SUMMER PROJECT: Recently, President Bush and some Members of Congress have been promoting the idea of opening up areas where it is currently illegal to drill for oil in order to alleviate the high price of gasoline for Americans and our heavy dependence on foreign oil. However, some others are critical of this idea. Click on the link below to read about why they object and what the response of the oil companies is.
http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/23/news/economy/oil_drilling/index.htm?eref=rss_topstories
Then respond to some of the following questions:
What are some advantages to allowing drilling in some areas that are currently off limits? What about disadvantages? Based on these pros and cons, what is your evaluation of whether we should permit drilling on these sites and why do you think so?
29 comments:
Bonjour, Mrs. Stotler! The major advantage, of course, is that it would lower gas prices, which means keeping some money in the poor people's pockets. The disadvantages are using up our oil reserves! What if the country runs out of oil-we'd have to pay even higher prices then. It also could be destroying the natural beauty of the land. I say let's not drill at these sites, for we won't have the money or the oil for future generations...but of course, a person could debate "Well, what about me, I don't care about the future, I want it cheaper now!" Have you ever thought that the companies will keep the prices the same even if the oil was from us. It's all about the money people-does anyone care about the environment anymore!?
~H. Baker
Well, it's true that the lower gas prices would be a great advantage, but the jobs that would open up would be great too. It could stimulate the economy..more jobs=more people with money to spend=more transactions=a better economy. Now I don't believe they should drill in wildlife areas, but if other areas are being leased, we ought to drill on them. As far as the hoarding.. I don't think they are, but I think we should use more of the oil from Alaska, instead of sending it to other places, it takes a lot to haul it and it would cut costs just by doing that. Also if people are worried about oil spills, we could do mmore research on equipment for cleanup. Hopefully the water powered engines will "pan out" and people will buy them, which will lead to less use of oil and lower prices.
- H. Hosgood
HI MS. KATE!
Well I think an advantage to the drilling would be the ease of prices at the gas pump. People are trying a lot of things to ease the "punch at the pumps." Yet a disadvantage I see is that some of those areas are wildlife reserves. The whole reson that they were created was to protect the animals. I realize that technology has come a long way, but nothing is perfect, and there is still a danger to any animals in areas where drilling occurs. Therefore my response if that the government should allow the drilling in areas outside wildlife reserves. The experts said that there is no way to estimate production in these new areas so then there must be no way to estimate production in current drills. We should at least find out if there is oil worth drilling in these areas; so if current ones run out we still have back-ups.
-T. Remsburg
The obvious advantage is that it would lower gas prices, but it would also make it easier for the U.S. to depend less on foreign oil and more on its own sources. This could definately drive down the prices of oil and save people money at the pump. A disadvantage would be the risk of oil spills and how they could damage the enviroment tremendously. If an oil spill were to occur it could wipe out species altogether. I think drilling for oil offshore is a good idea and I say that the U.S. should do it, but they should prepare for an oil spill just in case and they should also drill outside of wildlife reserves to limit the risk of killing many species.
-J.Close
I agree mostly with what has been said so far. I believe that the oil companies should use the technology they have and find out if they have oil on their leased areas. As far as digging in the Alaksa Artic National Wildlife Refuge, I couldn't disagree with that more. It's not fair to create a safe house for animals just to take it all away by distroying the area. But, how can we, the general public, be sure that the oil companies aren't making excuses about the problems with trying to find more oil on leased land so they can make a profit from our lack of knowledge on the subject area? Rep. Edward Markey stated in the article, "Big Oil is more interested in pumping up prices and pumping up their own profits rather than pumping more oil." He is also for creating a fee on the land that oil companies have leased that are not being used to pump oil. How can I not agree with him? The oil companies are saying that it would be extremely costly to find oil on that land, but isn't just filling up at the pump extremely costly for the average person now? The public has been forced to spend an outragous amount of money for gas, why can't the oil companies put themselves on the line along with us? John McCain is for lifting the current bans on oil drilling on the east and west coast, which shows me, that as a possible future president, he is aware of the problem and is already looking for ways to fix it.
opps, I forgot something that I really wanted to say... There was a discussion on the 21st Century Symposium blog about whether or not the government should give us all the details, I think this is a situation where the public needs all of the details. I think we should know everything that is happening with gas prices and the oil companies.
I can see why they want to drill more to lower OUTRAGEOUS gas prices. Since we're in a recession it's hard to afford to go around the block. I don't think it's worth killing our planet though. Plus, if they drill closer to the shore, they will kill major coastal economies! No one wants to go to the beach to see a huge drill. I think they should speed up research on alternative fuels, and use those instead of killing our ONLY planet!
I agree with everything everyone has said so far, especially Sandy's point about the publis needing to know more. This is a ridiculous argument, it's a DEATH SENTENCE to a lot of things. This would hurt the economy (in the long run) due to too much demand in the future and not enough supply. It would hurt the wildlife, of course, which would in turn hurt us. Lower gas prices now would mean the public will feel reassured that the government could do it again- which would mean us still relying on harmful fossil fuels.
-E. Yarrington
Offshore drilling should be compared to being an alcoholic, you want it- so you get it.. but you know your going to regret it.
-E. Yarrington
Lowering gas prices would definitely be an advantage, but according to the oil companies it would take large amounts of time and money to even begin getting the supplies of oil from some of these “off limits” areas. So even if they started using these areas we probably wouldn’t see the immediate relief at the pumps that we are looking for. However, it would be good for our country if we could rely a little less on foreign goods.
A disadvantage is the risk of using up our reserves. Our country relies too heavily on imports. Also as others have said there are many risks in drilling near wildlife reserves. These risks should be weighed with the benefits before a decision is made.
We want to save money at the pumps, while oil companies want to make it. Oil companies argue that some leases don’t even have oil on them and it would take time and money to find out if they did. Then they would have to take more time and money to get the oil if they found it. But I believe that the oil companies should get what they can from the leases they already have before they move on to new ones. However, precautions should be taken when drilling near the wildlife preserves.
Hello Mrs. Stotler!
The pros are that supply would be greater so prices would drop and our dependence on foreign oil would be less, and it would provide more jobs for American workers.
The cons are that we would have to deal with more possible enviormental contamination. Also, the mapping and research process will take years before we see any more oil production.
The real problem lies in the laws that regulate the price of gasoline. There needs to be set regulations just like telecommunications where they can only charge so much over their cost. They are the ones taking advantage of America's love for oil.
This summer I have seen a reduction in the number of cars on the highways as we travel, this is benefiting the enviorment. I think we should be developing more green fuels with corn and other grains that we could produce here in the U.S.
~Dylan Beddow
Oil companies shouldn't be leased anymore land if they're not going to drill on what they already have. We wouldn't see any of the oil from newly leased land for maybe a decade anyway. Like Alissa said, we're not going to get the immediate relief we're after.
In addition, it's true the price of oil per barrel is hitting all-time highs, but it's also true that Exxon-Mobile is reporting record profits for this past year. What I'm trying to say is that the price of oil per barrel is not directly proportional to the price you and I see at the pump. Oil industry is a business, and the big oil companies are out to make as much money as they possibly can. I believe in a free market so I'm not saying that that's wrong; it just sucks to be on our end of the bargain.
They say they're not sitting on leases... ... ... of course they would say that! It benefits them to say so; that way they can control their supply so as to keep the gas prices up and increase their profits even further. Now that gas prices are this high I don't ever see them going back down to what they used to be.
Instead of the government selling oil companies more land on which to drill, it should save that land until absolutely needed. Allowing offshore drilling would only further delay dealing with the energy crisis. We need to start weaning ourselves off of oil. The government should invest in the research AND DEVELOPMENT of alternative fuel sources. Research alone does nothing. In the meantime, I think I'm going to buy some stock in Exxon-Mobile.
Hello, Mrs. Stotler.
The advantage to this would be the decline in the gas prices, but it would be after sometime. By the time the companys build everything a get the pumps working the prices would be extremely high. the demand for gas would be even greater. For this reason I see no point in them tearing up the wildlife reserves. With all the gas we use today the oil in Alaska won't even last us that long. The only solution I see to this would be an alternative resource. I see no point in digging oil in this area. It wouldn't be worth it in the long run.
Josh Wise
I completely understand why drilling in these areas would seem like the obvious, not to mention easy way out of insane gas prices, but sometimes the easy way out isn't what's best. There would also be many major disadvantages to this process. One being the reason why it was banned previously, the risk of spills. Another, that many tend to ignore, is the time span, this could take years to even show results. I believe that the companies should concentrate more on the areas that they already have. As the article said, they have much more potential oil than that which is being produced. What's wrong with the other 70 million acres they already have and aren't using?!
-K Spriggs.
Ms. Stotler-
The advantage of offshore drilling is that it if the oil is there, it may drive down oil prices and give jobs to people in those regions. However, much like what we are currently seeing, our price at the pump may not drop as fast as what the price per barrel will drop. The disadvantages of drilling are that this oil won't last long (estimates say that oil in Alaska could only last 500 days), the rigs would take an extended period of time to build, and oil would go up in price to pay for them, and an oil spill on an American coastline could be dangerous both for animals and humans. In my opinion, it wouldn't be worth the risk for what little would come out of it.
-Joe Hansroth
The advantages of offshore drilling would be the decline of gas prices. But even if we did begin drilling offshore, we would not get the oil for a long time and we would not see a decline in the cost for many years. With the new technology they already have vehicles that run on electricity and if more people buy electric cars, less gas would be used, so by the time the gas prices drop, there would also be a decline in the demand for gasoline.
We shouldnt allow the oil companies to drill in new places. Almost 80% of the areas they have right now are not being used. If they drilled offshore, they would only be eating up more land. Drilling for oil isn't easy either. It would take a long time for everything to be set up in order for them to just begin drilling, not to mention the risk of spilling oil. Its not really worth all the time and money that would be used just for oil that could be produced on lands the oil companies already own.
-Rachel Shambaugh
I agree with what everyone has said so far, especially Mark. But, I am hearing a lot about how much money and time the oil companies would spend looking for oil on their leases... They will have to eventually have to look for oil on there leased land, so why not do it now? Why not try to help out our economy? I do strongly disagree with drilling anywhere near wildlife refuge areas, but that is not the only land area that the oil companies lease.
The simple fact of the matter is that there is no absolute solution to this problem. The obvious advantages of using our oil reserves are the possibility of relief at the pump, and the stimulation the economy would sustain due to the jobs created. The thought, though, of drilling for oil in areas such as Alaska seems somewhat careless and negligent on our part. Yes, I understand many think this would be a "quick" fix, but this doesn't seem to be the case. So much time and money goes into drilling, that the relief would most likely not be seen in the immediate future. As Joey said, the oil in Alaska would last an estimated 500 days. Is it really worth ruining an environment and running the risk of a spill? In my opinion, no. Besides, what's wrong with those convenient, extra 70 million acres?
-Andrew Omerzo
I agree with Sandy. The oil companies are constantly talking about how much money it would cost to look for oil, but they are going to have to do it sometime. If they were to do it now and find oil now, they could end up making a lot more money than they already do on their other leases and they could help produce more oil to help with the price at the pump.
~J.Close
Wow. The government never stops amazing me. I completely agree that they should drill in the areas they already have before drilling in preserved areas. I mean why cause problems in other areas when they already have perfectly good places to drill? And i definetly don't believe that the majorty of the areas they have don't produce oil. Where's the proof of them ever trying? I think that drilling on in Alaska and on other coasts may porduce more oil, but it will cause less food production ddue to oil spills. It will kill perfectly good sea food and other animals and plants we live on, so we may have more oil which will cause lower gas prices, but we will have a limited supply of food. What's more important here?
It would definitely be a temporary solution to our ongoing problem with rising gas prices. One of the advantages would be depending upon ourselves for oil instead of foreign countries. However like I said it would only be a temporary solution. What happens when we drill all the oil we can from Alaska? We again are left with high gas prices, and a economy slowly drifting back into a recession.
Also, drilling in Alaska would lead to hurting the natural wildlife ( not to mention destroying it's beauty) which in turn could hurt us.
Instead we should be investing our time and money looking for alternate fuel sources.
~ Katie Godman
Hey Mrs. Stotler
Some advantages of letting the oil companies drill on areas that are currently off limits would be that it would be cheaper for them to develop the pipe lines and for them to start drilling. If this was the case they would be more willing to drill even if the price of oil was to drop. On the other hand there was a reason why they made those areas off limits to protect our coastal waterways and wildlife. I think that the oil companies should use the land that they already have to drill on. It may be more expensive for them to establish the lines right now but it could pay off in the long run because we could be pumping enough for our entire country and then we could be more independent as a country and would not depend on foreign oil. They might start depending on us for oil. If we could start depending on our own country for supplies I don't think that we would have the issues with the lead paint for example. The US used to make high quality goods that every country wanted now all we do is take jobs out of the US and send them overseas that is why we have so many people that are unemployed now and almost every day another company is laying off more workers so that either the job is getting sent over seas or a machine is taking over.
C.Hetzer
Wow! You guys have some great thoughts on this. I'm impressed.
I too want relief at the gas pump, but I am concerned that if we start tapping some of these previously unused reserves of oil, it will just make it easier to continue postponing the inevitable: finding a way to use non-fossil fuel, renewable sources of energy in a practical, affordable way.
Here's a question for you: If you were one of the presidential candidates, and you knew that Americans were demanding that their government find a way to lower gas prices, what would be your position on this issue?
I really agree with Sabrina. Well all know that we are in a major recession. I mean its hard to go out and afford groceries anymore, and then you have to spendd the gas to get there. There is no need in killing out planet to produce more oil, we need to find more alternative fuels!! Im sure that the cities on the beach dont want a big drill sitting on the beach were all of the vacationers are! It will lower tourist population which results in less money added on to the recession. Find additinal fuel sources!!! Thats the way to go
-Rickli
The advantage would be that the gas prices would drop alot and the Amarican people would have money on different things. Also we would not have to buy oil from other countries. But the bad thing is we would lower the reserves but I think there is enough to last a long time. So I think we should start drilling know.
I don't feel that we need to destroy what oil reserves we have and put nature at risk. If we did enforce drilling in these locations I feel it would indeed just be a new set of problems. You can't cover something like this up with a band-aid but need a solution. This is drilling would not be a solution. It could become beneficial for us to have this at some point in the future. They can't even claim how much oil they would gain. It could be such a small amount that it would only last for a short period and then we only become more dependent. Oil is heroin to our nation. We found it bought us pleasure for some time but now it is only destroying us. We need to get off of this terrible addiction. We can only do that with alternative fuel/energy. So before we find a short fix we need to consider what might happen when we run out. The candidates in this election need to think about our future too and not just the present when it comes to this issue. The smallest mistake could make a huge impact on our future country. If wildlife is also destroyed while obtaining the oil then that could cause a serious of problems for our economy also. An industry relying on fish or other animals in that region could be destroyed by disrupting nature.
Of couse the major advantage would be that it lowers gas prices. ON the other hand im sure no one wants a big drill sitting in the middle of somewhere!!!! Oil, for now is our most reliable sources. Think about it, what if we had no more oil on the face of the earth??? There wouldnt be any transportation methods except for bikes and electric powered automobils....but no city transportation like city buses and the metro.
-Rickli
The pros about drilling would be the gas prices would go down. The cons would be that it would do a lot of harm to the planet if we went overbaord and started drilling all over the place. I think they should drill more in the already drilled locations and not start drilling in the oceans.
J Fox
The biggest advantage is the price of gas. If the price of gas was dropped, the price of everything hauled by trucks would drop. All of the economic problems that we are having are, in some way, related to gas prices. The inflation of the American dollar is the most prominent issue. I strongly disagree with offshore drilling in Alaska. There was a study that said that if the oil was drilled from Alaska, it would only last America for 500 days. But, we have plenty of oil here in America to last us for longer than that. Also, like Sandy said, why would you make a reserve for wildlife just to take it away from them? It would be a waste of money either way.
Post a Comment