The Arctic Oil Drilling Industry

Drilling in Alaska will not help stop the oil crisis. Many colonial Americans weren’t concerned about protecting natural resources because they thought they had a lot but they also knew that they needed to preserve the oil. Should the United States drill for oil in Alaska’s wilderness? America shouldn’t drill in Alaska because of the environment wilderness, protecting environment, and economics.

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.

Offshore drilling has become an essential part of today’s oil production and demand for energy. With the growth of population comes the increasing demand for oil. The oil industry today, is one of the most used providers of energy. Today in the 20th century the majority of the population in America has a car and cars needs gas to run. The oil reserves in the earth that are easily accessible via land are starting to run dry and are becoming harder to find. This is why we have begun to see more and more offshore oil drills. Although there are benefits of offshore drilling such as profit, lower gas prices, and becoming less dependent on foreign oil. There are also many drawbacks in which if something were to go wrong, the mistake would be catastrophic impacting the environment, the nature, and have trickling effects all around the world.

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.

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.

     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.

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

The Alberta oil sands operations are the fastest growing source of heat-trapping greenhouse gas in Canada. Therefore, as environmental concerns increase with amplified pollution, governments must ensure policies are in place as to avoid further environmental damage. Currently the government does not enforce enough environmental policies to properly protect this beautiful country and its people. Moreover, the alternative components of the oil sands business contribute an enormous amount of environmental destruction. Pipelines to transport crude oil from the refineries to cities across North America cut across sacred land and pipelines and freighters have high possibility of spillage. Furthermore, the damage to human health from water contamination and air pollution is a major concern, the oil sands business causes massive detriment to human wellbeing. Lastly, the surrounding area of the oil sands are deeply affected. The deforestation of the boreal forest and the toxic tailings ponds that surround the operation endanger wildlife and the environment.

The article, “Stop oilsands expansion, Canadian and U.S. researchers say” by CBC News is a convincing model of how Canada should progress with the oil sands in the future due to the credibility of the arguments. As stated in the article, “The answer isn’t a moratorium, but even more spending on research to mitigate the industry’s impacts” . All in all, the article was convincing as the analysts show maturity and a sense of realism to understand that the Canadian economy needs the oil sands so expansion may be harmful, but a moratorium is out of the

I did not support the drilling in Alaska. Even though it help us with helping our economy, with extra resources for energy, a positive social impact, and increase national defense. But it would not help the negative social impact the pollution and horrible environment for the animals that live in Alaska. Alaska would have a horrible impact with the drilling, and the lives that live there would be affected by it. Even if the United States decide to draw an Alaskan they may have also ate oil spill that would affect other people's

Americans shouldn’t drill for oil in Alaska because of the economics. The oil will only reduce US oil imports 4% having no real effect on prices and supplies. It would only last six months supply for oil at our consumption rates. The research says that America solve its energy problem by reducing the oil usage.

These areas of concern to environmentalist include: (1) The protection of the Porcupine caribou herd, polar bears, musk oxen, grizzly bears and many other forms of diverse wildlife that could be adversely affected by the oil exploration. (2) Preservation of the land itself and the local communities culture that has supported a thousand generations of native Alaskans. (3) That there is only enough oil in this region to supply America’s needs for six months. The environmentalist and the proponents for oil drilling continue to pursue their arguments, each one deciding that their argument is more popular to the American people.

Eagle Ford-Shale Company is one of the largest companies in the Unites States. Production has risen from roughly 0.9 trillion cubic feet (EBSCO) in 2006 to the approximate 4.8 trillion cubic feet in 2010. The Eagle Ford-Shell Company is responsible for more that 23% of the United States natural gas productions through fracking. This process has become one of the most highly sought out forms of retrieving oil and gas from the earth that does not involve drilling directly on the ocean floor. Though there are many opportunities to save money and provide jobs to ensure for a better economy, there are those who would argue that fracking is dangerous because of long term affects on global warming. Professionally, the research paper will be demonstrated

Since the past few decades, owning a car has become a necessity in order to commute from one place to another. However, cars do not work automatically, they require fuel. Since the past decade, the petroleum industry has become one of the leading industries impacting the nation’s economy. Oil has become an essential commodity as it is utilized in transportation vehicles, serves as a raw material for manufacturing plastics, and is utilized in homes for cooking. America’s economy is greatly dependent on petroleum as it is the “black gold” of the nation. The considerable significance of oil has led to the drilling of it, which is not only limited to land, but also the oceans. Offshore drilling is a method in which petroleum is extracted from underneath the seabed. It is one of the significant technological advancements in the past few decades. However, the ones who are involved in the process of offshore oil production are humans, and humans tend to make mistakes. In 1969, due to a human error, an oil spill occurred and natural gas, oil, and mud shot up the well and oozed into the ocean (“Offshore Drilling”). The oil spilled led to an environmental disaster which killed thousands of marine animals and distorted the environment. In order to prevent the same error, the government passed a moratorium in 1981, banning more than 85 percent of the country’s oil drilling sites (“Offshore Drilling”). The moratorium restricted the United States to mass-produce its natural resource.