Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Dispute

America shouldn’t drill in Alaska because it doesn’t really help our economy. In document B it states that “ If oil is discovered less than 2,000 acres of the 150 million acres of the coastal plain would be affected.” The oil from the ANWR possibly created up to 735,000 jobs because they are building a new oil refinery and they need places to get

Many people would find it easy to sympathize with the conservation of the natural, magnificent wilderness and all of its glory; and Subhankar Banerjee, the author of Arctic National Wildlife Refuge: Seasons of Life and Land, A Photographic Journey, uses that sympathy to gain the reader’s support in his claims. While his article does offer a very compassionate viewpoint with vivid imagery to capture the reader’s attention, it lacks strong logos arguments to back up his claims and falls victim to a few major logical fallacy points that injure his stance.

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

Environmentalists are one the biggest critics against the notion of increasing domestic oil drilling. By increasing the amount of drilling we do in the United States, we increase the risk of disasters like the Deepwater Horizon spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Disasters are hardly the only source of economic damage either, to find oil reserves under the ocean, seismic waves are generated into the ground. These waves bounce off the ground back up to the ship, where computers and scientist can use the results to make educated guesses on whether or not oil is located under the surface. These seismic waves can wreak havoc with marine animals like whales; where in one case over 100 whales beached themselves to get away from the painful experience (Nixon). Using seismic waves does not even guarantee that oil might be located underneath the surface, the only way to tell is to actually drill into the potential finds causing even more destruction for what might be for no gain. Once oil is found and drilling has begun, the amount of damage done to the environment can become unimaginable. The recent example is that of the Deepwater

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.

Offshore drilling has become an essential part of today’s oil production and demand for energy. With the growth of population comes the increasing demand for oil. The oil industry today, is one of the most used providers of energy. Today in the 20th century the majority of the population in America has a car and cars needs gas to run. The oil reserves in the earth that are easily accessible via land are starting to run dry and are becoming harder to find. This is why we have begun to see more and more offshore oil drills. Although there are benefits of offshore drilling such as profit, lower gas prices, and becoming less dependent on foreign oil. There are also many drawbacks in which if something were to go wrong, the mistake would be catastrophic impacting the environment, the nature, and have trickling effects all around the world.

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.

Thesis: If the United States is going to choose to conserve energy responsibly, then our government's energies should not be focused on developing oil in the ANWR, but rather on the topics of conservation through higher fuel efficiency standards in vehicles and by developing alternative energy sources. Conservation, fuel efficiency and alternative energy sources are the solutions that will lead us to a long term and sustainable energy future.

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

The United States purchased Alaska from the Russian Empire on March 30, 1867 for 7.2 million U.S. dollars. Alaska became a U.S. territory on May 11, 1912 and gained statehood on January 3, 1959. After the United States’ purchase of Alaska from Russia, controversy stirred as to the official boundary between Canada and the United States. The boundary separating the two countries was only vaguely defined at the time. The territory dispute dates back to 1821 between Russian and the British Empire, before the U.S. purchase of the territory. In 1825, Russia and the British Empire signed a treaty to define the international border. Land claims eventually overlapped after the U.S. purchase of Alaska from Russia with several British Empire claims located

Protect the Arctic Refuge Jimmy Carter’s forward to Arctic National Wildlife Refuge: Seasons of life and Land, A Photographic Journey by Subhankar Banerjee asserts that the Arctic Wildlife Refuge should be protected by the government and the people of America. Carter supports his argument by using imagery, historical evidence, and tone. First, Carter uses a description of the Arctic refuge to prove that imagery supports his requests. The Arctic Refuge is described as “As the never setting sun circled above the horizon, we watched the muskox, those shaggy survivors of the Ice Age, lumer along braided river that meander toward the Beaufort Sea.”

As global warming has helped dissipate the glaciers and icebergs of the Arctic region, new areas are becoming accessible for commercial shipping, fishing and energy development. The Arctic Council (since 1996) has therefore taken up the challenge of mapping out sovereign bodies to legally allocate and utilize the Arctic region’s vast bounds of natural resources; to settle territorial disputes between the primary Arctic Nations. Today, countries such as the UK are discontented by the fact that the Arctic is not being treated as a country which should be divided among the international community.

It’s the middle of summer, 2009, on the West family homestead and Danny, Jack, Rowen and there wife’s are trying to gather enough food before the harsh Alaskan winter bears down on the homestead. Alaskan winter tempters can soar below -20. Danny, Rowen and Jack have to hunt, catch fish and trap food for the whole family to survive the winter. The whole family live on the head of Kachemak Bay, where the closes shopping centre is a 12 hour drive on a dirt road.