public

Loading...

Anti-Drilling, Pro-ecosystem

published by emma.reigel

Want to create a visual like this?

Get Started
Loading
Different Views on Drilling in the Arctic
This infograph is to show the overall stance of the United States on oil exploration offshore and within the ANWR.
Let's talk numbers
The estimate of recoverable oil in the federal portion of ANWR is 7.06 billion barrels, a quantity roughly equal to US consumption in 2005.
How much oil is there?
Oil Worth/Cost?
$374 billion (2005), but would cost $123 billion to extract and bring to market.
Drilling in the Arctic would bring extra environmental costs.
The costs would generate a breakeven result. The average breakeven willingness to accept compensation to allow drilling in ANWR ranges from $582 to $1782 per person, with a mean estimate of $1141.
Pro-Drilling
Anti-Drilling
Conservative Government, Alaskans, American population, Oil corporations
Environmentalists, ANWR, Wildlife Organizations, Liberal Government, and minor American and Canadian populations, majority of scientists
Democrats are more anti-drilling and anti-ANWF oil exploration compared to Republicans Democrats and Activists are anti-oil exploration partly due to the use of seismic testing to find oil, which disrupts animal migrations
More Women
The South favors drilling 74% more than any other part of the country.
More Men
As of March 2011: 49% of the American population was pro-ANWF oil exploration Compared to March 2002: 35% of the American population was pro-ANWF oil exploration
As of March 2011: 45% of the American population was anti-ANWF oil exploration Compared to March 2002: 56% of the American population was anti-ANWF oil exploration
Many economists see the decrease in oil price, decrease of imports, and job creation as a benefit large enough to out weigh the ecological and climate effects.
Pros and Cons
"Advantages": - Economically: decrease in oil price and reduced reliance on foreign import - Pro-Drillers/Oil Corporations: say extraction can be done without adverse effects on the environment. Opposing View: - Activists, NGOs, Environmentalists, etc. say  the amount of oil in ANWR is insufficient to have real benefits beyond sizable profits to the oil industry. - They argue, any benefits from drilling aren't worth cost of destroying one of the last wilderness areas on the planet. - Black carbon emission would hugely impact the climate, negatively.
Experts: Such as Scientists, Economists, Lawyers, agree the plusses of drilling are NOT worth the destruction of nature, cliate change, & extraction costs
For now there is no solution. The solution that is being configured by non-government organizations and sent to be voted on by the Senate proposes no drilling. They have no alternative plan to resolve not drilling in the Arctic, which could be a problem for the hardcore pro-drilling Conservative Senate members.
The sustainability aspect of Arctic drilling is practically nonexsistent. It would take 10 years for drilling to occur, and only supply enough oil for around a year of consumption Due to the lack of sustainibility, ethically, it would not be right to permanently destroy animal species and the ANWR habitat.
Conservationists see the lack of sustainability and see the ethical issues as too great to want to drill in or offshore of the ANWR. Though it is unclear exactly how detrimental the drilling would be, science has clearly shown it would be significant. They feel that larger corporations want to drill due to corporational and individual gains They continually argue that the Arctic is significantly more fragile to any distruption to the environment, making oil drilling much more impactful on the land than in other parts of the world.
Anti-Drilling Info:
- President Eisenhower originally set the, now, 19.6 million acre Arctic Refuge aside in 1960. Still, it is the only national wildlife refuge established “for the purpose of preserving unique wildlife, wilderness, and recreational values.” - The Arctic Refuge contains is one of the most ecologically sensitive ecosystems in the world. - Industrial-scale oil and gas development could destroy the pristine nature of the ANWR's coastal plain permanently, damaging natural habitats and harming the wildlife that lives within it. - The ANWR is one of America’s greatest natural historic sites, supporting a plethora of wildlife, including arctic foxes, grizzly bears, muskoxen, Dall sheep, wolves and wolverines. It's coastal plain is the most important onshore denning habitat for America’s endangered polar bears. It also hosts the calving ground of the Porcupine Caribou herd. - One of the key recommendations of the Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) is for Congress to legally designate the refuge’s coastal plains as a wilderness area. This would keep the coastal plain intact and protected from harmful human uses, including oil and gas development. - The focus, at the moment, of pro-drilling is on trying to pressure the gov't to allow the oil industry to conduct harmful seismic testing of oil deposits in the reserve.  Now, the law does not permit such testing, as it has already been shown to be extremely harmful, particularly to denning polar bears.  Seismic blasts can make a mother abandon her cubs in their den. -On January 25, 2015, Secretary of the Interior, Sally Jewell, announced that Pres. Obama will recommend to Congress that 12.28 million acres of the ANWR, including the coastal plain, be permanently protected as Wilderness. This was announced as  the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Director, Dan Ashe, released the final CCP, recommending wilderness protection for the Arctic Refuge’s coastal plain and other areas as part of a management plan for the refuge.
The United States
Government
Politcal Party views
Republican Party: Increasing offshore oil drilling: 83% Opening ANWR for oil exploration: 67%
Independent Party: Increasing offshore oil drilling: 60% Opening ANWR for oil exploration: 49%
Democratic Party:
Increasing offshore oil drilling: 40% Opening ANWR for oil exploration: 31%
Quick Facts: - Drilling won't further cool off oil prices! - Drilling would destroy and disrupt the wildlife and the ecosystem. - Any oil that might be found on the refuge wouldn’t be seen for ten years, as oil companies would still need to explore, apply for drilling permits and start development.
In March 2012, the first vote on the issue since 2008, the Senate voted down an act to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil and gas exploration.
National   Adults:
60%
66%
Opinion Percentages of American Population
60%
49%
54%
Increasing Offshore Drilling
Opening ANWR for oil exploration
Men:
44%
Women:
East: Midwest: South: West:
49%
40%
65%
51%
74%
52%
51%
48%
18-34 age:
35-54 age:
55+ age:
52%
40%
60%
50%
66%
53%
Sources : http://www.gallup.com/poll/146615/oil-drilling-gains-favor-americans.aspx http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_Refuge_drilling_controversy http://www.usnews.com/news/national/articles/2008/05/23/arctic-drilling-wouldnt-cool-high-oil-prices http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/greenpeace-inuit-come-together-to-fight-arctic-seismic-testing-1.2715412 http://www.defenders.org/polar-bear/fighting-arctic-drilling http://www.defenders.org/success/senate-votes-against-big-oil http://www.defenders.org/arctic-national-wildlife-refuge http://refugeassociation.org/advocacy/refuge-issues/arctic/ http://science.time.com/2012/07/20/its-not-just-spills-the-climate-risks-of-arctic-drilling/ http://environment.yale.edu/kotchen/pubs/anwr.pdf