirty method of extracting gases and oils at the price of numerous environmental, safety, and health hazards. The environment is not a means of income when rather it is the capital for future generations.

With all the good the Arctic National Wildlife refuge has to offer as a safe haven for endangered animals and plant life, comes the burden of sitting on an oil reserve. As noted earlier in 1980, under President Carter, the protected area was doubled. However, the oil industry lobbies succeeded in having the U.S. Senate refuse to designate the critically important Costal Plain as wilderness. Instead, Section 1002 of the Alaskan National Interest Lands Conservation Act legislation directed the Department of Interior

The global span of ExxonMobil makes the importance of ethical behaviour paramount; however, this has not always been the case. Investigations (Banerjee 2015 & Various 2015) have revealed that ExxonMobil discovered the link between human activity and climate change years before it became a public issue. Instead of adapting its business model

The point of it all, in addition to understanding the detrimental effects that corporate actions can have on human health and the environment, is the realization that corporations have a frightening level of power and control over multiple aspects of our society. Not only do products sold, economic presence, and a high volume of jobs provided by corporations affect how we live, but the active role that corporations play in deliberately shaping how people think through media, research, and political lobbying raises questions of how far we are willing to let them go.

The economy today runs on an antiquated ritual of exploiting, plundering, devastation, and manipulation of land for material wealth, profiting the wealthy and condemning the poor. This mindset is no more sophisticated than feudalism, a system so bad it had to be outlawed along with witchcraft. The idea that exploitation of land is justified has brought plastics to the ocean and leveled rainforests. Large corporations have grown larger by manufacturing and production, depleting the planet’s resources in the process. Now, companies must make a combined effort to put the environment first, before profit. Because of their harmful practices, consumers have the right to know where products come from, how they’re made, and the impact on the environment. Furthermore, it is the responsibility of the large corporations to change their harmful practices, to make strides towards ending climate change and use clean, sustainable methods.

In 2004, Questar sent a proposal to BLM to invest in directional drilling that would minimise the land occupied by wells, required roadways and distribution pipes. The innovation would reduce any harmful effect on the wildlife. However, the drilling method is costly but can be justified by continuous drilling all through winter.