Should the United States Congress allow drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge?
Yes, because it will help provide Americans with power and fuel and save us money.
The above argument suggests a way to ensure America's energy future and has the ability to save us money. The people opposed to it would say that it is a sacred natural place that shouldn't be drilled on, but that takes a backseat to economic concerns. It will put people to work and give us a new resource to use and sell to others who need it.
Posted by: WantingStefan37It will not hurt.
This will not hurt the environment. We will be very careful about the environment. It will help save a lot of money and maybe help pay off the debt. It is empty and it will NOT hurt the wildlife. We need we need to drill to save energy and money.
Posted by: AnonymousYes they should drill for oil.
We need to use more domestic resources so we aren't as dependent on foreign oil. We are so dependent on foreign products that even some American flags are made in China! And besides , what's the use of a nature refuge if nobody had the means to get there and see such sights. The drilling won't harm the natural land as much as the environmentalists will make it seem. Naturally they don't have any incentive to list the GOOD effects that drilling the oil would bring (lower prices domestically, less foreign dependency, things of that nature).
Posted by: AnonymousI believe that drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge should be allowed because the interests of people have should supersede the interests of animals or the preservation of natural wildernesses and habitats..
The interest of human beings should supersede the interests of animals and the preservation of natural wildernesses. The problems caused by our dependence upon foreign oil make drilling for new oil sources an economic necessity. Plus the argument that drilling will harm the environment or the natural wildernesses is not a very sound argument because the amount of land being drilled will be really minimal. But the economic benefit of finding a new source of oil for our country is gigantically beneficial to the strength of our country.
Posted by: TasticBranWe too dependent on oil from other Nations
.We have to explore for oil in every area that we can so our Nation can get back on its feet. We are paying billions of $ to other country’s that need to go back into our economy. That will create more jobs than anything that the Government can do
Posted by: AnonymousI support drilling by the United States in Arctic National Wildlife Refuges because it is important for the economic growth of this country to attain independence from the major middle eastern oil producers.
There are huge oil reserves in the Arctic that can provide enough oil to give this country energy independence. The risk to the environment is minimal if any and the benefits are several fold. Large surplus of oil will result in a decrease in the cost which will positively impact all areas of the domestic economy. No longer having to negotiate with the oil companies in the middle east will assist in solving the complex issues currently ongoing in this region.
Posted by: R3n5God2iIIaYes. United States Congress should drill for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
We need to use more domestic resources so we aren't as dependant on foreign oil. We are so dependant on foreign products that even some American flags are made in China! And besides , whats the use of a nature refuge if nobody had the means to get there and see such sights. The drilling won't harm the natural land as much as the environmentilaists will make it seem. Naturally they don't have any incentive to list the GOOD effects that drilling the oil would bring (lower prices domestically, Less foreign dependancey, things of that nature).
Posted by: AnonymousYes but don't expect prices to go down significantly.
We need to have our own oil supplies in case foriegn oil sources become scarce but don't think this means cheaper oil and gas. Many times when gas gets cheap domestic wells are capped until the prices go back up. The absolute breakeven between costs and profit for oil from domestic production is between $60 to $80 dollars a barrell. One thing a lot of people forget is that besides fuel oil is used for numerous products. We never want to be dependent on foriegn oil and we need to keep working for solutions to replace oil.
Posted by: AnonymousYes the United States needs to drill.
The United States needs to be drilling for oil that way we arent always foriegn oil dependent. It isnt a great idea for us to be hurting the environment but at the same time we shouldnt be negotiating with communists and terrorists just that way our people can have oil.
Posted by: AnonymousThe technology for oil drilling has improved immensely where the oil companies can do a better job of having a small effect on the environment and we need the oil.
The United States imports a majority of our oil from foreign countries. Some of these countries are not friendly to the United States but are glad to take our money. Sooner or later the price of oil will go up again and we will wish we had more of our own supply so the price swings will not be as damaging. To the argument that drilling in the Arctic will not benefit us for at least 5 years, then I say we should have been drilling 5 years ago. And just the act of us drilling in the Arctic will have an effect on the world market price because they are affected by future expectations.
Posted by: ddeathnoteThe U.S. needs to extract it's own oil for security and financial reasons, no matter where the oil is located
The U.S. Needs to extract it's own oil for security and financial reasons, no matter where the oil is located.The U.S. Congress needs to put politics aside, if that is possible, and allow drilling for oil on all U.S. Land, including the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. With the advancements in drilling technology, the chances of a major spill are near zero. Those opposed to drilling for oil need to be reminded that oil comes from the earth, it is not a man made substance. An oil independent USA, is financially and military strong.
Posted by: Anonymousthe us should drill for oil there. its a completely empty place, with nothing but ice to drill through.
the country is already in an oil crisis and it would be better to drill in an empty wasteland than in the ocean with much animals. the arctic is a mainly empty place with little to no animals. it wouldnt hurt the earth at all. and if the oil there runs out, there are many other ways to get energy besides it.
Posted by: AnonymousThe pros out-weigh the cons.
Oil companies have only been allotted 2,000 acres in which to drill, should Congress decide to allow them to drill. Now even if they go completely against every regulation, every precedent they've set, every conservative measure they take, and completely trash those 2,000 acres, when compared to the fact that ANWR is 18 MILLION acres, these 2,000 make up less than half a percent of the refuge, which is only about 1/8 of the entire North Slope. This in itself is an impossibility. Oil drilling is arguably the most heavily watched and regulated business in the world, and the EPA and ADFG (Alaska Department of Fish and Game) are constantly watching them for even the smallest infractions. The environmental side of this debate that is completely overlooked is that drilling in these areas raises awareness for the wildlife there, and as seen through the Alyeska Pipeline, this awareness is often extremely beneficial to the wildlife in the area. For example when the Alyeksa Pipeline project started in the 1970's the Central Arctic Caribou Herd was around 5,000. Due to the heightened awareness and protection that was provided due to drilling in the area, that herd has now grown to over 66,000 (survey conducted by ADFG in 2011). This herd migrates directly across the pipeline and even utilizes it for shade, protection, and to shed the velvet off of their antlers. Drilling in ANWR will not only substantially help the national economy, but as seen through the Alyeska Pipeline project drilling will also help raise awareness for the wildlife and in the end it will be beneficial to the wildlife and ecosystem as well.
Posted by: AnonymousDrilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuse should not be allowed.
The whole point of having a wildlife refuge is that it's set aside for preservation, drilling disrupts the natural habitat of the native flora and fauna. Oil can be found in other areas if it's needed. The government should not bow to every whim that corporations desire. Congress should work to protect the small patches of undisturbed nature in the US that remain.
Posted by: R4yCherOur country needs more oil produced in our own country to reduce our dependence on foreign countries.
The United States is much too dependent on foreign countries for our oil supply. We should drill for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. If this is done, great care must be taken to protect as much of the refuge as possible. While our country is facing such tremendous problems around the globe, it makes sense for us to become more self-reliant.
Posted by: R0d0FerdyThe US should allow drilling in the Arctic to meet rising energy demands.
The United States Congress should allow drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to reduce the need for foreign imports to meet current and future energy demands. If approached with close supervision and stringent rules applied, drilling in the Arctic should not damage wildlife or the habitat in any lasting manner.
Posted by: ThegaXenLess than 1% drilled for oil means less disruption and pollution than oil exploration in the rest of the world.
ANWR was found to have oil in a small northern coastal section of less than 1% of the reserve. This site, if drilled, could be easily fed into the Alaskan pipeline, eliminating the need to build thousands of miles of new pipe or bring in tankers. We would not even disrupt the caribou, whose numbers actually increased around Prudhoe Bay after that site was developed due to a higher air temperature around the drilling sites. And unlike other nations, oil drilling in the US is clean and has few spills. If we do not get our oil from ANWR, we get it from somewhere else. Shall we further fund Saudi princes who beat old women who are seen alone with the deliverer of her food? Shall we buy more oil from war-torn Nigeria, for which fighting over oil threatens to split it into 2? Shall we buy more oil from other Arab nations that then fund terrorism with our petro-dollars? Or shall we drill in nations like Venezuela, where oil spills go on and on and are never cleaned up due to the nation's poverty? Or shall we drill here, and help our own economy and the rest of the world?
Posted by: Pir4AndOf course it should be alowed. Prudhoe Bay proved it can be done with no impact on wildlife and little effect on the environment
Alaska has an exceptional reputation of protecting the environment. Their commitment to development of natural resources in a safe manner is a example for all. Leave it up to the states to develop their resources. The live closest to the development and can see what regulations are best applied so it can be done efficiently and in a environmentally safe way. When it is left to the federal government, they are far removed and don't understand about what is needed. Plus special interests groups putting pressure on the federal government not to develop have their own agenda's. Often their agenda is to stop all development for the purpose of forcing unproven ways for energy. These unproven ways require huge amounts of subsidization by the government with no guarantee they will prove efficient or more environmentally safe than domestic sources. It is long overdue to make the United States less dependent on other countries for our energy. They often do not have our best interest in mind. Plus it would help balance out trade deficit. Drill in ANWR now. It should of been done along time ago because of the lead time needed to bring it online.
Posted by: AnonymousThe U.S. should drill for oil in the Arctic Refuge, because it could be done safely, and it would help us be less dependent.
I think the U.S. should drill for oil wherever it has it. We could drill for oil in ANWR, without disturbing the wildlife there. We could safely drill in small areas and gain access to a great deal of the oil, without damaging the Refuge. It would help us to be less dependent on other countries for oil.
Posted by: GaudyTory37Yes drill, we need more opportunity as country and as individual
The reason of those who don't want to drill is political because they have an agenda to follow. They don't even care about the environment.
Posted by: AnonymousThe U.S. needs to extract it's own oil for security and financial reasons, no matter where the oil is located.
The U.S. Congress needs to put politics aside, if that is possible, and allow drilling for oil on all U.S. land, including the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. With the advancements in drilling technology, the chances of a major spill are near zero. Those opposed to drilling for oil need to be reminded that oil comes from the earth, it is not a man made substance. An oil independent USA, is financially and military strong.
Posted by: F ClaytonSure it should allow drilling, it's a frozen tundra.
I've seen photos of ANWR, it's not a frozen paradise that liberals make it out to be. It is a frozen waste land. The environmentalists simply don't want progress to occur. The people of the United States could use more oil reserves. Why do the majority of Americans have to pay more money for gas because of a few nut jobs. It makes no sense. Drill in ANWR!
Posted by: BriaBlacken
No, because I don't want to live in a world where laziness trumps sense
I don't think that we need to risk the destruction of any more ecosystems to feed what is in essence an unnecessary dependence on oil fueled by laziness. There are enough new environmentally gentle energy technologies today that all we need to do is put the work in to develop them.
Posted by: AnonymousI oppose oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, because it would endanger many species.
The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is a home to many species which play pivotal roles in the ecosystems of the Northern Hemisphere. It is necessary for this remote area to stay completely undisturbed, including the permafrost in this region, for these animals to survive. Drilling in this area is a short-term, detrimental solution, to a long-term problem. The time and money spent drilling in the Arctic would be better spent if it were invested into alternative energy sources.
Posted by: FinickyLupe42Drilling should not be allowed in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge because accidents in that area would be catastrophic.
Oil companies are not properly prepared for the fallout of drilling accidents as has been proven with the current oil problem in the Gulf Coast. The money that would go into setting up the drilling and transporting the oil could be better spent on funding alternative energy research and building. Many endangered species also would be disrupted by the building and maintaining of drilling rigs in the wildlife refuge.
Posted by: tae993agDependency on oil has already done significant damage to the health of the United States both environmentally and politically, and should not be further encouraged.
Being one of the most dependent countries in the world on personal transportation, the United States would be better off putting its resources into renewable energy. Long term, this will have three primary effects. First, it will allow the US to avoid dependency on unstable Middle Eastern countries, giving it more independence and placing more stability on the region. Second, it will help heal the environment and undo the effects of disasters like the recent BP spill. Third, it will allow Americans to spend less on fuels, thus fostering the growth of a struggling middle class.
Posted by: T0mFlamesThere is no great evidence that drilling for and finding oil would decrease consumer oil prices, nor would it greatly reduce our dependency on foreign oil.
While it is a responsibility for a nation to find energy sources that will reduce dependence on foreign energy sources, drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is a knee-jerk reaction by the public to current oil prices. There is no evidence that prices would be reduced, and some experts doubt the efficacy of drilling in a location where exact oil amounts are uncertain. The United States' national park system is already under siege from staff cutbacks and funding cuts; as a society we should resist the urge to exploit these areas further to preserve them for future generations.
Posted by: InvincibleBradleyI oppose drilling for oil in any wildlife refuges, parks or other ecologically sensitive areas because of the serious damage drilling would cause to the environment.
National parks and wildlife refuges exist in order to protect habitat and ecological systems. Drilling for oil is one of the human activities which damages both habitat and ecological systems and therefore is in contradiction with the very purposes of these areas. Oil drilling is basically a for-profit activity which benefits oil companies especially. This is also in contradiction with the purposes of wildlife refuges and national parks, which were created for the good of all.
Posted by: ShrekSave the Arctic
If companies drill into the Arctic, everyone in the world will suffer, because ice reflects the sun's energy to cool the world. Instead of drilling into the Arctic, which will not improve the conditions it is in, they should find a way to use renewable resources to do the same.
Posted by: AnonymousNo, it is too risky.
There are many risks when it comes to drilling into an already weakening ecosystem and the chances of yet another oil spill could be catastrophic on the oceans like many spills before. Aside from the ecosystem at risk there are other things to weight in on this debate, the money it will cost to just get the rig out there to power that enormous rig and pay the workers who operate it and pitching in extra thousands to make sure all safety precautions are properly functioning. As some know they failed to go the extra mile on that and caused a major spill.
Posted by: AnonymousNo, because it is a waste of time.
Oil will run out in a short amount of time, less than 50 years. It seems like a long time, but time flies. Why waste time drilling for oil when it will run out shortly, when you can spend that time thinking of new renewable forms of energy? Green technology is improving every day, and scientists are working around the clock to make things like algae or sugar ethanol. Hydro power, solar power, and wind power work quite well.
Posted by: birdsareawesomeThe US Congress should continue the ban on drilling in the ANWR due to the biodiversity of the area.
The United States Congress should not lift the ban on drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, due to the rarity of the plants and species of the area. Our energy needs will be met using solar and geothermal power by the end of this century, but once ANWR is destroyed by pollution, we can not expect to regain any of the preciousness of the pristine area.
Posted by: C0n5tGetIn what way should humans allow themselves to destroy their planet?
Oil is a terrible source of energy. One day it will run out. And it will destroy our environment in the process. We should be exploring new sources of energy now, while there isn't a huge crisis. If we continue with oil and not look NOW, TODAY, for the means to change our dependency, this world of humans will destroy itself when there is no oil left. We don't need any more wars fought over oil, when we can use our infinite capacity for growth to expand our horizons to infinite, efficient, renewable energy sources. Oil is our weakness, and we do not need it.
Posted by: AnonymousDrilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge would only further our dependence on oil and destroy a portion of nature that can not be replaced.
Our dependence on oil should not be placed above preserving the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Also, we should be looking at alternative fuels that could be used without harming the environment. There are plenty of other sources of energy that we have not developed or are underutilized. We do have a real dependency on oil, but efforts should be taken to change this.
Posted by: babydoll93Why risk it?
I think that we should not do this because why risk destruction when there are lots of other places to drill that are safe and we are sure will not affect any wildlife. Better to be safe than sorry is a good motto that we need to listen to. How about people get their head out of their hands and see the bigger picture?
Posted by: AnonymousDrilling for oil is destroying a treasure and murdering creatures.
The oil that we get from the Arctic isn't worth the price that we pay in damage to our environment and wildlife. The ice is melting because of greenhouse gases, which oil rigs produce in copious amounts; this is threatening the polar bears, seals, caribou and other wildlife in the region. That's not to mention the risk of oil spills killing everything for miles around and poisoning the fish and other wildlife. This land should be protected for future generations. Who are we to destroy everything beautiful and natural that the world has to offer? We need to work on finding ways to break America's dependence on oil, rather than destroying the earth and its creatures to increase our dependence.
Posted by: mlundystaufferI don't think that the United States Congress should allow drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, because it's morally wrong and destructive to the environment.
I am against the idea of the United States Congress allowing any type of drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The entire planet doesn't have enough fossil fuels to sustain our transportation needs for much longer. Just because we are running out of the Earth's precious fossil fuel, doesn't mean that we should just keep drilling until it's all gone. People need to start growing their own food, become more self-sufficient, and start walking wherever they need to go. In less than 500 years, mankind has destroyed the planet where we live. And now all that we can think about is using every last bit of oil that we can find. The national parks should never have any oil taken from them, or we might as well build cities over them.
Posted by: Issac McCarthyIt just seems bad.
The animals and people that are at harm on land and sea are in danger. Oil is not worth killing anything, especially when there are plenty of other alternative energy solutions available to us now. Oil and coal are nonrenewable energy sources that are not only harming lives but also the environment we have to live in and raise others to live in.
Posted by: AnonymousDrilling for oil should not take place in a wilful refuge because that would be destroying the very homeland the wildlife refuge is to be protecting.
I believe that allowing any drilling for oil within the confines of the Arctic National Wilfelife Refuge goes completely against the purpose of having a wildlife refuge established in the first place. The refuge is to save the wildlife in the area and if you destroy their homes then they are not being protected very well. I believe that Congress should not allow even a slight destruction of the Arctic national Wildlife Refuge just so the United States will not need to buy foreign oil.
Posted by: ChrIiveOur one and only home..
Since we live on this earth and have no where else to go, we should protect it. Humans are selfish and nasty and mean and rude and everything but kind. They will rip this planet apart, all for money. Well, when the last river runs dry and the last tree gets cut down man will realize that he cant eat and drink money.
Posted by: AnonymousIt will disturb the peace and harmony between man and animals.
The ANWR should not allow oil drilling because it disturbs the harmony between man and animal. If these animals are demolished, then generations after will not be able to enjoy such an interesting group of animal species. If oil drilling does occur, then certain animals such as the arctic willow and arctic sedge will not survive the harsh conditions leaving some animals strong affected. Think about it...Do you really want this to happen to the environment around you?
Posted by: AnonymousIt would have a huge negative impact.
It hasn't been the smoothest operation in the past and we cant afford to loose any more ecosystems and coral reefs. The arctic is already melting and in trouble. Why take such a huge risk ?!
The innocent animals won't give warm welcomes when they spill yet another millions of gallons of oil there too!Posted by: AnonymousPlease DON'T, NO!
No because we won't even get a years worth of oil out of this decision. At the end of the day America is going to end up depending on oil from overseas again. I understand that we are in need of the oil, but what good will it do to destroy the refuge and gas prices won't even be down by more then 10 cents? It makes no sense to drill for our own oil. We should just This is going to destroy the refuge-A beautiful piece of nature that is going to be impossible to restore. Besides, what will happen to the animals that once lived there?
Posted by: AnonymousNo drilling in the Arctic.
So many species of animals have gone extinct or have become endangered in recent years due to human destruction of nature, we have destroyed the beautiful planet we once loved and it's just getting worse it's a shame that we would allow more detriment to whats left to cherish. It may sound a little extreme but the environment is much more important than people come to realize, clean air, clean water, open space; we are destroying our planet using every measure manageable for money that buys a status of being "better than the rest" we need to thing about more than ourselves.
Posted by: marinaelaineDrilling for oil should not be allowed in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, because this is where animals are supposed to be kept safe.
Oil is already being drilled in too many areas. Animals are dying and losing their homes and food due to human selfishness. Animals are run out of their homes due to building and also due to drilling and mining. While drilling in Alaska, many polar bears are being displaced. Their homes are being filled with pollution, machines, and oil rigs. Their food is being covered in oil and ran out of the area. These animals are starving and losing their habitat and families. People in the area decide to kill the animals so they can drill in the area. This is not okay. A refuge is an area for animals to be kept safe. Refuges are made because the other areas where the animals lived were ruined. These are safe zones for animals. It is not right for oil to be drilled in any refuge. Other ways of powering cars, etc must be thought of.
Posted by: Pl4tinumCammyNo, IT'S A REFUGE!
No, IT'S A REFUGE! Organisms should be safe from harm in it. If there happens to be an oil spill, what will become of this "refuge"? We need to protect wildlife, I am not saying we should stop drilling for oil period. I am just trying to get by that the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is home to many living things, we do not want to take that chance!
Posted by: Anonymous