Recommended: Oil drilling in the arctic essay
Controversy Surrounding the Keystone XL Pipeline To build or not to build, this choice will impact the relationship between the US and Canada and determine the level of dependence the US will have on countries that are not so friendly. “TransCanada’s proposed Keystone XL Pipeline would transport oil sands crude from Canada and shale oil produced in North Dakota and Montana to a market hub in Nebraska for delivery to Gulf Coast refineries. The pipeline would consist of 875 miles of 36-inch pipe with the capacity to transport 830,000 barrels per day” (Parfomak, Pirog, Luther and Vann 4). The construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline would strengthen the United States economy, provide energy security and have minimal environmental impact. “The Keystone XL project would create $1.1 trillion in private capital investment at no
In Jimmy Carter’s foreword to Arctic National Wildlife Refuge: Season of Life and Land, A Photographic Journey, he argues the reason why the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge should not be developed as an industrial site. The former U.S. President signed the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, which safeguards at least 100 million acres of parks, forests, and refuges in Alaska, as a monumental Legislation. To strengthen his argument, Carter uses evidence that supports his claims along with reasoning to connect the two, and uses pathos to appeal to the audience's’ emotion. Evidence and reasoning are used to support the claims that the Refuge should be kept a reserve.
It lies the biggest undeveloped pure gold deposit in Canada. This is why the Tectonic movement in the Canadian shield directly affects the economy.
He talks about the possible benefits of the drilling while showing how they do not compare to the downsides by saying “At best, the Arctic Refuge might provide 1 to 2 percent of the oil our country consumes each day. We can easily conserve more than that amount by driving more fuel-efficient vehicles. Instead of tearing open the heart of our greatest refuge, we should use our resources more wisely.” Carter explains that even though a small percentage of our daily use will be covered by drilling into the Arctic Refuge, there are much better ways to go about it that don’t involve destroying nature. More fuel-efficient vehicles are given as an example that could be seen as an alternative solution that doesn’t damage the wildlife.
Carter demonstrates his idea that the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge shouldn’t be ruin by the exploration of oil industry or any other for-profit runnings. As the president of the nation, Carter describes the scene as “a once-in-a-lifetime wildlife spectacle” when he saw the group of caribou running on the great lands in front of his eyes. To wit, less and less chances people have to see such a view personally in a wild environment if they are transformed into a factory or a industry. Moreover, as the author mentions in the fourth paragraph: “Such proposed developments would forever destroy…that depend on this northernmost terrestrial ecosystem.” The author well explains by his sentences that those animals are driven out of their original
The environmental argument is coming from a clash over the fact they are basically stripping the canadian boreal forest, the path of the pipeline extends across major aquifers, and pipelines tend to leak and destroy surrounding environments. In addition ccording to The Center for Climate and Energy Solutions State, “epartment’s draft SEIS found that oil from the Canadian oil sands is 17 percent more carbon-intensive than the average oil consumed in the United States... It is estimated that the U.S. greenhouse gas footprint would increase by 3 million to 21 million metric tons per year, or around 0.04 percent to 0.3 percent of the 2010 levels, if Keystone is built. Fortunately on November 6, 2015, President Barack Obama’s administration rejected the Keystone Pipeline XL after 7 years of dispute. As mentioned in the Wall Street Journal, Obama stated “the project would not have lowered gas prices, improved energy security or made a meaningful long-term contribution to the economy
Should the United States Drill for Oil in Alaska's Wilderness? Environmentalists would say no because drilling would disturb the Inupiat’s (Eskimo) way of life. Others say drilling for oil would create jobs and lessen our dependency on foreign sources. The U.S. should not drill in Alaska because of economic reasons and environmental reasons. Some people believe that we should drill in Alaska because only 8% of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR was created in 1980 as a refuge for animals) would be used for drilling.
Drilling for oil has caused many environmental issues over the years; now the United States wants to drill in ANWR, Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. People should not be able to drill in ANWR because of the long term problems of the native people, the Inupiats, and the environment. Drilling for oil disrupts the environment in many major ways and also changes the Inupiats’ lives. Also, some people think that drilling there will help the economy, but the oil there will only last for a short amount of time. These three main reasons, not to drill in Alaska, will be covered.
To begin with, the enactment of the National Energy Program was not in and of itself a negative concept. The oil producing provinces in Western Canada saw the National Energy Program as a way to keep energy prices low in order to supply Eastern Canada with the energy they needed. “Producing provinces in the West saw the NEP as another strategy to keep energy prices depressed in order to benefit the energy-hungry provinces in the East” (National Energy Program (1980–1984) - Natural Gas - Alberta's Energy Heritage, n.d.). This shows that the National Energy Program didn’t negatively impact all parties involved, however, it did start some tensions between Eastern and Western Canada. Secondly, Eastern provinces in Canada felt they were being painted as the greedy ben in the National Energy Program.
Since he left office, there have been many proposals to open the Arctic Refuge coastal plain to oil drilling. They’ve all been denied because of the opposition by the American people, including the Gwich’in Athabascan Indians of Alaska and Canada, indigenous people whose culture has depended on the Porcupine caribou herd for thousands of years. The short-term economic gain is not worth destroying their homes. He said the Arctic Refuge may provide 1 to 2 percent of the oil our country consumes each day. We can easily conserve more than that amount by driving more fuel-efficient vehicles, we should just use our resources more wisely instead.
Canada is an excellent example of the country with a very sensible and reasonable energy policy plan. Regarding to the IEA Sankey diagram [5] (Picture 1), Canada has never had considerable economic shocks or significant changes in consumption by type of energy and levels of imports/exports in its history for the last 50 years. There were a few oil crises that had a slight influence on Canadian economy because of the Canadian policy. Canada was historically divided into two oil markets due to the great distance between the sides; the east side had to use imported oil and the west side used its own supplies; «For most of the 1961-73 period, East consumers to the West paid between $1.00 and $1.50 per barrel above the world price» [1]. The great growth of oil prices in early 70s exposed the importance of government activity in energy police and since then, they have played a larger role in the development of the petroleum industry than before.
The arctic opportunity has some pros and some cons. There is a lot of gas and oil under the arctic. Experts believe that there is 22% of the world’s undiscovered oil and 30% of the world’s undiscovered gas. This shows that there is a lot of gas and oil under the arctic ice.
The administration agrees that there may be still be oil in the shores near Prince William Sound, however the amount remaining and the possible effects it may have had/have on the environment is up for debate. To some people, the fact that there is even the smallest amount of oil remaining in the sound is ‘proof’ enough for them
Over the past number of years, the most common and well- known method used to drill wells was the Overbalance Drilling method (OVD). Overbalance Drilling is a technique where the bottom hole pressure of the wellbore is kept higher than the formation pressure while performing the drilling process. To maintain an overbalance atmosphere, the mud weight in the drilling fluid needs to be heavier and denser. It is designed to just be above the formation fluid pressure but lower compare to the formation fracture pressure (Akdeniz, 2012). However, everything has its cons.
Introduction About Drilling Drilling is a cutting process in which a hole is originated or enlarged by mean of a multi-point, grooved, end cutting tool. As the drill is rotated and advanced into piece of work, material is removed in the form of chips that move along the grooved shank of the drill. One study shows that drilling accounts for 90% of all chips produced . There are various kinds of drilling like Spot Drilling, Center Drilling, Micro Drilling, Deep Hole Drilling and Gun Drilling.
