The debate on drilling in the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge is an intensely debated topic of America today. Proponents of the oil drilling believe that the oil in the refuge will solve the high prices of gasoline, but they don’t even know what amount of oil the refuge holds and the amount of oil that we use every year in the United States. The drilling in ANWR will severely damage the wildlife refuge and its environment. The oil would take years to access with drilling and so far there has been no proof that the drilling would actually produce enough oil to sustain our needs as a country. Also a reason to not drill in the refuge is because the reserve is being saved for when our country is in a national emergency, or until when there is no oil left because of its rapid decline in availability. How did you feel when just about a year ago there was the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico? That event killed the environment in the Gulf and millions of innocent animals died to our screw up, if the drilling in ANWR is allowed we could be faced with these same exact circumstances again. These are the reasons that the oil drilling in the national refuge should not be allowed.
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 ...
... middle of paper ...
...table results are other reasons for the drilling to not take place. Lastly, the reserve should be saved until the country is in a more desperate need for the oil than it is now such as a national emergency of some kind, or even until there is no other oil left to be drilled for. The act of playing it safe and not drilling is the smarter thing to do because there are no positive outcomes from drilling for oil in ANWR.
Works Cited
Gelb, Bernard A. "Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR)." Almanac of Policy Issues. Congressional Research Service, 28 Aug. 2002. Web. 09 May 2011.
McCarthy, Terry. "War Over Arctic Oil - TIME." Breaking News, Analysis, Politics, Blogs, News Photos, Video, Tech Reviews - TIME.com. Cable News Network, 11 Feb. 2001. Web. 09 May 2011.
"The Debate Over ANWR Drilling Begins Anew." ENewsUSA. ENewsUSA, 2 Mar. 2009. Web. 09 May 2011.
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)
The environment needs protecting because even before the drilling started hunting was rapidly decreasing the amount of animals in the area. So if drilling occured in Alaska the animal count would go down even more. Drilling is gonna need space, and because Alaska is a mountained and woodland area they will have to make space by destroying trees etc. Destroying trees means destroying animals’ homes. According to document E ‘just look 60 miles west to Prudhoe bay- an oil complex that has turned 1,000 square miles of fragile tundra into a sprawling industrial zone containing, 1,500 miles of roads and pipes’. Also the document states that the would be
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
Pratt, Joseph A. “Exxon and the Control of Oil.” Journal of American History. 99.1 (2012): 145-154. Academic search elite. Web. 26. Jan. 2014.
..."Alaska Oil Spill Fuels Concerns Over Arctic Wildlife, Future Drilling." National Geographic News. 20 Mar. 2006. Web. 3 July 2010.
Last year, news spread of an oil spill off the Gulf Coast. These events occur periodically and usually register much media attention. As British Petroleum (BP) executives could not shut off the crude oil or prevent the damage it caused, people took notice. Millions of dollars in tourism, commerce and sales were lost. Thousands of wildlife acres and ecosystems were also compromised. There were more questions than answers.
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.
The Debate Over the Idea of Drilling for Oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge
Plomin, R & Asbury, K. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, July 2005; vol. 600, 1:pp.86-98.
Kraft, Michael E., and Scott R. Furlong. 2013. Public policy: Politics, analysis, and alternatives, Anonymous Anonymous , ed. Charisse Kiino . 4th ed. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications.
The Heritage Foundation - Conservative Policy Research and Analysis. Web. 10 Mar. 2010. . Nick. "Basic Information about the DREAM Act Legislation | DREAM Act Portal."
Wheelan, C. (2011). Introduction to Public Policy (1st ed.). United States: W.W. Nortion & Company, INC. (Original work published 2011).
Light, Paul C., and Christine L. Nemacheck. "Chapter 7 Congress." Government by the People, Brief 2012 Election Edition, Books a La Carte New Mypoliscilab With Etext Access Card Package. By David B. Magleby. 2012 Election Edition ed. N.p.: Pearson College Div, 2013. N. pag. Print.
... Washington, DC. Congressional Research Service. Marosi, Richard. A. (2011, July 26)
According to an online article from Thought Company, the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill polluted the waters of Prince William Sound, coated more than a thousand miles of pristine coastline and killed hundreds of thousands of birds, fish, and animals. This crisis has become a symbol of human-caused environmental disasters all over the world. Many years after the accident, and despite billions of dollars spent on cleanup efforts, crude oil can still be found under the rocks and sand on the beaches of southwest Alaska, and the effects of the spill are still apparent in the lasting damage done to many native species. (West, 2017) This specific incident was a major crisis that acted as a prodrome for the oil industry. For the purpose of this assignment it is important that we take a look at the details of this event. From there, we will look at how Exxon handled the