Oil Drilling In National Parks Essay

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

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.

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.

Con: No, America is heading towards a better way to produce energy, a clean renewable energy that is not dangerous to the environment.

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.

Thesis: If the United States is going to choose to conserve energy responsibly, then our government's energies should not be focused on developing oil in the ANWR, but rather on the topics of conservation through higher fuel efficiency standards in vehicles and by developing alternative energy sources. Conservation, fuel efficiency and alternative energy sources are the solutions that will lead us to a long term and sustainable energy future.

     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

     For a drug addict to quit a drug, the best solutions for the addict would be to slowly wean them self off the drug periodically. America can be viewed in a parallel way on its dependency for oil. America needs another source of oil to slowly lessen its overwhelming dependency on foreign oil and to help the process of finding another mass energy source. The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge better known as the ANWR is a rich treasure of oil and gas that can help lessen Americas need for foreign resources. Drilling on the ANWR will not only help the American economy, but will also help aid America in the future.

I recently read an article in Scientific American (May 2001) titled “the arctic oil & wildlife refuge.” The article addresses the issue of whether or not science has the ability to clarify the potential economic benefits and the ecological risks of drilling into the nation’s last great coastal wilderness preserve. What I began to wonder after reading the article is, if we humans should continue our scientific and technological petroleum endeavors even though we are causing irreversible harm to our earth. My feeling is that we should not drill in Alaska’s Arctic.

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

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

In 2004, Questar sent a proposal to BLM to invest in directional drilling that would minimise the land occupied by wells, required roadways and distribution pipes. The innovation would reduce any harmful effect on the wildlife. However, the drilling method is costly but can be justified by continuous drilling all through winter.