Group 2

[djohnston]

Group 2's debate thread.

[RAL]

testing 123

[Rosie]

The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) spans 19 million acres of land in northeast Alaska.  Home to caribou, polar bears, wolves, and many other species, ANWR has been protected from development since 1960.  But that may change, because geologists believe ANWR may be home to something else: billions of barrels of oil, lying beneath ANWR’s coastal plain.  With recent soaring prices on imported oil, drilling in the refuge is a practical opportunity to some politicians and oil producers.  But opposing groups, committed to preserving the animal’s ecosystem, want the area declared a “wilderness,” which would end the possibility of development.
        In early August 2001, the House of Representatives approved an energy bill that would allow drilling in Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.  But the Senate must approve it too, which promises to be a tougher battle.
        Those who oppose drilling in ANWR and want it designated as a wilderness preserve argue that no matter how good our intentions, development almost always harms wildlife in some way.  Conservationists fear that ANWR development may interfere with the calving habits of caribou and the migratory patterns of snow geese, among other problems.  We would be ruining one of the few undeveloped places on earth permanently for a belated and temporary increase in oil production.  Oil from ANWR wouldn’t reach the market for 15 years, and at the rate that we burn it, it wouldn’t last long.  Drilling in ANWR won’t save us much dependence on foreign oil.  Americans account for 26 percent of the world’s annual oil consumption, while proven U.S. oil reserves are only 3.5 percent of the world’s supplies.  Even using the most optimistic estimates, oil from ANWR would only add 0.4 percent to the world oil reserves.
        We believe that the United States Government should not allow for the drilling of oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska.  Humans would disturb a beautiful wildlife refuge once again, with animal lives changed in the process.  For one, the drilling may not yield much of anything.  Second, the reserve can be saved as a last resort decades from now when we’ve exhausted other supplies. The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is an important onshore denning habitat for America’s vanishing polar bears.  And, each year, millions of birds from all across the country make their way to this area.  We oppose to Big Oil’s high priced lobbyists pushing legislation to industrialize this national treasure.

[djohnston]

Great Opening statement, Way to be the First.

Please remember you must also include at least one sources for your information in each post that is made in order to allow another to read your sources to form a possible rebuttal.

Johnston

[cotousa]

Potentially billions of barrels of oil can be drilled from the fields of the ANWR-using only 8% of that coastline. The only factor holding back immediate action towards getting this oil is the question if it significantly hurts our environment.

Because of a lot of costly research that has been done on the fields at Prudhoe Bay and Kuparuk, we can finally see that a healthy environment can be sustained even with the development and production of petroleum. These oil field facilities have been located and developed to not hinder the local environment, and use the least amount of tundra surface possible. Thousands of water-fowl and increasing numbers of caribou migrate through these areas without harm. New techniques are still being discovered to minimize the environmental impacts of oil drilling in the provinces of ANWR. Many new requirements have also been established to protect the environment at the federal, state, and local level.

Lastly, the ANWR isn’t entirely a “refuge”- only 9.16 million acres of the entire 19.6 million acres is considered a refuge. If the small portion (only 8% of the ANWR) of the land isn’t allowed to be put to use as a major oil provider, Congress will be faced with the problem of the country’s needs for additional domestic energy supplies. It will be 15 years before the oil reaches the market, so by that time the nation will have even a greater need for a more accessible oil source.

Site: http://www.anwr.org/ANWR-Basics/Arctic-National-Wildlife-Refuge-the-issue.php

[Rosie]

http://www.anwr.org/Background/Drilling-in-Refuges.php

http://www.govspot.com/issues/anwr.htm

[CBriglio]

Original Statement

    First of all, retrieving Arctic Refuge Oil is only a mere distraction, not a solution to our problems with oil. America would gain very little by allowing heavy industry into the refuge. Oil from the refuge would hardly make a dent in our dependence on foreign imports. This would therefore leave our economy and way of life just as exposed to wild swings in worldwide oil prices and supply as it is today. Simply stated, we can't drill our way to “energy independence.” Some of the drilling proponents often come back with the fact that there are 16 billion barrels of oil under the refuge's coastal plain. Mind you, this information is coming from the U.S. Geological Service’s estimate of the amount that could be retrieved “economically.” The fact that their concerned with economically producing things show how unimportant environmental aspects are in their debates and reasoning. In reality, the amount that’s likely to be profitably extracted and sold is equal to less then a year’s supply for the U.S. Why should we kill and destroy all this unharmed refuge if it’s going to benefit us for a year, but in harm the refuge indefinitely. Studies show that it would take ten years for any of the Arctic Refuge oil to even reach the market. Even when production peaks, which isn’t even until 2027, the refuge would only produce one to two percent of the U.S.’s daily consumption for oil. The oil that the refuge might produce in long term aspects is simply irrelevant. Like stated previously, this is only a distraction to our problems, not a solution. The larger issue that should be being discussed is meeting America's future energy needs. The statement that should stick out the most to anyone that is pro for ANWR’s extraction of oil should be that ANWR’s oil will supply less than 3% of the United State’s annual oil use, and that the price for drilling this small amount of oil will be the destruction of unspoiled land, not to mention killing ANWR’s beautiful surroundings of flora and fauna.

[CBriglio]

http://www.sibelle.info/oped15.htm

site for the original statement

[lyacoel]

Original Statement

Furthermore, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is home to an abundant array of diverse animals that depend on the preservation of the refuge in order to survive. ANWR is the nation’s second largest wildlife refuge. The artic refuge houses “prehistoric-looking musk oxen, millions of migratory birds, Dall sheep, wolf packs, moose, majestic caribou herds…polar bears” and grizzly bears. If we allow drilling to occur, the population of these animals will be in drastic jeopardy, forcing many to find new homes. Many of these animals will be unable to cope with the development of roads and dangerous construction sights.
         Each year, 180,000 caribou migrate to calving grounds which are located in the same general area as the oil. Many biologist worry that pregnant caribou cows will be unable to calve with an industrial complex so close. Also, if the caribou will be forced to migrate inland, they will be harassed by swarms of mosquitoes, making it difficult to eat enough food. Also, musk oxen, which are native to Alaska, were hunted to extinction, but they have been able to come back 20 years ago. Since they have been living in the ANWR, the oxen have been thriving. The construction of roads would harm their population drastically because they would be displaced from their prime habitat.
        The Artic National Wildlife Refuge is not only a refuge and home to thousands of animals, but it is revered as a sacred piece of history. The ancient human cultures of the Inupiat Eskimos admire the ANWR as a “sort of frozen Eden, the last paradise at the far Northern edge of the Final Frontier”. They feel that the wildlife refuge is something sacred and special that should be preserved and taken care of. And according to Sydney Butler, a vice president of the Wilderness Society, “oil and gas development would destroy [the] area, with all its wild and spectacular diversity, forever”.

Egan, Timothy. "The Great Alaskan Debate"
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D0CE7DE1F3BF937A3575BC0A967958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1 

[Rosie]

        Drilling in the ANWR will not only disrupt the environment but it will greatly damage the animals that live in that habitat. The ANWR is home to arctic foxes and caribou. It is the most important denning habitat offshore, for America’s vastly decreasing population of polar bears. It is also a huge area where millions of birds migrate to every year. The animals that live here need this particular habitat to survive disrupting it would ruin their whole ecosystem.
        The ANWR is one of the most beautiful Wildlife Refuge Systems. It is located in the northeast corner of Alaska and remains extremely pristine. Drilling in this location for a few months amount of oil would be a horrible decision.  
        The area wanted for drilling is the 1.5 million acres located on the coastal plain of the Beaufort Sea. The Wildlife Refuge is the largest refuge in America crossing over 19 million acres. Even though the drilling would only occur in 1.5 million of the acres these are the most heavily populated acres of the whole refuge. This area is also the most sensitve and drilling in this area would have a vast impact on the whole refuge.

http://www.savearcticrefuge.org/sections/wildimpacts.html
http://www.savearcticrefuge.org/

[Rosie]

        Even though we would only be using 8% of the refuge this particular 8% is the most important habitat of the whole refuge. This area is home to our fast vanishing population of American polar bears. In 1987,the United States signed an Agreement for the Conservation of the Porcupine Caribou Herd treaty which helped to protect the herd and its habitat from damage or disruptions in migration routes. Drilling in this area would go agains the treaty we signed back in 1987.
             The U.S. uses 20 million barrels of oil daily. If we were to use the oil located in the refuge it is estimated to only last 1.4 years, if there is the amount of oil they believe to be there (10.4 billion barrels). The only reason we need this oil is because of our excessive oil consumption. There are many ways to reduce our use of oil; no one seems to want to put the effort out to work harder to change the amount of oil we use.
        A national survey say’s that 53% oppose drilling in Alaska and only 35% are for it.


http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/technologyandresearch/a/anwrsurvey.htm
http://www.albionmonitor.com/0502a/anwrpoll.html
http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed111505c.cfm

[lyacoel]

Rebute statement

While some of your points may be valid, you did not mention how the general public and congress feel about drilling in the ANWR. Recently in 2005, Congress rejected the bill to drill in the refuge because they believed that it was not going to solve the problem of our dependence on foreign oil. They believed that the refuge is an important part of our country. Protecting our environment is a core American value. Also, by drilling in the refuge, we are not solving our dependence on oil, but we are merely masking the problem by drilling for more oil. We should be finding new ways to produce energy besides drilling in a special wildlife refuge that houses thousands of animals. Also, even if we did drill in the area, it would only produce about 1 to 2% of American's daily consumption. Drilling in the refuge is more about oil companies profiting because the results do not help very much.
Furthermore, about 60 miles west of the refuge is Prudhoe Bay -- an oil complex that has turned 1,000 square miles of beautiful tundra into an industrial zone containing 1,500 miles of roads and pipelines, and 1,400 producing wells. If we drill in the refuge, this will unfortunately be the result. The once beautiful land will be consumed with "mountains of sewage sludge, scrap metal, garbage and more than 60 contaminated waste sites that contain -- and often leak -- acids, lead, pesticides, solvents and diesel fuel."


http://www.nrdc.org/land/wilderness/arctic.asp

[cotousa]

          There are multiple reasons to support ANWR development, and fewer reasons to oppose it. This project would substantially help our economy, while using only a small amount of land.
          Environmentalists are worried that so much land in Alaska will be destroyed, but in reality, less than half of one percent would be affected by production activity. Less than 200 acres of the 1.5 million acres of the Coastal plain would be affected if oil is even found there.
          The economy of America is weakening. Not only would 250,000-735,000 jobs be created by this development, estimates by the Office of Management and Budget for the life of the oil fields say that the oil fields would contribute $152-237 billion to the nation’s economy. This development would not be a gamble either, because the North Slope oil field development and production contributed $50 billion between 1977 and 2004 and distributed to every state. But now, the oil production on the North Slope, which is nearly 16% of our nation’s domestic oil production, is declining from 2 million barrels a day to 731,000 barrels.
          Soon we will need another source of domestic oil because the huge amount of oil on North Slope is lessening. Our weakening economy can’t afford to pay more for importing more oil. The amount of oil we imported in 2007 alone cost $330 billion ($37.75 million an hour!) and was only 60% of our country’s oil. Now if you include the expenses to defend our imported oil, and cost for jobs and industry abroad, the total would be about a trillion dollars!
          Last of all, the Alaskans aren’t against this oil development. In fact at least 75% of them support it. The Democratically elected Alaska State Legislatures, congressional delegations, and Governors have unanimously supported opening the Coastal Plain of ANWR for the past 25 years.

source: http://www.anwr.org/ANWR-Basics/Top-ten-reasons-to-support-ANWR-development.php

[cotousa]

         Due to greater technology, animals are thriving even by the land near oil development, and it is not true that “many of these animals will be unable to cope with the development”. For example, by the Prudhoe Bay Oil reserve, the Central Arctic Caribou Herd (CACH) has grown from 3000 animals to its current level of 32,000 animals. Brown bears, fox, and birds populations are equal to that of the surrounding areas not affected by the oil production.
         Many new requirements have been established to protect the environment at the federal, state, and local level. These oil field facilities have been located and developed to not hinder the local environment, and use the least amount of tundra surface possible. Oil rigs used to cover about 10% of the surface of a region, but scientists have found a way so that less that .5% of the surface of the region is affected. Thousands of water-fowl and increasing numbers of caribou migrate through these areas without harm. Oil spills are becoming even rarer, but when they do occur, such efficient cleaning methods are put to use that the area is as good as the original state afterwards. New techniques are still being discovered to minimize the environmental impacts of oil drilling in the provinces of ANWR.
        This new technology allows us to make less of an impact on the environment. If the oil development at Prudhoe Bay were built today, the area would be 64% smaller, only 1,526 acres.

[sroshan]

 Every new source we find to aid in our country's oil supply is one step closer to breaking away from dependence on the Middle East for their oil supply. If we ignore each opportunity to obtain new sources of oil, however small they are, we are furthering the grasp that the OPEC members have on our oil and rest of our economy. Oil simply just is one of the main things that drives our economy and fuels of everyday activities. If we dismiss our chance to economically profit from these supposed 16 million barrels of oil under the refuge plain, that is 16 million barrels of oil more we must rely on the Middle East nations for. Sure, the oil we get from Alaska may not make a huge dent right now, but all these little extra findings here and there will add up and create a newfound large base on which the United States can therefore depend on. The longer we depend on the OPEC nations for our oil supply, the longer these nations have something to control us by like puppets. This could lead to their dominance should another significant war break out. By cutting us off from their oil supply, they would be holding us by the throat and force our surrender in order for our economy and way we live to not collapse. However, if we keep building up our own supply and only rely on our own resources, then the grip they have on us would then slowly diminish.

[sroshan]

Drilling in Alaska would only bring benefits to our economy. If we do not seize this opportunity to further build up our nation's oil supply, then we will forever be dependent on the nations of the Middle East. GOP lawmakers stated the drilling in Alaska would bring down consumer costs on oil and would decrease the reliance of the United States on imported oil. (Blum, Washington Post)  The Bush Administration states that drilling in the wildlife refuge would create thousands of new jobs in aid of unemployed American citizens as well as reduce our dependence on foreign nation imports by one million barrels of oil a day! American are tired of paying these astronomical costs on the price of crude oil and are begging for a solution. Areas in ANWR that are desired for drilling contain a possible 19 billion barrels of oil and 86 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. (CFACT, Alaska) Not only could this decrease our dependence on foreign nations, but could also increase our ability to produce many hybrid cars such as the Prius. Automobiles run on natural gas would help us pull away from crude oil dependence as well as decrease air pollution. The benefits of drilling the Alaska greatly outweigh the disadvantages.

[RAL]

I would agree completely will all of my group member's points. The trade offs easily point to drilling as the best outcome for the ANWR situation. The United States is enduring difficult times. Oil prices are at all time  highs, and OPEC countries are refusing to increase production. With gasoline prices reflecting this, US consumers are in desperate need of relief, and are tired of being held hostage by the OPEC oil cartel. The growth of petroluem demand in developing countires such as China and India demands that the US find its own oil, or endure crippling costs that hurt our economy. The fact is that it is in the best interest of America to seek energy independence, and that begins by utilizing the resources under our own soil.

As to the assertations that the oil provided by the refuge would only be enough supply for a year or two, these "facts" are manipulations of data. The figure of the ANWR oil only lasting 1.4 years is skewed, assuming that the entire US oil demand is drawn from that one source! Realistic assements show that if the ANWR was to replace 5% of US demand from OPEC countries, the ANWR reserves would last 32 years.

The opponency's "wishes" and "hopes" that America should find new sources of energy instead of drilling are pointless. Petroluem products are so integrated into our economy that it is naive to think there are alternatives here. Even if everybody started driving Hybrid cars, we would still need oil to fuel airplanes, pave roads and manufacture plastic.

As to the enviromental concerns- this is purely a political issue driven by extremist enviromental groups such as Greenpeace and the Sierra Club. They would rather see the American consumer and economy runied for the reason of preserving a wildlife refuge. The concerns of animals here are secondary; the U.S. government is obligated to the welfare of its people, not extremist groups or heards of Caribou.


P.S. Sorry Mr. Johnston this is posted late, the website would not load for me Friday night.

[cotousa]

oh shoot i forgot to put my source for my rebute statement i think....

source: Extreme Oil: The Wilderness; DVD Video; Films for the Humanities and Sciences

[lyacoel]

           Overall, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge should not be drilled on. The refuge is home to thousands of species, such as caribou, polar bears, foxes, grizzly bears, moose, wolves, sheep, and birds, that rely on the ANWR to survive. Oxen, which were once extinct, are now thriving in the refuge. Herds of caribou and flocks of birds migrate to the ANWR each year. Drilling in the ANWR will cause great damage to the entire ecosystem. Thousands of animals will have to find new homes as their homes are destroyed by construction. If we allow drilling to occur, the population of these animals will be in drastic jeopardy. Many of these animals will not be able to cope with the development of roads and dangerous construction sights.
           The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is one of the most beautiful Wildlife Refugey Systems. It is the second largest wildlife refuges. Preserving the wildlife in the refuge is part of our American culture. Also, the Inupiat Eskimos believe that it is a sacred and special place that should be taken care of.
            Furthermore, if we would drill in the ANWR the oil located there is estimated to last only 1.4 years. The refuge houses 10.4 billion barreks of oil. This may seem like a lot, but the U.S. uses 20 million barrels of oil daily. Also, studeis have shown that it would take ten years for the oil to actually get to the market. If we drill from the ANWR, we are only masking our problems. By drilling in the refuge, we are not going to end our dependence on foreign oil. Instead, we should find new sources of energy that are more efficent and that do not ruin wildlife refuges. We should not waste time and money to drill in the ANWR when we will only gain 2% of our daily consumption. Two percent of our daily consumption is not going to help our oil crisis. Overall, there are too many problems with drilling in the ANWR and not enough pro's.