This research website is to explore the positives and negatives of each side of drilling in the Arctic. Ultimately, it is to show the negative repercussions of energy companies exploring the ANWR for oil and drilling offshore and prove they are too significant to allow exploration and drilling, currently.
I am most concerned about how it would/will effect the wildlife of the Arctic, which, in turn, makes me interested in how drilling and exploration for oil will effect the ecosystem of the Arctic, as the wildlife and ecosystem are intertwined.
Drilling offshore or exploring the ANWR for oil would be detrimental to the wildlife and ecosystem that inhabit the Arctic. As of right now, the regulations and laws that would have potentially been passed (ex: 'Keystone Pipeline' bill that Obama vetoed in February 2015.) would not be satisfactory. They would not prevent the large amount of damage, such as, climate change, ecosystem destruction, and indigenous animal decrease/extinction. Due to any oil retrieval taking around 10 years to produce, the want of lower-oil prices now, cannot be met through this option, adding more to the argument of it is worth saving the ecosystem and animals than to drill for an amount of oil that would be gone after 65 years of use. I think we should wait until the need is greater for oil to begin exploring the need for drilling in the Arctic, as it is not necessary right now to harm what will be harmed if drilling proceeded.
With oil prices now, only stock-holders and members of energy Companies (such as Shell) would benefit from Arctic drilling. The cost of retrieving oil would outweigh the benefits of selling the oil. This shows how corrupt the cause is for Arctic exploration. Though it would increase jobs in the region, I do not believe that the cost of agriculture and animal life is worth it as it, overall, does not benefit the greater good of all Americans. A possible way drilling could be permitted in this aspect, would be if they found a more cost-efficient way of extracting the oil.
I believe that one day drilling within the Arctic might be possible, if regulations were tightened, overall destruction was decreased, and pollution could be decreased. This cannot be done with the machinery and techniques that we have today. I foresee in the future companies learning less-destructive (pollution, land, animals, climate) ways to extract oil. Making smaller sites and land usage could be one potential way to pacify environmentalist, climate, and animal experts. The destruction caused in the Gulf after the BP oil spill is a prime example of how detrimental an oil spill can be on animals and ecosystems. Due to the small 65 year oil-span, I do not believe it is worth permanently destroying precious lands and animals, on top of changing the earth's climate and overall-environment. Another solution to this unsolved problem is to put the money, instead of into Arctic drilling, into renewable energy sources and research to further advance our other options for energy. Many other countries are already doing this and America should also look ahead rather than behind.
Personal Data Contribution: 20 university-attending participants:
- Randomly selected participants, unequally male and female
- 80% of people in a study on social bias on drilling proved that the usual sentiment of an American is anti-drilling. Also, that past information is strengthened when one reads about their stance opposing the other side.
- The data I collected further proves the research I examined to be true.
My Data... (20 participants)
- 10% pro-drilling
- 90% anti-drilling
Anti-Drilling follow up ?:
- Simply, why are you against drilling in the Arctic?
- Answer:
- 77.8% - Too many environmental risks and impacts.
- 11.1% - Didn't know much about drilling but said if it would impact the environment and animals negatively, they would oppose drilling.
- 5.6% - Would only benefit corporation owners.
Offshore sea birds and ice caps in the Arctic.
Pro-Drilling follow up ?: - Have you heard about the proven negative environmental impacts? - Answer: - 100% said yes, and thought facts were overly embellished and there would be minimal damage.
RENEWABLE ENERGY IS A ALTERNATIVE TO THIS DESTRUCTIVE IDEALISTIC PLAN.
- In 20014, 13% of American energy use was renewable.- Over half of the 13% was used for producing electricity.
- Renewable energies such as solar, wind, marine, biomass, etc. decrease greenhouse gas emissions by 70 million metric tons of carbon a year.
- Production and use of biofuels doubled from 2000-2014.
- The increase is due to stae and federal government incentivs and mandates for using renewable energy.
- In the past, it has been more expensive to use renewable energy than fossil fuels, however if there was a decrease in money given to fossil fuels, and this money was put into renewable energy it would be much cheaper.
Caribou Migrating in the Arctic
- The cost of oil use is usually calculated without the hidden costs of extraction, permits, etc. If these were calculated, cost of fossil fuels compared to renewable energy sources would be about equal.
RENEWABLE ENERGY IS A ALTERNATIVE TO THIS DESTRUCTIVE IDEALISTIC PLAN.
- In 20014, 13% of American energy use was renewable.- Over half of the 13% was used for producing electricity.
- Renewable energies such as solar, wind, marine, biomass, etc. decrease greenhouse gas emissions by 70 million metric tons of carbon a year.
- Production and use of biofuels doubled from 2000-2014.
- The increase is due to stae and federal government incentivs and mandates for using renewable energy.
- In the past, it has been more expensive to use renewable energy than fossil fuels, however if there was a decrease in money given to fossil fuels, and this money was put into renewable energy it would be much cheaper.
Caribou Migrating in the Arctic
- The cost of oil use is usually calculated without the hidden costs of extraction, permits, etc. If these were calculated, cost of fossil fuels compared to renewable energy sources would be about equal.
I am most concerned about how it would/will effect the wildlife of the Arctic, which, in turn, makes me interested in how drilling and exploration for oil will effect the ecosystem of the Arctic, as the wildlife and ecosystem are intertwined.
Drilling offshore or exploring the ANWR for oil would be detrimental to the wildlife and ecosystem that inhabit the Arctic. As of right now, the regulations and laws that would have potentially been passed (ex: 'Keystone Pipeline' bill that Obama vetoed in February 2015.) would not be satisfactory. They would not prevent the large amount of damage, such as, climate change, ecosystem destruction, and indigenous animal decrease/extinction. Due to any oil retrieval taking around 10 years to produce, the want of lower-oil prices now, cannot be met through this option, adding more to the argument of it is worth saving the ecosystem and animals than to drill for an amount of oil that would be gone after 65 years of use. I think we should wait until the need is greater for oil to begin exploring the need for drilling in the Arctic, as it is not necessary right now to harm what will be harmed if drilling proceeded.
With oil prices now, only stock-holders and members of energy Companies (such as Shell) would benefit from Arctic drilling. The cost of retrieving oil would outweigh the benefits of selling the oil. This shows how corrupt the cause is for Arctic exploration. Though it would increase jobs in the region, I do not believe that the cost of agriculture and animal life is worth it as it, overall, does not benefit the greater good of all Americans. A possible way drilling could be permitted in this aspect, would be if they found a more cost-efficient way of extracting the oil.
I believe that one day drilling within the Arctic might be possible, if regulations were tightened, overall destruction was decreased, and pollution could be decreased. This cannot be done with the machinery and techniques that we have today. I foresee in the future companies learning less-destructive (pollution, land, animals, climate) ways to extract oil. Making smaller sites and land usage could be one potential way to pacify environmentalist, climate, and animal experts. The destruction caused in the Gulf after the BP oil spill is a prime example of how detrimental an oil spill can be on animals and ecosystems. Due to the small 65 year oil-span, I do not believe it is worth permanently destroying precious lands and animals, on top of changing the earth's climate and overall-environment. Another solution to this unsolved problem is to put the money, instead of into Arctic drilling, into renewable energy sources and research to further advance our other options for energy. Many other countries are already doing this and America should also look ahead rather than behind.
Personal Data Contribution: 20 university-attending participants:
- Randomly selected participants, unequally male and female
- 80% of people in a study on social bias on drilling proved that the usual sentiment of an American is anti-drilling. Also, that past information is strengthened when one reads about their stance opposing the other side.
- The data I collected further proves the research I examined to be true.
My Data... (20 participants)
- 10% pro-drilling
- 90% anti-drilling
Anti-Drilling follow up ?:
- Simply, why are you against drilling in the Arctic?
- Answer:
- 77.8% - Too many environmental risks and impacts.
- 11.1% - Didn't know much about drilling but said if it would impact the environment and animals negatively, they would oppose drilling.
- 5.6% - Would only benefit corporation owners.
Offshore sea birds and ice caps in the Arctic.
Pro-Drilling follow up ?: - Have you heard about the proven negative environmental impacts? - Answer: - 100% said yes, and thought facts were overly embellished and there would be minimal damage.
RENEWABLE ENERGY IS A ALTERNATIVE TO THIS DESTRUCTIVE IDEALISTIC PLAN.
- In 20014, 13% of American energy use was renewable.- Over half of the 13% was used for producing electricity.
- Renewable energies such as solar, wind, marine, biomass, etc. decrease greenhouse gas emissions by 70 million metric tons of carbon a year.
- Production and use of biofuels doubled from 2000-2014.
- The increase is due to stae and federal government incentivs and mandates for using renewable energy.
- In the past, it has been more expensive to use renewable energy than fossil fuels, however if there was a decrease in money given to fossil fuels, and this money was put into renewable energy it would be much cheaper.
Caribou Migrating in the Arctic
- The cost of oil use is usually calculated without the hidden costs of extraction, permits, etc. If these were calculated, cost of fossil fuels compared to renewable energy sources would be about equal.
RENEWABLE ENERGY IS A ALTERNATIVE TO THIS DESTRUCTIVE IDEALISTIC PLAN.
- In 20014, 13% of American energy use was renewable.- Over half of the 13% was used for producing electricity.
- Renewable energies such as solar, wind, marine, biomass, etc. decrease greenhouse gas emissions by 70 million metric tons of carbon a year.
- Production and use of biofuels doubled from 2000-2014.
- The increase is due to stae and federal government incentivs and mandates for using renewable energy.
- In the past, it has been more expensive to use renewable energy than fossil fuels, however if there was a decrease in money given to fossil fuels, and this money was put into renewable energy it would be much cheaper.
Caribou Migrating in the Arctic
- The cost of oil use is usually calculated without the hidden costs of extraction, permits, etc. If these were calculated, cost of fossil fuels compared to renewable energy sources would be about equal.