Offshore oil drilling refers to a mechanical process in which a wellbore is drilled through the seabed in search for petroleum that lies in rock formations. In 1891, the first oil wells were submerged in the Grand Lake St. Marys in Ohio. Since that day they have expanded their range of oil drilling, and our ecosystems are now paying the price for it. I think that offshore oil drilling should be banned because it is ruining the environment, hurting marine wildlife, and even has a negative affect on us humans. 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... ... middle of paper ... ...rilling, and this would even open up jobs for those people. In conclusion, I believe it is safe to say that if offshore drilling is not banned it will be very detrimental to our society. It is just beginning now, but by the time our future generations are growing up the waterways and beaches will be nothing but filthy and unsuitable land. Now we have the pleasure of growing up and going to the beach and we take that for granted, cause the people in the future may not have that luxury. With the beaches becoming unsuitable for even us, which means it will also be unsuitable for fish and other animals. Our food supply, which comes from some of these animals, will fall drastically and may put some families without food. All in all, something needs to be done about offshore drilling and the only realistic solution is to ban them until a safer alternative is discovered.
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.
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
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).
Current research, in the field of public health, is looking at the adverse health effects of hydraulic fracturing on community members. This research is focused on looking for evidence-based research in processes, procedures, materials and cleanup from drilling and running a well. In recent years, several states such as Maryland and New York, have called for special advisory commissions to examine the potential adverse health implications for the community if the moratoriums are lifted and fracturing is allowed to start. A lot of the previous research conducted focused on the anecdotal perspective of the adverse health effects. This perspective does not offer scientific verification that the fracturing processes are causing them or evidence where the contaminations are coming from.
Although the list of potential problems is long, there are also some benefits in this industry as well. The state of South Africa now has a new form of revenue that will be collected by tax and permits. All cities and small towns in the Karoo will benefit from all the new business brought on by the new drilling operators. All the farmers owning mineral rights will be financially rewarded by the gas industry leasing those rights (Potter & Rashid, 2013). The fact that natural resources continue to dwindle is obvious, therefore the need for sustainable energy from alternative resources is completely understandable.
The adverse effects on oil drilling are all the ANWR myths come to life. Oil production could disrupt the caribou cows, porcupine herd and polar bear populations. This can be done by destroying denning areas, and calving grounds that can lead to weak live stock development, followed by potential disease spreading epidemics.
Fracking can cause harm to people, animals, and nature. When they drill into the ground they are pumping chemicals to extract the gas and oil, and this contaminates the water sources around it. “An editorial on gas extraction from the Marcellus Shale in the Post-Star, a newspaper in Glens Falls, New York, contends, “New York state simply can’t take the risk. There are plenty of places to find fuel. It’s not so easy to find a new water supply for 17 million people.”” (Hydrofracking
Conflicting reports make it difficult to discern just how detrimental the practice is to the environment and people. What is known is that fracking uses phenomenal amounts of water, which is becoming a scarce resource in many parts of the country. There is no doubt that the fluid used in the fracking process contains chemicals, and when released into water supplies has negative effects on these sources. Injection of flowback materials into deep wells has been definitively linked to increased seismic activity. Damage to roads due to the high traffic of trucks shipping equipment and product is astronomical. Worldwide, four countries have outright banned the practice and others are waiting for more research to be done before they continue to allow it. A few states know the devastating side effects that come with the practice, and have banned hydraulic fracturing. While there is no doubt that fracking can produce resources that are used by Americans, there is a lot of doubt as to whether it is safe or not. Hopefully, the country will follow those that have banned the practice, and adopt other safer forms of energy
The environmental danger taken by offshore drilling is very straight forward, made clear by oil spills such as the recent BP oil spill and the Exxon Valdez oil spill in 1989 off the shore of Alaska. In the circumstances of the Exxon Valdez spill up to 250,000 sea birds died, over 2,800 sea otters and thousands of other animals], (figures from the BP oil spill are not yet concluded), having had a heavy strike on the regional wildlife and directing to a ban on all offshore drilling in America, until George Bush overturned it in 2008 to this repeal was a misjudgment because two years later there was the Deepwater Horizon spill. In this way, offshore drilling ruins ecosystems and fish supplies which creates a wasteland of a shoreline among southern USA.
Imagine a world where fresh and clear water was a luxury. Imagine water so contaminated with chemicals that every plant it comes into contact with dies. As the trees begin to die, oxygen levels drop. As the vegetation dies, wildlife begins to die out. The polluted water which flows through the ground into wells causes instant contamination. As the water flows out of the sink, one can strike a match and light the liquid on fire. Showering in these chemicals is out of the question. Fresh water has become a comfort, rather than a given. Could planet Earth survive this existence? If hydraulic fracturing, otherwise known as fracking, were deemed legal, this question may be put to the test. Fracking is a process in which chemicals, sand and water are used in “high volumes… to fracture gas-bearing layers of rock” (Dolesh 2). As the rock breaks, natural gas is released and then collected to be used as energy. The United States is currently sitting on a gold mine of natural gas which could stimulate our ever declining economy. The question is what price are we willing to pay for a temporary fix? Fracking is a dangerous process that should be deemed illegal due to its harmful short and long-term environmental effects.
Throughout the past three decades, energy has been a perennial issue in United States politics, economics, and media. The main concern surrounding this topic is the idea of energy independence and how the United States should proceed into the future. Energy independence relates to the goal of reducing United States dependence on importing foreign oil and other foreign energy sources. This desire aims to maintain energy dependence domestically so the United States can avoid reliance on any unstable countries and be detached from global energy supply distribution. It is currently being speculated that the United States might not be too far off from this goal. America’s dependence on foreign oil has gone down every single year since 2007. In 2010, the U.S. imported less than 50 percent of the oil the country consumed -- the first time that’s happened in 13 years -- and the trend continued in 2011 (Zhang.) Experts credit new technology as the reason the United States is within several years of again becoming the biggest oil producer in the world, and perhaps two decades away from full energy independence. Hydraulic fracturing, fracking, is the “lead” technology in this technological revolution. Fracking is an economically more feasible way of drilling for oil or gas in harder to reach geological formation. Within the past decade or so, combining hydraulic fracturing with horizontal drilling has opened up shale deposits across the country. It has brought large-scale natural gas drilling to new regions that may not have had accessible deposits in the past. These areas have greatly benefited from the addition of this industry to their local economies. Certain are...
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.
Fracking is quickly becoming a debatable topic in our society today. The practice involves injecting fluid into the ground to fracture rock in order to release natural gas. It sounds like it would be a safe way to harness fuels in the earth’s surface, but it actually is a danger to our environment. Because of the dangers of fracking, what little fresh water remains on earth is being contaminated. It is also releasing toxins into the airs creating contaminated air and acid rain. Because of the many health and environmental dangers of fracking, it should be stopped immediately to help prevent more worldwide health issues down the road.
Fracking is a highly controversial practice that utilizes the injection of water, chemicals and abrasives to extract relatively inaccessible pockets of natural resources. Although fracking has the potential to benefit the economy, it may also pose a significant impact on the environment, the ecosystem and safety.
Imagine having a loved one with cancer, organ damage, nervous system disorders, or your child having birth defects. Imagine running out of clean water because the only water available is capable of catching fire. Imagine oil in rivers and animals losing their homes. See yourself caught in an earthquake where there should not be one. All of this is increased by fracking and can be prevented. The question is should fracking continue or should it be banned.