Proposition: The United States should drill for oil in the ANWR.
Significance: Right now, The United States of America languishes in an economic decline. Jobs are being lost. Drilling in the ANWR will create hundreds of thousands of jobs. Also, 80% of Alaska’s state revenues are oil. With the North Slope oil fields in decline, Alaskans could lose jobs. Drilling in the ANWR will create jobs for Alaskans. As Jennie Wodkowski, who has lived in Alaska for 34 years said, “Oil’s important. We don’t have anything else going on here.”
Rationale:
1. Harms the Environment
2. Costs Billions
3. Nobody willing to Drill
4. Not much Oil
5. Won’t create jobs
6. Not worth the time
My opponents 1st/2nd/3rd contention was the drilling in the ANWR will harm the environment. This is absolutely incorrect. Lets put this into perspective, the ANWR is 19.6 million acres out of Alaska, which is 240 million acres. The proposed drilling in the coastal plain will be 1.5 million acres. Now, with the new technology we have today, we can tap into the 1.5 million acre oil supply with an oil area that is 2000 acres. 2000 acres is 1/10000 or .0001% of the ANWR. 1.5 million acres of oil and a minuscule possibility of harming at max, 1/10000, I repeat 1/10000th if the ANWR. (Arctic Power)
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.
Furthermore, the ANWR is not a pristine wilderness with magnificent wilderness and beautiful wildlife at every corner. That is a illusion generated by anti – drilling supporters. The truth is that in the wintertime, the ANWR is 60 degrees below and 99 degrees below if you count the wind-chill factor. As Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska said “It (the ANWR) is hell in the wintertime. This is not some pristine place that should be protected.” Drilling will not harm wildlife or the environment.
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.
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.
In this essay we will be looking at why the Keystone XL Pipeline should not be built. This is a hot controversial issue that has been in the news for awhile. We will discuss the pros and cons of what will happen if the United States passes legislature to allow the Keystone XL Pipeline to be built. You have to ask yourself if destroying the environment is for our children is worth it to make a few billions richer or maybe little bit cheaper gas. If you agree with building the Keystone XL Pipeline you need to look your children in the eyes and tell them you’re sorry for destroying the environment for them and their children.
On January 10th 1901 the discovery of oil at Spindletop would lead to the greatest economy boom the world has ever encountered. The amount of oil that would be discovered across Texas would be more than enough to power America through the next several decades. The effects of having oil would completely change Texas culture, lifestyle, and business tremendously. In the book of Oil In Texas, will prove that America would change completely from agriculture nation to an industrial nation after the discovery of oil in Texas.
The Keystone XL pipeline continues dividing the opinion of the people and being a controversial issue. The precious “black gold”, represents one of the main factors that moves the economy, nationally and globally. This extra-long pipeline will transport oil all the way from Canada to Texas. Some experts and the private oil corporation, who is the one in charge of this project, point to the benefits of this project, for example, will make the USA more independent from foreign oil, will create thousands of jobs and improve the economy. Nevertheless, are experts revealing how the pipeline is an unnecessary risk and will be negative for the environment, dangerous for the population living close to the big pipes, and long-term negative for the
On March 27, 1989 the supertanker Exxon Valdez ran ashore in Prince William Sound, Alaska, spilling approximately 11 million gallons of crude oil. The oil soon spread into the waters of south-central Alaska from the sound of Kodiak Island to the Kenai Peninsula (refer to Figure 1 for a map of the area). Almost immediately, news media arrived at the site reporting images of oil-stained beaches and wildlife to the masses. News coverage centered around the environmental devastation which would result from the spill. The coverage, for the most part, reinforced stereotypes of Alaska, as a pristine wilderness and Exxon as a greedy, irresponsible oil company. These images stressed the negative consequences of the spills and ignored ...
..."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.
The Debate Over the Idea of Drilling for Oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge
Around the mitten shaped state of Michigan, five gigantic lakes encompass the coast. Providing a spot for vacationers, fisherman, and much wildlife, the Great Lakes are the pride and joy of Michigan. The history of the lakes stretches back thousands of years, where glaciers carved the lakes out of bedrock. These lakes provided a surplus of food and access to easy travel for settlers hundreds of years ago. People around the Great Lakes area appreciate the diversity of wildlife, scenery, and rarity of such landmarks. When the question of whether to drill in these lakes for oil and natural gas came up, it ignited many debates. Is our wildlife more important than oil to us? Or does the presence of oil and natural gas mean we can corrupt our environment and endanger many different types of species, along with ourselves?
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.
These people might say what about all of the people’s jobs that will be lost if we stopped offshore drilling? They might say that it’s just as dangerous on land. It might be dangerous on land too but if there happens to be a leak on land it doesn’t affect as much wildlife or even people. It is also a lot easier to fix a leak on land then it is to fix one in the bottom of the ocean. Most of these people that agree with offshore drilling don’t truly understand how great the ocean is and could care less about the amazing fish that the ocean has to offer. Offshore drilling has even killed people when the drilling rig in the Gulf of Mexico exploded it killed 11 people. Does it still sound
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
Significance: The United States must face the fact that the world is running out of oil and with today’s rising oil prices, economic and political instability in regions where the United States gets the majority of its oil, this country must begin looking into alternative means of energy to replace oil and end our dependence on foreign powers.
There are many arguments that drilling in the Arctic should be allowed. The first argument is that there is an extremely large amount of untapped resources beneath the surface. According to recent government estimates “Scientists believe the geology underlying the Chukchi and Beaufort
Also, this idea of drilling for oil in American doesn’t just affect the economy but is also a substantial energy source in which we as citizens can benefit off of and start being more resourceful with our use of energy. If one was to proceed with the idea of drilling for oil then the factor of energy must come into play, the process in which oil is drilled throughout the world has more