Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge
Everyday we put tons of pollution into the air, water and ground. Our population is growing each day and in turn urbanization is expanding. Teddy Roosevelt, being an avid outdoorsmen, knew the importance of setting land aside for posterity sake and in doing do set a trend for later presidents. When Richard Nixon set land aside in Alaska, which became the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), he set it aside to be never tainted by industrialization. Today republicans and some democrats want to repeal the title of National Wildlife Refuge and drill there for oil. This could have adverse effects for wildlife and the Inuit natives that call the ANWR and surrounding area home. In this paper I will lay out my reasons for why we should not drill in the refuge.
First of all, there is a drilling site in Alaska about 60 miles west of the ANWR. The big oil site has turned 1,000 square miles of tundra into a network of roads and pipelines (Sierra Club 1). It has turned it into what looks like an industrial park of a city. There are mounds of sewage sludge, scrap metal, garbage and waste sites that contain acids, lead, pesticides and diesel fuel. According to a Milwaukee Journal Sentinel article there is an average of one, usually small, spill a day, but totally 1.5 million gallons since 1995 (1). The oil in the ANWR is not located in a concentrated spot but rather in 30 smaller deposits. This means there would have to be networks of roads and pipelines built, increasing the chance of a spill. If there is confusion of who spilled what, which happens 40% of the time, the clean up expense is put on the public (Sierra Club 1). The location of the ANWR would make clean up even harder because ...
... middle of paper ...
...nd how they will adversely affect our way of life even more in the future. We really have to consider that depleting our resources at such a rapid rate will only harm us. Drilling in a pristine protected area is not the answer to our problems only enforcing laws for better gas mileage and looking at different sources of energy is going to help us in the long run.
If you want to be a part of the decision whether to drill or not you can write a letter or email your senator detailing your concerns you may have over drilling.
Works Cited
“Arctic Facts.” 5 March 2002.” *www.sierraclub.org*.
“Gwich’in Natives and ANWR.” 5 March 2002.” * www.sacbee.com*.
“Oil Industry is Misleading Americans.” 6 March 2002.” *www.protectthearctic.com*.
“Arctic Wildlife Refuge a Canvas for Ideological Debates.” JS Online 10 March 2002.
10 March 2002 *www.jsonline.com*.
Also, drilling in Alaska will not harm the wildlife. Take Prudhoe Bay for example. The Central Arctic Caribou Herd that occupies Prudhoe Bay has grown from a population of 6000 in 1978 to 27000 today. This is a 450% growth over 26 years at an average of 17.3% growth per year. (Arctic Power) That’s quite an increase.
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.
How would you like to see a repeat of the devastating event that took place in the Gulf of Mexico? If we were allowed to drill in the refuge all that it would take is for another malfunction like that and the environment of that refuge would be damaged for years. “Most important of all are the more than 130,000 caribou of the Porcupine herd…, these caribou are at the heart of environmentalists’ case against drilling” (McCarthy). The reason that these specific animals are the reason for not drilling is that the caribou migrate to the plains, where the drilling would ...
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.
It is a known fact Pennsylvania is greatly impacted by the Marcellus Shale. The Marcellus Shale is a layer of black shale located under the Appalachian basin from Prehistoric times. Natural gas and oil are being extracted from this layer for their increasing economic value, with natural gas having a worth of $10 for every thousand cubic feet of it. Furthermore, improved technology such as “hydraulic fracturing” and “horizontal wells” has made Marcellus drilling more efficient and has increased the implementation of the drilling as a source of economic opportunity for not only drilling companies but for the whole state of Pennsylvania (“Marcellus Shale”). An important part of this Marcellus activity is that “most drilling is occurring in rural areas” according to Joseph Morris, a poll analyzer from Mercyhurst College (Begos, Kevin. “Gas”). Amid the economic opportunity, farmers in these areas are resistant to signing over their farmland to drilling companies. Bradford County farmer Carol French, who wrote an editorial in The Patriot News, stated, “Has anyone considered how these gas developments and industrial uses on farmland will impact agriculture production for years to come if a farmer does not have the necessary means or information to negotiate protection measures?” She fears that drilling will ruin rural property and thus unnecessarily change or hurt farmers’ economic way of life (French). However, because of the vital economic benefits that Marcellus Shale drilling has for Pennsylvania, farmers in rural areas of the state should choose to allow drilling on their property.
The people who are being asked permission to transform their land into drilling sites for natural gas have more reason to be concerned than most because it will affect them more directly than people who do not live in that specific area (although it does affect people who do not live in the vicinity as well). Although fracking may seem to concern to only a small group of people, it should also concern anyone who cares about doing what is safe for our country's citizens. The truth is, fracking is extremely dangerous, not only because of the negative effects on the environment, but also because it could make people ill.
... motioned, lower gas prices, more jobs, and help the economy. These things overcome the bad things that people say are going to happen. You should ask yourself what you would rather have low gas prices “something you are going to use every day, or would you rather keep Alaska like it is something “you are never going to see”. So now that I have told you all of the facts that I have learned this is the time you should really think hard and make your decision to be for or against the plans to drill in a small part of the Alaska
Drilling for oil has many benefits, but it can also cause many problems. There is no clear answer to the question on offshore drilling, because both sides have strong arguments. Because we are so dependent on oil, we need to get it from somewhere, and economically speaking, offshore drilling makes more sense. However, we also need to take the environment into consideration. This is why I strongly believe should utilize the precautionary principle and analyze the possible consequences on the environment before starting any new drilling sites. What also needs to happen is for people to become less dependent on oil, by developing alternative fuel sources and using more sustainable transportation methods.
The first reason why offshore drilling should be stopped is because of how harmful it is to the environment. One way this is hurting the environment is because of a term called fracking, fracking is when a pressurized liquid fractures a rock. This method is all too common when these oilrigs are drilling into the seabed; they have been known to cause small earthquakes. This happens when wastewater from the oil operations is injected into saltwater disposal wells. Saltwater disposal wells manage the saltwater that accompanies the oil to the surface as it is being pumped out. In managing that it injects the saltwater back into the rock formations below sea level. As of right now the earthquakes are not big enough to hurt people; it is destroying our underwater ecosystem. Another way the drilling is hurting the environment is because of the oil spills and leaks, which happen deep below the surface. When an oilrig spills or leaks it pollutes and contaminates the water all around, and it is known to spread very quickly. The oil clings to everything it touches; including rocks, sand, plants, and even grasses. Once the oil takes over the area, it makes the land unsuitable for living. One common argument for why it should not be banne...
The Alaskan wilderness is one of the most controversial topics discussed in the United States today. There are many different opinions and regulations pertaining to certain topics affecting the natural landscape of Alaska. One such topic is hunting for brown bear. While these massive animals face no current danger of being wiped out as a result of hunting, it is still a controversial and constantly debated issue. Over ninety-five percent of the United States’ brown bear resides in Alaska. Brown bears are one of the more appealing attractions for visitors to Alaska. According to the Alaskan Outdoor Journal, there are places all throughout Alaska that are designated brown bear viewing areas (Alaska Outdoor Journal, 2010). However many who come to Alaska for the brown bear don’t simply come to observe. Instead, they come for the hunt. These animals are constantly hunted for sport, and since they reproduce at a very low rate, this has the potential to jeopardize the total population of the brown bear. Overall, I believe that brown bear hunting should remain legal.
According to the research done by Twitchell, ANWR is “19.8 million acres and was established in 1980 under the Alaskan National Interest Lands Conservation act” (Twitchell, 2001, p. 1). Within that act, section 1002 contains the 15 million acre coastal plain with huge amounts of crude oil available. According to Twitchell’s research, there is approximately 5.7 to 16 billion barrels of oil that could be recovered within that area.
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
“Pollution is the major disadvantage that is formed due to fossil fuels. When burnt they give out carbon dioxide, a green housed gas which is the main aspect of global warming.”(conserve-energy-future.com) That is an environmental hazard. Drilling can be inconsistent because some places may have a lot of oil, and some places do not. Sometimes if there is too much oil there can be a blow out. People also drill on their properties just for money, and some drill just to see if they have oil for money. Doing that is inconsistent. Gas prices rise and cause tension between nations. “Middle-east countries have huge reserves of oil and natural gas and many other countries are dependent on them for constant supply of these fuels.”(conserve-energy-future.com) Gas prices rise and some people cannot afford gas...