Offshore Oil Drilling

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.

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 U.S. military is fully behind continuing the moratorium on drilling in the eastern Gulf of Mexico. These areas have been utilized for years to develop, test and train a variety of combat systems. In May 2017, Anthony M. Kurta, the acting Under Secretary of Defense, sent a letter to Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) expressing the need to continue to drilling ban. Mr. Kurta expressed the need to retain the unrestricted training access to these areas, as multiple military bases, from Pensacola to Key West utilize these areas. Explaining that “Emerging technologies such as hypersonic[s], autonomous systems, and advanced sub-surface systems will require enlarged testing and training footprints, and increased DoD reliance on the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act’s moratorium beyond 2022. The moratorium is essential for developing and sustaining our nation’s future combat capabilities.” Increasing the drilling footprint in this region will clearly have a negative effect on the readiness and advancement of our military might. Others in strong opposition to this expansion are the environmental groups.

b) First, it would connect Cushing, Oklahoma, where there is a current bottleneck of oil, with the Gulf Coast of Texas, where oil refineries abound.

Since 1987, the issue of whether or not drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) should be allowed has been one of the concerns of political figures, as well as many Americans. This issue has been fought before the Senate at least three times since 1995. Each time it has been debated, the House has ruled in favor to drill, but the President has vetoed the proposal. Clinton was the last President to do so.

Still people make the argument that oil is just too important to stop drilling and that if anything we should drill more. Again author Margaret Haerens talks about how “According to the nation academy of Sciences, current cleanup methods can only remove a small fraction of the oil spilled into the ocean, leaving the remaining oil to continue affecting ocean ecosystems over time” (126). The long term impacts of offshore spills continue to corrupt the oceans and who knows when they will completely be gone. The effects of the oil directly on sea life such as sea birds, fish, shellfish, and other sea life are extremely dangers. “Studies have shown that tiny amounts of oil – as little as one part per billion – can harm pink salmon and cause their eggs to fail” (Haerens Margaret). Imagine swimming in the ocean when a large pool of toxic oils comes floating along right into you when you are trying to enjoy a day at the beach. Not only is offshore drilling have one of the longest lasting ecological impacts on society and living things on and off shore, it effects our economy as well.

The Debate Over the Idea of Drilling for Oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge

“The economic and other benefits of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge are so great that even environmentalist should agree to permit such drilling…and they probably would if they stood to benefit from it directly” (Easton, 2008)

Since Donald Trump took office as President of the United States, he has been a constant figure in the news. Earlier this month, his administration announced a plan to open U.S. coastal waters to offshore oil drilling. According to the New York Times article, the plan lifts a ban that was put in place by former President Barack Obama and gives energy companies access to billions of acres of the U.S. coastline along the Eastern Seaboard, the Artic, and the Pacific waters off California.

Offshore oil drilling is a controversial topic because when oil spills, it does extensive amounts of damage to the environment. Countries capable of mining oil in the ocean reap the economic benefits in addition to reducing their dependency on external oil. While it is uncontroversial that offshore drilling is a massive boon for those countries, the environmental consequences of a spill also affect the economic welfare of nearby residents. Oil contaminates animals through a process called biomagnification, where chemicals progressively become more detrimental to the animals the higher they are on the food chain. When oil spills into the ocean, it impairs the growth of native species and deteriorates the ecosystem. As a result, the livelihood of people in the tourist industry, fisherman, and shrimpers is crippled and may take decades to recover.

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

For more than a decade, debate over drilling for oil on the Coastal Plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge [ANWR] has continued unabated." This is the opening line of the introduction to the commonly encountered ethical paradox of economic interests versus moral interests. This paradox is steadfastly centered through the debate of oil drilling on the Coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The debate is considered and argued by diverse and infinitely intertwined societal organizations. The foremost of these organizations include the United States Federal Government, the government of the state of Alaska, various environmental groups, and the native populations of the region. Each of these groups have deep seeded motivations and internalized philosophies underlying specific positional tendencies, influences, and arguments. In considering this especially pervasive debate, it is these individual and

The battle over drilling in the ANWR to decrease our dependence on foreign oil has been debated since the park first opened in 1960 during the Eisenhower administration; however, it has reached a new peak with the recent terrorist attacks and the very pro-oil administration. With both our President and Vice President being former oilmen, the opening of the ANWR has been proposed (and heavily fought for) in their new energy bill (Kadlec). The section, which the Bush administration wishes to open, is located on the coastal plain and designated as Area 1002 encompassing 1.5 million acres (McCarthy). In 1998 the United States Geological Survey did a study of the land and found that it would produce an estimated 3 billion barrels to 16 billion barrels, barely a dent in the United States 7.1 billion barrel yearly consumption (NRDC).

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.

The Gazelle oil field offshore has been producing for a number of years with all production exported via oil pipeline system to Fort Thompson. The purpose of this report is to assess and identify two different development options for the Gazelle field from wellhead to process gas and condensate, define export methods to Fort Thompson, and recommend an option that is safe, economical and supports future development.