About Alaska
Alaska became a State in 1959 (Sold to U.S. in 1866 for $7,200,000) and is the 49th State, plus it is 586,400 square miles (largest state by area). Alaska, in area is equal to about one-fifth the continental United States, and it can be divided into four major provinces: the Pacific Mountain system is the Pacific Border Ranges, The Coastal Trough province, the Alaska Mountains–Aleutian region; Interior Province, Brooks Range, and Arctic Coastal Plain. Alaska contains almost 34’000 miles, including myriad islands, of tidal wave shoreline. The chain the Aleutian Islands extends from the southern west tip of the Alaskan island. Aleutians has many active volcanos and also some in coastal regions. For example, Unimak Island, where
…show more content…
It was considered one of the seven wonders of the united stated by ASCE it also brought it many jobs as construction of the pipeline caused a massive economic boom in towns on the pipeline route. However, oil production in Prudhoe Bay has declined, and the pipeline is working only a third of its capacity. Hence, the debate over whether or not to increase oil exploration in section 1002, which includes 1.5 million acres in the northern part of ANWR. There are several issues related of drilling for oil in ANWR that make this controversy different. The people of Alaska favor opening up Section 1002 for oil drilling, as it would provide jobs and all of the economic development associated with oil-related infrastructure; The Congressional delegation from Alaska strongly supports drilling in Section 1002, citing the importance of oil independence and American jobs to our economy; Most of the support for keeping Section 1002 in its current state of minimal development is from the other 48 states, such as NGOs like Defenders of Wildlife, The Wilderness Society, and the National Wildlife Federation who point to the intent of maintaining ANWR as a natural area (off limits to drilling), its ecological value, and its existence value to all Americans. The impact of drilling will have on the relatively pristine …show more content…
It is wrong when it tends otherwise.” I partially disagree with Leopold’s principle because as an engineer I know things don’t always function properly just because it looks beautiful but nonetheless, I have to add to the principle that the “thing” should also leave a place for our future generations. While drilling for oil may seem attractive to the natives or townsfolk of the area as it brings more jobs and creates an economic boom, the problem will be faced in the future. In the short run it might and will bring prosperity to Alaska but the estimate of oil in section 1002 is only between 3 and 10.4 billion barrels of oil in the coastal plain that is economically recoverable at $30 per barrel. If we look at the yearly consumption of oil in America this might last at most two years and then it might become a decline in oil again leaving only abandoned well in a well preserved reserve. We should stop any type of drilling in ANWR as it might ruin the land for our future grandsons who will take over after
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.
Most individuals may think that drilling and transporting oil on the ANWR will put many animals in danger, when in all reality the animals and their environment will be subjected to little or no danger. There are many reasons for this. Firstly, a great deal of oil drilling experience has already been learned in the Arctic area because of previous drilling done at Prudhoe Bay, which has taught oil companies extensive safety precautions in the drilling and transporting of oil. Prudhoe Bay which is only couple miles from the ANWR and currently Americas largest source of oil is said to rival the amount of oil on the ANWR. Moreover, the ANWR stretches a vast 19 million acres and the only land that is going to be affected by the drilling is a mere 1.9 million acres, called the 1002 area. That is only 2% of the ANWR region. Of the 1.9 million acres only 2000 of those acres will actually be utilized for drilling purposes. Conclusively, this should in no way endanger the animals in this area.
I recently read an article in Scientific American (May 2001) titled “the arctic oil & wildlife refuge.” The article addresses the issue of whether or not science has the ability to clarify the potential economic benefits and the ecological risks of drilling into the nation’s last great coastal wilderness preserve. What I began to wonder after reading the article is, if we humans should continue our scientific and technological petroleum endeavors even though we are causing irreversible harm to our earth. My feeling is that we should not drill in Alaska’s Arctic.
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
To begin Alaska is the largest state in the union. At 587,878 miles the boundaries of Alaska stretch from the western seaboard, all the way to the Arctic Circle. In comparison Rhode Island only encompasses a measly 1,213 square miles making it roughly four hundred
Alaskan men have a long history of struggling to survive in the wilderness. Today, some, like the Gwich 'in, a native Alaskan tribe, still choose to live off nature. Recently, though a new argument has come to Alaska, one that could destroy the traditions of the Gwich’in forever. Politicians, environmentalists, economists and neighbors now fight over the prospect of oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Many of the arguments for drilling are worth consideration; however, in comparison to the evidence against it, they are neither convincing nor compelling.
Drilling oil in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) is a serious issue for environmentalists and for the future of the United States. Should the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge be opened to oil drilling? This paper will debate whether or not we should allow Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to be opened to oil drilling. This will also show the impact it has on the environment, and I will show a critical analysis of the current issue of whether or not to drill.
The question is should we drill for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve. While there are downfalls to drilling the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve, the benefits to the country and to Alaska far outweigh them. These benefits include lower gas prices, more jobs, energy independence.
America Should Reject the Oil Businesses Plan and Permanently Protect The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge
I did not support the drilling in Alaska. Even though it help us with helping our economy, with extra resources for energy, a positive social impact, and increase national defense. But it would not help the negative social impact the pollution and horrible environment for the animals that live in Alaska. Alaska would have a horrible impact with the drilling, and the lives that live there would be affected by it. Even if the United States decide to draw an Alaskan they may have also ate oil spill that would affect other people's
The week when working on the annotative bibliography I found it easy to identity the strongest research materials that I had collected over the past 7 weeks and use those resources first. I believe all of us had a few journals and/or books that really provided a wealth of information on our topics, which were the start of our annotative bibliography work.
The Dangers of Propaganda “2+2=5.” This famous quote from George Orwell’s novel, 1984, exemplifies the false ideas that the Inner Party injects into its citizens. The Inner Party enforces its ideas through brute police force, mass surveillance, intimidation and especially propaganda. Although a fictional novel, the dangers of 1984 are not too far off from the real world. Police brutality and mass surveillance from the NSA (National Security Agency) are major problems that mirrors America similar to the totalitarian state of 1984.
The world, as we know it, is in the midst of having an oil crisis. Our nation starves and bends at the will of this dreadful calamity. Our deprivation for this atrocious corruption has led us to look for oil deposits in the Alaskan Wilderness. The US needs oil and by drilling for oil on our own land, we would help our economy, but in doing so would destroy the beauty of the wilderness and harm many others. The matter on hand is that should we drill for oil in Alaska’s wilderness? My opinion and answer to this question would simply be no. The United States of America should not drill for oil in the Alaskan wilderness.
Both feminist writers, Betty Friedan and Charlotte Perkins Gilman, addressed life for the average woman. The writers showed the harsh realities that women in society faced not only as women, but as mothers which came with its own set of battles. As history has shown, women were expected to be the more emotional sex by nature, but it was displayed through both works that when these emotions come to the forefront to the women’s lives, manifested as mental health issues, they are disregarded. It seems as if these emotions become inconvenient to those surrounding the women and they are blamed for having these feelings that their surroundings have bestowed upon them.. It is the problem that society was dominated by the thought that men knew best when it came to a woman’s well being. This male-centric ideology that female emotions or sadness were problematic shows that the mistreatment of female mental health in society is often perpetuated by the unquestioned male authority we live under.