Author’s Note: There has been a huge dispute going on for the past 22 years about a huge topic: whether or not the U.S. should drill for oil. In social studies we have been working on our DBQ, which stands for Document Based Questioning, and I wanted to turn that into an essay to get a grade for it in Language Arts. I spent hours of researching and I finally finished with a strong statement of why I don’t think we should drill for oil, and here’s why...
“If all 50 states governments introduced a law to establish ethanol producing plants, and then mandated blended fuel, would this eventually stabilize the cost of energy and reduce our dependence on overseas oil?” These were few questions asked by R.L., -- Springfield, MA, which connects to the issue of whether or not the US should drill for oil in Alaska. There have been many years of debates concerning whether or not drilling for Alaskan oil is a good idea or bad. A ban had been started and it has lasted 22 years; the most recent debate about it lasted two days. My perspective on this dilemma is that the U.S. shouldn’t drill for oil in Alaska because it could drastically affect the environment, the economy, and because of the limited amount of help it’ll give the U.S.
First off, drilling for oil in the ANWR will disturb the environment because it potentially could ruin the fresh air animals habitat, and clean environment. While drilling for oil all the fumes and waste from the machines would send pollutants into the air. This not only affects the citizens of Alaska, but also the animals, which begins my next point. The animals wouldn’t just be affected by the obnoxious fumes let off by the machinery, but also their shelter would be destroyed when drilling underground. Additionally, the area they are planning on drilling in, according to ANWR’s research about “Arctic Power - Arctic National Wildlife Refuge,” is one of the only designated areas left for the wildlife to roam free in. If the government decides to allow drilling in this specific area, many Alaskans’ food source would be destroyed, and as a result they could possibly starve to death. While the fumes and the animal’s shelter being demolished would possibly send the innocent critters into extinction, the effects on the plants, the animals highest food source, would be a major component to the many species possibly dying off. The most frequent way in which the plants can be killed is through the unsanitary environment. With that said, if the environment is ruined it won’t just affect the air, but also living, breathing creatures.
Secondly, if such simple things as plants were affected imagine how intensely the economy would be changed. According to MSNBC’s article "Would Drilling More Alaskan Oil Cut Prices?" the volume of so-called recoverable oil in Alaska that is left comes to about 10.4 billion barrels. In order to receive even the littlest bit of that, we would have to pay at least some money. The U.S. is in so much debt-- why would we need to be even deeper? Deciding to drill for oil in Alaska would just add to the money we owe. Besides, by the time we would decide to begin producing oil, there would be yet another 7- 12, years to wait for the oil to produce. This point was stated by, once again, MSNBC’s article, "Would Drilling More Alaskan Oil Cut Prices?" By the time the production would be done and over with, we could have found another cheaper source and possibly do less damage than what could potentially happen in Alaska. Although there are some positives to using oil from the ANWR, such as expanding the market for gas sales, we could possibly send the takers of our oil into debt because of transportation costs. According to Document C, the amount of oil that would be supplied for us would last about 6 months, and although the use of that oil could lower our gas prices-- they’d shoot right back up once we ran out of Alaskan Oil. Bottom line, the economy would more than likely be affected if we finalized the agreement for lifting the ban.
Lastly, the last point for my disagreement to search for oil in Alaska is how useless it would be for the U.S. I mean, we are so in debt of oil, there’s no point in trying to increase production. The demand for oil is so high, and the chances of actually finding recoverable oil are slim to none. Plus, It will only reduce US oil imports by 4%. Yet another point from MSNBC’s article "Would Drilling More Alaskan Oil Cut Prices?" states that there’s only a 95% chance that 9.5 billion barrels are recoverable and a 5% chance there might be 16 billion barrels recoverable with a span of land and 3 mile limit off shore. Like I said before, this limited supply would last for only about 6 months. I personally believe that the only reason we are considering doing this is to try to make up for all the lost oil, which, quite frankly, won’t happen because we are so far behind on keeping up with equaling out the difference between productions, there’s no way in any one's right mind who thinks that we will ever be able to make up for our lost productions.
The drastic effect it could have on the environment, the economy, and because of the limited help it’ll give the U.S. is why my perspective of this dilemma is that the U.S. shouldn’t drill for oil in Alaska. I honestly do believe there are positives to drill for oil in Alaska, but I disagree that we should drill for oil in the Alaska. Seriously, just think of all the harmful effects that drilling for oil in Alaska could potentially cause.
