Group 3

[djohnston]

Group 3's debate thread.

[nmitchell]

PRO OPENING STATEMENT:
        FIRST:  ANWR'S current size is 19.6 million acres made up of three legal within its borders: 9.16 million acres classified as "Refuge", 8 million acres classified legally as "wilderness". 1.5 million acres on the Arctic Costal Plain is known as "10-02" area where Congress passed a bill called the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) that set aside 1.5 million acres of the Arctic Coastal Plain specifically for "OIL AND GAS EXPLORATION". Of the total 19.6 million acres of ANWR only 2000 ACRES CAN BE USED, LESS THAN 1/2 OF 1% OF THE AREA. SO VERY LITTLE LAND IS BEING USED.
        SECONDLY: Between 250,000 and 735,000 jobs are estimated to be created and federal revenues would be enhanced by billions of dollars from bonus bids, lease rentals, royalties and taxes.
       THIRD: The U.S. Department of Interior estimates range from 9-16 BILLON BARRELS OF RECOVERABLE OIL.
                  ( the North Slope oil fields currently supply the U.S. with 16% of its domestic production which since 1988 is on the decline)
       FOURTH: IMPORTED OIL IS TOO COSTLY: in 2007 the US imported and average of 60%  sometimes up to 64% of its oil which equates to over $330 billion in oil imports- thats $37.75 million per hour gone out of our economy.
       FIFTH: THERE IS NO NEGATIVE IMPACT ON ANIMALS: oil and gas development and wildlife are ALREADY SUCCESSFULLY COEXISTING as the Central Arctic Caribou Herd migrates through Prudhoe Bay. Oil fields at Prudhoe Bay and Kuparuk serve as birthing grounds for the caribou which lie less than 100 miles away from ANWR.
       LASTLY:  OVER 75% OF ALASKANS FAVOR EXPLORATION AND PRODUCTION IN ANWR

www.anwr.org

[akaban]

Con Opening Argument-
The Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge is a magnificent and virtually unharmed exhibit of nature at its best.  The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is home to a diverse and spectacular display of animals including 36 fish species, 36 land mammals, nine marine mammals, and more than 160 migratory and resident bird species.  Drilling for oil in the refuge would only disturb wildlife and destroy the pristine landscape.  Our oil problem should be solved by other means other than disrupting unharmed wilderness.  At the rate that we consume oil, "the total projected reserves beneath the potentially exploitable "1002 area" of the Refuge's coastal plain is estimated at a few billion barrels of oil--a reserve that would support the nation's oil habit for 200 days."  We should not resort to drilling in the ANWR if this will only be a temporary solution to our dependency on foreign oil and gas prices.
sources:
http://www.oilonice.org/explore/energy.php
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_Refuge_drilling_controversy

[nmitchell]

   One hundred miles west of ANWR is Prudhoe Bay, North America's largest oil field. Every year water birds and other types of birds nest and reproduce in the Prudhoe Bay fields. Caribou also migrate through current oil fields without and hindrances. So what this means is that ANWR is geologically similar( as studies show) to Prudhoe and oil production will not affect the wildlife as oil is being drilled because it has already been shown that wildlife and petroleum development can coexist.
   The facilities are designed around the wildlife and are built to use the least amount of tundra surface. Also, intricate regulatory standards have been set forth since the 1960's to monitor the permitting process on a federal, state, and local level, showing a highly researched and precisely planned development program in which the main focus is environmental protection.
   New technology is being continually developed to ensure proper drilling techniques with as little harm to the environment as possible, as the main goal. These techniques include horizontal production wells , which effectively penetrate horizontally very far down with tubing through a thin layer of oil; and coiled tubing units which replace drilling rigs to keep up maintenance work on wells.



http://www.anwr.org/

[don branleoni]

Alaska will be the gate way for the United States to continue its thirst for oil. We are aleady to dependent and our greed is blinding our judgment.  Senators Lisa Murkowski and Ted Stevens have introduced legislation, “The American Energy Independence and Security Act of 2008." This will open the Area of ANWR. Oil prices have broken world records and now sits at $110 per barrel. This is the earth telling us to find other resources.  The bill states that if the price of oil reaches $125/barrel for five days or more that area of ANWR should be opened for leasing. This bill will just elongate a problem that we will need to battle later on. If Alaska is drilled, sure we will have oil for years but what happenns after that? We need to start now and begin to build the infrastructure for new technology and resources. This bill does say the developement can only be over 2000 acres. However, this 2000 acres will be spread across 1.5 million acres. This is a very large loop hole that many wont see and take into consoderation. It is our planet and our job to take care of it. If this beautiful area becomes another playground for oil tycoons, then our greed has taken us over. Right now we should be focused on conservation and protction of the flaura and fauna of this area. Where do we draw the line?

<a href="http://www.anwr.org/

<a href="http://www.bushwatch.com/drilling.htm

[don branleoni]

Prudhoe is example that wildlife and oil fields can exist. Prudhoe Bay is a very small poriton of Alaska. The bill that will be put in place if Alaska is drilled, will expand the land that the oil fields will be on. Basically these birds have no where to go so they are forced to coexist amoungst the developement of ANWR. The 2000 acres that are to be put in place are only the acres part of the facilities on the ground. What about thousands of miles of pipeline? The bill is not taking the consideration the stress it will put on the alaskan environment. It will be the facilities but also the new homes and building set up for the hundreds of workers that are to be expected to work on the oil fields. Exploratory oil drilling will have to require heavy equipment, including large rigs. Exploration and production wells could be drilled anywhere on the entire 1.5 million-acre coastal plain. Wildlife will be trapped and impacted if the oil companies can explore and drill anywhere within the 1.5 million acres.

www.anwr.org/
www.savearcticrefuge.org/

[JPuppo]

Drilling in Alaska makes so much sense, there is no surprise that it takes a certain amount of "environmental" politics to make it a worthwhile debate.

The news footage showing the pristine landscapes and wilderness that are going to be destroyed by the drilling limit their presentations to the seventeen and a half million acres that are off limits to any sort of drilling.  The one and a half remaining acres of land that is actually available to a search for oil are much less occupied by beautiful sights and surroundings, meaning there is much less to damage, not that drilling for oil has been shown to cause any damage.

There is actually another Wild Life Refuge(The Kenai National Wildlife Refuge) within the boarders of Alaska that has had drilling on site for decades.  This Wild Life Refuge gets no publicity because it is a practiced oil drilling facility that has had no problems occur.

The largest worry for many people opposing the drilling of this area is the destruction of populations of animals that dwell inside of the Refuge.  The poster child for these worries has been the adorable caribou that are sprawled all over the refuge.  "The herds will be devastated!" echoes from the cries of the men and women opposed to drilling for oil in America that can be used by Americans.  But alas, "the caribou herd that migrates through Prudhoe Bay has increased from 3,000 to 23,000 since drilling commenced there in 1977."

And on a positive note, by drilling for oil in Alaska, we will not only be making money for our government, supporting what polls prove to be the popular opinion of seventy five percent of Alaska (in support of drilling), and opening jobs up for millions of Americans, but we will be doing our country a great justice by bringing business home, and away from foreign countries.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,179005,00.html

[akaban]

You have a valid argument regarding the caribou but they are not the only things that are a concern when it comes to being threatened by oil drilling.  Local Alaskan villages are being disrupted by the complex oil drilling process.  Besides, Shell (the main oil company involved) is not in compliance with the simple requests with some of the villages.  For example, the village of Kaktovik was in support of Alaskan oil drilling until Shell "failed to work with the villagers on how the company would protect bowhead whales which are part of Native culture, subsistence life, and diet."  This is just another example of how large companies take advantage of the situation.  Oil companies claim that the oil drilling process will take into consideration its effects on the environment yet the actions of the oil companies display their carelessness.  In fact there are "over 400 spills every year of crude oil and other toxic substances" at the Prudhoe Bay site which is only 30 miles away from the wildlife refuge itself.  The effects of oil drilling on wildlife and the environment will not just be restricted to the drilling sites themselves.  The effects will be radiated throughout a large portion of the Alaskan terrain.  For example, in order to have a successful and efficient drilling system, a "large number of well pads, connected by pipelines, roads, airports, housing facilities, processing plants, and other infrastructure."  This will obviously span across a large area so it will disrupt habitats and divide ecosystems.

http://www.petroleumnews.com/pntruncate/349287231.shtml
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_Refuge_drilling_controversy#cite_note-5
http://www.savearcticrefuge.org/sections/oilindus.html

[akaban]

Con Argument-
My main argument against oil drilling in the Alaskan Wildlife Refuge is that it will not be limited to a small portion of land.  This in itself will devastating to the Alaskan wildlife and environment.  In fact, the major oil companies involved claim that they will limit the drilling project to 2000 acres of the Alaskan terrain but in reality this does not take into consideration all of aspects that need to be taken into consideration for drilling.      The required infrastructure to make production of oil successful will create a destructive network of pipelines  and roads along with many drilling sites (buildings, factories) that will fracture wildlife habitats and disrupt the environment.  The callousness and carelessness of drilling companies also show that they do not care about the welfare of the Alaskan wilderness.  In fact there have been over 400 oil spills and in some areas of the wildlife refuge near local drilling sites, groundwater levels show 10 times the legal limit of contamination according to the Environmental Protection Agency.  The crude oil and other toxic substances that are left behind after the production of oil have been discovered to cause deformities in many species of wildlife.  In fact, scientists discovered a large population of frogs with "crippling deformities."
http://www.savearcticrefuge.org/sections/toxictundra.pdf


http://www.savearcticrefuge.org/2005/2000acre.pdf 

[nmitchell]

in response to don branleoni:

    Your statement about the earth telling us to find new resources is valid but the issue is we need oil now. Developing new technologies and finding new resources could take a significant amount of time and we need a faster solution. While drilling in Alaska we could kill two birds with one stone by supply the oil we need now and continue research for new resources and technology for later. Regarding the 2000 acres, new technology will enable companies to tap reservoirs without a large footprint on the surface. During the 1970s when Prudhoe Bay was developed 5000 acres or 2% of the surface area over the field was covered by development. Using new technology today would allow for a 60% reduction, production would cover less than 2000 acres. Although 1.5 million acres on the northern coast of ANWR is being viewed for development, 17.5 million  acres will remain permanently untouched or closed to any type of production.


http://www.anwr.org/

[jaschieris]

Con-

In response to Natalie

You say that we need oil now. Fact is that we have enough oil at our disposal without drilling in the North Slope. Our ravenous consumption of the product has given way to a skyrocketing market because of our habits and ways. In a study done by the EPA, groundwater levels in the Alaska Kenai Wildlife Refuge have exceed the legal toxin limit by over 10 times. These levels have been reached largely by spills from human error. Were we to start drilling in the ANWR, these numbers would only increase. These levels of toxins have unimaginable effects on the animals living in habitats located in the AKWR. We should look to ourselves to save oil before selflessly killing one of our countries most beautiful treasures.

Sources:
www.savearcticrefuge.org (pdf tundra download)

[jaschieris]

Con- Animal Impacts

While the above posts have recognized the issue of animal impacts, they have failed to address specifics of the effects on individual species. Take for example the polar bear. Our furry friend may experience all or some of the following effects.

"Disturbance of females while denning could cause them to abandon cubs. Death, injury or harassment resulting from encounters with humans. Damage or destruction of essential habitat (e.g., feeding, breeding and especially denning areas) by dumping, dredging, drilling and construction of platforms, pipelines, roads and support facilities. Contact with and ingestion of oil and other contaminants (e.g., ethylene glycol antifreeze, heavy metals, organochlorines, etc.) used in oil production. Attraction to industrial areas with subsequent habituation to humans and increased control actions. Harassment (disturbance) by aircraft, ships and other vehicles (stress/overheating when fleeing, interruption of feeding).Detrimental effects on the polar bear's main source of food, ringed seals, due to impacts of oil, noise and other contaminants. Increased hunting pressures due to greater access."

Taken from: www.savearcticrefuge.org

[jaschieris]

Con Closing Statement

On behalf of my group, I would like to say that drilling and exploring for oil in the ANWR is bad! The effects of invading this beautiful area will have monumental effects on starting negative chain reactions in our environment. Like the character in the Lorax once said," I speak for the trees." Not only do we speak for the trees but also for the thousands of animals which would be harmed, killed, or put into extinction by North Slope drilling. We need to tie up loose ends in the Middle East and benefit from the full potential of those oil opportunities before literally tearing up a new section of the Earth. While our oil supply is declining gradually, we have not exhausted our present resources yet. If we do reach such a situation, drilling in Alaskan areas will be re-evaluated but until then, respect our animals' populations and simply save the Earth.

[JPuppo]

Pro Closing Statement-

As a whole group, we would like to say that drilling and exploring for oil in the ANWR is good.  The point that seems to hold the most weight with the opposing argument is that drilling and exploring in the wild life refuge will damage the environment and kill the mass amounts of animals that inhabit the area around where they might drill.  If those people on the opposing side of the argument are still terribly worried about the desolation that will be caused after the "rape" of the land in the face of the aforementioned statistics and facts, they should realize that the longer we hold off harvesting oil in the United States and rely on foreign oil, the more human lives we are losing.  Our country has been stuck in a war for oil since i was in seventh grade, and every year more and more American soldiers are leaving their families behind in the name of a very fixable problem.  By drilling in the Arctic, the chances of us finding sufficient amounts of oil within American borders are extremely high, and with this newly discovered oil, the superfluous deaths caused by a war for this commodity would be halted.

And, "drilling for oil is bad!"... is that really the best you could come up with?