Arctic National Wildlife Refuge

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

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

In drilling for oil in ANWR, the destruction of the land will be kept to a minimum. Everything that can possibly be done to limit the destruction

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 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.

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

Has anyone been to Alaska, or will plan a trip to Alaska? Well it’s a land of cold dark weather that doesn’t appeal to most, but Alaska has been a major topic to the government that affects me and you. The Alaska tundra has been in question to drill oil or to protect the precious environment there. Should the Alaska tundra be opened for oil drilling?

With an increasing global population and ever industrializing society 's, environmental concern is rarely given priority over economic incentive. But what people fail to realize is that our environmental failures, and relative apathy about it set up a plethora of problems for future generations to deal with. One of the most important decisions president Obama will face in the next year will be whether or not to approve the building of the Keystone XL pipeline, a massively sized, and massively controversial oil pipeline that would stretch all the way from Alberta Canada, to American oil refineries along the Gulf Of Mexico. Despite the economic incentive present, the building of the Keystone XL pipeline should not happen because of the

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

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 has been in an oil crisis for many years, it should stop. People and companies are using more oil than they should. Oil supplies are fragile. If the United States drills for oil in several other countries it would cost a lot of money and gas prices will increase. There is an option of drilling in Alaska for oil. If the United States did drill it would be cheaper because it is domestic. If the United States collected oil from Alaska's wildlife it would have an overall positive outcome.

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.”