North Shore Oil Exploration and Drilling
There is some evidence that oil exists under the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. This has led to a huge debate as to whether or not companies should be allowed to drill for this oil. A law was passed by congress in 1980 that states “production of oil and gas from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is prohibited and no leasing or other development leading to production of oil and gas from the [Refuge] shall be undertaken until authorized by an act of Congress.” If these oil companies do succeed in abolishing this law, then a land that has stood virtually untouched would be destroyed for what the United States Geological Survey has estimated is only 6 months worth of oil.
Much of Alaska’s
…show more content…
Congress would have liked to time the drilling in ANWR in correlation with the highest world market prices for oil. Since those prices are so hard to predict, America feels like now is as good of time as any. Elliott Negin, spokesman for the Natural Resources Defense Council in Washington, said “the oil in ANWR will have no effect on the global price of oil because it is to small an amount.” Even pro-drilling lobbyists agree that the amount of oil in ANWR would not affect America’s oil problems. Why then do they continue to lobby pro-drilling in the refuge?
What are some benefits of drilling in ANWR? Unemployment is currently at an all-time high. With the establishment of oil rigs and drills around the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, there would be a total of 700,000 new jobs for Americans. True, these jobs will disappear in a few decades when the drilling in completed, but maybe by then there will be new opportunities for the workers. By drilling in ANWR, we would reduce the amount of imported oil by 5 percent which is equivalent to one year’s total imports. It would also keep the price of gas lower here then in other countries around the world. In response to the argument that this is undisturbed country, the Inupiat people have lived there for centuries, using hunting and gathering techniques. Even the Inupiat Mayor has publicly endorsed the idea of drilling in ANWR. He
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
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.
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
Throughout paragraph five he describes the protections put into place during 1960 by Eisenhower, protecting an 8.9 million acre area of the preserve that was future extended to more than 100 million acres during Carter's presidency. And he states since he left office there have been repeated proposals to open the coastal plain to oil drilling which he states “those attempts have failed because they met tremendous opposition… especially from the Gwich’in Athabascan Indians.” He also refutes the proposal directly, describing how the economical benefits from industrializing the arctic refuge would be minute at best, expressing that “at best the artic refuge might provide one to two percent of the oil our country consumes
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?
Legislation which would make this entire available for oil drilling. Ms. Norton has been given the right to impose necessary and appropriate measures to protect refuge resource while efficiently removing oil. Despite the remote location, it is the most attractive onshore petroleum exploration target in the United States (Resource Assessment '). It appears that the President, his Interior Secretary, and the Department of Interior have forgotten the first reason for creating this refuge. It was done by humans, who valued
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.
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
Another benefit of offshore oil drilling consists of increasing job opportunities for people. The unstable economy in the United States results in people losing their jobs quite often. In the book Offshore Drilling, the loss of job opportunity in the United States is explained this way:
Oil Drilling has many effects on the environment from the air we breathe to the oceans that inhabit many species. While one of the outcomes of oil drilling is money, it is forgotten that money won’t help repair all of the damage that is done to mother nature. Not only does the outcome of drilling for fossil fuels affect the oceans, rainforest, etc. it also has an effect on local business’ and the health of humans. If people want change, they need to be the