Drilling In Alaska Dbq

Further, drilling for oil is not worth the massive tradeoffs. Therefore, the United States should not drill for oil in Alaska because it is not worth it, it does not solve our oil problems and it destroys the environment. To begin, The United States should not drill for oil in Alaska because it will destroy the environment. I

With rising gas prices and an increasing reliance on nonrenewable resources, finding a reliable source for extracting and transporting oil has become an issue. In 2010, the Keystone Pipeline project was proposed and commissioned by TransCanada. Essentially, this is a pipeline that transports oil sands bitumen across the Canada-US border and into several different reserves in the States. An additional extension to the Keystone Pipeline, the Keystone XL Pipeline, has also been proposed. Several issues arise when considering the consequences of this new proposal, including the potential for oil spills and habitat damage.

Controversy Surrounding the Keystone XL Pipeline To build or not to build, this choice will impact the relationship between the US and Canada and determine the level of dependence the US will have on countries that are not so friendly. “TransCanada’s proposed Keystone XL Pipeline would transport oil sands crude from Canada and shale oil produced in North Dakota and Montana to a market hub in Nebraska for delivery to Gulf Coast refineries. The pipeline would consist of 875 miles of 36-inch pipe with the capacity to transport 830,000 barrels per day” (Parfomak, Pirog, Luther and Vann 4). The construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline would strengthen the United States economy, provide energy security and have minimal environmental impact. “The Keystone XL project would create $1.1 trillion in private capital investment at no

The petroleum market rose in 1859 after former rail director Edwin Drake successfully unearthed an oil well with his own oil drill. After this breakthrough, investors realized that oil sites made more financial sense than whaling voyages. Whaling was dangerous, time-consuming, and expensive—while often yielding no profit. But oil drilling was generally risk-free, would not cost anyone’s life, and was more likely to yield something profitable with the reliability of Drake’s oil drill. Consequently, many whaling ports lost their funding to oil sites, and kerosene replaced whale oil as America’s leading natural resource.

The author of the article Greg Ip, believes that despite Obama’s statement, the President knows very well that even though the pipeline will not go into fruition, fossils fuels will still

The evidence that this proposal would not be beneficial was shown in Biello’s article. Climatologists advise burning of fossil fuels will adversely affect climate change. The amount of greenhouse gases in the air will increase. With no control of temperature, the water level in oceans will rise higher and higher each day. With this in mind, people have been strictly against the pipeline.

This amount of oil coming into the United States from Canada would have made a positive impact for the United States. It is not in the best interest of the United States to purchase our oil from across seas, because transporting oil via freight ships, railways and trucks can be detrimental to oceans and the earth, like the accident that occurred in 2015 when 14 tanker cars derailed in West Virginia (News Tribune, February 16,

Since the United States will be getting their own natural gases from fracking then that means the “United States will not have to buy and import natural gases from other countries, saving money in the process” (Rogowsky) therefore the “United States will become more independent and not rely on other countries” (Rogowsky). This is important because the people of the United States will also be able to save money because “the gas prices for cars will go down significantly as the gas supply goes up” (Rogowsky). Not only this, but the prices for medicine are sure to decline as well, “natural gases are an important chemical feedstock in some packaging medicine” (Rogowsky). With fracking, the medicine prices will take a dive also resulting in the American people saving money. With the increase of fracking there will be a higher supply of gas and medicine, which makes the prices decrease and people will save

Since he left office, there have been many proposals to open the Arctic Refuge coastal plain to oil drilling. They’ve all been denied because of the opposition by the American people, including the Gwich’in Athabascan Indians of Alaska and Canada, indigenous people whose culture has depended on the Porcupine caribou herd for thousands of years. The short-term economic gain is not worth destroying their homes. He said the Arctic Refuge may provide 1 to 2 percent of the oil our country consumes each day. We can easily conserve more than that amount by driving more fuel-efficient vehicles, we should just use our resources more wisely instead.

By fracking for natural gas and shifting from coal to natural gas power generation plants, we could benefit economically, save our environment, and save millions of gallons of

Since its construction in 1977, the Trans Alaska Pipeline has transported almost 17 billion barrels of oil, and currently transports about 527,323 barrels a day. It celebrated its 40th Anniversary last year, and, even after all this time, is still facing controversy. The pipeline is highly debated as economically inclined citizens of Alaska are clashing with more environmental types. The Trans Alaska Pipeline Authorization Act, signed by President Nixon in 1973, protected the pipeline by banning all legal challenges against the construction of the pipeline. However, this law did not stop the critics of the pipeline from speaking out.

1. Introduction 1.1 What is hydraulic fracturing? Hydraulic fracturing (fracking) is the process of drilling down into the earth’s surface, followed by a high-pressure water mixture, which is directed at the rocks to release the gas and oil that is inside of them. Furthermore water, sand, chemicals and other substances are injected into the rock at a high pressure, in order to allow the gas in the rock to flow out and up to the top of the fracking wells.

The environmental argument is coming from a clash over the fact they are basically stripping the canadian boreal forest, the path of the pipeline extends across major aquifers, and pipelines tend to leak and destroy surrounding environments. In addition ccording to The Center for Climate and Energy Solutions State, “epartment’s draft SEIS found that oil from the Canadian oil sands is 17 percent more carbon-intensive than the average oil consumed in the United States... It is estimated that the U.S. greenhouse gas footprint would increase by 3 million to 21 million metric tons per year, or around 0.04 percent to 0.3 percent of the 2010 levels, if Keystone is built. Fortunately on November 6, 2015, President Barack Obama’s administration rejected the Keystone Pipeline XL after 7 years of dispute. As mentioned in the Wall Street Journal, Obama stated “the project would not have lowered gas prices, improved energy security or made a meaningful long-term contribution to the economy

Throughout the past century, there has been a constant battle with whether the government should allow fracking or not. Stopping the process of fracking is the voice of the people. Fracking brings many groups of people together that are either for it or against it. However, the government has the power to continue to allow fracking or ban it. Even though the government has power, the people have the power to use their voice to stop fracking.

Our natural resources are at risk every time fracking occurs. Fracking needs to be banned since it is hurting our health and that it drains our natural and limited resources required for us to sustain life.    Water is an essential to living and it is a need. Without it we would be dead from the dehydration. Fracking in this case can contaminate it to where we cannot drink it and if we do it can lead to death or a trip to the hospital: