Offshore Drilling in Alaska - Essay Example

Offshore Drilling in Alaska Offshore drilling for natural gas and oil near the United s coasts got banned in 1981 by Congress after outcries triggered by pollution from spills and accidents. In 1990, George H. W. Bush dispensed administrative orders supportive to the ban; orders withdrew by his son, George W. Bush, later in 2008. This was due to gasoline prices thwarting and the cost of oil that became a significant question in the presidential race and American politics. While an aspirant, Barack Obama preferred a much more modest launching of the coastal regions than his rival, John McCain did, whose motto was “drill it here, drill now” (Franklin 6). On 31th March, 2010, President Obama projected to open vast stretches of American coastlines to natural gas and oil drilling, much of it for the initial time, in an ostensible bid to win political backing for climate and energy legislation. However, that idea stimulated distress among environmentalists and warmish support from Republicans remained a tight set back by the enormous oil slick generated in April 2010. “The commotion, at the Gulf of Mexico drilling rig, blasted and sank off the coast of Louisiana, killing 11 workers and left four others in critical conditions” (U.S. 26). A pipe leak a mile deep discharged out what the government ultimately estimated to be nearly 5 million barrels of oil in the Alaska, making it the biggest accidental spill in world history (U.S. 27). In response to this spill, the government put in place suspension on deep water gas and oil drilling, a step that arose as a setback to the oil industry and infuriated Atlanta communities reliant on offshore drilling for income and jobs. Later, the government announced that it indented to end the suspension and issuing new guidelines that tighten standards for blowout preventers, well design, safety certification, worker training and emergency response. In the end of 2010, pulling back more from Mr. Obama original plan, the government rescinded its decision to enlarge offshore oil exploration along the Atlantic Coast. The drilling would continue under suspension for those zones for at least the subsequent 7 years, until sturdier safety and environmental standards remain in place. However, drilling would continue in western and central Gulf of Mexico, though, under a fresh set of safeguards initiate after the deadly oil spill and BP explosion (U.S. 34). In April, last year, a year subsequent to BP spill began the far - maligned federal agency accountable for policing Atlanta offshore drilling had reshaped with a strong new director. “It now had an awkward new title (the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement) and a bundle of stricter safety regulations” (U.S. 8). The agency was endeavoring to put several distance between themself and the industry it controls. However, even those running it accepted that it would be for years before they could create a robust regulatory system able to minimize risks to workers and the proximal environment while still allowing offshore exploration. In November 2011, the Barrack Obama administration announced its planned 5 - year strategy for offshore oil and gas drilling, which calls for launching new areas in Alaska but blocks development along the West and East Coasts. The plan upset environmentalists but fell far petite of what the oil production and its Congressional devotees demanded (U.S. 8). Some of the pros of the oil drilling in Alaska include noise pollution. Seismic waves sent on the ground tell analyzers where oil reserves may be lying. This noise pollution may cause whales and other cetaceans, like dolphins, to strand themselves on shore. The drilling also brings with it noise pollution to the surrounding neighbors. As we have seen in the paragraphs above, drilling comes with a high probability of oil spills. The oil spills has such widespread effects in an ecosystem that it is unmanageable for humans to remedy, though, we can try to clean up the polluted environment to some degree. “Thousands of gallons spill every year, though, these oil spills remains not always publicized extensively” (Potter 56). Bowhead whales change their migration patterns to evade offshore seismic exploration and polar bear dens got distressed. Caribou herds migrated from their calving areas to avoid insects and find vegetation (Potter 56). However, Predators such as gulls, ravens and arctic foxes have thrived; feeding on garbage and any scavenges around the oil fields. However, they also prey on fewer and in some circumstances endangered birds, as reports says. Stan Seiner, director of Audubon Alaska and peer reviewer of the findings of the academy, said the report discredits some of industry’s assertions that oil and gas drilling does not affect the environment. However, Ed Porter, an economist in the American Petroleum Institute, held the report shows the industry has steadily reduced dangerous effects on the environment (U.S. 4). Proponents of oil drilling in the United States claim that by generating more oil domestically, America depend less on imported oil, resulting in both political and economic benefits. According to the United States Energy Information Administration (EIA), the government relies on imports for about 57% of its petroleum needs, digging about 1.8 billion barrels of oil annually, while importing 3.6 billion of barrels. Much of the US untapped oil reserves occur in offshore regions of Alaska (U.S. 12). “Drilling on Alaskan offshore North Slope, mostly around Prudhoe Bay, delivers about 15% of American oil production. In a 2003 National Academy of Sciences report, it stood noted positive economic effects and social to the region” (Potter 23). Some of these expected include improved infrastructures. Airports, housing complexes, pipelines, Roads, mines and other structures have to be built when drilling oil. Majority of Alaska residents agrees with further drilling, as illustrious by a Washington article in 2008 conferring the upcoming presidential election. The residents want a boost to their economy, along with above $100 billion in potential royalty revenue and tax to the corporation. However, these structures may interrupt animal migration routes and habitats. Offshore oil drilling produces derivatives that pollute the environment may have extremely negative impact on the environment. These include "produced water," which encompasses toxins like greenhouse gases, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and toxic heavy metals. The drilling has had damaging effects on people, as well, as illustrated in a film "Crude" that touches Texaco's existence in Ecuador. Oil drilling pollution remains believed to cause life - threatening ailments such as cancer and also it can destroy the traditional native land of the indigenous societies around Alaska drilling project (Potter 23). There immensely encouraging reasons to drill oil in Alaska offshore and other offshore reservoirs, but the consequences of accompanied by the activity remains extremely expensive on human lives and the entire ecosystem. “This is the biggest fear of the effects of offshore oil drilling. Environment has no economic of financial compensation” (Franklin 34). After damaging the environment of an ecosystem, it turns out to be almost impossible to recover this natural loss. Despite the heavy financial and environmental costs of expanding drilling oil in US borders, these undertakings may influence oil prices paid by US citizens only negligibly, because of the relatively small quantity of US attested oil reserves and the economic structure of the global oil market (Franklin 34). According to the EIA, entire US proved reserves of oil amount to only less than 10 percent (21.3 billion) world proved reserves. Additionally, US Atlanta offshore oil stands drilled exclusively by investor - owned companies, whose allegiance is to stakeholders, not US consumers. Oil drilled in the Alaska offshore remains sold by these multinational companies on the open - global market for the finest price, and hence, US oil prices are not in a straight line impacted by any increase in local drilling. Moreover, developing permits and infrastructure for new drilling could take many years. “Amplifying offshore drilling would not affect overall domestic oil prices or production until at least the year 2030, according to the EIA” (U.S. 13). A clear investigation and assessment should be introduced, putting specific and strict guidelines c concerning offshore oil drilling if it must continue. Environmental loss should not be tolerated at any economic benefit since it remains extremely expensive. The government may exploit other reservoirs that remain safe to the environment and human beings. This will have the employment rate and section remains almost the same, as well as other beneficial factors experienced in Alaska offshore oil drilling. Works Cited (U.S.), National Research Council. Offshore Drilling in Alaska. New york: National Academies Press, 2003. California, University of. Environmental effects monitoring for exploration drilling. 2004: University of California, California. Gramling, Robert. Oil in Troubled Waters: Perception, Politics, and the Battle Over Offshore Drilling. Viginia: Sunny Press, 1994. Michigan, University of. Oceanology, international, offshore technology, Volumes 6-7. Michigan: Industrial Research Inc., 1971, 2011. Read More