Energy Independence Argumentative Essay
Issue:
There is a contentious debate today over America’s energy independence. The debate is centered on two
main points of view:
 One perspective is that we should develop (drill for) America’s petroleum resources so we are not
dependent on foreign oil (often from the Middle East).
 Another perspective is that the development of our resources (through off shore drilling) will
permanently harm the environments where petroleum is found and therefore we should continue
to import oil from other countries.
Task:
1. Use the articles and information provided to decide where you stand on this debate. Develop a claim
related to America’s energy independence and whether the United States should develop our petroleum
resources by expanding offshore oil drilling.
2. Write a letter to Senator Chris Murphy, explaining where you stand on the issue and whether or not the US
should expand the development of our offshore oil resources or continue to import the majority of our oil
resources from other countries.
Use the provided sources to support your point. Quote or cite specific information from your source.
Source: whitehouse.gov/energy/
Article 1 - Oil Drilling: Risks and Rewards
Robin Nixon | June 25, 2008 http://www.livescience.com/4979-oil-drilling-risks-rewards.html
With gas prices skyrocketing and President Bush and other politicians calling to ending a ban against offshore
drilling, a debate has again flared up over the true risks and rewards of this approach to oil development.
"There are extremes on both sides," said Judy Penniman of the American Petroleum Institute.
A federal ban was started by Congress in 1981 to protect sites off California and Massachusetts and has been
repeatedly expanded since then. President George H.W. Bush put his own ban in place, by executive order, in
1991, and Bill Clinton extended it to 2012. Together, the rules now prevent drilling in Alaska's oil-rich Arctic
National Wildlife Refuge and elsewhere.
Scientists and politicians disagree on how much effect, if any, new drilling might have on prices at the pump.
Further, they argue about potential impacts on the ecosystem.
Impact on marine life
Concerns over new drilling are larger than just spills. There’s also worry about marine life.
To find possible oil reserves, researchers send seismic waves into the ground. The waves bounce back to
reveal the buried topography and can hint at a possible reserve. But seismic noise disorientates whales and
leads to mass beachings, said Richard Charter, a government relations consultant for the Defenders of Wildlife
Action Fund.
Several weeks ago, ExxonMobil stopped exploration for possible drilling sites near Madagascar because more
than 100 whales had beached themselves.
Questions on land too
There are also questions about the impacts on land.
Radford described advances that reduce oil drilling’s environmental footprint. For instance, oil companies are
now able to drain several oil fields from one platform. And new horizontal drilling techniques allow more oil to
be extracted from a single well.
Major infrastructure – such as roads, jet landing strips, repair shops, homes and industrial complexes – is, of
course, still necessary and could disturb wildlife that is accustomed to pristine land, said Charles Clusen,
director of National Parks and Alaska Projects for the Natural Resources Defense Council.
Similar concerns about wildlife arose before construction of the Alaskan Pipeline, built in the 1970s.
"But there hasn't really been any effect on the wildlife; they congregate near the pipeline and it doesn't seem to
bother them," said UT's Eric Potter.
However, any development of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) for drilling, as President Bush has
long advocated for, could have a greater impact. Polar bears, caribou and other animals trek across this
unique area to give birth, said Clusen. Birth is the most vulnerable time in a species’ life cycle and disrupting it
will lead to lowered populations, he explained.
Many coastal communities depend on tourism and fishing — both of which may be affected by off-shore drilling
by increased development, pollution and disruption of marine life habitats. Among traditional communities in
the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, some oppose drilling while others have cautiously welcomed it — within
limits — for the improved access to jobs and amenities it could bring.
Spills and transportation
"The public doesn’t have a clear idea of how much oil is moved every day," said Potter. "The amount spilled is
miniscule, compared to the amount that is transported," he said.
The industry now has a great track record, said API’s Penniman. "Back in the 1880s, we would have had a
pretty good chance of ruining the world," she said, but technology and safety regulations are now significantly
improved.
Today, according to the Mineral Management Service, of the billions of oil transported in U.S. water, 0.001
percent is spilled. Far more oil seeps naturally into the sea, reports the National Research Council (NRC).
According to the NRC's most recent analysis, almost half of oceanic oil worldwide arises from natural
processes. Oil spills contribute about 12 percent.
Even so, says Clusen, there are 300 to 500 spills every year, a number which will grow with increased
production.
"And once you have a spill, you are pretty much screwed," NOAA's Short said. That's because oil spreads on
water at a rate of one-half a football field per second. Recovery from a spill can take decades.
After 20 years of natural weathering, Prince William Sound — the area affected by the Exxon-Valdez spill —
appears completely recovered to the casual observer, said Short, but animals high up on the food chain are
just now starting to re-colonize.
Prices at the pump
Estimates for the output of oil drilling sites can only accurately be given in very large ranges, Potter explained.
For example, the Energy Information Administration predicts Arctic National Wildlife Refuge could produce
between 1.9 and 4.3 billion barrels of oil, and that might not do much for our pocketbooks. In 2007, the United
States consumed 7.5 billion barrels, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA).
In the best-case scenarios, said Clusen, "we're talking lowering the price of gas by three cents, 20 years from
now."
The American Petroleum Institute is more optimistic. "When we went into Prudhoe Bay [in northern Alaska], we
expected nine billion barrels, and we have already pumped 15," Radford said. And the White House estimates
that lifting the drilling bans would produce an extra 18 billion barrels from various locations.
But the federal EIA sees no short-term value in additional drilling, a process that takes years for awarding
contracts and obtaining permits.
"Access to the Pacific, Atlantic, and eastern Gulf regions would not have a significant impact on domestic
crude oil and natural gas production or prices before 2030," the EIA states on its web site. "Leasing would
begin no sooner than 2012, and production would not be expected to start before 2017."
Potter and others note that drilling that began 30 years ago, such as in Prudhoe Bay, Alaska, are helping meet
today's demands.
*article altered to achieve appropriate reading level
Article 2 - Pros and Cons of Offshore Drilling
http://myoildrilling.info/pros-and-cons-of-offshore-drilling/
Without a doubt, oil is one of the fundamental needs in the world today. It’s needed for most
things. Plastic, fuel, much more than the average person thinks. We all know that oil is “running
out” and that the supply of oil left is lower than the demand. This is true to an extent, but we
aren’t about to lose power soon, so don’t believe the media hype. In recent times, most of the oil
produced today is drilled from the ground, and it more than likely coming from Middle Eastern
countries. It isn’t a secret that the world is dependent on these countries that house this oil, and if
the price of oil went up by just a small amount, it would affect the economy around the WORLD.
Because the oil is running out, countries have been looking elsewhere to get their oil, and
instead of searching it out on the mainland, they resort to offshore drilling as an alternative
option.
What is Offshore Oil Drilling?
So what is offshore drilling? For lack of a better explanation, offshore oil drilling means drilling the sea
bed, from an oil rig, to obtain oil lying beneath the sea. Oil is a precious commodity as we all know,
and this has made people nickname the stuff “liquid gold”. The main region of offshore drilling is in
the “continental shelf”. This is the place away from the shore, where there is no slope left, and the
average depth of the water where the drilling takes place is between 100 meters and 200 meters. As
is the case in most things, there are a number of pros and cons when it comes to offshore oil drilling.
The positives of offshore drilling
The most widely accepted positive of offshore drilling is the self reliance, or, at least, new ways of
supporting oil drilling without having to rely on Middle Eastern countries to provide oil and petroleum
for the rest of the world. This will inevitably stabilize the economies of the world, as the small bundle
of countries providing most of the oil, won’t have such a big say in prices and the price of oil should
eventually go down. Another benefit with offshore drilling is that it will create many jobs for people.
Those people will then spend more money from their wages in the local community, helping raise the
economy of local communities. Offshore drilling could play a major part in the turnaround of the
current economy, and it is already large in places like Aberdeen.
Negatives Of Offshore Oil Drilling
Various “experts” have estimated that offshore oil drilling won’t bring in enough oil to fulfill the needs
of the world, therefore not bringing down the price of oil or petroleum very much. This speculation is
only because offshore oil drilling is still very much in early stages.
Also we must factor in the environmental effects of offshore oil drilling. Major oil spills are a possibility,
and have happened before. Whether it be from vessels or oil rigs, the results always prove to be
disastrous for the environment, and cause damage that can not be undone. In most offshore oil spills,
the disaster strikes when the oil is being shipped from one place to another, but damage to a pipeline
can cause massive environmental consequences. Plus, increased carbon emissions could make the
global warming situation worse.
*article altered to achieve appropriate reading level
Article 3 - To Drill Or Not to Drill—Debate Over Offshore Testing and Drilling in the Atlantic Elizabeth Kuhr Jan. 14,
2014 http://time.com/3249/to-drill-or-not-to-drill-debate-over-offshore-testing-and-drilling-in-the-atlantic/
The pros and cons of seismic exploration in the Atlantic
With the United States is currently producing record amounts of oil and natural gas, thanks to fracking and
other new technologies, the government is eyeing the possibility of conducting offshore seismic testing of the
ocean floor off the Atlantic Seaboard for future oil drilling.
Why the Atlantic?
The Atlantic Ocean’s floor has remained off-limits to oil drilling since 1982, due to congressional and
presidential orders. In 2011, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), an agency within the US
Department of the Interior, estimated a mean of 3.30 billion barrels of oil—approximately half of what the US
consumes each year—sit under the ocean’s floor.
Where exactly is that oil?
The BOEM’s estimate applies to the entirety of America’s eastern seabed, usually called the ocean’s Outer
Continental Shelf (OCS). As of now, BOEM marked the area between Delaware and central Florida, along a line
about 200 nautical miles from shore, for seismic testing. That is, if the government lifts the testing ban.
Why does testing precede drilling?
Gaining permission and preparing for oceanic drilling can take years. That process begins with seismic testing,
a necessary precursor to actually drilling for crude oil or gas.
Seismic testing confirms if natural resources do indeed reside under the Earth’s surface. In the test,
geophysicists send energy waves into the ground, and record the time reflections take to return.
For aquatic seismic testing, boat-towed air guns shoot blasts of compressed air every ten seconds through the
water and several miles into the ocean, according to ocean conservation organization Oceana. Audio receptors
floating on the water’s surface wait for energy reflections, and record the data.
Do we need that untouched oil?
Proponents see the Atlantic’s crude oil as a buried treasure of hydrocarbons. They advocate for offshore
drilling in the ocean to enhance America’s energy security and boost job creation. “Development of the
Atlantic OCS could have the potential to generate up to 280,000 jobs and add $195 billion in private
investment,” said Doug Lamborn (R-Co.), the Energy and Mineral Resources Subcommittee chairman who ran
a Congressional hearing in favor of seismic testing.
Opponents say recent booms in hydraulic fracturing, known as fracking, and other extraction technologies on
land, in states like North Dakota and Texas, have made drilling in the Atlantic unnecessary.
What are the downsides to testing and drilling?
There are a multitude of potential environmental hazards. BOEM lists factors such as noise, drilling debris, sea
bottom disturbance, air emissions, explosives and oil spills caused by oceanic testing and drilling, all of which
can impact the planet’s environment, aquatic life and people living near the coast.
Even seismic testing without drilling has its negatives. Testing poses a threat to the hearing, and therefore
survival, of 361 endangered right whales still living in the Atlantic, according to Glen Besea, director of Virginia
Chapter of the Sierra Club.
Besea also worries that drilling for more oil will only increase the American appetite for fuels, leading to more
carbon emissions and more global warming.
“At a time when we’re facing sea level rise and severe storms such as Hurricane Sandy, why would we be
looking to expand our carbon pollution emission by drilling for gas?” asked Besea, noting that some companies
have ceased inland drilling because of oil’s unprofitable excess in the national market.
When will a decision on testing be made?
Although the Obama Administration, which has the final say, is expected to release its position on Atlantic
Ocean seismic testing in upcoming months, the timeline remains murky. The US Interior Department showed
support in March 2010, that doesn’t mean that President Barack Obama—already under fire by greens over
the controversial Keystone XL oil sands pipeline—would support offshore drilling in the Atlantic.
*article altered to achieve appropriate reading level
Article 4 - Should The U.S. Drill for Oil Offshore?
In response to soaring energy prices, Congress lifted a longtime ban but is likely to reconsider the issue next year
http://teacher.scholastic.com/scholasticnews/indepth/upfront/debate/index.asp?article=d110308
YES - America's energy challenges have been decades in the making, and there's no easy way to solve them. But one
thing we can do immediately is to allow more offshore oil drilling.
In September, Congress lifted—at least, temporarily—its ban on deep-water exploration and drilling in an area known as
the outer continental shelf. (Offshore drilling has been allowed in other areas like the Gulf of Mexico.) I believe the U.S.
coastline should remain open to oil drilling.
In the 26 years since the ban was imposed in 1982, technological advances have almost eliminated the safety and
environmental concerns that were behind the moratorium (ban).
The ban has long blocked the retrieval of an estimated 18 billion barrels of oil. Tapping this resource would be a key step
in addressing the global changes in the oil market that have caused the recent increase in oil prices.
Oil prices are being driven up by increased demand around the world, and the U.S. must deal with this new energy
reality. Our dependence on oil imports leaves us vulnerable to shifts in the global marketplace. The way to reduce that
dependence is to develop more domestic (US) energy resources.
Offshore drilling will not increase our oil supplies tomorrow. But it will send a strong signal to the market and to other
oil-producing nations—and that will reduce prices in the long run.
America's overall energy policy is to diversify (broaden) our energy supplies and suppliers and to invest in new, clean
technologies and increased energy efficiency. These are, however, long-term solutions. In the short run, America will
continue to need more oil for the bulk of its energy demands.
—Samuel W. Bodman U.S. Secretary of Energy
NO - Americans are justifiably outraged that they've been paying $3.50 or $4 a gallon for gas, while Exxon-Mobil makes
more profits than any corporation in history. Congress needs to take action, but one thing our country doesn't need is to
open up the entire U.S. coastline—and large areas of our oceans—to drilling.
Despite what you may have heard from the "drill baby drill" crowd, President Bush's own energy information office says
that drilling for oil on the outer continental shelf would not lower gas prices until 2030. That's because it takes a lot of
time and money to locate the oil and build the necessary drilling platforms.
Americans consume 21 million barrels of oil every day. Yet some people insist that the 200,000 barrels per day we might
get in 2030 from more ocean drilling would solve our addiction to oil and stave off high prices at the pump.
More offshore drilling stations will expose our coastal areas—and coastal economies that are dependent on tourism and
fishing—to a greater risk of oil spills, and end up contributing to the pollution that causes global warming.
If the United States is serious about lower energy prices and about breaking our dependence on fossil fuels in general
and on foreign oil in particular, we must invest in energy efficiency and sustainable energy sources such as wind and
solar. In addition, we need to invest in hybrid and electric cars and mass transit.
What we need is a 21st-century energy plan to allow us to stop relying on 19th-century technology.
—Senator Bernie Sanders Independent of Vermont
*article altered to achieve appropriate reading level
Article 5 - Should the U.S. Expand Offshore Oil Drilling? April 14, 2013
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887324020504578398610851042612
In any discussion of offshore oil drilling in the U.S., the Deepwater Horizon disaster of 2010 is often front and center.
The explosion in April of that year of a drilling rig in the Gulf of Mexico triggered the largest offshore oil spill in the
country's history.
For opponents of offshore drilling, Deepwater Horizon remains a rallying cry—the perfect example of just how wrong
things can go when we try to extract the vast reserves of oil that lie under the ocean. And in the immediate wake of the
disaster, it seemed like it might change everything, as a moratorium was imposed on deep-water drilling in the U.S. in
May 2010. The moratorium was lifted in October of that year, but regulations governing offshore drilling were later
toughened.
Those new regulations, it turns out, have amounted to little more than a speed bump for the energy industry.
Today, three years after Deepwater Horizon, offshore drilling is booming in the Gulf of Mexico, driven by the continued
high price of oil, a series of massive new fields discovered with the help of improved exploration technology, and the
growing difficulty of finding major new oil fields abroad.
Environmentalists worry that this drilling boom, and efforts to expand drilling even further—not only in the Gulf but also
in the Arctic waters off Alaska, where technical problems and regulatory uncertainty are hampering oil companies—
threaten to spawn another environmental disaster.
Proponents argue that offshore drilling is safer than ever and that we need more of the oil buried under the sea to
lessen our reliance on imports.
Tyler Priest, an associate professor of history and geography at the University of Iowa, argues for increased offshore
drilling. Cindy Zipf, the executive director of Clean Ocean Action Inc., based in Sandy Hook, N.J., makes the case against
greater offshore drilling.
Yes: The Risks Are Overstated, The Benefits Are Understated By Tyler Priest
The U.S. will be the world's largest per-capita consumer of crude oil for the foreseeable future. To help meet this
demand and limit reliance on imports, the country will need to increase exploration for offshore oil.
As the 2010 Deepwater Horizon disaster demonstrated, there are risks. Critics, however, too often exaggerate the risks,
including the impacts of routine drilling operations on ecosystems, and understate the benefits. Expanding offshore
drilling with appropriate site selection, oversight and attention to the lessons from Deepwater Horizon—already
embodied in new rules on equipment, drilling and safety—should be a central objective of U.S. energy policy.
Regardless of the progress we make in limiting our carbon addiction, kicking the habit won't happen easily or soon. The
raw energy produced by a single offshore oil platform in 2010— BP BP.LN -0.68% PLC's Thunder Horse facility in the Gulf
of Mexico—was equivalent to the electricity generated in 2012 by all the wind and solar installations in the U.S.
combined.
Offshore oil also does more than help satisfy our energy appetite. Annual federal proceeds from offshore leases have
ranged as high as $18 billion in recent years, second only to income taxes as a revenue source. And every barrel of
consumption that isn't imported helps ease the U.S. trade deficit.
Improved Techniques
It isn't necessary to drill along the entire outer continental shelf. Indeed, coastal states outside the Gulf of Mexico have
effectively shut down leasing and drilling along the Pacific and Atlantic coasts. Only about 15% of the nation's territorial
waters are open to oil and gas exploration. The federal Bureau of Ocean Energy Management predicts most of the
undiscovered oil on the outer shelf will be found in the Gulf of Mexico and off the Alaskan coast.
In the bureau's 2012-17 plan, the Arctic waters of the Beaufort and Chukchi seas off Alaska are the chief areas slated for
expanded leasing outside the Gulf. Environmental groups fear that drilling in the Arctic threatens the habitat of
endangered marine mammals and have worked to prevent Royal Dutch Shell RDSB.LN +3.66% PLC from exploring its
existing leases. Shell's recent operating setbacks, none of which involved actual drilling, intensified opposition. Shell,
Statoil AS STL.OS -0.61% A and ConocoPhillips COP -0.50% have all suspended Arctic exploration amid technical
challenges and regulatory uncertainty, at least until 2014 for Shell and 2015 for the others.
We should take seriously the environmental challenges of drilling in the Arctic, but the risks there aren't the same as in
the Gulf. The Arctic water is shallower (150 feet, versus 5,000 to 10,000 feet), and gas pressures are lower. Major oil
companies have been operating in the Arctic for decades, and techniques for working in ice and detecting spilled oil
beneath it have improved steadily. Scientific understanding of Arctic ecosystems is more advanced than opponents
acknowledge.
Jobs and Revenue
Both the oil industry and the U.S. government have been moving forward very cautiously, in consultation with
stakeholders and with unprecedented preparations for drilling and oil-spill response. Leaders from the state of Alaska
and the North Slope Inupiat community advocate proceeding with Arctic drilling. They badly need the jobs and revenue,
as well as the oil volumes to keep the Trans-Alaska Pipeline in operation. Although some people cheer the suspension of
oil exploration in Arctic waters, this is a major setback for U.S. energy development.
Americans must find ways to reduce oil consumption. But we will still require lots of oil for a long time. If that oil doesn't
come from the Arctic or other parts of the outer shelf, it will very likely come from places with weaker environmental
and labor protections than we have in the U.S. Given these realities, we should not abandon the quest to determine the
extent of our offshore oil resources and how much can be recovered in a responsible manner.
No: The U.S. Can Meet Its Needs Without Such an Expansion By Cindy Zipf
Expanded offshore drilling for oil in the U.S. would be an unnecessary, harmful step in the wrong direction.
Recent trends in U.S. energy consumption and production suggest we don't need to find more oil offshore. Our
investment dollars and energies are better spent on renewable energy, conservation and efficiencies such as improved
mass transit, smart grids and clean-emission vehicles—an approach that creates jobs, doesn't damage the environment
and addresses fossil-fuel-driven climate change.
Along the Atlantic, Pacific, Alaskan and Gulf coasts, entire state budgets are built on revenues from clean-ocean
economies. Fishing, boating, beach-going, surfing and tourism businesses rely on clean, healthy ecosystems. These
businesses bring billions of dollars to coastal economies and provide jobs for millions of people. In light of recent
superstorms and increasingly hostile ocean conditions, driven by climate change, shore-based economies are under
enough stress without the added burdens imposed by offshore drilling.
No Need
According to the White House, U.S. demand for oil is at a 15-year low, and measures are in place to reduce it further by,
for example, boosting fuel-economy standards for vehicles. The percentage of crude-oil consumption supplied by
imports has declined, and if we stop exporting petroleum products like gasoline and heating oil—in 2011 the U.S.
became a net exporter of petroleum products, sending 2.9 million barrels a day abroad—we further reduce our need for
crude imports. These are all signs that we can and will break our dependence on oil, and that we're heading in that
direction. Clearly, we don't need to expand offshore drilling to meet our needs.
In addition, more drilling would mean more damage to the environment. Seismic surveys—the piercing sound waves
used to pinpoint oil deposits—travel thousands of miles, interfering with marine mammal reproduction, migration and
communication, and causing localized reductions in fishery catches. Also, offshore oil facilities (pipelines, rigs, wellheads)
generate significant air and water pollution.
Perhaps most significant, there is the ever-present risk of oil spills. Despite claims of safety improvements over the
years, any rig, tanker or pipeline can become a disaster—regardless of the precautions taken. After thousands of rig and
pipeline spills, fires and leaks onshore and off, as well as recent problems with operations in the Arctic, everyone can
reasonably expect that expanded ocean drilling will involve significant environmental harm and the heavy economic toll
that comes with it.
Not Worth It
What would be our reward for knowingly taking these risks? Forget about lower gasoline prices. The U.S. Energy
Information Administration estimates that if oil drilling was expanded in all the ocean areas of the lower 48 states, we
would only see a three-cent reduction in the price of a gallon of gasoline by 2030.
The promise of oil jobs boosting local economies is a hollow one. History is replete with examples of energy companies
coming into areas with supposedly struggling economies, claiming to be the solution. Once the extraction infrastructure
is built or energy reservoirs are depleted, jobs vanish. This is beginning to play out in the Bakken oil fields in the Dakotas.
Areas with already vibrant economies will also lose when the pollution footprint of expanded oil and gas drilling crowds
out clean ocean uses. Investments in renewable energy, efficiency and conservation will produce lasting employment
and a higher standard of living throughout the economy without incurring the same risks.
Offshore drilling yields too little benefit at too great a cost to our coastal communities, their economies and the
environment. Instead, we should be working to build a smarter energy future.
*article altered to achieve appropriate reading level