Arctic National Wildlife 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.

One of the last of the world’s true wilderness, the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge is “one of the largest sanctuaries for Arctic animals, (where)… it is a vital birthing ground for polar bears, grizzlies, Arctic wolves, caribou, and the endangered shaggy ox” (Document E). By drilling for oil on this land, we would potentially endanger the wildlife and the

The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) has been the center of a strident controversy and national debate that has raged for over 40 years. The question raising so much contention is whether the federal government should allow drilling for oil and natural gas with the levels of contention paralleling the rise and fall of gas prices. The National Democratic and Republican Parties have taken opposing positions in their national political platforms, with the debate emerging and re-emerging in Congress as a significant issue. The Republican are proponents of drilling whereas the Democrats are opposed. With Sen. Lisa Murkowski ascending to the top post of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee many observers believe that the Republicans will renew their push for drilling in the ANWR in the upcoming 114th Congress. This paper will explore the different arguments that are used to oppose drilling to protect the ANWR followed by arguments that are in support of drilling. As a result of a preliminary review of current literature outlining the pros and cons surrounding drilling, it is the thesis of this paper that drilling in the ANWR is unnecessary based on (1) the potential to cause irreversible damage to a very unique ecosystem that has not been adequately studied by scientists; and (2) the limited impact that drilling in the region will have on overall market prices and supplies due to the estimated small size of the ANWR’s oil and gas reserves. A brief history of the

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.

The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is not only America’s last “truly great wilderness”, but it is home to a multitude of species that would be affected if it were transformed into a place for an oil industry. It is also a symbol of our national heritage where settlers once called it the wilderness. Throughout the essay, Jimmy Carter gives thorough evidence on why we should not destroy this beautiful environment. His evidence includes descriptive language, the use of pathos, and logical reasoning.

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.

Would you really want to be responsible for destroying the animals home and the environment? The United States has a huge debate whether or not We should drill for oil in Alaska’s wilderness. But the answer seems pretty clear to me because it is not essential for our economy ,it is not valuable for the environment, and it is causing a social disruption. In the background essay, it says that many colonies We're not concerned about protecting our natural resources because they thought they had enough natural resources to last forever; But We don't, We are limited and some day in the not too distant future we may run out of natural resources so we have to circumspect and start protecting it by using other materials such

Jimmy Carter expresses his opinion about the Arctic Wildlife Refuge and how it should be conserved very strongly. He wisely mentions how if used for industry, many wild animals and their babies would end up homeless. Jimmy Carter also mentions that the local indigenous people would be stranded without their resources that they depended on for thousands of years. He claims that short-term economic gain is not worth America losing a symbol of its national heritage.

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

Another reason against drilling much research has shown that all the oil that will be produced will only last for about six months. The fact that the British Petroleum has greater potential to produce more oil and natural gasses (Markey 2004) than ANWR so why bother with it , supporting the case that drilling is pointless. Then there is the percentage that after oil production of ANWR, the foreign oil dependency will only drop from 56% to 50% (Markey 2004).Then the oil produced would reach the market ten years later after it was produced, leaving the gas price decrease to one percent(Lamar and Markey 12). There was also the reality of natural gases. ANWR does not confirm any sign of them, when President Bush ordered exploration for natural gasses (Klyza and Ford-Martin 1).Again proving drilling pointless.

America should drill in Alaska for oil because it's good for the economy. Document C says the United States uses more oil than it could find domestically, even if we were to drill on all public lands. The United States uses 25% to 30% of the oil produced

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

In this article, the authors explore the economics of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) in Alaska and the effects of drilling for oil there. They discuss the importance of private property rights, as does the article by Dwight Lee, To Drill or Not To Drill, and explore how the government has restricted the industry by deciding how natural resources are to be used. According to the article, drilling in ANWR is supported by those who want to decrease domestic dependence on foreign energy sources. It is opposed by environmentalists who do not want to disrupt the ecosystem because the amount of oil is uncertain and they see that any mistake made in the process of drilling as unacceptable (Schaeffer and Block 76).

The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is located in Alaska. This speech is by Jimmy Carter; adopted by Subhankar Banerjee. Jimmy Carter effectively persuades his audience to protect the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge from industrial development. Carter Convinces them through use of descriptive language, evidence, and emotional appeal. Carter persuades by using descriptive language to paint a picture.

America Should Reject the Oil Businesses Plan and Permanently Protect The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge