Oil Drilling Endangers Arctic National Wildlife Riches

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.

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.

In his foreword, President Jimmy Carter proposes his thoughts on oil drilling in the Arctic Refuge. He contends that the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge should not be developed for the oil industry. He believes in the preservation of wildlife and the natural beauty that it provides. His argument is solidly structured by a personal anecdote, historical evidence of actions taken towards preservation, and a refutation to advocates of the drilling activity.

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

     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

Is developing the Arctic for oil and natural gas worth the powerful negative impact on the environment and native communities? The article published on September 20th, 2013 by Jennifer Weeks titled, “Future of the Arctic” examines the Arctic and the controversies within it. In the pro/con section of her article, Weeks asks the question, “Should the United States suspend Arctic offshore drilling?” Senator Mark Begich argues that the resources in the Arctic are too great of an opportunity to miss out on. Although Arctic drilling is a controversial topic, many people believe it should continue because of the financial and ethical circumstances; however, evidence to support this is lacking, which leads to the other side of the debate to be in

Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), the crowned jewel of the nation’s 544 refuges is in danger of destruction (Lamar and Markey 12). ANWR has been in existence since 1960 and has slowly become one of the most controversial topics to hit Congress. ANWR is composed of 19 million acres on the northeast coast of Alaska. Although the government has been provided with this immense land they are fighting to gain more land. Why? ANWR is the second biggest oil field that is owned by the U.S. Now the government wants more land to construct oil reserves. The refuge is home to many endangered species such as migratory birds, polar bears, and wolves (Lynne and Roberts 1). Most of ANWR’s designated oil area is owned by indigenous Alaskan

Summary Alaska is well known for its abundance in oil. Obama has now proposed a bill to ban energy exploration on 12 million acres of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. With this bill comes this are being considered as wilderness and Alaskans are not happy with the bill at all. Many of the people who are Native to this are feel as if they have been disrespected or unconsidered.

Drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, commonly referred to as ANWR has been the source of media and political controversy for the last twenty years and has only increased in recent years. President Eisenhower reserved this land in 1960 to preserve and protect the native and diverse plants and wildlife. When oil was discovered in the Prudhoe Bay a determined group consisting of large oil corporations, politicians and locals insisted that exploration in the wildlife refuge would lessen the United States dependence to foreign oil, there would be numerous economic benefits and could be achieved with an inconsequential effect on the environment. Opponents of drilling reject this argument citing grave environmental concerns. These adversaries that include many environmental groups argue that the various economic benefits associated with drilling in ANWR are not significant enough to warrant the destruction of one of the last remaining pristine wildernesses. The costs associated with drilling evident in oil spills, changes in habitat and the possible extinction of Polar bears and wolves demonstrate that the benefits of drilling for oil does not outweigh the negative consequences. In 2015, President Barack Obama pushed policy to ban oil exploration by designating more than 22 million acres in Alaska of which 12 million are part of the ANWR (Bourne).

The third article “Who owns Alaska? Our wealth was meant to share” by Charles Wohlforth, an Alaskan author and columnist, touches on personal experience and relies heavily on historical

It is wrong when it tends otherwise.” I partially disagree with Leopold’s principle because as an engineer I know things don’t always function properly just because it looks beautiful but nonetheless, I have to add to the principle that the “thing” should also leave a place for our future generations. While drilling for oil may seem attractive to the natives or townsfolk of the area as it brings more jobs and creates an economic boom, the problem will be faced in the future. In the short run it might and will bring prosperity to Alaska but the estimate of oil in section 1002 is only between 3 and 10.4 billion barrels of oil in the coastal plain that is economically recoverable at $30 per barrel. If we look at the yearly consumption of oil in America this might last at most two years and then it might become a decline in oil again leaving only abandoned well in a well preserved reserve. We should stop any type of drilling in ANWR as it might ruin the land for our future grandsons who will take over after

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

From Fig.26. it can be deduced that mostly boats are involved when it comes to oil spills (89 incidents, 54%). On the other hand the least amount of incidents involved events classified as “other” (9 incidents, 5%). However, when seeing the results of Fig.27. which takes into account the amount of oil spilled, boats are still in the lead (45%), closely followed by platforms (33%). When the number of incidents are taken into account platforms rank above “other” with 9%. This could be due to platform blowouts being rare events, however when they do occur, such as the Deepwater Horizon in 2010 they leak thousands of tonnes of oil into the ocean and it takes days for the workers