+
Order shopping_cart

The Proposed Drilling Plant Area in America

United States president, George W. Bush suggested that drilling should be permitted in the area of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The section anticipated for drilling was called “10002 area” as defined by the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980. On the other hand, in March 2003, the Senate rejected Bush’s proposal despite the fact that the issue has remained relevant up to date. Presently, the House of Representatives supported the drilling while the Senate was against it. For instance, Senator John Kerry refers to this issue as “a few drops of oil.” Yet, there was no energy crisis at the moment with America having the world’s largest proven reserve. This essay will, therefore, argue why the drilling of oil in Alaska is necessary for the wellbeing of the United States.

First of all, it should be noted that the Senate rejected the proposal because the area designed for drilling was too small compared to the large American population. They argued that developing the place would have a little effect on the amount of energy used by the citizens and various companies since an average amount of energy consumed daily was much higher. This policy was further reasoned as being logically sound because the government did not prefer a large percentage of the oil produced by the United States. This aspect is evident where Spencer Abraham, the secretary of energy says that the previous administration drew a list of power sources it did not support, such as nuclear power, coal, and hydropower, etc.

GET A PRICE QUOTE
00.00

Secondly, they reasoned that there was no energy crisis at the moment hence no need for the operation to be done. This argument is solid because, currently, America has enough energy to cater for its population without deficit. Furthermore, there are lots of reserves to supply it with oil for the next one hundred and fifty years. On the same note, Senator John Kerry argues that 30% of energy use has risen over the last three decades. It has happened in line with the population growing day by day, meaning per capita energy consumption is unchanged. Despite all these aspects, the level of energy has never gone down, and there has never been any case of fuel deficit or emergency at all. Therefore, the issue of the energy crisis would not be discovered anywhere in the United States.

Next, the Senators pointed out that America was one of the world’s largest energy reserves holding about 2.14 % of the energy resources. In essence, for the moment, it was pointless to drill small places such as the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Instead, since they were to be left aside, they could serve as domestic insurance against unknown foreign supplies. Also, the ordinary supplies would mean exporting hundreds of billions of dollars less to the oil-producing nations such as Iran. It would successively reduce the cost of marketing between United States and the rest of the countries. Ultimately, in 1975, the proven reserves in the Persian Gulf were approximately 74 billion barrels whereas, in 1993, they were 663 billion, which was estimated to be about nine-fold increase. Thus, the reserves tend to   multiply in amount with time. In the next fifty or later years, the amount of energy level would have risen to twenty folds or even more than that. The present rate of consumption would, therefore, make it to last for almost 150 years and above as it will be used and reproduced in turn. Besides, the American experts have done a research and proved that there was an estimated quantity of proven reserves beneath the United States outer continental shelf. These will act as insurance for the Americas economy in the future in case it has emergency on energy scarcity or otherwise.

Ostensibly, Senators seem content with the fact that there should be decreased energy consumption as a measure of conserving the energy. Reducing the rate at which a particular commodity is used will in turn lead to less consumption of it. As such, the less is the energy used, the more energy will be saved at the long last for the economy. Therefore, it is also a significant criterion that, when put in place and applied appropriately, can result in a high number of oil being conserved. They suggest that Americans should use tougher fuel efficiency vehicles that would save energy. For instance, Americans should stop driving large and heavy vehicles and instead go for the gasoline sippers that are environmentally friendly and energy-saving.

On the next point, the Senators maintain the rough politics. America has been established as the world’s largest proven reserves of coal. Despite this, Mike Oliver, a retired physicist and engineer, and John Hospers, Professor emeritus of philosophy at USC, pointed out that, in 1996, President Clinton had ordered that 8 billion tons of Americas cleanest burning coals would have only been limited to mining due to environmental purposes. Environmental concerns were to be a major issue that had to be addressed primarily. Any other sources that required the use of the clean-burning charcoal were compelled to import them from the outside. This decision forced the various power companies to import clean-burning coals from mines owned by Indonesia’s Lippo Group and others.

Turning to George F Will’s opposing argument, he claims to be a conservative but does not agree with some of the environmentalist’s opinions and considers them to be non-effective and bias. To begin with, the opponents (being the senators) say that the area assigned for drilling is small, and it would have an insignificant effect on the energy concern in America. On the other hand, Will opposes Senator John Kerry saying that although being too small, but when put into service, it could produce at least as much oil as America currently imports from Saudi Arabia. Correspondingly, it shows how much Will valued the minute operation because he knew that in the end, it would produce a massive positive result to the Americans and their economy. This issue when looked into keenly, estimated by the responsible sources, shows that it could vary from 3.2 billion barrels to 11.5 billion of barrels, which seem to be a great contribution in terms of economy.

In another instance, Will reasons that Senator John Kerry should consider others views apart from his own. In other words, the “per capita energy use is stable”, but, given a steady population increase, the yearly amount of energy being consumed has raised, meaning that the resources are being depleted and pollution is increasing, as well. From his perspective, it would not have any outcome on the energy level would there be a significant risk to the entire United States economy. Consequently, the fact that there is no energy crisis at the moment seems to be an empty reasoning that the Senators use. Essentially, energy crisis can occur any time especially with the ever increasing population that uses and consumes the resources. The lofty environmentalism claimed on this point was, therefore, just a cover up for the vulgar politics that was taking place.

Furthermore, Will states that the fact that the United States has the world’s largest oil reserves does not disapprove the need for the drilling in Alaska. However, the stock is likely to be depleted so long as the Americans will continue to use the energy.  He dismisses Senator John Kerry’s claim by giving a reply that the venture does not mean they cannot achieve independence, but it shows that domestic supplies can provide substantial insurance against uncertain foreign supplies. Besides, it would be ironical to state that the energy available would fuel the most fabulous economic expansion in human history. In addition, he criticizes the politicians by arguing that their suggestions are just mere affairs of state. They drive towards having a decreased consumption of energy, but they cannot openly make a case on the tax on gasoline that may reduce consumption. Notably, it is because the majority of the Americans want to drive large and cumbersome cars. Moreover, these vehicles are, in fact, safer than the gasoline sippers that the environmentalists expect people to use.

In conclusion, it can be said that the senators, especially John Kerry, had realistic reasons as to why the drilling plant should not be implemented at all. This idea was supported by the various environmental claims attached as a backup. On the other hand, George F. Will gives more sensible and practical applications to support his argument on why it should be constructed. Essentially, having the drilling operated will have more advantages to America and its economy and will be less expensive by far.  Therefore, building the oil plant should be the next step that America should venture into to save its present and future investments in the energy sector.

expand_less
question_answer