Ocean Wildlife Face Case Study

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.

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.

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.

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

     The Arctic National Wildlife Reserve (ANWR) is a beautiful 19.6 million acre coastal plain, and is located in the Northeastern part of Alaska. ANWR is home to numerous species of wildlife and one of the largest untapped oil preserves in the United States. There is an immense debate between the opposing environmentalists and the politicians who want to drill for oil on a section of ANWR, which is only 1.8% of the refuge. Environmentalists who oppose drilling for oil in Alaska say the wildlife and the native populations are threatened by drilling for oil in ANWR, even though most of the natives are strongly in favor of drilling. ANWR could save the US from having to import $800 billion worth

With the past presidential campaign, George W. Bush vowed to open area 1002 to drilling. Now he is in office, along with Interior Secretary, Gail Norton, who shares his view. Legislation was introduced in the House and Senate in early March 2001 to open the plain to drilling. Because of its enormous potential and the vital need for domestic sources of oil and gas, the Department of Interior recommends that the Congress enact

The Caribbean Conservation Corporation, Audubon Florida, Everglades Conservation Foundation and OCEANA, to name a few, have taken steps to educate the public on the reasons to cease any increased drilling

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

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