America MUST Drill for Oil in The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) 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.
We must also fund the correct areas of hydrogen fuel cell research. To me it makes no sense to fund something when there is a better way to do it. Bush seems to simply be protecting the oil companies; he must learn to look past this and see the big picture. America is in need of a great change when it comes to our consumption of oil, and Bush has the opportunity to make huge changes if he spends the money in the correct way. I believe that the intentions of Bush’s new plan are good because of the fact that he wants to make a change, but I feel that his ideas must be revised before they are put into effect.
With decreased amounts of conventional oil available around the globe, experts, including Prime Minister Stephen Harper, see the oil sands as becoming a legitimate global source of oil, thus in Harper’s mind, turning Canada into an “energy superpower”. This paper is designed to promote that the economic benefits are vitally important to Alberta, and are significant to Canada’s economy. To further justify this side of the debate, three principal arguments will be presented. To begin, the advantages to Canada’s economy will be outlined. This argument will be followed by an explanation of the technologies that will be put into effect to improve the oil sands’ impact on the environment.
At the same time it would be a great harm to the environment, making the climate unstable, and could cause possible future oil spills. The articles covering the Keystone Pipeline generally list out the same points, covering the same benefits and consequences of building the pipeline. Sources like Fox News and CNS have more of an opposition towards the pipeline and narrow in on the risks and of the effects it would have on the people. Whereas news stations such as CNN and The Washington Post address both sides of the controversy but are subtle about being in favor of the pipeline. The international sources such as Al Jazeera and Reuters oppose the pipeline and are more open with supporting the environmentalists.
Our insatiable appetite for petroleum has sparked a fiery debate within this country and this congress on whether or not taping into the Arctic oil supply is necessary. Proponents of drilling cite that exploration and production can be done without causing any adverse impacts on the Arctic wildlife. Critics however believe drilling will cause unretractable consequences on the pristine Arctic ecosystem. The debate is now in the hands of Congress to decide. Senate bill S.389 could potentially open the 1002 Area of Alaska to oil and gas exploration and production.
This essay will examine the arguments for and against hydraulic fracturing in Newfoundland. Hydraulic fracturing is the process of retrieving natural gas from the earth by injecting fluid into a L-shaped borehole and pressurizing it, cracking the bedrock and releasing methane gas. Opponents of HF claim that the process is an environmental hazard and will have negative economic impacts on Newfoundland’s tourism industry. Although these arguments have a solid logical appeal, opponents tend to exaggerate and overuse emotional appeals. Supporters of HF argue that it is unlikely that HF will have any negative effects on the environment, especially in the next few hundred years.
15 Apr. 2013: A.12. SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. 20 Mar.
Kinder Morgan has proposed the idea of building a twin pipeline for that of the Trans Mountain pipe line. And the clear question for all Canadians especially in the lower main land of British Columbia is this proposition to twin the pipe line safe, economical for British Columbia, and reliable way to transport fossil fuel in the form of crude oil? Or is this just business as usual? We defiantly need to establish the safety behind this. But safety is not only for the people around the pipeline but for the impact the building of said pipe line will have on the environment around it.
As I read both articles, especially that of the Lovins, which opposes oil drilling in ANWR, I could not help but wonder if ... ... middle of paper ... ... 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.