The Debate Over the Idea of Drilling for Oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge
Throughout American history, there have been a number of conflicts and
disagreements among the populace over various issues. These conflicts of interest help to
define political parties and allow people to distinguish themselves through party allegiance.
One such item that is currently being debated is over the idea of drilling for oil in the Arctic
National Wildlife Refuge. For years, environmentalist groups and oil industry supporters
have been sparring over this stretch of land. And both sides have formed some pretty
compelling arguments for their beliefs.
As of February 1, 2000, the United States has imported roughly 10.5 million of
barrels of oil a day. This translates to about 55 to 56 percent of the 19.3 million barrels
U.S. citizens consume daily. According to experts and politicians, this dependence on
foreign oil is damaging the energy industry in America as well as decreasing the amount
fluidity we have in foreign markets. And the ever increasing need for oil has only lead to
further importing. Many industries and government officials fear that if the consumption of
imported crude continues to outweighing the production of domestic, it will eventually lead
to jobs moving overseas and the flow of wealth in the energy industry, going towards
middle eastern countries.
To combat this threatening trend, many Republican oil lobbyists, who dub
themselves “the Teamsters”, have drawn together an extensive oil producing plan. The plan
calls for tapping oil and natural gas deposits in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge
(henceforth recognized as ANWR). According to the Teamsters and Alaskan senator
Frank Murkowski, dep...
... middle of paper ...
...A conflict that started between
environmentalists and oil lobbyists is steadily forming a division among Democrats and
Republicans up on Capitol Hill. At this rate, drilling in the arctic will become one of the
most memorable and controversial subjects about the Bush Presidency.
Bibliography:
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Detroit News article:
http://detnews.com/2000/politics/0010/01/politics-127682.htm
Lycos article on Norton case:
http://ens.lycos.com/ens/oct2001/2001L-10-19-06.html
ANWR.org
http://www.ANWR.org/
New York Times articles:
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/02/politics/02LABO.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/12/politics/12ENER.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/14/national/14ENER.html
http://www.nytimes.com/
Washington Post article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A1821
6-2001Oct18
My opponents 1st/2nd/3rd contention was that drilling in Alaska will cost billions. True, drilling in Alaska will cost billions but the positive impact on the U.S. economy far outweighs the cost. Also, the billions of dollars it will cost to drill in the ANWR will be mostly paid by companies who want to develop into the ANWR, not the U.
U.S. Energy Information Association. "U.S. Total Crude Oil and Products Imports." Eia.doe.gov. Web. 26 May 2011. .
Drilling for oil in Alaska will cause the environment and animals to suffer. Oil drilling in Alaska started in 1980 when America found itself in an oil crisis. So a solution for this crisis was to start drilling for oil in other locations. The largest oil field in North America was in Prudhoe Bay on the north coast of Alaska. Prudhoe Bay would soon account for 20% of all domestic U.S. oil production. Despite the oil crisis in 1980, Congress formed a wildlife reserve just east of Prudhoe Bay. it was called The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge(ANWR). Document A.
"The Debate Over ANWR Drilling Begins Anew." ENewsUSA. ENewsUSA, 2 Mar. 2009. Web. 09 May 2011.
There is an abundance of oil underneath earth’s crust on land and in the water but getting to that oil can be proven as a challenge and a negative impact on the earth. Many of these oil reservoirs lie in federally protected land or water to minimize the negative impact on the earth. But should those restrictions be removed? Removing the restrictions can allow the US to tap into domestic reserves rather than rely on imported oil from the Middle East and Asia but tapping these reservoirs can also leave behind an impact that is harmful to this planet. “Critics oppose this move for fear that it will cause irreparable harm environmental harm. They point to the April 2010 oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico as evidence of the risks associated with offshore drilling” (SIRS).
... we may see a serious act in the near future to start the process of drilling. With a solid combination and profitability factor the U.S. could prevent the rising gasoline prices. We need to however, continue our search for other alternatives do to our limited resource of oil. For this reason, I am in favor of opening up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling and also the exploration of alternative fuel sources, as well as ways to conserve fuel. This combination should provide the United States with an energy policy that is both financially stable and environmentally sound.
..."Alaska Oil Spill Fuels Concerns Over Arctic Wildlife, Future Drilling." National Geographic News. 20 Mar. 2006. Web. 3 July 2010.
The United States relies on imports for about forty percent of its crude oil, which is the lowest rate of dependency since 1991 according to the U.S Energy Information Administration. Today our country is trying to keep on track in becoming less and less dependent. When it comes to the topic of the future ways the United States will get its fuel, most of us readily agree that the United States should become more independent by using natural gas that is already here on our land. Where this argument usually ends, however, is on the question of the consequences drilling for natural gas brings. Whereas some are convinced drilling is safe, others maintain that it is actually in fact dangerous. Hydraulic fracturing or "fracking", the terms for drilling for natural gas, is dangerous to our public health and to the environment because of the water contamination it causes. Therefore, it is not something that should become a project for alternative fuel used by the United States.
Drilling for oil in Alaska may affect the wildlife, but it is a good thing to do because our government well make money and get out of depth. Are you tired of paying high gas prices every time you got to fill the tank? Do you know if the U.S would let shell oil company drill for oil in Alaska you could kiss those high gas prices good byes? The resin they say we cannot drill there is because it would affect the wild life. But in my view the wild life that lives there has plenty of land to move to once they started to drill.
America is dependent on other nations for their ability to create energy. The United States is the world’s largest consumer of oil at 18.49 million barrels of oil per day. And it will continue to be that way for the foreseeable future considering the next largest customer of oil only consumes about 60% of what the U.S. does. This makes the U.S. vulnerable to any instability that may arise in the energy industry. In 2011, the world’s top three oil companies were Saudi Aramco (12%), National Iranian Oil Company (5%), and China National Petroleum Corp (4%). The risk associated with these countries being the top oil producers is twofold. One, they are located half way around the world making it an expensive to transport the product logistically to a desired destination. And two, the U.S. has weak, if not contentious,...
All of this sounds fantastic, especially laid out in this way. We are in desperate need for jobs and money. Now that Trump is planning this new taxation rule, we are in need of money to recover what we will be losing and this seems like a fair;y successful and well planned idea that could bring in exactly enough for what they need. Unfortunately, the opposing side of the argument disagrees. After a 37 year band on drilling at the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, while also bringing in big amount of money for Alaska and the government, the supporters want to end the band in an attempt to gain a bit more cash. The opposing team now has accused the supporters of using an outdated resource estimates. They say that this drilling can only bring in a maximum of 37.5 million in the next ten years. This is no where near 440 billion. This is not enough to pay for what they need and not only will it be a useless effort, but then the sacred land and the most pristine area in the US will be completely
The state of Alaska is home to some incredibly beautiful examples of nature, and also happens to be home to a large wealth of oil. Since the discovery of the amount of oil off the coast of Alaska, there has been debate of whether to take advantage of this resource and drill the Alaskan oil reserves, or to leave it alone and preserve the nature and wildlife surrounding the state. In the article, “Offshore Drilling in Alaska Should Be Expanded” by author Marvin E. Odum, and the article, “Offshore Drilling in Alaska Should Be Limited” by author Margaret Williams, the two authors convey opposing viewpoints on the same topic. Similar argumentative tactics are utilized in each piece of writing, however Odum’s article ends up being more effective than Williams’s due to a better use of those tactics. The main tactics that the authors used were their facts and evidence, their presentation of their opinion, and their ability to keep the reader interested in their article.
The burning of oil and gas assist to the carbon pollution that is impelling climate change, warming our oceans, raising sea levels, and threatening our communities and coasts. And much of that carbon pollution establish into our oceans, making our waters more acidic and wreaking havoc on the shellfish, coral reefs, and other marine life worldwide. Recently it has been pushed for Artic Ocean drilling but we need to not expose new ocean waters to drilling. These waters can and must be permanently defended from the threats of this inherently hazardous industrial activity at sea. President Trump has the authorization to take these waters off the schedule for oil and gas permanently, and he
In 1970 oil reserves became more scarce, leading to a decrease in production, while consumption continued to grow rapidly (Wright, R. T., & Boorse, D. F. 2011). In order to fill the gap between rising demand and falling supply of oil, the United States became more and more dependent on imported oil, primarily from Arab countries in the Middle East. (Wright, R. T., & Boorse, D. F. 2011). As the U.S and many other countries became highly industrialized nations, they became even more dependent on oil imports. With demand being higher than the actual amount of supply, prices kept rising reaching a peak of $140 a barrel in 2008. (Wright, R. T., & Boorse, D. F. 2011).
During the presidential campaign of the last election, an issue arose concerning the “energy crisis” that was driving gasoline and oil prices up throughout our country. Vice President Al Gore supported President Clinton’s ideology of waiting for the proper legislative initiatives to pass through Congress, and when the situation merited, provide some limited releases of oil from the national oil reserve. Candidate George W. Bush, on the other had, favored drilling in the government protected lands of Alaska to find future oil reserves so that America would no longer be so dependent on foreign oil. The problem with Bush’s plan, according to Gore, was that this could be devastating to the environment of the scarcely populated Alaskan wilderness. Regardless of the political, legal or moral implications of such drilling, there are problems dealing with multiple types of rationality in this issue.