Group 5

[djohnston]

Group 5's debate thread.

[nvargas ()]

         The Alaskan Wildlife refuge is home to oxen, polar bears, foxes, caribou, and many other species of the tundra biome. The ecosystem of the tundra biome is extremely fragile due to its harsh climate. Not only does it include the tundra biome it also includes the taiga biome. The taiga is also recognized as the boreal forest, which acts as a huge carbon sink.
        U.S. Oil companies are interested in drilling in the coastal plains of Alaska, which is said to be the “biological heart of the refuge”. They say they will not do much environmental degradation, but the oil they are looking for is in small deposits and they will drill a lot of small widespread areas causing environmental damage to be more widespread. Oil companies have a one in fifth chance of finding enough oil to meet the U.S. needs for 6 moths to one year. It will take at least 15 years for ANWR oil to reach the U.S. shelves. If they do find oil, they will have a high probability of an oil spill. The effects of an oil spill have a great impact on the environment. If that occurs, it may turn out to be like the Exxon Valdez oil spill of 1989, which still has not been completely cleaned up and 26,600 gallons of oil still remain. It harmed much marine life such as whales, plankton, and seals. Furthermore, according to a study, we would “save more oil than there is in the [ANWR] …if everybody in America changes their tires to new ones”. It is more beneficent in the long run if we look for alternatives because we do not have enough oil to meet our consumption and oil will not be economically viable soon enough.
       In conclusion, oil companies should not drill there because it degrades the land, air, and the ocean. We should not risk environmental degradation based on chance. It is more beneficent if we look for alternatives.
http://discovermagazine.com/2005/feb/drilling-for-controversy
http://ths.sps.lane.edu/biomes/tundra3/tundra3.html
APES textbook
http://www.lauracannon.com/ANWR/nature.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2007/feb/02/oil.pollution

["oil slick" nelson]

Our Opening Statement

"Put another way, this much Alaskan oil could reduce American oil imports by about 15%, American imports from the Middle East by over 25%. The effect of Alaskan oil on helping manage oil prices is significant. "

http://www.ecoworld.com/home/articles2.cfm?tid=360

with this information, drilling in alaska would significantly help take some strain off our economy.  The United States is in desperate need of oil, and why not drill on our own land instead of invading other countries for oil.  we cant reduce the amount of cars on the road, because our nation depends on the highway system.  

[djohnston]

REX this is straight plagiarism quotes or not, very weak. Your group was to put together and opening argument for your side that was written by you and your own group members. A one sentence that is copied from another site does not qualify.

Johnston

["oil slick" nelson]

okay, in this post, im only going to talk about a small potion of your opening statement: the caribou

The Caribou population is not hurt by the drilling of oil in Alaska.  If anything, the oil drilling and the pipelines definitly seem to be helping them.  The Central Arctic Heard, which claves near the oil fields has risen 900% since the early 1970's.  This is INSANE!!!  The Caribou flock to the heated pipe lines to have sex and mate.  The caribou also like this because it keeps the flys away.  Another thing is that the wild life refuge that these caribou reside in is 19.6 million acres large.  About 1.5 million acres is set aside for the study of "oil potential"  Of that 1.5 million acres, only about 2,000 acres will be directly affected by oil drilling.  2,000 acres for oil out of about 19.6 MILLION acres of land sounds like a good deal to me.  Another thing is that the heated and beneficial oil pipes are raised off the ground so the caribou and other animals can pass by without being hindered or impeded.  Look at the website I am showing you.  It's from the ANWR.  The caribou and other animal populations definitly seem to be flourishing because of the oil drilling pipelines.

http://www.anwr.org/features/pdfs/caribou-facts.pdf

[djohnston]

Rex

Please remove any unnecessary graphics, If I need I will ban you from this forum for not post material that is relevant to the topic.

Johnston

["oil slick" nelson]

Another aspect of the issue that tends to be overlooked is the broad array of oil drilling techniques that are designed to make a minimal impact on the surrounding environment.  A good website demonstrating these techniques is here:

http://www.geology.wisc.edu/courses/g115/oil/4.html

As you can see, oil companies are able to drill horizontally, that is, parallel to the surface of the ground, with ONLY ONE ENTRANCE POINT through the surface.  This makes for a very, very, small ecological "footprint".  After they have exhausted the oil in the region, they can pack up, sweep some topsoil and snow back over the area, and it is good as new.

I would also like to point out, that contrary to popular belief, the Inupiat (Eskimo)  tribe that lives in ANWR are not the ones that oppose drilling.  They recognize the benefits oil drilling would have upon their economy, and they trust the oil companies to do things right and protect the environment.

The position of the city of Kaktovik can be found at this website

http://www.kaktovik.com/ourland.html

A quote from that site:
"We have carefully studied and taken a position on petroleum development.  We have reached a consensus that we have held now for over two decades.  That consensus is not what most people think, it is much more complex.  The essence of the Kaktovik position is that we would support oil exploration and development of the coastal plain provided we are given the authority and the resources to ensure that it is done properly and safely.  Without the necessary provisions to ensure this protection, we would not."

Nobody is going to hurt the environment on purpose.  Nobody wants to destroy one of the world's last undeveloped areas.

[LIEBO]

First of all, drilling in the United States of America is, and should be, one of our first priorities, as a country, toward receiving oil to support our modern-day economy.  There are numerous reasons concerning why they United States should drill in their own terrritory and not "invade" other parts of the world.  Here are only two for now.

One of the reasons we should drill here in the United States is because of the money situation.  As you may know, the cost of putting oil wells and oil platforms overseas is tremendous.  Then, once we can afford to put these platforms and wells are over there, we need to find some way to transport the oil back over to the United States at a low cost, in order to get receive a larger profit.    

Another reason that we should drill is because of the fact that the oil underneath the land here in the United States is prime.  When I say prime, I mean rich and hearty.  Some of the world's best oil comes from right below us.  

http://www.referenceforbusiness.com/industries/Finance-Insurance-Real-Estate/Oil-Royalty-Traders.html

Thus, we should drill.

[LIEBO]

REBUTE

The Alaskan Wildlife refuge is ALSO home to some of the world's finest oil.  Looking for alternatives can either be a huge benefit, or a huge deficit.  In other words, I feel that we should take the opportunity of drilling in the ANWR simply because of the fact that we can not 100% rely on other countries to 1) actually let us in to their territory and 2) let us drill for their own oil.  

By saying that the wildlife and living organisms around the sites could potentially be harmed is a little too strong.  Alaska is home to hundreds of miles of environment, and, mostly all of it is the same type of ecosystem more or less.  So, with that said, we can either A) find a way to transport these "poor little" animals a few miles away from the sites, or B) just let them be.  

Now do not get me wrong, I am most definately not up for killing or possibly injuring wildlife, but, I do feel like the chances are extremely high that there is exceptional oil underneath, and that the wildlife will not be harmed, at least in a severe way if at all.

Next, to your statement, "Oil companies have a one in fifth chance of finding enough oil to meet the U.S. needs for 6 moths to one year."  It does not matter if we fulfill the requirments to meet the U.S. needs for 6 months.  At least we are getting some source of oil, rather than nothing.  And, even if we could drill all of it out, we could THEN seek alternate options such as other countries.  

All in all, I feel like we should drill in the ANWR because: there is great oil, there is an extremely low probability that wildlife will be disturbed, and the cost is A LOT cheaper than transporting loads of steel and pumps across the ocean to other countries.  For example, in 2000, the United States imported 54% of its oil products, sending $180,000 overseas each minute.  That is $10,800,000 per hour.  Not cheap at all.

http://www.dallasfed.org/research/swe/2004/swe0405a.html

http://www.jcer.or.jp/eng/pdf/kenrep051108e.pdf

http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/clean_energy_policies/will-drilling-the-arctic-refuge-really-solve-our-oil-woes.html

       

[mmcmains]

In the opening statement by the con team, they stated that where the drilling is expected to occur is in the  “biological heart of the refuge”. Although this may be true, this would not be the first time the United States have drilled in a wildlife refuge. A study by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service found that 77 of the 567 wildlife refuges in 22 states that were involved in the study have been allowed oil and gas activities.

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

If we have already drilled on Wildlife Refuges before why would we not take advantage of drilling on portions of the Alaska Wildlife refuge that is expected to have as Mark stated, premium oil that will only help the US economy.

[mmcmains]

Original Statement
Another reason why the United States should start drilling on The ANWR because it would help the labor problem in the United States. America's major Labor Organizations have strongly urged Congress to pass an energy policy that would allow drilling on the Arctic Wildlife Refuge. The President of The International Brotherhood of Teamsters told Congress that with as less destruction of the environment as possible they would provide 10.3 billion barrels of oil and by this would create 750,000 jobs nationwide. And Teamsters are not the only organization that support drilling in the ANWR, Laborers, Sheet Metal Workers, Maritime Officers, United Mine Workers, the list goes on of all people wanting to drill in the ANWR. These unions all believe that the drilling in the ANWR will help the US economy and that the drilling can be done in a environmentally responsible manner.

http://www.anwr.org/features/pdfs/faces-labor.pdf

Because drilling in the ANWR would not only help the United States economically through oil but in employing a near 750,000 people, why not use our own land to only better our economy.

[bryandoheny]

one of thebiggest problems america faces is that it is addicted to oil. We are currently recieving most of our oil from the middle east, and yet we still continue to be greedy for more. In alaska it is being proposed that wedestroy 1.5 million acres in the Artic National Wildlife Reserve (ANWR). there are two major problems with this.
the first problem is the use of oil. it is said that by drilling in the anwr, we can recieve up to thirty more yeaars of oil. but instead of focusing our energy and tax payers money in developing this untouched habitat for oil, we should be concentrating our recourses on new forms of energy. global warming is a huge problem that the world faces today. by opening the anwr oil reserve, it can only make the global warming issue more of a problem because of the increase in green house gases this oil would give us.
the second problem is the natural habitat of the anwr. it has been untouched by man and the proposed drilling would cause an environmental disruptionin an area the size of 1.5 million acres. the drilling will cause pollution to the area as well as ruining the habitats of that areas indiginious animals

http://www.anwr.org/Resources/Worried-About-Fuel-Prices-ANWR-Equals-30-Years-of-Saudi-Oil.php

[bryandoheny]

 this is to go against what marks post said about oil in america.
even though there is an oil reserve in america, there are reserves all over the world. when we driill for oil, we are only getting a certain percentage of the oil out of the land. instead of drilling in the anwr and riuning the last bit of americas untouched frontier, why dont we focus our money and energy into new ways to drill oil. if we figure out how to get more oil out the the ground, there will be no need to open the oil reserves of the anwr because the cost of oil will go down. exxon mobile has just figured out how to drill at a rate of 35% faster than normal. by using real time computer analysis of the oil that they are drilling, they are able to better manage the oil they are drillling, and in effect, recieve the oil in a shorter amount of time. if more companies continue to research for quicker and more efficient ways to get oil, the oil crisis would be over.

http://www.azom.com/news.asp?newsID=4214

["oil slick" nelson]

Concluding Statement:

In response to the argument that oil obtained from the ANWR will not hit the shelves for over a decade: While this figure is true, I believe it to be an irrelevant argument. I'm sure debates like this one have been taking place for over a decade; if we had started back then we would be reaping the benefits now.

Some of you make the point that oil drilling will disrupt whale migration patterns which would directly affect the natives of the area in a harmful way.  Despite the fact that the media often show images of the coastline when doing a story on drilling in ANWR, the region is actually a huge area with very little in it. It is essentially a desert, traversed only by migratory herds of caribou.  I have already gone into great detail over the prosperity the caribou can still experience in the presence of oil fields.

I would encourage you to revisit the link to the website I posted earlier that goes into detail of oil drilling techniques.  With just one point of entry into the earth, oil can be extracted from a large subterranean area surrounding it.  The environmental impact compared to the economic and political benefits (less reliance on the Middle East) of drilling in the ANWR is negligible.
http://www.geology.wisc.edu/courses/g115/oil/4.html

I am glad to see such a high level of concern for the environment.  I too believe that it should be protected so future generations of Americans can enjoy the beauty of the outdoors. However, the concern for the environment as a result of drilling in the ANWR has been blown ridiculously out of proportion.  Oil companies can and WILL take all possible precautions to protect the environment as they undergo a business endeavor which will boost our economy, provide jobs in Alaska, and reduce our independence on foreign oil supplies.  Nobody wants to deliberately harm the environment.

[bryandoheny]

The anwr is home to hundreds of species. if the untouched area was to be turned into a oil drilling area, it would devistate the local population of animals. If we allow the drilling more than 130 species of migratory birds that depend on the refuge's coastal plain would suffer permanent habitat losses, the birthrate of the Porcupine caribou may fall by 40 percent, and not to mention the grizzly bears, wolves, arctic foxes, whales and other species that also thrive in the region. Drilling in the ANWR not only disrupts the animal life, but it also is not that beneficial to society. to some, alaska is known as our last hope of a new oil supply in a country that is addicted to oil,but the anwr oil supply is not our last option to obtain more oil.  Even if the drilling was allowed to happen, at peak production in 2026, oil from the Arctic Refuge would only account for just 3 percent of the U.S. oil consumption, meaning gas prices would only be affected by one penny. Is it worth destroying the home of 36 fish species, 36 land mammals, nine marine mammals, and more than 130 migratory and resident bird species for one penny? drilling in the anwr would cost tax payers millions of dollars and lots of time. But if we used those two resources towards new drilling technology, we would be able to find better ways to exract oil from the ground and do it in a quicker time. this new supply of oil would eliminate the point of drilling in the anwr due to the obvious fact that we now have more of it. we should also focus more of our attention to changing things that use alot of oil and make them more environmentaly friendly by using altnative sources of energy. alternative sources of energy are the key to fixing our oil crisis. by drilling in the anwr, we are going directly agaist what we origianlly set out to protect, a true natural environment that is untouched by man.

http://arctic.fws.gov/
http://www.savearcticrefuge.org