To Drill or Not to Drill?

To Drill or Not to Drill?

Jessica Spackman

HUM / 114

Rhonda Lawrence

April 11, 2011

To Drill or Not to Drill?

Many people debate the proper energy needs for the United States. Many argue that the country must decrease its dependence on oil and invest in alternative sources of energy. The alternative sources include, but not limited to, wind and solar power. Others argue that changing power sources is expensive and unnecessary. They also state that the United States should search for oil in Alaska, the Gulf of Mexico and other areas within the United States.

I agree with the position of drilling in Alaska, the Gulf of Mexico and other areas. There are a few main arguments or opposing positions concerning oil drilling in the Arctic Ocean. A primary controversy is preserving the wild life in the area or the northwest region, now zoned as Alaska’s Arctic Natural Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) with the potential of damaging the vast range in the ecosystem; there is much debate around preserving the country’s largest natural wildlife remaining consisting of caribou, polar bears, migratory waterfowl, wolves and grizzly bears.

Oil drilling first began in Prudhoe Bay, Alaska in 1968. Since commencement of oil drilling in the state, government agencies and oil companies have reduced the environmental impact. Alaska also has the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS) in place, and was completed in 1977 with the purpose of shipping oil. Exxon Mobil placed the oil drilling project of Exxon Valdez in 1989 about 400 miles south of the Arctic Circle and had less than satisfactory results ending in an oil spill. However, only four out of 14,000 platforms have had an oil spill incident affecting the ecosystem. To ensure safety to the ecosystem, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has made sure proper safety precautions and standards are put in place. Each oil and gas company has a Health, Safety and Environmental department (HSE) to ensure each company follows...